>> the plan was not forged within the building. instead "the wall street journal" reports that it was developed with a unusual effort inside the white house. indeed, white house officials according to the journal unction as a parallel version and the

work led to the president announcement in november of the plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report said blindsided them right chairman wheeler for the compromise. and of course a few insiders were quizzed him about what was transpiring. here's what a leader for the government-funded group fight for the feature had to say. we have been hearing for weeks from our allies that the only thing that can stop tom wheeler from moving ahead with this sham proposal to get net neutrality is if we could get the president to step in. so we did everything in our power to make that happen. and now we get to celebrate. congratulations. and what the press has caught called opened the door to a plethora of special interest activates. fight for the future free press

and public knowledge just to name a few. and indeed even before activists were blocking determine straggly late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. what about the rest of the american people? they certainly couldn't get white house meetings. they were shut out of the process altogether. they were being played for fools. the situation did not improve when the situation announced his plan. and asked the fcc to implement it. this differs dramatically from the proposal put out last may. that even several of them rushed in to make last-minute filings registering concerns that the fcc might be going too far. the american people to this day had been not allowed to see president obama's plan and it remains hidden. especially given the unique

importance of the internet, the commissioner and i asked for the plan to be released to the public. senate commerce committee chairman john thune and house of representatives energy and commerce chairman fred upton did the same. and according to a survey last week i respected them accredit polling firm, 79% of the american people favor making this public. but still the sec has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. we have to pass president obama 317 page plan to the american people can find out what is in it. we should be an independent agency based on the record. we shouldn't be [inaudible] by the white house. and we should've released this plan to the public corporate in that impact and then there was

no need for us to resolve that matter today. there is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. the backers of the president's plan noticed, but they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand out of the light of day we know that the more the american people are aware about it, the less they will like it. that is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the white house and why it has remained hidden from public view. these are not my only concerns this reveals what is sure to meyer the agency in the muck of litigation for a long time. i will reserve them for my statement. i quoted google's former ceo eric schmidt who once said that the internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn't understand. this makes it abundantly clear that the sec still does not get

it. the government regulation has awakened a sleeping giant and i am optimistic that we will act on today's vote with temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that had served us well. we are overturned and i do believe that the days are numbered. for all these reasons i would like to thank the hard-working staff in my office and all of the others for the trying personal circumstances to deliver. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> i have you on my scorecard so far and it's undecided

[inaudible] [laughter] >> the commissioner o'reilly. >> thank you mr. chairman. i look forward to this as well. i had a chance to review some of the last statements. there is quite a critique of the link. sit back, put your feet up. you haven't seen anything yet. and i promise that i will put my longer one in the record. today the majority of the commission this includes pursuing values and political ends, including penalty regulations and the right to impose amusing other divisions or at some point in the future.

the commission advocates this wall by defining and classifying services based on unreasonable findings it fails to account stancil differences between fixed and mobile technologies and opens the door. a delegate substantial authorities to bureaus, including a case-by-case basis. it also reinstates net neutrality rules. indeed, it seems that every bad idea in the name of net neutrality has come home to roost in this item. three public statements over the last few weeks, one might think that this is some limited way to provide support for net neutrality rules and protect consumers. a casual observer might be led to justify the means. but the means became the and and

we have the title to as far as far greater expenses that months ago. and that's the that is the reality that this commission tried to hide by keeping this from the public and releasing a carefree fact sheet in its place. i am far more troubled by the dangerous court that the commission is charging on title ii and it will have future broadband investment. as providers and consumers. the commission attempts to downplay this but make no mistake that this is not some make leave modernized life that are tailored to reserve investments protecting consumers all of the title ii applies to the back door at section 201 and 202 of the act and section 706.

all of it has a virtuous cycle not actual harm to consumers. in someway this evolution is not surprising. it expresses a number of proceedings like transition, over-the-top video, symmetry, that this is attempting to bring over-the-top and other services within the reach. now the commission goes all in and subjects the foundation of the internet. furthermore, the other providers will be gone as well. i cannot support this monumental and unlawful graphic. this is a logical of a few open ended questions in this argument is not at all persuasive. interested parties would have to divine the agency's unspoken thoughts because the final rule

was surprisingly different. distant, excuse me, from the proposed rule. it effectively had no notice to the vast evolution that took place to final order. keypoint improved the scope of the newly defined service including how we relate to each other including the underlying classification reclassification of each service. including how they would reach of these new services, including sections 202, 706 and others for other provisions. it's hard for me to believe that the commissioner was establishing net neutrality to protect against hypothetical harms. there is not a shred of evidence of any aspect of this is necessary. the dc circuit scaled-down version of this approach and it

takes performing market power for repetitive invocation of the virtuous cycle. it may have been good enough when all that was at stake with net was net neutrality rules but that is no guarantee for such reasoning was standing all of title ii hanging in the balance as well. some providers may have been willing to live with net neutrality under section 706 based on nothing more than this it's an entirely different matter for title ii without concrete evidence but doing so is necessary. it also puts net neutrality rules on the firmest legal ground, the title ii is far more than a convenient legal situation, but designed to rein in the monopoly and telephone companies and it cannot be shrugged off with simple

inclinations like to the extent our prior precedents suggest otherwise. and no matter what they try to do to limit the fallout it's not trying very hard to do that here. the decision is to impact investment as one analyst report wrote last week. title ii is about price regulation with a regime that is fundamentally about price regulation in industry that the fcc has declared to be noncompetitive with future pricing power. and that includes substantially [inaudible] even a modest reduction is too great of a price to pay.

and the sec gives them no reprieve from title ii whatsoever. incredibly the item is significantly to a theoretical cost to the cost of foregone investment. i am far more concerned about americans as a result of our rules. forget about open internet, they have no internet. and not in some virtuous cycle way proving the regulatory measures. i am very concerned that the far from virtuous cycle is creating a vicious cycle for regulation and broadband and that begets more regulation to simulate competition to further deter investments. in other words, the beatings will continue until morale

improves. notably than the items not only reversed the decision to treat broadband internet access as information service but also the first time that title ii applies to the entire service and not just the transmission component. as one provider put it it is a telecommunications service to multiple fusions of this act decades of commission decisions and views of all nine supreme court justices and it also gives shape to the argument that prior decisions has an information service including serious wine interest that must be taken into account. this includes substantial factual errors and showing that the commission has advocated its role as an expert federal agency and services.

the record is replete with evidence that network operators enter into interconnection relationships with this through individually negotiating private arrangements. regardless of the form they take this only serving the public indifferently, some refer to it and have never been regulated as a common subject of title ii. undeterred by this long history the item has a novel service laundering scheme and is set to transform this action into telecommunications service by broadband internet access service. just like that it is no longer the last service. and this includes all internet traffic relationships. this approach is riddled with

holes and first such interconnections has always been understood including this proceeding. second, the items does not show how this service laundering scheme is consistent. third, and there was no notice for this novel approach. it clearly did not understand that the primary mechanism for doing so was to reinterpret broadband internet access service to include internet connection. and moreover this shift highlights the endgame it has become not just net neutrality rules in subjecting a thriving competitive regulation in the name of net neutrality trying to

use a smart book and a thin line tool and a very large whale. this line will surely break. similarly this item for the first time under title ii regulation, until now the commission has followed this under section 332 of the communications act. and this includes free from commentary regulation as a wired by the statute. today we use a sleight-of-hand to change the definition for an overnight broadband that magically falls upon title ii. in subjecting wireless broadband to this, the majority acorns fundamental differences between this and broadband industries.

the wireless sector has developed and flourished in a fiercely competitive environment. consumers have ample choices and they can switch between offerings, this competition has yielded unparalleled investment and innovation and product of french and as well as retracting them attain. it's a dynamic mobile sector that defies logic. the majority also ignores the fundamental technology and operational requirements necessary for mobile broadband networks. unlike these systems, the capacity is constrained by the scarcity of spectrum resources given this unique limitation, wireless providers must maintain the ability to get this going with wireless networks. and this will hamstring smooth

functioning of these networks. some may argue that the exception for reasonable network management will allow such flexibility on a case-by-case approach whereby a wireless provider are judged after-the-fact by the commissions enforcement bureau is unlikely to provide much comfort or certainty to wireless providers finally the telecommunications service without adequate explaining rationale for the drastic change of course and in addition there has been no meaningful opportunity for public comment on this definition. indirect contravention of congressional intent and it's not likely to survive judicial scrutiny. perhaps the most surprising and troubling aspect was the promise of her parents most of title ii. instead the item intends to

provide the same protection using a few of the core title ii provisions that i retained. chiefly sections to a one, 202 and 706. in the item is quite candid about the strategy. stating that appliance section 201 and 202 enables us to protect consumers with broadband access from potentially harmful conduct both providing a basis for this and the open statutory backstop that they provide regarding broadband providers more generally. indeed section after section the item claims to forbear from a provision and quickly points to protections and other provisions that got stiffer bearings. it allows proponents to claim it's a new modern title ii and really it only would exclude 56% directly and even then allow the

inexcusably broad language of certain sections to govern. the majority seems comfortable with the suggestion that they can forbear because section 201 dozen anyway. i will highlight a few of these to make my point. to quote the item, it is our predictive judgment that the protections in section 201 and 202 of the act will be adequate to protect the interest of consumers including the nondiscriminatory conduct that might be threatened by that actions of broadband providers they violate section to a one in 202 of the act, the open internet rules for another core access requirement. this is backdoor ratesetting authority. to quote the item again to

conduct standard and are open internet rules provide important protection against production and that includes providing that service. the commission retains authority under section 201 and 202 in this requires a provider of internet access to address interconnection issues should they arise, including evaluating broadband providers conduct that is just unreasonable on a case-by-case basis. we therefore conclude that these sections that apply with respect to providers of broadband internet access service will enable us to act to ensure that broadband providers does not refuse to provide service or interconnect. the supreme court has made clear that the agency has no power to tailor legislation by

interpreting a statute to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress that designed it. by engaging in a wholesale rewrite to advance its own vision to the internet. this is a modernized version of title ii and in doing so it may not exercise its authority in a manner congress gave us 40 provisions in title ii, but apparently all we need is really 151 and 201 or perhaps to put it another way, we have a new statute. moreover the commission cannot capsize the provision in favor of more general provisions, as congress had thought that sections 201 and 202 provided the authority necessary to regulate this.

and additionally the fact that the agency has forbearance authorities does not justify the rewrite using this combined with forbearance authorities to cherry pick its preferred provisions of authority. as the dc circuit has explained. to further that the regulatory aims, congress provided this with the unusual authority to forbear from enforcing provisions as well as this. during a time of regulatory transition it was not meant to be used as a tool to selectively subject new services and this includes especially troubling trend that congress started this in the state.

and it's not surprising, they have art he invited greater congressional scrutiny of. and this is authority curtailed in many areas. the reality is that the bulk of this was re-conducted by case-by-case ad adjudication. so those are mere needles in our title ii haystack. moreover rates and charges and classifications will be reviewed under the just and reasonable standards.

and there will be no certainty. this includes a recipe for overreach and confusion. the item notes that parties may seek an opinion which appears useless, they are only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding. and although there are many caveats amongst us, the commissions path forward is clear the commission claims that this item does not require broadband providers to contribute to do response at this time. but that is because it differs that decision to pending proceedings which is likely to result on the broadband services.

and this includes any intent to adopt out regulations. pressurization is a form of this regulation. the commission contemplates examining on a case-by-case basis whether they just were reasonable under section 201 and 202, that includes an evaluation with a condition of such an arrangement. the commission reviews data allowances on a case-by-case basis. and the item intends albeit in a failed way to carve out for now transit providers and edge providers and specialized services including the readers, with a new legal framework that has left the proverbial genie out of the bottle.

and it does nothing to diminished current majority. thank you mr. chairman. >> for those of you who are keeping score at home, you have seen the kind of wholesome debate that goes on every day here at this commission and gets resolved by the democratic process of taking the vote. and so let me start towards that vote by thinking the nearly 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet. her participation has made this

the most open proceeding in the sec history. and now you have agreed with the action that we are going to take today, but you made it the process of the decision stronger. we listened and we learned. and i believe that is what congress intended. and i believe that is the intention by which we operate. those comments also illustrate the importance within open and unfettered network in the role that it plays as a core of free expression and principles. and the action that we take today is an irrefutable

reflection of the principle that no one whether government or corporate should control with free and open access to the internet. [applause] the internet. [applause] the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. it is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. and this includes the post office. the internet has read redefine commerce and entertainment and happy outpouring the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free

expression and the internet is simply to important to allow broadband providers to be making the rules. [applause] so let this address the important issue head on. this proposal has been described by one opponent is a secret plan to regulate the internet. this is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. they both stand for the same concept. openness and expression and an

absence of gatekeepers telling people what they can do and what they can think. the action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness. so let's make no mistake about it. this includes the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet. as the dc circuit said in its decision remedying this to us it could ultimately inhibit the speed and the extent of future broadband deployment. but today the majority of this commission establishes that that will not come to pass.

today is a red letter day for internet freedom. for consumers who want to use those getting out of their terms, for those who want a future for which there are rules to protect the internet and its users. and importantly today is also a day that gives network operators what they require as they are there to continue to expand the broadband service in competition. the rules were fair and open internet are not old-style utility regulations but a 21st century set of rules for 21st century service. rate regulation, unbundling, have been superseded by modernize regulatory approach and has already been demonstrated to work the

encouraging wireless voice network. it is important for consumers as well as companies that nothing in today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion and this includes how it will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. before today the revenue enabled companies to build through the networks and nothing in what we do today changes the equation for consumer revenues to the isps for tomorrow and i believe that that is why sprint and t-mobile and hunter adjudications and google along

with others have said that they are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach and bulletin according to this morning's wall street journal and the headline cablevision ceo plays down proposal, which quotes the ceo of cablevision as saying bad we don't see at least what the chairman has been discussing as having any real impact on our business. this is more powerful and more expensive than any previously considered suggestion it provides a one-two punch, if you will, combining title ii with a significant act.

this is the fcc using all the tools in the to prevent and protect innovators and consumers to ban the prioritization, the so-called fast lane, they will not divide this into haves and have-nots, to ban blocking and consumers will get what they pay for unfettered access to any lawful content on the internet and to ban throttling. because degrading access the legal content and services can have the same effect as blocking and it will not be permitted to exist. these are enforceable these are bright line rules. they will allow consumers to go wherever they want whenever they want. they will also protect the rights of innovators to introduce new products without

asking anyone's permission. it also includes the general conduct rules that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. any action must not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers to use the internet. it is one thing that we can all agree upon here. and that is that we cannot possibly imagine what is going to happen next from the internet. we want to encourage that kind of innovation by making sure that there are ground rules and that the ground rules are important and that everybody knows what is expected.

for the first time those ground rules will apply to wired and wireless access. mobile networks account for the vast majority of internet access. this is a critical pathway and it must be open and fair. today's order also for the first time, asserts jurisdiction over the connections by wedge the isp plugs into the internet and the core principle there is the same as elsewhere. the internet must remain open. we will protect the values of an open internet. those in the last mile of the internet connection.

so let me close where i began. with a shout out to 4 million americans who took their time to share with us their views. today history is being made by a majority of this commission as we vote for a fast and fair and open internet. with that i will call for the vote. okay, we have it. [cheers] [applause] [cheers] [applause] >> thank you to everybody for coming. because as you know today the fcc took the important steps to

assure that the u.s. has a world leading broadband network that is fast and fair and open. and the landmark open internet protection that we adapted today to reassure consumers and innovators in financial markets about the broadband future of our nation. the action that we took to get rid of state-level red tape is nothing more than a barrier to broadband competition that will allow communities to determine their own broadband future. so let me say a brief word about the community broadband item, we do not take preemption likely. we respect the important role that the states play in our

federal system, but when the state laws directly conflict with federal laws and policy we have an obligation to act. here we are acting to ensure that communities in tennessee and north carolina can take steps to ensure their citizens don't get left behind in the 21st century and we saw some graphic illustrations of those citizens today talking about the challenges that we are trying to address. and the open internet order puts in place rules that ban blocking and throttling and ban paid prioritization for the first time open internet rules will be fully applicable to mobile. consumers now know that content

online will not and cannot be part of this order service problem. this ensures the rights of internet unit untrained users to go where they want where they want. no matter how or where they access the internet. with a desktop computer or their smart phone. innovators know that they will have open access consumers without worrying about fast lanes or beekeepers. today that ensures the rights of entrepreneurs to introduce the new products and services without getting anyone's

permission. financial markets now know that there will be common sense open internet protections in place that rely upon modernize regulatory approaches. it has already been demonstrated to work and $300 billion to build a vibrant and growing business with rules that we talked about. this means today's action ensures that the isp continues to have the economic incentive to deal with fast and

competitive rock band networks. it is in the interests of consumers and innovators that nothing in today's order alters the economic model of continue of network expansion thus far. i believe that is why many of these along with other companies have said they have the commissions modern regulatory approach. a word about process. last year most rules to protect consumers and innovators online were struck down. we reacted immediately to begin a process to restore open internet protections. over the past year we have received input from nearly 4 million americans in one of

the most transparent proceedings that we have ever run. it was a 130 day or so public timeframe. we hope that the roundtable discussions address technical and market issues. we heard from and responded to over 140 members of congress. our team had dozens of meetings with congressional individuals and i spoke with and listen to hundreds of consumers, innovators entrepreneurs in meetings across the country. and so today for open and robust year-long process, we finally have the legally sustainable rules to ensure that the

internet's days fast and fair and open. and i'm happy to take any of your questions. >> why do you think that this has a better shot at this? >> two questions. >> why did you ask a? >> it is also important. >> we will publish the order on the website as soon as we have the next two steps. the first is that we need to get this income end the second is that we have to look at those as a court opinion that requires the majority to be responsive to this, but that is going to happen quickly as soon as we get this in. then we will put it on the web and at that point in time we

will also file it with the federal register and they will publish it in the federal register and it will be on the web as well. >> why do you think that this will spam judicial review? >> the dc circuit since the previous basically said hey you are trying to impose these regulations without saying were stepping up and saying that these are common things and we have addressed that issue, that is the underlying issue of all the debates that have happened thus far. so that gives me great confidence going forward. >> do you think that the fcc has become more partisan and if so, who's fault is that?

>> as i try to express today strongly held articulated by articulate and thoughtful people and eventually you come down to a vote, 90% of the votes are unanimous here. you just get to see the ones here where there is more of the same. but i think that it continues to be a collegial process. [inaudible question] >> this is one of the issues. there's talk about why don't you release the rough draft.

because it is a work in progress. there was give and take is to the best way to structure a common result and there is no difference in the common result, it was just the way in which to go about it and we wanted to make sure that in the process we were saying that there are services that are provided to consumers like you and me and there are services provided to other providers so this has to be the open access of transparency. [inaudible question]

>> do you think the government cannot regulate the internet? >> absolutely not, it strengthens the position. no one, whether government or corporate interest should be talking to the consumers that free and open access and that is what we are talking about making sure that there is open access. >> yesterday the ranking member brought up an issue about the white houses bill of rights, saying that the fcc's authority would not, that they would not be able to enforce privacy rules on a data breach. can you respond to that concern?

has the white house reached out to you about that issue at all when i. >> i think that the gentleman raises a very good point and i have had no conversation with the white house about this. we take our responsibility is a privacy quite seriously. >> hello last year we talked about interconnection deals that are happening in the industry. can you talk about what you have learned from those documents and how they factored into this? >> so our decision is made on the record in terms of information about interconnections that was put into the record. obviously we didn't waste peoples time by asking those questions, but our decision was based upon the record. >> hello, mr. chairman. can you tell us more about the internet conduct standards and

what sorts of activities could regulate and what are some examples about how the fcc might use it. >> the general conduct says that there should not be unreasonable interference and there should not be be something that could unreasonably disadvantaged those that want to use the internet. and again that is why this became so important to us because it brings the just and reasonable test to the front. but as i said in my statement, we don't really know. no fast lanes those can be bright rules because we know about those issues. what we don't know is where things are going next. so in regard to this construct

of what is reasonable we have been created a playing field where there are no rules and the sec will sit there as a referee and will throw the flag. >> thank you, commissioner. barring any unknown which is probably the most high-profile issue in the meetings that you will have is a chairman, how do you think that this will be looked back on and how do you place this? >> i have spent a lot of time in public policy. and today is the proudest day of public policy life. >> mr. chairman, about the standard for future conduct. what are the factors that the fcc will use to determine whether a future practice like this from a wireless carrier is unreasonable.

>> unreasonable and just unreasonable it is something that has developed over time and is something that you build a record on. and is this something that can unreasonably interfere. is this something that unreasonably disadvantages. is this an activity that hurts consumers and competition or innovation. you make a decision based on the record on that. >> hello, i am with "the wall street journal." when it comes to municipal broadband, why do you think the preemption of state laws will survive court challenges and were there other goals to

reaching this. >> we laid it out in the discussion. what we are dealing with is a situation where the state said to the localities that you have the authority to do this and then put it in place the barriers to keep them from exercising that. section 706 explicitly says take away barriers to broadband deployment. and so we did. we did take away those barriers, but we did not go to the overall state authority that in fact said to those folks that you have the ability to do this. >> there have been a number of allegations on capitol hill and by the commissioner did the

president or anyone dictate to you or influence your proposal. >> the president has been well known, on record in favor of net neutrality. and so have eye. the president has always communicated his opinion to the fcc and that is nothing new. we are the expert agency and we are the agency that has to take the concept that says i am for an open internet and say what is the best way to implement that. based on the record. that is what we did and we produced a set of rules that are

stronger and more expansive and that is based upon our independent assessment of what they told us. >> so you said that you would take a general statement, he came out with a number of things in the proposal had been part of this title ii with other things and there has been a lot of stuff about interpretations of title ii going down to the 11th hour and title ii is 48 different sections, you have to deal with each of those that you have to deal with 50 of how it's

done. and that is what you did to produce an outcome. >> hello, mr. chairman. what do you say to critics who say that this vote ushers in an era of regulatory instabilities. >> one of the things that is a challenge in dealing with public policy today is that everything gets debated in terms of this and let me tell you about this the fact of the matter is that for 22 years the mobile industry has been regulated under rules that the industry sought, and i know because i did it rules that the industry sought to

become title ii common carriers and to have forbearance from the inappropriate regulations. and it has been wildly successful. we end up forbearing in this item for like 50% more sections of title ii then the mobile policy that the mobile industry champions do. so i take a real hard in that. i lived through this, i watched the mobile industry and i listened to the ceos talk about how this kind of stability was important to them. and i think again in the statements of some of these

individuals see the wisdom in that. >> regarding the connection agreement what agreement would you decide to be unjust or unreasonable and how could you impose your enforcement upon that? ..

>> three actionable, specific bright line rules in hear, no blocking, no threat -- throttling and no prioritized fast lanes. they all said we never intend to do that. they we will go into court. you need to stay this because we intend to block, throttle have fast lanes. and so i think it's a higher >> i have a question on forbearance. the commissioner seems to indicate in his readings of

the rules the forbearance is not explicit. something we are not going to do and just trust us. is that wrong? other things in these rules that will be explicit? >> the commission made the decision today saying we will forbear. it is quite similar to what the commission did in the mobile rule, section 332 of the act in which the commission went in and for more -- never no the right word to use for baird, did not. [laughter] enforce multiple precision -- provisions of title ii and that has stayed that way for 23 to 522 years the democratic and republican chairman, changes in the nature -- i mean, --

>> bloomberg, there has been talk that they will seek to free up state laws. will you grant similar petitions today? >> we we will look at petitions and make a judgment based upon the record. >> are they're any other questions? >> yes, sir. >> under the knew rules could you address specifically how the commission might address issues specifically mobile providers. >> again, we specifically did not go into that kind of detail but created a construct upon which we can build a record which would then allow us to make that kind of determination. >> peter cocoa bloomberg television. mr. chairman, if i could i want to go back to the

president's president's role in this. how confident are you that you would have arrived on this final rule have the president not president not done is november statement? what it looked the same today? >> this is something that i have said repeatedly. i was working on how best to implement title ii over the summer. he made a statement in november. i am quite confident that we made this decision with independents and wisdom and based on the record. >> hi, mr. chairman. >> hey, amy. >> i wondered, does this lesson concerns you may have about a comcast time warner deal? now that you have these approved, will you turn to that? >> good try, but i we will not talk about mergers. points for trying. >> all right. kyle bailey. i am wondering about the

forbearance. you talked a little bit about forbearance, but this idea that the forbearance that is they're could be eroded by education, just de facto actions, what do you say to that? >> you cannot just wake up one morning and say hey let's change the rules. okay? section ten of the act says, you have to make a finding as to why it is necessary. and so that establishes a whole process, but what i would go back to saying is -- to reminding you is what i said about mobile and other examples of forbearance. for 22 years the mobile forbearance has set their through multiple administrations and has not been changed. >> all right. great. >> well, thank you everybody. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. we may have lost this fight, but we have won the debate. americans have woken up to the dangers of government regulation of the internet and spoken out against president obama's plan. i am grateful to all of the people who have sent supportive e-mails, tweets, posts, you name it, expressing their support for my position and internet freedom.

i think commissioner o'reilly and all those outside the commission who have helped explain the problems with president obama's plan. our setback today was expected, but i expected to be temporary. in the words of f scott asked gerald, never confuse a single the feet for a final defeat. they're are much more battles ahead command i believe we we will win the war. president obama's plant could be vacated by the courts, overturned by congress or rejected by a future commission. i am confident at least one of these things we will happen and we will return to the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have built a thriving internet that exists today. with that .-dot we are we are happy to your questions. [inaudible question] >> you would search in vain to find evidence that such is the case. i would rather focus on what

the actual statement of the record is. >> to answer your question more specifically, as i said before i am open to exploring the possibility that there might be something beneficial. i do not want to prejudge it before it has been operational, and it seems consistent with our former chairman's viewpoint on the issue. i heard general counsel talk about how we have a decade of experience with pay prioritization. i just do not see that. i am open to having conversations and seeing if they're is value to be had. >> it is also consistent with chairman wheelers views in december of 2014. [inaudible question] >> a little bit of procedural play that went on that i did not get was the objection.

if you had one that vote what would that have meant? >> two parts to this. the commission's guide to the agenda process. editorial privileges do not exist in this document. i was trying to figure out what we are granting we're granting to the bureau. the rules do provide a mechanism for making substantive changes by the commissioners, not by the bureaus. that was a question that gc was saying that the court has suggested that they have a right to respond to the commissioners but it is not in our rules. if some commissioners agreeing to a process and wants to have a change in the documents, let them put their name on it. what we have the problem with is oh gc making changes to the text of the document went i have a problem making changes to reflect arguments

that they did not make or think about. they get to do that without any input from the commissioners. >> a very simple question. what do you do next? [laughter] >> go to disneyland. no, look, i mean the public education function we will have to continue in part because so much of this has range under wraps. the last few press conferences are illustrative of the fact you have to ask foundational questions about what the fcc just voted on. you had to learn about the basic details of what is in this plan, and i think that so long as this plan remains in flux and they're are different interpretations of it i think that -- not to

speak for commissioner o'reilly but for myself i we will continue to speak out about what i think is overreaching government regulation of the internet that jeopardizes the bipartisan consensus that dates back to the clinton administration. >> i could not agree more. what i heard from the press conference is that most of the specifics have not been addressed them are very vague, intentionally vague so that they can do what they want with them. i we will have to spend my time figuring out what the commission is doing on ask, why, or z and making sure it is consistent with what we have adopted or what carte blanche protection they are imposing to stop some sort of practice or behavior that we might find beneficial. we we will spend a lot of time trying to decipher by what is meant by general conduct rule. we have to figure out what the heck the knew guidance is going to be. advisory guidance from the bureau that has no value nonbinding.

and you have to be either offering the practice or in the course of getting ready to offer. it cannot be something hypothetical like, g, i am thinking of offering ask as soon as you offer it or think about offering it to my guess what, the enforcement bureau can impose fines upon you for doing that very thing. we we will have a continuing process for years on this in addition to the core process. >> i saw press reports earlier today saying that you guys had not submitted changes or attempted to make changes to the draft order. can you confirm that? >> so this is -- the 1st change we suggest that was the publication of the document which was soundly and repeatedly objected -- soundly and repeatedly rejected. secondly, we have been told had been told by the white house that the plan was

title ii. i oppose title ii. under know circumstance what i nibble around the edges and allow the fcc to inject itself into the internet economy, and the chairman has been clear he does not want the input of commissioners in changing what he considers the core of the proposal. title ii was this proposal, and there was simply know room for negotiation. secondly, a very is two-point moving forward in terms of public education i would be interested to see how you tried to figure out how to write stories about what the fcc just did. you were told these rules are stronger than what president obama suggested. on the other hand you were told that this is like touch regulation that will not affect the dime of consumer revenues.

which is it? on one hand you are told the internet conduct standard sets a clear marker for the private sector so that they cannot go after or pursue competitive practices. on the other hand you were just told from this day is that the standard prohibits people from unreasonably disadvantaging anyone who uses the internet. how it will be applied we do not really no. how we will the fcc judge these things, we will sit they're is a referee and throw the flag. what does that mean? if you are an entrepreneur, what does that mean? if you are a company looking to make a splash in the marketplace, what does that mean? the whole.is the uncertainty that has been generated in part by the non- transparency and by the far-reaching nature of it, is going to dissuade people from offering innovative and procompetitive options to the american consumer. >> do you have any legal obligation now that these rules are on the books to enforce them? if a violation -- can you just decide not to enforce

it because you do not like the rules? >> the constitution imposes a duty upon the executive branch to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. that constitutional obligation obviously a price of the executive branch and the fcc would have to determine how the laws it has just promulgated we will be enforced. i we will simply say i disagree with the regulatory course we have taken here and it depends upon the particular case. who knows how the fcc we will pursue its regulatory authority here. they're are parts that will not rise to the level of the full commission. the entire advisory opinion framework is something that is delegated expressly to the enforcement bureau. the decisions they make are made on their own and the decisions we will not even

be made available to the commissioners. that is, in effect substantive regulation being done at the bureau level that four of us will never have a chance to see. >> two parts and then the next question. your question in terms of whether we saw changes to the document. my staff at my request did ask a number of fundamental questions on what the bases was once we have a document and soft those answers from the chairman's staff. the answers we got back were not only not sufficient, they did not answer the questions we wanted. and they were not actionable. we were so frustrated. it was not an opening to submit pages and pages. there is such a fundamental disagreement with the direction of this item that it is problematic to see how you could make it better. they're are a lot of components i would have sought to have changed. they're are a litany of things that i think are outrageous. you can see my statement

from the npr in. we have a knew ombudsman we will hire or appoint. your 2nd question in terms of what we actually have to do, we have a process going forward we have to see a government federal register, and i suspect some provider we will seek a court state. before we even get to actually enforcing something we have to go through a number of rounds. but at that.we will have to see what the actual it is because they're is so much vagueness provided under this item, authority provided to determine. it doesn't die as be have to? they don't have to. no one is obligated. what about existing plans? do they comply? well, we are not saying that either. it is wide open on what could be viewed as problematic going forward. [inaudible question] 's.

>> the report is 3200 pages and they criticize how it is not published. can you give us contact context into how long regulation usually is and what it is published to the public before a vote? >> 3200 pages, 332 pages. >> but how long is regulation usually? >> it's quite large. it fluctuates depending upon the item. already between 70 pages, probably not unusual. somewhere in that ballpark. but they're are some that obviously fluctuate. >> it's very long enough public

>> on occasion this has been made public. in 2,007 chairman mars published a proposal which ultimately was voted on december 18 2007. the chairman's absolutely is absolutely right in the standard practices not to publicly release documents the fcc we will be voting on at meetings until the document has been adopted. for a number of reasons if ever they're were reasons for a reason to depart from that practice, this is it. we heard from a variety of people how critical the internet economy is. his own proponents describe it as unprecedented action. the american people should be given a chance to see what is in there.

unfortunately there is a canard going around that there are only eight pages of regulations. number one, eight pages if you could see the regulations, they are quite detailed. some of them, it is not apparent how they operate. you heard it is unclear how they will be applied. they're are number of pages within the document that our paragraph upon paragraph describing how rules we will be enforced. moreover, those are just the codified rules. they're are a host of others that will be on codified but nonetheless binding on private parties which are discussed in the other 309 pages of the document. in addition, you have things like the internet conduct rule where the commission spends paragraph describing the 7th eight factors it is going to apply and then says those factors are nonexhaustive and keys up a number of different service plans that might be on the

chopping block. that does not have to be eight pages of rules for it to have nonetheless a significant and impacting effect on the economy. it is the breadth of the decision-making that the fcc derogate stew itself that makes this problematic. >> documents are usually not made public until they are adopted? >> with effective public meetings, that is absolutely right. specifically the german we will circulate the document proposal to commissioners going weeks in advance of the public meeting and it is not made public until after the adoption. commissioner reilly has put riley has put it well spoken out eloquently fully respective of accountability. it seems odd that the agency would adopt authority and regulation and only then allow the american people to see what is in it. >> this document was not made public. i wish it was. i have made a larger push that we make all items circulated.

>> it we will be a violation. i have gone through those arguments at length to try and shoot them down. it is a resource management issue and under the current rules the chairman has the right to make those documents available if he so chooses. here he chose not to, and i suspect he will continue that course of action. >> this is for the commissioner. it seems like ever since the story came out you referred to this as president obama's plan. to look back at the story it seems like when it describes the parallel it is just referring to an independent body generating the policy recommendation that the president ultimately came up with. and, you no, the idea of title ii with forbearance is

certainly not unique to president obama. is they're any reason you have to believe that the white house did the -- did assert undue influence? >> all i can say is what has been publicly reported and what we have heard from the white house itself. net neutrality, president obama's plan for free and open internet further on down he says, i asked the fcc to implement this plan. the notion that the phrase president obama's plan to regulate the internet is somehow hyperbolic is absurd. moreover, you just heard that for the 1st time the agency is asserting jurisdiction over such things as interconnection, wireless service plans. you cannot have it both ways. you cannot say at the same time we are not regulating the internet. the phrase speaks for itself and has complete

substantiation. >> on the municipal broadband platform and you guys speak to specifically when you are giving your remarks on that the commission was taking this route and only ruling that these things could not preempt -- ones authority was given that broadband be allowed -- the network be allowed. it was odd that it would do that. >> i think what i was talking about was the juxtaposition of the agency's position number one, that it have the power to preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband short of an absolute prohibition yet at the same time conceded that the fcc would like the power to adopt -- to preempt flat

out bans on municipal broadband. in other words, if tennessee had said, chattanooga, we will not allow you to have municipal broadband whatsoever, this order appears to conflict that the fcc would like the authority to do anything about it. sorry, the fcc having determined that tennessee restricted the reit expansion of the municipal broadband projects beyond the service area the fcc says we do have the authority to preempt. that is the oddity i was focusing on. he would have the perverse impact of dissuading municipalities from initiating municipal broadband projects precisely because the state would say, okay, if we give any power whatsoever to municipal -- municipalities it would preempt exceeding the terms of the service to narrowly and under are prostitution a framework and the supreme court jurisprudence, as the court explained in nixon versus missouri, i just don't see a way for the fcc to thread that needle.

>> i would answer it this way and agree with everything wholeheartedly my colleagues said. one oddity i found is the question that the petitioners really wanted answer was, where could they go, what were the territorial rights, health market they go outside of the existing reach which is a question that the supreme court is clear that we the agency cannot grant a municipality authority over something that is a statement. otherwise you cannot operate the entire state which is something that is problematic and states have pushed back on and i suspect we we will see a challenge on. [inaudible question] >> they're have been a lot of fires to run back and forth over this debate. do you think that the well

has been poisoned between you and the chairman's office? have rubicon's been crossed you and how this process has been carried out? will be show up next month and it will be football jokes and everyone smiling and happy? >> we never joke about football here. that is no laughing matter. but, look i have been consistent. i have been at this agency now for almost two and a half years, worked under multiple chairman's. every single month on every single issue i approach the item on the merits and figure out if they're is some way for us to reach a consensus. if so i will offer my suggestion is to the floor. if my suggestions are rejected i will offer separate views. i do not see the well-being poisoned that do not think of the chairman -- i hope the chairman does not bear me any ill will from one item to the next. whatever is on task next we will approach with an open

mind. we have to work in a variety of complex matters upon which reasonable people can disagree and often do and those disagreements should be gathered within the four corners of the document we're voting on. whether it is radio revitalization or spectrum policy shift on next, i am going to approach it with the same collegial and open spirit that i would hope my colleagues do. >> i would answer this way i look forward to continuing my friendship with chairman wheeler, even if we disagree on items. i we will say, it is a fundamental shift for the agency. i think it is problematic not only to where we are to date, but my old boss senator john kyle used to say, if i don't ask you to violate your principles and you don't ask me to violate my principles, there is plenty in the middle where we can agree on. here they not only asked us to violate her principles they asked us to violate our principles. i we will continue to work as best i can. it is tied up and a lot of the questions applicable to this item a lot of

vagueness provided. i would not have done this. i see the good works you are writing and do not hold out hopes. let's hope that is the case. [inaudible question] >> back on muni broadband, a lot of the objection is about jurisdiction. do you have any problems with cities and towns building their own networks? >> i do. i do not agree with it personally, but that is something for the states to authorize, if they so choose, and something for congress to authorize if they want us to preempt. i personally do not supported, but that is not for me to approve. >> can you talk about that? >> sure. i do not think it is fundamental to the economy to have the state acting as the regulator were a participant in the market actor. it has the ability to manipulate how it enters the marketplace and what it does

of the competition. it has the right of way and is the overseer. it can take advantages from that, and you talk about taxpayer dollars being put at risk and many of these instances they have had failures and taxpayers have had losses because of this. i have fundamental problems but it is not my job in this current role to decide whether they should or should not exist. >> jim losing care with the la times. the times. the past couple of weeks a number of people who have -- a number of people have brought up examples of presidents who have taken action. what was wrong with president obama publicly urging the fcc to do what as chairman wheeler said the president has been president has been talking about for years? ..

>> >> not only what specific rules to implement but for the intellectual foundation. that is something i have never seen as a commissioner or previously as the staffer and that is what concerned me.

if you look at the archives for the bush administration in which i said the independent agency is independent for a reason. but none the less we have to make your own determination. second, what is unusual is it comes in the wake of very unusual administrative process. everyone knows what the sec proposed in may. it minimized the discussion to a couple of paragraphs. that public outcry was strong but it has been reported that was the preferred approach that it was reported leadership was pursuing a hybrid solution

now all is said in the present - - president made the announcement through of a country and i. what magically the agency that proposes see you don't have to be psychic to figure out what happened. the american people never got a say once they shifted course to implement the plan. said the agency was vigorously debating whether to put this up for comment and ultimately the agency force them but you will see

is the administrative procedure act it was given to the public with 317 page document from day? but i do know the american people wanted to have more input. talk about communication policy for about 20 years i've never seen an involvement like this activity. in terms of specific evidence that is what the congressional body is looking at. island for to whenever they come up with.

said talk about a hybrid model the very week that the president pulled the rug under their feet. said talk about the congressional oversight. >> what is your message for congress? to talk to the committee and the congress? >> our message on this issue or just generally? >> this issue's. >> a think undulate to opine that i will say there are legislative efforts to deny funding that the agency has to respect.

>> but what just happened here today said to be a monthly basis. >> first of all, thank you for these questions. the document was 332 pages originally now is 317. what was taken out? >> so in response to a major

california-based company with respect to the broad bands as herbert. -- as a subscriber. so as he insisted on this imaginary classification with judicial review. that is a major part of it. that is the changes with the right privileges so stay tuned. so that is one big component

>> going back to bipartisanship. i know some of the reform bills with that kind of thing. >> with a closed meeting rule? >> so we could do to take the process and don't want to get ahead but certainly the a idea of legislation that three members or not the chairman can put something on the agenda. there are a number of items over the last six months where we generally have agreed intellectually i can think of revitalization but there seems to be three

votes for that that is something we could put on the agenda i have been using my experience to think of things that would improve the process. >> there are two different categories of process reform. what it could do with its own initiative and things we need to do. i propose a number of different changes to approve the agency's operation regardless of political affiliation. such as the search based process for handling applications for review i am a grateful to adopt a proposal to speed that consideration so there are a number of other things we

could do. and when they were filed with the states that have deadness that would be a great thing for us to do. as the commissioner pointed out so i was running point on this as a staffer. they are required to do compile resources. just like to privatize aspects.

even though it has them privatize for a decade. but this type of common-sense streamlining that they unanimously i hope that congress passes it and the president signs it. but getting to the gist of it. so those that do not alter the proposal. i was very of front to modernize the system i am understand the chairman did not like that plan but in summer 2014 to say here are changes i am not crazy in

the spirit of compromise but at the 11th-hour two days before the vote literally we were shut out and we saw that process over and over again. none of those polled for the core of the document but i was told no. no. no. no. no. no. no. no. maybe. so is such a complex document that to give us informed feedback that no. that would delay the auction. and that extends a very common deadline. >> if you talk to the people that are affected they are

grappling with hamas as the structure play out? obviously it is still going but to comment on a ham radio as much as we love it but to understand how it works but to birch's data is something entirely different. so when i see something like that happen is the proposal being made by a republican. to see any number of areas with the overall framework that has been adopted and again i get along with richard impersonally but to his point we have been shut

out on those matters. >>. >> there are things they can do by themselves or by congressional changes to the statue. those that i wish for getting better attention internally. with the cost-benefit analysis and i highlight those items to talk also about the flexibility act. as a matter of fact with regulatory flexibility and analysis. those are things that those a kong things that congress will tackle.

>> so overall. >> for me this threshold question is does the ftc have the power to preempt the state laws at issue? having answered in a negative there was not a way to reach a consensus some of the president is interpreting the pre-emption. so whenever got to a point of suggestions.

>> so my objections to the scope of this side of that be highlights the activities that our reasonable. there is one thing they could have done is to focus on a petition that was filed before us. if you have a problem with this and this they said no we are okay with those. i don't think they have the authority to help you. i'm sorry. i cannot change that's scenario. and they said their order trying to have much success. >> do you agree that kansas city chiefs are america's team?

[laughter] >> i would only say since my team has not done very well to have a lot of room to talk. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] i called to order and also to general allen for being here. to have meetings with centcom later a one-two properly introduce in just a moment but so request for the authorization of military force. so the conflict has been ongoing for about six months i think one of the things we are concerned about is there

is a level of confidence in what we are doing to achieve the stated goals the president has laid out. and general allan who has served with great distinction. so talk about what is happening in iraq. to have a number of questions regarding that so to give you an honest assessment with iraq and syria the activities that were involved to understand the political and military strategy that we have to give this a time frame to the activities that our necessary. i was in iraq last week with both baghdad with a kurdish friends and the turkish

friends and the head of the force has begun a celebrity in iraq. reveals very strange to be there knowing much of the activity is really to area of its benefit. there is a lot of concerns after this activity is completed if we're successful with physis in essence it would be with us she of militia i am glad to see it has seen the agreement and that the same time there is a lot of concern right now as we

train and equip that causes them to diminish did a greater number. there is a lot of discussion about the exclusion zone and the no-fly a discussion and is taking place to draw turkey into what is happening that most of us believe is very important. so as i close we owe it to the nation as we consider this to know the full range of national power economic and military means of line in such a way as to get to the frustrations stated goals. because of the nature of the decision initially committed

to achieving the stated goals that is very valuable to us some i'd like to return to the distinguished ranking member and with the present position as a special envoy. although the hearing is not focused on the proposed authorization for offset like to probe those dynamics especially with this strategy with trading so forge so with that burberry

rampage of isis. said to take the war across the finish line for those that cannot be defeated slow like to hear from you where you come down on what would be required to eradicate isis that while the strategy does not require calibration coalition partners could be doing more. my view is that it must combat ices with our arab partners but large scale in the complex military atmosphere at the end of the day will decisively increase

the prospect of losing. know i appreciate and want to salute all men and women to wage a campaign against isil from the air strikes. but that could be measured by the bombs dropped. so i welcome the opportunity to step back as it would take to defeat isil and that is a multi-year effort taking billions of dollars and of military assets in diplomacy match to all of those efforts. >> with a special presidential envoy as a day

former commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan of pointed as a senior advisor to the secretary of defense on the eastern security on a leave of absence were the co-director of the 21st century we thank you for your frankness and your service to our country and for being here today. you will have an unusually long opening comment then we turn to questions. >> thank you. it is good to be back today. ec members thanks for providing me the opportunity to update you on the progress of the global coalition to counter to the van. also my deep and sincere

thanks for the department of state for the members of the department for serving with great courage in the capability of american influence this committee has done a marvelous work to support them and thank you very much for that. i just returned to washington yesterday afternoon from kuwait by a joint the commanders with of wide-ranging discussion and while my role as special presidential envoy is concern with consolidation not coordination of activities i remain closely in sync with my colleagues and we meet regularly with other departments and agencies involved to review the progress of counter isil activities. in addition rediscovers the

next cep now that we have largely achieved the objectives of the campaigns first phase of the strategic operational momentum in iraq. through 2500 coalition air strikes to degrade isil leadership with this assists -- operational capabilities to deny sanctuary to plan and execute a tax. with the new zealand announcement they will provide military training to build capacity of iraqi security forces, one dozen coalition nations are now participating operating from multiple sites. still a situation remains complex the road ahead will be challenging and not linear. considering only eight months ago one can begin to see how the first phase of the strategy delivers results.

as i appear before the esteemed committee is important to recall that june of last year isil burst onto the international scene as the irresistible force the concord a city of 1.5 million. . .