HENRY A. WAXMAN, CALIFORNIA
CHAIRMAN
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
((ongregg of tbc Wnttcb~tatcg
~ouscof l\cprescntatlbcs
COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
2125 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115
Majority (202) 225-2927
Minority (202) 225-3641
April 21, 2010
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
JOE BARTON, TEXAS
RANKING MEMBER
Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and
the Internet on March 25, 2010, at the hearing entitled "Oversight ofthe Federal
Communications Commission: The National Broadband Plan."
Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are written questions for the record directed
to you from certain Members ofthe Committee. In preparing your answers, please address your
response to the Member who submitted the questions.
Please provide your responses by May 5, 20 I0, to Earley Green, Chief Clerk, via e-mail
to Earlev.Green@mail.house.gov. Please contact Earley Green or Jennifer Berenholz at (202)
225-2927 ifyou have any questions.
Sincerely,
~J~..
~enry~.Waxman
Chairman
Attachment
0664
JOHN D. DINGELL
15TH DISTRICT. MICHIGAN
CHAIRMAN EMERITUS
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CO· CHAIR
HOUSE GREAT LAKES
TASK FORCE
MEMBER
MIGRATORY 81RD
CONSERVAnON COMMISSION
Q:onyrrss of the ilnitfll~mtfs
1tlousc of ']Reprcscntatiucs
illOilshington, B\[ 20515-2215
April 6, 2010
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
ROOM 2328
RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDI G
WASHINGTO ,DC 20515-2215
{20l1 22!>-<lO71
DISTRICT OFFICES:
19855 WEST OUTER DRIVE
SUITE 10H
DEARBOR ,MI481 4
!3131 278-2936
23 EAST FRONT STREET
SUITE 103
MONROE. MI48161
(734) 243-1849
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Chairman
U.S. Federal Communications Commission
445 li
h
Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20544
Dear Chairman Genachowski:
301 WEST MICHIGAN AVENUE
SUITE 305
YPSILANTI. MI48197
1734)481-1100
Thank you for appearing at the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on
Communications, Technology, and the Intemet's March 25, 2010, hearing on the Federal
Communications Commission's recently released National Broadband Plan. I wish to
commend the Commission for completing a roadmap to ensure broadband reaches every
comer ofthe United States. As I stated at the Subcommittee's hearing, r believe the core
elements of this effort should be the promotion of broadband adoption and establishing a
support mechanism for broadband's expansion into high-cost areas of the United States.
All the same, I have great concems about several ofthe plan's recommendations
about spectrum reallocation and competition-related issues. I consider these matters
ancillary to the Congress's intent to expand national broadband access. With regard to
the former, a further loss ofspectrum may have an adverse effect on the public by
limiting consumer choice and weakening the long-cherished principles of localism and
diversity in broadcasting. Concerning the latter, I remain skeptical that the Commission
has the statutory authority with which to unbundle broadband networks and therefore
urge it not to pursue such a course ofaction for fear of its deleterious effect on further
private investment in broadband infrastructure.
So that I may better understand your position on the matters referenced above, as
well as others, I respectfully request you provide answers to the following questions. As
ordered by Subcommittee Chainnan Boucher, this letter, your responses, and the
responses of your fellow commissioners will be included in the record for the Energy and
Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Intemet's March 25,
20 I0, hearing on the ational Broadband Plan. Please provide your responses to these
questions no later than the close of business on Friday, April 16, 2010.
I. On page 92, the ational Broadband Plan states, "If the FCC does not receive
authorization to conduct incentive auctions, or if the incentive auctions do not
yield a significant amount ofspectrum, the FCC should pursue other
mechanisms." Will these "other mechanisms" be completely voluntary, as the
THIS MAILING WAS PREPARED, PUBLISHED, AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS
F'~"
The Honorable Julius Genachowski
Page 2
plan maKes patently will be the case for spectrum incentive auctions? Please
2. Does the Commission the authority, whether under the Communications
Act 1934, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or otherwise, with which to
require broadband network owners to unbundle access to their networks? Please
explain your response, including relevant citations ofstatute if you believe the
Commission does indeed possess the authority required to unbundle access to
broadband networks.
3. Do you believe unbundling access to broadband networks will have a chilling
effect on further private investments in broadband infrastructure? Please explain
your response.
4. Does the Commission eventually intend to require unbundled access to broadband
networks? Please explain your response.
5. Chapter Five ofthe National Broadband Plan mentions Wireless Communications
Services (WCS) band as a source of new spectrum. On February 16, 20 I0, I sent
a letter to the Commission highlighting my concern that opening this spectrum for
mobile broadband services may result in interference with satellite radio signals,
which reflects a 1997 declaration by Commission engineers that this would likely
be the case. Please indicate unequivocally ("yes" or "no") whether there will be
interference with satellite radio signals if WCS spectrum is opened for use by
mobile broadband devices. Further, please describe what specific actions the
Commission will take to ensure there is no interference, including the safeguards
the Commission will require to stop any interference that may arise.
6. Will the Commission provide advance notice ofthe WCS rules, publish them, and
allow for public comment prior to their implementation?
7. As you may be aware, I am a long-time supporter ofpublic broadcasting, or what
the National Broadband Plan refers to as "public media." As such, I appreciate
the plan's acknowledgement that public media playa vital and unique role in our
democracy. On page 92, however, the plan calls for "a trust fund for digital
public media that is endowed by the revenues from a voluntary auction of
spectrum licensed to public television," which I believe is something that cannot
be done without an act of I would imagine our country's public
television would be cautious about this approach. If no public tpl'''1I,c,r,n
statIon volunteers this proposed will the reallocate
spectrum your res;pons1e.
8. The National Broadband Plan notes that public media are at a with
respelct to content delivery. Though is a plethora ofdigitally distributed
eonte:nt, our public system is predominantly around broadcast-
National will the
The Honorable Julius Genachowki
Pag 3
Commission propose amendments to the Public Broadca ting Act? If 0, please
provide those amendments and detailed explanations ofthem, including why thev
are necessary.
9. \Vhat is the exact number ofrecommendations the National Broadband Plan
makes to the Congress? Please provide a complete list oftho e recommendation.
In addition, please provide a complete list ofthe items in the plan that require
congressional action or additional authority from the Congres including an
explanation ofsuch action an . or additional authority.
Thank you for your kind attention to my request. I believe your responses will be
invaluable to shaping congressional and public discourse on the National Broadband
Plan. Should you have any questions about this or other matters, please feel free to
contact me directly or have a member ofyour staff contact Andrew Woelfling in my
office at 202-225-4071.
With every good wish,
cc: The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Rick Boucher, Chairman
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet
The Honorable Cliff team, Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet
 
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 
 
1. AWS-3 Spectrum Deployment 
The Commission and its staff have demonstrated a sense of urgency in drafting this 
Report.  I’m convinced, based on the testimony presented here, that the Commission 
recognizes the need for speed.  But I continue to have some concerns, especially 
when it comes to spurring competition with new and innovative uses of the spectrum.  
Too many entrenched interests seem to be able to stop new ideas from taking root 
through delaying tactics that keep spectrum concentrated in the hands of larger 
carriers. 
 
The Commission has to work together in an expeditious fashion to deploy already 
available spectrum.  If we’re going to see that 100 megabits reach 100 million homes 
the FCC has to begin to complete rulemakings faster so that we see immediate action.  
I am disappointed that the Advanced Wireless Spectrum (3) was not recommended 
for immediate deployment – that’s a proceeding that was teed up years ago.  
Businesses can’t be expected to participate in a hackneyed process that leaves them 
wondering and losing money for years. 
 
Also, I have heard that the Department of Defense's (DOD) 1755-1780 MHz 
spectrum band that the National Broadband Plan is considering pairing with AWS-3 
is currently jam packed with vital systems including drones for air strikes in 
Afghanistan and Pakistan and border security here at home, and that the systems in 
that band cost over $100 billion and cannot be relocated until 2030.  Could you 
comment on this matter? 
 
2. Since there is no evidence or data in the National Broadband Plan supporting this 
possible pairing, did anyone at the Commission contact DOD officials to get the real 
picture on reallocating DOD’s spectrum during the preparation of the National 
Broadband Plan? 
 
If so, please make available to me and my colleagues the data from the DoD or the 
Administration suggesting the possibility of reallocating federal spectrum to pair with 
the AWS-3 band. 
 
3. I want to know what you will do individually to move us forward.  If you don’t find 
paired spectrum by the October deadline outlined in the report, will you actually 
auction the spectrum and put it in use as soon as possible? 
 
4. With this in mind, I did not see any immediate, specific recommended actions in the 
Plan that would have the FCC create new broadband competition through the use of 
spectrum.  What specific actions will you be taking in the short term, say in the next 3 
months, that will provide spectrum so we can help create new entrants to the 
broadband market? 
 
5. Next Generation 911 
I was pleased to see a specific reference to funding for Next Generation 911.  As you 
know, I joined with my colleague, John Shimkus, the Co-Chair of the E911 Caucus, 
to offer bipartisan, bicameral legislation to renew grants for 9-1-1 call center 
technology, and to move that technology into the next developmental phase.  Have 
you had the opportunity to review the legislation and could you give me your opinion 
about the need for H.R. 4829? 
 
6. Special Access 
I was glad to see that the Plan includes several references to making sure that special 
access rates are just and reasonable.  As we all know, these circuits provide critical 
connections for wireless services – including backhaul for wireless providers to small 
businesses using ATM’s, to the largest retail chains placing orders with their 
vendors.  I have LONG advocated that the Commission look into the pricing and 
competition of special access services and I’m glad to see that it is a priority.   Are 
you confident that you have the legal authority to move ahead? 
 
7. Affordability 
The National Broadband Plan doesn’t provide specifics on how to achieve bringing 
more broadband connectivity to low income and rural homes in this country, other 
than through use of the Universal Service Fund.  Will the FCC work more closely 
with HUD to expand this needed technology? 
 
8. I’m concerned that low income homes will get hooked up, but the residents will be 
unable to maintain monthly payments.  Once low income and rural households do 
acquire broadband technology, what can be done to assure that the monthly service 
charge is kept to a minimum so that the service may be maintained? 
 
9. Competition Questions 
The National Broadband Plan observes that there is not a coherent and effective 
framework governing the Commission’s wholesale competition regulations, including 
wireless roaming policies. Indeed, the FCC’s current wireless roaming rule expressly 
permits the nation’s largest wireless carriers to discriminate or exclude large 
geographic areas altogether in providing wholesale roaming services to their 
competitors. As the Plan notes, such conduct undermines longstanding competition 
policy objectives by limiting the ability of smaller carriers to gain access to the 
necessary inputs to compete.  How do you intend to address this important wholesale 
competition issue in the context of wireless roaming services? 
 
10. The National Broadband Plan acknowledges the importance of data roaming to entry 
and competition for mobile broadband services.  But the FCC’s present voice 
roaming rule contains an "in-market" exclusion that expressly permits carriers to deny 
roaming service to their competitors’ customers in large portions of their licensed 
territories. This exclusion, if replicated in the data roaming context, would appear to 
severely undercut the Commission’s stated goal in the Plan of achieving "wide, 
seamless and competitive coverage."  How does the Commission intend to address 
this problem?  
 
11. Public Television – Broadcast Spectrum Issue 
As you know, public television stations are very different from commercial television 
stations with respect to their funding, their programming, their mission and the 
efficient manner in which they use spectrum to serve the public interest.  Public 
television stations also have been confronting extraordinary fiscal challenges during 
the past 18 months.  As the Commission looks ahead to rulemakings announced in the 
National Broadband Plan to reclaim 120 MHz of spectrum from broadcasters, can 
you give us assurances that public television stations will be protected from 
involuntary reallocations of spectrum? 
 
12. Would you elaborate on the sequencing of the rulemakings for reclaiming the 
broadcast spectrum and the creation of incentive auctions in the National Broadband 
Plan?  As you know, only the Congress can authorize the creation of incentive 
spectrum auctions in which the contributors of spectrum could receive some of the 
proceeds.  I am particularly interested in the proposal for the creation of a digital 
media trust fund to be created from the proceeds of incentive auctions of spectrum 
contributed by public television stations.  If Congress does not authorize such 
incentive auctions, will these other rulemakings go forward in any event? 
 
The Honorable Cliff Stearns 
 
1. Does the broadband plan lay out any cost-benefit analyses? How many dollars should 
we spend for each additional broadband subscriber we create and each additional 
megabit-per-second we provide? $1,000? $10,000? $100,000? Will you commit to 
providing these sort of cost-benefit analysis before adopting any item in the plan? 
 
2. The broadband plan proposes expanding the E-rate program, but the GAO found in 
1998, 1999, 2005, and 2009 that the FCC has not developed adequate performance 
goals and measures for the E-rate program, despite GAO’s repeated requests. If we 
cannot tell how effective and efficient past E-rate spending has been, how can we be 
assured expansion will be done properly or is even a good idea in the first place? Will 
you commit to submitting E-rate performance measures and goals to GAO and to us 
for approval before anyone considers expanding the program? 
 
3. The broadband plan recommends providing more spectrum for unlicensed use. A 
2008 paper by the FCC’s Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis indicates 
that the most efficient way to allocate spectrum for unlicensed use would be to do so 
by auction. If the sum of the bids of those seeking unlicensed use exceeds the bid of 
the highest bidder seeking licensed use, the spectrum would go to the unlicensed use. 
This would not only ensure the spectrum is allocated efficiently, it could raise 
substantial revenue. Will you commit to seeking comment on the use of auctions in 
any proceeding regarding potential distribution of additional unlicensed spectrum? 
 
4. Some questions were raised at the hearing that spectrum that might otherwise be 
paired with the AWS-III spectrum for commercial mobile broadband use may be 
needed for use with military drones. But didn’t a Department of Defense report 
released to the public in 2009 indicate that most current and future high-capacity 
spectrum used domestically and abroad for drone flights over about 150 km is on 
frequencies far from the spectrum that could be paired with the AWS-III spectrum? 
Won’t they mainly use the X-Band from 8 to 12 MHz, the Ku-Band from 11.5 to 14.5 
GHz, and the Ka Band from 26.5 to 40 GHz for mission critical operations? Aren’t 
there also line-of-sight and other issues for most non-satellite spectrum under 3 GHz 
that limits its use for most drone missions? And if, other than for testing, the drones 
are mainly used overseas, will there really be much of an interference issue with 
commercial use here? 
 
The Honorable Fred Upton 
 
1. I appreciated your comment at the hearing that the FCC would make sure that any 
changes in the Wireless Communications System rules do not result in interference to 
satellite radio consumers. My understanding, however, is that the FCC engineering 
staff is proposing rules that will allow for at least some interference with satellite 
radio. What specific actions will the Commission take to ensure that level of 
interference is not unacceptable to consumers? 
 
 
The Honorable John Shadegg 
 
1. The National Broadband plan mentions special access circuits and analyzing 
competition in the middle mile – do you anticipate going forward with a request for 
data soon so we can address this issue? 
 
 
 
 
The Honorable Steve Buyer 
 
1. Broadband providers have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in recent years to build 
and improve their infrastructure and creating jobs at a time when the job market has been in 
trouble.   The broadband industry is projecting to invest additional billion of dollars in the 
coming year – again providing an engine of economic growth.  As one of the few industries 
of strength and investment, past decisions at the FCC to not saddle the Internet with heavy 
regulation clearly demonstrate that a less regulatory environment is working.  Why are you 
proposing that the FCC now pivot away from these policies and impose 19
th
-century 
common carrier monopoly regulation on a 21
st
 century competitive industry, disrupting the 
virtuous cycle that currently exists?  If it’s not broken, why fix it?  
 
2. Recommendation 4.7 implies that the FCC should mandate the unbundling of fiber.  Why?  It 
is my understanding from previous testimony by the FCC that this issue was settled.  Such a 
recommendation makes no sense because fiber deployment has gone up dramatically in 
recent years since the FCC confirmed that it was not subject to unbundling in the Triennial 
Review Order of 2003, which deregulated some of those components.  Can you explain the 
legal basis on which the FCC could undertake to reverse itself on this matter?  What 
findings/analysis would be required?  What decisions would need to be reversed?   
 
3. Do you think that there would be the same level of fiber deployment today if the FCC had 
not decided in 2003 to end the mandatory unbundling of such facilities?  
 
4. If the FCC is going to revisit its decision not to require unbundling of packet and fiber 
facilities, a decision that I think would severely damage broadband investment, do you 
believe that packet/fiber unbundling should apply only to ILECs, or to cable operators as 
well?  I’m not arguing for more regulation – but I am trying to get a sense for whether you 
will commit not to disadvantage one technology, business model, or competitor in future 
rulemakings.    
 
5. For years I have been an advocate of encouraging and providing incentives for companies to 
take risks by developing and investing their own infrastructure.  The NBP appears to take a 
step back on many fronts, including special access.  Evidence shows that plenty of 
competition exists and prices have decreased – showing the market is working.  Rolling back 
pricing flexibility – thereby lowering rates through further regulation – would only encourage 
less competition and less innovation.  Why does this FCC leadership insist on providing less 
competition to the marketplace? 
 
6. The telecommunications industry has been a significant leader in America’s economic engine 
in both times of economic strength and times of challenge.  Why does the NBP open the door 
to reclassifying broadband back to the old monopoly era phone service which will stifle 
investment and growth of the industry and innovation?  
 
7. Many people, including Commissioner Clyburn, have raised concerns that the FCC’s plan to 
reallocate broadcast spectrum to wireless broadband could have a disproportionately negative 
impact on minority and female-owned stations. Drafters of the broadband plan admit that 
“the reallocation mechanisms could impact the number and diversity of ‘voices’ in a 
community or market” and recommend simply that the FCC “study” this potential impact.  
Do you think that the purported benefits of more expansive wireless broadband outweigh the 
benefits of a diversified local media? 
 
8. The National Broadband Plan recommends that Congress grant the FCC and NTIA authority 
to impose spectrum fees on spectrum not licensed for flexible use. The Plan quotes the 
Government Accountability Office, which says that “these fees mimic the functions of the 
market.” In your view, do spectrum fees “mimic the market,” or is this a manipulation of the 
market by the government and a way to force certain licensees off the band?  Please explain 
your views. 
 
9. How do the FCC’s reallocation mechanisms affect low-power TV stations and translators? In 
many western TV markets, as many as 30 percent of over-the-air viewers rely on TV 
translators or boosters for their service. Would a broadcast “repack” negatively impact these 
viewers? Why or why not? 
 
10. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg recently said that he “does not buy into the idea” that 
broadcast spectrum should be reallocated for wireless broadband and that “technology will 
tend to solve” any possible spectrum shortage. This seems to contradict the National 
Broadband Plan findings that a spectrum shortage is inevitable. Is it possible, in your view, 
that advances in wireless technology can keep pace with demand and that more spectrum 
may not be the primary answer? 
 
11. It is important to ensure our first responders have an uninterrupted safety network.  First 
responders currently work with broadcasters who utilize their spectrum to deliver emergency 
messages and information to their local communities.  The NBP outlines the taking of 
spectrum from some entities, like broadcasters, when there has not yet been a complete 
inventory of spectrum allocation, as posed in H.R. 3125, the Radio Spectrum Inventory 
Act.  Why is the NBP getting ahead of the game by allocating spectrum when we don't have 
a clear understanding of what exactly there is to allocate? 
The Honorable Mike Rogers 
 
1. A group of cable and satellite companies recently weighed in with Congress and the 
FCC complaining about the so-called retransmission consent process.  Congress 
established retransmission consent as a free market negotiation between distributors 
and broadcasters. 
 
These distributors are asking for the government to meddle in these negotiations with 
broadcasters.  
 
It is concerning for me to hear appeals for the Federal government to intervene and 
affect potential progress at the negotiation table. Government intervention can make it 
much more difficult for private parties to determine the fair-market value of the 
property in question.   
 
a. Do you share my concern about the unintended consequences of the 
government even considering intervention in the marketplace? 
    
b. Do you believe you that the Communications Act grants the Commission the 
authority to intervene in these private negotiations? 
 
2. As we all know, broadband is central to our economic recovery and we are grateful to 
have the benefit of a plan to guide us.  While the Plan recognizes the strides we have 
made in deploying broadband to Americans, it also discusses areas that the 
Commission believes is impeding that deployment.  In particular, the broadband plan 
discusses the special access market.    
 
a. Would you please discuss your vision on the way forward with the special 
access market?  
 
b. When discussing the wire line competition recommendations in Chapter 4 of 
the National Broadband plan, did you have in mind any specific type of 
customer?   
 
c. Does Chapter 4 of the National Broadband plan impose any restrictions or 
limitations as to the class of customer for which these services would be made 
available? 
 
 
 
The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 
 
1. I note in your testimony that this is a plan that is in beta form and that it should 
change in light of new developments.  As you may know, the core copyright 
industries contributed close to one-quarter of the real growth achieved by the U.S. 
economy as a whole in 2006-07.  How do we ensure both robust broadband 
deployment and the protection of the intellectual property of those copyright 
industries which contribute greatly to our growth of our economy? 
 
2. The National Broadband Plan notes that, “piracy is still present in the broadband 
ecosystem.”  But the Plan also recommends that Congress take legislative action to 
“encourage copyright holders to grant educational digital rights of use, without 
prejudicing their other rights.”   As you know, this is a very complicated area of 
intellectual property law that clearly falls outside the jurisdiction of the FCC.  Are 
there other recommendations in the FCC Plan could impact U.S. Copyright Policy?  
Also, can you give me your assurances that the FCC will not make any 
recommendations for modification to U.S. copyright law without the involvement of 
the two expert agencies that have primary jurisdiction over copyright issues, namely 
the PTO and Copyright Office? 
 
3. Did the FCC analyze the impact of broadband expansion on copyright piracy in other 
countries, like South Korea, and other than noting that "“piracy is still present in the 
broadband ecosystem," does the Plan have any recommendations for making sure that 
broadband expansion does not increase the amount of piracy of US copyrighted 
works?