Transcripts For CSPAN3 FCC Votes On Net Neutrality 20171214

The achairman ajit pai greeting witnesses as the meeting is set to get under way shortly. Well have live allday coverage here on cspan3. Welcome. December 2017 meeting of the federal Communications Commission. Madam secretary, turn the floor over to you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, and good morning commissioners. The purpose of the federal Communications Commission open meeting is for the commission to consider the matters that have been duly posted in accordance with the government and the sunshine act. As provided in the commissions rules, members of the public are invited to observe, which includes attending, listening, and taking notes, but does not include participating in the meeting, or addressing the commission. Actions that purposely interfere or attempt to interfere with the commencement or conduct of the meeting, or inhibit the audiences ability to observe or listen to the meeting, including attempts by audience members to address the commission while the meeting is in progress, are not permitted. Any person engaging in such behavior will be asked to leave the building, anyone who refuses to leave voluntarily will be escorted from the building. Additionally, documents presented to the chairman, commissioners, or staff, during the meeting, will not become part of the official record of any commission proceeding. Nor will they require further action by the commission. If you wish to comment on an ongoing proceeding before the commission please visit our website for more information. Thank you for your cooperation. For todays meeting, you will hear seven items for your consideration. First, you will consider a reporting order that would amend the commissions rules to add a dedicated evict code to facilitate the delivery of flu alerts over the Emergency Alert system, and wireless Emergency Alert system. Second, you will consider a notice of proposal making in order to strengthen the Rule Health Care program and improve access to telehealth in Rural America. Third, you will consider a Public Notice seeking input on a Draft Program comment addressing the historic reservation review requirement for colocating wireless communication facilities on twilight towers. Fourth you will consider a declaratory ruling and order that will restore Internet Freedom by returning Broadband Internet Access Service to its prior classification as an Information Service, and reinstate the private mobile Service Classification of mobile Broadband Internet Access Service. The item also will eliminate the commissions vague and expansive internet conduct standard, along with the brightline rules. Additionally it will modify the transparency rule to promote additional transparency while eliminating burdensome, and unnecessary requirements. Fifth, you will consider a reporting order to harmonize the commissions rules by eliminating the commercial mobile radio service. Presumption to be consistent with our flexible use approach to licensing. Sixth you will consider a notice of proposed rule making seeking comment on ways to modernize certain notice provisions in part 76 of the fccs rules governing multichannel video and Cable Television service. Seventh, you will consider a notice of proposed rule making seeking comment on whether to modify, retain, or eliminate the 39th National Audience Reach Company and slshz or the uhf discount used by broadcast television Station Groups to calculate compliance with the cap. This is your agenda for today. The first item today will be presented by the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau, and is entitled amendment of part 11 of the commissions rules regarding Emergency Alert system. Lisa foulkes, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Chief foulkes if youre ready, the floor is yours. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, happy thursday, and happy holidays. The Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau is pleased to present a order that would add a new alert option called a blue alert to the nations Emergency Alert system. Blue alerts can be used by state and local authorities to notify the public of threats to Law Enforcement, and to help apprehend dangerous suspects. Specifically, the order would add a new three character event code blu, blu, to the commissions emergency Earth Systems rules. The blu code will allow an easily recognizable blu alert to reach television, radio and wireless phones. As ive mentioned previously, i am the grand daughter of a former detective in the Philadelphia Police department. I appreciate the dangers that Law Enforcement officers face each day and the importance of protecting those who protect us. Todays order would support the rafael ramos, national blu alert act of 2015. Which was named for these two fallen new York City Police detective officers im sorry, department officers, before we present the item i would like to welcome the family and colleagues of the late detectives, ramos, and liu, who have traveled to be with us today. First, we will hear testimony from two family members of a late detective liu who are seated here. His father, and then detective lius wife, who will provide the familys sentiments in english. Also seated with us is nypd Sergeant Johnny yen who will serve as interpreter as needed. Next we will hear testimony from marissa ramos, the wife of the late detective ramos. Also joining us at the table is william bill johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, which represents about 1,000 professional Police Associations and units, and 241,000 officers throughout the United States. It is a member of the department of justices blue alert advisory group. I will now turn it over to detective lius father. [ speaking Foreign Language ] [ speaking Foreign Language ] [ speaking Foreign Language ] [ speaking Foreign Language ] [ speaking Foreign Language ] good morning, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, i would like to thank you for having us here today. As a parent of captain wianjan liu we believe in the safety of our Law Enforcement officers. Three years ago this month my son wianjan and detective ramos died in live duty. Thank you for honoring their names in the act. This is the best way to remember them. In addition, we are also grateful to all the Police Officers, and citizens who cared and helped us get through the past three years. We are grateful for the love, and help the nypd has given us. We thank you everyone for remembering our son, wenjian liu. We want to give special thanks to our Law Enforcement officers who put their lives on the line protecting us every day. God bless america. Thank you. I would like to start by saying an immense thank you to everyone who has worked hard to bring about the rafael ramos and wenjian liu alert. Thank you to all the commissioners who will be casting a vote on this very important matter. I would like to extend my gratitude to the fcc commissioner ajit pai along with the national blu alert coordinating vice im sorry. Vince davenport of the department of justice. I would also like to thank former president barack obama and former Vice President joe biden, for their hospitality, and for signing of this act in 2005. My hope is that this alert will prevent another family from having to endure what my family has had to endure in the past three years. I truly believe that the work that has gone in to making this act possible will save other officers lives. Thank you, and god bless you all. I would now like to introduce the members of my team from the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau who are seated here. Mickey mcginnis Deputy Bureau chief, gregory cook, deputy chair of policy and licensing division, and linda pentro an attorney adviser in the bureaus policy and licensing division. She will present the item. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman pai and commissioners. As chief foulkes mentioned todays report and order would add a new blu alert code blu to the current list of authorized codes in the Emergency Alert system. The report and order finds that the Emergency Alert system would be an effective means of delivering blu alerts, and that a dedicated event code would facilitate the implementation of blu alerts in a compatible, and uniform manner nationwide. This reporting order also enables blu alerts to be delivered over the wireless Emergency Alert system. As with amber alerts, and weather alerts, it would be voluntary for state and local officials to send blu alerts. And voluntary for broadcasters and other Emergency Alert system participants to carry them. Specifically this report and order establishes that a blu alert could be issued when a Law Enforcement officer is missing, seriously injured, or killed in the line of duty, or there is an imminent and credible shortterm threat to cause death or serious injury to an officer. The suspect must still be at large, and there must be sufficient description of the suspect for the informations to be actionable. This report and order encourages stakeholders to Work Together voluntarily to implement blu alerts as swiftly as possible. And it sets a schedule of twelve months from the Effective Date of the rules to enable the delivery of blu alerts over the Emergency Alert system, and a period of 18 months from the Effective Date of the rules to enable the delivery of blu alerts over the wireless Emergency Alert system. This implementation schedule would ensure that all stakeholders have sufficient time to address any technical, resource and Training Needs for the successful delivery of blue alerts. The bureau recommends adoption of the item, and requests editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, as well, heartfelt thank you to our other colleagues on the bench for your statements, as well. We will now turn to comments from the bench. Beginning with commissioner clyburn. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Liu, ms. Chen, ms. Ramos, mr. Liu, i didnt need a translator to understand you this morning. I want to thank all of you for traveling to d. C. To take part in this event. Your son, your husband, served their community with great honor, dedication and courage. I have no real words to bring comfort to you. But i am pleased to be able to honor you in a small way with the adoption of a rule to promote an alert, where there is an incredible threat against a Law Enforcement officer. We honor their memories this morning in taking an important step to ensure that this agency, which Number One Mission is Public Safety, that we will aid y you, aid their fellow officers when theyre in the line of duty. An estimate im sorry. An estimated 240 million calls are made to 911 centers each year. But when the need arises for one of us to make that dreaded call for help, it is our nations First Responders, your husband, and your son, who dedicated themselves. They stepped up. The officers step up often at great risk to their own personal safety in order to ensure our safety. For that we will always be indebted. So i am thankful to be able to show my support for them to you, in todays order which revises the commissions Emergency Alert system, or eas rules. Adding a three is the most effective means to share Vital Information in sk t Critical Situations involving serious injury or death of a Law Enforcement officer in the line of duty. It is our most effective means to provide aid to an officer who may be missing in the connection with his or her duties and an imminent credible threat that an individual intends to cause serious injury to or to harm a police officer. These words on the page seemed so easy to read before meeting you this morning, but it is important that we do our part as a commission to update this eas system to disseminate broad er information that can help keep First Responders safe. As the city of new york have pointed out, issuing the blue alert via the eas system has the added benefit of further protecting the public from violent suspects. I want to thank the three of you. Supporting by your Law Enforcement family for coming here and reminding us of just how important, how vital our work is, our commitment is to each and every one of you and this entire nation. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I think you demonstrated to everyone that communications is more than just words. Hopefully our action today provides some small comfort to your family in this immense loss. Suffice it to say i hope and think that we should all pray that the need for this new code never arises. I also join my colleagues in the sentiments theyve expressed this morning. Thank you all for being here today. With this order the fc does its part to help promote the safety of the Law Enforcement officials and the communities they serve. Last year 135 officers were killed in the line of duty. Many of the cases, the perpetrators posted imminent and Credible Threats to Law Enforcement officials ahead of time on social media. Some of them may have been thwarted by a coordinated National Blue alert network. In 2015 congress directed the attorney general to create such a Network Within the department of justice to support state and local Law Enforcement as they work. The lack of a dedicated event code is one of the primary obstacles to more states using blue alerts. Creation of such a code is the single greatest need of the National Blue alert network. We therefore adopt a new dedicated eas event code. This action should facilitate the delivery of blue alerts in a uniform and consistent manner nationwide and in the process increase the effectiveness of these potentially life saving warnings. I think the staff, the Public Safety, the Homeland Security bureau for their diligent work. I want to join my colleagues in acknowledging and thanking Law Enforcement and their families for all that youve done and all youre doing to help keep us safe. Thanks. Thank you, comissioner. Today the Commission Honors Raphael Ramos by fulfilling the promise of the National Blue alert act signed into law by president obama in 2015. I am going to dissent on one aspect. In evaluating the merits of the blue alert system that we adopt today, the commission puts forward a cost benefit analysis that weighs the cost against the value of a Police Officers life. You heard that right. In deciding whether to impose this law, the commission puts a price on the death of First Responders and nets it out against industry expenses. Fortunately for Law Enforcement, the math works out. But this cold calculus is neither needed, nor smart. Theres a way to do cost benefit analysis thoughtfully and with dignity to those who wear the shield. This isnt it. On this disrespectful analysis i dissent. But in closing, i want to family members who are here today to know that we cannot understand the depth of your pain, but we are so pleased youre here today to honor your loved ones. Thank you. Before i begin my formal remarks, i also want to thank the families for your courage in being here today. And i also want to thank you for sharing some of your time with me this morning. Being able to hear your stories firsthand, being able to see a picture, ms. Chen, on your phone of your 5 month old daughter who will never have a chance to see her father but whose likeness bears a direct resemblance to that brave soul was a privilege beyond measure. Thank you for your sacrifice and for being here today. We typically give thanks and celebrate with family and friend during the holidays. But for the ramse families ever christmas over the past three years has been one more painful reminder of the loss they suffered on december 20th of 2014. In that week, the detectives of the new York Police Department were senselessly gunned down while on duty. They were doing what they loved to do and what they were proud to do, protecting the citizens of new york city. Their dedication exemplifies what it means to be a public servant, to improve their communities and the lives of others despite the inherent dangers. Detective ramos, a dedicated mets fan who had a taste for ham and cheese sandwiches once told a fellow Church Member that he wanted to bring something more to the uniform. He sure did. Detective ramos was set to graduate from the new York State Task force the day after he lost his life. When detective lu was asked why he wanted to be a police officer, he replied i know being a cop is dangerous, but i must do it. If i dont, then who is going to do it. Detectives ramos and lu made the ultimate sacrifice. We owe them and their brave family members a tremendous debt of gratitude. We cannot begin to fathom your pain but we can honor your sacrifi sacrifice. The sec attempts to do that today by adopting rules so Police Officers across america will be better protecting. We are creating a dedicated blue alert event code in the Emergency Alert system, similar to the amber alerts, blue alerts will enable authorities to warn the public when there is actionable information related to a Law Enforcement officer whos missing, seriously injured or killed in the line of duty or when theres an imminent threat to an officer. These warnings can be sent to the public through broadcast, satellite, cable and wire line providers also to wireless phones. Six months ago at the department of justice i made a promise to adopt these rules and i am pleased that my fellow commissioners and i make good on that promise here today. Obviously what we do here doesnt change what happened that sad afternoon in new york but it does reflect the officers spirit and courage. I want to thank william johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations for his advocacy and support for blue alerts and especially the family members who are here today. I also want to acknowledge the unwavering support from those who have joined us this morning. I also want to extend a special thanks to deputy chief thomas burns, Commanding Officer of the nypd employ relatiee relations and his staff. Each of them plays a very Important Role in consoling grieving family members of fallen nypd Police Officers. Im also grateful to detectives from the nypd for safely escorting our guests this morning all the way from new york. Last but not least, for their tireless efforts and dedication, i want to thank our fantastic staff. Thank you for all youve done to get us to this step today. With that, we call for a vote. Commissioner clyburn. Aye. Aye. Aproprove in part, dissent i part. Their memory will not be forgotten, thank you. Madam secretary, please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the second item on your agenda entitled promoting telehealth in Rural America will be presented by the Wire Line Competition Bureau. Chris monte, chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thank you, madam secretary. The floor is yours. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Good morning. Its very difficult to follow such a moving presentation on such an important issue. The Wire Line Competition Bureau presents this morning for your consideration a notice of proposed rule making and order that launches a review of the commissions rural Health Care Program. This item seeks to improve the programs efficiency and promote access to vital Telehealth Services in Rural America. Id like to thank the Telecommunications Access policy divisions team for all their hard work on this proceeding. Our colleagues in the Enforcement Bureau and in the offices of Communications Business opportunities, general counsel, legislative affairs and managing director also provided us with invaluable input. With me at the table are the associate bureau chief and from ryan palmer, division chief. Preston will present the item. Good morning, mr. Chairman, commissioners. The fccs rural Health Care Program supports access to Vital Communications and Telehealth Services in rural areas, helping those in remote communities access High Quality Health Care and over come the challenges of hospital closures and shortages in medical professionals. For is second year in a row, however, program demand is likely to exceed support, leaving Health Care Providers with unanticipated funding reductio reductions. This budgetary shortfall may also be attributable to Current Program rules that create opportunities for waste, fraud and abuse. If adopted, this item would initiate rule making to review the Health Care Program. The notice of approved rule making would first seek scent on whether to increase the annual 400 million cap and how to prioritize funding should the cap exceed demand in future years. It would then seek comment on how to curtail waste, fraud and abuse. These proposals include establishing a process for evaluating outlie eoutlier fund request requests to encourage a more transparent and fair Competitive Bidding contest. And ways to simplify Program Participation and enhancing oversight to establish the rules on the use of consultants, gift restrictions and invoicing deadlines, among other matters. This would provide immediate relief in Health Care Providers facing cuts in 2017. It would waive the cap on a one time basis by instructing to carry over funding from prior years. It would enable Service Providers to voluntarily reduce their rates for qualified funding year 2017 requests while keeping constant the support amount provided by the universal service fund. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and reque well now turn to comments from the bench. When a patient is presenting symptoms of a stroke, physicians have a saying, time is brain. Minutes can make the difference between full recovery and severe permanent damage. That is why the university of virginia Hospital System has put telestroke functionality in ambulances. By ensuring life saving treatment can begin immediately, the program ensures that strokes are caught at the absolute earliest possible time. This advance technology would not have been deployed organically according to the systems director of telehealth. The director stated just a few months ago that absent the rural Health Care Program, our ability to provide these services would be severely constrained. Rather as telepsychiatrists solutioned for individuals in need of help or the enabling of remote radiology readings to promote and speed the quality of health care. The fccs rural Health Care Program has been a key plank undergirding the modernization of health care delivery. Unfortunately as the fccs own connect to Health Task Force has found, most of the counties with the worst access to primary care physicians are also the least connected. And this holds true in both urban and rural areas. That vulnerable grandmother who spends over two hours on that local bus system to see a doctor can benefit just as much from telehealth as her rural counterpart. We need to do better as a country. And that can start with a fresh look at our rural Health Care Program. Everyone stands to benefit if this Program Matches the needs of Health Care Providers with the patients who rely on them. That means looking at everything from top line funding levels to the nuts and bolts of program administration. The potential here is huge if we simultaneously reduce Health Care Expenditures and improve patient outcomes. But we must get it right. That is why i am pleased my colleagues agreed to include further lines of questioning in the notice of proposed rule making. We expand the inquiry to seek comment on how we can incorporate what we have learned from our connect to Health Task Force. We look at how best to improve transparency and how to equitably administer the program. And we look to understand how to support Remote Monitoring consistent with our statutory mandate. I always say that we need to make the Business Case for each and every one of our policies. This rural Health Care Program is one where making the Business Case is incredibly easy. The program saves lives. It reduces costs. And results in a healthier nation. Telemedicine consults with high risk mothers result in an almost 40 reduction in the amount of infant days in nicu. And it is here especially and i have a personal story to tell about this with a nephew who looks fabulous today but spent three months of his life in nicu where the Value Proposition is both precious and crystal clear. This item has any enthusiastic support, so i thank the Wire Line Competition Bureau for your thoughtful work on reforming the Rural Health Care fund. I look forward to continuing to engage with you as we move towards an era that will be a major driver in improving access and outcomes when it comes to health care, telehealth care, telemedicine in america. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner oreilly. Ill submit a longer statement, but ive seen firsthand the Rural Health Care can play in promoting the health and safety of americans in some of the most remote parts of the country. One of my first trips as a new commissioner was to alaska, a telemedicine pioneer. As i travelled the isolated villages accessible only by air, i saw health aids use technology triage to assess patients and forward Relevant Health information to larger facilities. While that experience helped illustrate the benefits of the program, i over also had the chance to witness shortcomings. For years there were complaints that the program was under utilized. Therefore a Prior Commission expanded the program to include broadband and marketed the heck out of it, pushing dollars out the door quickly took precedence over Cost Effectiveness and not surprisingly spending increased rapidly. Most of this funding has been used for intended purposes, to provide discounted connectivity to Rural Health Care providers, improving access for more consumers. In some cases it has been used to buy more capacity than whats actually needed and connect sites that were not originally intended to be part of the program. I implored the last chairman to put a plan in place to address the spending increases but my requests for ignored. Now demand exceeds the cap and we have left playing catchup. However that cannot be an excuse to spend more and reformulato l. I am pleased to see cost saving ideas from other programs included in the notice. In particular the item six comment on excluding certain expenses outright and capping or limiting support that exceeds a specific threshold or reasonable benchmark, issues ive spent a great deal of time on in the high cost program. In fact i think were getting real close to announcing new limitations on the extraneous uses of rate funding by rate of return providers. We also seek comments based on economic need, which sounds a lot like the means testing that we have urged. At the same time, the notice does ask about increasing the spending cap above the scecurre 400 million. I have several concerns. It is my hope that improving program feefficiency will alleviate or decrease the need for more of it. There seems to be an underlying assumption by some that the budget should be set solely by health care demand. That is not the right approach. We are not a health care agency. What we do through the rural Health Care Program can help provide savings on the health care side, but we do not have insight into, nor do we recoup any of the savings to offset health care costs. Our job is to make already Available Service more affordable, funding new networks that potentially overlap and undermine existing infrastructure is expensive and can be wasteful. We have to keep in mind that the program is already authorized to spend 11 billion a year and theres no shortage of requests for additional funding as recipients have requested even more. The commission has tended to increase funding at the expense of consumers. It is time for the commission to decide how much we reasonably and justifiably should frak rate pay take from rate payers. Just recently some suggested that a separate Commission Action was akin to taxing on consumers. But this is actually one, if not officially labeled as one. Hard working americans and businesses are charged extra fees on their phone bills in order to fund these programs. There must be a limit on how much we are willing to take from them, no matter how meritorious the spending could be. Let me be clear. I will be extremely reluctant to increase the budget for the rural Health Care Program and any final item without corresponding spending reductions elsewhere. I thank the chairman and the staff for working with me. Im also pleased that the order makes clear that any Price Reductions undertaken by Service Providers to help address the current shortfall will be completely voluntary. I vote to approve. At the fcc we are focusing a lot of our efforts on closing the digital divide. One area where that divide is particularly stark is health care. Americans living in Rural Communities are falling behind when it comes to the availability of high quality care. Its difficult to impossible to find specialists in many Rural Communities and even basic care is often out of reach as we see rural hospitals closing by the dozen across the country. The agencys rural Health Care Program can make a difference. Unfortunately, this program is not living up to its potential. Our rules and the incentives they create are not serving the best interests of Rural Health Care providers, the communities that depend on them. At a time when the program is more important than ever to a growing number of Rural Communities, its been heading in the wrong direction. In what is known as the telecom portion of the program, the number of participants in the program dropped by 36 , while requests for funding grew by more than 67 . This means that limited program dollars are starting to concentrate in a small number of Health Care Providers that are receiving increasingly large subsidies. In 2016 just 5 of the participating Health Care Providers received more than half of the available support. In addition to concentrating support in fewer communities, the programs trend lines are us sustainable for another reason. It does not encourage or insend vi incentivize prudent spending. The Effective Program discount has risen to 95 last year. Its no surprise that demand exceeded the programs budget for the first time in 2016 and that were expecting the same in 2017. Im glad the commission is launch i looking to improve this program. Im pleased that were now seeking comment on whether to adopt speed or other service benchmarks to ensure that supported services can be used to bring telehealth officers to Rural Communities. Im confident that we can craft rules that will promote efficient purchasing decisions. I support our decision to provide some immediate relief to Health Care Providers. We allow Service Providers to volunteer reduce their rates which can help ensure that Rural Communities continue to receive service. Thanks to the staff of the Wire Line Competition Bureau for your work on this item. It has my support. Ive seen the future through a pair of Virtual Reality goggles as alarms were blaring in my ears and supervising physicians were urging me to administer cpr in order to save a patient. Now, im not a doctor, nor do i play one on television. But i got to see the future of medical care at the Simulation Training and Education Lab in northwest washington where Video Game Developers work hand in hand with researchers and clinicians to develop training for the med star health system. Virtual reality can improve training by leaps and bounds, reducing real world errors and improving patient outcomes. This is especially true for rural areas who lack the resources for in person consultation and training with colleagues. Virtual reality requires bandwidth and lots of it. The Commission Program dedicated to ensuring that bandwidth reaches Rural Health Care providers is stretched thin and about to break. Theres an honest reason for that. When this program got its start two decades ago, neither connectivity nor medicine looked a lot like what they look today. Virtual reality, prescription vending machines controlled by doctors at a distance and Electronic Health records were really just the stuff of science fiction. But as i saw at the lab in washington, today these things have become standard medical training and practice. Thats why i am pleased to support todays rule making. It examines how to future proof the commissions rural Health Care Program. At the same time it seeks comment on how to responsibly manage the Program Budget and asks some important questions about prioritization. It also seeks comment on improving incentives to promote more efficient Decision Making among funding recipients. Im looking forward to the record that develops and im also looking forward to how we can use this program to speed the future of medical care. That would be good for patients and practitioners and also good news for Rural America. Often in the early mornings starting in the late 1970s a doctor in the small town of parsons, kansas would hit the road. He would drive long distances to make sure that patients in sm l smaller surrounding communities could see patients. That was my dad. Even in adulthood i remain amazed at the many road miles he has logged in his career. His upcoming retirement brings into sharp focus for me some difficult general trends. Its becoming harder to recruit doctors and keep them in these Rural Communities. Its becoming harder to keep rural hospitals athreafloat. So its becoming harder for rural patients to get health care, ironically when vital signs for those patients and Rural America generally are suggesting trouble. Thats what makes telemedicine so critical. With a broad band connection, Health Care Providers in small town america can deliver the same quality of health care as those in our nations big cities. The sec can and does promote this potential. Our rural Health Care Program helps Health Care Providers afford the connectivity they need in order to better serve their patients but its facing some real problems. First the program is oversubscribed. The yearly demand for funding now exceeds the annual spending cap. Second, there may be substantial waste, fraud and abuse in the program. It is all too easy for Unscrupulous Companies to manipulate the system for their own profit. So in this notice we tackle two key issues. What size should the program be Going Forward and how can it function more effectively . Every dollar in this Program Needs to be stretched as far as possible to help those in needs in places like southeast kansas. Thank you to the staff who have worked on this item. With that, well move to a vote on the item. Aye. Aye. Approve. The chair votes aye as well. The item is adopted with editorial privileges as granted. Madam secretary, please take us to the next item. The third item on your agenda will be presented by the Wireless Telecommunications bureau. It is entitled ed review of cen towers whenever you are ready, the floor is yours. Good morning, mr. Chairman, commissioners. I am pleased to present to you a Public Notice seeking comment on a plan to exclude from his routine Historic Preservation review the colocation of Wireless Communications equipment on certain towers known as twilight towers. Im joined at the table today by staff. I would like to thank them for all their work and all of the Commission Staff listed on the slide for their input. Dan will present the item. Good morning. This Public Notice would continue the commissions efforts to streamline Wireless Infrastructure deployment by seeking comment on a definitive solution for expediting equipment colocations on twilight towers. Twilight towers that did not complete the Historic Preservation review or cannot be documented to have completed such review. During that time period the commissions Historic Preservation rules required licensees and applicants to evaluate whether proposed facilities may effect historic properties. The national Historic Preservation act requires every federal agency before allowing an undertaking within its ju jurisdiction to proceed to consider the effects on buildings and sites eligible for protection as historic properties. The achp has established rules governing the process for conducting Historic Preservation review. The Advisory Council also has the authority to adopt program alternatives. Under one, the nationwide programmatic agreement most colocations on towers that themselves underwent Historic Preservation review are excluded from any further review. Since twilight towers lack documentati documentation, colocations on twilight towers are not eligible for the exclusion from Historic Preservation review. This Public Notice seeks public input on a type of program alternative, a Draft Program comment that would facilitate colocations on twilight towers by generally excluding from the Historic Preservation review process colocations that meet certain conditions. If adopted, this Draft Program comment would make potentially tha thousands of existing towers available for colocation without the need for completing a Historic Preservation review. The Draft Program comment thus treats these twilight towers like older towers constructed before march 16th, 2001, which are already excluded from the Historic Preservation review process. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges to make technical edits. Thank you. Well now turn to comments from the bench. Our best estimates show today that there are just over 4,000 twilight towers across the United States. To those outside of the communications bar, be happy sorry those in the communications bar, but these are wireless towers for which the Historic Preservation review process may or may not have been completed. Now, i am sure that those who worked on the 2001 and 2005 nationwide programmatic agreements could not have imagined that miysterious and frustrating questions about the legality of these towers would be the subject of a 2017 proceeding. Neverthele nevertheless, the approach were taking through todays Public Notice seeks to resolve what has become a confounding issue. Program comments present an alternative, streamline procedure for a colocation applicant to comply with the historic review requirements. In 2014 as acting chair, i saw firsthand how effective Program Comments could be when i directed the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications bureau to prepare and release one to address towers to deploy positive train control communications. It is important that we design Program Comments to ensure that tribal nations have a full opportunity to participate in the review of a proposed colocation. In our april 2015 nprm on facilitating Wireless Infrastructure deployment, we discussed how tribal nations have expressed concern that some of the twilight towers which were constructed between 2001 and 2005 may have effects on properties of religious and cultural significance. So i am glad that this Program Comment makes clear that a tribal nation may request direct government to government consultation with the fcc at any time with respect to a twilight tower or colocation. I thank the bureau for their work on this proceeding and will ask forgiveness to the bureau chief for letting everyone know that that was his phone that went off. Thank you. [ laughter ]. Unfortunately, no ones watching, right . [ laughter ]. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. None of us currently on the commission caused the twilight tower situation which originated back in the early 2000s. Instead we get the job of cleaning up the mess. Today we take a decisive first step to do just that. Once complete, our resulting actions will expedite certain antenna colocations, reduce the need for additional macro Tower Construction and placement, facilitate the expansion of Wireless Networks and improve the wireless experience for consumers. Having toiled on this issue for several years, im well aware of some differing perspectives and views on what best to do with twilight towers. Ive explored options over possible solutions, seeking resolution while demanding a realization of the realities. Ive pushed Commission Staff, many of whom are no longer here to see this conclusion, to expedite consultations and draft an order expeditiously. I know there have been endless discussions and conferences with staff and stake holders over the years that never resulted in the resolution of the problem. All this proceeding work, however, has led us to the Public Notice. I want to thank the chairman and commissioner carr for their leadership in making this issue one of the early action items for removing infrastructure barriers. This is an incredibly positive step forward to address the purgatory faced by those owning coca socalled twilight towers. These 4300 or so towers have been in operation bringing service to American People for somewhere between 12 and 16 years. At the same time, owners of these towers, many of which have been since sold, have been stuck, unable to accept collocating partners while policy makers wrestle with the fact that Historic Preservation reviews were not documented. It is estimated these towers could accommodate an extra 6500 antennas. Since im aware of no one that possesses a time machine in order to go back and conduct the reviews pursuant to Commission Rules in place today and not back then, we must operate in the present with the facts as they are, not how we may like them to be. Basically, these towers already exist and in most cases were never subject to a complaint. It would make millions of dollars and years to create a list of all the twilight towers and have them individually reviewed. In the meantime these towers would continue to be underutilized to the detriment of consumers. With this in mind, with the realization the commission will not take action against tower owners by uncertainty caused by our doing, we take appropriate action. The contents of the Draft Program comment would exclude colocations of wireless facilities on twilight towers from section 106 review. We are moving forward and closing this sad chapter in regulatory history. Today we take another significant step in our ongoing effort to streamline the deployment of Wireless Infrastructure. We propose to resolve whats been a longstanding issue with twilight towers. The approach we adopt today will be adopting a document known as a Program Comment that would exclude colocations of Communications Equipment on twilight towers from routine Historic Preservation review. This action could open up thousands of towers for the deployment of new wireless facilities. As such, these towers would be treated similarly to older towers that are already excluded from Historic Preservation review. We also make clear that the agency will not taken for enforcement action against twilight towers constructed in good faith. Im grateful for the engagement weve seen on this issue. In response to public input, we make clear that where a proposed colocation on a twilight tower is not excluded from Historic Preservation review, such review will be limited to the colocation itself and not the underlying tower. We clarify the standard under which the fcc will treat direct government to government consultation. These clarifications will provide stake holders with additional certainty. I thank my colleagues for their willingness to incorporate these changes into the Draft Program comment. For more than a decade the fcc and a broad range of stake holders have debated this. Im glad this commission is moving forward with a concrete solution. Doing so will help bring advanced wireless offerings to even more americans. I thank the staff of the Wireless Communications bureau for their hard work on this item. I look forward to continuing to make progress on these issues in the months to come. Thank you. For too long, towers built during the twilight period have been caught in a regulatory quagmire. During this four year period from 2001 to 2005, both the commission and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation were adjusting their rules to accommodate the need to facilitate the nationwide building of Wireless Infrastructure. Before any new policies were put in place, towers were put in the ground and ever since these facilities have been stuck in regulatory limbo. Todays proposal doesnt offer the time machine that commissioner oreilly talked about, but it does try to bring an end to this ambiguity and make these towers available for colocation without sacrificing the ability to engage in tower specific mitigation. This approach can benefit the First Responder Network Authority and other broadband providers seeking to swiftly deploy new infrastructure. It can also further Historic Preservation goals by limiting the need for additional towers. We still have a long way to go to honor our trust responsibility to tribal communities impacted by towers constructed during the twilight period. I believe our effort is well intended but falls short of whats required. If we proceed, i think we need to simultaneously update the commissions statement of policy on establishing a government to government relationship between the agency and federally recognized tribes. This document has not been revisited since it was adopted more than a decade and a half ago. I think its time to take on this task and do it in con just with conjunction with resolving these longstanding issues. Similar to the vampires in the twilight series, for many of us at the commission, twilight towers have seemed like an issue that simply would never die. But no more. Today i am pleased that after more than a decade the fcc is finally moving forward to address this longstanding problem. After discussions with tribal representatives, industry and other interested stake holders, it is now clear it is up to the fcc working with our colleagues at the Advisory Council to finally solve this problem. And none too soon. The more rapidly we enable the additional use of this infrastructure, the sooner consumers everywhere can benefit from next generation Wireless Services. It is my hope this issue will be wrapped up at long last by the middle of next year. I appreciate the engagement of staff on this issue and look forward to working with them as we advance this and other Wireless Infrastructure issues. I would also like to thank my colleagues for support on this item. Last, thanks to the staff who worked on this item. Terrific work by all of you across these bureaus and offices. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Concur. The chair votes aye as well. The item is adopted with editorial privileges granted. Thanks for the great work. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the fourth item on your agenda will be presented by the Wire Line Competition Bureau and is entitled restoring internet freed. Chris mon teeth will give the introduction. I think its still morning. So good morning. The Wire Line Competition Bureau presents for your consideration a declaratory ruling, report and order and order on restoring Internet Freedom. The item would eliminate burdensome regulation that stifles innovation and deters investment and empower americans to choose the Broadband Internet Access Service that best fits their needs. I would like to thank the competition policy team for their amazing work. We also received invaluable input from our colleagues in the Wireless Telecommunications, consumer and governmental affairs, enforcement, media and Public Safety and security bureaus as well as from the offices of general counsel and Strategic Planning. Seated at the table with me are madelyn finley, eric ralph, daniel con, melissa circle, debra sailens. Joining me at the table from the Wireless Telecommunications bureau are Don Stockdale and skrer ri el lic jerry ellick. This declaratory ruling report and order takes several actions to restore Internet Freedom. First, the declaratory ruling restores Broadband Internet Access Service to its title i information Service Classification. The item finds that reclassification as an Information Service best comports with the text and structure of the Communications Act, commission precedent and the commissions policy objectives. In doing so the item ends heavy handed utility style regulation of the internet in favor of a light touch framework which worked for decades prior to 2015. The declaratory ruling also reinstates the private mobile Service Classification of mobile Broadband Internet Access Service and returns to the commissions definition of interconnected service that existed prior to 2015. The item restores the authority of the federal trade commission to enforce Consumer Protection and antitrust laws. It also clarifies the effects of the return to an information Service Classification on other Regulatory Frameworks, including the need to apply a uniform federal regulatory approach to interstate Information Services like broadband Access Service. Next, the report and order adopts a transparency rule that would require internet Service Providers to disclose information about their practices to consumers, entrepreneurs and other Small Businesses and the commission. The item returns to the transparency rule the Commission Adopted in 2010 with certain improvements to promote additional transparency. The report and order would also eliminate the commissions conduct rules. Based on the record evidence, the item finds that the conduct rules are unnecessary pause the transparency requirements together with antitrust and Consumer Protection laws ensures that the actions taken in this item will advance the critical work to promote broadband deployment in Rural America and Infrastructure Investment throughout the nation, brighten the future of innovation both in networks and at their edge and move closer to the goal of eliminating the digital divide. The bureau recommends adoption of this declaratory ruling, report and order and order and requests editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming items. Well now turn to comments from the bench. Before beginning my statement, i would like to add that a member of the Congressional Committee that has oversight over this agency requested the opportunity to speak today. He was denied but i have a copy of the statement that the congressman would have delivered had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Chairman, respectfully i would ask that you include this in the official record of this proceeding. Without objection. Thank you. I dissent. I dissent from this legally lightweight consumer harming, corporate enabling, destroying Internet Freedom order. I dissent because i am among the millions outraged because the fcc pulls its own teeth, abdicating responsibility to protect the nations broadband consumers. Some may ask why are we witnessing such unprecedented ground swell of public support for keeping the 2015 Net Neutrality protections in place. Because the public can plainly see that a soon to be toothless fcc is handing the keys to the internet, the internet, one of the most remarkable, empowering, enabling inventions of our lifetime over to a handful of multibillion dollar corporations. And if past is prologue, those very same Broadband Internet Service Providers that the majority says you should trust to do right by you will put profits and shareholders returns above what is best for you. Each of us raised our hands when we were sworn in as fcc commissioners. We took an oath and promised to uphold our duties and responsibilities to make available so far as possible to all the people of the United States without discrimination a rapid, efficient, nationwide and world wide wire and Radio Communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. Today, the fcc majority is about to officially abandon that pledge, and millions are watching and taking note. I do not believe that there are any fcc or congressional offices immune to the deluge of consumer outcry. We are even hearing about state and local offices fielding calls. And what is news worthy at last count, five republican members of Congress Went on the record in calling for a halt to todays vote. Why such a bipartisan outcry . Because a large majority of americans are in favor of keeping strong Net Neutrality rules in place. But the saddest part to me about all of this its painful for me to say this that this is the new norm at the fcc, a norm where the majority ignores the will of the people, a norm where the majority stands the people are committed to serve that theyve taken an oath to serve are about to lose so much. Now, we have heard story after story about what Net Neutrality means to consumers and Small Businesses from places as diverse as los angeles skid row to marietta, ohio. I have here letters that just were sent to me that plead with the fcc to keep our Net Neutrality rules in place, but what is striking and in keeping with the new norm is that despite the millions of comments, letters and calls received, this order cites not even one. That speaks volumes about the direction the current majority is heading this fcc is heading and that speaks volumes about just who is being heard at the fcc. Those so proprietors whose entire Business Models depend on an open internet are worried that the absence of clear and enforceable Net Neutrality protections will result in higher costs and fewer benefits because you see, they are not able to pay those toll morz premium access. Large online businesses have also weighed in expressing concerns about being subject to added charges as they simply try to reach their own customers. Engineers have submitted comments including many of those internet pioneers. They shared with the fcc majority the fundamentals of how the internet works because from where they sit, there is no way that an item like this would ever see the light of day if the majority understood the platform that some of them helped to create. I have heard from innovators, worried that we are standing up a mother may i regime with a broadband provider becomes the arbiter of acceptable online Business Models and yes, i have heard from consumers who are worried gimp that their broadband providers has already shown that they will charge inkrut kbl below the line fees, raise prices unexpectedly and put consumers on hold for hours at a time, who have their best interests at heart in a World Without clear and enforceable rules overseen by an agency without any Clear Authority . Would that agency be a toothless fcc . Now, theres a darker side to all of in that we have witnessed over the past few weeks. Threats intimidation, personal attacks, nazi cheering, russian influence, fake comments, these are unacceptable. Some of these actions are illegal. They are all to be rejected. But what is also not acceptable is the fccs refuse to cooperate with the state attorney generals investigations or allow evidence in the record that would undercut what can only be described as a preordained outcome. Now, many have been asking me, what happens next . How will all of this Net Neutrality my internet experience look after todays decision . My answer is a simple one. When the current protections are abandoned, and the rules that have been officially in place since 2015 are repealed, we will have a cheshire cat version of Net Neutrality. We will be in a world where regulatory substance fades to black and all that is left is a broadband providers toothy grin because they have tooth teeth, however you con. You gate that. And those oh so comforting words, we have every incentive, dont worry, we have every incentive to do the right thing, but what they will soon have is every incentive to do their own thing. Now, the results of throwing out Net Neutrality protections may not be felt right away. Most of us will get up tomorrow morning, get ready for work and over the next week, wade through what would be no doubt hundreds of headlines. We will grow tired of those hundreds of headlines. We will grow tired hearing from endless prognosticators and we will quickly submerge ourselves into a sea of holiday bliss. But what we have wrought today will one day be parent and by then when you really wake up and see what has changed, i fear it may be too late to do anything about it because there will be no agency in power to address your concerns. Their item insidiously ensures that the fcc will never be able to fully grasp the harm it may have unleashed on the internet ecosystem. And that inability might lead Decision Makers to conclude that the next internet startup that failed to flourish that attempted to seek relief by whatever authority may or may not be in charge with how many teeth they might have left simply that maybe they just had a bad Business Plan when in fact, the actual corporate was the absence of a level Playing Field online. Particularly damning is what todays repeal would mean for marginalized groups like communities of color that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate. You see, traditional outlegs rarely if ever consider their issues or concerns worthy of coverage. It was through social media, remember, that the world first heard about ferguson, missouri, because those legacy outlets did not consider them worthy enough for coverage until that will hash tag started trending. It has been through Online Video Services that targeted Entertainment Ecosystems thrive, where stories are finally being told because those very same programs that were submitted for consideration were rejected time and time again by Mainstream Media and distribution, mainstream distribution and Media Outlets and it has been through secure messaging platforms where activists have communicated and organized for Justice Without gatekeepers who may or may not have differing opinions blocking them. Where will the next significant attack on intern freedom come from . Maybe from a broadband provider allowing its network to con jest, making a high traffic video provider ask what more can it may to make that pain go away. That will never happen, us say . News flash. It already has. The difference now is the open question of what is stopping them. The difference after todays vote is that no one will be able to stop them. Maybe several providerses will quietly roll out pay prioritization packages that will enable deep pocket players to cut the queue. Maybe a vertically integrated broadband provider decides that it will favorites own apps in services or some high value internet of things tracked will be subject to be an additional fee. Maybe some of these actions will be cloaked under nondisclosure agreements and wrapped up in mandatory arbitration clauses so that it will be a breach of contract to disclose these publicly or take the provider to court if there is any wrongdoing. Some may say, of course, this never happen but after todays vote, what will be in place to stop any of this . What we do nope is that broadband providers did not even wait for the ink to dry on a proposed order before making their moves. One broadband provider who had in the past promised to not engage in pay prioritization has now quietly dropped that promise from its list of commitments on its website. Whats next . Blocking or throttling . That will never happen you say . After todays vote, exactly who is the cop on the beat that can or will stop them . And just who will be impacted the most . Consumers and Small Businesses, thats who. The internet continues to evolve and has become even more critical for every participant in our 21st century ecosystems. Government services have migrated online as have educational opportunities, job notices and applications but at the same time, broadband providers have continued to consolidate. They have become bigger. They own their own content. They own their own media companies. And then or have interest in other types of competing services. So why are millions of americans so alarmed . Because they understand the risks this all poses. And even those who might not exactly know what it means when somebody says title 2 authority, what they know is that they will be at risk without it. Now, ive been asking myself repeatedly, why the majority is so single focused on overturning these wildly popular rules. Is it simply because they felt that the 2015 Net Neutrality order which threw out over 700 rules, which dispensed with more than 25 provisions was too heavy handed . Is this a ploy to create a need for legislation where there was none before . Or is it to establish uncertainty where little previously existed . Is it a tactic to undermine the Net Neutrality protections adopted in 2015 that are currently parked at the Supreme Court . You know the very same rules that were resoundingly upheld by the d. C. Circuit last year . No doubt, we will see a rush to the courthouse asking the Supreme Court to vacate and remand the substantive rules that we have fought so hard for over the past few years because today, the fcc uses legally suspect means to clear the decks of substantial protections for consumers and competition. It is abundantly clear why we see so much bad process with this item. Because the fix was already in. There is no real mention of the thousands of Net Neutrality complaints filed by consumers. Why . The majority has refused to put them in the record while maintaining the rhetoric that there have been no real complaints or the no real violations. Record evidence of massive incentives and abilities of broadband providers to act in anticompetitive ways are missing from the docket. Why . Because those in charges have refused to use the data and knowledge the agency does have and has relied on in the past to inform our merger reviews. As a majority has shown time and time again, the abusive individuals do not matter. Including the views of those who care deeply about the substance. But may not be washington insiders. There is a basic fallacy underlying the majoritys actions and rhetoric today. The assumptions of what the assumption of what is best for broadband providers is obviously what is best for america. Breathless claims about unshackling Broadband Services from unnecessary regulation are only about insuring that Broadband Internet Service Providers have and maintain the keys to the internet, assertions that this is merely a return to some madge ril status quo ante cannot hide the fact that this is the very first time that the federal Communications Commission has disavowed substantive protections for consumers on line. And with the current 2015 Net Neutrality rules are laid to waste. We may be left with no Single Authority with the power to protect consumers. Now, this order loudly crows about handing over authority of broadband to the federal trade commission, but what is absent from the order and glossed over in a haphazardly issued afterthought of a memorandum of understanding or mou is that the ftc is an agency with no, no, none, nada, Technical Expertise in telecommunications. The ftc is an agency that may or may not even have authority over broadband providers in the first instance, the ftc is an agency that if you can even reach a very high bar of proving unfair or deceptive practices and that there is substantial consumer injury, it may take years upon years for any remedy to be levied and most companies dont have years and years to wait for an answer. But dont just take my word for it. Even one of the ftcs own commissioners has articulated these very concerns and if youre wondering why the fcc is preempting state Consumer Protection laws in this item without notice, let me help you with the simple jingle that you can easily commit to memory that will underscore all of this. If it benefits industry, preemption is good. If it benefits consumers, preemption is bad. Reclassification of broadband would do more than wreak havoc over Net Neutrality. It will also undermine our universal service construct for years to come. Something with the order implicitly acknowledges. It would undermine the life line program. It will weaken our ability to support robust broadband infrastructure deployment and what we will soon find out is what a broadband market unencumbered by Robust Community Consumer Protections will look like. I suspect that it will not be very pretty. I know that there are many questions on the minds of americans right now. Including what the repeal of Net Neutrality will mean for them. To help understand or to answer or address outstanding questions, i plan to host a town hall through twitter next week on tuesday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern standard time, but what saddens me the most today is that the agency that is supposed to protect you is actually abandoning you. But what i am pleased to be able to say today is that the fight to save Net Neutrality does not end today. The agency does not have the final word. Thank goodness for that. And as i close my eulogy of the 2015 Net Neutrality rules, carefully crafted rules that actually struck an appropriate balance in providing Consumer Protections and enabling opportunities in investment, i actually take what ill just call ironic comfort in the words of then commissioner pai back in 2015 because i believe this will ring true about this destroying Internet Freedom order. I am optimistic, he said, that we will look back on todays vote as aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that has served us so well. I dont know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by congress, or overturned by a future commission but i do believe that its days are numbered. Amen to that, mr. Chairman. Amen to that. Thank you. Thank you commissioner clyburn. Im going to mark you down as a no. Commissioner orielly. To the main event. Ill have a longer statement if believable since this is long in and of itself. The order before us represents the culmination of work by the agency staff to carefully consider whether Net Neutrality rules are truly warranted, reviewing the legal underpinnings, Economic Analysis, and practical effects. As debated extensively and exhaustively in the record of this proceeding. I agree with the decision and i support such a well reasoned and soundly justified order. But i have longstanding views on had topic, i approach this proceedinging with an open mind. I read the substantive comments with the interest and met with anyone i could no matter how or what their particular viewpoint. In the end, im simply not persuaded that heavy handed rules are needed to protect against hypothetical harms. In all this time, ive yet to hear recent unquestionable evidence of demonstrable harms to consumers that demands providers be constrained by this completely flawed regulatory intervention. I still cannot endorse guilt by imagination. It is a shame that this topic has been plagued by baseless fearmongering. Many Small Businesses have been misled into thinking theyre going to be forced to pay more to continue to do business online. Others have been told that free speech and civil rights are on the line. It isnt true. And we know that from experience. The internet has functioned without Net Neutrality rules far longer than with them. Nobody can name more than a handful of examples that occurred over the course of an entire decade prior and that were readily dealt with whether actual violations or not. The legend of a Cable Company trying to break the internet may make scary bedtime stories for children of Telecom Geeks but it isnt reality. For those of you out there fearful what tomorrow may bring, please take a deep breath. This decision will not break the internet. What we are doing is reverting back to the highly successful bipartisan governmental approach that existed before 2015. As the order makes clear, we depart from the Prior Commissions approach because we determined the decision was flawed and believed our statutory interpretation and course of action is the better one and our decision is grounded in and supported by the record. The text has been publicly available for over three weeks and our good staff summarized for us today. So there is no need for me step through the policies in detail. Instead ill highlight a few key points and address some of the misconceptions regarding the substance and process. Will repealing Net Neutrality rules grabs headlines, reversing the classification of Broadband Internet service accesses is far more koengsal. Net neutrality started as a consumer issue. But it soon became a stepping stone to impose vastly more onerous common carry regulations on Broadband Companies. Even the previous chairman initially attempted to reinstate Net Neutrality rules under more limited Legal Authority and Many Companies would have accepted the compromise and lived with the rules as long as the commission didnt impose title two. Thanks to one infamous Youtube Video posted by the prior administration, this socalled independent agency was quickly railroaded into treating isps like Public Utilities instead. As disgust in the order and the dissents of chairman pai and myself wrote had response to the 2015 order, there were fundamental legal problems and factual errors underlying that decision to treat fixed and mobile Broadband Services as telecommunication services. Additionally, that decision opened the door for much broader regulation of broadband providers and as we saw the commission quickly walked through that door. Under this structure, companies continued to face uncertainty that business decisions, commercial negotiations, Service Offerings and pricing decisions would be scrutinized by the commission. I believe these legitimate concerns where is well founded and if had not been a change in administration, the agency would have proceeded further down the path as demonstrated by its zero rating witch hunt. The decision to reinstate the classification of both fixed and mobile Broadband Internet Access Service as an Information Service under section 3 and reinstate the classification of mobile broadband is a private mobile service under section 332 eliminates these concerns and restores a sensible bipartisan approach to Broadband Services. Under this framework, the fcc asserts jurisdiction over Broadband Internet Access Service as an interstate Information Service but applies regulation only to the extent warned to address specific concrete concerns. With the elimination of title 2, theres no remaining legal basis for the Net Neutrality bright line rules and general conduct standard so we must repeal them. In many proceedings before this agency, ive questioned the need for rules that impose costs but do not solve real problems. So the removal is completely appropriate and necessary. That isnt necessarily the end of the story, however. Congress may enact legislation providing new rules and Legal Authority to support them. I firmly believe that will be the better course and the only way to get finality to this issue. I would humbly suggest, however, that the general conduct standard remain forever in the ash heap. This policy gave the commissions Enforcement Bureau unbounded power to make up the rules as it went long a frightening prospect. Businesses could find themselves subject to investigation without any prior notice that the conduct could be considered a violation. One Public Interest group even called the catchall a recipe for overreach and confusion. It was the height of regulatory ca parishness and should never be resurrected. Similarly i am hopeful if congress does go down this path it will see merit on reyekting a ban on paid prioritization. There are cases today and many more that will develop in time in which the option of a paid prioritization offering would be a necessity based on either technology or needs of consumer welfare. I for one see great value in the prioritizations decision of telemedicine and au tan moss Car Technology over cat videos. Teaking of Autonomous Cars, we must ensure wireless providers can manage their systems. Have capacity restraints based on the physics of the spectrum. Generally wireless use is booming and more and more americans are using Wireless Networks to access the internet. This is the beginning. Consider each even Autonomous Car vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four tear biteses of data a day much of which will be carried by wireless. It is hard to imagine some prioritization of traffic will not be necessarily further undermining attempts to ban such practices. Although the order eliminates the bright line rules and general conduct standard, it does leave a version of the transparency requirements in place. In fact, the requirements are more extensive than those for adopted in 2010. While i remain skeptical of the Legal Authority or their value and without a mechanism to get them removed. If a business fails to disclose relevant information or its practices differ from what is described at least subject to the investigation and enforcement asout lined in the recent fccftc memorandum of understanding. But i sincerely doubt the legitimate businesses are willing to subject themselves to a pr nightmare for attempting to engage in blocking, throttling or improper discrimination. It is north the ruchingsal cost and potential lots of business. Well have accept the decision to real estate lie on section 257 as authority for the transparency requirements, i do not believe that section 218 or the provisions of title 3 cited in the circulated vision of the order should be invoked here. Im relieved theyve been removed from the item at my request. Lastly, but certainly not least, the order contains a clear declaration that broadband is interstate Information Service. The order makes plain that broadband will be subject to uniform, National Framework that promotes investment in innovation. This is imminently reasonable and completely consistent with the constitutions commerce clause. Broadband service is not confined to state boundaries and should not be contained by a patchwork of state regulations. Mobile devices and the transmissions they carry can easily cross state lines. This could have dramatic and drastic results were it possible for such communications to be prioritized in one state but not in another. A hodgepodge of state rules could severely curtail not only the next generation of wireless systems that we have been working so hard to promote but also the technologies that may rely on these networks in the future. Accordingly, any laws or regulations that conflict with or undermine the federal broadband policies are preempted. I would actually have gone further on preemption but i could only carry the debate so far today. This is not a new or novel position. The 2015 order also announced a Firm Intention to exercise our Preemption Authority to preclude states from imposing obligations on Broadband Service that are inconsistent with the carefully tailored regulatory scheme. The rules we adopt today are obviously different than the 2015 order. The concept that we will preempt inconsistent state and local rifrlts is well established. Although the order does acknowledge an extremely limited stale role in enforcing their Traditional Police powers, state actions that go beyond will be subject to scrutiny and challenge. Any requirements akin to common carrier regulations are barred. At my request, the order specifies that states may not adopt their own transparency requirements whether labeled as such or under the guise of Consumer Protection. I would view state broadband privacy actions as outside the scope of what is permissible. The purpose of the order is to restore light touch approach through deregulation. Any action to increase burdens on broadband providers would run counter to our efforts. I hope that most states and localities would not waste time and resources attempting to push the boundaries but i realize some will do so regardless. I expect the agency to be vigilant in pursuing these cases. I commit to work closely with the chairman and the general counsel to quash any conflicts that arise. Before concluding, i want to address the atmospherics surrounding the process in this proceeding. Ill start with the number and identity of the comments submitted. Some would have us believe that the comment process has been irreparably attained by the large number of fake comments. That reflects a lack of understanding about the administrative procedure act. The agency is required to consider and respond to all significant comments in the record. Millions of comments that simply Say Something along the lines of keep Net Neutrality or other colorful language we cant say in public including a coup who referred to me as a potato. Stop. Say that i look like a potato. No comment. I meant it in a good way. Sorry. Whether or not they are submitted by real people, bots or honey badgers have no impact on the decision. As the order makes clear we do not rely on any such comments. To be clear, that does not mean that comments were ignored. I commend staff for the extra effort they had to sift through these extraneous comments. Many were simply obscenity laced tirades. Yet the order reflects a careful of evaluation and response to all the significant comments including those that took a different position. Additionally i disagree with the suggestion the commission should have meld public hearings. Any member of the public that wanted to express a view could have done so through the standard comment process and many, many, many did. Public hearings may bringing about some additional people in a particular location but is inefficient for reaching large numbers of interested parties from around the country. Finally, i see no merit in the suggestion that the agency should have delayed this vote under the until after the ninth circuit issues a decision in the enbank of the ftc versus at t mobility case. While the decision raised questions about the jurisdiction, it was widely viewed with skeptyism. The courts Order Granting rehearing of the Panel Decision rendering it a legal newity. Therefore the fcc is not precruded from enforcing Net Neutrality commitments. There is no basis for delay. I commend the chairman, his team, hard working and diligent staff for their effort to produce an order of this quality and significance. Im sure this task required much time spent away from family and friends and i hope youll be able to rest and reconnect over the Holiday Season. It is very deserved and youll have my full respect and profound appreciation for your work. Il vote to approve. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner carr. Thanks. This is a great day. For consumers for innovation, and for freedom. For reversing the obama era fccs unprecedented decision to apply title 2 regulations to the internet. Im proud to help end this twoyear experiment with heavy handed regulation, this massive regulatory overreach. Prior to the fccs 2015 decision, consumers and instraighters alike benefited from a free and open internet. This was not because the government imposed utility style regulation. It didnt. This was not because the fcc had a rule regulating internet conduct. It had none. Instead through republican and democratic administrations alike including through the first six years of the Obama Administration, the fcc abided by a 20year bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet Access. The internet flourished under this framework. The private sector invested over 1. 5 trillion in broadband networks, consumers were protected, and enjoyed the freedom to access the websites and content of their choosing. Every part of the internet economy benefited. From innovators on the edge to startup and businesses of every size. Title 2 did not build that. Title 2 did not create the open internet. And title 2 is not the way to maintain it. The fccs light regulatory touch coupled with the robust Consumer Protections we restore today supported our countrys extraordinary internet success story. After a twoyear detour, one that has seen investment decline, broadband deployments put on hold, an Innovative New offerings sheffield, its great to see the fcc returning to this proven regulatory approach. Now, theres no doubt that the debate over internet regulation has generated significant public attention. As it should. I for one have learned some colorful new turns of phrases through this proceeding. Much of this is no surprise. Americans cherish the free and open internet. But when it comes to this proceeding, far too many are simply fanning the false flames of fear. The apocalyptic rhetoric is something even by washington standards. No, the fcc is not ending the internet nor is president obamas First Federal trade commission recently put it, the sky isnt falling, consumers will remain protected and the internet will flourish. What were doing with todays vote is reversing a 2yearold decision. And returning to a tried and true Regulatory Framework one that we know from our own experience works for consumers and for innovation. Many of the myths out there go to what i call the great title 2 head fake. Which is attributing to title 2 things that is it does not do. Some claim for instance that is title 2 is preventing isps from selling bundles or curated plans that offer access to only a portion of the internet. Thats not true. The fcc expressly stated that title 2 right now allows providers to do just that. Some claim that title 2 is preventing isps from increasing prices for broadband so theyre going to see a spike immediately after this decision. But the fcc emphasized is its title 29s decision involves no rate regulation. And some claim that title 2 is preventing isps from blocking, lot toing or engaging in paid prioritization. This is not true. The dc circuit said that title 2 allows isps to block websites, to throttle applications chosen by isps and to filter content into fast lanes and slow lanes based on isps commercial interests, providing they disclose those practices. In other words, title 2 is not the thin line between where we are right now and some mad max version of the internet. There are reasons that consumers enjoyed a free and open internet long before title 2. There are reasons why consumers are free to access any website or online content of their choosing and those reasons will continue to hold true long after our title 2 experiment ends today. What are they . Well, the d. C. Circuit offered its view. When it observed that title 2 allows isps to offer filtered Internet Access, it also said none were doing so because of what it said is fear of subscriber losses. In other words, Market Forces. Not the title 2 rules are regulating this conduct. There are some that will never accept Market Forces as a solution either in the broadband marketplace or otherwise. But for them todays order has some more good news. Were not relying on Market Forces alone. Were not giving isps free rein to dictate your online experience. Our decision today includes powerful legal checks. First, americans will enjoy robust online protections. When the fcc classified broad band as a title 2 services in 2015, it divested the federal trade commission of 100 of its Consumer Protection authority over isps. Including its ability to police isps that engage in unfair or deseptember tin practices. Repealing title 2 will restore important protections for internet openness. Second, consumers will regain strong Online Privacy protections. Before the fcc stripped it of jurisdiction, the ftc, the nations most experienced privacy enforcement agency, brought over 500 privacy Enforcement Actions including against isps. By reversing title 2, consumers get those privacy protections back. Third, federal antitrust law will protect against discriminatory construct. As a former Obama Administration ftc chairman recently said, this is a formidable hammer against anyone who would harmfully block, throttle or prioritize traffic. Fourth, state Consumer Protection laws will apply and state attorneys generals can bring actions against isps providing another strong set of Legal Protections against unfair Business Practices by isps. In short, this is no freeforall. This is no thunder dome. The fcc is not killing the internet. While i spent most of my time today talking about the policy debate surrounding title 2, theres also a threshold legal question that the Commission Must answer. Does Internet Access service qualify as a title one Information Service or title 2 telecommunication service. Thankfully, i dont need to go beyond what the order itself says on this point. After all in, 2005, the Supreme Court expressly found that the fcc has authority to classify Internet Access service as a title 1 service. This remains the only classification left blessed by the Supreme Court. Our decision today rests on sound legal footing. In closing i want to look back two years ago to 2015 one more time. In october of that year, long before i became a commissioner, i gave a speech where i talked about the fccs then recent title 2 decision. I ended that speech by saying this. Im optimistic the u. S. Will return to the successful light touch approach to the internet that spurred massive investments in our broadband infrastructure. Efforts are under way in both the courts and congress to reverse the fccs decision. Following next years president ial election, the composition of the fcc could be substantially different than it is today. Now, two years ago, i certainly did not imagine that i would be part of the fccs new composition. But im very grateful for this opportunity to serve. And im grateful that my optimism back then has proven to be well founded. Im glad to cast my vote today in favor of Internet Freedom. Thanks. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner rosenworcel. Okay. Net neutrality is Internet Freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back Net Neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point. And i dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision puts the federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the american public. The future of the internet is the future of everything. That is because there is nothing in our commercial, social or civic lives that has been untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. And here in the United States, our internet economy is the envy of the world. This is because it rests on a foundation of openness. That openness is revolutionary. It means you can go where you want and do what you want online without your broadband provider getting in the way or making choices for you. It means every one of us can create without permission build community beyond geography, oggize without physical constraints, consume content we want when and where we want it and share ideas not just around the corner but across the globe. I believe it is essential that we sustain this foundation of openness and that is why i support Net Neutrality. Net neutrality has deep origins in Communications Law and history. In the era when comrukss meant tell len phony went through and your phone company could not cut off your call or edit the content of your conversations. This guiding principle of nondiscrimination meant you were in control of the connections you make. This principle continued as time advanced, technology changed and Internet Access became the dial tone of the digital age. So it was 12 years ago when president george w. Bush was in the white house that this agency first put its Net Neutrality policies on paper. In the decade that follow, the fcc revamped and revises its Net Neutrality rules seeking to keep them current and find them a stable home in the law. In its 2015 order, the fcc succeeded because in the following year in a 184page opinion, the agencys Net Neutrality rules where is fully and completely upheld in court. So our existing Net Neutrality policies have passed court muster. They are wildly popular. But today, we wipe away this work, destroy this progress, and burn down time tested values that have made our internet economy the envy of the world. As a result of todays misguided action, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new powers. They have the power to block websites. The power to throttle services, and the power tore censor online content. They will have the right to the discriminate and favor the internet track of those companies with whom they have a pay for play arrangement and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road. Now, our broadband providers will tell you they will never do these things. They say just trust us. But know this. They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic and now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead and do so. This is not good. Not good for consumers, in not good for businesses not good for anyone who connects and creates on line. Not good for the democrattising force that depends on openness to thrive. Moreover, it is not good for American Leadership on the global stage of our new and complex Digital World. Im not alone with these concerns. Everyone from the creator of the World Wide Web to religious leaders to governors and mayors of big cities and small towns to musicians to actors to actresses to entrepreneurs, and academics, and activists have registered their upset and anger. They are reeling at how this agency could make this kind of mistake. They are wondering how it could be so tone deaf. And they are justifiably concerned that just a few unelected officials could make such a vast and farreaching decision about the future of the internet. So after erasing our Net Neutrality rules, what is left . What recourse do consumers have . Were told dont worry. Competition will save us. But the fccs own data show that our broadband markets are not competitive. Half the households in this country have no choice of product band provider. So if your broadband provider is blocking web sites, have you no recourse. Have you nowhere to go. Were told dont worry. The federal trade commission will save us. But the ftc is not the Expert Agency for communications. It has authority over unfair and deceptive practices. But to evade ftc review, all any broadband provider will need to do is add new provisions to the fine print in its terms of service. In addition, it is both costly and impractical to report difficulties to the ftc. By the time the ftc gets around to addressing them in Court Proceedings or Enforcement Actions its fair to assume that the startups and Small Businesses bressaling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. Moreover, what little authority the ftc has is now under question in the courts. Were told dont worry. State authorities will save us. But at the same time, the fcc all but clears the field with sweeping preemption of anything that resembles state or local Consumer Protection. If the substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse. Lets talk about the Public Record. The public has been making noise speaking up, raising a ruckus. We see it in the protests across this country, those that are outside here today and we see it how they have lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes, and jammed our online comments system. Now, that might be messy but whatever our disagreements are on this die as a, i hope we can agree that is democracy in action and something we can all support. To date, nearly 24 million comments have been filed in this proceeding. There is no record in the history of this agency that has attracted so many filings. But theres something foul in this record. 2 million comments feature stolen identities. Half a million comments are from russian email addresses. 50,000 consumer complaints are inexplicably missing from the record. I think thats a problem. I think our record has been corrupted and our process for Public Participation lacks integrity. 19 state attorneys general agree. They have written us demanding we halt our vote until we investigate and get to the bottom of this mess. Identity theft is a crime understate and federal law. And while it is taking place, this agency has turned a blind eye to its victims and callusly told our fellow Law Enforcement officials it will not help. This is not acceptable. Its a stain on the fcc and this proceeding. This issue is not going away. It needs to be addressed. Finally, i worry that this decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly. Its ugly in the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has hone for citizens whos speak up, and the shear disdain it has for Public Opinion. Unlike its predecessors, had fcc has not held a single public hearing on Net Neutrality. There is no shortage of people who believe washington is not listening to their concerns, their fears, and their desires. Add this agency to that list. Now, i too am frustrated. But heres a twist. I hear you. I listen to what the callers to my office are saying. I read the countless individually written emails in my inbox, the posts on line and the very short and sometimes very long letters. And im not going to give up. And neither should you. If the arc of history is long, we are going to bend this toward a more just outcome. In the courts, in congress, wherever we need to go to insure that Net Neutrality stays the law of the land. Because if you are conservative or progressive, you benefit from internet openness. If you come from a small town from internet openness. If you are a company or a nonprofit, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a startup or an established business, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a consumer or a creator, you benefit from internet openness. And if you believe in democracy, you benefit from internet openness. Lets persist, lets fight, lets not stop here or now. Its too important. The future depends on it. Thank you, commissioner. The internet is the greatest free market innovation in history. This changed the way we live, the way we play, the way we work, the way we learn, the way we speak. During my time at the fcc, ive met with entrepreneurs in south dakota who started businesses. Ive met with doctors in ohio who have helped care for patients. Ive met with teachers in alaska who changed their students. I met with farmers in missouri who increased crop yields and ive met with many more who succeeded all because of the internet. The internet has enriched my own life immeasurably. In the past few days, ive set up a facetime call with my parents and kids, ive downloaded interesting podcasts will blockchain technology, ive ordered a burrito and managed my Fantasy Football Team and as many of you might have seen, ive tweeted. What is responsible for the Phenomenal Development of the internet . Certainly it wasnt heavy handed government regulation. Quite to the contrary. At the dawn of the commercial internet, president clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States to and i quote preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently existed for the internet unfettered by federal and state regulation. This bipartisan policy worked. And encouraged by light touch regulation, americas private sector invested over 1. 5 trillion to build out fixed and mobilnet works throughout the United States. 28k mo deps gave way to gig bit fiber. Innovators and entrepreneurs grew startups into giants and americas internet economy became the envy of the world. And this light touch approach was good for consumers, too. In a free market, Online Services blossomed. Within a generation, we have gone from email as the killer app to highdefinition video streaming. Entrepreneurs and instraighters guided the internet far better than the clumsy hand of government could have. But then in early 2015, the fcc under political pressure jettisoned the successful bipartisan approach to the internet. On express orders from the previous white house, the fcc scrapped the tried and true light touch regulation of the internets and replaced it with heavy handed micromanagement. It decided to subject the internet to utility style regulation designed in the 1930s to govern ma bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The internet wasnt broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is one thing perhaps the only thing in American Society that we can all agree has been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, in solution hasnt worked. The main complaint consumers have about the internet is not and has never been that their Internet Service provider is blocking access to content. Its that they dont have access at all or not enough competition. These regulations have easterncally taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under title 2, investment in High Speed Networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of recession in the internet era. When theres less investment, that means fewer networks are built. That means less access and less competition. That means fewer jobs for americans building those networks. And that means more americans are stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide. The impact has been particularly serious for smaller internet Service Providers. They dont have the time, the money or the lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. They dont get a lot of press, certainly not here in washington. But i have permally visited some of them from spencer municipal utility in spencer, iowa, to Wave Wireless in parsons, kansas. Have i spoken with many more from al plex internet in ohio to air Link Services in oklahoma. And so it is no surprise the wireless internet Service Providers association which represents a very small fixed Wireless Companies that tichcally operate in rural and local income urban areas surveyed members and found over 80 incurred additional expense in complying with the title 2 rules, had delayed or reduced services and allocated budget to comply with the rules. Other Small Companies told the fcc these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay or curtail Fiber Network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the fccs heavy handed rules affect our ability to find financing. Now, remember, these are not the big guys. These are the Small Companies the kinds of companies critical 0 providing a more competitive marketplace. These rules have also impeded innovation. One major company, for instance, reported that it put on hold a project to bid out its out of Home Wifi Network due to uncertainty about the fccs regulatory stance. And a coalition of 19 municipal internet Service Providers, that is city, governmentowned nonprofits have told the fcc that they and i quote often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because they cannot afford to deal with the potential complaints and enforcement action. None of this is good for consumers. We need to empower all americans with digital opportunity. Not deny them the benefits of greater access and competition. And consider too that these are just the effects that these rules have had on the internet of today. Think about how they will affect the internet that we need ten, 20 years from now. The Digital World bears no resemblance to a water pipe or an electric line or a sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time. Very few would say that theres been dramatic innovation in these areas. By contrast, online track is exploding. And we consume exponentially more traffic and data over time. With the dawn of the internet of things, with the development of high bit rate applications like Virtual Reality, with new activities that we cant fully grasp yet like high volume Bitcoin Mining we are imposing ever more demands on the network. And over time, that means our networks themselves will need to scale, too. On advice of security, we need to take a brief recess. Everyone, i need everyone to leave. Everything that you have in place. Do not take anything out of here. Do not take any bags, anything. Only thing youll take out of here is just your body. We will call your body back in once weise finish clearing the room. Thank you. Dont take anything with you, please. No anything. Just your body. Lets go. Camera men, im sorry. Youll have to leave your cameras. Lets go. So there is a break in in meeting of the federal Communications Commission as they discuss Net Neutrality issues. Apparently, a security concern. So theyre going to take a little bit ive break and they may reconvene here and we plan to bring you live coverage when that happens. In the meantime, a look at this mornings washington journal. Back at our table this our t morning a democrat of texas and appropriations member. Congressman, lets talk about where things stand with a spending bill that would keep the government running after december 22nd. What do you understand the negotiations are and are democrats a part of those talks . Were not totally part of all the negotiations. Right now what theyre looking at is the republicans are looking at doing a cr, continuing resolution, to sometime in january, and then put a yearlong defense appropriations. We support the defense. In fact, im on the defense appropriations subm appropriations subcommittee, but it should include defense, home land, transportation, education, and all the other agencies and we should not set them apart, so thats going to be a problem. It could be one possible scenario is that they do the cr, continuing resolution, with a yearlong, send it to the senate, the senate pings it back to us and we do a cr, continuing resolution, and hopefully do all of them during the january sometime. We dont want to expand this. If we cant even pass an appropriation bill, that doesnt look good for congress. The ones in appropriations, we work the whole year and then to wait till the very end to just punt it down, its not good for the country, not good for the way we run our government. Appropriation, a washington word. Youre talking about the money that congress allocates, because you hold the pursestrings, for each agency to run and do its work. The government the congress has to come up with a spending bill that allows this to keep going because you have not passed all of the Appropriations Bills for 2018. So my question is, democrats have said in order to get our votes on any sort of longterm continuing resolution, we need to address immigration. Now i understand democrats are okay with dealing with that separately. Do you think thats mistake . You know, i support daca, which is the dreamers. Will i shut down government because of daca . Without respect, i wouldnt do that. But its a way of trying to get leverage so we can address this issue. We know that daca will go up to march i think march 6th or so, but at the same time, there are some consequences to some of those folks losing status. So we want to get this done as soon as possible and if the republicans would allow us to put the dreamers bill on the floor, its going to pass. Theres enough republicans to support it. The question is will they put it on the floor. But do we close the government because of one particular issue with all respect even though im a strong supporter of daca . I dont think thats the right way of doing it, but we have to find a way to address the issue. These d. R. E. A. M. Ers, their current status extend to march. Correct. Is it your understanding republicans will allow the d. R. E. A. D. R. E. A. M. Er bill on the floor . Thats what i told the republican leadership. If you dont want to add it to the final appropriation bill, make it a commitment youll put it far vote sometime before march, whether january or february, lets do that, but why are we kicking this down the road . The problem is this, its a very simple issue on those 800,000 individuals. Its very simple issue. The issue is that there are some folks that want to add a border wall, want to add some very extreme immigration issues on it, and, again, i want to see full Immigration Reform, but this is one little slice. If you want to look at the whole issue, open up the whole immigration issue, but as you know, Immigration Reform, just like tax reform, is hard to pass unless if you know, unless if you really sit down and work on it. Last time we had Immigration Reform was in a bipartisan way with democrats and republicans in 1986. The president has tweeted some sympathetic comments towards those d. R. E. A. M. Ers. Do you trust him, he would sign legislation that would extend that status for them . I dont know. About a month ago he did talk about them and he said lets do the d. R. E. A. M. Ers and lets put some border security. The wall, we can deal with that later. I sit on homeland appropriations. I live there. The boarder is a very dynamic place. You eave got trade and other issues to address but you have to address it in a sensible way. A wall is a 14th century solution. Theres other ways of securing this. Ill say this, when we had the last meeting with the held of the Border Patrol, i asked them this question, i asked him on the wall, i said, the last Border Patrol chief, i asked him how effective a wall was, and he said a wall would buy somebody maybe a couple of minutes. That means it would slow somebody. I asked him, do you stand by that same position of the prior Border Patrol . He said it might buy us a few seconds, a few seconds or a few minutes. So were going to be spending billions of dollars on a wall thats not very effective . And, again, i want to see Boarder Security sensible, Border Patrol agents. I want to see also the right measure of technology to addressing this. By the way, on Border Patrol, we have an issue there. At one time we had over 21,000. Now we have about 19,500. That means were losing more Border Patrol, that what were actually hiring. Boar br are either retiring, moving to other agencies, and by the time we hire people were actually losing people. Thats something that we have to understand whats happening at the border. Lets go to calls. William in connecticut, democrat. Caller good morning. Good morning. Caller my concern is about the tax bill thats about to be become law here. And im from connecticut, and my question to your guest is that, you know, i live in connecticut where we have income tax and, you know, property tax and everyone owns a home like i do has the mortgage interest. And when you take those things away from me, if you give me an increase in my in my taxes for, you know, for me and my wife, theres no gain. Actually, i get a loss. In states like connecticut, where you have income tax, where everyones paying mortgage interest, you take a loss. Im retired. Caller lets have the congressman respond to your concerns. Thank you for your question, william. This is the situation were looking at. Were looking at and im not talking about just the gentleman but most people, most people say whether its a business or individual, lower my corporate rate or individual tax rate. Everybody wants that. But when it comes to the individual deductions, everybodys say, oh, this is the most important deduction that i have. And im not talking about william. Im just talking generally. Business groups say we want to lower our Corporate Tax rate, but, hey, our deduction for e expensing or whatever the case might be is the most important, you cant do that. People are asking for that exception. I understand. But there are some exceptions like the Mortgage Interest Rate that i hope we can make that better. Property taxes or income taxes like, for example, every state is different. In texas, we dont have a corporate or an income tax, but we have high property taxes. You go to some states in the northeast or california, you might get hit by both. So im hoping we can have some sort of deduction for that. How did you vote when republicans voted on their plan . And could you vote for this compromise between the house and the senate . Voigted n ei vote nod but i e sure or corporations have compete across the world. If theres something that treats them better, because you cant treat corporations differently from passthrough entities, and of course the individual tax rates, i want to see those go down also. The issue is what deductions, the most important ones in the whole world, which ones will we keep, and thats the issue. As a blue dog, keep in mind that that means moderate. The moderate democrats. Remember what happened, we lost a lot of them in 2010 because the republicans were saying oh, look at the deficit that the Obama Administration is bringing and what happened was that we lost a lot of blue dogs on that issue along with other issues on that. Now the deficit doesnt really count because this will add maybe 1. 5, lets see what the last numbers are, to the trillion to the deficit over ten years so those are the issues that we have to look at. And the other thing is we reached out to the republicans as blue dogs, said, hey, include us, include us, include us. We had several meetings with them. And again, i wish it would have been more bipartisan. All right. Jesse in indiana, independent. Caller my comment is simply that i hope every american citizen watching cspan today realizes the democrats are threatening to shut down the government over illegals, people that arent even supposed to be here, that havent contributed to the system their whole life, that havent paid into the system their whole life. So democrats are going to punish the American People that pay into the system that are citizens, taxpayers, so they can push an agenda through for people that are here illegally. All right, congressman. Respond. Caller the gentleman, with all due respect, is wrong. If you recall the last shutdown we had was done by the republicans, not by the democrats, number one. This one, there are some democrats that definitely want to have the dreamers in there, and remember, these are the kids that got brought in at a very young age, which those 800,000, i think 95 are working so theyre paying into the system, theyre contributing. See the segment at cspan. G cspan. Org. Well take you back to the fcc meeting now. Theres an be security concern. That has been cleared. They resume their deliberations changing 2015 rules on Net Neutrality among other issues at the fcc meeting today. Live coverage on cspan3. Consider, too, that these are just the effects that our rules have had on the internet of today. Think about how theyll affect the internet we need 10, 20 years from now. The Digital World bears no resemblance to a water pipe or electric line or sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time and very few would say theres dramatic invasion in those areas. By contrast, online traffic is exploding wand the dawn of the internet of thing, the development of high bit rate application like Virtual Reality, new activities we cant fully grs grasasp yet like bitc over Time Networks themselves will have to scale to. But they dont have to. If our rules deter the massive Infrastructure Investment we need, eventually well pay the price in terms of less innovation. Consider these words from ben thompson. A highly respected Technology Analyst from a post on his blog supporting my proposal. Its an extended quote, but with your indulgence, its important. The question that must be grappled with is whether or not the internet is done. By that i mean that todays bandwidth is all we will ever need, which means we can risk investment through prophylactic regulation and the elimination of price signals that may spur infrastructure buildout. If we are done, then the potential harm of a title 2 reclassification is much lower. Sure, isps will have to do more paper work, but honestly theyre just a bunch of mean monopolists anyway, right . Best to get laws in place to preserve what we have. What if we arent done . What if Virtual Reality becomes something meaningful . What if those imagined remote medicine applications are actually developed . What if the internet moves sw realtime value generation, not just in the home but all kinds of unimagined commercial applications . I certainly hope we will have the bandwidth to support all of that. I do too. And as thompson put it in another post, again i quote, the fact of the matter is there is no evidence that harm exists in the sort of systemic way that justifies heavily regulated isps. The evidence does suggest that current regulatory structures handle bad actors pe s perfectl well. The only future to fear is the one we never discover, because we gave up on the approach that already has brought us so far. Now, wrremember, folks, network dont have to be built, risks dont have to be taken, capital doesnt have to be raised. The cost of title 2 today may appear at least to some to be hidden, but the consumers and innovators of tomorrow will pay a severe price. So, what is the fcc doing today . Quite simply, we are restoring the lighttouch framework thats governed the internet for most of its existence. We are moving from title 2 to title 1. Wonkier it cannot be. It is difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric we of heard from tight 28 supporters, and as the debate has gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So lets be clear. Returning to the Legal Framework that governed the internet from president clintons pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 is not going to destroy the internet. It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle Free Expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesnt demonstrate their absurdity, our internet experience before 2015 and our internet experience tomorrow once this order passes will prove them so. Simply put, by returning to the lighttouch title 1 framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger insensitives to build networks, especially in unserved areas, and to upgrade networks to gigabyte speeds and 5g, meaning more Competition Among broadband providers and more ways startups and tech giants can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, it is a freer and more open internet. We also promote much more robust transparency among izss than existed three years ago. We require them to disclose a variety of Business Practices and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what theyre buying and startups get the information they need as they develop new products and services. We empower the federal trade commission to ensure the consumers and competition are prote protected. Two years ago the tight 28 order stripped the ftc of jurisdiction over broadband providers, but today we are putting the nations premier Consumer Protection cop back on the beat. The fcc will once again have the authority to take action against internet Service Providers that engage in any competitive, unfair, or accident tdeceptive. As the fccs chairman said, the fccs ability to protect consumers isnt something new and far fesmed. We have a long established role in preserving the values consumers care about online. Or as president obamas first ftc chairman put it just yesterday, the plan to restore ftc jurisdiction is good for consumers. The sky isnt falling. Consumers will remain protected. And the internet will continue to thrive. So lets be clear. Following todays vote, americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be cops on the beat guarding a free and open internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015. This is the way they will be once again. Now, our decision today will also return regulatory parity to the internet economy. Some Silicon Valley giants favor imposing heavy handled regulations on other parts of the internet ecosystem. But all too often, they dont practice what they preach. Edge providers rel regally block content that they dont like. When you go online, do you decide what news, search result, and products you see . Perhaps not. They regularly decide what you see and perhaps more importantly what you dont. And many thrive on the Business Model of charging to place content in front of eyeballs. What else is accelerated mobile prioritization . What is worse, there is no transparency into how decisions that appear inconsistent with an open internet are made. How does a company decide to restrict someones accounts or block their tweets because it thinks their views are inflammatory or wrong . How does a company decide to demon tiz videos from political advocates without any New Jersey Nets . How does a Company Block access to rival websites or prevent dissidents content from appear ong its platform . How d do they block from an app store something that the company blooec believes promotes tobacco use . You have no insikts on these decisions and nor do i but these are real threats to an open internet. Ironic coming from the very entities that claim to support it. Ironic, too, that socalled Net Neutrality advocates most vigorously opposed to our reforms have little if nothing to say about these threats. These are threats that a growing number of officials, democrats and republicans, house and senate, are beginning to take notice of. Now, look, perhaps Certain Companies support this saddling broadband providers with heavy handed regulations because those rule work to their economic advantage. I dont blame them for taking that position. Im not saying these same rules should be slapped on them too. What i am saying is that it is not the job of the government to be in the business of picking winners and losers in the internet economy. We should have a level Playing Field and let consumers decide who prevails. Now, many words have been spoken during this debate, but the time has come for action. It is time for internet once again to be driven by engineers and entrepreneurs and consumers rather than lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats. It is time for us to ask to bring faster, better, and cheaper Internet Access to all americans. It is time for us to return to the bipartisan Regulatory Framework under which the internet flourished prior to 2015. It is time for us to restore Internet Freedom. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the staff who have work sod many long hours on this item, from the wire link competition bureau. Paula, megan, ben, nathan, madeleine, doug, dan, melissa, gail, susan, ken, pam, chris, ramesh, eric, debra, shane. From the office of general counsel, ashley, jim, christine, tom johnson, doug kline, marcus, scott, linda oliver, and bill richardson. From the Wireless Telecommunications bureau, stacy ferraro, garnet, betsy mcintyre, jennifer salas, jimmy chang, john stockdale, and peter. From the office of Strategic Planning and policy analysis, eric berger, mark, and jerry. From the affairs bureau, jarusha, and from the media bureau, tracy walden. With that, we will call the vote. Commissioner clyburn. I dissent. Commissioner. Aye. Aye. I dissent. The chair votes aye. The item is adopted with editorial privileges granted as requested. Thanks to the stamp for your terrific work on this item. Madam secretary, please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, the fifth time on your agenda will be presented by the Wireless Telecommunications bureau and is entitled amendment to harmonize and streamline part 20 of 2 the commissions rules concerning requirements for licensees to overcome acrs presumption. John stockdale, cheech ief of t bureau, will give presentation. Thank you. Floor is yours. May i interrupt . I want to know if his telephone is off. Commissioner, i did turn it off. Thank you for reminding me. Vibrate would have been fine. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, i am pleased to present the cmrs order. I am joined by suzanne, roger, ka kathy, jessica, and tom. In addition to the staff at the table, i would like to thank the Commission Staff listed on the slide for their input. Tom reid will now present the item. Thank you. Good afternoon, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Good afternoon. We present to you today a report and order that updates and harmonizes our regulations primarily eliminating two sections of the commissions rules. These rules classify or presume Certain Services to be either commercial mobile Radio Services or cmrs or private Radio Services based on the Frequency Band used. That approach is developed from a paradigm more than 20 years ago when we continemplated Wireless Services for each band. There is a licensing for any service it wishes. This report and order will remove any presums about whether mobile smpss are regular lated as commercial or private and instead allow licensees to rely on the statutory definitions of those terms to identify nature and regulatory treatment of their mobile Services Consistent with Applicable Service rules. Eliminating 20. 7 and 20. 9 will reduce disparate treatment in different bands and allow licensees a variety of services and it will help bring beneficial services to businesses, state and local governments, and the Public Safety community while reducing the administrative burdens and processing delays certain providers of these Services Currently face. The Wireless Telecommunications bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges to make tech knical conforming edits. Thank you. Comments from the bench. Commissioner clyburn. What im about to say is reinforced if the cam are weras to focus on the end of the room. It might go over as well as a serving of Rocky Mountain oysters. Neither would be warmly received at my home thats just wrong. Even we have limits here, commissioner. Okay. The changes proposed in this order coupled with the majoritys dismantling of the open internet have many unsavory implications for the future of competition policy. You wondered how i was going to tie that in, right . As i made clear in my statement opposing the rollback of our open internet rules i believe the proper interpretation of section 332 of the Communications Act is that mobile Broadband Internet Access Service should be classified as commercial mobile radio service, or cmrs, not a private mobile radio service. Eliminating these rules means we will remove precedent and procedures that could help parties demonstrate that a wireless companys mobile Broadband Service should be classified as cmrs. I understand some may see this as mere streamlining of Commission Rules but in my opinion, this order removes important procedural safeguards such as requiring the commission to put Certain Applications out on Public Notice, which can help inform parties who are interested in challenging a companys claim that its mobile Broadband Internet Access Services should be classified as a private mobile radio service. Since that result is inconsistent with my review of proper classification for mobile Broadband Services, i respectfully dissent from the order and will admit my first example might have been a little edgy. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner clyburn. Commissioner riley. Thanks for the work, staff. No statement. Thoo commissioner carr. Thanks. The United States leads the world in wireless. One of the reasons for this success is the fccs decision to embrace a flexible yugs pouse p for spectrum. Instead of mandating a particular excuse me emotional topic. Choked up on this one. Instead of mandating that a particular spectrum band be used with a specific type of Wireless Technology or service, we generally leave that choice to the private sector, which has a much better sense of consumer demand. This approach enables Wireless Networks in the u. S. To evolve with technology and much more quickly than if operators had to obtain government signoff each step of the way. Our leadership in 4g is one example of how this policy has worked to benefit consumers. Today we carry that approach forward by eliminating 20yearold rules that reflect a different approach to spectrum, one that required providers operating in particular bands to obtain fcc permission before innovating or bringing Certain Services to the market. This change would not only help level the regulatory Playing Field for wireless provide rers but will result in more timely efficient use of spectrum. The flexibility we provide today will be particularly important as we look to extend our Global Leadership in wireless as 5g and internet of things offerings continue to come online. I support the order and hope we can continue the agencys efforts to identify and eliminate outdated and unnecessary regulatory burdens. Thanks. Commissioner . In the interest of moving this along, i will say that i support todays decision. It does not in any way at ter statutory definitions of cmrs or pmrs. That is why it has my full support. Thank you, commissioner. I too support the item. This is as commonsense and Good Government a measure as you will find and it simply finalizes the proposal we unanimously adopted last year. Without further ado, thanks to the staff for the work to help us modernize these rules to this point and in particular to jessica, gabby, roger, tom reid, jennifer, peter from the Wireless Telecommunications bureau. Jennifer and carl from the international bureau. Jim bradshaw from the media bureau. Christine from the wire and competition bureau. Michael connolly and michael will phlegm the Public Safety bureau. The office of communications and Business Opportunities and David Horowitz and julie sang from the office of general counsel. Commissioner clyburn . Nay. Commissioner . Aye. Commissioner . Aye. Commissioner . Aye. Aye as well. Granted as requested. Great work by everybody. Thanks. Madam secretary, please take us to the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the sixth item on your agenda will be presented by the media bureau and is entitled electronic delivery of cable and satellite communication, modernization of media regulation initiative, Michelle Carey, chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thanks, madam secretary. Miss carey, whenever your team is ready, go for it. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. As part of our modernization of media regulation initiative, the media bureau presents a notice of proposed rule making that addresses ways to modernize rules to require that require multichannel video programming distributors to provide written notifications to their subscribers as well as rules that require broadcast television stations to send carriage election notices via Certified Mail. Joining meat the table are Martha Heller and marie from the media bureau. Marie will present the item. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, im pleased to present this notice of proposed rule making that proposes to modernize rules that require multichannel video programming district or thes, to provide written information to their subscribers about various topics in ways that would better comport with todays technology, would be more convenient for subscribers, and would be less burdensome for such entities. The notice proposes to adopt a rule that would allow Cable Operators to deliver various types of general written communications to subscribers by email subject to certain consumer safeguards. The notice tentatively concludes that Cable Operators must have verified email Contact Information if they choose to deliver the notifications to subscribers via email. For certain notice it tentatively concludes Cable Operators must provide a mechanism for subscribers to opt out of email delivery and continue to receive paper notes. For notices that pertain to rate and Service Changes among other things, the notice seeks on whether subscribers should have to opt in or out to receive notices electronically. The notice also proposes to adopt a rule specifying the privacy notifications that cable, satellite, and open video system providers are satch statutorily required to give to subscribers may be delivered during email. It seeks common on whether Cable Operators should be permitted to provide certain notices and information on basic tier availability by posting the written material on the Cable Operators website. In addition, the notice proposes to allow Cable Operators to respond to consumer requests or billing dispute complaints by email if the consumer used email to make the request or complaint or if the consumer specifies email as its preferred delivery meth dood ine complaint. It seeks to update two sections of the commissions rules which require notice of equipment compatibili compatibility issues in light of technological advances and market changes in the cable industry. Finally, the notice seeks comment on how to update the requirement that broadcast television stages send carriage election notices via Certified Mail every three years to each cable system or satellite carrier serves its market. It asks what alternative means of serving election notices would meet the needs of both broad kaecasters and others suc express delivery or email. It also seeks comment on whether to replace the requirement on election notices by Certified Mail with a mechanism for providing carriage election online. The media bureau recommends the commission adopt the notice of proposed rule making and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary or technical edits. Thank you. Comments from the bench. Commissioner clyburn. Have you ever felt that you need to get an advanced degree to even come close to interpreting your monthly cable bill . Between annual price hikes, channel lineup changes, and mysteriously labeled fees, rest assured you are not alone in your frustration. According to one analyst, between 2011 and 2015, the average cable bill increased nearly eight times the rate of inflation. Compounding this is the increasing use of below the line fees, a strategy that the fccs 18th annual video competition report described as raising monthly bills while timally leaving the advertised prices for video packages unchanged. Lets be honest, there are some providers that stand to benefit from a state of confusion, which is why the commissions rules require them to notify customers in writing of specific information including rate and Service Changes, changes for charges for customer Service Changes and basic tier availability. And in a world in which many consumers prefer to receive their monthly bill electronically, it is reasonable for us to consider whether our rules should be modernized to allow these currently required written notifications to be delivered in the same manner in which the bill is received by the customer. What i fear, however, is that if providers are allowed to switch the mode by which this information is delivered without the consumers consent, it would give the provider another way to magsi i mask price increases and Service Changes. It is essential that consumers, not the Companies Providing the service, that the consumers are empowered with the choice of how to make these choice of how these notifications are delivered, particularly when it comes to how much they will pay for monthly service. As originally circulated, the chairmans proposal would have allowed companies to solely make this decision on behalf of their customers. And i found that troubling. So im pleased that my colleagues agree to scale this section back by seeking comment on whether to move the electronic notification should be done on an optin basis by the consumer. As we seek to modernize delivery of cable communication, we must ensure that it is done in a way that puts consumers first. My thanks to my colleagues and the media bureau staff for your work on this item. Thank you, commissioner clyburn. It is time for rules to reflect the industry has to gone digital. There are many occasions emailing a consumer is more appropriate than using the antiquated postal service. This item tentatively concludes various requirements on Cable Operators to provide generic written communications to subscribers can be interpreted to include electronic delivery. When it comes to annual notices, rather than having the option of delivering by mail or electronic means, i support them to post on their website. For consumer who wants this information, that is logical place to find it. For consume theyre does not, why clutter their mailbox or inbox . This item rightfully considers what steps will be needed to permit electronic delivery of annual notices via other means reasonably calculated to reach the individual consumer. I hope as we move forward to final order this approach will be permitted. Finally, i was pleased to see the rule. I thank the chairman for accepting my ed its to bolster the section and hope we can move to final order on this topic as well. The retransmission consent process is often contentious enough without having to fight over whether dock yujt uments w appropriately mailed. For these reasons, i support this item. Next year i hope we can focus on orders we of teed up. Im also eager to begin looking at some of the more substantive ideas proposed in the record. Overall, our proceeding has shed light on a number of burdens that have outlived their burden. Commissioner. This year the fcc has made significant strides in modernizing outdated rules and reducing unnecessary paperwork burdens. This effort has been particularly welcome when it comes to the fccs media regulations, which have languished without update for far too long. Take the part 76 rules which would tee up in todays notice of proposed rule making. These rules regular able operators communications with subscribers but theyre stuck in the snail mail era, requiring written notices even when email is more efficient and Cost Effective and one that the consumer prefers. Allowing operators to communicate with their subscribers electronically is long overdue so, i support todays notice. It contains commonsense proposals that will decrease paperwork burdens especially for smaller cable providers while ensuring that consumers receive information in the way they find most helpful. I thank the media bureau for its work. Thank you, commissioner carr. Commissioner . So on this one i have a bias. I lose paper bills all the time so, the prospect of being able to make them available electronically is enticing, so this item has my full support both personally and professionally. Thanks. Thank you. Commissioner . Even in the digital age, many of us remain all too familiar with paper. One example of course is bill inserts, the extra sheets of paper stuck in the envelope with your bill for a particular service. Other than those who struggle to decipher them, i think most consumers simply ignore them. These days we tend to prefer Electronic Communications over pulp. The fcc too shares that preference. We are working to reduce our own use of paper and were also aiming to modernize rules that unnecessarily require the private sector to stuff paper into your mailbox. This notice is another step down that path. What were simply proposing is take the consumer friendly step of allowing Video Companies to send certain notices to subscribers electronically. If its finalized this proposal could allow consumers to more readily access information about their services in a form they find most convenient. And it would also get rid of a lot of environmental waste and reduce unnecessary regulatory costs too. Theres a similar issue lurking about in one of our rules and we Seek Public Input in this notice on that too. Today broadcast television stations have to send notice telling them whether they are opting for must carry of their content or retransmission consent. They have to send a separate election notice to each cable system or satellite carrier individually by Certified Mail. This doesnt seem to be as efficient or necessary as it could be, so were looking to how to streamline this notice requirement while still ensuring that mbpds get the information they need. I and my colleagues would like to thank steve, michelle, katie, martha, maria,ry beth of the media bower row and susan aaron and david console from the office of general counsel. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. The chair votes aye as well. The ayes have it. Privileges granted as requested. If only it was so easy all the time. Madam secretary, next item. The final item on your agenda today will be presented by the media bureau. It is entitled amendment of section 73. 355e of the commissions rules, nation that will television multiple ownership rule and once again bureau chief Michelle Carey gives the introduction. Miss carey, whenever youre ready. Thank you. The next and last item the media bureau presents to you today is a notice of proposed rule making that undertakes a comprehensive review of the National Audience recap and the discount used by broadcast toers calculate compliance with the cap. It marks the first time in a decade the commissioner has examined the National Television multiple ownership rule in a complete away. Julie . Mr. Chairman and commissioners, we present this notice of proposed rule making which seeks to determine the future of the National Television Audience Reach cap and uhf discount. As background, the National Audience reach cap limits entities from owning or controlling television stations that in the aggregate reach more than 39 of the Television Households in the country. Earlier this year, the commission reinstated a component of the rule, the uhf discount, which provides that. When calculating compliance with the National Audience reach cap, stations broadcasting in the uhf spectrum are attributed with only 50 of the households in their designated market areas as opposed to 100 of households attributed to vhf stations. In reinstating the discount, the Commission Found that the 39 cap and discount are inextricably linked and that eliminating the discount effectively tightened the cap without determining whether such tightening was in the Public Interest. At that time, the commission committed to undertaking this comprehensive review of both the cap and discount. First, the notice takes a fresh look at the commissions prior conclusion that it has the Legal Authority to modify or eliminate the national cap and uhf discount. Second, the notice asks whether the cap and discount should be modified or eliminated in light of increased video Programming Options for consumers, Technological Development since the original cap or other factors. If its eliminated the notice asks whether the cap should be simultaneously raised an if so by how much. Additionally, the notice seeks comment on the benefits and kopss of lowering the cap. The notice next asks whether the national cap continues to serve the Public Interest and if so, what Public Interest goals such as localism continue to justify a cap. The notice also asks whether retaining the cap harms the Public Interest in any way. The notice also seeks comment on how to calculate compliance with the National Audience reach cap if one is retained. Original technical justification for the uhf discount, the analog uhf signals generally provide less coverage than vhf signals, disappeared with the transition to digital broadcasting. Therefore, the notice asks whether there are other reasons to retain the uhf discount or whether some other waiting method or discount should be used to calculate compliance with any remaining ownership limit. Finally, to the extent any change the Commission Adopts causes broadcast Station Groups to become out of compliance with ownership limits, the notice asks whether such noncompliant Station Groups should be grandfathered and whether stuff Station Groups should subsequently be allowed to be transferred without divestitures. The media bureau recommends that the commission adopt the notice of proposed rule making and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Well proceed with comments from the bench. Commissioner . Thank you. Television, like newspapers, and like radio, works best when it speaks with many voices. And as these companies swallow one another up, there is a frightening possibility of it all speaking with one voice. I didnt do that justice. Television, like newspapers and like radio, works best when it speaks with many voices. And as these companies swallow one another up, there is the frightening possibility of it all speaking with one voice. Those sage words delivered by broadcastist linder ellerbe in 2000 ring true today. In any other month, a proposal giving Massive Media companies the chance to have an even greater share of the local programming market would generate substantial attention and widespread public concerns. While admittedly this is not your typical month at the fcc, the reality is that such a proposal is before us for consideration and it is a big deal with substantial implications for the future of localism, diversity, and competition. Broadcasters are inextricably you know what i mean broad cas broadcasters are intricately woven into our communities, they cover local officials and when at their best hold them accountable. While cable news and Online Platforms are more likely to paint broad strokes, local broadcasters distinguish themselves through their ability to fill in the fine lines. Local broadcasters often go through great e lenglengths to n the air during a natural or manmade crisis, providing on the ground coverage when news breaks, including delivery toemergency information that no doubt has saved countless lives. In 2004, Congress Passed and president george w. Bush signed into law a provision that no single broadcaster, through its combination of local stations owned, collectively, should be able to reach more than 39 of the u. S. Television households. While i cannot say for certain that the sentiments expressed by the late William Safire reflected the legislative mood of the day, it is striking that 14 years ago he was motivated to write through a New York Times oped the e fact of the medias march to amalgamation of americas freedom of voice is too worrisome to be left to three unelected commissioners. Soon after, congress, through section 629. 1 subsection 1 of the appropriations act of 2004, specifically exempted the 39 cap on National Audience reach from review. This was evidently the prevailing view because in 2004 n. N. A. B. s president said were pleased the National Television ownership cap issue appears to be resolved by the passage of this legislation. Press accounts at the time including a january 2004 story in broadcasting and cable affirmed that one of the few features of the law was that, quote, only congress, not the fcc, can change the 39 limit. Facing a challenge from broadcasters who sought to maintain a 45 National Ownership cap, the Third Circuit issued its opinion in june of 2004. In the courts decision, it wrote, because a commission is under a statutory directive to modify the National Television ownership capped at 39 , challengers to the commissions decision to raise the cap to 45 are moot. This decision should have once and for all put to rest any question that the fcc could independently increase the cap, but, no. The current administration, in its quest to green light even greater media consolidation, has found a way to rewrite history and ignore the 3rd circuit decision. Earlier this year, over my vociferous objection, the fcc majority reinstated the uhf discount, giving the blessing for a single e xan to reach over 70 of the u. S. Households while claiming to be compliant with the 39 National Ownership cap. In 2004, when congress enacted the cap, the dbt transition was still five years away, but thanks to the transition to Digital Television, uhf stations are no longer inferior to vhf stations. This can mean nothing else but that broadcasters, with the blessing of the fcc majority, are using this arbitrary loophole to expand their reach far beyond what congress ever envisioned. How did we get to this point . Harken back to june of 2003, when the fcc voted along party lines to increase the National Ownership cap from 35 to 45 . This decision was not without significant controversy. Even the National Rifle association at the time came out in opposition, arguing that loosening the loosening of the fccs media ownership rules should be rejected, and i quote, for the sake of our democracy. Leading into the fall of that same year, congress continued to debate the issue and there were bipartisan house and Senate Resolutions introduced that disapproved of the fccs deregulation of the media ownership rules. There were also multiple congressional hearings that year. Senator trent lott, in describing his opposition to raising the cap, said, and i quote, that the nation is in danger of losing the localism and diversity of viewpoints that are offered under the current ownership cap structure if the current cap is raised, end quote. Strong words from the former senate leader, and he was not alone. A deeply fought battle ultimately resulted in a compromise between congressional leadership and the white house. That november an agreement was reached that a 13. 9 National Ownership cap was established that will be put into law just two months later. While many remain unhappy, the purpose was to put this debate to rest or so they thought. Fast forward to last month, when democratic leader pelosi along with representatives pilon and doyle wrote in a let or the the commission that by explicitly excluding review of the cap from the congressionally mandated quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules, we made clear that the fcc is not permitted to change or evade the National Ownership cap. I agree. Localism. Diversity. Competition. These are bedrock principles of our National Media policy and, indeed, our democracy. Giving a single broadcaster the means to buy up enough local stations to exceed the 39 cap is inconsistent with the statute and should be rejected. Fcc chairman Michael Powell once said that the fcc is constitutionally bound to comply willingly or not with congress direction as expressed by the text of the statute. Maybe today will be the day the majority will heed those words and join me in opposing todays proposal, because if nothing else is clear when it comes to this item, it is that they, we, the fcc, has absolutely no authority to act. I dissent. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I support todays item which initiates a fine process to review the commissions National Television multiple ownership rule, commonly referred to as the National Audience reach gap. This is a topic ive spent too much time on v over the years working on so id like to clear up misconceptions surrounding it. First, i want to be absolutely clear on my position on the matter. As ive stated previously, i do not believe commission has the authority to modify the National Audience reach cap, which also extend to eliminating the uhf discount. The discount may no longer be justified, it is up to congress to make that determination, not the commission. This was the clear intent of congress when it partially rolled back the fccs proposed cap increase of 45 in 2004. Wh while many lawyers have their own interpretations of the consolidation acts, i want to provide history. After extensive d bait and too many meetings, congress enacted the relevant portion. The language in the law cannot be any clearer. Its statutory sets the National Ownership limit and correspondingly removes it from the kwau dren yal review of the Communications Act. Some including 3rd Circuit Court of appeals meant that congress on the meant to remove consideration of the cap from the biennial review. But such a reading is preposterous as it would effectively create one of the biggest back doors in the history of legislating. At the same time, the view ignores the deal that was struck in those bitterly heated member meetings and huddles. In exchange for the hard cap, those who supported former chairman powells work obtained an ownership level that prevented any Station Group from being forced to sell off any stations and a commit thamt the uhf discount would still apply Going Forward. I realize that some people dont have a high opinion of congressional experience, but i will forever have etched in my mind former ted stevens screaming that if some Station Group wanted to go above 39 they could come to congress and try to get the cap amended. That was a different day and a Different Congress and maybe it relied on senator stevens serving forever. But it should count for something. It certainly does to me. Even if i intellectually agree that both to the cap and discount are archaic and in need of reform. There is broad disagreement over interested parties over the commissions authority in the space. During the prior proceeding to eliminate the uhf discount, n. A. B. And free press argue the commission had the authority to both eliminate the uhf discount and modify the National Audience reach cap. The commission ultimately agreed with the support of a couple of my colleagues here today. On the other hand, fox, sinclair, ion, trinity all challenged the commissions authority. I appreciate the irony that my views are aligned with those previously filed by sinclair, who outside critics mistakenly believe im currently in cahoots with, that the commission was devoid of authority to take action as fate would have it supposedly would help sinclair today. Specifically, sinclair stated in 2013 the fcc does not have authority to modify any aspect of the National Television ownership cap including the uhf discount. In establishing the 39 limit for the ownership cap in 2004, congress set a precise limit and then took the extra stem of removing this limit and any rule relating it from the fccs periodic review of its ownership rules. No action by congress has changed these facts and accordingly the fcc should terminate this proceeding and halt its efforts to eliminate the uhf discount. In a perhaps more curious twist, it appears that my same colleagues that previously supported changes in 2016 also now question the commissions authority. For these reasons, i believe its time for the courts to opine on this matter. We certainly we need certainty in a way that only the court or congress can provide as to where the Commission Authority begins ends. Since it doesnt appear congressional action is forthcoming, i look forward to reviewing the record that result from this proceeding. If the commission believes after such review that it has the authority to modify the cap, i will happily support that item. That is not to suggest my position has changed. But only that i believe in getting toi finality and willin to cast a vote. Second, outside the authority question, i think its important to put this order in context. The truth is the last fight over the National Audience reach cap generally occurred not because its potential impact on consumers but rather to safeguard an important balance before the Big Four Broadcast Networks and their local affiliates. Prior to congressional action in 2004 the Commission Found rules did not promote. And allowed broadcast networks to achieve scale without pusurps the Audience Reach to their affiliates. They scaled back with the same purpose in mind. Its also worth noting that even though that even if the National Audience reach cap is increased or eliminated, the practical effect will likely be limited assuming the commission complies with congressional direction on the uhf discount. Today the majority of the top Ten Television stations do not even come close to the cap. For instance, Cbs Corporation which ranks fifth only has a National Audience reach of 29. 5 . All this is to say while i support asking questions and ultimate le resolving this issue of an issue, whether we maintain or alter the cap is likely to have little real world impact in the near future. I think the chair map for teeing th up this item and asking the broad range of questions. Since the 1940s the fcc has had rules on the books that limit the number of television stations any single entity can own. Over the decades as the media landscape has evolved the commission has revisited these rules to account for new competitors and advances in technology. Those changes have only accelerated in recent years with the advent on online offerings. Broadcasters now compete with youtube stars, social media platforms and streaming Services Like hulu and netflix not to mention traditional capable and satellite offerings. In light of these changes that were launched in this proceeding that will examine whether we can and should modify our rules that limit broadcasters and others from reaching more than 39 of Television Households in the country. In answering these questions will help ensure that our media ownership rules are neither out dated or counter productive. At the same time, im surprised that the issue of the commissions Legal Authority in this area has generated so much controversy. After all, the fcc determined in 2016 that, quote, the commission has the authority to modify the National Audience reach cap. Continuing, the Commission Found that, quote, no statute bars the commission from revisiting the cap. Congress had not, according to the fcc, quote, impose a statutory National Audience reach cap or prohibit the commission from evaluating the elements of this rule. All three democrats on the commission, including two of my colleagues here today, voted for that order. No one in the majority concur. Wrote a separate statement or otherwi otherwise qualified their support for the fccs 2016 determinations. While several seats here have changed since then the law has not. So the suggestion that the fcc now lacks authority to do exactly what my colleagues said the commission could do in 2016 is curious to say the least. Todays notice asks simply whether my colleagues got it right in 2016. When they determined that the fcc has authority to modify the cap. So far ive not seen anything that convinces me they got it wrong. But you look forward to reviewing the record as it develops in this proceeding. Thanks. Thank you. For decades the fcc has built its media policies around the ideas that localism, diversity and competition matter. These values have their origin in the Communications Act. They may not be trendy but they have stood the test of time. They continue to support journalism and jobs. They play a Critical Role in helping advance the mix of facts we all need to make decisions about our lives, our communities, and our country. Today the fcc seeks to dismantle these values. At a time when real facts get casually deride as fake news. This is neither prudent nor wise. It is also unlawful. At the direction of congress in the consolidated appropriate akak appropriations act of 2004, prohibited from reaching stations that reach more than 39 of the National Television audience. The fcc lacks authority to change this law. Doing so is the exclusive province of congress. But somehow, some way, we have this rule making anyway. And somehow we are still talking about the uhf discount, a concept that should have been retired nearly a decade ago with the introduction of Digital Television which rendered it technically out dated and scientifically obsolete. Moreover, this concept is nowhere mngz nowhere mentioned in the consolidate appropriations act of 2004. Still here we are. And this effort on the heels of this agents appeal of the main studio rule, elimination of the test and giving the green light for common ownership of the top four stations in a market is ultimately destructive. We are destroying our most basic values and tearing apart the rules that have helped keep our media markets local, diverse, and competitive. I dissent. Thank you. Commissioner, the National Television ownership cap and uhf discount are linked. Any review of one must include a review of the other. What is the fccs authority to adjust this cap . And assuming we have such authority, how should we adjust it . Should we eliminate the uhf dis count . Those are the key questions we are asking in this notice. There are no tentative conclusions whatsoever. Were just asking. It is a musing to hear such objections from this bench. Including in the last few minutes, quote, we have absolutely no authority to act and i quote the fcc lacks authority to change this law. Such objections is simply asking the question whether we have Authority Given the same commissioners previously answered it in the affirmative n. 2013 the fcc adopted the uhf discount notice of proposed rule making which stated and i quote, we believe the commission retains the authority to modify both the National Audience reach restriction and the uhf discount provided such action is undertaken in the rule making proceeding celebrate from the commissions review of the broadcast ownership rules. Todays minority expressed neary a doubt about that belief back then. Just last year 2016 the fcc converted that belief into bedrock. It definitively concluded it has the authority to modify the National Audience reach cap including the authority to revise or eliminate the uhf discount. It went even further stating the Communications Act does, and i quote, not impose a statutory National Audience reach cap or prohibit the commission from evaluating the elements of this rule. Yet again, the current minority voted wholeheartedly for that proposition. Now, i know the literary appeal of oscar wilds dictum that its the last refuge of the moderate. It is also a musimusing that th are now voting against seeking comment on getting rid of it. Make no mistake, a vote against this notice is effectively a vote in favor of keeping the uhf discount in place. Getting back to the substance of this notice, we need to take a look at the national cap rule including the uhf discount. The marketplace has changed considerably due to the explosion of video Programming Options and various advances that have occurred since the cap was last considered in 2004. So we need to examine whether our rules should change accordingly. That is an important discussion that will be informed by the facts in the record, not anything else. Id like to thank the dedicated staff that worked on this notice. Ty green, michelle carrie, Mary Beth Murphy and david, and royce sherlock from the office of general counsel. Well proceed to vote on the item. No. Aye. Commission. Dissent. The chair votes aye as lchl the item is adopted with editorial privileges requested. Thanks for the hard work. Would any of my colleagues make tlooik ma like to make any announcements . Is it four hours, 15 minutes . We have got 30 or 40 minutes. Take your time. I figure based on last month i can say one word a minute. Im delighted to announce that april jones has joined my office as a policy analyst and special assistant assistant. If shes still in the room, if you would stand. She has a diverse background and is already a tremendous asset in our continual work to put consumers first and uphol od ou principles. She came to us from the office of house feld. Theres no i there. A global antitrust firm. She previously worked at the office of the u. S. Trade representative which she primarily worked on ecommerce and telecommunications experience. She received her j. D. From the George Washington University School of law where she completed an International Human rights law program fe universat university of oxford and received her undergraduate from the university of southern california. Welcome. Welcome a barreboard april. Id like to introduce evan. Hes vojoining my office as an adviser. You have to stand up. Thats the tradition. He started with us two weeks ago. Hes found the pace around the commission to be a little slow in the publics interest in our work a bit underwhelming. I told him wait until we take up poll attachments. Thats when things get interesting around here. In all seriousness, im delighted evan joined the office. He has a keen instinct for communication policy having worked most recently at tech freedom on a broad range of issues. I look forward to relying on his expertise as we move forward and proceed into the regulatory backwaters. With this new addition it means my office no longer gets to benefit from kevin holmes. Kevins been an invaluable member of my team and im grateful for his contributions over the past few months including on many wireless structure items that weve taken up and im glad that the commission will continue to benefit from kevins public service. Thanks. Thank you. I want to welcome Jessica Martinez to my staff, to the fcc and to this rofirst meeting she had. She comes to my office from the u. S. House democratic staff where she served as outreach and Member Services coordinator. Shes also served as the Communications Director for the congressional hispanic staff association. Before her time on capitol hill, she served as an society with a d. C. Firm where she focussed on health care policy. Her Prior Experience also includes time as a fellow with the progressive caucus, an internship with the democratic steering and out Reach Committee and as the out reach coordinator for the utah state democratic party. She is the daughter of mexican immigrants and put herself through the university of utah as a waitress and forklift driver. Weve got double the jessica that someone who worked as a forklift driver. Last year we introduced you to a mayor who worked as a firefighter. And the month before was kate who is shortly publishing a book called bad ass women. Welcome, jessica. Double the jessica. That is a thought. But i had the chance to meet commissioners staff and happen to know evan from working in the past. I look forward to working with those even if we dont always agree on substance. It was a pleasure. My staff looks forward to working with them. I had a few announcements. First pat karn kncarney. Pat is well known to everybody here at the commission. If youve ever had an ethical issue, a form to fill out, pat is the key guy. Hes the head of the ethics team and office of general counsel. He joined the fcc ethics team in 1995 after serving in the navy. He served the commission as assistant general counsel for e. He earned the metal for Meritorious Service and the fcba Outstanding Government Service award. The stewardship of the Ethics Program has been incredible. Hes one of those guys where you dont appreciate the job that he does because he does it consistently to well but if he didnt do it you would notice. Hes a gem of a human being. I had the pleasure to work with him. Hes always got an even temperament, a smile on his face. Wherever you are, god speed. Thank you for your service to the commission. We so grateful to call you a colleague and friend. Next, jane jackson. Probably both hard at work. Jane also is departing the commission. She began her career here in 1976. In the fccs first Cable Television bureau. After stints as an attorney at pbs and as a law professor, she returned to the fcc in 1984 to serve in the common carrier b bureau. Next year she joined the Auditing Division where she was promoted to chief in 1991. Then she practiced in the private sector. Then we pulled her back into the policy division. She was subsequently promoted to deputy chief and then chief of the Pricing Division in the wire line bureau. From 2001 to 2005 she served as associa associate bureau chief. Since 2014 the office of general counsel has had the incredible good fortune of having her serve as a special counsel in the Administrative Law division where her unpair ra lralleleunp has been a tremendous asset. We are saddened to learn of the sudden passing of ed lee, the mayor of San Francisco and a member of the fcc enter Governmental Advisory Committee. He was born in 1952 in seattle. He was one of six children of chinese immigrants who came to the United States in the 1930s. He was the 43rd mayor of San Francisco and the first ever Asian American elected to that position. He was a member of the u. S. Conference of mayors where among other things he served as the chair of the technology and Innovation Task force. As i pointed out, hes a member of that inter Governmental Advisory Committee in june of 2014. He was appointed to that position and was currently serving a second appointment after his term expired in 2014. Passed away this past tuesday at the age of 65. I think his legacy serves as an inspiration to all americans and we certainly wish his wife and his entire family our sincere condolences. I of the to take a brief minute to express my support and prayers to those affected by the wildfires currently raging in southern california. To get a sense of the devastation there, reports indicate that as of yesterday more than 263,000 acres, thats an area larger than new york city and boston combined, have been burned. Hundreds of thousands have been forced to, vac ya evacuate. I also want to extend my gratitude to the firefighters and strike teams who are on the front lines helping to keep people safe. Its clearly a time to pull together. Im heart ended to learn that over 700 firefighters have provided and continue to provide mutual Aid Assistance to the state of california. For our part the fcc stands ready and willing to assist our federal and state and local emergency First Responders on the ground and to ensure that emergency 911 call centers remain accessible to all. Im especially pleased to hear reports in the press that alerts have been used to warrant affected communities, including the use of clickable urls and text messages. These websites have given people direct access to additional Public Safety information. In addition to reporting on wireless and wire line communications, outage information with fema, weve also been monitoring broadcast radio and television stations in these affected areas. As weve seen, as ive personally seen in other emergency scenarios including of course during Hurricane Harvey and irma and maria earlier this year, radio and tv broadcasters be often serve as critical first sources of reliable information for the public and for the victims of disasters. According to n. A. B. And neal son, more than 1 million residents tuned in to news casts in last week than the previous week as wildfires spread across southern california. I dare say i think i speak for my colleagues that im grateful for the broadcasters working around the lock to provide with a trusted up to date source of news during this time of crisis. If my colleagues dont have any further announcements sorry. Its so interesting and appropriate that we end the meeting the way we began. Underscoring our mission and our goal in terms of Public Safety. So my condolences as you mentioned to the family of mayor lee. We were stunned. I cant imagine the pain that his family and the city is experiencing. Even though i was not able to thank him for this service to this agency, i thank him. Pat carnej and jane jackson, when he mentioned that and i knew it was coming, i just started shaking inside. I cant imagine my fcc experience without those two people. Not that i need watching or monitoring. I dont want to put that out there. But the fact that i know that i had a back stop just gave me great comfort. I hope they change their mind. That godfather thing you mentioned, i hope we have that influence. But short of that, i want to thank them for their service. No matter how silly the question, they always kept me compliant and i want to say thank you. Again, what california is going through is surreal. But as you mentioned, i want to thank those First Responders. Thank our staff out on the west coast for giving the support they need. And just as though you saw a lot of differences and differing opinions, again, you witnessed today the one thing that unifies us is our commitment to serve, particularly when it comes to the Public Safety needs of this nation. You will not hear anyone have a cross word with each other when it comes to that. So i want to thank you for ending by underscoring our mission. Very well said. I completely agree. With that ill turn to madame secretary to announce the date of the next Commission Open agenda meeting. The next agenda meeting of the federal Communications Commission is tuesday, january 30th, 2018. With that the Commission Meeting is adjourned. The federal Communications Mission wrapping up their nearly four hour meeting on a number of issues, most notably passing on a 32 vote undoing the obama Net Neutrality rules. The fcc new rules could usher in new changes in how americans use the internet. The broad band industry promises the experience wont change. What were expect suggest a News Conference from the chairman. Also News Conferences from the democratic members of the commission. Republican members as well. And we will plan to show those News Conferences to you here getting under way in the next few minutes. While we wait for that, well show you some of the closing arguments on the Net Neutrality rules by democratic member and the chairman with a note that well come back live for the News Conferences once they start. Also during these arguments there was a security halt to the meeting and you may see that as well. Heres a look at some of the arguments from earlier today. Thank you, commissioner. Okay. Net neutrality is Internet Freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back Net Neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point. And i dissent from the attempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today. This decision puts the federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the american public. The future of the internet is the future of everything. That is because there is nothing in our commercials, social or civic lives that has been untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. And here in the United States our internet economy is the envy of the world. This is because it rests on a foundation of openness. That openness is revolutionary. It means you can go where you want and do what you want online without your broad band provider getting in the way or making choices for you. It means every one of us can create without commission, organize without physical constraints, consume content we want when and where we want it, and share ideas not just around the corner but across the globe. I believe it is essential that we sustain this foundation of openness and that is why i support Net Neutrality. Net neutrality has deep origins in Communications Law and history. In the era when communications meant telephiny meant every call went through and they could not eddit your conversations. This guiding principle meant you were in control of the connections youit your conversa. This guiding principle meant you were in control of the connections you make. This principle continued as Internet Access became the dial tone of the digital age. So it was 12 years ago when president george w. Bush was in the white house that this agency first put its Net Neutrality policies on paper. In the decade that followed, the fcc revamped and revised its Net Neutrality rules seeking to keep them current and find them a stable home in the law. In its 2015 order the fcc succeeded because in the following year in a 184 page opinion the agencys Net Neutrality rules were fully and completely upheld in court. So our existing Net Neutrality policies have passed court muster. They are wildly popular. But today we wipe away this work, destroy this progress, and burn down time tested values that have made our internet economy the envy of the world. As a result of todays misguided action, our broad band providers will get extraordinary new powers. They will have the power to block websites, the power to throttle services, and the power to sensor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have a pay for play arrangement and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road. Now, our broad band providers will tell you they will never do these things. They say just trust us. But know this. They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic. And now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead and do so. This is not good. Not good for consumers. Not good for businesses. Not good for anyone who connects and creates online. Not good for the force that depends on openness to thrive. Moreover, it is not good for American Leadership on the global stage of our new and complex Digital World. Im not alone with these concerns. Everyone from the creator of the World Wide Web to religious leaders to governors and mayors of big cities and small towns to musicians, to actors, to actresses, to entrepreneurs and academics and activists have registered their upset and anger. They are reeling at how this agency could make this kind of mistake. They are wondering how it could be so tone deaf. They are concerned that just a few unelected officials could make such a vast and farreaching decision about the future of the internet. So after erasing our Net Neutrality rules, what is left . What resource do consumers have . Were told dont worry, competition will save us. But the fccs own data show that our broad band markets are not competitive. Half the households in this country have no choice of broad band provider. So if your broad band provider is blocking websites, you have no recourse. You have nowhere to go. Were told dont worry, the federal trade commission will save us. But the ftc is not the Expert Agency for communications. It has authority over unfair and deceptive practices. But to evade ftc review all any broad band provider will need to do is add fine print in its terms of service. It is costly to report difficulties to the ftc. By the time the ftc gets around to addressing them, its fair to assume that the startups and Small Businesses wrestling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. Moreover, what little authority the ftc has is now under question in the courts. Were told dont worry. State authorities will save us. But at the same time, the fcc all but clears the field with sweeping preemption of anything that resembles state or local Consumer Protection. If the substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse. Lets talk about the Public Record. The public has been making noise speaking up, raising a ruck cuss. We see it in the protests across this country. Those that are outside here today and we see it how they have lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes, and jammed our online comment system. Now that might be messy but whatever our disagreements are on this dias i hope we can agree that is democracy in action and something we can all support. To date nearly 24 million comments have been filed in this proceeding. There is no record in the history of this agency that has attracted so many filings. But theres something foul in this record. Two million comments feature stolen identities. Half a million comments are from russian email addresses. 50,000 consumer complaints are missing from the record. I think thats a problem. I think our record has been corrupted and our process for Public Participation lacks integrity. 19 state attorneys general agree. They have written us demanding we halt our vote until we investigate and get to the bottom of this mess. Identity theft is a crime understate and federal law. And while it is taking place this agency has turned a blind eye to its victims and callously told our fellow Law Enforcement officials it will not help. This is not acceptable. Its a stain on the fcc and this proceeding. This issue is not going away. It needs to be addressed. Finally, i worry that this decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly. Its ugly in the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has shown for citizens who speak up and the sheer disdain it has for Public Opinion. Unlike its predecessors, this fcc has not held a single public hearing on Net Neutrality. There is no shortage of people who believe washington is not listening to their concerns, their fears, and their desires. Add this agency to that list. Now i too let me begin by thats up to the Wireless Bureau for that one. Let me begin by welcoming any first time guests to the commission. Were grateful for you being here. We look forward to your questioning. I did have a few brief remarks id like to offer. First today the fcc voted to restore the light touch market oriented framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence. I believe and the Public Record shows that this light touch approach is best calibrated to preserve a free and open internet while at the same time promoting Infrastructure Investment. With the adoption of todays order consumers and innovators will still be free to go where they want and do what they want online. At the same time, by removing heavy handed regulations that stand in the way of deploying digital infrastructure, especially in rural and low income urban areas, im also confident that more consumers will enjoy better, faster and cheaper Internet Access. Now our decision today was important and it caps off an extremely productive year here at the fcc. Since january we have been working hard to promote innovation and investment, to update our rules to match the modern communications marketplace, to protect consumers and to promote Public Safety. With this being my last press conference of 2017, i wanted to take stock of a few of the steps we have taken. We advance connect America Fund Phase two. For billions of dollars in investment that will connect unserved Rural Communities. We adopted rules to give carriers more flexibility to block unwanted robo calls, the number one source of consumer complaints to the commission. We authorized a new television standard for next Generation Broadcast Television which will open the door to a substantially improved free over the air tv broadcast service. We started improving the next generation of satellite constellations that aim to provide high speed Internet Access especially to rural, remote and tribal areas. We took steps to promote access built from Video Relay Service improvements to hearing aid compatibility. We modernized rules to make it easier for carriers to carry Copper Networks to Fiber Networks speeding the transition from the old to the new. We made available 1700 spectrum for wireless use. To help pave the way. We assisted with hurricane response and Recovery Efforts including by quickly providing almost 77 million in advanced funding to carriers in puerto rico and the u. S. Virgin islands. At long last, we updated our media ownership rules to reflect the realities of the digital age. This morning we approved a new blue alert to help protect our nations Law Enforcement officers and they started off with we restored Internet Freedom. Now, more important than recapping some of the years biggest achievements, i want to thank the fcc staff that made this progress possible. For many years i was once a staffer. I understand the sacrifice they make in order to help us promote the Public Interest. It has been migrate honor this year to lead this remarkable team of public servants. Im not the first among equals. I am simply their equal and i hope they deserve some very well deserved time off during take some well deserved time off during the upcoming Holiday Season and look forward to working with them in 2018. With that id be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ive got a question about the media ownership owner but i was hoping you could tell us more about why we got evacuated. Unfortunately im not at liberty to say. It was on the orders of the federal protective service. Id have to refer you to them for any questions you might have. Okay. On media ownership, a lot of people ive talked to in the broadcast industry have said they dont expect that nprm to lead to any actual action. Is the fcc going to ever take any action on that . Is it going to act on it before it does the review next year . While i certainly respect the question, but we just adopted the notice of proposed rule making so i cant forecast and f and when well take action. Our decisions will be guided by the facts that are in the record. We literally dont have a record yet. Unless and until that develops, i cant forecast what if any action the agency might take. Thanks. So i was just wondering it seems like the majority is really kind of seeking some flexibility on stuff like paper organizations, zero rating just based on your statements and on the draft order as well. But why was it important to end the bans on blocking . You said in your dissent, the 2015 order, that the d. C. Circuit gave you guys a road map. Why not follow the road map . If you look at the order, if you look at my statement, we all favor a free and open internet. The question is what is the framework that is best calibrated to preserve those values . I expound at length quoting from ben thompsons blog who says its been enforcement using the sledge hammer of title two. Taking action against any competitive conduct and the like. His view, my view and the view of the majority of the commissioners today is that the expost view, the title one framework we had for many years is the best one to make sure that those cases dont materialize and to preserve that Infrastructure Investment inaccept tii incentive we discussed at length. To follow up to kyles question on sort of zero rating and those types of behaviors. Telecom advocates have framed those kind of practices as often things that Consumers Want such as, you know, not counting certain streaming toward data caps, things like that. This seems to kind of maybe contradict or undermine the Market Forces idea around removing bans on blocking and throttling which consumers theoretically dont want. Therefore, the isps wont enggeg in that behavior. What specific Market Forces would keep telecoms, keep isps from engaging in paid prioritization that consumers dont snpt. Theres a great example of how you had a government regulator standing in the way of providers that wanted to distinguish themselves in a competitive marketplace, wireless carriers offering free data against consumers who wanted to take advantage of that. I think its telling that the first investigations that the fcc kicked off was taking action to investigate free data offerings. Thats exactly the wrong thing i think for the government to be doing, to be taking Business Models off the shelf and saying no, we are going to deny skoofrskoofr consumers the benefits of the offering. With respect to the second part, Market Forces, look at the wireless marketplace today. All of four Major National carriers have unlimited data plans. They are all competing against each other not just on the basis of price which of course is a constant in any marketplace like this, but also on the basis of Service Offerings like free data. To me that is a terrific check that serves skoofrconsumers wel. Hi, mr. Chairman. Im wondering if you might be able to address the part of the order involving the finding that section 706 is not granted authority. What gives you the confidence that a future fcc wont reverse that finding and what can you just sort of comment on the constant back and forth that weve seen on Net Neutrality for the past more than a decade . So with respect to section 706 obviously weve released the order, the draft of the order three weeks in advance. You can see the particulars about what our legal analysis is and of course in time im not going to go through all of that other than to say section 706 a majority finds is not an affirmative grant of regulatory authority. With respect to the back and forth, i would argue that the 2015 decision was the real break. From 1996 until 2015 we had a bipartisan consensus on light touch regulation that served us well. The real elaboration was in 2015 when a majority of the commission under political pressure from the white house decided to change course from its own proposal in may of 2015 and ended up using heavy handed rules. Im confident that this bipartisan consensus to which we are returning is going to win the day of Public Opinion and hopeful ne congre hopefully in congress as well. Regarding Customer Choice specifically when it comes to the Net Neutrality regulations, could you talk to us about how customers will have the additional choices especially when it comes to you have some legacy carriers, the copper wire carriers, like spectrum and comcast that have been since almost de facto monopolies in concern parts of the country. Where some dont have z muas mu market penetration. I think its going to unleash a lot of investment and infrastructure. Some of the small providers i have met with, companies in oklahoma and ohio and minnesota, these are the companies that have told us on the record that these rules stand in the way of them building out their networks and reaching unserved parts of the country and or providing an alternative to the bigger incumbents in other parts. To me by taking these heavy handed rules off the table, by establishing the light touch approach we had for almost 20 years, were going to see a lot more competition. Secondly, this proceeding operates in conjunction with all the other initiatives that i discussed. The 4. 5 billion to get gte to all points. To get fixed broad band. Approving satellites constellations. Getting more spectrum into the marketplace so the next generation of Wireless Companies can innovate. Taking action on lowering the cost and time frame of getting pole attachments. Starting the broad brand deployment advisory to make sure we dont have federal agencies standing in the way by delaying or granting approvals. Each one of these steps i understand is very much in the weeds and may not necessarily the overall forest might be lost, but over time they will deliver a boost to consumers. And i think from a macro Level Infrastructure is going to go up. How long will the commission take to review the broadcast ownership caps and then if you should decide to eliminate them about how long after that . Again, i cant give a forecast. The item when its released will have the comment cycles which i cant remember off the top of my head. But once the record is closed, we will as we typically do take a look at the facts on the record and if there is a path forward that we can identify, then well take action. But i cant give you a specific date im afraid. Sorry. Hi, mr. Chairman. Brennan from national journal. Ahead of todays vote there were several republican lawmaker whose called on you to delay the vote on the proposal. There were a couple others who came out to say they disagreed with your approach. Did they express those concerns to you before going public . And did they say anything about whether todays decision would in any way impact their reelection prospects next year . I guess more generally have you heard anything from republicans on the hill sort of griping about how this decision might cause them trouble at the ballot box next year . Absolutely not. No. Not at all. I obviously respect members of congress on both sides of the aisle and both chambers of the congress, but those kinds of calculations are not have never been a part of our conversations. I just wanted to quickly ask about ftc authority. Obviously theres been a lot of confidence theyre able to take up the mantel of protecting the open internet after this. But there have been a lot of critics that have pointed to the at t mobility case in court f. There are any issues with ftc authority, if the court proceeds to kind of look at that and have any struggles, would there be any scenario in which the fcc would look at reinstating neutrality. If the ftc did run into trouble, what might happen then. As a practice i dont answer hypotheticals. You operate on the basis of the law at the time you are making the decision. Law is the Panel Decision for the u. S. Court of appeals has been vacated. And so thats as the commissioner pointed out in his statement, or it might i dont remember which. The way forward is going to be the current law which is that the ftc does have jurisdiction in this area. Two part question. First, can you just explain when this will take effect after it gets published in the federal register. 60 days . 30 days . For that i would refer you to the Wire Line Competition Bureau. Secondly youve heard im sure all of the litany of harms that your democratic colleagues and others in congress have suggested might arise from this. Small providers would be hurt by this. If those arms came to pass and Market Forces did not prevent those from happening, would you reconsider your decision today or would you be confident the ftc would be able to handle those harms . Two different points. The critical part of your question was the word might. I think the fact that these are all hypothetical, they arent manifested in the record indicates we took the right approach. I quoted at length as you might remember that the cost of consequences as pointed out are very compelling that these regulations do come at a cost. You might not see immediately what the cost in terms of lost future innovation are but we will in fact incur those costs. We think the better approach if those harms materialize in the future would be to have the ftc to careful targeted action against any conduct by any Internet Service provider. Additionally, they can order consumer refunds which the fcc does not have the power to do. We think the ftc is the premier Consumer Protection cop on the beat. President obamas first chairman has said. That we are confident that wellestablished tradition of skoof Consumer Protection will carry Going Forward. I wanted to ask about something i wrote about today. I was talking to some economists the last couple days, and one thing that they were saying was that they had a concern that the Economic Analysis in the order that rather than doing sort of objective analysis that which mostly that those who wrote the order looked at found that sort of the results that they wanted to pick up and you were just mostly sighting stuff that bolstered their conclusion. It occurred to me that could be a conclusions ftc. I was wondering if you could respond to that and can you give us an update on your efforts to create an economic office. I would disagree with whoever it was that made that observation and we relied on our economists to do very careful analysis of the facts in the record. I think if you look at the draft order that we put out which itself was an innovation that had never happened before at the fcc before i took office and we made a careful assessment of the facts as impaired on the economic aspects of our decision and im confident that either in the court of Public Opinion or an additional tribunal that reasonable people will see we did try to evaluate the various impacts of these rules over the past two years. In terms of the update on Economic Analysis, we are still studying that issue. Its obviously a very complicated issue in terms of organizing that part of our function. I dont have a particular time frame to give you, but it remains under active study. Ted johnson. Today there was a big media merger that was announced. I wanted to ask during the Campaign Donald trump said that he actually had concerns over media concentration. Do you have those concerns as well . Again i just heard about i literally only saw the headline about that deal being announced so i cant make any comments about that specific transaction. I would refer back to the comments i made repeatedly going all the way back to when i was a nominee for this position back in november of 2011 which was that we review every transaction through the lens of the Public Interest. Are there merger conditions that can be applied within the agencys authority to ameliorate those harms and to make the appropriate decision. In general do you think as it exists right now there are problems . Im not going to make any comments about the marketplace that could be interpreted or misinterpreted to prejudge what we could or how we might evaluate a potential merger. Theres been a lot of discussion about the Economic Impact of the 2015 rules. I want to ask you about i guess a suggestion you made in 2014 that ten economists take a look at proposed regulations and each commissioner would be allowed to pick two economists to kind of review the impact of the regulations. Why didnt you take that approach with this proposal . Well, we saw how that suggestion fared in the last administration. But youre in charge now. So why not . Look at the order. Thats all i would simply say. Look at the order. We grappled with the facts in the record as it related to the economic aspects of title two regulations. Im confident reasonable people will see that we conducted an analysis of those facts. Reporter immediately after the vote some of the theres some announcement of lawsuits that are planned including from the new York Attorney general who plans a multistate lawsuit to reinstate the rules. There have been calls for challenging your decision on n court on process as well. What is your strongest Legal Defense as youre Going Forward . Im sure you thought about that. I am shocked people are going to challenge this decision in court. Obviously i dont want to prejudge the legal issues which are very complex and our able general counsels office will handle that. I think at a very high level, number one, in terms of substantive law, theres no question what we did was lawful. If you look at the Supreme Courts decision, a majority of the Supreme Court expressly said that the fcc has the ability to classify broad band Internet Access service as a title one Information Service. If you look at what the opinion about concurring in the denial of the hearing on the d. C. Circuit they say that the Brand X Court said the fcc has the discretion to decide the question of broad band Internet Access Service Classification should be decided. So im confident in terms of sub st substantive law we are fine. We abided by the evidence rule in terms of fishing out from the record those comments that grapple with some of the proposals we teed up. Ible at a Senate Hearing earlier this year i said were going to follow that evidence test by the Supreme Court in the 1966 case. That is sufficient to justify the conclusions reached by the agency. So both from substantive and Administrative Law perspectives im very confident that our decision will be upheld. Good afternoon, mr. Chairman. Thanks for taking the questions. Thanks for coming. Thank you. Following on legal challenges im sure youre aware of criticism of the Internet Freedom Net Neutrality decision from businesses, from consumer groups. Im curious if you think you and your allies have not done a great job explaining how this will impact consumers and how this can help them and im curious what you see Going Forward as your opportunities to message on this. Look, we consistently cited from the beginning that repealing these heavy handed rules would be good for consumers, good for competition and good for entrepreneurs across the country. You heard some of that today as well when i spoke about the fact that a lot of consumers, especially those who find themselves on the wrong side of the digital divide, their number one concern is about Getting Better access, getting more competition. These titles and regulations take us in the opposition direction. So part of the case we tried to make and we certainly will make in the future is making sure we focus the agencys attention on the number one skoofconsumer pr. In respon in conjunction with all of the decisions weve made all fit together to promote a much more competitive marketplace, one in which theres a massive incentive to invest in infrastructure. Im confident we will have the values of a free and open internet. And serve consumers well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You were in a video last night promoting Net Neutrality. In that video one of the extras or whatever was a video producer called martina. She has repeatedly advocated the pizza gate conspiracy theorists which im sure youre somewhat familiar with. Do you think its appropriate for you to advocate Net Neutrality with someone who promotes baseless lies which have resulted in one case in a man almost perpetuating a mass shooting in the pizza parlor in d. C. . Im not familiar with the facts you justo outlined. Youre not familiar with pizza gate . No. The person you identified. Reporter hi, mr. Chairman. Todd shields. The fcc identifies most homes as i recall in the last video competition report at least half maybe more homes have no choice for a competitive broad band wire. To what extent does that outline people can switch if they have a problem with their service . And that competition will be a sell for any problems we may see . Look, the solution to the lack of competition is more competition. Its not preemptive regulation that ultimately deters more investment in High Speed Networks. Again, if you look at some of the companies, the Smaller Companies most people have never heard of. The ones critical to providing a more competitive marketplace, those are the companies that have told us these heavy handed rules stand in the way of raising capital. Offering services to their customers. Look at the letter from the 19 municipal internet Service Providers. These are companies that are nonprofits owned by city governments. These rules prevent them from developing their networks further by offering their customers more services. I customers more services. I personally visited both the spencer municipal utilities, bhengs mentioned in my statement and in lorenz, iowa. Those companies themselves told me, again, cityowned, nonprofits, they would love to be able to build out network further and make robust Service Offerings but dont feel these title 2 regulations enable them to do that. My point is simply, if we return to the light touch framework, were going to see much more competition in the years to come. Time for a few more questions . Aubrey leyland with the hill. Could you walk us through how the Net Neutrality is going to make it easier for Broadband Companies . An abstract level, that argument makes sense, but we would have had better competition prior to 2015. But the broadband landscape was dominated by the same players back then. So, prior to 2015, what you were seeing is let me answer the question this way. So, Going Forward, the light touch approach we think is the one best calibrated to preserve the internet but give Smaller Companies incentive to invest in infrastructure. Why is that . Ill give an example, and you might if you havent seen, i would commend to your attention a statement put out last thursday when i spoke to small providers. One provider i believe was called showbergs in minnesota, expressly said he had a bank increase his Interest Rates, the Interest Rate at which you would be able to get capital specifically because the regulatory uncertainty created by these rules. Another said it required him to hire a lawyer and try to figure out how the regulations would apply to his business. A number of other companies with similar stories. These are the companies least able to withstand the Regulatory Compliance burdens we have placed on them. So if you want more competition, which i think all of us do, if you want the smaller providers to be an alternative, which i think all of us do, then its incumbent upon the agency to have a light touch framework. Some Smaller Companies, theyre deploying in rural areas and lowincome, urban areas. Parts of the country where the Business Case for deployment is already pretty difficult. Or heavily regulate something in that environment, the less likely youre going to get that something. And thats exactly the approach we take with respect to broadband deployment. Next question . Hi. Im with law 360. I was wondering if you might be able to tell us whether the case pending before the ninth circuit, at t no, sorry, ftc versus at t mobility, whether that might change things as far as an ftc enforcement standpoint. No, as i said in response to the question i think from david, that the Panel Decision in that case has been vacated so the status quo is the law of the land. And thats the Legal Foundation upon which we are operating at this point. Last question. Rick weber, inside cyber security. If you can go back to the ftc and memorandum of agreement, the draft that came out a few days ago, can you talk about implementation of that, now that the order has been approved . Whats the schedule of that mou, and how whats the process . Sure. So it was a draft memorandum of understanding, as you probably saw. And now that the order has passed, i would imagine that the fcc and ftc will execute that memoranda of understanding, and that our stats will be able to collaborate Going Forward to ensure that the Consumer Protection and competition functions in that order are discharged appropriately. Okay . Thank you, everyone. Thanks, everyone. Happy new year. Were going to transition to the bureau press conference right now. A