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]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much, chairman pai. the floor is yours. >> thank you, tina. all right, all right, all right. someone once said. today was an exciting day for technological innovation at the fcc as we take significant steps to unleash the next generation wireless connectivity, broadband networks and broadcasting. to advance next-generation 5g wireless services would voted to make another 1700 megahertz high-frequency spectrum available for terrestrial,

flexible wireless use. we also streamlined the rules for wireless infrastructure deployment which will help pave the way for for 5g networks and services. to advance next-generation broadband we voted to expedite the transition from legacy copper networks to modern fiber networks. billions of dollars spent to maintain the fading copper networks of yesterday will be freed up to build a high-speed networks up tomorrow. that will help build, bridge the digital divide. to advance next generation broadcasting we authorize a a w television stand on the voluntary market driven basis and this will open the to substantially improved free over the air television broadcast service and fiercer competition in the video marketplace. and, of course, much more than that. one last thing i can't help but note, the college paschal season has started and kansas which is number four beats number seven kentucky and will improve my mood now that the chiefs have started to tail off. without i will open up to any questions you might have.

>> i've got a question about media ownership fixings like a big part of the pitch at least on cross ownership is the idea that this can allow some synergy, maybe stations could buy up newspapers that are struggling p but it seems like the market is the money in the opposite direction, a lot of investors and split us between publishing and broadcasting assets. what's going to change? >> well, i think we're simply making decisions as the said at the outset to ensure that our media ownership regulations matched the marketplace in which we find ourselves and that marketplace is to medical different than it was in 1975 when the cross ownership restriction was put in place. notably as you you'll find in e order, there is record evidence that the grandfathered combinations, dating back to 1975, those combinations produce individually more local news then do non-cross owned stations

and newspapers. and so our hope going forward that especially amid two small markets these procompetitive combinations can create more local news that will be of interest to readers going forward. and viewers as well. >> so my question is, once the merger is approved by the fcc, how would competitors voice complaints, antitrust complaints if they feel the need to do so? >> if there's an antitrust complaint those would be typically fielded by either the department of justice or the federal trade commission which shares jurisdiction. to them which two entities previously had approved the merger, i would anticipate that agency would take the lead. >> hey, margaret mcgill with political. there's been some reports about a decision final order coming on a net neutrality, the restoring

internet free to order. wonder to see if you like to comment on those reports come if you still intend to finish this proceeding by the end of the year and also more specifically after getting the record if you think there's still a need for three bright line rules? >> i'm not going to begin announcements today on the front. so sorry. >> there's been a lot of criticism recently about the fcc and your taylor decisions to benefit sinclair. there was a couple requests from the ig to investigate. have you turn over all the information you think members of congress want my skin you dress generally this idea that you have been specifically tailoring decision to benefit sinclair? >> elected officials can say literally anything, and some do. and this particular case my record is very clear. going back to my time as commissioner starting in 2012 and ever since i've had a very disciplined you on the ownership and of the media policies and

that view is very simple. start with the proposition i outlined in the opening of my media ownership statement, which was the proposition the media ownership relation 2017 should match the marketplace of 2017. every one of our decisions is simply based on that, what is the law, the facts, apply the law to the facts and make the appropriate judgment that's in the public interest. i completely reject any suggestions along the line that you suggested. >> there's some concern all customers have to buy a new television set in five years. do you agree with that? if so, should congress taking action to help people by those dissents or converter boxes? >> that concert is misplaced as i i pointed out in my statement and speedy after five years they would have to buy new sentiment? >> within five years obviously that's a a longtime love to sea standard to go. all we're talking about right now is whether to improve the technical standards are so far away from the point that to suggest perhaps hypothetically

in five years. my dad to get a new device in the sun even for the technical standard it as a city physicist and that no one would ever apply to any other segment of communications industry, certainly not technology companies that don't have to abide by this mother may i approach you in washington. >> hi, mr. chairman. so two things. first one, wanted to clarify the copper to fiber items. so the idea behind eliminating this notification requirement is that services that run over these formerly copper networks that are transitioning would still work just fine, is that right? >> correct. basically, , and obviously the wireline competition can go into more detail on this, their two different categories i guess you might say that are in play. category one is if there's a change to your service. category two is if the carrier is discontinuing that service. if it's in the first category then we're talking about notice

under section 251. if it's in the second category they would talk about section 214 process. that's the basic bifurcation we're talking about. >> okay. thank you so much. my second thing was just to point out that since you mention college basketball, go tar heels. i thought you're going to say blue devils. roy williams, dean smith. >> you've had criticized apple for not including enabling, some chips, rated chips in the phones. will you be urging verizon to do so, even that there's reports that they purposely blocked radio chips in their manufactures phones? >> is that a report that just e out? obvious i have seen -- >> i'm asking for someone else been wireless isn't my thing. >> i wasn't sure if there's a

story that just came out this week. i have seen anything on on the issue this week but generally speaking i would think you know my overall philosophy which is if the fcc can't require that these phones, parties chips be activated but my hope is speedy you can't require a service provider. >> was here again i would have to look at the limits of our legal authority as applicable to a service provider. if you don't mind sending the report over that -- >> thank you. >> back when the fcc voted to reinstate the uhf discount i think that was some talk them to look at it again but he would go hand-in-hand with looking at the national ownership. i think there may have been mention that would happen by the end of the year. is that still in the works? is that still plans to revisit? >> here to again i can make any announcements was going to be on the next or subsequent open meetings what i will say that we are continuing to abide by that

approach which is that the two go hand-in-hand and the fcc needs to take a look at it holistically as opposed to piecemeal. >> but it is still in consideration? >> it is still in consideration, that's correct. >> any other questions ask. >> my editor is asking these questions, so he spitted always been on the editors. [laughing] >> i won't identify him but he says -- [laughing] >> we eliminated the eight voiceover eight seemed to him a rather high number 50 that include uhf and vhf stations in a community as a basically there would have to be eight stations individually owned until the would be an approval combination of two stations in that community? >> was the previous will that you could not own to station in the market if there were not a independently owned tv stations.

>> that included uhf, vhf? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> i have one quick one. the budget, ms. clyburn called it a budget control i think you called it a budget mechanism in your proposal and ugly she said it was $823 million. i i don't know whether that was accurate, and she said it would cut the funding by more than half bigger raises question with the current level of funding is. >> so you will see, i released the item three weeks ago and you'll see in the final product which is, soon but there is a specific number that is included we simply seek comment on what that budget cap should be. and so again i would revert back to my previous comments that the other universal fund programs to medigap that promotes fiscal responsibility and ensures the integrity of those programs and they are just as important in many ways. i hope going for reagan tried to reach a a consensus on this point, too.

>> chairman pai, commissioner clyburn said that doing this order now will waste the efforts of the diversity committee, and she also was upset that there's no data collection, that these orders are not based on the data collection that she thinks they should be. can you explain why you are taking this action now without collecting that kind of demographic data? i i think it talks a lot about basic on data collection. >> two different points. first, commission clyburn in the previous majority generally complete reject my entire idea for a nuclear program some years ago. it's remarkable the complaints about process suddenly surface now when he different chair is in control. secondly, all we are doing, all we decide to do as you seen since his publicly released, the original draft his publicly released, is to decide to

establish an incubator program and we seek comment on what the contours of the program should be. now, there's no reason i can think of why the advisory committee couldn't, number one, would have to study issued and provide recommendations before we took the steps to decide to establish the incubator, or number two, why the witness would be precluded from working in tandem as the public give its input of what they think the incubator program should be so can the diversity committee. that's one of the things we cast the diversity committee for data as a. >> said this is an issue that's important. you know where i stand on incubator in particular and on broadcast diversity generally. that's why we have some working group on this issue. we want to get to work so please do give us your ideas as soon as you can and as thoroughly as you can. [inaudible] >> i thought when i heard her i thought she was referring so did innkeeper or greater i could be

wrong about that. [inaudible] >> -- incubator program. [inaudible] >> look, on the general ownership rules, i mean, i think all reasonable people of those have studied this issue for many years will acknowledge the record is clear and is well-established. the third circuit as commissioner o'rielly pointed out has a long held, has a firm for example, the impropriety of the newspaper product cross ownership rules for years and to all we are simply doing is ruggedized the fact that the record at this point is full and the evidence that we base our decision on is solid and the time is to take action. it's not a time for for the delay for the sake of delay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you talk frequently about how your travels around the country inform the policymaking you do back in washington.

how many conversations have had since you became chairman roughly speaking with lifeline subscribers? >> gosh, , i'm trying to think. several i can think of, on the seat and asked him i met with him are you lifeline subscribers. we have those conversation place like michigan, south dakota, flagstaff, on the outskirts of reno, a great number of them i would think. ..

the support for some of the proposals we put on the table on rule tribal land that the previous fec adopted in 2015. this is the 2015 order that we simply ratified today. i think the only thing here, unfortunately, is the identity of the person who's leading the commission, not so much the validity of the idea itself. >> chairman, have you had any contact with the inspector general's office about sinclair? >> no. >> thank you. >> okay, have a great day. >> now we will tranc transition to the bureau press conference. >> as usual, we will go in order of items on the agenda and see if this question is on them. the first is the robo call,

any other question, if cjb is here, please. >> the draft item that was released three weeks ago was just a report and order, but in the press release today they remi mentioned a further noticed a proposal making that included some questions that she had about what kind of effect you are having and what service providers are doing. could you elaborate, is that the total extent? >> the further noticed will have questions on two topics, one is how we can ensure that

our rules are effective, and what information we should gather to gauge the effectiveness of the rules, the other part concerns how we can ensure that any and ronnie is blocking of calls can be easily corrected. we've already encouraged carriers who choose to block to implement a simple process that makes it easy to make those kinds of corrections and we are also asking questions in the further notice about how that process could be made more effective. >> anything further on this one? >> same editor. he wants to know, how many communities have more than eight stations, and again, we are counting.

[inaudible] >> that would be media issue so this is a consumer bureau. that will be here. >> lifelines? you can cover lifelines? not this group. we will go through the agenda. this is the robo call issue. we will get to that question little bit later. thank you. >> okay, we will move to the other questions on frontiers. that would be three bureaus. >> i think we're waiting to see what the question will be. >> i'm sorry.

>> that's fine. go ahead and answer. we will see who will ask a question. >> with a colleague who would like to know, satellite operators had asked to make some changes so the item as it was done on draft, specifically to include grandfathered stations from coming toward the population limits and to nearly define the limit and remove the limits on our stations or to at least cap the licensor stations. county for the 20 know. [inaudible] and my colleagues would like to know whether those changes were made in the final version of the item and if only some, which once. >> would you like me to run through them again? >> maybe instead of running through all of them, i think the best way to answer is that.

in some other cases you mention this to not change. >> i think you better just let it come out in the item. >> thank you. >> anything else i must? >> thank you the next item will be, i'm sorry, so wireless, don't go away, this would be the accelerating wireless broadband, any questions on that? >> okay. the next one is the wireline infrastructure for the competition bureau. any questions on that item? >> okay. the next one is the lifeline item, any questions on lifeline? >> finally, or not finally, sixth is the media ownership item. okay. the media bureau, please.

there are three media bureau items. please proceed in any of those. >> could you explain exactly what the final version does to embedded markets? it's not in the handout and i got a little mixed up between what all the commissioners were saying. >> that was a change from the item that was released, and as you heard at the meeting, the republican offices as that the commission adopt a waiver approach. >> there is a presumptive waive waiver. >> i have a question about the three-point oh item.

they mentioned a couple changes to the item. they talked about a change mentioning privacy they this morning. could you explain. >> there is a footnote added to the item regarding privacy. >> it doesn't create a privacy rule. it just mentions privacy? it's not substantive. >> okay, a non- substantive foot note. she also mentioned an exception to the simulcast rules or the requirement? >> you will see when the item comes out, but again there was another, there was an exception made regarding getting exceptions made to programming rates necessary to to implement the requirement. >> if you can't get access to the rights then you don't have to follow that, is that correct. >> it provides some flexibility. that is exactly how it's

raised. the item will be released shortly. >> okay, that's all i got. >> allen. >> on the eight voices role, does anybody know how many communities have more than eight independently owned stations? you can shake your head. >> nobody knows offhand. just to make sure i'm right on that, when we were counting eight, that included uhf and vhs, correct. >> that's right. anything further? >> thank you very much. commissioner riley is here.

>> we just want to let you know come out we are cold and hungry. >> people read about that. >> i now. >> any questions? think you commissioner riley. you mentioned media ownership and that there would likely be a sequel. what you think it has changed. what have they raised about diversity. >> i think the item, you see most of it, but there's been this larger point regarding the availability ahead of time

which i've championed and the chairman has taken off and it's a wonderful occurrence and has been this question do items actually change now that we made them public. the answer is yes. a number of things have changed. you will get a chance to see it. in the general thrust, i think if you read the item you will see it's quite expensive in its explanation for why the points the cour court may have previously had concerned about were addressed and no longer applicable. i think rightfully it provides an opportunity, and hopefully we will see a different outcome. as the court has had, there's a number of things percolating in the third circuit are ready. we will see, i'm not sure how the logistics are put together. >> how do you feel about the suggestion that this be done. >> we have been looking at the

original provision. we have been looking at the 2014 quadra annual. i think we've done all the data. the record is incredibly extensive. hopefully they will get the succeeding get it over the barrier and get this pushed through next year. you mentioned you wanted those caps removed and you can't discuss it. can you explain that a little? >> i asked to raise the question whether we should,

whether we should have to question whether it should be removed in one of my colleagues didn't appreciate that and it didn't make it into the final cut. that was not necessarily appropriate. we often allow questions to go and that was kind of unnecessary. i expected to come back in some form or fashion. is having a minimum contribution of some kind possible? having something of that sort in a final order a red line, would you only vote for an order if it includes.

>> the only redline i've included that has have a budget. the other components are incredibly important but i want to see how we would form, there's a couple different ideas. what people picked up the blinders and said we will not do something along those lines. i said we could work it potentially this way because the argument has been is no way to collect any cash. we basically have no transaction with the consumer. there's no ability to cap any kind of contribution and they thought about it a little bit and said we actually do, there's an opportunity to collect at that point. someone would have to make a pretty compelling argument why it should move forward. it would serve an interesting response for both of you. you've both done some travel recently in the past year since i took over, how many conversations have you had with lifeline subscribers

about the program. >> i can second quantify the number. i went to a town meetings, as you can imagine but i talked to a ton of people and i met with three groups that represent lifeline subscribers last week. i said i understand the plate that many folks have and that's why i'm not trying on a minimum contribution to extract dollars from folks that are destitute and don't have the capability or don't have any prospect of doing it. with the groups over the years, were certainly trying to figure out what can be done in the space was listening to them and sing g, if one time i may have been suggesting we should get contributions for everyone, the argument in talking with people, i don't have a bank account i can do this mechanism, i'm not can have any dollars, i am homeless, i've had those conversations with people but i don't have a list for you at the moment. we have an open door policy.

with a broad range of stakeholders who want to get out building from all walks of life and i don't quantify what categories they fall into but we have met with a wide range of people throughout. >> so would you say you have met with them or you haven't? you been in this job for a shorter time than your colic. >> i'm just not going to get into it one way or another. we met with a broad range of stakeholders in d.c., out of d.c., around the country and i've had an open door all those meetings. >> thank you. >> a couple questions. one, do you agree with the democrats who saved that require all consumers to buy a new set or converter box in five years, and can you also address the other question, you listen to at&t and verizon that you should not require viewers to pay for a broadcast service they are not receiving?

this will raise prices for other people. >> what i have set my statement as we have no idea which direction this is going. we are adopting the standard stay. we don't know broadcasters are actually going to take up. there might be certain few who have interest in going forward. we don't know what the impact would be. all of them say we are willing to accept the standard into our rules. i personally don't want it in my rules and arguably probably shouldn't, but i was willing to go along with that process pretty think it's too early to analyze those questions. they are appropriate questions but they're way too early to answer those in the commission will si still exist. were not disbanding today despite some people's interest in doing so. we will be here to listen to those arguments. we didn't have a converter box , we didn't have the conversation of 2005 legislation that i was part of when we adopted the original piece in 1996, and my old boss sent a letter on the

commission adopting not long before the converter box was in place. there will be time to consider all of these components. i made the point regarding the carriage issue that is something i want to keep my eye on. i'm not oblivious. we are still into markets. cleveland and mckenna set up one in phoenix to see different components but i think it's way too early to lay down the law on certain pieces in that respect, in my opinion. >> you agree with that? >> can you ask it again. >> do you think this will ultimately require people to buy new televisions or converter boxes, and what are the arguments that you're gonna require people to pay for a service that are not getting.

we allow them to sunset those networks. there are concerns about what you do with consumers not only have 2g phone. we adopted a five-year transition. it's very someone to what we do here. there's no decision that we've made that says, if negative consequences are going to happen we do nothing. we said is we have this five-year sunset which mirrors other transitions that we've done that have been successful, and we continue to be here to address any issues that might come up. i think it's getting ahead of ourselves to say there's negative consequences coming down the pike. our experience shows us that's not going to be the case. >> i've a? lifeline. so part of the proposal is to eliminate funding to wireless resellers. i think it's something like 70% of subscribers have their

service through wireless resellers and there's been discussion about will facilities -based providers come in and fill that gap. i'm curious to hear from both of you why you supported that proposal and what concerns you have, if any about subscribers who may not have service. >> i think as we put in the mpm, this is a proposal and people can give us feedback. you mentioned a 75% number. my understanding. >> it 70%. >> so 70% number, that number itself is not purely non- facilities -based providers and we will develop a record on this will move forward. other portions of the items, we are seeking common ways to reform the program and target support people need it. we will see how the record develops. >> i would agree with that. i think it's important we will get a lot of, and data points and examine these things to the point she raised. >> anyone from those seats to my left?

>> all right. >> everyone have a lovely day. any more questions before i head out? >> thank you everyone. all of you probably want lunch and i know you have questions so hopefully we can do that with some efficiency and speed.

i noticed there is a lot of 32 votes. i'm wondering if you see or have there been compromised with germans office on some of these proposals. he's talked about working in a bipartisan manner. d.c. actions to back it up? >> i'm an inpatient optimist. i will work to try to achieve compromise up to the very last minute. we had discussions about changes we could make. there are some ways in which we supported things today and there were others were we came out clearly against it. i won't give up trying to make changes and trying to convince my colleagues. >> you had previously released a statement with the century link merger order about the

merger review standards and how they had changed and the balancing test and even asked about the sinclair items are generally about media mergers. how do you see that precedent going forward for transactions like sinclair, the balancing test changes. >> for several decades, the sec have had a balancing test. it has used it in its transactions. it has taken the merger and looked at the benefits. you can go back decades and see tests that reflect that approac approach, but quietly, and without warning, in a very big transaction, the agency just changed its standard. as a matter of administering of wall, i think we should of had a rulemaking on that. i think when agencies change

the standards by which they review something, i think it should be subject to notice and comment. i dissented on that transaction to make note of that change and how it was issued quietly and without warning, and what i think is most concerning is that it's an effort to grease the skids for the next big transaction coming our way. that involves a larger broadcasting company. >> you said at a hearing that all our immediate policy decisions could be tested and built for sinclair. do you have a sense now, even back in the commission for a few months, what is motivating your republican colleagues? what's the evidence to suggest that they are attempting to grease the skids for sinclair? >> i can't tell you with any kind of clarity what is motivating my colleagues or what is in their head spread i can only tell you what i think from where i sit. we have engaged in a series of media policy changes at this

agency. they are striking in the one thing they have in common. they are all custom-built for a custom called sinclair broadcasting. we have changed joint services agreement policy, we have changed the you hf discount, we have now changed our media ownership rules and we have now authorized a new television standard, three-point oh for which this company owns some of the most essential patents. i can only offer you those data points and those facts and tell you that there is a common thread throughout all of those efforts and initiatives. >> do you share the concern or belief that the chairman should recuse himself? >> i appreciate that many members of congress have written to the agency requesting that he do so.

>> but you don't personally take position. >> i think it's striking how many members of congress have written this commission asking that he do so. i don't remember, and my history of working here that ever happening before. >> sarah cohen, ctf them. commissioner clyburn mentioned the court stepping into this matter. what does that look like? what was she talking about? >> i believe she was talking about the ownership and this agency has made several trips to the court of appeals on the subject and it's my expectation that they will probably review our work here in the future. >> commissioner, welcome back. >> do you think an investigation would be a good

idea? >> i appreciate that a lot of members of congress believe it's something that should be done. >> to echoes kyle's follow-up, you don't have a position on whether or not. >> i think it's striking how members of congress have written it, and i would also point out that i believe that's unprecedented. >> thank you. >> all right. if that's that, thank you. it is a treat to be back here. it's a privilege and maybe we will be agreeing on some things and making some noise and ruckus on others. thank you for what you do. >> the next time i'll bring coffee. from non-

[inaudible conversations] you know what. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the federal communications commission released a plan made by the chair to appeal roles put in place by the obama administration on equal access to the internet. the chairman also make sure that states can impose their own internet relations. right now service providers are required to treat web traffic equally. here's what he had to say about his new proposal fox news and friends i don't. we are putting them back in charge of the internet and they have been imposed two years ago and inspired by the great depression are era

regulations. what we want to do is return to the free-market consensus that started in the clinton administration and serve the economy in america very well for many years. >> his proposal has a lot of support from republicans. roger wicker on twitter wrote i welcome sec chairs announcement to restore the light touch regulatory framework that has allowed the internet to thrive since its creation. i will continue to work with my colleagues to put up legislative solution in place that ensures net neutrality into law and fosters an environment where broadband is assessable, affordable and reliable for all americans. in the meantime, many democrats oppose the proposal. democratic senator tim kaine tweeted out, if you are reading this, you will be impacted by this decision. soon, internet providers could jack up your prices and even limit what content you can see. this is a horrible step away from a free and open internet.

>> the cspan buses on the 50 capitals to her. there visiting every state capital and hearing about each state's priorities. we kicked off the tour on september 15 in dover delaware and have now visited 12 state capitals. our next stop for the 50 capitals tour is tallahassee florida. will be there on december 6 with live interviews during "washington journal". >> cspan, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> when lawmakers return from the thanksgiving break, they are pe