the answer to that is if this becomes misperceived as an issue those of us in this room care about and almost no one else does, question of telecommunication policy, it will take forever. if we think back, why did we want this network in the first place, in some neighborhoods it takes forever to get an ambulance or fired from to come through? because some kids coming home from school are not safe because of where they live and they don't control that. we have long ago reached a consensus that that is wrong. i'm one of those who think the president got this basically right but whether he got it right or there's some other approach we have got to keep all rise on swine do we want this or need this in the first place, what ideals do we stand for and if we do that we could move very quickly and should. >> we finished a few minutes

early. so thanks very much to the panel. thank you for coming today. [applause] >> if you will stay seated for one minute. i want to -- just a couple housekeeping things. to thank our moderator, a didn't give her a proper introduction but let's thank amy. [applause] as you note amy is the star reporter on the wall street journal on matters we have been talking about. i don't know whether she takes notes wellesley is moderating. that might be hard. i'm not sure we will be all about this particular panel there but we will be able to watch it on c-span. two other quick things.

when are heard tom warner cable mentioned in terms of the recent attacks by the national association of broadcasters that made me remember -- not that i need to defend time warner cable butted jugs my memory. opposed a blog about this. time warner cable has what i think is a very innovative and useful program to further scholarship in terms of addressing broadband policy issues. they have already been through one year and produced some good papers. the leader of that project is actually with us. i want to say that you could look at the free state foundation blog and find information about the application process but it is a worthwhile program and finally

before we adjourned. remember we are going to move, when you go out to your left for lunch. i was just trying to remember whether blair was linking commissioner mcdowell. ipod think he is here somewhere but whether it was stalin or lenin -- >> i gave him -- >> thanks to that last panel and amy and we're going to adjourn to lunch. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> after the lunch break, fcc commissioner robert mcdowell spoke at the conference. he is interviewed by randolph may. this is an hour. >> okay. i think we are all set. we will get started. who want to welcome our c-span audience. we are pleased that c-span is with us today and we thank them for that. i am pleased now to have with me fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. i will give his former short introduction in a few minutes. you know if you are with us this morning, we had commissioner mary beth baker delivered the opening keynote. nice to have as a book and. and noticed a lot of audience

members from the last two conferences. commissioner mcdowell mentioned this was moved her annual conference so i have no compunction about using that. it has a ring of permanence but the first two occupants of the chair you are sitting in, the past fcc chair and the incoming -- he was on the verge of becoming the broadband bazaar, the executive director of the commission's national broadband plan and last year we had eddie lazarus who was the current fcc chief of staff. i was honored to have both of those gentlemen and we had great conversations as many of you can

attest. this is really a step up the ladder for us to have an it c c commissioner here. >> imus the live-in chairmanship. a don't know what that was. i must've been and vacation that week. >> we were talking about that earlier and he said you may have to wait awhile longer. >> i am sure -- >> by the way now that you have been on the commission -- how many years? 2-1/2. would you rather be broadband czar or fcc chief of staff or commissioner? >> those first two are completely thankless jobs. i'm very comfortable where i am right now. >> that was probably a little

bit tongue-in-cheek. we will get more serious on your views about the job of fcc commissioner shortly but we probably ought to tell the audience right away, that you and i -- for those that and not initiated, we are both graduates of duke university, correct? >> absolutely. [applause] >> blair didn't like you very much but sent his daughter there. >> we may have to put a spectrum that on the number of references to blair. but we're still under the limit. >> blair blair blair blair. >> you noted that you graduated

cum laude from the process. i didn't do that, sorry to say. my wife is in the audience. she was 5 beta kappa. >> so she should be up here. >> nevertheless, i am double duty law school and undergraduate. i really think that trump's come loudly. net is a way of saying that want you to be nice today and answer all of my questions. >> i'm always nice. sometimes i don't answer your questions. >> everyone in the audience has the official brochure or we have your official biography. all the information. i will just briefly mention a couple things and then we will

get right down to. commissioner mcdowell was first appointed to his seat by president george w. bush in 2006 and was reappointed to the commission in 2009 by president barack obama. previously commissioner mcdowell was senior vice president for the competitive telecommunications association otherwise known as contel and was responsible for advocacy efforts before congress and the white house, served on the north american numbering council and the board of directors of north american numbering plan -- >> if you keep going at that level of detail you're going to kill c-span's rating is a. they don't care about ratings. >> i'm going to stop. it is true. >> local member of the aaa.

the american automobile association. >> i want to talk about some of the current hot topic policy issues or substantive basis but also want to talk about how the agency goes about its work. on the latter part about how the agency goes about its work, probably want to talk about how the commission functions or whether there's some institutional changes you might recommend and so forth. let's talk about these process issues first and also talk substantive of course. let's do it that way.

you served as a commissioner. i can foresees an areas where you could be chairman before blair gets to be chairman. we are getting close. here is my question. you served under two different chair men. >> he hoped as do a very soft landing. >> how do their different leadership styles affect how the commission operates on a day to day basis and also in terms of howard deals with big issues that come along like the net neutrality decision or contest and let's not get into the real substance of those things but

just talk about the leadership style of chairman and how that affects the way the commission operates. >> it would make an interesting project for and be a program organizational behavior if you study different personalities of each commissioner and chairman to see how that actually influences outcomes and productivity and all the rest. we have different people at the helm with different personality and different philosophies with their own from brand of the outcomes that it produces. a very high personal regard for the chairman and looking forward to agreeing with him on a lot of things. what most people don't know, 90% of what we vote on is not only

by a partisan but actually unanimous. in that 10% is naturally partisan by different alliances. my very first actions as commissioner in june of 1996 was a vote that never came to materialize. a few weeks of deliberation, i came to the conclusion that the two democrats on the commission decided to oppose the initiative and i did too for different reasons the we can with the same destination but different paths. we could talk about issue by issue but the management of the commission doesn't necessarily always involve commissioners soapy chairman has 1800 people

at its fullest ranks, $3 million year budget and what goes on that doesn't necessarily directly affect the commission. it depends on the issue. >> in 1999 the chairman of the commission, president clinton's appointee was william bernard at that time and shortly before he departed he issued a strategic plan for the commission and it was titled a new fcc for the twenty-first century. it was sent to congress at the time. just want to read you. this was the very beginning of a strategic plan. i apologize for those that were here last year. i actually read from this plan last year. may keep doing it until someone

gets the message over there but i thought was important what the chairman said. he said in five years, this was 1999, expect the market to be characterized by vigorous competition that will reduce the need for direct regulation. the advent of internet based and other new technology driven communications services will continue to erode the traditional regulatory decisions between the communications industry. as a result over the next five years the fcc wisely managed the transition from an industry regulator to market facilitator. the fcc as we know it today will be very different in both structure and mission.

hy was around in 1979-1999, 1989 to 1999 and i have to say hi don't think the fcc is fundamentally very different in structure and mission now than it was. there have been some changes. officers have been moved and there have been some consolidations. despite the development of competition, it seems to me that he was often terms of his prediction about the fcc as an institution. unlike to know whether you agree with me or disagree. and of course also tell us if you think the fcc should be

changed as an institution and in what way is. >> any major fundamental changes have to come from congress. so chairman canard started the enforcement bureau. chairman marne started the security bureau and those did help streamline some functions but you're absolutely right. overall reinventing government starting in 1993 but the government since then and even before then has only gotten bigger and that has not necessarily been reinvented. there are slow-moving institutions in washington and it is hard to pass legislation affecting agencies. took something like 9/11 for there to be the creation of the

part of homeland security. it is hard to do that of the way institutions are set up. so we still have a statutory construct and it is of to congress to change that and up to us to try to adapt as best we can. some of those bureaus have been renamed and there's a lot more cross talk within the agency then there was in 1999 when he lay that out. but when mike cops became acting chairman in january of 2009 and sent him a long detailed letter and then in july of 2009 a sense the same long letter with a few revisions outlining some suggestions. how could be different? if you wanted to be fundamentally different --

>> let's put that aside. understand your not the chairman but erode those letters. as to put a point on it, tell us a couple of ways if you could change it, that you would change it. even including what congress ought to do. just put a point on it. be both davis. you are among friends. >> just among us and c-span's cameras are done. what should communications regulation look-alike. i described the philosophy that competition supplants the need for regulation. there is no federal clothing commission, the closing market is competitive. you want to adopt policies of

competition. there have been debate and is healthy to have this debate every, reauthorization bill comes before congress and even when they're not before congress, should the policy decisions come from the executive branch. should there be a secretary of education of that type of thing. should be more of an enforcement agency. those are all good questions to ask and as we continue to look at markets to the chairman where there are bottlenecks and do they need government intervention to open, we can look from the general competition perspective rather than just regulatory law perspective. those are issues which are healthy to discuss before congress and should be aired out but it takes decades to get major reform. the last major reform was when they went from seven commission

is to five and that was 30 years ago. >> i mentioned by was doing telecom policy in 1979 but when you said decades that begins to worry me a little bit about the future and whether our will be around for that. >> the right and exercise. >> you mentioned executive branch agencies. that was one thing to be looked at and how they relate. just so everyone appreciates what we're talking about. the fcc is one of those so-called independent regulatory agencies. a multi member commission, was bipartisan membership. and staggered terms. all of those features as you know were part of the progressive era of sort of new

deal construct for the creation of these so-called independent regulatory agencies that would make decisions and richie notion and maybe i'm oversimplifying a little bit is these agencies would be largely insulated from politics because of their structure and the decisions would be guided by the extra fees of the commissioners and the staff. that is what we have. i won't even ask whether it is a good or bad thing initially but describe for us so you can help understand, what is the mixture of politics and expertise ordinarily in fcc decisionmaking or putting in another way, the

fcc is an independent agency, couples politics intrude in your decisionmaking. >> for those who may not know we are all appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate so we are appointed by a politician and confirmed by 100 others in the senate so there are politics there. politics does create policy. it can have a dirty connotation but at the end of the day the definition of politics is a good one. >> the president can't dismiss you because he disagrees with one of your decisions. congress can't as well. >> that helps tremendously. we have fixed term but can only be removed from office by impeachment from the senate. the thankfully that hasn't happened yet. that is a certain amount of autonomy. now congress can pass legislation to make as do

something or prevent those doing something and restrict our budget to keep us from pursuing a certain goal so politics is always there. we could be called to capital hill before relevant committees and be browbeaten and people can complain and voice their opinions to representatives of the american people. it is political for all those reasons but there is that degree of insulation from it as well. everything we do is also a lead public. our decisions are written and available to the public and available to appeal through the courts so there are a lot of checks and balances should the commission do something is not authorized to do. there are some building blocks. the system is in place. going back to the matter of how do different personality is

shaped different philosophies. that is ultimately what decides hour each commission produces public policy. >> that is an excellent segway into my next question about the reference to how different philosophies ship different decisions. but maybe before i ask the next question, i think you did this a little bit before but this will lead into the discussion of the substantive topics we want to talk about. how do you know -- you say you rely on competition as a guy making decisions. am i correct? >> that is the goal. let's look at the market and see what is competitive and see the market chile is the bottleneck. >> so the economist out there actually got the fcc's chief

economist in the audience with us, jonathan baker, so my question is how do you know when a market is sufficiently competitive that you don't want to regulate? >> it is a little like obscenity when you see it. i don't think there will be a strict test that will be unique. look at the fact that each situation, follow the law which is what you're able to do or empowered as an agency but look for concentrations of market power and pieces of those power and if you need a remedy to fix it make a narrow its share of -- tailored, and go from there so you have to take each case as it comes to you. >> address one to remind the audience for those of you that are with us this morning that we want to have questions in this session as we did throughout the

morning session so as we have our conversation if you think of questions keep them in mind. we will have an opportunity to have q&a so i invite you to do that. early last answer leads me to this question. when chairman jankowski came in, he had an emphasis on data driven decisionsmaking which had a nice ring to it, data driven decisionmaking and in fact he repeated it so much it became what i might call a mantra almost, so a lot of data comes into the commission as we all know. here's my question.ion.xn danku. you and chairman jankowski, you

hopefully have the same data, but that leads him to come to a very different conclusion than you do on certain issues, say net neutrality when you're looking, presumably, at the same data and i mean, that's puzzling to me if you have a beta-driven commission, except if you take into account the regulatory philosophy must matter, i guess. how do you bring together those two ideas and talk about how they lead you to reach a different decision from your fellow commissioners. >> it was probably like any other collaborative policy-making body whether it's congressor a panel of judges and other agencies. so your philosophy will have a lot to do of how you look at the facts and also you have to look at the law.

so when in doubt, read the statute and that was always a helpful place to start. look at the court cases that might govern that particular area as well, and go from there. it could be that you completely agree with the policy outcome, but we currently look at the statutory authority to do so and the courts may have said otherwise. >> those are pieces of data that probably everyone -- you know, the statute is the statute. the court decision, you might agree on, but talk about it a little bit in terms of -- i'm thinking more of market data or, you know, pertence in about the future or whatever. sort of that type of fact all material that the commission considers in making decisions. >> it could be that sometimes the commissioner or chairman, they come in with the agenda and they look for facts to help support that agenda.

>> there are other times when there's a new issue brought to their attention and they'll open the record and they'll balance the facts. it's hard to set aside the premis and we'll set aside the statute in the courts and that's what gets the commission in trouble on appeal and i try to make sure that i'm as faithful to that as i can be. >> okay. so let's move into our discussion of some of the substantive issues because i think we've got an appreciation of how you approach decisions and your philosophy and, surprise, surprise, the first issue i want to talk about is net neutrality. i mean, frankly, i've been talking about net neutrality for maybe seven or eight years and i don't see any reason to stop right now right at this moment, even though i know the commission has just reached a decision, but now, everyone in the audience, i'm sure, in this

audience has read your 33-page dissent to the commission's net neutrality decision, maybe even memorized parts of it, for all i know. >> hopefully not. >> but let's talk about it. just to set the stage, you called the fcc's action, quote, one of the darkest days in recent fcc history. now, do you really believe that or were you just taking poetic license for dramatic effect after just having quoted shakespeare before that? >> well, when you're writing a 30-page dissent with 30 footnotes, you have to put something in there to keep the reader's attention. a little bit of rhetoric doesn't hurt any now and then, so -- >> i want to quote again from your decision and obviously have

no fear. we're not going have time to explore all 33 pages, but -- and of course, a lot of it turned on the -- on your analysis of the commission's legal authority with which you disagreed with the majority and the commission had authority to promulgate these rules. we may talk a little bit about that, but put that aside. that, but put that aside. i just want to give you a years. this gets to the heart of the matter. commissioner mcdowell said, quote, using these new rules as a weapon politically favored companies will be able to pressure their political appointees to regulate their rivals to gain competitive advantages. litigation will supplant innovation. instead of investing in precious capital to be diverted for fees, the era of internet regulatory

arbitraged has dawned. that is a pretty stiff charge. >> that does contradict the darkest day of the year part. sorry about that. >> i thought was all this part of the poetry myself. but anyway, that gets -- there are a lot of ways to think about it but that gets to the nub of the matter. just take a couple minutes to explain what trouble you so much about the commission's decision. just put aside the question of the legal authority which appreciate. [talking over each other] >> let me just ask. even assuming he reached a conclusion that the commission had the authority to do what it wanted to to do on your reading of the statute would you have

been fine with the regulations? >> let me go to the first part of your question. the most frequent request we get at the commission from industry players is pleased regulate my rival. please slow him or her down. legal analysis -- >> they don't say it quite that way. they say we just need a level playing field. >> there are a lot of ways to say it. but that is the essence of a lot of requests. it can be couched in terms of consumers etc.. it usually comes in the context of the competitive marketplace. the concern with the legal analysis is there is no limiting principal in the commission or majority's order.

no limiting principle on the commission's authority to regulate. so if it is truly a limited power to the point of the commission having the authority to regulate rates, terms and conditions which the commission is on record saying title i gives the commission that authority then there's no end. it just takes three votes to determine the basis of a complaint. so what we are also doing is opening up the commission to be a new tool hindered in negotiations strategy or competitive strategy. or instead of just knocking the stuffing out of each other in the marketplace, now you're coming to the government to help pick a winner or loser. that is troubling. and i am not sure -- i know the order won't stand. we talk about that in a minute.

the uncertainty injected in the marketplace is all rolled into that. my concern over that. >> maybe this is part of the same thing you're talking about but let me just ask and have you elaborate. the commission seemed to place an awful lot of emphasis -- the purpose of the rule was to protect what it called edge providers, meaning application and content providers rather than network providers. it drew the distinction. there was a lot of talk about how one of the chief purposes of the rule was to make sure the edge providers are protected so they can innovate but i want to

ask what you think about this distinction between the edge providers and the network providers. is it a durable distinction at all and it makes sense? >> i don't think it is a durable distinction. let me outline the profile of the company for you. it has thousands of miles of fiber-optic and activity. it has hundreds if not thousands of servers and soft switches. offers video, voice and data service. is that co. at&t, microsoft, verizon, or google? the answer is all of the above. as consumers are demanding and the marketplace is demanding more convergence of technology, the law has to respond in kind.

one can make the argument that the difference is two of those have these facilities. we have been working hard on this competition whether it is december of 2006, new franchise orders to make it easier to get fiber underground or trying to free up more spectrum for wireless broadband which is the fastest-growing segment of the broad and market. we just made another big break through recently. all of those tried to inject more competition. if we have more market players, distinction between an edge provider and core provider is an already an antiquated concept. the concept is already becoming antiquated. >> i want to move on to a legal

question. i argued myself for five years that the net neutrality regulations being considered could well violate the first amendment rights of the information providers themselves. i have to say not that many people have listened to me as i have made that argument but maybe you will be more persuasive. the commission majority seems to accept the notion which i think is upside-down that government and forced net neutrality mandates promote free speech foul use and insistent with the first amendment. if you think that is wrong just explain briefly why. >> there is a lot war. it is upside down. we have to understand the bill of rights created the ball work to protect individual rights against intrusion of government.

it is not designed to strengthen the power of government. the bill of rights were constructed to contain the power of government. let's look at the factual situations of the internet right now which is the internet is open and freedom enhancing now and has been since it was privatized. freedom of expression is sort of a libertarian heaven in that regard. when we look around the globe but concern is not with private sector mischief with the internet. is with government meddling of the internet and egypt being of the most current example of that. so when you give the government more control over internet network management or call it what you will, there are countries across the globe, egypt or saudi arabia or china

or iran or others, all in the name of serving the public interest are trying to justify more control over the internet. there is a bonafide movement afoot which is gaining momentum for the un to establish an overarching this international regulatory body that would have sway over internet governance, management and all the rest. once we crossed that rubicon into the idea of more government intervention in this space use start to lose the moral high ground. we then put ourselves in position saying other country that is acting badly, don't have the government intervene in that way, have a government intervene this way rather than starting with the premise that fundamental hallmarks to say the

government should not be involved with these things to begin with. we should continue to let the bottom of internet government groups that are non-governmental in nature and are multifaceted with stakeholders' running them to manage these issues. we can rely on antitrust laws or section 5 of the -- that would remedy every single part that has been brought up by in that neutrality. i did include a section on that at the back because courts tend not to address constitutional issues if they can help it but it is there with freedom of expression, balance on the internet and continue to do so. we need more competition, lot more regulation. >> you and r are on the same

page and we will have even more people. we are going to touch on a few more issues and open it up to the audience. as network anchors like to say this will move closer to the lightning round. we will see if we have any questions. i want to talk about universal service. >> have they observed the coffee? >> there was a lot of discussion. so everyone understands all this. this is the question. this room would agree, reforming

universal service. and telephone companies hate each other. without going into all the details and subsidies that exist that were intended to achieve voice telephone service which has been achieved. the money is still being collected, customers on the bill c 50% universal service. there's an impact with subsidies. my question is without going in, we don't have time to talk about the way it should be reformed. it goes back to my question earlier, the fcc and its role, the role of politics versus

expertise. this should have been done long ago. how come it hasn't been done before? this will be the last time his name will be mentioned but in this context our friend was saying he could sure use the help of free-market conservatives and others to really get out front with this issue. >> it really comes down to why has the commission not achieved service reform. in recent years. in the fall of 2008 we were very close to deciding a lot of thorny issues.

folks watching at home, $8.8 billion year subsidy program, one of the largest administered by the federal government, money that doesn't go to the treasury, maybe farm subsidies do. it is one kind of telecom user. we are very close in fall of 2008 to resolving a lot of issues. commissioner cox was another. the two of us were still on the commission and we agreed in principle and sometimes in detail on a lot of matters. it didn't happen and you have to ask the chairman at the time but we put forth -- >> did you ask him? what did he say? >> i don't have an answer. deadlines continue to be moved

out. that was that. that was a missed opportunity. it does become a political issue. i believe it is an independent agency. congress is set up where the house is urban, the senate is -- so the house, represents more and the senate represents generally speaking more than universal service. for congress to actually act on this, section 254. there is a great deal of leeway.

an independent agency to do the right thing to take what is necessary. that is our job. we will rekindle that spirit. we have many conversations and we're optimistic we can go forward. having said that we are in and sunshine. for the folks watching at home in the blackout period, call it a sunshine period, we have a big vote on tuesday on these issues. i can't get into the details. >> if anyone has questions for commissioner mcdowell, why don't you proceed to the microphone. go ahead and line up.

you can get to those in a moment. the comcast nbc universal merger, the fcc just approved that a couple weeks ago, there was a yearlong review at the fcc. >> just under a year. >> the commission approved it. they did so with 33 pages were there about. conditions that were attached to the merger. you and commissioner baker issued a joint statement. you concurred in the approval of the merger but expressed concerns about the process and the decision. can you briefly explain what your concerns where, the way the commission handled that merger?

>> i expressed concerns about other mergers as well and some others. we have a vague and broad duty under the statute examining this merger for public interest and we only have jurisdiction if there's a transfer and that broad standard can encompass being different from the antitrust review by the department of justice or federal trade commission depending on that. i subscribe to the philosophy we shall look at what is produced by the merger. what ever merger it might be. what can we do to -- assuming we can't. if we can, we attach limited

conditions and move on. my concern with the merger order as we laid out in the joint statement by commissioner baker was there are lot of conditions and upfront concessions made that had nothing to do with the merger. they might be noble goals, good corporate citizenship but nothing to do with the merger. expanding broadband deployment is noble but did that have to become a matter of law over what was essentially a vertical merger? distributor of content. over the years, the commission more and more has been looking to resolve or achieve other ends to garner support for other items on a personal or political agenda.

emerging companies come for the commission and are pretty vulnerable. it has become a cost of doing business for those companies. if you want to anax policy to encourage those nonspecific issues, go ahead and open a rulemaking. >> by the way i agree entirely with that. we are going to open up to questions. we will follow the rule we have had throughout the day. and appreciate asking in the form of question and we will try to rolled through a few of these and identify yourself please. >> in an effort to create friday afternoon news, could you respond to the challenge of rate of return regulation and explain your position on it? >> you are over the blair limit

by a tally. we are locked out. actually i didn't hear what you had to say. >> he has essentially said the rate of return regulations if i understand correctly as they apply, the usf is a form of corporate subsidy, free-market conservative like yourself needs to get behind that while you do that. >> before you answer i believe you said if you don't do that then you are putting yourself in the company of stalin and woodrow wilson. i don't know which one of those you consider you would rather not be in the company of but that is the way he put it so this will probably be an answer that makes news. >> so you have the stalin comparison. i get that a lot.

the bolshevik ties. there you go. how does it feel to be talked about like you are not in the room? let's put all options on the table. ok, great. got it. want me to speak slowly so you can transcribe? let's put everything on the table. make sure you put your own name in the quote. we are in sunshine. so i can't go into details regarding the notice of proposal but there will be ample opportunity to mr. levin's deny it -- the like to comment on

that. let's work together to try to keep the best results. >> next question. >> i want to ask those the government have the authority to regulate that and if so where does that authority come from? the government does have broadly speaking jurisdiction over the internet and such going on. the antitrust concerns and so on but the fcc has limited authority. on the fifteenth anniversary of the 1996 telecom act, internet is mentioned a few times. not a lot but a few.

when congress did not act to give authority to the regulation of network management, that was evident. events of the section 706 is deregulatory. the management order of december 21st to justify the regulations. it is clear from the plain languages, and traditional interpretation of it. the commission is hard-pressed, the authority to support its rules. >> this will be the last -- we will end too and under fcc time

we are still close. you get the last question. [talking over each other] >> this is the last question. you can't include the initials. >> i am not going to mention this gentleman sitting over here. assuming the order adopted in december as published in the federal register -- >> a little sarcasm. >> what would your position be for anyone who challenges that order to treat the order as being in affect and interpret the order or would you be more inclined to say this should not exist against anybody under it? >> that is a very good question. until a court says we don't have the authority to do that or

strike down there the better than average chance it could be saved. that is the rule in the books. we have complained before us and we will look at those complaints case by case. the order goes down in that. that is a very good last question. >> how many times do you get congratulated? all of you will agree this was a terrific conversation. each year we have a conversation -- commissioner thune one --

>> thank you -- before we give the final round of applause. a free state foundation poster, i am presuming there is no issue. if the council happens to rule this is not permissible under all of the commissioner's rules, i am sure you could donate to the cafeteria downstairs but i do want you to take it as a token of appreciation, thanks for coming. [applause] >> with that, i want to thank the audience for coming and being with us. we will consider the conference adjourned.