Fundingirement for first net. Weve also initiated a further accuracy,location because as wireless usage particularly as it wire linehats connections inside and as g. P. S. Increased, theres been a fascinating reality that location accuracy is actually declined. And weve got a notice going on how do we address that, because matter of life and death. Theou mentioned, we began 2014 review on media issues with expedited delivery date. We closed a loophole that was being exploited to get around the ownership rules using joint agreement. And we brought competition back to the retransmission consent negotiations. We have also continued to press issues that so many of you and i share in important. Eing last time we were together i told you we stood up a task this. To deal with they came back with 154 threeendations, about quarters of those are well along process. To being in they break into two parts, there are procedural issues that you thet associate with administrative procedure act and how do you make the agency more efficient. Week, as many have proposed, we opened a rule making on protecting the open internet. Recognize thatto there are no protections for an today. Ternet in place the january Court Decision affirmed the commissions authority under section 706 to with the open internet. And identified what i call a road map for how to achieve that. Have proposed is a roadd that follows that map. I understand that there is a great debate on this issue, i the debate here this morning. Between those who say there is and those who say it ought to be a regulated utility. What weve tried to do is to follow the courts direction, the map, the blueprint, and to come up with a proposal that blocking, that prohibits anything that degrades a consumers access, including prioritization. Asks a broader question about prioritization as to banned it should be outright and if so how. Then engages in the discussion already thisard morning about title 2 versus 706 collecting a broad scope of that. D information on ive consistently said that only one internet. Theres not a fast internet and internet. There is not special Services Internet and non. There is one internet. Consumer buys access to the internet, they are the fullcess to internet. And thats what our rules to protect. This has become a debate among about legalches approaches. Its a healthy debate. Our notice ofthat proposed rule making furthers for multiple requests input. But my position has been similar to that of the Consumer Federation of america, and that is that we ought to explore the powers that are granted in the sectionspecifically 706, keep asking how tight 2 in, but develop a regulatory policy that looks forward not back yard. We need is a regulatory plan for the 21st i look forward to discussing that with you, mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Mr. Wheeler, thank you for being here, we appreciate your work and your willingness to spend some time with us and respond to our questions. On the middle up class tax relief act which is designed to create a forum where broadcasters could volunteer auction. Ctrum up for never been done quite like proposed and we all knew that going in, but it seemed like a good balance. This wasterm in all of that the broadcasters would volunteer to put their spectrum forced intoldnt be it. That was the agreement. Yet many of the actions that thee seen coming out of commission would lead some to believe that the f. C. C. Might be bullying broadcasters into giving up spectrum without providing hard data and clear broadcastersat the can thoroughly deliberate and choose to participate or not in this. Let me tell you what im thinking here. For example, the joint sales nowements that are outlawed, these agreements essentially offer broadcasters a in smallsiness model markets that would otherwise suffer from lack of service. Considering increasing the attribution value of stations such that more broadcasters could end up in violation of the national cap under the broadcast ownership rule. F. C. C. Has failed to broadcast petitions for changes to uhf even though the petitions were filed prior to relief act. Lass tax finally youre seeking to use a imfied version of oet69, hearing about this, to repack inadcasters, likely result reduced coverage for broadcasters that choose to stay in the business, making the less viable. Lf so youre trying to put spectrum be available will for auction, i think are concerned about where the headed in a number of areas. Can you explain how these actions will encourage inadcasters to participate this auction . Thank you plrks chairman. Think the goal here that weve not toying to follow is discourage or to encourage, but follow through with our. Esponsibilities forcing andns in updating thingsthink any of these ive just cited encourage broadcasters to participate more . Broadcastersve showing up with spectrum thinki said, i dont that we have an important issue set, role. Ortant and historic this is an incentive auction. Im aware of that. What we have tried to do in the mobile Spectrum Holdings instance, is to encourage broadcasters, en wirelessim sorry, carriers to buy, which creates the incentive. There was a report by one of the wokestreet analysts last who said we expect the greatest risk to this auction, showing up, not just dropped. At tse the fact that suggested that they are ready toed by between 9 and for 20 to 40 megahertz, this analyst said send positive signals to broadcasters. Goal is to create this marketplace, and were not trying to take regulatory action in unrelated areas but you are taking lots of regular willer to actionings, and it does have an effect on marketplace. Those two are a fact. The quadrennial review not complete, new decisions being made on ownership. There. Hings are out if we dont have these broadcasters coming to the table voluntarily, there wont be available. So i want to steal a line from the distinguished gentleman from mr. Dingell, to see if i can get some yes or nos here. F. C. C. U commit that the will not Score Television stations base on their enterprise value . On their enterprise value, that is not our intention, sir. No. O thats a will you thats a yes actually, that you will commit that you will not score it. You commit the f. C. C. Is that correct . Yes. You will commit the f. C. C. Ensure the broadcasters cost to reallocate are covered the 1. 75 billion Relocation Fund . We believe that that fund will be adequate. Thats what Congress Told us to spend, period. Will you commit to completing frequency coordination with canada and mexico before the auction . I think the issue there is what is the determine complete. Dtvou know in the transition it never came down to actual signing on paper, but we each other were and i am very confident that well be at that kind of point. You commit to revoking only those low power tv aretranslator licenses that necessary to complete the auction . Yes. You. Ank i think im out of time. So would now yield to california. Ady from thank you, mr. Chairman. Butt of things to discuss, bore down on, or bore of the particulars on recent proposal relative to the internet on Net Neutrality. Argued many advocates for have argued that paid prioritization represents a fundamental departure from the internet as we know it. What isd of restating obvious, but i think that when have hundreds of thousands of people communicating from on it the country to you that it is its important to raise. Now, as a policy, not as a legal think that paid prioritization should be blocked outright . I have said, congresswoman, that i dont believe there ought to be haves and have notes. No no, just answer my question him do you think it should be blocked outright . We have asked that question making. Ule id what i have said is that believe that under section 706, is anticompetitive anticonsumer is competitively unreasonable and therefore can blocked. D be and that becomes the trigger for deal with paid prioritization. The question per say that you asked, weve specifically asked how and whether. Now, what happens if the f. C. C. Determines that theres to outright no way ban on theseright paid agreements under 706 . Does that leave you, where does that leave the country . So, when the court gave us talkedtructions, they about what they call the virtual that is that content conduit,e need for which then creates the opportunity for content, and it ishis cycle is what our responsibility to protect. What 706 authorizes us to protect. So what my proposal is, is that we take them up on that and we if there is something that interferes with that virtual i believe paid prioritization does, that then move against it. Now lets move over to title 2. Title 2 is described, it depends on who is describing it. Either a scourge, its been compareed to the Early Railroad our country, to flip side, you know, title. Ior i talked about in my opening about the, one of of the of the internet has been consistent innovation. That, ande are those i understand why people would theyto title 2, because want the internet protected. And these values, theyre worth protecting. But i also believe that there is room for, in title 2, for heavy handed regulation. And i dont think that, well, way. E put it this light, that we need a restraintful legal touch in this because the values are so essential and people across the country and the world, im hearing from people from different parts of the world as are call for these protections. Envision, how would you handle constraint 2 . Er title well in terms of being the chief regulator. Have you given thought to this . Yes, maam. As you know as some people say, share it with me. Know, title 2, theres nothing in title 2 that prohibit prioritization. We have all kinds of paid prioritization. Me byre worrying bringing that up first. But go ahead. Theo, because it goes to root question of yours which is how to you forebear from that, okay. And so it is possible to go and say yes, we will not do this, we will not do this, we this. Ot do in the wireless context, interestingly enough, congress created wireless as a common specificallyhen said, but this doesnt apply and this doesnt apply and this doesnt apply. We can do that as a commission as well. Proposed that thats an approach to take. Throware also those who up their hands in great concern over that because they say, may, well, this commission do this, but what about the next commission. A futureant bind commission by making those kind determinationings. So what we have done in this is to ask the specific section about heres 706, heres title 2, lets compare and con trust them with tell us what the plus excess minuses and the best are. To get through this and i think that leads us to the kind of answer that youre today. For to the gentlew lady from tennessee, miss blackburn for her questions. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and mr. Wheeler we thank you for taking the time to come and be us. Youve got a feisty term going f. C. C. , and inhe tennessee we would say youre dust. G up a little and its causing concern. Many much our content creators amount ofmendous concern about your approach, and many much our health care are looking at apps and tele medicine concepts of that nature are also expressing concern. Think that probably your actions have inserted a good bit of uncertainty into the Innovation Sector that is looking at how we best utilize all things internet for quality economicnd access for development for health care, for innovation. A couple of just simple questions for you. First of all on cost benefit analysis, and i thank you that last night your team sent a to us on that question, but what concerned me that in the letter you say that this is just a tool, cost benefit signal says is just one many tools that would go into doesdecision and your nprm not include an initial cost to benefit analysis. Predecessor, in this came before us and assured us he was going to why this and im actually going to his statement that he gave to us. He said during my tenure ive thisparticular focus to process including the by directing the early involvement economist in the analytical process of rule f. C. C. And by having staff consult with the staff of the office of information and Regulatory Affairs on best practices in conducting cost benefit analysis. I think that it is an incredibly important component of this to look at what the cost beNet Neutrality rules would to the consumer and also to industry. You, are to know from you going to give us a commitment right now that you a thorough and extensive cost benefit analysis actual cost to the consumer and to industry on these rules . You, miss blockburn. I agree that cost benefit signal decisioncrucial to making, and in this rule making we specifically ask what are the of one approach or another and what are the benefits of one another, so that we can collect that information and have that kind of analysis. I agree with the importance of analysis. It okay, let me ask you this also. Funding reallys comes from those that are by the f. C. C. , but we have some that are not. Are impacted by this, but they are not regulated in paying fees, so in the Net Neutrality context, for example, Companies Like google and netflix want the f. C. C. To act and petition or visit the agency, if you will, those efforts. With a free ride, because they paying the fees and bearing that part of the regular willer to burden. Since they seem so ready and rely on regulation to help them, with their business recommendw would you that those entities share in the their part of the agency. Ding the with all respect, thats above my pay grade. Decision that this committee and the congress can rules setting those im asking what your recommendation would be. They come and they lobby you, netthey are pushing the neutrality rules, and while they sayinge what you are because they want you to step in, we have a lot of people out fees who are paying the that are not in favor of what you are doing. Innovators a lot of who are not in favor what was you are doing. And your door has the name on it. N so im asking what is your perspective. So our effort in all of this is to represent the American People, not company a or company b. We have been told by the canress, from whom we collect regulatory fees, and we there is a decision that we should collect regulatory somebody else, thats something we obviously will take. If there is a decision that we should expand regular willer to authority over other entities, obviously something we should do. But that is a decision that is hands. Our i yield back. Chairman recognizes the california,from miss matsui for her questions. Mr. Chairman. Chairman wheeler, id like to understand given the success of the internet in the absence prioritization precisely what types of paid prioritization you theef would speed deployment and adoption of broad services. Net access given that pay privatization areements would be used as barrier of entry to startups and what business, prioritization arrangements internetbetter for the than the norm we have today . Are trying to do in this item is to say that that affects that virtuous psych theyll the court talked aboutand i before, is not appropriate, is and that would include paid prioritization. The court told us to look at this on a case by case basis. Asked the question in the raoul making as to whether at it generically and say its all out. And were soliciting comments on that. But the concept of paid prioritization. When i buy Internet Access, i am the full pipe. Everything access to thats out there. And if somebody comes along and says oh no, you cant get this unless you pay more, thats unreasonable. And should be banned. If somebody comes along and says provider, you cant get on unless you pay more, thats unreasonable and that be permitted. Well, as for my part, other safety, i believe paid prioritization should be banned. I think theres a concern that fact that theres so much uncertainty with paid prioritization is troublesome. This concept moves forward, we could inadvertently block the or amazon from the market without even knowing it. Im concerned that your hand may tied here, even if the banission wanted to anticompetitive paid prioritization deals, you may so. Are the authority to do were to wheeler, if you explain to my constituents what is occurring in the market right the two mergers, content and pairing agreements prioritization, could be legitimized under a commercially reasonable tellard, what would you them . Not just what it means for them, also for competition and for economy as a whole. I feltuld tell them that priorityization was commercially unreasonable and dealt with. Uld be question ofthe peering that that is a separate issue that the commission needs will be looking at. That i amd emphasize a strong supporter of the open internet and i would also tell a story that when i was an out ofeneur, i was shut Cable Systems because they were networks. And i would come with a new on. Uct and cone get and then when i was a venture thisalist before taking job, that the companies i was backing had to have access to the internet, could only succeed thehey had access to internet. So i would say to them that i an open internet, experienced closed networks and the harm they cause to innovation in that i want to an openand preserve internet. You know, i think this is a critical time. When i have ordinary people asking me about all these things theyve heard. Today reallye depend on the internet. Ordinary citizens, the entrepreneurs who are concerned about this. And who else we may not know out there. So its very concerning to all a potentialhere is that we may have a situation an open wont have internet. To i would also like you consider some of these mergers. We feel like were in the wild the Digital Economy now, and now with mergers coming forward. To us thesecommit large mergers that are before different from each other, but can you commit to us here that the f. C. C. Will carefulfully scrutinize these deals with a focus towards Public Interest. Without hesitation. With complete after i wentation affirmation. Chairman now recognizes mr. Bar to be for his questions. I want to echond the last question you asked poweran wheeler about low television. You and i are working on a bill them someto give protection, we understand under havent law they dont standing when they repackage. Somee hope to give them priority or some help if and when we do do these repackaging spectrum. So i want to commend you for are that last question. Chairman wheeler, and my friends on the democratic side, repeatedly talk about the open internet and whether you should try to regulate it under section 706 or title 2. I think youre asking a false question. The internet is open. Question is what does the f. C. C. D