FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai

America needs to fully enter the digital age -- and that starts with our nation’s schools and libraries. I saw that for myself in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Sioux Falls is no anomaly. It’s amazing what schools and libraries across South Dakota have done with so little. Even though promoting broadband across 77,123 square miles is the definition of a high-cost endeavor, South Dakota schools have received about 30% less per student than New Jersey schools. And while the Siouxland Libraries stretch their resources so thinly that some rural libraries only operate three hours a day, library officials told me that they’ve given up applying for E-Rate funding because the process is so burdensome and the rewards for rural libraries so few.

In sum, the E-Rate program just isn’t meeting the needs of rural America. E-Rate’s funding formula favors larger, urban school districts that can afford to hire consultants to navigate the administrative process and draw every dollar E-Rate makes available to them. In contrast, E-Rate offers smaller, rural schools and libraries less funding, even when broadband costs more for them and they don’t have the resources to hire outside help.

A sad refrain I’ve heard over and over is that applying for E-Rate funding just isn’t worth the effort. That’s a digital divide we shouldn’t tolerate. The FCC needs to reform E-Rate to make it more user-friendly and target the needs of students and library patrons. A student-centered E-Rate program would cut the red tape. It would end funding inequities and focus E-Rate on connecting citizens young and old to digital opportunities.

The mobile experience itself will change in a big way. Consumers will use the airwaves almost as seamlessly as they breathe the air. Speeds and capacities are going to have to increase significantly to meet these demands.

That’s where infrastructure comes in. Carriers are upgrading their networks to support the latest 4G technologies. They’re looking to add capacity by densifying their networks and deploying a variety of small-scale technologies, including microcells, picocells, and distributed antenna systems (or DAS).

What’s holding us back? As you know all too well, regulations can make it tough to deploy infrastructure -- tougher than being a boy named Sue. Byzantine state and local rules often make it impossible to make even minor modifications to wireless facilities. In some cases, municipalities are applying a one-size-fits-all review process. That’s why one of my priorities since I joined the FCC has been removing barriers to infrastructure investment.

So where can we start? First, I propose we make it easier to deploy small cells and DAS. We should modernize our rules and exempt DAS from our environmental processing requirements, except for those involving RF emissions. Given their size and appearance, I believe that DAS meet this standard.

Second, I propose to make clear that local moratoriums on the approval of new wireless infrastructure violate section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act. At a minimum, the FCC should make it clear that a moratorium is not a loophole that localities can sneak through to avoid the limits of section 332(c)(7).

Third, I call on the FCC to build on its wireless facilities “shot clock”3 to further reduce delays and ease the construction of new networks. The FCC needs to bring down the gavel if a local government does not act on a wireless facilities application by the end of our shot clock deadlines. Similarly, we should clarify that our shot clock does apply to DAS.

In my view, the law is clear: Denial of eligible requests is not an option. Establishing a deemed-grant remedy with a relatively short fuse -- say, 30 days -- should be effective at keeping everyone on track.

[Commentary] It’s often the regulation you’ve never heard of that costs you real money. One such rule increases Americans’ cable and energy bills. This regulation from the Federal Communications Commission is known by the unwieldy name of the “integration ban.”

We believe that it’s time to repeal this outdated technological mandate. As of 2014, the nation’s largest cable companies have supplied 45 million of their own CableCARD-enabled set-top boxes to their customers. How many CableCARDs have been deployed for use in third-party retail devices? Only 606,000. That means that less than 1.4 percent of customers are choosing to purchase their set-top boxes through the retail market. Like so many other regulations, the integration ban has quickly become outdated.

Today, there are myriad avenues for consumers to access video content without using a set-top box supplied by a cable company or a CableCARD. Roku, Google, Amazon and Apple all offer streaming set-top boxes.

Consumers can now access cable programming through mobile applications, personal computers and tablets, and gaming consoles. The growing ubiquity of broadband can directly connect creators and consumers (think YouTube channels) without the need for any video distributor at all. In a market with so many options for video delivery, and so many unique market players, there is simply no need for an integration ban.

Competition has developed in the video market organically in ways that regulators did not envision. The CableCARD didn’t spur any of this progress. If anything, the FCC’s rigid technological mandate has inhibited innovation in this space.

[Rep Bob Latta, Ohio Republican, is vice chairman of the House Commerce communications and technology subcommittee]

The E-Rate program, and our work to reform and modernize it, is important.

Until 2019, the E-Rate program will collect and distribute over $12 billion to fund information technology in our nation’s schools and libraries. That’s real money -- $3 billion more than we committed to the Connect America Fund -- and it’s a real chance for us to make a difference.

The Federal Communications Commission needs to seize this opportunity for the kids of the 21st century. We should not settle for the existing system and just tinker around the edges -- we need real reform.

We need a student-centered E-Rate program that focuses on the needs of children. We need a program that replaces today’s complexity with simplicity, one that cuts red tape and makes it easier for schools and libraries to apply. We need a program that more fairly distributes E-Rate funds and puts small, rural schools and libraries on equal footing with their larger, more urban brethren. We need a program that promotes more careful spending, with additional transparency so that parents, educators, and the FCC can see how E-Rate funding is being spent.

Whether you call these reforms a student-centered E-Rate program, the ConnectED Initiative, E- Rate modernization, or E-Rate 2.0, the goal of meaningful change is shared by all schools and libraries, by service providers and equipment vendors, by Democrats and Republicans, by Commissioners and staff. The primary question at this point is how to achieve that goal. And that’s where you come in.

Broadcasters and the Federal Communications Commission should have a good relationship.

Unfortunately, the relationship between broadcasters and the FCC has become strained of late.

I wanted to discuss with you four areas where I think we can make things better: recognizing broadcasting’s value, treating broadcasters fairly in the upcoming incentive auction, revitalizing AM radio, and beginning to reform our media ownership rules.

Right now, I worry that the greatest obstacle in our way might be the [Federal Communications Commission] itself.

In order for the incentive auctions to succeed, we must have robust competition among wireless carriers for licenses in the forward auction. Or, as a friend of mine might put it, “competition, competition, competition.”

But unfortunately, the plan reportedly on the table appears to go in the opposite direction. It restricts competition. Certain companies selected by the government will be shielded from competing against other companies. Instead of good, old-fashioned competition, the chosen few would have spectrum set aside especially for them.

My position on the forward auction is simple: The FCC should not limit carriers’ ability to participate. We should not pick winners and losers. The inevitable effect of a policy that limits participation will be less spectrum for mobile broadband, less funding for national priorities, a higher budget deficit, and an increased chance of a failed auction.

The data released by the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau show why the agency shouldn’t increase rural Americans’ phone bills.

The FCC’s so-called “rate floor” is supposed to ensure that urban and rural rates are “comparable.” But even though the Bureau’s data reveal that the local phone rate in Washington, DC is $14.10, the FCC is on the precipice of raising rates for rural Americans from $14.00 to $20.46. As a result, rural Americans will have to pay 45 percent more for local phone service than those living in our nation’s capital.

On top of all that, this rate increase will not save the government any money. This issue is another example of why so many in our nation’s heartland feel so alienated from Washington, DC. Too often, there is one set of rules for those inside the Beltway and another set of rules for everyone else. I hope the Commission will reconsider this ill-conceived policy and not raise rural Americans’ phone bills to no end.

I’m a big believer in the benefits of diversity. And one of its most important forms is intellectual diversity.

When it comes to issues of the day, South Asian-Americans, just like other minority communities in our country, don’t speak with one voice. There are South Asian-American liberals, conservatives, and moderates. There are South Asian-American Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. This is how it should be.

Like the subcontinent itself, South Asian-Americans are diverse in every way. Our particular upbringing and heritage influences the way many of us see the world. I’ll never be able to dance bhangra properly; some of you might not savor idlis, sambar, and bisibelebath as much as I do. More broadly speaking, my view is that as a society, we should get away from the notion that if you have a certain skin color, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, you should think a certain way. And if you don’t think that way, you are somehow betraying your roots or identity.

Each of us is unique. And each of us has the right, and I’d argue the obligation, to make up our own mind. We should embrace the diversity within our community and insist that those outside of our community recognize it as well.

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.

I applaud the US House of Representatives for passing the Federal Communications Commission Process Reform Act of 2013, HR 3675, and I commend the leaders of the Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Communications and Technology -- Chairman Walden and Ranking Member Eshoo -- for their bipartisan efforts to advance this legislation. I hope that this common-sense bill, as well as the Federal Communications Commission Consolidated Reporting Act of 2013, HR 2844, which the House of Representatives passed 415 to 0 back in September, will soon be enacted into law. Together, these bills recognize the need to modernize the FCC to reflect our dynamic, converged communications marketplace. And they would eliminate outdated mandates on the agency, streamline its operations, and make it more accountable to the public.