TESTIMONY OF FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 
SCIENCE, & TRANSPORTATION
"OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION”
MARCH 8, 2017
Thank you, Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and Members of the Committee for the 
opportunity to appear before this distinguished body to discuss the important work occurring 
at the Federal Communications Commission.
I would like to raise a handful of seemingly unrelated issues to your attention, and I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you may have. 
Process Reform
Last November’s election led to a change in leadership at the Commission.  While I miss 
working with two of my since departed colleagues, there is breath of fresh air and a new spirit 
of cooperation not present in the last Commission.  It is certainly early, but the remaining three 
commissioners seem to be of the mind that if we disagree in some capacity on an item, there is 
willingness to move on to the next one without laboring in the past, which I think was 
noticeable at our last Commission Open Meeting. 
Let me acknowledge and applaud Chairman Pai’s immediate focus on improving our internal 
workings and procedures, which has long been a cause of mine. In approximately five short 
weeks, the new Chairman has ushered in reforms to improve the efficiency, transparency, and 
accountability of the Commission. From fixing non-existent post-adoption editorial privileges to 
publicly releasing the text of documents at the same time they are shared with Commissioners 
to ending the practice of providing outside parties with information before Commissioners 
were in the loop, process reform has been a necessary and important mark for the Chairman. 
Ultimately, I believe the ideas and reforms adopted to date, and potentially additional ones I 
have proposed, do not undermine the authority or ability of the Chairman to set and execute 
the overall Commission agenda.  Hopefully, there is more to come, as I have a number of ideas 
for further reform, including changes to our delegated authority process and the scope of our 
information and data collections. 
On this note, let me reiterate the need to conduct sound cost-benefit analyses as part of the 
Commission’s consideration of new regulations on applicable industries.  Too often under the 
prior Commission leadership, sufficient work was not done, certainly prior to votes by 
Commissioners, to calculate the particular costs that new burdens or obligations would impose
on regulated entities. At the same time, past items have included vague or illusionary benefits 
of these new regulatory burdens.  Together, the Commission lacked a key component, that I 
see as necessary, for determining whether a proposal is in the public interest. While it may 
2take some time to fix this situation, including centralizing and creating a new Bureau of 
Economics, I remain convinced that it is a necessary and appropriate change to our operating 
procedures. 
Pirate Radio
It is discouraging to admit that a core function of the Commission – protecting the integrity of 
Commission-granted spectrum rights – is not being sufficiently achieved as it pertains to pirate 
radio “stations.”  By illegally broadcasting with makeshift equipment and a laptop, these 
stations are sprouting up and causing harm to consumers and the industry. Today, these 
squatters are infecting the radio band at the expense of consumer services, including
emergency communications and the financial stability of licensed radio stations. To put this in 
perspective, I recently learned from the Massachusetts Broadcasting Association that they 
previously found 24 pirates operating in one of their markets and the problem has only 
increased since the last examination.  While this issue mainly affects four to five larger East 
Coast radio markets (e.g., Boston, Miami, New Jersey, New York), failure to properly address it 
highlights a deficiency in the Commission’s enforcement tools and undermines our overall 
creditability. 
Thankfully, I believe that this situation is fixable and preventable.  It will certainly take sufficient 
enforcement commitment and diligence, which I think exists from the personnel in our field 
offices and the addition of our new “tiger teams.”  At the same time, I humbly suggest that the 
Commission could use some limited and targeted statutory authority dedicated to address 
pirate radio.  Specifically, I propose that the Commission be able to seize equipment found in 
common areas that is broadcasting illegally in the radio band.  In addition, our current fines 
should be increased, and some ability to impose penalties on those that directly and 
intentionally aid pirate stations could be helpful. While I would have concern if this authority 
were applied across the board, in this instance, I believe it would help minimize our current 
whack-a-mole approach that has proven less than effective. 
Infrastructure
It is a high priority for me to ensure that broadband access is reasonably available to all 
Americans.  To facilitate this, I have been intensely involved in completing the remaining pieces 
of our high-cost program, or Connect America Fund (CAF).  The CAF is a $4.5 billion annual 
subsidy program designed to address the difficult economics of serving those locations deemed 
high cost and extremely high cost.  This work includes last year’s rate-of-return reforms to 
permit and fund standalone broadband, the two targeted programs specific to Alaska, the 
recent creation of rules for the Mobility Fund Phase II, and the upcoming CAF Phase II reverse 
auction.  While I have not agreed with each and every decision – particularly those that may 
lead to inefficiencies or harm to non-targeted individuals or communities – I am committed to 
seeing these elements of the program through in a timely manner.  Having all of those pieces in 
place seems to be the only way the Commission can finally make effective the nascent Remote 
Areas Fund to address the most difficult areas to bring service. 
3At the same time, standing in the way of greater Internet access nationwide are barriers 
imposed by state, local, and tribal entities.  These range from maintaining difficult permitting 
and approval processes, attempts to extract enormous sums for tower siting and access to 
rights-of-ways, and efforts to establish government sponsored networks accompanied by 
favorable land, tax, and approval procedures.  While the vast number of communities see the 
benefit of broadband deployment and welcome providers seeking to serve their citizens, there 
are bad actors that will likely require preemptive measures by the Commission.  This problem 
will become even more acute as providers seek to deploy the next generation, or 5G wireless 
services, that will bring greater capacity, higher speeds and lower latency, but will also require 
many more wireless tower and antenna siting approvals.  I realize that preempting local 
community decisions is a difficult topic to contemplate, but it has become necessary and 
appropriate for the Commission to exercise authority provided by Congress to address this 
situation. 
On a related note, I know that there has been and will be considerable debate over whether to 
include new federal broadband spending in any larger infrastructure legislation.  While this is a 
matter in the purview of Congress, I would like to add my thoughts to the extent that it is 
decided to do so.  If new federal funds are made available to expand broadband availability, it 
would be my opinion and advice that any such funds be allocated on the condition that they be 
disbursed via the Commission’s CAF program, rather than alternatives.  The CAF is by no means 
perfect, but it is the best mechanism, compared to any others, to minimize overbuilding, 
inefficiencies and waste, and it could be quickly expanded to reach additional unserved 
communities. 
International Internet Freedoms
Having just returned from the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, I will share with you that a 
handful of my conversations with international representatives suggest increased concern that 
international governments, via different forums, continue to seek a greater role in Internet 
oversight and policy setting. That should be viewed as deeply troubling by all individuals that 
support and believe in an Internet relatively free from government control, and particularly by 
this Committee given its work to try to prevent ICANN from abusing its role post IANA 
conversion. I believe that the possible expansion of governmental interference in Internet 
governance and activities remains one of the greatest threats to its long-term sustainability and 
growth. 
I intend to be active in the international events related to the Commission’s functions and 
would be pleased to keep the Committee informed as circumstances warrant.  Moreover, may I 
suggest that the Senate consider this threat as part of any nomination process to fill related 
positions within the new Administration, as well as staying in close contact with related offices 
within the Departments of State and Commerce.
* * *
4Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this morning.