Earlier i welcomed our cspan audience and i want 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 are here. So, in keeping and 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. I commend that to you but i would just 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. 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. I think all of those experiences are of course important and provide insights that are useful, i think. Thats a charitable explanati explanation. Evidence of the peter principle, keep failing the every job and keep getting promoted and the next thing you know im in the corner office. I think my explanation was really the correct one. I appreciate that. As i said, we have actually do 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 wacker 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 state foundations tenth Anniversary Gala back in december when then commissioner now chairman pai offered whats now a famous illusion to the weed wacker i think referring not to his front yard but to the regulatory underbrush at the fcc. And i noticed just last week i think john eggerton, the reporter at broadcasting and cable, he said in reference to your weed wacker speech or reference to the weed wacker, he said that that term, quote, has gained cultural currency within and beyond communication circles. Thats quite a bit. Anything else about the weed wacker you want to say before we move on . I think its probably best that we move on at this point. All right. Okay. We do like to create cultural currency things here at the state foundation conference, so i thank you for that. I had, as you know, ajit, a House Minority whip for this conversation. Weve 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 wheeler 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 advanced 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 the next time. Well, you never know. Until i get demoted to cspan 8. Right now were on cspan 2 for those of you that want to watch the reruns. Okay, so again a lot of us are familiar with your bio as i said. So im just going to ask four questions, and were going to do the lightning round so to speak, up front as opposed to towards the end when ill have another one, because these are pretty straight forward questions. Did you always know when you were growing up that you wanted to be chairman of the fcc . Absolutely. Without question. What indianamerican growing up in the late 70s wouldnt say, of course, the chairman of the federal Communications Commission in 2017, ive got my eye on it. No, i never would have anticipated it. Even coming out of law school i didnt know what i was going to do. I thought id be a lawyer in kansas city. Sort of testament not to my own skill and expertise but just to the power of the American Dream that someone like me or any of us really can aspire to such heights. Its really humbling 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 wiley whos with us and [ applause ] i will always pleased when he joins us. You know, im sure that there are probably youngsters watching cspan right now who are thinking when i grow up that i want to be like ajit pai. Hopefully theyre saying i want to be like dick wiley. Hes got a much more successful track record and i think widely respected by everybody in this room and around the country. Now more seriously, which one, im emphasizing one of your previous positions do you think best prepared you for the job of chairman other than serving as commissioner . Thats a good question. So ive had a number of jobs,. S all of them prepared me in working on the hill help me understand, working as a judicial law clerk helped me to understand how federal courts interpret statutes and apply them. But i would say the job that actually prepared me the most was being deputy general counsel at the fccs office of general counsel. The reason is twofold. Number one, from a substantive perspective, they gave me a birds eye view on everything the agency was doing to help me understand how the nuts and bolts work, from interpreting section 332 of the Communications Act to understanding how fiscal law applied to the agency. Also from a manage ear yal perspective, it was the first time i had a chance to manage a lot of people and it gave me the experience, especially in my current role when youre the chief executive officer of the entire agency. I feel blessed to have worked at ogt at the time and little did i know that the experience i would be getting would be extremely important in this current role. Which one person has been most influential in shaping your thinki thinking regarding the way you approach your job at the fcc . Besides you . No, you can include me. No, besides me. Pandering to the host, hip for people watching cspan, pandering to the host, always a wise move. I think there have been any number of people ive worked for over the years, people ive 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 ive been very grateful to make, in addition to dick wiley whos been a long time friend, bill canard. He was the chair during a time of great change in the industry. The telecommunication 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 even more that ive gotten to know him the way that he led the agency. I think that he and others like him serve as a model of leadership and i would be very fortunate if after my time is done that people mention me even in the same breath as bill canard. I agree. I have a great fondness for bill and the job he did. So the last in this series of one questions is, what one personality trait of yours will be most important to succeeding as chairman . One personality trait. So there i would say i guess between the external and internal. Externally what i like to think i bring to the job is whats called a sense of energy in the executive. The Founding Fathers called it of course as you know one of the key ingredients, leading ingredients to Good Government and thats something the Agency Benefits from i would like to think, having a chairman and commissioners who embrace the task with vigor, put things on the agenda that are important, move them quickly, try to create a sense of dispatch and transparency. Thats something that ive really enjoyed embracing and explaining to the outside world is that i really want to be an active chairman because i think the world isnt standing still and our rules 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 is just my general love for the agency. I love my coworkers. Its been such a privilege to get to work with them and know them, even unsolicited sometimes smet send me emails. Last friday, with your indulgence, i got an email from a woman who said, not having met you as a commissioner, i didnt know what to expect from you as chairman but youve quickly earned my confidence and i look forward to seeing how the agency develops. Im impressed with your actual knowledge and precious for what we all do. Thank you for breathing some hope into the agency and thank you for taking on the tough challenges youre facing. I admire your nononsense approach and im glad to be working for you as the head of our agency. Those are the kinds of things that lift my spirits, honestly. I dont want to be one of these ceos that just sits on the floor and doesnt know doesnt care about what the many talented members of the fcc do. I want them to enjoy what they do and ive had a chance to meet with virtually all of them. The message i tell them is, look, i want you to have the same sense of enthusiasm when you get up and come to work that i do. Its gratifying honestly to get feedback like that regardless of whether people might agree or disagree with a particular policy position. At the end of the day were all striving for the Public Interest and theyre all valued members of the team. With your indulgence if i could recognize anyone in the audience who is currently or has ever been a member of the fcc, if you wouldnt mind raising your hand just so i can salute you. [ applause ] these guys are the best. People like me get all the credit or occasionally the blame but honestly they are the most talented workforce that any federal agency has. Its just really humbling to walk alongside them in these labors. Appreciate that sentiment, and i know the audience does as well. I happen to serve at the agency for three years myself a long, long time ago. It was close in time to chairman wiley. I often tell people, even my wife sometimes, that those years were some of the best professional years of my life. I know everyone appreciates the way that you express that sentiment, so thanks for that. Thank you. So lets talk about making the fcc great again. Thats a joke. But lets start actually in this place. Theres been a lot of discussion, including quite a bit by you as well and mike oreilly i think too about the supposed loss of collegiality at the commission during tom wheelers years. So if you believe there was such a breakdown in collegiality, 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 collegiality, 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 differed on a lot of policy issues but thats just the nature of the process. Im focused on trying to create an environment in which every commissioner, any stakeholder who wants to come to the agency feels he or she can have a fair hearing and we can exchange views in a collegial manner and thats by constitution who i am. I tend to be a pretty happy, optimistic engaging person. Even if my fellow commissioners and i are on the opposite side of an issue, i would hope they would say, at least he heard us out and explained why he was taking a different route. Thats the goal ive got Going Forward is that no matter what the partisan or policy differences might be, at the end of the day we have an environment thats conducive to consensus more often than not. Okay. Ive asked this question almost every commissioner thats been in this chair, maybe yourself before, but its relevant to the collegiality issue. Ive been involved in efforts to try and 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 on collegiality. So youve been on the commission for a long enough time that you ought to have an opinion on that. What say you about the sunshine act . I think that some of the things that you have talked about and 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 one of the commissioners serving on the joint board, i still remember the telephone calls we would have with a variety of state counterparts. It was incredible at the time it was commissioner clyburn and i, and no more than two of us could be on the call together. Two of us would be on the call and one of our staffers would say its been 15 minutes. Commissioner pai youve got to jump off. Since i wasnt on the call for that 15minute period i would then have to get briefed as to what happened during 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, the three of us couldnt get together and hash out a deal. It would be our staffs being delegated the authority to do that. Then they would have to report back to us and it was a very inefficient process. 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 mitigated, so i would hope that congress would take a more modern forward looking view if it decides 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 described it. So sticking with the process just a bit longer, and you anticipated just now my next question, but before i ask it, i do want to say this. Ive been involved in other Free State Foundation scholars for a long time discussing process reform and offering some process reforms in addition to the substantive matters that were going to talk about, and i have to say that in my that, in my book, you are to be commended for the way that youve tackled some of this right from the getgo. You know, its more common of course to have another committee at the commission or someone study some of these things yeah. And owe at least for my part, i appreciate the way that you have gotten off to a good start on process reform. I guess the biggest perhaps 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 they are 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 call the sunshine period. And there are no outside contacts during that time. But the public has the draft ord order. And you know, when i talked about this, i you know, maybe its part of just being an old timer, but i always, you know, always had some concerns about the effect the commissioners work, even doing it on an experimental waysis. You did it on a relative 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 this radical reform, areally, because it was considered pretty radical with it w before it was done. But specifically when you are answering the question, talk whether its putting an additional wu additional burden on the Communications Staff or collisioners themselves. In commissioners themselves. In conjunction with that, has this new practice materially changed the nature or the quality of the presentations to the commission and the commissions decisionmaking process as you have 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. To me it was a simple analogy to the hill when a senator or representative introduces legislation, before that bill voted on, before its referred to a committee sometimes you will get to see that ledges on the internet and everyone can understand what it is and debate it. It seems to me the fcc should take the stai same step with respect to the items the chairman puts on agenda. For years i talk it. I was given a variety of reasons why it shouldnt be done. In the sec week we did it. And world has gone out and things worked out just fine. The most hartening emails i get are from people who tip owe dont follow our proceedings or dont work in this field so much, but citizens out there in the country who say thanks for publishing it. I might agree disagree with what you did but at least i can see now what you were actually doing. There, the openness and transparency has been. I dont think its a big deal to let the public know what the commission is doing in advance. As for a burden, i think it has focused the ex parte meetings they have had in the weeks leading up to a meeting. Instead of the hushed conversation that parties to the commission we have heard this might be a paragraph, can you confirm or deny it. The commissioner would describe what was nonpublic information. Well, i cant confirm or deny it but you might be on the right track. It was a strange game of wink, wink, nod, nod, here its out there, no innuendo, nothing but the cold hard text of the document that explains it in cold hard english. For the staff the urden changed. I wouldnt say its increased. With you its changed. Previously the staff would work hard to get an item together they would be circulated by careman three weeks in advance and then the staff would wait for a week and then two weeks, and sometimes even almost three weeks to get direction from the floor as to how the item going change. Sometimes it would change significantly. I felt sorry for the staff because i was a staffer myself when it happened. 11th hour, 10 00 p. M. The night before a meeting you have got rewrite all this stuff or put this a new section. It is a significant urden. That is i think when the fccs Decision Making can run into trouble. Legally seg you would often see some problematic issues crop up at the 11th hour, because you are out approximating stuff in there without thinking through all the implications. From a policy perspective, too its hard on the staff to think through if we do this here what does it mean for future issues like this. I like to think the work is now front loaded so that in the weeks three weeks before the fccs meeting they work exceptionally hard. All of our bureaus work exceptionally hard to get the item in shape. My philosophy is if im asking my fellow commissioners to vote on something 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 front enbut on the back enthey dont have the late nightmare thons where they are not sure what direction is is going to be, not sure how late they have to stay and the like. The end result is great for everybody. And for the outside world there is no more guesswork. You can agree or disagree with what im doing but you know what is is in paragraph 78 or footnote 332. As you were talking i was thinking that i know commissioner oreilly has catch oned the change you were just talking about and other process rerms to. I want to give a shout out to him had. And i know that you share that sentiment with him as well. Absolutely. Lets shift from 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 in own inventory. We have got two books, one is new directions and communications policy. This was published in 2009. In 2012, Communications Law and policy in the digital age. This is five years old now. And they are actually on sale for 10. But thats not the reason that i bring them up, although you may want to grab a copy. But a lot of the ideas that are in these two books, both published by carolina act emic press that concern matters that we are going to be talking about like Net Neutrality and broadband deployment and the substantive issues, they are 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, they are 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. And so we can move on to some others. So that said, lets talk about approximate some substantive matters. But 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 tats 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 united states, we are 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. 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. I think in this regard past is often poe log. I think back to german kunard when he came on Board Communications policy was at somewhat of a crossroads. There was a debate over how these highspeed networks should be regulated and should we as we make the transition from narrow band to broad ban import some of the more heavy handed economic regulations from the past or take a more forward thinking approach. Chairman kunards philosophy, which i share is i think the right one. Make sure we have networks all across the country, Infrastructure Investment that pours into every corner of the country. We need to make sure the companies have incentive and ability to invest. Number one they need regulatory certainty, that the rules wont shift extending on the year or what had what for breakfast. Number two, they also need those regulations to be market based so that very prohibitive, you shall build here, shall run your business a certain kind of way regulation its more light touch, expost. You let the market develop economically, and then if there is a reason, you take action against that company or bad actor. That i think is general speaking the philosophy i embrace. We saw the results from chairman kunards aroach, 1. 5 trillion in Infrastructure Investment, companies that became globally known power houses despite the fact they were started by a few people with nothing but an idea. Thats incredible innovation in a short period of time. I have to think that the free market that he embraced is one that would serve us in future as we embark on ag networks and ubiquitous fiber tee employment. And satellites, and isps doing even more Better Things with networks. In that same speech in february at the mobile world conference you said this, quote this is sounding a lot like a meet the press tim rutert, you said this, can you really stand stand by it. Like charles barkley, i was misquoted in my own speech. But the good part is, you see, i read your speeches. Youre the one. [ laughter ] in return for that, all i would ask is that you read what i write. I have to go get the books that are left on tables. We have a deal. No. This, whats 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 mant by that, but i think to some that might seem you know like a puzzling conundrum. Complex rules designed to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push market toward a monopoly. What did you mean by that. For more detail you can go back to a speech i gave in 201 about the kings bury commencement. For those of you looking for good reading to put you to sleep. But in a nutshell, this is something thats often lost on many people because they think the heavier the regulation is, the better it is for the competitors. In reality, heavy handed regulation or complex regulation serves the benefit of the Larger Companies that work in that space. The reason is that Smaller Companies dont have the Compliance Resources to fill out paper wok or the capital they can raise to further build out their networks. Its simply more of a burden on them. Inevitably over time they end up getting squeezed out of the marketplace. This doesnt only apply to communications. Its every space you can think of. Thats why i think its important to have light touch regulation to ensure that the Smaller Companies, they want them to gain competitive sbrooe and gain a foot hold. Then if there is bad action in the marketplace we will take targeted enforcement against those companies. But to preemptively regulate with a heavy handed approach is not going to benefit consumers. Attest you will get what you got had the 190s. A regulated ol gone lee. That doesnt serve our constituents, certainly not in the digital age era. Seth coop he, who is 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 petitions or the section 11 periodic regulatory review. Right. Proceedings. And essentially, these would be rebuttable presumptions so they are 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, it 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, you know, in case your weed whacker is not otherwise working at that time to have in place these, you know, deregulatory presumptions. I really have just one question about that. Thats a really brilliant idea, isnt it . Well, what i will say is that if you think of the marketplace on a continuum where one part of it is, you know, inobjectionerible monopoly and the other side is a highly competitive marketplace. It seems to me there is a case to be made for the Regulatory Burden lessening as you get closer to a more competitive marketplace. Noncompetition is the best tonic the a lot of the problems you might otherwise see amongst firms that are behaving anticompetitively. I think there is something to that suggestion. I would certainly be open to it. Either in the context of forebearness, or biannual review or any other procedural mechanism. Okay. Lets turn now to the elephant in the room or the big kahuna. Part 32 candidating refoe ii candidating reorm. Oh, a. M. Radio. This might have been three or four years ago but Net Neutrality was still the topic du jour then, and maybe there were other things at this conference but i think that i you know, i wanted to make sure that the chairman at least talked about with Net Neutrality some. And you know you know your 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 approximate Net Neutrality, or the open internet proceeding, or what we arestoring internet fre. You can call it whatever you want to. We are going to talk about it. I want to be clear and i know everybody unders here and i want to be clear that chairman pai hasnt made up his mind about the outcome of the proceeding, couldnt make up your mind and wouldnt, you know, until its time to did that and that you havent foreclosed things. But within that context i think we can still talk about approximate talk about it. The first question is simple. At the tenth anniversary celebration in december, you know, when you did talk about Net Neutrality, you said, quote you see, im quoting you very precisely. I dont know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by congress or overturned by future commission, but i do believe its days are numbered. How many days does it have left . You dont have to answer that question. Yeah, no. Look, as i have said consistently we are going to go where the facts and law take us. We havent made any decisions at this point. I understand. Look, heres 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 that 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 i dont want to take a lot of time reciting whats in the notice of proposed rule making you have issued because you foe, its out there and i think most people in the room here sort of know the principle elements of the notice. But with i just want to ask you a few questions. Again ill say i understand that you are not at liberty and that you dont know, you know, exactly where you are going to come out. Ill take that as a given. So you have expressed the view that the title two classification and the good conduct rule are are very problematic. I mean youve said that over and over again. And so just explain really to our audience here why you what you think is the problematic nature of those two elements that are in the notice of proposed rule making. Sure. Id be happy to. With respect to the title two classification, the evidence suggests to me thus far that number one it was unnecessary in 2015. We had a free and open internet from dawn of the internet age until 2015 in absence of title two. Number two, that these regulations are harming investment in infro structure. Infrastructure, and there too there has been evidence that suggests among the biggest internet providers investment is down. Among many of the sanarys in coal mine, the smaller Internet Service provides including 19 municipal government owned isps, small cable companies, a, many have written us and said the title two has hung like a black cloud over their company and prevented this ep from getting financing. With respect to the general conduct standard, i do think that having this free roving 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 ander services for free. That seems to me is the last thing that we want to prohibit or at least put under the microscope. So Going Forward i think again the chairman kunard approach of light touch regulation is the right one. He faced similar questions in the late 90s and ef he gave a preciousent speech in which he said if the you want to have massive investment in irk nos, if you want a vibrant economy you dont want to import more heavy handed rules and just lay them on this new technology. You want to take an approach more calibrated to the consumer interest and infrastructure vermont. I remarked during your Panel Discussion when we were talking about the Net Neutrality rule that it always surprised me a little bit at that in the majoritys order in the net 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 wit of agreement when i tried to probe about, you know, the bottom line position of the companies in terms of what would be acceptable to leave in place. They didnt want title two to remain in place or the good conduct ill rule. But you know, no blocking and no throttling, you know, seemed to be elements that were fine. But my question on you know, the paid prioritization issue is there, and thats ted up in the notice of proposed rule making. Right. I know at the Free State Foundation weve 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 priority is fairly common in other parts of the marketplace and that there can be investment High Pressure suppressing effects from paid prioritization. When you think approximate 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 are looking to examine as you move forward in the proceeding . I confess i havent read teds paper. If he submits it into the record it will be something that the fcc will look at. I would encourage anyone who is interested of course to participate and to submit evidence on that point. You know, look, thats part of the reason why we are having the notice of the proposed rule making is because its the beginning of the conversation not the conclusion. We want to learn about variety of economic and other policy arguments about prioritization, about anything having to do with these internet regulations. 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 us. Okay, and then the last question on the current proceeding, at least specific one, is this. I mean heres where you can help me out, especially because you are a deputy general counsel even prior to your commissionership and chairmanship. And i know you are a great legal mind. I dont know about that. I did graduate, but thats about it. Just suppose, hypothetically, that the Commission Decides to classify Broadband Internet access as an information service, and it decides the section 706 is not an affirmative grant of authority for the agency to adopt rules like the current ones. Those are both positions in the past that the commission has had. Broadband internet was not common carriage. It was an information service. And the commission at a previous stage had determined that section 706 was not an affirmative Common Authority and the npr asked about those things. Suppose that the commission were to reach conclusions that those things were true, under what authority could the commission continue to regulate isp practices . Does title one i guess another way of asking that same question is, does title one institute such an affirmative grant of Regulatory Authority the and here i might be harkening back to that comcast case which originally dealt with this issue. So, you know, one time way of putting this is if commission were to conclude both of the two predicates, would that necessarily mean that the commission would be ousted from all authority to oversee broad ban Internet Access services . Here, too, i mean i hate to done but there were there are two hypotheticals in that question. I cant predict where the agency rite might go. Thats again part of the reason why we didnt do what some suggested issue a tlarer to ruling saying the law and facts shall be so. We wanted to have an open conversation in which we could try to engage the public to discuss what should be the Legal Framework for thinking about these issues, you know, what should the various policy parameters be. So we are going see again where in this case the legal analysis takes us. Okay. Well you cant say that i didnt try. Okay. Now lets 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 there is great interest in this issue. If they make a decision well be duty bound to implement it. Thats something i would do faithfully. Let me ask you this, because lets assume that congress does get to a point where it wants to establish 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 goet that. But on the other hand you are 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. Well, i mean i might know a little bit about many things. About you 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 the act to provide rules of the road, to provide more certainty to the public about this or that sector of the telecommunications industry. And if they see fit to update those rules and give us the rules of the digital road Going Forward, so to speak, then i think we would all welcome that. So especially when it comes to some of the core protections of the open internet that people share, some of which you engs hadded. I think there is actual low a lot of agreement once you put aside the rhetoric and the partisan affiliation. So im hopeful that the people have good will, can sit down at some point and reach a consensus that will serve us all well, i think, Going Forward. Okay. 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 wheeler commissions privacy order. And then of course ultimately Congress Passed congressional review actress lugs that resc d rescinded the rule. And its been controversial and remains so. Actually, this morning at our session, howard cho landski, president obamas oara administrator volunteered that he disagreed with the privacy regulation adopted by the wheeler commission. And that he ultimately thinks that all privacying arelation for the internet player shall reside at ftc, which i think is your 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 fcc regime than over at the ftc. Right. And that was a focus of a lot of the concern. 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 optout rather hand optin. What do you think . Because i think either you or commissioner oreilly i forget exactly whom, but i know in addition in 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 in that type of regime. Do you have any thoughts on that . My position on this issue has been pretty simple, that consumers who go can on line have a uniform expectation of privacy. To them it shouldnt matter and doesnt matter whether their Sensitive Information is being handled by one type of company or another. They want that information to be protected in a consistent way. From a regulatory perspective the lesson i draw from that is that regulatory framework, too, should be consistent. And so thats why i have often said that whatever the rules of the road are going to have, they have to be part of a level Playing Field so that consumers at the end of the day when they go on line will know that certain kinds of information, Sensitive Information, will be protected. And i know members of congress as you comprehensioned have taken an interested in this issue as well. Its obviously for them to decide. But i think that base. That core principle is one that i think everybody embraces. It actually helps us think about policy in a much clearer way instead of battling over different sections of the act. The core uniform expectation of privacy is something i think is often lost in this debate. We are getting closer to moving into the lightning round like tim russert and meet press because i know ive couldnt wouldnt want to keep you much longer. But there are a couple more areas i want to ask you about. Sure. So one, spectrum policy and promoting 5g deployment. That was of course 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 proceeds out now two proceedings which you adopted in what you called infrastructure month, april, a Wireless Infrastructure proceeding and wire line infrastructure proceeding. I think that focus together in that one meeting in one month was useful in helping to raise the consciousness of the way that these issues that you are going to have to decide really relate to infra we hear so much about infrastructure these days. Right. I think what you were doing was helping the public understand a lot of what goes on at the fcc. You know, properly, might be called infrastructure development. That said now heres just you know, so youve got on the one hand local restrictions, fees, processes, you know, whatever, that the localities adopt for reasons that you know, in their view are legitimate, perfectly legitimate. And they are close to the people, so to speak. But on the other hand, you know, you have got imperative for getting these new Innovative Technologies out in the marketplace. And you know that, and you discussed that. Just tell the audience really as you a i proech these issues and will be approaching, how do you just think about, really in your own mind about you how you are going to balance the balance the interest of 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 we are all in this together, that our consumers are increasingly demanding a better, faster mobile connectivity. To me at least that means every official at every level of government, local, state, federal should work cooperative and proactively to make sure we have a regulatory frame wosh that incentivizes construction of 5g networks and allows is evers to thrive. At federal level i have been consistently talking about the need to exempt or streamline certain regulatory requirements for example, for the deployment of tens of thousands of small cells you shouldnt have to jump through the same hoops with respect to Environmental Review or Historic Preservation as you would for a macro cell site tower. We have to make sure that the localities have review, but you have a moratorium on citing of infrastructure that doesnt serve consumers at the end of the ta. At the end of the day i think we are all striving to providing a public with a service from our perspective, this is a cooperative evidence. Going forward we are going to be moving quickly as we can within the constraints of the law of course. And hopefully with everybody who will be on the same page since we all stand to dwayne from it. Okay im going to ask you one more question because one of your staff i think came over and tapped he mme on e getting the this will be the last question. Im going to do what i admonished the audience not to do and ask a two part question under one question. Here it is. Number one, you have talked about making economics or raising the level of economic inquiry considerations, input at commission to a higher level. Thats something thats obviously been talked a lot. Yeah. One of our members of our board of academic advisors, tim brennan, as you know, referred to in a certain context i dont want to misquote him but he referred to fccs consideration of the previous Net Neutrality order as an economics free zone. So the first question is, tell us what youve done so far in that regard and what other plans you have. And then my second question, and final question is just ive always been interested for a long name in the fccs merger review processes and possibilities of reform because i think there is duplication that goes on with doj. Right. 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. And so with respect to the economics question, i proposed in early april that we start the process of setting up what ive called an office of economics and data. It struck me that for the legal funk at the fcc we have an office of general counsel, for the engineering and Technology Side of things we have an office of engineering and technology. But for the economic function which is arguably one of the most critical funks for the agency, we should be out approximating the economists at front lines of our Decision Making quite often the economists are sprinkled throughout the offices and bureaus, used haphazardly, or not at all. Some economists are very busy, others arent. Quite often economists dont have a seat at the table when some of the decisions are being made. I wanted to change that. I wanted us to be a data driven and Economic Analysis driven agency. It seemed he moo the creation of this oed would stlalize function so you would have all of the economists working in one space and that would enable us say look we are proposing something on Wireless Infrastructure, lets bring in oed early so they can evaluate it and they can let us know it might seem good on paper but its crazy for these reasons. As opposed to us going down a policy path and being told before the night we vote its a train wreck of a situation. Secondly, the other reason i was excited with it it has all effects. Number one it would encourage more collaboration among economists. One of the things i found is when folks are in closer quarters her able to bounce ideas off ooch other and think more innovative ways. We wanted to think about big picture issues. Some of the greatest innovations at fcc have been lieu economic working papers. The incentive auction, price gap regulation in the 80s and 90s. They all stem from economics working papers. Since 2012, i found to my surprise we have had stroh economic working papers. He want to encourage more of the act emic environment among the economists some of whom are the most brilliant in the country. Speaking of which, number three benefit is it will help us attract better economic help to the agency. We kiet not in a vacuum but as scc, which has a set of economists, the ftc and many others. From what ive heard it would make it easier for us to attract the best and it prooest we can say the fcc takes economics seriously and the proof is we have a Central Office of economics and data where you can work on some of the most death cutting edge issues in i have. We have an economics orking group that has been stood up and they are talking with people in the agency and outside agency about the best way to do this. We want to make as much wisdom from whatever can. That would be prado optimal, the economists would say. Thats what passes for a joke, cspa cspan2. Moving forward we are really excited about oed. With respect to tractional review, in november 2011 i said when i was asked about how i would handle tractional review i am a recovering antitrust lawyer. I still review each transaction on the merits, you vault a evaluate and make the proper decision. Well see if if Anything Congress decides to do on that topic. Okay. Well, i want to say that im familiar with that reference to the federalist papers. Hamiltons paper about energy and the executive. If only he had known about coffee. More energetic. I want to say again, mr. Chairman, that i appreciate as someone thats observed the fcc over a long period of time the energy that you are bringing to the task. I very much appreciate what you said about approximate the staff, the people that work at the fc krrc and, i have a lot o im not going to use that phrase make 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, always agree, you i really have confidence that at the end of the day, whenever that is, that the American Public will be well served for what you are trying to. I thank you for that. And i especially thank you for being here with us today. My pleasure. And i ask the audience to join me in thanking chairman pai. Thanks, thank you guys. Thank you thanks so huchlt real ho appreciate it. I appreciate it. My pleasure. Any time. There will be another time. Great. Coming up tonight on cspan3, interior secretary ryan zinke talks about his departments 2018 budget request. President trump meets with leaders in the technology issue. A discussion on islamic terrorism in the west, and a look at the government Cyber Security posture. Recently on cspan, new orleans mayor lich land drew on the removal of a robert echlt lee statue. To actually lay out the reasons why the statues were erected in the first place, why we were talking them down and what we could do to recover from ageold battles that had divided us for so long. And because of new orleans role in that dark period of our history, we were, after all, one of the countrys largest slave markets i felt that i and other people in the city had a special responsibility to help our nation continue to move through racial discord. Actress mariska hart guy had had a Bipartisan Task force aimed at ending sexual violence. To hear these stories, hear words like you said, dehumanizing, these lavs derailed, the aye way that lives go off track. These are not kids sitting on a shelf. These are poems lives, sitting on a shelf, getting derailed. Children getting derailed of what is this life supposed to be . I was on this track. I cant each make sense of what has happened to me. And we have been letting perpetrators go by not testing these kids and saying we dont care about this issue. And senator rand paul on proposed arms sale to saudi arabia. We will discuss something even more important than an arms sale. We will discuss whether should we be actively involved, actively involved with refuelling the saudi planes, with picking targets, having advisors on underdwro. Should we be at war in yemen. Interior secretary ryan zinke visited capitol hill earlier today to previous law lakers on President Trumps 2018 Budget Proposal for his department. The Senate Energy and Natural ResourcesCommittee Hearing was cut short because Senate Democrats did not consent for Committee Hearings that day to go two hours