this idea was brought up it was quickly dismissed as outside the scope of both steller and the commission title vi of 40. so no one here is talking about making a one way street a two-way street, or are we? with 3-d movie you need to look through both red and blue sites of the glasses to see the whole picture, to make any sense of the item it must be viewed together with the other half. the commission's proposal to reclassified ott as an mvpd. if both of these are followed to their logical conclusion, an entire class of innovators who bear no similarity to mvpd is except, excuse me, also offer video would be redefined as mvpds and subsumed into title vi but meanwhile, i'll mvpd is whether existing or newly minted will be forced to provide all of their content to each other under an fcc mandated ski.

and providing the three flaws to all comers will only be the beginning of a new regulatory burden on ott is captured by title vi. who wins? the fcc of course. this entire item is not trying to superimpose the 1990s content on the current technology on the basic idea itself is no longer relevant to the innovators now available. set-top boxes or navigation devices effectively have been overtaken by events. today's consumers want access to video on any device they own. in response, content providers are meeting this demand for numerous offerings including over the top and internet-based apps. isn't it telling that consumers can only watch a video from multiple sources on all of their devices without an fcc mandated set-top box regina? they can even stream what they're watching between devices. the video marketplace seems to be doing just fine, and yet somehow when it comes to an mvpd

subscription for your service when you to step in and regulate the interface. nonsense. i argue we should embrace the future not the past that the application economy is weakening the mvpd package before our very eyes. it's no longer about channels at all. many consumers are watching programming by the individual program or even shorter segments. the entire the industry is moving away from a box mentality and as such we should take -- we should reconsider the meaning to -- change is a real challenge when the goal is to maintain control over the future using the paradigms of the past. as we have seen the pursuit of this goal can lead to policy proposals based on orwell in statutory interpretation and substance into there. but given the choice between technologies and disruptive regulation, no one should have

any doubt on which side i am on. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you know, this issue really is not complex. congress has explicitly instructed us to a sure -- instructed us to assure a that there are competitive information devices, be it a box or an app. one software, once hardware. the functionality is the same. the issue is whether you're forced to rent the box every month after month after month, and/or whether you're forced to rent that app every month after month after month. congress was clear. they said there should be competition. now, technology has advanced to

the point where this is possible without changing the functioning of the pay-tv system and its copyright protections and its security. whether an app or a box. and, in fact, what we are beginning to discuss today is something that is very similar to what the cable industry itself has proposed. but let's dig down on each of those points for a second. first of all, section 629 of the communications act here on the screen minces no words and leaves no doubt as to our statutory responsibility, though

they didn't print shout in red in the statute. but it is clear -- shall -- the commission shall. we've heard from some folks who always keep talking about how they are strict constructionist about what congress told us to do or not to do. and suddenly reaching out to all kinds of wild, expensive suppositions. but it's pretty clear. congress said the commission shall. there have been lots of wild assertions about this proposal before anybody saw it. let's remember, this is the beginning of an information gathering process which is why, frankly, it's disappointing that my two colleagues have made up their mind before all the facts are in and efforts are made to work on issues that have been

identified. but let's stop for a second. there's been a lot of talk. let's stop and let's look at how a set-top box works. again, on the screen. and let's be clear that there is nothing that is different in the functionality between a hardware box and a software app. number one, the cable system sends a message to the box that says what's on. number two, the cable system tells the box what it is entitled to, a subscriber, what kind of right does this subscriber have. number three, the subscriber tells the box what they want. number four, the box relays that choice back to the cable system. number five, they cable system

delivers the programming. now, let's look at what that structure would look like under this proposal. that's a new slide that just got put up except for the fact that it looks identical to the previous slide. there is identical service delivery. there is identical entitlement authorization. there is identical wheeling of choice back to the cable system, and there is identical delivery of programming. so what is the difference? these are two systems that work the same. the difference is one is closed and one is opened. the consumers have no choice today. that congress mandated that

consumers should have choice. so if the competitive box or app functions exactly like a box or app, they cable system forces you to rent today, then the protections for copyright and security are the same. but let's be specific about some of the red herrings that we have heard raised. nothing in this item requires a second box in the home. you can save as many times as you want. try and spin it everywhere he you want. nothing in this item requires a second box in the home. nothing in this item, likewise, requires consumers to stop using the system they have right now.

it only creates the opportunity for them to have choice. there is no multibillion-dollar reengineering of cable systems as we've heard. that is required. there's nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content, sell advertising around it. there's been misrepresentation that's been made today with the assertion that this item does allow that. the assertion that it creates all kinds of opportunities for free riders. it takes that same product that goes through the cable system and the cable box today with the same structures, and moves it to a different box requiring the same structures. as a result, existing

copyrights, programming agreements are unaffected. consumer privacy is protected. emergency alerts are passed through, and child protection laws are unaffected. and nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation your in fact we all know that history has been clear, that innovation is the result of a petition. not a result of a forest you must read this box from a month after month after month. and nothing changes minority programming relationships with the cable companies.

but it sure does create more opportunities for minority programmers to reach consumers through the internet. finally, this is not a new topic for this agency. in 2010 the cable industry supported, and i quote, cross industry approaches to develop a fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace. to the people who have said this is the end of the world, actually supported a competitive beauty devised and made seven recommendations which are consistent with today's proposal. let me just highlight a couple of them here in this letter you'll see on the screen. the option to purchase video

devices other than those supplied by the cable company. that's the cable industry saying they support that. the option to access video content on the internet, the option to search for content across multiple sources including the internet. this is what the cable industry proposed. the list goes on to the next slide where there's others that i won't read you all but as i say, it's not inconsistent with what we are opening the discussion on and proposing today. so let's go back to where we started. this is not complex. the law mandates, technology allows it. the industry at one time proposed something similar to

it. and consumers deserve break and a choice. so we will call for the vote on the item. all those in favor say i go. aye. the post? the ayes have it. the item is adopted. editorial privileges is great with exception noted. thank you very much to the bureau. madam secretary. >> thank you, commissioner to third on your agenda today and the item will be submitted by the consumer and government affairs bureau entitled closed captioning of video programming, telecommunications for the deaf and hard of hearing. allison cutler acting chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you very much. look at this.

cjb has decided to change the color of the name cards. they also want? move to left. [inaudible] [laughter] >> all things are relative. allison, go ahead, please. >> good morning, mr. chairman, and commissioners. nearly 20 years ago the commission adopted its first set of rules governing the provision of closed captioning on television, enabling viewers who are deaf and hard into access television programming along with the rest of the general public. at the time the commission stated that it expected to revisit these rules as changes in technology and industry practices made it possible to improve both the availability and quality of captioning. the experiences of viewers over the past several years have confirmed the need to update these rules to achieve congress

is goal for all americans have equal access to video programs, particularly as these programs also become available on the internet pursuant to the 21st century communications and video accessibility act. today, the consumer and governmental affairs bureau presents you a report and order that would assign some of the responsibilities for the delivery of high quality captions to entities that direct control over the production of such captions on video programming. this item also addresses certifications by video programming entities and handling of captioning complaint. the item provides the flexibility of ways to achieve compliance and balances the benefit to fully accessible programming can't achieve for people who are deaf and hard of hearing with the impact of these actions would have on industry. joining at the table today are care in, deputy chief of cgp and elliot greenwald, deputy chief of the disability rights office. care and will get us context and

history of this proceeding and elliot will present the item. in addition to karen and elliot i would like to thank the chief of it is the rights office, susie, also. michelle, or event, maria, diana and jeffrey of the media bureau. sharon and tracy of enforcement bureau and maryland and susan of the general counsel's office for the work to support this item. >> thank you. good morning, mr. chairman, and commissioners. we've often heard it said that of all of the improvements in accessibility achievement in the last century for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, closed-captioned was the most significant. as was true for the last item presented the obligation to closed-captioned came from the 1996 amendments to the communications act celebrated now by its 20th anniversary. and telfair good 2014 problems with a quart of captions had

gradually been making television viewing with closed-captioned increasing difficulty in the years leading up to this order consumers reported inconsistencies in the ways that captions were being provided with many people reporting that captions were often inaccurate, incomplete and delayed behind the programs audio track. two years ago the commission's landmark steps to ensure that tv programming contain high quality captions that accurately reflect the dialogue and other sounds in music in the audio track are synchronous with the programs audio, are complete from beginning to the end of the program to the fullest extent possible and do not block other important information or content in the program on the screen. such as characters faces, text or graphics need to understand the program's content. however, that order left open who would be responsible for achieving compliance with the new captioning quality rules.

back in 1997 when the commission for adopted the rules governing key captioning, the commission placed sole responsibility for the provision of captions on video programming distributors. it's video programmers not distributors that are the ones who exercise the most control over captioning quality. they're the ones work with the captioning agencies to develop an insert captions on tv programs. for this reason it and noticed that accompanied the federal 2014 ordered the commission sought comment on whether it was appropriate to divide the responsibilities and placed some of the responsibilities addressing captioning quality and provision of captions on video programmers. the item before you continues to place primary responsibility on the provision, for the provision of closed captioning on distributors but recognizes many problems dealing wit with captig quality originated during the production phase which is under the control of video programmers. for this reason they item

allocates responsibility for captioning quality to both distributors and programmers making each entity responsible for the captioning issues that are primarily within each control. we believe this allocation of responsibility will bring about better compliance and make enforcement of the new captioning quality rules easier and more effective. elliott will now provide you with greater details about this item. thank you. >> good morning, mr. chairman, and commissioners. we are pleased to present the second report and order on the closed-captioned quality proceeding. this fight and extends some of the responsibilities to the quality and provision of closed captioning to other entities involved in the production and delivery of video programming, revises procedures for the handling of complaints, revises video programmers certification requirements and makes other procedural modifications. specifically the second report

and order assigns responsibility for the quality of closed captioning to video programming distributors and video programmers back in each -- making each entity responsible for closed-captioned issues that are primarily within its control. video programmers are responsible for closed-captioned problems that stem from production of the captions as well as transmission of the captions up to the point where they are handed off to video programming distributors. video programming distributors in turn are responsible for the quality problems that are a result of the distributors faulty equipment for their failure to pass through the close captioning data intact. the item also maintains current rules that place primary responsibility for the provision of closed captioning on video programming distributors, but also holds video programmers

responsible for a lack of captions were they have failed to provide captions on nonexempt programs. in addition it requires each video programmers to file with the commission a certification that the video programmers is in compliance with the rules requiring the inclusion of closed captions and either is in compliance with the captioning quality standards board has adopted and is following best practices, or is exempt from the captioning obligations. is exempt the video program must include in its certification the specific exemptions claimed. under current procedures, video programming distributors are required to make best efforts to obtaining widely available certifications from video programmers. a second report and order would remove video programming distributors from the

certification process and instead obligate video programmers to file this certification director with the commission. this would result in having all the certifications located in one place making it easier for video programming distributors and commission staff to locate this certification. the item also revises the procedures for receiving, serving and addressing television closed captioning complaints in accordance with the burden shifts compliance model. this model requires a video programming distributors to initially address complaints that allows the video programming distributor to shift the responsibility for responding to a complaint if the video programming distributor, after conducting an investigation, determines that the problem was not within its control. the second report and order also establishes a compliance letter

for the commission's television close captioning quality requirements. the compliance letter provides video programming distributors and video programmers with opportunities to take informal and prompt corrective action to reduce the need for enforcement action by the commission. finally, they item requires each video programmers to register with the commission its contact information for the receipt and handling of written a close captioning complaints using the commissions web portal. we believe that the actions taken in the second report and order by clooney defining the responsibilities of quality and professional of close captioning at adopting other procedural reforms will help ensure compliance with the commissions close captioning rules. the bureau recommends the adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges.

>> to all of you and you in the bureau for your efforts. speed in just over 19 years ago the commission adopted its first set of closed captioning rules. this decision marked a major first step in granting full access to video programming for death and hard of hearing, hard of hearing or hearing impaired citizens. much has changed since 1997, and today it is most fitting for us to update these rules to reflect the insights gained from the experiences by industry, advocates, and the fcc. first, then i will place responsibility of closed captioning quality on video programming distributors as well as video programmers. each will be held accountable both for the provisioning and the quality of close captioning issues that are primarily within their control. a commonsense update to be sure.

video programming distributors will continue to be responsible for the provisioning of close captioning but now video programmers will be held responsible for the absence of those captions if they fail to provide them. this item also enhance the transparency of compliance certification and updates compliance procedures rather those complaints are received by the commission or the video programming distributor. it is my hope that these updates will not only help in compliance with our close captioning rules that will assist in streamlining the resolution of close captioning complaints or problems going forward. many thanks are due for this item, and as the bureau chief mentioned, those names, i want to thank them but also as always would like to acknowledge and include things to karen peltz strauss and elliot greenwald for such an excellent idea. spent thank you.

commissioner rosenworcel? >> earlier this month we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the television indications act of 1996. as said before a lot has changed in the past few decades. including the evolution of television sets away from those that were big with fake wood paneling around them to what we have today. razor thin screens and, of course, they're not the only game in town. with it anywhere with his screens surround is an opportunities for viewing continued to multiply. all this change is terrific but we've got to make sure that we continue to honor the values that we had 20 years ago in 19 years ago when we first put in place our new closed-captioned policy. it's important because there are an estimated 36 million americans who are deaf or have hearing loss. and there are or the million or over the age of 65 to experience experienced varying degrees of

hearing loss at some point in their lives. they all rely on accurate, synchronized, complete and well-placed captions to enjoy video programming. two years ago we took significant steps to update our closed-captioned policies. and today we closed and enforcement gap so the fcc can step in when need be and we recognize that video programming distributors and programmers alike work hard to provide high quality closed captions. we implement strict timelines for consumer complains to be addressed. at this is important that we can put a compliance latter so that improvements can be made without immediate threat of enforcement. so thank you to the consumer and governmental affairs bureau not just for the excellent work today but for your absolutely unyielding commitment to improving the quality of close captioning. >> commissioner pai.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. video programs and distribute each played an important role with respect to the provision and quality of captions. today's order embraces a commonsense approach to allocating responsibility for complying with the commissions close captioning quality rules. a distributor will be responsible for those aspects of close captioning quality over which it has primary can troll, and a programmer will be responsible for the aspects of close captioning quality over which it has primary control. of course the devil is in the details. for example, this order establishes a compliance latter for a close captioning quality rules which is designed to encourage parties to quickly address a remedy problems without involving the agency's enforcement bureau. i had concerns that language originally in the order that would have delegated vast discretion to avoid the compliance ladder and prefer no derivative enforcement bureau. this would've defeate defeat the

purpose of the compliance ladder but to tough negotiations were able to limit the possibility of defeating the latter. language may not be ideal but it is good enough to merit my concurrence. accordingly, thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner o'rielly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. carving focus of this item is to shift the burden a following the quality of close captioning from the programming distributor to the programmers themselves. while i can show you agree with the content i suspect it will be much messier and, therefore, you did then what is suggested. i also worry if the item doesn't make a similar shift for the burden to provide closed-captioned. the same logical argument for the quality shift should apply to the provisioning in anything i will support these provisions notwithstanding the disappointingly, item seeps into to come and respect the item creates an exceptionally convoluted mechanism by which the consumers close captioning

quality complaint could be forwarded from a video distributed to the programmer and then back again. under this structure to consumer information will be redacted before forwarding can't agree. budgetary consideration of the items just last month it was alleged was too difficult to redact personal information for broadcasters correspondence files, so that chairman graciously agreed to move a separate item to eliminate the correspondents out in its entirety. how can it be the redacting personal information integration of a unique identifier a season for be to distributors but not for broadcasters? does anyone not check the items for consistency? second, the item creates a three-tiered compliance ladder for electronic newsroom technique procedures and then subsequently rejected by establishing a special and i quote will align cdb to refer a captioning quality rule violation directly to the enforcement bureau or for the enforcement action or for the enforcement. to pursue an enforcement action

on its own without first going through the compliance ladder for certain violations. thanks to commissioner pai we have a tighter standard of intentional and deliver it. anyone want to guess how that's going to be applied by the bureau lacks one with the compliance ladder capture such a violation? no justification is given. instead they item creates a fake compliance ladder, will climb over anytime they want. in essence create an illusion of a thoughtful injudicious regulator that preserves the right to throw out the window without any questions asked whenever of euros. like it. no, thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> okay. thanks. i have a statement for the record, but in summary this is basically about responsibility. responsibility to those who here with her eyes, and it's the

responsibility of those who provide close captioning whether you create it or does she do it. so i think the bureau has done a great job on this and i look forward to supporting it so let's call for the vote. all in favor? opposed? the ayes have it. the item is adopted. the request for editorial privilege is granted. thank you very much. >> madam chair we played announced the item -- madam chair? there are days you can have the chair. [laughter] >> no, thank you. >> madam secretary, would you please announce the next agenda? >> you will consider a fifth agenda composed of the items listed under the agenda on the commission sunshine notice. i provide each of you with a copy of the sunshine notice.

>> thank you, madam secretary. we will not go to a vote on this for the consent agenda items listed on the sunshine notice. we have received no objection from any commissioner. accordingly i will shortly call a vote on this consent agenda. if you are voting to adopt of the consent agenda items, these indicate by voting in favor. if you opposed the adoption of any of the items on the consent agenda, please vote to oppose. i will call on you in turn to identify the item you are opposing with the number assigned to it on the sunshine agenda. so without i will call for the vote. all in favor of adopting the items on the agenda? opposed? >> down here. can't i have numbers one, two and three? i would like to be record as occur in part and dissenting in

part. >> thank you, sir. all right. the items adopted. the consent agenda is adopted. and so ordered. in a moment of want to go to the commissioners, opportunity to make other observations. ..

commissioners erik and fowler. he served for 17 years as the chief regulatory counsel at ncta appeared in 2012, jerry brown of california appointed him to the los angeles superior court where he has sat since then in a robe. those of us who knew dan always thought was an interesting attire for a guy who was so quick minded and so funny. he was a mentor to many in the policy community. he was a friend to us all. he was the leader in the lgbt community. something a lot of folks didn't know about him, he spent a lot of time teaching math in the underprivileged community. he is truly going to be messed. he was a great person, a good

man and i'm sure my colleagues share this and would want to express themselves. let me just say we will go down the bench and in the end, which just ask for a moment of silence to remember our good friend, dan. >> mr. chairman, i didn't know well. he came in less than a handful of times to seem a representing his clients. and of course what i remember --

>> unfortunately we are having tough technical disuse -- they were just not talking about the los angeles county court judge john brenner who passed away just a couple days ago at the age of 64.

>> and i told him afterwards although we were pretty likely to win, nonetheless he challenged the regulations adoption many years ago. i got off the record you had a pretty decent chance of winning. he said now you tell me. five years later. you just have to be there. just sort of what he brought to everything he did was so remarkable in this field, which tends to be a security say the least. we thank him for his public service to the people of california and labor to the fcc will remember him in years to come. thank you, mr. chairman. i would say god bless dan and provide comfort to his family at this time. thank you. >> let's take a moment to each think about our own special

relationship with dan and remember. [silence] as everybody said, he will be greatly missed. mr. clyburn, to have anything anything you want to add? >> yes, i was going to join you. i don't know what sequence he wanted to do. we've got a couple of departures. >> far be it for me to preempt you from doing anything. go for it. >> the american public, this is very unusual, but i really wanted to say when it was announced that roger schirmer was going to be the next bureau chief, i was thrilled.

as acting chairman, and democratic counsel to the house committee on energy and commerce where he provided my staff with incredible support. there are a number of wireless highlights and achievement that can be accredited to roger's wife, counselor and leadership, the mobile spectrum holdings ordered that established procompetitive spectrum reserve rules to implement -- that we will implement the reform of the part when competitive bidding rules. i know people out there, and this is putting them to sleep. but it is enabling incredible opportunities for you that you probably take for granted, but these are important. one of the things i respect the most about roger is one i wanted to ensure more members of the wireless era staffers is the proper credit for the contribution they made to various policy decision, for

that and so much more, -- we thank you so much for your service. >> i am not contain. i also want to acknowledge -- speaking of, i want to acknowledge and i will try to keep this not as interesting as it would normally be off camera to jonathan chambers. your attendance here somewhere. he has been incredible to our office and always has looked out for consumers and creators in innovative ways. he is instrumental.

the video relay service reform adopted during the transition before the chairman got here. i just saw within a demonstration of the eight interoperable platform, which could unleash significant benefits while reducing the cost of the funds. so many things go under the radar, but they are extremely important and innovative and my goodness, we thank you so much. i'm everything from erf fun to connect america find to be, he is an out-of-the-box thinker. they have normal expect patience and policies. whenever i ask for it how can we do this, and how can we do this again if i was not in sync with that, he always managed a nice attempted to come up with alternatives. my nickname for him is

mr. happy. if you know him, you know why that is a joke. but i am not so happy. i am not so happy today my friend, to see you leave this place. but i am grateful to you for all the support you've want to this office and agency. the best to you always. did not. >> first of all, i want to call out wireless bureau chief roger sherman sitting in the back where today the former congressional staffer he is from a dutifully trying to avoid the limelight. the truth is roger was never very successful at that. he was always the go to person here in every row i've had an policy dialogues around this town because he is so savvy, so smart and so knowledgeable. rather than fit him well, i will stay in denial that he is

departing. it just seems easier. best wishes to jonathan chambers. finally, circle of life. i will bring someone in. i want to introduce mark paul. mark paul is joining my office, taken on the role of the media of legal adviser. mark is an old hand. he has been at law firms lucas and also that step so i jumped in. he also did some time on capitol hill early on serving for his homes a senator, then senator joe biden. more recently he served as senior counsel to former senator frank lautenberg from new jersey. so, mark is a terrific political mind. he is a first rate all year and a friend and i am thrilled to have him join my office in the age v.

>> just two side notes into bittersweet no-space first, i wanted to note that diane douglas recently passed away. to ensure in the sec in april 1995 that the common carrier bureau is a typist in 1986 move to omb where she then spent the next 28 years -- 18 years in the finance department. 2004 she went to the reference information center is an information technician and into the consumer increase in length division. according to her supervisor, she always told me she wanted to make sure she had work to do. she didn't want to be sitting around with nothing to do. i was the mark she left for three decades that the agency and all of us are grateful for her work, both as a coworker and american citizen. secondly, i wanted to note the passing of the supreme court justice antonin scalia, obviously a giant in the history of the supreme court.

his opinions in constitutional cases are very well known and had a substantial impact on the agency. with respect to the telecom act he offered the 99 opinion in iowa utilities board, one of the first major cases in which the supreme court blessed the fcc regulation following the act. 2004 he offered the court's opinion that the purported violation that didn't necessarily state an antitrust claim which is a hot issue back then. even recently he offered the administrator of arlington versus fcc, which is critical for those of us who think about the nuances and whether they should have the jurisdiction. for me personally, i think most law students would agree, whether you agree with that or not he was a delight to read. we were reading tons of cases and some of them are exceptionally boring. to rediscover the opinion, something to set up in thing. for me, one of the reasons i

became an antitrust lawyer in the first place and started my career at the honors program and the department of justice was the 1992 dissent in a case called kodak versus image technical services. seasonally complex, but involving section two duties but senator braynon market power to be construed to convey market power to another market. one of the great joys was to me a few years ago with the judge whom i clerked in new orleans and he said we got together and said i've got a little surprise. we have another guest joining us. it's going to be justice scalia. sure enough the justice arrived into bar his inevitable defense, the wolf came as a wolf. he was funny, smart and had a chance to tell about the kodak and without even missing a beat, he launched into recapping the dissent and this incredible to have the conversation. iso is possible to be married

happily for so many years and he managed to bridge that divide as well. i will certainly miss justice kolya and appreciate his service to our country. next i want to echo what if one has said about roger and john. roger is a terrific. i do chance to meet him when he was on the hill and as chief year, he really was at the center of so many critical issues we handle. hard to think of anything he's been able to contribute to. i appreciate his work on the aftermath of that was one area where is exceedingly difficult, but i appreciate the good faith efforts to reach out to our office. john chambers put a distinguished career in public service going back to the years he spent with senator dan ford, member of the senate from all the way to hear, really a leader in the more difficult challenging issues that confronted. i want to echo what commissioner

clyburn said with the relay service proposal. this is one of those items that has languished for years across the administration or the fact he took the initiative to put it on a solid footing and hopefully get costs under control for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers is something that deserves everybody's applaud then you certainly have mine. i also think it's especially significant you have an affinity for sport teams. that is something i hope you continue to exhibit in the years to come. with that, i am done, mr. chairman. >> first, i want to thank you for representing your bosses over the years area well. i didn't always agree policy outcomes or advice you provide it, but i did respect it and i do respect it. i enjoyed my time working with you on capitol hill and i've enjoyed my time working with you at the commission and i wish you best in the future. to jonathan chambers, i went to thank you for the spirited debates we've had on a number of

issues in my office. i enjoyed the hour we would have every month to talk through different policy issues and i want to thank you for your interest in saving consumers and the commission money in the offering of disability technology. i want to join my colleague and acknowledging the work of justice scalia. i had the opportunity to meet him once, but i wish -- i just extend my best and say god bless. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner. let's pile on here. i agree entirely with commissioner rosenworcel. it is so typical you are hiding in the back, roger. looking around and knowing that we were going to raid the wireless bureau chief and make her chief of staff here, who

could fill those rather large shoes? don't be offended by that because she is rather petite feet. roger and i had lunch one day and talked about some opportunities that might exist at the commission. and i remember when he said yes, he was interested. i am going wow, this is great news. and so, when roger came in, i mean, it was a wonderful day for this agency. we've already heard recounting the kind of things he was involved in. you know, how we deal with this innovative approach, the competitive bidding rules, how you worry about cellular service life and being in changing those

rules, how you worry about making sure infrastructure is out there for this wireless wonder to exist on. but the thing that always impressed me and will miss the most about you, roger is that you are incredibly selfless. you were incredibly focused. you my friend are a great leader who will be missed. thank you very, very much, roger. to john chambers -- i would challenge anybody. i think it's probably approaching 30 years. the head of osb since 2013, modernizing of uss and his leadership in the issues for the

disability committee have been repeated to appear and make a difference, which is about all anybody could ever ask for. john will always be grateful to you for your service and we look forward to the next mountain you are going to climb. now having talked about all of these downer things, some good news. fortunately, john wilkins, a managing director has agreed to step into roger's shoes and become the new chief of the wireless bureau. are you here, john? we all know what a great job he has done as managing director. he led the charge on the raid.

he has been playing a similar role and a lifelong reform which we will take up shortly when there was an early issues with regard to software and some of the functionality of the incentive option, john stepped in bringing his mckinsey experience and expertise to address some of those issues. he is just simply a superb manager and creative individual. and so, the ability to have him second behind roger and pickup because there's a few things going on -- i don't think that is coming but is 41 days until the option start. and it's great to have a guy like john in the wireless bureau who has been involved in this

process leading up. john leaves a void and fortunately mark stevens, our cfo stepping into that attack managing director. we have all grown to appreciate and respect mark in the great skills that he brings. and so, we are looking forward to him continuing that light path that john put us on. so what if there are no other things, i would request one privilege of the chair, to ask the secretary where she was yesterday and to tell us about this story of that great american who happens to be your

grandfather. >> i had the honor and privilege of attending the premiere in new york city of the race. the incredible true story of my grandfather jesse allen and i look forward to everyone going this weekend, opening weekend. but it truly is a wonderful movie about a wonderful man and just very honored to be a part of that legacy and look forward to another generation just being inspired by the story of the person he was. >> well, it is just fabulous this story is getting told. >> the buckeye bullet. >> are you kidding? >> he was a warm, humble man and

i look forward to seeing the movie. but i think it is fabulous you are on the red carpet yesterday. >> even better for my 14-year-old son. >> okay, mom secretary, why don't you walk us through what happened next. >> meeting of the federal communications commissioners thursday, march 31, 2016. >> until then, we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the fcc's meeting has adjourned in till the end of next month. we understand and just a couple moments the commissioners will return to hold a news conference and that will finish out the day

for today. while we wait for chair tom wheeler and the other commissioners to come back, a look at some of the issues they debated today, issues of the programming availability and use of set-top boxes. >> good morning, madam secretary. and when we say good morning, we really mean good morning to you this morning. >> thank you so much. do not welcome everybody to the february meeting of the federal communications commission. madam secretary, would you introduce the agenda. thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you and good morning commissioner. for today's meeting, you will hear three items for your consideration. first he will consider a notice of inquiry that seeks comment on the current beta program diversity and the principal obstacles that independent programmer space on video

distribution platforms. second, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on a framework for providing innovators, device manufacturers and add developers the information they need to develop new technologies to assess video content. third, you will consider a second report and order that allocates responsibilities for the delivery of closed captions on video programming and the handling of captioning complaints. you will also consider a consent agenda as listed in the commission's 2016 sunshine notice. this is your agenda for today. the first item entitled promoting the availability of

diverse and independent sources of video programming will be presented at the media bureau in chief at the bureau will give the introduction. the mac thank you, madam secretary. you may now catch her breath. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners street today a notice of inquiry seeks comment on the principal challenges that independent programmer space and gaming carriage of their content via traditional and emerging distribution platforms. this notice of inquiry furthers the commission's ongoing efforts to enhance the diversity of programming available to quds in the period independent video programmers repeatedly have expressed concern that certain practices of cable operators and other mvp d. smith limit ability and thereby stifle competition in the distribution of video programming. a central objective of

multi-video programming is to offer a diverse, robust competitive programming marketplace. as the agency charged by statute with with implementing the subject there, we seek to begin a fact-finding enterprise on the current state of programming diversity and to consider possible actions the commission might take to address the concerns that have been raised and thereby foster independent sources of programming. joining at the table are martha heller, rail and then me and alicia myers at the bureau policy division. felicia will present the item. >> mr. chairman, commissioners, we're pleased to present this opportunity for industry stakeholders, consumers another to voice concerns about the state of diversity, competition and innovation within the video programming marketplace. over the last quarter century we

have seen significant changes in the media landscape that have fundamentally altered the ways in which americans accessing the video programming. consumers today can access video programming over multiple computing platforms and the dominance of cable operators and other pay-tv distributors have eroded. however, and comment operators retain a very important position in the video programming marketplace and obtaining traditional mvp geese is still vital for the growth of many emerging programmers. through this notice of inquiry, we invite comment on the state of independent programming marketplace and the challenges the programmer space and attempting to watch her grow. we also seek comment on several specific challenges that have been identified in other proceedings. first, we seek comment on certain types of contractual provisions with our typical

program agreement. including the most favorite nation and alternative distribution methods provision. independent programmers have asserted both types of provisions and their ability to obtain their content. we also seek comment on issues related to carriage by ocp providers. including the costs and benefits to independent programmers of traditional cable to pursue o. t. p. carriage. next, we seek comment on the impact of program bundling that we have on programmers. they maintain some large companies with program offered including vertically integrated programmers a revolt to force them to carry less desirable content through the arrangement. some parties that such bundling arrangements limit program choices and raise costs for consumers forcing them to accept

less desirable content that displaces independent and diverse programming. in addition, we see comments on the negotiation practices and why the discrimination to a crime against providers of public educational and governmental programming. finally, we see comments on commissions legal authority in this area and what role if any we should play in addressing the obstacles that hinder providers of independent and diverse programming. the media bureau recommends the commission adopt the notice of inquiry and request other coverages. thank you. >> thank you. welcome to your first presentation before the commission. well done. >> commissioner clyburn. >> while they change with the viewing habits of americans said the passage of the 1992 cable act, most channel video programming distributors

maintain significant influence in the ever-expanding video programming marketplace. since my arrival at the sec in the summer of 2009, i have met with and spoken to dozens of independent programmers from extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. politics & prose aside, they find agreement on three more issues. each says that they are finding finding -- facing insurmountable challenges when it comes to acquiring program challenges, that it is difficult for them to receive fair or reasonable contract terms and that the growth in their online distribution model is inhibited because program distribution access is often restricted via contracts. during the recent at&t directv merger, a number of these issues were raised yet again by many parties including independent not work affiliated programmers

as well as small cable operators repeatedly requested relief. while the issues raised were perhaps not handled in the context of that merger, the level of concern i felt merited a separate proceeding where we could explore and gain a better renders ending of the video programming marketplace and rather certain practices by operators as claims by limiting the ability for them to reach their viewers. while i remain unsure it is the best place to answer a resolve the issues raised in today's notice of inquiry, we are enabling discussions about what roles if any the commission should play in addressing obstacles that may be preventing greater access by consumers to independent and diverse programming. this is a concern because fostering diversity of programming is an important goal of our work. section 257 of the communications act passed the

commission with carrying out the national policy of seeking to promote the purposes of favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement and promotion of the public interest convenience and necessity. does this provision of the agency the authority to act or the programmers that solved by other agencies or by industry driven solutions. the goal of this notice of inquiry is to launch a fact-finding exercise that will start a conversation on how best to promote the availability of diverse and independent video programming, including public educational and governmental programming. any issue, mr. chairman that brings together a content provider who can attain very

hard and other things i praise his will surely merit a robust discussion. again, i would like to thank the media europe, especially martha heller, rail and grammy, and holly. >> once again you're at the point where everything comes together. >> recall that conversion, but it feels more like a storm sometimes. >> commissioner rosenworcel. >> this is more calm. today we have a dizzying array of channels available to consumers. we expect programming to be available anytime, anywhere and on any screen. on top of that, not all platforms for content are cropping up here, there and everywhere. the future of watching will not look like the past and that is exciting. but despite all this change, old problems linger.

time and time again we hear independent programmers face a daunting challenge securing real estate on cable and satellite systems. the system still dominate our video experiences and securing a prerequisite to building viewership then it turns the pores investment and more diverse content. this notice of inquiry tackles these issues and asks the hard questions about new voices, new viewpoint and the state of the market for independent programming. this is important. because what we see on the screen -- >> will be the deliberations earlier to go live now to the fcc news conference. >> -- the first of the assistant camera choice. consumers have no choice when it

comes to picking the equipment they use to access services. 99% of consumers access their video provider teresa top box or application -- set top box or application that the provider leases to them every single month and they don't have any choice. by introducing competition into the set top marketplace, as congress has mandated, consumers will finally have options for how they access a tv. those competitive options will do what competition always does, which is dragged better

services, drive down costs and create opportunities. and when it comes to consumers having more choices than ever on multiple platforms. but on the most popular platform, television, there are concerns that the range of diverse programming choices are narrowing. aides to the leadership of commissioner clyburn, the commission has taken a spoke at the video marketplace to help ensure that tv viewers have diverse programming options as congress has mandated. the second keeping blinking items is removing barriers and expanding opportunities. today's set top box market place as close to standard, controlled by the industry.

we propose to establish dangers the same way we have open standards for cell phones, routers, further devices and we hope that by removing those barriers, innovators will step up to develop new ways for consumers to enjoy their favorite programming on their terms. i'm a content site, the commission has heard time and again from independent programmers that demands made during negotiations with cable providers are often obstacles to reaching enough viewers to have a viable business. but today's notice of inquiry, we are taking a fresh look at the video marketplace and examining the challenges and how best to remove their ears and expand the availability of

independent diverse programming. and when we expand opportunities for innovators to innovate and let consumers choose their favorite products, programs, services, everybody wins. so with that, i will be happy to answer any questions. >> monteith halo, calm daily. thank you. commissioner o'reilly paired the set-top proposal with the effort to turn to expand the definition of a mvpd. those are working hand-in-hand to expand the reach. you have any reaction? to many relationship between us? >> now, he is wrong. >> hi, mr. chairman. earlier you said that the item doesn't require a multibillion

dollars reengineering network, but mvpd says the opposite that even though the item doesn't require this, what will ultimately happen is we'll have to pour money into the network to comply. is there something that you know about networks that they don't know? what is going on there? >> that is why try to show those charts today. can we put pictures up again? if the char so, good said the devices work exactly the same way. if you look at the four steps of back-and-forth between cable operator and the device, they are identical whether or not it is a device that you were forced to have array device that you can choose among companies. first the signal goes down, says

okay, what channels are available? what numbers are they on? the signal goes down. step to the signal goes down and says what is the authorization for this box? can it record things like that? the signal comes back saying this is what the consumer has chosen and then the content goes down. that is unchanged. the cable operators have broke through, for instance, as a box some of them have lasted years. >> is the idea here that the criticism here from the industry is that they would be required to build their networks so they could then respond to every potential third-party device that wants to connect to the network and that would be a conflict regardless of the capability of the device.

>> that is why you have standards. this is the way you interface. one standard -- here is how it works. and give consumers choice. >> your hope is the standards process -- your hope is the standards process will be to a condition that does not require network engineering. >> so let's look at how the standards process works. when wi-fi routers are standardized through a standard process, and you go from 802.112 on after all the iterations, you don't have to rebuild the network every time you do that and that is one of the things that is taken into consideration. yes, sir. b. mike david from the hill. i am looking at the next couple months and it seems like --

>> answer you're looking at at what is the next couple months. there may be a point where the set-top box and certainly privacy ruling. i wonder how you could handle the challenge of fighting on three different fronts and also who you are concerned at all that might get hurt or unless universal items. >> again, i think the reality comes down to the fact that there is roughly 90% of the time there is consensus and now you get to see if the fun stuff. i was interested during the media coverage of justice billy is to, or one of his quotes was he with you surprised the number

of times that we agree. i ago i identify with that. i would also like to associate myself with some of my colleagues today to comment that i too have a privilege of knowing justice scalia and he was the force measure is to say. >> just to make clear come you are talking about your office and your staff will be able to have the resource. >> i am not sure despite three battle. it is a question of will we be able to work? we have the resources necessary to work the processes to try and come together with some kind of a majority consensus on the commission? i believe so.

>> hello, chairman. david hash, on another topic, but top lawmakers have a senate antitrust committee warning that average charter time warner cable could interfere with online video distributors. do you share that concern is that an issue that you want to address conditions on the deal? >> 144 days. if anybody is counting. you know that i'm not going to comment. >> can you comment -- >> i'm not going to comment on this. i never comment and you know that. thank you, mr. chairman. some cable representatives have said they have no problem negotiating pay distribution arrangements of tech companies that distribute content in the preceding does seem quite complex on contractual matters. how is your proposal a better method for expanding access for

tv content? >> i don't think it will change the contractual relationships. what i was trying to ask line in my statement is that this is giving consumers choice. it is not forcing the cable operators to change the week they do business. it is simply a question of does the signal go through red box or a blue box? lynn. >> you mentioned briefly the privacy would not be implicated by the item. so what does that mean? are you complementing -- implementing these manufacturers are how do you plan to get out the charade -- >> good question. so the standard, to license standard, you have to comply with title six such as privacy

rules with cable operators. >> margaret harding with political pro. my question is looking forward to lifeline. i wanted to ask than you might see specifically the minimum service standard issue. i know there has been concerned that the standards are too high, will that lead to the cost for subscribers? i want to see how you feel about out-of-pocket costs. >> we are working hard with commissioner clyburn on this issue. i hope we will be able to bring it forward. we will know the answer to that quickly. >> hi, sir. some people say they have a poor track record of trying to force innovation. what potential risk have you considered moving forward -- lindsay weimer with cvs by the way. >> issues are consumers going

have competitive choices and are they going to be forced to piece a box month after month after month and total up to several hundred dollars a month. and there will be an innovative solution to that, just like when the telephone come any used to say you have to lease my phone. field the phone that will work when the telephone network is my phone. this agency said no, we are going to open that up. and what happened? the functionality of phones from a the prices went down. that is the kind of thing that happens when you open things up to consumer choice, competition and innovation. >> what do you think for people -- >> there is a marketplace today. 99% of tumors have no choice. that is not a marketplace.

>> i'm tempted to ask about the mandated colors of these boxes. [laughter] how can you share the content industry that unlocking the boxes are going to unlock their security and licensing protections for their content? >> said today, they are happy with the security that happens when they delivered to a broker box. they're happy the security that delivers two in ipad. they are happy with delivering an entry device. same story. >> we were giving the microphone. >> hi, janet adkins said. can we expect the fcc to develop there will helping programmers prefer the current administration comes to the end and if not, what is the likelihood new leadership will continue the effort or abandon

it altogether? >> i have no you what happens. >> we are going to move forward on the next step. >> has the time and been established for the comment. and when the next steps take place? >> yes. i think we've got 30 on that. i'm looking for my signals to 30 days for comments. >> thank you. >> hi, i was curious about a couple of your colleagues mentioned commissioner pai about the lemonade in the box instead of unlocking. i was curious why you believe this path forward is better than eliminating the box altogether. i am all for eliminating the box. i try to make that clear in the statement. we are moving towards an apps

economy. the only difference between an app in a piece of hardware is moving from hardware to software. it is the same exact functionality. what is important is to consumers have a choice? right now whether it is a box or an app, they don't have choice. this simple. i tried to be clear talking about taxes and apps. the issues they should both be open and consumer should have choice in either. >> backgammon, communications daily. but commissioner o'reilly pointed out, this is an issue that's come up with the past. do you see any kind of possible areas where the fcc could make

regulatory differences and what sorts of hypotheticals are they about? >> mac, which is published and they're asking -- [laughter] >> i want to know if you have some calendar interop is that hamas has everyday on the timeclock, 41 days on the spectrum. >> you know, the answer is fortunate for the spectrum option, the math is simple. it is the 29th. there are 29 days so you just kind of start counting back. i can actually do it in my head. >> i do have a real question. >> i would love to get inside the mind of tom wheeler. i know right, scary. he spoke at length today about the set-top box proposal before that though, something you have done in the past, but not a ton.

you mentioned you were disappointed in the stances from the republican. i saw you shake your head a few times. given that this could have been a wonky proceeding to come out but they won't hear bill, to be frank, you seem relatively frustrated with how this has all played out in a lot of the flak you've gotten. how you feel. >> i imagined this is a simple question. we are trying to provide the choice for consumers and data that congress. was i disappointed that folks didn't even want to ask the question? sure i was. the purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to say that spilled and make a decision on that record. is a no, i made up my mind. i don't want to build a record, i guess i didn't know i was

shaking my head, but it's cause you shaking your head. >> hi, karen. brien barber with the national barber journal. you invoke section 629 today the communications act of the project or screen. before your comments come after mr. rather was talking about that section and how it refers to equipment and he drew a very clear distinction between the intent of the law applied to equipment and not the software or the app you're talking about. how much of a concern is not for you as we enter the rulemaking stage in this very thing that tripped up the commission of any kind of proposal? >> the statute talks about the equipment systems and services. it covers maps and everything else.

[inaudible] >> john brockman. i want to ask about the issue of advertising and third-party set-top boxes. he said nothing would change that. what exactly prevents a third-party set-top box taker from putting advertising and is there something that does that? is there an existing law? is it any different from cable cars, cable cars from any role preventing another user from inserting abstract now? >> that is a good question. the rule of law prohibit. you need to have the sanctity of the content. nobody is going to insert ads into it. no one is going to make a split screen where they put ads next to it. no one will say there's a frame around it or you can go to joe's auto repair. it is going to require the

sanctity of the content be passed through unchanged. >> does that include the neighborhood agreement, too? >> programming agreement are included in this. and it's a part of the sanctity of the concept. one of the things in the first data stream that comes out is what channel it goes on. that is still there. >> the rules specifically prohibit extra advertising. >> yes, sir. well, thank you very much. >> we have the grocer for questions on the bureaus. further questions today that the

media bureau on the items? yes? okay. >> hi, bill lake. happy to take your questions. i was wondering if you can tell us the length of the comment period for the set-top talks -- that top box. >> 30 days for comment, 60 days for replies. >> you mentioned when you were present to the item that you said something likely offer the application they will also be required to open up the stream to developers. i want to be clear. i they required to applications regardless of whether or not they personally offer an

application to access everyday content? >> estimate i was referring to a rule that the basic requirement to the information flows. what we have proposed is this a step to provide service through an app without any need for a piece of equipment, they have to provide the information in a way that will enable someone else to write an app that also won't require equipment. it's a matter of making sure that an app developed by the independent developer will provide service on any basis to one that is offered by the mvpd. >> just to clarify, if they don't have their own, they don't have to provide access to developers. >> they do have to provide the free information flows. this goes to the question of whether we are requiring a box for the mvpd. we are not.

.. needs to be undertaken by the industry in order to provide all the standards necessary to implement this.

we think that two years is ample time for that so we've indicated we will expect mvpd to comply within that two-year period. >> it then mvpd can make their content available via the open standard by using another piece of equipment if they so choose, aren't all that paid providers we know who don't like the proposal could he choose to do that, thereby effectively mandating a second box and making the whole point of saving money or anything less effective? is there anything that the commission can do or that nprm does that sort of promotes doing this in a simple way rather than allowing the companies to use a second boxed? >> we have not prescribe a specific technical standard that must be used. what we've said his information flows out to be provided in a standard that openly and publicly available.

we hope and expect that standard develop a process will facilitate a box list world. smh aware proposed dairy rules so as to provide apps that can be used without a piece of mvpd supply to prevent to enable the compared to do the same. >> just one quick other one. you were talking about the open standards. i think that chairman mentioned, maybe he misspoke, at some point he was answering monkeys question, am i right it can be any published open standard? >> yes. >> just want to make sure.

the chairman said in order to license technology, the standard device makers will have to abide by rules and if he says title vi only applies to in the pd and not of the parties. can you sort of explain how the

proposal addresses that? >> proposal includes a licensing proposal under which the mvpds would be required to provide these information flows only if the entities or provide information flows to. the device manufacturer agrees to comply with various requirements. what we propose is one of those requirements will be that the abide by the same privacy standards as title vi carriers. >> will those be enforced if there is a violation of? >> we raise questions about the enforcement regime. these would be binding commitments. one result would be that the mvpd doesn't have to provide information flows to someone who won't abide by those requirements. >> i have a follow up and did a different question so if you want to go first. then how is it that mvpd is will be able to verify that these

companies are abiding by title vi rules? will they be able to go in and look or will the manufacture certified to the fcc or to another body? >> we asked about that. we will be interested to get input on the. our intention is that the same privacy standards will apply in this unlock the box environment that applies to the mvpds. we have proposed to do that to a licensing regime and would ask questions about exactly what the enforcement mechanism should be. >> does the nprm propose you wouldn't recognize a standard for licensing which did not include as title vi privacy? i'm wondering and fcc gets to be in a position of required these commitments. >> we have authority over the

mvpd is and what we propose is to require them to make these information flows of able to competitive innovators. but to limit the requirement and forbid them to provide the information to innovators who won't agree to the various restrictions. >> thank you. >> a couple more. >> one more come which is the chairman just said certain types of advertising, like frames around the new content our side by side advertising would not be allowed. or you recommend they not be about. i'm wondering if you could walk us through how specifically group recommendation works. is it a general standard? explicitly banning certain types? >> you see that question is teed up in the item. >> there are no recommendations made? >> that has have it would be completed, no. >> thank you.

[inaudible] -- trying to figure out what exactly is that. what exactly does that look like and what's the time against the time when the movie on that? >> you were referring to noi on programming? >> the set-top box. >> as to th the set-top box, noe of proposed rulemaking we've proposed rules. witwe've economy. reply comment period on that, and then the next step enable making proceeding would likely be the development of an order based on the record that we will develop. [inaudible] >> sorry? >> that's the 30 days, like the 30 day comment period? >> it's 30 days and then another 30 days, yes.

>> are there any questions on the consumer and governmental affairs bureau i am? and then finally on the enforcement bureau items. all right. i think we are -- yes, i'm sorry. [inaudible] >> i don't know. is anybody here from the enforcement bureau? and i will get back to you. i think commissioner pai and commissioner o'reilly are here. [inaudible] >> hello, cleveland. >> monkey, do you want to lead off the? >> yeah chairman told me that the mvpd ott thing at the set-top box receiving are not related at all and that you are

wrong about him being two sides of the same plan. to you have any reaction to the? why do you think they are connected? >> i outlined wife interconnected at length to have pages. i think it tied the two together very nicely. i think you see we are talking to bill lake about the licensing fees and now that burden will apply. the chairman was talking about facts and being right and wrong. i pulled out the law itself. i have the old statute. he mentioned the question was over here i think regarding devices and it was off the cover systems and some other things i think he said. i highlighted the language. i thought i would share. it says of converter boxes come interactive communications equipment and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other services offered over multichannel video programming systems.

but it's his equipment, devices, equipment, converter boxes. not applications. >> does it matter that the applications were not really contemplated? >> yeah, because i happened to be there and that was my old boss. we didn't contemplate an application world where you would not need the set-top box. as my colleague and i have highlighted in our statements we believe there shouldn't be a need for a box. should eliminate all the boxes to item if that's something we go to congress and talk about or i'm happy to talk to congress about our something we talk to the the industry about eliminating boxes altogether. you talk about saving money. that's a better opportunity than the world we are talking hitting this path. >> earlier i asked the question to the chairman about network reengineering and the idea of a second box that ntpp is my require a second box to be insulting out in addition to a third party box.

i guess it seems like from what he's thinking that he hopes the standard process will produce some outcome that would be relatively costless or in the pd's. -- in the pd's. ecm solution out of that process that could address that? >> i'm hopeful for middle east peace as well but the notion we would delegate to all the parts in the middle east. wickelman have an open standards body were jordan, syria, it's have to come up a couple of years with consensus model is just not likely to do the same thing is true here. part of the reason why i suggested you just simply cannot say okay, we expect a mandate to issue on the basis of consensus and you just can't do that by government fayyad. >> are consumers going to be able to tell the difference between the fcc forcing cable companies to force consumers to

another set-top box versus the cable company forcing consumers to have another set-top box? >> i am not sure what the consumer, to whom the consumer is going to attribute existence of the second box of the whole point as commissioner o'reilly point out and i have as well, what consumers want is to eliminate the box altogether. it's telling the majority relies on this marketing slogan of unlock the box which is just a backward looking view of where the video marketplace is going. we would rather have an apple-based video economy one which is much better suited i think to the modern consumer and one that is much cheaper for the consumer as opposed on a second box which is what i think the majority's proposal is going to lead. i think it's also telling by the way that remember this is one of the two proposals that the downloadable security technology advisory committee recommended. the other was a more active-based approach when the things we suggest was low, what if this guy could simply sought comment nuclear at each of those

proposal to its let the american public of input. the majority was hell-bent on one proposed exclusion of the other. if you look visible in the reason for i wish document published before we voted on them. if you're able to look for the dozens of pages you will find three paragraphs with the ftt keys up the other proposals from the dstac. that's the way these comments essentially, we seek comment on my proposal is a terrible. we seek comment on why this proposal would harm consumers. on why we don't have legal authority to do this. that's not the way i think you really tee up a fair and full way the issue that the dstac wrestled with which republican issues as commissioner rosenworcel pointed out. >> there is an industry setting body that we are talking about. it's fiction we're going to send it to somebody ambiguity with the. it doesn't exist today so i don't know who they will get consensus from. i think your colleague highlight

of the middle east example but we do have an entity we're sending this to. we are trusting something will develop for consideration. your second part of your question is how the cost and some the network costs, we are talking years before this would actually happen. i'm pretty confident this will fall apart before we got to that point. >> i'd like to talk about the nature of the opposition to this, particularly to the portion that would open up the mvpd video stream to out developers which seems the commission is saying what the chairman is saying, i'm sorry, would have the effect of eliminating the box. can you get close on what a day like this? you say you want to encourage the app system. why you don't think that portion of the item is good enough to do that? >> as i said to our number of different objections first and foremost. the item places heavy reliance on the open standard body to

come up with a consensus solution that would enable this open platform and the entire point i made is what in the past issue any confidence that in the future these particular, this particular herd of cats will be herded. it's difficult to see how that's going to happen. second is an issue of timing. under the notices our approach is going to be two years at the very least before this takes effect. in the meantime there will be rapid innovation in the workplace we can't even conceive of right there. i can imagine my amazon adco being the navigation device i used to access the content of my choice. simply a matter of time. you can now order uber and domino's pizza. thirdly i think you look at how this proposal is likely to develop come in the pd's will face one or two choices point. number one, they reconfigure the network architecture so anybody can access it or they put out another box that meets the

specifications that the theoretical open standard body consensus comes up with. what we've heard from the mvpd is the second path while some optimal is much cheaper than rejiggering its network architecture. then you would have consumers having a choice i suppose of unwanted hardware simply double down on the mistaken approach from 1996. that i don't think it's the right way to go. >> other than that though -- >> i disagree with the chairman's assessment that he's supporting eliminating the box. you have had the benefit of the item. i pushed for months you all should have decided i think you'll find that the question was asked before how does the chairman was disappointed we didn't vote, shook his head was disappointed we didn't support his item. my colleague highlighted how forward, having item goes about and our tentative conclusions throughout.

it's not just asking the question is about slanting the peace to the direction that they wanted to go. he's got the right to do but he can't be surprised we are not going to agree with an slanting this direction. the same issue on the noi. get to a point that was more middleground and just more neutral and were willing, i got to a concurrence place. i disagree with his analysis and what he says is happening in the item and i disagree he thinks it's happening on these eliminate the box. any application world that existed a you can go directly to the program and get content. there are some program yet of certain relationships but most program is not tied to the exact cable subscription. you have an option in that regard. that world is developing before our very eyes and i do want to shut that world down by going back to a provision those based on the hardware structure. so to get to the second point, statutory problem. i highlighted how this is about equipping.

we are going to an application world where we don't have that authority. [inaudible] >> what the mvpds are telling you to reach your decision. the chairman it seemed to make the point arguing that the mvpd is were saying something else over years ago and more supportive of an item like this. i'm wondering what you make of those letters have shown and statements by brian roberts that were cited in some pieces and whether that fact into the way you approached meetings with the ndp these? >> speaking for myself i tend to make judges based on facts on the ground now, not letters 76ers ago when the video marketplace was dramatically different. i think if you look at the contemporaneous statements from the content community from minority programmers, from democrats on the hill, it's sort of rising tide of opposition which is remarkable for its political and technological

breath. >> i would agree. six years an awful long time. but i make my decisions based not just of x. parties in the meetings but on the breath of information. i analyze all of that and come to my decision. whether a particular interest to pass a viewpoint is one factor. there's lots of factors that go into my decision, not just mayors. >> commissioners, what sorts of companies do you see this as helping the most? do you see it as an official to google and amazon and apple and netflix at the expense of say comcast, at&t and other video incumbents? >> i have heard that argument. i can't say that one way or the other. >> i have no idea but i think it is consistently argued that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers.

i would hope that it wouldn't be any motivation along those ground. >> is additionally a proposal that goes well beyond set-top boxes and is designed to encourage competition in the marketplace to the extent it would do that, wouldn't it elevate the googles of the world at the expense of incumbent players? >> i think it's critical not to accept this false framing of the issued its not encouraging competition in the marketplace. the entire reason we are here is because of a regulatory framework that has created a noncompetitive marketplace. as i said in a statement that i think commissioner o'rielly point out, we've had 20 years of highly regulation with the integration band as well as the cablecard machine. we've had anything but a free market competitive approach to this workplace and that's part of the reason why we would refer getting rid of the box and allow the base economy to flourish

>> i have an unrelated question for you both. commission you both. commissioner o'reilly fub cities book at the new america foundation on the allocation of the 5.9-hertz band dickey said auto manufacturers should only expect to the nix it determines is necessary. this seems to imply the remainder, the majority of the spectrum allocation should, in fact, be freed up, taken away from specific allocation freed up for sharing. can you confirm or clarify that? commissioner pai, i would be curious your comments on that thought. >> i don't think i said nhtsa would verify or certify. i didn't type to nhtsa. my point is i want to take spectrum from them. it is spectrum that you should be for safety purposes. i don't want spectrum used for parking spots and host of other

things that haven't been contemplated by many different folks including new america in the report on purposes that could be used for. i'm not trying to take spectrum from the. i want spectrum to be allocated for safety purposes. >> i generally agree with that. i'm guessing with respect to what comes your second question is what spectrum they should have? >> no. i have asked whether your comments imply that the remainder of the spectrum that is not user safety applications should be freed up from control of the auto industry for spectrum sharing. >> we have competing proposals before the commission on how to move forward on 5.9. i think commissioners are considering which they like better, which are most appropriate and hopefully work to do in the coming months as we move to testing that will be overseen by the commission. we will have a better feel for

the. whether you do a listen before talk or whether you segregate the band at my purpose in making the comment was that i want this band, a very valuable spectrum because it's probably best opportunity we have to expense unlicensed use in wi-fi given its proximity to the lower and mid band at five gigahertz. in that purpose i want to ensure that our industry would use it for safety purposes, that a user safety and not for commercial purposes that can be done through other agreements. >> i just wanted to add we are actively considering the proposal. whether it's listen before talk or segregation of the band remained yet to be determined. i'm hopeful we can get moving on this and. it's been going on for years since congress passed the spectrum act which teed up five gigahertz as a possibly for the next generation of wi-fi.

>> i feel pretty confident that i understand you don't like the set-top box nprm. i'm a little confused as to what you think the fcc should be doing in light of the fact that it is a mandate in 629, right, and as you point out refers to equipment and devices and boxes and hardware type thing. and yet you want the box to go away and be replaced by a nap. what should the commission do with this section of six when i mandate, just ignore it? >> i will not ignore the provision. there are provisions in the statute that you become dated overtime. and in your if we're talking about application world covered by the statute that i think that provision doesn't apply. the question becomes what's the best out of an indicator order i think we should, it started from a dstac provision picketed nap the next piece that congress did not agree the