FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly

Allowing public access to the draft text of Open Meeting items before a vote is the right thing to do from a good government perspective.

I hope that the Federal Communications Commission will, as part of its process reform effort, make this common sense update to the non-disclosure rules. And, if successful, we could even think about extending it to items considered under our circulation procedures.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission has become famous -- or infamous -- for its recent proposal to adopt network neutrality rules. Lost in the debate is the lack of a demonstrable need for such rules, as validated by a rigorous and factually sound cost-benefit analysis.

The Internet has flourished because of the government’s hands-off approach. All regulations carry costs, which are inevitably passed on to consumers in one form or another. We should therefore be very concerned when an agency plans to enact new rules, especially unnecessary ones.

In Executive Order 13563, President Barack Obama reaffirmed that executive agencies should “propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its cost” and must “use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” He also called upon independent agencies like the FCC to follow the same principles.

If the Commission fully adheres to this directive, it should refrain from imposing net-neutrality regulations unless there’s evidence of an actual problem it would address, and unless the benefits of the regulations would clearly outweigh the costs.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) has released a Public Notice seeking comment on whether to terminate almost 650 dormant proceedings (i.e., dockets that have no planned action and no further comments expected).

I applaud FCC Chairman Wheeler for initiating this item as well as the CBG staff and the individual Bureaus and Offices that worked on this document. The FCC has over 2,800 open proceedings pending. I believe that closing outdated FCC proceedings makes a lot of sense. Doing so could help the agency become more organized and focused on decisions that need to be made.

It could also make it easier for both Congress and the public to track what the agency is working on or still considering. And it could help prevent the FCC from using antiquated information as a basis for regulating.

As a result of the Federal Communications Commission’s crackdown, and after more than 58 years of providing service to Central Nebraska and Northern Kansas, KHAS in Hastings, Nebraska went dark on June 13.

That same day, KNDX in Bismarck, North Dakota and KXND in Minot, North Dakota also went off the air because of the Commission’s decision.

Before the Commission’s restriction on JSAs, agreements were in place to save these three stations: KHAS, an NBC-affiliate, was slated to be purchased by Excalibur Broadcasting; and, KNDX and KXND, FOX affiliates. These transactions, however, were blocked by the Commission’s new rules prohibiting the use of JSAs in these markets. So what has the Commission’s JSA crackdown yielded?

Gray Television’s KMOT is now serving as the NBC affiliate and FOX affiliate for Minot through its use of multicast channels, while KXND has gone out of business. And that is not all. Gray Television has also announced that three more stations -- KXJB in Fargo, North Dakota; KAQY in Monroe, Louisiana; and KJCT in Grand Junction, Colorado -- will soon go dark because of the Commission’s JSA restrictions. Their programming will be transferred to Gray stations in those markets.

As a result, Gray Television will earn a greater share of local advertising revenue in Hastings, Bismarck, Minot, Fargo, Monroe, and Grand Junction than would have been the case with the JSAs that were originally proposed. Are these the victories for competition that critics of sharing agreements were hoping to see? Or has the real goal all along just been to drive television stations off the air?

[Commentary] Have you ever listened to your car radio while you were stuck in traffic and heard a super-fast talker rattle off the rules that apply to a contest for a trip to some sunny destination?

Maybe should consider updating the Contest Rule to allow broadcasters to substitute their current, on-air contest notifications with simple instructions to visit a specific website for more information. Posting such material online would allow viewers the opportunity to actually read and digest the contest rules (i.e., available 24 hours a day) and determine how best to participate.

Internet publication also allows broadcasters to provide a more complete description of the contest, update it as necessary, and significantly reduce the instances that could lead to FCC enforcement actions. Moreover, this change would better effectuate the original intent of the Contest Rule, which was designed to “require licensees who conduct broadcast contests to take certain steps to assure that they are promoted and conducted properly.”

To remain relevant, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must stay on top of current technologies and serve as a model both for industry and other federal agencies. The FCC loses credibility when it seeks to impose rules or standards on the private sector but does not adhere to the same or similar commitments in its own operations. To this end, I suggest that two important areas are ripe for improvement:

1. Direct access to 911. Our employees and any visitors must dial 9-911 to reach help in an emergency. I asked that the agency look into options for fixing this problem. Since then, we have learned how simple reprogramming our telephone system would be. While the new dialing procedures may require some minor education of staff, this can be done relatively quickly. Also, we should hold ourselves to the same cost-benefit standards that we apply to regulatees.
2. Transitioning to IPv6. Where is the FCC in its transition? Well, it issued a consumer guide on IPv6 in 2012 to encourage the private sector to quickly move to the new standard. But the agency itself has a ways to go. In fact, only 12% of its linked subdomains are IPv6 operational. For an agency that just proposed rules and questions that aim to micromanage the way the Internet works, this is seems ironic. I am hopeful that as the FCC modernizes its website and IT infrastructure, it will also quickly complete the transition to IPv6.

To keep pace with technological advancements, I believe it is time for the Federal Communications Commission to consider modernizing our labeling requirements.

Electronic labeling, or e-labeling, could replace the current system of etched labels containing FCC certification information on the outside body of each electronic device. Instead, this information could be provided through software on device screens.

There are numerous potential benefits to e-labeling. Specifically, e-labels can provide more information to consumers than is conveyed today. Beyond the required FCC certification information, details can be added by manufacturers regarding device warranties, recycling, and trade-in opportunities. In addition, e-labels can be updated remotely to address any inaccuracies, such as typographical errors. Another advantage of e-labeling is cost savings. As devices have become smaller and more aesthetically appealing, etching the labels requires more design time and expensive equipment. E-labeling could dramatically reduce or eliminate these costs without sacrificing consumer information.

Along with the proposed benefits, there may be some perceived drawbacks to e-labeling that can be addressed. E-labeling should never be allowed in any way to short-circuit or undermine the FCC's certification process. The FCC should take every opportunity to ensure that its rules and procedures take advantage of modern technology and are as user-friendly as possible.

That is why I hope that the Commission will, in the near future, turn its attention to the possibility of permitting e-labeling through a means that will expedite its use. Doing so would not only be good government, it would stand to benefit equipment manufacturers, and more importantly, consumers.

The topic I will discuss is now Internet governance. Before the eye rolling begins, I believe this issues extremely important to the entire communications industry.

And let me give you the key take away: We should all maintain a deep skepticism about the US Government’s recent announcement that it plans to transition away from its oversight of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

A recent Bloomberg article on the ICANN 49 meeting probably summed it up best, and I quote: “A group of nerds and wonks [has been] having some hideously boring meetings in Singapore. You should care: What they produce could change the nature of the Internet.”

Those who have raised concerns about the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) announcement have been labeled as Republican partisans, but even former President Bill Clinton is concerned about NTIA’s plan.

First, and foremost, the fatal flaw in NTIA’s announcement is the potential involvement of foreign governments or quasi-governmental bodies in Internet governance.

Second, from the point of view of maintaining the stability of the Internet, even with ICANN’s flaws, the current oversight structure by NTIA has been an incredible success.

Third, past history and current events show us that numerous foreign governments are more than willing to meddle with the Internet and its use by their citizens. While it is clear that foreign governments will not hesitate to interfere with Internet services and applications when doing so suits their national needs, they also will not hesitate to point out the hypocrisy if and when the United States adopts its own controls over the Internet.

This is an added reason why I am concerned that the FCC will press forward with new network neutrality regulations. At this pivotal moment for Internet freedom, the FCC’s network neutrality proceeding could severely contradict and undermine the US government’s international position. FCC action sends the wrong message: that it is acceptable for nations to impose the strong arm of the government on the Internet. In addition to our domestic concerns, we must also consider the influence of our decisions on other countries, given the strength of our voice worldwide. In conclusion, I urge all of you to follow closely, with a critical eye, NTIA’s and ICANN’s proposals as they develop.

The United States created the Internet and shared it with the world. Now we have an obligation to safeguard it from harm.

I have raised a number of concerns about the Federal Communications Commission’s new rural broadband experiments.

First, I worry how the new experiments will fit together with the high-cost universal service reforms that the FCC already adopted in 2011 and, despite my best efforts, I have not received an adequate explanation to date. Second, as configured, these experiments could divert needed funds away from expanding broadband access for all Americans in favor of funding very high-capacity projects for a select few anchor institutions. Third, I am very concerned about the ability of these experiments to succeed with one-time funding. And now, I believe that these experiments could duplicate the Congressionally-mandated gigabit pilot program.

Instead of going down this path, the FCC should rethink the need for these experiments. If the FCC does decide to press forward with its own rural broadband experiments, I will be looking to ensure that we abide by the following principles when deciding upon any final rules or approving any experiments:

• No Duplication. First, the FCC’s experiments must accomplish something very different from the US Department of Agriculture’s pilot program. Second, the FCC must not fund experiments in areas that are served or will be served by USDA’s pilot program or existing providers. Such duplication makes no sense and goes against our obligation to spend every consumer dollar as efficiently and effectively as possible.
• Rationalize Spending. In its Notice, the FCC contemplated spending between $50 - $100 million (or more) on its new experiments.
• Ensure Qualified Participants. The Farm Bill requires that those participating in the USDA pilot program demonstrate that they are capable of providing service. The FCC should do no less. We must not dedicate limited funding to wishes and whims, but only to verifiable, concrete plans from companies that can actually build and operate a sustainable broadband network after the one-time FCC support ends -- because it will end.
• Don’t Zap Focus. The high-cost programs account for $4.5 billion annually and require considerable attention. Staff workshops, webinars, presentations, guidance and oversight will be needed to achieve success on any new experiments. But these take significant time and staff hours.

[March 7]