▶ 0:14:38Good morning. Welcome to today's hearing examining the telecommunications act of 1996. It's hard to believe that 1996 was 30 years ago. That february, I was a student at unc charlotte. I won't ask any of my colleagues where they were at the time. I'm certainly not going to ask the staff because most of them probably weren't born yet.
▶ 0:14:59Um, but here in washington, right across the street at the library of congress, members of congress celebrated the passage of the telecommunications act. I have to admit, the event was not on my radar as a college senior. Um, however, the telecom act was a huge milestone when it was enacted. It was the first major rewrite of communications policy since the communications act of 1934.
▶ 0:15:23The law was designed to deregulate the market, unleash competition and open opportunities for new technologies and services. In many ways, it succeeded by eliminating certain monopoly era laws and preempting state and local barriers. The telecom act opened the communications ecosystem to new players, leading to competition and innovation that ultimately benefited consumers.
▶ 0:15:52Competitors could enter local phone markets. Telephone companies could now provide video. Cable companies could provide voice service, and they could do this while entering markets they previously were not allowed to serve. It also enshrined the principles of universal service that are so important to rural america. Finally, it included what we now know as section two 3026 words that created the internet economy as we know it today. But the world has changed significantly since 1996.
▶ 0:16:22Back then, the internet was a new technology. We were just beginning to hear the familiar but now extinct dial up tone. Uh, and use web browsers like netscape. None of us could have predicted the technological revolution that was coming. The telecom act, unfortunately, did not foresee how essential broadband would be to our lives. Nor did it see the rise of new ways to communicate. Back then, everyone relied on their home landline to make phone calls.
▶ 0:16:53Cell phones were considered a luxury, but today we all have a computer in our pocket that, among other things, is a very quality cell phone. I'm not sure if any of us even still have a home phone if we do. I wonder how many can even remember the phone number. Um, and if we wanted to talk with someone on the other side of the world back in 1996, we had to rely on a long distance carrier to place an expensive charge by the minute call.
▶ 0:17:17Whereas today we can connect with anyone, anywhere via cell phone call or video call, a text message, or through social media. The world of 1996 looks nothing like the world today, and it's time we update our laws to reflect that. That's why we're holding this hearing. Today's hearing is an opportunity to look back at the telecom act, as well as the law that amended the communications act of 1934, and find out what continues to work and what does not.
▶ 0:17:46For example, does it still make sense to regulate communications technologies in different silos? Do we still need an entire section on payphone service? Is it time to revisit section 230? And how should we address media ownership? As broadcasters must now compete for engagement and revenue against platforms that didn't even exist in 1996.
▶ 0:18:08Congress needs to consider how we should modernize our communications policy framework to reflect the technologies of today in a way that will also work for the technologies of tomorrow. We have an esteemed panel of witnesses here today, some of whom were intimately involved with the drafting of the telecom act. I look forward to hearing from them, and I look forward to this really important discussion. I now recognize the ranking member, the gentlelady from california, for her opening statement. >> thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 0:18:37Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being here today. 30 years ago, congress passed the telecommunications act of 1996 with a clear and ambitious vision to promote competition and deliver lower prices and better service for consumers. At its core, this law was about making sure that as technology evolved, the benefits would reach everyone, and in many ways, it succeeded. It opened the door to greater competition and telephone markets.
▶ 0:19:04It laid the groundwork for the internet revolution, and it established a universal service framework built on a simple idea. Where you live should not determine whether you can connect. That work included two programs vital to the success of the universal service fund e-rate, which helps connect schools and libraries, and the rural health care program to improve broadband access for rural clinics and hospitals. Laying the foundation for expanded patient care.
▶ 0:19:32These achievements were possible because congress acted boldly. But 30 years later, we haven't finished the job. Too many americans still lack reliable, affordable broadband. The 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law was our answer to that. Unfinished work. Through the bead program, congress made a once in a lifetime generation investment to really fully close the digital divide.
▶ 0:19:57But under the trump administration, ntia has thrown into chaos, freezing funds, forcing states to scrap years of work and stripping away affordability protections. Communities are ready to build, are still waiting because the administration decided it knows better than congress, the states and the communities that did the hard work.
▶ 0:20:20The same pattern of sabotage is showing up in the under chairman carr. Just last week, the fcm, the nexstar tegna merger flying in the face of the law, the telecommunications act said clear media ownership caps to protect local voices and competition. Congress said no single company can reach more than 39% of U.S.
▶ 0:20:44Households, but chairman carr ignored that rule to clear a mega merger that would reach 80% of american households. Why? Because these companies are willing to bend to pressure and silence speech. President trump disagrees with. Just look at what they did to jimmy kimmel. And the damage is clear. Weaker local news, fewer independent voices and less competition.
▶ 0:21:11These are serious setbacks, but the goals of the telecom act competition, connectivity, consumer protection remain just as urgent today. That means modernize modernizing the universal service fund so it can continue supporting our schools, hospitals and communities. It also means getting serious about affordability because connectivity is not universal.
▶ 0:21:34If it is not, if it is unaffordable, since republicans let the affordable connectivity program expire, millions of families have struggled to stay connected. Seniors have lost access to telehealth. Students have fallen behind in school. If universal service is our goal, affordability has to be front and center. We need policies that keep pace with the technology. Look at nextgen tv. Broadcasters are already using it to deliver better emergency alerts and on demand local news.
▶ 0:22:04That's the kind of innovation the telecom act was meant to encourage, and it's a reminder that congress has to keep revisiting these laws. Building on what works to support both consumers and cutting edge technology. One strength of the telecom act was that it didn't shut states out. States keep a meaningful role in regulating telecom. Addressing issues on the ground and protecting their residents. We need that same balanced approach as we navigate ai.
▶ 0:22:32Let me be clear. Sweeping state preemption without strong guardrails is ignoring the lessons. Our most successful modern industry was built on. The telecom act gave us a strong foundation. Our job now is to build on it, fix works, fix it was fallen short and hold this administration accountable when it ignores the law. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we get that done.
▶ 0:23:01And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from kentucky, for five minutes for his opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I appreciate you for bringing us all together an important hearing, and thank to our witnesses for being here. And to my friend from california, Mr. matsui, for you holding all everybody holding this hearing. So it's incredible how things have changed over the last 30 years.
▶ 0:23:23In 1996, I was actually in business school, learning from case studies that had not yet anticipated the dramatic evolution of technology we've seen since then, over the last three decades, which have fundamentally changed the world of business and daily lives of our constituents. One of the case studies in probably 95 or 90, 96 or 97 was will apple survive? Will apple survive? So, um, it shows how much we knew of what was coming forward.
▶ 0:23:49So the telecommunications act of 96 was a monumental law when it passed. And it's largely responsible for ushering in the years of growth and development in the 1996 act, deregulated the telecommunications industry, allow for technological innovation and new competitors to enter the marketplace, which ultimately benefited consumers. The law was also essential to rural america.
▶ 0:24:13By codifying the principle of universal service, which has played a critical role in ensuring that every american has access to the communication services that become essential to everyday life. But things have changed in the last 30 years. Landlines are no longer primary mode of communication technologies that were in their infancy or foreseen in 1996. Broadband ai streaming are now the foundations of how we communicate, interact and carry out tasks in our day to day lives.
▶ 0:24:40One of my priorities as chairman of the of this committee is modernizing the laws in our jurisdiction that govern nearly 70% of the economy. The 30th anniversary of the telecom act gives us an opportunity to reexamine our communications laws and consider how to update them for today's world in the next generations. In conducting this review, we must recognize this as a critical moment in history. The united states is the global leader in technological advancements, due in large part to policies that allow the private sector to innovate.
▶ 0:25:12Congress should continue the regulatory framework of the telecommunications act and implement light touch policies that allow the us to maintain its status as the global leader in technological advancements. This is especially important as we compete for technology, technological leadership against adversaries like china. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on this important topic and hearing how congress can modernize our communications laws. Thank you, Mr. chairman, for correcting this, our witnesses for being here, and I will yield back.
▶ 0:25:44>> thank you. Now, I recognize the gentleman from new jersey, the ranking member for five minutes for his opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I, I have to digress a minute and say when I see congressman pickering, I keep thinking of. Hometown with aaron and ben fixing up laurel, mississippi, his hometown, because my wife insists that I watch hometown almost every night fixing up laurel to like make it more southern or whatever. It's very pretty, but I've never been there.
▶ 0:26:12In any case, 30 years ago, congress on a bipartisan basis, passed the telecommunications act of 1996. This landmark legislation sought to catapult the communication industry to the digital age by promoting the principles of competition, innovation and, importantly, universal connectivity, ensuring that all americans have affordable access to advanced communications services such as broadband.
▶ 0:26:39Congress also envisioned a media marketplace defined by competition, diversity of voices and consumer choice. And in some respects, congress got it right. The law helped fuel the internet age as we know it, but there are still too many goals of that law that have not been met. And I'm deeply concerned that with brendan carr as chair of the federal communications commission, the agency is moving further away from the goals that congress envisioned in 1996.
▶ 0:27:04Instead of delivering access to reliable and affordable broadband for all americans, chairman carr has rolled back broadband price transparency requirements and taken steps to limit students ability to access wifi on school busses for homework, rather than preserving local and diverse voices. Chairman carr is fighting first amendment battles he can't win and squeezing competition from the media market, undermining the very principles congress set out to achieve in 1996.
▶ 0:27:30And chairman carr seems to think his only role is to serve as president trump's lackey and target news outlets and broadcasters for exercising their first amendment rights and not bending to the president's will. And last week's decision by the fcc's media bureau to approve the nexstar tegna deal simply adds insult to injury. In my opinion, this decision, which is a favorite of president trump's allies, was released in the dead of night and without a full commission vote.
▶ 0:27:58And it simply illegal because the 39% statutory cap on broadcast station ownership can't be waved away without an act of congress. So this decision also paves the way for unprecedented media consolidation at both the national and local levels, and undercuts the 1996 act's goal for a media market built on competition, localism and a diversity of voices.
▶ 0:28:20There's also a lot of evidence that this wave of consolidation will lead to higher bills for consumers that subscribe to pay tv services. And yet again, another opportunity for the trump administration to drive up prices on hard working american families.
▶ 0:28:34At the same time, the national telecommunications and information administration has delayed and undermined our country's best shot to achieve universal connectivity and finally close the digital divide the broadband equity access and deployment, or bead program, represents the most well-financed effort to date to bring affordable, high speed internet service to every community in the nation. Yet under the trump administration, ntia has sought to redirect the bead program in ways that were never intended by congress.
▶ 0:29:02The administration has effectively turning the bead program into the republican fcc's failed rural digital opportunity fund program. And now come. Congress specifically wanted to avoid. So closing the digital divide also means ensuring americans have the skills to use the internet. Yet ntia under the trump administration unilaterally and illegally stopped funding programs under the digital equity act, which was a part of the bipartisan infrastructure law.
▶ 0:29:28This act funds programs that would help seniors, veterans, the disabled and others learn the skills needed to fully participate in today's and tomorrow's digital economy. My democratic colleagues and I have repeatedly requested information and answers from ntia about its management of the program, but their response was late and woefully inadequate.
▶ 0:29:48And finally, while there's still more work to do to achieve the universal access congress envision three decades ago, we're now experiencing another technological revolution driven by artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, trump and congressional republicans are undermining our ability to protect consumers and ensure that they're the real beneficiaries of this technology, not the victims. As ai seemingly becomes integrated into americans daily lives, congress must implement guardrails and consumer protections before it's too late. And with that, Mr.
▶ 0:30:17Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. We've now concluded with members opening statements. Chair reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members opening statements will be made part of the record. I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here to testify before this subcommittee. Our witnesses will have five minutes to provide an opening statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from members.
▶ 0:30:40The witnesses here before us today are the honorable chip pickering, chief executive officer of encompass and no stranger to this room, a former member of this committee, uh, the honorable michael o'reilly, president of mpo riley consulting, llc. Mr. adam tier resident, senior fellow, technology and innovation, r street institute, and Mr. matt wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at free press. Thank you all for being here. Mr. pickering.
▶ 0:31:08You're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And to the entire committee ranking member matsui, and as we gather today to to celebrate and reflect on the 30th anniversary of the telecommunications act, I also want to recognize congresswoman dingell's, uh, spouse, uh, john dingell, uh, chairman dingell, ranking member dingell for his tremendous leadership in the 96 act and of this committee.
▶ 0:31:39Robert matsui was a great leader at the time in the 96 act. So congresswoman matsui, uh, former, uh, her husband. So I just want to recognize, uh, michael bilirakis, uh, gus bilirakis father was here during the 96 act, uh, ranking member pallone. Uh, thank you for recognizing my hometown. It was discovered on facebook.
▶ 0:32:01And so it's, it's kind of interesting that social media, which emerged out of the 96 act, found my hometown and the stars of the show that really, uh, has resurrected and revitalized my hometown. So, uh, there are many great stories and great relationships, and this committee has done a tremendous job of overseeing the implementation and the oversight of the 96 act over the last three decades. This milestone is especially meaningful to me personally.
▶ 0:32:30I had the privilege of working on the act as a staffer for senator lott and then overseeing the implementation of it as a member of the energy and commerce committee. Today, I see its lasting impact from the private sector. As ceo of encompass, I get to represent the companies building the networks that power our digital economy.
▶ 0:32:50Encompass represents competitors, building networks of the future, innovators, creating and delivering internet content and ai infrastructure companies that ensure we have the energy and infrastructure needed to win the global ai race. Our members are catalysts for economic growth and for improving the quality of life for all americans through technological innovation. New services, greater choice for consumers and businesses. These services they offer today were made possible by the 1996 telecommunications act.
▶ 0:33:20Few pieces of legislation have had as profound and enduring impact on our economy and society. At its core, the act was grounded in a simple but powerful principle. Competition drives innovation, and congress made a deliberate choice to break down monopolies, open markets and allow new entrants to compete.
▶ 0:33:44That decision helped unleash unprecedented private investment, expand consumer choice and create the foundation for the modern internet. The light touch pro-innovation approach is a key reason the united states became a global leader in the internet. The act helped create the policy framework that allowed the internet to grow as an open, dynamic platform and by encouraging competition, removing unnecessary regulatory barriers, congress set the stage for innovation at the edge, where entrepreneurs, startups, and new ideas could flourish.
▶ 0:34:13The act reflected a broader national commitment to universal connectivity. Universal service is not just a promise. I mean, not just a policy. It is a promise that every american, regardless of where they live, can access our networks and participate in the digital economy.
▶ 0:34:29It is why the transition to next generation networks must be done responsibly and with access to critical infrastructure, preserving and protecting public safety, and keeping those principles in mind, that promise remains just as important today as it was 30 years ago. Today, we are entering a new era defined by artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and next generation networks.
▶ 0:34:55The infrastructure that encompasses members are building fiber data centers, energy transmission and generation. The global connectivity platforms is a direct result of the policy decisions made in the 96 act. And just as before, success will depend on getting the fundamentals right, promoting competition, removing barriers to deployment, encouraging investment through predictable national framework policy, and ensuring that connectivity remains open, accessible and
▶ 0:35:26Secure. The lessons of the of the telecommunications act of 1996 is clear. When congress sets the right framework, the private sector delivers. Investment follows, innovation accelerates, and consumers benefit. The 1996 act endures not because it anticipated every technology that followed, but because it was anchored to principles that transcend any particular technology competition, openness and universal connectivity.
▶ 0:35:51We're now writing the first sentences of the next chapter, and I would ask that you write them with the same clarity of purpose. That means streamlining, permitting, so that data centers, fiber networks, and transmission and energy infrastructure can be deployed without years of regulatory delay and advancing competitive energy policies that ensure the power required to run an ai enabled economy is available and accessible to all market participants.
▶ 0:36:17And just as the 96 act unlocked the internet era, this committee has real opportunity. More importantly, a duty to lay the foundation for america's future in ai and digital infrastructure. And the country is counting on you to get it right. And I look forward to working with you. >> thank you, Mr. o'reilly. You're recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
▶ 0:36:41>> subcommittee chairman hudson, ranking member matsui, full committee chairman guthrie and ranking member pallone, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on such an important topic. I'm michael o'reilly, an independent consultant in the telecom media technology space. I'm likely here before you today because a little over 30 years ago, I sat at a table like this in this room, in this institution to help pass legislation.
▶ 0:37:05As part of this committee, I also stayed to see its implementation and eventually moved to the fcc as a commissioner from 2013 to 2020. I'm really sitting here because of the legislative skills of one of my former life mentors, former chairman tom bliley, whose picture hangs on the wall before us. And only because of him did the telecom act become law.
▶ 0:37:26He was able to finesse the substance, the egos and wishes of the members of the committee and the uniqueness of the other body to reform the underlying law and cross the finish line, as no one has done before. No one did before, and no one has since. Sectors of the industry flourished because of him and his vision. And we are all better because of his ability to pass the legislation into law.
▶ 0:37:48The lessons of the telecom act, what went right, what went wrong, which aspects remain contested and what fell out of scope can be instructive for the subcommittee. Humbly, after a long review, I identified six lessons that shaped how I approach legislation throughout my professional career. First, comprehensive, comprehensive legislation is extremely difficult. The telecom act was enacted partly because of the right conditions existed, driven by the desire of various companies to compete in the then existing local and long distance telephone markets.
▶ 0:38:19That single purpose helped propel the other provisions forward. It often takes a very strong engine to pull the rest of the cars forward. Second, key industries were intentionally excluded or only marginally affected, although the telecom act remained included. Reforms across many areas, some sectors or segments of the industry, such as wireless and the internet, were not included or were only marginally impacted.
▶ 0:38:42Third, timeliness and asymmetrical trade affected outcomes, resolving the local and long distance telephone disputes which faded, which faced a fairly turbulent process, was driven by older legal and regulatory challenges. Congress likely overestimated how difficult it would be to open the local telephone voice market to competition, which still faces obstacles but is thriving in many instances. Fourth, congress cannot rely on the implementing agency.
▶ 0:39:10Once enacted into law, much of the responsibility for implementing the law shifted to the fcc. While the agency addressed some issues effectively, there were numerous instances in which the laws provisions were either intentionally or unintentionally misapplied. Some of these outcomes aligned with my views. In other instances, the abuses were extremely difficult to accept. My advice to policymakers is to explain in great detail what they want an agency to do and, more importantly, what they do not want them to do.
▶ 0:39:39Do not rely on the faith that an agency will do the right thing. Fifth, compromises proven painful the legislative process often requires trade offs to simplify the process and garner support. In nearly every instance in the telecom act, a seemingly harmless provision, one that would have drawn opposition from the republican majority of examined, stand alone or separately, was used differently than intended and given more significance than it deserved.
▶ 0:40:08That is not a failure of the law's authors, but those who gave their word on what they really wanted from the provision. And sixth, we are still litigating vague language. Several key provisions are still being challenged 30 years later. That has proven to be highly problematic as to whether congress should undertake a major rewrite of our nation's communication laws, focusing primarily on the communications act of 1934. And if so, what should be included? I do not at this time see demand for comprehensive reform.
▶ 0:40:39This notwithstanding, there are several areas the subcommittee could consider taking action, including completely deregulating the video service marketplace or alternatively, expanding fcc forbearance authority to apply to video providers and operators. Reforming universal service, but only if it addresses all three elements of distribution, contributions and administration, continuing to push satellite regulatory reform and simplification, and preempting state regulation over standalone voip. I stand.
▶ 0:41:11I welcome any questions the subcommittee may have. >> thank you, Mr. tier. You are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement. Make sure your mics on their. >> chairman hudson, ranking. >> member matsui and members of the committee. >> thank you for the invitation. >> to participate in this important hearing. My name is adam thier and I'm a senior fellow at the r street institute where I cover technology policy.
▶ 0:41:35I've spent 34 years working on communications and media policy issues, and in the early 1990s, I worked closely with members of this committee and others in congress on what would eventually become the telecommunications act of 1996. It was an exhilarating time when many of us hoped for comprehensive modernization of communications law and bold reforms of the federal communications commission. Ultimately, however, the telecom act has not lived up to those lofty expectations.
▶ 0:42:00America's information ecosystem remains overregulated and subject to far too much fcc meddling with both markets and speech. This happened because the telecom act failed to impose serious constraints on the fcc, and even empowered the agency to regulate in new ways, using many open ended powers. On top of the many older rules that remain untouched by the law.
▶ 0:42:1926 years ago, while testifying before the house oversight committee about the fcc, I noted that just four years after the supposedly deregulatory telecom act passed, the agency had only grown bigger and more powerful. Quote, there is simply no development within the communications marketplace today that is not scrutinized under the fcc's regulatory microscope, I noted in 2000. Unfortunately, that remains true today, even though most experts agree, quote, its original mission has faded. And worse yet, the fcc has become increasingly politicized.
▶ 0:42:48End quote. While the telecom act sought to promote competition and reduce regulation and encouraged the fcc to forbear from overregulating, it became clear quite quickly that the agency would never relinquish control. The fcc has taken advantage of the fact that the telecom act was, in the words of the supreme court, quote, a model of ambiguity or indeed even self-contradiction. The agency used the law's many vague provisions and the countless existing rules to continue micromanaging markets and speech.
▶ 0:43:18As one leading analyst concludes, the agency's, quote, broad grant of authority, combined with its impenetrable complexity, means that it has nearly boundless ability to distribute favors and shape the trillion dollar technology and media industries. Today, the fcc ranks first among independent regulatory agencies in terms of rules promulgated, and an estimated 88% of those rules affect small businesses. These continued mandates raise costs by undermining innovation and competition.
▶ 0:43:45The agency only seems to be willing to loosen once loosen restrictions, once sectors or technologies have become completely obsolete, as when the fcc finally scrapped its morse code regulations in 2007 and eliminated rules governing telegraphs and phone booths just last year. The good news is, is that innovations in digital computing, e-commerce, smartphones and video streaming were able to accelerate rapidly because they were not constrained by the fcc or older, quote, mother, may I regulations.
▶ 0:44:14But this has left us with a bizarre and unfair situation. The innovators least regulated by the telecom act and the fcc, are freer to innovate and to speak while the sector is still under their control, remain burdened by excessive economic and speech controls. Congress needs to address this situation and should do so by undertaking a thorough regulatory spring cleaning, as I like to call it, to address the unfinished business of the telecom act. Technological changes made the traditional rationales for fcc regulation largely obsolete.
▶ 0:44:45Congress should establish clear timetables for the gradual phase out of outdated media and telecom restrictions to free older sectors, and ensuring that the fcc will not expand its mission to become a veritable federal computer commission.
▶ 0:44:58Most old policies can be sunset after an orderly 2 to 3 year wind down, congress should pass a new communications freedom act that would, number one, scrap wireline communication, common carrier regulations, and media industry mandates, and let the federal trade commission and department of justice handle competition policy and consumer harm matters. Number two depoliticize the spectrum and treat it as a fully flexible and tradeable property right?
▶ 0:45:23Then transfer any remaining technical spectrum allocation management tasks to the national telecommunications and information administration or a technical coordination body. Number three convert inefficient universal service programs into means tested welfare programs administered by other agencies or state governments. Number four sunset, arbitrary public interest authority and fcc speech controls to protect the first amendment rights of all speakers and listeners. Number five preempt or simplify remaining state barriers to competition that undermine interstate competition and investment.
▶ 0:45:52In closing, the key lesson of the telecom act experience is that it is essential for congress to get the job done when looking to clean up past messes, and even more crucial to not create new problems in the process. No matter how well intentioned any of these rules may have been, the resulting regulatory regimes have had many unintended consequences and costs for innovators and the public.
▶ 0:46:14The danger of continued fcc meddling in existing and emerging information technology markets remains real, and congress should address the unfinished business of the telecom act by cleaning up this mess for good. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you. Mr. would you recognize for five minutes for an opening statement? >> chairman hudson, ranking member matsui, thank. >> you for inviting me to testify at this landmark hearing. Such discussions about three decades of change often look back to now quaint sounding tech trends and touchstones.
▶ 0:46:41Yet there are timeless principles in the 1996 act places your predecessors and their staffers, like many of my fellow witnesses, got it exactly right. Not always in the terms they wrote, but in the values they espoused. Sadly, the trump administration is trashing many of those values. I'd like to explain how, and then look forward to four ways this subcommittee and the agencies you authorize can meet the act's goals.
▶ 0:47:04Those include establishing solid ground for federal oversight of our nation's networks, investing in affordable broadband for everyone, promoting diverse media, not cheerleading, mergers or censorship, and staying out of online content regulation and ai preemption, where agencies under your watch have no role.
▶ 0:47:23First, the fcc abdicated authority, congress gave it over the essential service we now call broadband, but we can disagree on which protections should apply to that service, including net neutrality rules often debated in this room. We must move beyond the word games about what qualifies as a telecom service. Free press believes broadband clearly fits that definition, and the sixth circuit decision that held otherwise last year is plainly wrong. But we must fill this vacuum if we want deployment.
▶ 0:47:52To quote the act of advanced telecommunications capability to all americans, funding universal broadband and protecting users from overlong outages and other abuses requires sound jurisdiction. Industries assault has erased advanced telecommunications from the law, congress wrote. Not every title two provision should pored over, but the heart of that law, updated in 1996, is ensuring service on just reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.
▶ 0:48:18That's a timeless promise no expiration date, no tethered to past technologies, we need a firm, flexible framework for public investment and safeguards. Corporate forces alone won't provide affordable, robust access to every corner of your district's. Lawmakers must do more to. The lifeline program remains crucial, but 925 a month isn't adequate yet.
▶ 0:48:41Chairman carr wants to cut enrollment to score partizan points, and this ntia has delayed bead money, which I think is a funny remedy for complaints about past delay. Instead of renewing the affordable connectivity program, as commissioner, o'reilly advised congress let it lapse. But we really spend $1 billion a day for reckless wars, but not $30 a month to keep a kid connected to her homework. The fcc should not set broadband prices, but it should know what they are.
▶ 0:49:07Carr has ignored statutory mandates and said he would stop even looking at price. He claimed in your last oversight hearing that the prices he won't measure are falling. But as my written testimony explains, carr, is misleading you and the story is more complicated. This fcc chairman ignores facts, laws and even the constitution when he pleases, so long as it pleases this president. He attacks free speech and freedom of the press. He threatens broadcasters for coverage he doesn't like.
▶ 0:49:34Carr twists the public interest standard, then blames democrats and says they did it first. No one can criticize past administrations but stay silent on carr's abuses if they truly want to defend the first amendment, carr says. This is all to empower local broadcasters, but he's just favoring the conglomerates he likes. Giants like nexstar are local the same way cvs is a local pharmacy. Next are eagerly joined in carr's jimmy kimmel debacle to win those favors, and senator cruz even called that dangerous.
▶ 0:50:04The prospect of local tv news monopolies complying with government demands is dire. It's frightening for any democracy that values debate and dissent. Yet just last week, carr unilaterally blessed nexstar's merger, flouting the national cap. We've heard about today that congress set in 2004. It should alarm members on both sides. When any fcc ignores statutes. Commissioner o'reilly once called this specific trick a preposterous attempt at, quote, one of the biggest backdoors in the history of legislating.
▶ 0:50:34Carr wrongly holds up some deals, though, until companies end their diversity and inclusion efforts with no proof of wrongdoing or relevance to merger review, he imagines invidious harms to people who look like him. Yet looking at this panel, I'd say white men still have a shot in this field. My written testimony addresses bad ideas like the fcc preempting state ai laws, or using section 230 to police platforms outside fcc jurisdiction. The latter reminds me of what I believe Mr.
▶ 0:51:01O'reilly called some conservatives evolving views on regulating the internet. Free press actions support section 230, as I testified here in 2021, and I know that not all of you do yet. I hope we can agree these provisions are not the fcc's to enforce. So agencies in congress must do more to honor the act's goals. But no more of the damage this administration has done in just over a year. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you. We'll now begin questioning and I recognize myself for five minutes.
▶ 0:51:31Uh, Mr. pickering, your opinion? Uh, I want to dive a little deeper into kind of you talked kind of top level about some successes and failures of the telecommunications act. Um, what do you see as kind of the, the top success, top failure? Do you think the act works as congress envisioned it at the time you wrote the act? >> yeah.
▶ 0:51:54As we look at the, the, the three buckets, successes, surprises still to do the great success is that we as a nation really over two decades, starting in the divestiture in 1981, 1984 of at&t and the long distance market, we rejected the natural monopoly theory and the heavy handed regulation required to to regulate rates and prices and investment and infrastructure and construction
▶ 0:52:25And all that is involved in monopoly. Monopoly based regulation, the long distance competition that emerged in the 80s that ended up changing the networks from copper and analog to fiber and digital, that became the internet backbone, then said to congress, in every every policy maker, competition works. It's better than monopoly. Prices get get lowered, consumers benefit. Investment rises, innovation rises.
▶ 0:52:55And as you look at 96, don't look at it just in in the one act, look at the 92 cable act, which introduced satellite competition to cable and satellite was digital and could do a thousand channels and cable was still analog and they could do 30 channels. And that competition made cable upgrade their networks to, to digital so that you could begin to have the internet capacity in the last mile.
▶ 0:53:21Then the competitive wireless auctions in 1993 rejected duopoly wireless policy for full competition, seven licenses per market, and it went from analog to digital, which gave the networks the capacity to have the iphones that we enjoy today. And then the 96 act was really the culmination of competition policy for two decades.
▶ 0:53:45And it was a bipartisan commitment of all of the energy and commerce committee on all of those actions. That brought us to what I think the 96 act got right. Remove all barriers to competition.
▶ 0:53:59I mean, all barriers to entry so that all networks, whether it's cable, telco, wireless, satellite, fixed wireless, whatever imaginable advanced network emerges and the technology that they can compete against each other and that you interconnect, you interoperate and all the devices interconnect and operate over that network of competition. We got that right.
▶ 0:54:26And because of it, the market forces and the technology forces, even though there was regulatory friction with the fcc, if you could, you could say that maybe we were not as clear in our definitions and that we delegated too much to the fcc. The unleashing of competitive market forces have given us the world in which we now live, and the success of the digital economy and infrastructure, and now the emergence of ai. It all rests on removing those barriers.
▶ 0:54:54And we got permitting and deployment right too, that everyone could enter with access to rights of ways and poles and conduits, and to build the new infrastructure of the digital age and economy. We got that right. So those are the successes. >> that makes a lot of sense. If government had mandated building this infrastructure we've got out there, I shudder to think how far back we would be, uh, in the stone age. >> but and one last thing.
▶ 0:55:21This committee, uh, I think when the telecom act passed the house, it was with about 90% of the house voting in support of it. Same in the in the senate, 95 to 5. Now, it took, you know, those two decades to reach agreement and consensus. And it took really two congresses to get to the 96 I. There was a close act 93, 94. But in the end, it was relationships, it was bipartisanship.
▶ 0:55:51And that bipartisanship of this committee has made 30 years of sustainable, predictable policy in the framework enduring and sustainable. So that's the other big success of that act. >> that's a good point. I'm running out of time, so I'm going to submit a bunch of questions to the rest of you. I just want to say the panel, your testimony, your written testimony and testimony given today is really valuable, and I really appreciate the thought you put into it because you were there and you've seen it.
▶ 0:56:23And so I think your, your perspectives are really important for this committee as we look forward. So thank you to all the witnesses and and the interest of being able to keep everybody else on time. I will stop and recognize my ranking member, the gentlelady from california, miss matsui, for her five minutes of question. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. And let me just say this. Um, I'm going to go right into it. I've been very clear that the trump administration can't use communications law as a backdoor to wipe out state ai protections.
▶ 0:56:51That's why I coauthored the guardians guardrails act with congressman beyer to repeal the trump ai executive order. The eo is a dangerous attempt to bully states out of enforcing their ai laws, threaten broadband funding, and direct fcc and ntia to act beyond their authority. Mr. ward does the telecom act of 1996 or any law, allow the fcc to preempt state ai laws? And that could be a yes or no?
▶ 0:57:22>> uh, no. They would have to be preempting laws that inhibit the deployment of telecom services. And that's not what we see here. >> okay. The trump administration seems to claim that because some state ai rules might affect telecommunications providers, the fcc can step in. Why is that wrong? >> well, I mean, sure, I can imagine some laws impacting them, but that's not what states are doing. States are passing consumer protection laws, civil rights laws to prevent discrimination, concerns about data centers being built in their backyards. And so those kinds of laws clearly have nothing to do with most telecom providers.
▶ 0:57:51And that would be far too broad of a tool. >> right? Okay, so I want to make one point clear. The telecommunications act was not written to erase the role of states. Congress recognized that states are often closest to the communities affected by these policies, and that they have an important role to play alongside the federal government. Mr. wood, what are some of the clearest examples in the act where congress expects the states to remain partners in shaping communications policy? >> yeah, that's a great question.
▶ 0:58:21There's lots of examples of cooperative, cooperative federalism, federalism. I think it was called, if I can say it. And there were places where, as congressman pickering talks about, states and the federal government work together to open these long distance and local markets, there are other places where jurisdictions are more divided and where wireless was given to the states to some degree, but not completely. So it really was a partnership and not some sort of preemption or wipe out. >> okay. So if congress were to revisit the telecom act, what lessons from that federal state partnership should we be preserving rather than abandoning it?
▶ 0:58:50>> yeah, I mean, I think it's been a bipartisan ideal that the states can be laboratories of ideas. That doesn't mean every idea is good, but we should let states do what they need to do to assess situations and protect their residents against any kind of harm in order to unleash those benefits we've heard about today. Right? >> right. Okay. Thank you. Um, Mr. thayer, you've criticized chairman carr for threatening broadcasters reporting on the iran war in ways that president trump doesn't like.
▶ 0:59:15You wrote that carr's use of the broadcast hoax and the news distortion standards is particularly misleading, as the fcc's own rules define those terms far more narrowly than his rhetoric suggests. Do you stand by the statements? >> yeah, absolutely. The fcc should have no business regulating news, distortion and all. Better reason to reform the public interest standard, if not, eliminate it. >> good.
▶ 0:59:36You also wrote that carr offered no criteria, no specific broadcast, no standard by which a regulator could distinguish impermissible reporting from legitimate journalism. Do you stand by that statement? >> absolutely. We are seeing the same sort of abuse of regulation we've seen for about 60 years on this front. >> okay. So you went on to warn that the public interest standard is being reduced to a loyalty test administered by the fcc on the white house's behalf. So let me go on here.
▶ 1:00:06Um, Mr. wood, your testimony says that chairman carr is thumbing his nose at both congress and the constitution, including, when ignored, both the evidence and the law to approve the nexstar tegna merger. How did the trump fcc break the law here, and how are they misrepresenting this merger's impact on local news and consumers? >> yeah, so we think that the point of these deals is to eliminate local news.
▶ 1:00:30Sometimes they'll claim they're increasing it, but what they're often doing is just having nationalized content being pushed down to local stations and repeating stories that you can see on other stations. We think the bureau order last week that Mr. palone talked about basically ignored all of that evidence. And so there's lots of procedural defects. But as commissioner riley could attest, the biggest flaw in our view for this subcommittee is congress wrote that 39% cap on national reach. And this fcc has purported to waive a statute which is not within its power.
▶ 1:00:59>> okay, well, I don't have much time here either, so I'll follow the chairman's edict here, and I will yield back. >> thank you so much. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you. And I want to point out the ai framework that came from the white house does have the four c's. One is community. And make sure each local community has the right. And their rights are protected in any kind of national framework. So that was, uh, that that's good. But also in states, our laboratories for democracy, they have good ideas and bad ideas.
▶ 1:01:27Sometimes the bad ideas affect people live in other states too, particularly states that are so big that that they can really force regulations. So it is interstate commerce. And so there's a role for the federal government in that as well, and a preemptive way. So, commissioner riley, as we look to always update our communications laws, one thing sticks out to me, uh, united states is one of the few countries, uh, developed countries in the community that has two communication agencies. Does this still make sense? Should we look at combining the fcc and ntia? >> so.
▶ 1:01:56I think my view is changing based on the experiences of what's happening in this administration. Um, if you're going to have less of an independent fcc, then the combination makes a lot more sense. And having duplicative reviews of mergers in my mind doesn't make sense no matter how many agencies you have. So I've advocated that we combine the merger review of doj and fcc, but the less independent the fcc is, then the less need.
▶ 1:02:25I think there's value in having an independent agency that I worked with many years and worked at for many years, but that's for you and others to decide. >> thank you. So, Mr. pickering, you discussed that the telecom act endures because it is anchored in principles that transcend any particular technology. I've long advocated for technology, technology neutral approach to regulations, but the telecom act still regulates the industry based on different technologies.
▶ 1:02:51How should congress change the law so it becomes technology neutral? And. Mr. I'll give you while he's answering, if you'll think of a your your response to that would be great. So how how can we deal with technology neutral? >> so today we're in a, in a, in an intense bill build period that we're building the ai infrastructure, but we're also building historic levels of private investment in broadband connectivity and the bede historic levels of federal funding.
▶ 1:03:19And what we're learning. And this is a good demonstration of technology neutral and the b act. The trump administration changed to a technology neutral approach, and it recognized that fiber in many ways, as our states looked at it, is foundational. You have backhaul to wireless. You extend it fiber for fixed wireless.
▶ 1:03:43Satellite still has to connect to fiber, but we wanted to be technology neutral and encompass members are all of the above. We have fiber companies, wireless companies, fixed wireless and satellite. So we support that approach. But they're all building in a convergence of how the consumer broadband market is going to work. >> how does the current technology, how does the current law disadvantage certain technologies versus the other?
▶ 1:04:11>> well, I would say that it today it doesn't disadvantage that we need the expertise. The fcc and ntia on spectrum policy. We need it. And the cable broadband telco fiber, competitive fiber in the wireless new technologies. >> and so, so the cable companies will say that they're regulated in a certain way and they're competing with broadband. So if you have youtube tv or google or whatever, then they're competing.
▶ 1:04:40So the question is, do you bring those into the regulatory framework, or do you relieve some of the regulatory framework for the other technologies? >> you absolutely do the latter. Don't try and scoop in streamers into title six. I like the work. I appreciate the work that you've done in this space and have recognized how video needs to be deregulated. >> so how would you do the technology? How would how would you address technology then different? I agree with you. I agree with what you're saying. Most of.
▶ 1:05:08>> the services that are regulated under the communications act can be deregulated substantially. Provisions can be stricken by this committee and those, you know, if you give a forbearance authority, it's targeted and has not been abused, then I think that can be helpful. Along that case, specifically in title six and the video service section, the bead act is, congressman points out, does have, you know, something that congress put in, which is you must be technology neutral. And the past, previous administration tried not to do that. This administration has corrected that substantially and has actually been.
▶ 1:05:39>> trying not to do that. You know, how many inches of fiber were put out after the act passed in the last administration? We can measure in inches 000 of all the requirements on it. Yes. Mr. theory, you have an answer. >> very briefly, Mr. chairman. The easiest way to address this, if the fcc is going to continue to exist, is to collapse all the titles and silos into one simple title that basically treats everything as an information service. We should not have analog age distinctions be the basis of digital age information technologies. We need parity, we need simplicity. And that's how we do it. >> thank you. Well, that was perfect.
▶ 1:06:09My time has expired and I'll yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Chairman, I recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. pallone, for five minutes. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Uh, local broadcasters are some of the most powerful voices shaping public opinion. And because of that, congress imposed a national ownership cap for broadcasters to ensure the needs of local communities are met. Importantly, there's nothing in the statute to suggest that the fcc can adjust this cap. So this is what makes the fcc media bureau's recent approval of the nexstar tegna deal so concerning to me.
▶ 1:06:37The agency just decided to waive the cap in violation of the law. And once again, president trump's buddies win while consumers lose. So I've got a bunch of questions. So I'm going to ask all of you not to take too long to answer them, but let me go to commissioner riley. You recently filed an amicus brief where you laid out why only congress has the authority to change a national cap, not the fcc, am I correct? >> yes. >> alright. And I, we we agree on that. Now, Mr.
▶ 1:07:04Wood, my republican colleagues have suggested that the ownership caps are preventing broadcasters from competing with big tech. Is that a valid argument to allow for further broadcast consolidation? >> no, I don't think it's valid. We look at antitrust metrics that suggest they're not. And broadcast executives themselves go to wall street and they say we have a competitive moat around our our service because it's a different product.
▶ 1:07:26So yes, they're competing for advertising dollars and some large sense, but they're not actually competing over the same services or the products they're delivering to people. >> and how are consumers harmed by the media bureau's decision to ignore the cap and allow nexstar to purchase tegna? >> I mean, we think in several ways. For one thing, we'll see reduced diversity in local news and reduced competition. We'll see more journalists laid off because that's really what these deals are designed to do, to create what companies call synergies. But that means job cuts, another synergy.
▶ 1:07:54They have promised their investors that they will make more money off of retransmission consent, which, as members of the subcommittee will know, is when broadcasters are getting payment from cable companies for their signals. So retrans is a good thing for broadcasters. But having artificial power to inflate it and pass that cost off to customers is exactly what this deal is designed to do. >> all right. Thank you. Let me go to the bead program.
▶ 1:08:17I've always been supportive of ntia's efforts under the bead program to prioritize the most robust and future proof technologies for deploying the next generation of broadband networks. And americans lacking high speed internet, are eager to see these types of networks built in their communities because they're essential to participating in today's economy.
▶ 1:08:37And that's why it was so disappointing that the trump administration, I think, sabotaged the program by prioritizing the cheapest technologies for short term savings rather than investing for long term productivity and economic growth. And, Mr. pickering, you touched on this. You stated in your testimony that, and I quote, universal service is not just a policy. It's a promise that every american, regardless of where they live, can access our networks.
▶ 1:09:02So why is fiber foundational to achieving the 1996 act or aim of universal connectivity? I know you you briefly talked about fiber versus satellite, but I'm trying to find out why fiber is still foundational. >> to the way that. >> the way that network architecture works, whether it is a fixed wireless, it comes back to fiber as quickly as possible.
▶ 1:09:295g networks backhaul to fiber and get to fiber as quickly as possible. Leo the satellite networks need to have a terrestrial fiber network to to function and work. So fiber is still the foundation. If you look at it like you're building a house, it's still the foundation of every network and you want to get back into fiber because it's the highest capacity, most secure, fastest and scalable network base.
▶ 1:09:54But all of these other technologies, wireless, fixed leo, are also critically important into the builds. And each kind of represent a way to get to market quick as quickly as possible at a, at a cost effectiveness in rural and remote and hard to serve areas. So, and all of the above approach, we think is, is the right approach.
▶ 1:10:20But recognizing that fiber, the more that we can extend and densify fiber in, in an age of ai and connectivity to data centers, and then the applications and the uses of ai, we need all networks working and we need a fiber foundation to make all the others on top of it as fast and as reliable and as robust and as resilient as possible. >> well, thank you, Mr. wood.
▶ 1:10:46There's only 30s here, but in addition to fiber networks, what else do you consumers need to have access to so they can truly benefit from technological advances? You got 20s. >> well, they need robust networks, but they also must be able to afford them and know how to use them. And so that's why the bipartisan infrastructure law was so important to hit all three of those points. And I understand the calls for tech neutrality, but really, the genius of that law was letting states make that choice for themselves. And I think that's where we've seen the current administration kind of interfere too much also.
▶ 1:11:17>> thank you. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank you. Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from georgia. Mr. allen, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, chairman hudson, for holding this important hearing, and I thank the witnesses for your expertise and testimony here today. As remarked, nearly 30 years since the passage of the telecommunications act of 1996, it's clear that the communication landscape has changed in ways few could have envisioned at this particular time, with advancing technology, challenges still exist.
▶ 1:11:44It is a moving target. I mean, it's and it's fast. It's important that we evaluate what has worked, what hasn't, and how we can improve it. Uh, commissioner o'reilly, I represent a pretty rural district, and many providers in rural america have come to rely on the universal service fund as a universal service fund worked as intended. When congress wrote the telecommunications act of 1996.
▶ 1:12:13>> well, I I've given speeches to this effect. I think that the implementation of that language was far beyond what anything congress envisioned. But but but except that set that aside for a second. Um, I think that it has generally worked. There are problems because usf needs to be modernized and distribution side. You've got a high cost program with 12 or 13 programs that that are fighting themselves. They're also fighting the e-rate program.
▶ 1:12:38You have e-rate and high cost subsidizing two different providers in the same community where no, no provider could actually survive by themselves. So it is a problem. Um, you have a lifeline program that's got problems, uh, fundamental problems. And you could say, well, we support connectivity or affordability, but this program isn't working as intended. It needs a substantial rewrite.
▶ 1:13:00So I would say universal service distribution needs these an entire overhaul, though the concepts I have endorsed and supported and advocated, it only takes you one trip to go to alaska and realize how beneficial usf is, right? >> right. Well, I have conflicts between one county that the, uh, telephone operator can use universal services and the next county they can't.
▶ 1:13:25And so one has, uh, internet full internet coverage and the adjacent county does not. So thank you, uh, for that. Uh, Mr. pickering, what do you think? Uh, how can you add to that conversation?
▶ 1:13:43>> you know, on usf as we see the, the build out right now, both historic levels, as I mentioned by the private sector, historic levels would be funding from the, the public sector and the, the bead is just now hitting the shovel to the ground.
▶ 1:14:01And so as we go through the next year, two years, we need to, to assess what the, the the right size of the usf should be post bead and then look at the right reforms as, as commissioner o'reilly mentioned, how do we right size it keep what is critical in core. How do we reduce the size of the usf? And one thing that we need to make sure that that we don't do.
▶ 1:14:29We don't need to tax the innovation economy and we don't need to put fees on the innovation economy. That could then be replicated by our international competitors that would disadvantage us. So those are measure right size reform. >> yeah. And federal procurement policies are wrecking the whole thing. I mean, it's best implemented by the local folks who own the local transmission lines and poles and things like that. So it just seems like it's one conflict after the other.
▶ 1:14:57Uh, commissioner o'reilly, I, uh, excuse me, uh, commissioner o'reilly, the telecommunications act did very little to regulate wireless networks. And yet wireless is probably the most common way we stay connected with others today. How did this happen and what lessons do we take from this? >> well, it happened because congress addressed it a couple years, three years earlier, in over 93, and addressed kind of a lot of the structural issues and set up the auction process. And so it was done differently.
▶ 1:15:26And it's similar to how this committee has acted on spectrum, uh, last year, setting the framework for spectrum for a number of years. And as you debate whether to do something on some of the other pieces. So it was kind of separate universe. The lesson is that, you know, there are pieces in over 93 that one that you obviously know very well. Because of this, the auctions are the only way to only the best way and the only way to award licenses. Um, and allocation must happen.
▶ 1:15:52We must have more spectrum and we have to clear it from inefficient users. Um, and then you have the issue of how do you deal with states, uh, Mr. wood referenced the states have some involvement in the wireless and they actually have very little role in wireless service and has actually worked very, very well. >> yeah. And Mr. tier, I wanted to get your input on it. I got 12 seconds. >> in 2007 when steve jobs announced the iphone. He didn't stand up and say, is this in the public interest? Do I need to get a permit from the fcc to do it? He launched it.
▶ 1:16:22The rest is history. >> good. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. chairman. >> thank you, chair. And I'll recognize jim from florida. Mr. soto, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you. Chairman orlando is now the 20th largest metro area. We relish the opportunity to have local stories, local voices about central floridians. And there's a reason why we have laws preventing any one company from owning it all. Protecting these local stories, ensuring competition, multiple viewpoints.
▶ 1:16:52Yet we saw the fcc just approve the nexstar media group acquisition of tegna on march 19th, a deal valued at $6.2 billion, where one company would own 265 local broadcast stations in 44 states and dc. That goes well beyond the 39% national cap to now, a company that would reach 80% of the market.
▶ 1:17:17There isn't any language that I know of in the fcc laws that allow for a waiver of this cap, which is why eight attorney generals have filed suit on this issue. And president trump, to his credit, has flip flopped more than a mar a lago beach goer on this issue.
▶ 1:17:34No expansion of the fake news networks, he said as recently as november 2025, three months later, quote, we need more competition against the enemy, the fake news, national tv networks I'm sure future congresses are going to be fascinated to learn about his change of opinion. In the meantime, Mr. wood is fcc chair cars magical mystery. Waiver. Lawful? >> uh, no. Uh, I like the beatles reference too, but no, it is not lawful.
▶ 1:18:01Congress wrote that law and whatever people think about, broadcasters need to get bigger. We think they tell a different story to their investors than they tell you. But congress has to be the one to change that law. The fcc can't simply ignore it. >> now, you had mentioned nationalizing content, reduced journalists, reduced diversity. Walk me through for my constituents, you know, they're getting their local stations now talking about these local stories.
▶ 1:18:25What changes when these things happen to a medium sized market like orlando for our local news? >> right. And it's not in every market, but several markets, at least 35 around the country where these two conglomerates have overlapping stations. What they do is they put those newsrooms together and they often just wind up having the same story on two channels. So when they talk about the benefits of increased coverage, really what they mean is now you get the same thing on two or sometimes three or even four channels.
▶ 1:18:52And we simply don't think that's a good way to use that spectrum. >> you know, I love jacksonville and miami and tampa. We have great members on this committee. But would you see a consolidation where orlando wins would see a lot of these other media markets in orlando rather than local stories, right? >> yeah. I mean, that's what they talk about. They talk about synergies. They talk about cutting costs. They touted a local benefit as being. Now more stations will have access to new to nexstar's washington dc bureau. Washington dc is important, but it's not local in orlando and it's not local in every other place in the country.
▶ 1:19:23>> sure, I did want to talk about the bead program too. You know, we passed it in november of 2021, a $42 billion program. And in 2020, for all the states had plans approved. We were ready to roll across the nation. And then president trump stopped it in its tracks in early 25 to, quote, remove unnecessary rules and mandates, to improve efficiency, to cut unnecessary red tape and streamline deployment, streamlined deployment. What a joke.
▶ 1:19:5215 months later, florida still hasn't gotten our money for rural broadband. Mr. pickering. State of mississippi hasn't gotten it either, among others. Um, Mr. wood, how does this delay affect rural families, farms and businesses? >> well, I think every day delayed is a day not connected, quite obviously.
▶ 1:20:10I understand there is some frustration about the last administration, but as you said, they were getting to that finish line and that was really part of the design of the law, was to let states take control and take the reins and not have the kind of top down approach we've seen in previous fcc efforts. So, yes, there was some time taken to consider those plans. But really, that was what congress said the state should have the power. And as they were getting ready to exercise that power and start getting money out the door, everything was called to a halt once again at the start of the trump administration. >> Mr.
▶ 1:20:38Pickering, how has it affected the delay affected rural families and businesses in mississippi? >> you know, as we and in a place like mississippi, where so many of our communities are not connected as they should, we want to get bead, uh, deployed as quickly as possible. Broadband built to the places in the mississippi delta and all through the rural areas of the state. I do think that we're now poised to see the, the, the build part of bead.
▶ 1:21:09And I celebrate that all the states now just about have been approved and the funding is, is going out and that they're getting it right. And there's also a major next phase and the benefit of the bargain savings. And so we really want to see the the ntia give the states the ability to, to promote permitting reform, permitting resources for local communities and to enter into agreements at the federal level with the permitting council to the state level and to the local level,
▶ 1:21:40So that we can build as quickly as possible. >> thanks. My thomas massie. >> thank you. Chair. Now recognizes gentleman from ohio. Mr. thank you, Mr. >> chairman, and thanks to our witnesses for appearing today. Really appreciate it. Uh, always enjoyed these discussions in the past and look forward to in the future. If I could start with you, commissioner riley, and also just to thank you very much for the couple of times you came to my district. It was always appreciated to have an fcc commissioner really telling people what the score was. Uh, coming from washington.
▶ 1:22:09They always appreciated that. But if I could just start, uh, you know, you had you laid out six points. I think there were lessons learned. I think there's an interesting way you put that under your fourth point is the one that I think that caught my attention right off the bat is you can't cannot rely on the implementing agency. And I think that's important because again, when congress writes a piece of legislation, we want to make sure that whoever's going to get that is going to implement it. But you said that in your testimony.
▶ 1:22:40Well, the agency managed some issues effectively. There have been numerous instances where the law's provisions were either intentionally or unintentionally misapplied. And some of those, you know, what those outcomes turned out to be then. And the but it goes on to say, but the changes were never intended by the underlying law. Could you talk about that? Because, you know, you said that the abuses were also extremely difficult to accept.
▶ 1:23:07You just kind of delve into that a little bit, because that's one of the things we want to make sure is when we write something that it's going to get implemented. >> the 96 act did, and I think congressman pickering would agree with this. There were a number of places where they couldn't. Exactly. Members couldn't exactly agree on something and trusted the agency to solve the issue. We're going to give you enough guardrails. We're going to give you a framework or here's some language, and you do your you're the technical agency, solve this, you know, this rubric.
▶ 1:23:32And, you know, in some instances they just did and others they didn't. And, and some of those matched up with my philosophical viewpoints. I liked what they did, even though it violated the, the what was happening. I'll give you examples. Um, you know, there's language prison payphones. There's very little on prison in the payphone section and it had nothing to do. It was it was a totally different debate. And we spent, you know, over a dozen years fighting whether it could be used for prison payphones.
▶ 1:23:59Congress eventually passed a different statute that governed prison payphones or, you know, incarcerated individuals. That's, you know, but that was the authority issue where congress never asked them to do this. And the agency tried to do it anyway and abused the provision. There's so many instances where we've gone on beyond the language. 706 is a great example. It never was intended. It was a study provision, and it turned into how to authorize net neutrality. I mean, it is it is beyond comprehension. Um that that it was abused.
▶ 1:24:28>> is that is that congress's fault that we're not doing that oversight to make sure that that doesn't occur? >> well, I did some oversight. I worked on oversight here. Um, and it's very it was very difficult to get answers from the agency. And then it was very difficult. Once it's been passed, it was very tough to get it back, uh, to get the authority back and to get arms around the agency.
▶ 1:24:47You can, you know, it requires you to, to have more hearings from, from and the fcc, it requires them to be here defending their actions once every couple years is not going to do it from, from a perspective, I testified many times before the committee, you have to really be on top of it and be very aggressive. Once you pass something to know exactly, you know, some of it is also a factor.
▶ 1:25:07And I talked about this in my, my oral presentation is that members, um, sold a bit of goods to people and said this is why they want the provision to do and then turned around and told the agency, this is what I really wanted to do. So I find it disheartening that a number of members that my boss, you know, worked with, um, and trusted, um, and then turn those language into things that was never intended. >> thank you. Uh, if I could turn to you, uh, representative, thanks very much for being here. We appreciate it and working with you through the years.
▶ 1:25:36You know this, we all know that this is the best committee in congress. Great thing about this committee that we look over the rise in 5 to 10 years. And it's interesting because you also said something in your testimony about that light touch that we have to have on the regulatory side to make sure that we can always make sure that, uh, we're going to maintain our lead in the world.
▶ 1:25:57And, uh, you know, when we look at the, the 96 act right now and I'm about my last 45 seconds, you know, can we maintain this light touch regulation to make sure we, we maintain that lead across the world when we talk about telecommunications in the united states. >> yes. I do believe that we can take a light touch approach. And the lessons from the 96. And now it applies to both energy and telecommunications and broadband. That's the critical infrastructure of ai that meets at the data center.
▶ 1:26:28And you're in a great position as chairman of the energy subcommittee and with chairman hudson, how do you get the permitting reform packages through this session? Because we're in a race against china and the clock is ticking, and the advantages that they have, uh, could swing the race in their favor if we don't act in this congress so that we can build both new energy networks and capacity, as well as achieve the fiber connectivity that then distributes all of ai applications and uses to the
▶ 1:26:59Country. So I look forward to working with you on a remove the barriers to build. >> well, thank you very much, Mr. chairman. My time has expired and I yield back. >> thank you. And I thank the witness for his answer. I often say a data center without broadband connectivity is a very large refrigerator, so you gotta have both. I agree with you. Uh, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. ruiz, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:27:22As we mark the 30th anniversary of the telecommunications act of 1996, we reflect on a law that sought to expand access, promote competition, and ensure that all americans, regardless of geography, could benefit from modern communications and in communication in communities like the coachella, san jacinto and imperial valleys.
▶ 1:27:42In the southeast corner of california, where I represent and where I grew up, that promise has made a real difference, uh, because of the act's commitment to universal service, rural communities in my district saw expanded access to basic communications infrastructure. Programs built on that framework helped connect homes that had long been left behind.
▶ 1:28:06And over time, the policies established in 1996 laid the groundwork for broadband expansion, supporting telehealth and rural clinics, improving communication for agricultural business businesses and helping small businesses connect to broader markets. But while these benefits are real, they can still be improved upon.
▶ 1:28:23Because today I hear from families in the coachella and imperial valleys who lack reliable and affordable internet access, students who struggle to compete, uh, and to complete their homework at home, uh, communities where connectivity is inconsistent and competition is limited. Mr. wood, how can we build on the success of universal service programs to finally close the digital divide in rural and underserved communities like those in my district?
▶ 1:28:54>> well, I think two things. For one thing, affordability is important in rural areas, too. So we need a comprehensive approach to make sure that the networks are there and people can afford to use them. I think, as we've also talked about today, the bead program and other programs that were enacted in the last 5 or 6 years are crucial. So we have to get those right and then be smart about what we still need to do after those are implemented. And, you know, there's been some squabbling over how they should be implemented, but we have to get them right. And I think that's why it's worth taking some time.
▶ 1:29:23But now getting money out the door and getting these networks built and improved. >> um, so the trump administration's quote unquote, benefit of the bargain reforms to the bead program, uh, was supposedly meant to deploy broadband quickly. Uh, that of course, has not happened like many of his promises. Um, why is it important that these federal broadband investments reach places like the coachella and imperial valleys efficiently and with accountability for real outcomes?
▶ 1:29:52>> I mean, obviously, both of those things are very important, and that's why you're rightly focused on them. Accountability and efficiency are crucial. And what we've seen in previous broadband investment programs at the fcc have been money flowing to places that don't need it. So we did a lot of work studying what was called the dfe program, the rural digital opportunities fund at the fcc, and we saw money being sent towards golf courses and highway medians and parking lots. So that's why, again, you know, we don't want to go too slow, but we also don't want to go too fast and kind of miss things that are happening.
▶ 1:30:21And if not fraud, then certainly mistakes being made by sending money to places that don't need it. >> that's interesting. Uh, because access must also mean affordability, as you mentioned, and reliability. Um, the telecommunications act of 1996 helped bring connectivity to communities like mine.
▶ 1:30:39Uh, the house of representatives, uh, the house republicans and the trump administration have derailed congress's efforts in the bipartisan infrastructure law to ensure that working families can actually afford broadband and that the service they receive meets modern standards. Uh, what should congress do to achieve these objectives? >> well, that's a great question. I think it's hard to say.
▶ 1:31:07Please follow the law that we wrote, but I think there are ways that the current administration has deviated from that, as you noted. And so giving states that power to actually fulfill the promise of the bipartisan law is important. I think we're getting there, but it's certainly taken a while. And as you said, you know, we've delayed even more now for the past more than a year. So the fact that money is just barely starting to flow, I guess we have to say, is encouraging, but it's taken far too long to get to this point. >> yeah.
▶ 1:31:32So while we've come a long way and connected most schools, uh, and supported some rural infrastructure and created some opportunity, uh, 30 years later, we still have work to do to ensure that every family, no matter their zip code, can fully participate in the digital world.
▶ 1:31:50Uh, it is unacceptable that, uh, classrooms in my district, uh, teachers have to print out what video seems to describe what a video would be showing if they had sufficient broadband in their schools. That's just not acceptable in the united states of america.
▶ 1:32:18And so we need to make sure that no kid, uh, goes without all the equal opportunities that this great nation, uh, offers. Uh, and I yield back. >> thank you. The chair now recognize the gentleman from virginia, Mr. griffith, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman, I appreciate that. I heard some criticisms of the trump administration. They may very well be valid. That's something we'll have to discuss.
▶ 1:32:45But I would just tell you, we were very frustrated in virginia when we had a program ready to go early on the bead proposal, and it was held up because the administration's agencies, I don't know that the president himself was involved, but the agencies decided to take on authority that they didn't have and and give new requirements to virginia that weren't in the law and basically held us hostage until the new administration came in and, and released, uh, the new administration was coming in when the biden administration finally recognized the, the law
▶ 1:33:16And let us go forward. Alright. Got that off my chest. I appreciate y'all y'all's patience, Mr. o'reilly. I'm glad we have you here testifying today. You work directly on the drafting of the telecommunications act of 1996, and I don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but I know that Mr. bliley put in a phone call to get me on this committee. So I'm very appreciative of that.
▶ 1:33:37And I know you worked with him now that that particular telecommunications act included a 30 includes a 35% ceiling on television, viewers reached by one company, which congress congress subsequently raised to 39% of viewers reached. How can the subcommittee revise the provisions to ensure video competition and encourage localism? In news, amateur sports and even minor league sports that the.
▶ 1:34:03The big companies, the conglomerations, aren't going to cover. >> so a couple parts. One is, um, I intellectually I don't have a problem with the cap being eliminated. I object to ignoring and violating the statute. And I've talked about that because I worked on the 2004 statute that raised it to 39%. So I disagree with it intellectually. I think the cap is being confused, being mushed in together with other provisions I think are probably as important.
▶ 1:34:32And we talked orlando. It's the, the local market, uh, consolidation and test and standard is probably more concerning for, for the, you know, whether one person owns the top four stations, you know, that would probably be more concern and should be more concerned to the committee than someone who's able to reach the entire breadth of the united states, but has one in every market.
▶ 1:34:54And so to your larger point, though, how do we deal with all of the complexities, right, that, that and all as those rights and all of the content is migrating to new platforms that are not regulated by the fcc, right? You've got there moving to streaming, they're moving to a lot of different platforms that are outside the fcc. My argument is, and I made it to the full committee chairman, we have to deregulate the existing framework on video services. And then on broadcast, you know, we we have to recognize that broadcasting is shrinking.
▶ 1:35:22Uh, and its legacy value is, is important. And I love broadcasters, but it has, you know, we have to reflect the fact that nobody wants to invest in broadcasters generally. They're really in a very tough spot financially. And so I disagree with Mr. wood in terms of whether there's justification for changing existing rules. I do think that they face competition for advertising for everything else. So all of the rights that you spoke about at the at the end of your question are really important.
▶ 1:35:50And they're migrating away because we're still regulating some of the underlying services, uh, inappropriately. But that doesn't mean there aren't important concerns regarding a particular market and somebody owning 3 or 4, four, especially, you know, four stations, the top four stations, those, those are the ones that really care about. And it really matters if you own the first station, you know, I don't have as much problem if someone owns three and four or even two, three and four, but the number one is making the money, and one and two are probably where the concern should be if we're going to have something.
▶ 1:36:20And I suggested in a paper that if you're going to do something, you probably want to limit the one and two merging versus the three and the four or anything down below. That's probably not networking. >> let me see if I can get this next one. I'm going to try to combine two questions into one. I know we're talking about telecommunications act of 96 today, but I think it's fruitful to compare the relative success of that act to the perplexity of the 92 cable act that imposed rate regulation on the cable industry.
▶ 1:36:45In your opinion, did the cable act's one size fits all regulations lead to innovation in large capital investments in cable systems? >> well, the 92 cable act was a how to harm the cable industry because members didn't, didn't like and appreciate what the cable industry was doing. Uh, the 96 act made many different reforms and deregulated a number of aspects from the 92 act. So it was incredibly important and gave you the capital to expand those networks. >> and I'm running out of time.
▶ 1:37:13One of the outcomes of a few commentators that few commentators anticipated when the 96 act was passed was that cable companies would get into the broadband internet business. What lessons should the subcommittee learn from these two contrasting acts? And you have 12 seconds. >> okay, getting rid of the cap on rate regulation was incredibly important for having capital to invest and build those broadband networks for the for the cable operators. >> I appreciate that greatly. I'll have more questions for the record, and I appreciate all of you all being here today on this important topic.
▶ 1:37:43>> thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, Mr. peters, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, chairman. >> hudson, for calling this important hearing. Um, over 60 years after congress originally passed the communications act of 1934, which centralized the regulation of telephone, telegraph and radio communication, president clinton signed the telecommunications act of 1996 into law, the first major overhaul of our original communications legislation.
▶ 1:38:07Uh, that act represented a major milestone in the evolution of modern communications policy, because it focused on competition and private sector innovation while aiming to ensure universal service for all americans, regardless of their income or location. Before coming to congress, I served on the san diego city council, and because of the telecommunications act of 1996, local elected officials like city council members, we were limited in our ability to restrict the placement of wireless service facilities, including cell phone towers.
▶ 1:38:37This limited zoning preemption was critical for the placement of wireless infrastructure, accelerating network expansion and limiting excessive local barriers that might otherwise have been in place. Mr. o'reilly, can you discuss how the fcc has used this authority to address state and local barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment? >> well, the wireless siting provisions you spoke of, I think have been incredibly beneficial. They probably were expanded beyond what congress envisioned.
▶ 1:39:01And that's one of the examples of what I would say, that that the agency read into the statute that probably wasn't there and was not the deal that was struck in this committee amongst members that are no longer here. But in terms of policy, I think it was the right policy. And one of the things they did do that the commission has since undone is say that esthetics can be part of the factor. We said esthetics couldn't be part of the factor, and we should build them where they're needed so we can have infrastructure. The commission is kind of undone that and said esthetics can be a factor. And that has led to problems in in siting, siting.
▶ 1:39:33>> so what are the cell towers of today like the, the equipment for which we should be reducing barriers right now? How should we address siting and permitting of new infrastructure in the in any revisions? >> sure. So many of the current rules already cover the new technology. Uh, you know, there are going to be, you know, some things in the ai space if you're speaking about that, that may need help, but we do need help in two areas permitting and polls. Pole attachment provisions are have exemptions in them and they shouldn't. >> okay.
▶ 1:40:02So I would just say I share Mr. griffiths concern about the deployment of bede. I thought it was an embarrassment. We put aside $43 billion, and as a proud democrat, I was proud to vote for it. But I'm really continue to be, um, really angry that we didn't get more done. And I don't think we should do that again. And I think as we, we deploy these things out, that executing these things on the ground is really important. And it's not just about writing a good idea down or putting money in the bank. It's about getting in the in the ground.
▶ 1:40:30So I'm going to be paying attention to that going forward. As we set out on a path to six g deployment, there's still several major obstacles congress has to consider how to best to support a smooth and competitive transition, and how the communications act zoning preemption precedent may come into play. Um, ultimately, though, market forces alone do not have not made internet affordable for all, which is why we rely on the universal service fund and its associated programs. Mr.
▶ 1:40:59Wood, what changes would make usf, um affordability programs more effective in reaching underserved communities and ensuring that those communities will be able to benefit from the continued digital digital transition? >> yeah, I mean, it's a simple answer. More affordable means more money and more public investment. Now, at free press, we're very concerned that that not be done in a way that consumers are bearing too much of that burden. But the 925 that lifeline has been set at since, I believe 2012 is pretty much inadequate today for any kind of robust broadband service.
▶ 1:41:27And that's what we need to address, is making sure we spend money smartly, but we're not doling it out in drips and drabs and people being forced to have a second class service here. >> can you elaborate a little bit more on what you mean by spending money smartly? >> well, I mean, affordability is crucial to all these deployment programs, right? If people can't afford to get on the network, then they can't make use of it. And so I think there's that. There's obviously been through the years a lot of complaints about how lifeline is administered. We think that the, uh, misspending rate there has been wildly overstated.
▶ 1:41:56That's been the basis of some of chairman carr's recent lifeline proposals. You know, obviously, we need program integrity. We need to make sure our funds are not wasted. But oftentimes what we see are attacks on that program based on on actual waste, but based on other political concerns that people want to bring into that mix. >> so can you be more specific? Yeah. So what are some of those attacks? What are the kinds of things you mean so that we can understand what you're talking about? >> what kind of attacks am I talking about? Yeah.
▶ 1:42:23I mean, so the current proposal would say, well, there's a bunch of people getting money who are deceased and shouldn't be on the rolls anymore. Studies have been done that say that's about 1/1000 of the spending. So obviously, we don't want companies committing fraud to draw more money to themselves if they're enrolling people who have passed away. But I think there's actually some explanation for that. And it's a really tiny percentage. And so that's what we regret to see are political attacks launched based on very tiny problems, or at least ones that we haven't fully studied.
▶ 1:42:49>> well, I hope this committee will be doing a better job of perspective setting and reality checking. Um, obviously no one wants dead people on the rolls. And, uh, um, that kind of political attack really serves no purpose. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> gentleman yields. And now I call on representative ford. Check to check for your line of questioning. >> I was I'm usually last so I'm excited to have been moved up through the system today.
▶ 1:43:19One second here. All right. Well thank you all for being here. Appreciate your lending your expertise. Appreciate all the work that many of you have done throughout your career. Um, this is sort of the body of the work for many of you and have focused your entire professional lives on these issues. And, uh, that means a lot.
▶ 1:43:43And I appreciate you taking the time to share your experience so that we can make ensure that the future changes that we make, uh, are smart and the best for our country. Uh, Mr. pickering, a few questions for you. We spent a lot of time talking about the energy demands of data centers, but not as much on the connectivity side.
▶ 1:44:06Uh, that's also a critical piece of it, as our chairman said, of a data center that's not connected to the internet is, uh, a big, expensive refrigerator. Uh, can you explain why fiber infrastructure is just as critical as power in enabling these projects?
▶ 1:44:27>> so as you look at the ai applications and the uses and ai and the application, we don't talk enough about the ai applications and uses and businesses and individuals and families and homes will not have access to the great transformational benefits of ai unless they have broadband connectivity and every part of the country.
▶ 1:44:54And so getting broadband universally deployed and built is really a critical component of the principle of universal access to the next technology and the benefits of that next technology. So whatever we can do to to speed the build permitting reform, get the bead funding out and right resources of the non deployment so that we can speed the permitting. All of those things are critically important in the next stage.
▶ 1:45:24>> to that point, what's the right balance between federal and state action to accomplish this goal. >> so we recently encompassed filed comments to ntia that tried to create the incentives and the resources to build relationships between the permitting council, the national permitting council, which has adopted really what I think is the best model I've seen in my public and private, uh, service.
▶ 1:45:51They have one project manager and that if you have multiple federal agencies, they do concurrent permitting versus sequential permitting. They make sure everybody's in the room that everybody's coordinated, everybody's collaborated, and they've exponentially increased the speed of the federal permitting process while maintaining the high standards.
▶ 1:46:11And they're asking every state to reach an mou with the federal permitting council so that if there's any project that has both federal and state permitting, that they work together. And we're asking ntia to adopt that model, incentivize it, and then when it goes to the city and the county, many of the localities don't have the resources to pay for the technology, the engineers, the the compliance and the staff to, to permit as quickly as possible.
▶ 1:46:39And we're we're encouraging a use of some of the bead money to give resources to states and localities. So you have a true local, state, federal, national purpose of building the infrastructure of of the ai economy as quickly as possible to high standards, but having the resources to do so. >> excellent. If there's any role that my office or this committee can play in those areas, please let us know.
▶ 1:47:07It sounds like a great solution. Um, pivoting a little bit over to you, Mr. o'reilly. Uh, there are a number of proposals right now to expand, uh, the, uh, usf contribution base to include broadband providers or even edge companies. Uh, tell me your thoughts on those pros and cons and some of the concerns that might be out there. >> well, first. >> and foremost, I don't think you can address contributions until you deal with distribution and administration of the program.
▶ 1:47:36But in terms of contribution reform, I have deep problems with the idea that we're going to tax broadband, uh, consumers. Uh, we've made it a point. I think the chairman, previous chairman said broadband is essential. And that's been a debatable, you know, word that's been used against me in whether it's, you know, necessary broadband is important. Um, and if we want people to have broadband, we should not tax it and increase its costs. So I have problems with the idea that we're going to bring more people by paying into the system without reforming the system.
▶ 1:48:05And then who we're taking that money from, whether it be the high tech industry that congressman pickering talked about that I would oppose as well, whether it be the broadband providers, I think it would be incredibly problematic and taxing broadband. So I'm really worried about where we're going to get, you know, what that reform looks like on contribution side of the equation. I have favored appropriations as a mechanism. Others hate it. Hate the idea that want to consider that for other reasons. And I'm loyal to the committee and respect the jurisdictional boundaries.
▶ 1:48:31But there has to be something that that is done fundamentally on contributions. And part of that is dealing with the spending side of the equation. You don't need to raise as much if you don't spend as much. >> sure. Thank you sir. Appreciate that. Um, over time and I yield back. >> the gentlelady yields. And now I will recognize representative dingell for her five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, Mr. chair, and thank you, Mr. pickering, for your comments.
▶ 1:48:59I'm sitting here, I said in the back of this room 30 years ago and had. And doris did too, a lot of memories of those days. Um, but 30 years later, after the passage, the internet has fundamentally changed what once connected people now often exposes them to harm, whether it's harassment, exploitation, misinformation, or, increasingly ai generated content that can be weaponized and is being weaponized.
▶ 1:49:28Just this week, back to back jury verdicts found major social media companies liable for harming children, including for the way their platforms are designed and the harms those design choices caused. These rulings should be a wake up call for all of us to take this issue seriously and to act. Then, as companies now embed generative ai tools directly into these platforms, the need for accountability is only growing.
▶ 1:49:57I've been a champion of domestic survivors before I ever got to congress and married john dingell, and I've heard directly from women and families who have been targeted by non-consensual, intimate, intimate imagery, including the ai generated deepfakes. And this is a form of sexual violence that follows victims into every aspect of their life.
▶ 1:50:24I was proud to help lead the bipartisan take it down act, which will help combat the spread of non-consensual, intimate imagery, including ai generated content, and ensure platforms remove this material quickly. However, it's just the beginning because the reality is platforms have shown time and time again you can't police yourselves. Today, we're confronting a new and rapidly evolving threat generative ai tools embedded directly into the platforms.
▶ 1:50:53Tools like grok or onnx can produce and amplify harmful content. They are doing that, including deepfakes and sexualized and non-consensual images at scale, with unprecedented speed and often without meaningful guardrails or any accountability. We should not accept the status quo.
▶ 1:51:17Where companies can deploy powerful ai tools, benefit from the engagements they drive, and avoid the responsibility they should take when those tools cause harm, particularly for women in our children. Courts have interpreted section 230 to provide broad immunity to platforms for user generated content, but that framework was built for a very different internet that didn't include ai systems generating content themselves or platform design
▶ 1:51:48Choices that actively promote and amplify harm. We have. Congress has a responsibility to ensure our laws reflect today's technologies. We must ensure that platforms are held accountable not just for what they host, but for what they build, design, and deploy. Mr. wood and I'm going to ask you to be short, because I got three questions.
▶ 1:52:10When a platform like x deploys an ai tool like grok that generates harmful content, should that still be treated as third party speech under section 230, or is the company responsible for its own product? >> the company is responsible. It should not be treated as third party speech. There's a big difference between the social media platform and then grok or the other engine that is producing that content, and section 230 says that the person responsible is the person producing that information, either in whole or in part.
▶ 1:52:37So the statute hasn't always been read that way and enforced that way. But that is actually something that the statute accounts for and that courts should take more heed to. >> Mr. wood, do you think current law is failing victims of non-consensual or sexualized ai generated content? >> I certainly think people have been slow to respond. And so, yeah, your leadership on take it down and other acts like that are certainly incredibly necessary and incredibly well intentioned. But the law needs to catch up to the speed and scale of the abuses we're seeing.
▶ 1:53:05>> okay, so knowing we need to do that and you are absolutely right. What is the single most important reform congress should make to ensure companies are accountable for the ai tools they build? >> I mean, I think it's hard to reduce it to a single most important one. But that conversation about section 230 is live today. And in this hearing room, I think that that's important to get right and to make sure that companies are held accountable for the harm that they cause or they know that they're causing. And there are some legal tests along the way. We still favor. Section 230.
▶ 1:53:35We think it's important for promoting free expression online, but it shouldn't be a sort of get out of jail free card for companies that are profiting to the tune of billions of dollars, knowingly causing harm and perpetuating that over the course of, you know, years, sometimes even decades. >> thank you. Mr. my time is almost up, but I it's clear to me. Section 230 is not kept pace with the technology shaping our online ecosystem. And I hope we will all walk to work together in the bipartisan way they did it 30 years ago to fix this. Thank you. Mr.
▶ 1:54:05>> you're here. Let's do it. Thank you. Chairman, I recognize gentleman from idaho, Mr. fulcher, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And, uh, the court case yesterday, uh, that that came out in los angeles was kind of the thought process that triggers this first question, but I'll start with Mr. Mr. pickering, uh, you were, you were here at the staff level during the drafting of the 96 act.
▶ 1:54:30And, uh, this is this is in regard to section 230, and I understand the rationale. I think at that time, uh, because the internet was truly in its early stages and we couldn't really tell, there's no way to know exactly what was going to happen with that.
▶ 1:54:51Um, but given what's happened in the last 30 years in the landscape that you see it is today, do you think it's time to revisit 230 section and how that's structured?
▶ 1:55:06>> I'll give a little bit of context first and then, uh, speak to the question on 230 and, and kids and children's protection, you know, as a, as a father and as a grandfather, I have, uh, two of my sons who, who, who are here, who've grown up in this internet world and economy. And so getting this right about protecting children as we go to ai is critically important.
▶ 1:55:28When we did the 96 act, most people forget, but it was the children's decency act, which was intended to protect children from online pornography that was paired with a house provision that is now 230 that known as internet freedom and the children's decency act, was struck down by the court and the section 230 stood and stands today. I think the best way to.
▶ 1:55:57And and this is where from left right 230 has been very important for the internet ecosystem and competition and free expression and all the innovation that's occurred over the last 30 years. But we need targeted specific protections for children today. And I want to commend chairman hudson and chairman guthrie for their efforts in this committee to have kids online and children's safety initiatives come out of this committee. I know the senate's working on it.
▶ 1:56:26I think direct, targeted approaches to protecting children, not undermining the core objective of 230, but standalone, targeted, focused efforts on children's safety is the best way to handle and address in a legally sustainable way the issues that are so important to protecting our our children. The administration's ai framework makes children's safety a core component of the ai framework.
▶ 1:56:54And what I'm hoping is that this committee and this congress and the bipartisan way can find a way to unite around children's safety initiatives as we build out the ai framework and the the infrastructure that comes. >> with it. A couple more questions. So please, if you could, if still, the question remains, do you think we should restructure? >> 230 no, I think that we should we should maintain. 230 but then have. >> Mr.
▶ 1:57:22>> as this committee did recently, is. >> marco riley. >> your number of children's protection acts? >> so there's two parts. One is, does the sec have any authority? I would argue no. And the second is should you change. 230 and I would argue no. 26 words have worked as intended by this committee. Most almost that behavior that people, whether they like it or dislike it, that's governed by 230, is protected under the first amendment. >> okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you for that. Appreciate it.
▶ 1:57:50Uh, we've also heard in testimony that, uh, we should convert inefficient universal service programs into a means tested welfare program administered by other agencies or state governments. I'd like to. Mr. o'reilly, what do you think about that? Should usp be a means tested program? >> so I advocated that we means test the high cost program and mechanisms to do so. I didn't get traction. I couldn't get buy in from the industry.
▶ 1:58:18But I think it is important that we means test almost everything in the federal government. And I worked on a number of different statutes throughout the government to means test them, to make sure that we get the most efficient stretch of our dollar. Okay. And now we're not. >> Mr. pickering, you agree with that. Do you think that there should be a means tested program? Yes, p. >> I think we should measure and assess wear volume.
▶ 1:58:41>> we should measure in excess where we are post bead, then right size the program and reform it on on the distribution side and decide what kind of program we need for an e-rate, for a lifeline and for any operational subsidy. But we need to see what the, the, the market has done and bead has done before we do the reform. >> okay. Just about to wrap up very quickly, Mr. o'reilly. How would a telecom carrier go about doing that?
▶ 1:59:13>> I'll let you go ahead and answer. >> yeah, sorry. >> go, go about doing which part? >> the means test part. >> oh, I think there's there's a number of mechanisms the commission could have done. When I was there, we tried to leave it on the provider side and say, you can actually, you know, have an annual survey of your of your customers. Are you above a certain threshold? I was pushing for a $10 million threshold. If you make more than $10 million a year, you shouldn't be eligible for. >> thank you, Mr. o'reilly. Mr. chairman, I apologize. Yield back. >> great questions. Thank you.
▶ 1:59:43Chair. Now recognizes gentlelady from illinois miss kelly for five minutes to ask your questions. >> thank you, chair. >> hudson and ranking member matsui, for holding this morning's hearings. And thank you to our witnesses for participating. The telecommunications act of 1996 remains the foundation of our digital economy.
▶ 1:59:59The role of governance has evolved from dial up connections to landscape defined by broadband, artificial intelligence and always on connectivity from the south side of chicago, where I represent, to the rural communities of kankakee and danville, access to these tools is essential for work, education, health care, and, frankly, civic participation. We must protect and strengthen programs like lifeline that ensure our most vulnerable communities can stay connected.
▶ 2:00:30At the same time, we are seeing growing concerns about the misuse of federal authority, including efforts to expand the fcc's role into areas like online free speech and content moderation. That kind of overreach threatens the integrity of the agency and undermines public trust. Mr. wood, I would like to start where I ended in my opening on the scope of the fcc's authority. In your testimony, you stated that the fcc and ntia have no place enforcing or interpreting section 230.
▶ 2:01:00Can you explain why the telecommunications act did not provide that authority to the fcc, and why it's important that congress, rather than the fcc, take the lead on any reforms to section 230? >> yes. I think, as other witnesses said, two 230 was part of the 1996 act, but it's not really the same kind of animal at all. And so there's no role for the fcc to interpret or enforce it. In the last administration of the trump presidency, the first trump administration, they proposed doing that.
▶ 2:01:28And I think luckily that's quieted down a bit, but there's really nothing there to enforce. We don't want government agencies sitting in judgment of whether or not a content moderation choice was made in good faith. There are other accountability measures these platforms should be held to. But you know, any anybody, including this administration, deciding what content should be allowed online is a problem. And we've seen chairman carr wade into those waters far too many times. >> thank you. I want to shift gears to affordability and the lifeline program. Mr.
▶ 2:01:55Wood, you noted that lifeline remains crucial, but that the current $9.25 an hour, $0.25 benefit is inadequate in today's broadband marketplace. As of last year, there were nearly 190,000 lifeline subscribers in illinois. Additionally, there were over 1.4 million households eligible for lifeline but have not yet enrolled.
▶ 2:02:19To ensure everyone eligible for lifeline is aware of the program, I introduced the promoting access to broadband act, which would make grants available to states to inform medicaid enrollees supplemental nutrition assistance program, or snap participants and low income residents of their potential eligibility for the lifeline program. Mr. wood, we're providing funding for states to engage in additional community outreach for the lifeline program, be helpful in furthering the objectives of this program.
▶ 2:02:50>> uh, in a word, yes. I mean, that's why we saw the success of the affordable connectivity program, something that was advertised and companies had a larger stake in. I hate to be seen as critical at all of lifeline, but it's basically become a lifeline wireless program and people can get access to data through wireless connections. Of course, many of us do that all the time. It's just it's a very low amount most of the time. And so acp actually got to 23 million households by the time it ran out of money, unfortunately.
▶ 2:03:14And that's because we saw people with a more robust and more portable benefit that they could choose to use on wireless, but they could also apply that to wired connections and get faster speeds and have that be a meaningful discount as well. >> and then additionally, what changes to lifeline program do you envision to ensure the program is being utilized by the students and their families who need broadband connectivity to complete their homework, stay engaged in their schools, even to apply for jobs? >> yeah, I mean, it's a hard question to summarize quickly, but I think we've heard it here today.
▶ 2:03:44There has to be some analysis of the contributions. But as other witnesses have said too, like I do not favor either in free press has not favored taxing broadband customers because oftentimes people say, make comcast pay for this. We have to realize that those charges by phone companies and cable companies were included. Those get passed on to customers. So we want to make sure that there's adequate funding to support affordability and adoption. We just don't want that to be borne by the people who are actually in need of those programs themselves. >> does anyone else have anything to say about that question? Anything.
▶ 2:04:14Additionally, I yield back. Thank you so much. >> thank you. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, Mr. pfluger, for five minutes for your questions. Thank you, Mr. chair, and thank the witnesses for being here. Some of my colleagues and many of you have pointed out today, technology has changed significantly over the past 30 years. And although the networks have advanced from copper lines, um and circuit switched voice to broadband streaming and wireless, many of the regulations still remain outdated.
▶ 2:04:40I know we've been talking about this, and it underscores the gap between technological progress and regulatory adaptation. For example, in the 1996 act was was most effective, I believe, when congress limited government intervention, removed the outdated rules and allowed private investment and innovation to flourish. Um, and I commend chairman carr and the fcc for the new delete, delete, delete initiative, which reviews all fcc rules and guidance documents to identify and remove unnecessary burdens.
▶ 2:05:08And I think that congress should follow the fcc's example and act promptly to systematically remove the obsolete and technology specific mandates from our laws. And updating these statutes is is essential to that. Mr. tier um, I'd like to ask you how congress, um, should update or how should congress update the framework of the 1996 act to match the work that chairman carr, uh, is doing, such as deleting obsolete technology specific rules and statute and moving us towards a more technology neutral, um,
▶ 2:05:40Solution. And what, what examples can you give us on specifically on that? >> yeah. Thank you, congressman for that question. Uh, absolutely agree with it. And what we need to do is move towards date certain timetables for how we might go about sunsetting certain things. The delete, delete, delete proceeding is a really good example of how we can try to move in that direction. We should have been doing that a long time ago. Instead, congress and the telecom act delegated broad forbearance authority and said, well, we hope that the fcc will voluntarily just loosen the chains. And it hasn't worked out that way. Congress even required the agency to do reports on this.
▶ 2:06:09Never really mentioned much came out of that process. So I would encourage this committee to go back and actually provide some very clear timetables and and a process like, uh, michael riley identified here about very specific types of things that you expect them to do. >> so you're saying we're the problem. >> when, when delegating vague authority, that is a serious problem. Yeah. >> I agree.
▶ 2:06:32Um, well, as we kind of, uh, moving in the same direction, I mean, what commissioner o'reilly, what are the most important lessons from the successes and failures of the 96 act? Um, and which ones of those should guide congress as we update our laws to, uh, to protect our national security, our economic security and continue to innovate, what can you point to in that act that we should be looking at? >> well, I pointed, uh, I outlined six in my testimony, but I'll give you just the two.
▶ 2:07:01I think, you know, one is don't wait for a comprehensive reform you can do, whether it be piecemeal or smaller, you know, bite or bite off chunks and you can really be, uh, be effective in reforming, reframing how the commission looks at things. Uh, two is don't and this is not about this commission, but you cannot rely on a commission to do the work that you expect it will deviate from, from whatever you thought it was going to go here. Everyone thought it was going to go here and it went this way.
▶ 2:07:29And then provisions that are years later, they're still reinterpreting provisions. Um, far, you know, in 30 years later, reinterpreting provisions under new creative mindset. So what I tell people to tell policymakers is write in what you don't want the commission to do. Do not do x do not do y. You don't have authority to do z. Be very clear, what you cannot do is really important. >> take some lessons from the chevron deference case as well.
▶ 2:07:55Um, lastly, I've introduced the bipartisan keep it moving act to establish clear timelines for the fcc's merger review process. And this act would require a full commission vote to deny an application, ensuring the critical decisions are made transparently and don't create unnecessary barriers. Um, and so go to congressman pickering, in your view, uh, how would legislation like keep it moving, act, set the right framework and provide market certainty and predictability.
▶ 2:08:21>> where as I keep saying, we're in a build period, there's going to be a heightened, uh, time of mergers and acquisitions as, as the scope and scale to build the big infrastructure infrastructure that's going on. So the faster that we can go through merger reviews, the more transparent is a welcome legislative initiative on your part.
▶ 2:08:40Um, and whether it's denial and approval, full, full vote or having a dissenting debate, the better we have this an open, transparent process with a shot clock is the best way to go. >> thank you. Thank you chairman. I mean, this highlights, I think, the need for bipartisanship. And I hope we'll be able to achieve that.
▶ 2:09:03Uh, you know, even in an environment that is politically tough, you've brought together a hearing that really highlights our competition with china, our economic competition, and the stakes are really high. And I hope that both sides can really come to the table on this and yield back. I appreciate that, uh, chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, Mr. carter, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member. Uh, thank you to all of the witnesses here. Commentary has been quite insightful.
▶ 2:09:28The telecommunications act of 1996 is a landmark law that created many programs that our constituents benefit from today, including universal service fund, which helps connect schools, libraries, health care providers, rural areas and low income households to affordable and reliable broadband services.
▶ 2:09:51As congress revisits this landmark 30 years later with the supreme court's decision to uphold the universal service fund just last year, it's critical that we look at making the upgrades to the law necessary in order to bring it up to speed with the latest technologies and ensure the long term sustainability of the universal service fund.
▶ 2:10:13This program is critical in supporting telehealth, rural health care access, bridging the divide, the digital divide and ensuring everyone has access to broadband. My state is pivotal and very important in this discussion. Mr. woods. Mr. would rather pardon me.
▶ 2:10:35Communities in and around my district rely on universal services funds, rural health care program for healthcare delivery, which enables telehealth, remote monitoring and access to specialists. However, the contribution model still relies heavily on traditional telecom revenues, which are in fact shrinking.
▶ 2:10:56What reforms should congress consider to modernize the usf program while preserving support for critical services like rural health, uh, rural healthcare connectivity? >> well, I was glad to hear commissioner o'reilly talk about this, too. We think progressive funding for these kinds of, uh, distributions are important. And that's what bead got right in the infrastructure law as well. So we want to make sure that there's enough money to support those programs. The rural health care program is usually the smallest of the four usf programs. It's obviously crucial to get right.
▶ 2:11:26We just want to make sure that as we bring more money into the system, we're not putting that on the backs of people who need to benefit from it rather than paying more into it. >> exactly. >> um, let me pivot for a second. If you, if you will indulge me, pivot to bead. As you know, louisiana was the first state to receive federal approval, federal approval for its plan to deploy some $1.3 billion in funding, which included using 100 million in non deployment funds to improve access to telehealth and rural areas.
▶ 2:11:55Unfortunately, the trump administration overhauled the program and locked rural and underserved communities in districts like mine into second tier technologies. Can you share with this committee how the community is harmed when high speed, reliable internet and broadband access isn't available, and how this can lead to worse health care outcomes? >> sure. I mean, I think, you know, as we've heard, there are a lot of different ways to reach rural areas.
▶ 2:12:24But if you want to do anything to do with telehealth, you need the most robust connection possible, I would think, in almost every case. And so again, I think that the genius of the bipartisan law was that states were the ones empowered to make those choices for themselves. We've seen that thrown off track too often by, you know, anybody in the federal government saying, oh, we think you have to do it this way. >> or is.
▶ 2:12:45>> it fair to assume that the departure from the higher grade performance that was done under the original bead program to what louisiana will now get is far inferior to what we had before. >> I think that is unfortunate. I think states are supposed to make those choices for themselves. And so any pressure from this administration to say you have to choose a cheaper option might be something states say, we don't want to invest in the cheap kind. We want the better kind that will actually serve our residents better for years to come. >> so we went backwards.
▶ 2:13:12Even though we hear our colleagues talk about the time it took, how long it was taking to move forward, louisiana was ahead of the curve. Louisiana was ready. We had shovels in the ground, ready to move when we were given a an abrupt halt. And now we're moving forward again. But we're moving forward in a vein that is less than what we had before. So the citizens of louisiana, dare say other parts of the country will get a less superior product. >> I hope that we can recover from that.
▶ 2:13:39But yes, any additional uncertainty introduced to the program, whatever people want to say about the previous administration adding more uncertainty and more delay in this administration was not the right recipe to fix. >> well, you know, this is therein lies the problem. We get caught up in who did what, when, when our core mission, our responsibility is to do what's best for the american people, not to see who gets a greater level of credit, not to see which party gets to pound their chest the most, but to make sure that the resources that will improve the lives of the people.
▶ 2:14:07In this case, in my state of louisiana, they're getting less bang for their buck than what they had before. Since this administration changed. >> it reminds me of an old cliche that there's no limit to what you could accomplish in dc if you're willing to give somebody else the credit. And we've heard today about the bipartisan spirit that animated the 96 act, and hopefully we can get more of that as we really try to make sure that people are getting the benefit of the bargain, as it was called. You know, we haven't seen that thus far, but we need to make sure that that's what.
▶ 2:14:38>> the transmission went from. Democratic governor john bel edwards transitioned into republican governor jeff landry. Both agreed that the product they had was better and ready to move. And now we find ourselves in one that is subpar. And that's that's unfortunate. Mr. chairman. My time is expired. I yield. >> I appreciate that. And, you know, we have Mr. soto quoting the beatles. Now. We have Mr. wood quoting ronald reagan. This is a great hearing. I think we've heard everything today. >> I've done it before in this room, sir, so I'm used to it. >> okay.
▶ 2:15:07Uh, so keeping the carter thing going. I'll recognize the gentleman from georgia. Mr. carter, for five minutes. For your question. >> I'm going to follow up for my first cousin from louisiana. So thank you all for having me. Thank you all for being here today. Appreciate it. This is very important. But 30 years, 30 years is a long time. Think of what has changed in 30 years, particularly when you talk about telecommunications and think about and, and, and don't get me wrong, the the telecommunications act of 1996, we all agree it was great. It unleashed competition and innovation and but it was it was different then.
▶ 2:15:36And we need to make sure that we are, um, we need to make sure that we're, we are dealing with these times. I'm going to jump to, to something that's very important to me, Mr. pickering. Um, I've, I've got a bill. It's the undersea cables protection act of 2025. And your group just recently endorsed that. Thank you for doing that. 95% of international internet transmissions are vital not only to the international e-commerce, but also to our national security.
▶ 2:16:0695% of the internet transactions, financial whatever are carried through undersea cables. And that's what this bill addresses. So thank you for that. If this bill were signed into law, how would it impact our capacity for lying, for laying more cable for e-commerce and also bolster our national security?
▶ 2:16:26>> well, the the faster that we can build the subsea cables, we build the redundancy, the reliability, the resilience of really the ocean arteries of communications and commerce that are critical. And with ai, the demand on our undersea pipe, so to speak, that deliver all of the now ai applications and data and uses are going to exponentially increase.
▶ 2:16:53So we need more subsea cables and landings. And wherever they land, it's like a new port city in the old world, where all the commerce and all the energy and all the data centers and everything locates in a way to then build the new economy, right? It's critical to the economy, critical to national security. And to be able to build as fast as possible is critical to beat china and the race toward ai. >> well, good. Well, thank you again for your endorsement of that bill.
▶ 2:17:22I I'm very proud of it. I want to see it. It's passed the house. I want to see it passed the the senate and signed into law. It needs. >> to be it's essential. We commend your leadership. >> thank you. Thank you. I want to talk about permitting real quick. Um, you know, I tell people all the time, I don't care what what sector of our economy you're talking about, whether you're talking about telecommunications with health, energy, when people come into my offices, when companies come into my office, it's always the same thing permitting regulations, crushing us, crushing us. We got to do something about it. We're trying to address this.
▶ 2:17:52And I want to ask you, Mr. o'reilly, how do we ensure that current permitting practices don't undermine us competitiveness, especially in ai? >> well, look, I think you've been a leader on this issue and have had legislation in this committee to to simplify the permitting process and to expedite the process. And I think it's absolutely essential. You know, when we talk about a lot of conversation and permitting has been about energy and the energy sector, and that's great.
▶ 2:18:19I'm not dismissing it, but there's never there's rarely been a conversation of how do we take the telecom pieces and add them to that? Because that should be part of the conversation. You have to move forward if you want ai, if you want all the new technologies where we're communications technology is going, we have to deal with the permitting issue. And it's the cost, it's the slowdown, it's the approval, the layers of approval. And no disrespect to local governments, it's just slowing down the process and has been for 30 plus years.
▶ 2:18:47>> are there any steps do you think the fcc should be taking that perhaps they're not taking? >> there are things that they could be helpful on. You would want to give them authority. I think that's what your legislation, other legislation. This committee had a number of legislative efforts that would improve. There are things that I think that are vital. The committee didn't delve into. We have to do something more on polls. We have to expand the the reach of the fcc rules on polls. It's got too many exemptions in the current statute, and they've got to be addressed.
▶ 2:19:16>> and what you're speaking of, my legislation, the american broadband deployment act of 2025, this is very important because it's a combination of many of the member priorities of this committee and this subcommittee in particular, that will help to speed up deployment and reduce barriers and actually put shot clocks, as we like to refer to it as. And and we're not trying to force municipalities. I was I was a mayor in another life. And, and I, I never liked the federal government or the state government telling me what I should be doing.
▶ 2:19:45But at the same time, some of these some of these local municipalities especially are slowing things down. And there are barriers. So this is what we're trying to address here. Is there is there anything in particular that you think we we really need to concentrate on besides what we were doing in there? >> I would I would pass your legislation. I would say most many of those pieces are are wonderful. They do codify current practices at the fcc in some instances. So you're already getting some of the benefit.
▶ 2:20:13But if I were to add one thing that's not included, you have to deal with polls. >> okay. Good enough. Thank you, Mr. chairman, I yield back. Thank you all. >> thank you. Chair now recognizes gentleman from new jersey, Mr. menendez for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. The telecommunications act of 1996 was a significant update to america's communications laws. Its goal was simple boost competition, spark innovation, and make sure everyone has access to modern services.
▶ 2:20:40It aimed to expand broadband, open the door for new media companies and give americans access to a wider range of voices and viewpoints. 30 years later, as technology continues to evolve, we need to determine whether the fcc is still delivering on those promises and whether today's policies are truly meeting the needs of american families. To each witness, just yes or no was modernizing the media landscape to allow for new entrants and expand americans access to a broad range of viewpoints, a key goal of the 1996 act. Yes.
▶ 2:21:14>> uh. >> we'll skip. >> yes. >> yes wasn't a key. It was. >> thank you. And to each witness, just yes or no, would you agree that preserving a broad range of viewpoints in the media market is beneficial to all americans? Yes or no? Yes. >> yes. Yes, yes. >> Mr. wood, should the fcc use its broadcast licensing authorities, including in merger reviews, to promote viewpoint diversity in the media market?
▶ 2:21:38>> well, I mean, they should be promoting diversity, but they shouldn't be using their licensing authority to sort of cajole it or threaten people for any viewpoint they take. And I think that's a key distinction. >> I agree, and that's what we've seen since president trump has taken office. Chairman carter's used these powers in ways that undermine viewpoint diversity. Mr. wood, does chairman carter's use of fcc licensing authorities to pressure broadcasters into suppressing criticism of the trump administration, align with the 1996 act's goal of promoting a broad range of viewpoints in the media. >> it does not.
▶ 2:22:08There's not only the first amendment, which should be foremost here, but there's also a statute in the act, section 326, that I think is much older than 1996. It says the fcc has no power of censorship over radio, which of course means tv as well. And so it doesn't align with anything in the act that I'm aware of. >> I agree, and Mr. wood, just yes or no. Has chairman carter's abuse of the fcc's broadcast licensing authorities impacted americans access to accurate, reliable information? >> yeah, I think so.
▶ 2:22:31I mean, it's not only that we've seen this kind of pressure put on, but we've actually seen tangible results, which are unfortunate, but is exactly what it seems like this administration has wanted when companies have either canceled shows or pulled back stories or changed their whole news operation. >> I agree. And so while president trump's fcc chair uses the agency to censor broadcasters and limit viewpoints for political favor, americans ultimately bear the cost. We've seen this happen again and again under this administration.
▶ 2:22:55The fcc has opened investigations into networks like cbs over how 60 minutes cover the 2024 election during a major media merger, late night talk shows like jimmy kimmel live were taken off the air, while another merger was under review. There have been threats to take away licenses over straightforward news reporting about the war in iran, which americans continue to overwhelmingly oppose. Mr. wood, do you recall an fcc chair ever threatening broadcasters, broadcasters by saying, quote, we can do this the easy way or the hard way?
▶ 2:23:27>> now, I recall commissioner carr saying those things shouldn't happen. And since he's been chairman, he's very much changed his tune. But there used to be and I think there still is at this table, bipartisan agreement that this is wrong. It's just that this administration continues pressing that case. >> I agree these these actions send a troubling, troubling message. Instead of protecting a wide range of voices in the media, as the 1996 act intended, the fcc under chairman carr is focused on donald trump's interest, not what's best for the american people. I want to read a quick statement and see if the panel agrees on just a yes or no.
▶ 2:23:55Political satire is one of the oldest and most important forms of free speech. It challenges those in power while using humor to draw more people into the discussion. Equating this type of political speech was with doctor deepfakes or illegal content is a serious mistake. From internet memes to late night comedians, from cartoons to plays and poems as old as organized government itself, political satire circumvents traditional gatekeepers and helps hold those in power accountable. Not surprising that it's long been targeted for censorship.
▶ 2:24:22This isn't a close call or a slippery slope shutting down this type of political speech, especially at the urging of those targeted or threatened by its message, would represent a serious threat to our freedoms and ability to hold those in power accountable. Do you agree with that statement? Yes or no? >> I believe in the competition of ideas. >> yes. >> I do agree with that brendan carr statement. Yes. >> oh, you the punch line. >> I just know it so well. I've memorized these. >> brendan carr in 2020 and six years later, here we are.
▶ 2:24:51Him using his position to put his thumb on the scale of what we hear and how broadcasters are able to communicate what's happening in our country and across the globe. A deep departure from what he stayed here, which you all agree with and I think my republicans agree with. But I often hear more silence from them instead of them voicing their opposition to what this administration is doing. And we can't overlook this abuse of power when we're assessing how well we achieved the goals in the 1996 act.
▶ 2:25:16I urge my colleagues across the aisle to recognize this for what it is political censorship, plain and simple. Thank you. And I yield back. >> thank you. Chair. Now recognize the gentleman from california, Mr. obernolte, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and thank you to our witnesses. Uh, you know, I'm really struck by similarities in between when the telecommunications act was passed in 1996.
▶ 2:25:38You know, we're really at the dawn of the internet and all the transformational changes that it was going to bring to our economy and our society and where we are now with artificial intelligence. You know, at a very similar point, uh, where, you know, the, the landscape is just now becoming clear, uh, about just how transformative and yes, disruptive it's going to be.
▶ 2:26:00And, you know, it seems to me like we have a similarity of purpose here, where back in 1996, the whole point was to increase competition and to put in place a light touch regulatory structure that allowed, uh, americans to succeed in this new digital age. And, you know, we did exactly that same point now. Uh, so, Mr. pickering, I'll start with you.
▶ 2:26:21Uh, you know, obviously we're seeing huge capital investment in ai, not just in model development and deployment, but in infrastructure like fiber networks and data centers. Does the communications act, >> as amended by the telecom act, still work for this? This new technology or have we stretched it too far? >> I would I would encourage this congress to to begin a new framework for the new age and for the new technology.
▶ 2:26:50Taking lessons from the 96 act. And what do I mean by that? The the 96 I did create a national framework that was critical for both the deployment of competitive networks and advanced networks, but it is also critical for the internet economy to emerge that it was a national framework.
▶ 2:27:12So I really commend your work on a bipartisan basis to create an ai national preemptive framework on on a light touch as it relates to preserving states rights to to regulate on the consumer protection and the existing applicable laws and applications.
▶ 2:27:35And what you've done, I think is, is reflected in what the administration just put out in their ai framework, what this committee is doing on the permitting reforms, on fiber and the grid and electricity and energy and data centers is the is the infrastructure pieces of the 80s and 90s that we did so that if you can give a national framework for predictability.
▶ 2:27:59And I think children's safety is a is a core anchor into an effort that allows us to build the infrastructure, protect our children, and give a national, predictable framework that allows us to win the race on ai. >> right. Thank you. Uh, commissioner o'reilly, I wanted to ask you about broadcast ownership rules because this is a topic that's come up recently.
▶ 2:28:23Again, uh, you know, obviously that was one of the key provisions of the telecommunications act was to, uh, was to require the fcc to periodically review those rules, which they did. Uh, november of last year was their most recent time. But, uh, you know, the question has arisen now with the decline in local journalism about whether or not those ownership rules are still, uh, well, serving the purpose for which they were intended.
▶ 2:28:49And, uh, it's been opined by a number of different people that, uh, perhaps re reexamination of those rules is what's required to get the capital investment required to keep local journalism going. Uh, would you think that that's true or false? >> generally true. Um, I supported the biennial and then the quadrennial started as a biennial. But, you know, I think the ownership limitations no longer make any sense and they should be modernized.
▶ 2:29:19I didn't think that we could do the cap through the fcc alone and have articulated a different position there. But overall, yes, the ownership limitations certainly on the cap make no sense. And then on the local market, I think there was a deal to be had there that could have provided more comfort than than. We're probably going to end in some regards. We might have already already be addressed. The transaction will likely lead to more transactions. Um and so therefore may be moot question. >> yeah.
▶ 2:29:49>> well thank you. Uh, Mr. thea, I can tell you have an opinion on this. I'd like to. >> ask you as many of these things, but I want to I want to join chip pickering and thanking you for your leadership on the important issues of the federal ai framework and the bipartisan task force that you led with representative liu.
▶ 2:30:04And I think that, you know, we have a framework not only in the telecom act, but a year after that, the clinton gore administration came up with the framework for global electronic commerce and global electronic commerce, saying, quote, the internet should develop as a market driven arena and not a regulated industry made it very clear that we needed a national framework and that it should be very light touch. And they move forward in a bipartisan way with congress to develop that and foster that environment that led to an explosion like the world have never seen of investment.
▶ 2:30:34Uh, I mean, ai last year, $400 billion invested in this country. We're running laps around the rest of the world on this. Why? Because we got our policy framework right for the internet and ai. We need to continue that and expand it on a vision you provided. >> right. Well, thank you everyone for your testimony. My time has expired. I yield back. >> thank you. Chair now recognizes gentlelady from virginia, miss mcclellan for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:30:56I'm actually very excited about this hearing because I was a second year law student when congress passed the telecom back in 1996, which was written for a world that doesn't exist anymore, voiceover landlines were still the primary form of communication, provided over 100 year old copper infrastructure. As we heard, the internet was still in its early stages. There was no iphone, no app economy, no internet of things, no modern broadband marketplace as we know it. No algorithms steering content to people.
▶ 2:31:24The industry predominantly looked like this panel of witnesses. A year later, I began a 25 year career implementing the telecom act at the state and federal level. So I have a real appreciation for both the ambition of the act and the profound ways that the marketplace has changed since then.
▶ 2:31:43As a young lawyer, I negotiated an arbitrated interconnection agreements across multiple states, including the first arbitration under the act at the fcc, focusing on what was then called advanced services monitoring, I monitored evolving service quality standards to protect consumers at the federal and state level, help shepherd through the transition of communications infrastructure from that copper network to state of the art fiber facilities.
▶ 2:32:09I witnessed a rapidly evolving state and federal federal regulatory framework and the challenge of recovering costs from a rapidly shrinking customer base without pricing services out of reach. As technology brought intermodal competition faster than ever imagined, I saw firsthand how permitting and siting officials struggled to adapt regulations created for giant cell phone towers to small cell wireless antennas the size of a backpack.
▶ 2:32:36And my final assignment before coming to congress was figuring out how to implement bead across the mid-atlantic states from virginia to new york. And in light of some of the complaints that I have heard on this committee, I want to remind my colleagues, as I've done in the past, that some of that lag was due to the need required by the act to develop a broadband map of un and underserved areas to ensure federal funds weren't used to build duplicate facilities, the time to stand up broadband offices, plans and
▶ 2:33:08Grant processes that allowed public participation and would meet open meeting and notice requirements. We saw new entrants come and go, baby bells consolidated and gobbled up their competitors and even gobbled up their former parent. We saw the rise of cable and wireless providers, the growth of intermodal competition, the shift from voice to data, the rapid acceleration of mobile broadband after the invention of the smartphone, the emergence of fiber and satellite.
▶ 2:33:35We saw network providers get into content, content providers get into networks, cable providers get into data and voice, so on and so on. We saw industry executives push to make their workforce reflect the diversity of their customer base because they understood it was good for competition and it was good for business, and they could do so without fear of punishment from the fcc.
▶ 2:33:57Before the term d e I was ever heard in the wider community, we saw customers change how they communicate, work, access entertainment, and participate in in civic life. The act has done a phenomenal job. It is woefully outdated and does not meet the moment of what we need for the modern communications infrastructure.
▶ 2:34:25We are still grappling with persistent questions of universal connectivity and affordability. We are still debating how best to protect consumers who I haven't heard a lot about today in a broadband driven marketplace, including through transparency, privacy and public safety protections. We're still asking whether our communications laws are doing enough to preserve competition.
▶ 2:34:48Diversity of voices in an era of consolidation and concentrated market power, and whether every american can afford the communications they to tools they need to survive. So while today's hearing has not just been an exercise in nostalgia, it needs to help us think seriously about what modern communications policy should look like. When I came to congress, I believe it was you, uh, Mr. pickering, who said you need to work on modernizing the telecom act.
▶ 2:35:16At the time, having just spent 25 years implementing it. I wasn't very excited about that. But listening to this hearing, and frankly, since the first day getting on this committee, you were right. And I'm excited to be a part of modernizing it. But it can't wait. And this congress has moved very slowly.
▶ 2:35:36And whether it is implementing it in small batches, as suggested today while focusing on a complete overhaul, we've got to get it right because technology is changing much more rapidly today. And if we're not careful, the next telecom act could be obsolete in 4 or 5 years. Now, I do have questions that I will submit for the record, but I wanted to give you the experience of somebody who tried to figure out what congress meant when it passed the telecom act and spent 25 years doing it.
▶ 2:36:05Thank you. And I yield back. >> thank you. I appreciate your perspective on that. Um, now recognize the gentleman from florida, representative dunn for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. You know, 30 years ago, congress passed the telecommunications act and the first major overhaul. That was the first major overhaul since the great depression. Uh, the bill had the clear intention of promoting competition while reducing burdensome regulation.
▶ 2:36:35In many ways, we were successful, but competition expanded, innovation accelerated, and consumers gained more choices than ever before. We can't ignore this. In 1996, very few of us would have ever imagined that broadband internet would become the foundation of a modern economy, or a world where artificial intelligence and cloud computing have revolutionized how we live and work.
▶ 2:37:02Here we are 30 years later, the communications landscape has been transformed beyond recognition. The 96 act remains the last major update to communications law this country has enacted, and today's hearing is an opportunity, uh, to ask whether that framework is still serving the american people and what we need to do as congress to to take care of people.
▶ 2:37:28Uh, commissioner riley, improving our satellite capabilities has always been a top priority for me, which is why I led the launch communications act with Mr. soto, uh, back in 23. And, uh, satellite connectivity was not a major focus. Obviously, the telecom act back then. How would you propose we update the act to properly address satellite connectivity?
▶ 2:37:56>> this committee has been very active and actually led the effort to push for regulatory reform of how satellites are regulated by the fcc. In terms of the process and the timing, I would continue that process. I think it's been wonderful. The commission has picked up on that and has really charged ahead to make sure that the old structure that we had for geos, um, is modernized for the the smaller leo systems and how dynamic they are.
▶ 2:38:19The, we have to fix the processing rounds that were built for a geo universe where you might have only 2 or 3 applicants for a particular spectrum band. Well, now we're having, you know, dozens that want to have. When I was in at the fcc, you had a dozen different applicants for leo spectrum. Um, and we're going to have to deal with the fact that additional spectrum is needed, probably likely in the satellite field. Where do you find that? How does it compete with everybody else? So there are things to do, but the story for satellite is incredibly promising.
▶ 2:38:49Um, because of the exciting technology and investment that has gone on in that space, but also the committee's work to push processing reform, uh, and licensing reform. >> well, you know, I think I agree with you and I, and I hope that you'll work with my office on that because we, we spend a lot of time on satellite, uh, communication. Uh, Mr. pickering, um, your testimony argues that getting the policy fundamentals right is the key to our success.
▶ 2:39:18Um, uh, given how quickly these technologies evolve, is legislation the best way to accomplish this as opposed to perhaps regulation, if not legislation, what is the best approach for merging technologies so that we don't get too bogged down in our legislative problems? >> so if.
▶ 2:39:45>> if you follow the the core principle of the 96 act, which is promote competition in every sector, every market, every network. And if you look at how does that apply today on the ai front? So if california, colorado and new york are regulating ai models differently than all the other states, then they constitute barriers to entry, primarily of the new entrants.
▶ 2:40:07And this and we represent from new ai companies entering the market to the to the larger established american technology companies. And what we want is one national standard on the models so that everybody can deploy and then have maximum competition among the models. And the same is all of the above on our networks and our infrastructure and the ai revolution.
▶ 2:40:31And I know, uh, congresswoman fedorchuk is not here and congressman latta left, but the ai revolution has a chance to bring competition to energy like it did to digital infrastructure. And don't miss that opportunity to bring competition to all parts of the infrastructure and all models. >> thank you very much. I don't think I have time for another question here, Mr. chairman. So I'm going to yield back to you. Thank you so much. >> I appreciate your discretion, sir.
▶ 2:40:59Uh, chair now recognizes the gentlelady from florida, representative castor, for five minutes for your questions. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman, for holding this important hearing on the telecommunications act of 1996. Thanks to our witnesses who've been here. Um, the act definitely is responsible for the digital age that we live in now, uh, mostly for good, but we have, um, I think there's bipartisan concern with how.
▶ 2:41:25Section 230, uh, that shield has evolved now as the technology has evolved and this committee has spent a good amount of time over the years learning about the harms to young people, uh, through online social media platforms, especially the ways that these, the platforms are designed, not the content, but the addictive features that keep kids online or expose them to predators or encourage them to participate in violent social media
▶ 2:41:55Challenges or fall victim to financial exploitation. Um, I think these lawsuits, uh, out of la and new mexico this week are very telling. I think the public understands the, the harm to, to children. And, um, I don't the bills that passed out of the house energy and commerce committee don't do the job that they will actually leave children worse off with fewer protections.
▶ 2:42:20Uh, so there is a lot of work yet to be done here, but I don't want to, uh, anyone peering into this hearing to think that this committee has been hard at work on those solutions, this congress. Yes. And last congress's where we were bipartisan. Uh, but we have a lot of work to do. And until we, we are able to do that in a bipartisan way, these the courts and citizens across the country will take the matter into their own hands. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:42:48Wood, you've, you've um, you said. Yes. Section 230 has acted kind of as a get out of jail free card. Uh, to to some extent. How do you want us thinking about, uh, bringing clarity to section 230 in a day and age where the technology has evolved, it's not just static anymore. We have automated content recommendations, ai generated digital material. How, how do you recommend that we proceed here? >> yeah, the technology has changed.
▶ 2:43:18I don't know that that's the key part for, uh, any kind of amendment to the law. When I testified back in 2021 on this, we supported looking at what we call distributor liability. So think of the bookstore rather than the publisher. And so there was actually a bill at that time to overrule a case that I think made. 232 broad I want to be clear, again, we support. 230 we think it's been vital. We think it's still vital today. But when a company knows that it's causing harm and we can show that, then that's when they should be held to account. And the kind of product design liability theories that you mentioned.
▶ 2:43:47Yet I haven't had time to fully study this week's results in the court cases. These are all productive discussions to have. Obviously, we think that every lawsuit shouldn't land, but that too many times they've been turned away by an overly broad reading of 230. That goes back to some of those very first decisions about it. >> I agree. The committee has also spent considerable time examining how to build out infrastructure and boost connectivity.
▶ 2:44:10Uh, there are many folks back home, many of my neighbors who still are barred because they simply can't afford the device. And that's, that's why I thought it was a terrific. The congress came together and passed the bipartisan infrastructure law, uh, to, to consider broadband as infrastructure. It is if you want to fully participate in today's economy. Uh, that's why we created a grant program at ntia for digital equity.
▶ 2:44:40Um, and, uh, the city of saint petersburg in my district won a competitive $6.9 million grant. It saint pete was the first in the first round of grants. It was the only city in florida to win because there are a lot of barriers. There's a big digital divide between the haves and the have nots.
▶ 2:45:01So that was going to be an important way to, uh, to address the digital divide and get devices and hotspots and home internet equipment out. Uh, Mr. pinkerton, you said you highlighted the, you thought this is beneficial infrastructure law that considers broadband expansion. Do you still think that's the truth? >> very much.
▶ 2:45:23We just needed to get it in the ground and and build it and deploy it as fast as possible and then use the the very sizable savings, about 21 billion to help in the permitting across the country to speed. >> can for these kind of grants. I mean, for the administration to come in and rip those funds away after they the congress has passed a law. We've appropriated the money. That's our constitutional role. Right.
▶ 2:45:50What's your view of an administration acting illegally to to, uh, cancel those kind of grants? >> well, look, whether it's a republican or democratic administration, unfortunately, government is not known for moving fast. >> I don't think. >> the private sector. >> is fast. >> but I do think. >> it was a it was a matter of the administration illegally taking back appropriated dollars that have been granted to a community that that needed them. You don't have to answer.
▶ 2:46:22My my time is up. >> but I thank you. >> thank you. Where I'm coming from. >> thanks. >> gentlemen, I yield back. >> uh, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from ohio, Mr. landsman, for five minutes for your questions. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:46:35And thank you all for being here and your testimony today, the 1996 telecoms bill, to me, is about corporate consolidation and what congress did to take on corporate consolidation, to create the kind of competition that would lead to better outcomes for consumers.
▶ 2:46:56And, you know, we find ourselves in a situation where, uh, we are dealing with extreme, uh, concentration concentrations of, of wealth and power throughout just about every sector. And that leads to this kind of concentration of wealth and power leads to fewer choices for consumers, higher costs, the quality of services typically goes down, workers get less.
▶ 2:47:26And, you know, in 1996, congress took action. They had a lot of courage. They took on this, uh, situation with at&t, which at the time had 90, 80, you know, percent of the market share. It was something significant like that and broke up at&t into, I think seven, uh, companies and return competition, uh, back to the marketplace.
▶ 2:47:54It's important to note that at the moment, three companies now have 90% of the market share. Again, at&t and a few others. So there's the question as to whether or not this congress has to find that courage again, to say we are going to break up, uh, this concentration of wealth and power because it's terrible for consumers, it's terrible for the markets.
▶ 2:48:21And it's not just in telecom. Just to give you a couple examples, uh, there are four meatpackers in the united states that control 80% of the beef market. So farmers get paid less and consumers pay more. There are three pharmacies that own more than half of the market. Uh, there are three pbms that control 80% of the market.
▶ 2:48:49There are two hardware stores, companies that control more than half of the market. There's one healthcare company that is buying up hospitals. They currently only have 5% of the market, but that's significant. They've purchased 200 hospitals. Their goal is to get to 30% by the end of the decade. Just in a few years. That's 2500 more hospitals that they're going to buy.
▶ 2:49:15This is, I think, at the heart of why the economy is broken is that you have this extreme concentration of wealth and power, where only a few people are making these big decisions. And, you know, it's it's important to remember that congress did have courage to act on this. In 1996, they broke up at&t. They took on corporate consolidation.
▶ 2:49:42So I guess the question is, is that courage still here? Do we still have it because it's clearly needed. Uh, so. I would like us to take on, you know, a similar bill as it relates to food in this country, as it relates to healthcare in this country, as it relates to media across the board. Uh, Mr.
▶ 2:50:03Wood and you all can talk about, you know, you know, any, any other sector, but, you know, in telecoms, you know, clearly there's this competition question is still an issue. Um, does it need to be resolved? I mean, as we take up this legislation isn't there the question well, aren't we back at this place where three companies own 30% of the market? >> yeah. I mean, I've certainly seen commentators talk about at&t sort of putting itself back together, almost terminator like and, you know, becoming as big as it once was.
▶ 2:50:35I think the important thing to note, we've heard a lot today about deregulation and how that boosts innovation and investment. And that can be true. But we have to be careful about that because I think we also have on both sides of the aisle concerns about the power of big tech. And so deregulation. I don't agree that every situation is the same. I don't really agree with suggestions. We've heard that we should put every kind of tech company into the same bucket. I think the larger point you make, though, is exactly right, that there is tremendous concentration of wealth and that can maybe lead to faster pace.
▶ 2:51:03Sometimes we have to be worried about who's being tossed aside along the way. >> Mr. pickering, you were in congress. You know, I, I got 25 seconds, so I don't I don't feel the courage, you know, and I'm curious what you think. >> courage in in part sometimes can build a a whole. And so take the steps where you can make a difference. I want to commend you for for the rail act.
▶ 2:51:29It's an example of allowing new entrants, new fiber companies, new deployments to cross the railroad track in time and at cost without delay. And it really is an important part of bridging the digital divide. So that's removing barriers helps on the competition side. And so I commend you and and congressman joyce and congressman peters, a bipartisan initiative to do so.
▶ 2:51:54Look, encompass started in 1981 as the first and founding voice for competition to break up at&t. So, you know, today as we celebrate so much more competition in the digital economy from what it was. Fair enough. And I tell all my, my friends, my family and you, I've met progress. I haven't met perfection and we've made a lot of progress. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I yield back. >> thank you, chair. And I recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, Mr.
▶ 2:52:22Joyce, for five minutes to ask your question. >> thank you, chairman hudson, ranking member matsui, for allowing me to join in this important hearing. As the development of advanced technology accelerates, it's important that we evaluate existing law to ensure that regulations are appropriate and that innovation is encouraged. This is increasingly necessary as we see tech development leading us into the age of ai. Pennsylvania is leading innovation in the artificial intelligence space.
▶ 2:52:52As I previously mentioned before this subcommittee, the historic $92 billion investment announced by president trump in the commonwealth of pennsylvania last year is securing more jobs, attracting domestic companies, and increasing energy production. We must continue to invest in this industry that is promoting economic growth and leading to advancements across all sectors, including manufacturing and health care.
▶ 2:53:20With these crucial developments, the united states can win the global ai race. We must allow innovation and competitiveness to thrive. We must provide the proper guardrails for this to all be possible at the same time. Mr. pickering, you mentioned the importance of the united states winning the global ai race. In your written testimony, you also mentioned that we are entering into a new era defined in a completely different way by ai.
▶ 2:53:48Is this definition that we, as we enter into this, it is clear. Is it clear that we are living in that different world when then when this act was originally passed? >> yes. And that's why earlier in one of the answers to a question, I said, we need a new framework. We need an ai framework and an ai infrastructure and the policies to build as quickly as possible.
▶ 2:54:14But a national standard, delegating to the states, what is what they do best, reserving for our national interstate commerce policy on ai, and bringing competition to the energy and electricity markets that we brought to the digital infrastructure and networks over the last 40 years. >> is that framework capable of being developed with the telecommunications act of 1996? >> I would recommend a new framework.
▶ 2:54:41>> what updates, what specifically should occur that would allow ai development and competition to continue to develop? >> it goes back, you know, having a national framework on model regulation is critical because if you take the european approach, which is a permission based before you develop a model, you must get regulatory approval. And that slows innovation, it slows adoption, and it slows and sometimes blocks competition.
▶ 2:55:11So have a national framework on model regulation, allow the states to continue consumer protection, civil rights and all the core innovative things that they do, but not to to be able to say yes or no to a model being built and deployed at the front end. >> you talk about that keenness of innovation. Does that have to be maintained at the forefront to be successful? >> yes. >> I agree with you on that. You mentioned the real act.
▶ 2:55:37I am the grandson of railroaders from pennsylvania. I saw the advancements of what railroad has done, but I see the lack of cooperation currently right now with the rail industry that allows the lines that need to be placed either alongside, underneath or over rail. How important is that to allow telecommunications to continue to advance? >> you know, it's critically important both to the fiber to the home across.
▶ 2:56:03A lot of times, the railroad really is the dividing line in the community between the advantaged and disadvantaged. To be able to connect fiber to the home is important, but we're also having long routes and middle mile routes that connect key hubs, like in pennsylvania, to the data centers and the energy and the large language model data centers, those long routes connecting a global and a in a national system of ai infrastructure of cloud computing and supercomputing.
▶ 2:56:32Next, quantum compute, to be able to have those long routes, you have to cross railroads. And a lot of times we're seeing six months, 12 months, 18 months where the railroads sit on an application and never respond. And then when they do, they're charging exorbitant rates to cross the railroad. And we can do it at cost with shot clocks safely, uh, more than current safety standards, we can cross underneath in a very, very safe way.
▶ 2:56:59And we need your legislation fixes that. And it's bipartisan both house and senate. And I hope it can be part of the broadband deployment act and whatever permitting reform, comprehensive approach this congress tries to do this year.
▶ 2:57:14>> I think you recognize as we continue to modernize the telecommunications act of 1996, 30 years after it was made into law, innovations and technologies, specifically in artificial intelligence, should be one of our collective focus points. I thank you for your discussion today. I thank all of you for this hearing. Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> thank you. And I ask unanimous consent to certain the record, the documents included on the staff hearing documents list. Without objection, so ordered.
▶ 2:57:44Seeing there are no further members wish to be recognized, I'd like to thank our excellent panel of witnesses. This has been a fantastic conversation. I really appreciate all of your, uh, your thoughts and testimony and answers to the questions here today. Uh, I remind members they have ten business days to submit questions for the record, and I ask our witnesses to please respond to those questions promptly. I believe I'll have a few for you too, uh, that I'm looking forward to continuing this conversation. Uh, members should submit their questions by the close of business on april 9th, 2026.
▶ 2:58:13Without objection, this subcommittee is adjourned.