better than anybody in nebraska. so i don't have any huge input to you today as far as how to change the system. >> i guess to clarify since video and internet are becoming the same and your telecom is maybe your sole provider of that, it's all meshed together. does that change anything? mr. hunt? >> i think that many people have said we really want broadband to be the network for everyone in the country. in rural areas as i'm sure you know, congressman, there are many places where the cable broadband penetration is as low as 15% and 20%. not anything nearly as high as it is in washington, d.c. or in the suburbs.

now, that's a problem that the fcc really does need to think about in conjunction with the industry that michael represents so ably and in particular, not to touch too many other buttons, the recent increases in the prices of the content have a disproportional impact in rural america. they are taking a lot of money out of the wallets of the people in those areas and those are same areas where broadband is expensive so as people pay more for broadcast content and cable channel content, they have less available to purchase broadband. this is a problem that's real. and existing right now. it gives me a chance to pass the solution over to chairman

powell. >> congressman, i think you make a couple of important points that we should put top of mind which is the challenge of reaching that last 5% to 7% is because under traditional market fundamentals they're uneconomic and if they're uneconomic the only way to cure something is change the economic equation. this is why i had no problem understanding and respecting the government has a meaningful and significant role in terms of our objectives in universal service and affordability to play a role through the universal service program or any other properly constructed program to try to change economic equation that attracts the infrastructure that those communities deserve. i think it's a more optimistic scenario in the modern world than it was before. in the old world we had single technology we tried to string, twisted copper wires between two farms 200 miles apart and that

was expensive. one of the things i think really opens up an opportunity today is because of a common ip platform we can deliver almost any kind of service almost any kind of network. that means that wireless and probably its companion of satellite available services have real hope and promise for rural america. that is they have very dynamically different costs. a satellite sees rural nebraska no different than it sees manhattan. wireless has a lower cost infrastructure for some of those areas. i think than isn't a complete answer but putting a lot of energy and investment into how those services will solve this problem is useful. i think as the chairman of the s.e.c. is moving toward a common ip network, the conversion that you're talking about can get harmonized and universal service program get harmonized along with it. >> thank you.

agree. >> i have a little different answer. reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable prices is the injunction on the charge of the telecommunications act reforming usf which the commission is in the process of doing with lots of wrinkles and problems to work out, no question about that. certainly an important part of the equation. but anybody who thinks that universal service fund alone is going to bring this country the kind of high-speed low cost broadband we need to have competitive in the 21st century is not looking at the situation as it is. this has to be an infrastructure mission. our country has had infrastructure missions before when we came together to build highways and railroads and rural electricity and so on and so

forth. that's what we need now. we won't be competitive and get out of the holes that we're in unless every citizen in this country has that access and it's reaching that last 5% to 7%. that's extremely important. way more than half of our homes don't have high-speed low cost broadband that we need to be competitive. we need to look at that not just as an fcc problem but a problem confronting our government or society and act upon it and figure out whether we are really serious of being competitive in the global sweepstakes. >> the gentleman yields back. look to the gentleman from new mexico. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i must say i was concerned with some of the approach that was being taken in the line of questioning leading up to those last responses to my colleague where for the first time i heard the importance of rural america. coming from a western state,

from a congressional district that represents 17 of new mexico's 22 tribes and the sprawling nature associated with what the west brings us, many parts of rural america where our food is grown. where energy is generated critically important to be able to get coverage to these areas. and as i joked with chairman wheeler when we had him in front of us a couple weeks ago, i explained to him that these last flights home, it's been great to see tsa debating whether we can make phone calls at 30,000 feet. i know that i have streaming video content at 30,000 feet. i can communicate with my office and anyone else that i so choose to. so if i can communicate with constituents and get the video content that i want at 30,000 feet, why can't i do it on the ground in rural america. the technology is here. there's no reason that we can't push it out.

three responses i can't say thanks enough for that. chairman, with the response associated with aggressive push to infrastructure investment in america is absolutely needed. we shouldn't forget as we talk about different ideals and philosophies that we have on this committee and even in this congress and across the country. it was in many conservative and rural parts of america that benefited from government investment with major water projects that provide us power now that could be in question because of water flows. another topic of conversation. nonetheless, we need to make sure that we're addressing. chairman powell, you talked about twisted pears and what that brought us. decisions made as a result of the '96 agent act and section 7068, i'm not sure what we're arguing about with concerns in that particular area. it's encouraging deployment of reasonable and timely basis and advance telecom especially for

educational purposes. there may be some concerns with some of my colleagues on price cap regulation but regulatory and measures for competition in local members, this could be read by any member on this committee encouraging ideals that we all share. one thing that hasn't been talked about very much and even given the fact that there was a huge data breach with target, 70 million customers that were impacted, is the security of this network. i would hope that and i would like to get your opinion in 706a provides us the necessary standards to be able to bring safeguards or if you think that's something that needs to be addressed and i would like to invite comments from each of you. mr. hundt? >> as chairman powell said, section 1706 is very broad, and i think that it is an opportunity and duty for the fcc

to dig into it and to create an appropriate framework with the help of this committee and its counterpart in the senate. if i might continue your theme of rural america, there are a number of other provisions as well in the '96 act that the fcc can use to try to achieve the goal of completely widespread broadband even in rural and high-cost areas and one that i would identify is the current proceeding to reimagine the erate. the erate -- i just recently met with the chief librarian in puma county, arizona, which isn't very far away from you and you know the geography is not dissimilar. they have a fantastic system of broadband for not just the central library in tucson but all of the branch libraries. all over this sparsely populated

geography. the library is the number one public internet access point in southern arizona. therefore, it's the proper focus of extra erate support and the proper focus of the combination of network architectures that might resemble what chairman powell is talking about. we shouldn't decide that part. we should decide that's a very flexible tool also that can be used to deliver the right participation in the american community to rural america. >> chairman powell? >> i would really like to put punctuation on what you raised. i think it goes to the committee's desire, i hope, to kind of harmonize and see communication landscape as a single ecosystem. all of the wonderful benefits we're bragging and celebrating are continuously and daily at risk. i think cyberthreat, data

retention, breach, are all issues that are the achilles' heel of all of the promise of the network that we're celebrating. but they require very complex solutions that look through an entire ecosystem. 706 is not particularly up to that job. why? even for no other reason that you can't have a discussion without software involved. the cybersecurity question on a global ecosystem basis means a conversation with every element of that massive connective chain and that's the web companies, the infrastructure companies, wireless companies, content companies, there's just no way in my opinion even with its breath that one could look hopefully to that as single point of authority to make the most meaningful impact on this issue mostly because 50% of that ecosystem aren't even implicated by that provision. >> i hope 706 is up to the job. i think it does confer a lot of

authority. i don't want this to become just a solution dejor and we talk about 706 for another two years and then another court strikes that down or whatever. i want to highlight one thing you mentioned in terms of getting broadband out and i commend you for your interest and work with native americans and one area where i think a rewrite would help would be to more formally institutionalize and put some flesh on the bones of the trust relationship and the consultive mechanisms that we have between the commission and native americans. it's not -- it's working better than it has. i think there has been more emphasis in recent years obviously back in the chairman's time there was an interest in moving us forward and getting us into a new trust relationship. but that's 13 or 14 years ago.

the situation as you point out is so dire when one member of a tribe can't call somebody else but you can make the call from 30,000 feet. that's something wrong there. that may be a concrete area where the congress with actually lend a hand. >> appreciate that. gentleman's time is expired. we'll now go to the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to the distinguished panel, this is among the most interesting hearings in which i have ever participated. it's my honor to be able to meet all of you. i gather there is a consensus from the distinguished panel that the 1996 legislation needs to some extent statutory update and revision, is that accurate, from the panel? >> i would agree. >> i don't agree. >> and chairman hundt, if you would indicate you do not agree

there needs to be statutory update? >> i think the d.c. circuit has made it clear that the '96 act has given the authority to the fcc to address all of the economic and social problems that this committee in recent years and in past years has asked the fcc to address. >> other than distinguished h e members? >> i agree with what chairman hundt has said. it's nice to have additional clarity but time is of the essence here. we have a statute that i think can deliver on a lot of the things that need to be delivered and we should be about that. it is so difficult to see the correlation of forces coming together to give birth to an act after what we went through in 1996, and i don't think it will be any easier in 2014 to do that than it was 18 years ago. >> chairman powell?

>> i think by any measure a deliberate process would take a number of meaningful years which is recognized in setting out a multiyear process. i think there are sufficient conditions to justify institution of that kind of examination over that period of time because i think the market is radically different and the relevancy of law applied to reality should be a core principle of governance. >> i think the very fact that you didn't have the internet really developed. you didn't have broadband. you didn't have all of the technological changes that have occurred since 1996, really gives substance to taking another look and i think that gives congress an opportunity, i think, to perhaps make some suggestions to the regulatory body that i think would be very helpful. >> thank you, chairman.

>> i have not read it and i certainly will read yesterday's decision. am i accurate that the fcc decided in 2004 that internet access services would not be classified as telecommunications services? is that true, chairman powell? >> yes, sir, that's correct. >> and if that decision were to be revisited, that could be revisited by the administrative agency? is that accurate as to how it could proceed? >> it is accurate. it could. >> if there were to be a revisiting of the 2004 decision that this is not classified as telecommunications services, then there would have to be an

extensive period of review and there would have to be some sort of high level determination as to why a different decision were to be made, is that the way it would work? >> yeah. under administrative law even with deference, the agency has to provide a reasoned explanation for its change in policy. it would require a notice and comment proceeding which is open. i wouldn't -- the suggestion has been made that somehow it would lead to instant clarity. it would lead to another three to four-year period of conflict and litigation. >> chairman copps? >> i would say it wouldn't take forever to compile that record. i, and a lot of other people i know, would be happy to contribute to the rationale for that sort of action. it's not really starting. a lot of that information is out there with just a route not taken and now we need to go back

and look at it. >> and the fcc's reclassification would be considered arbitrary and cap rishs unless there was a period of comment and refreshing the record and some sort of heightened standard, is that accurate legally? >> yes, sir. they have to follow administrative procedure act obligations. >> i'm certain they would. >> i would presume that would be the case. fin finally, the decision could be appealed to the supreme court but it's not clear whether either side is likely to do that? >> correct. >> thank you very much. my time is expired. >> thank you. now turn to mr. long from missouri. i think our last member to ask questions. please go ahead. >> thank you, chairman. and chairman hundt, last night you said that you spent quite a bit of time trying to go through the court ruling of yesterday. and most of the congressmen were home trying to read through

1,562-page bill that we're going to vote on this afternoon. i ordered my staff to bring a copy of that to you. if you could peruse that over your lunch hour and kind of decipher it for me, i would appreciate it. earlier in your testimony, chairman hundt, you said that -- i didn't understand your point concerning the auction. you said if i remember right that we need a cap so people know what they're buying. can you tell me what -- in full disclosu disclosure, i come from a 30-year auctioneer career. >> i remember very well that in our first auction we had senator byrnes -- >> conrad byrnes, you bet. he's from missouri. now he served for montana but he's originally from missouri. that's two of us. >> he did claim that particular

heritage. he did great job. i would recommend chairman wheeler, that he should come and ask you to conduct the auction. >> i'm not worried about conducting as much as i am how it's put together. what was your comment? i didn't understand you said we need a cap to people know what they're buying. what did you mean? >> in any auction when folks come in, you want high bidder to walk away with whatever was auctioned. the way to do that, i believe, is to make sure that everybody bidding in that auction knows the following. what are the rules about how much you can buy? it doesn't have to be a cap. it could be -- some people think it should being agrigation leve. as they are about to put in the high bid, they ought to know they can walk away with whatever

they can buy instead of having to have another proceeding where they ask the fcc or the department of justice later am i permitted to walk away with this because i don't know whether i violated any of your aggregation rules. this congress did say that the fcc should create a generally applicable aggregation rule so everyone going into the auction can estimate in advance whether or not what they buy is -- what they bid on and win on is what they walk away with. >> talking to interested parties interested in buying this spectrum and they have told me, probably a topic for another day, if they can buy a, b and c spectrum, maybe they want to buy l, m, n, o, p later. if they can't buy a, b, and c, then if they can't buy that too then the first three things they

bought -- it's a very confusing situation. any of you have any staff or anybody that want to get with my staff we can talk about and sort that out, i would appreciate that. i want to move to the chairman for a minute. if you turn on the tv at night, the only reason it's not 100% phone company ads and cellular companies and things because it's interspersed with auto insurance ads. seems like there's quite a bit of competition out there now. as far as the auction that i was talking about with chairman hundt, the wireless market appears to be extremely competitive. you do have larger companies, at&t, verizon, t-mobile, sprint and given that it doesn't make sense that the fcc -- why will they -- they shouldn't handicap bidders to get the most money for the taxpayers and have the best auction they can. some people want to limit who can buy what. can you kind of walk me through that?

>> my view is that the auction ought to be available, open to all. i think if congress really wants to see the maximum amount of revenue derived in order to support the public safety network we're going to have to pay broadcasters, it's a very complex process. i am concerned about the fact that we start to begin to limit people in this that you're going to find you're going to have less revenue than might be otherwise anticipated. i think a free auction ought to be open to all. >> people would attend my auction i was interested in having the most people there and having spend the most money that they could and if they didn't want to bid, i would bid for them and tell them to hold their hand up in the air and when they paid enough, i told them to take it down. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> quite an auction. >> i want to thank our distinguished panel of witnesses

for your prior government service and your interest in public policy to assist us in our mission and goals in updating the communications act. i draw attention to those who are observing our hearing. they can go to our hash tag at comsactupdate. it's in front here. give us your information. a lot of people have been doing that during the hearing. we appreciate that. another reflection of how technology is changing the world. we need to keep up with it. thank you for your participation. adurned.ommittee stands . [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> in just a few minutes we will be going live to independence park in philadelphia for special booktv coverage of defense secretary bob gates. you'll be talking about his new memoir beauty and his experience serving under george w. bush and president obama that is live in about five minutes right here on c-span2.

coming up later in prime time at 8:00 o'clock eastern tonight, president obama speaking at the justice department where he announced changes to the nsa surveillance program. we will have that on her companion network. here on c-span2, a collection of state of state addresses from governors across the country, including colorado, iowa, vermont and indiana. and the surgeon general's annual report on smoking and health. we summarize the findings of and we take a look at some of his marks. >> since the first surgeon general's report in 1964, only 20 million can be attributed. today the annual death toll is approaching 500,000 per year. enough is enough. the tobacco epidemic was initiated and has been sustained by the aggressive strategy of

the tobacco industry, which deliberately misled the public. and the u.s. alone tobacco companies spend a million dollars in our, 24/7, to market their deadly and addictive products. enough is enough. since 1964, cigarette smoking is a great cause of diseases in the body, to damage overall health with the harm of a growing fetus. science has revealed in stark clarity that the common diseases such as diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis and colorectal cancer are caused by smoking and enough is enough. exposure to secondhand smoke causes cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and adversely affects the health of infants and children and enough is enough. the disease risk has risen sharply in women over the last

50 years and women are now is likely to die from smoking as man and enough is enough. cigarette smoking causes inflammation and impairs immune function, reducing the body's ability to fight off infection and disease. enough is enough. although cigarette smoking has declined since 1964 significantly, a large disparity remains across groups at race and ethnicity and educational levels and socioeconomic status and across regions of our nation. enough is enough. comprehensive tobacco control programs and policies are affected. however, we need to use that across the nation if we are fully to benefit from their success. further gains can be made with a sustained use of these measures and we must fund these programs at the cdc recommended levels and enough is enough. and the burdens of death and disease from tobacco use in the united states is overwhelmingly

caused by cigarettes and other combusted tobacco products. rapid elimination of their use will dramatically reduce the burden. enough is enough. in the final one. for 50 years, a half century, the surgeon general's report on health have provided a critical and scientific foundation to public health action directed at reducing tobacco use in preventing tobacco related diseases and premature death. we pray that the 75th anniversary report will have many zeros. and as the hundredth anniversary will be marked by grainy pictures from the past, enough is enough. [applause] >> you can watch the entire event with this doctor tonight at 8:00 o'clock eastern on c-span3. and a look now at the clock tower of independence hall for

booktv he will talk about the wars in iraq and afghanistan, national security, the don't ask don't tell policy and the mission to capture and kill osama bin laden. you can join our conversation online and just make sure to use the hash tag c-span chat and see what other people are saying about this event tonight that is hosted by the national constitution center in philadelphia. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible