Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
It is our responsibility. The FCC serves the public, not any president, not any party, and not any one political agenda. It is supposed to be an independent expert agency that promotes competition, protects public safety, and expands connectivity to our rural and urban communities. But President Trump and Chairman Carr have repeatedly abused the FCC's power. We don't have speech police in America.
We have the First Amendment. Yet under chairman Carr, we have seen a pattern of pressuring the media to tow the administration's line. He warned Disney and ABC stations. We can do this the easy way or the hard way, to push them to take Jimmy Kimmel off the air. He threatened to investigate or revoke the license of local stations over content the administration doesn't like.
And he's open investigations into newsrooms' routine editing decisions, such as CBS condensing an interview for time. That's not calling balls and strikes. That's censorship by intimidation. Chairman Carr has stretched the standards of acting in the public interest and preventing news distortion beyond recognition. The FCC's own guidance sets a high bar for news distortion.
The FCC can only go after deliberate distortion, not mere inaccuracy or difference of opinion. Yet, like the rest of the Trump administration, this FCC seems to believe it is above the law and the Constitution. That's why I introduced the Broadcast Freedom and Independence Act, to draw a bright line. The FCC cannot target broadcasters based on viewpoint, and the White House cannot use the FCC to settle political scores. The threats this FCC poses to journalistic independence have been local as well as national.
In Sacramento, people rely on local stations for wildfire updates, flood warnings, and breaking news. Local news is a lifeline for communities. When a handful of companies control local stations, communities lose independent voices, newsrooms face layoffs, and viewers are left with fewer trusted sources. That's why Congress set strict limits for how big any one TV station owner can get. No company can reach more than 39% of US households.
That's the law. So it's deeply concerning when the Trump FCC appears open to deals that weaken local independence and plainly violate the law. Deals like NextStar's acquisition of Techna, which would create a media giant reaching 80% of US households. And in Sacramento, Nexstar Tech would put two of our four English language local TV stations under the same owner. That should raise flags for anyone who believes in protecting local news and competition.
Finally, I want to address cybersecurity. Our communications networks are critical infrastructure. They carry our calls, text, and data. They support hospitals, small businesses, and emergency alerts, and they are under attack. After Soft Typhoon, the worst telecom hack in US history, the FCC began moving toward enforceable cybersecurity requirements for companies, not just voluntary promises.
But chairman Carr reversed course, leaving our networks more exposed. So today, we're going to put this record under the spotlight. The public deserves to know what chairman Carr thinks public interest means and why he's using pressure speech. Communities deserve to know why local voices are being squeezed by consolidation, and Americans deserve to know why cybersecurity protections were weakened at the moment we need them most. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Chairman Hudson, and thank you for holding this important oversight hearing. And thank you to our commissioners for being here. Commissioner Josie, welcome back to the committee. We're glad to have you back here. And, we always say, and it's true, that we get the members of managing commerce to get to work with the best people on Capitol Hill, and you were a part of our group at one time.
We appreciate having you back. And this is an exciting time for the FCC, an exciting time to be there. The Work and Families Tax Act restored the FCC Spectrum Auction Authority, which had lapsed for more than two years. It also set a target of 800 MHz of spectrum to be identified and made available for commercial use. These actions will help meet the growing demand for spectrum, but also more importantly, ensure the US continues to be the leader in 5G and even developing 6G.
Under the first Trump administration, the FCC made a significant amount of mid-band spectrum available for license use and opened up 1,200 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use. This strengthened our position as a global technology leader, and American innovators have seized the opportunity. But in the years ahead, the United States must continue to lead in wireless innovation. Otherwise, adversaries like China will dominate this battle and set their own standards according to the values of the Chinese Communist Party. That is harmful to both our economic growth and our national security, and I would say the security of the world.
Facing these risks, we must act quickly. I am pleased that the commission under chairman Carr has already started implementing aspects of this law, and has prioritized security throughout the communication sector. Another area where the FCC is working to maintain and expand American leadership is in space. Under chairman Carr's leadership, the commission has been hard at work modernizing satellite regulations. We have all seen significant investment in innovation in space in recent years.
Americans have long relied on GPS and other satellite-based communication services, but today, more Americans use satellite services for connectivity at home and on the go. I am pleased that the commission has made this a priority. Finally, I have noted several times during this congress the urgency of updating media regulation to allow regulated industries the opportunity to compete against new platforms and, specifically, the big tech companies who are competing with broadcast and cable companies for advertising revenue and viewership. It is important to remove outdated regulations, and I appreciate the chairman's car's efforts to modernize these legacy regulatory structures to reduce burdens on incumbent industries. This is an important time for the FCC.
I look forward to hearing from the commissioners, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chairman. Now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking member of the full committee, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Hudson. One of President Trump's most defining qualities has been his contempt for American media and his hostility towards the First Amendment. Trump has repeatedly attacked and threatened late night hosts for making jokes that bruise his ego, dismissed reporting he does not like as fake news, smeared journalists for merely doing their jobs, and taken completely meritless legal action against news networks that do not bend to his will. And he's also debased the office he holds by resorting to bullying and name calling, recently telling a veteran reporter who asked a question about the Epstein files, and I quote, quiet, piggy. Our duty here is to conduct oversight of the Federal Communications Commission, and that has never been more critical than it is today.
Because in Trump's ongoing crusade to chill free speech, punish news networks, and vilify American journalism, there has been no greater ally than Chairman Brendan Carr. Over the last year, chairman Carr has grossly distorted the power and purpose of the FCC. He has weaponized the agency to benefit Trump and punish anyone who challenges him. He has rubber-stamped shady deals between media conglomerates when those deals have included monetary and political benefits for the president. He opened a sham or sham investigations into small local media outlets for simply reporting on publicly available information about ICE raids.
He weaponized the FCC's public interest principles to bully news organizations, and Chairman Carr repeatedly violated the First Amendment by threatening and intimidating broadcasters who aired speech that the president does not like. Now you don't have to take my word for it. There's a reason why a Republican senator, Ted Cruz, said that chairman Carr's actions have been, and I quote, right out of Goodfellas and dangerous as hell. This was never more apparent than when chairman Carr threatened to revoke American Broadcasters' licenses if they did not take action against a comedy program, the Jimmy Kimmel show, telling them, and I quote, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. And let's be very clear about what happened there.
The federal government threatened to wield its power to stamp out speech it did not like, and this is a violation of the First Amendment. This is censorship, which does not belong in America. There was a time when my Republican colleagues would have been up in arms over all this, when their allegiance to the First Amendment was greater than their loyalty to one man. But, obviously, that's not the case anymore. And the chairman's misdeeds do not end with clear and dangerous violations of the First Amendment.
After months of delay, chairman Kharr approved the Skydance Paramount merger only after president Trump was paid $16,000,000 to settle a meritless lawsuit, offered $20,000,000 in free advertising, and received guarantees that CBS's editorial decisions would be tweaked in his favor. This is what we call a quid pro quo, facilitated by Chairman Carr. And that's why Representative Raskin and I have opened an investigation into this merger's approval. The American people deserve to know the truth, and that some of us in Washington still believe that billionaires should have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. Now in sum, Chairman Carr has abandoned the FCC's role as an independent agency and has instead turned it into an instrument for President Trump's own personal and political benefit.
In fact, during his testimony before the Senate, he openly stated that the FCC is no longer an independent agency because the president says so. That's, in my opinion, madness. And it makes clear that the FCC is no longer operating in the public's interest. Quite the contrary, right now. The FCC is failing the American people, and Chairman Carr is failing his oath to the Constitution.
So while today's hearing is a good start, it's a pastime that this committee hold a media hearing, so we can dig deeper into these and other matters. So, finally, let me say chairman Karr's decision to insert the FCC into policy debates where it has no authority to act, while walking away from congressional mandates and existing FCC rules, is also very disturbing. While President Trump and Chairman Khan may wish that the FCC could preempt state and local laws on artificial intelligence, Congress has not given the agency that power. The FCC also does not have the power to raise the 39% national TV ownership cap, which can only be changed by Congress. So, frankly, Americans deserve a lot better than this.
They deserve an FCC that upholds their constitutional rights, that accentuates their interests, not in the private interests of the president. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We've now concluded with members' opening statements. The chair reminds members that pursuant to committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. We'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today to testify before the subcommittee. Our witnesses will have five minutes each to provide an opening statement, which will be followed by a round of questions from the members.
The witnesses here before us today are chairman Brendan Carr, chairman of the FCC, commissioner Anna Gomez, commissioner at the FCC, and commissioner Olivia, trustee commissioner at the FCC. Chairman Carr, you are recognized for five minutes for an opening statement.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Chairman Hudson, ranking member Matsui, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify. While this is not my first time appearing before the subcommittee, it is my first time doing so as chairman. Like my colleagues, I have fond memories of this room. I started as an intern here over 20 years ago now.
I also wanna start by saying how proud I am of the FCC's dedicated staff and everything they accomplished for the American people last year. The FCC delivered a historic set of wins in 2025 thanks to them. I also wanna applaud the important work that the subcommittee has accomplished in this congress. For instance, thanks to chairman Hudson, chairman Guthrie, and many of their fellow members, the FCC's Spectrum Auction Authority has now been restored through President Trump's Working Families Tax Cut Act, a major legislative accomplishment. In terms of the FCC's work, the agency has been following President Trump's strong leadership and moved quickly to execute on an ambitious set of reforms.
We're advancing a Build America agenda, a concrete plan to unleash high-speed infrastructure builds in communities across the country. We're reinvigorating the agency's consumer protection work, including cracking down on illegal robocalls. We're empowering broadcasters to meet their public interest obligations. We're strengthening America's national security, and we're eliminating waste while modernizing agency operations. Much of this represents a significant change in the Biden administration's policies.
Indeed, when I took over as chairman of the FCC a year ago, the FCC faced several serious challenges. For instance, the Biden administration had allowed the US to fall behind when it comes to one of the most important features of our economic strength, national security, and connectivity goals, spectrum. The FCC spectrum auction authority had lapsed two years earlier. The Biden administration had failed to tee up a single new spectrum band for auction, and President Biden's national spectrum strategy committed to freeing up exactly zero megahertz of spectrum. On top of that, permitting reform was going nowhere.
The Biden administration was layering on heavy-handed regulations that only made it harder for broadband builders to start turning dirt. To make matters worse, the Biden administration was pushing policies that would make services more expensive for Americans. We had to turn things around, and fast. Thanks to President Trump's leadership, we're doing exactly that. As I detail in my written testimony, the FCC's build agenda focuses on unleashing the nation's broadband builders.
It does so by advancing several core goals. For one, we're modernizing, permitting rules, and cutting red tape. For one, we're freeing up the airwaves that are necessary for America to lead the world again. We now have a massive new spectrum pipeline, and are working on multiple new spectrum auctions. In fact, the FCC just voted at the end of last year on a plan to auction up to 180 MHz of spectrum in the upper C band.
The secondary markets, we're now seeing large chunks of spectrum move into the hands of competitors that can put it to productive use quickly. Indeed, one carrier alone announced that they built out the spectrum they gained access to late last year. It's over 23,000 cell sites in record time, boosting 5G speeds by up to 80%. In all of this, President Trump and the FCC are looking out for America's blue-collar workers. In this job, I've had the chance to climb towers, splice fiber, and string lines with some of the country's most talented and hardworking telecom workers, and also some members of this committee.
So it's important to me that the FCC does its part to strengthen the nation's telecom workforce. We're already seeing changes. Providers are now adopting faster payment cycles. They're closing loopholes that allowed foreign fly-by-night groups to swoop in and undercut US workers, and they're improving safety. Finally, the FCC is now pushing the largest deregulatory effort in the agency's history.
To date, we've teed up for removal over 1,000 rules. In all of this, we're seeing good results, including unaffordability, where data just out shows that prices for wireless plans are now down over 4% since last January. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my commission colleagues and the agency staff to deliver on this important agenda. And in closing, I want to thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Speaker 6
Thank you. Chairman Guthrie, ranking member Polone, chair Hudson, ranking member Mitsui, vice chair Allen, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is worth stepping back and asking where the FCC has been directing its energy. Too often, that energy has gone into culture war fights rather than protecting consumers and expanding access to reliable, affordable broadband.
From my perspective, the FCC has drifted from its mission in ways that should concern this committee. Let me begin with the First Amendment. For months, this FCC has asserted an apparent roving mandate to police speech that this administration does not like, invoking an undefined and unchecked concept known as the public interest standard. The standard is being treated as a license to weigh in on content, viewpoint, and editorial judgment. The FCC's job is not to police content, root out media bias, or guarantee favorable coverage for any administration.
Its responsibility is to regulate communications infrastructure and markets, not censor the speech that flows through them. Both the First Amendment and the Communications Act protect against the FCC interfering with speech and engaging in censorship. In a free society, the government does not get to decide what speech is acceptable or is aligned with its views. When the government's media regulator claims the power to judge content or to police bias, we move away from oversight and towards censorship and control. That is why it is so important for the commission to define what it means by the public interest standard, something I have called on it to do repeatedly.
It is also why Congress must insist on guardrails and protect against the FCC acting as an arbiter of free speech. I do want to acknowledge the commission's continued bipartisan work on robocalls, which remain the FCC's top source of consumer complaints. But beyond that, we are seeing the FCC retreat from core responsibilities that help make communications more affordable, more transparent, and more accessible. Affordability is now one of the biggest barriers to staying connected. Programs like the Affordable Connectivity Program helped millions of households afford basic service.
When that support lapsed, the impact was immediate. Yet the commission has failed to treat that loss with the urgency it demands. Instead, what we have seen is a clear pattern of retreat from practical, consumer-focused initiatives. The commission eliminated e-rate support for school bus connectivity and hotspot lending by schools and libraries. For many students, seniors, and families, these programs were the only reliable connection to the internet.
Ending them removed one of the most effective tools we had to help people participate in the digital economy, and to avoid being left behind. The commission has rolled back limits on exorbitant prison communication rates. These communications are often the only way for those in prison to stay connected to the support they need to return to society without turning back to crime. Vulnerable families will now be paying higher phone rates because of the FCC's actions. The commission has proposed weakening the broadband nutrition labels it previously adopted, making it harder for consumers to compare prices, speeds, and fees before they sign up for service, and making it easier for prices to rise.
The commission has stalled the cybersecurity trust mark after years of bipartisan work, leaving consumers without a practical tool in an increasingly risky digital marketplace. And in a nation that is home to millions of non-English speakers and that welcomes millions of international visitors each year, the commission has delayed bipartisan efforts to provide consumers with multilingual emergency alerts. As we prepare to host the World Cup and the 2028 Olympics, language barriers should not become a public safety risk. None of the policies this administration has sidelined were symbolic. Their rollback reflects a commission spending less time on consumer needs, and more time on ideological priorities and the needs of billion-dollar corporations.
Without sustained attention to affordability and consumer protection, even the largest investments in broadband deployment, including the BEAD program, risk becoming digital bridges to nowhere. If students cannot afford broadband, if families cannot trust the security of their devices, if incarcerated individuals are cut off from support, and if emergency alerts fail to reach whole communities, then no amount of deregulatory policy will close that divide. We should measure success from AI and other investments in human outcomes. Who is connected? Who is protected?
And who is fully included? That is the standard the FCC should be held to, and the responsibility it must return to if it is to fulfill its mission. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Commissioner Trustee, you're recognized for five minutes for your opening statement.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Chairman Hudson, ranking member Matt Swee, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It has been six months since I was sworn in as a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission. During that time, I have focused on policies to advance access to high-speed connectivity, strengthen the resilience of the nation's communications networks, and restore US leadership in next-generation communications technologies. A critical part of that work has been the opportunity to travel across the country and around the world to engage directly with those who build, maintain, and rely on our communications infrastructure and technologies.
From Jackson, Mississippi to Eak, Alaska, and abroad, I have seen firsthand how fixed, mobile, and satellite connectivity is delivering on the promise of job creation, technological innovation, and economic prosperity. In Jackson, Mississippi, I saw how broadband is delivering quality, life-saving care straight into the homes of Mississippians across the Magnolia state. Doctors at the University of Mississippi Medical Center are treating chronic illnesses, managing high-risk pregnancies, and delivering mental health care by video to rural communities that would otherwise go without these essential services. In Bethel and Eke, Alaska, I saw how access to broadband is transforming lives. These Alaskan towns are home to some of the most rugged and hard-to-reach terrain, and broadband is enabling Alaskan natives and non-natives alike to contribute to and benefit from the global digital economy while maintaining their treasured culture and way of life.
And last fall, I traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan to represent the United States at the International Telecommunication Union's World Telecommunication Development Conference. There, ministers and regulators from around the globe highlighted their progress on closing the digital divide within their nations' borders. They also use this forum to seek US guidance and leadership on maximizing spectrum efficiency, building trusted networks and secure supply chains, and creating a regulatory environment that invites continued innovation, investment, and competition, while protecting consumers and enhancing public safety. These are issues we confront at the FCC in almost every proceeding. They also inform the three priorities guiding my work: universal connectivity, network resilience, and US leadership.
Ensuring that every American has access to communication services has been the FCC's core mission since its founding. In addition to the Universal Service Fund, removing regulatory barriers that impede broadband deployment is critical to connecting every American. I commend members of this subcommittee for advancing several legislative proposals to reform the permitting process, which will help accelerate the delivery of high-speed broadband services to homes and businesses across the country. In an era of growing digital hostility, however, achieving universal connectivity requires an increased focus on the deployment of trusted and resilient network infrastructure. Our communications networks are the backbone of both our economy and our defense.
From mobile call scams to foreign-made network components to infrastructure vandalism and copper theft, the threats are evolving rapidly. Recent commission actions to remove foreign adversary-owned labs from our equipment authorization process, to block illegal robocalls from exploiting American consumers, and to garner commitments from broadband providers to harden their network infrastructure will enhance network integrity while allowing us to maintain agility in responding to new and emerging threats. US leadership in next generation technologies, 6G, AI, emerging commercial services in space, and more hinges on our ability to deploy high speed and resilient communications infrastructure to every corner of the country. Thanks to President Trump and members of this subcommittee, the commission's general spectrum auction authority has been restored, along with the creation of a long-term spectrum pipeline. This positions America to lead in wireless innovation and beyond.
Our continued success in technological advancement will ultimately be determined by a domestic and international regulatory environment that emphasizes innovation, competition, and global cooperation. Importantly, US leadership isn't inevitable. It must be earned. I look forward to working with members of this subcommittee, the full committee, and our interagency partners to ensure that the United States is positioned to capture first mover advantages in technologies that will define the future of our economic and national security. Mister chairman, thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I'd like to take a moment of personal privilege and welcome someone I see in the audience here, former chairman of this subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee, Greg Walden. Welcome back. Good to see you, sir. We will now begin questioning, and I recognize myself for five minutes.
Chairman Carr, for the United States to maintain its leadership in wireless innovation, we need to make both licensed and unlicensed spectrum available for commercial use. Can you tell us why a balanced spectrum policy is so important?
Speaker 5
Yeah. US leadership in wireless is part and parcel of our geopolitical leadership. We need the full toolkit out there, both licensed and unlicensed. In fact, on the unlicensed side, we're gonna be voting at the FCC later this month to supercharge Wi-Fi so Americans get better, faster, more powerful Wi-Fi. I think it's a great complement to the other work that we're already doing on the license side.
Speaker 7
Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank you for your leadership on spectrum policy. I've been a proponent of an all of the above approach to spectrum policy, where we can accommodate a variety of users, use cases, and technologies. Our immediate priority is the AWS three spectrum auction that'll start in June, and we're also working on rules for the upper C band auction, which will create opportunities for licensed spectrum. But we also need more spectrum for unlicensed uses, to support Wi-Fi and IoT-based applications.
And we need spectrum for satellite connectivity and space-based applications. So I think that having licensed, unlicensed satellite spectrum is important for promoting innovation, investment, competition, and strengthening US leadership in next generation technologies.
Speaker 1
I agree. Jeremy Carr, the White House recently released a presidential memorandum on six G. How does this action affect your collaboration with the NTIA on identifying additional bands for auction?
Speaker 5
Well, thanks again to the work of you and this committee and president Trump. We now have a real concrete spectrum pipeline, 800 MHz. And as part of that, we are collaborating very closely with NTIA, with Commerce, with the White House, to make sure we're identifying the right target bands, studying them, and staying on track. And so that's a really good thing. Again, we, as a country, we're behind a little bit on 3G, but we caught up on 4G.
We caught up on 5 g. Now President Trump is making sure that the US leads the way on next-generation technology too.
Speaker 1
Great. Chairman Cars mentioned in my opening statement. I'm part of the bipartisan, bicameral Universal Service Fund working group that's trying to implement long-term reforms to ensure sustainability for USF into the future. How does the USF ensure that broadband remains affordable for all Americans?
Speaker 5
Universal service fund has played a key role over the years, ensuring connectivity for Americans all across the country. We're doing work right now, including making sure that we're ending any unlawful expenditures that were taking place. We are policing better for waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs. We are gonna work collaboratively, with the bipartisan bicameral task force that you talked about. And more generally unaffordable, we are making some really good progress there.
Again, just recent data out. Wireless cell phone plans are down 4% since January 2024 alone. They're down over 7% from Biden-era highs. Right when we came into office, we ended a Biden-era plan that could've spiked the price of Internet services for Americans living in apartment buildings by at least, one study up to 50%. There's a lot more work to go, but I'm glad that we're heading in the right direction.
Speaker 1
Great. What reform ideas should Congress consider, particularly on the distribution side, as we evaluate the future of the USF?
Speaker 5
Well, one thing that's important, I think Congress is focusing on, should focus on, is technology neutrality. We want high speed fiber connections in so many parts of the country, but there are other places where you're gonna have fixed wireless or a new generation of low earth orbit satellite or 5G or 6G. So we wanna do this in a way that makes sure that Americans get the connectivity they expect and deserve, but we do it in the most efficient way possible.
Speaker 1
I agree. So public safety communication is also a top priority of mine. It includes everything from upgrading our 911 systems to NG 911 to ensuring that we quickly restore communications following a disaster. Again, appreciate your visit to Western North Carolina looking at this issue. What are your top priorities in improving our public safety communications?
Speaker 5
Well, you're called a nine one one, absolutely always has to go through. That's a system that we never want to see fail, and we're taking a lot of steps to harden it. We are working to collaborate across different industry segments, including power and utility and telecom crews, that when you rush into a place like Western North Carolina after Helene, that we're making progress and not stepping on each other. So we're encouraging that, and we're taking other efforts to encourage this broader transition to all IP networks, which, again, can really strengthen the resilience and performance of the 911 and public safety system.
Speaker 1
Great. I appreciate that. My time is getting very low, and I can't hold everybody else accountable if I go over. So I believe I'll stop and recognize our ranking member, Miss Matsui, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Trump administration is weaponizing the FCC to punish speech it doesn't like. A free press is supposed to hold power accountable. Commissioner Gomez, President Trump has threatened to revoke the licenses of NBC and ABC, claiming they're biased and give him only bad publicity or press. Yes or no?
Does the FCC have the power to take licenses away from network failures solely for the content of their news coverage?
Speaker 2
Okay. Chairman Carr has consistently used the FCC's news distortion policy to justify investigating broadcasters. Can you briefly describe the news distortion policy and whether, in your view, it allows the FCC to revoke or not renew a broadcast license for perceived bias? Thank you.
Speaker 6
For that question. So the news distortion policy covers local broadcasters broadcasting news about a significant event.
Speaker 6
But it requires intentionality to mislead about a significant event, not merely an incidental event. And it also cannot be used if you just simply disagree with the content, and if it's just an incidental mistake. Now the courts have looked at the constitutionality of the doctrine. And what they've said is under the constitutional scrutiny, because we are looking at deliberate distortion and not just mere inaccuracy or a difference of opinion, that it would uphold the constitutionality of the news distortion policy. Under this FCC, however, we appear to be using the news distortion policy to go after any content that we don't like, and using that in conjunction with this vague public interest standard.
Speaker 2
Okay. Chairman Carr, the Communications Act requires broadcasters to serve the public interest. Does that standard allow the FCC to censor or interfere with broadcasters' free speech under the First Amendment? I just want a yes or no here.
Speaker 5
What the Supreme Court has said on this issue is that, quote, there is no one who has a First Amendment right to a license. So the FCC enforcing the public interest standard on broadcasters, according to the Supreme Court, doesn't violate the First Amendment. It doesn't constitute.
Speaker 2
So, what are you concerned about? Is it yes or no? Just your, I wanna just hear from you. Yes or no?
Speaker 2
Yes or no? I mean, just don't quote the Supreme Court. Where are you? Yes or no?
Speaker 5
Look. The FCC has an obligation to enforce the public interest, and that's very unique to broadcasters. Again, if you step back, broadcasters.
Speaker 5
Unique among all other distributors of news and information that license. They have.
Speaker 2
I don't need a speech now. Does a public interest include informing the public about what their government, including ICE, is doing in their local community? Yes or no?
Speaker 5
The core ingredient of the public interest standard is to identify the needs of your local community and make sure you're meeting them.
Speaker 5
Broadcasters have an obligation to identify and meet the needs of the local communities they serve.
Speaker 2
Okay. When you talk about the public interest, does the public include Americans who disagree with the president? I just want a yes or no here.
Speaker 2
With the president, when you talk about public interest. Does that include Americans who disagree with the president? I just want a yes or no.
Speaker 2
In 2021, you wrote that a newsroom's decision about what stories to cover and how to frame them should be beyond the reach of any government official. Do you stand by that today? Yes or no?
Speaker 5
Yeah. In that context, there were members of this committee that wrote letters to cable companies, which, again, aren't broadcasters, no public interest obligation, and they pressured those cable companies to drop cable channels, Fox News, OAN, Newsmax, because the members of this committee described them as right-wing outlets. I think when the Democrats on this committee did that, it was wrong. Okay.
Speaker 2
So to recap, we agree that broadcasters are protected by the First Amendment. Is that right?
Speaker 2
The public interest includes informing communities about government action. Correct? And the FCC, a government agency, shouldn't influence newsrooms' decisions. Correct? Okay.
So why did the FCC open an investigation into KCBS in San Francisco after it covered the January 26 ICE raid in San Jose?
Speaker 5
The SEC, I believe, received either a complaint or we heard concerns about that specific radio station, and we've raised those concerns. I believe we've heard back from the radio station. We have nothing new to share on that investigation.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chairman, I'll recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mister Guthrie, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Thank you for being here. This is the chairman, Carr. I appreciate your commitment to meeting the 800 megahertz target established in the working families tax cut. Can you talk about how the consumer benefits, that making spectrum more available for commercial use springs to hardworking Americans, but focus on how it will impact prices for hardworking Americans?
Speaker 5
Thank you very much for the question. Prices, according to new data just out, on the wireless side in particular, are already down over 4% from January 2024 alone. And part of this is our work to make more spectrum available, both through auction and secondary markets. When you introduce new spectrum into a market, the data shows that it drives down prices for consumers significantly. And so both in our work in the secondary markets and our work in the upcoming auctions, pushing more spectrum into the marketplace is going to be really good for consumers.
Speaker 3
K. Thank you. So, commissioner or trustee, the US has led the world in wireless innovation, including through unlicensed uses of spectrum such as Wi-Fi is a great example of unlicensed. It's changed the way people connect to the Internet, and then led to an ecosystem of new devices that we all rely upon. So could you, how can we continue to foster this innovation investment to ensure The United States continues to lead the world in wireless?
Speaker 7
Sure. Thank you for the question, and thank you for your leadership in spectrum policy. Because we have the spectrum provisions in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, that gives us the foundation we need to lead the world in wireless. And so to build on that, we need to maintain predictability in our spectrum policy, so to continue to have auction authority in a long-term spectrum pipeline. We need to be leading in international standard-setting bodies.
We also need to maintain strong interagency coordination. And I think we need to be investing in artificial intelligence so that we can increase the spectrum efficiency. And I think AI will define the future of things like 6G, AI native networks, and capabilities like integrated sensing and communications. And to build on that, I also think we need to continue to build trusted and secure infrastructure and develop coalitions with our international partners and allies so that our preferred technologies and standards achieve harmonization and scale. I think all of those things will position us well to lead in wireless innovation.
Speaker 3
Okay. Thank you, and welcome back to the committee. Hope you're enjoying it from that side.
Speaker 3
And I enjoy working with the ranking member of this subcommittee. We're still working together. I ranked member Matsui on the spectrum policy. That's been a good work for us. And, so, chairman Carr, could you speak to the importance of media modernization and why it's critical to remove outdated regulations for incumbent industries to allow them to better compete with big tech?
Speaker 5
Well, one of the main concerns I have with respect to media policies is you have, on the one hand, all these individual licensed local TV stations. On the other hand, you have these national programmers, Disney, Comcast, a handful of others. And over the years, historically, we had a balance between the national programmers and the licensed local TV stations. But recently, what we've seen is those national programmers have just consolidated and amassed a massive amount of power. We're losing that balance between the national programs and the actual local TV stations.
In some cases, they're becoming just a mouthpiece for programming produced by those national programmers. So the thing that we're trying to push the hardest on our media policies is to re-empower those local TV stations, to compete in this modern media marketplace.
Speaker 3
Okay. Thank you. And, also, chairman Carr, space is expected to dominate the upcoming war radio communications conference. I think commissioner Gomez told me yesterday, he was very has been very involved in the radio communications conferences. I'm deeply concerned about what China and Russia are doing in space.
And that being said, our friends across the Atlantic have been making it difficult for American companies to operate in the European market. Jermakar, from your perspective, how do we posture the US for success? And do you think there's still room for partnership with our partners in Europe?
Speaker 5
One thing I have, I've credited my predecessor chairman, Rosenworcelonas, she stood up a new space bureau inside the FCC. And one thing that we're doing is really supercharging those efforts there. Right when I came in, we cleared out over half of the backlog that had been there. We recently approved a next-generation constellation into low Earth orbit. We did that in roughly half the time that it had taken the FCC to approve the prior updated constellation.
And so, as you point out, China wants to dominate in low earth orbit and up and down all orbital slots.
Speaker 3
I have about 30 seconds. So what in this area, what can the committee do to help? Is there a legislative need for you, or what can we do to help you?
Speaker 5
You know, the FCC needs to continue to move faster in this space, and legislative efforts to help lock that in would be a good thing.
Speaker 1
I appreciate that, chairman. Chair now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, mister Plong, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairman Hudson. I and chairman Carr, I did wanna get into the local broadcasters that you mentioned. But just a simple yes or no, initially. You recently stated that the FCC is not an independent agency. True?
Yes or no?
Speaker 4
But to me, that is very much contradictory to what you said in 2022 when you testified before this various subcommittee. And you made it clear that Congress made the decision that the FCC is truly independent, not the president, and certainly not you, that it is an independent agency. So I think you, you know, you're kinda hedging a little bit when you say that you think it is an independent agency because I think you've repeatedly said that it's not, but whatever. Let me get to Commissioner Gomez. Can you discuss the importance of the FCC's independence from political interference, if you will?
Speaker 6
Thank you for your question. Congress set up the FCC as an independent agency because it feared that the agency would be subject to the whims of one person or one political party. That is why we have an independent, multi member expert body that regulates our communications medium. So when we declare that we are not independent, what we are doing is, a, we're not recognizing what Congress wanted when it created this independent agency, but we are also putting way too much power into one person and then doing their political whims.
Speaker 4
I appreciate that. And I do think, Chair McCarl, that, you don't, you know, your repeated comments do not suggest that you think it is an independent agency. But I don't wanna get into all the details because I do wanna get to this local broadcaster issue, which you mentioned before. Because I think local broadcasters are some of the most powerful voices shaping public opinion at the local level, and the FCC has adopted and enforced ownership restrictions to ensure the needs of local communities are met. And that's why I have concerns with any further relaxation of that ownership.
And I also wanna remind you that congress set the maximum reach for entities owning TV stations at 39% of national television audience households, and only congress can change that threshold. So let me ask you, chairman. Do you agree that only Congress has the authority to raise the national ownership cap?
Speaker 5
The position of the FCC consistently over the prior four chairs, Republican and Democrats alike, has always been that the 39% cap is a rule that the FCC has on our code of regulations. And as a general matter, I really agree with you on the need to reinvigorate.
Speaker 4
Right. But you're saying then that you don't think you can raise it on your own? The commission can.
Speaker 4
Well, I mean, yes or no. You do believe that you can raise the cap on your own. You're saying it's a regulation, not a statute?
Speaker 5
We're looking at that right now. I'm saying that if you look at the last four FCC chairs across Republican and Democrat, the FCC has consistently been I
Speaker 4
I don't think you're answering my question, but let me move on. Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with Chairman Carr? And, well, I guess he didn't really say anything. So let me ask you, what impact do you think any relaxation of this 39% would have on consumers?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. So, yes, the 39% ownership cap is, in fact, in the statute. The congress amended the Communications Act when it imposed the 39% ownership cap. So I don't think that we have the authority to waive that. It is not just a rule.
Rules are how we implement the act. I believe consolidation is worrisome. I travel all over the country, and I meet with local broadcasters. And I am always so impressed with their commitment to their communities and to serving their communities. What I fear is that this consolidation is gonna enable behemoth, corporate parents to take those local broadcasters and to create, quote, efficiencies that will, in fact, water down local news and then lead to less service for their communities, not more.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you. Let me ask one more question. There's a lot of discussion with the chairman about the public interest or the public interest standard. But I really believe that under chairman Carr's leadership, the FCC has really not served the purpose, the public interest, but rather the personal or political interest of president Trump. So let me ask you, Commissioner Gomez, has the FCC under Chair Carr's leadership been guided by the public interest standards you would expect, especially when it echoes President Trump's threats to take away Brooke's license for merely criticizing him?
How was that in the public interest?
Speaker 6
Fundamentally, it's important to note that we are subject to the First Amendment and to the Communications Act prohibition on censorship. We cannot use this vague and undefined unchecked term, the public interest, in order to go after any content we don't like. What we are seeing under this administration is retaliation against speech and reporting that this administration doesn't want, in order to get coverage that this administration wants. That is not a good use of the public interest standard, and we need to define what we mean by that.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, and I'll recognize the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Allen, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 11
Thank you, chairman Hudson, and also, chairman Carr and other members of the commission for being here today. And, you, anyway, thank you for your service. It, it's great, even under the duress that you're dealing with, but, which I really apologize for. But, anyway, chairman Carl, last March, 73 members of Congress, including myself, sent a letter to your commission calling for immediate action to update outdated ownership regulations. Our letter emphasized the need for rules that reflect today's competitive media landscape where local broadcasters face unprecedented challenges competing with the unregulated big tech platforms.
Could you provide us with a status update on this issue? And as I understand it with the local broadcasters, it's a matter.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Thank you, Congressman, for the question and for your leadership on this issue. The FC has a couple of active proceedings underway where we're looking at this. Again, Mike, you know, North Star through all this media policies, I'm not interested in seeing the national programmers Disney and Comcast amass any more power than they already have. I think one thing that we have to try to look at, whether it's this proceeding or otherwise, is how do we create some better structural competition for them.
Because, to your point, if you look at local news right now, it's principally being driven by local broadcasters. We used to have thousands of local newspapers across the country. I know in your experience, we're seeing them closed down or at least stop physically printing by the dozen. What I don't wanna see, and I think the conversation that we should have in Congress is if we care about local news and local reporting, how do we make sure that those local TV stations continue to be economically viable? Because we don't want them to go the way of so many newspapers.
I don't think we'd be better off as a country if we lost them.
Speaker 11
And, you know, again, it's run by local folks who live in the community, who work in the community, who contribute to the community. And I don't see how being part of a bigger organization to survive, you know, the current turmoil, if you would say, in this industry and expansion in this industry is, I think it's, you know, I think it's important that we have that local influence. You've made empowering local broadcasters a centerpiece of your agenda. One such way has been your oversight of retransmission consent fees, ensuring that they are used as Congress intended, that is, by local broadcasters for programs that serve the local community. Can you update us on your oversight of the retransmission consent regime, and explain why this is so important?
Speaker 5
One issue that we're looking at is those agreements, the affiliate agreements between the local TV stations on the one hand and the national programmers on the other. We're looking at lots of different ways to help empower that. Retrans is a very complex issue. On the one hand, we're seeing declining revenues at a lot of local TV stations. At the same time, the national programmers will say they need to maintain scale themselves to continue to compete for expensive sports rights.
And so we have to try to find a right balance between having the financial capability of local TV stations to invest in local news and reporting, but also making sure that they have, you know, the national sports rights that people expect and demand. It's a complex issue, but we're looking at it. Yeah.
Speaker 11
Yeah. There's nothing worse than having the national championship, and then all of a sudden, you find out, oh, I can't get it on my television. Yeah. We know that in 2027, China will host the next world radio conference, an international conference that will set global rules for using spectrum under the last administration. Domestic disputes between federal agencies about how spectrum should be used sidelined the United States and allowed other countries to pick the spectrum bands for next generation networks.
As a result, the United States now trails the world on mid band spectrum for wireless broadband. What does the United States need to do to ensure it is ready for the next World Radio Conference? How can we ensure that the United States and not China is driving global spectrum focus at this conference?
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman. I think you're right. If you look back at past radio conferences, there were some gaps between different federal agencies in terms of their positions. That doesn't put us on the strongest possible footing. You know, thankfully, President Trump has been very clear to every agency that the United States is going to lead the world in next-generation technology.
That's resulted in a lot of close collaboration from the FCC, NTIA, Commerce, the White House. And, hopefully, you know, we continue to make a very strong unified position because, you know, China and others are gonna be very unified going into that. And so we need a strong US position as well.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair, now recognize the gentleman from Florida, mister Soto, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 12
Thank you, chairman. President Trump has the most corrupt administration in modern history. $2,000,000,000 cryptocurrency scandal, pay-to-play pardons, pardoning January 6 insurrectionist, an Epstein pedophile cover-up, White House ballrooms that are lavish, and the Trump family getting rich off of official US foreign policy in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and beyond. And when the national media like CBS, ABC, and NBC cover these egregious scandals or use satire. FCC chairman Brendan Carr tried to crush them using his power as chairman.
CBS covers the cryptocurrency corruption, pardon, of the Binance founder. Then CBS is forced to install a bias monitor two days after the merger approval, under pressure from Carr and Trump, along with an extortion payment of $16,000,000. ABC's Jimmy Kimmel uses satire to criticize Trump. Carr threatens their licence. NBC's Seth Meyers uses satire to criticize Trump.
Chairman Carr echoes Trump's call for Meyer's ouster. Chairman, you've turned the FCC into Trump's attack dog to crush First Amendment rights through FCC extortion. The Chinese Communist Party would be impressed. There was a time when you passionately defended the First Amendment rights. In fact, you and I tangoed over COVID and issues related to that.
So how do you justify using the FCC to censor news and satire of Trump's rampant corruption?
Speaker 5
The FCC is asking us to take action when there's a transaction pending at the FCC involving a Spanish language radio station in South Florida.
Speaker 12
Is it not in the public interest for people to know about the corruption that's?
Speaker 5
Happening in this administration? Step in and say to win in 2022, this must stop pressuring the FC to block a sale because Democrats thought it'd be bad for.
Speaker 12
the my time. You serve the American people. What is that issue? Go through. Is blatant corruption by the Trump administration and you trying to hide it?
And everybody knows it. Commissioner Gomez, one day Chairman Carr's reign of un-American censorship will be over. How do we restore public confidence in the FCC after this national censorship scandal?
Speaker 6
Oh, thank you for that question. I think Congress can really help us here by putting guardrails on the FCC so that it cannot violate the First Amendment and censor content on broadcasters.
Speaker 6
I think defining to the public what it means to serve in the public interest would be very helpful.
Speaker 6
I think the FCC should stay out of content, whether we like it or not. And that is the problem, is this administration wants to retaliate against news organizations that have the temerity to report factually about this administration?
Speaker 12
Well, the history books will not be kind to that. It's been over a year since Trump took office, and we still don't have rural broadband in rural communities like mine and others. You came to my district a while back in Orlando to hear from veterans who utilize the Internet to help with their health care. What has the effect been of the BEAD program still not being rolled out across America with regard to consumers?
Speaker 6
Yes. It is so important for us to be able to participate in this economy today, the digital economy, to have access to affordable broadband. And the communities that don't have that are getting further left behind. And as you know, when we came, we were talking about the affordable connectivity program and how important that was to veterans to be able to make their meetings and their health care appointments without having to, in fact, travel. It saved them days of painful travel.
So we need to focus on this issue so that every American can have access to affordable and accessible broadband, especially if we want to be world leaders in artificial intelligence. It is so important.
Speaker 12
And what happens to rural businesses, farms, ranches when they don't have access to high-speed broadband?
Speaker 6
If you don't have access to high-speed broadband, you really are at risk of being left behind. It is an imperative in today's economy, in this digital economy, to have access to broadband.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes Joan from Ohio, Mister Lana, for.
Speaker 8
5 minutes. Chairman, and thank you to the commission for being with us today. Chairman Carr, commissioner Gomez, and commissioner trustee, congratulations. It's great, since you've been in my office years ago to follow your career. Congratulations.
Chairman Carr, I want you to start off. With the BEAT program, how much shovels in the ground were there in the Biden administration?
Speaker 5
The BEAT program was President Biden's $42,000,000,000 plan to connect millions of Americans to high speed Internet. And after over a thousand days of the Biden administration implementing it, not a single shovel's worth of dirt was turned. Now President Trump and Secretary Lutnick and NTI Minister Roth have come in, and they've turned that program around. And we're finally going to be seeing dirt turning, and Americans getting connected.
Speaker 8
So I just wanna make sure I heard that correctly. Nothing happened in the Biden administration. Let me turn to another topic. I know you and I talked about it through the years, especially when we had this spectrum authority auction lapse. You know?
Because how far did we fall behind in this country when we didn't have that authority to self-spectra? And the other question I'd like to ask is this, because it's always one of the things we all worry about. How much money did we lose in that time frame for not being able to have that auction authority?
Speaker 5
Yeah. During the Biden administration, the FCC's spectrum auction authority lapsed for the very first time ever, and that enabled other countries, China and others, to leapfrog the United States. We fell several 100 megahertz behind them. But, thankfully, this congress came together, President Trump came together and passed a working families tax cut that created a strong pipeline of 800 megahertz. Again, every time you bring Spectrum online, that drives down prices for consumers.
And so that's what we're doing right now.
Speaker 8
I'm sorry, I understood that correctly. It was during the Biden administration, the authority lapsed. Let me ask you another question, because this just came in. I know that we talked about this three years ago, and I worked on legislation on robocalls and trying to protect the public out there. What's that, and I know that in reading your testimony, the commission wants to move forward and make sure that we protect people out there from these robocalls that people are getting.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you. Robocalls, obviously, are our number one consumer complaint, and right now we're building on the long-term bipartisan work of the agency on this. One thing we're doing is, historically, the FC would focus on a very small number of robocallers that generate a lot of calls. And they would find them hundreds of millions of dollars, but those fines would largely go uncollected. And what we're doing now is we're picking up on something we did in the last administration, which is to kick providers out of our robocall mitigation database if they're not doing enough to fight illegal robocalls.
That effectively cuts them off from the US telephone network. And more generally, we're going at every single portion of the lifecycle of illegal robocalls and making it harder for the bad actors to get their calls through, including we're looking in particular at foreign originated illegal robocalls.
Speaker 8
Well, I know the American public out there is gonna appreciate your work on that because I know I just got a call the other day from a constituent that had problems with robocalls coming into their business. Commissioner trustee, you know where I'm from and what my area looks like. And there's areas out there, of course, that we don't have broadband. And I know I worked years back making sure that we had accurate maps before we'd spend money, to make sure that dollars were spent. And in your testimony, you talk about some of the things you're really focusing on.
And one of the things I think is really important you talk about is when we talk about rural health care and telehealth. And I know when I'm in my rural hospitals, they can't afford to have a lot of different programs you might see or docs doing certain procedures, or especially on the mental health side. Could you just elaborate a little bit on the mental health side and the telehealth side?
Speaker 7
Absolutely. Thank you so much for the question. As you know, the rural health care program ensures that rural patients have access to modern, quality health care, including telehealth. And the FCC has made some process improvements to improve access to this essential program by extending the application deadline, by making sure funding aligns with demands. And we've been able to roll over unused funds, for this year, for 2025 to ensure that we increase access to this important service.
I think as part of the USF congressional working group, there's another opportunity to explore additional reforms that can be made to this program to ensure that Americans in rural communities across the country have access to the quality care that they need.
Speaker 8
Well, thank you. If I could just return to you, Commissioner Karr, just real quickly, because we had discussions when we talked about 4G, 5G, 6G. And I'd always ask this question: are we winning a race? I mean, you know, who's our competitor out there? We gotta win this race.
So, are we winning this race out there when we talk about 6G?
Speaker 5
We are. We had fallen behind, in my view, during the Biden years, and now we've hit the accelerator, and we are gonna be leading the world once again in next-generation technology.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chairman. I recognize represent from New York, Miss Clark, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 13
Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matt Suwe, for convening this hearing. Given the actions of the FCC under Chairman Carr, it's long overdue. Less than one year into his tenure, the FCC under chairman Carr has given this committee many worthy avenues of exploration and oversight, most of which appear to stem from his new role as an obsequious partisan fulfilling President Trump's desire to exact revenge on his perceived enemies and lining the pockets of the oligarch class. While appearing before this committee less than four years ago under the Biden administration, then commissioner Carr rightly acknowledged the independence of the FCC free from executive branch interference, but recently made clear that under the Trump administration, that independence is gone. While this may seem like a shocking about face, it shouldn't be that surprising given Mister Carr's role as author of the horrific Project 2025 manifesto, as well as the frankly bizarre choice to wear a golden lapel pin bearing President Trump's face.
The weaponization of the FCC under Chairman Carr is not just frustrating, but dangerous. Dangerous for the nation and the ideals upon which it was founded. Individuals' freedom of speech and oppressed corps free from political intimidation are vital to democracy. It's what also allows informs citizens to speak their minds without fear of government reprisal and serves as an important check on those in power. Unfortunately, these ideals are lost under this iteration of the FCC, which appears bound to the whims of a president intent on punishing those who report accurately on his unsettling behavior.
Because my time is limited, I can't possibly list every example of the weaponization of the FCC in the last year, but a few that come to mind include reinstating complaints against news organizations that were critical of Trump during the election, while failing to reinstate a petition filed against the president's media outlet of choice, Fox. Ordering baseless investigations into NPR and PBS, using mergers to extract political revenge and more, such as withholding approval of the Paramount-Skydance merger until Trump's personal lawsuit was settled with financial payment. Launching a ridiculous investigation into KCBS and San Jose for merely reporting on ice activity in their own community. Threatening to unilaterally alter national media ownership limits, which would reduce diversity in media and further endanger local news. Overtly partisan reinterpretations of the FCC's public interest standard and news distortion policies to enact a regime of censorship.
And most notably, the overt, threatening of licenses of broadcasters for carrying Jimmy Kimmel live show. To the last point, Senator Cruz, who I rarely agree with, aptly described Chairman Carr's threats as akin to something out of a mafia movie. And let me just say, I don't see any Michael Corleone in this room today, only Alfredo. So my question is to Commissioner Gomez. For nearly 90 years, the FCC has functioned as an independent agency to insulate communications policy from political pressure.
Can you explain why the FCC's independence is essential to its credibility and effectiveness, and what potential risks arise as that independence is eroded?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. You know, when Congress created our predecessor, the Federal Radio Commission, it considered putting the commission under the Department of Commerce. And Herbert Hoover at the time said it was a terrible idea because it was dangerous to have the regulator of the most important communications medium at the time being overseen by a single person. And so that's why it created an independent agency. It's important to have an independent agency because we must be seen as an expert body that makes decisions based on that expertise, and not based on the political whims of one administration.
Speaker 13
Commissioner Gomez, how do FCC media ownership caps support diversity of viewpoints and locally focused news? And what do communities risk losing if these limits are weakened?
Speaker 6
Our core principles, when we talk about the public interest in local broadcasting, are localism, diversity of viewpoints, and competition. The caps ensure that we have multiple voices in every market. That is why we have them. We want to ensure that we have that. If we lose those caps, what we are going to lose is that diversity of viewpoints, and we risk having one voice funneling all the information to our voters.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. The chair now recognized the gentleman from Florida, Mister Bill Rakis, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 14
Thank you very much. My questions are for Chairman Carr. In addition to serving on the energy and commerce committee, I'm a member of the select committee on China. Under that role, I recently led a letter with chairman Molinar to your office regarding specific concerns about Chinese fiber technology entering our country and the security concerns it brings to The United States. The FCC and Congress have already done a great job to protect our networks from these threats, but the concern remains.
Just last week, the Financial Times reported a new China-backed hack of congressional staff email accounts. Can you outline, mister chairman, what actions you are continuing to take to identify and address adversarial threats to US telecommunications infrastructure? And can you confirm that you'll continue to have all the necessary tools at your disposal to adequately address these concerns without additional congressional approvals.
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman, for the question and for your leadership on this important issue. One of the very first things I did as chair was to stand up within the FCC, a new council on national security that brings together all of our bureaus and offices and their expertise to bear on this issue, because China and other foreign actors are constantly poking and prodding and finding ways into our communications network. We've taken actions on what we call bad labs to try to kick out equipment authorization bodies that aren't trustworthy. We've taken action to implement the Secure Equipment Act. With cybersecurity in particular, we work directly with carriers to ensure that they're taking renewed actions to accelerate the patching of vulnerable equipment, updating and reviewing their access controls, and disabling unnecessary outbound connections.
And the key is we have to be very, very nimble and make sure that carriers in our country's national security expertise, including CISA and DHS, are very closely collaborating because you need very quick reactions given the types of threats we're seeing.
Speaker 14
Very good. Again, question for the chairman. In your written testimony, devoted a section to the deregulatory actions the FCC has engaged in under your leadership. This includes removal of over 1,100 rules and regulations. I applaud these actions, especially as this committee is working on its own permitting reform package to streamline the process.
Beyond the baseline number of regulations removed, is there any way to quantify how much time and/or money is saved by these actions? How would you describe these changes to the typical American taxpayer and Internet user? I think that's very important. If you could respond, I'd appreciate it.
Speaker 5
Yeah. Thank you, Kash. The easiest way to put it is that it historically just costs too much and it takes too long to build out Internet infrastructure in this country. And that means communities that are on the edge case of new or additional or better service can get left behind. And so we're working hard at the FCC on permitting reform and cutting red tape.
And that's gonna be key to making sure that we keep driving down prices for Americans.
Speaker 14
Very good. For the last several weeks, news has been inundated with the discovery of mass amounts of fraud within our federal programs. What are the safeguards at the FCC to help guard against fraud? And in light of what is happening with the improper payments within other agencies, is this something you're considering taking a look at and updating? We're.
Speaker 5
In the midst of continuing to reinvigorate our work to detect and root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Just recently, we took action, for instance, with respect to California. California had a state lifeline program that had decided that they were gonna stop sharing relevant information with certain federal agencies, and that opened the door to potential waste, fraud, or abuse. So we revoked California's ability to opt out of that program, and now we're putting everybody through this national database. We're also finalizing some work right now on some additional steps that we can take with respect to our lifeline program to make sure those benefits are flowing only to those Americans that Congress intended them to.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Peters, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this important oversight hearing. In 2021, congress voted to invest a total of $65,000,000,000 in the broadband equity access to deployment program or BEAD to advance universal broadband access, with over $1,800,000,000 reserved for my home state of California. By the end of the Biden administration, state deployment offices had made progress to the long process requirements, guidelines, and mandated studies, including in the law. They made awards to grantees who were committed to building fiber lines to hard-to-reach areas and strengthening connectivity in underserved areas. However, lamentably, there were no shovels in the ground, and I was one of the people who joined Republicans to criticize how long it had taken for that to happen, and to be an advocate for permit reform in this field and in others.
But by the beginning of 2025, states were ready to begin their build outs, and the Trump administration decided to issue new regulations which halted any progress. So we're back where we started. We're no better off, and progress is still stalled today as the administration holds the bead program's funding hostage. The Federal Communications Commission is guided by the principle that all Americans should have access to communication services. The Trump administration's pause on broadband funding build out for over a year goes directly against this principle.
It continues the very things I joined Republicans to be critical of under the Biden administration. Mister Gomez, how do delays in broadband deployment affect the FCC's abilities to meet its goal of making affordable connectivity accessible to all Americans? And how can we ensure that people have the skills to take advantage of broadband once it's deployed?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. We want to get broadband to every community everywhere as soon as possible, because we really risk leaving people further and further behind. I'm afraid that we'll go from having a digital divide to a digital chasm if we don't do that. But I'm glad that you raise the totality of what Congress did with the broadband equity and access program, because one thing we cannot ignore is that we need affordability and we need people to have the digital skills in order to take advantage of the broadband that will give them access to this digital economy. And I'm afraid that this administration has completely lost its focus on that.
And that is why I say I'm afraid that if we don't ensure that these networks are sustainable, by making sure that everyone can use them and afford them, we are going to be building bridges to nowhere.
Speaker 15
Right. Well, I share that concern, and thank you. And I think it's critical we invest in continue to improve programs like the Universal Service Fund, to support affordable rates in underserved areas and rural access to hard to reach areas. And, again, when I first came to Congress, we were all talking about rural broadband and how important that was. I think the pandemic showed us that the digital divide exists even in wealthy neighborhoods like the ones that I serve, and I think we should get at it.
Along the lines of permit reform, last year I joined with my colleagues, representatives Joyce and Lammon, to introduce the bipartisan broadband and telecommunications rail act. We've heard that when broadband companies try to build out communications infrastructure across railroad crossing costs, the cost and approval times skyrocket. To streamline the deployment process between broadband providers and railroad carriers, the bill would implement firm timelines, conflict resolution processes, and fee scales to help the FCC move faster in support of the public interest. It would outline the responsibility of each party and give the FCC authority where it previously had none. Commissioner Gomez, how would granting the FCC authority over this process speed up access to fast, reliable, and affordable connectivity?
And are there other areas in broadband deployment that the FCC does not currently have but should have jurisdiction?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. And, I'm very supportive of streamlining approvals and particularly of your bills, focus on making sure that the costs that are being recovered are actually the costs of providing those approvals. And that I think is very important. So, I think it's very helpful when congress gives us instructions on what it is that we're supposed to do, particularly in the area where we are, in fact, acting to either preempt local regulations or tell others what we think that they should be doing. So I look forward to working with you in the future on this.
Speaker 15
Great. Maybe, mister trustee, any other areas in broad unemployment where the FCC needs jurisdiction, we need to give you jurisdiction.
Speaker 7
Well, thank you for the question, and thank you for your work on this bipartisan legislation. The commission is working on a number of fronts to remove regulatory barriers that impede the deployment of broadband, whether it's pole attachments, environmental or historic reviews, and expanding access to rights of way. I think all of these things will help us accelerate access to connectivity.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The chair now recognized representative from Georgia, representative Carter, for five minutes for your questions.
Speaker 16
Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you all for being here. Chairman Carr, there's been a lot of ink here recently in the past few months, or so regarding the streaming market and competition, and there's been a lot of confusion about regulatory jurisdiction in this space. Do you care to give us a view on the current landscape?
Speaker 5
Well, it is something that we stay apprised of at the FCC. It's adjacent to markets that we directly regulate, it's intertwined. And I think there has been concern increasingly expressed recently about consolidation in the streaming market and potentially further consolidation in the streaming market that could potentially harm consumers.
Speaker 16
Great. Thank you, Jeremy Carr. And I'm gonna jump straight into some, my next inquiry regarding broadband permitting reform. And as you know, I've introduced the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025 to help cut red tape and speed broadband build out and to close the digital divide across America, which has been passed on to the full committee and awaits consideration. Chairman Carr, I appreciate your support for my legislation and your testimony.
And I wanna ask you, why is it important for Congress to pass my legislation, codifying your reforms, and what kinds of steps is the FCC exploring to address state and local barriers to fixed and mobile broadband deployment?
Speaker 5
Well, thank you, Congress, for your leadership on permitting reform. Had the chance to visit with you, in Georgia and actually splice fiber at an active build. And as we saw there and at other places around the country, we have to make sure that's a tough job. It's a difficult job, but we shouldn't have red tape standing in the way. And I continue to think one of the most important things, that can happen is to pass that package of permitting reform bills to make sure that we keep turning dirt.
Speaker 16
I wanna highlight another pertinent national security issue regarding undersea cables. This is something that I have taken an interest in because it's critical broadband infrastructure that carries over 95% of international data traffic. I've got a bill that's called the Undersea Cables Protection Act, which will eliminate the need for redundant five-year special use permits in national marine sanctuaries to streamline duplicate permitting that is significantly slowing down the deployment of cables. Chairman Carr, can you explain why slow rolling subsea cable infrastructure is a threat to national security? Well, thank you, Congressman.
Speaker 5
for working on this. Most consumers probably don't realize it, but to your view, over 95% of all Internet traffic ultimately travels over undersea cables. So we're working at the FC right now to incentivize secure investment, new undersea cables, cybersecurity requirements for some of the technology that is in there. I think your legislation will go a long way to promoting greater secure build-out of that critical infrastructure.
Speaker 16
Commissioner trustee, I want to ask you. The commission recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking on subsea cables that also address the importance of speeding up deployment of cables. Can you talk a little bit about how the FCC plans to expedite the permitting and licensing process generally, and why facilitating the deployment of cables is so important?
Speaker 7
Yes. Absolutely. And thank you for your leadership on this issue. So last year, in August, the FCC adopted a proceeding where we streamlined the licensing and permitting processes for undersea cables. We updated outdated rules.
We established faster processing timelines for eligible applicants, and we cut unnecessary administrative steps or disclosures. And that helps to promote the fast and efficient deployment of undersea cables, is essential for our economic and national security. This positions us to be able to promote more US-led cable projects, to diversify our subsea traffic routes. So in the event of sabotage or compromise, there's no single point of failure. And it means we can strengthen our disaster recovery and emergency response plan.
So it really helps with redundancy in this critical infrastructure.
Speaker 16
And it would be naive of us to think that this would not be used as a weapon at some point.
Speaker 16
Well, thank you, Chairman Carr and Commissioner Trustee. I'm gonna do the chairman a favor and give him back almost a minute. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I appreciate that. Chair now recognizes the general from California, Mister Ruiz, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look. I wanna begin by addressing the troublesome direction Chairman Carr has taken the FCC. He is a tool of president Trump's project 2025 agenda to suppress freedom of speech and those who criticize Trump, and to forcefully favor Trump's billionaire friends and supporters in order to control the content. One, publicly criticizing Jimmy Kimmel Live over their content criticizing Trump, leading ABC and some affiliates to pull the show out of fear of a Department of Justice lawsuit and threats of pulling their license.
Two, reopen complaints against ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliates for alleged, quote, unquote, news distortion, while ignoring similar complaints against other networks that support President Trump. Three linked investigations to license reviews and looked into platforms like YouTube and Comcast, NBC Universal, sending a message that what companies say or do could be closely watched, overly scrutinized by the FCC. Oh, and finally, for overseeing and facilitating media consolidations, specifically the proposed Nexstar Tegna merger, which is owned by one of Trump's besties and supporters, and would give one company unprecedented reach to over 80% of households in America, controlling the content, threatening competition, weakening local journalism, and driving up costs for consumers. The Trump administration does not care about everyday Americans. They care about power, about control, and their billionaire friends.
They care about making the rich richer and pushing their own agendas to suppress criticism of Trump and limit what Americans see on TV, to control the message and push his propaganda. That is not America, and that shouldn't be happening in America. Americans deserve an FCC that protects free expression and ensures all communities have access to diverse content. Commissioner Gomez, what concerns do you have on the Nexstar Techna merger and chairman Carr raising the national audience cap from 39 to 54.5% illegally on a special deal to benefit Trump's friends?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question, Congressman. What we fundamentally want is we want local communities to get information about their communities. And what happens when we have too much consolidation by these national corporations that own these local broadcasters is we lose the diversity of voices, and we lose that local news content that we have. Couple that with the defunding of public media, and we are also losing even more voices in our local communities. Now, the 39% ownership cap is in the statute.
I don't think we can waive it. I think it would take an act of Congress in order to allow us to be able to grant a transaction of this size because of the fact that not only is the 39% cap in the statute, it's also we were prevented from forbearing from that cap.
Speaker 17
Thank you. Thank you. The Trump administration has failed to ease the financial burden on everyday Americans. Their actions have raised costs. Specifically, they have posed several federal initiatives, including the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program, state broadband price regulation, and the Universal Service Fund, all of which would raise costs.
One of these programs, the USF, is crucial for ensuring that communities in the Coachella, San Jacinto, and Imperial Valleys have access to reliable and affordable broadband and telephone services. Through programs like Lifeline, USF provides direct discounts to low-income households, helping students, agricultural workers, and families stay connected, while also supporting broadband deployment in rural and underserved areas where service would otherwise be too costly. USF alone helps expand essential services and promotes more affordable and competitive broadband options for residents. Commissioner Trustee, in your confirmation, you highlighted your commitment to, quote, considering adjustments to USF programs to better target resources to underserved communities. Do you still maintain that commitment?
Speaker 17
Thank you. And, would you commit to working with members of Congress before the FCC releases any rulemaking or public notices on changes to USF programs?
Speaker 17
Without these programs, households face barriers to education, telehealth, and emergency communications, leaving them disconnected from opportunities in civic life. We cannot discuss fairness and media oversight without addressing the systemic barriers that leave communities behind, and I'm tired of seeing time and time again how the Trump administration hurts Americans and makes their everyday life more costly. It is time to hold them accountable. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. Representative Fray, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the witnesses for being here, Chairman Carr. Commissioners, really appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. Commissioner trustee, I understand that you recently attended a conference in Dubai, and I'm curious about your thoughts on that conference just briefly and what we need to do to ensure that the US has a more unified position going into the conference in 2027. It seems critically important, given the conference is being held in China, of all places.
Speaker 7
Yes. Thank you so much for the question. So as you know, the WRC 23 was held in Dubai, and the unfortunate issue for the United States was that we didn't have auction authority. We didn't have a long-term spectrum pipeline, and we didn't have a unified strategy. And so we were sidelined from very important discussions, which meant that we couldn't emerge from that conference with wins.
Now, thanks to leadership from members of this subcommittee, we have auction authority. We have a long-term spectrum pipeline, and I think that gives us a foundation to develop a unified strategy where we can focus on key US interests working with our international allies in advance of WRC 27 to emerge from this conference with wins.
Speaker 18
Thank you for that. Obviously, you know, during the first Trump administration, they unlocked additional six gigahertz bandwidth. In 2020, when the first Trump administration made that available, nearly 70 countries followed our lead. Now China is trying to undermine those efforts in Europe, and we're hearing good things, obviously, now out of the Trump administration defending that abroad. But have you talked about the importance of Wi Fi to the American innovation.
Can you explain why it's pivotal that America lead on Wi-Fi?
Speaker 7
Absolutely. So as I mentioned a little bit earlier, I've been a proponent of an all of the above approach to spectrum policy where we are accommodating a variety of users, use cases, and technologies. When you look at things like CBRS, you know, the United States has long been a leader in innovative uses of spectrum, and CBRS is a model for that. It accommodates the military, transportation, logistics, tracking, schools, hospitals, and much more. And so my job at the FCC is to ensure the spectrum is being put to its highest and best use.
But given all of the use cases, I think it emphasizes the meaningful benefit of CBRS and unlicensed spectrum.
Speaker 18
Thank you so much for that. Commissioner Gomez, I've appreciated your comments earlier about, I think, the maybe the mission, in your opinion, of the FCC has shifted, that you're not supposed to police speech, that you're drifting from the mission. Those are some of the comments that I think you made. But I'm curious. In 2023, Senate majority leader and House minority leader, Hakim Jeffrey, sent a letter to Fox News regarding their coverage of the 2020 election, pressuring private news outlets owners to order specific shows and hosts to change their political coverage and issue compelled on-air statements solely because they disagreed with that coverage.
Although you were not on the commission at the time, based on your opening statements, do you condemn those attempts by Democrats to censor free speech and journalism?
Speaker 6
The First Amendment prohibits government interference in free speech. And so, in my view, the FCC should not be engaged in any activities that lead to either policing bias or pressuring newsrooms on how to report the news. So we should not be regulating content.
Speaker 18
So it'd be fair to say that you would disagree with Chuck Schumer and Joaquin Jeffrey's letter to Fox News?
Speaker 6
I think that to the extent any actions to pressure news by the government have led to the abuses that you are seeing under this administration, we should reconsider it.
Speaker 18
Thank you for that. I'm glad to hear you that you disagree with that. Would you also, in 2023, progressive activists petitioned the FCC to deny the renewal of WTXF TV's broadcast license, Fox twenty nine out of Philadelphia, arguing that Fox's Fox News 2020 election coverage render the licensee unfit for the public interest and character standards. The FCC issued a public notice, treated the matter as a permit but disclosed the proceeding, and formally invited public comment on whether Fox 29 license should be renewed. It was only after the 2024 election that the commission dismissed the petition and renewed that license.
Commissioner Gomez, during that period when the petition was pending and the FCC was actively taking comments on whether Fox 29's license should be renewed based on coverage. Did you issue any public statement condemning the use of the public interest and character standards to attack the station's license over election-related speech?
Speaker 6
I'm so glad you raised the issue of the Fox petition to deny by an outside party, because it gives me the opportunity to talk to you about what is different today. That was a petition to deny a license renewal, and it was treated like other petitions to renew licenses. In this case, what we are seeing is the FCC using complaints by a partisan group in order to police content, and in order to harass, and in order to affect how these stations are actually giving us the news. And that is light-years different. What you didn't see under the last administration was the last administration investigating news outlets for the content of their broadcasts.
You didn't see them using the public comment cycle in order to ask them, did a station violate any FCC rules? That is not what we do.
Speaker 18
No. They just did that directly. Is expired. Directly for Gentleman's Tom.
Speaker 1
The gentleman's Tom is expired. I gave a lot of extra time for the witness to answer, but we will now recognize the representative from Michigan, representative Dingle, for five minutes for her questions.
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you to the commissioners for being here today. This committee has a very serious responsibility to conduct oversight of the FCC. And while we made a lot of progress under the last administration, I'm deeply concerned that under this administration the FCC is moving in the wrong direction. I'm gonna associate myself with the previous comments by my democratic colleagues and move to some areas that I'm very deeply concerned about that are impacting people's lives. As vehicles become increasingly connected and reliant on wireless communications, we have a responsibility to ensure these technologies are not weaponized to harm people, especially survivors of domestic violence.
Survivors have reported that their abusers have used connected vehicle services to track their movements, stalk them in real-time, or remotely disable their vehicles. Yet today, there is no clear, consistent, or confidential process for survivors to cut off an abuser's access to their vehicle services. In 2024, I sent a letter to the FCC urging it to take proactive steps to address the threat of domestic abusers exploiting connectivity tools and vehicles to harass and intimidate their partners. While I worked with the FCC on this issue, the lack of a clear survivor center process is why I introduced the bipartisan Safe Vehicle Access for Survivors Act with Congressman Dan Crenshaw. The bill is designed to create a secure pathway for survivors to disable connected vehicle access tied to wireless-enabled vehicle technologies, while providing clarity for automakers and service providers.
Commissioner Gomez, from the FCC's perspective, how serious is the risk that these wireless-enabled vehicle technologies can be misused to facilitate stalking, coercive control, or other forms of abuse?
Speaker 6
Thank you so much for that question, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. It is so important to be able to protect survivors of domestic abuse. As you know, we took action in the previous administration to require companies to sever the cell phone accounts of victims of domestic abuse and also to not allow information in the abusers' bill to be given about the victims. And that is so important for their safety. So what you are doing is you are promoting now that we do this with vehicles.
We sought comment on that issue, but I would welcome working with you and some guidance from.
Speaker 19
Okay. I'm gonna ask you a brief question because I wanna get to another issue. But given the FCC's jurisdiction over wireless services, does the FCC currently have the authority to address these farms? Are there limits to your authority without congressional action?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. I do believe we have the authority to address them. It's always helpful when it's outlined in the statute directly.
Speaker 19
I would encourage the FCC to please act, and we'll come back with congressional and try to get that done too. Chairman Carr, I wanna talk about serious broadband build-out failures affecting people not only in my district, but across the country. Bridgewater Township is in my district, but like so many places across the country, they were promised broadband service through the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, also known as RDOF. We are now in 20, they were promised, by the way, my community was promised service by 2024, and we're now in 2026. And this particular community only has 32% of that have been given that access.
Let me be clear. This isn't just a failure by one company which I've written, but it's a failure of FCC oversight. The FCC is responsible for ensuring that taxpayers' dollars are dedicated to broadband build out, and the money that's there is used as intended and that the communities actually receive the broadband service they were promised. Instead, communities across the country are being left behind without reliable Internet for school, work, or health care. Chairman Carr, what concrete enforcement actions is the FCC taking to hold those vendors that are being given contracts where it's RDOF obligations?
How are you making sure that communities like mine are not punished for losing access to other federal broadband build-out programs because of companies' false promises and FCC enforcement in action?
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman, for the question and your advocacy on this. It's very important that the SEC take enforcement action in those types of cases. I can assure you that we have a number of enforcement matters going. If you made a promise to a community to deliver, then the SEC needs to hold you accountable for that. We're also been working to make sure that NTI and commerce, as these billions of dollars come online, if there's opportunities to pick up communities through that, we should collaborate on that.
But my goal is the same as yours, as people should get the broadband that they were promised.
Speaker 19
I know. But I just know you'll look at Bridgewater now, but let's look at all those communities. You're two years behind. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. For what person, gentlemen, does South Carolina seek recognition?
Speaker 18
Seek to add an article under the record titled, Democrats want feds to block Miami Latinos from hearing conservative radio.
Speaker 1
Without objection, it's ordered. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Griffith, for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 20
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to our witnesses today that I had a markup in another committee that I had to be at. So I've got an update on what's going on. Chairman Carr, I represent a lot of small jails that are concerned with the cost of operating a phone system for the inmates, which is a tough balance. I understand the need for prisoners, particularly inmates awaiting trial, to have reasonable communication rates, and I get that.
But can you briefly talk about the useful new all of your standards and what you've been doing to try to make sure that smaller jails in rural areas, etcetera, have the ability to meet that balance to be able to provide it? Because some of my jails have talked about not allowing them, you know, any communication because they can't afford the equipment to make sure that the calls are made in a safe manner and in a proper manner. And, as a former criminal defense attorney, I'm concerned because I don't wanna have to go to the, if I were to return to that practice of law, wouldn't wanna have to go to the jail every time I needed to talk to one of my clients.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you, congressman, for your work on this. And this is an issue that is very important. It's very complex. As you note, on the one hand, we wanna make sure that incarcerated individuals and their families can continue to communicate. At the same time, we have an obligation to jails and the broader community to make sure those communications take place with technology that ensures safety.
The FCC over the years has tried to strike the right balance, and it's been difficult. There's been at least 6 different FCC actions. I think four different court cases or challenges. Congress came together in the Martha Wright Reed Act, and gave us additional authority. And the FCC recently revised some of the rates.
The rates are higher than the rates that were initially set the first go round by the Biden administration. They are sorry. They're lower than the rates initially set by the Biden administration. They're higher than the rates the Biden administration set at the end. But to your point, what we were seeing with those last round of Biden rates is that they were too low in some circumstances, that inmates were getting denied calling services because the jail couldn't afford it, or they couldn't afford the technology to make sure the communications are safe.
So it's a complex issue with, you know, really well intentioned people on all sides of this, and we have a proceeding right now to see if we can't, you know, once and for all strike a right balance here.
Speaker 20
Thank you. And, as I said before, I have a fairly rural district. It's pretty large. Got some mountains in the way of some of this stuff. And so we've had some success, and some of my folks really like Starlink.
But we need competition in order to, competition's always good for bringing down prices. What is the FCC doing to try to promote additional providers in that space? And what are your goals on reforming the satellite licensing and so-called earthlink connections?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. One thing that we're doing is taking a technology-neutral approach. There's many portions of this country where a high speed fiber connection makes sense, but we have to be open minded where cost per location exceeds a certain point, in which case you need to then look at other technologies like fixed wireless, like LEO systems. And that's what we're doing.
We're making sure people can compete on a level playing field.
Speaker 20
And I appreciate that because there are some areas of my district where there's one house, two houses, maybe three houses up a holler, and it would cost us a minimum of 100, maybe as much as $200,000 just to get fiber to those couple of houses, and there's no way you'd ever recoup the cost. So, I appreciate that. I appreciate also that the commission is open to docket to tighten foreign ownership standards for FCC licenses. Could you explain the difficulty in sorting out increasingly complex ownership structures, sometimes used by licensees?
Speaker 5
Yeah. We have rules and regulations on the books to try to make sure that we can process that. We obviously want investment in this country, but we need to make sure that there are security checks in place. And we've been taking a number of actions again to try to strike the right balance.
Speaker 20
Will tell you my team thought we ought to have a little bit of fun, so I was requested to ask, and I have some questions we have put for the record, but you don't have enough time to answer them with what I have left. But I was requested to ask which one was your favorite in eliminating FCC regulations? Did you prefer or have more fun eliminating regulations on phone booths or telegraph lines?
Speaker 5
It's funny. I was gonna, before you said it, I was gonna say telegraph. Yeah. We had some so much dead wood in our regulations that there were still rules that tied back to telegraph service, and I think that was a good one to get rid of.
Speaker 20
Yeah. I agree. And that's why sometimes you have to take a look at everything and eliminate those things that are no longer appropriate. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Excuse me, madam chairwoman.
Speaker 21
The chair now recognizes Miss Bergen for her five minutes of questions.
Speaker 22
Thank you. Commissioner Gomez, I'd like to start with you and follow-up to that last interaction. The chairman said that families should be able to communicate with their families when they are in prison. Wasn't there an effort to raise cost or the caps for prisoners to be able to make calls to their families, which could lead to them costing more, make it more expensive to communicate with family?
Speaker 6
Yes. Congress in the Martha Wright Reed Act directed the FCC to lower the cost of the IPCS, which is the prison services, pay phone, and video calls, to make sure that they were not unreasonable and that they fairly compensated these providers. This administration and the last administration did that. We substantially reduced the cost of the calls. We had three mandatory data collections to get the correct data so that we could determine whether the rates were just unreasonable.
This administration reversed what we did and said, well, we don't have enough data, so we're gonna give the payphone providers everything they want. And the problem with that is what the payphone providers are doing is they are providing to these prisons and jails services that are not related to the cost of making those calls. We're forcing families of incarcerated people to pay to provide search warrant processing, to transcribe, convert into digital format to support litigation and investigations, to aid in investigations, and to provide for skilled investigators. That has nothing to do with the making of these calls. But this administration decided that they would provide that because we don't have enough data after three mandatory data collections.
So we are forcing families to pay for these big costs because the providers are monopoly providers that provide these services for free to these prisons and to these jails on the backs of families.
Speaker 22
Their family members. Thank you. Commissioner Carr, you have said that you think the agency should focus on the information that consumers want and need. Is that accurate?
Speaker 22
And you have also said they should have information, so they can make an informed decision. Is that accurate?
Speaker 22
Okay. I wanna show you one of these. You know what this looks like, you know what this is, I'm sure. Right? A nutrition label, the broadband label?
Okay. One of the pieces of this label is an early termination fee on whether there is one or not. Do you see, do you have it down here. I don't know if you could see it from where you're at, but certainly, you must be familiar with that. Correct?
Speaker 22
Okay. Do you believe that consumers should know if there's gonna be an early termination fee on a plan that they're signing up for?
Speaker 5
What we're focused on is making sure that consumers have clear, concise do.
Speaker 22
You think that a consumer should know that there's going to be a cancellation fee? It's very simple.
Speaker 5
This is an issue that we're looking at right now. What we wanna reach is a point at which consumers have all of the information.
Speaker 22
You don't have an opinion on whether consumers should know if there's going to be an early termination fee? That's shocking, mister commissioner. Let me tell you why. This company too has an early termination fee of up to $750 depending on the device and the contract. So to have the chair of the committee of this agency not have an opinion on whether consumers should have informed with respect to information on a cancellation, the FCC just confirmed to me.
I'm not there is no question pending, sir. You there are no questions pending. You just told me the consumer should have the information to make an informed decision. I can tell you in my congressional district where people are working class and they're low income, they're gonna want to know if there's an early termination fee. And they're certainly gonna wanna know if there's a $750 early termination fee.
So, Commissioner Gomez, I'm gonna turn to you. Do you think consumers should be able to know if there is an early termination fee on their plan?
Speaker 22
A proposal now to eliminate that requirement that would read to consumers whether there's an early termination fee?
Speaker 6
There, yes. What it would do is it obfuscate the fees by pulling them all up into one category. Now I believe that companies, carriers, should compete on price and quality, not on being able to hide information from their consumers.
Speaker 22
Okay. And I now wanna turn to the same labels. There are companies that go out and they market to consumers in Spanish language. And then these customers come in and sign up for service. Should those consumers be able to get this information in their language that they were marketed in?
Speaker 6
Yes. The proposal that the FCC has just adopted would eliminate that requirement, even though the companies are marketing in another language.
Speaker 22
Great. Thank you. I agree that consumers should know this. For I would like to enter into the record this article, 10/10/2022, from The Verge. It's titled, Brendan Carr wants to let Internet providers charge hidden fees again.
Thank you. I yield back. So ordered.
Speaker 21
Alright. The chair rep recognizes Representative Kamek for her five minutes of questions.
Speaker 24
Thank you, madam chairwoman, and thank you to our witnesses. Commissioner Carr, great to see you again. You could hardly get a word in edgewise just a minute ago. So would you like to take 30, 45 seconds or so to respond to the representative's accusations, we'll say?
Speaker 5
Well, because the general matter, I'll say this. There's a lot of discussion here about prices and affordability. But thanks to President Trump, that's changing. Since January 2024 alone, prices for wireless plans are down over 4%. They're down over 7% from the Biden era highs.
Prices for smartphones are down 9%, and speeds are up. So prices are down, speeds are up, and competition is intensifying. With respect to broadband labels, if you look at the chart that was held up, it's very confusing. And that's the point we're looking at. How do we get the information that consumers want, whether it's ETF or other information, so that they can find it and see it accurately and quickly?
Let's separate the wheat from the chaff, and that's what the proceeding is about.
Speaker 24
Absolutely. And we've seen an immense amount of deregulation, which is good for consumers because it helps foster competition. I know you have spoken to me about the RAINs Act and the work that is being done there. Talking about RAINs Act being the largest regulatory reform effort in American history, what would the passage and adoption of that bill which would require Congress to have an up or down vote on any major rule or regulation that has an industry impact of $100,000,000. What kind of impact would that have on your agency?
Speaker 5
I think it's important. Again, if as we just talked about, we did a sweep through all rules and regulations on the FCC's books. We've eliminated over 1,000 rules or regulations or teed them up for removal. We have over 2,000 inactive proceedings. Again, you think about one agency, the FC, it's actually a relatively small agency.
And you spread that out across the federal government. So some mechanism to make sure that needless regulations aren't getting on the books and staying on the books would really help unlock further economic growth for the country.
Speaker 24
And I just wanna repeat that again for folks watching back home. You guys took 1,000, over 1,000 regulations off the books, and prices are coming down. It's almost like the smaller government gets, the better it gets for people across America. Right?
Speaker 24
Okay. I love that. Well, another issue that you and I have talked about, and I know everyone can really understand, is the issue of robocalls and scam texts. I must get, I half a dozen or a dozen a day, and it makes you wanna throw your phone across the room. Talk to me about the work that the agency is doing to stop the scam texts and the fraud that's taking place there, and what authorities or additional authorities your agency would need in order for us to crack down on these robocalls and these scam texts?
Speaker 5
This is an issue that, across the Trump administration and, really, every administration we've had, there's been a lot of work to crack down on illegal robocalls. Right now, Mhmm. We're coordinating across the federal level, whether it's the FCC, FTC, working with state attorneys general as well. And, again, we are tackling this issue at every single portion of the lifecycle of the call. Looking at things like know your customer.
So we're gonna onboard a business to allow them to place calls to US subscribers. We're pushing to make sure those telephone companies know much more about those businesses, both so that they're legit. If there's an issue, we can then track it back. So I think Congress could potentially legislate more on the KYC, know your customer, rules to strengthen those even further. But there's some room for the FCC to push, and we're gonna do that.
Speaker 24
Well, I know so many of these robocalls and some of these scam techs originate from overseas. We've really graduated from the Nigerian prince who just needs $5,000, and then he'll, you know, make you a millionaire. We've really graduated from the scams. Right? Talk to me about your coordination efforts with your counterparts overseas, and what we need to do here in Congress to strengthen that.
Speaker 5
Well, one idea that we are pursuing at the FCC is the idea that if you get a call on your phone from abroad, it shouldn't necessarily, in my view, display a US-based area code because that could mislead someone to think that this is a call originating in the US. So if you're a company and you wanna have a call center overseas, at least be truthful and honest with your customers. So we're looking at that. We're looking at potentially doing standards for call centers to make sure that foreign call centers are compliant with our customer service regulations. So there's a lot of effort we're taking on that front.
Speaker 24
I love it. So, again, for folks watching back home, the Trump administration under your leadership is tackling robocalls and scam texts. That's something every American can get behind. I love that. So I wanna, in my last thirty seconds, talk about the letter that chairman Hudson sent, talking about broadcast ownership caps.
Now there's some debate about whether or not the FCC has the authority to do this on their own, and I'd like to get your thoughts in the final twenty seconds that I have on the clock.
Speaker 5
Well, the authority, this question has been brought up to the DC circuit already. And the DC circuit said that 39% is the starting point for the FCC's analysis. So I don't think the legal authority issues are that compelling, but we're still looking at it, to see if the FC wants to change its position on that. And, again, I think we're still open minded, but, again, we're cognizant of this idea that you've got licensed local broadcasters. And I don't amount of time, but I think as a congress, it's important that we figure out, we want investment in local news?
Because right now, you've got, you know, Comcast and Disney that are programming almost 100% of the content that Americans are seeing. And how do we incentivize the local TV stations to continue to generate their own local news and information?
Speaker 24
Absolutely. We're not in the business of supporting monopolies. So, I appreciate that. And with that, my time has expired. Thank you to all our witnesses for being with us.
A yield.
Speaker 21
Thank you. The general Lady Lee yields. The chair recognizes representative Lanzmann for his five minutes of questions.
Speaker 25
Thank you, madam chair, and thank you to the ranking member, FCC leadership, for being here. I wanna focus on three big things. The first has to do with corporate consolidation and costs. The second has to do with corruption and what tends to be, or oftentimes you find, behind the consolidation of these companies. And the third is the overall issue of independence and the impact it has on the American people.
When you all continue or Mister Carr continue to approve the acquisitions of these big companies, which is the direction that I'm seeing the SEC take at the moment. We will see higher costs. Right? I mean, when somebody controls the market, they increase costs for consumers. So cable costs go up, streaming fees, subscription fees.
And the corruption piece is what obviously worries so many of us, as we're seeing this play out. I'm gonna just focus on David and Larry Ellison. They David has is the CEO now of Skydance Paramount or Paramount Skydance, whatever it is. But Skydance was going after Paramount and CBS. In the midst of all of this, 16,000,000 goes to Trump to settle this legal issue.
$20,000,000 goes to Trump for free ads. He gets all these editorial concessions. Larry, David's father, runs Oracle. Oracle is the OG of all of this. So in Trump's first term, you know, Larry and David gave a ton of money to Trump.
And Larry gets a no-big contract at the VA with Oracle. It's been an absolute disaster. And we have been trying to figure out how to fix it, spending tens of billions of dollars to try to deal with Oracle having been the wrong vendor. So the question I have is you're the sort of traffic cop trying to figure this out and make sure that there isn't corruption, as you're looking at the deal now with David trying to go after Warner Brothers, how much and this is just Dave and Larry Ellison. How much have Dave and Larry Ellison given to the Trump coin, Mr. Carr?
Speaker 25
Okay. How much money have they given to Trump businesses? Just Larry and David Allison.
Speaker 25
Last one, mega, the MAGA Inc, the big, you know, super PAC. Do you know how much money they've given?
Speaker 25
So the reason you should know and the reason the American people should know is because, ultimately, you're gonna weigh in on these acquisitions, and there are gonna be questions about whether or not there's corruption behind these corporate mergers. So it's really important for us to know how much these people are giving to the president. On the issue of independence, I the concern is, and, miss Gomez, just very briefly, what is the impact to the American people when we don't have an independent FCC? Just how does it hurt them?
Speaker 6
It's important to have an independent FCC because we are an expert driven body that is supposed to make decisions based on our technical expertise, and also to have the respect both domestically and internationally of those that we regulate and are those with whom we work. When we lose that, people will second-guess everything we do because they will just assume we are controlled by the whims of one person.
Speaker 25
So to that point about being controlled by the whims of one person, Mister Clark, and this is where, like, this is you're probably gonna hate this question, but it's a genuine question that we're all struggling with: when we see the administration folks go out and do some of the stuff on behalf of the president, is it do you do it? Do you go after the media folks, like, to keep Trump happy? Because that's what's key to, like, keeping your job, or are you genuinely going to punish them for criticizing Trump?
Speaker 5
The FCC has an obligation to make sure that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations. Licenses, broadcast licenses, are not property rights, and there are things you can do to lose your broadcast license. Broadcasters are fundamentally different than any other form of distribution, whether it's cable or podcast.
Speaker 25
or so. I'm gonna reclaim my time. I think it's probably a little bit of both. But either way, it is scaring Americans, and it's hugely problematic in terms of the future work of the FCC. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. Now I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mister Pfluger, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the work that y'all are doing. It's a very important, obviously, time in our country. Chairman Carr, thank you for your leadership. In 2021, you proposed a multiyear spectrum calendar that auctions specific MHz across several bands.
I asked your predecessor about issuing a spectrum calendar, who declined stating that the commission cannot produce one because spectrum auction authority had lapsed. Thankfully, as has been discussed already today, we were able, in the Working Families Tax Cut Act, to allow the FCC to auction off 800 megahertz of spectrum for commercial broadband use by 2034. So very excited about that. And I would ask you that now that the commission is in full swing and the auction authority has been restored, give us an idea of what that long-term spectrum calendar looks like, and other items that you're pursuing along those lines.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Congressman, for the question. As you noted, we now have a concrete 800 megahertz spectrum pipeline, and the FCC's work is well underway. We're gonna hold the first auction a number of years in the first half of this year, AWS 3 spectrum. The next step, we're finalizing rules for the upper C band, which will clear at least 100 megahertz. We've sought comment on clearing up to 180 megahertz.
There's also active work underway on the 7 gigahertz band, on the 2.7 gigahertz band. And even in license, again, this month alone, we're voting to supercharge Wi-Fi by allowing higher power devices. And in addition to all of that, we are clearing the barriers in the secondary market. So spectrum that wasn't fully loaded, that could have been sitting fallow, is moving into the hands of carriers that are loading it, lighting it up, and increasing speed. So, again, we're seeing an increase of speeds, decrease of prices, and enhanced competition.
Speaker 23
That is great to hear, commissioner trustee. What does that mean for national security needs? Have we not passed that and not been able to get those 800 MHz out? I mean, what does this do for our competition with China, and national security issues?
Speaker 7
Sure. Well, it means that we're left behind. Now that we have auction authority and a long-term spectrum pipeline, we can meet the growing demands of wireless services, public safety, national security, and emerging technologies. And we can fully participate in the WRC 27, which is absolutely critical to promoting American values, our economic competitiveness, and national security by having a foundation to develop a unified strategy and so on. So I really appreciate the leadership of the subcommittee.
Speaker 23
You read my mind on the next question, which was WRC 27. And, the steps that we're taking to support the US position and be prepared for that and show some leadership, I'll give both of you guys a chance to answer on that.
Speaker 7
Okay. Sure. So I think this is really important, and I think the focus should be on aligning public and private sector interests. We also should be engaged in pre-WRC coordination with our international allies so that we can harmonize our preferred standards and technologies. And I think we need to work with Congress to ensure that we have the resources to support our technical and diplomatic representation needs.
As you know, the WRC 27 is in Shanghai, China, which creates some unique security challenges for us. The state department is taking the lead, working with the ITU and with commission staff and the NTIA to resolve those challenges. But, again, we need to be fully engaged in this conference so that we can win when it comes to our economic and national security.
Speaker 23
That's fantastic. Chairman Carr, let me pivot just a little bit. I wanna kinda talk about the public interest, and the responsibility that you all have, as commissioners to protect the public interest, and just give you some time to explain what that means to our country for the licenses that you hand out, especially broadcast licenses.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Congressman. So broadcasters are unique among all other distributors of information or even data. They have a license given to them by the federal government that necessarily means the government has excluded other voices that might have wanted to use those airways. And so they have an obligation to stand not just in their own shoes, but in the shoes of their entire community of license. And that means they have to operate differently than a cable channel, or a podcast, or social media.
And what's been interesting to me is that on the Democrat side, there's a lot of simple projection and distortion. If you go back to the Biden years, there was an actual weaponization of the FCC and communications policy. As we noted, there were members of this committee that wrote letters to cable companies to pressure them to drop conservative channels simply because they were viewed, in their words, as right wing media outlets. You had Democrats in Congress write a letter to the FCC asking it to investigate the news activities of Sinclair, broadcaster, because they disagreed with the views of Sinclair. They viewed that they were right wing, and there's been discussions about nothing negative happening.
After that letter, there were 227 routine Sinclair licenses that came up for renewal or were pending during the Biden years, and all but one of those. So 226 were not renewed by the FCC. That was unprecedented. It had never happened before. So Democrats put pressure, and it engendered results.
What we're doing is applying the public interest standard in an even-handed way. And for people that benefited from the weaponization during the Biden years, that may feel like discrimination, but it doesn't make it so.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, time is expired. You're back. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Miss Castro, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 26
Thank you, mister chairman, and welcome to our FCC commissioners. The FCC plays a very important role to ensure communication services and Wi-Fi are affordable for American families and available. Commissioner Gomez, your takeaway from your testimony, I can summarize it, is now the commission is spending less time on consumer needs and has diverted its attention to powerful special interests. It does appear, and I share your concern, that the FCC has taken a tack that will make life more expensive for American families at a time when they are being crushed by the rising cost of living. And one example of this is what the FCC has done to make it harder and more expensive for students to access the WiFi they need to under e rate that provides affordable WiFi to students in k through 12, schools, and to libraries, and to families.
This is so important to bridge the digital divide. I mean, all of us here, you would maybe scoff that the availability of Wi-Fi because it's ubiquitous for folks who can afford. But there are so many students and families that can't afford Wi Fi right now. You oppose the ripping away of those e rate dollars for certain students. Why?
That is correct.
Speaker 6
We need to make sure that broadband is accessible to everyone, and part of that is ensuring that it is affordable. And there are a lot of families for whom it is not affordable to have broadband access. So we had the affordable connectivity program, which was the most successful nationwide program to ensure affordability. But, sadly, we ran out of funds for that. So the next action that the FCC takes under this administration is to rip away the hotspots and the Wi Fi on school buses for students, and the hotspots are also handed out by libraries.
And these are often the only means that people have to access the most important communications medium of the 20th century, and that is broadband. They need that in order to be digitally literate so they can participate in the artificial intelligence economy as well, and they need it in order to apply for jobs, in order for students to do their homework, in order for seniors to get their health care appointments. Everything is online. We need access for everyone.
Speaker 26
And rather than focus on lowering costs for Americans, it is very concerning that the FCC chair is using the regulatory power to stifle criticism of the president and change the news coverage to please the president. Beyond heavy-handed, it's dangerous and wrong. Going back to the Skydance acquisition of Paramount and CBS, chairman Carr blatantly acted to enrich the president and to boost him after months of regulatory delay. FCC approved the acquisition just days after Paramount agreed to pay $16,000,000 to settle the president's meritless lawsuit attacking standard editorial edits at Sixty Minutes. And then in exchange for obtaining FCC's approval of this deal, Trump was also offered $20,000,000 in free advertising and a host of dangerous editorial concessions, including a promise to root out perceived bias, align its editorial practices to better suit the Trump administration's political agenda, and hire an ombudsman to police the news organization's editorial choices.
This was a bribe by any other name, and chairman Carverber stamped it. The consequences of these concessions were on full display last month when the new CBS News editor in chief pulled a sixty minutes story on allegations of abuse at an El Salvadorian prison where president Trump has deported hundreds of Venezuelans without due process. Notably, President Trump had numerous conversations with David Ellison, now chairman and CEO of Paramount Skydance, and his father, Larry Ellison, executive chairman of Oracle, leading up to the merger's approval. But conveniently, none of these interactions were memorialized in the FCC's docket, as required by law. Corruption out in the open does not mitigate its odious nature.
And, Mister Chairman, the American taxpayers deserve so much better. I yield back my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mister Goldman, for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you to all the panelists for being here. Chairman Carr, broadband deployment, obviously, a major thing in Texas, especially rural Texas. Can you give us an update of where we are on broadband deployment across America, but mainly in rural America?
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman. Thanks for your leadership on this issue. We are very quickly turning things around, and the commerce department has this 42,000,000,000 program that they have righted the ship on. And we're moving forward with that. We're engaging in permitting reform at the FCC.
We have a universal service program that is supporting high-speed builds. We're bringing new technologies into the market. This next generation of connectivity includes connectivity directly to your smartphone at a high-speed Internet level to a low earth orbit satellite. And we're taking steps right now with the FCC to position the United States to lead the world in this new technology. So we're seeing more competition coming online.
That's why, again, you're seeing prices going down, speeds coming up, competition enhancing. There's no way we're raising the mission accomplished flag. Have to keep pushing harder until every single community has what they need for the next generation connectivity.
Speaker 9
And so, looking towards the future, what are we looking at? Months, years, you know, to have better connectivity across America? What in your mind, what does that look like?
Speaker 5
We're seeing it right now. We're seeing it this year, with shovels going into the ground. We're seeing it with the secondary markets as we're encouraging spectrum to move so that it can be loaded up. And right now, we have secondary market transactions that folks are turning on their new cell sites immediately. Just one provider last year took Spectrum.
They gained access to that year alone and lit up 23,000 new cell sites, boosting speeds by 80%. So we're pushing on this from a new technology perspective, from a funding perspective, and coordinating with the other components of the federal government that also have funding.
Speaker 9
Okay. Thank you. And I was gonna ask before, representative Kambach did, about robocalls. Anything further to expand on what we can do to, I mean, there are many constituents of mine that would love to eliminate robocalls. Is that even a possibility, or how can we do a better job of making sure that our constituents aren't bothered by robocalls?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Robocalls are a significant technological challenge. Historically, it felt like the FCC was a game of whack a mole. We find one technology, one type of scam, and we shut it down. Right now, what we're trying to do is get down lower and look at every single portion of the life cycle of a call and take action, including making it clear that if you're not doing your part as a carrier, you're gonna get kicked out of the robocall mitigation database, which effectively makes them unable to deliver traffic.
And we have a particular focus right now on foreign originated robocalls as well. Right.
Speaker 9
Thank you. I know you've heard from the Texas Farm Bureau in regard to your drone ban. Can you speak on that? And is there a solution inside? Obviously, many Texas farmers and ranchers, like their drones and like flying them.
It's better for their operations. Can you speak about the ban, and is there a solution for the farmers and ranchers of Texas in using drones?
Speaker 5
At the end of last year, national security agencies came together and made a determination, a specific determination that foreign-produced drones presented an unacceptable threat to US national security. And President Trump has been clear that we are gonna reestablish American drone dominance. We've taken a couple of steps. One, because of that national security determination, we added foreign-produced drones to our covered list, but that doesn't mean that consumers who have these drones today can't continue to use them. They can continue to use them today.
In fact, if you have a model that was already authorized by the FCC, you can buy a new version of that same model device. The cover list only applies to new models that might seek authorization in the future. Subsequently, we've also taken some additional action, from advice by the Pentagon and others, DHS, that drones that are on the UAS blue list are cleared to go through the process. We've also created a mechanism where people can petition for additional clarity around the types of drones. So, again, if you have a drone today that you're using, you can continue to use it, and you can even buy another one of the same drone you have today under the same model number.
Speaker 9
Right. Okay. Thank you very much. And you were recently at the Consumer Electronics Show? Yes.
What was the coolest or scariest thing you saw?
Speaker 5
Well, I think, you know, one of the things I'm most excited about is AI getting continue to be embedded in new technology. And, President Trump has made clear that the US is gonna lead the world on this. And we have a job as sort the pipes and tubes people to make sure that we have those high speed Internet connections so that AI can flourish in this country.
Speaker 9
Great. Thank you. Mister chairman, I yield the balance of my time. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair, now I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Menendez, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 27
Thank you, chairman. In today's world, high-speed connectivity is no longer a luxury. It's essential to how Americans work, learn, access health services, and stay connected to their families and communities. Expanding affordable high-speed broadband access across the country is essential to ensuring that American families can thrive in the digital economy. Commissioner Gomez, just yes or no.
Is the FCC's role to ensure that every American, regardless of where they live or their background, has access to reliable high-speed communication services?
Speaker 27
Thank you. And is ensuring that Americans have affordable connectivity and access to digital equity programs critical to the FCC fulfilling that role?
Speaker 27
Thank you. Before President Trump appointed Chairman Carr, head of the commission, the FCC made real strides in expanding broadband access. Since then, many of those critical efforts have been stopped or rolled back. Commissioner Gomez, would you say the FCC's rollback of programs and initiatives that support affordable broadband and digital equity has undermined the FCC's mission to deliver broadband access to every community?
Speaker 27
Thank you. I agree. That's why I'm so concerned that under Chairman Carr's leadership, the FCC has deviated from its core mission. Further, since President Trump took office, we've seen the FCC's independence weakened. Chairman Carr, you authored the FCC section of project 2025 in which you state on page 8 45, the FCC is an independent regulatory agency.
Is that correct?
Speaker 5
Oh, I also have my personal capacity. I don't say this ta da just as a right. Just as.
Speaker 27
Prior to you being named chairman, you had written that the FCC was an independent regulatory agency. I'm gonna continue. And chairman Carr, just yes or no. Did you testify before the Senate Commerce Committee on 12/17/2025? Just yes or no?
Yeah. I believe you did. It's in the record. And at the hearing, you testified in response to a question from Senator Ben Ray Luján that the FCC is no longer an independent agency, and you reiterated that point earlier today. Prior to the senator's question, the FCC website was clear that the commission is an independent agency.
But shortly after your response, this language was removed from the website, as displayed here. Chairman Carr, did you decide in the middle of the hearing to officially abandon the FCC's independence, or had that decision already been made by you and President Trump prior to the hearing?
Speaker 27
And my question is just on the timing. So did you make that decision during the hearing or prior to the hearing? Because it was this, because the website said prior to the hearing, there was an independent agency. You made a comment during the hearing, and then someone changed the website to say make no reference to it being an independent agency. So I just want the American people to know, had that decision already been made when you walked into the hearing, or did you make that decision at the hearing?
Speaker 5
I'm pleased that the FCC's website reflects my views. And what I'm saying.
Speaker 27
That the FCC is not an independent agency. That's correct. Right? So your view was entering the hearing, it was an independent agency. During the hearing, no longer an independent agency.
So that's your view, that's a non independent agency.
Speaker 5
Independence is determined by a number of factors. It's multi members. It's a term of years. But the main key piece is, can a commissioner be removed by the president for no reason or any reason? Historically, the view had been that courts would read into the Communications Act for cause removal protection that wasn't in the statute.
Let's just do that.
Speaker 27
Let's just talk about independence. Right? So I understand what you're trying to make the case.
Speaker 27
No longer clearly wanna say that it's an independent agency and just be upfront about it, as you did in Project 2025, as you did on the website entering that hearing. So it's just a question of were you misleading the American people because a decision had been made, or it was something that you had previously discussed with Trump. On the issue of independence, you talk about broadcasters' public interest standard, and we've listed a number of instances where the FCC has gone after broadcasters. Can you tell the committee what investigations or actions the FCC has taken for coverage of Democrats that the FCC has disagreed with? Because there's been a number of things for President Trump.
But what have you done that the FCC has thought was in violation of the public interest standard as it relates to coverage of democrats?
Speaker 27
Regarding their coverage of democrats? Regarding their coverage of the democrats. That's the question. Not the number of investigations. Regarding the coverage of Democrats, are there specific investigations into the coverage of Democrats?
Because there's a number of republicans for Trump. What are you doing with respect to the coverage of Democrats that shows that it's fair, balanced, and that you're not picking winners and losers? Just tell me what you're doing.
Speaker 5
We don't have investigations that are targeting Republicans or Democrats. We have investigations, No.
Speaker 27
But you've been clear about this. I mean, you've been lauded by the president for going after people who disagree with the president's policies or who articulate positions that differ from the president's policies. I'm just wondering Gentlemen's comments. Balance, what are you doing to show the American people that you continue to be an independent agency by going after agencies, broadcasters in a fair and balanced way? We know you're not, and that's why I'm glad that you're here, but we need to have more of these conversations.
Are you?
Speaker 1
Gentlemen, the time has expired. If the chairman would like to respond, I'd give you a few seconds.
Speaker 5
I would say we have a range of different investigations that are underway right now. We're enforcing the public interest standard, and that's the work that we're doing.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair now recognize the general aid from North Dakota, representative for Orchec, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first wanna step back and talk a little bit about the great work that's being done in combination with the president, your agency, and Congress. For the first time in four years, we're having spectrum auctions. That was completely ignored by the last administration, at the peril of our country, in very serious races against China on some of these technology fronts. Unleashing broadband funding to help connect America to broadband.
Deregulation, driving down costs, thousand regulations eliminated by your work alone, modernizing satellite regulations, and protecting vital submarine cables. Those are just a few of the great things that are already being done. It's only been a year. So thank you for your leadership. Thank you for delivering on many of the tools that Congress passed and gave you in the one big beautiful bill. It's gonna make a real difference to everyday Americans.
With that, I wanna pivot a little bit to a couple of issues that are really important to my state, universal service funding. Chairman Carr, North Dakota has been a leader in using universal service funding to help connect our state. We have one of the largest rural state broadband deployments in any place in the country. So for anybody looking to do that great work, North Dakota's a model of how it can be done. But moving forward, there's still a lot of uncertainty in the long-term plan for securing the universal service, the universal service fund.
What how should we be thinking about this, and what should congress be doing? What sort of recommendations do you have?
Speaker 5
Well, thank you, Congresswoman. Thanks for your leadership. I had a chance to visit North Dakota and see the great progress that's being made there, and, obviously, there's much more work we need to do. There are several actions we're taking on universal service. One is taking a look at our high cost programs, and how do we make sure that in this idea of a high cost 2.0, what does the future of high cost support look like?
And we're gonna be asking some questions about that. We're also looking at ways to make sure we bring new technologies online, including low-earth orbit satellites, freeing up spectrum, and permitting reform. I think all of those combined is why you see us finally turning things around, with prices coming down, with speeds going up, and with construction projects finally getting underway.
Speaker 5
The bicameral working group, that the house and the senate are involved in, I think can play a really constructive role. We talked in the senate hearing at the end of last year about the FCC collaborating with that group. I think we're gonna start that process potentially as soon as this month, to make sure that we're coordinated there.
Speaker 21
And the timeline on that, how urgent is it to get some certainty here in this long-term funding pool?
Speaker 5
Yeah. When you look at the lifecycle of investments, particularly for rural broadband, it's over many, many years. And so we need to be able to step in and provide that long-term sustainability for these programs. K.
Speaker 21
Very good. I wanna pivot a little bit. You mentioned the low earth satellites, low earth orbit satellites. The University of North Dakota just last year launched its roads satellite mission, which established a dedicated satellite operations training facility at the University of North Dakota. I'd like to see more of this type of work, particularly with regard to competing with China.
So how should Congress think about the FCCC's role in this space, in particular, in relation to competition with China and around the LEO satellites, earth stations, and ITU coordination?
Speaker 5
Well, China has made clear that they want to dominate when it comes to the delivery of next gen services from space. They are predictably copying a lot of the technologies from the US providers. So one thing we have to do is go as fast as we can. There's nothing holding back America's innovators from launching new, next generation satellites. That's what we're doing.
We're clearing out backlogs, and we're moving much faster.
Speaker 21
Are you working on the satellite licensing timelines as well? I've heard that that's a program often a source of delay.
Speaker 5
It's true. We're now working on a couple of fronts. One, to eliminate whole categories of things that don't require licenses or don't require certain types of lengthy coordinations. We're taking them out of the system, and we're moving to what we describe internally at the building as a much more assembly-like process, assembly line-like process, so that we give people clear parameters to shoot for with their applications, and they hit the mark, and it moves on and get away from sort of a bespoke review process that slowed things down. We're seeing results again.
This latest generation constellation that we approved, we went in about half the time as the prior one.
Speaker 21
Very good. Miss, mister chairman, if you need more tools from Congress, we're here to help. So thank you for your work. Mister chairman, I yield the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. Now recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mister Carter, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mister Chairman and ranking members. Over the last year, the Federal Communications Commission under Brendan Carr's leadership has recklessly abandoned its core principle to operate as an independent agency. Instead, it has weaponized its power to bully news organizations and broadcasters that disagree with the president on his political agenda. That's unfortunate. I stand firmly against this misuse of federal power to suppress free speech, and we'll fight to protect everyone's First Amendment rights.
Mister Carr, at one point, it appeared that you appreciated the First Amendment. At one point, it appears that you recognized its value. Somewhere along the line, you appeared to have lost your compass. That's unfortunate, because the American people deserve better. The American people deserve freedom of speech that allows expression without fear of retribution.
That is not the America that we should have. We have a rule of law. We have a constitution. We have those protections. And, unfortunately, sir, you have failed in the regard of protecting those rights.
So I'm gonna pivot, because I really don't have time for filibuster, and we have a need for questions to be answered. Commissioner, as the cochair of the Wi Fi caucus, I'm encouraged by the FCC's continued commitment to dedicating the six gigahertz band for unlicensed use, which is essential for Wi Fi technologies. How critical is it for the FCC to ensure that sufficient spectrum remains available for unlicensed use to both support the continued growth and innovation of Wi-Fi technologies and to help the US remain competitive with China and the development of cutting-edge wireless technologies.
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. You know, unlicensed spectrum was an experiment decades ago when I still worked at the FCC. And it has turned out to be an enormous benefit for our economy, for our global leadership in spectrum and in technology. So it's important that we have sufficient unlicensed spectrum for Wi-Fi and other such uses.
Speaker 28
What would happen in the case if we didn't have, if there weren't enough unlicensed spectrum accounts to anticipate increased usage in Wi-Fi?
Speaker 6
Well, we don't want to choke off other services. For example, we all have WiFi in our homes. Well, does us no good to have gigabit speeds if we don't have WiFi that's capable in our own homes to give us the benefit of those gigabit speeds. It's also just really important for innovation. We have amazing innovative services that use Wi-Fi and use connected devices throughout everything we do.
And so we need to make sure we have sufficient spectrum to make sure that we can continue to evolve these technologies and support them.
Speaker 28
So of late, we've heard the discussion about affordability, the importance of affordability, the importance of making sure that we see these tools that are no longer something that is luxury but is a necessity. How does preserving and expanding access to unlicensed spectrum help advance affordability and digital opportunity for rural and underserved communities like that of my district?
Speaker 6
Yeah. WiFi is a very important tool for giving access to everyone who needs access to broadband. Whether we get them through our library or we have students that are sitting in the parking lot of a McDonald's in order to access broadband. What Wi-Fi has enabled is this type of accessibility, and it's very important that we continue to support it.
Speaker 28
Under the Biden administration, Louisiana, I'm very proud to say, was number one. We were ready. We were ready for shovels in the ground with the bead program. Under the Trump administration, there was a drastic halt. And as a result of that halt, although it was said that it was intended to make things better, faster.
We had taken too long, "quote, unquote." But Louisiana was first, ready. Our republican governor hailed this as one of the most monumental infrastructure advances in Louisiana. Yet now we hear that from my colleagues, I think mister Lotta, said a little while ago that, thankfully, we were able to stop this because things weren't moving fast enough. Well, in fact, we were moving fast enough, and we had done all of the lead work, leg work through a democratic governor and a republican governor, only to be halted by this administration, which leaves us now with a far less superior product that's going to ultimately cost more money, and the people will get less service and an inferior product.
Real briefly.
Speaker 6
Very quickly. Yes. We are over a year since this, or about a year since this administration took over and complained about the amount of time that it took to deploy under the last administration, and yet they've now effectively added another year. So I am concerned that this administration has a race to the bottom in terms of what provision, what technology it's just gonna use to provide broadband service, and I'm hopeful that the end outcome is that everyone gets the broadband they need to participate in the artificial intelligence economy.
Speaker 28
And, mister chairman, I'm gonna submit for the record and ask that you have an opportunity to answer because, obviously, NextGen 1911 is a huge issue, making sure that we're providing opportunities for law enforcement to actually be able to access the greatest technologies that we have when, in fact, today, they can't.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Indiana. Miss Houchin, for five minutes, to ask her a question.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the ranking member for holding today's hearing, and for the witnesses for being here. The Federal Communications Commission plays an integral role in closing the digital divide, promoting competition, and ensuring Americans can access reliable communication services that are essential for work, education, health care, and public safety. I'm especially glad to welcome chairman Carr and commissioners trustee Ngomez from the FCC here today. I also wanna just commend the Trump administration for finding $21,000,000,000 in savings under the BEAD program, which I know was under Secretary Lutnick.
But I do hope that $21,000,000,000 in savings on the BEAD program will be put toward deployment in a technology neutral way and that it might go even to updating our national broadband map, which is what I wanna focus some of my comments on today. One of the most, I think, underappreciated tools the FCC manages is the broadband map. We relied on it when I was a state legislator as we were trying to roll out a broadband grant program that would avoid overbuilding in areas that already had access. It's a map that is increasingly relied upon not just by the FCC, but by other federal agencies, state broadband offices, and communities across the country. It really shapes where taxpayer dollars go, how programs are designed, and, again, preventing overbuilding, and making sure that we're actually reaching unserved Americans.
But the map is inaccurate, and if it's inaccurate, then everything down from it is at risk. In April 2025, the GAO warned that federal agencies are directing tens of billions of dollars in broadband funding based on the map, despite concerns about the accuracy of the data. The report issued six recommendations for the FCC related to broadband mapping and improving interagency coordination. Chairman Carr, where does the FCC stand today on implementing GAO's recommendations, particularly validating true access to broadband and strengthening the map?
Speaker 5
Oh, thank you, congressman, for your leadership, including on these critical rural broadband issues. Yes. He's working on all the recommendations there. And one thing that we have is we have a coordination agreement with NTIA and others to make sure that we're getting all of the data put in the map. For instance, as you've indicated, there are dozens and dozens of different broadband funding programs out there, and we can make sure they all funnel their information through a single map. That'll really help improve.
The map itself is starting to stabilize. We're seeing the fabric start to stabilize. We're seeing more accuracy from it. So I think we're heading in the right direction, but more work to do.
Speaker 29
Thank you. You know, many of my colleagues and I were working on both sides of the aisle on legislation that does rely on the accuracy of the map. That includes my Data Bridge Act, which directs the FCC to incorporate USDA cultivated land data into the national broadband map. And this is important because in rural and agricultural areas, we wanna make sure that's mapped accurately so that funding reaches the entire farm or field, not just a farmhouse address, and supporting connectivity in modern agriculture like precision ag. In the time I have remaining, I do wanna pivot to the broadcast policy chairman Carr, specifically the broadcast ownership cap.
It's clear the landscape for media has changed over the last several decades, and many young Americans have never experienced broadcast television, moving the rabbit ears on the television so you can get your five stations that you could watch. And many Americans really don't know the difference between Fox News Channel and Fox 59. Under the broadcast cap, what is the impact on local broadcasters if the cap is expanded or not? Why is that an important conversation to have? And a follow-up question, and I'll give you time to close out.
If big networks like NBC News, if they wanted to just get out of the broadcast business tomorrow, and sell to conservative stations or any stations like Fox or Sinclair, wouldn't the broadband or wouldn't the, sorry, wouldn't the broadcast ownership cap prevent that from happening, and is that in the public interest?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Congresswoman. We're looking at a number of issues related to this right now, and we haven't made any final decisions. We're still taking input. Think one of the things that I've been concerned about, to your point, you have these licensed local broadcast stations that are supposed to be serving the needs of their individual communities. But over the last dozen plus years, you've seen these large national programmers, Comcast and Disney, that have just come to dominate those local TV stations.
So when you turn on your local TV stations, almost the entire time now, you're just viewing programs that have been produced in New York and Hollywood. And so we're looking at ways, structurally and otherwise, to potentially insert some more competition. Because I think, again, if we care as a country about local news and local reporting, we want healthy local news stations, and it's expensive to produce local news. At the FCC, we had this before. We had rules relating to investment in local newspapers, and we left those rules in place.
And over time, you saw investment decline, and now the shuttering of local news. So the touchstone has to be localism, whether we, you know, go forward in this proceeding or not. We haven't made that decision yet.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to continuing to work with the FCC on broadband policies, ensuring that the data is accurate. I wanna give a shout out to commissioner trustee for her work on Databridge. Thank you. I do know that my community does.
Speaker 29
news, and I look forward to continuing to work together. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Chair, I recognize the General Lee from Illinois. This is Kelly for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Chair Hudson. I'm ranking member Matt Sulli for holding this morning's hearing, and thanks to our witnesses for participating. This past year, the Trump administration has threatened platform's ability to responsibly moderate content by unlawfully weaponizing independent agencies such as the FCC. Rather than protecting consumers or fostering competition, this agency is now being weaponized in a calculated effort to sabotage decisions of private entities and undermine online free speech. The FCC has repeatedly claimed to oppose censorship, yet its recent posture towards section 230 of the communications act reflects a sharp departure from the agency's traditional scope and legal limits.
That inconsistency undermines public trust and places us in dangerous times. Chairman Carr, in project 2025, you wrote the chapter on the FCC in which you call for revisions to parts of section 230 to counter what you saw as censorship and bias against conservatives by large technology companies. Chairman Carr, in project 2025, you wrote the FCC has authority to interpret that law and thus provide courts with guidance about the proper application of the statutory language. Your writing is also consistent with the FCC's general counsel's 2020 legal opinion that the FCC has the authority to interpret, excuse me, section 230. But there is no language in section 230 directing the FCC to enforce this law.
And even if the language is ambiguous, in June 2024, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference and stated that courts need not, and may not, defer to an agency's interpretation of the law simply because the statute is ambiguous. So, chairman Carr, just yes or no. Does the FCC still have the legal authority to interpret section 230? Just yes or no, please.
Speaker 5
Section 230 is in the Communications Act, and there are provisions of the Communications Act that give us authority to interpret those terms. And so, yeah, the FCC, speaking, has authority to implement provisions of the Communications Act.
Speaker 30
Thank you for your answer. Commissioner Gomez, do you agree with chairman Card that the FCC has the authority to interpret section 230? Last I checked, the FCC's website says the FCC does not regulate online content. Is that no longer correct?
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question. Yes. I disagree. I don't think we have authority to reg, we definitely don't have authority to regulate online content, and we don't want to under the First Amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you for your response. It is unfortunate that Mister Carr is now determined to sit back and be America's speech police. If Brendan Carr, who tweeted whether it's the government shutting down speech or a private platform doing it, these decisions are not made by an oracle of truth. That is what I wish would stand up. Thank you to the witnesses, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mister Fulcher.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Questions. And thank you to the panel for all your input today. And, I've got a question for commissioner trustee, but I wanna apologize in advance for some of us with dual commitments if some of this is a rerun. So bear with me here.
But, commissioner, trustee, this has to do with spectrum auctions. And I come from the great state of Idaho. There is a lot of rural space in Idaho, and I just wanna underscore the importance of wireless deployment in rural underserved areas such as what I represent. And, when it comes to spectrum auctions, have you got any ideas or input on what we can do to make sure that the small rural carriers get access to that or somehow get included with those?
Speaker 7
Sure. Thank you for this question, and thank you for your leadership on this issue. Making sure small rural providers can participate in spectrum auctions is critical to fostering competition and making sure we get high-speed wireless services to unserved and underserved areas in these rural communities. So for the AWS three spectrum auction that will be initiated in June, we have designated entities, small businesses, rural telecommunications companies who have bidding credits. They get a discount on the Spectrum.
We're also proposing to offer bidding credits to small, rural telecommunications providers in the Upper Seaband auction, as that's being debated in the NPRM that's currently before us.
Speaker 31
Great. Thank you for that. Commissioner Carr, first of all, thank you for your work in a lot of this related area too. As you recall, there's a lot of federal land in the West, and you've been helpful in helping us get access to some of that. I wanna just put a plug in for legislation that I passed through this committee that, when it comes to deploying broadband infrastructure across previously disturbed federal lands, there's an exemption for that from NEPA if that's, has to be disturbed again when it comes to broadband deployment.
Is that something that you can support in, in terms of putting the infrastructure in place in rural areas?
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman, for your leadership on these key permitting reform issues. We are looking right now at additional relief with respect to courts or otherwise overriding NEPA and environmental reviews to put needless reviews in place. We wanna try to cut through that. And the work that you're doing in congress and elsewhere is important to that.
Speaker 31
Really, it really does slow things down unnecessarily in my view. And, I'm gonna shift gears a little bit to a totally different topic. But, GPS went through a recent home and security review and didn't realize just how much GPS was involved with many things. And, one of the concerns that came up as part of that dialogue was that we don't have a good redundancy system. There's not necessarily an auxiliary system.
Are you looking at anything, potentially to address that need in case there was a disruption of service to the GPS system?
Speaker 5
Most Americans don't realize how dependent we are on GPS for precision navigation and timing. It's a great system, but it's a single point of failure. So one of the very first things that we did when I became chair is to start the process of looking at standing up alternatives, a system of systems to GPS. I think it's important at the FCC that we keep moving forward to do our part to look at a range of different ways that we could stand up alternatives or complements to GPS.
Speaker 31
We're told that some other countries have got auxiliary systems. That's why I asked the question. Thank you for looking at that. I did have a question regarding broadcast ownership. Congressman Houchin addressed that with you, and so I won't force you to repeat the response on that.
Mister chairman, with that, I yield. Thanks.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The chair now recognized the representative from Virginia, Miss McClellan, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Chairman Hudson and Representative Ranking Member Matt Suey for holding this very important hearing, and thank you to the commissioners for being here. I'm probably the most excited about this hearing of any hearing we've had thus far. I graduated law school one year after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed. I was one of the lawyers who worked on, I think, the only arbitration before the FCC under that act. And I ended my legal career helping my client try to figure out how to provide inputs to the FCC broadband map.
So I could spend hours talking to you, asking questions about the FCC's critical role, how we can work together to modernize the communications act, how we can ensure Americans can communicate freely, affordably, reliably, how we can help with poll attachment issues as someone who, yes, I also climbed a telephone pole. But I only have 5 minutes. And so, in this first conversation with you, I wanna focus on what I think is the FCC's most important role, and that's ensuring that the public, not political interference, remains at the center of our communications ecosystem, which, as you've heard today, there is a lot of concern about. Because since January at the behest of the president and under chairman Carr's leadership, it appears the FCC has been pursuing a course that mirrors the goals of project twenty twenty five, consolidating executive control, weaponizing regulatory authority, and pressuring speech and media that fall out of political favor with the president. These actions represent a clear departure from the FCC's historic mission and a dangerous erosion of the guardrails that protect free speech.
And that's why earlier this year, I offered an amendment to our oversight plan that said that this committee would remain committed to investigating any instances of the FCC weaponizing this independent agency against the news media to settle the scores of the president or anyone else, because that's the epitome of abuse. And I noted in that hearing that our founding fathers believe that freedom of speech and the press are vital safeguards against government overreach, and are crucial for an informed citizenry and democracy. George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the precursor to the Bill of Rights, that freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. James Madison said that for the people to rule wisely, they must be free to think and speak without fear of reprisal. Benjamin Franklin said that freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government, and when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved.
And I can't be a graduate of UVA and not quote Thomas Jefferson, who believed our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost. And so you can see why we are so concerned about how the FCC conducts itself as it plays a critical role in protecting these linchpins of American democracy. So, commissioner Gomez, someone with a front row seat to how the FCC has operated under the Trump administration and chairman Carr's leadership, I want to commend you for your initiative, the First Amendment tour to challenge government censorship and control. And I wanna know if you could share with us some of what you have heard from broadcasters, journalists, freedom of speech advocates while you have been traveling around the country.
Speaker 6
Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. Yes. I have launched a First Amendment tour because I have been so concerned about this administration's abuse of its regulatory authority in order to target content in the free press. And what I've heard from communities is a lot of concern, and this concern is bipartisan. It's across the ideological spectrum because freedom of speech and the freedom of the press are paramount to our democracy.
I've also heard a lot of concerns about the level of consolidation and the capitulation of the corporate owners of these media companies in order to curry favor with this administration. And what if?
Speaker 32
You heard from small and minority owned broadcasters about the unique role that they play in delivering local news, music, and entertainment that reflect the voices of all communities and not just the majority community?
Speaker 6
Small broadcasters are really the salt of the earth when it comes to serving their communities. And it's so important that we maintain a diversity of viewpoints that reflect the communities in which these broadcasters are serving. There's one thing I would like to correct for the record, and that is there are four national networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, not just two. And the local broadcasters that are seeking to merge are actually corporate behemoths, not small local broadcasters.
Speaker 32
Okay. I thank you for that. I hope this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship with all of you, and we have lots of geeking out that we can do. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. And I'll recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Kane, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Carr, commissioners, Gomez, and trustee, for being here today. Chairman Carr, supporting first responders' ability to communicate with the public and with others is of critical importance. I was interested to see that in August 2025, the commission released a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the emergency alert system and wireless emergency alerts. I agree that it's important that our nation's alert and warning systems are closely examined so that fire, EMS, and police personnel can communicate as effectively and efficiently as possible.
Can you provide an update on this process and give an overview of your vision for the next generation of wireless alert system?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Congressman. This is critical. The very first project I worked on at the FCC all the way back in 2012, when I started at the agency, was on these types of emergency alerts. And if you look back over the years, every different compilation of the commission that comes in sort of adds something else on top of the existing system. And we haven't, at least in my view, stepped back and said, as a matter of first principles, if we were designing this system today with today's technology, how do we do it?
And that's the point of what this is designed to do. It's a voluntary system, so we have to be careful about how much we put on top of that. But we're asking all of the questions as to how we make this work in the future. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Chairman Carr, you spoke in support of direct to cell satellite connectivity. How can we strengthen coordination between the FCC and the private sector to expand the availability of direct-to-cell satellite communications?
Speaker 5
Thank you, congressman. We just spoke about geeking out, and this is something that I really geek out on. Mhmm. There's this new generation of connectivity where you can go straight from your smartphone right to a low-earth orbit satellite. And the low earth orbit satellite is effectively like a cell tower in the sky.
What that does is eliminate dead zone. If we have enough spectrum capacity for that, you can get truly high-speed service right to your phone anywhere, or think about any type of device as well. And so what we're doing right now is positioning The United States to lead the world in this new technology by making sure that we have the spectrum resources and the regulatory framework for this direct-to-cell technology to really flourish, and to flourish in America first.
Speaker 33
So I believe it's very important the US maintain leadership in space. How can the FCC support updating regulations on satellite-based services within bodies like the International Telecommunications Union to remain dominant and to counteract anticompetitive efforts by other nations?
Speaker 5
One of the touchstones of our spectrum and satellite policy through the years has been reciprocity. We have a lot of US-based satellite providers, but there's a lot of European satellite providers that are doing business here in America. I am concerned as a general matter if you look at some of the protectionist conduct that's taking place by the European regulators. You see it all across the tech ecosystem, but we're seeing it rise with respect to satellites in particular. And I would simply remind my counterparts in Europe that, again, reciprocity has been key to a successful regime.
We wanna make sure that US satellite providers are treated fairly when they're doing business in Europe.
Speaker 33
Thank you. And, Chairman Carr, I appreciate the FCC's efforts to review regulations in order to streamline outdated and partisan rules, and to support American innovators. First, can you give us an update on the progress of the effort at large and share any plans for deregulation in the coming year that you feel is important to support this effort?
Speaker 5
We launched the largest deregulatory effort in the agency's history. To date, it's over a thousand different rules or regulations that have been either eliminated or teed up for elimination, over 2,000 inactive dockets, and we're gonna continue to work away to get rid of substantive regulations that is holding back innovation. Again, just in a short year, you're already seeing wireless prices come down, speeds increasing, competition enhancing, bridging the digital divide. This is the work that we're doing, and it's delivering real, tangible results for the American people, and we're just getting started.
Speaker 33
So what's the best way for companies like those in New Jersey to most effectively engage with the FCC and offer their perspectives to make the effort as productive as possible?
Speaker 5
One thing that we want is to hear from them directly about the types of rules and regulations that are holding them back. That's why I try to spend as much time outside the Beltway as possible in this job, meeting directly with broadband providers and tower climbers. And I ask them, you know, what is holding you back? One idea that we've heard is came up over here in legislation, which is railroad crossings. Again, it seems like a random issue, but that has, you know, substantively been holding back broadband builds in this country.
So we wanna hear directly from them what's slowing them down.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And, now recognize the last member of the subcommittee before we go to members who we welcome here who waved on. Mister Albinolti from California, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 10
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Carr, thank you for your testimony today. I start by adding my voice to the chorus of voices that you've heard in the hearing today about the FCC's broadcast ownership rules. Now, obviously, those rules were written in an era when broadcasters were just competing against other broadcasters. But now in our digital era, we have broadcasters who compete against players like social media platforms, streaming platforms.
And, although I myself am not an advocate of expanding the regulation to those entities, I think that we do have an obligation to keep a level playing field, and make sure that we're not handicapping our broadcasters. So, you're aware we sent you a letter last March on this topic. I was a signatory to that. I won't belabor the point. I know it's been brought up here before, but I just wanted to make sure that you knew how important that was to the members of the subcommittee.
I also wanna talk a little bit about the C band auction that's coming up in the middle of next year, you know, or before. As you're aware, in 2021, we had the auction of the lowers for the lower C band, and that had some pretty serious consequences for the aviation community in the use of radar altimeters, the interference with those radar altimeters. And that was intended, was kind of unforeseen, caused a lot of chaos. I'm a pilot myself, I got to experience some of that chaos firsthand. And I know that there are things that we wish we had done differently.
So as we approach this upcoming auction for upper C band, what is the FCC planning to do differently to make sure that we don't get a recurrence of that?
Speaker 5
Well, thank you, Congressman, for the question. One thing that we're doing is working on the front end on deep collaboration and coordination with the aviation industry and our counterparts. So, administrative Bedford at the FAA, secretary Duffy at DOT, The White House, myself, we are, you know, regularly in touch, regularly having meetings to work through this. We have a proceeding right now where you sought comment on precisely these types of issues. We have a mandate from congress to free more than or at least 100 megahertz of spectrum.
That's gonna likely necessitate new standards for radio altimeters, some retrofitting of radio altimeters, and we're working through all those issues right now. What is the standard? In fact, the FAA itself is working through its own rulemaking process as well. And, again, we're trying to line up all of these actions so we're ready to go in the middle of next summer. But, you know, it’s probably the biggest effort inside the FCC in terms of the amount of brainpower we have worked out.
I know the media issues get a lot of attention because the media likes to talk about the media. But in terms of the work of the building, C band and all of the issues that you're talking about is a big work stream for us.
Speaker 10
Alright. I'm glad to hear it. If I could urge you, to, as you prepare for the auction, to consider this issue of mandatory retrofits of radar altimeters. First of all, always keeping in mind that, I mean, to my understanding, we don't actually have a certified retrofit available yet. And even when we do, there's limited production capacity for those radar altimeters, and limited avionic shop capacity.
And so, we have to have enough of a window to be able to retrofit the entire fleet that needs the new part to avoid that interference. And second of all, my understanding is that the bidders in this auction would likely be willing to bear the cost of those retrofits. And I think that that's fair, that if you're gonna ask a community to retrofit something that they already bought, that the people that benefit, you know, ought to help pay for that. And so, if you could please keep those things in mind. And then in the time I have left, I wanna talk a little bit about the spectrum and this seemingly insatiable demand for spectrum that's being driven by not just digital media consumption on portable devices, but newly now by AI, and particularly generative AI.
It's if you look at it, it's gonna be at least a linear increase in the number of the amount of spectrum that we use. In the most dire cases, it's exponential. So we are going to run out of spectrum if we, on the path that we're on. Can you talk us through how the FCC views this? I mean, are we going to run out of spectrum?
I know we've directed you to make more spectrum available. Is that going to be sufficient? What do you see the future holding?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Right now, the United States is a bit out of balance in terms of spectrum policy. We've taken a lot of good action on license. We've taken a lot of good action to have access to the federal side, the federal spectrum. But this, you know, high-power commercial spectrum for next gen is where we really need to focus our efforts.
That's why I think C-band and others are so important. To your point, we're seeing this hockey stick curve of demand, historically. But now, with AI coming online, we want AI to work directly on your smartphone. Well, that hockey stick just goes straight through the roof. And so we have to continue to bring more spectrum online, but also permit reform.
Because if you can split cells by making it not onerous to build a new cell site, that can help take care of capacity as well. But we are facing, potentially, a shortfall of capacity a number of years from now, which is why this work we're doing right now is so important.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And the chair will remind the committee that we're pushing up on votes at 1:30. It is my intention to drive through, and we've got three members of our full committee who've waived on. I'd like to push through these. I would just ask everyone, please, observe the time limits so we can get everyone's questions in.
Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, mister Tonko, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 34
Thank you, chair Hudson and ranking member, for cohosting this hearing, and welcome to our guests. In my opinion, this hearing is long overdue. The actions of the Federal Communications Commission over the past year have been deeply troubling and demand serious oversight. As many of my colleagues have discussed, we have seen dangerous violations of free speech, political interference, certainly what should be an independent agency, and brazen efforts to greenlight a legal broadcast consolidation. Today, I want to focus on the commission's rollback of basic consumer protections.
I listened with great interest to Miss Caster's exchange with the panel, as it relates to e-rate support. In 2024, when the FCC announced it was expanding e-rate support to include Wi-Fi on school buses and hotspot lending by schools and libraries, I was indeed thrilled. I have long advocated for this expansion as a practical way to narrow that homework gap and to reach students who otherwise lack reliable broadband access. However, last year, the commission reversed its course. I joined many of my colleagues in calling out that rollback, and I do it again today.
So chairman Carr and commissioner trustee, I strongly urge you to reconsider your votes and reinstate that rule. This decision was cruel and, I believe, very much short-sighted. It strips students of the tools they need to succeed and widens that digital divide the commission is charged with closing. Commissioner Gomez, in your testimony, you noted that eRate support for buses and hotspots was one of the most effective tools the FCC had to ensure students across the country are not left behind in our digital economy. And I heard some of your remarks too, representative Castor.
But from your perspective, what impact will students, educators, and libraries experience as a rollback of these E-rate expansions? And what does that mean for the FCC's obligation to ensure universal service?
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you for that question. Broadband connectivity is crucial to be able to participate in today's digital economy. In order for students to become ready for the digital future, in order for seniors to be able to make their health appointments, in order for people to apply for jobs, in order for veterans to be able to meet their health care as well. And yet if you don't have access to broadband, we need the ability to provide affordable access to these students and to all these other folks that rely on broadband, because today, broadband is everywhere.
We have everything done online. So losing access via hotspots means students can't do homework. Losing the Wi-Fi means students can't do it while they're on their school buses. Buses. There are some states where students are on the school bus for 2 hours each way.
Think about what they could do to do their homework on those buses, and we pulled that away.
Speaker 34
Thank you for the response. Last month, this committee held a hearing on public safety, with witnesses emphasizing that emergency alerts must be effective for everyone, including individuals with language barriers. So it also is disappointing to have seen the FCC delay common-sense safety reforms like multilingual emergency alerts. The commission had to be sued by state attorneys general, including New York's Letitia James, for obstruction before publishing its rule on multilingual emergency alerts. And even now, provisions of that rule have been delayed indefinitely.
Commissioner Gomez, can you explain the risks that delayed multilingual alerts pose to our public safety?
Speaker 6
Yes. It is so important that everyone be able to get access to emergency alerts, and that they be able to understand them. We can only save lives if people understand the emergency alerts. So we've squandered time. We have the Olympics and the World Cup coming next year, which is gonna require a lot of people to get alerts if there is a public safety incident in a language they might understand.
So I am hopeful that we will move forward in order to ensure that everyone can understand the emergency alerts.
Speaker 5
Just a point of clarification, because I think this is important. Multilingual alerts could go out before, and they can go out today, and then go out tomorrow. I just wanna make sure we're not leaving people with the misimpression that alert originators can't send out multilingual alerts. They can, and we want them.
Speaker 6
that is the case. What this does, what the FCC has paused is actually making it easier and more frequent that they will be able to put those out. Because right now, the vast majority of alerts go out in English, because it's the originators that put them out.
Speaker 34
Well, thank you. I had other questions. I'll get them to the committee. But, let me just close and say that freedom of speech is the underpinning of our republic.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, for five minutes to ask your question.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Chairman Hudson, for allowing me to join this very important hearing. The intersection of rural broadband and health care is critical to examine as we work together in expanding connectivity to all Americans. Chairman Carr, thank you for coming to Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District. Thank you for meeting with the providers. Thank you for working with the poll workers on climbing those towers.
Your personal impact and commitment is felt in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District. Rural districts, like the one you visited and I represent, are often left behind as broadband deployment accelerates across the country. Your personal commitment to not allow the rural areas to be left behind is important, and that resonates throughout America. As a doctor, I've seen the impact that the digital divide has on rural health care providers. Rural health care providers serve unique populations that are often underserved.
We doctors who serve in rural areas often struggle to access telecommunications infrastructure and broadband that is essential to serve our patients. The RHC program offered by the FCC under the Universal Service Fund aims to provide funding to eligible care providers for telecommunications and broadband services necessary for the provision of health care today. The RHC program serves my constituents in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District. Connecting them and the funding and connectivity resources are important. It is crucial that we evaluate the efficiency and the effectiveness of the RHC program and how it contributes to the FCC's goal of connecting all of America.
At Wellspan Health, the RHC program has allowed hospitals to maintain access to physical, behavioral, and maternal care in Pennsylvania's 13th Congressional District. Chairman Carr, as I've noted, you've visited the 13th Congressional District in Pennsylvania on more than one occasion, and you personally are keenly aware of the broadband challenges that the district faces, particularly in the health care industry. How do you measure the effectiveness of the RHC program and the impact of the program that we are seeing in rural communities, in hospitals like Wellspan?
Speaker 5
Congressman, thank you for the question. Thanks for your leadership in Pennsylvania and for your district. If you look back just the last five years alone, my understanding is that almost 2.5 million dollars have flowed to your district for rural health care. And we're seeing those funds being put to use to make sure people can have access to next generation care, and we're working together to make sure that we expand rural broadband as well, to further bolster access to health care and next gen services for the good people in your community.
Speaker 35
As we are talking today, there are patients who are connecting with their doctors right now, receiving the care that, to your point, Cherkar, was not available two and a half years ago. Telehealth is a tool that has become increasingly valuable, as I have noted, in rural areas, in underserved areas. In some areas, telehealth is the most accessible option for patients seeking care. Commissioner trustee, you said in your written testimony that you have witnessed how broadband is delivering quality care straight into rural patients' homes through video. How can the RHC program serve providers that are seeking to expand their health care options for rural patients?
Speaker 7
Thank you for the question, and also, thank you for your leadership. So as you know, the rural health care program ensures that rural patients have access to modern health care or telehealth. In recent months, we've made process improvements at the FCC to extend funding deadlines, to ensure we have the funding to meet the demand, and to roll over additional funding for the funding year 2025, to meet the needs of rural communities across the country. I think this congressional bipartisan working group on USF is another forum for us to explore additional reforms or modernizations to this program, so that all rural Americans can have access to quality health care services.
Speaker 35
I look forward to working with you and seeing that expansion continue. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this important hearing, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Speaker 1
Chair appreciates that. And, I will now recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Mullen, for five minutes to ask your questions.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Carr, as we've heard today from my colleagues, there are serious concerns about the FCC's actions during your tenure, and that they crossed the line into interference with free speech, a concern that I share. Will you simply commit today that the FCC will not use its licensing authority, enforcement role, or claims of news distortion to politically pressure or punish broadcasters for their editorial decisions?
Speaker 5
The FCC is gonna enforce the public interest standard, news distortion, broadcast hoax rule, and, you know, that's the actions we're gonna take.
Speaker 36
I wanna emphasize the importance of editorial independence to our democracy. Broadcasters, whether public, private, local, or national, need to be able to exercise lawful journalistic judgment without fear of retaliation from the federal government. That principle is foundational to the First Amendment in a functioning democracy. So, commissioner Gomez, in your testimony today, you warn that the commission has asserted what you describe as a, quote, roving mandate to police speech it does not like, relying on an undefined and unchecked interpretation of the public-interest standard. Can you explain in plain terms the role Congress has given to the FCC?
And should the FCC be in the business of content regulation, especially in light of how people are now receiving their content?
Speaker 6
Yes. Thank you for that question. The FCC does regulate the broadcast licensing to serve the public interest. But the public interest is not some nebulous standard that can be used in order to target any content that this administration doesn't like. And that is the problem with this continued use of this public interest standard, is if it exists to punish broadcasters because of their editorial decisions or because of their news reporting.
We need to go back to simply conducting our role of ensuring that the broadcasters have the infrastructure that they need in order to be able to serve their local communities. And that is what I think we should be doing. We should not be pressuring broadcasters on their content. It violates the First Amendment and the Communications Act's prohibition on censorship.
Speaker 36
Thank you for that. And out of respect for time, just one final issue. In light of a billion-dollar rescission cut to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its impact on our emergency alert systems, given that extreme weather events are increasing in both frequency and severity, is the FCC prepared to provide, and I'll ask you again, Commissioner Gomez, additional technical support to local broadcasters to both maintain and build out resilient emergency alerting systems, particularly for rural and underserved communities that rely on public and local broadcasters for lifesaving information.
Speaker 6
Thank you for bringing to light this issue with the defunding of public broadcasters. Not only are we losing educational programming, local news, a lot of civic engagement, but we are also losing the backbone of our emergency alert system. And I am unaware that the FCC has any activities to address this issue, but it's something that we really need to consider. I would urge Congress to refund public media because of the important services that they provide, both from a public safety perspective and also to their local communities.
Speaker 36
I certainly share that view. Thank you, Mr. Sheriff. Thank you all for your testimony. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Asking the ams consent to insert in the record the documents included on the staff hearing documents list, without objection. So ordered. Seeing there are no further members wishing to be recognized, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. I remind members they have ten business days to submit rec questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to respond to those questions promptly.
Members should submit their questions by the close of business on 01/28/2026, which tells me I have 10 days till my mother's birthday because it's the 28th. Without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.