Pills when they needed one or two, so in the kind of takes us to the question that you are asking about medical education. If we want dentists to give one or two pills instead of 30, if we want doctors to recognize that these are not good treatments for headache and fibromyalgia and low back pain. They need very good information on that. Both of the education on this topic right now is not teaching doctors that using these medicines long term is a bad idea. The cdc has put out Educational Programs out there. The bulk of the education is really telling doctors when you follow certain rules when you prescribe, it will turn out rowsy in the end. If you check a urine, somehow the patient wont wind up addicted. Close monitoring is the thing to do for people on this treatment. It doesnt turn it into something thats safe. These strategies dont prevent addiction. These are not good treatments for most people with chronic pain. Okay. Do you think we should mandate the states to mandate that medical programs essentially to mandate physicians licensed to use drug monitoring programs . Yes, i absolutely do. I think that new york, tennessee, and kentucky did that and use went way up in states that dont require the prescriber to consult the database before writing the prescription. A doctor thinks they know what a addict looks like and they dont. Thank you very much. Everybody. I think it was a very good hearing, and weve got some very good notes and food for thought. So thank you very much. Its appreciated, and the hearing is adjourned. A look at what is ahead tomorrow morning. Bloomberg News Reporter ian katz will talk about the new book by former treasury secretary geisinger and his geithner and his legacy. More on secretary geithner. And a former ambassador talks about reports the Syrian Government recently used chemical weapons against its own people. As always, we will take also and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal, live tomorrow morning and every morning at 10 00 a. M. These are in on eastern on cspan. A lot of times you would say, look, this is not for attribution. This is for background. You can attribute it to a white house source. You cannot do that with live cameras. You cannot say, i am just giving you this for background. This is not for publication. Did you brief on background from the podium at the white house . Sure. Not all the briefing, but let me give you something on background so you will know it is coming, Something Like that. So quite. Quaint. [laughter] i the fatal mistake i made, did not put the restriction we had. It was not available for a live broadcast. It was available for use as part of the stories you would produce, because the briefing is not a news event. It is part of the way in which people gather information, but their stories together, test other sources, get information, put together a comprehensive report, and deliver it to consumers of news. I once did 56 questions on, what is universal health care . 97 . About 0 that sounds vaguely familiar. [laughter] 56 questions in one briefing. She woulde a column, be a nice person if you could take her for a beer and ask her what this Health Coverage is. The life of a White House Press secretary and how it has changed over time. Sunday at 5 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. For over 35 years, cspan brings Public Affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and congress. Offering complete gaveltogavel coverage of the house, all as a Public Service from private industry. Cspan, treated by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. Of ae fcc voted in favor new proposal aimed at guaranteeing an open internet and fully the plan would implement prohibit and at Service Providers from blocking or discriminating against legal contents moving through their networks while allowing others to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. This meeting was held before the vote. It is about one hour. It attacks the legitimacy of our democracy. We want to make sure we get the context of this. That we have the people ruling. Equally s all [indiscernible] without any kind of discrimination. We want to see the cc do it and regulate the internet for the people, not for corporations [applause] my name is margaret and im with popular resistance. The internet is our free speech, but in this country we are losing our rights to free speech. The internet was created as part of the Public Comments. [indiscernible] [applause] keep the internet free. [indiscernible] constitutionates you are trying to destroy First Amendment rights to free speech and free press. I am opposed. [indiscernible] ok for the people 58,000 soldiers died. For the may 2014 meeting of the federal communications commission, let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. First of all, we have a particularly full agenda today, and so for the benefit of my colleagues, we will be taking a break between the third and fourth items of about 10 minutes. We will be coming back quickly for that. I just want to say at the outset insofar as before the meeting began, there was some activity here. The purpose of what we are doing here today on the open internet is to make sure that we hear from everyone and that we start a process that fully opens the doors for comment by the American People. We are going to move through that process today, and disruption does not help adding getting to the point where the American People can provide input to the process. So we look forward to a full and complete discussion of all of these issues. And that is the important thing that we are beginning today. So, madam secretary, will you please introduce our agenda for the morning . Thank you. Good morning to you and good morning, commissioners. Todays agenda includes four items. First, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the d. C. Court of appeals remand a portion of the 2010 open Internet Order and proposing enforceable rules to protect and promote the open internet. Second, you will consider an order that provided limited expansion to the class of wireless microphone users eligible for a license. Third, you will consider an order that adopts key policies and rules for the broadcast Television Spectrum incentive auction, laying the groundwork for an unprecedented marketdriven process for repurposing spectrum for mobile broadband use in promoting competition and innovation. Last on your agenda, you will consider a report and order that modifies the commissions policies and adopt rules regarding the aggregation of the spectrum for mobile Wireless Services through initial licensing and secondary market transactions to preserve and promote competition. This is your agenda for today. The first item will be presented by the Wireline Bureau. The chief of the bureau will be give the introduction. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We present for your consideration an item seeking broad Public Comment on the best way to protect and promote the internet. The commission has emphasized for almost a decade the importance of open internet protections. But following the court of appeals decision earlier this year, there are no legally enforceable rules insuring internet openness. To remedy this absence, the item before you proposes rules to protect and promote internet as an open platform for innovation, competition, economic growth, and free expression, as well as being a driver of broadband investment and deployment. I would like to thank our colleagues in the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau and the enforcement bureau, the media bureau, and the wireless bureau, as well as the office of engineering and technology for their significant contributions to this item. With me at the table are Roger Sherman of the wireless bureau. Stephanie from the office of general counsel. Matt and kristine of the Wireline Bureau. I would like to acknowledge Carol Simpson of the Wireline Bureau for her efforts on this item. Kristine will now present the item for your consideration. Good morning. Technical difficulties. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Chairman and fellow commissioners. The notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a framework of internet rules that would affect consumers identified in the 2010 order and fosters innovation. Both within networks and other edges. The goal of this notice is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting internet openness. There are six key elements to this notice. First, in order to fulfill the objectives of the 2010 open Internet Order, the notice proposes to retain the scope of the 2010 rules. It seeks comment on whether to revisit the scope of the 2010 rule, including with respect to the differential treatment with regard to mobile and fixed for Broadband Internet access. Second, the notice tentatively concludes that the commission should enhance the transparency rule that was upheld by the d. C. Circuit to ensure that consumers and providers and the Internet Community at large has the information that they need to understand the services that they are receiving an offer to monitor practices that could undermine the open internet. Third, the notice proposes adopting a tax of the 2010 no the text of the 2010 no blocking rule that the rule prohibits broadband providers from providing edge providers of depriving edge providers of a minimum level of access to the broadband providers subscribers. This revived no blocking rule would provide an Important Foundation in the efforts to protect and preserve internet openness. Fourth, for contact not conduct not prohibited by the no blocking rule, the notice proposes a rule that would require broadband providers to adhere to an enforceable Legal Standard of commercially reasonable practices. The notice asks how internet can internet openness harms can best be prohibited under this standard and whether certain practices like paid prioritization should be barred altogether. For any practices that are not prohibited outright, the notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. Fifth, the notice proposes a multifaceted dispute resolution process to enforce the open internet world. Rule. This enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, decisionmaking, and effective access for users from providers and Broadband Networks alike. For instance, the notice proposes to establish the role of an ombudsman person who would act as a watchdog that would represent the interests of consumers, startups, and other small entities. The notice proposes these Enforcement Mechanisms include the selfinitiated investigation and formal complaints and formal complaint processes adopted in the 2010 open Internet Order. Sixth and finally, the notice proposes to rely on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the source of authority for adopting the rules that will protect the open internet. It seeks comment on the best source of authority for production of internet openness, whether section 706, title 2, or another source of legal authority, such as title 3 for Wireless Services. With respect to the possibility of proceeding under title 2, the notice seeks comment on whether and how the commission should exercise its authority under section 10 of the act or section 332c1 for Wireless Services, to forbear from specific title 2 obligations that would flow from the classification of service. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you. Thank you, christine, and all the bureau. Lets get comments from the bench. Commissioner clyburn . Thank you, mr. Chairman, when my mother called about Public Policy concerns, i knew there is a problem. In my 16 years as a public servant, Emily Clyburn has never called me about an issue under consideration, not during my time serving on the South CarolinaPublic Service commission, not during my tenure here at the commission, nor as a chairwoman, never. But all that changed for me and us on monday, april 28. Please indulge me for a moment. My mother is a very organized, intuitive, and intelligent woman. She was a medical librarian who earned a masters degree while working full time and raising three very interesting girls. She is smart, thoughtful, and engaged, and she is a natural researcher. So when she picked up the phone to call me about this issue am i knew for sure something was just not right. She gave voice to three basic questions, which as of todays date her message remains on my telephone and in my personal memory. What is this Net Neutrality issue . Can providers do what they want to do . And did it already passed . Like any Good Daughter with an independent streak, i will directly answer my mothers questions in my own time and in my own way. [laughter] but her inquiry truly echoes the calls, letters, emails i received from thousands of consumers, investors, startups, Health Care Providers and educators, and others across this nation who are equally concerned and confused. All of this demonstrates how fundamental the internet has become for all of us. So why are we here at exactly what is Net Neutrality or open internet . Let me start from a place where i believe most of us can agree, that a free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a democratic society. Consumers with the ability to visit whatever website and access any lawful content of their choice can interact with their government, apply for a job, or even monitor household devices. Educators having the possibility to access the best Digital Learning tools for themselves, and students in health care treating patients with the latest technology, all of this occurring without the services or content being discriminated against or blocked, all content being treated equally. Small startups on a shoestring with novel ideas, having the ability to reach millions of people and competing on a footing with established companies and considerable budgets. Innovation abounds with new applications, technologies, and services. At its core, an open internet means consumers, not a company, not the government, determine winners and losers. It is a free market at its best. All of us, however, does not nor will it ever occur organically. Without rules governing an open internet, it is possible that companies and broadband providers could independently determine whether they want to discriminate or block content pick favorites, charge higher , fees, or distort the market. I have been listening to concerns, not just for my mother, but from thousands of consumers and interested parties. Startups this year, they want a chance to succeed if access is they will not even get a chance to exceed if access is controlled by corporations rather than by a competitive Playing Field. Investors who say they will be reticent to admit to companies commit money to new companies because they are concerned their new service will not be able to reach consumers in the marketplace because of high costs or differential treatment. Educators, even where there is high capacity connection at their school, feel their students may not be able to take advantage of the best and if theigital learning quality of the content is poor. Health care professionals worrying the images they need to view will load too slowly and patients will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies and specialized care made possible through remote monitoring. And im hearing from everyday people who say that we need to maintain the openness of the internet and that this openness enables todays discourse to be viewed by thousands and offers them the ability to interact directly with policymakers and engage in robust exchanges like we are experiencing today. In fact, let me say how impressed i was when i spoke to some of you earlier this week. You came from washington, north carolina, new york, virginia, on your own dime, to voice how important this issue is to you. You made it clear that the internet is a great equalizer in our society, and that average consumers should have the same access to the internet as those with deep pockets. There are dozens of examples across the globe where we have seen firsthand the dangers to society when people are not allowed to choose. Government blocking access to content and stifling free speech and public discourse, countries including some in europe where providers have degraded content and apps are being blocked from certain mobile devices. Hints of problems have occurred at home, particularly with regard to apps on mobile devices, even though providers in the United States have been subject to Net Neutrality principles and rules with the threat of enforcement for over a decade. So to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our Democratic Values of free speech, competition, economic growth, and civic engagement. The second question she posed was,