1Remarks of Michael O’Rielly, Federal Communications Commission
Representative Dave Brat (R-VA) Town Hall
Spotsylvania, Virginia
September 23, 2015
I would like to start by thanking Congressman Brat for inviting me to this Town Hall today.  I 
always appreciate the opportunity to travel outside of DC and hear directly from communities about the 
importance of broadband at home, at work, at schools, and on the go.  I have had discussions around the 
country, in places like Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Pilot Point, Alaska; Lawrence, Kansas; Baxter, Iowa; 
and most recently, Bozeman, Montana. I have learned something from every visit, and I take those 
lessons back to the Federal Communications Commission or FCC, where I work, to promote better access 
to communications services.
But there is a special reason why I agreed to appear before you today.  Over twenty-two years 
ago, I started working in Washington D.C. for former Congressman Tom Bliley, who at the time
represented this community in Congress.  I hope many of you have fond memories, as I do, of 
Congressman Bliley’s time in the House of Representatives. During my time in his personal office,  I 
often travelled to this very part of Virginia on his behalf working on a number of policy issues, in 
cooperation with his state staff.  If you wrote or called the Congressman’s DC office on a handful of 
subjects, you may have talked to me, or I may have helped prepare the first draft of a letter response that 
ended up in your hands. In fairness, I should admit that I moved from the Congressman’s personal office 
to his Committee team after one year. And it is there that I started working on communications policy 
issues on a full time basis and hopefully gained policy expertise that I brought with me to my current role.
For those of you that may not be familiar, the FCC was created by Congress to oversee the 
communications industry. That spans everything from telephone companies, broadcast stations, wireless 
providers, and satellite companies, to broadband deployment. The FCC is led by a Chairman, who sets the 
agenda for the agency, and four Commissioners. I am one of those Commissioners.
I understand that broadband access is one of your top interests, so if you will indulge me I’d like 
to say a few words on that topic. But I find it more valuable to hear what is on your minds and answer 
any questions I can, be it on broadband or other issues.  So I will save the bulk of my time for that 
purpose. 
One of the tasks that Congress charged the FCC with is to ensure that consumers in all regions of 
the Nation have access to communications services. Through private investment and a specific FCC-
managed, consumer-supported, federal universal service fund, nearly all Americans have access to voice 
service. 
However, when it comes to broadband, millions remain unserved, particularly in rural parts of the 
country.  When I say unserved, I am not talking about those that can’t get the 25 Mbps speeds that the 
Commission has set as the minimum benchmark for broadband.  I mean those that have no service at all, 
or service that is often so slow that they cannot even reliably send or receive emails. In looking at the 
maps of Virginia broadband offerings, I suspect some of you are very familiar with what I am talking 
about. 
The relevant question some of you may have is what is the FCC doing to help these unserved 
Americans?  Through the FCC’s universal service high-cost program, we provide financial subsidy 
support to broadband providers and, in return, require them to build out to nearly all of the high-cost 
portions of their areas.  These “high-cost areas” are places where there is no business case to provide 
broadband, so they would remain unserved absent support.  All in all, the Commission distributes over $4 
2billion annually on this important function. As part of this effort, the FCC has taken steps to ensure that 
funding is not used in areas already served by another provider that does not receive support, such as a 
cable competitor, in order to target scarce funds to the places that need it the most. By way of 
background, the funding for this program comes from fees that consumers pay on a portion of their phone 
bills. As such, the Commission has the obligation to be responsible stewards of these consumer dollars.
There is a certain school of thought that the Federal government should not be involved in 
providing subsidies to build-out broadband nationwide. Some argue, after all, that those without 
broadband tend to live in more remote parts and always have the option of relocating to some place where 
broadband is more prevalent if they find it that important to their lives. While this may result in a lively 
debate, it is not my job to question the wisdom of Congressional decisions but to carry them out. More 
importantly, broadband is one of the unique technologies that actually can reduce distances and allow 
Americans to work, raise families, and experience life from nearly anywhere. Whereas the building of 
our national highway system may have made it easier for people to leave for our cities, broadband allows 
people, especially our youth, to stay in their local communities. No longer do people need to congregate 
in one specific place for a business to succeed. In a growing number of instances people can – and do –
work anywhere their hearts desire – if they only have a broadband connection. 
What does this mean for the more rural parts of Virginia and specifically this area?  I understand 
that you fall within the territories of two large wireline companies.  The FCC recently offered each of 
them support to provide broadband in the high-cost portions that are not already served by a competitor.  
Because many parts of the district are fortunate enough to have access to cable or other broadband 
service, the areas eligible for federal support were somewhat limited.  Remember the Commission is 
focusing its subsidies where there are no alternative providers. One company accepted our offer of
support and will be required to provide broadband to over 1,000 locations.  The other company turned 
down the FCC’s offer of support.  But there is still a path forward for those residents.  
In the coming months, the FCC is intending to conduct a competitive bidding process to identify 
and provide funding to providers that are interested in serving the more than 7,500 locations that were 
eligible for support.  That could potentially be a wireline provider, a cable company, or a fixed wireless 
provider—as long as the provider is able to offer broadband that meets the FCC’s speed and other 
performance requirements at rates that are reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.  Moreover, the
number of eligible locations could grow if the Commission decides to expand the areas that will be part of 
the competitive bidding process when it adopts final rules.
In addition to updating the universal service fund, the FCC is taking other steps to promote 
broadband deployment.  For example, the FCC has been working to release more licensed and unlicensed 
spectrum into the marketplace to help meet skyrocketing demand for mobile data.  In the next five years, 
it is expected that mobile data traffic will multiply by a factor of seven and there will be over one million 
mobile connected devices in this country.  The FCC also needs to review its wireless buildout rules and 
policies, as well as other technical requirements, to ensure that they encourage, rather than hinder, 
network expansion.  That is the policy side of the Commission’s activities, which I am working hard to 
make happen. Part of this will require cooperation by the local governments. The simple fact is that 
wireless providers are going to need to install thousands of new facilities to provide service. I get the fact 
that not everyone likes the ascetics of towers but they are a necessity for wireless broadband. For those 
local governments that stall or try to block tower siting, know that you will see the Commission step in 
with appropriate authority to push things forward. 
Additionally, we need to remove other barriers to deployment, including eliminating unnecessary 
regulations that divert resources away from investment. All too often, the FCC adopts new rules and 
reporting requirements without considering the costs they impose on providers. Moreover, once rules are 
3adopted, they tend to remain on the books indefinitely--outliving any value they may have had years ago 
in a very different regulatory and competitive landscape.  So we have work to do on our side to provide 
greater enticement for broadband providers to take the risk to invest in less populated areas. 
I appreciate your interest in these issues, which brought you out here and away from family and 
other commitments on a weeknight.  I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.