with the customer experience regardless of the chokepoint could happen upstream does not matter. . . >> the discussions strip the fcc of authority to even investigate this issue and that is very

concerning. >> as long as you give me the time back. >> i don't believe our discussion would welcome that opportunity. and on this piece, we leave that authority with the fcc. we don't do away with that here although it is absent in the bill, it is still resident. so that interconnection we would be happy to have. >> we also provided this about the specialized services and yet it doesn't allow the fcc to define what constitutes a specialized service. can you envision this language being used by an isp to advantage one competitor over another and even they themselves providing specialized services that can comparing the marketplace?

>> i think the lack of specificity could be paramount to discrimination and so yes. >> certainly with respect to affiliated content, the network provider itself creates engagements and specialized services which look like as only a matter of ownership and we are very concerned. >> thank you. i just want to add on to what we were saying with several news reports that senior executives from major companies that are represented by the chairman have made about title ii which the chairman i would like to enter into the record. it is one that all members have talked about. and as long as the federal communication waives parts of it

it would be an acceptable outcome. similar statements made by comcast and time warner cable. stephen the chief technology officer of sprint a member of ms. baker's organization, says that they will continue regardless of whether they are regulated by title ii section 706 or some other regulatory regime. and they said i need to be real clear. we are going to continue to invest and networks and platforms in where we need to so nothing well change that. >> the chairman yields back and we now turn -- oh wait a

minute mr. barton is back. >> and you mentioned this is in my district, we are very proud to have an interesting caught that and a successful roll carrier. we also talked about issues facing a small rural carrier. but in the context of reasonable network management, how are these issues different with networks in small rural carrier's? >> that is a big question. we did talk about this they are deeply concerned in the record here about the concerns and so

there we go. as far as the technical capacity standard, we have to be very careful. the chairman was watching and reversing the national football championship and ranking member, and you are taking these e-mails on the same service providers. if we had, a bunch of 16-year-olds doing a tour of what congress looks like that is a millisecond by millisecond management that has to happen by her carrier. it is constrained, one constraint is the same capacity of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. there's a lot going on. so if you are one of these

smaller carriers, you are updating any sort of thing that can help you handle this data capacity just amazingly. you said $45 billion and the spectrum option because this was added and increased by 730%. >> how are they different? >> the data is increasing, the congestion is increasing. >> let's talk about interference issues. >> we're all using the same it is raining outside, more people come onto this and we have to manage it and we have to make sure that it is optimized so that all of us have the best user experience. >> in q4 mentioning that. i know the the issue is from earlier but everyone wants the

internet to remain open and vibrant, but is there some particular reason that they should see where the congress can enact the bipartisan bill? >> the decision of the commission has the authority of the statute and it divides the expertise it needs to make a decision and they also setting their own time limits. >> when you were chairman in 2002, when they determine an information service, they indicated that the record shows that today's increasingly sophisticated service is more than ever before. can you explain this the perspective of technology that you had before you in 2002 to the comment expressed last year?

>> i think one thing to note is the draft legislation as i ended rather than disenfranchising this authority is the way that the commission is classified for over 12 years. for both republican and democratic administrations including most recently in 2010 by president obama's first choice. it has been operating under that definition is the very beginning of broadband and it's important to remember that this isn't completely discretionary but it creates service and to find some, it defines the telecom service and order information services. when broadband first emerged in maust village to see it come on the scene when i was at the commission, there was an open question as to whether the nature of the internet integrated service was

telecommunications service or an information service under our precedent. it was a judgment that the factual characteristics the way that it was used, it was much more faithful to the definition than the one it's set out for other services. it went all the way to the supreme court agreed with the commission judgment. the commission now is reinterpreting the facts and applying it to the other definition. but the facts are fundamentally the same as they were in 2002 and that will be a serious source of litigation risk for the committee when it changes its mind about the underlying service. >> time has expired and we will now go to mr. welch. >> thank you mr. chairman.

i thank you in the and the ranking member because this is an excellent hearing. we are way ahead of where we were last year and this bill contains real responses to the comments that were offered to the fcc and that is terrific. and third i think that it has been extremely responsive and i have confidence that his experience in the industry as well as the public sector side makes him someone who we can have confidence with respect to these regulations. but this is the heart of it for me, whatever we do is my concern, it is for access to the internet and in three out of four americans, this is especially true in rural america, it really had one provider and is question of what

we do -- this neutrality has been injected into a major new issue, which is new and that is we take away jurisdiction from the fcc, that is a fundamental question that requires an enormous amount of attention before we make a decision to go forward. i appreciate the point you made about uncertainty because if you make big investment decisions knowing what the rules of the road are, the uncertainty goes both ways and if you have legislation, it is very hard to change it and let's be real. if you have regulatory policy it is they are. it can respond to issues and i appreciate how specific you are in the legislation and the third

is the broadband protected by the network connection and if there were a problem in any one of those three areas, who would resolve the remedy it was part of it. >> there was a direction and the bill to establish this process, which sounds nice and practical and is not the provide the kind of certainty and details that most businesses and consumers seek. >> it's not just our legislation, we can all indicate. >> the commission under this

president has the right what special services means was absolutely within the power to interpret this as but a best understood it. >> let me just understand because that is the important thing to me with what you said. you are saying that he would have jurisdiction even though they are taking this way from the legislation. >> let's say amazon had a dispute. where would they go to resolve the? would they go to their legislator? >> yes, they would complain to the federal commission to resolve that complaint is they do in regulatory situations.

>> one of the questions that i have happens around this and centers around the internet service provider with the consumers. aren't there very real competitive concerns and impacts that arrive in the exchange between this and the networks as well and how can we ensure that the connection continues to happen for smaller competitive carriers in the telecommunications marketplace. >> we have been very focused on the mobile industry and the technical parameters and the mobile industry, eight out of 10

americans have a choice of four oh more providers come in 94% have three or more providers and it's a different issue. so you might want redirector question. >> i think that my time is expired and i thank you and i yield back. >> i would like to submit for the record the secretary commission from others as well. that will be part of the record. >> this is a general information question. the gentleman there, i used to know but he had some hair and he has no neutrality now.

>> i just wanted to make sure before i asked her questions. let the record show. when you were chairman of the fcc did your commission give any thought to regulating under title to? >> no as i said this was a question of when it was invented whether or not to relate this is in information services provider under title i, they voted to do

the latter. >> are you aware of any academic or industry study that claims the internet is a natural monopoly? >> i think one of the most substantial decisions made when it passed the telecom act was to abandon that regulatory policy and that they should be subject to competitive forces and it should not be regulated as such. that concerns us with the historical use of title to build and in that body of law. is it the assumption that they serve most efficiently by a monopoly and a state sanctions are not really as they once were for a long time? >> i think it is a correct

assumption that the internet is not a natural monopoly that it is a competitive market and given your knowledge as chairman and the current capacity isn't on the street leader, do you view any participants on the provider part of the market to be called a monopoly market power? >> no, not during my tenure. and i disagree that that is the case today. we know that you don't count noses but you look at the effects aren't in the markets. and has the market continued to invest. have prices gone up to run

levels and i don't think any antitrust scholar or justice department can conclude that it is an unhealthy competitive market based upon the actual characteristics that they used to measure that. >> if it is not a natural monopoly and there is no participant in the provider sector as it has this power and it stands to reason that this is correct, that we should explicitly say that you shall not regulate or do this under title two. do you agree with that? >> i have testified consistently and i do think that the cost our systems take are far outweighing things. it is pretty solid bulletproof as we accept and we believe that that can be done without

resorting to that. >> mr. chairman, i want to thank the former chairman for those comments. i do believe that it is wise to put that out as a draft. i think that there are some valid questions and friends are asking questions about how to perfect the language and i have some concerns myself about certain parts of the draft. but isn't is it the fact that we should not regulate the internet, i think that that is beyond questionable. if we start from that premise, i think the discussion draft it is in excellent one throughout the details and i yield back. >> we now turn to the gentleman to welcome aboard. >> thank you very much

mr. chairman. i am new to this entire air yet and i'm learning a lot as we go. one of the things that intrigues me about this field is that we have a field that is changing as rapidly as anything in history has changed and some of the members have talked about the difference between 1996 and now and how the world has changed but it is also the industries that have changed in the sense that this is a corporate structure that is out there now as well a lot of consolidation going on in companies getting into various areas of the business of at one point they are acting like a commentary, including a content provider and so forth. you mentioned the distinction

between information services and telecommunications services in this law. is that a meaningful distinction today? >> i think over time it should not be. >> we are entering a world in which a bid is a bed data networks follow radically different characteristics than the one that inform this written in the '30s or the '90s. it's one of the highly contentious issues related to ambiguity and it's even more inapplicable to modern functions and modern networks and i think that we will be ironing out this governing body for years to come

and how it is properly applied, networks that do not behave in the way that these are. >> you say in your testimony the mobile broadband is different. and i agree with you that they need to take into account the technological difference between networks and we are discussing the ability to interpret the net neutrality rules once they are enacted. how can they give wireless carriers the flexibility that they need without the authority to modify or clear if i the network neutrality rules. >> i think that as we evolve, we need to work on the definitions and make sure that we have the proper definition for network management that acknowledges the technological differences and that is important. and i think we have a great start and look forward to working with all of you on it. >> the 96 act created a

partnership between the states of the federal government and we each have important telecommunications oversight responsibilities. our partners and the state governments are often closer to the ground and can include consumer complaints. i want to talk about this. should we beat thinking about the consumer protection role as well? >> there has been a lot of talk about this to protect local choice in broadband and in particular there is an effort to ensure that they do not restrict local communities from these networks, but the draft legislation today would address this very serious issue of local choice for individual. >> we have been talking about the competitive situation of broadband in my community and

it's basically one system. there is no system to provide great quality or service or consumer service. are you concerned about the ramifications for consumer protection if we go down this bill? >> yes, absolutely. it calls into question the goal and the role in protecting consumers and may be some competition, it might not be an actual monopoly, but i think if you ask teeple around the kitchen table if they feel like they have choice and particularly their broadband connections, i think the vast majority of consumers feel kind of trapped. >> i agree. it is certainly my preference for congress to act in all of these areas and i have very serious concerns within the way the world is moving in the world is moving at 100 miles per hour. i think in this field and many others it's becoming difficult

for us to make long-term policy decisions because the future is so uncertain and we talk about the uncertainty, there's not a lot of certainty. so anyway, thank you very much and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and we now go to the gentleman from texas, mr. olson for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, as you know today is my first hearing is a member of the subcommittee and i am thrilled to be here. ms. baker as you know ma'am the communications act occurred 19 years ago. with the importance of our social fabric this makes sense

for congress to take a fresh look at how to tackle this rather than try to invoke provisions that are decades old. >> absolutely. we are very committed to work with you on that. >> thank you. we all agree that these changes imposed by the fcc will bring about legislation and i think that we can all agree on that. how long will that last? we have to decide by the courts how long a year or two, five decades. mr. powell? >> when my commission adopted as there they were three to four years before there was a revolution because of the supreme court. it is fundamentally the same thing, a brand-new untested definitional change coupled with

other applications as we are talking about this litigation process depending on the complexity. >> is that sort of the whole window? >> welcome of the problem is that that could take a whole new commission will only be in power for the next two years and it could start all over again. >> how long? >> well, we don't see this as mutually exclusive. and obviously mr. powell has a lot of experience and i think

that congress -- i'm very encouraged. ..

comes with an fcc order as well as with the proposed legislation and no matter what there will be legal action to clarify definition issue is in the legislation draft and so while all of us. we would like to see s. little litigation as possible. >> is that in the window of this uncertainty? >> the draft legislation opens up the opportunity for the case-by-case extrication of the various definitional issues the fcc would have to resolve. it could even be longer.

>> i would say that it would reduce the amount of time that we will experience and i also think the draft legislation would give the congress as well as the fcc some room to look at the areas of the bill because out of the principles it needs to be debated and that is in the authority but i think the congress acts much quicker than the litigation we have and we would avoid the. >> ms. baker. >> about 2010 rules were not published for a while. there are various ways that they can extend the time before they publish them. once they were published they were turned back and we are now at the fcc revisiting those into certainly the best way is for congress to act to it depends how you count it. it's 2015 and they will promote more rules depending on if they will be litigated that will be another window with several

years of uncertainty. >> i ask unanimous consent we enter into the record on the policy blog from the financial chief officer which deals with this issue of investment and which others show the regulation increases and you end up with permanent regulations since the 1930s broadband access at the the networks will go down so it's a clarifying statement from december 11. >> we would enter that into the record without opposition so ordered. welcome aboard the subcommittee.

>> i'm happy to jump into this one. it's the first issue is by the commission for mr. powell about the difficulty of the subject. i want to thank the ranking member as well for this hearing today. i've learned a lot. this is the first hearing i've had on the subcommittee on the larger committee as well. and and a finite mr. chairman and i would like at the outset to offer the analysis of the draft bill that we are discussing. i come from iowa and i have 24 counties in my congressional district. it is a much more diverse district and folks on either coast of the united states i might imagine. no offense to either the chair or the ranking member here but we have got a lot of issues in the district. what i would like to start with is a question.

the statistics that you mentioned, eight out of ten have the choices can you cite those statistics again? >> eight out of ten have a choice of more global broadband providers and 94% have a chance of three. >> do you know where the 20% for the 6% reside? >> i'm certain we can get you a map. >> i would suspect although i don't know for sure it is probably in rural areas where those folks reside. it's my first year in the committee that i've been getting around the district for the last eight years and this is a huge issue that has come up with the accents on the areas to broadband, cellular service for all the things we are talking about. that's why i'm excited to be on the subcommittee so i can do what i can do to folks of my district and i want to thank all of you.

i knew nothing about it until my daughter requested it as a christmas present. i immediately went online and found out what a wonderful service you offer so thank you for being here as well. i support net neutrality. i'm interested in working with both sides of the aisle so that we can craft some kind of legislation to bring us up to where we ought to be in 2015 fully recognizing that we will never ask legislators understand all the issues down the road because things are going to be changing all the time. we will do the best we can and i appreciate the majority bringing the bill to the floor so that we can spend a lot of time working on this. but as i said, that rural areas are probably my major concern as a congressman. and i would like to ask perhaps the rest of you as time permits

but affects might this proposed legislation have on our rural consumers especially the universal service fund programs for which we already mentioned briefly. >> thank you for the question. this is one of my deep concerns with the draft legislation as it stands, stripping them of title 602 calls into question the commission to continue ongoing processes that help subsidize expansion of broadband in rural areas as well as programs that could make it more affordable for those folks that do have a connection but can't afford to connect. we are concerned about people in rural areas driving down the road to wherever they can get a wireless signal to do their work. we need to ensure that this bill does no harm to efforts to

increase digital inclusion and it's an important imperative for education as well. >> i want to say i think the bill if you flip it on the other side has a promise if we were to look carefully at the authority over the title number two to increase the further deployment in the community. part of the reason why they have the authority is to get at the very issue that you're talking about and i think by looking at the bill in a way that is a point of debate because there is a discussion draft will allow us to be careful in the path we do take and if we take title to we've already heard from the association leaders about the high capital investment in the community's overall come up with the communities like rural that we are concerned with will be the last on the list if the capital is depressed among the communities, so we need to be careful about that in the study i did at the national broadband map there was very little coverage that was the lowest in their areas and in their states and communities and it has been

that we have seen a lot of growth particularly with wireless for some of the committees as well so i would caution against putting the baby out with the bathwater as we talk about what ways can section 706 offers some solutions that we are willing to work and sit down with the a sitdown with the members and staff to talk about but how can you actually leverage that point so that to the earlier point of the congressmen we don't spend a lot of time wasted where we can't do add to the debate of the universal service and other things you care about and we do, too >> i would like a response from the others if it is possible for the record on moving forward. >> if they can get it to you quickly. >> in my opening remarks, i said that etsy is a democratizing force for entrepreneurship area democratizing entrepreneurship

means providing rural broadband so that people are not disadvantaged by where they live and on whether or not they can take advantage of this great platform. so we are concerned that the legislation by revoking the fcc authority to really undermine efforts to promote adoption and roll areas. >> i think what i would emphasize quickly is the biggest problem of reaching a sacred obligation of all telecom policies is because the costs are highly uneconomical for entering so you have to balance off the power to ensure that we are not raising the cost of providing services and further distance and infrastructure builders from coming into the community and that is the other worry about moving to the regime that could raise those costs. >> any others >> thank you. it's hard for me to believe that investments require blocking not disclosing, engaging in the

prioritization. >> all of which would be banned under the draft, correct? >> whether it is enforceable he band and whether operators can get out by offering specialized services or claiming reasonable network management so there are a lot of questions but those good things of principles should be protected. >> and remember you saw them in the background. >> to respond directly currently the universal service fund is located on section 254. it isn't enough for us to get there and we want the assurance that the commission can continue up going in the process. >> in response i think that you are correct in terms of the assurances that are there there then it comes with but then it comes with everything else and that is what we are concerned

about in the communities if you go back to the conversation of the regulation etc. the communities we represent, they are not even at the beginning of the finish line and we have a lot more work to do and we need to be cautious about the regulatory action given the fact that there are 30 million people that do not have access and i think the fact that we have had this conversation continues to disadvantage the people we represent them a the need to get about the business of other issues and so respectfully i think you are right but at the same token it is much too excessive to actually get the things we want. >> schools and libraries exist since it is classified. we have an act that is going forward, so i think it's important and we all realize it is important and we can continue the conversation. >> i thought it would be helpful for the whole committee to hear everybody get a shot at it.

if you would like to meet with us afterwards, we can show you what a real district looks like. [laughter] >> we are now going to go to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you mr. chairman. honor to serve on the committee. it's been a terrific hearing. i have a couple questions. after speaking with a medium-sized broadband provider in my district, they were concerned that during the push for the reclassification the fcc hasn't conducted a single study on the impact that the reclassification would have on small and medium-sized operators. what are your thoughts on the ability of the small and atms highest to handle the increased burden of internet regulation? >> i think it is fair to say they are deeply concerned. i would emphasize they have a legal obligation on the regulatory flexibility act to take special consideration of

small businesses in the cost-benefit analysis decision. our members filed with the commission raising great concerns that they have not complied with them as part of that analysis. that's an ongoing conversation with the commission that get another potential vulnerability in the rules that will come out. >> i know that you touched upon this but maybe you will want to elaborate. i have a couple areas in my district has many members do where even today internet option is significantly behind the rest of the country and they are struggling to get reliable broadband up and running. can you explain why title to classification could disproportionately impact and further harm communities with the broadband adoption already? >> in my testimony and on the record or statistics to actually talk about the fact that

relevance leads when it comes to the reason why people do not get online. the cost of broadband and the device actually come after why do i need to use the tool and i think all of us in the room if we want to equalize democracy as as had earlier we need to get people online so they can realize the full value. the challenge with the title ii to the question is, you know again as i said we still have to get everybody to the starting point before we get to the finish line and try to manage around some of the hypothetical harm of what the internet can do does a disservice and the under monopoly telephone service we can only talk and hear. and broadband we can talk come here, discuss and do other things and for the other communities of color, we want to solve social problems that are chronically chronic disease or the lack of educational resource, etc.. the possibilities investigations of the internet are so great and why would we want to restrict and regulate something that is still in its infancy and for our communities again, relevance is the issue. we have to move people of color

like the poor and the disabled and seniors and the folks who do not speak english as a first language to the internet for the power of government resources so that they can move from an in-line economy to an online economy. we have to move them to places to solve the problem much like in florida where people are not taking advantage of the new technology and having a restricted title has an impact outside of the chilling investment of employment. >> thank you so much. >> will this do anything to encourage incumbents to upgrade networks or companies to enter the market? >> i would like to take the latter part of the question because this is a serious overlooked aspect. it's a major disincentive for the competitive area of the market and all you need to do for looking at evidence and some of the examples that are held up as the sterling new entry like google fiber that entered the market by the way if only entered the market in a handful of selected cities.

it elected to provide broadband service and provide video service but refused to offer telephone service. it refused in its own public statement in saying it's chose not to provide telephone service because of the regulatory compliance costs associated with being a telephone company. in fact the president of the united states was in iowa recently in cedar falls talking about the municipal broadband company that provides a very fast internet service. the company also provides broadband and video service and today provides no telephone or telecommunication service in part because of the regulatory cost incentives. title ii fundamentally assumes an incumbent state sanctioned monopoly and it tends to her by a regime that is hostile to enter and provide a new competitive alternative. >> thank you and i will yield back. >> we now go to the gentle lady from california for five

minutes. >> and he very much mr. chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing today. the internet is very dynamic and i must say this hearing has also been dynamic and lively and it's been much appreciated by the members here. a year ago, no one was talking about paid prioritization and now people are talking a lot about it. it also calls the internet fast lanes. it is central to the net neutrality debate and that's why i introduced the bill with senator leahy to pay the prioritization or the so-called internet fast lane. the reason i bring this up is because this is where the consumer gets involved. the consumer understands this and when i had my hearing and at home i talked to the people they understand, they don't like the idea of having to pay extra to access the content of the programs they want to see online

and this is pretty clear. i talked to some of the institutions, schools and libraries and they also feel they can't afford to cut deals and neither can the startups cut deals with each to compete so this is central to what we are talking about today. so our policy has to be very clear about how it impacts the consumer. do your associations support the advance of the paid prioritization? and i would like a yes or no. >> yes. >> thank you. ms. council is and i would like for you to comment on this too. from the consumer point of view does the bill truly ban all forms of the paid prioritization and if not why? we have been talking around this

but can you please expand on it and also mr. meissner. >> many have raised the question around the definition or the lack thereof or of the specialized services and whether or not that create a gigantic loophole that could severely diminish the rule that was intended to ban the paid prioritization and it's also worthwhile to consider issues of discrimination on the internet that fall outside the paid prioritization and there are quite a few. >> i think in addition to the concern about the specialized services which by the way isn't just possibly a loophole by the third parties but rather i affiliated companies engaging more or less the same behavior and you can imagine an internet broadband access provider also having an affiliated content business which get special treatment. it wouldn't be paid

prioritization in the sense that they are paid by a third party but prioritizing traffic based on the ownership rather than the payment and the other two areas of concern that we discussed previously, one is keeping the reasonable management carveout as narrow as possible and we should view that it does seem to favor some content over others and lastly enforce the business. it needs to be clear in the bill throughout broadband internet access network. >> do you feel this is a good starting point? how do you feel about this? >> yes, i do. i think it is a novel approach where a set of principles are clearly defined and kept in the ceiling. if that actually works it is a great start. our concerns expressed today are how that healing with the great principles would actually work.

>> do you feel the same way? >> i'm pleased that members on the sides of the aisle agree that if neutrality is a serious problem and we need to address it through government action in one way or another. i have serious reservations about the draft legislation as it stands mostly given the level of authority that it would strip of the commission right now and the lack of inclusion of the ban on the unreasonable discrimination on the internet. >> i strongly belief we have to get this right, either the fcc or the congress. it is too important to think about how the internet affects everything we do in our lives. and this is the first thing i think of a starting point is a 100% ban on the paid prioritization and we have to figure out how to do that. there can't be any loopholes. you're talking about some already so we have to start

addressing that. if we can't get that right we are moving backwards. our consumers will know that we are moving backwards and we are stifling competition when you think about that too mac. i have heard from many startups who feel they were able to start their businesses but in fact if we don't play this right and then the prioritization, we will go backwards and we cannot if we do not institute the strongest revenue protections for consumers and innovation so i truly need this is our opportunity and this is a wonderful hearing to begin the discussion so i will yield back. >> think the gentle lady for her comments and we look forward to working with you and appreciate your comments as well. that's obviously not our intent to ban it and create a loophole to allow it to go through so i appreciate your doing this to

work with us. we are now going to go to the gentleman from ohio committed a member of the subcommittee and we are delighted to have you as a part of the team. >> had a winner of the national championship. >> and the gentle man's time has expired. [laughter] >> know in all seriousness it is an honor to be on the subcommittee under your leadership. i look forward to the work -- >> no amount of sucking up is going to get you -- >> to the panelists thank you for being here. i have about 30 plus years of private sector and dod experience in information technology and if so i'm very familiar with the issues we are dealing with and the criticality of those issues. i can remember back in the 70s when i first got started in information technology and telecommunications we went through generations of technological upgrades about

every ten years there was a generation from the 70s to 80s and 90s and about the mid-90s leading into 2000's it began to accelerate to where we are today. many of the devices that we all use on a dalia basis many of them are not even here five years ago. today we see a technological turnover about every quarter as soon as one model comes out, the next one comes in and so technological innovation requires the right conditions and more government means less flexibility and fewer opportunities to grow and i think it was president ronald reagan that said the answer to our problems is never more government. if you look at what the telecom industry needs in order to be successful, it needs to be nimble in order to innovate which it can't do if they have a hand of government that prevents

it from doing so in the windows of opportunity in the industry of telecommunication the only -open-brace very short period of time and innovators must have the certainty that if they jump into the fray and put investments on the next great thing that they will be able to take advantage and get a return on their investment so on these issues we talk about today are extremely important and i know i represent a very rural district and we talked about how important this is to some of those areas and i appreciate those comments. mr. powell in the end cta's comments in the open internet docket it stated that the title to classification, and i quote would stand in the infrastructure of the commission seeks to foster. these comments go on to indicate that the reclassification again,

quote, but require that providers to divert substantial time and resources to design and implement numerous systems and processes necessary to comply with the various requirements and obligations of the title to. can you quantify the time and resources that you are describing in those comments? >> i think it would be difficult to put a number without agreeing on the scope we would have to comply with and i think we have all recognized that it depends on what you're going to be subject to and what you're not. there are a thousand title to two regulations. how many of them will apply and the obligation is a huge open question. >> is it safe to say though that this type of time and resources would have the effect of chilling innovation? >> if people want a better understanding, go read the history of the biggest regulatory problems were in the 60s, 70s, '80s telephone companies. there was an enormous

dissatisfaction they were not investing that they were not innovating. what was the last telephone innovation that you recall in the area was it the pink princess phone or the blue one? there was a disincentive and it has been the government's policy both at the fcc and congress to the beach reading be re- treating from those regulatory tools for decades to spur more innovation into those industries and it really was that retreat that helped foster and explore the wireless industry, the cable industry as a competitor to broadcast and a whole host of other industries with a revision of those policies. so i think that there's plenty of examples in the way that the current regulatory model does incentivizes and if you need one last example, go to get the experience in europe when we do find the information service they pursued the equivalent of the title two regulations. their ministers today are calling for an end to that

regulatory environment and adoption of the u.s. model because of the pressing effects on innovation investment. >> like i said more government is never the answer to the problem. >> do you have a thought on that as well? >> i followed his example because as we talk about the investment we want to put hard numbers to it greatly don't have it because we've never been under title ii but the real world example is europe and from 2011 to 2013 week with 73% more investment in europe and the networks are 30 times faster and we have three times more platforms than the rest of europe. we don't know how much. certainly we are going to continue to innovate and invest. the question is how much. maybe not as much. and i would say that when we look towards the future we look towards specialized services such as the connected car