captioning performed by vitac one of the suggestions that came in on the record was to look at ways to exempt small businesses from this move or give them more time to make the transition. in general even small broadcasters are engaging with the fcc online, renewal applications have to be online. they are, after all, broadcasting. but to the extent that there are burden issues that can be addressed, those are issues that

have been raised on the record and we will look at them. >> commissioner? >> i want to clarify that broadcaster came to us and wanted us to move a lot of those file requirements to be online but wanted the political file component carved out bus of the proposed costs. so that's really what's at issue here, it's not transparency, it the cost of uploading the old files and maintaining in realtime. i don't think anyone is against disclosure or transparency. that's a very good thing. you raise an excellent point for congress to consider, which is the fcc the best equipped agency to be in the federal election law business or is that the role of the fec. i think we should keep all that in mind. >> the chairman mentioned earlier today in discussions about some of the regulatory burdens that have been dropped over time and you mentioned specifically fairness doctrine. what are the requirements today?

help me out there, understand what in regard to the fairness doctrine, what is the requirement today and whether or not there is any initiative under way or thought process under way to bring back shall we say this fairness doctrine? >> just the opposite. i feel very strongly about the first amendment, free speech, the fairness doctrine in my view was a bad first amendment idea from the start and i was pleased to work with my colleagues to eliminate the last vestiges on the books. >> so about a year ago i was giving a speech, we were going through -- i had to ask my legal team to go through the fcc rules to find instances of ruse that could have been gotten rid of. everyone thought the fairness doctrine in 1997.

the fec decided not to enforce it in 1987. the chairman graciously took that cue and got rid it have from our books. but the bigger issue can also be when you say fairness doctrine, the phones and radio stations light up. so as we go through our quadrennial review of our media ownership rules which could determine what the licensing term is, will it be eight years, will it be three years, what would be the criteria for getting your license renewed, et cetera, it is always important to look at those rules as well. and i take the chairman again at his word but anything in perhaps a future commission that could n of the fairness doctrine, mark

my words it won't be called the fairness doctrine, it will be callom we need to keep this in mind. >> one final question in this round and then questions of broadband to come later. is the fcc the proponent agency -- i won't get this term right but i can explain it, the royalty fees paid to the songwriters, artists, it's not under an fcc umbrella, correct? >> correct. >> whose umbrella is that under? >> i don't know but it's not us. >> that's a good thing. i'll yield back for the moment. >> bmi is in charge of that. >> mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you very much. good to see you. let me first start by madam chairman telling you that the commissioner drk the chairman and his staff have been exceedingly open to us and to my staff. and i thank you for that, to

have the opportunity to not only speak with you but to meet with you. i want to thank you for that. we spend a lot of time today speaking about transparency in a number of different areas. we were preparing for this meeting and the issue of light squared kind of came back. i was kind of -- because since you've been so open to me, i was a little shocked at some of the things that i've read about light squared, about the fact that had you a member of the senate saying he couldn't get the information, the fcc told him information of that sort is only given to members of relevant committeeses, which obviously this one would be included in that but because of that i started digging in a little bit because i was frankly shocked because of the fact that you have been so open to me and to my staff. one of the this eveninngs a cyn say is that was something they were reportedly contributors to the administration and therefore

kind of smelled bad but since i don't buy that is correct we did a little bit of our own digging. i'll tell what you i came up with, something that frankly kind of shocked us a little bit. speaking of transparency. that's the issue of freedom of information act requests. now, if you look at and i'll tell you what the source is, it's the u.s. government web site, foia.gov web site, you look at just the number of freedom of information act requests and denials. according to that web site, the fcc is denying more foia requests, freedom of information act requests -- this new fcc than in the past, smasas a mattf fact, significantly greater percentage of denials compared to other government agencies. in 2010 the fcc denied 48% of

freedom of information act requests while the rest of the government denied only 7.3%. that's a pretty darn huge difference. let me also then to put it in perspective, some of that data in that web site indicates the fcc has started denying an unusually large percentage of freedom of information requests because of this thing called not reasonably described. now, under your watch, the fcc denied about 16.4% of foia requests based on record that why wr not quote reasonably described." not only was that a huge increase from previous fcc years, only 3% denial based on that, but much high are than even the cia, which i thought was a big deal. i mean, the cia denies 0.7% denial rate the same year on that same issue. so why is the fcc all of a

sudden have more secrets than the cia when with foia requests? >> well, i'm not familiar with d them before. we'd be happy to look at them together with you and try to understand the trend. certainly we recognize our obligations under foia and we have a team of professionals to handle foia requests and understand their obligations to comply and meet their obligations under law. >> and, again, the reason -- that's why i wanted to mention that first, the reason i was taken that back is precisely because of the relationship i've had with you and my staff has had and we've been able to get information. but seems outside of me and congress and members of congress, it seems it might be different. if you look at those denied for not reasonably described, 16.4% for the fcc, the cia 0.7%. the nsa 0.5%.

homeland security, 0.2%. there seems to be a problem there. and that's a huge increase. because just previously to that was about 3%. it was still higher than these other agencies. i'm sure there's a reason for it but there seems to be a huge increase of deniles of freedom of information act requests. because of the relationship i would like to spend time with you all and look at what's going on there. i think there's a serious issue there and i'm sure there's a good explanation but i don't understand what it would be. another issue i ran into, you were talking about budget issues, about i guess your

personnel is -- your requests are basically flat; is that correct? >> correct. >> but one of the things that also struck me rather large was -- it's too small, i apologize. i'm going to complain to my staff about that, particularly after 49 1/2, 1/2, 1/2, my eye s sight is not that good. it's on salaries. so even though the number of employees may be flat, those making $150,000 and above have increased dramatically. >> would you like to submit that for the record? >> that would be great. thank you. it's a huge increase of individual that are now earning over 150 percent -- $150,000 in salary. let me see if i can get you some

of those numbers. it jumped from 46 in trait individual to 439 in 2009 to 535 in 2011. that's a pretty astonishing increase. what changed between 2008 and 2009 that required such an increase in pay? is it different individuals? is it increase -- i'm not sure what that shows us other than the fact that the numbers are pretty astonishing. >> i'm not familiar with the reasons for that particular increase. in general the work of the fcc increasingly requires highly skilled engineers, economists and others with advanced degree to do our work. over time the employee base at the fcc has become more and more focused on that as we move from paper to digital and there have been consequences for the employee base in that regard. so that is part of the reason

for the trend. a second is the -- and i'm proud of this, the retention at the fcc has been reasonably high and that's affected those numbers as well. but i'd certainly offer to work with you on understanding the numbers. the work that the fcc does in terms of generating auction revenue, unleashing investment innovation in the space. i am convinced based on my time at the agency absolutely requires first rate talent, engineering talent, economists, lawyers and we certainly lose many, many, many prospective potential employees because we can't come close to competing with other offers that they have and that's just life in government and i understand that. >> no, i stand th, understand t. again, because i'm not being accusatory, when you look at the number, in 2006 there were 38 employees, if this is accurate. by the way, this is from a web

site also a federal government web site. all this is public and i do commend you for that. '06, there were 38 employees, in 2007, 48, 2008, 46. then to 535. i'm not great in math, that's a pretty substantial increase no matter what. we're not dealing people that went puerto rico 75,000 to 85,000. we're talking about people making over $150,000. again, those are astonishing numbers. again, i want to thank you for being open but you understand these raise serious questions to mr. alexander mentioned about maybe you could look at ways to reduce that 2% increase.

when you have these increases in salaries, a number of individuals making this much money, these large increases that right there may be where in a 2% is alone and i'd like to sit down with you and further explore this. thank you, madam chairwoman. >> thank you, mr. diaz-balart. mr. yoder. >> thank you, madam chair. appreciate you both being here, appreciate your service to our country, a chance to have a conversation, how we move forward. certainly this committee and this congress continues to be focused on job creation, economic growth, reducing and bringing our federal expenditures in line with our available revenue. i'm sure you share those goals. i've appreciated your comments this morning. one of the questions that mr. diaz-balart was asking was related to light squared. i don't know that's been discussed today. it harkens back to last year while we were dealing with this issue. many of us were getting a flood

of concerns, complaints from various industries across the country from federal agencies even that the progression of light squared would have an effect on gps. i think we're all familiar with how that has progressed. we move forward in the appropriations committee, myself and congressman -- one of my colleagues and i move forward with austria and i move forward with an amendment to tight i don't know light squared to assure congress that light squared was not going to violate existing gps spectrum. part of the problem is folks like myself have garmen in their district. it can scare off potential job growth. and potential investment. i guess first of all -- my understanding is that's in the president's budget this year, the same language placed by the

committee last year. my question is, one, where are we going with light squared in particular? i guess what's the latest. two, how do we avoid getting back in the situation again where there is this concern across the spectrum, no pun intended, of folks who are concerned about this. how do we avoid getting back to this position given? assuredly there will be other companies in the future who want to expand and grow jobs, which is what we want them to do. but how do we do it in a way that doesn't offend the gps situation we already have in the country and the investment that's been made there? >> the goal in that particular proceeding, there were really two fundamental goals. one was to free up more spectrum for mobile broadband because we do have a significant capacity challenge that has the risk of retraining growth in private

investment in mobile. the second of deregulatory. that spectrum had an old regulation on it prohibiting terrestrial use and the effort in connection with that was to remove that barrier to terrestrial mobile broadband buildout. to start we said if doing so would lead to legitimate interference issues, we would have to take those into account. as you saw from the actions we are taking those into account. it's an open proceeding still and soap we're continuing to analyze the record but we were very clear from the start of it that we could we would have to address that. there's a larger issue, and all the members of the committee, there's no reason it shouldn't be a bipartisan issue, which is how do we make sure we can remove barriers to spectrum

use and that the incentives in place to avoid interference being caused by devices being interfered with by spectrum outside their lands. and this particular proceeding revealed that that is a real issue. it could get in the way of unleashing the full opportunities of investment innovation in terrestrial mobile broadband. it's something we all have to work on together to say, okay, to your question, learning how we learned from this, how do we make sure we can move across the board to the flexible use that we agree to get rid of regulations that limit use but also have incentives to make sure we don't wake up and sap there are interference issues here that prevent us from deregulating.

>> well, the number one rule in spectrum policy is to prevent harmful interference. beyond that, i have advocated for almost six years at the commission flexible uses. sometimes in the past the fcc has said certain frequencies shall bespefic, narrow purposes. by the time that's actually adopted and investors invests are and engineers build out networks, they've passed that idea buy and you have to go back to the fcc with another rule making to change what another micromanagement might be from the government. it good to have flexible uses. the light squared did not rise to a level of the commissioner's vote. that was handled by the chairmanman's office. any detailed questions i would defer to them on that. >> i just think it's useful to keep that situation relevant as

we discussed how we were going forward. i think there were a lot of fierce whether they were going to come true or not. those fears themselves have an impact on other decision that other companies make. as we go forward, there are companies that are making investments that may have an impact on future decisions that, boy, a long-term guidance, long-perm vision might avoid some of these problems down the road. i don't know how we got to that situation and the premise that maybe the fcc would approve it, even though it would impact gps but that was the belief in a lot of -- i know you're still going

through it but that was the belief that that would occur. so whatever we can do to i guess reassure those companies that are currently invested in gps what we won't approve technology that would affect their lane would be useful and helpful going forward. i also wanted to ask just briefly about broadband fiber. just as it pertains to partnerships with public/private usage. it's my understanding in some of the federally funded broadband projects that not all of the fiber is utilized. what is the opinion of the fcc of selling, sharing and using of excess fiber in those situations? >> governor supported? >> yeah. to what extent do we have government sported fiber? >> this may be a question that

hopefully we can follow up afterwards. i'm not sure i completely understand it. but overwhelmingly broadband infrastructure in the u.s. is private sector funded and built, in the universal service fund context there's support for private companies so that rural america can get broadband. there may be some local municipal broadband networks. perhaps i should offer to follow up with you. >> that would be fine. the final question i have for this round deals with airplane communication. some of this has to deal with the faa but we constantly deal with concerns from constituents and folks related to just travel and communication that occurs on airplanes and even the most recent i think it was alec baldwin situation with playing games as the plane was taking off. this is in the news a lot. to what extent is the fcc engaged for telecommunications

devices to be used on airplane and what's the opinion of the fcc of restrictions that currently occur on airplanes today? >> i saw a report that the faa is taking a fresh look at its rules regarding ipads and other devices and exploring the possibility that it might adjust its rules to accommodate the new kinds of devices, the way people use that. i would encourage that. and some of the traditional concerns about people talking on phones on planes may not apply to kindles or ipads or other uses. i would encourage the faa to look at that and to ensure that it's doing as little as necessary to protect public safety. >> madam chair, one more actually just related to mobile dtv. i have sprint based in my district. i know both of you have been

strong advocates for auctioning wireless spectrum to meet the demand for wireless broadband. what steps is the fcc taking to ensure that mobile dtv will be flourish and not be negatively impacted? >> we made it clear that the flexibility that the broadcasters have to launch mobile dtv shouldn't and won't be affected by the incentive auction process and repackaging. i encourage innovation in the space. the market will decide whether or not it's something that will work. but i think that's an area where there's no reason for the sec to discourage innovation, just the

opposite. >> appreciate it. thank you, madam chair. >> you are welcome. first let me ask you, chairman genachows genachowski, can you submit the list of regulations that have been eliminated? then we can use it to coerce others to follow suit. let me ask you a little something about the universal service fund because i think it was saturday afternoon i was meeting with some constituents who were a little mom and pop cable company. and the contribution rate for the universal service fund has doubled over the last ten years or so, which obviously has led to an increase in fees to consumers. have you all down anything to address that particular piece of it, our fees and the like? >> the contribution factor reform is something that staff is working on and that we expect

to move forward with at the fcc in the near future. on the other side of it in our lifeline reform, the commercial and and i and a colleague worked together to limit the growth of those funds. because on an aggregate basis that sets the fees are collected from consumers. the contribution proceeding will look at the allocation of those fees, basically who pays it in. the most important thing on the ensuring that the aggregate level of burden on consumers is minimized with issues that we addressed in the proceedings that set the outflows. so we do have to address contributions because the word is chang and the ways that money is collected needs to be looked at very carefully. but i do want to emphasize

putting the program under budget, setting savings target has already put in place an assurance that the aggregate burden on consumers will be within the limits we identified. >> tell me how how the new connect america fund will impact rural areas. >> well, it will efficiently disperse funds to little communications providers to build out broadband in their areas. over the years a whole series of inefficiencies, waste,developed in the program. it would have been hard to say that the money that the program was distributing was going to its intended purpose and its intended purpose was traditional television service, not broadband. the fundamental purpose was to modernize the tell el phone from

brad band and ensure accountable so any money into the program gets spent on the goals, getting broad band to rural america. >> so some of my rur service providers, then i had another meeting earlier m the week with a small telecom as well. well, i should probably call it a cable company because there is a difference. and so they are really worried that the new changes to the connect america fund are going to put them out of business. how am i supposed to respond to those concerns in. >> well, we're listening to those concerns very carefully as we implement the program. the easiest way to make sure that there are no effects at all would be -- would have been to not constrain the size of the fund and to allow the increase

on the burden of consumers to up. we needed to make the program efficient, accountable and that's what we've done. we've established a waver and other processes so that as we go forward, we can hear the concerns from companies and take them into account. i mentioned one they are thing was not to have a flash cut but to look at transition periods. and so the various accountability enhancing, efficiency enforcing methods we adopted generally will roll into the next few years. >> are you available at 3:45 tomorrow? i have another constituent coming to talk about this and i think i have another -- that would allow me t