we all want competition, but what we want to have really is an environment, and, in fact, the digital revolution is enabling more competition. that's why we have these, we have cable and wireless and fiber and all of these things are part of the digital revolution. but ultimately in a new act what would like to have, in my view, would be a standard that ties the regulatory activity of the agency closely to an analysis of the competitive marketplace. and then only if there's a

market failure or consumer harm, and i recognize that if there's consumer harm there's a place for regulation. i'm not, like mr. cicconi, i'm not advocating no regulation. but we need in a new act to i -- to tie regulatory activity much more closely to an analysis of the marketplace. that really gets away from all this discussion about this technology and that technology and that type of thing. but the fact that technology is changing, and it enables competition, that is a reason for policy changes. it's not a reason to do nothing. >> thank you. mr. chairman, my time is expired and i yield back. >> we turn now to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. doyle, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this morning i read in the newspaper that at&t recently notified many of its special access customers that it

will eliminate certain long-term discount price plans effectively increasing rates by as much as 24%. competitive carriers argue that they have no alternative to gain last mile access to business customers, and the simply accept the higher prices. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to place a copy of that article that appeared in "the wall street journal" this morning, and a copy of the ex parte filing that several companies made with the fcc in regard to those rate hikes. >> without objection >> thank you. let me ask mr. feld and mr. iannuzzi, how can at&t institute up to 24% price increases if these markets are competitive? and do you find fault in claims by some that competition today eliminates the need for a regulatory backstop, particularly in light that hud's actions will effectively raise special access prices? >> sure.

only a comment market player can go and raise prices ad hoc at that magnitude. it was quite shocking to see that take place. those network elements are very vital to run the connectivity within our networks. so if there was true ability to shop and pick, then they would be for closing those sales and those revenue streams. at&t is in the business to make profit, and to then just raise prices, if the market was working and it's an equal service, you would go pick the next lowest provider, provided they had equivalent capability. >> i would add that we often have a confusion between the underlying infrastructure and the things that are riding on top of -- we look at the number of wireless carriers, the number -- number of carriers that offer

service to the infrastructure. and looking at just the surface of what when you get below the surface we say wow there's a lot of competition. to the infrastructure on which all of that competition rides, used have still the same data boom network problem, still the same kind of infrastructure monopolies that you have to worry about. so i think that what we have seen in the special access, and this is not a new problem, it's been going on for many years, is that there was a lot of hope and anticipation when we set up criteria about how we're going to tell whether there was competition. some of that did not happen but also the criteria were frankly too optimistic and did not take into account the difference between people offering retail service, or people offering different kind of commercial service, and the critical infrastructure that you have to get to in order to reach the customers to offer that. >> mr. cicconi, would you like

to respond? >> yes, sir. first of all let's be clear when we're talking of the special access this is mentioned and we're not talking about services that are broadband. one of the reasons mr. doyle, that you read "the wall street journal" article that we are not offering service contracts out five in seven years is because we plan as part of the ip transition, the reason we're here today, to be replacing these old facilities with modern broadband firebase facilities, including ethernet. so naturally we don't want to be offering long-term contracts on a facility we're going to be replacing it with an alternative facility. there's a proceeding underway on special access currently at the fcc that's designed to gather facts on what alternative facilities are available for other providers like telnet to use. we think that the data the fcc collects from all providers, including cable, is going to show that there were ample alternative facilities there. one of the alternatives by the way is for -- we are right now

have a project underway, and hopefully within two years we will have run fiber to a million businesses in our 22 state footprint. and i think any other carrier out there is free to do the same. >> mr. cicconi, listen, i understand your transitioning and that it probably makes sense you're not going to do a seven-year contract. the concern is not so much your discontinuing the long-term contracts, but you are not passing down the discounts. and if this were truly a competitive market i don't know how you could get away with doing that. >> i have to go back and check on the rich but i don't think we have raised prices. i think we've eliminate some plants but i don't think prices have gone up. >> i would like to see that. let me just -- mr. chairman, i see my time has expired. i'll just wait for another time. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back.

at this time the chair would recognize the gentlelady from tennessee, the vice chair of the full committee, ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to go back to mr. waxman's question, talking about the agreements. mr. may, let me come to you, and in mr. feld, i'm going to want to hear from you. do you think the fcc should do a pilot project? and test some of the ip networks to figure out how to make the transition easier for consumers, for businesses? where are you on the pilot project? >> i'm in favor of one but i have to say i probably don't need to be as delicate as mr. cicconi may need to be. i think the fcc has been a little slow i would say in getting these trials off the

ground. so i would like to see them move quickly. and i think they would yield useful information. but i don't want to see them used over a long time of watching the fcc. sometimes i know when you start things like this they can be used in ways that delay ultimately the ultimate decision-making. that shouldn't be allowed to happen with these projects. you started out by mentioning the interconnection in the ip transition, and i just -- i said this in my testimony with regard to ip interconnection. i don't think that, and i'm just assumed will have the trial or not, but ultimately i don't think the fcc should presume that it's going to regulate these interconnection agreements in the same way that it did in

the tdm world. it's likely that there won't be any interconnection problems. that hasn't been the case with pure ip to ip connection. that's far they have been very rare that are have been disputes. they have been worked out really an involuntary marketplace way. so my council would before the fcc to just presume that it's not going to intervene, that we watch the situation. if it does turn out that there is a real problem with interconnection, i said in my testimony that there could be a regulatory backstop but it should look anything like the current 251, 252 process that basically is really reason with more of a public utility regulatory regime. it should be a dispute resolution process that

ultimately depends on mediation and perhaps ultimately baseball sal arbitration or something like that. >> mr. feld, anything? >> at first we support having well constructed trials. i do think the fcc has been behaving responsibly, however. what they put in so far as much more i can do a beta test. what you get to at the end rather than time telling me the trials with suitable safeguards, which are really where we are now. we saw what happened when you tried to put the wire center on fire island this summer. i'm glad to hear at&t say we don't want to do a flash cut like that. the issue here is that the fcc probably said in its public notice is that while the trial is voluntary for the carrier, it is not voluntary for the customer. the other point i would make is in a network if something goes really wrong and the wire center starts to go down it can take in

other the network with it there so we believe in being cautious but we think that as is with any other kind of trial that needs to be appropriate safeties in place, and that those need to be described and settled before we initiate any trials rather than after we get into it. >> thanks. i'm going to yield my time back, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. at this time the chair recognizes the chairman emeritus of the full committee, mr. dingell, five minutes. >> thank you i thank you for your courtesy and i commend you for this hearing. i also wish to express my thanks to mr. wilkes for his courtesy to me. thanks. i would like to begin by welcoming the fellow citizens of michigan, mr. iannuzzi, this morning. his company offers viable service to businesses of fishing.

at issue this morning is a transition to ip-based communications networks. as some of our witnesses have noticed, this transition is already underway. and has the potential to confer significant economic and technological benefits on our people. but we need to learn more about what's interesting means for the future of communications in this industry, and particularly and how it will affect the consumers. incumbent carriers make a very valid point that they are required to maintain tdm networks at a great cost. despite the fact only 30% of all americans use ilec switch networks in 2012. it's my view that the billions spent to maintain legacy networks could be more efficiently based and invested in ip-based networks that will be the backbone of the 21st century telecommunications. this part will help advance the

goals of the 2010 national broadband plan. with that said, i understand that at&t has petitioned the fcc for forbearance of certain regulations in order to establish to geographically limited ip based project. i think there's real value in this approach. it will provide an invaluable case study to consumers, businesses, policy makers and the government about what the transition to ip based networks will entail. i encourage the commission to work with at&t to set these projects in motion making certain that there are mechanisms in place for monitoring and effectively resulting consumer complaints. in addition to the lessons that we can learn from at&t's potential trial project, i

suggest policymakers also keep in mind several fundamental principles when considering the role of government, these are the ip-based communications. as public knowledge has wisely suggested, our focus should be on ensuring universal connectivity. interconnection and competition. consumer protection, network reliability and public safety. those are very important principles to be kept in mind as we go forward. i firmly believe that there still exists the need for certain obligations because the communications has purpose is to make available in so far as possible to all, and i emphasize, all people of the united states to the benefits of our communications systems. that presumption and that comment is of value the

knowledge today as it was 79 years ago. mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy. i unyielding back one minute and 24 seconds. and i think the gentlelady. >> i appreciate, mr. dingell. can i just pursue this issue of the trial? it seems to me that there's kind of a chicken and egg thing going on. between the fcc, maybe it's because we don't have a full commission yet. but it seems to me the following, and i could be wrong, so jim, you just jump in and tell me if i'm wrong. you will do that anyway, but anyway. [laughter] you want the trials. you want the fcc to approve, give you the green light to go ahead with the trial. it seems to me that the fcc is saying we will do a draw but we want the following things in

its, and there's not an agreement. does that look anything like how you see reality? >> because time is going on, and i think what mr. dingell said is we need to get going. >> i think it may just be a function of our timing on this as one chairman is on his way out, another chairman isn't yet in there. the questions actually issued were fairly brazen. i mean, and he waded into a six-month after filed the petition to actually ask the questions. and, frankly, like a lot of you i've been around down a while and i took the questions as a way of the fcc saying we are not ready to answer this yet. but i do take comfort in the fact that we have democratic and republican commissioners old on

the fcc who said yes, we should have trials. categorically go forward. the principal author of the national broadband plan has said absolutely he would have said yes to the trials on day one. i think the key, congresswoman, is, you know, this isn't about us exclusively. it's industrywide and it's a nationwide and i, for one, have been reluctant to put in the fcc a quote unquote at&t plan for conducting the trials. i think it's the job of the fcc to work with all of industry and all stakeholders and, frankly, state level government as well to design those trials much like we've done during the transition. i'm confident once chairman wheeler gets there that's will have been. >> thank you. thank you, mr. dingell. >> account the lady yields back time to the job and his time is expired, at the chair now

recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. great giving, i've learned a lot and i'm trying to say as long as i can because you hear the point-counterpoint which he never missed the opportunity to have a member -- >> let me address, and i always get concerned when i start agreeing with mr. waxman every now and again. i have to check the data file on that but i do agree we need to move on a test. we just need to move forward. and to his comments on google, probably out your listing, i would encourage them to come in because my guess it is 251, 252 is why they're not in the voice. that's what my guess is.

if you have talked to them, mr. feld, and they've given you that data, but i think there's interconnection issues -- is very informative that they're not doing that and i think that's a lesson we should learn and find out. so having said that, just a blanket statement, and under the sec is looking into these dropped calls and rural areas are an issue and that talks about a backstop. that also reinforces an issue of having some type of backstop. so i want to raise that. but could mr. feld and mr. cicconi, public safety is a big issue for all of us here. we worked very closely on this. in this move, how do you envision public safety being positively or maybe, hopefully -- we won't accept a negative response on public safety, so how do we deal with that?

why don't we start with mr. cicconi and then go to mr. feld? >> i hate, mr. shimkus, to sound like a circular reasoning here but i think this is one of the reasons why we need o of the trials out there. we're fairly confident that we can design the systems in a way that takes the account of public safety. moreover, we fully accept that they have to work well for public safety. we simply can't have a new technology deployed where 911 doesn't work or other public safety features don't work. so i think we all recognize this is impaired and i think we need to stress test it to ensure that it does work and that we can transition it at -- accordingly, but i think we all accept the obligation has to be there and we simply can't replace the older doggy with new technology and less 911 works. >> thank you. mr. feld? >> planning proceeds trials rather than trials preceding planning. and the thing that has been

troubling to me is i get we will need have some information that will gather in the trial, but before we say let's throw a switch and see what happens to public safety on this stuff, i want to do what the recovery mechanisms are. i want to have limited test first before you move on to full test. the other important factor is we need to start thinking of how we make a more robust public safety system in our competitive and differently enabled technology universe. there is virtue in redundancy so maybe we don't have to put everything on every network the same way, if we have ways in which the networks will work together better for public safety. we have seen some things coming out of the hurricane sandy hearings that the fcc has conducted where we is in a different technologists have different strengths and weaknesses and have responded in a different way. i think one of the exciting

advantages of the ip transition is that it allows us to start thinking about how to take advantage of the structures of the internet which rely on redundancy and flexibility for stability, rather than requiring liability from every single network that is participating. the last thing i will mention is would've to be be wary of new issues that are coming up. i mentioned in my testimony the problem of squatting which is as a joke to send swat teams to other people people's houses. that's not a particularly funny joke. and while obviously these are challenges that need to be resolved, we need to be accumulating this checklist of what needs to work as we move forward. >> let me finish on this. i've been really involved with trying to raise the issue with the sec -- fcc with the convergence of the account and i've given a. i don't think will ever change the fcc and the rules it has. the last question, mr. iannuzzi,

have you seen in the business sector the cutting of the cord from a landline to sell for the business committee as we've seen in residential services? >> that's an excellent question. the business community, it is a distinctly landline oriented business. while mobile phones are part of the workforce, for the common employed, the way that businesses communicate and collaborate is inherently a landline function. it's because there are group capabilities going on. you are continuing to interact with a wide friday of locations perhaps and so forth which is not conducive to a cellular technology has been deployed which is more about the individual and how that connects together. if i may, on your very important -- about security and public safety, the competitive energy already has migrated for the most part the ip-based 911

service. it's a far superior solution than the currently, the legacy tdm on. why? because on an ip-based one were trying to get our customers call to an emergency authority, the ip network allows us to make sure that if there's any automatic ticket to the public safety point, with alternate routes to all get sick points to get to them or answer to our own opportunity we connect to the. we have added and cool technology where if somebody picks up the phone and the dow 911, we not only sends the call to the public safety organization that we public safety organization will be consented to the building supervisor, the provost of the university, or that if you aren't residential user you can go to, out on the show and someone called 911 from your home, we will send it to your celcell phone so that you know a 911 call was made from your phone. we have already made that move, and this thing about the ip to ip interconnection, yet, you have to do this in a measured

fashion? certainly. but when it comes to networks occurring at the ip basis that's different than how you're talking to the end-user. and the ip to ip interconnection goes on right now. >> thank you very much. the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. burke, thank you for being here. your testimony mentioned a few carriers in vermont are investing in fiber. my question, what policy decisions would change carrier incentives to invest in rural areas? and author regulations that are imposing unnecessary costs that are hindering any of that investment? >> thank you for the question, congressman. i think that it's a very tricky question when you get to how do we move out into a better business plan in more rural areas. dollars are dollars.

i guess to call on a predecessor of my own, i would go back to my grandfather. he was a dairy farmer and i can remember when i was little he said, do you know why this still has three legs, johnny? and i said, no, sir. i don't. he said because if it had to it would just fall over. and i think that's actually, i think that's actually what we may be dealing with here. i think we actually have a potential as we move forward into an ip world. we are moving there. to be able to do it in a better and more focused way if, in fact, we use a stool with three legs. the federal leg that obviously it's your responsibility and the fcc's, industries leg and i would get up there to make ubiquity part of the process here. because if it's not ubiquitous it doesn't really work the way we want it to work. and last but not least is the stitches want to believe in the states ability, be it with her

own usf funds to help manage to get this stuff out there, or be at their policies to help make the move out for industry itself more seamless, easier, and more attractive to their business plan. the states are vital part of this. without three legs to that still am not so sure that it's got any chance of succeeding. >> thank you. and for mr. cicconi and mr. iannuzzi, just quickly, what actions are required by the fcc in order to ensure that competition will continue in actually thrive in an all-ip world? appreciate if it is quick and abc because i don't have that much time. start with you, mr. cicconi. >> i think you have competition today mr. welch, and i think if the sec moves forward the ip transition its early on to take a look at what regulations are needed going forward to help preserve the competition that's

there today. i certainly grant that, but i would also suggest that on a going forward basis that it would be a mistake to assume that the problems of the present and the future are necessary the same as they were in 1996 or 1934. so i think the notion of taking legacy rules and applying into new technology is something the national broadband plan actually spoke to and it talked about how applying legacy rules could actually retard the investments that were necessary and could have unattended consequences of siphoning investment away from the new technologies that were needed. i think that would be our main concerns, is that we not, we not overcorrect here and assume there are problems until we actually know what those problems are. >> thank you. mr. iannuzzi? >> very simple. entrance of the fcc, we just need the clarity that removes,

if there's any technological implication in the way the act works. it's technically neutral. communication systems are by their design technical. so if there's not technical advancements, and what are we trying to do in terms of trying to get where we at if it were trying to make things better, faster, cheaper, smarter? so my point here is that the key thing, to assure competition is take out the eraser on the spot that we have the technology underpinning to the end because it was about creating competition. it was a framework to create a market-based structure so that we could compete. >> thank you very much. back to mr. burke. we've got a real epidemic, a real call completion. as far as my constituents and people you serve as well, are concerned with fixing that problem can't come fast enough. how can ip transition help

address the issue of incomplete calls, particularly in rural areas? >> i think obviously you have to take a look as you move forward here with where the problems lie. you know, if you take a look at what we'll see i think and call completion the order comes out next monday i believe is the date the fcc's issue a. the fact of the matter is that call completion is probably a methodology that grew from terminating access charges. and as they sensed heavy terminating access charges, they decided that they would not complete the call. least cost router's are innovation and we can't get carried away with innovation. certainly it's given us a lot of good things but i suspect that the idol innovator like the idle hands can be the devils work when it wants to be. and effect it may been the case here. how we go forward is to try to make sure that there's a

regulatory touch as well that keeps an eye on moving forward in this transition. mr. cicconi hasn't said that isn't the right idea. i would point out with call completion that begin, and the answer to that begin through the states. when the problems occurred i know that you got them, congressman. you said that you did and i believe that you did. at the fact of the matter is most of the time your public service commissioner or your ag's office probably got them first as people became unhappy with what you're getting and what they were not getting in rural america. hopefully, keeping those regulations in place will allow for consumers to get the kind of protection that they have learned to expect in the old network as we move through to anyone. >> my time is expired. i get back. >> the gentleman yields back at the chair now recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you having this

hearing and want to thank all the witnesses are coming and testifying and giving your perspective on the changes in technology. i'm excited by it when you see the things that people are able to do not as we have this transition to internet protocol. you also have coupled with that the upgrades in made from copper and fiber-optic and, of course, that brings billions of dollars of investment and gives consumers a lot more options to do things with voice and video in sending larger packets of data. i know your company and other incumbents are investing billions of dollars to help build out these new networks, use this to technology in ways even with the current regulatory environment. i want to ask you take because some would say the fact you are investing billions proves there is a need to change the regulatory structure. how would you answer that? >> i think the first thing i would do is kind of refer back to the chart, congressman, that

opened the hearing here that talks about the way the market is set up today where we have by the end of this year we'll have three quarters of americans using either wireless only or voip provided as opposed to the circuit switch providers, as i said earlier we have fewer than 14 million circuit switched telephone customers at at&t at the present time, which is a small fraction of the numbers that any other provider has out there in these competitive markets. so i think it would be the first point i would make. the second point is that the investment that has occurred over the last few years in wireless and ip technology is of course i think it's related to the fact that these are the least regulated areas of technology. it's not accurate that the 96 act is technology neutral. in fact, it penalizes wireline

technologies uniquely by imposing a lot of extra requirements on them and i think that's one of the reasons that google has decided not to offer voice service in a city like kansas city. >> i was going to ask you about that because the 96 telecommunications act does impose some ilec specific rules but how does that affect your investment decision? >> i think that if going for basis with i.t., i think we hear what googles here -- we hear what google here's which some take the model in title ii mag and applied that nothing has changed to moderate competitive ip services. i certain think that's not what the act envisioned. i think it would be a big mistake, but it creates a regulatory overhang for a company like google or a company eyed 18 t. in deciding to make a wireline investment decision. now, to the final point, we have gone ahead anyway he recently

and decided to invest in this area. and quite honestly it was a difficult decision for us, running fiber to the building and expanding our services to millions more americans, including and a lot of rural areas. but i think it's a leap of faith on at&t's part in terms of regulatory in fiber. we read the national broadband plan. we take comfort in the fact that it speaks to these issues, it's been endorsed by the president, endorsed by the congress on a bipartisan basis and i think it gives us confidence going forward that these regulatory issues and uncertainties will get settled in the proper manner and, of course, i think one of the reasons we file for the trial is to come to spur that a long. >> i appreciate that. i want to ask mr. may because i'm running out of time, you've been advocating for telecommunications act reflect the digital age. if you can share some of the principles you would envision. and i left my brick telephone ago because i did want to get

into that here but since i've got to hear, you might want to making something about the 92 cable act which is probably also very outdated. >> thank you, congressman. that's outdated for sure the 92 act and, frankly, the '96 act is as well. although at the time it was adopted, you know, it wasn't transitional blessed -- piece of legislation that was good. here are the basic fundamental prince was going forward. you have to think about in the larger sense because i've talked about some regulatory backstops and safeguarding universal service and so forth. but in a larger sense a new act should get rid of those in the present at, the stovepipes. they are not technology neutral. they are based on technology constructs, the different titles. and it should replace the public interest standard that now is in the act in 110 different places

that delegates authority to the fcc just to act in the public interest, that indeterminate standard with a competition based standard that is antitrust like. i'm not suggesting that you're going to import all of that antitrust jurisprudence but it's going to focus on the competitive marketplace and regulation therefore, shouldn't be adopted unless there's a market failure over proof of consumer harm. and then finally what a new act should do is circumscribe somewhat the fcc's general rulemaking authority, which now as you know operates in what we would call and ask anti-anticipatory action to what you do by definition is conjecture harms that may occur in the future because you're trying to conceive of all potential harms. what happens is, generally those

types of rulemaking's are overly broad, broader than they need to be. so you want to get the fcc to act more and a post hoc capacity acting on individual complaints that say there's a specific problem. you know, mr. iannuzzi says was -- with this place and this market there's a fire for some reason. i've gotten internet connection problem. you take it into an adjudicatory context and you tried to address that specific problem rather than prescribing a lot of conduct that otherwise might be beneficial to the country otherwise. >> i appreciate the answers. >> thank you very much. the gentleman's time has expired. the chair never get nice is that gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think we can all agree that the ip transition is already good for american consumers, economy and the country as a

whole so i welcome this conversation. however, we must work with industry public interest groups and consumers to ensure that as it progresses, these technological advances did not commit expense of consumer choice and access to public safety or competition. i think some of you know that nearly a year ago my district and the state of new jersey were hit hard by hurricane sandy. one of them in impacts of the devastation was the loss of communications services. power outages and floods disrupted many communications including wireless, television, telephone and internet services. yesterday i was with congressman lands and yvette clarke and congressman hold and we're talking about this on a bipartisan regional basis. i know some of this has been touched upon. i'm going to try not to be repetitive but i understand that

traditional copper networks operate even when power lines go down. so my question of mr. cicconi, because at&t has a large legacy copper communications act work and significant plans to deploy new fiber infrastructure, how will the new fiber networks handle natural disasters like hurricane. we know the copper continue to operate but what happens now with the new fiber networks, you know, dealing with the issue? >> there's unfortunately no ip technology that allows you to power the line. you can output power over a fiber connection. fiber has many of the advantages in addition to its internet capacity, and one of them i think is relevant in a hurricane or flooding zone or a sandy type situation is that seawater will

destroy copper. and make it unrepairable. fiber is very resilient in that type of situation and, frankly, so are our wireless network. we get them back up and running very quickly after these storms. and i say that, knock on wood, because we're still in hurricane season. >> again, i think we all agree that these communities should not lose services they rely on simply because they are unlucky enough to be in the path of a storm. so there are different consequences from these replacement services with fiber. you know, again i guess this goes back to the trial but what else can we do? what are you going to do with these real-world trials? how do they relate to the problem that i just discussed? >> i don't want to second-guess

a decision made by other carriers, but i think what trials and proper planning for the ip transition would allow is for us to test the capabilities that these services and not have people surprised if you deploy a service and a fax machine doesn't work the same way, things of that nature. i do think it is iterative though, i think the technology will evolve and, frankly, we can help it default if we know what we are trying to do. for example, in our wireless home phone service we have asked the manufacturers to add data capability. that came online this summer so we have that in our wireless home phone product. but i think as we go forward over the years i would expect that the wireless capabilities will evolve and change to meet those needs so that frankly it could be more robust and more reliable and provide all of the same services and more that our

copper line facilities do. >> go ahead. >> one of the things that we've asked the fcc to do and to put a priority on this is to initiate a separate proceeding for disaster guidance. we had a situation in new jersey, also fire island where verizon did not know what they're supposed to do. they didn't want to rebuild their copper networks but they also had no guidance for what they should be doing instead. we think that the fcc in order to address this problem of public safety needs to get out there and start a proceeding right now. first thing, as were doing this transition. we know that cares are going to want to put in new infrastructure as they rebuild after storms like saying the. what are the responsibilities? what are they supposed to be and what can the people in those communities rely on an order to be able to rebuild their lives?

we've asked that. was at 17 other organizations join us in asking the fcc to begin a proceeding on this, and hopefully we will see action on that as soon as chairman wheeler is confirmed. >> go ahead. with the chairman's approval, go ahead. >> you may comment. [inaudible] >> i would like to point out, make sure that we embrace the small, middle sized business market. a lot of conversation focuses on residential and that's certainly important to the charts i see talk about degradation and copper-based usage at the residential level. that's not the case at the business level. that's typically the only connection is copper facility. i can handle the power line back up requirement we need so we often deployed where they're working in parallel. we have the next generation ip technology taken care of all those and then we have the

copper-based services which are taking care of all those other critical functions and allowing that to work as time goes on. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. long, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today. given your testimony, i'm kind of a cleanup hitter. if we get started with me we would've been done along time ago last night but mr. cicconi you made mention earlier the question portion of this hearing that should read the sec national broadband lan, and being that you have read that i will remind you that they came to the conclusion, the sec's national broadband plan to quote regulations require certain cares to maintain plain old telephone service and to highlight the requirement that is not sustainable and lead to investments and assets that

could be stranded. so if the fcc believes that there maintaining legacy telephone service is not sustainable and that investments are risk of being stranded, shouldn't the fcc change its policies that caused this problem? >> i do think it's appropriate for the sec to move forward. to put together an excellent actor direction, at congress' direction. it's been widely endorsed. it anticipated this very issue in the words you quoted, and, unfortunately, we are four years along here and i don't think we've seen the implementation of some of the things that they recommended, but i remain very hopeful that once the commission is back up to full strength that they will do so. and again, our petition last year for the ip trials was designed in part to spur a long

the very process you just highlighted. >> okay. again, when you're of the -- when you're the last got up at some of his you touched on before but let me ask you to elaborate if you will on the types of services that would be available through these internet protocols that are unavailable on the copper networks. >> i think the ip transition, i'm at risk of oversimplifying. i'm a liberal arts major, not an engineer. by and large it is about voice becoming simply another application writing on the internet pipeline. so as we build out fiber, we are building out internet capability and voice in becomes just another application. and so i think what that provides obviously is competitive opportunities for a lot of people but it also provides much more accessibility. it allows people to design and innovate based on ip, and so you

may bring the voice services through the ip transition, some of the same innovations you are saying in every other form of internet service. if you pull out an iphone and to go to the app store, i think you can get a sense of the innovation that's available. i think as we transition these networks towards ip, i think we'll see the same types of innovation there. i think it's obviously important for the country from every standpoint of economic activity, but also i think from a consumer standpoint, to. >> okay. i represent missouri seven, which is printed, joplin, branson area down southwest corner of the state it and i think we can all agree out of the 435 congressional districts, that i have the best one in the united states. in in that area there are 11 counties, part of 11 counties, 10 fold counties, part of an

11th county so i have a lot of rural areas with springville, joplin and branson. a lot of my constituents don't have access to the latest medical technology, and even the number of doctors that you find in urban areas. that's another topic, but can you elaborate on the types of telemedicine and mobile health applications that would be available to my constituents in the best congressional district in the united states if they did have the ip service? >> again, i think if we are able to get a broadband connections into those areas, and their falsehood and both wired and wireless, i think you have an infinite variety of services that are available that are being actually put together by innovators today. i think the entire health care system notwithstanding the current difficulty is actually innovating quite well in terms of making records available and

things of this nature. >> can you give me any more specifics? >> we can certainly pull something together for you, mr. long, and get it to you. i don't have anything specific i can lay out an airing here today. >> i have zero seconds. if i had any time i would yield it back. >> the gentleman yields back, and his time has expired. seen no other members wishing to ask questions this afternoon, i want to thank you for this excellent panel. and i am sure that the chairman would also want me to extend his heartfelt thanks for you all being here today. without anything else coming before the committee today, we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

coming up on c-span2, an update on the situation in afghanistan and u.s. policy there. this morning at the white house, president obama will talk about the need for immigration reform. that's life at 10:35 a.m. eastern. members of the house committee will question the contractors involved in the development of healthcare.gov website. live coverage this morning begins at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span. and friday, ted cruz will headline the iowa republican party reagan dinner in des moines. watch live coverage at 8 p.m. eastern. that's also on c-span. >> there are lots of stories

about slaves and free men of color who made choices. when i began this book i was convinced the americans were the good guys and the british were the bad guys but the more i worked on this project i became more and more convinced that as the war came to an end that it was the americans who are not the good guys. it was instead the british and the spanish who were the good guys. the british and the spanish offered freedom to their slaves. the man who served with him. and took them away from this land of bondage, and for the americans, well, the americans will keep slaves in bondage until 1865. >> fight for your freedom with the invading british.

saturday night at nine eastern part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> now, former afghanistan war commander john allen talks about the presence of u.s. forces in that country. the foreign policy initiative hosted a 15 minute event. >> -- 50 minute event. >> welcome, everybody, early birds have definitely caught the worm in this case. so i'm very pleased to help kick off this conference. the program looks very full, full of very interesting panels and discussions. none will be as good as this i'm sure however. introducing general allen is a tough task. i could simply read his military biography to you, but that would take a long time. end result in a lot of hieroglyphics, at least for us civilians. so i'm going to translate what i

got from reading the cave wall last i while i was preparing for this. first of all, general allen is a serious instrument. of course, every marine is a rifleman but general allen is really a rifleman. not only has he commanded an infantryman, but he fought in infantry -- todd basic course and taught basic course. so they don't let, it's like being artificial at canterbury. he is defending not examining the document. secondly, of course he is best known for his senior command. most notably as the head of isaf in afghanistan. i think that's where we'll begin our conversation. but i also like to point out that general allen has a number of very important sort of

washington jobs. for a rifleman he's got more than a little bit of a with in washington about and begin at a young age but i believe he was even as the captain a washington fellow of the center for strategic and international studies. i'm not going to complain about the lack of aei initials on his resume but there still a chance to remedy that i'm sure in the future. at any rate, to summarize, it's possible to summarize a man like general allen in a sense. he has fought battlescounties conducted campaigns, he's waged wars and he is informed of making u.s. security policy at the highest level. by conceiving what else i would rather have a conversation with him so please join in welcoming general allen to the stage. [applause] >> i'm here for

cross-examination. >> i'd like to really try to begin with a theme of the conference that is choosing to lead. and it you are a man from mars and you would ask yourself, why is the united states even asking such a question. since we established the international order that still exists after world war ii, it's obviously been a challenge and a struggle for seven decades but it's also been one marked by really sort of success of a historic proportion. it's almost impossible to have a major war in europe again. the number of people lifted out of poverty and into a little liberty in those seven decades is quite striking. numbers in the billions no doubt. and it's all been done at what,

again by historical standards would be considered a very small cost. why should we be even asking ourselves this question? why is it a question for us? why should we naturally continue to form -- to perform the role we have performed for 75 your? >> i think in many respects, and it's great to be on the stage with you this morning and great to be here with fpi. i get the initials ae i have to get place -- i'll show you later. in many respects your question answers the question. there probably has never been a better time where the strategic leadership of the united states has been more important. you rightly and correctly state that much of what looks like an international order, whether it's a political order or diplomatic order or a security for financial order, either was

originated by the united states or encouraged by the united states or facilitated by the united states. and in an environment today when we see, particularly in the region from roughly pakistan in the east all the way across what is traditionally called the middle east but across the northern tier of africa, so much instability and bordering on chaos in many respects across all the measures of power. there has never been a time in my mind where the strategic global leadership of the united states has been more important, not just to buttress, not just to reinforce the order for which we can take justifiable credit at the time was really important, to preserve as much stability as we can but also to exert our leadership and -- into specific areas and locations where we can have an outcome that can bring about stability

and from that stability can bring order back to a particular region. so we shouldn't be questioning today whether there is a role for the united states to be a global leader or a strategic leader. to me, it's a non-question and i've spent 42 years in uniform. so i've seen the crank turned several times, and in all that time i have seldom seen the circumstances come into greater confluence across all the measures of power as we understand it. that has demanded more to ship from the united states and now senator questions are really important we should ask ourselves that question in washington every single day, what roles do we have uniquely for the united states and the world, our unique contribution in so many ways in many of these crises, or unique conjugation in many ways to facilitate and for the stability is our strategic leadership and our strategic

reach. and that reached essence -- is a necessary and militaries although it is a reached diplomatically, politically. it's the reached in the financial sector. and so today is an important time for the united states to continue its global leadership. the question will be i think what means do we have to facilitate that end over the long term. >> so why don't we sort of get down to the next tier of granularity a little bit, and also you conclude by talking about the means. there is still something like consensus about the end of american leadership, there's obviously some confusion about the ways, and one of the things that are think we should talk about that you mentioned in your remarks was the military means, which are not the only means that we have but are arguably

the means that set the conditions for other things to happen, and certainly your recent experience would suggest that. but before we get that, let's talk about the middle east. and if you don't mind giving us -- and i should say that general allen is constrained and talking about the israel-palestine issue because he still got an official duty serving as the security advisor to the peace talks there. u..