uses of broadcast spectrum. know that we take these issues seriously and will continue to work closely with you and your team as this phase of the post auction proceeds to make sure that the intent of the law is followed and that free over the air broadcast programming is not adversely affected. i didn't thank you for your good work on the auction. i guess i'd used all the time i have. so with that i would recognize the gentleman from california for opening remarks, you can thank the chairman of the commission for the work you do and for being here today. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you and welcome back to the chairman and each of the commissioners. it's been four months since you've been here. i think that you have made optimum use of the four months since your last year because you are a series of actions that are being taken up at the commission that i think put consumers

first, strengthen competition, and advance innovation. at the top of that list is the agency's vote last month that will make it easier for consumers to buy a set-top box or an app from someone other than their cable company. is technology neutral proposal means that any company will be able to manufacture a set-top box or design an app and sell it to consumers. should a consumer wish to continue renting their set-top box from their pay-tv provider, they can. no one is going to take it away from them. i don't know if there's that much of a love affair with a set-top box i that if they wantt they can keep it. very importantly the fcc's proposal is an opportunity to enhance access to independent and minority programming giving consumers the ability to choose between set-top boxes or apps with improved search functionality and user interfaces. nearly 50 years ago the fcc took

action to give consumers choice as to whether they wanted to rent their landline telephone from ma bell. consumers not only saved money but innovation thrived in the telephone market. the sec is also busy in its efforts to modernize its lifeline program to make broadband more affordable to low income americans. this has long been the goal of a think the entire committee. certainly huge support on our side of the aisle. under the proposal to be voted on next week for the first time ever, for the first time ever low income consumers will be able to use a $9.25 per month lifeline support towards standalone broadband service. access to broadband is the 21st century's lifeline providing a pathway to jobs, education, health care in so much more.

the fcc's actions will further our nation's progress toward bridging the digital divide that has really haunted our country. we have looked for ways, talked about it, dreamed about it, hope for it. and i think that this is a major step forward of reaching the goal, the president's goal of bringing high-speed broadband to 20 million more americans by 2020. in just a matter of days the fcc will begin its first voluntary incentive spectrum auction. and with the global mobile traffic expected increase nearly eightfold, eightfold between 2015-2020, and wireless carriers taking steps to deploy 5g i think is critical to continued efforts to free up more spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed use. at the same time the fcc will take critical action at its march meeting to protect the privacy of broadband consumers.

efforts to continue to reform the special access marked. and mr. chairman, i hope this is just closed down, down, accomplished by the end of this year. transition team nextgen 911 and ensuring the internet remains open and accessible to all americans. nine of these are small tasks but taken together not only individuals but taken together i think this will leave a remarkable, on this country this commissions work or i think either i look forward to a lively discussion and questions you're going to be asked. and again thank you for being here and the work that you're doing. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the chairman of the full committee of the distinguished gentleman from michigan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to go the words for ray and i would say that with apologies to the rest of the

staff i don't know of a more professional hard-working leader than we've had in rate over the last five years. he has helped set the standard we work as a capable size of the aisle. yes, of course we disagree from time to time on certain issues but we are not disagreeable india's set the bar and we really appreciate it is very hard work and i knew about his background before. he's been an integral part in all that we have done and we all appreciate that friendship and professionalism from day one. chairman wheeler and members of the commission, welcome back. last november the house passed by voice h.r. 2583, the fcc process reform act, a testament to our bipartisan commitment to solidify the fcc as a model of openness, transparency, and collegiality. this committee has pursued fcc process reform on a bipartisan basis going back to the 112th congress and i am proud of our continued efforts to improve the function and transparency of our government.

underscoring the need for this legislation are the continued reports of process failures and divisive partisanship at the fcc. the fcc is the steward of one of the most vibrant and innovative sectors of our national economy. significant matters remain before it and the stakes are extremely high. the communications and technology sectors are among our nation's most precious economic assets, the pinnacle of innovation and something that we should rightly be proud of. given the stakes, two of the fcc's most recent proposals are cause for concern. the chairman has recently presented his colleagues with a proposal to impose new requirements on the video subscription market and a new privacy regime for internet service providers. these proposals have the potential to harm the very sectors they are attempting to preserve and stimulate. the commission should look with a skeptical eye at calls to regulate part of a market at the request of competitors. as the chairman seeks to implement what is likely the

final year of his agenda, it is no less important now that matters are addressed through a process that is open and transparent, informed through robust debate, and resolved through bipartisan compromise. these were procedures that once proudly set the fcc apart, and should be returned to. it is only through this approach that we can avoid the uncertainty and threat to and i yield. >> i appreciate the chairman for yielding and also want to thank the commission for being with us today. i'm amazed by the success of documentation the technology industry. this dynamic sector is a bright spot in our economy at the rapidly advancing evolve to meet consumer demands. it is critical that congress market its regulatory policies that impact the industry success. with that said i'm concerned

with some of the actions proposed from the commission. take fo for instance, of the set-top box notice of proposed rulemaking which speaks to replace the failed cablecard cad regime with yet another government dictated standard. when we work together to get our bill language inserted, to eliminate the integration than we intended to rid the market place of an outdated technological maybe. howevermaybe. however, rather than allowing consumer demands and competition to shape the industry, the sec is placed upon itself to inhibit the future of pay-tv with the necessary government involvement. i look for today's hearing and i will yield back to the chairman. thank you. >> i thank you, mr. chairman for yielding. we are appreciative of the commissioners time in coming here before this would get to our concerns as you've heard from some of the policies that you've move forward with. net neutrality, immiscible broadband, the actions that were

taken in north carolina and tennessee on many broadband, even doj didn't support what you are doing. we also have concerns pertaining to allvid and lessening of the protections that are there for patent holders in copyright your so lots to discuss today so we thank you for your time and your preparation in danger. i yield to mr. kramer. >> thank you for yielding and thank to all three of you. i guess i would associate myself as much of anything with the chairman of the full committee and chairman of the subcommittee and put a finer point perhaps on a set-top box rule. while i've always had concerns they have, i have a special particular concerns about its impact a disproportionate impact on smaller video providers, world data providers and a number of us are looking out for the smaller rural providers. didn't i would add one other issue and that is i continue to

hear from especially my rural telephone co-ops of call dropping issues. made after tearing somebody could look up with my staff. i'd like to get the latest from you because we just heard from tyler, there have investment is five completes the month. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield yield ba. >> and i love for a, too. i to serve as a public service commission. he was a legend then, to. >> thank the gentleman for his comments. we now go to the ranking member of the full committee, mr. pallone, of new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman and also ranking member eshoo here and thank you to all five commissioners were testifying today. anyone who thought the fcc would slow down this year certainly underestimated the agency. the commission has teed up an impressive number of important issues including incentive auction set to launch next week. the auction count as one of the most ambitious efforts the agency is ever undertaken.

the airwaves that can be freed up both licensed and unlicensed will ensure consumers feel the full power of the mobile revolution. as important as it is to help consumers of mobile services, the auction can be considered successful if it works for broadcast viewers as well. in new jersey we understand the importance of a seamless transition after the auction because disasters like hurricanes and he can strike at anytime. when they do, use depend on their local broadcasters. fortune all that is -- fcc commissioners -- did not lose signal as a result of the week packing process. that's why i crafted that you protection act together all the tools they need to keep this commitment. this bill will prevent viewers, tvs from going dark while also ensuring consumers of mobile broadband and fit from the instead of objects and possibly hurricane sandy showed the board of phones in emergency but when the hurricane hit new jersey we did not just watch our tvs or listen to radios but we also

look to our mobile phones. unfortunately, too many of those devices let us down when we needed the most. that's what i heard is to send act so we're better prepared the next time disaster strikes. ex ante act as a number of comments to improve access to communication and a disaster. ex ante act would help ensure customers of any wireless carrier can get signal even if their own carrier service goes down. no one should be left without any bars on the phone with compatible networks are working. the bill would create a database of critical personnel to keep public safety officials and the carriers in better touch during an emergency when every second counts. i've been in close contact with both chairman wheeler and the carriers chautauqua how to get thithis done and want to thank m both for taking these issues seriously. i'm optimistic we are close to a break through that will put us in a better position for when the next disaster strikes. i get i thank the chairman, the commission for being here today,

look forward to today's discussion but i have about two and half minutes left i would like to split that between mr. doyle and mr. butterfield come and yield first to mr. doyle. >> thank you. appreciate you yielding to me and want to thank the chairman for holding the hearing and to our witnesses. this is like déjà vu all over again. these guys are here all the time. but welcome back. we are glad to see you. the lifeline program connects millions around the country to the only source of communication. i just wanted to take a minute to congratulate commissioner clyburn for her leadership on this issue and efforts of the full commission to modernize this program and bring it into the 21st century. i also want to commend the commission on moving forward on broadband privacy reform. i agree that it's critical for fcc rules to be updated to suit our modern needs and that these rules recognize the privileged position isps hold in acting as gatekeepers to the rest of the internet.

so mr. chairman, that's all i have to say i will be happy to yield back to you so you can yield to our other college. >> i yield. >> thank you. oh, my god. we started out all right. i'll yield the rest of the time to muste master butterfield. >> thank you very much, mr. pallone. let it be said our colleague from pennsylvania set a record today. thank you, mike doyle. i thought you going to eat up all that time. but thank you, mr. pallone. let me begin by sharing with my colleague, thank the commissioners for their incredible work and thank you for coming today. i joined by many other colleagues in applauding the commission to extend the lifeline program to subsidize broadband services. but i'm afraid one of the unintended consequences of the current proposal would be the creation of a co-pay requirement on low income participants of lifeline as well as a phaseout of voice over. so mr. chairman, i urge the

commission to preserve and no charge option for lifeline participants who may not be able to afford even a modest co-pay, and to maintain a voice only option. it is crucial, it is crucial for lifeline beneficiaries in my congressional district and across the country that the expansion of programs to include broadband will not be at the expense of essential voice services. regarding the set-top box for postal, i'm also concerned with the potential permitted and intended consequences like many of those raised in the op-ed written by henry waxman including the ability to enforce copyright protections for content creators industry leaders as well as potential negative impact the proposal could have on diversity and inclusion of minority voices. along with other stakeholders i am concerned that the proposal could lead to a new form of digital redlining. therefore, i ask unanimous consent to include three items

into the record. very briefly the first letters addressed to chairman wheeler signed by 10 civil rights organizations urging the commission to postpone the set-top box proceeding until a steady can be conducted. second, and op-ed from our good friend henry waxman that cautions the commission to export the myriad unintended consequences that could arise from the set-top box proposal. finally, the third is a copy of comments filed by the center on budget and policy priorities which urges the commission did not require any, any cost-sharing in order to participate in the lifeline program because evidence shows that doing so would dampen low income households ability to participate. thank you -- >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman's time has expired. all time is expired for opening statements. i want to again welcome the chairman and the commissioners this morning. chairman wheeler, we will start with you this morning. welcome back and i look forward

to your comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman -- >> but we would ask you to pull the microphone pretty close. >> let me start off with a topic that means that you were addressing and that's the upcoming spectrum auction. it's only going to be a week -- >> you've got to get it really close. there you go. >> i've seldom been accused of not projecting, and i will, i will, one week from today, the green flag goes down on the consent of spectrum auction, as the committee has noted. this is the first time it's been tried in the world. this committee developed the authorizing statute, and you also been very involved in the intervening years as the pieces of the puzzle were being built. i would be terribly remiss if i didn't mention the incredible work of gary epstein against an auction task force at the fcc in

this regard. gary and howard simons along with in a posting have wrestled with issues that no one ever before has had to deal with and that brought us to the threshold of this historic auction. now, many have asked about the impacts of the d.c. circuit's decision that latino broadcasting should be provisionally certified to participate in the auction. that decision will not delay in march 29 start date are participating broadcasters to make their initial commitment. after march 29, as we always planned, the auction team will analyze the initial commitments and calculate the initial clearing target. we have said this process would take three to four weeks. the late our inclusion of latino require us to update our data files and ensure that the auction system is properly functioning with the updated

data prior to circulating the initial clearing target. staff is working through the operational effects of including like tina so that we can make those updates -- latina. but we have always planned the auction bidding in the reverse auction, will begin in may, and we still expect that will happen. insofar as the forward auction in which the wireless carriers participate, we will proceed with the previously announced schedule. there are 104 parties that have expressed interest. 50% increase over the number of qualified bidders in the record-setting west three auction to of course not all applicants may become qualified bidders but we are going to working with them and plant of a final list by april 6. the forward auction, of course will follow the close of the reverse auction. in the coming weeks we will

continue our better education and training activities so that both reverse and forward action bidders have plenty of time to become fully with the bidding systems before the respected auctions begin. we are finally at the point where we move from the theoretical to the real world your for months, various hypotheses have been put forward predicting want effect for another to happen in the auction. next week the wisdom of this committee in creating a marketplace that will begin to deliver market-driven decisions to replaceall those studies and theories with real marketplace conclusions will begin. i look forward to discussing this and other issues with you

today. but before i conclude i want to once again reiterate the need for congress to become involved in the ability of next generation 911 to protect americans. 21st century life saving is being blocked by the realities of getting beyond 20th century technology. we at the fcc have done all in our power on this topic, including convening a year-long task force to report on the challenges being faced. that report is now complete and has been submitted to this committee. we look forward to working with you on this important priority. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i now we go to ms. cliburn for your opening statement. commissioner go ahead. >> chairman walden, ranking member eshoo, distinguished members of the subcommittee, please allow me to begin by offering my thoughts and prayers to the families and victims of

this morning's attacks in brussels. i am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. competition competition competition. is a phrase we've heard chairman wheeler repeat time and time again but today i wish to present an axiom of my own. community community community. and communities across this nation either urban or suburban, rural or tribal come visit to communications divide, divide when it comes to broadband access, affordability and infrastructure and a divide when it comes to the speed necessary to take advantage of all the internet has to offer. this lack of inactivity has this advantage so many of our communities that congress and the commission why do has decided to act by taking a few simple steps to help bridge the divide. first allow me to applaud the leadership of this committee as you consider commonsense proposal to streamline a lower

cost associated with the deployment of broadband. i stand ready to work with you in support of bipartisan proposals that will speed the deployment of broadband to more americans. second, i am pleased to have worked collaboratively with my colleagues chairman wheeler and commissioner o'rielly to create a blueprint for rate of return carriers so that rural communities are not left behind. third, and this is critical. once connected, broadband service must be affordable. the commission has a statutory duty to ensure that services are affordable and that low income consumers have access to advanced services comparable to those available in urban areas. but for far too long the commission has fallen short of this directive. we have the capacity, however, to change this. that chairman has circulated an

order that if i'd opted with the lifeline on the soundness splitting of all for universal service programs. the proposal seeks to achieve this by declining support to providers and list a neutral third party has determined that a household is eligible, eliminating duplicates, and requiring minimum standards. my office has been inundated with concerns about the call for minimum standards, particularly for mobile voice. but the strongest part of the fcc's process, one that is the envy of regulators from across the globe, is that our process enables parties to give and receive feedback. if party believe that the current proposal does not strike the right balance, i have been clear from the beginning i am open to taking and making appropriate adjustments, and i plan to live up to that promise. i am committed to providing qualified lifeline consumers

with choice and competitive 21st century options. and i'm committed to addressing those outstanding concerns that reflect the input of our state regulatory partners as well as those forward-looking providers who are engaged and committed to real reform. finally, i am excited about the possibilities of 5g and its ability to fundamentally transform the way we live and interact with each other. i believe that the best way to deploy spectrum and the infrastructure required to deploy those 5g services before the industries to talk with local governments and communities, for them to find out what the specific needs of the committees are and coordinate with on how a 5g future can actually help those communities address their short and long-term needs. working together on these and other initiatives will bring communities closer together, ensuring that they are better

connected and ready for the challenges facing them. thank you did for the opportunity to speak with you this morning, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have. >> we appreciate your service on the commission and your comments this money. not go to commissioner rosenworcel. good morning, welcome the we are to lead her to help you and please go ahead with your testimony. >> good morning chairman walden, ranking member eshoo and members of the committee. thank you for having me here today and let me add my best wishes of course to ray baum. last week had the privilege of speaking at austin, texas, at south by wes. it's a festival for the connected, a place to get a glimpse of the future from virtual reality to robotics. it's all there on the streets of austin. last week i spent time in california in a rural farming community in the coachella valley. it's a place where most roads leads to fields but were broadband has to make its way to most households.

i can say with confidence i'm probably the only person who is in both of those communities last week, but as dissimilar as they seem, there's something in common. they both know that the future lies in connectivity. they both know that access to modern communications is no longer a luxury. it is where we create. it is where we innovate. it is a necessity for full participation in civic and commercial life. expanding this access is front and center at the fcc. we are sure to begin work on the world's first spectrum and same option. we will have work to do to we packed our nation's broadcasters they were updating are universal service policies and we are exploring spectrum frontiers for 5g wireless service. but i want to focus on two things we can do right now that will make a difference for the least connected and those connected among us. we can make more space for wi-fi and we can help bridge the homework gap.

first up, wi-fi. the 2.4 dig averts band or wi-fi makes its primary home is getting mighty crowded. the demand for five gigahertz wi-fi is also growing. so before you overwhelm wi-fi as we know what we need more efforts to secure more unlicensed spectrum. there's no shortage of reasons why this is a good idea. wi-fi democratizes internet access. it helps wireless carriers manage their networks for the offloading of traffic. it encourages permission list innovation just like what i saw all last week on the streets of austin. it is responsible for more than $140 billion in economic activity every year. but historically the legislative process has overlooked the valley of unlicensed spectrum because it gets low marks in the scarring process at the congressional budget office. yet this accounting misses the mark. it's outdated.

because the broader benefits of unlicensed spectrum to the economy are so great. so in any effort to increase the licensed spectrum pipeline, we need to explore a cut for unlicensed. call it the wi-fi dividend. right now at the sec with a golden opportunity for a wi-fi dividend in the upper portion of the five gigahertz band. we have a consensus framework for testing this for unlicensed use but also protecting incumbent efforts to use it for vehicle safety. we need to work now with our colleagues at the department of transportation and the department of commerce, and get this testing underway. we also unlicensed opportunities in the guard bands in a 600 megahertz band and millimeter wave spectrum at 64-said he would gigahertz. we need to seize all of them. second, i want to talk about another issue that matters for the future of connectivity. that's the homework gap. today roughly seven in 10

teachers assign homework that requires access to the internet. but sec data suggest as many as one in three households in this country do not subscribe to broadband service. so think about those numbers and where the overlap. that's what i call the homework gap. so if you are a student and a household without broadband, just getting homework done is hard. applying for a scholarship is challenging. and while some students may have access to a smart phone, let me submit to you got a phone is just not how you want to research and type a paper cup apply for jobs or further your education. .. they are using it on school buses and turning them into connect the time for homework.

that's more can be done and modernizing the lifeline program to support access to households with school age children is critical and the sooner we act, the sooner we bridge the gap and give a fair shot at 21st century success. thank you. >> now we will go to the commissioner. the latest to have you before the panel area please go ahead. >> ranking members of the committee and the thank you for holding this hearing and giving me the opportunity to testify. i would like to focus on two issues the subcommittee has led and where the fcc is falling behind. the process reform and broadband deployment. i want to begin by thinking of the subcommittee thanking the subcommittee for its focus on the process reform. the agency is at its best when it operates in a bipartisan, collaborative and trends. manner. unfortunately it hasn't lived up

to that standard recently. first it continues to be run in a partisan fashion. december 2013 there've been 20 separate party line votes at the meetings that's twice as many as under the chairman martin, jankowski and cliburn combined. second, collaboration has fallen by the wayside. through my first 18 months on the job that but chairman and the chairwoman led us to the consensus of 89.5% of the time on the meeting items. over the past two years it's dropped precipitously to 56.4%. reflecting the shift to chairman shares nonpublic information in the press and select outside parties while leaving the commissioners in the dark. two weeks ago the leadership showed the chairman's lifeline proposal with "the new york times" and promoted it on a call with reporters before sharing it with my office. that's hardly an opening for the good faith collaboration.

third, they continue to shun transparency. just last week the office denied the request for me and the commissioner to release the rate of return plan before we vote even though the commissioner helped write it and advocates told us it is a sensual to see the written words on the page to understand the actual effectiveness of the reforms were to take the idea of being transparent with our enforcement process they've had success in recent years proposing headlining signs that its follow-through has been a dismal. since 2011, the fcc proposed $374 million but it has collected only 7.8 million. that is a 2% recovery rate only with additional transparency can the public in the subcommittee hold them accountable for this

colossal failure. now none of this has to be this way. when i testified a year ago there was agreement that the fcc process was broken area to the chairman acknowledged that legitimate issues had been raised and announced the process task force. i took this seriously and suggested reforms aimed among other things i suggested they provide final versions of the order in the sixth time before we vote. i proposed every commissioner respond and suggested every commissioner provide his or her input by the date certain but after participating in dozens of meetings, the task force has accomplished nothing. not a single reform has been made. the task force has proven that the agency is doing something on the process reform and enhance the legislation and oversight aren't required but at this

point the only way to ensure that meaningful process reform is through legislation and vigorous oversight. i want to turn next to the topic of broadband deployment and salute their leadership in this area. for its part there is more they can and should be doing. on the spectrum we need to open up the van to the license innovation as the ranking member and i called for in the joint op-ed. we need to move forward with another spectrum and launch the rulemaking to study the spectrum above 95 gigahertz. on the wireline infrastructure side we must continue to the pole attachments. let's reduce the cost utilities charge of the service providers for preparing the polls and conduit. these costs are a major barrier to the competitive entry into the subcommittee targeted them for the reform. let's exclude the capital costs

whenestablishing the attachment rate this would reduce broadband prices into spur deployment and let's start adjudicating attachment disputes with dispatch although there's a special docket for the cases, complaints tend to languish we have three from 2014 and two from 2015 still pending. we need to be at adjudicating those for weeks not years. chairman, ranking member of the subcommittee thank you once again for holding this hearing. we look forward to answering questions and working to ensure a better future for all americans and in particular the kansas jayhawks. [laughter] >> that last point kind of got slipped in there. [laughter] speaking of which, chairman, i didn't see ohio state, but the docs are certainly there. can i do that question?

we have a long way to go anyway back to football. now if we go to commissioner o'reilly. set us back on course. [laughter] >> i don't think your microphone is on. >> thank you numbers of the subcommittee for the honor of appearing before you today. he knows my thoughts about him as well. let me start with the issue of the process reform as my colleague did i find it necessary to reiterate my efforts are not about undermining the chairmanship as i previously stated even if every one of my proposals were adopted the chairman would still control the agenda and win every vote. this isn't a response to the outcome of net neutrality. they existed prior to that item and remain today. my efforts attempt to an and powered the public to engage to a fair process rather than one to ensure that only the right insiders at information and can influence outcomes.

at the same time we must ensure the rights of commissioners are not overrun by the chairman and the bureaucracy. take for example the rules prohibiting all employees from releasing on information about the proceedings. it sounds noble until you realize the current practice prevents testing ideas andativeo consider an issue and moreover it is being applied in the discomfort manner to ensure the staff can push selected information to favor the party's where the commissioners remain muzzled. as for the process review task force it's important for the subcommittee to realize what is occurring. the chairman can do for the body three times last year and essentially set up my ideas were legitimate and he would consider each one pretty task force. the reality is one year later it's shown its purpose to diffuse the debate and deflect legislation in congress. just friday, ironically the last day of the so-called sunshine

week the message was delivered to the general council chairman and other majority commissioners objected to almost each and every idea that i raised. my proposals to beefing up provided a check for the delegated authority is being taken too far. they represent the points when allowing outside witnesses and meetings or give the public more information about proposals considered or denied. they were even unwilling to agree to the currencies as holding off on the press rollout until the item has been circulated it to the commissioners. all the leadership team can achieve to do is setting expectations for timelines to oppose the proposed edits on the internal e-mail chains. this demonstrates there is no intention of any changes & the congressional directives that would improve the ability of americans to participate in the government. to the extent the subcommittee needs areas to review and i want

to observe the office has turned from the office focused on providing the analysis and defending the commission items before the courts into what it beliefs is a fixed commissioner with the ability to supersede the due. this is harmful to the institutions and will ensure impartiality and the rule of law are forever limited to the realm of the secondary considerations. i applaud the subcommittee for its efforts to increase the amount of the spectrum and remove barriers to deployment of the facilities. part of my intention is focusing the ways for the next generation of networks accordingly all potential bans should be considered simple and adopted to ensure maximum investment innovation. the commission also appears on track to meet the commitments to provide further relief from more to be done for the deployment namely the decade of twilight

review and the localities to hinder the citing. we must increase the efforts to open up the van for the unlicensed use of combining the frequencies with adjacent spectrum to permit increased throughput speed and capacity. it is not my intention to undermine the dedicated short range communications and sharing can occur without the safety of life applications. thank you very much mr. chairman. >> thank you and we appreciate the testimony of the members and the chairman. commissioner, i have several questions about the privacy that you are considering. press reports indicate the predicate is an assumption that they have unique access to the data requiring regulation. is this true? >> under the current rules i am prohibited from disclosing that.

the chairman of the particular details of the proposal unless the chairman x. expressly authorizes it. >> seriously, you can't even disclose to us? >> under the current rules, that is correct. >> can you address this? i'm confused why they are not allowed to answer questions on what is in the privacy proposal. you circulated that i understand you and your immediate team and others are free to speak. this to me is an issue i know it's running that way but it seems peculiar that the other commissioners can't comment but you can. can you address this? >> i don't think i heard the commissioner answer the question you asked him which is is there a difference between the data?

answering that question has nothing to do with what any specific paragraph of the proposal might say. there is a full throated already discussion about these kind of concepts but which don't translate to the specific language and with respect, sir, noticed the proposed rulemaking is very specific and the reason you have the proposed rulemaking is a specific language can be put out so that it can be commented on by the public to have a full voiced debates on the language of the item. it is intriguing and

disheartening to me that the chairman can propose something and talk about something. i'm not picking on you but the way the system works if i proposed the bill circulated on all of us and then my friend is prohibited from communicating publicly and i think that you would have a different view of the process. if that's not a is that not a corollary that that is what happens? the chairman takes him out of it and any chairman can propose something that chairman or chairwoman can comment on as an item but you as the commissioner can't? >> that's right it is a bizarre state of affairs we have to pass something before the american public is allowed to see it with a narrow exception of the chair man and his staff to push out the fact sheets and other vice push their agenda before they have a chance to terminate it.

>> i've written about this and i believe the chair man has an opportunity to write a simple letter and authorize all commissioners to speak as needed in any item through the end of the tenure he's declined to do that so far serious >> have others done that? >> they've provided more specifics about what i am suggesting is the current process is simply broken. i don't know if the chairman provided such as my colleague where you are getting the blog and the press rollout. >> you are prohibited from commenting. >> i am prohibited from correcting the fact sheets. i know you think it's going this way but actually that's not true. i'm not allowed to tell them i read the item and that's not right. >> this flies in the face of the open and transparent government

and needs to change and i would hope that you would take the comments to heart. i don't know if we have to pass something or watch, but that this is 2016 it isn't 1816. we want an open and transparent process the public can comment. we do it or we try to buy paying bills out for discussion made available and everybody has a chance. i want to ask one other question in the seven seconds i have left. the quadrennial review of the bright cast ownership rules, i know you've had a lot on your plate and i've commended you for the work of the auction. but this is a burr under the saddle eight years late. what is it going to take? >> you will get it done so it's

going to be done this time? i'm going to put on the floor. >> my time is expired. we will now go to the ranking member on the subcommittee for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we have got some huge issues before it, so i want to go through three of them. copyright. this all has to do with the desktop box proposal to the issue of privacy and the issue of impact on the minorities, both from the professional side and from the consumer side. first on copyright. copyright is important to all of us. we know that it is both the

lifeblood of the industry and they depend on us being protected. there are critics in all of this and that's not a surprise when a major shift is proposed. it's for a 20 billion-dollar a year income, so of course people are going to fight very hard because there is a lot of money on the table. but on the issue of copyright, does anything about this arrangement and the proposal change under your proposed rules relative to the copyright? >> the answer is no. let me excerpt paragraph 71 of the proposal.

to achieve the mandate by the regulations they must ensure that the patient devices have content protection that protects the content from theft, piracy and hacking to not impede or impair the delivery of services who goes on beyond that. but the fact of the matter is that we have specified the copyright protection is essential and can be maintained and i would submit that there are tens of millions of examples called iphone's, ipad where the copyright protection has been maintained through the set-top box activities. >> do they give away any unpaid rights to distribute video programming? >> no.

>> are there additions to the copy or is it the same set of principles and rules that apply to a? >> we took the language from the current cable card license which has been successful. >> to the issue of the minority focused programming, but critics allege the essence of the proposed rule and you know this limits the availability of the minority programming and contests. now, robert johnson and members have a copy and i think it's an important letter to read it i would've to into what to ask for unanimous consent for mr. johnson for a letter. thank you very much.

now, why is this issue even being raised? there is a wreck or under what we are operating now because cable companies have moved that he wager pace. there are two or three large cable companies effectively determining today the american public sees it how they see it so i don't know why there is a defensive of this abysmal record if we have an opportunity to open up new doors for the diverse programming. do you want to respond to this? >> there are four families.

the interesting thing to do. thank you mr. chairman i first wanted to raise an issue regarding the consortium of schools in tennessee with millions of dollars into funding for the portion of the rules

that may be detrimentally impacted in the school districts that stand for the denial and the education opportunities [inaudible] for very long and mr. chairman, the tennessee delegation wrote the fcc last year and received a response on july 21, 2015. we appreciate that. i understand that needs to be a thorough watchdog of the tax payer dollars and that the commissioner is not yet in that position to the position to offer an opinion on the merits of the review and you have noted that in your response to it. however i am concerned about the amount of time that the process

has taken. and i know you also expressed that concern in the reply and i will just say that we look forward to working with you to find a resolution to this. commissioner o'reilly, i want to thank you for your letter. it was your statement of dissent on the choices in the issue and i agree with you that it is regulation by speculation. and mr. chairman, you just said that hundreds are seeking a way to get on talking about some of the independent producers and content producers seeking an avenue for the content they produce. and i have to tell you you don't create a call opportunity by not paying people for what they have

created. chairman, coming to you, i don't have to tell you a lot of my content producers that are there in tennessee, they are very concerned about the set-top box proposal and about honoring copyrights. the text of the proposal is something that has caused them tremendous concern and they talk about it and they bring it up to me. the chairman said we are going to honor those copyright laws but then they are reading this and saying i don't know how this matches because it would mandate that they send over all the programming, the pay tv providers license allowing third parties to use that without obtaining the permission of the copyright holders of compensating them.

one of the concerns is the way that the proposal explicitly declines to prohibit them from replacing or altering advertising or manipulating the content. i would like for you to respond to meet dozens of received the authority and create conflict between the commission regulations and copyright and contract law. >> ibb that does and your constituents are not alone. one of the notable proceedings we heard from the 80s minority provided these minority programmers, networks like innovation and minority advocates, both members of this body, members of the congressional black caucus who told us this october as the legitimate intellectual property rates of content creators that they had in the creations. >> thank you for that. i would hope the commission will look very closely with some of

these innovators and content creators are pushing for in the marketplace and protecting their copyright law. to do this where you are looking at the set-top box proposal that's out there i think is a dangerous step. it diminishes the value of content. it diminishes the ability of those that have created this to be appropriately paid, it undercuts and undermines the contra law. and for people that are innovating in this space as we have more delivery avenues that are opening up to us, i think that the proposal that is out there is a dangerous proposal when it comes to the validity and value of contracts and i yield back. >> the time is expired. we will now go to the ranking member of the committee for five minutes.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to publicly thank you for coming up to my district righty for that last major snowstorm to discuss the act and how to improve communications during disasters. one idea we had coming out of the discussions is whether we could take a city in the area impacted by sandy where we could work with the industry and government officials to develop best practices that could be used across the country so i wanted to ask if you think that that would be a worthwhile experiment. >> i've been in your district just after hurricane sandy and now i can say that i've been there just before the snowstorm so i know that mother nature's raft with some resiliency. and by preparing for the worst we can take those best practices from new jersey and export them all around the country.

i want to thank you for leadership and addressing the spike in the radio stations. the last time you were here we talked about how this was an important issue and i was hoping to be able to introduce a bill that would put a stop to these signals. i know you have a background in crafting legislation. do you have any suggestions for what to include in the bill like that? >> one of the things the chairman has been gracious facilitating getting to the money side of the equation how do we dry up money for the pirate radio broadcasters and i think that is something we can focus on the legislation and working with the staff to try to target how to get at the money apart and we have people that are advertising and we have political venues that are advertising to go after the money side but i want to be careful on that and i want to

make sure that it is targeted us that we don't corrupt or those that are trying to do the job at the building owners and renters we want to go through those that are facilitating not those that may have provided -- the viewer protection act. we want to know how many broadcasters need to be repacked i think that it would be helpful for us all to better understand the schedule for the option going forward.

we need to know how many will be repacked. we don't know yet it depends on where we find out where we are sorting through all of the data to come up with. how long it lasts after that is a function of the marketplace. it's not in control of the mission and i think that we are looking at if we start in the early football season.

the chairman yields back and recognizes the gentleman from texas. so far no one is asking about the budget which is why we are here. my question is extremely serious we had three explosions rocked the brussels airport metro station. reading at least 26 people have been killed. there were over 100 that have been injured.

but the committee can do in conjunction with the fcc to try to counter these terrorist attacks in the way they use the internet to broadcast the terrorism. have you looked at this before the committee ended so, do you have any recommendations for the committee? and i want to be clear i'm not trying to ask them to shut down the internet, but i do think that in an open society, you can strike a balance between

openness and protecting the public good. so, i'm going to ask a question to the chairman, but if other commissioners want to chime in, you are welcome to. >> thank you mr. barton. yes, this is a tragic time and a terribly serious issue. the congress has said to the fcc hour responsibility, and i use that word, not just our authority but our responsibility is to make sure that in the networks we regulate, there is the equipment to carry out the intercepts. that is the definition but congress has that congress has given us and the scope of our

authority. the question of the intercept is something that is beyond the statutory authority that you have given us. the discussion that we had last time was that it's up to congress to make the determination as to what is the scope of the intercept. but i will assure you that we will fully take the steps necessary to ensure that the equipment that is required to be able to make that intercept is in place. >> any other commissioners want to comment? okay. something a little bit more mundane. this issue of the set top box as the chairman alluded to and

congresswoman blackburn eluded to, i am the chairman of the privacy caucus in the house and there is a concern that you're going to make it possible perhaps inadvertently to allow the collection of large amounts of data, perhaps even mega data without the consent or knowledge of the customer, of the client. mr. chairman, you were not real forthcoming to the subcommittee chairman. can you at least acknowledge it is -- you and we have to be very cognizant to try to whatever the commission does protect the legitimate privacy rights of the

individual? >> without a doubt and let me see if i can be specific on this because if you say that i wasn't specific enough. >> section 631 establishes privacy expectations on cable operators and satellite providers. and they then have that relationship with folks that they are now working with to say you will maintain the same kind of privacy protections that we do. and what we are saying is that any competitive set top box has to be able to make the same kind of assurances and that if those

assurances are not made that the cable operator then doesn't have to do business with that box, and just like smart tvs and tablets and smart phones all have the same kind of ability to collect information and have the ftc oversight, but if the protections we put in place are still not sufficient, that the ftc has the authority to do something as recently as last week as they intended. >> my time is expired. thank you mr. chairman. we will turn to the gentleman from pennsylvania for a question. >> i want to thank you for your leadership on special access and advancing this issue through the process.

it's critical that we get this right and we get this done. i would only ask that as you work through the issue would be sensitive to the harm that is being done at this moment to the competition across the country and that as they precede you keep in mind that this is an ongoing issue that isn't only hurting the competitors but for consumers as well. with regards to the lifeline as you move forward, we've asked you to be mindful and ensure that low income americans can still use this program with no additional costs. opening up the program to more competition and enabling participants to choose how they use their subsidy is great but i would ask you to take particular care to ensure that the options remain available and enough flexibility exists in the program so that people don't lose their access to this critical resource. with regards to privacy, thank

you again for moving forward on this issue. i was happy to see the commission take action in order to prohibit as well as the enforcement action that took on the same issue however i must say i was disappointed to not see a prohibition on the deep pocket inspection or the proposal to prohibit companies from manipulating consumers into giving up their privacy for the discount on their bills. it shouldn't be a luxury for the few that can afford it so as you move forward in this proceeding i would ask the commission to ensure it's not enabling them to charge consumers for their own privacy and finally, on the rating i remain concerned about the rating in the marketplace. studies have shown consumers by far consume the apps and services when faced with the expense of the data caps. this gives a natural advantage in the marketplace and enables them to choose the winners and losers. i don't think that we need a

blanket ban on the rating but when they rape their own and are anticompetitive, consumers are being harmed so i would ask the chairman to encourage you to take action to police these programs. i went through all those quickly to give you some time. q. and the commissioner said quite a few things today that i think might have hurt your feelings. [laughter] and i want to give you the opportunity to maybe comment on your stewardship of the commission and also there seems to be a disagreement here on whether or not to the issue of the set top boxes that the copyright is being protected and that whether it is true that people can take other people's content and not pay for it. so in the remaining two minutes and 26 seconds the floor is yours. >> let me see if i can go through a couple. number one, on the copyright

issue. there are today the equivalent for instance google chrome. a lot of things we hear about this commits the plan to take over cable tv. google from attaches to allow you to get things off the web and does not violate copyright, does not overlay commercials, does not do all the horrible things everybody said that a box like that would do. so because the copyright law is sacrosanct. the second thing i think people would go crazy if something like that happened, so that is the copyright issue. second, on the process issue.

there is an interesting dichotomy of criticism we have heard this morning. one is that we have been operating in a unilateral fashion and not being collegial. the second is that the collegial efforts that we have had to address in the process that happened resulted in a consensus being built are somehow the witness of a nefarious intent. i find those to be in conflict. and the other issues that you list you are right. we have to make sure that the lifeline is updated and that it is available.

the fascinating thing, the key thing here is that digital is cheaper than analog voice. you notice that every single consumer who signs up to the service which is 80 some percent of americans get free unlimited voice? but if you are a poor person, we are limiting what you can do and saying you can't have access to your going to stick you in this analog world and that's one of the things we will take on. >> i'm glad your feelings were not hurt. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> the gentleman's time has expired and we will now recognize from ohio. >> to the commission thank you for being here today and oddly

enough, commissioner, i'm going to be talking to you and asking questions about the set top box and things like something that's been discussed quite a bit this morning as you know the congressman and i were able to secure language for the innovation band to read the marketplace in the outdated technology and to foster competition and innovation. they are now contemplating mandates that would lead bold page to through the open through you know this will bring us back to the problems of the higher cost of consumers and the devices in higher energy costs as well and in the committee room where we are having the secretaries of energy before she said that about the higher energy cost. you stated that they should be seeking a solution which i think is the future of the paid tv. does the proposal that was put forth through the downloadable

security technical advisory committee gets the consumers to the box plus world and let me ask you also as you answer that question what we are looking at in the proposal, are we going forward, backwards, staying static and i think what the consumers want to know is where we are going to be in ten years and not where we were ten years ago. >> thank you mr. congressman. the best way to tackle the second question first to encapsulate what the approach has been his back to the future instead of moving to the world where consumers can finally freed themselves of this expensive equipment that consumes a lot of energy and doesn't provide the functionality they want they are doubling down on the technology that is essentially going to force the cable operators and the like to do one of two things. number one either reengineer the network.

reengineering the network is expensive compared to supplying the second box that isn't what the consumers want to do so i would hope they would key up in the full and fair a full and fair manner and the other proposal that the downloadable security technology advisory committee proposed to be clear the majority approach was to have the technology embraced yet again that the other one was an apt-based approach and instead there is a very slanted discussion and a document asking why the approach would enter the description in america and all things bad and i think that if we than embrace this in a full and fair manner and allow the american people to comment we wouldn't be in the situation that we are in where they said at the 20th century solution to the problems of the markets already solved.

the natural inclination has been to resolve problems that don't exist but second, there is a recognition among some people that the marketplace hasn't developed as expected and i completely agree with them the reason is the reason it's the creation of a 20 year regulatory framework and i would submit the technical mandates and the micromanagement isn't the way to get us to the next stage of the digital video revolution instead we should embrace the more consumer friendly approach for example and let the marketplace develop to be free from some of these regulations are simply holding us back. the set top box isn't the way that my kids aren't going to know to nobody set top box or some of the other equipment is. what they will be familiar with his accessing the device they want using other devices that they want. that is the future, not the 1990s. >> i've introduced a bill that

allowed them to conduct a cost-benefit analysis at the time of the proposed rulemaking and it's the time of the final rule issued. i think it's important for the commission to have a better understanding of the impact of the fcc rules. did the commission completed cost-benefit analysis of the rule? >> i think frankly if you objectively tallied up the possible costs and benefits. to recognize the jungle jump line from iowa mr. loebsack.

>> i was thinking i wasn't going to go for a little bit yet but thanks to all of you for being here. i really appreciate this conversation. i was going to ask about the set top box but i'm going to skip over that it's been covered exhaustively. i am all for the jayhawks but hopefully the cyclones will do well as well. i did speak to the former congressman about these issues. but at any rate, i know that you are all concerned about the rural broadband but thank you for your tremendous efforts and on the front i look forward to seeing you at some point down the road as well where we can chat with some of our folks in iowa particularly who are concerned about this, so thank you. what i would like to do is first ask the chairman of out of the enhanced transparency issue

having to do with broadband development. in a particular word order that was out there and i worked with the chairman walden and other members recently. they really can in fact expand the broadband capability to as many folks as possible and we are hopeful the senate will take this up and the president will find whatever legislation comes out of this. but if that isn't the case, might it be true that the fcc does intend to further exempt providers from the enhanced transparency rules?

>> we have exempted them and we recently extended that exemption. there's been a lot of talk about the transparency processing everything here. it is inappropriate for me to sit here and say yes we will go through the process. we will build the appropriate cracker. to be clear of what we have done so far. >> there is that bipartisan support to the extent. do any others many others want to comment on that particular issue? attaching those particular carriers i was pushed for them being exempted while we review that to see if the impact is in

proportion with the capacity. >> also, on the incentive option, regarding the upcoming auction itself, i am concerned about the impact that the fcc repacking plant might have on the broadcasters and viewers in rural america as you might imagine. if the fcc implements the regional repacking plan will those like iowa be packed last because there is less of a spectrum crunch and a if so will they have as much time to transition in areas where there is a spectrum crunch i am concerned that there is a 39 month deadline to transition and whether the broadcasters may not be able to start right away. can you address that issue x. >> this is one of the reasons we have now as the chair indicated the gun to pick it to okay what happens after the option. everybody auction. everybody is thinking about the

bid, but then you have to implement it. and we are putting together a team that will deal with that question. one of the proposals on the question right now is a regional repacking plant. we haven't yet made a decision on that. there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances that exist. it doesn't make sense to have the limited access of the folks raising feathering to do things. we have to be able to manage that appropriately. and to deal with the kind of issues that you raised. i can't sit here and say we have the right to not answer but i can say yes, we are on top of that. >> as you can see the theme to my questions here but i know that a lot of folks on the panel and on the committee have the same concerns that i do on a bipartisan basis and that's why i've raised those issues.

i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you mr. chair. it's been a good hearing. i think we talked about a broad range of different issues that you are all dealing with. i have to, one has already been asked so that will save a little bit of time. in the country right now, there is a revolt brewing, and i attributed to a couple of things. one thing that i attributed to is an understanding of the legislative activities of passing the bill and then the bill being signed into law. also understanding the executive branch is defined by the constitution to enforce those laws. so, when we see the duly passed statutes in the law, then an

agency disregards that, that is kind of leading to this revolt and frustration. and i just came from a primary so i was with the public 24/7 for two months and it is visceral and it's real. so, this is an example that spreads across the agencies not just here. so, we passed the bill signed into law on the joint service agreements that are then deleted it for ten years. there were not exceptions included. justice at all -- it said all. i was shocked to see the

chairman's office forcing parties to eliminate through the merger review. how is this not an example of the frustration out in america of an agency disregarding the statute of the law and congressional intent. can you comment on that? >> thank you for the question. i think it is an example of the agency's disrespect for the rule. it is rare that it reaches a bipartisan agreement on anything that in december of 2015 as a unified voice in congress and the president instructed the agency to grandfather existing joint sales agreement between certain broadcast tv stations and they simply thumbed its nose at the statutory command in order the unwinding of certain agreements including the one in my home state of kansas which provided the only only spanish language news spanish-language news in the state that's remarkable for two reasons. its diverse programming that i

can benefit and also contradicts it expresses commitment to the congress of the leadership last year that there is nothing in what we are doing that would make that go away. including charles schumer and others they told the agency that it was bypassing the the congressional wealth and ignoring the concerns by forging ahead with this path so if they can't be constrained by law and it's pretty much one individual or the majority of commissioners in any given point in time and that isn't how i think that the agency should operate under any leadership. >> commissioner o'reilly? >> i agree and i would take it to another example that talks about the set-top box. but if you look at the statute,

if the commission is taking this beyond through applications and it says that converter boxes and equipment and other equipment and get we are taking it to applications first we take equipment to interpret the software then it goes to applications to the applications have nothing to do with the set-top box that would be covered by the rules. >> i would call on the commissioners to disregard the chairman's edict. and if the chairman can speak to people any place, anytime on

something coming down, i would challenge you. i did some research. no one has done that yet, but by followly, if there's ever -- by golly, if there's ever a time to fight for transparency in the rule of law, it's now, it's in this environment, and i would encourage you to do that, and i yield back my time. >> now recognize the gentlelady from colorado, ms. degette. >> thank you so much. as a former constitutional lawyer, i was really quite displayed to hear commissioner pai's testimony about that the commission beers are prohibited -- commissioners are prohibited from commenting on future rules. and, chairman wheeler, when someone asked you that question, i didn't quite get the answer. i'm going to ask you a series of questions, and i'd like you to help me clarify this. under the current rules of the fcc, commissioners are prohibited from releasing the language of pending rules until they're voted on in the

proceedings, is that right? >> yes, ma'am, for the final vote. but on anprm -- >> yeah. >> one of the things we have done -- >> so, okay. >> we put out the draft language. >> so you put out draft language, is that correct? >> the notice of proposed rule rule makings that we vote on always include in them a rebuttal presumption, here is what we are proposing in terms of specific language. >> okay, stop. >> so we can have the kind of debate we've had today. >> stop. >> yes. >> now, so you do put out proposed language -- >> yes, ma'am. >> in the notice of proposed rulemaking. then you debate on it and you vote on it. >> yes, ma'am. >> and then the rule is released, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> now, do you have a prohibition on commissioners talking about the proposed rules in advance of the vote?

yes or no will work. >> no. >> thank you. >> because, and we have these discussions. speeches, blogs, i mean, as a person who spent 30 years practicing before the commission, i can assure you that throughout history there has been an ongoing dialogue where commissioners have been speaking out, speaking publicly, talking to the various parties. >> so, so under your leadership what you're saying is that, that when there's a proposed rulemaking, commissioners are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights and speak about the pending proceedings, correct? >> i'm saying that nothing has changed -- >> you just answer my question? [laughter] >> i'm sorry. would you -- >> yes. are commissioners allowed to speak publicly about proposed rule makings? >> they are allowed to speak about the substance of the rulemaking. >> right. right. >> the rule that they keep

citing goes to can they take the specific language -- >> right. >> -- and circulate it. >> right. see, that's what i'm trying to help you get out. >> okay. >> so they can talk about the proposed rulemaking -- >> yes, ma'am. >> but they're not allowed to release the underlying language while it's still under consideration. is that correct? >> other than the proposed rulemaking where it is -- >> and what is the rationale for doing that? >> it has always been that way, ma'am. >> and what's the rationale? >> i believe the rationale is in order to facilitate deliberation amongst the commissioners. >> great. thank you. that's all i was trying to ask you. now, commissioner clyburn, in your written testimony you mentioned interest in how the broadband can play a role in health care outcomes. and as you might know, chairman upton and i and the whole rest of the energy and commerce committee are working on 21st century cures. a lot of this pill relies on -- this bill relies on expansion of

the ability to collect data and then to aggregate that data in clinical trials. and so i just, i just wanted to let you know that i think what you're talking about is really important, and i think we need to be working together to make sure that we can get these benefits all around the country, because part of the whole process with this big data and health care research is to get a much bigger or diversity both geographically and ethnically of people who are involved in clinical trials. so i'd like to be able to work with you going forward to making sure that we can achieve these ends. >> absolutely. we have a connected health task force, and we look forward to working with your office to realize the potential that health and technology, that marriage, would bring. >> thanks. so, you know, i've got a few seconds left. let me just go back to what i was talking to chairman wheeler about, because what i was trying to get out of him is this.

once it was explained to me, i can see a real reason why you'd want the proposed actual language of the proposed rules to be handled through the chairman's office. and you'd want to have people be able to talk internally about that, and you wouldn't want people just releasing bits and pieces of that language. but i also -- so i agree with that. but i also think it's important that the commissioners can exercise their first amendment rights without releasing that language. and i think that's what's happening now. so i think we just need to, everybody, take a deep breath and step back and try to have a little bit more comity on the whole commission. >> i apolo -- >> yield back. >> thank the gentlewoman for yielding back. i now recognize mr. lance from new jersey. >> thank you. and i also practice constitutional law in new jersey, and so i would like to ask commissioner pai and

commissioner o'rielly to comment between the colloquy -- on the collie -- >> it is flatly not true that commissioners have full and fair latitude to discuss what is in a commission order. right now i cannot hand you this document which is the commission's note of proposed rulemaking on privacy. i cannot quote you anything in this document in the commission's -- >> and if you were to do that, would you be subjected to some sort of legal action? >> absolutely. there are sanctions that are unspecified in our rules, but i have no doubt that i wouldn't be given the benefit of the rule of lenity when it comes to enforcing it. >> commissioner o'rielly? this, to me, is as clear as mud. >> yeah. [laughter] i agree to the point that you may be concerned about the specific language being shared. but even the ideas themselves, nonpublic information is a term used in the rule. anything that's nonpublic.

so if there's an idea in here -- >> presumably, that is nonpublic. i do not know what is in that document of 15 or 20 or 30 pages x there is no way i, in the branch of government that's mentioned in article i of the constitution, i am not privy to that, that accurate? >> that accurate. >> commissioner pai? >> not only that, the rationale for keeping all of this secret is completely baseless. there's no reason why we couldn't have deliberations while still having transparency. and first of all, we don't have internal deliberations now on any item of cig significance, se suggestion is inaccurate. but beyond that, there's no reason why if you propose a bill, congresswoman, there's no reason why you can't have deliberations in a full and fair way. an agency is no different. the american public deserves the know what we're going to do before we propoalz to do it, and i don't think that's too much to ask. >> and if you were to release only a portion of it, and if you were to mischaracterize a

portion of it, undoubtedly another member of the commission would say, no, this is the full and fair interpretation of the larger document. and this happens in the branch of government in which we are involved, and i would hope in the executive branch as well. so if for some reason you were to mischaracterize or not fully disclose the entire intent of the document under or the marketplace of ideas, wouldn't that be corrected beanother member of the commission? commissioner pia, commissioner to o'reilly, please? >> absolutely right. >> so i agree with your analysis, it could be corrected, but it actually happens today under the current structure because the fact sheets that are being put out are inaccurate, and i don't have the right under our rules to correct them. >> uh-huh. and you characterize them as inaccurate x that may be true, that may not be true. i tend to think it's true, but

regardless of whether it's true or not, what would be wrong with a full discussion? >> i would be fully comfortable releasing information so that we could make a judgment whether my analysis is right or wrong. >> commissioner pai? >> nothing would be better than to avoid all these he said/she said by releasing the document. that way there's no debate about context, everybody can see for himself or herself. >> and whether or not this has been the situation over years regarding the commission, do you believe, gentlemen, that it would be better moving forward if this were to change? i place it in the sub junkettive -- sun junktive voice. >> i would hope they would embrace the same spirit of transparency that the congress has in terms of making things public before they're voted upon. >> commissioner rosenworcel, your comments on the discussion i've had with your colleagues?

>> well, thank you. i have not found that our existing policies get in the way of me having substantive conversations with stakeholders of every stripe. i'm a little bit confused by the difficulties that my colleagues are having. i know that they, too, held regular meetings with public interest authorities, industry and have general discussions about the matters before us. i'm sure that every one with of us here uses those discussions to inform our deliberations and our decision making in voting. >> in your opinion, do you and i have a right to go back and fort in the document that commissioner pai has at his desk? >> i believe we have the right to go back and forth and discuss any matter that's before the agency. >> i don't know what's contained in that document. are you able to release to me what's contained in that document? >> i don't believe we are -- >> and why is that, commissioner? >> i believe that's under our commission's rules right now. >> i understand what the rules are. i'm questioning the rules. i obviously understand what the rules are.

the rules may say that this room is painted pink. it's actually painted green. i understand what the rules are. do you agree with the rules? >> i think that we can do more so that our discussions are transparent, but i also think it's essential that we preserve the right to have deliberations among the five of us and actually review the text and discuss the text among all of us. i think we should strive to be more transparent, but i think we have to preserve some space for honest deliberation. >> i think it's essential to the american people that we, in the first branch of government under article i, have the ability to review what'sen contained in that document. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back, and now the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i am not a constitutional lawyer -- [laughter] so i cannot provide any more clarity to this. but i appreciate the discussion and commissioner rosenworcel's response.

let me talk about something i am passionate about, and that's lifeline. access to broadband is absolutely essential for the participation in the 21st century economy. we all know this, that affordability has been a major obstacle for the americans that live on the wrong side of the digital divide. we all know that broadband is not a luxury, but an absolute necessity. and as commissioner rosenworcel always says, parents helping kids with their homework and for businesses in all our communities and for every american to succeed. i'm thinked that the fcc's finally -- thrilled that the fcc's finally modernizing the lifeline bill. it's something i called for when i introduced the first legislation to expand lifeline to broadband. now, as we do so, i hope the fcc makes sure these changes are beneficial to the low income consumers that it's designed to help and does not harm the vulnerable consumers and the

lifeline program today. what i've heard are concerns ability the fcc's -- about the fcc's proposed changes to sport for mobile -- support for mobile voice service and to expand lifeline to broadband, we can't forget that low income consumers still need to be able to make voice call, especially 931 in the -- 911 in the event of an emergency. chairman wheeler or, quickly, can you explain the proposed changes you are making to lifeline's support for mobile voice services? >> thank you, congresswoman. the goal is to create a glide path, a phase-in where over the next three and a half years we're 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 analog voice minute

and by the fact, by the sheer fact that we're now delivering things digitally, give 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 gigabytes of data being the minimum threshold in 2018 as we phase in. two gigabytes of data for the existing price would be giving the consumer access to 1700 web pages and 900 minutes of voice talk. there are 50% of the existing lifeline users use less than 100 minutes. two-thirds use less than 200 minutes. so what we're talking about here is a quantum leap in the ability to have access to minutes and

this incredible ability to access the internet. >> okay. commissioner clyburn, do you think that you've struck the right balance here? >> we are still deliberating, we're listening to parties and winding up our ex parte process. when i started on this, it was a process that a lot of people did not want to take this -- >> right. >> -- particular journey. we are on the cusp of making a tremendous change for the 39 million households that are eligible, and i'm looking forward to continuing and working with you to make sure that this program is one that we can all be proud. >> okay, thank you. i often speak about the need for greater access to spectrum to fuel our wireless economy. as we look ahead to 5g, networks will be transporting more data than ever before, but wireless services also rely on wires which is one of the reasons i care about special access reform.

commissioner rosenworcel, do you agree that we need a competitive special access market so that the united states can continue to lead the world in 5g? >> thank you for the question. yes, i do, and i agree with your assessment that our wireless networks require wired infrastructure as well. >> okay, thank you, and i yield back. >> [inaudible] >> certainly, if i may yield. >> thank you. there's something that was said earlier from the panel about in search of a problem that doesn't have a solution or we don't need one, etc., etc., relative to set-top boxes. and 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 increasef fees for set-top boxes has increased by 185%. and it's consumers that are picking up the tab. and it is essentially a no nonly -- monopoly. it's 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 up set-top boxes, because -- >> do gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. oralson. >> -- olson. >> i thank the chair and welcome to our fcc commissioners. happy birthday, commissioner clyburn. >> thank you. >> commissioner rosenworcel, did you have a chance to go by county line barbecue at sxsw? >> no, i went to salt lick.

>> you'll have to come back. and commissioner pai brought up the ncaa march madness, chairman did as well. i'm a proud texan, guys. the ago geese from college station -- aggies had the greatest comeback ever in college basketball -- [laughter] down 12, moving on. so we'll play kansas maybe in houston for the final four. of. [laughter] my first question's about privacy, and to you, commissioner pai and commissioner o'rielly, on the purpose of the nprm getting input from the stakeholders before drafting and passing a rule. before, input before. there are no conclusions. but the texans 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. so my question is, are there

collusions in this nrpm for privacy? >> there are, congressman. >> commissioner o'rielly, are there cob collusions? >> -- conclusions? >> yes, there are. >> there are conclusions. is there a -- [inaudible] notice of intent that was passed this year? is there some noi out there to base these conclusions upon? >> there is not. >> and what they're based upon, any clue? i can tell the people back home, yes, they're there, they got there, why? >> i can't tell you the motivation for any particular conclusion. the entire reason for this enterprise, it's important to remember, is that the fcc disrupted the work that the ftc had done. the ftc had regulated this entire ecosystem consistently for the past decade. having disrupted that last year, it's incumbent now upon the fcc to formulate what the privacy rules will be in the internet service provider space. >> so to your point on terms of cart before the horse, here is a quote from an 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. they don't know what's being used by the isps today, but we have a solution in the proposals. >> that's -- >> people back home say that doesn't -- well, i won't say what they will say back home. [laughter] one final question. has the commission caught itself in a corner where to undo these rules, these new mandates, is that going to be really hard to do when this rule comes out? can we stop this, or is it pretty much the train's left the stationsome. >> i think, unfortunately, congressman, the commission is proposing to leave station in a certain direction and notwithstanding what the american people might tell us of after this document finally becomes public, the agency's direction, as you'll see, is pretty clear. >> commissioner o'rielly, any comments on that, sir? >> i agree. i suspect it'll be challenged in court, and we'll see if we survive that. barring a change -- >> the people back home are so tired of having to go to courts

to get the rules in force the way they're written. they're just so sick and tired of going to courts. i want to switch gears and talk about the upcoming spectrum auction in the rural texas. it's one week away. i talk about this issue a lot back home with the texas association of broadcasters, the t.a.p. and they're worried -- t.a.b., and they're worried about losing parts of spectrum. the towers may have to be moved, and that costs a lot of money. and the fcc has not given any assurance that they'll be fully reimbursed, especially in rural areas. the example they gave me was amarillo, texas. a decent sized town, about 200,000 people in the panhandle. they have nine tv stations there. four spanish-language stations, four. they came here to d.c., met with the fcc, and there were concerns that were basically dismissed.

don't worry, it'll be taken care of, all will be fine. and if it's not fine, we've got your back. that was not reassuring. does the fcc have enough funds to cover rural tv stations if they have to build a new tower or lose their spectrum? is there money out there to do that, or is that just a wish and a prayer? >> i'll answer it this way, i don't know the answer to that, and part of it is because we have a variable band plan. so we don't know how many people, how much spectrum we're actually selling. we're going to let the market decide some of those things through the good legislation -- so we don't know how many people will be displaced. some of that will require a little bit of time to figure out. but i have said that i would be the first person here to advocate that congress reconsider this number. >> thank you. mr. pai, anything to add? >> i would agree with commissioner o'rielly, and that's one of the reasons why i've consistently said we should have treated the $1.75 billion as a budget at that readier that suggestion.

>> thank you, time -- [inaudible] whoop! >> the gentleman yields back with a whoop -- [laughter] and with that, we recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. car movement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today and for doing what you're doing to insure 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 that there will be spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion on political advertising in this cycle. a lot of that's going to be spent by entities, candidates and party organizations that are required by law to disclose their donors, but a significant portion of it will be spent by front groups that are under no requirement to disclose their donors. that's why ms. eshoo and i and 168 of our colleagues wrote to chairman wheeler asking the

commission to use its authority under section 37 to require the disclosure of donors for all of these front ads, front organization to ads. and i have, we wrote in january, i received this response dated march 10th from the chairman, and it's basically a thank you for writing response, something i don't think that you would believe we would be satisfied with. and while i don't think that necessarily we expected you to say, okay, we'll do that right away, i certainly expected more than this. and what particularly disturbs me is when we talked about basis for the commission's refusal to do it is based on their definition of editorial, using the standard of editorial control based on a 1979 interpretation by staff as to what the standard should be for

a sponsoring to determine what a sponsoring organization is. and you mentioned that 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 that really is a further institutionalization of the deception of the american public. because this standard of editorial control is absolutely the most useless standard for the american people in trying to decide or trying to determine the credibility of political advertising. i spent most of my career in media prior to coming to congress, and i have a little bit of an idea what editorial control is. and in these situations, these groups -- americans 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 do -- want to form one of these groups and fund it. can you imagine what would happen if the organization that they funded, americans for a brighter tomorrow, ran ads saying we need to do away with burning all fossil fuels? those ads wouldn't stay up very long. they don't have control. they're doing what their funders want them to do. and that's why this is such a deceit that is being fostered on the american people. they don't have any idea who is saying that puppies and kittens are great. and until we get this kind of disclosure, billions and billions of dollars will be spent to deliberately deceive american voters. and i don't understand why the commission would not at least enter into a review of the standard they're using, you are using to determine what is the most beneficial standard for

deciding what a true sponsor is. a sponsor is who pays for it. and in this situation, those entities hard paying for it are not -- that are paying for it are not willing to be public, which is why they're using the facades that they're using. so in terms of the public interest, in terms of a vital 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 about this whole notion of editorial content and exactly what their perception is of -- i mean, editorial control, and see what exactly their perception of editorial control is. as a former editor, i know who has control of the editorial process, and i know who has control of the advertising process. and this would be like coca-cola saying we're running an ad,

pro-soft drink ad, and you said, okay, they have to say being paid for by one of advertising agencies instead of coca-cola. so i hope you'll reconsider this decision and work with us to do something that's more sensible, and i yield back. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. kinzinger. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you all for being here. i know it's like christmas day when you get to come before us, so thanks for your service. appreciate having you. mr. chairman, chairman here, we've had conversations in the past regarding the rate regulation bill that i introduced last year. and at the time of our initial conversation, there was a lot of concern regarding the authority your commission possesses but chooses to forbear for the most part or in regards to rate regulation. i appreciate the forbearance of that, i want to make that clear. during that conversation we talked about putting into statutory law a phrase that would insure yours and future commissions do not have the

ability to set out retail rates on broadband internet which i think is an important role for congress to play, to have a voice. but now since the time of our original conversation, you -- along with many of our colleagues on this committee have said that the bill i introduced is far greater than what it seems and that it could end the ability 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 insure that the intent of the bill is moved forward in a reasonable manner. following a number of conversations and negotiations with members on both sides of the aisle, we passed what i think was an excellent amendment to the bill during our recent mark-up to insure that a number of issues brought forward by our colleagues and yourself were specifically exempted from adding or detracting from the current fcc authority. now not more than a few hours after we passed that bill out of committee, in that hearing -- i have the transcripts actually --

you again stated we will not regulate broadband rates. again, i appreciate that. and you then said you would be willing to offer your assistance to representative crenshaw in developing language on this topic within a couple weeks from the date of that hearing which was march 15th. would you be willing to provide that language to our committee when it's completed which will be around march 29th? >> yes, sir. >> okay. i also want to clear something up. in a recent mark-up 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's to inconsistent with your comments before a senate approps committee. given i read you the text of the bill before it was originally introduced and you stated that this is what we're trying to accomplish, i'm a bit confused by your letter, so i just want to clear something up. this is just yes or no. do you believe that the fcc shld