You by the folks back home want to know why what is the problem with the ftc that brought the last east that forced this change and then to respond to the questions as you know the ftc act atlarge says that it doesnt have jurisdiction over the telecommunication carriers. They say we are telecommunications and that triggered that. What constituents should come as we work closely with the ftc. The jurisdiction as far as its providers and what we do which will be forthcoming in the next few months on our privacy proposals, we will do our best so that there is a common set of concepts that govern privacy. Your response . To have the classification it is deprived of jurisdiction as the chair man pointed out because of the carrier extension and jurisdiction has explicitly been given authorization for things. Second because the fcc irrigated that issue for itself unfortunately the authority under the statute is circumscribed as pointed out section 222 is narrow arcane piece of the puzzle if you will so we dont actually have any rules in place and the guidance given out has been completely helpful. The guidance of the privacy that said its executive Privacy Protection in line with the tenants of basic Privacy Protections. What does that mean . I have no idea. Consumers have no idea. The level of experts that protect the consumers over many years. And its important that the ftc has expertise as opposed to the fcc. There was another issue about privacy and its providers. The chairman in the Interest Group filed a petition asking you to start rulemaking to start the consumer because he protection on the providers. Are we going to see a response . You believe they should have a different protection than the isp. The rules of the telecommunication carriers isnt as if we just fell into this patch. Theres a long history with regard to the Telecommunications Carriers insofar as extending the jurisdiction i have said that is not our intention. I do not know when the specific response to that petition will be coming out. I will get you a date. I dont know the planning process. This is part of the problem when the they crossed in february. If you believe that the internet is a Virtuous Cycle and you have to providers interacting the providers interacting with one another to provide a better Consumer Experience that would follow it would follow that if the edge provider is acting in any way why shouldnt they have the jurisdiction to extend the same rules to the providers . And moreover if you look at the standard is isnt clear to me why they should limit the focus on the Internet Service providers, so that is a part of the uncertainty that was opened up and i hope that we dont follow that in a logical conclusion. Thank you both and i will yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman from illinois. Thank you mr. Tran and i want to thank the Ranking Member for todays hearing. Mr. Chairman, i welcome both of you to todays hearing. I want to list one of the most troubling that is under consideration and i am referring to the prison phone call rates. The phone rates for the prison phone calls said mr. Chairman we must stop the practice of the unmatched reform for this phone rate robbery. Im guessing once and for all we must do away with the practice and we must count in state. As you know mr. Chairman president calls prison calls and if there is any doubt in the Washington Post article, they paid millions to call loved ones every year. Now this Company Wants even more this article referenced how to the company and the industry brings to investors before. 6 Million Dollar future profits on the very same. Ive been fighting this issue for over a decade and its now time for the fcc to take action and rein in the predatory practices by capping the rate at 5 cents per minute and eliminating all ancillary fees. But more importantly, the fcc also missed the predatory companies that right now are trying to circumvent the law by offering video phone calls and the same predatory raids than the offer on phone calls. Mr. Chairman my question is when will the fcc rule . I agree this is a very serious issue and you and i can come and people across america over a huge debt of gratitude to the commissioner who took this issue for ten years in the petition and brought it forward. But you know what happens is that. Next month we have a decision on that. The point that you make about the videophones is another legitimate point but the reality that we are talking about is a monopoly that is granted to persons to determine how people communicate and like any monopoly ends up being exploited, and the people who are hurt by the exploitation are the very people that rely on it and i can assure you that the commissioner commissioner keeps our feet to the fire on this and im fully supportive of her efforts. In this situation left me move on. My time is up. We are going to do a second round of questions so if you are here for that there will be more time. Thanks to both of you for showing up today thank you for your testimony. In march we discussed the Public Safety complaint responses and the result in the Quarterly Report which you thought was a good idea. Would you provide the committee on the website so the public can see whats going on and what youre doing . Have you posted online . I cant answer that question specifically. Can you get that to us as soon as possible. And if you havent can you post that online as soon as possible . Commissioner thursday in a lot of attention and concern regarding the auction rules. Do you the leave that there are now correctly balanced and if not both what should be done to fix them . Spinnaker i dont think that they have moved in the opposite direction. My principle for the Small Business program is that they should benefit Small Business. But unfortunately the agency had enlisted the restrictions in posted the bipartisan basis has now opened the door for the large corporations to use the program and ironically enough to squeeze out a lot of the Small Businesses of those that need access to capital in order to provide us the service is a weasel services that we saw in the option where the small carriers try to compete but they were not able to because of the fortune 500 corporations to prevent them from bidding and that is part of the reason why i proposed proposed my thought what i thought were commonsense reforms if youre making in the upper eight figures you dont need the taxpayerfunded discount on the option. If you are a genuine business with less than 15 of revenue you dont need 50 million in taxpayerfunded credits to get the spectrum in the option. If you are a genuine business you should be able to provide facilitybased service not to flip the spectrum to the corporation. The proposals have restored faith in the smallbusiness programs. Its been a good meal than the order you committed to take the steps to prevent increases in the attachment rates that might result from the reclassifies broadband. What steps have you taken to prevent such increases, and what additional steps are expected . There is a proceeding under way and we started in the last six or Something Like that. And its designed to make sure that sure the disparity between the Telecommunication Service and cable service. Can you continue to update us on this appreciate it very much. Thank you mr. Chairman. In the recent response to questions for the record as to whether you think stakeholders who cannot afford to have regulatory lawyers or lobbyists in washington, d. C. Should also have the same access that other speakers have, you made a point that the commission does not have funding for routine field hearings. Theyve been traveling to various event and it seems that both you have been wheels up quite frequently in your travels, select the pose the question this way. Given that you have a robust travel budget, isnt the issue how you elect to spend the money . The people i keep turning down saying im not going to cut talk disagree and my travel is significantly less than other members of the commission but your point is the well taken point and that is the positions designated. There is a travel but each commissioner has. Youve answered my question. It really is up to your discretion on how you spend the money. If so, could you let us know for the record how much the fcc has spent on travel in fy 2,013th for 2014, 2015 so far . Okay, great. I would like to see that. Commissioner i was listening to your discussion with my colleague mr. Bilirakis regarding the designated Entity Program and im struggling with the commissioners decision to eliminate the attributed relationship rule and the facility requirement in the rule for a couple of reasons, and you pointed those out. You made a compelling case that this sets the stage for arbitration. How are we going to prevent that from happening, what action does the commission need to take to make sure that these small carriers are able to get the credit that it was designed to give them so that they can serve those underserved and underserved areas . Stanek to be honest we need to return to the status quo before the most recent and about commonsense reforms to make sure the corporations dont get in the system again. Its in the same option that we have low hanging fruit thats already prohibited by the antitrust law. Im talking about genuine reforms to make sure the people that want to serve the folks in ohio and kansas can do that and lending the amount of credit people can get and making sure that they cant own the majority of Large Companies and that we preserve that as it is known so people dont end up flipping over spectrum theyll have a partisan affiliation and i wish the majority had agreed with me. Is a concern for me and other colleague that represent the areas of the country. Ive got High School Students that dont have access to broadband Internet Service and as a result they have to go to a Public Library nearby or some other location where they can get a wireless signal or Something Like that to do their homework and research into that kind of thing and this is 2015 for crying out loud. Hispanic one of the reasons the requirement is so important is in a lot of cases they dont see the Business Case building out to that area where the smaller provider who does want to connect them to the internet wirelessly they have a strong incentive to make sure they are connected so when they are squeezed out because there is no more that really doesnt cut the consumers. Thank you mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you all for being here today. Mr. Chairman or chairman wheeler, july trade with your agency announced granted with conditions the approval of the transfer we hear much about the agencys 180 day shop for reviewing such transfers yet the congressional grant of approval took over twice that amount of time as you are aware. I have some questions i would like to have answers to. It is aspirational to begin with but its something we try to manage in this particular situation. We were hung up by a Court Proceeding and a Court Decision that itself took as long as the shot clock but thats specifically dealt with the kind of information we could have on the Public Record and we had to get through that before we could get to the decision. On the 170th day of the shot clock, your agency stopped it for three months. The reality here is there is right now pending before the commissioner on the protective order so we have put out in order for outlining how you protect confidential information so that we can be in compliance with the court so that this will not happen again added the absence of that is what held up this proceeding. Same question to you. In the context of the transaction at another transaction we decided to get the confidential information from the programmers and without any kind of due process. Theres issues in of the transactions into the Dc Circuit Court of appeals calling the decision and unexplained insubstantial departure from the previous policy. And even though they amended it and told them heres the roadmap you need to follow if you want this information despite that it was critical to mislead the data and seek it or rely on it and making the decisions of the shop clock needs to be more than aspirational. We give the public and the parties have uncertainty as to how they are going to do it. They control the license operation from directv to at t. The department of justice announced after an extensive investigation that concluded the combination of the landbased Internet Business from a satellite based business does not pose a significant risk to competition although the Justice Department closed its investigation without any conditions on the transaction your agency announced that it was opposing a number of conditions to address potential harm presented by the combination of at t and directv despite the Justice Departments view that the combination of the two video businesses did not pose a risk to competition. What significant risks to competition that your agency identified that the Justice Department last . Stanek we worked closely with the Justice Department on this and i dont think there was a sliver of light between us. We have a different test. They have an antitrust test of a face and we have a Public Interest test so we have two different standards that we measure. What was happening was that in about 25 of the area of at t service area, direct tv was a competitor to at t for video service. And if so, eliminating that competition, the question became does that create an incentive to eliminate the broadband competition as well. So what we required is that they expand its broadband coverage which increased competition for broadband by a significant amount and create an opportunity for those video providers not to have to go through an increasingly a decreased chokepoint. We have a red light, so i will be back around. Back in june to at pretty much every new york member of congress as well as the essential letter and while the issue may not be a terrible issue in some parts of the country actually is evidenced by not often you can get 27 members of new york to the very upstate and downstate. So we are extraordinarily disappointed that the fcc is clearly set a priority. We got the letter from you yesterday and i understand the budget concerns. I guess what i am trying to emphasize is this is an issue even though its not to you and you are the chairman we really dont appreciate you saying as you put in here the time and expense of the cases in the budget environment where the staff is 30 years the time is available so we must prioritize our work based on existing resources and hard to the public. Matters posing a threat to Public Safety are directly harming large numbers of consumers and must take precedence over other matters such as the radio. So i understand what youre saying but what is the size of your budget . The letter in those particular words that i wrote were not designed to say that this is a low priority but to say the first issue is Public Safety. It has to exist inside and i believe we have been aggressive. During the chairmanship we have had 200 private radio enforcement in the last we had 100 or how many in new york . I dont know the exact number but may be of those. And the commissioner meeting with broadcasters focused on that and helped us focus on that so we formed an inner Agency WorkingGroup Task Force to work with new york broadcasters. So you had a meeting at the fourth point that can out is basically you need more folks in the local enforcement office. There was additional enforcement options. But we talked about how youve been reducing the local field offices and pulling those folks back to headquarters and some of us would presume that wouldbe the title to disagree on us all but it seems a little disingenuous and or big concern is words are words and actions are actions and the actions havent convinced me it is at all a priority in your letter y. Maybe someday if weve got nothing else to do what i could to find but that is a low priority. If thats how you interpret this i apologize because that isnt what was meant. The office where it tends to exist this is a lockable. One of the things i encourage this congress can also be helpful because we cant weekend showed somebody down and then we are just constantly changing. If congress could also an act and make it legal to carry this out and i think thats also what the group has recommended if we can get at those that are eating and abetting because they pull this off you my move to mine over here and you dont know anything about this and so theres a totality of the package. The 200 enforcement 200 enforcement we have a Task Force Working on it we can use Additional Authority im about out of time. Maybe this is a rhetorical question that thereve been suggestions that the fcc directed the field offices to step down and back away from enforcement. Any truth to that . Ive heard that suggestion but i didnt hear that command. Can you provide me the language that you might suggest because i can appreciate and can you bring me the language we might then that might assist you, it is important for us in new york and we dont want to be the last thing. The chair recognizes the gentleman. Thank you once again for suffering along with me. Thank you, commissioner for referencing the letter that 114 of my closest friends invite sent to the chairman regarding the standalone and to both of you for addressi