by the october deadline, that you outlined in the report, are you actually going to auction the spectrum and put it in use as soon as possible? i'm going to continue on with my question, and then you can answer them. on the next generation 911, as i said, mr. shimkus and i are cochairs of the 911 caucus and offered legislation, and, if you have had a chance to look at it, what your take is on that. so many things to ask about and first, we'll submit for questions, that you can answer, in writing. on public television and their broadcast spectrum issues the public television stations are very different from commercial television station, as you obviously appreciate. as the commission looks ahead to rule makings announced in the plan, to reclaim the 120 megahertz of spectrum from the

broadcasters, can you give us any assurances that public television stations will be protected from involuntary reallocations of that spectrum? i think it is important that they are protected. i think they represent one of the treasures of our nation. so those are my opening questions and i'm submit more to you, to the commission, to respond to in writing, whomever would like to answer, i welcome it. >> i would be happy to do so. on the first issue, our staff at the fcc and their colleagues at ncia and other agencies have been talking about spectrum and with respect to the spectrum you mentioned they've identified a owe pension opportunity that could be good for the country in terms of pairing. i completely agree it is a birthday practice to extend

proceedings, petitions, indefinitely at the fcc and one thing the plan did was put a deadline on exploration of the pairing alternative, and, i believe the plan goes on to say that if the pairing is not possible, then the commission should proceed, adopt rules, and auction that spectrum. with respect to e-911, i think we owe you and congressman shimkus thanks for the ideas, because i believe e-911 is discussed in the broadband plan, certainly as part of looking to the future, on public safety, and the 21st century and broadband tackling 911 in the way people are actually using communications devices is essential and public tv, the answer to your question is yes. and for public, too, there is an opportunity, here, for a win-win and that is something i hope we can work on, with everyone together in the proceedings we are watching. >> thank you very much. and i am very excited.

it is as if the cobwebs are being cleared and we have a vision for our future and i look forward to working with the commission and -- in the full -- and the full subcommittee on this. thank you. 1. >> thank you very much, ms. eshoo. e gentlelady from tennessee, ms. plaqblackburn is recognized five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i want to thank you for being here, i have to tell you the lack of attention to intellectual property and the way you are punting the question is a little bit troubling to me. i think you have to that is correct at the fact that broadband, you are talking about wanting broadband, a robust broadband deployment and expansion. and to not have some of the intellectual property protections -- and i know you are not the central agency that handles that -- but i think it is worthy of a revisit from you.

the, packages of fair use is of concern to me. one of my songwriters terms, a fair way to steal my money and that is his version of fair use. i think i would encourage you all to have a revisit on that. i have about 7 questions, i'm not going to get through all of them. so commissioner mcdowell, you had mentioned something, i want to go back to. the notion of net neutrality. having net neutrality and that that would... those net neutrality rules could complicate the efforts to enforce the laws on illegal content. illegal downloading on-line. i would like for you to expand a little bit about that relationship between net neutrality rules, and enforcement against illegal content. >> sure. first of all, the proposed rules do call for a carve out for such

things as illegal content, not just intellectual property theft but child pornography or things involving national security, et cetera. but, i think my concern with adopting those rules in general is the amount of uncertainty that it will inject. we have talked about today, extensively, title one versus title two and i'll file a letter with the committee regarding my passion on that but that is litigated before the courts and these things take years. in the meantime, would new rules, actually give network operators pause in terms of acting on a number of front, including the enforcement of intellectual property where it might not be so clear, especially if we are talking about relaxing or undermining -- expanding fair use, undermining the existing protections. so i think it creates uncertainty, you know, after the 96 act we had the legislative and then the regulation, and then litigation cycle that went on for the brt paetter part of

decade and i think after promulgating such rules we'll have a period of uncertainty and that would not be good for intellectual property rights holders. >> mr. chairman, let's go back to commissioner baker's comment, where, you know, talking about the media comes, and the push to get the content on there, because of the way people are doing research, so if you want to ensure both a robust broadband deployment and the production of intellectual property in that content, from those copy write industries that are going to be essential and are going to contribute to that growth, then how are you going to go about that? i think we've got to realize that our core copy write industries contributed nearly a quarter of the real growth we had in our economy last year and you are talking about, you know, oo

ease of access here. how are you going to marry those two? we're all interested in it. we have a lot of innovators who have invested a lot of money in new platforms, so how do you make the guarantee? >> i -- one is i couldn't be more firm in my conviction that it is essential to be able to protect intellectual property on the internet. i have been clear about this since the first day i was sworn in as chairman. i understand that one, it will be any -- commissioner baker, and other content that will be an important part of driving broadband everywhere. and, one of the main ways that a strong broadband policy will promote job creation and innovation in the country. so there is -- i think in general in i'm in complete agreement with you on this. i think we have to be sensitive as a commission, to suggestions that we have from teachers or others, saying, can you look at narrow issues, to see what makes

sense, we wouldn't do anything in this area without a robust, open, participatory proceeding, that hear views from everyone involved and i think that is our job. but, i should stop there. but i don't -- >> we're out of time, so that will be fine and thank you, again, so much to all of you for your preparation and being here and mr. chairman, i will submit the balance of my questions and we are appreciative for your efforts today. thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. blackburn. the gentleman from michigan, mr. stupak is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, mr. waxman spent time on public safety and i have a couple of question to follow-up on, the national broadband plan proposing roaming and priority access to public safety organizations for all license holders in the 700 megahertz realm. what type of obligation would be placed on commercial providers to ensure public safety is given more than just priority access,

but, also, a robust and resilient access at times, of emergency? >> the details of that are exactly the kind of thing that will be worked out in the rule making that will hold, but that is the -- what you described as the goal, to put in place a mechanism where public safety can have prioritized access to spectrum that it needs, team that worked so hard on this, and has resulted with everyone, involved, believes that there is a path that can work for public safety, and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations and that is also reasonable for wireless industry and that takes advantage of this unique moment in time, if we do this, as the commercial networks are being built out, we can get it done, do it efficiently and deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> in order to -- the work, though, you will have to have a ready and willing commercial partner to work with for law

enforcement and are you confident we'll have it in all parts of america, especially our rural areas? if they don't, how would public safety proceed to have this plan. >> i asked this question of our team. because i wanted to make sure that the plan that was being proposed, met these goals, they are confident that this mechanism will work for public safety, and, that commercial providers will provide the access that is described in the plan. >> even in areas that are not developed now. >> i believe that is the case, it is certainly something we'd be happy to follow-up with you -- i'm sorry the areas that are not developed now, the idea as we move forward on the 4g broadband network everywhere it would be developed and actually would accelerate buildout of 4g networks, in rural areas, because we can do the commercial networks and the public safety networks together. i fear that if we don't do that, in some areas we will not get any 4g networks and some areas,

we might get commercial and no public safety, because as the commissioner mentioned there is public safety spectrum there but is not being built. >> you mentioned 4g and yet, in mobility fund, you provide for support for 3g wireless network. so i guess that is... seems like -- how will you get to 4g to help outlaw enforcement when the minimum will be a 3g, and that connect america fund, i think it is, in your proposal, so, and you will support one carrier with subsidies in a given geographic area, right, under the connect america fund? so, how will you determine which broadband provider in a given area would receive support if they are only supposed to be 3g and public safety needs 4g, how do you get there and bridge that. >> the 3g network, sir, would be the foundation for the 4g and i think -- >> right. >> part of the solution to make it happen and with respect to the other issues you are raising issues of course we'll take up

the course of developing the rule making and, we'd be happy to follow-up with you on more information that went into the development of the plan. >> well, let me ask you one more, since we might... with future development, in the intercarrier compensation scheme, in the universal fund phased out, over, what, ten years? is that what it is. >> yes. >> how does the fcc plan to ensure the necessary support for rural telecommunications remain in places considering how essential the implicit support is, for these rural companies. >> well, we believe that the plan proposed a transformation over ten years... >> okay. >>... will have that result. as i said, to one of this earlier questions, the team has also suggested an alternative to accelerate the transition, there's a possibility of identifying additional funding, that is a choice we'd be happy to work with the committee on, but the goal of the plan would

be to deliver exactly what you are seeking for rural america. >> i appreciate the goals and the thought and the analysis that went into this. it is whether we do the telecommunication act of 1996 or rural areas, we'll get to you, we are still waiting. and, law enforcement is even greater -- you say you need 4g and we can't even get the basic cable up in some of those areas. or dsl. so, i'm a little concerned about that. commissioner, i have four seconds left. the bill we introduced, fcc collaboration act, give me a quick comment on why we need it and hopefully we can begins the chairman, though he indicated we might get a hearing on it soon, why we need this. >> i want to commend you again on introducing the legislation to make this possible. i think it would be a great step forward for the -- from the standpoint of dispatching the business of the commission, you know, we were all standing

around in the room, out front, waiting for the hearing to start here and it was an opportunity we could have talked about some stuff and broadband might resolve a problem or two but we had to get lock jaw at that point because we'd be delving into the world of substance and i think from the standpoint of doing business, you have five people here, who come from five very different backgrounds, with, hopefully, different talents to contribute to the cause, different perspectives, you can only benefit from those folks sitting around and talking about these issues. serves the public interest. you do it with counsel present, you build in protections, but, the system we have right now, disserves the public interest and retards the ability of the commission to discharge its obligations in a timely public interest-friendly fashion and there was one reform and i can make it the fcc, the one -- if there was one reform i could make at the fcc, your suggestion would be it. >> ms. clyburn.

>> one example to augment that i had the opportunity this chair the joint boards -- thank you very much, mr. chairman. and one of the things -- my colleagues are members. our inaugural call, we had a lot of new voices, because -- a lot of voices on the line and commissioner copps was in the middle of a significant point and it was 17 minutes after the hour when commissioner baker and she was quite on time, came into the room, and commissioner copps had to get off line, and what happens is we have lost the exchange, and just lost the train of thought, and it is a very cumbersome process, so i thank you for recognizing on that level, where no votes would be taken, that this country and the joint board would be better served having a process that is

more relaxed. >> thank you very much. >> thank, mr. chairman. >> mr. stupak, let me assure you there will be a hearing on your measure in the not too distant future. >> the gentleman from alabam re five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the opportunity. when you mention staff, is it your staff that is going to make the recommendations, so that we remain competitive and enhance the creativity of the -- of our gret internet? >> i think it is the fcc staff. >> the fcc staff. is there a group that is specifically in tune with what has happened in the marketplace, in the last ten years, and has a relationship with that

marketplace... >> that is a great question. that is the job of the staff of the agency, to be proactive and stay on top of market developments, and to make sure we have the skill sets necessary to do our job. >> right. right. and so those individuals have had experience in the marketplace, or understand the reality of the... of the capitalistic system, and the development in -- and the risk capital and that sort of thing, is that fair. >> i have focused on bringing into the staff a proceed collection of people with backgrounden operating businesses and investment firms, as well as people who have other relevant experiences, i think that is how we do our job best, to put a room together of people with different background and disciplines and have them focused on doing the right thing for the country. but, certainly, making sure people have a very real understanding of technology, the marketplace, what drives investment decisions, is essential to me. >> will it be five or six staff

members that will be assigned to the development of the language and how it might affect private investment. >> i think the implementation of the plan will be worked on by many more staff members than that. >> where i'm going is, i would love for you to identify those for me and would love to sit and see their resumes and also talk with them if that would be fair. because, it is of great interest to me, having been in the communications field, once before, and in the interest of the health care bill, that we just went through, i of have read that bill, and there is no... no provision in the health care bill for broadband envy. that is a vocal. we've got -- we hope that you guys can solve that problem and thank you very much, for being here.

appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. griff chairman. >> ms. matsui is recognized. >> districts like mine in sacramento, too many households cannot afford broadband service and a survey conducted by the fcc found 93 million americans don't subscribe to inhome broadband services in large part because of affordability barriers. the fact is, the high cost of broadband leaves far too many lower income families in urban and urrural areas at a severe disadvantage and i introduced the broadband affordability act to expand the usf program for universal broadband adoption and the billen will ensure all americans, whether in urban or suburban or rural areas, all have access to affordable broadband services. chairman genachowski, i applaud you, actually and the commission, for including this

proposal, as a central element of your plan. how important is it in your view, for our economy and our country to fully close the digital divide. >> i think it is essential, and i appreciate your leadership on this, and it is included in the plan. ten years ago, if you were looking for a job you would get a newspaper and look at the classifieds, and that is how you would look for a job. today, job postings have moved on-line. most jobs require on-line applications, if you don't have internet access, you are disadvantaged in looking for a job and more and more jobs require digital skills an the literacy, and it is one of our biggest gaps where other countries are ahead of us on adoption rates and it is an important challenge and there is no silver bullet and the plan recommends a number of different strategies to tackle adoption issues. >> now, if the program to expand

the life line link-up program for universal broadband service were implemented, in your view, how much do you estimate to increase the broadband adoption rates in urban and rural areas? we set a goal of moving from 65 to 90% adoption over the next ten years which would be a third as fast -- 2/3 as fast as the adoption rate with telephone. with respect to life line link-up, we want to move forward as quickly as we can, the smart pilot projects to identify what works, what really moves the needle on adoption, and, then focus our energies on those. >> both in urban and rural areas. >> yes. >> okay, that's great. i had in my opening remarks broadband will play a major role in a sustainable path to clean energy, economy improving energy efficiency, standards and lessen our dependence on foreign oil, as i mentioned before, i'll soon be introducing legislation that will complement many of the recommendations made in your

plan. to modernize our nation's smart grid. in doing so, it will make our smart grid more eliable and -- reliable and empower consumers to make more energy efficient and economic decisions about their energy usage. chairman genachowski. how important do you believe broadband is to modernize our nation's smart grid? >> i think it is essential. i think congress was wise in instructing us to prepare a broadband plan and ask us to look at the relationship between broadband and energy, health care, education, there is a section in the plan, as you know, but it will be critical to integrate broadband with our smart grid, both critical and efficient. and, ultimately, result in very significant savings and benefits for the country. >> can you expand on the point made in the plan, about the importance of ensuring that consumers have greater access to information about their electricity usage and why is it

important, what are the barriers to providing that access. >> there is terrific innovation going on in the phase with products, that help consumers visualize their energy use and a lot of evidence that that translates directly into energy savings. many of those technologies rely on broadband connectivity and, often, wireless connectivity, just to fully see and visualize and homes that don't have access to broadband or haven't adopted broadband, are not able to get the benefits of those kinds of technologies. and, so, in a number of different areas here, the nature of broadband as a general purpose technology, that can fuel so much innovation, investment, and benefit producing activity applies to energy and this is a good example. >> in sacramento the utility district received 125 -- $129 million grant for smart grid. and, in talking -- we felt it is very important to look at that,

and look at broadband and how the connection of this is so important. when you think about the community and what we need do, and to see the relationships, and that is really very important, too, because, for some reason, i think, when you think about these -- things like smart meters and being able to find out what is being used, in your house, people seem to understand that this is somehow connected to broadband. so, i think it is important, and i am very grateful that you have that in your plans, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, ms. matsui. the gentleman from michigan, mr. roger, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thanks again, commissioners. i ham impressed and i like a lot of what you are saying but when i went back and looked at your statement, on september 17th, at the hearing, nowhere in the statement does it talk about net neutrality. not once. great statement. get tears in your eyes, reading this thing, i want to stand and

salute the flag and then, four days later, you introduce a rule, a sweeping rule, on net neutrality. today, i heard you tell this panel that i'm for a light touch on regulation, that is what generated all of this competition. and, yet, your fcc was doing oral arguments, arguing where you have the ability to regulate the internet. and, i am -- maybe you can help me understand how we get from that position, to net neutrality and your position of today, that you are telling me now, which i like to hear, light touch on regulation, you can argue the case that you have the ability to do that even though the -- appears to me by reading the case, that the three-judge panel was pretty if you have on your position. could you help me understand that, sir. >> sure. it has been -- i have been public for quite a long time on my very strong view that clear high-level rules to preserve a free and open internet are pro investment rules, pro

competition, pro innovation, that we have an obligation to make sure that the open architecture of the internet, that served the country so well, continues going forward. so, i see real consistency, between my priorities of innovation and investment, and, preserving a free and open internet. >> the very things that you reference, actually, in your speech to the brookings institute, where you talked about, you know, chevrolet and hot dogs and apple pie, great stuff... but some of the things that you reference, netscape, great, started in ann arbor, michigan, we're proud of that and facebook and other innovation didn't happen because of this social justice notion we'll have this exchange of information and we're going to be in the backyard and have kumbaya and play drums.

it had to be because someone was going to make some money, right. >> absolutely. >> what you are saying is i believe in the light touch and a free and open internet and that is why we're going to regulate the internet. there is no such thing as being little bit pregnant. when you get into regulation of the internet you will make determination, you have to make determinations. and, you are arguing the fact that you absolutely have the ability to do it. i agree with the three-judge panel and i don't think you do. i would love to know, obviously we'll disagree, you think it is consistent, now that you can do that. i don't think you are, you need to help me understand where does it say in what section of the law, and what you are arguing that gives the fcc the ability to regulate the internet? >> well, we are not in favor -- i am not in favor of regulating the internet. >> but you're in favor of net neutrality which is regulating the internet. >> i completely disagree, sir, some companies have come to us

to suggest we regulate the internet and we have resisted it. the fcc has for many decades had rules that apply to the onramps for the internet to promote competition to make sure those are free and open and fair. and, i do think that we should continue that, in the internet world, so that the next facebooks and the next ebay and netscapes have the ability to innovate and to invent and, as you say, i completely agree, get a return on their investment by having a fair chance to reach a market. >> and i agree with you, but when you -- the federal government, fcc, gets into the business of setting up what those rules are, that don't exist today, you have regulated the internet. i don't know how you cross the barrier and think there is no harm, no foul. there clearly is and i'll tell you what will happen as a member here, who i have -- a complete free market guy and believe in the market and i think it works and now we'll create big programs to give broadband to people because maybe you have

all gotten in and regulated the internet, where there is isn't a clear market solution, but, there might be in your terms at least mr. copps' view, a social justice issue for having the broadband at the house and now you have completely dismantled the model that got us to 200 million folks having access to broadband. and, how you don't intertwine that is beyond me. and i guess my concern is, is exactly that. you say here, light touch. four days later, you unleash a pretty aggressive first time ever i would argue, regulation of the internet. today, you say, light touch, what is next? i mean, obviously this is something you are whetted to and are clearly committed to this and i think mr. mcdowell pointed out the section, i apologize, section 17, did i get that right? you have clearly laid out the platform to do this. and, is it your position, that you are going to continue to

pursue at least in court that you have the right to regulate the internet. >> if i may, sir, when i started at the fcc the prior add vacation had adopted first a set of principles regarding a free and open internet and enforced those principles against the company and a prior administration did it and that is why we're now in court and took those principles and attached them as conditions toy a merger and i inherited a landscape around the area and there were open internet rules in effect but they were confusing to people, diminishing predictability and certainty and i think it is important to adopt clear, high-level rules of the road that encourage innovation and competition, and, that make clear what is not permitted and almost uninvolved in this will tell you there are some things you shouldn't be able to do. make clear what is permitted and have a fair process for disputes, to be resolved and i

would be happy to work with you on that and i think there is a way to do this, completely consistent with an investment growth -- >> thank you very much, mr. rogers. your time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i enjoyed the hearing so far. mr. chairman, i have a question concerning access. do you believe that pursuing a purely engineering approach to meeting data flow challenges would make net neutrality an obsolete issue? >> i would be pleased -- one of the suggestions i made in the rule making we have proposed, was to increase transparency. so, increase the information about the engineering network management rules that would be available to entrepreneurs and

ctos, i think it would have the positive effect of minimizing disputes, minimizing the government role and so, if that is what you are referring to, it is something i would like to pursue. >> what i am getting at is a purely engineering approach would basically, panned the capability of the existing spectrum and that may be enough to override whatever net neutrality issues are. commissioner mcdowell. >> you are on the right and what can obviate the need -- first of all, the internet is not broken in this regard but the ultimate antidote to anti-competitive behavior is more competition especially the last mile and the most robust area for the competition has been wireless and the commission worked hard since the chairmanship of michael pow, for instance on getting unlicensed use of the tv white spaces out to market, and this is something that, in november of '08, with fan fare

we announced a ground baking order, a 5-0 unanimous vote and it was a wonderful moment but we bogged down in our progress there, the unlicensed use of the white spaces could actually, absolutely, obviate the need for any rules. i dispute that there is a need now and the record doesn't have any evidence that there is, but, you are absolutely right, also with new technologies, cognitive radio and software definement radio and smart antenna technologies. all of these can allow us from a wireless perspective, to have more competition in the last mile wirelessly, so they have multiple providers, and consumers have a wonderful robust marketplace to choose from. >> thank you. i have another question for you, commissioner mcdowell, do you feel the plan will succeed in meeting the six goals that are identified? do you think the plan as written, and published. >> remains to be seen. first of all, it is obviously a very ambitious plan and very lengthy and there are several

hunt tread recommedreds of reco some are agencies and congress to do, and all the moving parts, it will be difficult to say all will realize the recommendations, but, we can always be optimistic. >> one more question for you, if you don't mind. i certainly appreciate that the risk of additional regulation and as i mentioned in my opening statement, creating jobs, is very important to me, considering the situation of my district, and the country, and, i wish to work with the commission on that issue, as we move forward, do you think there is any risk of abuse without further regulation, without additional regulation, is that something you see as a potential problem? >> i think in the context, for instance of our net neutrality proceeding, the department of justice, this anti-trust division, filed comments in early january, which is very rare, for the anti-trust division to do that. it examined the marketplace, and, not only said, was it not broken, in other words, it was

not concentration and abuse of market power, it was down right optimistic that there is a competitive marketplace for broadband and more competition is coming, especially because of wireless. the ftc examined this in 2007, issued a 5-0 bipartisan noon mus report that said that we need to be careful, this is a competitive marketplace, and, while new rules might have the best of intentions, they could create regulatory uncertainty. there is great risk there. >> any other commissioners care to take a stab. >> as it relates to competition, sir, i'm concerned about the future. in chapter 4 of the plan, it talks about what 2012 looks like. and it talks about cable rolling out the 3.0 product which will provide up to -- the incredible potential high speed. what it also points out that in

the markets that we're speaking, competition may only exist in up to 15% of the markets, and if we talk about, you know, prices and service quality and the like, i am a bit concerned, because i don't see robust competition in that particular segment in terms of high speed deployment and availability in the next couple of years. >> okay. thank you. >> i appreciate it and understand the concern and my concern is we produce regulation talking about a marketplace in the future, i think right now the mark is competitive and any significant change in the regulatory environment will cause investment to dwindle and that will cause jobs to dwindle and i think we need to be careful when we tread on this area. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. mcnerney. the gentleman from missouri, mr. blunt is recognized for five minutes. >> let me move over here,

thanks, mr. chairman for the time. let me ask, see what question i can ask and which question we'll submit later. first question would be, in 2007, the fcc determined that a wireless service is not required to provide another wireless carrier with roaming services, if the second carrier holds a wireless license or spectrum usage in the same gee graphic location. is there anything in this plan that changes that, and, mr mr. copps, if you want to answer that... >> i think what we are trying do, is trying to revisit them a little bit. on the premise that roaming is essential, i think, to competitive environment, and looking at the end market exception that was put in place at that time. several of the carriers are telling us that this is a -- the smaller ones, inhibiting their ability to interconnect, and to

do business as they would like. so, i think the commission is well advised and the chairman can speak better to this, what is looking at trying to take another look at that, and see what, if and changes need to be made at this point. >> so, chairman, your sense is there would be some potential there, that this will reverse some of that 2007 structure? >> i wouldn't say that. mostly because the process, the proceeding has not happened yet. if i remember correctly the plan does identify roaming as an issue, whose resolution could affect speed of deployment and acceleration and competition, in the broadband -- mobile broadband market. and, suggest that it is something the commission needs to look at. >> the previous view was, if you had a -- had a license to serve the area, already, you were required to provide your own service -- do you have a view on that. >> i think as a policy matter what we need to encourage is

buildout of your home region. so i think what are referring to is there was a concern in '07, i was there, too, we wanted to be sure roaming wasn't a substitute for resale, if you had a license and weren't building out in your home region, we wanted to provide a disincentive for that and incentive for you to build your own network to become self-sufficient so the spectrum could be used more efficiently and consumers could be better served and that has to be a fundamental policy objective for us is to encourage buildout in your home region and, therefore, everywhere. >> let's go to broadcast tv for a minute. this committee, in this congress, passed a bill out where the fcc would create an inventory of all of the spectrum out there, how it is currently being used, and that has never been voted on by either the house or the senate. and, i think this report calls for the addition -- need to find another 500 megahertz of spectrum. do you think it would be helpful

to analyze how the spectrum is currently being used, and would you encourage us to move forward and ask the fcc to find out how the spectrum is currently being used, before you just go out and try to find 500 megahertz of spectrum? >> i would be happy to tackle that, the spectrum inventory bill is important and reflects the recognition of the importance of spectrum in mobile to our economic landscape, much is known, already. the demands on our mobile network, the constraints that we're heading into, are very clear based on the record and of course the fcc has information about where licensees are. the wireless industry, and -- in the course of our proceedings on broadband came and suggested we needed 800 megahertz of spectrum to satisfy forthcoming mobile needs, the staff of the fcc did

work and thought the 500 megahertz was a reasonable goal and there was record development with respect to broadcast spectrum and record development with respect to the win-win idea and interest there is lots to do and we look forward to work with the committee to find a sensible way to unleak spectrum for economic activity and make sure broadcasters are treated fairly and viewers are served and that where there is a possibility to generate billions of dollars of revenue through auctions, we do ---ed . >> okay. i thought this committee was right when we encouraged that you be funded, allowed, directed to make that review and i hope we do that. but, if we don't do that, what is the impact of over the air broadcasting on any spectrum reallocation? i know we have some areas, all over the state that are not served by the statement over the air broadcasts. they were before the digital conversion. how much worse does that get, as

we begin to reallocate spectrum and, you know, we have lots of areas in america, that are still either you pay for the satellite, or you have over the air broadcasts or you don't have television. >> the goal of the proceeding would be to respect the needs of viewers, especially those who still -- those who still get their tv signal over the air, the congestion issues that we're concerned about, are chiefly large market issues. and, we can make substantial progress for the country if in a small number of large markets, a small number of broadcasters share spectrum, we can free up very significant amounts of spectrum, for our mobile broadband economy, generating auction revenues, and so i'm confident there is a win-win here and the issues will be much less in rural areas because the congestion issues on the mobile broadband side are less intense. >> it could be, though, a lot of

the unserved people, were served before the other conversion are the people closest to the station. closest to the tower, if you are on that higher number on the band. but, i have other questions on unserved and under served and we'll submit those for your answers in writing. again, thank all of you for being here, mr. chairman, thank you for your time. >> that you say, mr. blunt. the gentlelady from virgin islands, ms. christiansen is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, and again, welcome, my first question is hopefully just for the record, mr. chairman. states and territories, wherever we see that in the plan... >> yes. >> okay, thank you. before coming to energy and commerce, i was on homeland security, so, the issue of interoperability was and remains a big challenge and one i'm very concerned about. i have heard concerns the ten megahertz of broadband might be inadequate for public safety

needs. either now or in the future. listening to your prior comments, it seems that you were pretty satisfied that you were meeting the needs of public safety in the regard, so, do you have concerns that there is not enough or do you plan to expand the spectrum later on? >> as i mentioned to chairman waxman my charge to the team at the fcc, which is led by a wonderful 30 year admiral was to take a fresh look and public safety, mobile communications needs, and recommend an overall plan that would most quickly and effectively deliver on the 9/11 commission recommendation, as commissioner mcdowell mentioned there are 24 megahertz that have been allocated and is not used because there is no strategy to build the network. and, so, this plan which includes several elements is a plan to get the network built, and to act consistent with the authority we have now to auction

the ten megahertz... you are referring to, the d-block, i have tremendous faith in our team and their commitment to delivering on the 9/11 commission recommendations. >> thank you. everyone feel the same way? okay. commissioner clyburn, when you came before us in the initial hearing, with the commission, you talked a lot about the concern about preserving diversity and local programming, and as well as closing the gaps for women and minorities. do you feel that the plan provides enough capacity potentially to meet those concerns? >> it provides some promise, but i remain concerned on some fronts. the concern for me is when we talk about -- and i am not -- i am for a voluntary spectrum reallocation. but, what the potential of that

is that some of these entities who may be financially strapped may be the first to sell their space. which would possibly further dilute the gains and the -- our quest for diversity with voices. but, the frontier, when i look at the overall plan, as -- i am hopeful, because it provides a whole host of opportunities. that some are named and some are not, low power television. entertainment and other types of sourcing or programming over the internet. there are a growing -- there are growing enterprises and artists who exclusively want to stay in that space, because of the flexibility and the potential for keeping more of their dollars. so, while i'm concerned on the other front, i am hopeful that this space will be one that literally, the sky is the limit

in terms of potential for diverse voices. >> and so, would it be the role of the fcc to do the outreach to make sure that these smaller entities know what is available or is it our role or the cpc's role or... >> it is very much a global effort. when i go out and speak i say the more positive aspect, a young lady came up to me and said, i'm in my senior year of college, what do i do? i want to get into broadcasting and i'm a proponent of in the meantime, in the meantime you have a vehicle, a relatively affordable vehicle through the internet, to promote yourself, to produce yourself. and, so i look at this as both an opportunity and a bridge to the -- whatever comes next. >> thank you. let me just ask this question. i know that preserving and

stimulating competition is a major part of the plan. but are there any new mandates imposed on industry and -- anybody can answer this. in the broadband plan, and, if so, what industries might have mandates that might require additional investment? >> well, the plan itself is not self-executing. there are a number of ideas in the plan, to promote competition, and i spoke earlier about the complaint we have heard at the commission from small businesses, who want to move on to broadband, but are dissatisfied with the choice they have and their prices and we hear from other competitors who have raised issues and the plan identifies a number of issues that require further work. >> thank you, my time is up, mr. chairman. i yield back, whatever is left of it. >> thank you very much, ms. christiansen. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been asked before, but i have not asked it.

as the old saying goes but i'll ask in a little bit different way regarding the over-the-air tv spectrum. the plan suggests the option of being able to give back or sell back, i'm not sure, that part of the spectrum. the second half of that is, does -- if there are not enough station holders willing to give back some of their spectrum, we have heard that you won't just force it, but, does the fcc even have authority to force them to take -- give back or the authority to take back some of that spectrum? do you guys have that authority. >> with respect to authority. the authority we don't have is to structure what we have called an incentive auction, where -- with respect to any band, we have the ability to ensure that

any spectrum that is used that way, that some of the auction proceeds benefit the license holders. on the first question, again i would emphasize that both that there is a real issue ahead of us for the country in our ability to lead the world in mobile. we have all of the ingredients lining up, with the incredible innovation we are seeing, with the fact that we are moving quickly to 4g, to lead the world, and, we would be happy to share with you the data that shows the gap that we are going to face between capacity -- >> i'm well affair. i'm wondering if you have that authority or whether congress would have to give you that authority, to grab back that spectrum if they don't voluntarily offer it to you. >> my understanding is the authority we lack is the incentive auction... >> you think, if it is just we're going to take it back, you have the authority to do that, without congressional -- >> i think in general with respect to license fees, they are -- licensees, of the

spectrum. >> okay, which is also a follow-up question, about giving it back, whether you could buy it back, they are leasing it, i don't know if they would have the power to resell that, anyway. without the fcc allowing that or congress. so, just overall, the way i like the plan in part, and, of course, we're always going to disagree with some of the details out here. but, one of them, i view this plan as mostly an infrastructure but a lot of the opening statements was on take rate. and i think that is an interesting discussion of access versus acceptance. and so i want to talk about what part of the plan do you think is important on the take rate, which then dovetails into the buzz word of affordable. and i think that is a term of art, not necessarily science.

and, so, are there mandates in here on pricing or how would you make this quote-unquote affordable so more people take it, once we get the infrastructure and access out there? >> and i'll open that up to any of them that -- chairman, you have been a good -- done a good job of shouldering and burdening most of the answers and questions. >> i'll get us going quickly -- >> go to michael. he needs to be involved. >> i think, number one, ensuring there is a competitive environment out there, that helps drive down consumer costs, is one way you get this stuff out and make it affordable, i think a digital literacy is important so people understand the importance of this to their individual lives and to the future of the nation. going back, for a second, to that previous question, you asked about, you know, licenses, all expire.

so, we're not necessarily talking about going in and grabbing and i have been a believer in kind of use it or lose it, and, if you are in the broadcast spectrum it involves serving the public interest and my advice to the broadcast industry, while we are congress tating all of this -- congress tating this and make sure the spectrum is in the public interest -- >> that is a good point, i hate to be rude to you, but i only have 23 seconds left and i want to follow up. on the affordability and how we're going to do that. and, i thought the e-rate was the answer to that question. so, in this discussion of affordability, and take within urban cores and rural areas, has e-rate not been successful? >> e-rate has been a stunningly successful program, i do believe, and i think it is -- talking about digital literacy and all of that, and, certainly,

e-rate is connected to that. but, just from the standpoint of connecting kids to the 21st century, it has been an outstanding success. >> thank you very much, mr. terry. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush is recognized for 5 minutes. >> i want to thank you, mr. chairman. this has been a very -- excellent hearing. chairman genachowski and the other commissioners, you may be aware of the joint efforts by this subcommittee and the subcommittee that i chair to draft a federal privacy legislation, in recent days, much has been made... much has been made about the planned proposal to condition future spectrum auctions for free

broadband service around advertising business models. if the fcc imposes conditions on spectrum one at the 700 megahertz auctions required free broadband access for people who can't afford it, then one probable way to finance the purchase price would be through advertising based services. the plan also suggests as a proposed recommendation, however, if i am a bidder at the auction and i don't know what the final rules of the road would be, with respect to protecting consumer privacy, then i might not be inclined to participate or to bend as much as i might otherwise. this effectively puts the cart before the horse, and could open the door to another set of

unsuccessful auctions. with the hopeful passage of the legislation, what impact do you think that this passage would have on your auction designed for the 700 megahertz license? >> the privacy issue is a very important one and it is discussed in the plan. it is one of the big looming topics that the plan does say needs to be addressed to give consumers and businesses the confidence they need to participate in a broadband future and we are -- it is not -- i think we are glad that there is work proceeding on legislation, and i think if i understand your point, it is that clarity around the rules of the road on privacy, would have real benefits, to the business community, and individuals, as the broadband future rolls out, and i agree with that.

>> any other commissioner would want to respond to that? onto another matter. as you know, one of the... one of my observations is that the broadband plan places too much emphasis on the demand and -- on the adoption side. without giving corresponds weight to the factors that will stimulate entry by small businesses, including minority-owned firms and entrepreneurs. small businesses are critical part of the equation that can help to offset the huge numbers of layoffs that we witness from large carriers. and i wanted to ask you, chairman genachowski and mr. copps, i noted minority

ownership has been a real area of concern for you over the years, and, how do you plan on addressing this stunningly silent omission in the national broadband plan. >> if i may, sir, i... there is complete agreement on the importance of small businesses, and the challenges and opportunities around broadband, we held three workshops looking at the small business issues and there is a discussion in the plan, that i would be happy to follow-up with you and make sure. but, with respect to training, information, digital literacy for small businesses, there are recommendation in the plan with respect to small business administration, and joint activities, extension programs, to make sure small businesses get the information that they need, there are several recommendations on that, and

then, with respect to the aff d affordability issue we heard from small businesses their recommendation with respect to moving forward, on competition issues, to get more competition, to help reduce the price, so, i hope the plan is not confusing on that, but, i -- there is complete agreement on the importance of small businesses, and all -- in all the ways you say and, doth i don't think we are being as clear as we should be. >> i commend the emphasis of the plan on small business. ever since i was assistant secretary of commerce in the clinton administration i dealt a lot with small and medium sized enterprise and they are the locomotive of the economy and job creators and getting broadband out there to facilitate their business is an important priority. also, is making sure the small business is a participant in the building out of the infrastructure, and, gets its share o