[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

democratic residential candidate hillary clinton will do for them south carolina. the right and policing says.

>> the federal communications commission approved a proposal to let consumers a rate of cable boxes and purchase third-party devices. the fcc adopted a proposal to improve the quality of closed captioning and agreed to inquiry into video programming diversity. fcc chair tom wheeler opens the meeting. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the most important person of

the moment has arrived. good morning, madam secretary. and when we say good morning, we really mean good morning to you this morning. >> thank you. thank you so much. >> welcome everybody to the february morning meeting of the federal communications commission. thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you. good morning, commissioner. today you hear three items for consideration. first, you will consider a notice of inquiry that seeks comment on the current state of programming diversity and the principal obstacles that independent programmers face in obtaining video distribution platforms. i can't, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on a framework for providing

innovators, device manufacturers and app developers the information they need to develop new technologies to access video content. third, you will consider a second report and order that allocates responsibilities for the delivery of closed captioning on video programming and the handling of captioning complaints. you will also consider a consent agenda as listed in the commission's february 2016 sunshine notice. this is your agenda for today. the first item entitled promoting the availability of diverse sources of video programming will be presented by the media bureau in chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. you may now catch her breath.

mr. lake. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. today i'm inquiry seeks comment on the principal challenges and independent programmers face in gaining 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 consumers. independent media programmers repeatedly have expressed concern that certain things of cable operators and other mvp geese may stifle competition in the distribution of video programming. a central object of the multi-video programming is to have a robust programming marketplace. as the agency charged by statute with implementing the subject

to, we seek to be given a fact-finding enterprise on the current data programming diversity and to consider possible actions the commission might take to address concerns that have been raised and thereby foster independent sources of programming. joining me at the table or martha heller, rail and then the installation matters that the media bureau policy division. felicia will present the item. >> mr. chairman, commissioners, we're pleased to present this notice of inquiry that provides an opportunity for industry stakeholders, can numerous and others to voice concerns about the state of diversity, competition and innovation within the video programming marketplace. over the last quarter-century we've seen significant changes in the media landscape that is fundamentally altered the ways americans access and consume video programming. consumers today access video programming over multiple

computing platforms and the dominance of cable operators and other incumbent distributors has eroded. however, incumbent operators retain a very important position in the video programming marketplace in obtaining care from traditional mvpds is so vital for the growth of many enriching programmers. through the notice of inquiry we invite comments generally on the state of independent programming marketplace and the challenges that new and emerging programmers face in attempting to launch her grow. we also seek comment on several specific challenges identified in other proceedings. first, we seek comment on certain types of contractual provision that are typical in program agreement, including most favored nation an alternative distribution provisions. independent programmers have asserted both types of

provisions often hinder abilities to obtain distribution of content. we also seek comment on issues related by over-the-top or ot p. providers. cost and benefit for going for satellite carriage to pursue rtp carriage. maximum seek comment on the impact of program bundling may have an independent or grammars and maintain some media companies with multiple program offerings, including vertically integrated programmers are able to force them to carry less desirable content for bundling arrangements. some parties have arrangement limit choices and raise costs for consumers by forcing someone to produce less desirable content that is in the admin and diverse programming. in addition, we seek comment on negotiation practices and what

the discrimination is occurring against providers of public, educational and governmental programming. finally, we seek comment on the commission's legal authority in this area and non-blog roll, if any, we should play in addressing the obstacles that are providers of independent diverse programming and consumers. the media bureau recommends the commission adopt a notice of inquiry and request others. thank you. >> thank you. welcome to your first presentation before the commission. well done. >> thank you very much. commissioner clyburn. >> while much has changed when it comes to viewing habits of americans in the passage of the 1992 cable act, multichannel distributors maintain significant influence in the ever-expanding video programming marketplace. since my arrival here in the summer of 2009, i have met with and spoke in to death of

independent programmers from extreme ends of the ideological spec terms. politics & prose aside, they find agreement on three core issues. each says that they are 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 the online distribution model is inhibited because program distribution access is often restricted via contract. during the recent at&t directv merger, a number of these issues were raised yet again by many parties including independent network affiliated programmers as well as small cable operators who repeatedly requested relief. while we found that the issues raised were perhaps not handled in the context of the merger, the level of concern i felt merited a separate proceeding

where we could explore and gain a better understanding of the video programming marketplace and certain practices by operators as claimed by limiting the ability for them to reach their viewers. while i remain unsure the commission is the best place to answer our resolve the issues raised in today's notice of inquiry, we are enabling discussions about what role, if any, the commission should play in addressing obstacles that may be preventing greater access bike dimmers to independent 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 test the commission was carried out the policy of seeking to promote purposes of favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement and

promotion of the public interest convenient necessity. does this provision gives the agency the authority to act in this area or are the same issues that independent programmers bring forth best results by other agencies or 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 sources of video programming, including public, educational and governmental programming. any issue, mr. chairman, that brings together a content provider who campaigned very hard and another who sings the praises surely merits a robust discussion. again, i would like to thank the media bureau for the item, especially martha heller, raymond ramey, felicia myers

well done and holly soros. >> once again, you are the point where everything comes together. >> yes, they call that conversion, but it feels more like a storm sun-times. >> commissioner rosenworcel. >> today we have a dizzying array of channels available to consumers. we expect programming to be available anytime, anywhere on any screen. on top of that, novel platforms for content are cropping up here, there and everywhere. the future of watching will not look like the past and not as exciting. but despite all this change, old problems linger. time and time again, we hear that independent programmers face a daunting challenge securing real estate on cable and satellite systems.

the system still dominate our video at. says an securing carriage can be a prerequisite to building the viewership then in turn supports investment and more diverse content. this notice of inquiry tackles these issues and asks 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 says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities and as a nation. in this season of oscars so white and female directors sofia, starting a conversation about program diversity and independent voices might be hard, but it's the right thing to do. kudos to my colleague commissioner clyburn to get this conversation started. >> thank you, commissioner. thank you, mr. chairman.

when i was growing up, i didn't see many people on the screen who looked like me. one of few such characters i remember was on the cartoon occasionally rerun in the late 1970s. the cartoon feature high g johnny's psychic who picked up the smarts on the streets of calcutta and had missed it ours. the other real-life recurring indian character i can recall from the night teen 80s was one of a classroom full of gifted students on the abc sitcom ahead of the class. and in the early 1990s there was the quickie mart owner from the same since he was voiced the noted indian-american hankins area. things are different today. netflix now carries master of none, a series starring deceives zardari, co-writer and creator. the show focuses on the american-born son of indian immigrants to new york city and tell stories i've never seen

before in american television. the american-born son of indian immigrants myself, especially enjoyed episode two entitled parents that examines the relationship between asians who came to this country in the 1960s and 1970s than their american children. it's also notable two of the closest friends on the show are chinese-american and african-american. needless to say, this shows a far cry from leave it to beaver. the stark contrast between the way things are and the way things were as my precious notice of inquiry. there are now more outlets through which creators of video content and distribute programming than ever before. over the top video in particular has been a game changer. it's given diverse voices a new way to be heard an american novel content they previously might never have seen. consider the youtube sensation and her hit series, the method

then much of awkward black growth when asked why she created the series, she said i felt like my voice was missing in voices of other people i really respect and admire and want to see in the mainstream are missing. the first part of her series, which he found with friends quickly got attention on youtube thanks to a successful kick starter campaign, reagan was able to raise $65,000 for almost 2000 donations and could complete the rest of the first season. today, ray has over 208,000 subscribers on her youtube channel and her shows have amassed over 20 million views, including my own. last year she published a collection of short stories that might last year hbo picked up her series, insecure. diversity is of limited to the production side of the video. consumers are responding to the wide variety of content available through over-the-top

services. one researcher put a multicultural viewers are more likely to have made over the top and integral part of fair dealing lifestyle. 45% of african-american viewers, 46% of asian-american there were some 51% of hispanic viewers report spending more than 20% of the total viewing time watching ott as compared to 39% of white viewers. to be sure, there still may be some challenges in this brave new world of video. for instance, some independent programmers have expressed concern that certain carriage practices of cable operators and other multichannel distributors may limit their ability to reach viewers. i've heard these concerns firsthand in my own meeting with independent programmers. and therefore plays the commission is giving all stakeholders a chance to provide feedback on the issues we see up. as i've said many times, we are

currently living in the golden age of television. one of the reasons for that is the imaging range of diverse content available to americans today with the push of a button, click of a cursor or connection of dialogue. programs like master of none but the misadventures of awkward black crow are not the products of government regulation. instead of and they thrive because of a free-market in which creativity and technological innovation are recognized and rewarded. as the commission the sordidness another proceeding, we should be careful not to hold back the video revolution. for indian americans today can now see themselves on the screen and was far more varied estate charmers and producers of quickie mart squishiness. that's a good thing. we shouldn't hold it back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner o'reilly. thank you, mr. chairman. in reading the item, there were a number of edits i deemed appropriate.

one of the first with a more concrete language of the primary goals of proceeding. they began a conversation that collects a mention on the state of independent programming and i asked us to be changed and again in the conversation to seek information which in my view is the more appropriate goal for an inquiry of a regulatory fee. of all my address, the one easiest to list the surprising to me, and the request was denied more than one, which left me to wonder why the commission was so deeply routed to the innocuous phrase to begin a conversation and the more i thought about it, the more it became clear beginning a conversation is not exactly accurate description of what is occurring here. this is somehow a novel topic that interested parties have not had the opportunity to weigh in yet. as anyone who's ever followed media regulation issues is the way the debate around program carriage or lack thereof is as

close as it gets to the constant fixture for office as long as there have been cable satellite systems, programmers have been arguing they need her carriage. we should all be able to agree to this conversation that began long ago, at least 1989 when nick they included several assertions, for example, some program suppliers complained rising concentration and cable system ownership has led to an ability to gain a list to large cable systems. programmers have found many years to their complaints both in the congress and at the commission over the decade. from the least access system established by the 1994 cable act in the program carriage requirements of the 92 cable act to the commission's 2011 modifications to carriage rules than it common insistent that carriage requirements as conditions of an vpd mergers, there've been numerous legislative regulatory attempts to address challenges faced by

independent programmers were many different angles. technology has changed a lot since the debate began but the arguments haven't changed substantially. we are now living in an age of us in channel lineups and many can numerous seeking a different structure of rapidly adopting robust over-the-top offerings of linear on-demand programming alike. additionally, compelling content is monetized to previously unimagined chris on the web and mobile devices in a world that has brought a six bus of growth in terms of the sheer numbers of platforms for content. it is interesting access to the old network is still considered a major issue. with this debate, it seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. if the item is not the beginning of the conversation, what is beginning? many of you that have interest have not been able to read the document head. it should not calm as a spoiler

to say we are beginning a more accurate description of the latest regulatory push to build us a sample of an ally they now questions to give the platform or dialogue on every paragraph in the original drafts listed in the direction of the push. i appreciate the added commissioner pai and i submitted and they were able to be adopted in the work of the majority of adopting changes that allows me to concur with this item. i hope that these habits will be able to steer into a conversation territory. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i've got a statement for the record. let me begin by thanking commissioner clyburn for keeping the front and center and being the advocate that is the reason why it is on the agenda today and for all of your leadership. this is a simple issue of how do

we expand diversity of choice and opportunity that goes hand-in-hand with the next item we are discussing is that top boxes. all of those in favor say aye ko. opposed? the ayes habit. the item is adopted. the request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. thank you very much in the bureau for all of your efforts on this. madam secretary. >> mr. chairman, commissioners, the next item will be presented by the media bureau entitled expanding consumer video navigation choices, commercial availability of navigation. >> and no, bill and mark, some

things just never change, do they? bill, do you want to start? spin start? >> yes, good morning again mr. chairman and commissioners. data mediator present proposed rulemaking in memorandum opinion and order that proposes rules to ensure a competitive market for devices and apps consumers can use in lieu of least equipped and to access cable and satellite video programs. the rules are intended to make the commission's obligations under section 629 of the communications act. joining me at the table or martha heller, steve rock art, brendan murray, while other of the media bureau's policy division and scott jordan, chief technologist of the commission. brandon will present the item.

>> thank you on the bill. mr. chairman and commissioners, we are pleased to present the rulemaking intended to ensure availability to consumers of competitive services and equipment used to access pay-tv programming at the commission is directed to do by section 29 of the communications act. section 629 which celebrated its 20th birthday with provisions of the telecommunications act of 1996 directs the commission to adopt regulations to ensure regulations to ensure the marketer devices and apps that can access video programming from sources other than subscribers pay tv providers. that is cable and satellite provider. in short, a direct commission to untether consumers from providers set top box. to achieve directive we require multi-video programming distributors, someone using any published transparent format that conforms to specifications that by open standards. this information will allow

manufacturers and other companies unaffiliated to design and build competitive devices and applications to access the video programming under the same terms of use under which the design out can access programming. they gave mvpd security so they can ensure all programming is protect data and only those who subscribe to our able to access that provided that they each support one content protection system that is licensed and reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms by an organization not affiliated. this approach is intended to balance the right to choose the content protection system used

to protect programming with the native manufacturers to be able to build devices that can access content from a variety of mvpds debuts systems. next, they propose parity rules that required each mvpd with its own application on devices without the need for mvpd equipment to offer information flows to unaffiliated applications about the fortran 11 specific equipment. with a particular eye towards protection, the mprm ensures the program and advertising limits, merchant sailors and privacy protections will be regardless of whether the consumer releases set top box or accesses video programming. the mprm proposes to adopt the transparency will to ensure that consumers understand exactly how much they will pay each month for both programming service and equipment and what the economic

trade-off is between the device and any commercial alternative. the mprm seeks a series of questions about alternate ways to implement 629 such as the upper approach. they seek comment on the best way to protect the programmers copyright license term in the ability of various types and sizes of providers to comply with the proposal. ideally, dead immigrants in memorandum that removes the so-called integration language from the code of federal regulations as required under section 106 of the act. the media bureau recommends the commission adopt the mprm and request majority privileges. thank you. >> thank you to everybody for all of your hard work. >> thank you on the server. in 1996 as was mentioned, congress added section 629 to the communications act which mandated the agency to take steps towards ensuring a

competitive navigation device market exists for access to multichannel video programming. while prior permission attempts in this area have been less than successful, standardization and tech the logical event and has made it easier to introduce competition and innovation into the set of market. while these developments have resulted in a competition, consumers deserve more. today's notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to give consumers more control and how they access the video services they prescribed two. it also tends to be about innovation in the display selection and use of this programming in short choice. it would allow for the development of more user-friendly interfaces, opening market to additional platforms that are not strictly under the purview of management of a single distributor. today, 99% of the pay-tv

customers rent a set-top box from a mvpd at a cost that exceeds $200 per year. while the cost of other technologies have solid as competition in greece, because of the set-top box has risen for american pay-tv subscribers over the same period. this item proposes, not a doubt, but proposes to provide a technology neutral means for consumers to choose how they interact with the multichannel video programming services they pay for. if a consumer wishes to purchase a device or application to access this programming, this proposal will power that choice. if a consumer chooses to continue to rent a box or app from the mvpd, they have the option to do that also. this item does not propose a

specific technical standard like the proposal that the commission can better back in 2010. instead, a standards setting body in consultation with the suspect did the layout technical specifications, enabling manufacturers, retailers and companies including the cable or satellite providers to build and design navigation devices. there has been much discussion lately about how this proposal will affect content diversity with some expressing concern it could lead to decreases and the level of diverse programming choice. sadly, we are boldly speaking about a number of diverse channels that can be currently found over the systems today, but for the handful of those that have had success be carried by a mvpd. i see no legitimate business or economic reason why the item

should make their programming or the relationship with the distributor any more vulnerable than their counterparts. but i hope will occur its creators of content to have been unable to get mvpd will reach consumers directly. similar to the way that internet searches provide consumers with information from various sources, a competitive solution with improved search functionality could allow consumers to find programming available over the top something you cannot do with today's set-top box. the should result in consumers having a wider range of options. i think the media bureau for their hard work on this item, especially the efforts of brandon murray and while out there. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner rosenworcel. >> here's an experiment.

you can do it at home. just sit in your favor comfortable chair. you know, the one in front of the television. in one hand, hold the remote control for your set-top box. and the other hand, holger mobile phone. now ask yourself which of these two devices has changed essentially over the past two decades. which has seen extraordinary innovation and which has benefited from competition? the answers are obvious. the bulky graceless mobile phones from two decades ago have been replaced by sleek new models, but it is a lot more than just aesthetics. what we can do with devices now is incredible. smartphones have changed our lives and are changing our world. but the clunky set-top box and many button remote has not evolved at the same pace. or have they face the same level

of competition. the numbers make this very clear. 99% of consumers still purchase -- excuse me, rent or set-top boxes from paid television provider. the typical household spends more than $231 a year on the set-top box rental fees. costs are high, innovation is slow and competition is too limited. congress did not want it to be that way. two decades ago in the telecommunications act of 1996, the agency was charged with ensuring commercial availability of navigation devices, creating a competitive market for set-top boxes. there are times when legislative aides are not clear. this is not one of them. i think we can do better, so i support today's rulemaking. but i also think we have a lot of work to do.

important questions have been raised about copyrights, privacy, diversity and a whole host of other issues than a marketplace that has been tossed on set-top box for competitors to crack. we need to explore them in the record that developed. let me raise one other. this rulemaking is complicated. it describes three information streams for navigation devices, work that needs to be done, admittedly a security system and a trio of parity requirement. the most successful regulatory efforts are simple ones. more work needs to be done to streamline the proposal because in the end for consumers to benefit and enjoy the bounty of what we have proposed while execution is all. so what we have here may or may not be the precise way forward, but something has got to give. i support chairman wheeler suffered to get the proceedings

started because it is past time to live up to our statutory obligations and give consumers the competition they deserve. >> thank you, commissioner rosenworcel and your observations are well taken. as you point out, the reason we have this to get the record built. commissioner pai. thank you, mr. chairman. someone with three set-top boxes in my home, share the frustration held by millions of americans across the country. the boxes are clunky, expensive and i feel the pain each and every month when i have to pay my video bill. as an fcc commissioner, i know the current set-top box market places the product of an intrusive regulatory regime, something has to change. why should that change be like? what should be our aim when it comes to the market place?

what would be the best for consumers? my goal is pretty simple. our goal should not be to unlock the box. it should be to eliminate the box. if you are a cable customer and you don't want to have a set top box, you shouldn't be required to have one. the school is technically feasible and reflects most consumer preferences including my own. in this notice, the fcc takes a much different task. it doubles down on the necessity of having a box, substituting one intrusive regulatory regime for another. essentially but introduce an entirely new set of boxes into consumer's homes. because the proposal was further away from the object is in the 20th century approach, i respectfully cannot support this notice. let's start with one and is readable fact. when it comes to navigation devices, the fcc is not embraced

free-market policies. instead, it is embraced a form of centralized planning by implementing the so-called cablecard machine and integration band, the fcc sought to mold the marketplace to its desired shape. there is widespread agreement commission's regulatory intervention has been a massive failure. indeed some of the divisiveness of us fail to achieve object is. the sec's regulations have raised the price of such a boxes costing americans billions of dollars in additional fees. they've increased cable customers energy consumption by 500 million-kilowatt hours each year, enough to power every home in the washing in d.c. area or three months. they failed to produce robust competition in set-top box market. less than 2% of customers have purchased a set-top box at retail. indeed the failure of the fcc policies is what riggs is here

today. as we seek to trade one complex regulatory scheme for another, we should pause and ask ourselves a simple question. with the result be any different this time around? for the sequel be any better than the original? in my judgment, the answer is no and this is for several reasons. first and foremost, the proposal is likely to produce a stalemate, not a newly competitive market. the cornerstone of the notice is that heavy reliance on open tenders bodies operating through consensus. according to the commission's proposal, the mvpds will be required to supply certain information to confirm two specification set to the standard bodies. the open standard bodies in turn would consist of members representing all stakeholders and would develop by consensus. with the consensus ever really happened? to david of fighting terror or a stick has been vigorous disagreement with video distributors and content

creators on one side and the consumer electronic industry of the other. we saw this in the downloadable security, technology at his three committee. you've seen this in the run-up to today's focus and i'm sure we will see it in the comment submitted in response to the notice. should we have confidence the open standards body will start to become harmonious after the commission issues final rule? if anything, when it's time to get down to the technical degree of implementing controversial regulations, i believe it will be harder, not easier to reach us. probably better that mark soderbergh will agree to con you must request for $1 billion. second, the problem of timing. the commission's rules will not have any impact or years. for example, the notice proposes mvpds would not implement regulations until two years after their adoption.

even if all goes according to plan in making reasonable minds doubt that it will, consumers probably wouldn't feel the effect for another three years. think about with reasoning and a dynamic video marketplace. three years ago there is no such thing as the google comcast or the amazon eire tv state. there is a time of further innovation will occur, but we know it will happen and it will happen fast. my mvpds and content creators spent years trying to implement the commission's rules, technology could render all of the work obsolete by the time it's ready to roll out. that would be a waste of time, energy and money for all involved. third, if the standard submission by the commission's proposal are ever implemented, would likely result of this consumers do it to boxes instead of one. much of the controversy surrounding the proposal has centered on whether it would

require an additional box to be deployed in american films. to be sure, but noticed is that they of so many words mvpds would be required. that is likely to be the outcome if these rules are adopted and implemented. here is why. if you carry a standards in the notice, they would likely have one of two options. first, they can make substantial changes to the network architecture or sack and could provide each customer with an additional box. during my discussions in the week leading up to the meeting, each and every company has told me it would be less expensive to deploy additional box is in the customer's homes. if the commission's proposal is implemented some of the american people what kind of pain from our boxes, not fewer. fourth, the proposal could hurt content creators. this proposal would allow manufacturers to profit from the

content produced by others without paying programmers. for example, nothing in the proposal would prevent a manufacturer from replacing the television show with that manufacturer. nothing in the proposal would prevent a manufacturer from adding commercials to a program. to be clear, we could have foreclosed possibilities. drafters of the notice could easily address content creators legitimate concerns without compromising the core of the proposal. but they did not. minority programmers are perhaps the most at risk. that might explain why a wide variety of civil rights organizations, and putting the rainbow push coalition, league of united latin american citizens, multicultural media telecom and internet council and the lgbt partnership have expressed their opposition to this proposal. that is why minority programmers are opposed to it as well. this morning i believe victor

cerda of vme tv is with us. victor is the head of vme tv, the first national spanish-language television network in the united states to partner with public television and print high quality entertainment to latino families. about with representatives of other latino organizations, mr. cerda signed a letter proposing the letter. he said that commission's proposal could lead to a new round of red eyed in which set-top box developers pick and choose whatever works to show and drop programming in the channel lineup for search results. nothing in the proposal up for addresses that can turn. taking a step back, the notice promises a lot, but it probably will not deliver much. most of what it will deliver is likely to be bad for american consumers and content creators.

none of this had to be. right now we are en route to the the first set top box altogether and that can trigger ipad or android phone into a navigation device. someone had to play doctor in the process of developing more advanced ones. the commission should be encouraging those sufferers. this proposal would do precisely the opposite. it would divert youngsters away from app development in toys to long-term file compliant with the new regulatory scheme for unwanted hardware. the notice goes further, proposing a number of regulations that discourage development and deployment. that is not what the american people want. i'm confident most consumers would rather effeminate it all together and a complex regulatory scheme that will require them to have yet another box in their home and won't take effect for at least three years.

i daresay most consumers would urge the fcc to adopt a version of the conversation in the matrix. if i may paraphrase, do not try and bend the set-top box market place. that is impossible. instead, only try to realize the truth. the truth is there raised no set-top box. then you will see it is not set-top box. only yourself. all of this might explain the bipartisan concern about the fcc's approach to the regulation. senator bill nelson, the senate committee on commerce science and transportation has told us to avoid taking any action that could ultimately threaten a vibrant market for quality video programming. a diverse group of 25 democratic representatives led by tony cárdenas has counseled saying this import for the government to not be over prescriptive in

regulation. congressman tom urbino and ted deutch have warned us that proceeding could upset the delicate system that underlies the creation, licensing and distribution of copyrighted television programming and potentially jeopardize efforts to prevent copyright infringement. representative doug collins, judy chu, lamar smith, adam schiff and mimi walters have expressed their concern over the proposal is potentially adverse impacts on minority and religious content creators. i wish the commission had listened to these voices rather than plowing ahead with a flat proposal because it does not respectfully dissent. >> commissioner riley. thank you, mr. chairman. i've spent considerable time on issues involving set-top box test experience along with serving the landscape has led me to conclude the set-top boxes are a relic of the past.

they are already well under way to the fate of the video rental store. so why in 2016 with the commission be doing a set-top box item? the idea of an agency maintaining its control by placing outdated regulations under to knowledge is unfamiliar may be on the right track. we have been subjected to extreme of the item. the propaganda is have a hard time staying on message. but this catchphrase, only papers over the destructive results to come in the video marketplace if the commission proceedings to adopt the rules presented today appeared this proposal would be harmful to some extent as well as every business involved in producing content in many predict the bold ways, not the least is the aggregate to bowl effects. it could also open networks to

vulnerabilities exposing them to damage and content theft. tickets are content producers have their rights to control the distribution and presentation of the content. they could ultimately subject to the same machine as i'll discuss later. worst of all, it was certainly devalue the content produced by programmers, large and small by enabling a new incapable of writing a compliment have to turn on a free video stream a video comment painstakingly cobbled together by mvpd at great expense. the ultimate free rider problem. mvpds, broadcasters and programmers alike would lose some incentives to keep doing what they do and some odd for this i've been saving consumers with fewer video options. the commission's response to most of these concerns boils down to trust us, you will be okay. i rather come to trust nonexistent entities like an

organization that is not affiliated with someone to come up with a system to trust open standard bodies to set up an acceptable specification for any developer to interact directly with each and 11 network. trust forces took a presentation standards and advertising attack. the item is forced onto a few detours from the past resigned to merely seek comment on such basic questions as whether licensing can ensure copy control another rights to information and adequate content protection. can it even be done? we don't know. you somehow despite all the open questions about who, how, where, when, the majority have so much faith in the ability of outside at the item tends to conclude there should be a two-year deadline for compliance with the new rules. this is regulation by peers

regulation. the statutory authority on which the fantasy rest of the only far-fetched. the section that discusses authority of a long with a testament to the level of certainty that can be achieved in four short paragraphs into defensive statutes fall down a rabbit hole into a land where words have no meaning. one attempt to enhance the competition a set-top box market, the item she smiles beyond the narrow frame on the very first page redefining to hardware such as the device. but the communication equipment to mean hardware or software including spirit i don't know how much clearer the terms device or equipment could be in their intent to reference tangible, physical hardware. if those words don't work to restrict the commission, are there any that code? cannot anyone believes for a

second bestseller could have made it out of a single congressional committee if the numbers had known it would interpreted to allow the fcc to force someone to stream to any app developer willing to jump through a few hoops. getting back to the original question why this proposal? rationale among competing interfaces. they can see the exact opposite is what would result. the free content flow would be the one way street. in order to ever have. he, in order for the interface to ever become addictive with a solution that integrates video from other services would need to be bound by the same rules and send other content for free and indeed to each other for free. i was one of the early meetings the idea was proud of. it was quickly dismissed outside

the scope of seller commissioned title vi authority. no one here is talking about making the one-way street a two-way street. or are we? as a a 3-d movies, you need to look for both red and blue sides of the classes to see the whole picture, to make any sense of the item, and must be viewed together with the other half. the commission's proposal to reclassify o. t. p. as a mvpd. if both of the mprm are logical conclusion to bear no similarities to mvpds, also offer video will be redefined by mvpds in title vi. meanwhile, all mvpds, whether existing or new limits it will be for us to provide content to each other under an sec mandated scheme of providing the free flow would only be the beginning of a new regulatory burden on

ott captured by title vi? who wins? the fcc of course. this is about trying to superimpose a 90s concept on the technology on the basic itself is no longer relevant to the innovators now available. set-top boxes or devices affect as we have overtaken by events. today's consumers want access to video over the internet-based apps. multiple sources of all of their devices without mandated set-top box machine. the marketplace is doing just fine and it somehow when it comes to subscription services to regulate interfaces.

the application economy is weakening the video package before our very eyes. many consumers are watching programming by even shorter segments. the entire video industry is moving away and as such we can reconsider the need for regulations to maintain a competitive set-top box market place. as we have seen the pursuit of the bulk of the two proposals based on our one statutory is interpretation than substantive dinner. disruptive technologies and regulations, no one can have any doubt which side i'm on. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> you know, this issue really is not complex. there is competitive navigation devices. ba bought for a nap, if there is one software, one hardware the issue is that there you are forced to rent every month after month after month or whether you are forced to rent the app month after month after month. congress is clear. they said there should be competition. technology has advanced to a point where this is possible

without changing the functioning of the pay-tv system and its copyright protection and security. whether an app or a box. in fact, what we are beginning to discuss today is something that is very similar to what the cable industry is of funds proposed. but let's take down on each of those points for a second. first of all, section 629 of the communications act here on the screen that there's no word and leaves no doubt as to our statutory responsibility. no, they didn't print shall and may in the statute. but it is clear that commission

shall. you know, we have heard some folks if you keep talking about what the congress told us to do or not to do. and suddenly reaching out to all kinds of wild, expansive suppositions. but it is 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 the information gathering process, which is why free he is disappointed that my two colleagues have made up their mind before all the facts are in an effort to meet for issues that have been identified. but let's stop for a second.

there has been a lot of talk. let's look at how this had top box works again on the screen. let's be clear there is nothing 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 is on. number two, the cable system tells the box what it was in title ii, what kind of rights the subscriber has. number three, the subscribers to the box what they want. number four, the box relays the choice that to the cable system. number five, the cable system delivers the programming.