the clean air bill. the second reading. mister speaker. thank you. order. here on c-span two we will least the british house of congress. you been watching the prime minister question time. a quick reminder that you can see this week's session again. to view every program that we had aired. and we invite your comments about the prime minister's the

federal communications commission. in proceedings which lasted over four hours the commissioners considered and voted on several issues including rowboat call blocking regulations. media ownership rules into the a new broadcast standard for television. good morning welcome to that november 2017 meeting of the federal communications commission. >> good morning to you and good morning commissioners.

you will hear eight items for your consideration first you will consider a report in order that would expressly authorize voice service providers to block certain types of robo calls that falsely appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make outgoing calls. it would prohibit voice service them blocking the 911 calls under these rules. to provide a mechanism to allow subscribers whose legitimate calls are blocked an error to stop such block it and clarify that providers may exclude. you will consider a report in order. order on reconsideration.

provide four gigahertz for satellite use. or affirm a number of service rules to promote robust climate. and the proposal making uncertain related earth station. third you will consider a report in order to eliminate the requirement for historic preservation review. where they are replaced with identical poles that can have other wireless communications equipment. to have the historic review rules into a single roll. role. fourth, you will consider a report in order. in further notice of proposed rulemaking order that will

revise and seek comment on further changes to the attachment rules network change. as to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote broadband deployment. they will take targeted action to facilitate the broadband infrastructure after natural disaster. fifty will consider a fourth important order order on reconsideration memorandum opinion and order. the notice of inquiry to adopt it proposed measures for the effective inefficiently bridge the digital divide for like mine prescribers in the lifeline program. you will consider an order on

reconsideration and notice of proposed rulemaking that updates updates the commissions broadcast on the ownership to reflect the current media marketplace that denies and various other various other requests for risk consideration. that they will adopt in incubator program to promote ownership diversity and seeks comments on how to structure and administer such a program. you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on whether to eliminate form 325 in the annual report of cable television systems. ways to modernize the form. you can consider a report in order. 3.0.

on a voluntary market-driven basis. this is your agenda for today the first item entitled advanced methods to target and eliminate unlawful robo calls will presented by the consumer and governmental affairs bureau. >> think you meant a secretary mister weber, whenever you are ready. today i am pleased to introduce an item that takes another important step in combating illegal robo calls. before they reach consumers phones. the item before you allows the voice service providers to block certain type of color idaho robo calls that are likely to be fraudulent.

the proposed rules have wide support. before turning the presentation over to cbc staff i would like to think other bureaus and offices for their system. the enforcement bureau the public safety and homeland security bureau and the office of strategic planning. with me this morning a kurt schroeder the deputy chief of the division and karen schroeder. karen will present the item. the spoof caller idaho information is a sign of an unlawful robo call. a vehicle for fraud. the item before you adopt

rules authorizing voice service providers to block specific categories of calls with spoof caller ids. the truth makes it unlawful to speak caller idaho information with the intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtain anything of value. it demands money supposedly owed to the irs is breaking the law. they can lawfully display his or her office phone number is the color idaho. the enema for you focuses on calls that are likely to be illegal because they they are not used to relate calls. first of the offer --dash mess

authorizing voice service providers. they request outbound calls be blocked. for example the irs could request that they block calls from telephone numbers it does not use for outgoing calls. next item authorizes voice service providers to block calls when the caller idaho information can't possibly be accurate. they will not be able to block calls from north american plan numbers that are invalid. numbers with area codes that don't exist. numbers that have not been allocated by that north american plan administrator to a provider in numbers allocated to provider but not currently in use. the record generally indicates that the blocking of calls

purporting to be for this for categories of numbers prevent them and very low risk of error. it also includes encourages them for them to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. the item before you also seeks content. on these roles. first the item seeks content on potential mechanisms to ensure that the blocked calls can be unloaded as quickly as possible. on ways to measure the effectiveness of the commissions and the industries in their efforts. we recommend adoption of this item. to make technical and conforming edits.

just last week as part of our nation's veterans day of observance we paid tribute to those that protect and serve. in a great many ways to the men and women who fought for and defend our country not just by saying thank you when we pass them by but also by donating to their causes. it is extremely disheartening to read press reports about scammers who pray on our gratitude. that robo call they ask for money to help you as a military members. one woman last $2,400 because she believed that she was sending money to help a servicemember in need. sadly, her story is not an isolated one.

scams like this happen too frequently. we must do everything in our power to stop them. according to you mail robo call index 2.5 billion robo calls were made nationwide last month and a substantial number of them were unlawful. for today we establish rules to target this by giving voice service providers the ability to block this robo calls that are highly likely to be illegitimate. will the adoption of today's report and order but an end to unlawful robo calls sadly no. but doing nothing ensures that things will get worse. so the commission has a responsibility to assess whether it can make a difference if it only makes it small that at first it will

give notice to scammers that we mean business. i ask asked my colleagues to include a series of questions that could enable the agency to better assess the effectiveness of our rubble calling efforts. i did so because i believe they have the right to know what kind of jobs they are doing. we already have valuable data at our exposure. in coupled with the reporting obligation on providers in the commission issued report on the state of rubble calling i believe that we will be better positioned to evaluate our efforts to date and evaluate again conclude any alternative means for combating this persistent problem. i'm grateful for the chairman

two agreed to add this at this language and i'm grateful to the consumer and government affairs bureau for your ongoing efforts to stop the unlawful practice. in this order as well as numbers on the do not originate list. typically calls from such numbers are from bad actors attempting to scam consumers and i greet these calls should be blocked under appropriate circumstances. at the same time, i've heard concerns that blocking is what i call a false positives. the judgment businesses offering legal products and services to authorized consumers moreover companies

had reported that it can be difficult and time-consuming to dispute and remove inappropriate blocks. someone will say snidely that is just too bad that they are being blocked but real people will be hurt. consider the cases of legal robo calls. schools contacting parents or guardians when the children are missing or energy companies alerting the community that a catastrophe has subsided. they did not include the legitimate and retail conference. where they take affirmative steps to avoid certain calls the order assumes that all consumers want to be blocked. i'm troubled by such paternalism. it is not to prevent -- present citizens from themselves.

it will need to be revisited at some point. the sanctioning of widespread blockade and without adequate means to challenge false positives. to add a notice seeking comment on a process for legitimate companies to resolve the call blocking disputes. encouraged providers to work with companies and i'm assured that they are working in good faith after all as the order makes clear it is a violation of federal law to block legitimate calls. nonetheless, the record and experiences have shown to date that it is already happening to have a clear process in faith. and avoiding the need for businesses to file complaints at the sec. i will vote to approve. as my colleagues may recall in september my cell phone rang

in the middle of my open meeting. i tried to play it off but my colleagues were: enough -- kind enough to call me out on it. not surprisingly when i looked at the number after the meeting they can also be malicious. take for example irs scheme calls. they will spoof an irs phone number so that it appears in the victims caller idaho. that is coming from the irs. and then the apostle attempt to defraud the victim at that point. we take action to combat these types of legal robo calls. entities like the irs have phone numbers that are never used to make outbound calls can request that calls be blocked in order to prevent

spoofing. from unassigned numbers no subscriber can originate a call. we also make clear that the rules we are adopting today do not encourage that. today's actions we have heard is not a silver bullet. it's a welcome part of the commission's new and much broader effort to address the problem of illegal robo calls. indeed i am glad that this year in 2017 the commission elevated the calls to our top enforcement priority. combating them will require action on many fronts. two industry and stakeholder engagement. i support the commission's efforts in all of these areas. i want to thank the staff in the consumer and governmental affairs bureau for the work on

this item. a family sits down to dinner. two parents to kids. two jobs. in too little time in the day time around the table is special. it is sacred. it is a reprieve from the unrelenting chaos of everyday life. i know it will because this is true for my family and so some of the others. but night after night our family bliss is interrupted by rachel from cardmember services. someone claiming to be from the irs. or some distant voice. or something else i do not want. i don't think my family experience is all that

unusual. i think my experience is actually incredibly common and in fact this agency has the numbers to prove it. year in and year out. they are the largest single category of consumer complaints at the fcc. by one count there were 2.5 billion robo calls in the united states last month. that means more than 4700 robo calls have been made since i started talking about it a minute ago. it is a good thing that this agency is taking action and making these a priority. support today's action and allow them to block calls from invalid unallocated and unassigned numbers. when they ask for the never to be blocked.

i certainly hope so. but let's be honest this is a tepid stuff. my blood boils when my family hears the robo calls. that is why the fcc needs to do more than what we do here today. what we do here today has a real flop. the agency offers carriers of the ability to limit calls from what are likely to be fraudulent actors we fail to prevent them from charging consumers for the service. so this is the kicker. they extensively reduce robo calls but that you and i can pay for the privilege. if he ask me that is ridiculous. it's an insult to consumers who are fed up with these nuisance calls so on this aspect of today's decision i dissent.

thank you commissioner. it remains the number one category of consumer complaints to the federal communications commission. as chairman i have repeatedly made clear that the sec top consumer protection priority is pursuing the score. it is one more step towards fulfilling that commitment. today's actions we give consumers new tools to protect themselves such as a do not originate list and unassigned number blocks. and portly, we do so without piling more ineffective or inappropriate regulations upon industry. instead we are providing relief from fec -- fcc rules. i think my colleagues for their comments on this item and for joining me in this bipartisan endeavor. make no mistake this is not the end of her efforts. we will need to do more and we

well. but we are building a strong foundations for fighting those illegal robo calls for today and in the days to come. for the consumer and governmental affairs bureau. the planning analysis and the office of communications business opportunities. with that we will proceed to a vote on the item. .. .. the wireless telecommunications bureau and the office of engineering and technology. it is entitled special band about 24 gigahertz for mobile data services and donald

rockdale chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. mr. stockdale, whenever you're ready the floor charts. >> good afternoon mr. chairman and commissioners. it is my pleasure introduced the spectrum frontiers item which continues our effort to make high-frequency bands available for broadband and other uses. this item would maintain the spectrum allocations and the flexible framework the commission adopted in the 2016 report and order and would make available an additional 1.7 gigahertz of millimeterwave spectrum for flexible terrestrial wireless use under similar rules. it also take steps to provide or to maintain access to millimeterwave spectrum for satellite and unlicensed uses.

after use became the first country in the world to make these bands available for 5g and other wireless services, we have seen tremendous interest and investment in these bands. we hope to build on that success by making additional spectrum available, expanding our flexible framework, and eliminating burdensome regulatory requirements. the flexible market driven approach we are pursuing in these bands will help to ensure continued united states leadership and innovation in 5g. i am joined at the table by julie knapp, chief of the office of engineering and technology, tom sullivan, chief of the international bureau, blaze, chief of the broadband division of the wireless bureau, michael, deputy chief of the oed, hosea

albuquerque, chief of the satellite division, and simon banyai, broadband division. in addition to the people at the table i would like to think the broader project team in wireless, a lychee and ib for the work on this item, as well as the staff of the public safety bureau, enforcement bureau, and office of general counsel for the thoughtful contributions. simon will present his item. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. the spectrum front your second report and order second for the notice of proposed rulemaking order on reconsideration and memorandum opinion order consider for your consideration to take steps to pistol grip access to my quick spectrum for

5g deployment and other uses. specifically, the item would make an additional 1.7 gigahertz spectrum available for 5g deployment under the rules. this would be in addition to the nearly four ghz of licensed upper microwave spectrum the commission made available for 5g uses in the 28, 37 and three night gigahertz gigahertz bands in the first report and order. the item would make 70 megahertz available for flexible use in the 24.25 gigahertz band i.e. 24 gigahertz band. the item six, on adding an operability requirement similar to the operability requirements the commission adopted. in the 47 gigahertz band which spans from 47.2-48.2 gigahertz and is note income operation guide would make one gigahertz spectrum available. both bands would be licensed on

the geographic area basis using partial economic areas. the item would maintain the rod broad flexibility of satellite systems to operate in the 40-42 gigahertz, and 48.2-50.2 gigahertz bands. for the 28 ghz, 37 and 39 ghz band the item would be certain restrictions on satellite earth stations citing in smaller markets while maintaining the use of these bands for for 5g. the item addresses of the uses of upper microwave spectrum the unlicensed mobile devices. it would adopt rules to allow unlicensed operation on board most aircraft in the 57-71 gigahertz bands. those rules under rule summer to those applicable to the 57-64 gigahertz band. the item would decline to permit mobile operations in the 70-80 gigahertz bands at the time but

would focus development of those bands are fixed and other innovative uses. with respect to spectrum holding policies, the item would decline to apply pre-auction limited in the 24 and 47 figure bands that would update the upper microwave spectrum screen applicable to secondary market transaction account for the addition of these bands. the item also would see, on eliminating the pre-auction spectrum holding limit for the 20, 37 and 39 gigahertz band. finally the item would decline to establish aggregation limits for individual bands. the item would seek to minimize regulatory burdens by limiting or declining to adopt unnecessary regulatory requirements for example, that the item would eliminate previous adopted requirements that licensees submit security plans and related information and would decline to acquire upper microwave licensees transmit digital call signs. the wireless telecommunications bureau and office of engineering and technology and the international bureau recommend adoption of this item and

request editorial privilege to technical and conforming edits. thank you. >> thank you, esther bonnier. commissioner clyburn. >> when they voted to approve the first order, allowing mobile flexible use in the upper microwave bands, i commended the commission for shifting from the conventional model of exclusive indefinite licenses to try novel approaches such as user share rules for these bands. applying creative policy to the spectrum bands above 24 gigahertz would unleash innovation,. >> additional competition and insight boundless creativity. unfortunately my excitement for this proceeding is now subdued. because by adopting this order the commissions majority turns its back on promoting competition and innovative spectrum policy. last year the agency adopted a

pre-auction limit so that no entity could acquire more than roughly one-third of the spectrum in the 24, 28, 37 and 39 gigahertz band. so with substantial support from the commercial wireless industry for limits in those bands, including two of the top four nationwide wireless carriers, smaller carriers, and consumer advocates. in the first for the notice the commission also proposed to impose a similar limit on the amount of spectrum any one entity could acquire in the 24 and 47 gigahertz band. many support this proposal as well. in an attempt to understand the majorities decision to reverse course on these pre-auction aggregation limits, allow me to start with the current state of the industry and the communications act mandates.

the commercial wireless industry is highly concentrated for antitrust purposes, the u.s. department of justice, or doj uses an index. doj classifies markets with a hhi index of less than 1500 and and concentrated and markets with a hhi of over 2500 of highly concentrated. the hhi index or commercial wireless markets has been increasing every year. it is now over 3100. spectrum is a critical input to competition in this market. for this reason section 309j of the communications act requires the commission to design auctions to prevent the excessive concentration of

licenses and disseminate licenses among a variety, a wide variety of applicants. a a pre-auction spectrum aggregation limits is a neutral way to prevent the largest wireless companies from acquiring so much spectrum that smaller companies cannot offer competitive options to consumers. this is why i strongly supported the commissions adoption of spectrum aggregation limits in the incentive auction, and in this proceeding. so why does the majority reverse those decisions here? their primary reason is that we are making 4950 megahertz of millimeter wave spectrum available for flexible mobile use. relying on this amount of spectrum is not enough to ensure licenses are distributed widely through the industry. companies have said that box

consisting of 100 megahertz of spectrum are necessary to attain the data speeds and capacity requirement of wireless 5g uses. given the importance of the spectrum bands to the future of the commercial wireless industry, the large wireless companies have the same incentives to acquire dominant holdings here as they did with low band spectrum. removing spectrum aggregation limits will likely lead to even greater concentration in the market, therefore, i'm unable to support this policy reversal. second, today's order the kinds to permit user share in almost all of the part 30 bands. last year when we propose this policy we spoke about the potential benefits of this approach, given the limited

characteristics, the lightly use case of millimeter wave spectrum is targeted, geographically limited coverage, instead of traditional cellular like deployment. that means the spectrum bands are ideal candidates for a user share approach and this could help us maximize the efficient use of spectrum. the primary reason majority refuses to permit this innovative spectrum policy is that a, quote, the jordan of commenters opposed the idea of any use or share mechanism. the order then sites 14 comments at least 16 other party support user share. the order also says quote, that there's only one territory, terrestrial operator on the

record as supporting user share. but this finding ignores the fact that ncta, the wireless internet service provider association and the fixed wireless communications counsel all support user share. together, those associations represent hundreds of communications companies, many of which are interested in using these bands to provide terrestrial mobile services. in short, the majority misreads the record. in addition, while the majority is quick to trumpet the importance of cost-benefit analyses in the context, the order presents no real cost-benefit analysis on this issue. the order simply list general difficulties that might arise from implementing the use or shared regime that a spectrum database would coordinate.

but when you consider that the industry is making substantial progress toward implementing a similar approach and the 3.5 gigahertz band, this argument rings hollow. while the majority would have you believe that the record clearly supports its decision to not permit user share, a fair and objective review of the record tells a much different story. the established commercial mobile wireless providers would prefer the commission use the same licensing approach that accompanied tradition cellular deployment, exclusive long-term licenses. even though the spectrum band is not conducive should traditional cellular deployment, the majority once again demonstrates in this proceeding that they will take whatever steps are necessary to give large established wireless providers whatever they want. despite my strong disagreement

on these two important issues, i concur with the other portion of the item. i thank my colleagues for agreeing to my edit on several issues, including the size of the blocks in the 21st gigahertz band, declined to prohibit use or share in the 37.0-37.6 gigahertz, and seeking comment on the proposal to compose operability on the 24 gigahertz band. i have consistently said that to fully realize the promise of 5g technology we should take and all of the above approach. by all all of the above i mean ensuring that low income communities and urban and rural areas benefit as much or more than a fluid communities and urban, rural and suburban areas. i also mean that both satellite

and wireless communications should be a part of the evolution towards 5g services, and that we should allocate sufficient unlicensed and licensed spectrum. this this is a delicate balancig act, but it is one we must always strive to achieve. i want to thank donald stockdale, join up and tom sullivan, and the staff of the wireless telecommunications bureau, the office of the agent at technology, and the international bureau for their hard work on this item. thank you. >> thank you commission clyburn. commissioner o'rielly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today we consider two items comics use we consider to items that will facilitate development and 11 of the nextgen system. i think we can all agree to make 5g a reality making use leadership position and wireless technology which is a top priority, the commission must provide adequate resources along with appropriate environment for investment, innovation and deployment. this will require both putting

more spectrum out in the marketplace and ensuring infrastructure can be timely and widely deployed. contrary to some of the nation's we did not execute industrial policy and the united states. we do have the right and obligation to make spectrum bands available and establish a hospitable regulatory framework for our commercial wireless providers so that their ingenuity and creativity can force domestically and internationally. i will not let the u.s. lose the race to 5g to do to regular berries or commission ineptitude. today's item starts with opening up an additional 1700 megahertz for from wireless 5g networks and 24 and 47 gigahertz bands. along with the bands would present identified the commission is made available almost 13 gigahertz of millimeter wave spectrum for wireless flexible use. as part of the first order of this proceeding and negotiate with and pushed back out of then chairman wheeler to seek, , a handful of additional bands

including 24 and 47 gigahertz. at the time i acknowledge that all bands may be capable of handling additional users and the commission would need to be able to move on some band sooner than others. these bands are ready to go now and i applaud chairman pai for moving expeditiously. ultimately it is important we keep working on the remaining bands and identify more spectrum so that we can create the spectrum pipeline for tomorrow. so to be true to form i appreciate the chairman to keep us committed to mind to follow up this item with another in the first half of next year. i expect that one would do with remaining bands that were in the 2060 know such as 32, 42 and 50 gigahertz and an accompanying notice should at minimum pf 26 gigahertz, advanced that is highly popular for 5g internationally. further, the commission must get further thought to the remaining channels. all of these bands along with our efforts and weight in the mid-band spectrum proceeding provided good foundation for

future wireless technologies. additionally, releasing more spectrum into the workplace will ensure that all interested parties have an opportunity to access spectrum resources. having an adequate supply of spectrum along with strange stt yet reasonable construction requirement for renewal standards conform will ensure spectrum is widely efficient, it is use visually and not warehoused and that this remains competitive. efforts by the commission to favor certain entities or engineer spectrum holdings in the past have been unsuccessful. further, as i stated in 2016 we are still in the early stages of 5g and unclear about the full extent of what services will be offered or how much spectrum is needed to achieve the capacity, speed and licensing goals. for these reasons i fully support the decision not to implement any pre-auction spectrum cap on the 24 of 47 gigahertz bands. the commission should also eliminate the pre-auction spectrum limit that was set for the 28, 37 and 39 gigahertz

bands in our previous spectrum frontiers proceeding. i would prefer we eliminate this cap today but i where proposed to eliminate this rule in the future notice. i'm not supportive of the case-by-case review of millimeter wave spectrum holdings either post auction or for secondary market transactions. as we've seen before these screens have a habit of turning into spectrum caps. therefore the commission should not be seeking comment on if lavinia case-by-case review of post auction millimeter wave holding. >> instead the commission should be seeking comment on eliminating the secondary market screen. unfortunately merely asking the question was forgotten. i will keep this in mind for future items. moreover, it should be noted under no circumstances do i i intend to vote in favor of the ninth conditioning the approval of any action or transfer application on the basis of the spectrum auction screen.

additionally, the commission must also set auction, and for these millimeter wave bands and others. not only to stakeholders the time to prepare but we must move expeditiously to get the spectrum to the market. i think the chairman, so i think the chairman for incorporating my edit that confirms the commission auction spectrum as soon as possible but recognizes auctions can be held until it able to secure my meets are auction participants to submit upfront payments. private banks are no longer willing to do this and so i'm supportive of efforts to permit auction deposit to be held by the u.s. treasury. i think citizen and others with leadership in helping to get this matter resolved. finally while i focus on wireless issues i would also like to acknowledge that today's item also recognizes the need for spectrum for future satellite systems get i also appreciate the effort to provide more flexibility to satellite providers to cyprus stations in rural america. to the extent it's possible we

should encourage earth stations be placed in less densely populate areas as opposed to urban ones. today i will vote to approve this item and i think the chairman. >> commissioner carr. >> thank you. last year the fcc allocated nearly 12 ghz 12 gigahertz of m in the millimeter wave bands for 5g and other next-generation wireless services. with that decision views became the first country in the world to identify and open up bands for 5g. the agencies leadership continues today as we allocate enough 1700 megahertz of spectrum for advanced wireless offerings. in doing so we take steps to ensure a variety of use cases, can flourish in these millimeter wave painted for instance, we provide satellite operators with additional flexibility to locate crustaceans in the 20 gigahertz and 39 gigahertz bands, tickle in rural areas without impeding the deployment of terrestrial 5g

offerings. similarly we decrease the size and increase the number of spectrum blocks in the 24 gigahertz band to create additional opportunities for a range of provided and offerings. we also have measures to -- in investment and innovation if we eliminate rules that could artificially eliminated participation in future auctions and we allow providers additional flexibility when it comes to securing 5g networks and devices, including by seeking input. these are all welcome steps. at the same time we're certainly not resting. we're continuing to look at additional spectrum to open up new milliliter millimeter waves everything spectrum in the midrange bands between three and 24 gigahertz. i'm confident these efforts will continue to bear fruit and that consumers and yes wilson benefit from these decisions.

so thank you to the staffs, the wireless telecommunications. the international bureau, the office of mentioning a technology for hard work on this another spectrum item. it has my support. >> commissioner rosenworcel. >> with wireless networks, there's something about the power of ten. every ten years and you technology changes everything. in the 1980s the very first generation of cellular systems made inroads around the world and in the second-generation mobile systems emerged a decade later. dominated by the standard in europe. that is a term of the money in the third-generation, both voice and data service made its debut in japan before anywhere else. at the start of the stick he brought the united states to the forefront because we let the world with the introduction of fourth-generation wireless technology. we made smart phones to the codis and helped put unprecedented computing power in

our palms, pockets and purses. laurels however are not good resting places because like clockwork in a few short years we expect fifth-generation or 5g networks to arrive. already there is a consensus they will feature three things. first, they should be capable of gigabit speed. second, they should have of lay reduced to under a millisecond. and third, they should be more energy efficient than their predecessors. there is no real momentum for 5g service but going forward the leadership of the united states is by no means guaranteed. already tough he and japan are pursuing early 5g deponent in time for the olympics in 2018 and 2020 respectively. they willing to do this now even if it means upgrading their networks later to comply with global standards as they emerge. at the same time earlier this year all 28 european member

states signed a a flagship agreement for a common foundation for a future 5g network. china is also on course to be a world leader with early work on global 5g standards under way and a commitment to invest more than 400 billion in 5g infrastructure. between 2020 and 2023. so it's time for the united states to really get going, to be clear, we can take pride in our work, making additional 170r wave spectrum available for flexible use in the 24 and 27 ghz band. expand opportunities for unlicensed use fostering new potential for innovation. at the same time we maintain four gigahertz of spectrum as course outlet bans them about quite a satellite flexibility another bands especially in rural areas. i am pleased to support these

efforts. but we're simply not moving fast enough. we risk our leadership in the world. we risk having the united states becoming a father were in the next generation of mobile technology if we need to do more than what we are doing just here today. what does more look like? here are five ideas for 5g. first, think leadership in any technology cycle requires more than religions and reconsideration. requires action. to date with all the right millimeter wave spectrum for mobile use and the 20, 37 and 39 gigahertz bands as well as now in the 24 and 47 gigahertz bands. we've also teed up from spectrum for mobile use in the 32, 42 and 50 gigahertz bands that what we need now is more than a blip of spectrum opportunities. we need something simple. a calendar.

let's commit to deadlines of the bands we have under consideration and focus every actor in the wireless ecosystem on getting something done. we could start with 28 gigahertz band. right now south korea is working toward an auction of these airways by october 2018. so here's my big idea. let's go first. let's hope our auction before our counterparts in asia. let's be the first in the world. i i hope my colleagues will agre to this course. second, while we continue to look-expect we cannot forget we need to look low. we know commercializing millimeter wave bands will not be easy given the challenging propagation characteristics. i mean simply putting your hand in front of a transmitter can result in the degradation of service. we can get there but it's going to take some work. in the meantime we need to move

expeditiously with a review of may midbrain spectrum to bridge the gap to the high-frequency bands we discuss here. at the same time we need to correct course and move the fan the innovative ideas and original 3.5 gigahertz band proposal which the fcc mistakenly reopen for rulemaking last month. third, it is essential we move past the traditional binary choice between licensed and unlicensed services. we need more creative spectrum access strategies in the future. we do that by affirming our continued commitment to unlicensed use in a 64-segment gigahertz bands but we can do more to clarify opportunities for dynamic use of unlicensed spectrum in a 37 gigahertz band by dismissing outstanding petitions seeking the framework built only on exclusive use. fourth, to build a bigger wireless future we need to focus as much on the ground as on the skies. airways alone are not enough to know about a spectrum will lead

to better by the service without good infrastructure. to do this we need to take a comprehensive look at tower siting practices and make the more consistent across the country. i think there's widespread agreement this would help accelerate the deployment of 5g. after all, 5g requires us to think beyond traditional tower setting. millimeter wave spectrum with a new premium on small cells and figured i had to get these micro cells in place, and fiber facilities nearby, is a big, really big infrastructure effort. of course making our local practices more consistent is hard. we have a proud tradition of local control in this country that makes uniform one shots preemptive legislative policy a rough way to go. still there are other ways to do this. work is underway on a model code for small cell and 5g deployment and if we produce something good when you to share this model are and wide.

then we need to look at every aspect of our laws from fcc policy to federal and state grant programs for basic infrastructure, and build incentives for everyone to use it. we need remember that carrots can often be swifter tools for change and sticks here fifth and finally, we need to support the new experimental licensing system, the sec put in place just a few months ago. the system provides an early and upfront way to innovate and create you can provide a to sae space to play with power levels, explore frequencies and develop new services. one of these new experimental licenses is designed for innovation zones. this is like a virtual wireless sandbox. it allows communities to experiment with new mobile solutions and it is tailor-made for new smart city initiatives. it's ideal for exploring the possibilities of 5g and millimeter wave service in a variety of settings. the sec needs to fully support

and encourage the use of these experimental tools, and change them if we need to in order to encourage greater use. i think these five tasks are essential if the united states once to julie in the next generation of wireless service. the possibilities are exciting if we seize them. after all, we're on the cusp of cars that drive themselves, streets they can be safe, emergency services that can be more effective, healthcare that is more personalized, and more to the building across the board because we are more connected. what we did today is a small part of making that happen. but for us to truly succeed we will need to get going before other countries lead the way. >> thank you, commissioner rosenworcel. i have long been struck by the insights from benedict evans that mobile is eating the world. as you pointed out it is perfectly clear that mobile is the future of technology and of the internet.

he has a strong factual foundation for saying this mobile subscriptions are quickly grown from a tiny fraction of the world dole population to virtually matching that population to leaving pcs in the far distant. smartphones about accelerate that trend with over 2.5 billion now in use. as a result the fundamental questions in wireless have now changed. instead baby with things like platform standards we now contemplate what breakthroughs the internet of things, artificial intelligence and the like could take advantage of tomorrow's wireless networks. that's what fcc comes in. those future networks what you spectrum in ways unimaginable a generation ago. their architecture will be different, to going from a few massive cell towers the thousands of small cells operating at lower power. each of those factors councils and favored a forward thinking spectrum posted it we need introduce more low, mid and high

band spectrum into the marketplace. when you to include a mix of a licensed and unlicensed and terrestrial and satellite spectrum. and we need to encourage flexible use as we enter this 5g future. this spectrum front your decision reflects these goals and in so doing further establishes american leadership in 5g. we encourage satellite entrepreneurship by preserving a four gigahertz band for satellite services and relaxing certain rules for citing earth stations. we also maintain the full 64-segment gigahertz band as a massive testbed for unlicensed innovation. and we make much more millimeter wave spectrum available for terrestrial wireless use. in particular we at 1700 megahertz or if you want to be more dramatic about it, 1.7 million kilohertz of new spectrum in the 24 and 47 gigahertz bands. on top of the spectrum we freed up last year. in short, we begin to set the

table so that however mobile consumes the world, but it's a high virtual-reality application or a narrowband industrial iot use case, spectrum will not be the limiting factor. that policy, two critical points on process. first, this is not the end of our work in this field, but rather the beginning. accordingly i plan to follow-up on on today's achievement by presenting the next spectrum front your item in the first half of next year. this will continue our commitment to enabling access to these hyping frequencies. second, any future leap to get the spectrum license requires legislation. as much as anyone i want to move forward with the high band spectrum auction in 2018. but currently we can't. as i've i stated recently and repeatedly, we cannot hold any large spectrum auction unless and until congress sixes the upfront payments problem. i stand ready to assist any

elected official interested in helping us solve this problem. i certainly do know any work in the meantime setting transfer potential wireless use and moving forward through a rulemaking process to get them ready for auction. promoting u.s. leadership in 5g isn't all sec effort so thanks to the expert staff from across the bureaus and offices who helped to make this result happened. from the wireless tillage communications. the of internet technology, the international bureau, the public safety and homeland security or, the enforcement bureau and office of general counsel. your leadership will be helpful as we try to seek leadership in america by geico forward. with that will move to a vote on the item. commissioner clyburn? commissioner o'rielly? commissioner carr? commissioner rosenworcel? that your vote imac as well. granted as requested. thanks to the staff for your work. i'm secular, please take a to item number on today's agenda.

>> mr. chairman and commissioners and certified on georgian be present by the wireless telekinetic haitians bureau pickett is entitled accelerating wireless broadband deployment on removing barriers to infrastructure investment and donald stockdale chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> mr. stockdale, if you're ready you'll free to take the floor. >> mr. chairman, commissions, for the next item i'm pleased to present to you the replacement utility poles report and order. i am joined at the table today by jeff steinberg and david

sieradzki. in addition to the wireless bureau staff at the table, i would like to thank jill springer and jennifer salas from our competition and infrastructure policy division for their work, and all of the commission staff listed on the slide for the input. david sieradzki will present the item. >> thank you. good morning, mr. chairman, commissioners. the draft report and order before you is designed to facilitate the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure by eliminating or reducing regulatory barriers to deployment. this order focuses on a narrow category project, the replacement of utility poles with substantial than a a coupe to support small cell antennas or other wireless equipment. increasingly, utility poles are being used to support communication and ten scott sometimes older polls must be replaced to support the weight of added and tense or to room for such equipment. the item before you would limit

the requirement that a stork preservation review be conducted before licensee or tower company may may begin construction of these bowls, provided the replacement poles meet the specified criteria. the proposed exclusion is based on a finding that such projects have no potential to affect the stork properties. the national historical park summation act or nhp a, applies to all federal agencies including the commission. that statute provides before allowing an undertaking within the agencies jurisdiction to proceed, the agency must consider the undertakings effect on buildings and sites that are eligible for protection as historic properties. agencies may refrain from conducting project is a find the projects had no potential effect in the nearby historic properties. this draft order would find a construction of replacement utility poles meets the standard, and such projects need

not undergo the stork preservation review as long as, number one, the original poll itself is not historic property. number two, the replacement poles will be placed in the same location as the original pole, or no more than ten feet away, and will cause no new ground disturbance. number three, the replacement will be no more than 10% or five original, whichever is greater, in number four, the replacement will have an appearance consistent with the original. this relatively narrow change to the commissions the stork preservation review procedures would have no effect on any historic properties. but it could yield significant benefits to wireless consumers. by making it easier for caries and tower company to deploy small cell antennas and other new equipment unqualified replacement poles. the order can consolidate their procedures into, there are currently in the right of

orders. this order would put them into a single row. that should make it easier for parties to find, , understand ad comply with these requirements. wireless telecommunications bureau recommends adoption of the site and request additional privilege to make technical or conforming editor thank you. >> thank you. we'll turn to comments from the bench. commissioner clyburn. >> next-generation wireless innovation deserves next-generation infrastructure policy, but success calls for regulatory approaches that promote collaboration among relevant stakeholders. federal agencies, state and local government, tribal nations, wireless and tower company are all integral in meeting and documenting those sought after policy objectives. earlier this year my office released a solution 2020 called action plan which outlined several recommendations making the case for much much-needed

collaboration. they include stakeholder committees that embrace upcoming construction and build out opportunities, encouraging private, , public, public-privae and private-private partnerships on both the supply and demand side to help resolve different pieces of infrastructure puzzle, and aggregate demand for services where the economic case for buildout is weaker, ensuring transparency on both sides of the table, and an effective process, creating capacity from permitting and make ready work. making municipal assets such as fiber light and power poles available are nondiscriminatory and attractive terms, and creating a broadband start by integrating future looking rock band practices into development plans for residential and commercial real estate. during my offices ex parte

meeting on this item, towel and wireless companies recommended broader replacement pole proposals that embraced a number of these elements. for those parties this order may seem like a modest first step. but i support the replacement utility pole rules adopted today because for the most part we follow the proper collaborative approach. in our initial draft we identified a few criteria that would exempt replacement utility poles from historic preservation review process, but the industry proposed sensible changes to the location and high criteria. they include exempting replacement utility poles, if they are cited in new holes within ten feet of the original pole, provided that doing so does not result in new ground disturbance, and if the height

of the replacement poles are no more than 10% taller than the polls be replaced. then the staff reached out to the advisory council for historic preservation for its approval, and while the record is less clear on how much coordination our office, staff had with the tribal representatives, the infrastructure issues will face in the future are likely to be more difficult than the one we address today. so it is critical that we set the stage now for robust coordination with our relative stakeholders, including tribal representatives. it was a pleasure working with commissioner carr and my colleagues on this wireless infrastructure reform effort, and i wish to thank the wireless telecommunications bureau. i'm so excited i couldn't get it out. for your work on this item. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner clyburn. commissioner o'rielly. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

today's item represents a first step in extensive series of actions the commission will have to take to ensure the necessary infrastructure is deployed to deliver next-generation wireless services to the american consumer. one item eliminating historic preservation review for the replacement pole certainly does not fix the entirety of the problem. should reduce some processing delays along with total amount of fees that provides a pain to get the necessary approvals for infrastructure siding. draft was circulating in posts are we to send a the commission was getting to work on these issues. however it became apparent the item may not have reflected how replacement poles recited and, therefore, did not do as much as we had hoped. for example, samples not placing exact location as the original pole. instead it is placed next to its of electrical wires and other attachments can be transferred over. no one wants electrical wiring just laying on the ground. further, to hold the load of additional equipment pulls often

need to be increased in size and materials of the full supplies -- sometimes be maybe change somewhat demented i were voting on takes into account these realities. replacement replace the polls wn ten feet of original, of the original will be excluded from historic preservation review provided that their previously, previously disturbed grant. the ground is likely in the rights-of-way that been repeatedly distribute is also an added benefit of allowing provided the bill to increase the circumference of their polls. further our replaceable that is five feet tall with than the original and cheesy material as long as there consisted in appearance and quality are also exempted from review. while i would've preferred a replaceable could be increased in size kinky without going through historic reservation with you alone five additional fee is unproven from the circular draft. i appreciate the leadership on infrastructure deployment and the chairman and my colleagues willingness to accept my suggestions.

i approve and look forward to future items that will tackle additional infrastructure issues such as twilight towers, the tribal review process and permitting and zoning fees and delays. hopefully relief will come soon. thank you. >> commissioner carr. >> thanks. streamline deployment of wireless infrastructure is one my top priority. as i said before the current regulatory regime is not going to work when it comes to this point of next-generation networks. it takes too long and it costs too much. so the sec is looking at a a number of areas for potential reform. environmental and historic review procedures, state and local process, the tribal review mechanisms and federal regulations. i welcome the chance to lead the commissions efforts on these fronts in today's order as a first step in what is our broader effort to accelerate wireless infrastructure deployment. in this or the commission reaches a reasonable determination that swapping a

mutual to poles for the purpose of adding antennas or other wireless equipment can be done without any impact on historic properties. this determination provide substantially by eliminating what would otherwise been an unnecessary and time-consuming review process for each and every pole replacement. moreover, i'm glad my colleagues and i were able to work together and reach consensus on a number of changes to the item. for instance, the order now that's replacement pole to be cited up to to ten feet away fm the original pole as we heard provided that there is no new ground disturbance. similarly replaceable can now be up to five feet taller than the original pole rather than being limited to a 10% increase. at the same time we agreed to add language to the order that emphasizes the importance and long-standing requirement that parties must cease work if they discover any historical artifacts and he meagerly commits the notification and consultation process.

combined these changes will expand the practical utility of today's decision while containing to ensure that there will be no impact on historic properties. i look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as with all stakeholders as the commission takes additional steps to streamline the rules governing wireless infrastructure deployment. thanks. >> thank you, commissioner carr. commissioner rosenworcel. >> this is a smart and thoughtful effort to update our review practices regard and utility poles. i appreciate the back-and-forth in the last few days between the codes of wells our work with advisory council undistorted preservation. in the interest of us if into being halved to have lunch i will not have statement today and some would say that i support your efforts. thanks. >> thank thank you, commission. >> ain't going to happen last night. >> someone wants it. got a a snack for you. all right. be prepared. [laughing]

thank you, commissioner clyburn vincent van gogh when of the most gifted painters in history once said great things are done by a series of small things brought together. it is in this vein that we adopt this order as a first step in streamline the rules for wireless infrastructure deployment. specifically exclude replacement utility poles from the burdens imposed by stuart preservation rules and this will help pave the way for 5g networks, services powered by small cell antennas and the like that are attached to poles. significantly only provide this relief where the replacement utility pole will not affect historic properties thus rendering the review process unnecessary. this is not a case of replacing band goes masterpiece starry night with a crayola ration i make with my kids for its subsidy in the potato eaters or in our wildebeest simply wonderful for another full. that simple change shouldn't be accompanied by red tape and

about my colleagues agree. i would like to give special thanks to commissioner carr for agreeing to take the lead on the review of wireless infrastructure issue including this board i look forward to working with you and all my colleagues as we move forward with additional infrastructure streamlining initiatives. my thanks his will to the thickest at the work on this item. with that will proceed to put an item. the chair about aye as well. the item is adopted editorial privileges. we will now turn to the secretary for the next item on today's agenda. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, the fourth item on your agent will be presented by the wireline competition bureau and is entitled excelling

wireline broadband deployment by removing barriers to infrastructure investment. chris monkeys, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> hanky madam secretary. ms. monteith, , whenever you're ready the floor is yours. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. the wireline competition bureau presents for your consideration a report and order declaratory ruling in for the notice of proposed rulemaking on accelerating wireline broadband infrastructure deployment. this item is adopted would implement several important reforms aimed at removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the deployment of high-speed broadband networks. it would enable carriers to more rapidly shift resources away

from outdated legacy infrastructure and services, and towards the construction of next-generation networks bringing innovative, new broadband services to consumers. i would like to thank the competition policy division team for their work on this proceeding. our colleagues in the consumer and government affairs, enforcement, and wireless telecommunications bureaus, and in the office of general counsel and strategic planning also provide us with invaluable input. seated at the table with me are lisa holland, associate. chief, and from the competition policy division, deputy division chief, adam copeland, assistant division chief, and zach ross, attorney advisor. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. this report and order if adopted

take several steps took some of the deployment of next-generation networks. with respect to the commissions pole attachment rules the report and order codifies the rules excluding capital cost, recovered via makeready fees. it also establishes a 180 day shot clock for enforcement bureau resolution of pole access complaints. additionally, a great a reciprocal system of infrastructure access, providing incumbent local exchange carriers guaranteed access to poles owned or controlled other local exchange carriers. with respect to network change requirements, the order expedites the process and eliminates unnecessary notification requirements. it also eliminates the role that currently prohibits incumbent local exchange carriers from coordinating with entities that will be affected by network changes and adopts streamlined,

streamlined copper retirement notice procedures related to force majority. in addition the import -- the report and order streamlined the section 2.38 process by reducing the comic and automatic grant time frames for grandfather low-speed legacy voice and data services, number two, discontinue prints a grandfathered low-speed legacy data services, and three, discontinue low-speed legacy voice and data services with no customers. widely, the report and order clarifies a kerry must consider only its own end-user customers in determining whether it must seek discontinues approval from the commission. the deck latorre ruling reverses the test adopted by the commission and 2014 which diverts investment from next-generation networks into outdated services for the notice of proposed rulemaking request comment on further modifications

to our pole attachment rules on several proposals to further streamline our network change notification and discontinuance rules, and untargeted actions to facilitate restoring broadband infrastructure after natural disasters. the bureau recommends adoption of this report and order, , and for the notice of proposed rulemaking and request editorial privileges extended only to technical and conforming at it. thank you. >> we will now take, from the bench again with commissioner clyburn. >> we must not lose sight in the midst of her high-profile debate today around media ownership, nextgen tv and a lifeline program that many of the most fundamental protections, the sec put in place in recent years for consumers of legacy voice service are moments away from being dumped in the trashy of regulatory history. all of this is being done under

the guise of advancing infrastructure. i'm talking about how our technology transition protections are being evaporated as of majorities carrier first agenda. over the past several years the fcc has balanced attention between two sometimes competing goals minimizing the burden on industry when it comes to transition from one technology to another, and protecting consumers as they move from being offered a service that they know and understand to one that may be quite unfamiliar. in that vein, the commission privacy adopted a variety of rules regarding network changes, copper retirement, and service discontinuance is. i stated back then that i believe we struck the appropriate consumer first balance.

but today that balance has been upset. back in 2015 2015 i reflected e comparisons between these technology transitions and the digital television transition. apparently that reflection is still relevant since at least one party to this proceeding continued to analyze, -- don't tell my mom i messed up on that -- to this. what was striking to me then and now is the difference between these two transitions when it comes to ensuring that consumers understand and are prepared for the technology transitions i had. with the transition, billions of dollars were spent on multimedia consumer education as well as significant staff outreach and the subsidy for converter boxes.

everyone knew that the transition was coming, and all this work was done for the approximate, from 16 to 19 million households that did not subscribe to pay tv. contrast that with the 49 million households and businesses that still use a legacy landline today. there is no significant consumer outreach campaign planned, and no subsidized converter for equipment that may law -- may no longer work. and it is beginning to show. consumers are fearful of the exchanges and commented to that effect in the record. as i mentioned in my statement when we started this proceeding, i have not heard from a single consumer that is asked for the landline to be taken away more quickly. and just how do we follow up with that today? by rolling back protections we

put in place to easily transition for consumers and competitors. procedurally, the item tries to have its cake and eat it, too. talks about hundreds of millions of dollars in impact from rolling back these vital consumer protections. yet, a conducts no formal cost-benefit analysis, something that the majority has said should be required through rules and especially those rules with significant impact. here are the item claims to hae significant impact, but where is the supporters cost-benefit analysis? the item is highly problematic for all the reasons i have articulated previously, but there is more. consumers need notice and help understanding changes to the service, and a cop on the beat when something goes wrong. this item would actually shorten or eliminate relevant notice and

would ensure that the fcc is nowhere to be found when something goes wrong with the consumers alarm system, an emergency call button. in the interest of time, i will only mention a few issues. the item enables carriers to stop maintaining their copper infrastructure without notice to consumers. as in this place racing in this item goes, carriers have an incentive to maintain their copper, else they will lose customers but these incentives are actually reversed much of the time. commenters cited on this proposition have much more lucrative wireless service that they offer as costlier substitutes, if copper is degraded. that is what is happening in the

field. .. to understand and react to changes that are indeed, outright ignored from the ncia and paying requirements to provide notice to and work with government customers.

several years back to include the functionality provided to the consumer rather than simply put what the carrier said it was offering i voted to side with consumers and innovators to understand why this revised definition is anti-consumer and anti-innovation, consider the car cardophone, answering-- invented in the '60s and when they were not at the residence. and it prohibited end users from attaching any equipment not provided by at&t to any facility furnished by at&t. it took mr. carter years of wrangling with the telephone company to allow his device on the network, allowing service

to be defined by the carriers, risk these sorts of issues happening all over again. it is true that we should not keep an entire copper network alive for two fax machines, but at the same time, it is dangerous precedent to see to a carrier. and imagine the carriers alarm systems and disallowed others. and if a group of consumers are using their legacy lines solely for their lawn service, and the carrier disables that functionality, has not service been discontinued for that person or that community? i believe so. if this carrier's first item were not bad enough, it is slanted towards the largest incumbent. with all of the discussions,

discussion around creating reciprocal system to access to infrastructure, i thought it would make sense to revisit our system that prohibits them for accessing competitors conduit, and sadly like the rest of my requests, this, too, was denied and if you agree that the order and declaratory ruling are bad, the further notice will make your head explode. i will simply note that the majority of items the commission seeks further notice on are items on the wish list. the further notice seeks comment to attempt an end run around our attitude substitution tech from the transitions order by seeking comment or rather a single interconnected voice service without any service quality or other requirements, should

enable streamline discontin discontinueances and for higher speed data services. finally, it asks whether we can help states and localities recover better from disasters by preempting their regulators as if natural disasters rendered states and localities unable to figure out what was best for their communities. if i'd left you with any doubt where i stand on this item, let me clear it up for you right now. i respectfully dissent. none of the less, i think thank the bureaus for their work on these items, these are difficult issues and you have spent long, long hours addressing them. my hope is today that we can come to concensus on important issues sometime in the near

future. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner riley. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i commend the chairman for his leadership on this proceeding, which represents further steps to streamline fcc regulations and processes, reduce unnecessary regulation costs and restores the correct interpretation of section 214 of the act including by making clear that the provision does not extend to carriers and other lines of business. i will vote to approve. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner riley, commissioner card. >> thanks, to close the digital divide we need to make it easier for providers to deploy high speed networks, but for years, fcc rules have stood in the way of providers delivering advanced services to communities across the country. so, i'm pleased that today's item takes concrete steps to reduce these regulatory burdens, while ensuring that consumers remain protected. these actions will make a real difference, particularly for those living in rural and less

densely populated areas of the country. areas that might miss out and on advanced wire line deployments. one area shows through streamlining alone, they can flip the business case for thousands of communities. regulatory reforms could make it economical for the private sector deploy fiber to 26.7 million more homes, than under the existing regime. that's additional 45.3 billion in private sector investment that could be incentivized simply by removing regulatory barriers to employment. today's order implements many of those reforms. the copper retirement, an and waiting period. and enable carriers to cost effectivelily transition to fiber networks. in addition the order will help mitigate the impact of natural

disasters such as hurricanes by ensuring the timely restoration of communication services for consumers. we also support the deployment of next generation networks by shortening the time frame for carriers to discontinue low speed legacy services and providing clarity when fcc authorization requires by eliminating the misguided functional test. i also appreciate my colleagues' willingness to incorporate notice, and codify our existing precedence that commits overlapping as a right and this approach could codify fiber deeper into the network without the costly and time consuming regulatory approvals. this will make it easier for consumers to benefit from next generation deployment. so the order has my support and thanks to the competition bureau for your hard work on this item. >> thank you.

commissioner? >> broadband is more than a technology, it's a platform for opportunity. every choice this agency makes should further that opportunity for all of us, that is how i believe we build a more powerful future. that might be a lofty sentiment, but i think it's our duty under the law. this is a duty that i think this agency should take seriously. but here, in this proceeding, purportedly about accelerating wire line broadband deployment the fcc fails this test. too little of what is before us will extend the reach of broadband opportunity while a whole host of it will increase the number of consumers cut off from communication service without fair warning. let me explain. this proceeding is fundamentally about notice. as a result of the actions the fcc takes today, how holds and businesses in communities

across the country may find their service altered without advanced warning, and with no guarantee of an equivalent replacement. recognize that rural areas are at special risk because the economics favor removing facilities without putting in place truly comparable service. now, i know that networks need to be updated, i understand the need to swap out old services and replace them with new infrastructure, but it defies logic to suggest that this can be done without working closely with the communities and customers where network change is going to hit. to those who are affected by change, the consumers, businesses, state officials, tribal authorities and first responders, the fcc says, tough, figure it out. you're on your own. because i think this is cold and cruel comfort for the millions who rely on these services today and are unlikely

to debetter broadband in the future. i dissent. at the risk of being technocratic, but also in an effort to show we read things carefully i'm going to approve one aspect of today's decision. i believe the order accurately restates the law with respect to the exclusion of capital expenses recovered from nonrecurring pole attachment make ready costs and i think it does a good job clarifying time license for the resolution for pole attachment complaints. i believe this clarity can truly help facilitate broadband deployment in a manner that could very well be consumer friendly, so on this discrete aspect of today's decision, i offer my support. >> thank you, commissioner. it seems like ancient history, but at one time fax machines were thought to be a necessary accoutrement of any modern office and that changed quickly so much so when i joined the fcc in 2012, i was surprised to

learn, number one, they had a fax machine and number two, the agency's default was to include a fax machine number on business cards. i promptly jettisoned that number in favor of my twitter handle. technology and consumer's expectations about it had simply out outpaced the bulky device that played critical roles in movies like "the firm", and "back to the future 2", and copper in the late 1980's, they're ever more outdated as consumers lead to fiber and ip based technologies and ip is more resilient. more robust and more competitive and as to why a key to closing the digital divide is maximizing provider's ability and willingness to investigate in building the not modern network that ruled the internet economy. but unneeded regulations deter many companies from investing in these new networks, having to maintain two networks, one will eggsy, one modern, diverts

resources away from new deployment. by definition, every dollar that is spent maintaining fading copper networks, is by definition a follow that cannot be spent on fiber. and these dollars are substanti substantial. one estimate that companies would save 40 to $50 in operating expenses per home by not having to maintain old copper facilities. nationwide that translates into billions of dollars annually that could be devoted to next generation networks, but that digital opportunity is denied when the fcc's rules force carriers to maintain the networks of yesteryear. today we act to remove regulation that is slowing the competition. and carriers can switch to newer technologies that better serve consumers. we ask carriers to notify customers of changes before the

fcc so they can better coordinate transition. we need the process for discontinuing little used or low speeds legacy data services, and we turn back the misguided functional test, which effectively established a mother may i approach to building networks, one which disserved both consumers and companies. this decision will especially benefit rural america. as it is the business case for installing in low density areas can be hard. forcing companies and their capital through a government-controlled bottle neck makes it harder. promoting more market-based decisions will improve business cases for rural broadband, helping rural communities. one study found that a package of reforms, including many that we adopt today. would make it economically viable for the private sector to deploy viber to the premise and to rural locations. these are people and places too long have been on the wrong side of the digital divide.

now, unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, some who depose this decision engaged in fear mongering, claiming that consumers will be suddenly left without service or service taken away without notice. let's set the record straight. if a carrier wants to stop offering traditional telephone service, our rules will require notifying the affected consumers and seeking permission through the fcc's section 214 discontinueance process and that's true today and after this order is adopted. likewise the claim that leaves those with disabilities in the lurch. in fact, we clearly warn that carriers seeking to discontinue a legacy service in favor after advanced service, must as a matter of law ensure the replacement service is accessible, compatible and usable to the persons with disabilities. it is also ironic that many of those fiercely opposed to accelerating the transition to

fiber and ip-based technologies are simultaneously upset about what they claim is the lack of competition in the broadband market and the dominance of companies using other technologies. well, you can't have it both ways. either you want to enable to company with 20th century copper plants to compete in the 21st century or you don't. if you don't then you can't or shouldn't complain about the lack of competitive choice at the current broadband standard. the bottom line, ip transition is here and consumers are better off with it and prefer it. the fcc can expand into the modern equivalent of a fax machine or deliver value for consumers. i'm glad this commission has its eyes on the future. thanks to the staff who have worked so hard on this item from the office of general counsel and consumer and governmental affairs bureau and office of strategic planning, and we'll plead to a vote.

commissioner cliburn. >> nay. >> commissioner card. >> aye. >> chair votes aye, thanks for the staff for the work on the itemment madam secretary please take us to the next general on the item. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, the fifth item is wire line and entitled bridging the digital divide for low income consumers, lifeline and link-up reform and mott modernization and eligible for service support. and the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary, miss monteith, welcome back. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, the wire line competition bureau presents for your consideration, a fourth report in order, order on reconsideration memorandum opinion and order, notice of proposed rule making and notice

of inquiry that takes a pressure look at the commission's life line program. the item focuses on how the program can more effectively and efficiently help close the digital divide for low income consumers while minimizing the contributions burden on rate payers by tackling waste, fraud and abuse. i'd like to thank the telecommunications access divisions team for their work on this proceeding. our colleagues in the enforcement and wireless telecommunications bureaus and in the offices of communications business opportunities, general counsel, managing director and strategic planning also provided us with invaluable input. seated at the table with me are associate bureau chief and from the bureaus telecommunications action cess policy device, ryan palmer, division chief.

jody griffin, and rashawn duval. and rashawn will present the item. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman and commissioner. the item before you if adopted seeks to assure that the life line program works as given to us by the congress and communications act. it addresses ongoing waste, fraud and abuse that undermines the integrity of the program and limits its effectiveness. first, the fourth report on order, reconsideration and memorandum and opinion order take a series of steps to address ongoing areas of concern in the life line program to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. specifically the orders would target enhanced life line support to people on rural areas on tribal lands. establish mapping for tribal lands and the direct enhanced support of facility-based

providers. increase life line portable by eliminating the port for voice involving internet access services and clarify that premium wi-fi and other networks of wi-fi brad bond internet access do not qualify under the life line rules. together the orders would target enhanced life line support for tribal lands to support the deployment of modern communications networks, promote consumer choice within the program and remove uncertainty in streamline our rules regarding application of life line support and eligibility for life line reimbursement. second, the notice of proposed rule making, if adopted, lea ses to make sure it come ports with the communications act and curb wasteful and abusive spending in the life line program. ending the commission's

preemption of state rules and certain telecommunications carriers and removing the life line designation. offering both voice and broadband services. adopting a self-enforcing budget cap for the program, improving the eligibility verification and recertification processes to further prevent waste, fraud and abuse in the program and improving providers incentive to provide quality communication services by establishing a maximum discount left for lifeline supported service. finally, the notice of inquiry if adopted seeks comment how they might target funds in households obtaining digital opportunity. the bureau recommends adoption of the item and editorial privileges only in technical and confirming edits. >> all right, seeking from

commissioner clyburn. there is a question too rarely asked, who is a life line subscriber? according to survey data, it is a she. she makes $14,000 per year. she is middle age, single, and has a child within her care. she is trapped in systemic poverty and she has picked the only device and telephone plan she could afford. as stated more boldly, the plan has picked her. that service is delivered primarily by a wireless reseller because she can only afford one form of telecommunication. that device enables her to call 911. that service allows her to speak with her child's educators. and that service hopes she's able to help they are child with that homework.

and she was able to stay on top of that full-time or often multiple part-time, but too often dead-end minimum wage shift schedule and just what has the fcc majority teed up for her today? in a clienl order-- final order circulated after i got up here, a more efficient friendly means to bridge the digital and communication divide? no, they did not. before us is a carefully crafted proposal which is more likely to rip that phone from her hand, than provide her with robust, enhanced, and affordable service. now, if i were to rename this agency the federal punitive rule making commission, you would accuse me of being over the top. but this fourth report in order, order on reconsideration, memorandum opinion and order notice of

proposed rule making and notice of inquiry, it is, in fact, punitive rule making. and what should be most telling, even to a casual observer is that no filer in this docket thus far supports any of the specific policy proposals. there's a slight exception in the form of one filer who have the faintest of praise, but every other is against this item, veterans groups, public interest groups, civil rights groups, carriers, tribes and more have expressed deep concerns about this rule making so today you see me draped primarily in black this morning, now this afternoon, because i mourn for that mother and her prospects when it comes to phone service, i mourn because before us is an absurd proposal devoid of promise and empathy and i mourn because i am forced to be critical of a

majority that leads an agency i hold dear. i mourn because this majority would rather toss out those valuable solutions already teed up when it comes to service reforms, more choice and ensuring that low income americans can afford voice and broadband service. the majority pro claims that the item is about bridging the digital divide and it boldly labeled this item as such, but this proposal does nothing to make the lives of those who qualify better and no amount of orwellion double speak in the docket's title would suggest otherwise. make no mistake, this is the widen and digital and opportunity divide item. this administration goes on about the urgency of reducing regulatory barriers, indeed, we've had before us item after

item over the past ten months that purport to do just that. but when it comes to those most in need, the most they are willing to do is pay lip service, for them, we have and will make more-- it more difficult for providers to enter and stay into the life line program. for those looking to serve economically poor people, this majority is very comfortable attacking even blameless companies as they force them to divest customers, lose millions of dollars even after they have entered the market, and they are ensuring that it will take 25 years, not one year, for any provider to be able to offer nation-wide service. this administration is all about ensuring that the commission encourages innovative service offerings, but not if those innovative service offerings are designed to help those who are

economically poor. for those less fortunate, too bad. the majority is happy to dictate the exact type of facilities a provider must give to you when it comes to service, ignoring the communications act. and the ability of the marketplace to respond and provide solutions that meet people where they are, and ignoring what they have done in every other docket before this, where they extolled the benefits of a free and open market. i could go on pointing out how this administration enables providers to provide free data to consumers, but not if they are economically poor how this administration allows service benefit toss flow in perpetuity for companies, but not for those who are economically poor. that this administration praises competitive choice, but not for the economically poor. and that this administration

decries consumers having to pay a minimum fee for voice service, but for the economically poor, we're just fine that they are suggesting that they do just that. finally, we have raised budgets for other universal service programs, but here, we are seeking comment on having, halving or worse, cutting in half in case that southern drawl came out, the amount we spend on bridging the vulnerable on-line could it be because these consumers are economically poor? the impact of these actions and proposed actions will be severe, but the actions themselves, and i usually try not to bring emotion even when i'm emotional, these actions are heartless. over 70% of the wire life line consumers will be told that they cannot use their preferred carrier and preferred plan and on top of that, they must not have a carrier to-- they may not have a carrier to

turn to after all of this happens and just where is the analysis? of where these customers will go if they reach that juncture? or just where is analysis of telling us how could we ensure that they will be able to afford connectivity? the item contains no analysis of this sort. and at a time when eligible telecommunications carriers are actively relinquishing their designation or elected forebearance from providing life line service? just where will these consumers turn? as i've said before and will repeat again, the federal life line program is not, nor should it ever be an infrastructure program. it is certainly a complement to infrastructure programs, but ultimately it's an affordable program.

even when the commission said additional life line monies would have the effect of spurring infrastructure's deployment and the context of tribal life lines, it has said that the primary goal is to reduce the muscly cost of service and went on with a detailed analysis of how-- analysis, a detailed analysis of how that additional funding would impact affordability. it never suggested at that affordability is an infrastructure problem and it should never do so. most disheartening, however, is the immediate impact this proposal will have on tribal lands. and all of this is occurring during native american heritage month. during my travels in new mexico last year, i met l uchucienda,

that without the life line and i quote, would really be living in the 1800's. unfortunately, many other tribes are plagued by a disproportionate share of their citizens living in poverty. some of them lack the basics, like electricity and clean, running water. what this means for many of them is that lifeline phone is their only real connection to the outside world and that lifeline phone sometimes is their only functioning utility. the tribes had told us that losing enhanced lifeline support would be devastating because very few wireless etc's actually provide lifeline service on tribal lands, and for some inexplicable reason this prohibits satellite

service from participating on tribal land. as if this were not painful enough. this offers no transition or phasedown period unlike what we've done in the past for multiple other universal service and disability programs when we change rate and subsidy structures. process-wise, this item is a failure. making radical changes without engaging tribes is contrary to our very own best practices. while the draft recirculated yesterday makes reference to mapping related consultation completed over a year ago in the last administration, there is no mention of any consultation that this administration has done. we have an internal office of native affairs and policy, my question is, were they consulted during this process? if not, that is truly bad practice and process. at a minimum, we should have

stopped the comment on this and actively consulted with the tribes on this issue as we said we would. and like many other things on the day's agenda, this item does in the include a cost benefit analysis unlike what the fcc majority repeatedly demanded of the previous administration. none of this had to be this way. i was willing to meet my colleagues halfway. i have shown in the past that i would vote for notices that seek comment even on things that i may not have believed in, particularly, if it has a chance of resultening an order that does good, that it has a chance of resulting in an order that saves low income tribal consumers moving once it's effective and unfortunately, this was not to be. days after the item was first circulated, my office began a conversation with the chairman's office about potential edit and in the interest of compromise, i

suggested that we pump the brakes a bit and build a record on the major changes in this item. and like the elimination of resalers from the program and changes to tribal lifeline. that suggestion was flatley rejected. i propose that we retain a streamline lbp process for states that do not certify lifeline only etc's, that suggestion was flatley-- flatly rejected and a proposal was flatly rejected and that we do not pre-judge, or that only those allowed to be participate in the program and that was flatly rejected and suggested that we not hamstring the

program through a methodology. do i have to tell you what the answer was? in case you missed it, that was flatly rejected. it's inevitable that someone will bring up my admittedly failed attempt at compromise on one item and that's the budget. let me speak to this. we have a budget mechanism in place now for lifeline. that may not go as far or as, yes, punitive as the cap before us, but it is in place, indeed, if you would like at that look at the lead sentence that seeks comment on the budget, it suggests a $820 million cap. irrespective of my past attempt at compromise, leading with a proposal that would cut the program's current budget by more than half is something that is not starting at the 50 yard line for me. this item does not bridge the

digital divide as it purports, it is a bridge to nowhere. it proposes to strip one of the four pillars of our universal service promise and that is affordability. my only hope here today is that this commission sees the error of its ways before it does further harm to those americans who are trapped on the other side of the economic digital and opportunities divide. i dissent. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner riley. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate the chairman undertaking this proceeding to make critical reforms to the lifeline program. he and his team have worked diligently to identify and quantify waste and fraud in the

program. and faced criticism for highlighting the way the program has gone off the rail including enabling providers to claim support for dead people. these are basic undeniable facts. i've raised similar concerns as has the gao in report after report after report, indeed given the miserable track record, many called for it ending it altogether. the chairman at the start of this term has attempted to institute necessary fixes and bring the program back in line with the statue. directing to improve oversight, accelerating progress on the national lifeline eligibility verifier. now, we're seeking comment on more fundamental revisions, some have argued that changes adopted by the prior commission are sufficient, but some of those are forms like the national verifier won't be completely in place for years, if ever. in the meantime, we can and must do better to safeguard the program and the rate payer dollars that fund it.

during this latest push to overhaul lifeline i have focused on three particular forms, establishing a real enforceable budget for the program. targeting subsidies to those consumers who otherwise would not have service and return to the original program, discounted, not free, from as many recipients as feasible. these are reasonable requests i will continue to press more and expect to see in any rules. first my call for a real budget, not some phony budget mechanism, is not unique to the lifeline program. all other federal universal service programs are subject to a cap or very firm budget to limit the evoverall coasts to consumers who pay the fees to support the programs. and budget, the first line of defense against a rapid increase in the program side and acts as deterrent to prevent oversubscription or

abuse. it's unfathomable to me, some of my colleagues who previously sat before congress and the need for the budget, and had they followed through on bipartisan for the budget. this proceeding might be in a different posture. second to avoid access spending and regulatory overreach. all federal programs must be carefully tailored to identify the market failure. the lifeline program fails miserably in that regard. gao and academics only one in eight subscribers and one out of 20 wireless subscribers would not have service ab sent the lifeline, that's failure rates. let me repeat. consumers are paying more on their phone bills each month to support service for people that would have signed up and paid in full without a subsidy, a better targeted program would

enabled more deserving consumers to obtain service without unfairly charging rate payers. third, lifeline was intended to be a discount program. many of the problems with waste, fraud and abuse in the program stem from the fact that when wireless services aeded to the program subsidized voice service became free to end users. along with the phone, and even the data allowance. requiring a minimum contribution would also be consistent with the rules for other federal assistance programs. i recognize that some portion of lifeline eligible consumers are truly destitute and could not afford to contribute even one dollar to the service, that's not who i'm talking about, however, there are other individuals at the top ends of the eligibility spectrum that should be able to do so, in fact, may pay some additional amount to top off their lifeline plans. in those circumstances, we should be able to find some way to implement a minimum contribution. i've already heard some ideas worth exploring, such as

requiring a minimum contribution when consumers recertify their eligibility each year. with some we'd solve the problem wii raising program requirements so providers cannot economically offer service for free and raises its own set of problems. for some consumers, having a voice line with the ability text is the lifeline they want. requiring them to offer high speed broadband can be counterproductive. i appreciate the chance to work with the chairman to further reform and stamp out remaining waste, fraud and abuse and make sure that it's run efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the statute. for those who want to lambaste possible changes to the program, far from protecting it, you're causing its credibility to further erode and doing great disservice to its many recipients. i'm willing and will vote to approve. >> thank you, commissioner, o'reilly, commissioner carr. >> thanks the lifeline program is an important part of fcc's

obligation to ensure that quality services are available to consumers at reasonable and affordable rates. the services of the program have been undermined by waste, fraud and abuse that plagued it over the last several years. gao highlighted some abuse in the may, 2017 report. for example, the gao could not confirm whether more than a million individuals actually participate in the qualifying benefit programs claimed on their lifeline enrollment applications. the gao identified over 6,000 individuals who were reported as deceased by the social security administration, but are unin the less signed up for lifeline. what's more, their enrollment and annual recertification all took place after the supposed subscribers had passed away. despite the program's one per household rule, in one instance gao found 10,000 separate enrollments associated with a

single address. these concerns have been echoed by members of congress on both sides of a political aisle, as well as members of the commission in 2012, in 2016 when they voted on reforms. now, i don't view these widespread instances of fraud as a basis for eliminating the program, but they're certainly a call for serious reform. indeed, the commission has responsibility to both the rate payers who fund lifeline and to the consumers who benefit from it to ensure that our program goals are being met. so i'm glad that we're now taking action to increase accountability, while at the same time, considering ways to target life line support to consumers in communities that need it most. one place where the digital divide is most stark is on tribal land. in fact fcc found that 68% of people living in rural areas on

tribal land lack access it broadband. we need to do more to close the digital divide in these communities and doing so requires us to have greater facilities based appointment and the chair recognizes that in 2012 when it voted to limit the $100 link up dis-- they reasoned that by limiting to facility based providers the agency will help innocecentiviz the deployment of broadband and tribal lands. the developments since then support that finding and thus we build on the commission's 2012 decision in today's order by extending the extended facility based requirement to providers that receive enhanced tribal lifeline support. the record shows that taking this step will innocent viz carriers to deploy and invest broadband facilities on tribal lands. the item also asks important questions about potential

program changes to ensure that lifeline works effectively. for example, recognizing that universal service funds are finite, we propose to adopt a self-enforcing budget mechanism and seek comment how it can work. and we look at preemption of the state authority over the telecommunications process for broadband which will make sure that states continue their vital roles in protecting lifeline prescribers from bad actors, and we have provider participation in the program and these are important steps toward making lifeline more accountable and effective so this item has by support. >> thank you, commissioner carr. >> commissioner. >> the future belongs to the connected no matter who you are or where you live you need connection to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st century success. but the fact of the matter is that today, too many americans

rack -- lack access to broadband and last year fcc decided to do something about it, it took a hard look at the lifeline program which got its start in 1985 when president reagan was in the white house and nearly all communications involved a cord. it updated this program which was about helping low income households secure access to voice telephony and refocused it on broadband. i think this was the right thing to do. i think this was the modern thing to do. and that's because internet connections are the dial tone of the digital age. if you want an objectless son in why this is true, just consider kids and homework. today seven in ten teachers assign homework that requires broadband access, but data from the fcc show as many as one in three households do not subscribe to internet service. where those numbers overlap is what i call the homework gap.

and according to the senate joint economic committee, the homework gap is real, by their estimate, it affects 12 million children all across the country. let me tell you what it looks like. if that was students in texas that do homework at fast food restaurant with fries just to get a free wi-fi signal. i've listened to students in pennsylvania who make elaborate plans every day to head to the homes of friends and relatives just to be able to get on-line. i've heard from high school football players in rural new mexico who linger in the school parking lot after games in the pitch black dark because it's the only place they can get a reliable connection. these kids have grit, but it shouldn't be this hard because today no child can be left off line, developing digital skills is flat-out essential for education and full

participation in the modern economy. you know what could help the homework gap? the lifeline program could help if properly reformed getting broadband to households including those with schools. instead of thinking about the future and doing something modern, today the fcc steps out to slash this program from front to back. instead of honoring our statutory duty under section 254 to support low income consumers, we cast them aside and cut them off. instead of taking into account the millions of dollars that have been spent on a new system of national verification, to reduce waste, fraud and abuse, we discard the possibilities before we even begin. instead of reviewing in depth audits, we toss them in the trash, rather than use them to inform change. instead of recognizing that there are lifeline enrollees in

texas, florida and puerto rico who are using the program to pull their lives back together after devastating storms, we seek to cut off their internet and phone service. instead of consulting with tribal authorities to impact native american communities, we hang up on the least connected among us. instead of helping veterans who rely on lifeline reacclimating to civilian life, we turn them away. instead of modern communications, we deny them service and instead of helping kids do their school work and navigate the homework gap. redes connect their signal and deny them a fair shot at future success. this is not real reform. this is cruelty. it is at odds with our statutory duty and it will do little more than assign too many communities to the wrong side of the digital divide.

i dissent. >> this past summer the government accountability office for gao published a report identifying deeply disturbing programs in the lifeline program. for example, gao discovered over 1.2 million lifeline subscribers who apparently were not eligible to participate in the program, as well as 6,378 individuals who apparently reenrolled after being reported dead. now, that limited sample alone constituted more than $137 million in abuse each year. just two months ago, the u.s. senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee-- i'm sorry, asked me to testify an a hearing entitled fcc's lifeline program, a case study of government waste and mismanagement. message i and my fellow witnesses heard clear, it was urgent, it was bipartisan.

among other members, chairman johnson and mccaskill declared that lifeline's problems are persist sent and serious, and time for action now. as senator mccaskill from missouri, the idea that we could continue a program that's deficient the way we've doing is is frankly a nonstarter for me. it's a nonstarter for fcc. the proposals we seek to implement accomplish two important objectives. first, curtail, the waste, fraud and abuse that continue it plague the lifeline program and second, make lifeline more effective bridging the divide on behalf of low income americans. let's start with what specifically will change as a result of this order. first, we will reduce waste by appropriately focusing enhanced tribal lifeline support. now, right now, the lifeline

program provides subsidies up to $9.25 a month to those living in most parts of the country. but it provides up to $34.25 a month in subsidies to those living on tribal lands. a $25 per month bump. in many cases that rightly is the limited deployment and high cost of service on many tribal lands, but the definition that we've used for tribal lands includes many cities like tulsa, oklahoma and reno, nevada. so any low income person in tulsa and reno is eligible for a $34 per month subsidy while those living in wichita and las vegas, and the vast majority of the cities only qualifies for $9. that makes no sense. i was in reno this summer, being the biggest little city,

it has good connectivity. especially when compared to tribal areas i've visited from south dakota to navajo nation in arizona. targeting enhanced lifeline tribal support to rural tribal areas ends this waste, and directs the federal help to members who really need the help. second, we direct enhanced trebil support to providers who are actually building networks and deploying infrastructure on tribal land. i participated in three official tribal consultations as chairman, as well as numerous other meetings with tribal representatives. i've discussed the lifeline program with tribal representatives and talked about ways it can be improved and what i've heard repeatedly is the communities on tribal lands desperately need broadband investments and that's why many tribes and tribal organizations have weighed in with support from the steps we are talking today from northwest oregon to gila

river in arizona. to idaho to hawaiian homeland assembly. new mexico, to the red lake band of chippewa indians in minnesota to the village in alaska. these tribes understand that a $34.25 a month subsidy is a significant sum that when aggregated can greatly improve a facility's base provider's business case for building up broadband networks on tribal lands. third, we take the simple and common sense states of determining residency on tribal lands seeking enlanced tribal support. for now there's self-certificati self-certification. and that allowed members to sign up more tribal residents

in hawaii than there were tribal residents. simply put, it's not an adequate safeguard for taxpayer funds. today we close that loophole and require on tribal land to be independently verified. we reverse a prior rule that the prior fcc, so-called port freeze allowed providers to lock in consumers for a year when providing broadband service, and this past year we have heard of lifeline customers who are dissatisfied with their service, but are blocked from switching to a lifeline provider because of this rule. all consumers, including low income consumers deserve choice and flexibility and i'm glad that we're repealing the prior fcc's ill-considered regulation. fifth, we take an important step to ensure that lifeline consumers are receiving the quality of service that they deserve. right now some of these

resellers are claiming to meet the required services by what they call premium wi-fi. it's a service that might work at local mcdonald's, but won't connect students at home. low income families deserve high quality services not cheap knockoffs and today we say second class service isn't good enough. now, taken together these five targeted measures will reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the program and help bridge the digital divide on rural tribal lands and i am perfect service for lifeline consumers. turning from our reforms to our proposals, we are exploring further ways to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse, for example, by improving our lifeline audits and making the national verifier work better once it's up and running. we also take a hard look at wireless resellers, the group of lifeline providers that have been the subject of the vast majority of commission investigations for waste, fraud and abuse. and we finally propose to adopt

a real self-enforcing lifeline budget for the first time. now, some say that the lifeline program is too important to have a meaningful budget. i say it's too important not to have one. having an enforceable budget mechanism promotes good government and helps ensure that every dollar is spent more wisely on somebody who needs the help. and remember, every other universal service fund program, every one, e-rate, high cost and rural health care has a real budget. and every one of them is important, too. we also examine how the lifeline program can support investment in broadband networks where they're needed most in the low income communities in our cities and rural areas and on tribal land digitally redlined. far too many americans lack the broadband that many of us take for granted and far too long including the last eight years of the previous administration, policy makers let unscrupulous

policy sellers waste lifeline funding rather than they go to real opportunity and infrastructure in underserved communities. finally, i want to make clear my hopes that past should not be prologued. 2016 we reached a deal, although imperfect would have addressed problems with the lifeline program. that agreement was scuttled at the last moment for reasons i need not and will not explore here. as a result it falls to this commission to reform the program and make it a more effective tool for bridging the digital divide and expanding digital opportunity. going forward, i work with anyone who shares a goal and is interested in meaningful reform rather than defending a failed status quo. thank you to the staff that worked on this. >>

[voting] >> the profession is adopted. madam secretary please take us to number six. >> the sixth item on your agenda will be presented by the media bureau entitled 2014, the new regulatory review, review of the broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted pursuant to section 202 of the telecommunications act of '96 and michelle carey the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you very much. madam secretary. whenever you're ready. and presented to reconsideration and notice of proposed rule making that notices the broadcast...

it is required by statute to review broadcast ownership rules every four years. to repeal or modify any regulation that is deemed to be no longer in the public interest. in august of last year, th they completed the review of the broadcast ownership role. in several parties sought reconsiderations of various aspects. today's order grants in part three petitions for reconsideration. many of the restrictions adopted or retained are not supported by the record and must be repealed or modified.

specifically, today's order repeals the ownership rule saying it's no longer necessary given the voices in the marketplace in the rule prevents combinations that enable broadcasters and local newspapers to better serve consumers in their local communities. it also finds the radio television crossownership rule is no longer needed to promote diversity and must be eliminated. with respect to local television, the order illuminates the requirement that at least eight independently owned stations must remain in the market after ownership of two stations is combined in the market. the order finds that this eight voice test was unsupported by the record on any reasonable basis. the order also incorporates a case by case review option in the prohibition of common ownership. this tailored approach to the application will better reflect the competitive

conditions in local markets. today's order also repeals the attribution role for television joint sales or gsa which allowed non- commonly owned stations to jointly sell their advertising time. the commission's decision to distribute these agreements was unsupported by the record and they are beneficial agreements that serve the public interest by allowing broadcasters to better serve their local communities. for the local radio ownership rule they adopted the presumptive waivers approach for transactions in nelson audio markets that are part of a larger market. in addition, today's order on reconsideration retains the disclosure for ssa's involving commercial television stations. the order finds the underlying decision defining these agreements and defying their. [inaudible] was supported by the record. today's order finds the

commission will adopt an incubator program to help promote new entry and ownership diversity in the broadcast industry. an incubator program can provide certain benefits to an entity that helps facilitate station ownership through the provision of technical expertise and/or financial assistance. in today's notice they seek, on how to structure and implement a program. they recommend the commission adopt this order on consideration and request editorial privileges. >> thank you. >> now to the comments.

>> luckily i didn't take up that what the commissioner. we are both wrong. i might have to take a seven inning stretch. >> i said 115. >> i don't drink, but boy am getting closer. resetting the tone. the problems with this order on reconsideration are so glaring, both on process and on substanc substance. it is truly hard to decide where to begin. do i start by describing why the wholesale illumination of key media ownership rules will harm localism, diversity and competition? my focus on the number of loopholes this commission blesses through this order or do i highlight how the fcc majority is chosen to take some of the same facts used by

this commission just over a year ago to reach the exact opposite conclusion? after i address each of these failures in greater detail, allow me to explain the alternative proposal i put forward to my colleagues. let me begin by establishing this. despite what you have been told about the genesis of this order, it is not really about helping small struggling broadcast groups or newspapers. while the jury is still out whether it could actually achieve that goal, this is really about helping large media companies grow even larger which is in stark contrast to what the president said just last week in discussing the importance of having many news outlets as you can. if our aim were to provide hope for the smallest entities

in the tiniest media market, we would have adopted a narrowly tailored proposal focusing expressly on these financially challenged stations. instead, today's action including the reinstatement of the discount and the elimination of the main studio rules, we have paved the way for a new crop of broadcast media empires. they will be light years removed from the very local communities they are supposed to serve. these media titans will have degrees of power far beyond the imagination of our local communities. our local outlets that inform us of what is happening in our community, those outlets that investigate allegations of improprieties within government, the outlets that tell us whether we need in umbrella or an overcoat and we might need both today.

they are on the ground before, during and after major, natural and man-made disasters. our local stations play a unique role in our communities, and unlike those 24 hour cable news networks, our local outlets deliver their broadcast signal using the public airways and, with that, comes the responsibility to serve the public interest. if you were to stop someone randomly on the street and asked him who owns their local television or radio station, after they look at you and possibly punch you, they would not be able to answer. what they know is to out of the top four television stations in their community had the same owner and the third station was affiliated with the stations through a

sharing agreement, would they know the local news anchor is reporting a story using the same script as dozens of others around the country or even another station and their very own market? while these may not be top of mind questions for most americans, the answers matter. the viewers and listeners have a right to know those answers. they should also be aware that these practices are already happening today. when this order is adopted, the floodgates to more consolidation will come without transparency or can ability. to be clear, the media landscape has changed a lot over the past 30 years. when it comes to coverage of national and international events, there is no question that americans have more choice today than they did back in 1975.

if we are going to play that game of making comparisons between legacy platforms and newer entries including cable news and online sources, we need a neutral umpire to keep the score. these platforms are not created equal. the reality is, they are not substitutes when it comes to local news and event coverage. as one news publication put it last week, consolidating ownership won't put more reporters on the ground, but it will certainly amplify the influence of a small number of companies. i could not have said it any better. citing the simple fairness, the chairman making comparisons to local companies to those social media giants like twitter, facebook and

others. to my knowledge they are not engaged in local news production. a recent visit to google's news page underscores this very point. under the local news tab for the district of columbia, non nine out of the first ten results linked to stories by traditional, local newspaper broadcast or television or radio outlets. these are the simple facts that we should never ignore when evaluating the current media landscape. while i am not here to vilify financial success, i want for myself as much as i want for you. the horror stories depicted in the x partake filings are reasons for a a eliminating

the rules do not match what is being presented on wall street. one major broadcast group reported that their revenues are up 15% this year, a new record. another revenues are up 17%, and yet another broadcaster saw its stock price reach a record high earlier this year. and even further evidence of fact, not matching filings, retransmission consent fees, they are up year-over-year by as much as 162%. these other financial realities on the ground, why are we in such a rush to eliminate protections that prevent consolidation but have untold elephants on localism and viewpoint diversity. what may be less obvious to the casual observer are the

loopholes in our media ownership rules that this order blesses. take the use of joint sales agreements, for example. as i have shared in the past statement, there have been cases in which these agreements have been shown to be in the public interest, albeit rare. i've also described a range of that contribute to the full scale control of the brokered station including the same programming, the same talent, the same management, and the same studio. such an agreement coupled with the dismantling of other key media ownership rules substantially distorts the reality of how much control of broadcast station owner has in any given market. this also fails to acknowledge the past benefit from unwinding these asa.

in a december 2014 blog, chairman wheeler and i describe how by enforcing the local television ownership rule, ten new women and minority owned markets were established. similarly, absent from the analysis is a harm to minority ownership by eliminating ownership attribution of these arrangements. as a pointed out in a recent joint filing, non- attribution of jfk coupled with the repeal of the eight voices test could enable a single company to completely dominate a market television advertising sales and make new entry impossible. the order fails to consider this reality. turning now to process where we reverse course, not much more than one year after the commission completed its

quadrant annual review. something must have changed in those last month to warrant such a drastic change yet the facts of the facts and while my colleagues may not have agreed with the policy adopted by the previous administration, it was based on the record that had not changed. if they disagree with policy, and that is their right to hold such a belief, than what they should have done was open a new proceeding and build a case for that position. the courts have admonished this agency in the past for changing rules without a supporting record, and today's order on reconsideration ignores the court's instructions. continuing with the topic of process, take a look at how the order incorrectly invokes section 222 invoke its policy goals. three times.

the courts have told us if we want to make meaningful changes to our rules then we must get comprehensible reliable data. the courts date stated that in adopting or modifying its rules, fec must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its explanation including a connection between the facts and the choices made. they conclude without the benefit of new data that we cannot continue as it can no longer be justified based on census data initiated hopes

that these will promote minority and female ownership. [inaudible] it's evidence that we are on the path toward obtaining better data. the problem with that notion is that we are adopting today's order less than two months after the committee held its first meeting. so what is the point of establishing a committee if the majority has reached the conclusion that a core media ownership rule are no longer necessary to support our goal of increasing diversity. the 31 members of this committee have agreed to step away from their busy schedules, to do what the chairman described as taking important steps toward

increasing diversity throughout the communications industry and bringing digital opportunity to all americans. so why not let them get to work and make recommendations to the full commission and rely on data instead of reversing the actions of the previous administration simply because you feel differently. newsflash, there was in fact a path forward that could have guarded my support but regrettably the proposal i put forth was rejected. all petitions for reconsideration should have been denied on the basis of section one.429 of the commission's rules, specifically. this section of the rules outlines a narrow set of criteria by which the commission will consider a petition that considers new facts were arguments which have not previously presented themselves. neither the facts nor arguments have changed in the

years since the commission completed the last review. this majority has routinely rejected petitions. it ignores these rules to satisfy its own interest. second, i propose opening a new proceeding to explore the adoption of an incubator program. such a concept has been debated for many years with bipartisan support. as you know, i believe the questions proposed in. [inaudible] the it would build on a comprehensive set of data,

ownership diversity. the proceeding should also examine how further media consolidation would impact localism and competition. i propose this data be undertaken expeditiously and completed prior to the start of the 2018 quadrennial review , and lastly, i propose that any changes to the commission, media ownership rules be considered as part of the review once the appropriate data is collected and an assessment can be made of the impact that established incubator program has had in creating opportunities for new entrants and small businesses. these tasks are not unreasonable. they are consistent with the commission's rules, the instructions of the third circuit, and commitment, as an

agency to be data driven. they might suggest my aim was further to delay the inevitable. this could not be further from the truth. by looking independently at each change. we are left with a deeply order of no data to support its conclusions. welcome back my friends to industry consolidation month at the fcc. my colleagues and majority of

my words will go down in history as when the fcc advocated its responsibility to uphold the core values of localism, competition and diversity in broadcasting. i dissent and look forward to the day when the court issues a decision to write this sad wrong. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start with a quote. today the modern media marketplace includes thousands of radio and broadcast television stations, hundreds of national, regional and local nonbroadcast television networks delivering a vast range of content and perhaps more significantly, the internet, and a host of digital technology enabled services. this statement is from chief judge of the third circuit in

2004. the court reminds us commission, section 2028 of the telecommunications act uses unmistakably mandatory language in describing. our action today is not part of a larger plan to favorably set the landscape for future merger, implying that it simply untrue and minimizing the deer election of duty by the commission. instead, today's item in 2017 includes the commission's 2010, 2014 watcher annual review. the commission eliminates the newspaper broadcast, crossownership rules. as the item carefully explains in today's environment, the rule makes no longer sense. this is not a new idea. in fact, the commission in one

form or another has been unable to justify this role for more than 15 years. the commission concluded as part of its 2000 to review that a complete ban of newspaper and broadcast ownership was no longer in the public interest. they agreed with this conclusion and found the proposal to be arbitrary capricious. as a result of that, the 1975 rule remains. upon the next review came the 2006. the fcc no longer believed it could justify the band. the court found process files and remanded the issue. as a result the 1975 rule remain. the there's still fresh from the quadra annual review. the third circuit admonished the rule stating that the 1975 band remains in effect this day even though the fcc determined more than a decade

ago that it's no longer in the public interest. perhaps determined to continue the process files of the past when the commission finally act on this proceeding it examine the full media landscape and did nothing to adjust our rules in response about landscape. in fact, having the votes to eliminate ownership, the commission ignored the role before it and decided to maintain the rule, again, 1975 rule remains. today we fix a shoddy effort of the previous commission. we also establish a thorough record and analysis justifying why the and the co is no longer necessary. i have no doubt this item will wind up back before the desk of the third circuit, however the court will be hard-pressed to find that th they failed to justify the reasoning. more than a decade ago, they found that the court reasonably concluded that the nb seo rule was not necessary to route competition or

localism. today's item fully addresses why it's not needed to ensure viewpoint diversity. according to pew, americans turned to a wide range of platforms to get news and information. the third circuit recognizes this including cable and internet in 2004. it simply does agreed with commission on the degree to which these services competed with local newspapers. but, something else happened in 2004. the social media platform known as facebook launched followed by twitter in 2006. the social media platforms, along with google became go to sites that many consumers visit to first learn about breaking news, or national news. more than a decade later it is hard to overstate the impact of social media platforms and online outlets on viewpoint diversity. also, since 2002, the commission has explored ways to modify the local television

rule. in 2004. they upheld the eight voices test but remanded to limit the fcc impose. once again the effect of freezing the old rules in place. other things can strengthen the overall state of broadcasters and allow stations to concentrate more resources on bringing more and higher quality local content. requirements like the eight voices sense make less sense than they did in 2002 when the commission first sought to eliminate it. i'm pleased that this commission agrees. the top four restriction, i would prefer we are adopting bright line rules rather than relying on a staff driven,

case-by-case basis. i also question how likely these decisions will be reached. i trust that as we re-examine this issue as part of the 2018 quadrennial review, we will give serious weight will fall elimination of the role. i also hope in the 2018 that we can define the media market as it exists today. the item acknowledges that the marketplace substantially evolved based on the current record to expand its definition. had media platforms compete with local broadcasters and the item recognizes that its market definition could change in the future proceeding with a different record. it may be missed opportunity today but i will watch closely for this next review of the rules. we also eliminate the attribution role for television joint sales agreements which never should have been adopted in the first place. further, we agreed to set up

an incubator program in this item for exploring how best to structure it. turning to radio. i appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me and to work hard to address the issue of embedded markets. originally this item denied the relevant reconsideration petition. this is an issue that applies into market situations. new york and d.c. i believe the commission should have granted the petition in full and altered the methodology for determining compliance with the local radio ownership rule in markets containing embedded markets. as both nielsen and bia made clear, the listing of embedded markets and the parent market is a reflection of geography, not an analysis of competition. however, it appears the commission wants to gather more information in the record before going this far. for this reason, i understand they will reconsider this in the quadra annual review. until then, congress will

present convincing evidence that even under the most extreme circumstances in which one party were to own the maximum number of stations in each embedded market and each of these reach the highest rating of the last 13 months, the owner would rank only third in the new york market with an 11-point to percent market share. in washington d.c., under the most extreme example, the station would rank sixth. for these reasons, i support providing a presumptive waiver to the commission to evaluate proposed transaction of radio stations located in current markets solely by looking at the transactions compliance with the ownership limit in the embedded market. not only does this record support, not only does it support this but it brings more certainty to the marketplace until we can more fully examine this rule. these are important changes from the draft item. the on the issue of the embedded market, i am disappointed that these items

did very little to unburden the industry. i was pleased to see the elimination of the crossownership rule but i wish the commission would've gone further in addressing our local ownership rules. for starters, it's time to review the commission am/fm sub cap. however, we recognize that the commission was confined to the petition before us and there will be an opportunity to re-examine once again. finally, i'm disappointed the commission declines to reverse course from the previous commission ill advised decision for shared service agreements for commercial television stations. despite assurances from this commission, make no mistake, disclosure requirements are genuinely used for precursors for regulation. maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but regulations will likely come. this also is counterintuitive that in one item we considered today we question whether the cost of form 355 data collection exceed the benefit of the information, but in this item we retain disclosure

requirements. this is the wrong approach. we should treat this proceeding in the same way that we've treated items within arm modernization initiative, with deep skepticism. i look forward too. [inaudible] he dissented from the court stay suggesting it would better to allow the quadra annual review process to run its course in order to allow both commission and congress the ability to measure the media marketplace. he cautiously warned, vacating and remanding the proposed rules to the commission will preserve the rules in place for months or years and the resulting delay will likely lead leave the public were soft. these rules have been frozen in place for over a decade. it results in inertia in our media ownership rules and congressional intent and prohibits a functioning media marketplace to the detriment

of the american consumer. only the rest of the third circuit understood this as well. from. alas, it is coming. i only hope there will be a twist at the end of the court will finally allow the commission to do its job and update our out rules to accurately reflect the media landscape. i trust we have the wherewithal to challenge any decision to hire coat court. i think the chairman. >> thank you. in 1996 it directed the commission to examine the roles every four years and determine whether they are still necessary in the public interest as a result of competition. unfortunately, the commission has taken an approach to this requirement in nearly every one of the quadra annual reviews.

when it finally got around to completing the 2010 and 2014 reviews in august 2016, the commission ignored the realities of the modern media marketplace and the many ways that americans now consume news and information. this failure does not serve anyone's interest as a broad range of stakeholders have now made clear. fortunately, the agency has a long-standing process that enables us to correct these types of errors. under our rules, any interested party can petition the f cc to reconsider a final decision in a notice and comment rulemaking. in a number of parties have done so. in response, commission provided public notice and afforded all stakeholders an opportunity to comment. as a result of this process, we now reconsider several decisions made in the commission's august 2016 order. in doing so, we finally acknowledge the reality that many of our current media ownership rules are outdated and counterproductive.

take the newspaper broadcast ownership p.m. the fcc adopted it in 1975. it promotes the diversity viewpoint. at the time they found that prohibiting one entity from owning both a daily print newspaper and a broadcast station within the same local market would preserve independent voices in the marketplace then characterized by a relative number of them. the extensive record compiled in this proceeding shows that the newspaper broadcast crossownership and is now doing far more harm than good for the record shows evidence of a newspaper industry in decline with massive drops in ad revenues and the shuttering of hundreds of newsrooms around the country, as a result. if we want to reverse this and incentivize greater investment in journalism and additional resources for local reporting,

we should eliminate the regulations preventing that investment. our decision today does just that. the benefits are not just theoretical. the record contains numerous examples of grandfathered where they allowed it to crossownership. they are producing more local news than local enterprise position, no surprise as the commission recognized over a decade ago that the crossownership and likely hinders those goals. the crossownership rule is suggested. [inaudible] in light of the modern media landscape, our ownership rules

should give them flexibility to attract investment that will allow them to better serve their markets. additionally, i support the decision to repeal the attribution role for television joint sales agreement or jfk. the record makes clear that this enables broadcasters to attract revenue and in turn, invest in services and improvements for local communities. i am glad we are seeking comment on an incubator program to promote more diversity and new intrigue into markets. i'm pleased that today's order provide some relief to local broadcasters that operate in embedded markets which are smaller communities located outside major cities. our current policy prevents certain combinations of radio stations in these multiple embedded markets, even when doing so could enable broadcasters to improve their

coverage of local news and events and better compete for local listeners. on reconsideration, we grant some relief by adopting a print on presumptive waiver. i appreciate the work on this effort and my colleagues willingness to ultimately make changes to this portion of the item. finally, i want to think the media for all the hard work on this item, it has my support. thank you. >> thank you. >> one of you said we were going to be done by 115. [laughter] >> 315. [laughter] >> are you going for the price is right rule. all right. there was a time when we waited in the morning for the news to hit the front stoop in print and on paper. then we waited at night, huddled little around the glow of a single television screen for the evening news. those days are long gone. the world has changed. not one of us expects our news and information to be

available in such a limited way. everyone of us looks for content at any time in any place and on any screen handy. this is exciting, but let's be honest, it's also challenging. the economic models that have sustained traditional newsgathering have been forever changed by digitization. while new platforms are multiplying, what is viral is not always verifiable. if you need a lesson in why this is true, just look at how fast false information spreads following last month's deadly attack in las vegas. the same happened following the recent shooting in texas. inaccurate information during hurricane season increased the peril for those who were stranded and rough winds and high waters. untangling what is really happening with tax policy, healthcare policy or anything else is a tough task.

knowing what sources to trust, what fax to rely on, and which authorities to credit are things we need to do as citizens. it's a big job. it has real consequences. consider that we are only starting to tally the scope of this pedal during election season and still struggling to understand the ramifications. this is a challenge. when stuff takes hold online and inaccurately informs our actions, we have a problem. when this information has greater velocity than real information, we have a problem. when filter bubbles emerge that never force us to consider what might be happening on the outside, we have an issue. these are not easy matters because they involve complicated questions. how do we advance journalism when algorithms.

[inaudible] how we advance trust in real facts instead of dismissing them as fake news? this is hard. there are no simple answers. i know this, the solution doesn't lie in the fcc scrapping from top to bottom, it's policies to prevent media concentration. for decades, at the direction of congress, the fcc maintained limits on the number of broadcast stations that a single company can own. the agency curb the ability to own broadcast stations and newspapers in the same market. the agency prevented a single entity from owning multiple television stations and radio stations in the same market, and these policies were designed to sustain media diversity, localism and competition. those values may not be especially trendy, but i think they are solid. i think they support journalism and news jobs.

i think they play a critical role in advancing the mix of facts we all need to make decisions about our lives, our communities, and our country. today, the fcc dismantled those values. instead of engaging and thoughtful reform, which we should do, the agency sets its most basic value on fire. they are gone. as a result of this decision, wherever you live the fcc is giving the green light for a company to own the newspaper and multiple radio stations in your community. i am hard-pressed to see any commitment to diversity, localism in that result. we should be troubled. we are not going to remedy what ails our media with new consolidation. we are not going to fix our ability to separate fact from fiction by doubling down on a handful of companies controlling our public airways.

we are not going to be able to remedy the way the highest level in government is now comfortable stirring up increase sentiment, denouncing news as false facts and distilling favors on outlets with narratives that flatter those in power, rather than offer the hard-hitting assessments we need as citizens. instead, we are clearing the way for mergers of greater magnitude like the one before us which will benefit from the destruction of these policies today. finally, a note on diversity. media ownership matters. what we see on our screen matters what we see as individuals and communities and the nation. a bit of history it will make our station look less and less like the community they serve. women and minorities have struggled for too long.

a modest change on an incubator isn't going to get us where were going to go. it's in exchange i am unwilling to make. i dissent. the proposition that the fcc is visiting today is about time. few of the rule are stale or than our regulations. notwithstanding the commandment review review and update these rules every four years, they have remained stuck in the past. cold shoulders and hot air, this agency drags its broadcast ownership rules into the digital age. to be sure, some say we've

gone too far, others say we haven't gone far enough. i think we've gotten it just about right. the order sets forth the detailed rationale for our decision. i will briefly highlight four important points. first, we eliminate the broadcast crossownership rule that was adopted in 1975. it makes no sense to place roadblocks in the way of those who want to purchase newspapers. the media landscape has changed dramatically in the past 42 years. the idea that a company could dominate a media market by owning a radio station and a newspaper is utter nonsense. this is a rule that, among other things predates cable news and a little thing called the interne internet. it reflects a world in which

people come work, put on the slippers, read the evening newspaper and watch the 11:00 p.m. news. it doesn't reflect the world where we get news throughout the day from countless websites, podcasts and social media. indeed, a wall street journal article dubbed facebook the most powerful distributor of news and information on earth. i know for a fact, for my twitter feed, many are following news of today's commission meeting through that outlet. to be sure, repealing crossownership rules on and the newspaper industry struggles, but it will open the door to competitive combinations that can strengthen local voices and enable both newspapers and broadcast stations to better serve their local community. second, reform the local television ownership rule to eliminate the eight voices test. that test says no company is allowed to own two television stations in the market unless

there are at least eight independently owned television stations in that market. we haven't been able to find any other industry in which the government preemptively decrease there must be at least a competitors for market to be competitive. little wonder for the eight voices test has a strong a factual basis as does the health mess that you should drink eight glasses of water. day. by ending this arbitrary test, we allow efficient, nation that can help television stations thrive. this is particularly true in small and midsize markets where there may not be sufficient advertising revenue to support eight vibrant competitors. third, we reverse the prior fcc's mistaken and ideological driven crackdown on television joint sales agreements or gsa. whenever i think of gsa, i remember my 2015 visit to television station w lol in

mississippi. it's owned by the college, a historically black college. the station produces its own content, they broadcast in hd and carry programming creating by and for afghan americans. it also offers student insurance, the chance to get on hand training. during my two or, i did a tour with the general manager. he told me that their joint sales agreement with another jackson station has been crucial to that station success. without it, he said pointblank, the station would not have survived given its limited financial resources. in fact, i had met and the year before when he came to the sec to discuss the crackdown on jfk. we adopted an incubator program to expand ownership diversity. we heard a lot of talk during the prior administration, and even today about the need to take action and promote ownership diversity. after eight years, what was there to show for it?

nothing. zero. it was all just a talking point, as underscored by the prior majorities specific rejection of my call several years ago for an incubator program. this is taking concrete action. we'd established a program and seek public impact on how it should be designed. in addition, i test the new advisory committee on diversity and additional empowerment, another committee that was led by the prior administration to study this issue and provide recommendation. with counsel from the public and the committee, i am confident we can craft a program that will help bring diverse voices into the broadcast industry. last but not least i would like to thank the dedicated staff that worked on this order, some of whom came before us and many who are listed in the order itself. the good news for you is that today marks the end of the

2010. with that, we will move to a vote. the item is adopted with editorial privilege granted as requested. secretary, can you take us to the next agenda. >> german commissioners, the seventh item will also be presented by the media bureau. it's entitled fcc form 325 data collection, modernization of media regulation initiative. once again, michelle, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> the floor chores. >> as part of our media modernization initiative, the media bureau presents a proposed rulemaking that evaluates the continued needs of form 325 cable system data collection.

sitting with me at the table are martha heller and maria mullarkey. maria will put present the item. >> mr. chairman, and commissioner, i am pleased to present this notice of proposed rulemaking that examines the form 325 filing requirement for cable systems. form 325 collects operational information from cable television systems including the network structure, systemwide capacity, programming and number of the subscribers. this form must be filed annually by all cable systems with 20000 or more subscribers and by a random sampling of cable systems with fewer than 20000 subscribers. form 325 was first developed by the commission 50 years ago in the last significant update to the form record in 1999. significant changes have taken place in the mvp marketplace and in the way cable systems operate since the commission last examine the requirement to file form 325 almost two decades ago. given these transformations in the industry and the commercial availability of cable operator related data, the notice seeks comment on

the utility of collecting 325 data and whether the commission should eliminate the form. the notice inquires whether the cost of the form 325 data collection now exceed the benefit of the information and whether there may be less burdensome ways for the commission to obtain this data. alternatively, the notice seeks comment on ways to improve and modernize form 325 to reflect technological and other pertinent industry changes. if the commission decides to retain the form. the notice seeks to minimize the administrative burden on cable systems and improve the quality and usefulness of 325 data. for example, the noticed tentatively concludes that at a minimum, the commission should exempt systems that serve fewer than 5000 subscribers and are not affiliated with a larger operator from filing form 325. it seeks comment on whether small system should be exempt from having to complete the form for the media bureau recommends that the commission adopt the noticed of proposed

rulemaking and request privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming evidence. >> thank you for your work on this item. given the hour, i would extend the offer to my colleagues. i will wave my statement but you are welcome to do so if you'd like or reduce statement, whatever you would like to do. i've a feeling this will be the unanimous vote if i had to guess. >> it's amended for the record. this will be my shorte short a statement ever. >> i'm not even have a statement. this is so good. >> i can go this long without protein and caffeine. >> i really have no interest. [inaudible] [laughter] >> we will proceed to a vote.

commissioner. >> it's there. i'm with you. i lost track but i think i'm okay with this. the item is adopted. the privileged is granted as requested. thanks for the great work on this item. we will proceed to the next item on today's agenda. can you let us know what it is. >> mr. chairman, the final item on your agenda will also be presented by the media bureau as well as the office of and engineering and technology and is called authorizing use of the television standard. michelle carey, once again will give the introduction. >> miscarry. >> the last item we present to you is a joint item between the media bureau and the office of engineering and technology. the order of proposed

rulemaking before you allows television broadcasters to innovate by austin rising their use of next-generation broadcast television transmission standards. training at the table are martha heller, kim matthews, evan from the media bureau policy division, angelina and mark columbo of the office of engineering and technology. evan will present the item. >> mr. chairman and commissioner's, we are pleased to present this order and further notice of proposed rulemaking in which we let broadcasters use the next-generation broadcast television transmission standard while they continue to deliver current generation digital television service to their viewers. the nexgen tv standard will let broadcasters provide consumers with more vivid pictures and sounds such as alter high definition television and superior reception.

mobile viewing capabilities and enhanced safety capabilities such as advanced emergency alerts, greater accessibility features and localized content. the order gives broadcasters fax ability to deploy this on a voluntary basis while taking steps to minimize any impact on consumers and industry stakeholders. among other things, the report and order requires local simulcasting for stations that choose to deploy next-generation television service so that viewers continue to receive current generation service. that is nexgen tv stations must broadcast simultaneously. it must require the programming be aired on the one channel to be substantially similar to the programming aired on the three data channel. three, it must show low-power

tv and translator stations from the local simulcasting requirement and prevent case-by-case waivers if a station has no viable partner. it retains mandatory. [inaudible] it affords nexgen signals with no mandatory's. five it subjects signal to the public interest obligations that currently apply to television broadcast. and six, requires broadcasters to provide advance on your notification to educate consumers about nexgen tv service, deployment and simulcasting. finally, the accompanying prm seeks additional comments on three topics relating to local simulcast. the media bureau recommends that the commission adopt this important order and further notice proposed rulemaking and request editorial privileges

to make necessary technical or conforming edits. thank you. >> thank you for that presentation. in the interest of time, i would suggest waving all statements. [laughter] and go to a vote. is everyone good. just kidding. commissioner. >> not a chance. [laughter] nine months ago, when i voted to approve the notice of proposed rulemaking that informed this order, i stated that few things would please me more than to be excited about the prospect of a voluntarily implemented next-generation standard and how it might enhance the consumer viewing experience. included in that statement was a series of questions that needed to be answered on how this item would affect consumers and those who choose not to make the transition. the answers, as i reviewed

this order, fell short over not to be found at all in this report and order and notice and for the noticed of proposed rulemaking. first, i asked for assurances that consumers would not be burdened with unwanted, unexpected costs. no such assurances can be found anywhere in this order. nexgen tv, also known is not backwards compatible which means, to those who do not speak this language, that your existing television set and cable equipment will not be able to receive a nexgen signal. if you are an over the air viewer, you will either need to purchase a new television set or some sort of converter, and if you are a pay-tv

viewer, you would need to purchase a new set-top box. what will this cost you? the viewer? i don't know because no answer can be found anywhere in this order. nexgen supporters tell us not to worry. viewers can continue to receive the existing signal, and for five years after this order appears in our federal register, that cynical will be substantially similar. five years after this order appears in our federal register, that requirement sunsets. translation, that mandate goes away. they no longer have to send you that signal. late yesterday the chairman's office revise the order to include an exception to this requirement. without a requirement to make programming substantially similar, broadcasters are free to create two different tiers of television. why is this problematic?

why am i uneasy? this could very easily create an unacceptable, unjustified, and unwarranted television divide for those with limited financial means. my second question in the and prm asks whether consumers that do not upgrade will continue to receive high definition programming through the existing one point oh simulcast signal. again, no reassurances given. on several broadcasters have stated they intend to provide this service, they oppose any requirement to do so. why? just as troubling, the order anticipates some level of service loss, meaning some viewers might not lose hd high definition but the broadcast signal altogether. if you are keeping up, that is broadcasters too, consumer

zero. my third question was whether the higher resolution nexgen tv come at the expense of independent programmers on multicast streams. : and ensuring that we do not disadvantage smaller businesses. will broadcasters and pay-tv providers, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, many concerns remain. we know that pay-tv providers are worried about how this new standard will affect the retransmission consent process especially those smaller providers. instead of providing guidelines for this process, we are told

that this is best left to marketplace negotiations. because this would undoubtedly lead to it increased cost to consumers, the tally for me now is broadcasters four, consumers through. in addition to all of the concerns i noted in my statement to the notice of proposed rulemaking back in february, this item did not mention the word privacy even once intel 9:43 this morning. despite questions about privacy being included in the nprm. these questions are important. in light of the two-way ip-based nature of this technology and the planes to use it to enable targeted advertising. in fact, representative debbie dingell recently asked the chairman of consumers demographic information would be

gathered and what privacy protections will be in place. i appreciate those questions and the attention to this issue as i am concerned that viewers are not and will not ever be able, ever be aware that this is something that they need to think about. cables so prescribers have the protection in section 631 of the communications act, should there be a similar protection for broadcast viewers? despite my misgivings and the ever-growing tally let me be clear. i do not make presumptions about nextgen tv. i do not know if it is bad or inferior to the status quo as some claim. it could very well bring about all of the advantages it purports, including 4k, an advanced emergency alerts. i also must say that i appreciate that this item does not create or does not set a

date for eliminating the 1.0 service and it is included some consumer education requirements, although those have been scaled back in the final order at a cost to the viewer. but at the end of the day, i feel compelled to affirm this, my charge, my responsibility as a regulator is to strike the appropriate balance. if it is not clear how an item, a standard or a transaction meets our public interest requirements, if it is not clear that an item protects and enhances the consumer experience, then there is only one decision left for me to render picked this is not about politics. this is not about the inability to separate or differentiate one docket from another.

this is not about you questioning my 19 years of public service. it is about a solemn promise i made to the american people over eight years ago. to sum it up, this order is not ready for prime time. it would do more for broadcasters than for the future of the industry, and it would do much more for those companies bottom lines rather than for the nation's unsuspecting viewers. that the main objective is giving the industry a lot of flexibility in deploying nextgen gives me pause. not because i am against robust opportunities but because millions of viewers will be at risk, and millions more could be thrust in the digital television badlands. and for a commission that touts the importance of cost benefits analysis, got to say it again. there's absolutely no showing

that this item has attempted to weigh the cost to consumers both in the loss of services and access costs against the touted benefits. none of which are required by this order. this order does absolutely nothing to resolve any of the concerned i offered up nine years ago. it fails to put the public interest first and it is deserving of my dissent. my thanks begin with holly for taking a lead and advise me on this order, to the chairman officer like this arrangement. i don't know if you are still okay with that. we will revisit shortly. >> my most sincere appreciation that i may fail to thank you on, and office of engineering and technology for your effort and all of you worked on this item. even though i cannot support this item, what is clear is that

you've done a great deal of work and a relatively short amount of time. you are committed to public service, and i will always appreciate your efforts. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner o'rielly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will put my longer statement in the record but i like want e some comments now. i please to thwart today's item which introduces atsc 3.0 with a consumer driven market centered flexible and voluntary approach. these provisions are vital to the success of any possible transition of 3.0 and i will address will address each in turn. the purpose of this item is to allow our nation's broadcasters to bring a suite of innovative services to consumers allowing the consumer to decide what atsc 3.0 actually looks like in the future. many questions remain without answers but i'm looking forward to seeing whether consumers drive atsc 3.0. atsc 3.0. for these reasons that are issues in this item that we do

not address at this time. that doesn't mean we will never address them or that i'm completely unsympathetic to the arguments that have been made. simply means it's too early to do so. some have tried to take us down memory lane one congressional action regarding dtv transition over to argue against our action today. let me correct some of the record because i was actually there. the law that passed in 2005 was not the first dtv related provision enacted by congress. back congress provided the first structural provision in the 96 telecom act answering who could get geeky licenses and the revenue impact of ancillary submittal services offered. further, congress returned to the issue as part of the balanced budget act of 1997 to define the first time an analog tv licenses we need to be returned along with other issues. for those who argue everything regarding atsc 3.0 must be decided ahead of time as part of one big package, congressional

history does not support your claim. our action is entirely consistent with the multistage approach congress and the commission followed for the dtv transition. one thing we do know is the broadcasters have every incentive to ensure transition is successful. that is what i please the chairman office work at my office to limited prescriptive consumer education requirements in the original draft item. i believe it to be the broadcasters not the bureaucrats who decide a best to achieve this. one broadcaster recently announced bite-size commercials during its thanksgiving day nfl telecast. these six-second spots which are proven in the past to produce recall rates 70% greater than the same advertisers own nfl norm, and 25% higher than primetime norms that were run during the live telecast of the game. yet the fcc and this is a suggested 15-second at spots for

atsc 3.0. i'm pleased to see that requirement eliminated in this item as we felt today. i have some reservation about the technical standards we incorporate into our regulations. similar to how we handle the latest wireless standard i hope the commission would avoid adopting stringent standards and amend his governing this transition in a rules. instead it's mandating permanently and a 323 for three to five years arguing this certainty is necessary for device manufacturers. ultimately broadcasters need flexibility so the consumer and the market not the commission tried this transition. finally, throughout the course of this proceeding the commission has made clear in use of the new standard will be voluntary for all participants. this means voluntary to the broadcasters who should have the opportunity to make the transition. for this reason i i appreciatee chairman tooling is to work with me to put a time frame of 60 days on applications filed with the commission that do not receive expedited review.

this means voluntary for distributors. for the most part the commission adopts let the market plant regarding negotiations between broadcasters and in pdp. i think it notes to make the transition in voluntary would violate the obligation for broadcasters to negotiate in good faith. this is an issue the commission may need to revisit as if it becomes concrete examples to examine. finally, this means voluntary for consumers. some have suggested atsc 3.0 will be a tax on consumers. that is not the case. indeed, if this this is a consr tax, since every new tablet or smart phone a consumer decides to purchase due to his enhanced and updated features. unfortunately as this is unfolded in the most recently in the last few weeks some of offered up parade of horrible and hypotheticals that could happen as result of this transition. the problem with most of these hypotheses is they are divorced

or market realities because broadcasters every incentive in the world to make sure viewers do not lose signal during and after any transition of 3.0. again this again this will not be our last word on atsc 3.0 and i will continue to monitor the transition closely. for now i will celebrate the steps we take today as well as the timeliness of the item which comes very close to a self-imposed deadline of halloween. [laughing] thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner o'rielly. commissioner carr. >> thanks to when it comes to technology the united states has led the world in innovation. our greatest advancements have developed free from the heavy hand of government intervention. for its part the fcc has been moving steadily away from dictating use of particular technologies or anything in the standard-setting process. we see this perhaps most prominently in a wireless sector. the commissioners adopted flexible use licenses, allow providers to sunset or analog

networks, let them shutdown devices after transition. and still could mandating the use of specific technologies. this approach is proven to be a tremendous success for american consumers by allowing providers of the flexibility to deploy the latest wireless technologies. the result of this pro-innovation approach speak for themselves. today we move slowly in that direction by allowing broadcasters to use new standard for next-generation tv, known as atsc 3.0. by granting the request we give broadcasters the freedom to innovate. a freedom that their competitors in many others in the tech sector already enjoy. we enable consumers to realize the benefits of this innovation. the next-generation tv standard has the potential to dramatically improve free over the air television service by delivering higher-quality

picture and sound, advanced emergency alerts that can provide time sensitive warnings to consumers and new accessibility features. that's what a broad range of stakeholders from the consumer technology association, the public television stations, support the flexibility we provide with today's decision. some have tried to stoke fears suggesting that today's order will voice increase costs on consumers in the form of new tvs or higher cable bills but these bogeyman are just that. here's the reality. in this item we adopt numerous measures to protect consumers and other stakeholders. we ensure this monitor transition we driven by market forces and consumer demand not an fcc mandate. we don't force consumers to buy new equipment. instead we require broadcasters to continue transmitting their signals in the existing atsc 1.0 standards for consumers for

consumers can keep using their existing tvs. we don't mandate they carry atsc 3.0 signals. rather we make clear they are under no statutory or regulatory obligation to carry the signals. and we don't adopt a next-generation tv tuner requirement. instead we rely on consumer demand to determine when and if atsc 3.0 two hundreds will be included in tvs or other devices. so i look forward to the innovation to come and is or has my support you want to thank the staff and immediately wrote, a wiki for the diligent work on this item. thanks. >> commissioner rosenworcel. >> if you wanted to discuss the future television i think we may need to make a nod to the not-too-distant past week i i think we need to talk about 2005 technology had a moment in 2005. it was of the year apple introduced the ipod nano, youtube, came on the scene, and

gaming got a boost with the introduction of the xbox 360. so much about these technologies still informed our world today. in 2005 stephen colbert also coined the term to the miss anything is fair to say this to have some relevance in our world right now. into the five congress have the digital television transition and public safety act. this law set at the future television. by a private for the move from analog to digital broadcasting but it did more than just introduced a new standard with improved sound and picture quality known as atsc 1.0. created a schedule and as part of the schedule featured in end date for a nationwide transition and a program to a ensure existing television sets with continued to work after this technology change. the fcc then took its cues from congress and worked to ready the

nation for the transition. it selected wilmington, north carolina, as a test market to fully transition nine months early and that the lessons learned in this test and proceeded to do a statewide version and hawaii before any change on a national level. i think we can learn a lot about how to forge the future television from what happened back in 2005. this effort featured three essential things. first, congress led the way and set the framework. second, a place, a program is put in place to ensure no consumer was left behind or stuck with the full cost of buying a new television set or equipment. third, the fcc explored the transition in test markets before unleashing this change nationwide. so fast-forward to the present.

today the sec is authorizing next-generation television and the introduction of a new standard atsc 3.0. yes, we are doing it again. there's a lot to be excited about with this standard. data. older high-definition picture quality, advanced emergency alerts, and innovative interactive services. this is good stuff. it could mean real innovation for broadcasting on par with new services that emerged on so many of the other screens all around us. but what we do today, rushed the stand to market with an a good disregard for the consumer consequences. let me be very clear about this. this standard is not backwards compatible with current television devices. that means every one of us will need replaced our television sets or buy new equipment. the sec calls this approach market-driven. that's right, because we will

all need to be in the market for new television sets and devices. this won't happen immediately because for the time being the sec calls the new standard voluntary. while it's voluntary however, stationed at the right to negotiate with cable and satellite companies for the simultaneous carriage of atsc 1.0 and atsc 3.0. that means consumers could find their bills going up because they will be stuck paying for two signals, even though their current television set can only receive one. that sounds a lot like paying more and getting less. i think the way the sec plans to proceed is no great boon for consumers. so let's call it what it is. it's a tax under a the television. i think this agency needs to go back to the drawing board and find a less disruptive way to facilitate broadcast innovation, and guess what, there's a way to do it.

it's right there in the 2005 playbook. first, we do not have congressional mandate. what we have instead is a few unelected fcc officials deciding you need to buy new television, get new equipment, and locate the port on the back of your television set. second, there is no program to defray the cost of the new devices, equipment our television sets that consumers will have to purchase. and third, there is no test community or stand box to understand and learn from our policies before unleashing them on a national scale. we should be testing atsc 3.0 in every household in a single market and learning from it before giving the green light nationwide. if we do this there would be plenty to study because there are so many the questions about this new standard. for starters, i think we need to better understand the consumers at risk of being left behind. i also think we need to better

understand targeted advertising on television and the implications for privacy, the use of encrypted signals, a collection of items dated and the susceptibility to hacking and malware while we're at it we better make sure that the high-definition signals we are not accustomed to when we watch a football game or our favorite film are not downgraded to standard definition in order to ensure broadcasters experimenting with atsc 3.0 can simulcast to signals what of which we can't even see. in addition the fcc need to better understand the patent issues involved. when the agency adopted the atsc 1.0 standard make clear that reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms were part of the package. in today's order this issue is addressed in no more than a footnote. moreover, we know that sinclair broadcasting which hold essential patterns for atsc 3.0

has been one of the biggest champions of this new standard. we also know a pending before the agency the biggest broadcasting transaction in our nation's history. before we authorize billions for patent holders and saddle consumers with the bills, we better understand how these right holders will not take offense for the special status conferred upon them by the fcc. change is coming at all of us at lightning speed. i think broadcasters can't and should be part of that innovative rush. but i think with the fcc is doing here is irresponsible, irresponsibly improvised and, frankly, cavalier in its disregard for the expenses it imposes on consumers. i believe the next transition should leave no viewer worse off. and should leave all of us better off. because this decision fails that

test, i dissent. >> thank you, commissioner. today is a promising day for consumers and exciting day for technological innovation and a historic day for the broadcast business. by authorizing the rollout of the next generation broadcast television standard or nextgen tv on a voluntary market-driven basis, we open the door to a substantially improved, free, over the air television broadcast service. an fiercer competition in the video marketplace. as the world's first ip-based broadcast transmission platform, nextgen tv has a potential to bring a wide range of benefits to american consumers. it will enable broadcast it to prove by high-definition video and immersive audio. allow innovative service including tv on smartphones and enhanced accessibility features for americans with hearing or visual impairments. and perhaps most importantly it will enhance our public safety capabilities. for instance, nextgen tv will

enable advanced emergency alerting i could wake up sleeping devices to warn consumers of imminent emergencies like a hurricane. we will also allow for localize emergency alerts in a variety of languages and enhanced data casting to serve law enforcement and first responders more efficiently. in particular nextgen tv could be a boon to public television broadcasters and viewers. public broadcasters are strong supporters of nextgen tv. they are eager to employ its children's content, including the distribution of over the air learning material that he was without broadband otherwise could not access. public television stations have also told us nextgen tv could enable them to provide innovative distance-learning. imagine teachers and students having customized course materials and lectures and class discussions and virtual field trips. another important point, this is going to be a voluntary

market-driven transition. following this order no broadcast will be required to use the nextgen tv standard, , o consumer would be required to buy a new television or download for his or her current television that will allow them to receive nextgen tv programming. the choice will be up to them. broadcasters deployed the nextgen tv standard will be required to simulcast programming using the current digital television standards. in other words, the current viewers with current tvs will be unaffected. it bears repeating. the current viewers with their current tvs will be unaffected. this is precisely the kind of technological innovation that the fcc should champion. but, of course, not everyone does. when confronted with the change there are always those who stubbornly cling to the past, the juicier and opportunism over freedom and opportunity. we've seen that in space in this

proceeding. these naysayers have asked us to impose extensive government regulation in order to strangle nextgen tv in its infancy. they call for delays they would never concede and certainly would never countenance with the innovation pioneered by say silicon valley rather than the television industry. they still call fears but having to buy new equipment to see your favorite show. they seek a categorical of your impact standard they themselves have rejected in this agencies pending vacant channel proceeding. in sum, they follow the entire tradition of those have sought to unleash the regulatory process in order to block progress. this opposition has an ignominious pedigree. echoes what took place at the dawn of the automobile age. many back then demanded our requirement that a car be preceded by a person carrying a red flag to warn people that the car was coming. even worse, one state

legislature actually pass a mandate that motorists stop, disassemble the vehicle and its you the parts in pushes in case a car might frighten a passing course are predestined. with these roles that get every pedestrian and equine safer? perhaps marginally so, but the ultimate what is extracted such a staggering social cost of the impulse now rightly strikes reasonable people as completely absurd. so i'm glad when rejecting this attempt to block technological progress. it's also worth noting that nextgen tv could boost competition in the media marketplace. expanded service offerings and features nextgen tv should enhance the free over the air television service that many americans rely on. and make it a stronger competitor to pay-tv services. that would be good for all americans and particularly for low income television viewers. in sum, what is the vote to approve this item? among other things it's the vote

for innovation here its a vote for competition. it's a vote for better picture quality and sound quality. it's a vote for public safety. it's a vote for enhanced accessibility features. it's a vote for public television. and it is a vote for leadership. as one of my colleagues did at the beginning of this meeting what is need for leadership in any industry quote is not rule-making and reconsideration. it is action. i agree with her completely and that is why this is a poet i am proud to cast. thank you to the dedicate staff who worked on this item. with that will move to vote on the item.

[roll call] >> that share votes imac. granted as requested. would in my colleagues like to make any announcements at this time. >> was yes. i would like -- did you want to do -- >> did you want to -- >> we work together on this. >> saw want to join the chair and the other commissioners for congratulate, and congratulating paul who we had the privilege of meeting. you might have known it before in florida, for receiving the 2017 excellence in engineering award. did you want to announce the other -- >> if that's okay. it's out of print? sorry, with the indulgence of my colleagues. we do want to announce two awards today in recognition of outstanding service to the commission by some of our fantastic career staff.

the first one is the excellence in engineering award which doesn't echo to paul. paul is your somewhere. if you don't mind steny up so we can -- how is it going? [applause] -- standing up. he comes from our public safety domesticate a girl, the winner of the fcc 2017 excellence in engineering award which recognizes commission staff for outstanding engineering, scientific or technical contribution performed in the course of the work of the commission. you might ask why is paul getting this work. he's getting it before his remarkable engineering were in establishment expansion and upgrade of the national shared remote equipment network, or the famous -- it's in an rape of 10 sites distributor the continuity of states, alaska and puerto rico the supports federal, state and local law enforcement and public safety activities. it allows the shared use of

expensive greater frequency receivers and spectrum analyzers and direct in finding those that been purchased and used by individual federal and state and local agencies. which model is paul singer handily managed to incorporate subsequent from grace agencies and repurposed for unified use in the nsren. essentially build a multimillion dollar product for the fcc virtual no cost. this segment in fact. it wasn't an academic achievement during hurricane irma, nsren revolt them under the committee kaisha private and impacted areas of puerto rico florida a leaving the need for the fcc to put some personal in harm's way. paul, congratulations on proud to call you a coworker and want to salute you for the 2017 engineering, excellent and engineering award. [applause] >> if anyone wants to make a comment about this award.

>> do you have speedy there's another one, too. the next one and then anyone can say. next up with the excellence in economic analysis award. the aa aa as if as a soviet thh the 16th year of his work program which was designed to award recognized commission staffers economic and also the issue we recognize eugene. is eugene here? [applause] >> there he is. eugene gets an excellent analysis of economics at retransmission consent payments which understand is a topic that some an industry might be interested in. i've not heard much about this issue but it's important and high-quality economic analysis is something i think this commission prizes of course. it's not just the lawyers who should have a seat at the decision-making table. we want economist took to comps

well and eugene you been able to get in a very substantially. thank you for your work at the commission and the particular for the work here the results in giving awarded the 2017 excellence in economic analysis award. [applause] >> if anyone would like to make a a comment about these two awardees. >> congratulations. i wasn't sure what you ask it lasting but i concerning say eugene, so congratulations. and paul, of course once again congratulations. >> one step announcement. >> go for it. >> just real quick i want to welcome jeffrey westling to my office was endured this is about the length of oliver beatings so please can settle into it. [laughing] he is a recent graduate from the university of colorado law school and will spend the next few much in our office as a legal fellow.

while in law school seeking substantial excretes in telecom space. the intern with ntia and office spectra measured. and also interned at at&t. he was a member of both the samuelson -- technology law and policy clinic at the university of colorado and use on the colorado technology law journal, so thank you for joining our office. we look forward to having you on the team. [applause] >> commissioner rosenworcel? >> we are slowly but surely filling out our ranks. i want to welcome -- to my officers joined recently as a legal advisor for wireless and international issues. you can give a wave over there, yes. [applause] >> i think we're clapping

because he made it to his first meeting. but he and his him our immigrants in pakistan. he came here as a very young child. he went on to the university of virginia for college and then the university of virginia for law school. he became a communications attorney and he is also certain delegations and conferences like the 2016 world telecommunication standardization assembly and the 2017 world telecommunication development conference. he has also served previously before his legal career as a firefighter in albemarle county virginia. the capacity is held with disaster relief efforts following the earthquake in haiti and with the search and rescue team in greece assisting refugees crossing the aegean sea. so we have a firefighter in our

midst, which might come in handy. [laughing] welcome. [applause] >> here's hoping there's never a fire. >> but we are prepared in my office. >> i want to on a more somber note i wanted to take one second and recognize the passing of -- who i really had an opportunity to meet him it was clear he was world-renowned technologist and visionary on wireless issues, and i want to extend my condolences to his family for all those that met him, and i wish his stomach divest in this tough time. >> thank you. i have been in a zone odyssey, got to get to know him and aspen and this'll sound heartless, i was wondering why i didn't hear back from him. so i really thank you for acknowledging what an incredible spirit he was.

i'm speechless right now, but he was first-rate person. thank you very much. >> i agree with what my colleagues just said. somber reminder that are trying as. >> translator: . did a couple of office not from office before fcc staff, and i understand the hour is late but to me and hopefully to my colleagues this is very important. first with respect to the hurricane recovery team, the fcc act response to recent hurricanes is ongoing even as we increase increasingly focused on the longer-term recovery for those areas impacted by hurricanes harvey and irma and maria. i recently saw firsthand the damage wrought by hurricane rita and puerto rico. as well as the incredible resiliency and perseverance of the puerto rican people i miss challenging circumstances. i would like to given moment to acknowledge and -- a significant number fcc employees who have been involved in working with folks affected by the recent hurricane. time doesn't permit me to be

through but i will give three quick examples. one is the great hall who we saluted paul abbate integral to the hurricane response effort in addition to what just described, he spent for three days on the scene in the aftermath of all three hurricanes, , harvey and irma and maria picky brave harsh weather and slides and catastrophic road conditions to determine the status of public safety communications through these areas. paul's contributions to response effort has been immeasurable. while i was in puerto rico i was hired as a credit event by our colleague roberto, an attorney in the public safety and homeland security bureau. robert is a native of the island canales here on the mainland but is ever apparent charm and his knowledge of puerto rico health facilitate connections among federal agencies, local governments authorities and service providers. he also knows his methodical as a pointed out in a tweet. he's been a critical resource into efforts to recovery of the

pilot's pilot medication or i would also like to slip the chief of her operation management division within the public safety bureau, chris anderson. i i don't of chris is here but chrissie wiedemann stand up, we just could not coordinate the fcc -- [applause] which is going according the fcc's emergency response efforts both internally and with other government agencies without his extraordinary leadership. yes massively plan and implement it the commission response to the hurricanes are shepherding a commission white multipurpose and multidisciplinary incident management team. and it might not be known to the outside world, he is constantly on call to provide us information and describe complex issues in a timely and cogent way. chris, i cannot say enough about how much we appreciate your

work. and for all, these are just three of the over 100 hard-working folks from all across the commission who are stepping up and continuing to work on post hurricane recovery efforts in texas and louisiana and florida and george and puerto rico and the virgin islands. if any of the others run hurricane recovery task force are the room, i know michael is leading the efforts, if you could just please stand up so we could acknowledge your efforts and thank you for what you have done. [applause] >> just remember this is work they do above and beyond the day jobs that get what you do many as it is. so we really appreciate him pitching in. in addition to the point personnel to the hurricane impacted areas at the request of fema, arching has run 24/7 the operation centers, they spent nights and weekends crunching data from the disaster

information reporting system and a field teams, they have issued waivers special temporary authorities as quick as possible to support both industry restoration effort and the deployment of public safety responders impact zones and events web and social media resources for transparent way. this will continue for as long as needed, and that means there's still much work ahead for the people and the providers in the hurricane affected areas but i did want to take a moment to recognize them for what they've done. next, we have a new chief in the office of native affairs and policy, matthew duchenne. is matthew here? very good. [applause] my pleasure to welcome him to the fcc. matthew comes to us from the u.s. bureau of reclamation were sued as a program manager for native american and international affairs, prior to that he was a senior policy official with the department of

energy where his portfolio included serving as negotiator with tribal and state governments on behalf of the department. matthew and his law degree with the condolences to any duke fans from university of north carolina with high honors. he holds a ba in political science from miami university, and a masters in public administration also from unc. among other things he served as a legislative fellow with senator ron wyden and he was a supreme court fellow and office of the late chief justice of the united states william rehnquist. matthew again welcome to the commission. last but not least ashley, i see her in the back, ashley is a new deputy general counsel with responsibility for administering law issues. however augustan interesting disposition is like italian fascism divest job at the commission at a know because i once held it. ashley joins commission from washington office of gibson dunn and crutcher. during her time there should focus on complex litigation, appeals and constitutional and

administer law issues that she rips and corporate clients and association of rulemaking before federal agencies and she felt particular expertise in its communications and financial rails resected. prior to joining the firm she served as a law clerk to a judge on u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit and she was not a slouch and academic pursuits either. she gradually from princeton with honors and got a lot of great from a a school in new hn i believe it is called yale. in addition to impressive legal resume she meets a primer quotations of that shouldn't office which is a physically with pop-culture pictures watch everything episode of parks and recreation twice as i understand it. she was a devoted ron swanson yet she still drinks kale smoothies. i'm also inform at one point of passion also committed to memory every single step of michael jackson's thriller given the time we will not make a different maybe we will save it for december. >> we need it now. >> it goes without saying we are thrilled to have her here. this is one of the most

important positions of the commission because it helps she helps advise the commission on the administrative law aspects of virtually everything that we're doing. ashley, welcome aboard. we're grateful for your service. [applause] >> since we're getting punchdrunk up your i have a bunch of items. we can vote on the now but i guess in is the time maybe we'll just forgo it and leave for another day. madam secretary, could you please announce the date of the next meeting. >> the next meeting of the fcc is thursday december 14, 2017. >> that the commission meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]