Federal Communications Commission

With the opening of a new proceeding on Restoring Internet Freedom, the Commission anticipates significant public engagement and a high volume of filings. The Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau provides this guidance to facilitate public participation and to make commenting easy. Those who wish to file individual comments may submit them electronically via the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). However, we anticipate that some may wish to submit a large number of comments from multiple individuals, each with the same or similar content. We strongly encourage parties who seek to file a large number of comments or “group” comments to do so through the public API or the Commission’s electronic inbox established for this proceeding, called Restoring Internet Freedom Comments.

In addition to the work needed on independent programming, we continue to fail miserably as a nation when it comes to the state of minority and women ownership in the broadcast space. The good news is that there is quantifiable data showing that a tax certificate program, can be a successful tool to combating the problem. During its 17 years of existence, the Federal Communications Commission’s Tax Certificate Program, successfully helped to bring numerous diverse entrepreneurs into the broadcast industry. Earlier in April, Rep GK Butterfield (D-NC) introduced the Expanding Broadcast Ownership Opportunities Act, legislation which would reinstate a tax certificate program and establish a pilot incubator program. I strongly support the goals of this bill and look forward to working with Rep Butterfield and other interested Members of Congress on legislation to improve the state of broadcast ownership diversity.

Finally, I am pleased to share that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has announced his intent to charter the Advisory Committee on Diversity and Digital Empowerment.

Earlier today, I shared with my fellow Commissioners a proposal to reverse the mistake of Title II and return to the light-touch regulatory framework that served our nation so well during the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the first six years of the Obama Administration. The document that we will be voting on at the FCC’s May meeting is called a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If it is adopted, the FCC will seek public input on this proposal. In other words, this will be the beginning of the discussion, not the end. Now, some have called on the FCC to reverse Title II immediately, through what is known as a Declaratory Ruling. But I don’t believe that is the right path forward. This decision should be made through an open and transparent process in which every American can share his or her views.

So what are the basic elements of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking?
First, we are proposing to return the classification of broadband service from a Title II telecommunications service to a Title I information service—that is, light-touch regulation drawn from the Clinton Administration. As I mentioned earlier, this Title I classification was expressly upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005, and it’s more consistent with the facts and the law.
Second, we are proposing to eliminate the so-called Internet conduct standard. This 2015 rule gives the FCC a roving mandate to micromanage the Internet.
Third, we are seeking comment on how we should approach the so-called bright-line rules adopted in 2015.

Today, my colleague and I announce the beginning of a process to free the Internet from the terrible restraints of common carrier regulation now imposed on America’s broadband providers. After almost two years of experience, it is clear that this archaic regime never should have been imposed in the first place.

Based on hyperbole, rent seeking, imaginary problems and liberal ideology, the previous FCC took Internet policy down into a dark and horrible abyss. Well, we are here to declare that those days are over; we are bringing sanity and evidence-based decision-making back to the Commission’s rules. In releasing a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission initiates the necessary procedures to expunge net neutrality regulations from the Internet. Following a methodical and transparent path, which I commend the Chairman for pursuing, will help prevent opponents from complaining about procedural shortcuts and the like. Instead, we will follow the Administrative Procedure Act to the letter of the law. Hopefully, over the course of the next few months, we can move forward to a final order.

The biggest reason I’m bullish about [broadcasting] is that broadcasting’s strengths—its values—are timeless. I’m talking about localism, diversity, and public service. I’ll work aggressively to modernize the Federal Communications Commission’s rules, cut unnecessary red tape, and give broadcasters more flexibility to serve their audiences.

[A]t the FCC’s next public meeting on May 18, we will vote on a proposal to start a comprehensive review of the FCC’s media regulations. This morning, I circulated the Public Notice to my fellow Commissioners that would kick off this review. We’ll also explore whether certain rules should be modified to provide regulatory relief to small businesses. And to be clear, while our broadcast regulations will be a critical subject of this proceeding, we will also review rules pertaining to cable and direct broadcast satellite.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Pai brings with him a love of broadcasting, a love of small businesses, a love of Kansas, and so much more. His selection may prove the catalyst for the regulatory golden age of our nation’s broadcasters.

In the grand scheme, whether to jettison the FCC is not for any of us to ultimately decide. Hearty discussions are important and should continue to be had as they can inform policymakers, in this case Congress. But the hopes for any real fundamental restructuring of the agency’s duties – or even if it should exist – will require legislation, which has proven difficult to enact for many reasons. In the meantime, the agency can address many of its flaws on its own. Better protecting the airwaves would demonstrate our commitment to a key original obligation. Additionally, reorganizing the internal structure and removing unnecessary burdens on broadcasters would line up nicely with the policy goals of many of us at the Commission. In closing, let me suggest that the new Executive Branch and Legislative Branch provide you with a wonderful opportunity – use it wisely!

Broadband networks are increasingly important to our national well-being and everyday lives. As such, we must maximize their availability and ensure that all Americans can take advantage of the variety of services that broadband enables, including 21st century health care. In this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission seeks information on how it can help enable the adoption and accessibility of broadband-enabled health care solutions, especially in rural and other underserved areas of the country. We expect to use this information to identify actions that the FCC can take to promote this important goal.

This Public Notice seeks comment, data, and information on a broad range of regulatory, policy, technical, and infrastructure issues related to the emerging broadband-enabled health and care ecosystem. Commenters should address the agency’s authority on all issues raised in this Notice. The comment, data, and information requested are intended to provide the Commission with a broader understanding and perspective on the current state of broadband health technology and other related issues; and it will also inform the Connect2Health Task Force's work and recommendations.
Comments due May 24, 2017; reply comments due June 8, 2017. [GN Docket No. 16-46]

I hope this committee will take a holistic approach when reviewing possible technology solutions. The Commission has tried to maintain a principle near and dear to me of technology neutrality. Clearly, it is not economically feasible to drag fiber to every unserved location. Instead, it will take multiple technologies. While that may make your review that much more challenging, accepting and honoring this reality will best serve everyone in the long run.
A word of warning as you prepare to examine these issues and possible solutions.

At some point I am sure, someone will argue that one solution is just to throw money at the problem. In this case, the money they talk about comes from consumers in the form of higher service fees than are necessary. I will be extremely reluctant to consider any recommendation that proposes to increase costs on everyday Americans trying to survive in today’s economy.

Over the last several years, we’ve been lectured by many that the US position on Internet governance was no longer sustainable in the larger, global community. So-called experts claimed that the US’s minimal government involvement in Internet issues was no longer a prudent approach. These “experts” added that if the US just ceded on our sound principles a little bit, authoritarian governments of the world would end their continued effort to seek increased government regulation and control of the Internet. In other words, they sought an appeasement strategy.

We now have a recent case study of this exact approach, and it doesn’t seem to have worked. Instead, some foreign governments have renewed their disturbing calls for government involvement in the Internet via a number of forums. Accordingly, it’s time to reject appeasement, acknowledge the work ahead and redouble our efforts to quash these attempts using all appropriate means.

Whether you are discussing how to address the thorny issues of access to poles, ducts, or conduit, I ask that you think about the impact your decisions will have on consumers. And when you are debating franchising model codes, I ask you to think about the impact the contours of that code will have on consumers in the franchise area. In particular, I ask that you keep the following three points in mind:
First, never overlook the effects of your policy recommendations on ensuring low-income communities are not relegated to a second-class broadband future.
Second, make sure that the broadband services you recommend for deployment, are affordable.
Third, remember that one person’s regulatory barrier, is another’s vital consumer protection, and that one person’s intransigent municipality, is another’s carefullyconsidered protector of local interests.