>> >> but to survive judicial review these will be the consequences. higher by bin prices, slower

broad gains become less to pointless ovation in fewer options for consumers. put simply the plan to regulate the internet is not the solution to the problem. his plan is a problem. this order impose is intrusive regulation that will solve problems head-on exist using legal authority the sec does not have. accordingly i dissent. the commission's decision to adopt the president's plan marks a monumental shift to government control of the internet. eight gives the fcc the power to micromanage every aspect of how it works this overreach to leave their washington bureaucracy not the people decide a future of the on-line world. one facet of that control is rate regulation for the first time the fcc will regulate the rates by as

peas may charge and will set a price at zero for certain commercial arrangements. it goes out of its way from section two '01 authorization of rate authorization express the invites them to file complaints with the commission. a government agency deciding if a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation. although eppley in the regulates rates it seems to claim it is not imposing and tight regulation -- into regulation. but even agency's suggestions they cannot envision regulation in this context because of nothing from the future commission could envision. just as pernicious as the

new internet the standard that gives the fcc a roving mandate to review business models with those plants that benefit consumers. pricing plans and sponsored data plans of the current targets sofa company does not want to offer the expensive on limited data plan it could be in the cross hairs of the fcc. our standards should be simple. if you like your current service planned you should be able to keep your current service plan. the fcc should not take away from you. been in denver service plans especially the middle-class to is the biggest beneficiary. the sec will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what practices clear the of bureaucratic bar. these are not the last eight targeted by the agency as electronic foundation

frontier wrote two days ago this is anything but clear to suggest that it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices and a multi fractured discretion giving unfair a vintage to parties with insider influence. well said. then the temporary forbearance. although it says is a light touch to the free market reality becomes with caveat set the public expects from washington d.c.. in addition to rate regulation and tariffs and burdensome filing requirements accounting standards and regulations and it repeatedly states edges only for bearing at this time.

for other rules they will refrain for now. at this time for now. to be sure with respect to some rules and said it cannot envision going further but with the history of this makes clear it does not tend to last very long expected to fade in the regulation to ratchet up as time goes on. consumers will be worse off the entrance to regulate the internet they expect their bills to go up and broadband will be slower going forward. this is not with anyone promised. one avenue is the new higher taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. if you like your phone bill you will see a line item the says universal service three.

these are paid by americans on the telephone service they bundle $9 billion each year through the fcc. consumers have not had to pay the taxes on the broad band bill because it has not been entitled to service but now it is. so the order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars of new taxes and states it is only a deferring a decision on broadband taxes not prohibiting them. this is forbearance the fcc has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the federal state joint board one universal service and has recommended a decision by april 7th right before tax day. no surprise you view this as a question of how but not whether it will affect the

broad band. they have already begun discussion how they will spend the extra money. is some preferences clear. attacks in prague rand would spread the base of contribution to add to the stability of universal service fund. if you are not familiar with this i will translate. taxing broad band makes it easier to spend more of your money with minimal oversight. we have seen this game before july 2014 the sec secretly told lobbyists it would raise the taxes after the election to pay for promises it was making. sure enough decembrist blog the agency did just that. increasing spending and telephone taxes by 1. $5 billion per year. public reports indicate the federal government is eager to tap the new revenue

stream to spend more of the consumers hard-earned dollars. so when it comes to broadway and read my lips more new taxes are coming. is just a matter of when. internet regulations will harm consumers in terms of broadband. the record is replete with evidence that will slow in ovation with a broad into the work. remember they don't just have to be built risks don't have to be taken the more difficult they make the case for deployment the less likely it is broadband providers will connect america to the opportunity the old rule as a cautionary tale compared to europe were

broadband is treated as a public utility but today 82 percent have access it in europe the figure is only 54 percent and in the united states the average mobile broadband is 30% faster than in western europe. it is no wonder many europeans are perplexed what is taking place at the fcc. this week the secretary general of the european people's party the largest party in the parliament of served the sec at the behest of president is about to impose a type of regulation that has led europe to fall behind the west's in terms of levels of investment. now the fcc will comes litigation from about justice of pricing for class actions for violation as inappropriate means to regulate the economy.

judging from what we have seen this will be a boon for the trial lawyers. so far to just mentioning the intentions their unintended consequences as well. broadband providers from small-town cable companies now must take to deploy broadbent bills will go up by $150 million per year. the reclassification will expose companies to more taxes. in washington d.c. companies will face an instant 11% increase of taxes on receipts. that is a big bite on consumers wallets. all of the new fees and cost data up one estimate puts the total of $11 billion each and every year in every dollar spent on cost for

lawyers and accountants have to come from somewhere either from the american consumer's pocket or to deploy faster broadband so the higher cost will lead to lower speeds in higher prices and less value for the american consumer. that is not what i heard that consumers wanted but i hosted the forum on internet regulation that sec only field hearing on the neutrality where they were allowed to speak their innovators students and everyday people told a they wanted something else else, something that i had thought was a familiar ring with competition competition, competition co mpetition. by yet literally nothing in this order promotes competition among the isp. to the contrary reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of

business with monopoly rules designed for that era will move us into the direction of a monopoly. president of this plan to regulate the internet is nothing more than a commitment to if he likes the monopoly in 20th-century you will love broad band of the 21st. this is not just my view but the president's own sba admonish the sec for the proposed rules that unduly burdens small businesses. following the president's lead they ignored it by applying heavy handed type to regulations to each and every small broadband provider as if it were the industrial giant. unsurprisingly providers are worried and i heard this myself. one panelist runs alamo broadband which is a

wireless isp that serves only 700 people over 500 square miles. when did he think of it? he thinks it is a terrible idea. it is pretty busy just dealing with those who already carry more staff to cover regulation means it will like the service that they depend on. others feel the same way last week 142 joint that the risk has deployed wireless broadband to customers who often have no alternative including my parents. they often run on a shoestring budget was just a few people to run the business to handle service calls. they have no incentive or no ability to take on a commercial giants like netflix in the sec new intrusion would likely force us to raise prices delayed

the planned expansion or both. consider the views of 24 countries smallest diocese with fewer than 1,000 residential customers they told us title to restrain their resources with no in-house attorneys or line items for outside counseling. what about the broadbrim providers that told the sec would trigger consequences beyond their control with harm to deploy a broad band without a benefit to consumers that the market is already not proving with the aid of regulation for cause special irony that right before this the sec voted to preempt state laws with city-owned projects obama analysis just last month in cedar falls iowa. the sec is to defeat

implementing it. the very providers the president promoted tells us title to is a tremendous mistake. what does he order tell americans? from google or sprint? does it tell them service is more expensive as a direct result of a reclassification what does this tell those that of the user service does it tell those who worked for years to serve our community to build the business that is in the black? there is no explanation not even an acknowledgment instead just assurance it will not be that bad and probably had it coming anyway. the sec is abandoning a 20 year bipartisan framework for keeping the internet free and open with

legislation designed to regulate bell. to begin assembly in return? wrong. the internet is not broken there is no problem for the government to solve. the internet freedom works should be apparent to anyone with an apple iphone the samsung smart tv relive it is time you can buy a movie from my tunes watching music video or listen to a personalized playlist on pandora watch your favorite novel, to life on streaming video watch someone make a potato salad on kickstarter see with seinfeld has been that do and navigate bad traffic watching if the full sec meeting space it is literally hundreds of other things with an on-line connection at the start of this millennium we did not

have any of this innovation. no, the federal government did not do that. somebody else did that happen. for all intents and purposes the internet did not exist until the private sector developed in the 1980's with a commercial internet that led to the creativity and the innovation and the engineering genius that we see today. but as it claims and argues that a broad base of providers whole lot of the tools necessary for the content they don't like the dickens to do is to hear concerns about other broad their providers for a third-party applications. the evidence? there is none it is all anecdotes' and hysteria. if you are allowed to see

that you see a for yourself. the small eyes begin california blocked cad -- called the years ago and apple introduced face time first and cellular networks later. scattered examples are not enough to tell a computer a story about space it -- neutrality in the boogeyman never had is a breezy. what is there to fear? the only thing you have to fear is fear itself. but the sec has toward for internet freedom. i am from the government and i'm here to help. another way it is not just a solution in search of a problem but it creates a real world problem. this is a lot with the internet needs or what the

american people want. so that is just a few words briefly. the commission launched a rulemaking we need to give the american people an opportunity to participate in this process but we have fallen short of that standard. plus import and the there was not forged within the building with the rulemaking process. instead the "wall street journal" reports it is through secretive effort inside the white house. white house officials has a parallel version of the fcc the announcement led it november of the plan for internet regulation that the report says blindsided the sec to testify months of work. of course, if you insiders were clued in and here is what a leader had to save.

we have been hearing four weeks field anything that could stop them from moving ahead with the shechem proposal if we can get the president to step in. we did everything in our power to make that happen we took the gloves off and played hard now we get to celebrate the victory. congratulations. put the press is called a parallel sec at the white house with the plethora of actions with progress in public knowledge today review. even before activists flocked said driveway some were met with officials in what about the rest? peyser they could not get a white house meeting and were shut out of the process altogether and replacing the fool.

the situation and did not improve once announce the plan and asked the fcc to implement. it differs dramatically from the proposal from commons last may in so dramatically even those that rushed in to make last-minute filing to register their concerns it might go too far. if the american people cannot see the president's plan is especially given the unique importance of the internet asking for the plan to be released to the public the chairman and house committee chairmen but according to a survey last week 79% of the american

people favor making the document public. still they insist on keeping it behind closed doors. we have to pass the plan for the american people to find out what is in a. this is not how the sec should operate. we should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the lot. we should not be a rubber stamp of political decisions made by the white house. and we should not release the plan to the public to incorporate the information into a vote. we do not need to resolve this matter today but there is no immediate crisis in the marketplace demands immediate action. but it's though this the details cannot stand up to the light of day. the more the american people worry about it the less they like it.

that is why the plan was developed behind closed doors and why it remains hidden from view. these are really concerns looking at the gulf was that all we'll challenge for a long long time but rather than addressing them today at the beginning of the former ceo said it is the first thing that that it was clear purpose of the american people clearly do. the proposed tariff regulation and i am sure we will look back as said temporary deviation from what has served us so well. i know this will be vacated by force or by congress or

overturn re future commission but i do believe its days are numbered and for all of these reasons i dissent and the like to think the hard-working staff and office and all others who have favored over a very difficult item to have the product that we deliver today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i tried to keep score on all the things i disagreed with but i have you on my scorecard now as undecided but probably wavering against. [laughter] commissioner, . >> fate q.. i look forward to my scorecard as well i had a chance to look at the tweets i heard your statement and

there is a particular links to the last statement. sit back. put your feet up you haven't seen anything yet. i promise i will put the even longer one in the record. to date the majority usurps the authority of congress by reeve writing the communications act to suit the sulfite and political end to forebear from the monopoly era title to regulations for reserving the right to impose and using other provisions were some point in the future. the commission abdicates its role of the expert agency by classifying a services based on an unreasonable findings. it fails to account for substantial differences and opens the door for providers to delhi the substantial authority including how the

rules are interpreted and enforced with a case by case basis and forget how it started it also reinstates neutrality rules. a and it seems every bad idea has come home to roost that is limited in some way for net of neutrality and a casual observer i would be misled to believe the end justified the means. however the means became the end. it is another pretext but to go as far extents with dash extent as to the one could go. manchin the reality to keep it from the public to keep the carefully worded fact sheet in its place.

i am far more troubled by then a dangerous chart the commission is charting and with consequences to the future bride in investment for the commission tends to downplay the significance but make no mistake is not a make-believe modern life is tailored for investment to protect consumers. all of title to applied to the back door of sections 201 and 706. all of the premise on the cycle not actual arms for consumers. in some ways it is still surprising to have expressed concerns like a transition 91, over the top video, the symmetry as this commission has attempted to bring over

the top to whether righties services within its reach now the commission goes all in with the foundation of the internet and furthermore because of is the limiting principal the providers will be drawn in as well. i cannot support this power grab. but the item claims the decisions are a logical outgrowth of what is tacked:that the argument is not at all persuasive. it is a situation with the unspoken thoughts because it was different but then we had note notice but the key points include the scope of how they relate to each other to underline that

classification of each service. how forbearance would apply. including using section 200 watching even after three weeks it is hard to believe they established the entire net neutrality regime to farmers from the hypothetical forms there is not a shred of evidence this is necessary for the d.c. circuit called the prior version of prophylactic approach i:guilt by vegetation. moreover the commission was to guarantee the path of the market power in favor of repetitive invocation of the virtuous cycle of month since. that could have been good enough to merely survive but that is no guarantee the reasoning will withstand another round of scrutiny

now that all hangs in the balance as well. some providers may have been willing to live with neutrality rules based on nothing more than a consecutive storms without concrete evidence to do so is absolutely necessary. kinfolks title tool to put in a neutrality on firm legal ground. it is far more than a convenient legal theory of a comprehensive set of regulations to weigh in companies they did with decades of president -- precedent that cannot be shrugged off but prior presidents is otherwise but we disavows such interpretation. there is a recent title to is called the nuclear option. the matter what the sec tries to you do the decision

will impact investment as one analyst wrote terminal growth rates need to be lowered. it is about price regulation ended is naif for a regime that is about price regulation that is declared to be non-competitive for future pricing power. to reject assertions that title to would substantially diminish over all but banned investment does not give me a lot of comfort is too great of a price to pay bin moreover the harms would disproportionately be severe and dickens them no reprieve from title to whatsoever. incredibly a gives way to with the medical cost of an ovation it gives no way to

to the cost of foregone investment in them far more concerned about americans that will remain under serb. forget internet they have no internet we need to be focused on deployment not on a roundabout virtuous cycle to prove deregulatory measures i am very concerned the far from virtuous cycle but they're creating a vicious cycle in that begets more regulation in the planning to for the third deployed investment they will continue until morale improves. notably those items to reverse decisions but also the first time it applies to the entire service to the conclusion there retail but bear in internet access is

contrary to a plain text of multiple freedoms of the communications act in views of all nine supreme court justices. so the information services has to be taken into account. plane just as troubled as a factual errors and space the decision would be unsupportable assertion is to show the commission abdicated its role as the expert federal agency and communication networks with no record in this proceeding. the record is replete with evidence that content providers and operators enter into relationships there individually negotiated private arrangements. regardless of the forum and were met only.

as these arrangements have interconnection have never been regulated phone title to. and the church with a novel service scheme to transform the interconnection for another broad band internet access service in just like that it is no longer the last mile service with the entire internet path including all relationships this approach is riddled with holes. the net connection has always been understood that the item doesn't show how it is consistent with president. ended depends on broadband internet service to be in telecommunications switches is not.

their resume notice for this novel approach. even to guess it could be subject to title to clear the did understand the primary mechanism for doing so was to rob internet access service to include interconnection in. this shift to regulate traffic highlights the end game lead to inject a thriving competitive market and is trying to use us signal into real in a very large whale. similarly this item for the first time under common carrier regulations that until now the commission has

followed section in 332 to have excellent restrain as required by the statute so to change the definition overnight it falls under the confines of title to. in injecting 5 billion the majority in the doors fundamental differences between wireless industries and technologies the wireless sector has developed and flourished in the competitive environment to have ample choices to switch between offerings dealing with unparalleled investment with a overprices and higher speed than product differentiation as they fight for the edge to

obtain a subscriber's. and then it defies logic. also to ignore the operational requirements necessary for mobile broadband networks. with network capacity is constrained of affective resources given the limitations and must maintain their ability to mitigate the congestion is entitled to rules has a function of the networks. whereby a wireless provider is judged by the commission's that will likely provide much comfort or certainty to wireless

providers. without adequately explaining the rationale with space the full opportunity for public comment on the changed definition with a list into improperly capture travel to with congressional intent. perhaps the most surprising aspect is their promises for parents but doesn't forebear from those provisions instead it will provide this data of the court title to provisions that are retained the nichol the maneuver flow period it's -- varian said

it enables us from potentially harmful conduct to provide a basis for open internet rules and the backstop they provide regarding broadbrim providers in general. section after section from a provision and to quickly appoint to available provisions it is the end run to claim it is a new modern title to to receive 56% directly with certain sections to govern the majority seems comfortable with the suggestion in they could forebear but it doesn't already way.

it is our predicted judgment to protect the interests of consumers that could be threatened this subject to a complaint in the enforcement with the open internet rules of access requirements this is backdoor rate setting authority in number two faux-bearance what is the item again? third conduct standards provide for a broad band service is that as part of providing the service. faux-bearance from market opening.

authority intersection two o one. to address interconnection issues and should they arrive still on the case by case basis for those legal protections with respect to providers a broad bin internet access service to insure its deseret refuse to provide service or interconnect. the supreme court has made clear the agency has no power to kill legislation to bureaucratic policyholders to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress that designed it. by engaging in a wholesale to advance its own vision for the internet.

this with the structure that congress enacted into law. apparently to put it another way presto. they cannot have a specific provision of the act. sova provided the authority necessary in why was it congress felt compelled from the '96 fact? the fact that it has faux-bearance design justify it so it is used to cherry pick is the greatest abuse of the views as the circuit has explain to further to

the two regulatory regime from the 96 over all of the communications act, congress provided in enforcement provisions of the act as well as is a regulation isn't deal levin was within existing regulation during transition from ottman to be used as a tool to selectively subject to services from these provisions congressional authority is troubling given that congress would legislate in this space. to not even consider a brief pause to see that play out. that is the arrogance with security and receives its authority in many areas. the fact sheet with case by

case adjudication. to be sure there are some rules. that those are reared evils in the haystack. many provinces are reviewed under the general conduct standard that is a catchall rates in charges will also be reviewed in sections to new hundred one and 202 parties love no way to know such as the court acting pursuant to the sections will rule on a particular matter. there will be no certainty. one public-interest group as a recipe for overreaching and confusion. the item notes they could seek the advisory opinion only available their

non-binding with their request to be used against a later. although there are minicab fiat the capricious path forward is clear that the claims this item does not require broadbrim providers to contribute to this service fund at this time. because it differs that decision is likely to result with broadband services nor can they take any comfort to refrain from further regulation as a disavows and the present intent from rate regulation as it is a form of regulation and the forum expresses on the case by case basis to have just and reasonable under section 201 and to render to with

evaluation of rates in terms and conditions of such arrangements and also intends to review all launces on the case to case basis. moreover they're not the only ones that should be concerned. the item attends with transix providers in certain specialized services but the major legal framework has led -- let the genie of the bottle. that does nothing to diminish the culpability of the current majority. thank you, mr. chairman chairman stick made for those of you if you're keeping score at home you see the debate that goes on

every day here at this condition. can get a result by the democratic process of taking a vote. let me start the process to is a coach thinking nearly the 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet's and your participation made this the most open proceeding in sec history. not all agreed with each other with what you will take today but to make a process to make it stronger we listened and we learned i

believe that is what congress intended when they established the rules by which his agency operates. those 4 billion comments also illustrates the importance of an open and unfettered now working in the role is played as a core of expression of democratic principles. while some other countries try to control today we take it as the reviewable reflection of the principles that no one whether government or corporate can control open access to the internet. [cheers and applause]

the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet it is simply too important to be left without rules or without a referee. think about it. the internet has replaced the telephone in the post office. has redefined commerce and entertainment. endospores million americans have demonstrated it is for free expression and it is simply too important to allow broad band providers to allow them to make the rules. [applause] so let's address the important issue in this

proposal has been described as a secret plan to regulate nonsense. this is no more a plan to regulate the internet and the first amendment is a plan to regulate free-speech they both stand for the same concept. openness, expression and to have people tell them what to do. the action retake today's about the protection of internet openness. make no mistake. broadband access providers

has the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet. as the d.c. circuit said in remanding the issue to us us, broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness to act in ways and ultimately could inhibit the speed and extent of future of broadband a planet''. but today establishes that will not come to pass. today is a red letter day for internet freedom for those who would use the internet on their terms or innovators to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers and for a future that there are rules to protect the internet industries.

but importantly, to date is said david kiddos operators what they require if they continue to expand service and competition for both the rules for a fair and open internet are not old-style utility but the 21st century set rules for 21st century service rate regulation has been superseded by a modernized regulatory phot that is already been demonstrated in networks. it is important for consumers that nothing of today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion.

the isp revenue stream will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. before today's their revenue enable companies to build faster networks nothing we do changes the equation for consumer revenues for tomorrow. , i believe that is why sprint commitee mobile, frontier communications along with hundreds of smaller phone companies said they are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach and according to this morning's "wall street journal" to play down the proposal that

is quoted as saying tuesday with the chairman has been discussing to have any real impact. today's order is more powerful a more expansive than any previously considered suggestion. provides the statutory punch that compliance tiles to with the significant powers of sections seven '06 of the telecommunications act the sec using all the tools in the toolbox to protect innovators and consumers. but their goodness survive the internet into haves and have-nots.

consumers would get what they pay for. but funds better at have access because degrading access has the same effect as blocking and it will not be permitted. fees are enforceable and will allow consumers to go where they want they can introduce without asking anyone's permission the order also includes the general conduct rules that could be used to stop the new and novel threats to the internet. and the action was not unreasonably interferes with

or disadvantage the ability of consumers but there is one thing trinacria i'm sure. that we cannot possibly imagine what would happen next on the internet. we want to win curs that type of innovation by making sure that there ground rules and they are in place. everybody knows what is expected. and for the first time they will apply to both wired and wireless access to the networks. global networks account for the vast as it is a critical

pathway to be open and fair. today's order also for the first time you can put the same as elsewhere. the internet must remain open. we will protect the values of the open internet both in the last mile as well at the point of interconnection. so i will close where i began. with a shout out to the forum in americans who took their time to share with us their views. today history is paid made by a majority of this commission. as we vote for a fast, a

fair and open internet and with that i will call for a vote per call those? oppose? the ayes have it. [cheers and applause] >> thanks everybody for coming because as you know, today the sec to again important step to assure that the u.s. has a world leading broadband network that is fast coming affair

affair, and open. of the landmark ( internet protections that we adopted today should reassure consumers and innovators and financial markets about the broad band future of our nation in. and the action and we talk -- took to get rid of state level broadbent -- red table allow communities to determine their own future. let me first say a brief word that we did not take preemption lately and we respect the important role this states play in our federal system but when state laws directly conflict with federal laws and policy , we have obligations

to act. here risk communities in north carolina and tennessee make sure they don't get left behind in the 21st century. li-sao graphic illustrations of the citizens today talking about the challenges that we are trying to address. . .

to introduce knew products and services without getting anyone's permission. financial markets now know that there will be common sense open internet protections in place to

allow a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work got old-style utility regulation. the rules under which the wireless voice industries invested $300 billion to build a vibrant and growing business a model for the roles we adopted today means no rate regulation, no tariff in, no forced unbundling. today's action ensures isps continue to have the economic incentives to build fast and competitive broadband networks. it is in the interest of consumers innovators and investors that nothing in today's order alters the economic model that has

driven continued network expansion. i believe that is why sprint t-mobile, front your communications and google fiber blog with hundreds of smaller phone companies and isps are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. last year it was struck down close to restore open internet protection input from nearly 4 million americans and one of the most transparent proceedings that this commission is overrun. it was a hundred and 30 day or so public.

we held six roundtable discussions you heard from an and responded to over a hundred and 40 members of congress. i spoke with and listen to hundreds of consumers innovators entrepreneurs and meetings across the country. so today after a decade of debate in an open robust year-long process we find a mutually sustainable group and ensure the internet stays fast faircommand open

>> why do you think that it has a better shot of holding up? >> to questions. >> why do you ask it? >> it's also important. >> we will see the order and publish the order on the website as soon as we have the next two steps. one is we need to get the dissent from the commissioners that dissented second, we have to look of those is a court opinion that requires the majority to be responsive, but that we will happen quickly or as soon as we get the dissent. and we will put it on the web. and at that.in time we will also file with the federal register and then they will publish it in the federal register and narrow but it will be on the web as soon

as we have gone through. >> why do you think this will stand? >> of the dc circuit sent the previous back to us and basically said, hey you are trying to impose common carrier right regulation without saying stepping up and saying that these are common carriers. we have addressed that issue that is the underlying issue that gives me great confidence going forward. >> german do you think that the ftc has become more partisan and if so who's fault is that? >> as i tried to express today strongly held beliefs articulated by articulate and thoughtful and eventually you come down to about.

90 percent of our votes he just gets you the one. i think it continues to be a collegial process. @bakerme. >> it's just one of the issues. is been a lot of talk about why don't you release a rough draft. it is a work in progress. and there was given take us to the best way to structure a common result.

there was no difference in the result. it is just the way in which to go about it. we wanted to make sure that in the process we were saying, hey, the services that are provided to consumers like you and me and services provided to edge providers. they both exist under the same kind of. >> do you have a global condition that government should not regulate the internet? do you think that neutrality weakens the us global positioning the government should not maintain the internet? >> am making clear as i said in my statement that no one whether government or corporate interests should be standing astride the

internet to support the ability of consumers to have free and open accesscommand that's what were talking about making sure those open access. >> yesterday ranking member blown brought up an issue the fcc authority on section 222 the fcc would not be allowed to use that authority to enforce privacy rules on data breach in security issues. is that something that you have heard? >> i think mr. pullen raises a very good. about no conversations with the white house. we take our responsibilities with privacy quite seriously

>> hello. last year you collected a trove of information about deals happening in the industry. can you talk about what you learned and how they factored into the range of connectedness? >> our decision is made on the record in terms of information about interconnection i was put into the record. obviously we did not waste people's time by asking questions. our decision is based on the record. >> high chairman. can you tell us what sort of activities it can regulate and the examples of how the fcc might use it. >> the general conduct standards simply says that their should not be unreasonable interference

and there should not be -- and that should not unreasonably disadvantage those who were to use the internet. notice the concept of unreasonable. again that is why title ii became so important to us but as i said in my statement we don't really no. no blocking, no throttling no fast lanes those can be bright line rules because we no about those issues. we don't know where things go next. and so using this kind of a construct what is reasonable then we have created the playing field where there are no rules and

the fcc we will sit there is a referee able to throw the flag. >> barring any unknown unknowns the is probably the most high-profile issue that he you you think will look back on this? how do you allow for historical content. >> mr. chairman, but the standard for future conduct what are the factors the fcc were used to determine whether a future practice is sponsored sponsor data plan from a wireless carrier is in fact unreasonable. >> just unreasonable. it's something that is developed. it's something that you build record on.

when you look at that record and say is this an unreasonable activity? and activity that unreasonably interferes. my favorite activity that hurts consumers, competition and innovation. >> i. why you think the preemption is going to survive? >> other roots? >> we laid out in the discussion we will were dealing with is a situation where the states said to the localities you have the

authority to do this section 706 explicitly says that take away barriers to broadband upon the and so we did take away those barriers but did not go to the overall state authority that in fact said to those folks you have the ability to do this. >> president obama improperly influenced this proposal the president or anyone at the white house dictate to or influence your proposal. >> thank you for asking the question the president has been well known on record

for a long time in favor of net neutrality. so by. presidents always communicate there opinions to the fcc. that is nothing. we are the expert agency. we are the agency that has to take the concept this is for an open internet and say what is the best way to implement? based on the record. and that's what we did, and we produced a set of rules that are stronger and more expensive in the president is producing a set of rules based on our independent

assessment of what the record told us. >> he was very specific. you take the general statement and he came out with a number of very specific things and the proposal addresses all of the specific items. >> the proposal addresses a lot of things that he didn't do maybe you've noticed and there was a question when asked a lot of stuff in the press about interpretations of title ii going down to the 11th hour here and how title ii is this -- title ii -- title ii is 48 different sections. you have to deal with each of those command you have to do with the specificity of how it is done and that is why we have to produce an outcome that is significantly different, cover 706 and interconnection and other

things. >> i, mr. chairman. what do you say to critics who say this would ushers in an era of regulatory and stability since another fcc three to two partyline vote controversial you don't. >> one of the things that is the challenge in dealing with public policy today is everything gets debated in terms of imaginary oracles. let me tell you about my armageddon versus years. the fact of the matter is that for 22 years the mobile industry has been regulated under rules that the industry sought. i no because i didn't. laws of the industry sought to become title ii common carriers and to have forbearance from the inappropriate regulation him and it has been wildly

successful. we end up forbearing in the side of the white like 50 percent more sections of title ii the mobile policy that the mobile industry championed. so i take real hard from that, and it was a major part of my thinking. i listened to the ceos talk about how this kind of stability was important. and i think again in the statements they see the wisdom in that.

>> unreasonable. >> and were not to get to that kind of specificity. drought is a for the 1st time _-dash that are serving jurisdiction over interconnection and work of the issues that get brought to us build a record of a public way so that everyone has an opportunity and make a decision on the record. >> if the asked for this day. what would you argue in terms of against the state? >> estate to put off the implementation.

actionable specific of a bright a bright line rules and here. they've all said going to court now and said, you need to stay this because we intend to block. stay is a high hurdle. >> a little question on forbearance. in his reading is that ron were other things in these rules that will be explicit?

>> they made the decision today saying we will forbear from these. section three of the act in which the right word to you, for baird did not enforce multiple provisions of title to changes in the nature. the fcc reinvested was. when you grant similar petitions to the fcc?

>> we we will look at similar petitions and make a judgment based on the record >> have you any other questions? >> under the knew levels can you address specifically how the commission might address the issue of zero rating? >> create a construct. allow us to make that kind of determination. >> are confident are you have arrived at this final rule had the president not done this? would you really look the same today? >> this is something that i have said repeatedly that i was working on how title ii.

i am quite comfortable that we made this decision independence and wisdom. >> mr. chairman. >> a. >> the opportunities of less than any concerns you might have about my comcast time warner deal connect now that you have it approved are you going to turn to that now? >> good try but i'm not going to talk about the mergers. points for trying. >> they are eroded by adjudication just affect elections.

>> they can't just wake up some morning and say hey let's change the rules. section ten of the act says you have to make a finding as to why is necessary. and so that establishes a whole process. 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 us or sat there receptive through multiple administrations and not been changed. >> all right. great. >> thank you, everybody. >> next on the republican commissioners and the federal communications commission speak with reporters about their opposition to the knew internet rules. this is 40 minutes.

>> across the country americans of open up to the dangers of government regulation of the internet. they have spoken out against president obama's plan. i am grateful to all of the people of semi- supportive e-mails, tweets, posts, you name it expressing their support for my position and for internet freedom. i think commissioner o'reilly and all those outside the commission of help to explain the problems with president obama's plan. our setback today was expected, but i expect that it will be temporary. in the words of f scott fitzgerald never confuse a single the future for a final defeat. our multiple battles ahead command i believe that we we will win the war.

president obama's plan to be vacated by the courts overturned by congress, or rejected by future commission. i am confident at least one of these things will happen, we'll return to the bipartisan market oriented policies that are built a thriving internet that exist today. with that were happy to take your questions. >> do you believe the country -- company should be able to charge for an internet fast lane? >> there is no paper position today, no fast lane today. you would search in vain to find any evidence that such is the case. so rather than chasing hypothetical demons i would rather focus on what the actual state of the record is.

>> to answer your question, as i said before, i am open to exploring the opportunity that there might be something beneficial. i don't want to prejudge it before it has been operational and we have some experience. consistent with our former chairman. i don't -- i heard general counsel talk about how we've had a decade of experience with paper organization. i just don't see that. i'm hoping to have a conversation and see if there is value to be had. >> and objection to privileges. if you had one that vote will what it meant? >> two parts of this. i brought my handy will put down. the commissioner guides the agenda process. editorial privileges don't exist in this document.

in trying to figure out what we're granting to the bureau the rules do apply mechanism for making substantive changes by the commissioners , not by the bureau's. and that was a question that og see was saying that the court had suggested that they do have a right to respond to the commissioners, but that is not in our rules. if some commissioner wants commissioner wants to agree to a process wants to have a change to the document, but the name on it. we have had a problem with his og see making changes to the text of the document. i we will say for myself, i have a problem to make changes to the document to reflect arguments that they didn't make didn't think about. we make a good argument and they say it doesn't count. >> what do you do this?

>> we we will have will have to continue in part because so much of this is remain under wraps. the last two prescott prince is illustrative of the fact that you have to ask foundational questions about what the fcc just voted on. you heard statements from the five commissioners. you have to learn about the basic details what is in this plan. certainly i we will continue speak out about what i think is overreaching government regulation of the internet that jeopardizes a bipartisan consensus that date back dates back to the clinton administration. >> i could not agree more

with my colleague. what you and i heard from the press conference is that most of the items have not been addressed and are intentionally vague. i'm going to have to spend my time trying to figure out what the commission is doing and making sure it's consistent with what they've adopted. is been a lot of time trying to the site for social what was meant. have to figure out what the heck the guidance is going to be. advisory guidance from the bureau that has no value nonbinding, and you actually have to be either offering the practice or in the course of getting ready to offer. it can be something hypothetical. you actually have to be in the line. as soon as you offer it or

think about offering at the enforcement bureau puts finds a new. >> press reports earlier today saying that you guys had not attempted to make changes. can you confirm that? >> so the 1st changes suggested was the publication of the document which was soundly and repeatedly rejected. we have been told by the white house that the plan was title ii. he does not want the input

of republican commissioners when it involves changing what he considers to be the core of the proposal. title ii was this proposal directed by the white house. and i think you saw -- be interested to see today how you try to figure out how to write stories about what the fcc just did. on one hand you were told these rules are stronger them than the present obama suggested. this was like touch regulation. which is a? on one hand you were told the internet on the extended is a clear marker for people in the private sectors that they can go after. on the other hand, you were just told that it prohibits people from offering reasonably disadvantaged people using the internet.

nobody knows. i frankly don't know. the uncertainty that has been generated non- transparency of this proposal and the far-reaching nature of it is going to dissuade people from offering innovative and competitive options the american consumer. >> you have any legal obligation? decide not to enforce it? >> as we no the constitution imposes the duty upon the executive branch to take care of applause be faithfully executed.

the constitutional obligation obviously applies to the executive branch. the regulatory approach taken here we commissioner pointed out the entire advisory opinion framework is something delegated expressly to the enforcement bureau decisions we will be made available to the commissioners. that is substantive regulation being done at the bureau level that the five of us we will or at least four of us will never have a chance to see. >> two parts of them will go to the next question. >> the fundamental question on the basis at the.that

they were not actionable. they are so frustrated. it was in an opening to submit pages, but it's close to the., such fundamental disagreement with the direction of this item is problematic to see how you can make this better. there are a lot of components that i would've sought to had changed. i have no idea what that is. your 2nd question in terms of what we actually have to do we have a process going forward. i suspect someone is going to file some provider is going to seek a court stay.

we have to go through a number of rounds. but at that time we will see what it is. there's so much vagueness provided for so much authority provided to determine can we heard this. get approval. i was the answer. no one is obligated to come before us. what about existing plants? are all existing plans grandfathered? well, were not saying that either. it's a wide-open field of what could be viewed as problematic going forward. >> yes. thank you, commissioners. you talked about how the report is 3200 pages and you criticize how it's not published. can you give us in context of how long regulation usually is and when it's published to the public before a vote?

>> well, 3200 pages. 332 pages. >> but how long is regulation usually? >> it depends on the item itself. we have had some items ago by circulation if for summer between 70 pages. i read them all. somewhere in the ballpark for an item we consider that there are some that fluctuate more substantially >> is very long and not public. i just want to know how often it is a published, made public, and help -- is the slight abnormal he. >> it's a great question. on occasion it has been made public. in 2,007 been public defendant chairman martin published the puzzle he put

on the table which ultimately was voted on december 18. to be sure he was absolutely right. standard practice is not to publicly release documents at public meetings until the document has been adopted. i would argue for a number of reasons if it were ever had a reason to depart the practice this is it. >> it seems to me that the fcc, what its opera bonus today described as unprecedented action. at least the american people should be given a chance to see what is in there. moreover, there is an unfortunate can are going around that is only a pages of regulations. number 18 pages if you can

see the regulations, the quite detailed. it's not apparent how they operate. they don't self executed without context. the answers to your questions, it's unclear how they will be applied. there are a number of pages within the document paragraph upon paragraph describing how rules we will be enforced. moreover, those are just the codified rules. there are a host of other rules that will be on codified but nonetheless are binding upon the parties. in addition to that the conduct rule, some factors that apply. and so the decision-making. >> documents are using usually not made public

circulate the document commissioner o'reilly spoke eloquently >> this document was not made public. i made a larger push that we made all items circulated publicly available. i talked about this a number of times. to try and shoot them down. the truth of the matter is as a resource management issue.

the chairman has the right to make those documents available if he so chooses. he chose not to come and i suspect he will continue. >> the parallel or shadow sec in the white house 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 exert undue influence or beyond? >> all i can say is what has been publicly reported and what we heard from the white house itself. if you are today net neutrality president

obama's plan. further on down and says i asked the sec damp to implement this plan. the notion that the phrase president obama has plans to regulate the internet is somehow hyperbolic is absurd moreover you just heard in the prior press conference that for the 1st time the agency is asserting jurisdiction over such things as interconnection, wireless service plans. you can't have it both ways. you can see the defending every aspect of the open internet, throwing itself himself into disputes, second-guessing wireless service plans, adopting rules that are even stronger than those that have ever been adopted before you still say at the same time we are regulating the internet. i think the phrase speaks for itself and has complete substantiation that only nunnally in the white house was but what has been reported. >> broadband, can you guys speak particularly given

your remarks he said that it was odd that the commission was taking this route and only willing that the state could not preempt once authority was given the broadband be allowed -- sorry the broadband network be allowed. can you speak to maybe why you said it was odd that the sec would do that? >> what i was talking about was the juxtaposition of the agency's position number one that it had the power to preempt state restrictions on municipal broadband short of an absolute prohibition get at the same time conceded that the sec would lack the power to adopt preempt bans on flat out broadband. we we will allow you to have municipal broadband whatsoever to the disorder appears to contemplate that the sec would like a legal authority to do anything about it. but the sec having

determined that tennessee restricted the expansion of these municipal broadband projects beyond the service area the sec denotes that we do have the authority to preempt which is the adalia audio was focusing on. i'll likely enough it would have the perverse impact of dissuading municipalities from engaging in municipal broadband projects precisely because this they would say, okay, if we give any power whatsoever to a municipality the sec can ultimately preempted if you thought we were setting the terms of the service to narrowly. under our costs additional framework constitutional framework and under the supreme court's jurisprudence i just don't see a way for the fcc to prevent needle. >> i would answer it this way and agree to everything wholeheartedly. one oddity that i found is that the question that the petitioners really wanted

answered was where could they go? what were the territorial rights? how far can they go outside of there existing reach which is a question of the supreme court is clear that the agency can't grant municipality authority over something that is a state matter in terms of where that state may authorize to operate it would otherwise be saved cannot can operate throughout the entire state which is something that is problematic and states have pushed back on. >> there's obviously been a lot of fire from back-and-forth of this debate. you think the well has been poisoned? has never become been crossed and how this process is been carried out? only going to show up next month and we will be football jokes and everyone smiling and happy. >> whenever joke about football. the kansas city chiefs are america's team and is no laughing matter.

but look, i've been consistent. a been at this agency now for almost two and a half years, worked under chairman jankowski, acting chairwoman clyburn, chairman wheeler. every single month on every single issue i herbert's the item on the merits and figure out if there is some way for us to reach consensus. if so, i offer my suggestions. if they are rejected the mouth washed up reviews. i certainly don't see the well has been poisoned. i don't think of the german -- i hope the chairman doesn't bear me any all from one item to the next. whatever is on next will approach with an open mind. the whole.of being at this agency is we have to work in a variety of complex matters, which reasonable people can disagree and often do, and those disagreements should be it within the four corners of the document was voting on. whether it's a him radio revitalization or spectrum policy shift i'm going to approach it with the same

collegial and open spirit that i would hope my colleagues to. >> i would answer it this way, i look forward to continuing my friendship with chairman wheeler even if we disagree. i we will say this is a fundamental shift for the agency. is problematic not only to where we got today but my old boss, senator john kyle used to say, if i don't ask you to violate your principles and you in us me to violate mine and his party in the middle where we can agree. here they nunnally asked us to violate a principal, they ran over them. i we will continue to work as best i can. i think we will be tied up a lot of the questions that are applicable in this item. a lot of vagueness provided. i wouldn't have done this.

>> back on uni broadbent, it seems like a lot of the objection that jurisdiction do you have any problems? >> i do. i just don't agree with the personally. something for congress to authorize. as for congress to do. >> can you talk about that. >> i don't believe it's fundamental to the us economy acting as the regulator and participant. it has the ability to manipulate the rights-of-way. talk about taxpayer dollars they actually have 1st have losses because of this.

i have fundamental problems but it's not for my job this girl. >> the la times number of people who brought up examples of other presidents who publicly urged the sec to take action. >> anybody who knows this agency is followed up for for a long time and if you did not have an ideological dog in this fight we will literally admit that the president's announcementit was unprecedented. in terms of its nature very

long statements in terms of the specificity but typically clears the fcc to sec to look at a particular issue. not only what specific roles you want the fcc to implement but the legal theory that is something that i've never seen i think that is what concerned me. if you are able to look in the archives. >> the memos gain the during the bush administration from a certain g5 in which i opined an independent agency is independent for a reason. although an executive agency

we have to make a determination. what is unusual about this is a came in the wake of a very unusual administrative process. everybody knows the agency proposed in may and published it. a 706 -based approach which explicitly minimized the importance of title ii and relegated that discussion to a couple paragraphs. the public outcry against the proposal admittedly was strong. however, it has been publicly reported that through the spring and well into the summer that was the preferred approach. then it was reported that the leadership was pushing what they called the hybrid solution, something based on the foundation suggestion. neither 706 proposal nor the hybrid solution had anything title ii. all of a sudden the president made the announcement is no question

a dramatically change the calculus within the building and throughout the country. once the president tells you i don't like a an adult like be a think that's part of the unfortunate part of this process. they never got to get to have a say of the agency shifted course to implement this plan which is part of the reason why is also the reported. they had not been contemplating going down this road before. the agency chose not to do that. you going to see some significant battles in the federal court over whether under the administration act sufficient notice was given a title ii was going to happen.

317 page document adopting title ii regulations springing from a spirit to paragraphs from a may in prm. what i do no is the american people made a loud and clear they wanted more input. >> i answer it this way it would have been working on communications issues and policy for about 20 years. i've never seen involvement from any administration like this. suddenly in terms of the specific evidence, that is something the congressional body is looking at and i look forward to whatever they may come up with. a fan and i told conversations with folks who said my colleague highlighted that they were talking about this hybrid model and set of meetings to do the model the very week that the president pulled the rug. so i don't have evidence to the fact that?

>> on this issue. >> i certainly don't want to opine on particular legislation but what i we will say is that there are legislative efforts if there are legislative efforts to overturn this position and/or to implement it than that is something that the agency has to respect. >> i look forward to answering any question you may have. i want to get into the some of the more fundamental and long-standing conversations we should have a process reform.

i think that neutrality. hopefully we will have a full conversation about the process reform. >> thank you for taking all these questions. >> i don't know how much i can reveal without violating the rule. in response to a major california-based company the document very up front and his ex partake, but this was a nonexistent service.

imaginary service classification. we have the revised document as a number of other changes >> twenty-four hours than 12 hours, you no, somewhere in that range the changes were being made. that's one big component. >> just to return to the bipartisanship thing, is there anything in terms of process that might improve that? some of the process informed rules of included.

>> os part. >> and in the closed meeting we will. >> a lot of good ideas that we can improve the process. that's something for congress to decide. certainly the idea in the legislation have a right to put something on the agenda. we generally agree and think of a young revitalization and we're sympathetic toward us and be quite a few votes for that but i haven't seen any activity that would suggest it's coming soon which will be something we can put on the agenda, one idea of many more. i been using my experience not only in the last year but my old hat to try and

think of things that would improve the process. >> there are two different categories of process reform things that the fcc can do on its own initiative and they're are things that we need congressional authorization to be able to do. with respect to the 1st a propose a number of different changes that i think would improve the agency's operations regardless of who happens to occupy the chairman's office, such things as a search based process for handling applications for review. am grateful to the chairman for adopting the proposal to essentially speed the consideration of some of these applications which in some cases language for decades. there are number of other things we can do to create a dashboard to allow the american public to see how many petitions for consideration we will be handed in any given time when they were filed

disposition, etc. a number of states have done this. it we will be a great thing to do. with respect to the bucket of things that we need congressional authorization to do as the commissioner pointed out that there are two major pieces of legislation, the process reform act a consolidated reporting act. each of them have a salutary effect on the way that this agency works. to give you one example i saw this as a staffer. any number of reports we the staff are required to compile the take up a lot of time, resources, and no one ever reads. happy to share my statement about that. told the fcc to privatize certain aspects of the satellite market. we privatize it, the losses you have to report to us every single year. nonetheless every year like clockwork we get this report. a lot of staffers have to handle it. this kind of common sense streamlining proposal does not know any partisan advantage. this is something that passed the past the house i believe unanimously.

i hope that congress passes a and the president signs it there are a number of other process forms and we can do as well. getting more to the logistics, i think there has to be an openness to accommodating minority commissioners to have well-founded substantive views that do not alter the core of the preferred proposal. the example i consistently give is even the rate. very up front but the plan i had to modernize the systems i understand the chairman did not like that plan, but working within his framework i said, look, here are number of different changes. i'm not crazy, but i be willing to adopt them. at the 11th hour i was told literally the tuesday before the vote on friday and losing that process over and over again, the incentive option