CHARLES E GRASS LEY. iOWA. CHAIRMAN
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH PATRICK J. LEAHY, VERMONT
JEFF SESSIONS, AU,BAMA DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
LINDSEY 0, GRAHl,M, SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NEW YORK
JOHN CORNYN, TEXAS RICHARD J. DURBIN. ILLINOIS
MICHAEL S. LEE. UTAH SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLAND
TED CRUZ, TEXAS AMY KLOBUCHAR, MINNESOTA
JEFF FLAKE, ARIZONA AL FRANKEN, MINNESOTA
DAVID VITTER. LOUISIANA CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, DELAWARE
GAVID A PERDUE. GEORGIA RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT
THOM TilLIS, NORTH CAROLINA
~,,\
'tinitEd ~tatES ~EnatE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6275
Km AN L. D.Av!~, Chief Counsel ami Sudt Director
KR!STINf J. Lt,JC1US, Democ:rutic Chief Counset and Sreti Director
May 8, 2015
The Honorable Tom Wheeler
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St SW
Washington, DC 20536
Dear Chairman Wheeler:
As a co-author of the STELA Reauthorization Act (STELAR), I am writing to you about the
scope of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) effort to implement section 111 of
the Act. On March 16, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing
to reverse the longstanding presumption that cable operators are not subject to effective
competition and must establish that they are in a competitive market before receiving relief from
certain regulations. Section 111 of STELAR directed the FCC to take steps to streamline the
process for small cable operators to file effective competition petitions, but the FCC's current
rulemaking proposal appears to do much more. I strongly encourage you to separate the broader
question of whether to reverse the effective competition presumption for all cable operators from
the narrow directive Congress gave you to provide small operators with some relief.
Section 111 was purposefully focused on small cable operators, particularly those in rural areas.
In places like Vermont, small operators offer consumers a valuable service and are often a key
provider of broadband access. There is no doubt that small, rural providers face a number of
challenges. Rather than enacting wholesale changes to the regulatory regime governing all cable
companies, Congress instead focused in STELAR on leveling the playing field so that small
operators can utilize the same administrative procedures that are readily accessible to larger ones.
The FCC should take this directive at face value.
STELAR was the bipartisan product of careful negotiation between the Senate and House,
particularly on important questions of how to enact reforms to the video marketplace. The Act
reflects compromise between Democrats and Republicans, as well as with stakeholders ranging
from small cable operators to large content producers. We provided the FCC with deadlines to
adopt the reforms that were enacted to ensure that they took effect in a timely manner. It is
surprising to see our deadlines used to adopt sweeping changes to the marketplace that are much
broader than what was contemplated by the Act.
While I have heard from stakeholders who have expressed serious concerns about the broad
policy changes the FCC is proposing to adopt in the NPRM, I believe that discussion is best left
to another proceeding or legislative action. If the FCC can act within its authority and build a
record that supports making broader changes, it is within its rights to do so.
The Honorable Tom Wheeler
May 8,2015
Page 2 of2
I do not believe, however, that the STELAR implementation process and the Congressionally
mandated deadlines therein represents the appropriate vehicle to make such changes. I
encourage you to reconsider your current path and use the section 111 proceeding in the narrow
way in which Congress intended. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
~LE~
Ranking Member