Draining the FCC swamp...
It's about time.
Regards
Craig
On Feb 7, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2017/02/07/setting-record-straight-digital-divide
Setting the Record Straight on the Digital Divide
February 7, 2017 - 12:45 pm
By Ajit Pai | FCC Chairman
In my first remarks as Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to
the agency’s terrific staff, I stressed that one of my top priorities would
be to close the digital divide — the gap between “those who can use
cutting-edge communications services and those who do not.†I’ve explored
that divide for myself in places like Barrow, Alaska; Los Angeles,
California; Clay, West Virginia; and many more places. Now that I’m at the
helm of the agency, I’m determined to address it.
We’ve already hit the ground running. In the first vote under my
Chairmanship, I worked with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Senator Charles
Schumer, Representative Chris Collins, and other officials to direct $170
million in federal funding to build out broadband in upstate New York to
places that are currently unserved.
In the second week of my Chairmanship, I shared with my colleagues and set
votes for February 23 on two detailed proposals for closing the digital
divide. One of them would direct billions of dollars — with a “b†—
over a decade toward making sure that all parts of this country have 4G LTE
coverage. (Currently, there are too many gaps where your phone displays “No
Service†— as I saw for myself during a recent drive from Wichita, Kansas
to Des Moines, Iowa.) The other would allocate nearly $2 billion — again
with a “b†— for advancing fixed broadband service across the country.
With more connectivity, more Americans than ever before will have digital
opportunity.
Finally, I’ve engaged with Members of Congress about my proposal for
Gigabit Opportunity Zones. Under this infrastructure plan, the government
would use tax incentives to encourage the deployment of ultra-fast broadband
in lower-income areas as small as an urban city block and as large as a rural
county. It would also encourage entrepreneurs to take advantage of these
next-generation networks by creating jobs in those areas. Gigabit Opportunity
Zones would enable Americans to become participants in, rather than
spectators of, the digital economy. They would be a powerful solution to the
digital divide. I hope our elected officials will give the idea serious
consideration.
* * *
At the same time, one recent FCC 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.
First, our action only impacted 9 of the over 900 providers participating in
the Lifeline program. In other words, 99% of the companies participating in
the program are not affected at all.
Second, the applications of these nine providers to participate in the
program have not been rejected. They simply remain pending at the Commission.
Third, all but one of the newly designated providers covered by the order do
not yet have any customers.
Fourth, the prior FCC disregarded the well-established process for approving
applications like these. As the National Tribal Telecommunications
Association pointed out, several of the providers had never coordinated their
applications with Tribes, despite an FCC rule clearly requiring them to do
so. These Tribal representatives thus requested that the designations be
reversed. Moreover, two of the designated providers were approved in the
middle of the 30-day period for public comment — that is, before the public
even had a chance to weigh in on the designation. Whatever one thinks of the
merits of these applications, that was plainly improper.
Fifth, many of these designations were approved in the last days of the last
Administration (two days before Inauguration Day), over the objections of two
of the four Commissioners, despite the fact that the FCC’s congressional
oversight committees had requested that the Commission not take controversial
actions during the transition between Administrations (consistent with the
request from those same committees during the Republican-to-Democrat
transition in 2008–09). Thus, a majority of Commissioners never supported
approval of these designations.
Sixth, every dollar that is spent on subsidizing somebody who doesn’t need
the help by definition does not go to someone who does. That means that the
Commission needs to make sure that there are strong safeguards against waste,
fraud, and abuse before expanding the program to new providers. But consider:
◾The National Verifier — which is a new database that is intended to
verify eligibility to participate in the Lifeline program — does not
currently exist and will not start operating until the end of 2017. Further,
it is not scheduled to cover all states until 2019.
â—¾My investigation last year into these matters revealed serious weaknesses
in federal safeguards, allowing providers to indiscriminately override checks
that are supposed to prevent wasteful and fraudulent activities. (These
checks include common-sense steps like verifying the identity of would-be
Lifeline recipients.) From October 2014 until June 2016, wireless resellers
had overridden such safeguards 4,291,647 times in total.
â—¾The investigation also uncovered other loopholes, including one that let a
company claim subsidies for approximately 22,000 phantom subscribers each
month in the state of Michigan.
Seventh and finally, there is a serious question as to whether the FCC has
the legal authority to designate Lifeline providers or whether such
designations must be made by state governments, as has long been the norm.
Indeed, well before the prior FCC issued these last-minute designations,
state regulatory agencies had filed a substantial legal challenge to the
entire process of the FCC designating Lifeline Broadband Providers, arguing
that it’s unlawful, and the FCC itself recently asked the court for
additional time to consider this issue. For instance, Section 214 of the
Communications Act explicitly says that states must make designations for
purposes of allowing companies to receive Lifeline subsidies. The FCC has
repeatedly, and for many years, recognized states’ primary role in this
area. By preempting the states’ role in certification, the federal
designations appear to run afoul of this legal framework. Putting the
designations on hold gives the FCC the chance to make sure the process is
legally defensible and to avoid potentially stranding customers if the courts
ultimately deem the process unlawful.
Hyperbolic headlines always attract more attention than mundane truths. For
example, a story detailing how the FCC was undertaking further review of the
eligibility of 1% of Lifeline providers wouldn’t generate too many clicks.
That’s long been the case in policy debates, of course. But at the end of
the day, my focus has been — and will continue to be so long as I have the
privilege of serving as the Chairman of the FCC — doing everything within
the FCC’s power to close the digital divide. I am committed, both by belief
and by law, to ensuring that the agency is focused on the 21st century
version of our 20th century charge: “to make available, so far as possible,
to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis
of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient,
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with
adequate facilities at reasonable charges.†We’ve made progress over the
past few weeks, and we’ll do more in the time to come to benefit all
Americans.
¢çCRP‚D€D~º&¶Ž¥éÃMYb²Ø§·
0k+²)ඔ5%H$HG(šf§v)ò¢êî±êÜ¢wâ‚êÚ¶*'±ëmŠx,jÑkyââ²Û(®r±éÝŠx™ë,j¢Š^Ûoê®zË_祊Ël¢¸0ŠØm…ì(Û§²æìr¸›z)í…ë.n7œ¶X§