FCC Blog
-
The Unseen Heroes: Celebrating Our 911 Telecommunicators
The Unseen Heroes: Celebrating Our 911 Telecommunicators Jason.SchiavoniCould you talk a distraught parent through delivering their baby and clamping the umbilical cord? What about guiding a lost, elderly person battling dementia and paranoia, along with her six-year-old grandson, out of the woods to safety? Now, imagine doing all of this over the phone, where every decision can mean the difference between life and death. This is just a glimpse into the extraordinary challenges our nation’s dedicated 911 telecommunicators face on any given workday.
During this year’s National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week, I want to take a moment to recognize and celebrate our incredible 911 telecommunicators across the nation.
Our 911 telecommunicators are so much more than just skilled professionals. They are the crucial first point of contact, the calm in the storm, the essential conduit that connects a desperate plea with the timely arrival of police, fire, or medical services. They are the front line of emergency first response, gathering critical information under immense pressure, providing life-saving instructions, and offering a beacon of hope in moments of sheer panic.
Last week, I had the distinct honor and privilege of spending time at my local emergency call center in Baltimore City. Under the exceptional leadership of Director Tenea Reddick, Operations Manager Anika McCready, and Technologist Wayne Harris, I witnessed firsthand how a dedicated team of skilled individuals, operating with the efficiency of an ER triage unit, worked seamlessly with other first responders to keep our communities safe, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Later, I put on a headset and sat with “Toni” (Operator 1244) as she expertly navigated multiple screens, fielding incoming calls. Some callers were difficult to understand. Some were understandably angry. In many cases, the sheer desperation in callers’ voices was palpable. But through the static and the often-chaotic background noise on the caller's end, one thing remained constant: Toni’s unwavering poise, her professional guidance, and her profound compassion. I was deeply moved when one of the last calls she took came from the neighborhood where I was born, near Druid Hill Park, in Baltimore. It struck me that, in another time, in another place, that call could have been from my own mother.
So, to all our 911 telecommunicators, thank you – truly, thank you – for everything you do. Like other first responders, you are the unsung heroes, working tirelessly behind the scenes to protect our communities and our families. It takes a special person to earn the title of a 911 telecommunicator. It’s in your very DNA. And while many of us may not possess the unique skillset required to do what you do, it’s incredibly reassuring to know that your help is just a 9-1-1 dial away.
Video: Chairman Carr Honors 911 Telecommunicators
We’re celebrating National Public Safety Telecommunicators Week at the FCC.
This week honors and recognizes the men and woman that answer your calls to 911.
They are the voices of hope in times of darkness. pic.twitter.com/xjqoDFnICw— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) April 15, 2025
Bureau Office CategoryArchivedOff -
Spectrum Is Back—Again!
Spectrum Is Back—Again! Jason.SchiavoniWe’ve been moving aggressively to get things done since Day One of the new Commission. This is especially true of our work on spectrum—the invisible airwaves that power our wireless connectivity. After all, making progress on spectrum both up and down the Table of Frequency Allocations is vital to our economic and national security interests.
That’s why we’re working to enable greater and more intensive use of this valuable resource not only here on Earth but also in space. And we will kick off the Commission’s next meeting with a Final Frontiers spectrum item that seeks to unleash even faster and more robust broadband services from space. Specifically, we will look to update our rules in the frequencies commonly known by satellite aficionados (read: nerds) as the Ka- and Ku- bands. These are workhorse satellite frequencies that support the next generation of mega constellations in low-Earth orbit. Unfortunately, new innovations have been held back by FCC technical rules that we adopted thirty years ago. Power limits developed in the 1990s to protect geostationary satellite systems from interference continue to restrict the performance of non-geostationary satellite systems, even though advancements in sharing technology arguably make the rules of the past no longer necessary. To fuel the growth of these new satellite broadband services, the Commission will vote to take a fresh look at the decades-old spectrum sharing regime between geostationary and non-geostationary satellite systems in these spectrum bands. Nerds and non-nerds alike may soon rejoice as they get even better service from space.
Back here on Earth, we are also looking at creative ways the FCC can unleash wireless innovation in underutilized spectrum bands. One of those opportunities is the lower 37 GHz band, which may be used to support services like fixed wireless broadband and the Internet of Things. This spectrum is currently shared by the government and commercial entities, but there are no clear sharing rules for this spectrum, which is keeping companies from moving forward with deployments. So this month, the Commission will vote to establish a new licensing framework for this band, effectively opening up 600 megahertz of spectrum for new commercial services.
Of course, spectrum is not the only area where we are moving fast. We are continuing the FCC’s longstanding efforts to crack down on illegal robocalls. And we are not taking this month off. At this next meeting, we’re looking to plug another loophole that bad actors may be exploiting. Specifically, the Commission’s rules that created the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework have made it harder for scammers to trick people into answering their phones by displaying familiar (but spoofed) numbers. For all the progress this framework has enabled, the caller authentication tool only works for calls that traverse modern, Internet Protocol networks. This means that bad actors can take advantage of a gap in the framework if their calls traverse a network that uses non-IP technology at any point in the call path. The Commission will consider a proposal to close this gap in our robocall defenses by seeking comment on caller ID authentication tools that can be implemented for non-IP networks while we also encouraging providers to keep modernizing their networks.
Not only are we moving quickly at the Commission, but efficiently too. Take the FCC’s foreign ownership rules. Over the years, those regulations have increased almost as quickly as interest in the Heard and McDonald Islands. But in many cases, the FCC never codified those foreign ownership regulations in our rules. Not very efficient! Unwritten rules only make it harder for entities to understand and navigate our requirements, they risk inconsistent outcomes, and they can needlessly raise costs. We therefore initiate a proceeding that looks at codifying our requirements while asking about eliminating any needless ones.
And speaking of efficiencies, congratulations, you have made it through this month’s blog. So go ahead and check this off your “to do” list or, if you’re stuck inside a law firm on this Friday afternoon, do that and bill a quarter hour to someone.
ArchivedOff -
Boosting GPS and 911 for the USA
Boosting GPS and 911 for the USA Jason.SchiavoniJust last week, I had the honor of meeting some of our nation’s public safety heroes at the NG911 Institute’s annual gathering on Capitol Hill. I thanked the emergency responders in the room for all they do to serve their communities and save lives. I also pledged that public safety and national security will be top priorities for us at the FCC and committed to swift action on these fronts.
If you were paying close attention to my remarks, I even offered a little preview of this month’s agenda. If you were not paying close attention to those remarks, I don’t blame you, but now you have to read on to find out what we’re voting on. Today, we are rolling out an agenda for the Commission’s March open meeting that reflects and fulfills our commitment to public safety and national security.
We will lead off the meeting with an inquiry that explores alternatives to GPS. We rely on GPS for so many facets of modern life—from emergency response to military operations to simple driving directions. While GPS may be indispensable, it is not infallible. Continuing to rely so heavily on one system leaves us exposed. Disruptions to GPS have the potential to undermine the nation’s economic and national security. And the risks to our current system are only increasing. That is why leaders from President Trump to Chairman Cruz and Senator Markey have all advocated for the government to take action to ensure we have a resilient system in place. To do that, we need to develop redundant technologies. That is why we will vote on an inquiry to explore other Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) systems that can be complements or alternatives to GPS. Beyond answering technical questions, we hope this effort will engage stakeholders across government and industry to encourage the development of new PNT technologies and solutions. As a nation, it is important that we catch up to other countries that are looking at robust alternatives of their own.
Like GPS, it’s hard to imagine life without 911. Also like GPS, the stakes couldn’t be higher if this technology were to fail. In three weeks, the Commission will consider two items to improve the effectiveness and reliability of 911.
Our public safety systems are in the midst of a multi-year process to transition to Next Generation 911. Internet-based technologies not only enhance the capabilities of NG911 compared to legacy 911, they also enhance 911 resilience. Unfortunately, periodic “sunny day” outages of 911 systems have exposed possible gaps in the coverage of our existing 911 reliability rules. To reduce the risk of outages, we will consider a proposal to update our existing rules to ensure the resiliency, reliability, interoperability, and accessibility of NG911. In particular, we want to make sure third parties that provide services like call routing are covered by our reliability rules. More broadly, this proposal would improve transparency and accountability during the 911 transition.
When talking about the effectiveness of 911, few things are more important than accurate and actionable location information. If first responders know exactly where to go, that saves valuable time, and, in an emergency situation, saving response time can mean saving lives. Too often, the vertical location (Z-axis) information that 911 call centers receive is not easily usable, and first responders end up on the wrong floor. In addition, phone providers rarely deliver dispatchable location information like a street address or the caller’s apartment or room number, despite the FCC’s rules saying that information should be provided when technically feasible. To get more actionable information in the hands of emergency responders, the Commission will consider a proposal to strengthen our 911 location accuracy rules. Specifically, we propose strengthening our vertical location accuracy requirements, and we are seeking comment on how to get phone providers to deliver dispatchable location information with wireless 911 calls.
Public safety and national security will be top priorities for me over the next few years. With these actions, we’re getting off to a fast start, and I intend to steadily build on this progress in the days ahead.
But wait, there’s more. Finally, we will consider an adjudicatory item from the Media Bureau. While I can’t preview the details of an item like this one in advance, I am sure that inquiring minds will want to know. Does it fit with the public safety theme? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is no. But that’s just how life and open meetings go sometimes. This vote will be part of our broader effort to clean house and clear up some backlog. So we will be closing out with a good government win.
ArchivedOff -
The First Agenda for the New Commission—Spectrum, Public Safety, and Consumer Protection.
The First Agenda for the New Commission—Spectrum, Public Safety, and Consumer Protection. Tia.CromwellLast Friday, I took my first official trip as FCC Chairman, visiting parts of North Carolina that were hit hard by Hurricane Helene. I met with 911 operators who handled a sixfold surge in calls during the peak of the storm, first responders who led rescue and recovery efforts, telecom workers who quickly restored communications in difficult conditions, and local broadcasters who provided vital information to their communities.
These visits only underscored the importance of robust, resilient, and affordable connectivity for Americans across the country. That is why we are taking action right out of the gate to get more spectrum into the hands of consumers—spectrum that can power new connections and innovations. We are also acting right away to protect consumers—including from the scourge of illegal robocalls—and enhance our national security.
This meeting shows that the agency will be laser focused on accelerating efforts that can get more spectrum into the marketplace. This month, we will vote to kickstart the process for reauctioning a large number of AWS-3 spectrum licenses that have sat in inventory for years. This auction will be a win-win. It brings new spectrum into play for commercial use. And the proceeds from this auction will also cover the costs of the national security initiative known as “rip and replace”—an effort that is removing untrustworthy technology, like Huawei and ZTE gear, from networks. Specifically, our AWS-3 notice of proposed rulemaking will ensure that the Commission is on track to meet its statutory obligation to complete this auction by June 23, 2026.
But wait, there’s more. In 2020, the FCC conducted the most successful auction in history when it released 280 megahertz of mid-band spectrum in the C-band for 5G. This month, we will vote on a notice of inquiry that asks whether the Commission should open up additional portions of the C-band (3.98-4.2 GHz) for more intensive use. We want to hear your views.
Jumping back to where we started in North Carolina, our February meeting will also include an action to enhance public safety. Most consumers are now familiar with the Wireless Emergency Alerts that buzz on our phones. They are proving to be a life-saving tool. Those alerts, however, can be unexpected and jarring, causing some consumers to experience alert fatigue and opt out of receiving future WEA messages altogether. Additionally, in active shooter or similar scenarios a loud alert may put a consumer in danger, undermining its very purpose. To address these concerns, we will vote on final rules that give emergency managers and consumers greater flexibility when it comes to these Wireless Emergency Alerts, which would increase public safety and reduce consumers opting out of this life-saving service.
Finally, like the players on the field this coming Super Bowl Sunday (Sidebar: I am the Commission’s number one Chiefs fan!), we are not only going on offense to drive new innovations during our February meeting, but we are also playing defense to protect consumers from unwelcome irritants. And if you thought that was a cringy transition, don’t worry, these blogs are likely to get much worse in the months to come.
Cracking down on illegal robocalls and protecting consumers from bad actors will be a top priority at the FCC. On this front, the Commission will vote this month on rules to expand the reach of Do-Not-Originate lists and strengthen our call blocking capabilities. Do-Not-Originate lists are a proven tool for blocking apparently illegal calls and our action this month will ensure that reasonable Do-Not-Originate lists are utilized by all U.S. providers in the call path.
Whereas those loud emergency alerts are life-saving tool, loud TV commercials are a frustrating headache. You’re sitting there, chilling out, and then BOOM some commercial breaks in at a high volume. I don’t like them, and I’m pretty sure you don’t either. In fact, the FCC has recently seen an uptick in consumer complaints about excessively loud commercials. Back in 2010, Congress passed a law to address this issue, but given the rise in complaints I think now is the time for the FCC to revisit the issue. Accordingly, we will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking to see if there are additional actions the Commission could take today to make sure TV viewers aren’t inundated by exceedingly loud commercials.
I’d say we’re off to a good start (and, since I’m writing this post, I am saying it). Seriously, though, I am incredibly grateful for the chance to lead this agency and I want to express my thanks and appreciation to all of the FCC staff who worked to build out a robust agenda for this Commission’s first open meeting. This is just the start of what I know will be a time of great possibility and prosperity for the communications sector and the American people.
ArchivedOff -
The Grand Finale
The Grand Finale Tia.CromwellServing as Chairman of the FCC has been the honor of a lifetime. And soon, my time in this position will conclude. You may have seen my announcement last month that I’ll be departing the Commission on January 20, 2021.
As those who follow the agency know, setting the agenda for and presiding over our monthly meetings is among the key responsibilities of my role. Three weeks from today, I’ll preside over my 49th — and final — meeting. Before outlining the agenda for that meeting, a few words about its 48 most recent predecessors.
The FCC’s monthly meetings showcase the agency’s highest-profile work. And by any metric, we have been more productive, more collaborative, and more transparent since January 2017 than at any time in recent history. At the 48 meetings held under my leadership, we’ve voted on a total of 286 items — an average of six (5.96, to be precise) items per meeting. That compares to a recent historical average of well under three. Of the votes on those 286 items, 205 (71.7%) featured no dissents and 253 (88.5%) were bipartisan. These figures are far higher than comparable figures from the four preceding years. On top of all this, we’ve introduced unprecedented transparency into the process. As a Commissioner, I’d long called for the agency to “show its work” — to share with the American public what the FCC would be voting on before we actually voted. In my second week in office, I made this good-government reform happen.
It’s now routine for the agency to publish the exact text of Commission meeting items three weeks in advance of any votes being cast; to include a one-page fact sheet describing in plain English what each item does; and to post a monthly blog from yours truly introducing the agenda in a hopefully-engaging way.
Bottom line: This FCC has been working hard, working collaboratively, and working openly to deliver results for the American people.
After a wonderful four years, we will soon arrive at the denouement — the FCC’s January 2021 meeting. This meeting will be different from all that have come before during my time. As you know, the FCC’s staff has done amazing work over the past four years — work that’s contributed to the eye-popping statistics above. Since 2017, I’ve seen many, many times how hard and well they’ve worked — across Bureaus and Offices, across disciplines, and even across the country. In order to give them the recognition they’re due and to let them share with you the results they’ve achieved, I have asked FCC Bureaus, Offices, and Task Forces to prepare presentations highlighting their most significant accomplishments over the past four years. It’s been a privilege to work alongside these outstanding public servants. Three weeks hence, the spotlight properly should shine on them.
Until then, I want to take this moment to thank everyone for sharing this journey with me, especially my family. I want to express how grateful I am to my colleagues, including the 1,400-plus staff I’ve had the honor to lead. And I want to wish all of you a safe and happy holiday season. I look forward to seeing you in the New Year.
-
To Safe and Secure Holidays... and Networks
To Safe and Secure Holidays... and Networks Brittany.StevensonEvery month, I use this platform to tout the items on the FCC’s upcoming monthly meeting agenda and explain how they will help to address key challenges facing our country. For our December 2020 meeting, it’s not just me saying that the Commission is dealing with some heady issues. Last week, National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien gave an interview in which he said the “number one concern” for democracy at home and abroad is the integrity of our communications networks. In particular, he warned that installing equipment from Chinese firms in the backbone of our 5G networks could give the Communist Chinese government “backdoors to pull up every bit of data in the world.”
I agree wholeheartedly. Or, as I’m fond of quipping on Twitter, “you don’t say.” The FCC recognizes this threat and has taken a series of actions to secure the integrity of the communications supply chain. Specifically, the FCC voted to prohibit the use of money from our Universal Service Fund to purchase or obtain any equipment or services produced or provided by companies posing a national security threat, including the world’s largest global 5G supplier—Huawei. We also started a process to identify and catalog insecure equipment used in USF-funded communications networks, with an eye to implementing a program to remove and replace it. More recently, we hosted a forum on Open Radio Access Networks, or Open RANs, which could transform 5G network architecture, costs, and security.
This December, the Commission will have the opportunity to build on this progress and take critical next steps toward securing our communications networks. We will be voting on an Order implementing the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019. These new rules would establish the procedures and criteria for publishing a list of the communications equipment and services that pose an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States. They would then require eligible telecommunications carriers to remove and replace such equipment from their networks, and would establish the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program to subsidize smaller carriers to remove and replace such equipment. Moreover, to ensure we are informed about the ongoing presence of insecure equipment in communications networks, the rules would also mandate strict reporting requirements.
Our December agenda will feature two additional national security matters, which I am unable to discuss in detail at this time.
Just as the Commission wants to stop the deployment of technologies that could undermine the security of our communications networks, we want to accelerate the development of new technologies that could help grow our economy and improve our quality of life. Every day, pretty much every American uses multiple devices or gadgets that were approved through the FCC’s equipment authorization program, whether it’s your cellphone, your laptop, or your Wi-Fi router. This authorization process offers consumers assurance that their devices will work as intended and operate free from harmful interference.
As the pace of innovation has increased in the Internet age and product development cycles have accelerated, our equipment authorization rules in some ways have failed to keep pace. In particular, our rules limit the ability of device manufacturers to market and import radiofrequency devices in the most efficient and cost-effective ways possible. That’s why I’m proposing targeted enhancements to our equipment authorization rules to make sure the newest technologies and must-have devices reach consumers as quickly as possible while still meeting our substantive standards.
Next up on our December agenda is a proposal to encourage the deployment of services using ATSC 3.0—the “next generation” broadcast television standard. The rollout of ATSC 3.0 is well under way, with stations in a dozen markets licensed to transmit in this new standard, and twenty ATSC 3.0 compatible televisions set to be available for sale this year. The new standard promises to finally realize the potential for broadcast spectrum capacity to support so-called “Broadcast Internet” services—digital services beyond traditional over-the-air video, integrated into the broadband ecosystem. This December, the Commission will vote on a Report and Order that clarifies and updates the regulatory landscape in order to foster the efficient and robust use of broadcast spectrum capacity for the provision of such services. Specifically, it clarifies the basis on which to calculate ancillary and supplementary service fees, which are an assessment on the revenues earned by television stations from such services that we are required by statute to collect. It also retains the existing standard of derogation of broadcast service, while amending the rule to eliminate an outdated reference to analog television. And although the Report and Order generally declines at this time to adjust the 5% fee imposed on ancillary and supplementary services, it does lower the fee to 2.5% for noncommercial educational stations, which are uniquely positioned to take full advantage of the possibilities of Broadcast Internet, for nonprofit, noncommercial, educational services.
With Thanksgiving around the corner, it’s only fitting that I conclude by thanking all the staff who have worked on these items. More broadly, I will be forever grateful to all the members of the FCC family who have gone above and beyond to serve the American people in unprecedented conditions during an unforgettable year. Here’s wishing my colleagues and all of you a Happy Thanksgiving.
-
Celebrating 100 Years of Commercial Radio
Celebrating 100 Years of Commercial Radio Brittany.StevensonToday we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the first widely recognized commercial radio broadcast that took place on November 2, 1920. Radio was the earliest electronic mass communications medium. It provided previously unimagined instant breaking news and entertainment, all in the comfort of one’s home. Radio’s underlying technology also paved the way for future innovations in wireless communications, such as televisions and mobile phones. Let’s celebrate this special occasion by looking back at the impact of radio in the United States this past century.
What do these people have in common: David Letterman; Oprah Winfrey; Jimmy Kimmel; Howard Stern; and Ryan Seacrest? All of them started their careers in broadcast radio. Radio has held a special place in many peoples’ lives. Some of my earliest memories involve listening to Paul Harvey delivering the news as we drove to the beach each summer, eagerly awaiting the most popular songs on Casey Kasem’s American Top 40 countdown, and being riveted by Sally Jessy Raphael’s call-in advice show. These radio personalities, and others like them, did not just offer news and entertainment, they became embedded in the fabric of American life. Radio has the power to unify. This is especially true during the pandemic. It makes many people feel less alone knowing that they are listening to the same show along with their family, friends, and neighbors.
So how did this transformative technology get its start? Let’s take a look back over radio’s century-long history, beginning at the time when it was considered a novel experimental technology.
Established by Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, KDKA is widely recognized as the first commercial radio station. Westinghouse used vacuum tube transmitters to develop this audio communication, a stark contrast from earlier spark-gap technology that could only transmit Morse code. Realizing its new capabilities, Westinghouse added radio receivers to its home appliance line and planned to produce regular radio programming. Frank Conrad, a Westinghouse engineer operating his own weekly amateur “ham” radio broadcast, was enlisted to help launch the station.
In October 1920, Westinghouse obtained a commercial broadcasting authorization from the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Navigation. On November 2, 1920, KDKA transmitted its first scheduled broadcast, airing the continuous live returns of the presidential election between Warren G. Harding and James Cox. The station went on to provide regular programming thereafter. It was first to broadcast professional baseball by announcing a game between the Pittsburgh Pirates and the Philadelphia Phillies on August 5, 1921, and on October 8, 1921, KDKA aired the first live football game between West Virginia University and the University of Pittsburgh.
Within four years of the initial broadcast, there were 600 commercial radio stations in the United States. By 1954, there were more radio receivers in the world than printed daily newspapers. The popularity of radio ushered in a shared national culture. Syndicated programs like the Grand Ole Opry and American Top 40 hosted by Casey Kasem, mentioned above, connected listeners across the country. During times of hardship and hope, Americans tuned into their local radio stations to receive the latest news. On March 12, 1933, President Roosevelt used the broadcast radio to speak directly to the nation in the first of his famous “fireside chats” to help the country manage the Great Depression. And, yes, I understand he was actually sitting in a room at the White House next to a fireplace during the broadcast! He went on to hold about 30 of these “chats,” giving the public unprecedented access to a president’s policies and decision making. On December 7, 1941, KTU in Honolulu, Hawaii broadcast several hours of live updates during the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. Millions of Americans tuned in to hear Harry Truman announce Germany’s unconditional surrender in World War II, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and Neil Armstrong’s first words on the moon.
Radio remains a vital way to communicate today. It provides local programming, community messaging, and local business advertising in a way other broadcast media do not. For example, after a major weather event such as a hurricane or tornado, your home may lose power. When this happens, you lose access to the television, the Internet, and possibly even your mobile phone service. But your battery-operated radio receiver still works! In such circumstances, radio broadcasts have proven, time and time again, to be the most reliable outlet for public safety information. Importantly, radio remains freely available to anyone with a receiver, unlike many new sources of audio information and entertainment, which require subscriptions or costly equipment. Radio continues to play a unique role in society due to its ability to reach nearly all of the U.S. population with free news and information no matter where the listener is located. As such, radio is unparalleled in its ability to provide listeners with news, weather, sports and other information that is specific to their particular community.
The Commission continues to work hard to support this historic industry by modernizing its radio regulations. In 2000, the Low Power FM radio service was created to provide highly local, noncommercial broadcasts. In the early 2000s, the FCC approved digital operations for AM and FM stations, allowing for significant improvements to the quality of radio signals. Today, there are an estimated 4,200 digital broadcasts on air. Earlier this year, the LPFM rules were updated to make sure the service remains viable. Additionally, since 2013, the Commission, through its AM revitalization initiative, updated the rules for the AM service allowing AM stations to own FM translators, modifying daytime and nighttime community coverage standards, eliminating the “ratchet rule,” and relaxing minimum antenna efficiency standards. Most recently, last month the Commission took a further step in the digital radio transition and authorized AM stations to voluntarily end analog broadcasts and adopt all-digital broadcasting. This will allow AM stations to offer listeners higher quality audio, more reliable digital service and new ancillary data services.
Radio was one of the first electronic technologies to permeate the lives of the American people. It has shaped not only our memories, but how most of us experienced the events of the past century. It is a highly adaptable technology and perhaps the most accessible medium of our time. We look forward to the stories it will continue to tell, and the pictures it will continue to paint over the next 100 years!
Bureau Office Category -
A New Look For Familiar Themes
A New Look For Familiar Themes Brittany.StevensonIf you had to pick a central theme for the FCC’s work this fall, it would probably be unleashing mid-band spectrum for 5G wireless services. Since the last week of August, we’ve successfully completed the auction of 70 megahertz of licensed spectrum in the 3.5 GHz band—the first-ever auction of mid-band spectrum for 5G in the U.S. We proposed rules for making 100 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.45-3.55 GHz band available for innovative commercial operations. And we are on track to hold an auction of the lower 280 megahertz of the C-band, starting on December 8.
Now, just as the leaves are changing colors here in our nation’s capital, the Commission is moving forward on a new mid-band spectrum proposal with a slightly different look. The major new item on our November meeting agenda would repurpose mid-band spectrum for Wi-Fi and modern transportation-related communications.
Here’s the background. In 1999, the FCC allocated 75 megahertz of spectrum in the 5.9 GHz band for a service called Dedicated Short-Range Communications. Commonly known as DSRC, this technology was intended to help meet the nation’s transportation needs into the next century and improve the safety of our nation’s highways. Unfortunately, after two decades, DSRC has barely been deployed, meaning this spectrum has been largely unused.
At our November open meeting, the Commission will vote on rules to make the lower 45 megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band available for unlicensed uses like Wi-Fi. While DSRC has been stuck in neutral for the past two decades, Wi-Fi has flourished. Americans increasingly rely on Wi-Fi for everything from doing their jobs to accessing healthcare and education, and this trend has only accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Making more spectrum available for Wi-Fi is critical to meeting America’s growing connectivity needs, and adding the lower 45 megahertz of the 5.9 GHz band to the mix would create a 160-megahertz wide Wi-Fi channel, which can enable gigabit connectivity in homes, schools, small businesses, and healthcare facilities. The 5.9 GHz band can also help improve and expand broadband access in both rural and urban America. We have seen a preview of this potential during the pandemic. The FCC has granted temporary access to over 100 wireless Internet service providers, or WISPs, to use the spectrum. And providers ranging from New York City to Luckey, Ohio report that use of the 5.9 GHz band has helped them increase speeds, decrease congestion, and extend coverage areas. The new rules that we will be considering next month would create a path for these WISPs to use this spectrum permanently.
The new rules would also transition the upper 30 megahertz of this band away from DSRC to enable a different automotive communications technology called Cellular Vehicle-to-Everything, or C-V2X. C-V2X uses cellular protocols to provide direct communications between vehicles and, as the name suggests, everything—including other vehicles on the road, infrastructure like light poles, cyclists, pedestrians, and road workers.
Defenders of DSRC will undoubtedly complain about this decision. But here’s the plain truth: DSRC has done virtually nothing over the past 21 years to improve automotive safety. And looking to the future, time after time, we’ve been told that success for DSRC is just around the corner. But time after time, those predictions have proven false. So when I hear the arguments of those entrenched corporate interests who want to continue to squat on 75 megahertz of prime mid-band spectrum for DSRC, I’m reminded of the old adage about the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. By contrast, C-V2X is a newer technology that shows great promise, which is why automakers here and around the globe are turning the page on DSRC and moving to implement C-V2X. So should we.
In short, if adopted, these new rules for the 5.9 GHz band would deliver a win for American consumers and a win for automotive safety.
And now ad astra, as a Kansan might say. Next on our November agenda, we’ll have a pair of items to update our rules for satellite services.
The first is a Report and Order that would create a new unified license for a broad array of satellite and blanket-licensed earth station operations. Under our current rules, the Commission issues separate licenses for earth stations and space stations in a satellite system. The redundancies in the two separate licensing processes create unnecessary regulatory burdens that can slow the deployment of new services. By creating an optional framework for authorizing both blanket-licensed earth stations and space stations of a satellite system through a unified license, we will align the build-out requirements for earth stations and space stations and eliminate unnecessary reporting rules and paperwork. These changes will reduce burdens on applicants and Commission staff while providing additional operational flexibility.
The second satellite item on our November agenda is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on encouraging more efficient use of spectrum from 17.3-17.8 GHz. The need for additional downlink capacity is growing as a result of high-throughput satellite communications. To help meet this demand, I have circulated a proposal to permit use of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band for space-to-Earth service subject to technical rules that would prevent harmful interference between stations or services in this band. I am also proposing to include the 17.3-18.3 GHz, 18.8-19.4 GHz, 19.6-19.7 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, and 28.6-29.1 GHz frequency bands in an “Extended Ka-band,” and extend routine license application processing criteria to earth stations communicating with geostationary orbit space stations in these bands. Ultimately, we hope that both of these items will help foster additional satellite-based services.
Next up on our diverse November lineup is a proposal to complete the process of updating the mechanism for the funding of Internet-based telecommunications relay services (TRS). Relay services, such as captioned telephone service (which allows individuals with hearing loss to both read captions and use their residual hearing to understand a phone conversation), are invaluable for many Americans who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, or have speech disabilities. When the Commission first authorized use of the Internet to provide TRS, it decided as an interim measure that the costs of providing Internet-based TRS should be paid by contributors to the TRS Fund, based only on their interstate telecommunications revenue. In 2019, the Commission recognized that this interim funding mechanism, which disproportionately burdens providers and users of interstate services, was no longer justifiable as a means of supporting one Internet-based form of TRS—Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). Therefore, the Commission modified the cost recovery rules for IP CTS to expand the TRS Fund contribution base for that service to include intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues. For our November meeting, I’m proposing that we expand the TRS Fund contribution base for the other two forms of Internet-based TRS—video relay service (VRS) and Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay)—so that providers of intrastate voice communications must contribute to the TRS Fund for the support of these services as well. I believe this rule change would ensure fair treatment of intrastate and interstate service providers in TRS funding and the long-term sustainability of the TRS Fund.
In the latest offering from our Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative, we’ll consider a Report and Order to change the Commission’s rules governing the resolution of program carriage disputes between video programming vendors and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs). Our rules currently provide that three events trigger a one-year statute of limitations, which restricts the period in which a video programming vendor may file a program carriage complaint against an MVPD. The third prong of this rule, however, allows a vendor to notify an MVPD whenever it wants—potentially years after a dispute and potential rule violation—that it intends to file a complaint, and then file a complaint within one year of that notice. This undermines the fundamental purpose of a statute of limitations, which is to ensure the timely filing of complaints. Our revision of the rule would clarify that the one-year period under this prong begins to run when an MVPD rejects or fails to acknowledge a request for program carriage or request to negotiate for program carriage. To provide additional clarity to both potential complainants and defendants, as well as adjudicators, the new rules would also modify the effective dates for program carriage decisions by our Administrative Law Judge to match those currently applicable to other such ALJ decisions. We would also harmonize our rules, where possible, for the resolution of program carriage, program access, retransmission consent, and open video system (OVS) complaints in these areas. These changes would help to ensure an expeditious program access, program carriage, retransmission consent, and OVS complaint process.
Rounding out our November agenda will be an item from our Enforcement Bureau, which I am unable to discuss at this time.
While the seasons and the colors of the leaves might be changing, the FCC continues to move forward with a broad palate of initiatives to update our rules and promote the public interest.
-
The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act
The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act Brittany.StevensonLast week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. Under certain circumstances, Section 230 provides websites, including social media companies, that host or moderate content generated by others with immunity from liability. In announcing his decision, Chairman Pai noted that “[m]embers of all three branches of government have expressed serious concern about the prevailing interpretation” of Section 230, and observed that an overly broad interpretation could “shield[] social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text” of the statute.
The Chairman’s decision was consistent with my advice that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Due to the unique interest generated by this proceeding, Chairman Pai has now asked me to make my analysis public, in furtherance of his longstanding commitment to transparency in the rulemaking process.
The policy issues raised by the debate over Section 230 may be complex, but the FCC’s legal authority is straightforward. Simply put, the FCC has the authority to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act, including amendments such as Section 230. As I explain below, this authority flows from the plain meaning of Section 201(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act. By expressly directing that Section 230 be placed into the Communications Act, Congress made clear that the FCC’s rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section. Two seminal U.S. Supreme Court cases authored by the late Justice Antonin Scalia—AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Bd., 525 U.S. 366 (1999) and City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013)—confirm this conclusion. Based on this authority, the Commission can feel confident proceeding with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield.
Statutory Background
To understand why the Commission has authority to interpret Section 230, it helps to understand how that section became part of the Communications Act. In 1934, Congress adopted the Communications Act in its original form, establishing the FCC as an independent federal agency charged with regulating interstate and international communications. Four years later, Congress added Section 201(b), which delegated to the Commission the power to “prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act.”
Since then, the most consequential set of amendments to the Communications Act arrived in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which updated the Act for the then-nascent Internet age. Section 1(b) of that Act made clear that, except where otherwise expressly provided, each of the 1996 Act’s provisions were to be inserted into the Communications Act of 1934.
Title V of the 1996 Act was named the “Communications Decency Act of 1996.” Among other provisions, this Title included Section 509, named “Online family empowerment.” Consistent with Section 1(b), Congress instructed in Section 509 that “Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 . . . is amended by adding at the end the following new section: Section 230.” Thus, Section 230 was born and became part of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 230 provides, among other things, that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” It further provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of . . . any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” The term “interactive computer service” is defined “as any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” That broad definition is commonly understood to include websites that host or moderate content generated by others, such as social media companies.
The FCC’s Interpretive Authority
The Supreme Court has twice considered whether the FCC’s general rulemaking authority under Section 201(b), adopted in 1938, extends to the 1996 amendments to the Act. Both times, the Court held that it does. Writing for the Court in Iowa Utilities Board, and employing his trademark textualist method, Justice Scalia wrote that this provision “means what it says: The FCC has rulemaking authority to carry out the ‘provisions of [the 1934] Act.’” The Court explained that “the clear fact that the 1996 Act was adopted, not as a freestanding enactment, but as an amendment to, and hence part of, [the 1934] Act” shows that Congress intended the Commission to have rulemaking authority over all its provisions. Likewise, in the later City of Arlingtoncase, the Court confirmed that the Commission’s rulemaking authority “[o]f course . . . extends to the subsequently added portions of the Act.” From these authorities, a simple conclusion follows: Because Section 230 is among the “subsequently added portions of the Act,” it is subject to the FCC’s Section 201(b) rulemaking authority.
This rulemaking authority plainly encompasses the power to interpret ambiguous language throughout the Communications Act. And courts have repeatedly upheld the Commission’s authority to do so. City of Arlington, for example, upheld the Commission’s use of its authority under Section 201(b) to interpret a provision that preserved state and local authority over the placement of things like cell towers unless those localities failed to act within a “reasonable period of time.” The Supreme Court rejected an argument that the agency should receive no deference for its interpretation because the provision was “jurisdictional” and thus contemplated no regulatory action by the Commission. The Commission deserved deference, the Court explained, because “Congress has unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication, and the agency interpretation at issue was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.”
Likewise, in City of Portland v. FCC, 969 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit earlier this year largely affirmed two FCC orders clarifying the scope of a preemption provision in the Communications Act that provides that states and localities may not take actions that “have the effect of prohibiting” telecommunications service. Citing City of Arlington, the court said that “[w]here terms of the Telecommunications Act are ambiguous, we defer to the FCC’s reasonable interpretations.”
Concerning the Commission’s interpretive authority, there is no meaningful distinction between the jurisdictional provision in City of Arlington, the preemption provision in City of Portland, and the immunity shield in Section 230 of the Act. All three provisions appear in the Communications Act, as amended. And like the jurisdictional and preemption provisions, Section 230 contains ambiguous terms: What constitutes an action “voluntarily taken in good faith” to restrict access to material? What constitutes material that can be excluded as “otherwise objectionable”? As in City of Arlingtonand City of Portland, the Commission has the authority to clarify these ambiguities in Section 230. As the Supreme Court observed in Iowa Utilities Board, this conclusion is nothing more than application of the general principle, derived from the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), that “Congress is well aware that the ambiguities it chooses to produce in a statute will be resolved by the implementing agency.”
Response to Common Objections
In response to the U.S. Department of Commerce’s petition asking the Commission to pursue a rulemaking on Section 230, some commenters supported the FCC’s authority to clarify the statute. Others, reading Section 201(b)—as well as Iowa Utilities Boardand City of Arlington—narrowly, claimed that the FCC lacked such authority. I found the arguments of this latter group of commenters unpersuasive.
Some commenters claim that Congress did not intend for the Commission to administer Section 230, and therefore, the Commission has no authority to interpret it. Sometimes called “ChevronStep Zero,” this inquiry focuses on whether agencies deserve deference at all where there is no clear evidence that Congress intended the agency, rather than courts, to interpret an ambiguous statute. But the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Congress adopted the entire 1996 Act against the backdrop of the FCC’s Section 201 rulemaking power while leaving that power in place appears to foreclose this argument. As the Supreme Court put it in City of Arlington, “the whole [Act] includes all of its parts,” and therefore, the Court does not engage in a freewheeling judicial inquiry whereby “every agency rule must be subjected to a de novo judicial determination of whether the particular issue was committed to agency discretion.”
There is no reason why Section 230 of the Act alone should escape Section 201(b)’s general grant of rulemaking authority. Congress specifically instructed—in Section 509 of the Communications Decency Act, which in turn was in Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996—that a new Section 230 be added to the Communications Act. While Section 230 itself deals primarily with an immunity shield, that fact alone does not exempt it from Commission rulemaking. City of Arlingtonand City of Portland make clear that the FCC can clarify even those ambiguous statutory provisions within the Act that are arguably directed toward courts—such as preemption or jurisdictional provisions. Similarly, Iowa Utilities Boardupheld the Commission’s authority under Section 201(b) to interpret ambiguous provisions in the Act that provided standards for state utility commissions to resolve pricing and interconnection disputes. Nothing in the Act, the Court explained, “logically preclude[s] the Commission’s issuance of rules to guide the state-commission judgments.” The same logic applies here: Section 201(b) allows the Commission to interpret Section 230 to guide the judgments of courts.
Others attempt to read limitations into the text of Section 201(b) that could exclude Section 230. They note that most of Section 201(b) deals with rules that apply to common carriers and argue that Congress did not intend to treat social media companies and other covered websites as common carriers. But the general grant of rulemaking authority at the end of Section 201(b) contains no reference to common carriers; it simply empowers the Commission to make rules that are “necessary in the public interest to carry out the provisions of this Act,” without qualification. For this reason, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008), held that Section 201(b) gave the Commission authority to interpret ambiguous provisions in the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Notably, that Act by its terms applies to cable operators, not common carriers. The Court reasoned, relying on Iowa Utilities Board, that it was sufficient that the 1992 law amended the Communications Act and incorporated the relevant provisions therein. The same reasoning applies to Section 230.
Other commenters reach beyond statutory text to argue that Section 230’s legislative history and purposes demonstrate that the Commission lacks authority to interpret it. As an initial matter, neither legislative history nor abstract purposes can trump the plain text of a statute, and as the Supreme Court has twice held, Section 201(b) “means what it says”—the FCC has the authority to interpret each and every provision of the Communications Act, as amended.
In any event, critics of an FCC rulemaking overread the legislative history and statements of purpose on which they rely and fundamentally misunderstand the narrow authority involved in clarifying the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield. For example, commenters note that language in Section 230(b) expresses Congress’s intent to “preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” They further point out that Section 230 co-framer and then-Congressman Chris Cox remarked in floor debates prior to passage that “we do not wish to have a Federal Computer Commission with an army of bureaucrats regulating the Internet.” And they observe that the FCC cited these authorities in the Restoring Internet Freedom Orderas support for its decision to repeal the prior Administration’s onerous “net neutrality” rules in favor of light-touch regulation of Internet service providers.
But none of these observations bear on the central question here: whether the Commission has authority to interpret ambiguous terms in Section 230(c), which contains the immunity shield. Engaging in such interpretation would not involve creating “net neutrality” rules for social media companies, much less (as some critics have claimed) a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet. Rather, it would involve clarifying a legal standard that already exists: the statutory immunity shield in Section 230. Even if the FCC were to interpret that shield more narrowly than some courts previously have, that would not result in additional FCC regulation. It would simply allow private parties to bring lawsuits, as appropriate, under other sources of federal and state law—the same generally-applicable causes of action that apply to newspapers, broadcasters, and other publishers and speakers not covered by Section 230.
Nor does it matter that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Comcast v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 2010), and the FCC itself in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, agreed that Section 230(b) was merely a statement of policy and not an affirmative source of authority. The Commission need not rely on Section 230(b) as the source of its authority in this contemplated rulemaking. Instead, the Commission can comfortably use Section 201(b) to resolve ambiguities in the text of Section 230(c)—which City of Arlingtonand Iowa Utilities Boardplainly permit.
At the end of the day, the scope of the Section 230 immunity shield must be interpreted by someone. And as the Supreme Court observed in both Iowa Utilities Boardand City of Arlington, the only question is whether the FCC or a federal court will do the interpreting. Under current law, the answer is clear: The FCC receives deference for reasonable interpretations of all ambiguous terms in the Communications Act.
The fact that courts have been interpreting Section 230 for years does not prevent the Commission from construing its ambiguous terms. As the Supreme Court held in National Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005), the FCC may act as the “authoritative interpreter” of ambiguous provisions in statutes like the Communications Act that it administers, and nothing “preclude[s] agencies from revising unwise judicial constructions of ambiguous statutes.” Section 230 allows the FCC to determine whether courts have appropriately interpreted its proper scope. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, recently expressed the view that courts have “relied on policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protection to Internet platforms” under Section 230 that “departed from the most natural reading of the text.” Leaving such constructions unchallenged could, in Justice Thomas’s words, “have serious consequences,” like exempting Internet companies from a broad array of civil claims, even if that is not “what the law demands.” Under Brand X, the FCC may review these judicial interpretations to determine whether they reflect the best reading of the statute. Indeed, an agency’s role as “authoritative interpreter” may be particularly useful where, as here, courts have reached divergent interpretations of key provisions of an important statute, thus creating substantial uncertainty and disharmony in the law.
* * *
Ultimately, the five Commissioners of the FCC must decide whether this legal framework should be adopted in any future rulemaking. But in my own judgment, the FCC’s legal authority to interpret Section 230 is straightforward: Congress gave the Commission power to interpret all provisions of the Communications Act of 1934—including amendments—and Section 230 is an amendment to the Communications Act. The Commission therefore may proceed with a rulemaking to clarify the scope of the Section 230(c) immunity shield.
-
Halloween Treats
Halloween Treats David.KitzmillerOctober has arrived, which means there’s a chill in the air, baseball playoffs on TV, and pumpkin spice in places where it doesn’t belong. Of course, there is no greater October tradition than Halloween. While nobody is quite sure what trick-or-treating will look like in a time of social distancing, I can say for sure that the agenda for the Commission’s October meeting will be filled with treats for consumers and innovators.
Unfortunately, we’ll have to start off that meeting by discussing a trick. In 2017, numerous Washington politicians, far-left special-interest groups, Hollywood stars, and Silicon Valley tech giants, as well as many in the media tried to scare the American people about what would happen once the FCC adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. In that order, we overturned the previous Administration’s decision to heavily regulate the Internet like a slow-moving utility under rules developed in the 1930s and restored the longstanding, bipartisan, market-based approach. The American people were told that they would get the Internet one word at a time. They were told that they would have to pay $5 per tweet. They were told that it would be the end of the Internet as we know it. It was frightening stuff to be sure, but it was utter nonsense.
Well, in December 2017, we ignored the falsehoods (and the ruckus they created, which included death threats, a bomb threat that forced us to recess our Commission meeting, and targeted harassment) and did the right thing. We replaced the prior Administration’s heavy-handed regulations with a consistent, light-touch regulatory approach that protects the free and open Internet, encourages infrastructure investment, and requires strong transparency from broadband providers for consumers and innovators alike.
And what’s been the result? The Internet has remained free and open. And it’s stronger than ever. Millions more Americans have access to the Internet today than in 2017. In 2018 and then again in 2019, the United States set records for annual fiber deployment, and we’ve seen network investment hit levels that our nation hadn’t seen for over a decade. In fact, since we adopted the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, average download speeds for fixed broadband in the United States have doubled, increasing by over 99% (so much for getting the Internet one word at a time). And in 2018 and 2019, we added over 72,000 wireless cell sites in the United States, after adding fewer than 20,000 in the prior four years.
Moreover, during the pandemic, our networks have held up extremely well. Not only have they handled the surge in Internet traffic, but average speeds have actually gone up over the past six months. We haven’t had to follow the path of some other countries, which embraced utility-style Internet regulation and, after years of subpar infrastructure investment, had to ask streaming services like Netflix and YouTube to proactively throttle consumers’ video streams from HD to SD.
The FCC scored a major victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the vast majority of our decision in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. However, the court asked us to consider in more detail three discrete issues—namely, (1) the Order’s effect on public safety; (2) its effect on our ability to regulate pole attachments; and (3) its effect on the Lifeline program’s ability to support broadband. Months ago, we put out a Public Notice seeking input on these three issues. Having reviewed the input received, the law, and the facts, I am confident that the regulatory framework we set forth in the Restoring Internet Freedom Order appropriately and adequately addresses each issue. Accordingly, I have circulated an Order for consideration at our October meeting addressing the points raised by the D.C. Circuit. It affirms that the FCC stands by the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, consistent with the practical reality consumers have experienced since December 2017 of an Internet economy that is better, stronger, and freer than ever.
One treat everyone is hoping for—the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup of telecom, if you will—is 5G. We anticipate that the deployment of 5G-capable networks will deliver better services for consumers, drive job creation, and strengthen the nation’s economy and our quality of life. But we need to make sure that 5G narrows rather than widens the digital divide—and that means making sure that rural Americans also benefit from the next generation of wireless innovation
Today, I circulated rules to establish a 5G Fund for Rural America. The new program would use multi-round reverse auctions to distribute up to $9 billion, in two phases, to bring voice and 5G broadband service to rural areas of our country that would be unlikely to see the deployment of 5G-capable networks without subsidies. Building upon lessons learned from the Mobility Fund, and overwhelming support in the factual record we’ve developed, we would adopt our proposal to determine which areas will be eligible for 5G Fund support based on improved mobile broadband coverage data that will be gathered through the Commission’s new Digital Opportunity Data Collection. This approach won’t be the fastest possible path to the Phase I auction, but it will allow us to identify with greater precision those areas of the country where support is most needed and will be spent most efficiently.
This is just one of two major items on our October agenda to expand wireless broadband connectivity in rural America. The second involves slivers of spectrum in the TV broadcast bands and 600 MHz frequencies that are not being used for other authorized services. Unlicensed devices can operate in these so-called “white spaces.” These airwaves cover a lot of ground (they have excellent “propagation characteristics,” in the parlance), which makes them particularly attractive for delivering wireless broadband services in rural areas and areas where fewer broadcast television stations operate.
In three weeks, the Commission will vote on a Report and Order that would make targeted changes to our white space device rules by expanding these devices’ ability to provide broadband coverage in rural and unserved areas while still protecting television broadcasters in the band. The Order would also modify our rules to facilitate the development of new and innovative narrowband Internet of Things devices in TV white spaces. We expect that these changes will spur continued growth of the white space ecosystem and help to close the digital divide.
The deployment of wireless infrastructure continues to be a priority for American consumers who are increasingly relying on mobile devices, and the Commission accordingly continues to explore ways to reduce regulatory barriers to such deployment. We’ll vote on our latest proposal this month. Here’s the context: When it comes to building out 5G networks, using existing infrastructure is often a more efficient alternative to the construction of new infrastructure. 5G networks will require deployment of a significant number of additional antennas, many of which could be placed on existing infrastructure. But these existing towers may need additional equipment on the ground to support the operation of these antennas. To facilitate the collocation of antennas and associated ground equipment, the Commission will vote on a proposal to further streamline the state and local government review process for limited modifications to existing wireless infrastructure. Congress limited state and local jurisdictions’ authority to deny these modifications in 2012, under section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act. Under the order we will vote on this month, excavation and deployment up to 30 feet in any direction outside of the existing site would not “substantially change” the physical dimensions of the facility and therefore would not disqualify the collocation from streamlined state and local review. I would like to thank Commissioner Carr for his leadership on this Order in particular and the Commission’s wireless infrastructure efforts generally.
Next on our October agenda will be a handful of items to make sure the Commission’s rules are keeping pace with changes in the marketplace.
As part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress imposed requirements that local telephone companies (known as incumbent local exchange carriers) make portions of their networks available to competitors on an unbundled basis at regulated rates, and that they make certain services available for resale to competitors at regulated rates. But the communications landscape has transformed dramatically over the last 23 years. The voice and broadband marketplaces are filled with competition from a multitude of providers using a variety of technologies and offering capabilities and services unforeseen in 1996. The Commission has repeatedly adjusted the incumbent LEC-specific obligations in the 1996 Act, including unbundling and resale requirements, to account for changed circumstances. Given the dramatic change in the market in recent years and continued vigorous debate on this topic, I encouraged industry to negotiate and propose solutions for the path forward in this area. INCOMPAS and USTelecom led negotiations and ultimately submitted two compromise proposals, helping us close out one of the most contentious issues underlying the 1996 Act—the appropriate scope of the Commission’s unbundling rules. I want to thank them for coming to the table in good faith and doing the painstaking work that consensus-building requires. Based on their work, I’ve circulated a Report and Order that would continue to modernize these requirements and would end unbundling and resale requirements where they stifle the transition to IP networks and broadband deployment. At the same time, it would preserve unbundling requirements where they are still necessary to realize the 1996 Act’s goal of robust intermodal competition benefiting all Americans.
The revitalization of the AM radio service has long been a passion of mine, which is why I am pleased that this month we will also consider an item that will continue our efforts to help AM radio operators keep pace with changes in the market. AM radio stations are currently authorized to operate with either analog signals or hybrid signals, which combine analog and digital signals. However, analog signals are increasingly subject to interference from electronic devices, and due to a number of technical constraints of the AM band and limitations of the HD Radio hybrid mode, fewer than 250 AM stations have implemented hybrid operations. This October, the Commission will vote on a Report and Order that would give AM broadcasters the option to convert to all-digital operations, which offer listeners a higher quality audio experience over a greater area. Since all-digital broadcasting would be on a voluntary basis, AM operators would decide for themselves if the transition is right for them and their listeners. I will note one interesting data point: WWFD in Frederick, Maryland has transitioned to digital AM through special temporary authority, and has gone from having no ratings in the market to a being a Nielsen-ranked station. This hints at digital AM’s potential to bring AM stations back from the brink of extinction to become competitive players in the market.
On October 27, we’ll also be updating our rules to make sure more television programming is accessible to Americans with disabilities. Audio description makes television programming accessible to the blind or visually impaired by inserting a narrated audio description of a program’s key visual elements at breaks in the dialogue. The Commission’s rules currently require certain commercial television broadcast stations in only the top 60 television markets to provide video-described programming. In a few weeks, we’ll vote on new rules to expand the Commission’s video description regulations by phasing them in for an additional 10 markets each year for the next four years. Additionally, we’ll be revising our rules to adopt the term “audio description” instead of “video description,” a recommendation made by disability rights advocates, including the Commission’s Disability Advisory Committee. This will ensure that the Commission uses the terminology currently used throughout the federal government and the industry, providing consistency for everyone.
Rounding out our monthly meeting will be an Enforcement Bureau item, the details of which cannot be disclosed at this time.
Here’s wishing everyone a happy October. Stay safe, and happy Halloween in advance!