to discuss the plan. this is something that has been near and dear to make for the almost nine years i have been at the commission. i have long lamented the lack of it -- lack of a broad band strategy where other nations were leaving usig ár@ @ @ @ @ å

and there is no solution to any of these challenges this -- that does not have a broad band component to it. it was music to my ears when congress called for the development of they national broadband plan. under the leadership of chairman genachowski and the hard work of the fcc team and and the most open and transparent process i have witnessed, we have a plan with clear objectives aimed at insuring everybody has an equal opportunity in this new digital age the matter who they are, where they live, or their particular circumstances. foremost amongst our charges is a digital inclusion. everybody must have access to this technology to participate in 21st century life. you will not get a job without it. you cannot be well educated without it. you cannot be engaged citizen without it. america cannot afford to have a digital divide between those

living in big cities and rural areas or tribal lands. broadband must leave no american behind including the original americans, native americans. i encourage the team that this works for them and i am pleased by the recommendations that have been delivered. these are people that asked nothing more than an equal shot at being fully productive citizens. broadband can make that so much more achievable. my written testimony elaborate on these points. i am pleased that the plan addresses the need for better research and the public safety plan which we will talk about. i want to spend a couple minutes on the less tangible but still important aspects. as the infrastructure begins to

my great online, we become increasingly dependent upon broadband for news and information, civic engagement, and democratic dialogue. the feature town square will be paved by broadband bricks and we need to make sure it is open to all and available to all. those that are connected to have the world at their fingertips. if they are not connected, it is beyond their reach. if an increase of technology does not by itself guarantee a more informed said its -- citizenry. the well-connected nation does not translate to a well informed nation without significant effort. a nation connected but not informed or cynically engaged is about as useful to democracy is a plug and lamp with no light bulb. -- p luugelugged in lamp with no

light bulb. time spares you might extended remarks on the subject but we all know that journalism is in trouble. we better do something about how the american people receive their news and information in a world where the town square is going broadband and where a critically important public interest has somehow to be safeguarded. any viable solutions have to address a traditional and online media. i look forward to working on this with the members of this committee. each of the commissioners will have some variations on the plan that has been presented. with spectrum, for example, i will be especially vigilant to make sure it does not decrease the scarce denver city would have in programming or media ownership. -- does not decrease the scarce

diversity we have in programming or media ownership. this may require some very tough decisions but i believe the plan provides ample opportunity for us to tackle and resolve such problems as we proceed. my final comment is on an issue i tried to highlight every time i come before you. it is the need to facilitate the work of the commissioners by modifying the closed meeting will that prohibits more than two of us to ever talk and share our experience about the issues before the commission. my experience has shown me that this has had had pernicious and unintended consequences stifling conversations and delaying decisions and shortchanging the public interest. i note that congressmen have introduced bills to remedy this.

thank you for the opportunity to testify and i look forward to your questions, comments, and guidance. >> thank you. >> commissioner mcdowell. >> the plan offered last week does represent a tremendous amount of hard work. it was not put to a vote and contained no rules. that is because the plan represents the beginning of a process and not the end of one. we may disagree at times on the best path to follow during our upcoming journey, we can all agree on at least the primary destination, a country that offers faster broadband access to more americans at affordable prices. before going further, all policymakers involved should pledge to do no harm. precisely because the sec

classifies broadband services as less regulated information services, we have seen adoption of broadband technologies flourish. as the plan itself asserts, the number of americans who have broadband at home has grown from 8 million in 2000, to nearly 200 million last year. in fact, out of 114 million households, only 7 million lack of access to broadband. some form of broadband is available to roughly 95% of americans. there is phenomenal growth in wireless broadband adoption. mobile broadbent was virtually unheard of in 2000. by the end of last year, an estimated 100 million americans subscribe to these technologies. we lead the world in 3g build out and adoption.

we are home to more wireless companies than any other country. more than half of all americans have the choice of five wireless providers. economic activity has been nothing short of explosive. last year, american's lead the world by downloading over 1.1 billion applications on their mobile devices. the u.s. has one-third of the world market share of global applications but the market has grown over 500% since 2007. some researchers estimate that annual domestic application download will reach 7 billion by 2014. the internet is the environment that is growing and evolving faster than any individual company or government can

measure. it operates any open and free marketplace where innovation and investment are thriving. some estimate that infrastructure exceeded $60 billion last year alone. any policy the government adopts should nurture and strengthen these trends and not undermine them. for instance, cable modem services alone are available to 92% of american households. unless the government provides assistance -- incentives to business, the goal of reaching 100 million households with 100 meg services should be attained before 2020 if we allow the current trends to continue. in that spirit, we call for further regulating one of the

brightest spots in the american comedy. chapter 17 opens the door to classifying services as old fashioned, monopoly-era voice telephone services under title ii of the communications act of 1934. broadband has flourished because of the absence of such regulations. let me clear up a persistent myth. broadband has never been regulated under title ii, . the plant does contain ideas that are worth exploring further. bringing more spectrum to market should be a party for the commission -- should be a priority for the commission and it has been for years.

the commission should encourage more efficient use of the airwaves. the need to spectrum efficiently is inevitable. we should work to stay ahead of the spectral efficiency curve. plan -- the pallan calls for changing the rules. our first priority should be to contain costs. the contribution factor which is directly paid by consumers has ballooned from two 0.5% -- from two 0.5% to 15%. and this hurts consumers and is unsustainable. the universal service fund cannot support additional obligations. i have outlined many other ideas in my written statement. i look for to working with

congress and my colleagues to adopt policies that allow investment, innovation, job growth, competition public and adoption in the broadband market to continue. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner clyburn. >> thank you. it is an honor and privilege to appear before you today to discuss the national broadband plan. over the past nine months, the fcc undertook the mammoth task of developing a blueprint for this nation that aims to bolster our standing as a bold leader in technology, inclusion, and technology. under the german's leadership, we have conducted an unprecedented and transparent plan to maximize public input.

and there are three issues that i want to touch on. in my view, each of these warrant our utmost and immediate attention. fostering the development of a nationwide interoperable public safety network, ensuring an environment consistent with universal broadband adoption and competition in the broadband marketplace. developing a public safety net is no easy task. this is no excuse for where we stand today. it is inconceivable that almost nine years since 9/11, we still have not meaningfully addressed this critical need. the national broadband plan attempts to meet this challenge. it offers concrete steps for public safety that will provide functionality and interrupt

ability for the public's intercommunity. the recommendations for the emergency address to of the fundamental building blocks for making this a reality. it sets forth a rigorous program to make sure we get the details right and the commission has already put ideas into motion by hosting a technical panel to review the finer points of the proposed network. another indispensable part of the plan concerns broadband adoption. approximately one-third of americans have -- to not have broadband at home. high speed internet is the gateway to opportunity and is becoming a requirement for meaningful citizenship. if you want to apply for a job, get more information on health issues, take classes that are

unavailable in yorktown, on what economic opportunities or be able to obtain government services, you must have direct access to the internet. if we steamroll ahead without our fellow americans joining us, we will merely be

little reason to upgrade its facilities and improve services. the cable industry executives recently noted that there is no need for the company to roll out faster internet speed available today in areas where it does not have competition from another high-speed provider. thus, only in areas where americans are lucky enough to have more than one provider with truly high-speed capability will providers like this have any economic incentive to offer better service. the same holds true for prices. there is little question that where there is limited or no competition, consumers pay higher prices for broadband. indeed, just recently, we saw a new fight in prices levied by providers on the lowest tiers of service. when increases like this occur,

the public interest requires us to take appropriate action. in closing, i would like to express my gratitude to my colleagues and my enthusiasm for working with them to adjust the challenges ahead. i also want to recognize the important work of the committee and i look forward to engaging constructively with you in the weeks and months ahead. the american people rely on us to work cooperatively to make sure we implement a national broadband plan that is good for consumers and helps to have our economy. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you put a i look forward to answering any questions you might have. . .

we have gone from a dial-up world to a multi platform broadband world. we promote facilities based competition. private industry from every platform has responded to the framework with substantial investment and deployment to the great benefit of consumers. this has resulted in availability to 95% of americans and healthy competition from rival providers. there are only 7 million households were forces have yet

to have a wired provider. i am pleased to be here to talk about the national broadband plan. turning to the plan itself, there are places where i would have made different recommendations, but i am grateful to the broadband team for its hard work and find that significant parts of the plan deserves careful consideration. i would like to say a few words about three key priorities from the plan today. first, since i arrived at the sec, one area where prompt iran action is policy. the continued success of the state of the our mobile broadband depends on our ability to align our spectrum policy with the changing needs of consumers and industry. other nations like germany and japan are already planning significant additional blocks of spectrum to be auctioned for mobile broadband. the united states must act

similarly. to laydown the spectrum for a meaningful alternative to a fixed broadband. i hope policies will be guided by three overarching objectives -- facilitating the spectrum, allocating additional spectrum, and encouraging investment and innovation in wireless technologies. the second policy area is comprehensive universal service funds and compensation reform traded at broadband investment in underserved areas. we need to update our funding mechanisms to reflect a broadband world. we must do so in a manner that ensures accountability and efficiency. we need to do this in a manner that does not expand the size of the $9 billion fund. the graja region factor for next quarter will be the largest ever.

-- the contribution factor. this is real tax. nationwide interoperable he must be a top priority. the plans and recommendations are inappropriate place for us to start focusing on first responder funding and available spectrum resources. the need for interoperable the was highlighted in the 9/11 report and illustrated again in the aftermath of hurricane katrina and rita. as we consider all of the plans and recommendations, our policy should be focused on these efforts directly tied to promoting adoption, the climate, and facilities based competition. -- adoption, deployment.

i am concerned that some of the proposals referenced in the plan chart a more radical past changing our regulatory framework midcourse. this could diminish our much- needed emphasis on adoption and chilled the private investment we need for our infrastructure. we must, in particular, resist dictating how networks are managed and operated. i have attended two workshops and reviewed neutrality and have yet to see a systematic problem that needs to be addressed today. we also sued -- should reject calls to monopoly the internet. these selectively for that are long and checkered history with government manufactured competition. lastly, i am hopeful we -- avoid the one-size-fits-all approach. this is true to affordability,

relevancy, and literacy hurdles facing one-third of americans today. each one of these has its own importance. thank you for the opportunity to be here today and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you to each of the commissioners and chairman for your thoughtful comments to us today. we appreciate your sharing some of the rationales you have had in developing this comprehensive and very well constructed plan. commissioner, i was pleased to the ambitious deadlines that you set forth in the plan for achieving the competitive availability of the set top boxes. i think if consumers could shop for set top boxes and choose one that had buried functionality, a variety of different functions available from different manufacturers all of which are compatible with every cable

system and every satellite system for delivering multichannel video. we would see tremendous innovation in the market for the origination of these devices and i think we would soon see devices on store shelves that would have functionality well beyond the typical set top box you buy from the cable company or the satellite company today. i commend you for setting forth these ambitious deadlines. this is not a new issue. in fact, it is a 15-years old. we directed the commission to move forward with the rule making in order to assure the competitive availability of these boxes. still today, consumers cannot go to the store and shop for a variety of different set top boxes. i am glad to see the recommendation. i would ask you if you agree with me that rather than putting

forth a notice of inquiry and continue for a much longer period of time a discussion about this that it is now time to move to a notice of proposed rulemaking. i think it is and i hope you would agree and i ask for your response. >> thank you for raising that topic. it is an important one. you mention that congress required competition in this area and we see much less innovation than we could. the reason it is in the broadband plan is they realize during its work that while computers are only in about 76% of homes tv's art in 100% of homes. if we could unleash this particular market, that could help accelerate broadbent read with respect to the exact process, i would be happy to work with you expeditiously as possible. we have not made a final decision on the --

>> thank you very much. i would encourage you to give this favorable discussion. we have been discussing this for 15 years and that is time enough. you appear to be recommending a role for local governments, principalities across the country in helping to deploy broadband. i sure that aspiration. in the past congresses i have introduced legislation that would free local governments to offer broadband particularly where there are gaps for whatever reason the commercial providers have not provided an array of services for broadband. the mention of this in your plan implies support for legislation that would remove the roadblocks that various states have erected to their municipalities offering blog and -- offering broadband.

>> mr. chairman, if i could, we would happy to give you a resource for that. the cool of unleashing local government to experiment and innovate around broadband access seems to be a highly desirable goal. i would be happy to work with you to encourage the local experimentation that could be of benefit. >> a very diplomatic answer you are providing. let me is the balance of my time to talk about [inaudible] i think you are on the the right block -- the right track by saying the remaining part of the spectrum should be auctioned. because the auction to fail several years ago.

i heartily endorse your idea of auctioning without those kinds of conditions. i have two questions. first of all, would you need legislation in order to use that in some significant part were totally to the build out of equipment for fire, please come and rescue nationwide? >> i agree. >> we will certainly work. i am working with chairman waxman that would provide that for a free the second question i had relates to your proposal that the winners in the auction and the holders of 0700 mhz spectrum which would include the cellular companies that prevailed in previous auctions provide it roaming access to first responders at reasonable

rates. also, give priority access to first responders at times when the public safety spectrum is either fully occupied or for other reasons unavailable. the recommendation may give pause to some who would consider taking part in an auction because it needs a better definition. i suppose my direct question to you is how does that requirements relate to the existing priority system that is in place today for federal personnel? would it be a simple extension of the which may prove to be -- or would it be something beyond that that might prove to be more onerous ta? >> the goal is to adopt rules of not be onerous -- rules that

would not be onerous. there is plenty of opportunity for input, but i am pleased that members have looked at our plan and says it -- and say it is a simple way to go. >> thank you, mr. chairmant+t+éz when we develop the 1996 telecommunications bill we did not have a plan and later on there was some talk read your

former chairman, let me read his speech in 1999. "the fertile fields of an invasion across the spectrum are blooming because we had taken eight deregulatory competitive approach to our structure, especially the internet." i think with those statements from your predecessor, do you agree? >> yes, i do. >> they remain valid today? >> making sure that we have policies that unleash investment and encouraged innovation -- >> policies from the government? >> whether it is a universal service funds there are policies that the government needs to be involved in. the question is what kind of climate and policy can make sure we have that promote investment,

innovation, and promote competition. >> ok. you have indicated this is a bipartisan plan. i think he pointed out that no one voted on it. it is to you did not vote on this, correct? >> that is correct. >> were you ever consulted to development in the development of this plan? >> absolutely. >> when did you get a plan to see -- a chance to see the final plan? >> we saw the final draft of 21 days before the march 18th meeting, so late february. >> and did you think it might be helpful that you would have seen it earlier? how you feeling that your participation? >> i think it was a benefit that there was not above. it allowed the broadband planting to have the liberty to

put in their what they saw fit to put in there. i think it was a net positive. obviously, there are things i agree with and disagree with. i think we can all say that. i think it is positively did not have the vote. originally, one year ago long before our german was nominated, the commission only had one year but the plan together. there were time constraints, as well. >> the broadband plan recommends appropriating an additional $9 billion to your already $8 billion. if this was appropriately spent, why you need an additional $9 billion? >> sir, that is not exactly what the plan says. the universal service fund outlines a roadmap for the fcc

to cut and cap telephone service and transition the funding to broadband without increasing the funds so that over a 10 year. the transition from the oldusf to the new can happen without any additional funding. the plan goes on to say that if congress found it desirable to accelerate the transition and have not happening burster -- faster than 10 years that it would cost several billion dollars over a few years to do so. that is something that, as part of developing the plan, it was thought it should be presented for consideration. >> they said that neutrality could be employed as a pretext, or an excuse, for taking activities we would agree with the fundamentally treated days earlier, the president of

venezuela called for regulation of the internet while demanding the crackdown on news that was critical. the internet cannot be free when anything can be done and said. every country has to impose rules and regulations, is what he said. how do we hold the other countries to higher standards if we ourselves are beginning to get involved in regulation. perhaps you can add comment on some of the, the assistant secretary of said this is a tree of state said as well as the president. >> i have expressed similar concerns as government encroach more into management that we really start to lose a moral high ground. what appears to be reasonable to us might not appear reasonable to other countries and vice versa. commissioner baker said, some of the policies of the u.s. government like that management issues and the governance of the

internet should be left to a non-governmental body. this has worked quite well. what has me the internet so robust and lawless and it is positively chaotic in a constructive way. i think we need to be cautious before we venture into this area. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman, is recognized for five minutes. >> before i begin my statements, i would like to correct a statement that broadband has never been regulated under title two. dsl broadband was a title to the service until august 2005 when the commission moved it to title 1. i like to ask questions about the plan's recommendations regarding the nationwide interoperable broadband network

for public safety. all parties agree that the problem of interoperable the needs to be resolved. it seems like there's a strong disagreement on what we should do with the block. in your february 25th remarks, you emphasize the directed fcc staff to begin anew and not take anything for granted, the data driven and cream, and come up with the best recommendations for success. to the recommendations in the plan reflect that? >> yes, they do. that was the charge to him. he has been committed with a team on developing a framework for finally living on the bridge of delivering on the 9/11 recommendations. >> did you determine that was the best and for public safety? >> yes. >> do you agree that the

spectrum in combination with access to the additional commercial spectrum is enough to ensure public safety interoperable the at this time and what about the future? >> i agree with the very deeply thought for a plan that is the together by the public safety team. in the future there may be an additional need for spectrum. we need to acquire more of the spectrum for a variety of purposes. it should be part of our strategic planning progress process over time. >> is it correct to say that your experts fully analyzed were the 10 mhz the kitty to broadband would yield adequate spectrum capacity and did they do their due diligence on this question? >> yes, i believe they did. >> i would like to ask the commissioners, is the outline in the plan the best way to achieve interoperable the in your view? do e.g. support that the block

the auction for primarily commercial purposes? we do each of you support? >> i supported this when i was acting chairman. all the options are on the table so we could really start and look at all of these. as the commissioner pointed out, we are eight years beyond 9/11 and we have to get moving. this is a far more solidly grounded plan and a far more thought out plan. i think it is the only plan, and i am not saying of the questions are answered, but i think this is one to proceed on if it meets the approval of the congress. congress has a role here to. -- a role here, too. i think we've had a unified plan here. >> let me ask your colleagues to give me a yes or answer. do you support the proposition for the block to be auctioned

for parlaying commercial purposes? >> the transition component of the broadband zone is for regulators. i would be happy for me to file a supplemental indicating that. the bloc should primarily serve commercial services and should be auctioned off accordingly. keep in mind that congress of 1997 set aside 24 megahertz of the 700 megahertz block that is just sitting there that should be used for some of the narrow band. there is 97 mhz total of the spectrum. >> do you agree? >> to be auctioned off commercially. >> commissioner? >> i believe the auction model is comprehensive. >> i believe with the plan.

>> chairman, is the six and $45 billion estimated for the network account for state matching funds -- does the $645 billion match funds? to require states to pay part of the cost required with construction? >> we would be happy with -- to supply you with that. i am not sure. i would say one thing, but to move forward on this now while commercial 4g networks are being nailed down, it is the least expensive way to make sure we have a public safety network. if we wait, the price will only go up. >> thank you very much. and the forward on moving forward on a bipartisan basis and look forward to working with the fcc towards that goal. mr. chairman, i would like to put into the record a press, by

the fcc dated august 5th, to thousand five, regarding the title one and title to that issue. -- august 5th, 2005. >> welcome, commissioners. a number of us had a good number of questions. chairman, welcome again. first question from me, as relates to the broadcast spectrum, we're working on legislation here. i think one of the things you want to make sure is that you all did not force the broadcasters to give away our option some of the spectrum. are we on the same page? >> i think so. the need here is urgent for the country. mobil broadband is as important a platform for innovation and job creation for decades to come. we have the opportunity to lead the world but not if we do not have enough spectrum.

but our team has done is develop a win-win-win plan that i would be happy to discuss with you further that i think should work for everyone and is based on voluntary actions by broadcasters and incentives and we hope congress would authorize. i like those words. mr. mcdowell, as we look at broadcast speeds, in the chapter for it seems to me that if there were a fire requirement that it would hurt us dramatically -- that if there were a fiber requirement. i mean you are in agreement with not that -- i wonder if you are in agreement with that. >> i think we will see tremendous amount of litigation or decisions for the washington

d.c. circuit that will speak directly to these issues. it is at this point settled law as commissioner baker was saying. i think we would be exposing herself to a tremendous amount of litigation if we try to impose ourselves went i noted that the executive director of the broadband initiative dismissed in december 21st, 2009, issue as not quite productive. he said it is not that terribly interested in things that would freeze capital investment and how complicated court battles. more importantly, he observed these "failed to look, was really going on in the market." what are your thoughts as this

relates to your executive director? >> the goals of promoting investment in innovation in the sector are our highest goals. promoted competition is the the strategy to get there. z we would have -- you understand your we would have if you pursued such a course. >> of course i do. the goals of the commission are to adopt policies that promote

investment, innovation, promote competition, and in price -- and protect and empower consumers. >> as we look at this document, tell me what your next step is. what is the timeframe the you're going to try to embark. >> the staff has been working on an implementation schedule. in the time ahead we will be announcing a schedule as i said in my opening remarks, i am not satisfied with the status quo. i think this is a dictionary platform for job creation and investment. there are some real problems that we need to solve. i am going to push to move forward as quickly as we can because i think it is critical for world leadership in this area. >> thank you. i yelled back. >> think you, mr. upton. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you very much. the first broadband plan was the 1996 telecom act. that, of course, actually resulted in broadband being regulated under title two. from 1996 until august 2005, broadband was under title two, just for the record. during that time, we got a lot of policies that were implemented, consumer protection, universal service, protecting consumer privacy, interconnected and competition provisions, access for individuals with disabilities, consumer billing protection. what was also possible under title two? the fcc could [inaudible]

if it wanted to. the availed themselves of that car right until august 2005 for everett thought it was necessary. i do not think wish to pretend that going back to title two would mean the earth with a stop spending on its access -- the earth would stop spending on its acix. -- axis. i know that the sec is fighting in court to different -- to defend the current free market. hopefully the court will uphold that. if that does not, cool heads will prevail and we will work with the sec to ensure that all of the goals that are in this broadband plan, universal service, investing in the competition, privacy, disability access will all be implemented. the agenda for connecting

america does not change. i know that there are some people out there saying they should not have the authority under title 1 or title two. they turn it into a ditch that is enforcing the law without any ability to do rulemaking. i disagree with that. history says that that is completely wrong. -- i disagree with that. this is the next innovation of that. this is broadband planned #two going into the 21st century. do you agree? >> your live did. it could not possibly be wrong. during those years, from 1998- 2008, i was in the private sector. i am very sensitive to the

effects that policies can have on investment. i am confident that this fcc will tackle all of these issues in a way that has great respect for the private investment that we need to get to world leadership on broadband. as i have mentioned, the fcc has been operating under title 1. a company made a decision to challenge that in court. the fcc is defending it. i believe we have the authority and that we will have the authority. >> i agree with that 100% otherwise the whole history of the telecom act of 1996 makes no sense. all of those regulations were implemented under title two. it really does not make any difference except that there are some companies out there that enjoy the forbearance that was engaged in by the fcc during a

to a killer. of time. -- during a particular period of time. competitiveness, darwinian inspiring competition, introducing its into every single aspect of the marketplace is how we got hulu, google, youtube, and ebay. not one home in america had broadband in february 1996 when the telecom act was signed. 10 years later, it is a completely different dialogue in our country. one final question on e-rate. we have both introduced e-rate 2.0 to change the way in which we look at e-rate to make sure there is more taxes. how do you feel? >> i feel it is essential.

i think you and the committee for your work on e-rate over the years. one of the things i see is how frustrated teachers are by the fact that some of their kids have broadband access and some do not. they are frustrated that their facilities, while the have connected classrooms, are not good enough to give them what they want. tackling that is a recommendation of the plan. >> we thank you, mr. chairman, and of the commissioners for their excellent work on this plan. it is going to actually play a historic role in ensuring america regained its position as number one. >> the gentle lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this question is to commissioners. i am concerned about changes to privacy lot.

can you explain why this is necessary? cleanse the first. to make -- >> the first point to make is that the internet should be open. the plan is very clear that we need to make sure that companies can enforce their rights and that we do not have rampant piracy on the internet. over the course of our broadband proceedings, we heard from teachers and others in the education community that. it's -- that pointed to some areas that they're teaching would be inhibited but not to challenge the fundamental. -- fundamental point that it is essential. >> those with copyrighted works

need to feel comfortable post an on-line. we need to have the strongest possible privacy rights. the need to be able to work with carriers to police and act against stolen intellectual property. first of all, we are not experts on intellectual property or copyrights. just as a note of caution when it comes to any recommendations that could be seen as wanting to intellectual property rights. i think will help if we have stronger party rights enforcement requests there is no discussion in this document about legal content protection for it is not a priority at all? >> i believe there is some discussion and we would be happy to follow up with you on that. intellectual property is not a

central issue in the broadband plan. there is an endorsement of the importance of copyright protections and there is the identification of an issue that was raised with us in the record with respect to education and a suggestion for further work on that. >> sections 11.4, 15.7, and 15.9 had some discussion there. some this -- some concerns that we would be suggesting a weakening of the intellect or property rights protection. >> to akko my concern in the document, the example you cite in ferreous is actually -- use a teacher's seeking to use beatles lyrics to promote literacy is the example that you cite. in education, the best way to improve literacy is to cite the beatles? this is the example you used for this argument. do you care to comment on that?

>> what i would be happy to do is to make sure that we share with your office the comments we received from educators on their concerns in this area. i am confident the reports emphasize the importance of intellectual property and puts ideas on the table. we would certainly be happy to be a resource to you and i would be happy to supply the information we received about the process on the issues that that addresses. >> i would appreciate that very much. does anyone else care to comment? >> i have not visited with the educational community, but i haven't visited with consumers and media companies. video is the driving broadband adoption. for media companies to put their expensive content on the web, they need to have assurance that it will be protected. i think it is very important we consider this as we move

forward with broadband and it is important to protect intellectual property. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> think you come ms. bono mack. -- thank you, ms. bono mack. >> i hung on every word of your testimony and welcome it. thank you again for your extraordinary work. i am convinced for your testimony and otherwise that you recognize the need for speed. i continue to have concerns when it comes to spurring competition with new and innovative uses of the spectrum. there are so many entrenched interests that seem to be able to stop new ideas from taking root through delaying tactics.

i think this concern has been raised by other members of the committee, as well. if we are going to see that 100 megahertz reaches -- 100 megabits reaches 100 million homes they need to complete rulemaking faster. we need to see immediate action. i do not know what you all have to say about that. i think it is more in the hands of the chairman. i am disappointed that the advanced wireless spectrum was not recommended for immediate deployment. you're not surprised by my comment, mr. chairman, on that. it was a proceeding that was teed up years ago. i do not think that businesses can afford to or should be able to have to lose money for years. it is my understanding that the department of defense's

spectrum that you are considering paring that spectrum with the currently jammed system >> with systems including the drones, put on my intelligence committee hat, the drones for airstrikes in afghanistan, and pakistan and border security here at home and the systems in the band cost over $100 billion, and cannot be relocated until 2030 and i don't know if you want to comment on this. i don't ral see the dod giving up spectrum. so, have you contacted the dod? is the -- has the dod contacted you? that is my first question and i