Federal Communications Commission

Each month, the Federal Communications Commission holds a monthly meeting at which Commissioners vote on proposals and orders drafted by the agency’s various Bureaus and Offices. Routinely after each vote in which an item is adopted, the Commission votes to grant the staff of the relevant Bureaus and Offices “editorial privileges”—that is, the power to make changes to the documents that the Commissioners have just voted upon. Two years ago, Commissioner O’Rielly began raising concerns about the process of granting editorial privileges. Specifically, he has suggested that such privileges currently are too broad, insofar as they extend to substantive edits. Filling in a citation in a document is one thing; changing the meaning of that document is another. I believe that Commissioner O’Rielly’s view has merit.

Accordingly, we are going to make changes to the process. Specifically, beginning at this month’s FCC meeting on February 23, editorial privileges granted to Bureaus and Offices will extend only to technical and conforming edits to items. Any substantive changes made to items following a meeting must be proposed by a Commissioner. Moreover, substantive changes to items should only be made in cases in which they are required, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, as a response to new arguments made in a Commissioner’s dissenting statement. I thank Commissioner O’Rielly for his hard work on the issue of process reform and look forward to implementing more of his suggestions going forward.

I write to commend [the House Communications Subcommittee] for the recent hearing to consider the reauthorization of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)...the Subcommittee should be applauded for exploring ways to expediate the repurposing of spectrum now solely or primarily allocated for federal government functions to commercial use. As the Subcommittee continues its review, I respectfully suggest that it look closely at the proposal to enact Agency Spectrum Fees as a means to improve government spectrum efficiency. Imposing a cost for spectrum holdings -- even if conservative or undervalued -- to federal agency annual budgets will serve as an appropriate and necessary stick to force agencies to retain bandwidth assignment only if absolutely necessary to further their particular missions.

The Commission delegated authority to the Media Bureau (Bureau) to, among other things, develop a catalog of eligible reimbursement expenses (Catalog) to facilitate the process of reimbursing eligible broadcasters and Multichannel Video Programming Distributors (MVPDs) from the $1.75 billion TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund (Fund). The Catalog is a non-exhaustive list, organized by category, of the equipment and services broadcasters and MVPDs are most likely to incur as a result of the 39-month post-incentive auction broadcast transition.

I am instituting an important process reform measure to enable Commissioners to become more fully involved in the agency’s enforcement activities.
One of the ways in which the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau resolves an investigation is by entering into a consent decree, in which the party being investigated agrees to comply with certain terms in exchange for the government closing its inquiry. But over the past few years, in cases in which the full Commission has previously voted to propose and/or impose a forfeiture, such consent decrees have generally not been presented to the Commissioners for a vote. Instead, they have simply been signed by the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the direction of the Chairman’s Office. Indeed, many times, Commissioners were barely given any notice of such consent decrees before they were publicly released by the Bureau.
That process ends now. If Commissioners vote to propose and/or impose a forfeiture, the Enforcement Bureau should not settle that matter without their approval. Therefore, I have instructed the Enforcement Bureau that starting today, any consent decree settling a Notice of Apparent Liability or Forfeiture Order issued by the full Commission must now be approved by a vote of the full Commission. This will help promote Commissioners’ involvement in and accountability for important enforcement decisions.
We are putting this reform into practice immediately. This afternoon, the Enforcement Bureau circulated a consent decree for the Commission’s consideration that would conclude an important investigation previously approved by the full Commission. I look forward to working closely with my colleagues on that matter and other consumer protection efforts in the months to come.

In this Order, the Federal Communications Commission’s Wireline Competition Bureau grants two limited waivers of the requirement to comply with certain category of service classification standards established in the funding year 2017 E-rate Eligible Services List.

First, we waive the obligation to apply the FY 2017 ESL classification standards to connections provided under pre-existing multi-year contracts if doing so would change the eligibility of the connections from Category Two to Category One. Second, for funding year 2017 applications, we waive the requirement to classify connections between different schools and libraries sharing a single building as Category One services. Pursuant to this waiver, applicants may elect to seek Category Two funding for customer-owned or -controlled inside wiring that connects different schools and libraries within the same building

For Federal Communications Commission rules and procedures to be truly effective, everyone needs to know with a certain level of confidence what will happen if applicable deadlines are missed. Not only does this not exist today, but the Commission’s inconsistency with how it responds to late filings borders on arbitrary and capricious. To rectify, I suggest it is time to establish a universally-applied policy that, from now on, everyone is expected to either comply with all applicable deadlines or face the consequences.

Let’s remove the ambiguity and wide disparity of approaches once and for all. As it stands now, the FCC is unintentionally favoring some parties over others through its disparate treatment of its deadlines. Moreover, combining a short amnesty window to rectify current instances where licensees may not be in compliance with the implementation of firm deadlines, going forward, would help restore administrative certainty, transparency, parity, and confidence in our enforcement process.

One recent Federal Communications Commission decision has caused some controversy of late. Specifically, some have asked why the agency’s Wireline Competition Bureau issued an order reconsidering nine companies’ eligibility to participate in the Lifeline program, which aims to help make voice and broadband more affordable to low-income Americans. It’s vital that low-income Americans have access to communications services, including broadband Internet, which Lifeline helps to achieve.

Unfortunately, many of the media headlines have sensationalized this story and given some an entirely misleading impression of what is going on. Indeed, based on the some of the coverage, one would think that we had ended Lifeline broadband subsidies altogether. So I want to set the record straight about the modest steps we have taken and why we have taken them.

I am pleased to announce that the Federal Communications Commission will be implementing two additional process reform measures—each of which has been proposed by one of the two other FCC commissioners.

First, Commissioner Clyburn has suggested that when the agency releases the text of meeting items, we should also release a one-page fact sheet that summarizes the proposal in question. She notes that this could make the item that we release accessible to more Americans. I agree. The FCC will do this beginning with the release of any items for the March meeting.
Second, Commissioner O’Rielly has proposed that any substantive edits made to an item between the time it is circulated and the meeting at which we vote on it should have to be proposed by a Commissioner, rather than staff. This reform will help promote accountability and allow Commissioners to better understand where edits are coming from. We will therefore implement this reform immediately.

With these changes and others that have been announced in the last few days, we are off to a strong start on the issue of process reform. But there is still much more to do. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues on improving the Commission’s operations.

It is 9:10 am on Monday, February 6, 2017, and I am sitting in the courtroom without my cellphones. Like many who find themselves disconnected from their mobile device(s) for any length of time, I feel extremely uncomfortable and detached from the rest of the world. But whatever my discomfort, it pales in comparison to the day-to-day economic and personal torture felt by millions who remain on the wrong side of the economic justice divide and struggle to stay in touch with incarcerated loved ones.

Innocent or guilty, too often poor and disenfranchised, millions of mostly black and brown families suffer mightily. They suffer because we who are sworn to serve them have turned our backs on the nation's most vulnerable communities. We are quick to judge and do not think twice as we ignore the plight of the families, friends and representatives of those imprisoned, but awaiting their day in court, and the millions of others who have been sentenced and are serving time: rightly, wrongly or unfairly. But the most callous indictment of us all, is how little we appear to care about the 2.7 million children, the ailing grandmothers and the other often-destitute family members who pay a heavy price just for picking up the phone and keeping in touch.

The Federal Communications Commission will accept nominations for the Sixth Chairman’s Awards for Advancement in Accessibility (Chairman’s AAA) beginning February 13, 2017 through April 13, 2017 for products, services, technologies or practices introduced to the public between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016.

The Chairman’s AAA are part of an FCC effort designed to recognize the efforts of individuals, organizations, academic institutions, companies and government agencies to make communications tools more accessible to people with disabilities. Since the Chairman’s AAA were first launched in 2010 at the FCC’s celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Chairman’s AAA have been awarded on five occasions to recognize outstanding private and public sector ventures designed to encourage technological innovation and advance communications accessibility for people with disabilities.