Neutrality has become the law of the land. Hows that going . Guest well, its early. Our rules have just become final, so we have some implementation to do as well so its early to know exactly how the rules are going to play out and what are the impacts. We still have a court case going on, and well see how that moves through the process and see what happens in the litigation side of the equation. Host well, theres some talk up on capitol hill with the republican ares about doing republicans about doing something to mitigate Net Neutrality. Is that something thats possible at this point, or is it going to is it all in the courts . Guest well, i leave of the legislating process to my good friends and former colleagues on the hill. They know best on what can be done and cant be done on capitol hill. I have left that institution enjoyed my time there but im not in a great position to answer per se. I suspect in talking to my friends it seems like a heavy lift right now. Seems like those folk toes who feel theyve done fairly well in the Commission Item dont really have any interest in negotiating any compromises. So i suspect its a heavy lift, but i leave it to them. Host is there anything you can do as a commissioner . Guest my job is to highlight those instances where were doing good and highlight those instances where we can improve even if i disagree with the rules themselves. Ill also point out problems that hopefully we can fix Going Forward. Host we are join ared by lynn stanton whos joining our conversation today. Following occupy up on that you dissented from the order adopting the open internet rules which are in place now are the fccs rules. What do you do as a dissenter with a case comes before you where someone says those rules have been violated, im being harmed by a violation of those rules, fcc, enforce what youve said as the rules . A couple parts. As you know, there are some bright line rules and other is Just Authority provided to the Enforcement Bureau and others to kind of see how the land develops as it goes forward. So its hard to know exactly what we will do on that side of the process, but in terms of the rules themselves, i will analyze anything thats put before us, any complaint thats filed in terms of a violation and i will act accordingly. I dont always agree with every rule but when the rules are in place, im obligated to enforce them. I dont want people violating theres no, there havent been to my knowledge anyway, there havent been complaints in previous to our rules and really im not expecting too many complaints. But i will act accordingly. You talked in the past about the delegation of authority to different bureaus including the Enforcement Bureau. Do you think especially in the case of new rules where there hasnt been a lot of case law developed in terms of how the fcc enforces them, does that put an to us in to elevate more of these kinds of questions to the full commission to deal with if something does come before you . Guest i think two parts. One, it does put burden, i believe, onto the bureau to make sure they have done all of their homework, theyve dotted every i and crossed every t and made sure everything theyre presenting is accurate whether it be a recommendation to the full commission or a decision they make themselves. I have not been a huge supporter of delegating swaths of authority to different bureaus especially in the Net Neutrality situation. But i do see as your point is very well taken that there are instances that especially on some of the early ones i mentioned, they are going to be elevated but thats not for me to decide as only a commissioner. Host commissioner orielly did the politics of the Net Neutrality decision affect relationships on the commission, do you think . Guest you know, i dont think it was one particular item. I have, you know, i enjoy my colleagues very much, and were not chummy by any stretch of the imagination, buzz we do but we do try to get along as best we can. There have been some issues that have caused, i would say heart burn and certainly some disagreements on policy. Hopefully, they dont bleed into the personal side. But were, but, you know, i dont think theres any one item, and i dont think it was Net Neutrality. Its a culmination of things as you go along and start to realize in my case as a minority commissioner, you start to realize that your views are only so much of interest. Youve talked also about the need for procedural reform to create Greater Transparency and openness in addition to the nondelegation issue. Does that play in at all to the partisanship issue . Are there things that can be done in terms of openness and transparency that would alleviate some of the because from the outside it does look as though theres a good bit of partisanship and not just in terms of the substance and Decision Making, but even in terms of how information is being communicated to you as a commissioner and to commissioner pai, the other minority commissioner. You dont get the same information or same access to the policy making part of, you know tweaking the order having your suggestions entertained. Guest so, again, i hate to say its partisan. Its not necessarily republicans and democrats. Its people with different philosophies and backgrounds approaching an issue. Where ive had trouble is in how weve gone about making some of the decisions, and you highlight a number of instances where we could have done a better job in terms of the information thats provided to the public and the transparency available to everybody. And that would improve i believe, relations for everything and have more sound ground on when we do make a decision. So things that ive been seeking, for instance, is that when the item, when an item is made for an open Committee Commission meeting and its presented to the commissioner level, that that document should be made available publicly. I think that would provide an opportunity for everyone to comment on exactly what were thinking. And so it would also allow people to hone in on issues they may see as robmatic. Right now we have problematic. Right now we have people who raise concerns regarding our items, but they often dont know exactly whats being put forward. So theyre kind of doing rifle shots in many different scattered structures, you know . And thats problematic from my point of view. Id rather people target exactly where theyd like to see fixes and not spend time on things that dont need attention. I think thats something that would not in any way restrict the power of the chairman or the majority. Im not interested, i dont think any ideas put forward would undercut their authority in any way. I think it would make the process better for everybody. I know youre planning on giving a speech next week i think it is on the issue of procedural reform at fcc and i wont ask you whats your pattern or whatever the metaphor would be, but there was a bill that passed through the House Commerce Committee last month that had a number of openness, posting of rules and orders as theyre adopted or as and also of a little bit more on the Decision Making deadline side as well. Are those the kinds of things you think need to be done, or are you looking for something more fundamental, more far reaching . Guest so i would say that one, i certainly leave the legislating to the legislators. But a lot of the ideas and i did testify before the house energy and Commerce Committee on that legislation and supported the ideas they put forward. Those are some of a number of ideas that ive written about. Ive probably, i think i have about eight or nine blogs on this topic and i probably have a half dozen more in the works in one form or another and were getting ready to release another one in the next couple weeks. There are a number of ideas and those are three that are very good that i think are helpful. They also combine them with three ideas from the democratic side that i feel are helpful. Well see where that legislation goes, and i leave et to their leave it to their capable hands. But i think it will be helpful to everybody. Host speaking of legislators, you recently coauthored an oped with a legislator representative marsha blackburn, on the Lifeline Program. Would you like to see that Program Ended . Guest no, and fundamentally i think thats a very important point. I have argued that i would prefer that we do reforms to the existing Lifeline Program before expanding it to the broadband to broadband services. But i was recognizing the lay of the land, and my colleagues were interested in going to the broadband side so i was willing to put that aside and say, well if were going to do both at the same time, im willing to do that, but i want to make sure its fiscally sound. I want to impose certain obligations on the program make sure that we dont exceed and get into problems further problems on waste fraud and abuse which have been do exist in the current program. And i want to make sure that we can live within a budget, because where theres a real deep concern that when you expand it to broadband the program could explode in terms of its cost. And the cost, generally, people dont know, people that watch the show dont know that the costs come from every consumer out there today. Youre paying 17. 1 this quarter, the number changes and fluctuates. But that cost is coming from services youre paying more than you need to today in order to fund these programs like lifeline, like high cost and a couple two of the four we have. So in that sense i wasnt trying to end the program, i want to put some fiscal restraints that will help it function and therefore, if its going to do broadband, it should do so in a fiscally sound way. Host what are the parameters around coauthoring with a member of congress . Guest so we Work Together on different ideas and send them back and forth and see what the language, you know, matches up with our different philosophies. If theres in this case ive worked with congressman blackburn before so it was an easy discussion. Your fellow commissioner, minion clyburn, has argued very strongly for getting carriers out of the business of vetting individuals who benefit from the Lifeline Program and current status. Basically, its the carriers who sign up the individuals and obviously, they have a financial interest in seeing as many people getting the subsidy as possible. Do you think thats a major driver of fraud waste and abuse in the program, or do you see it more as individual consumers who are driving guest i think its both. Its not necessarily its not carrier wide. There are certainly some carriers that are more prone to this, theres certain smaller carriers that have built Business Models along these lines, and there are definitely individuals that are taking advantage of the program. I know my colleague is interested in moving to some kind of mechanism that maybe some of the states or maybe in partnership with s. N. A. P. Or other programs, and im hope to having that die dialogue. We put out a lot of questions in our nprm, and hopefully, well see if that comes back. I dont know its necessarily one particular group we can target and if we could, we probably would have eliminated already waste, fraud and abuse. We have done a fairly decent job in trying to reduce it, but we still have a pretty big problem on our hands. So is it sorry. Is it within the rules themselves are there loopholes that you need to close that are allowing this . Guest i think, you know some of it is enforcement side of the equation some of it is there are tightening the rules and third is to recognize what the program should do and people who, you know, i would like to target the program better. Therefore, in targeting exactly who needs the program, then you reduce the extra people who are receiving today. And, therefore it reduces the size of the program and you really get to lets fund who really needs this program. Thatll help reduce waste fraud and abuse. Is that how you determine what the cap should be, you look at the need and set the cap there . Guest i was willing to have a dialogue on the cap. We really didnt have too many discussions on the size of cap. I thought the best starting point was what we spent this year excuse me, last year end of fiscal 2014. We spent about 1. 6 billion so i was hoping we could tie it to that framework but we really didnt have too many discussions. You know, there just wasnt receptivity to it at the time so im hopeful that we can do something before the end of year. When we do come to final order on this, thats something, as i said a couple different times, that can be something we can address thats something thatll help get to my vote in support. Sorry one more on this. Host no, please go ahead. If there were a cap and demand started to bump up against the cap, how would you just as a practical matter envision the cap being enforced . Would it be first come, first served or first came, first out because theyve had you know, push them out something new in . Would you lower the income threshold . How would you go about guest theres a couple things. One, we have to, you know, were not sure were going to get demand thats going to bump up against the cap because we are imposing a number of things my colleagues are in favor of. Annually, were making only one consumer or one subsidy per location. So you can pick either if you want to stay with voice or you want to move to broadband. Those two things would likely keep the size of the program relatively small. Thats why i dont think a cap is that problematic. But in that situation, what im worried about is some carriers all of a sudden exploding their you know, they become the favorite, and thats where you normally get the most waste fraud and abuse is the carrier says oh, im going to sign up as many broadband customers as i possibly can and you start to see Enormous Growth by one or two companies. And there ive suggested we ought to have some automatic gates to try and address those particular situations right at the time automatic i was calling them Circuit Breaker ors kind of like you have in the New York Stock Exchange when things go haywire. You want to be like okay, lets hold this until we figure out exactly whats happening in this front. Host so that kind of ties into potential usf reform. Where does that stand . Guest so we have four universal service programs. The one that has gotten attention is, obviously, the Lifeline Program. Another one thats been is high cost. A couple different programs were working on, one thats captured a lot of my time has been rate of return. These are traditionally smaller carriers independent carriers that are trying to provide broadband to American Consumers and were trying to work out the subsidy mechanisms because they often work in very rural places in america where the costs dont match up with what they can get from the consumers. So were trying to figure that program out and provide some reforms there. And also in addition to the serve, you know, theres many people who are unserved in those areas, were trying to tie those things together. Host Michael Orielly, march 29 2016, are there going to be incentive auctions beginning on that day . Guest so the date of the incentive auction has been talked about recently, obviously. I cant tell you at this moment. I amgenly supportive am generally supportive of the time frame the chairman has outlined. Im sympathetic to his goals of trying to move it as soon as possible. I am also willing to listen to any legitimate only legitimate concerns that are raised and why we should potentially change that date. So im not listening to anecdotes, but i want people to come forward and say this is the reason auction should be delayed, and i will take a hard look at that. Right now im comfortable moving forward as best we can. I believe well spend the rest of the summer doing items we need to, not only formal items as we have a number of items coming up for our open meeting in august, but also a number of things on the back end you wont see necessarily like making sure the Software Works doing mock auctions for those potentially maybe bidders so we can hit that First Quarter timeline if thats ooh to be. Host what do you consider to be a legitimate complaint . Guest sure. So we have obligations under the statute that i worked on on behalf of a number of members in the senate, so we have an obligation to have a successful auction, in my opinion. There is no value this having a failed auction. Theres it harms everybody. It harms carriers, it harms consumers, it harms the legislator the legislature it doesnt help the fcc. So i want to have a successful auction. And those items that may come forward that say if this isnt done be this isnt delayed for this reason, it would harm the chances of getting successful auction. Its a very complicated auction. The first one ever attempted before since you have youre trying to in a reverse auction trying to convince broadcasters to sell and trying to convince wireless carriers to buy. We have to have those two pieces moving at the same time or relatively same time and, you know, the complexity adds to it and so i want to make sure we can have a successful auction. Part of having a successful auction is being able to close the auction. That means that the numbers match up and that, you know, the amount of money the broadcasters want meets the amount of money that the Wireless Companies are willing to bid to use the spectrum Going Forward. And so i want a successful auction, and if it takes more time im willing to wait to make sure that happens. Is success just insuring the transfer of a certain number of megahertz from broadcasters to wireless, or does it include a revenue number in your mind . Guest so the good part about the statute that i worked on is that we have solved some of the revenue targets so far in terms of the spending, things that congress estimated we would spend some of the dollars for weve, theyve already spent the money. Were in the process of recouping some of that. Some of t