STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI
Re: Process Reform for Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC Applications and Petitions 
Involving Foreign Ownership, IB Docket No. 16-155.
Sigmund Freud once said that a “doctor should be opaque to his patients, and like a mirror, 
should show them nothing but what is shown to him.”
1
  But good psychiatry isn’t necessarily good 
government.  And the opacity of the Executive Branch’s Team Telecom review process proves that point.
To be sure, Team Telecom serves important national security, foreign policy, and trade policy 
interests.  But the current review process is broken.  It takes too long and lacks predictability.  My office 
has heard from many companies that complain of being held in a state of regulatory limbo, unsure of 
when a decision will come or what is responsible for the delay.
2
  This uncertainty has real-world 
consequences.  It delays and deters investment in the United States and the introduction of new services to 
the American people.
3
I am therefore pleased that the Commission is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) seeking comment on ways to streamline the Team Telecom review process in order to better 
serve the public interest.
Most notably, our proposal to establish an initial 90-day shot clock for Team Telecom review 
should substantially expedite the FCC’s processing of applications. Matters that currently remain 
pending for over a year could be resolved in just three months.  And while our proposal would allow 
Executive Branch agencies to request extensions of the shot clock, thanks to a suggestion made by 
Commissioner O’Rielly, the NPRM now proposes a hard 90-day cap on the duration of those extensions.  
We also make clear that such requests must be adequately explained by the Executive Branch, as well as 
our expectation that such extensions will be exceptions, rather than the rule.
That said, I do have concerns about some elements of the reform plan that the Executive Branch 
submitted to the FCC.  I worry that certain suggestions could increase applicants’ obligations beyond 
current legal requirements or could be counterproductive to our streamlining efforts.
First, the Executive Branch asks all applicants to certify to the Commission that they will “make 
communications to, from, or within the United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and 
location that permits them to be subject to lawful request or valid legal process under U.S. law.”
4
In its 
proposed form, this certification may stray beyond existing law by extending federal jurisdiction over 
communications that are not normally subject to U.S. government process. In addition, it raises the 
specter of data localization and repatriation requirements, which could contravene our long-standing 
policy of favoring the free flow of information.  Moreover, it could open a Pandora’s Box by inviting 
foreign nations to issue similar requests for information held by U.S.-based companies, or otherwise make 
it harder for those companies to do business abroad.
                                                     
1
Sigmund Freud, Recommendations to Physicians Practicing Psycho-Analysis, in 12 THE STANDARD EDITION OF
THE COMPLETE PSYCHOLOGICALWORKS OF SIGMUND FREUD 109, 118 (James Stachey ed. & trans., Hagarth Press 
1958) (1912).
2
See Level 3 Comments at 3–4; Sprint Comments at 3–4; TelePacific Comments at 2–3; T-Mobile Comments at 4.
3
See Sprint Comments at 3–4; T-Mobile Comments at 6.
4
NPRM at para. 31.
2Second, the Executive Branch asks the Commission to apply its proposed certification 
requirements to applicants not currently subject to Team Telecom review.  This proposal seems to directly 
contradict the purpose of this streamlining initiative.  It will increase, not decrease, the regulatory burdens 
placed on companies and the amount of paperwork they are required to fill out. In a proceeding designed 
to expedite the Team Telecom review process, I’m reluctant to impose additional requirements on 
applications that previously have had nothing to do with Team Telecom review in the first place.
Third, I’m uncertain whether responses to questions posed for purposes of Team Telecom review 
should first be submitted to the Commission or instead to the Executive Branch.  Unfortunately, I do not 
currently have confidence that the Commission can protect the sensitive commercial information that will 
be included in companies’ answers.  For instance, last year, on a party-line vote, the Commission 
weakened the standard for publicly disclosing sensitive corporate information covered by FOIA 
Exemption 4.
5
  At the time, the target of the Commission’s ire was video programmers.  But I warned 
then that the Commission’s decision would inflict a “large amount of collateral damage along the way.”
6
  
That concern echoes today as stakeholders subject to the Team Telecom process seem to doubt the FCC’s 
ability or perhaps willingness to safeguard confidential commercial information.
7
At the end of the day, however, this NPRM kicks off an important and worthwhile conversation.  
I’m hopeful that we’ll adopt rules that will expedite the Team Telecom review process without imposing 
unnecessary regulatory burdens.  I would like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to incorporate my 
suggestions and the staff of the International Bureau for their hard work in producing this NPRM so 
quickly after the Executive Branch transmitted its views.  (Team Telecom would do well to emulate your 
rapid pace.)  In the coming months, I look forward to studying the record and working cooperatively with 
my colleagues and staff to conclude this proceeding soon.
                                                     
5
See Applications of Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., and Advance/Newhouse Partnership 
for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 15-149, Order, 30 FCC 
Rcd 10360, 13401–02 (2015) (Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai, Approving in Part and Dissenting in Part).
6
Id. at 10397.
7
See Pillsbury Winthrop Comments at 2 (“Without [additional confidentiality guarantees], the increased efficiency 
in the process that the [NTIA] Letter seeks is unlikely to be realized because applicants may refrain from providing 
sensitive information upfront, which would lead to the same back and forth with Team Telecom that the Letter 
proposes to reduce.”); Wiley Rein Comments at 17 (“To provide assurance to applicants regarding the 
confidentiality of [sensitive] information, the FCC should adopt a mechanism for applicants automatically to receive 
confidential treatment of the information . . . .”).