..

as we expand broadband we can't forget low income consumers still need be able to make voice calls, specially 911 calls in event of emergency. chairman wheeler, quickly, can you explain the proposed changes are making to lifeline support for mobile voice services? >> thank you. the goal is to create a phase-in where ag come over the next thre and a half years we are moving from an all analog lifeline service to a digital lifeline service where we can take advantage of the fact that a digital voice minute costs less than an analog voice minute. and by the fact, the sheer fact

we're now delivering things digitally, gives those using their phone in your example access to the internet as well. so let me give you a specific example. we are talking about two gigabits of data being the minimum threshold in 2018 as we phase-in. two gigabits of data per the existing price would be giving the consumer access to 1700 webpages, and 900 minutes of voice talk. they are 50% of existing lifeline users use less than 100 minutes. two-thirds use less than 200 minutes. so what we are talking about here is a quantum leap in the ability to have access to

minutes, and this incredible ability to access the internet. >> commissioner clyburn, do you think you have struck the right balance? >> we are still deliberating. we are listening to parties and winding apart ex parte process. when i started on this it was a process that a lot of people did not want to take this particular journey. we are on the cusp of making change for the 39 households -- 39 million households that are eligible and am looking for to continue to work with you to make sure this program is one we can all be proud. >> okay thank you. i often speak about the need for greater access spectrum. spectrum is the invisible infrastructure that powers mobile networks. as we look ahead to 5g, networks would transport more data than ever before the wireless services also rely on wires which is one of the reasons i care about special access reform. commissioner rosenworcel, do you

agree we need a special access market so that the united states continues to lead the world in 5g? >> thank you for the question. yes, i do. and i agree with your assessment that wireless networks require wired infrastructure is a. >> thank you. i yield back. >> there something that was said earlier on the panel about in search of a problem that doesn't have a solution, or we don't need one, et cetera, et cetera, relative to set-top boxes. i just want to put this on the record. since the telecommunications act opened everything up to competition, including set-top boxes, the price of everything else has gone down 90%.

the increase of these for set-top boxes has increased by 185% -- fees. it is consumers were picking up the tab. and it is essentially a monopoly. it is essentially a monopoly. in my district, talk about boxes, they say think outside the box. we don't have any boxes. i think it's about time that in the 21st century that we really open a set-top boxes. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. olson. >> i thank the chair, and welcome to fcc commissioners. happy birthday, commissioner clyburn. >> thank you. >> did you have a chance to go by the barbecue at the south by southwest? >> no. i went to salt lick. >> you to come back.

commissioner i brought up the march madness. chairman did well. i'm a proud texan. i have to tell you the aggies from college station, texas, a&m university had the greatest comeback ever in college basketball. down 12 with 39 seconds left double overtime and they are moving on. we will play kansas, maybe houston for the final four. my first question is about privacy. on the purpose -- input from stakeholders before drafting, before come input before, there are no conclusions. the folks i work for back home say this privacy initiative, this proposed rule is full of conclusions. they say that's putting the cart before the horse. my question, arthur conclusions

in this privacy speak with their our. >> are their conclusions because yes, there are. >> there are conclusions. something like notice of intent that was passed this year? two bases conclusions about? >> there is not. >> what the are based upon include, yes, they are there, they got there, why? >> i can play the motivation for any particular conclusion. the entire reason is that the sec disrupted the work the ftc identity ftc regulated this entire ecosystem consistently for the past decade. it's incumbent upon the ftc. >> so to point in terms of cart before the horse to musical from fcc staffer working on the issue. in terms of precise information about how information is being used right now, i don't know

that we have that. we don't know what is being used by them today but we have a solution in the proposals. >> people back home say that doesn't go well, i won't say what they say back home. but one final question. has commission caught itself in a quarter work to undo these rules, communities, that's going to be hard to do, can we stop this or is it pretty much train has left the station and? >> i think unfortunately the commission is proposing to leave the station in a certain direction. not within with the american people might tell us after this document finally becomes public the agency's direction as you see is pretty clear. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> i agree it will be challenge. i suspect it will be challenged in court. barring a change in direction of commission i think -- >> they are so sick and tired of

going to court. i want to switch gears and talk about the upcoming spectrum auction in rural texas. it's one week away. i talk about this issue a lot back home with the texas association of broadcasters, and they worried about losing part of the spectrum, spectrum not incumbents a. of the towers may have to be moved or, that cost a lot of money. the fcc has not given assurance that they will be fully reimbursed especially in rural areas. the example they gave was amarillo, texas. a decent sized town about 200,000 people in the panhandle. they have nine tv stations, for spanish-language stations. they came here, that the fcc, and there were concerns basically dismissing don't worry, you will be taken care of, all will be fine.

we've got your back. that was not reassuring. does the sec have enough funds to cover rural tv stations if it to build a new tower or lose their spectrum? is their money out there to do that or is that a wishful prayer? >> i'll answer it is what i don't know the answer to that. part of it is because we have a variable and plants we don't how many people, how much spectrum we are selling. we will let the market decide some of those things through the good legislation. we don't know how many people be displaced. some of that will require a little bit of time to figure out. what i've said that i would be the first one here 1.75 is not sufficient to advocate congress reconsider this number. >> thank you. >> i would agree and just had that's one of the reasons why i've said we should treat the $1.75 billion rather than a soft suggestion. >> thank you.

>> the gentleman heels back, and with that we recognize the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you for being here today and for doing what you were doing to ensure that there's access to broadband throughout our country so that everyone can participate in 21st century economy. come november it's estimated by some othe that the will have ben spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 million on political advertising in this cycle. a lot of that is going to be spent by entities, candidates and party organizations that are required by law to disclose their donors but a significant portion will be spent by front groups that are under no requirement to disclose their donors. that's why this issue and i and our colleagues wrote to chairman wheeler asking the commission

use its authority under section 3172 require the disclosure of donors for all of these front organization ads. we wrote in january received this response data march 10 from the chairman. it's basically a thank you for writing response, something i don't think that you would believe that we would be satisfied with. while i don't think that nasa we expected you to say okay, we will do that right away. certainly expected more than this. what particularly disturbs me is that when we talk about the basis for the commission's refusal to do it is based on their definition of editorial, using standard of editorial control based on the 1979 interpretation by staff at what the standard should be for sponsoring, determine what a

sponsoring organization is a. you mention in january proceedings that you expanded the requirements to cable companies and satellite providers and so forth as if that would be satisfactory to us. personally i think there really is a further institutionalization of the deception of the american public. because the standard of editorial control is absolutely the most useless standard for the american people in trying to decide or try to determine the credibility of political advertising. i spent most of my career in media prior to coming to congress and have a look of an idea what editorial control is. in these situations these groups, america's for puppies and kittens, or americans for a brighter tomorrow, they don't have editorial control. they may be crafting a message but they don't have control of that message. so if you can imagine the

american petroleum institute, they want to form one of these fund groups and found it. can you imagine what would happen if the organization he founded americans for a brighter tomorrow, ran ads saying we need to do away with burning all fossil fuels? those ads would not say if everyone. they don't have control. they are doing what their funders want them to do. that's why this is such a deceit that has been fostered on the american people. they don't have any idea who is saying that puppies and kittens are great. until we get this kind of disclosure billions and billions of dollars will be spent to deliver it to see the american voters. and i don't understand why the commission would not at least it into a review of the standard they are using, you are using, to determine what is the most beneficial standard for deciding

what a true sponsor is. sponsor is who pays for it. and in his situation those entities that are paying for it are not willing to the public, which is why they are using the façades of their using. so in terms of the public interest come in terms of a file viral and open democracy and a transparent democracy, i would request first of all, i would reassert our request to take action, but short of that i would hope that maybe we could meet with commission staff to talk with this whole notion of editorial content and exactly what the perception is, i meet editorial control and see exactly what the perception of editor controllers. as a former editor i know who has control of the editorial process and i know who has control of the advertising process. this would be like coca-cola saying we are running an ad prosoft drink add, and you said

okay, they had to say paid for by one of the advertising agencies instead of coca-cola. so i hope you reconsider this decision and work with us as to do something that is more sensible. i yield back. >> think the judgments were yielding back. recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, chairman and thank you all for being here. i know it's like christmas day were you when you come before us. appreciate you. thanks for your service. mr. chairman, chairman wheeler, we've had conversations in the past regarding the rate regulation bill i introduced last year. at the time of our initial conversation that was concern regarding the authority your commission possesses, but chooses the forbear for the most part in regards to break regulation and i'd appreciate the forbearance for the. during the conversation we talked to the point in to statutory law phrase that would ensure yours in future commissions do not have the bill

to set up retail rates on broadband internet which i think is an important rule for congress to have a voice. but now since the time of our original conversation you along with many of our colleagues have said the bill i introduced is far greater than what it seems and that could india build of the fcc to regulate a plethora of other activities that were not in the bill. i understand those concerns and i'm willing to work with anyone that's willing to work with me to ensure that the content of the bill is before in a reasonable manner. following a number of conversations and negotiations with them on both sides of the aisle we pass would think was an excellent amendment to the bill during a recent market to ensure a number of issues brought forward by our colleagues and yourself are specifically dissented from adding or detracting from the current fcc authority. not more than a few hours after we passed that bill out of committee you in front of another committee with the same issue was brought forward. in that hearing, either transcripts actually come you

again stated we will not regulate broadband rates. again i appreciate that. eugen said he would be willing to offer your assistance to representative crenshaw and developing legislative language on this topic. more specifically agreed to provide them with language and assistance with a couple of weeks from the date of the during which was march 15. would you be willing to provide a language to our committee is completed which will be on march 29? >> yes, sir. >> i want to clear something up. in recent market on h.r. 2666 a letter from you was entered into the record in which you go to great length to explain why my bill is inconsistent with your comments before a senate appropriations committee given to him into the text of the report was originally introduced, you stated this is what we're trying to accomplish, i'm a bit confused by your letter to want to clear something up. this is just yes or no. do you believe the fcc should have the authority to regulate rates after the fact of enforcement?

>> yes, sir. what i was talking about was the question of d4 bearing come and i believe that in the open internet rule as we did we should forbear from right regulation. regulation. >> you believe you should have the authority to regulate rates come into you choose not to at this time, the commission should have that authority to be able to regulate broadband rates? >> yes, sir. it is, here's what's the concept. so for instance, chairman walden's dynamic you just referenced, the and to urge i get them when she said this will not have any impact on paper decision because obviously -- >> here -- >> the rape -- >> we are willing to work with you but what i'm kind of confused about is we went from using a we're going to forbear it to we have no intention of regulate rates on the internet, and i like the concept of what you bill is even if you don't like the details.

we are willing to work with you on the details but you're saying you disagree you should have -- >> that's what i'm trying to address. the issue of rates. for instance, as chairman walden's amendment said, well, paid a prioritization could be rates. that's not what we're talking about. throttling could be rates. we all agree we don't want to do throttling, because how do you throttle? there is a rate your pain, delivering less than the service you say you're going to offer, therefore there is a rate impact. same thing with blocking. >> a lot of details from we -- but we went from using i agree we should not regulate broadband rates do nothing we should regulate broadband rates but i will forbear it for this moment. there's detail and that's what point. we willing to work with you on a lot of these details and we're happy to do it with the other side of the i with you all, and i think that's important but

maybe we made a little headlines. commissioner pai comfortably the open internet orderlies open the bilability fcc to regular ratesn any fashion after the fact? do believe congress should act speak with yes and yes. the commitments retaken at its word that break regulation is indeed on the table. it should be that big of a lead as the president has instructed the fcc i do want the fcc to regular broadband internet access rates. that chairman says i don't want to regular broadband internet access rates. i don't have a public congress codifying that. they should not be an objection. >> that's the role of congress is to make these laws, to make these things we want our folks to live on or not live by. i guess i'm confused but important i am out of time. thank you all. things are being here. >> i recognize no ms. clark from new york. >> i thank you, mr. chairman and

i think our ranking member. a good afternoon, chairman wheeler into the entire panel of commissioners seated before us today. my time is short i want to get right to my question. mr. chairman, as you know some of my colleagues in the congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic caucus and i've express our concerns about the potential irreparable harm your this concern was expressed recently by donna kauffman, a former chief of staff to democratic fcc commissioner. and i quote, if the fcc adopts the we love proposal in a final orderlies this year it will embed a regime that creates more not fewer hurdles for smaller place, new entrants, the minority content providers.