To welcome them again. Were grateful that cspan is here. Im sure it has quite a bit to do with our next guest here, chairman pai, but were glad all of you, all of you are here. So in keeping chairman pai knows that i do this because hes been here before. Hes got an illustrious biography, i could go on and on and on about it, but weve got it in the brochure, for those of you who are in the cspan audience, our brochure is on the website, on the home page of the website. Its got fcc chairman ajit pais bio in it. So i commend that to you, but you know, i would just say, to state what everyone here knows, that chairman pai served as a commissioner prior to assuming the chairmanship of the fcc. How soon after the inauguration, was that two days later . It was on a monday, january 23rd, so about three days after. About three days, he was appointed by President Trump to be chair of the fcc. You know, what i will say about chairman pai is this, without going over each of the particular offices which you can read about. And i pointed this out before, but i think its important. Hes actually served in all three branches of government, spent a lot of time in senior positions on the hill and of course in the agencies over at the justice department. And i think all of those experiences are, of course, important and provide insights that are useful. I think. A charitable explanation, i suppose. More charitable, i keep failing at every job and keep getting promoted and next thingio know, im in the corner office. I think my explanation was really the correct one, but i appreciate that. As i said, we have actually done this before. Chairman pai and myself. And really, the only difference today is i have a bigger chair here for you. Because of your new office. By the way, i was looking around earlier and i didnt see it. Did you bring your weed whacker with you . I did not. I had a feeling it wouldnt travel well. So i left it at home. Okay, well, i mentioned that because it was at the foundations tenth Anniversary Gala back in december when thencommissioner now chairman pai, you know, offered that, whats now famous illusion to the weed whacker, referring to the regulatory brush at the fcc. And i noticed just last week, i think, john egerten, the reporter at broadcasting and cable, he said in reference to your weed whacker speech or reference to the weed whacker, he said that that term, quote, has gained cultural currency within and beyond communications circles. Thats quite a bit. Do you have anything else about the weed whacker you want to say before we move on . I think its probably best we move on at this point. All right. Okay. We do like to create cultural currency, things here at the prestate foundation conference. I thank you for that. So, ive had, as you know, ajit, had a House Majority whip for this same lunch conversation. We had several fcc commissioners. Other notables do this conversation, but never the chairman of the fcc. So im really honored to have you here. Thank you for having me. I do want to say just for the record, really, that each year that tom weir was chair of the commission, i did invite him to come and do the same thing or really do whatever he wanted to, and he, with a lot of advance notice, and he always declined. But i made a point of letting him know that he would be welcome. And that i would, of course, be my usual polite self. But he didnt come. But im really pleased that youre here as well. Well see how this goes. I dont want to be too hasty here. Youre not making any promises about next time . Well, you never know. Might get demoted to cspan8, the ocho, as its often known. Well see. Right now, were on cspan2. The dos. For those of you who want to watch the reruns. Okay, so again, a lot of us are familiar with your bio. Im just going to ask four questions. And were going to do the lightning round, so to speak, up front, as opposed to sometimes towards the end where i may have another one, because these are pretty straightforward questions. Did you always know when you were growing up that you wanted to be chairman of the fcc . Absolutely. Without question. What Indian American growing up in the late 70s wouldnt say, oh, of course, the chairman of the federal Communications Committee in 2017. I never would have anticipated it. Even coming out of law school, i didnt know what i was going to do. I thought i would be a lawyer in kansas city, and sort of testament not to my own skill and expertise, but the power of the American Dream that someone like me or anyone can aspire to such heights. Its really humbling and blessing and gratifying at once. I should say, you mentioned the 1970s. And i think we do have with us today actually an fcc chairman from the 1970s, dick wily, who is with us. [ applause ] and im always pleased when he joins us. And you know, im sure that there are probably youngsters watching cspan right now who are thinking, when i grow up, i want to be like ajit pai. Hopefully theyre saying i want to be like dick wily. Much more successful track record, and i think widely respected by everybody in this room and around the country. Okay. Now, more seriously, which one im emphasizing one of your previous decisions do you think best prepared you for the job of chairman, other than serving as commissioner . Thats a good question. So i have had a number of jobs, as you referred to. All of them prepared me in some way or another. Working on the hill helped me understand the political calculus that members of the hill employ. Working as a member of the judicial law clerk helps me understand how courts interpret laws and apply them. But the job that applied me the most was being deputy general counsel. Number one, from the substantive perspective, to give me a birds eye view on everything the agency was doing and help me understand the nuts and bolts of the commissions work from interpreting the Communications Act to understanding how foia and environmental law and fiscal law applied to the agency. Also from a managerial perspective, that was the first time i had a chance to manage a lot of people, and it gave me an experience that i think was very helpful to me, especially in my current role, when youre the chief executive officers of the entire agency. So i feel very blessed to have worked with my coworkers at the time, and little did i know the experience i would be detting would be extremely important in this current role. Okay. Which one person has been most influential in shaping your thinking regarding the way you approach your job at the fcc . Besides you . No, you can include me. Pro tip for the people watching, pandering to the host, always a wise move. No, i think there have been any number of people i worked for over the years. People i have come to know. Obviously, my family has been very supportive. One of the great things about this job is that you get to establish connections with the people who came before you. And one of the connections i have been very grateful to make, in addition to dick wily, who has been a longtime friend, is bill canard, president clintons second fcc chair until 2001. He was the chair during time of great change in the industry. The teleCommunications Act was barely on the page when he ascended to the chairmanship. A time of political polarization. I really admired at the time and have come to appreciate it more now than i have gotten to know him, the way he led the agency. He and others like him serve as a model of leadership and i would be very fortunate after my time is done that people would mention me even in the same breath as them. I agree. I have a great fondness for bill and the job he did. The last in this series of one questions is what one personality trait of jours will be most successful to succeeding as chairman . Personality trait. From there, if i could divide it between the external and internal, what i would like to think i bring to the job is whats called in the federal paper a sense of energy in the executive. They called it, as you know, one of the key ingredients leading ingredients to good government. And thats something i think the Agency Benefits from, i like to think, having a chairman and commissioner to embrace the task is bigger. They put things on the agenda that are important and move them quickly. They try to bring a sense of dispatch and transparency. Thats something i enjoyed embracing and explaining to the outside world, that i really want to be an active chairman because i think the world isnt standing still and our roles cant stand still as well. Internally, one of the traits i would like to think i bring and you would have to ask my coworkers, just my genuine love for the agency. I love my coworkers. And its been such a privilege to get to work with them and know them. Even unsolicited sometimes, theyll send me emails. Last friday, with your indulgence, i got an unsolicited email saying not having met you as a commissioner, i didnt know what to expect from you as chairman. Quickly, you earned my confidence i look forwards to seeing how the agency develops. Im impressed with your knowledge and appreciation for all we do, even those in support roles like hr. Thank you for breathing hope into the agency and taking on the tough challenges youre facing. Im glad to be working for you as the head of our agency. Those are the kinds of things, it lifts my spirits honestly to know that i dont want to be one of these ceos who sits on the floor and doesnt know or care about what the many talented members of the fcc do. I really want them to enjoy what they do. I had a chance to meet with all of them at this point. Thats the message i tell them. I want you to have the same sense of enthusiasm when you get up in the morning and come to work that i do. Its gratifying to get feedback like that. Regardless of whether people agree or disagree with a particular policy position, at the end of the day, were striving for Public Interest and theyre all valued members of the team, if i could recognize anyone in the audience is currently or has been a member of the fcc, if you wouldnt mind raising your hand so i can salute you. Its really humbling to walk alongside them. In these labors. All right, appreciate that sentiment. And i know the audience does as well. I happen to serve the agency for three years myself, a long, long time ago. It was close in time to chairman wiley, and i often tell people, even my wife sometimes, that those years were some of the best professional years of my life. So i know everyone appreciates the way you express that sentiment. Thanks for that. Thank you, thanks to them. Lets talk about making the fcc great again, okay . Thats a joke. Okay. But lets start actually in this place. Theres a lot of, has been a lot of discussion, including quite a bit by you as well, and mike oreilly, i think, too, about the supposed loss of collegeality at the commission during tom wheelers years. So if you believe there was such breakdown in coliegeality, how did it manifest itself and what do you think the causes were . Because i assume that i know there were a lot of split votes, 32 votes, and i get that. But im sure that the fact that there were split votes in your mind in and of itself is not evidence of any lack of good faith by your fellow commissioners, so just talk some about what you perceived the problems, if there were any in collegeality back then, and then what you would like to do to restore a greater sense of collegiality during your administration. I appreciate the question. I will say that obviously, a lot has been written about this. A lot has been said about this. And i am honestly looking forward. I have a great deal of respect for my predecessor. I think we may have disagreed on a lot of policy issues, but thats just the nature of the process. Going forward, im focused on trying to create an environment in which any commissioner, any stake holder who wants to come to the agency feels he or she can have a fair hearing and thats by constitution who i am. I tend to be a pretty happy, optimist, engaging person. Even if my fellow commissioners and i are on the opposite side of an issue, i would hope they would say, yeah, at least he heard us out and explained why he was taking a different route. So thats the goal i have Going Forward. At the end of the day, we have an environment that is conducive to consensus more often than not. I asked this question almost every commissioner thats been in this chair, maybe yourself before, but its relevant to the collegiality issue, and i have been involved in efforts to try to change the sunshine act in some way to, you know, even aside from repealing it, there might be ways to modify that would be conducive to more collaboration. So you have been on the commission now for, you know, a long enough time that you ought to have an opinion on that. What say you about the sunshine act . I do think that some of the things you have talked about, that others have talked about, would be well considered. And i think often, the purpose of the sunshine act, which was very well intentioned, has actually worked to impede collaboration in a way that would benefit the american people. The example i always give is that when the commissioner is serving on the joint board, i still remember the telephone calls we would have with a variety of our state counterparts. It was remarkable that at the time, the commissioners and i, and no more than two of us could be on the call together. Two of us would be on the call, and our staffers would say its been 15 minutes. You have to jump off sore commissioner rosen can jump on. And since i wasnt on the call for that 15minute period, i would have to be briefed as to what happened in the call. Its sort of this random game of telephone that happens. Thats just a joint board. The more serious, not serious, but the more intense issues on a monthly basis were the agenda items, and there, too, three of us couldnt get together and just hash out a deal. It would be our staffs being delegating the authority to do that, then they would have to report back to us. And it was just very inefficient process. I think especially in the digital age, and especially now with some of the process reforms in terms of getting the items published three weeks in advance, i think a lot of the concerns that people have have been mitt gaded. I Hope Congress would take a more modern, forward looking view if it wants to reform the sunshine act. It sounds like if nothing else, the sunshine act runs up the telephone bill over there at the fcc, the way you describe it. So sticking with the process just a bit longer, and you anticipated just now, ajit, my next question. But before i ask it, i do want to say this, because i have been involved in other prestate scholars for a long time. Discussing process reform and offering some process reform as an in addition to the substantive matters were going to talk about, and i have to say in my book, youre to be commended for the way you tackle some of this right from the get go. You know, its more common, of course, to have another committee at the commission or someone study some of these things. So at least for my part, i appreciate the way that youve gotten off to a good start on process reform. And i guess the biggest, perhaps the one that is most important or at least most noted so far is the change in the way that draft items are handled in terms of releasing them to the public. And theyre now released at the time the items are circulated to the other commissioners, three weeks before the commission actually votes on the item. I should say the last week before the commission votes. Then thats whats called the sunshine period. And there are no outside contacts during that time. But the public has the draft order. And, you know, when i talked about this, you know, maybe its part of just being an old timer, but i always, you know, had some concerns about how it would affect the commissions work. And i think i even suggested doing it on an experimental basis, and you did in a relatively short experiment. Now that its been in effect, really i think what we all want to know is, how do you think thats working . What was considered this radical reform, really, because it was considered pretty radical before it was done. But specifically, when youre answering the question, talk about whether its putting an additional burden on the Communications Staff or the commissioners themselves. And in conjunction with that, has this new practice materially changed the nature or the quality of the presentations to the commission and the commissions Decision Making process as youve observed it so far . I think by and large its been a fantastic success. I never understood why the agency would only let the American Public see what it was doing after it had actually done it, and to me, it was the simple analogy to the hill, when a senator or representative introduces legislation, before the bill is voted on, before its referred to a committee sometimes, youll get to see the legislation on the internet, and everyone can understand what it is and debate it. It seemed to me that the fcc should take the same step with respect to the issues that the chairman puts on the agenda. For years, i talked about it. I was given reasons why it couldnt be done or shouldnt be done. In the second week, we did it. So the world has gone on. Things have actually worked out just fine. In fact, i hear from, one of the most heartening emails i get are some from just people who typically dont follow our proceedings or dont work in the field so much, but just citizens out there in runt wrae who say, thanks for publishing, i disagree with what you did, but at least i can see now what you were actually doing. So there, i think, openness and transparency has been significant. I dont think its too much for an agency that regulates one sixth of the National Economy to let the public know what its dieg in advance. As terms of the burden, its not been a burden at all. It focused the meetings they have in the weeks leading up to a meeting so instead of this hushed conversation where you have parties and the commissioner. We heard this might be in a paragraph, can you confirm this . It was restricted, you can describe what is nonpublic information. I cant confirm or deny it, but you might be on the right track. Its a strange game of wink wink nod nod. Here its all public. No innuendo, no spinning from the chairman, nothing other than the cold, hard text of the document along with a onesheet fact sheet that explains the item in plain english. For the staff, the burden has changed. I wouldnt say its increased but its changed. Previously, what would typically happen is the staff would work hard to get an item together. There would be circulated by the chairman three weeks in advance, then the staff would just wait for a week. And then two weeks. And sometimes even almost three weeks. For it to get direction fraumg the floor as to how the item is going to change. Sometimes it would change pretty significantly. I felt really sorry for the staff because i was a staffer my sflt when this happened. In the 11th hour, at 10 00 p. M. The night before a meeting, oh, by the way, a majority of the commissioners are now going to decide to go in the exact opposite direction, you have to rewrite the stuff, and its a really significant burden. And that is, i think, one of the fccs Decision Making can run into trouble. Legally speaking, you would often see some problematic issues crop up at the 11th hour because youre putting stuff in there without thinking through all of the implications. From a policy perspective, too, its really hard on the staff to think through, if we do this here, what does it mean for future issues like this . I would like to think the staffs work is now front loaded so in the weeks leading up to the white copy date, three weeks before the fcc meeting, they work exceptionally hard, all of our bureaus and offices work exceptionally hard to get the item in shape. My philosophy is if im asking my fellow commissioners to vote on something, on you know, in may or june or whatever, the item that we post three weeks in advance of that meeting date should be publicly ready for primetime, so to speak. And they do a terrific job of doing it. I know its harder on the front end, but on the back end, they dont have the late night marathons where theyre not sure where the direction is going to be, how late theyre going to stay. So i think the end result is overall good for everybody. Certainly for the outside word, theres no more guess work. You can agree or disagree with what im proposing but at least you know what is in paragraph 78. You have to write orders in the future that dont get up to footnote 332. Okay. Yeah. So, you know, i want to isahere, i was thinking as you were talking, i know commissioner oreilly has championed that change that you were just talking about and other process reforms. So i want to give a shout out to him. I know that you share that sentiment, im sure. Absolutely. So lets shift from these process matters to substantive matters. As im doing that, i just want to call your attention. Weve got a few copies left in our inventory that are out at the desk. You may have heard me say that before, but i really mean it this time. There are a few copies left of our inventory. Two books. One is new directions in Communications Policy. This was written, published in 2009. Then in 2012, Communications Law and policy in the digital age. So this is five years old now. And theyre actually on sale for 10. But thats not the reason that i bring them up. Although you may want to get you may want to grab a copy. But a lot of the ideas that are in these two books, both published by Carolina Academic press, that concern matters that were going to be talking about like Net Neutrality and broadband deployment and these substantive issues. Theyre actually, you know, discussed by Free State Foundation scholars, you know, in these books. And i guess ill just say this, because of the administration that has been in place after these books were published, theyre still timely, you know, not a lot of the things that we have recommended necessarily have been adopted, but you know, im hopeful that you can help make these books less timely. So we can move on to some others. So with that said, lets talk about some substantive matters. Before discussing specific issues, i want to just have you talk about your regulatory philosophy as a backdrop to that. And i thought your remarks at the mobile world conference back in february were worthwhile reading for anyone that wants to understand, really, how you think about regulatory policy. So you said then, quote, in the United States, were in the process of returning to light touch, to the light touch approach to regulation that produced tremendous investment and innovation throughout our entire internet ecosystem from the core of our networks to the edge. Now, the theme of our Conference Today is new directions in Communications Policy. Less regulation, more investment and more innovation. So i want you to just explain fairly briefly why in your view its almost always the case that light touch regulation rather than heavier touch regulation leads to more investment and more innovation. As a general proposition. Sure, so i think in this regard, past is often prologue. So i think back to chairman canard, who we talked about earlier. When he came onboard, Communications Policy was at somewhat of a crossroads, there was debate over how these highspeed networks should be regulated, and as we make the transition from narrow band to broadband, import some of the more heavy handed economic regulations that were inspired in decades past or take a more forward thinking market based approach. And chairman canards philosophy, which i share, was i think the right one, which is that to make sure that we have these highspeed networks all across the country, to make sure we have Infrastructure Investment that pours into every corner of this country. We need to make sure that the companies have the incentive and ability to invest. And the number one, they need regulatory certainty. They need to know that the rules arent going to shift depending on the year or who had what for breakfast, number two, they need those regulations to be market based. Instead of very priptive, you shall build here, run your business a certain way regulation, its more light touch, so you let the market develop organically. If theres a case of anticompetitive conduct or lack of consumer protection, then you can take targeted action against that company or bad actor. And that, i think, is generallying the philosophy i embrace, and it results from chairman canards approach. 1. 5 trillion in Infrastructure Investment and highspeed network. Companies who became globally known powerhouses despite the fact they were started by a few people with nothing but an idea. Thats an incredible amount of innovation in a relatively short amount of time when you consider the wide span of human history. I have to think that the free market approach he embraced is one that would serve us well in the future as we empark on 5g and satellites and wireless isp is doing even more and Better Things with networks. And now in that same speech in february at the mobile world conference, you said this, quote sounding a lock like a meet the press tim russert. You said this. Can you really stand by this . The good charles barkley, i was misquoted in my own speech. The good part is i read your speeches. Youre the one. Now in return for that, all i would ask is you read what i write. We could go get the books off the table. No, i mean, this was interesting to me. You said, quote, complex rules designed to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push the market toward a monopoly. I think i understand what you meant by that, but i think to some, that might seem like a puzzling conundrum. Complex rules designed to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push the market toward a monopoly. What did you mean by that . So, for more detail on what i meant, you could go back to the speech i gave in 2013 about the kin kingsbury commitment, for those of you looking for good evening reading to put you to sleep. This is something i think is often lost on many people because they think, well, the heavier the regulation is, the better is, right, for all the competitors. In reality, heavyhanded economic regulation or complex regulation actually serves to benefit the Larger Companies that work in that space. And the reason is that Smaller Companies simply dont have the Compliance Resources to fill out the paperwork. They dont have the capital they can raise to further build out their networks. Its simply more of a burden on them, so inevitably over time, they end up getting squeezed out of the marketplace. This doesnt just apply to communications. Its every single space you can think of. So thats why i think its important to have light touch marketbased regulation. Expost review of conduct, if you will, to insure that the Smaller Companies, we want them to have competitive entry. We want them to gain a foothold in the marketplace. Then if there is bad action in the marketplace, we want to take targeted enforcement against those companies. But to preemptively regulate everything with a very heavy sledge hammer approach is one that i think ultimately is not going to benefit consumers. At best, youre going to get what you got in the 19 tlirts, which is a regulated monopoly, and thats not something that i think serves consumers, certainly not in the digital era. Okay, now my colleague seth cooper, senior fellow, whos sitting right here in the audience, he and i have suggested that the commission rely on a rebuttable evidentiary presumption when the agency is considering forbearance predictions or the section 11 periodic regulatory review proceedings. And essentially, these would be rebuttable presumptions so theyre not outcome determinative, and you would still have the same statutory criteria in place, protecting consumers and competition and so forth. But the notion behind that idea is that the marketplace has changed so much generally, again, that would be a rebuttable presumption, but the marketplace has changed so much in the direction of competition that it would be useful for the commission, you know, at least in those two contexts, in case your weed whacker is not otherwise working at that time, to have in place these, you know, deregulatory presumptions. I really just have one question about that. Thats a really brilliant idea, isnt it . Well, so what i will say is that if you think of the marketplace on a continuum where one part of it is, you know, inexorable monopoly and the other side is a highly competitive marketplace, it seems there is a case to be made for the Regulatory Burden lessening as you get closer to a more competitive marketplace because noncompetition is the best tonic to a lot of problems you might otherwise see amongst firms behaving anticompetitively. I think there is something to that suggestion. I would be open to it either in the context or by annual review or any other procedural mechanism. Okay. So lets turn now to the elephant in the room, or the big kahuna. County reform . No. A. M. Radio . Thats what i was thinking about. No, im going to share a secret with you. This may have been three or four years ago, but of course, Net Neutrality was still the topic before then. And maybe there were other things at this conference, but i think i wanted to make sure that the chairman at least talked about Net Neutrality some. And you know, you know our chairman. He sent me an email that said he planned to talk about a. M. Radio the next day. And that had me worried until he actually showed up that day. But were going to talk about Net Neutrality or the open internet proceeding, or what restoring internet freedom, you can call it whatever you want to, but well talk about that. But i want to make clear so everyone understands here, and i know this to be true as a former commissioner lawyer, that obviously, chairman pai hasnt made up his mind about the outcome of the proceeding, couldnt make up your mind and wouldnt until, you know, its time to do that and that you havent foreclosed things. But within that context, i think we still talk about it. But actually, the first question is pretty simple. You, at that tenth anniversary celebration in december, you know, when you did talk about Net Neutrality, you said, quote, you said im quoting you very precisely, 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. How many days does it have left . You dont have to answer that question. Look, were going to go with the facts and the law take us. We havent made any decisions. I understand. Now, so look. Sometimes this may be puzzling to some people but i think i understand it. Both tom wheeler and yourself both say that you are in favor of, quote, free and open internet. Right . Right. And you know, you both proclaim thats the case, and im sure both of you do that in good faith. But nevertheless, you have, i think, very different views about how to get there or what we might call the right way to get there. So what i want to do, and i dont want to take a lot of time reciting whats in the notice proposal you have issued because its out there, and i think a lot of people, most people in the room here, sort of know the principle elements of the notice, but i just want to ask you a few questions. And again, ill say i understand that youre not at liberty and that you dont know, you know, exactly where youre going to come out. So ill take that as a given. So youve expressed the view that the title ii classification and the good conduct rule are very problematic. I mean, you have said that over and over again. And so just explain really to our audience here why you you know, what you think is the problematic nature of those two elements that are in the notice of proposal. Sure, i would be happy to. So with respect to the title ii classification, the evidence suggests to me thus far that number one, it was unnecessary in 2015. We had a free and open internet from the dawn of the Internet Agency until 2015. Number two, that these regulations are harming investment in infrastructure and there has been evidence to suggest among the biggest 12 Internet Service providers, the investment is down. And among the many of the canaries in the coal mine, so to speak, the smaller providers, including 19 municipal government owned isps, many have written to us saying a title ii has hung like a black cloud over their businesses and prevented them from getting financing. To me, at least, thats a serious concern, especially for people in rural areas or urban areas that dont have Internet Access or the kind of Internet Access and competitive marketplace they want. With respect to the general conduct standard, i think having a Free Authority for the agency has been somewhat problematic for those who want to provide consumer value. The example i have used is the free Data Investigations in which Wireless Companies in a very competitive marketplace were looking to differentiate themselves by giving their customers more and Better Services for free. That seems to me is the last thing we want to prohibit or at least put under the microscope, so Going Forward, again, the chairman canard approach of light touch regulation is the right one. He faced similar questions in the late 90s and gave a very prescient speech in which he said if you want to have massive investment in networks, if you want a vibrant internet economy, you dont want to import more heavyhanded rules and just lay them on this new technology. You want to take a more calibrated more calibrated the consumer interest and Infrastructure Investment. You know, i remarked during our Panel Discussion when we were talking about the Net Neutrality rule that had really surprised me a little bit in the majoritys order in the previous iteration that the commission referred to the good conduct rule as a socalled catchall provision. That seemed like a little bit of an admission against interest to put it that way. In that discussion earlier, chairman pai, there was quite a bit of agreement when i tried to probe about the bottom line position of the companies in terms of what would be, you know, acceptable to leave in place. They didnt want title ii to remain in place or the good conduct rule, but you know, no blocking and no throttling, you know, seemed to be elements that were fine. But heres my question, you know, the paid prioritization issue is there. And thats teed up in the notice of proposed rules, the Free State Foundation, we have tried to explain some of the reasons why that might be problematic in terms of investment our new senior fellow wrote a paper several weeks ago that discussed that extensively, how that type of regime of paying for priorities is fairly common in other parts of the marketplace, and that there can be investment suppressing effects from the prioritization ban. I want to ask you this. How do you think about just when you think about it, because i know you have had a lot of time to do that, how do you think about the paid prioritization ban and the considerations that, you know, that youre looking to examine as you move forward in the proceeding . I confess i havent read teds paper. Apologies for that. But if he submits it to the record, its something the fcc will look at. And i encourage anyone who is interested, of course, to participate. And to submit evidence on that point. You know, look, thats part of the reason were having these notice proposed rule making because its the beginning of the conversation, not the conclusion. We want to learn about the variety of economic and other policy arguments about prioritization, about anything having to do with these internet regulations. And there, too, we dont have any decision preordained. Thats exactly why we want to hear from people who can illuminate the various dimensions of that issue for for us. Okay, and then the last question on the current proceeding, as a specific one, is this. Heres where you can help me out. Especially because you are a deputy Junior Council even prior to your commissionship and chairmanship and i know youre a great legal mind. I dont know about that. I did graduate. Just suppose hypothetically that the Commission Decides to classify broadband Internet Access as an Information Service and it decides that section 706 is not an affirmative grant of authority for the agency to adopt rules like the current ones. I mean, those are both positions in the past that the commission has had, Broadband Internet was not common carriage. It was a Information Service, and the commission at a previous stage had determined thats section 706 was not an affirmative grant of authority, and the nprm asked about those things. Just suppose the commission were to reach conclusions that those things were true. Under what authority could the commission continue to regulate isp practices . And does title i, i guess another way of asking that same question is, does title i constitution such an affirmative grant of Regulatory Authority . And here, i might be harkening back to that comcast case, which originally dealt with this issue. So you know, one final way of putting this is if the commission were to conclude both of the two predicates, would that necessarily mean that the commission would be ousted from all authority to oversee broadband Internet Access services . Well, here, too, i hate to dodge, but there were two hypotheticals in the question. I cant predict where the agency might go. Thats, again, part of the reason why we didnt do what some suggested, simply issue a declaratory ruling saying the law and facts shall be so. We wanted to have an open conversation where we could try to engage the public to discuss, what should be the Legal Framework for thinking about these issues. What should the various policy parameters be . So were going to see, again, in this case, where the legal analysis takes us. Okay. Well, you cant say that i didnt try. Okay. Now, let me just ask you this, though. I guess the final thing about Net Neutrality. Obviously, you probably would have been just as happy if congress had gone first on this issue, right . Congress is always free to legislate, and i know theres great interest in this issue. So whatever if they make a decision, well be duty bound to implement it. Thats certainly what i would do faithfully. Let me ask you this because lets assume that congress does get to a point where it wants to establish a policy on Net Neutrality and adopt legislation. Lets just assume thats true. I mean, its always been my view that obviously i appreciate that you dont tell, ultimately Tell Congress what to do. I get that. But on the other hand, youre chairman of the fcc, and you know, you have a lot of expertise in the area. And i think they would look to you for some guidance, i would hope. So if you were advising congress concerning new legislation, just tell us what you can about what you would Tell Congress about what this legislation would look like that would finally resolve this issue. Okay, well, i mean, i might know a little bit about many things, but in this regard, theres so many issues that congress has to think about that i couldnt pretend to give them instructions or specific guidance. What i would say is that, look, i think congress over time since the inception of the Communications Act in 1934 has periodically updated to act to provide rules of the road, to provide more certainty to the public about this or that sector of the telecommunications industry. If they see fit to update those rules and give us the rules of the digital road Going Forward, so to speak, i think we would all welcome that. And so especially when it comes to some of the core protections of the open internet that people share some of which you mentioned, i think theres actually a lot of agreement once you put aside the rhetoric and the partisan affiliation. So im hopeful that people of good will can sit down at some point and reach a consensus that will serve us all well, i think, Going Forward. I want to turn to privacy. You know, there was what we call a brouhaha here in washington about privacy after you took some actions to either stay or stop enforcement of the privacy order and ultimately, Congress PassedCongressional Review Act resolution that rescinded the rule. And its been controversial and remains so. Actually, this morning at our session, howard shalanski, president obamas administrator, actually volunteered that he disagreed with the privacy regulation adopted by the wheeler commission. And that he ultimately thinks that all privacy regulation for the internet player should reside at the ftc, which i think is consistent with your position. Perhaps. Heres what i want to ask you, if you can answer it. I know that one objection to those rules was the fact that the Internet Service providers were treated in a disparate fashion. Arguably in a harsher fashion under the fcc regime than over at the ftc. And that was a focus of a lot of the concern. You know, the chairwoman blackburn has introduced a piece of legislation to regulate in the privacy area called the browser act. And one of the things it would do would be to require optin for the collection and use of certain information that at least over at the ftc has been considered nonsensitive like browsing history and apps usage. And the ftc has looked at those tradeoffs and concluded that unlike other data that really is considered sensitive Financial Health information, whatever it should be subject to opt out rather than opt in. What do you think . Because i think either you or commissioner oreilly, i forget exactly who, but i know in addition to the level Playing Field argument, i think there was also concerns expressed about the optin requirement and the impact that that would have on the businesses of the Internet Service providers and that type of regime. Do you have any thoughts on that . My position on this issue has been pretty simple, that consumers who go online have a uniform expectation of privacy, and to them, it shouldnt matter and doesnt matter whether their Sensitive Information is handled by one type of company or another. They want that information to be protected in a kinlt way. And from the regulatory perspective, the lesson i draw from that is the regulatory framework, too, should be consistent. And so thats why i have often said that whatever the rules are going to be, they have to be part of a level Playing Field so that consumers at the end of the day when they go online will know that certain kinds of information, Sensitive Information, will be protected. So i know members of congress, as you mentioned, have taken an interest in this issue as well. Thats obviously for them to decide, but i think that the core principle is one that i think everybody embraces. And it actually helps us think about policy in a much clearer way instead of battling over sections of the act or different agencies doing Different Things and what not, the core uniform expectation of privacy is something thats often lost in this debate. Okay. So were getting close now to moving into that lightning round, you know, like tim russert and meet the press, because i know i couldnt, wouldnt want to keep you much longer. But there are just a couple more areas i want to ask you about. So one, spectrum policy and promoting 5g deployment, that was discussed at the panel this morning. And Meredith Baker talked about some of the, you know, impediments to deployment that, you know, arise, and you have proceedings out now which you adopted and which you called infrastructure month, during april, wireness infrastructure proceeding, and one wire line infrastructure proceeding, and i thought that focus together at one meeting in that one month was useful. In helping to raise the consciousness of the way that these issues that youre going to have to decide really relate to infrastructure. We hear so much about infrastructure these we hear so infrastructure these days. And i think what you were doing was helping the public understand a lot of what goes on at the fcc properly might be called infrastructure development. So that said, so youve got on the one hand local restrictions, fees, processes, whatever that the localities adopt for reasons that in their view are legitimate, perfectly legitimate. And theyre close to the people, so to speak. But on the other hand, you know, youve got imperatives for getting these new, Innovative Technologies out in the marketplace. And you know that. You discussed that. Just tell the audience, really, as you approach these issues how do you just think about, really, in your own mind about how youre going to balance the interest of the localities but the interest of the fcc and the federal government in not having innovation and investment stymied, because its not an easy question i assume . Its not. I think the bottom line here is that were all in this together, that our consumers are increasingly demanding a bet, faster mobile connectivity. And to me that means that every official at every level of government should work proactively to make sure we have a framework that incentives the 5g framework. For example, for the deployment of tens of thousands of small cells, you shouldnt have to jump through the same hoops of Environmental Review or Historic Preservation as you would for a mack crocell site tower. And you want to make sure that local municipalities can review, too. At the end of the day, i think were all striving towards the same goal. Former commissioner baker has talked far more eloquently of this than i ever could. But from our perspective at least, this is a cooperative effort. So were going to be moving quickly as we can within constraints of the law, of course, and hopefully everybody will be on the same page since we all stand to gain from it. Okay, im going to ask you one more question because one of your staff, i think, came over and tapped me on the shoulder. So this will be the last question. And you can answer briefly if youd like. Im going to do what i admonished the audience not to do and just ask you a two part question. So here it is, number one, you have talked about making economics or raising the level of economic inquiry considerations input at the commission to a higher level. Thats obviously been talked about a lot of one of our members on our Academic Board of advisers, tim brennen, i dont want to misquote him, but he referred to the fcc consideration of the previous neutrality order as an economics free zone. So the first question is tell us what youve done in that regard, what plans you have. And then my second question, final question is ive always been interested for a long time in, you know, the fccs merger review processes and possibilities of reform because i think theres dupeication that goes on with doj, and the fcc wanders off from what ought to be its central focus there. So just tell me what you have in mind in that area as well, please. Sure. Appreciate the question. With respect to the economics question, i aproposed in early april that we start the process setting up whats called economics and data. It struck me for the legal office of fcc, we have the office for general counsel, the office of engineering technology, but one of the most critical, quite often economists are sprinkled. Some bureaus are busy, others arent. Quite often economistess dont have a seat at the table when these decisions are being made. So i wanted to change that. It seemed to me the creation of this eed, would number one, centralize the function so you have all these great economists and analysts working in one space. So if we said, look, if were working on infrastructure or whatever it is, lets bring in eed so they can eevaluate or say, look, this might look good on paper, but its crazy on these reasons. By the way, its kploety economically infeasible, which a train wreck of a situation. Number one, for instance, it would encourage more collaboration among economists. And one of the things i found is when folks are in closer quarters, theyre able to bounce things off each other and think about the things in a more innovative way. And we want them to encourage thing about big picture issues. There have been economic working papers, for instance, economic incentive caption, these have all stemmed from economic working papers. I want to encourage more of that academic environment, if you will, from some of the economist, some of the most brilliant in the country. Itll help us attract even better economists to the country. We compete with the fcc, the ftc and many others. And from what ive heard, anyway, it would make it easier for us to attract the best and brightest. We have the central economics and data where you can work on some of the most cutting edge issues in the industry. So im hoping Going Forward thats something that bears fruit. We have an Economist Group setup. That would have to be thats what passes for a joke. With respect to trance actional review, ive been really consistent with this. I think it was 2011 before the senate committee, i still view each trance action on theimators and you evaluate the facts as best you can and make the decision. Thats obviously an issue for congress to decide, and thats in an area thats been under much discussion including when i was in the doj division in the late 90s. So well see what congress decides to do on that topic. Im familiar with hamiltons paper about energy and the executive if only hed known about coffee, oh, my god. Were more energetic. So i appreciate, mr. Chairman, the inargy that you are bringing to the task. I very much appreciate what you said about the staff, people that work at the fcc. And i have a lot of im not going to use that phrase make the fcc great again. I didnt say that, but i have a lot of confidence that under your leadership, really, that the fcc will do a lot of good things for the American Public. Im sure we might not always agree, but i really have confidence that at the end of the day, whenever that is, that the American Public will be wellserved for what youre trying to do. So i thank you for that. And i especially thank you for being here with us today. And ask the audience to join me in thanking the chairman. [ applause ] i appreciate it. My pleasure, anytime. Cspans washington journal live every day. Coming up saturday morning, Roosevelt Institute michael konzal discusses to overhaul. Also Darrell Burnett of Education Week talks about how the every Student Succeeds act is impacting the ability of the United States to identify ineffective teachers. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern saturday morning. Join the discussion. [inaudible conversations] good morning we will call the hearing to order were waiting for senator hatch to good morning, well call this meeting to order. I just want to welcome the nominees. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve this country, and this is absolutely true. Ive been very impressed with the quality of individuals that work for the federal government. This nomination process is not easy as youre well aware of. But the fact weve