Not to rely on safe harbor that does not provide much guidance at all. You are not encouraging folks not to not block calls are weco[ together on that fact . On that we agree which is why i propose the agency created detail specific guideline. I do not want to send mixed messages. Thank you. My time has expired. Feel free to call us at home. A prerecorded message. I think that there are issues. The committee will proceed to talk. Thank you. We go now to iowa for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chair. I want to come back to one issue that was already brought up. Before i asked that specific question i like to talk about Rural Broadband and how important it is for places like iowa but all over the country. I know we have bipartisan support to make sure we have rules in place and programs in place, incentives in place to expand Broadband Availability to so many folks run the country. It is an Economic Development and health issue when we talk about the spectrum issue for hospitals making sure. I heard about making sure they have the broadband available and that they can do what they need for their patients. I often talk about the university of iowa. It does not do any good if those folks cannot access with the university of iowa offers. It is important for farmers to have access to broadband so that they can make decisions for planning and there businesses in general and on and on. I was in iowa. And 27 people at that meeting on a weekday afternoon because it is so absolutely critical for them to have this coverage. My question goes back to what was mentioned. 115 members wrote to you urging reform of small Rural Broadband providers so that they could receive support for lines as is the current practice. Rural broadband submitted a data only plan in 2013 the fcc has not yet acted. Other issues that prevent the fcc from acting as proposed, and if you could elaborate i would appreciate it. Something like 114 different carriers in iowa. You represent the poster child of the world challenge for rate of return carriers. It is outrageous that if you live in Rural America you are 30 times more likely not to get broadband as if you live in an urban area. There are two components. One is dealing with things to the price carriers. We recently released 10 billion over six years to seven carriers to build their facilities command i love seeing the headlines that pop up across the country that soandso carrier announces they will spend 27 million as a result of our funds. Then we go to the rate of return carriers. The challenge is that the program has been in place for so long and the circumstances have changed over that time. I agree strongly with the commissioner that this bifurcation makes no sense but we must do better than slapping a pending on. We must say how we make sure we can bring this whole program forward. We sat down with the rural carriers to say how we can do that and to try and reach a consensus because there are rural carriers associations who do not agree. And we it is encouraging. Everyone has agreed on this twopronged process that i laid out a minute ago. And i am optimistic that the commissioner and myself who are all working together to come up with a package puzzle would be able to get this done and that we will live up to the commitment we made have it done by the end of the year. Thank you command i yield back. The gentleman yields back chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. My 1st question is for commissioner by. This all flows together. Why do you oppose putting broadcasters in a duplex and why is it important . I can stop there. Why do you believe it is preferable . You have suggested the commission hold them bank hearing to discuss issues related to a 600 megahertz plan. Thank you for the question. In terms of putting broadcasters in the duplex one of the things that is this agreedupon is that placing broadcasters would be a terrible idea. It would impair downlink spectrum which is more critical. It is not optimal because the gap is the only exclusively reserved spectrum for wireless microphones and unlicensed advocates say if you have a broadcaster out theyre unlicensed devices will get drowned out which is part of the reason i said we need toe do with the record suggests. That raises the question where you put them. I think there is no question that there is tremendous opposition. Everyone carrying a smart phone around realize tremendously on downlink spectrum. Putting a broadcaster in the downlink will impair spectrum making it less appealing and it will end up causing tremendous problems in terms of interference. And the 700 megahertz option is a cautionary tale. Think about what this commission had to deal with because of broadcasters and wireless carriers. Were talking about co channel plus this is the last spectrum auction were going to happen sometime. Broadcasters will be theyre permanently which is why i prefer based upon what i have seen the place broadcasters in the uplink. Wireless carriers were told this is technically preferable for a couple of reasons minimizing the problems it would cause in terms of interference because you could put a base station filter on it which would be easier as opposed to putting a filter on a mobile device. One of the reasons why it would be helpful the commission has not made available enough data the data and assumptions that underlie the simulations and we have heard from everybody. We need morewe need more data and we need to give you more meaningful input. Lets bring them into around and have everyone participate so that we can never fully informed discussion. Congress only give us one chance. Another question. Hopefully this is the last spectrum auction for a long time. Do you believe enough is being done . If not what else do you believe should be done. Consistent with what the chairman has said we need to make sure there is more spectrum in the pipeline. The proliferation of broadband is a great thing. As a commission i wonder how we will supply the spectrum. That is part of the reason why i have been so bullish. Do you think congressional action is needed . In some cases it might be new line the congresswoman have been leaders in that. About 20 seconds. Yes, and i would like to identify. Ifif we get a chance i would like to respond to your 1st question. Nine seconds, so i yield back. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady for five minutes. Thank you and our Ranking Member our panelists this afternoon for your updates regarding the agencies activity. I have a few concerns is would like to have you address. One of them worries me. What is not in your testimony is whollyholy commission will address continuing challenges and diversity of representation. We are in the 21st century we look at our nation and its diversity. There is a widespread acknowledgment that what we see in terms of industry is just not reflective of who we are as a country. I would like to ask where is the commission focused on the completion of the diversity studies and how can this be used to create a more nuanced and tailored policy advanced equity . What metrics and accountability structures are in place to assure vulnerable populations will be adequately served as. Thank you very much. The media report that i promised to the committee by the middle of next year will include a topic on diversity it has frankly been an issue that has caught of previous reports. The but there are a couple of things that we can take up. There is a substantial increase the number of broadcast agencies since i became chairman in large part because of what we did on the gsa rules because those rules were being used to keep opportunity away from minority entrepreneurs. So i am proud of that effort secondly we all must recognize the importance of how the Television Business is changing and the opportunity that is reflected by overthetop providers and there has been a difference appear on whether we ought to do with this committee did for direct broadcast satellite for overthetop which is to say that you cannot hold content back. You cannot have various leverage points because overthetop programming creates incredible new opportunities for minorities lastly, we have been talking about the designated entity in the wireless auction. I feel strongly that what this Congress Asked us to doo be creating opportunities for minorities women and rural individuals to participate in wireless which is what we did in the dg rules and what the suggestions that have been made by my colleagues on the republican side actually would have permitted the ability for reallife dvds rather than hypothetical these. On the subject i will have you respond it appears that we have probably cracked the code of only one part of support Small Businesses gaining access to capital. How can the commission facilitate actions especially those owned by women and minorities with the private sector . Were you addressing that . I think that we need to make sure that the gsa rule was helpful and has performed as expected. We have made it clear that we broadcast licensees coming for transfers and are complying with the rule which says they cannot control that they will look favorably upon them selling those assets to minority entrepreneurs. In fact that has been successful. Jurisdiction over the e. Ftc but the fcc has the authority to regulate broadband taking it from the ftc and now its with the fcc. Now it is under this committees jurisdiction. The good news is im still with 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 se