decision. certainly we ought to be looking at this. and saying well, isn't it time for you to step up and declare yourself or take that license and say the patience of the country has long run out many americans are not able to get broad band service because they live in areas where the companies won't make it available or can't afford it. yet 19 states permit them to offer broadband. how can we expand broadband access when the states are passing laws to prevent broadband? >> we've seen terrific examples of innovation around broadband. my own view is that those should be encouraged. look forward to working with the committee on addressing obsz kls

and barriers of that. >> thank you, senator. i hate to do this. but we really have ha number of people. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> it's over five. it's over five. senator rubio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll be brief. commissioner mcdowell wrote a piece titled the u.n. threat to freedom. you were talking about the international telecommunications union. i know you're all interested in the process. can you give us brief update as to where we stand on the issue, what role the commissioner will play in that regard? >> the commission plays a supporting role as a technicaled a virz to the state department. the state department takes the lead role in that. i understand through both private and public information that the state department will be announcing ahead of the u.s. delegation, a head negotiator probably next month some time.

this comes as a crucial time. it's important, especially in dw developing world that can be devastated by international regulation of government. >> does the commission have a supporting rule? what we should be advocating for or against in terms of an agenda for the summit? >> thus far i've been very encouraged by administration statements on this issue. there was a block posting a couple of weeks alaska by the white house and state department jointly, so that's a very good sign. and as far as i know the fec is on board with that. >> the other question we talked a lot about access and different questions senators have raised. we spoke about this briefly when we first met.

it has to do with puerto rico and startling statistics about puerto rico. the 2010 706 report found that 4 million puerto ricans had no broad band access, which is one-sixth of all americans. the 2011 study found 70% is still unserved. it excludes puerto rico in terms of the broad band availability. where do we stand on this issue? >> it is an important issue. and puerto rico is very much part of our plan and we have a goal of reaching unserved americans with broadband, puerto rico is part of that. the funds have to go from somewhere. the more support we can get on a

bipartisan basis to get them to unserved americans, the stronger we'll be and the faster we'll be able to move. there is an issue with people in port puerto rico. >> i look at this in terms of process, especially from a mobile perspective as a down payment. we made a kmiltment to work within a certain budgetary frame work. the engagement or restrictions that we speak of today. we take a lot of meetings from those who care and those persons in that territory and that care a lot about friends on the islands who deserve the same

type of engagement that we have. so hopefully again the savings that we'll have time to speak more about will be able to again, connect those in that area. >> is the mobile capacity expansion, is it at par with the rest? is it at the national level? is the evidence that that's where the demand is going is towards the mobile rout? because the broad band? you talked about the rapid growth. >> i think that's part of it. there's no question the increase has been fast. i don't know the level compared to other states, but we can get that information to you. >> and the last one is really important. but the implications it could have in the 21st century.

china and russia. they're not like the internet freedom. and any place that bans certain terms from the search should not be a leader in international internet and regulatory framework. so i hope we'll continue to stay engaged. i know you all will. and i i know the committee will keep a close eye on it. >> the proposals out there to create a new layer of governing is a bad idea. it's bad for the global economy. they're bad for freedom and democracy around the world and across the administration we're committed to opposing those stro strongly. >> thank you. i'm going to call on senator toomey.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the commissioners as well for being here today. the first question may as well to go to chairman for this. the authority that the commission claims for the passage of the open internet order doesn't rest on title two of the telecommunications act of the communications act at all, right? >> correct. >> if the court strikes down the validity of this order, do you support reclassifying broad band as a telecommunication service under title two? >> the framework is working. it's widely supported. it's led to predictability and service in the industry. i hope the court doesn't strike it down. if it does, i hope congress will fill the gap immediately and make it clear that we have the authority. this is a case where through a lot of hard work we were able to

take a big dispute, increase certainty and predictability, and it's important that it continues. >> i know that's your view. you know it's not shared universally to say the least. and neither of us knows what the court will do. but there's certainly the same possibility that they could strike us down. so my question for you is, do you believe, would you intend, would you support reclassifying broadband to have it considered under title two i'm on the record of says this is not the best idea. i'm optimistic that the court will uphold that and we can move forward in the direction we're on. >> commissioner. >> i think the tight l ought to be closed.

does anybody else want to comment on this question? >> i mentioned earlier that the current framework is working. that there are high level rules of the road. that it blends with certainty and transparency beneficial to the american way of life and way of communicating, and i'm hopeful also that the courts will recognize them. >> i understand. i have a different question, though. it's about the itle two. >> i'm hopeful that the court hands down a decision that's contrary to that, i'll come back and we'll have another talk. >> answer me that. i see. >> anybody else have anything they want to add? >> senator, as they said during our previous hearing, i would not support a reclassification, assuming the court rules as suggested. >> i acknowledge that for the

last decade the commission has been in the business of reclassifying these services. as information services. and that's there's been substantial reliance on this and that the court has upheld the regime. the sec has never considered broadband access service to be telecommunication services. that doesn't mean i'm happy to provide them with the information. >> let me ask a little bit about the incentive options. i apologize if i missed the answer to this question earlier. do you have a date by which you do expect to finish the design process? >> we don't. we have a goal for starting the process, which is by the fall, launching the rule makings.

we intend to move as expeditiously as possible. we want to get the timing right to maximize participation by broadcasters and have a successful auction. >> okay. and do you have -- can you share with us any guiding principles on the conditions you may consider attaching to the auction process? i can't. i expect a ro bust process, hearing from a lot of stake holders, consulting with the committee. the goal is maximizing the opportunity to all americans. learning from experience, and maintaining the u.s. leadership. >> commissioner, do you have any to add? >> i think buildout provisions rr important. they should be using that spectrum. beyond that, i think we need to be very careful about any other

conditions. >> anybody else like to add anything. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i will call the senator, who was here earlier, and then senator pryor. >> all right. all right. >> thank you very much commissioner. welcome two or three new commissioners. i want to applaud you for you recent action on water line framing. that's something we have had a lot of issues with in our state. i wonder if you can elaborate on how you're going to investigate this and what your plans are and why you think it's a problem. >> the work was informed by the excellent work the staff and this committee did and the tackling that the committee held and the complaints we received.

and we found, same as the committee staff report did, there was real evidence of consumer abuse, and we needed to act, and we did, unanimously at the commission, putting in place a set of reforms that we expect will decrease cramming. we also continue to take enforcement seriously. we announced over the last year a series of enforcement actions with fines. that will continue. and we'll continue to this look at the space. we've heard some reports of issues in the wireless space. at the point where we announced our order. i said that if those problems increase, we will act. and so let's avoid them up fron front. >> i don't think i can improve upon that answer. >> that's nice and short. why do it twice if you can just answer it once, right?

and this was part of a national broad band plan and could you address how to carry out this program? >> well, we're encouraging the transportation and others to move on this as quickly as possible. it's a wireless one as well. many people don't realize that a wireless call most of the distance travels through wire line networks. so lowering the cost of infrastructure buildout, of fiber in the roads will help not only wire lines but wireless. and we're hopeful that we'll see some action concretely in the near future. >> all right. very good. mr. chairman, last weekend the

senate appropriations commission said they will ensure the reforms don't undermine the asset portfolio. can you share details of how those discussions are going? and are you going to work to make sure that there's not any harm to that portfolio. >> we recognize there are issues for some u.s. recipients when it comes to rus and resolving it will require flexibility on the sec's part. flexibility on the rus part. potentially flexibility on congress' part. we don't want to let the tail wag the dog and have our u.s. loans mean that consumers are paying for unjustifiable services for a long time. on the other hand we recognize near term business realities, we'll work with the committee to address the issues. >> very good. then i have a question for the first phase of the connect american fund.

i'm hearing now that some portions of it may go unused. >> my understanding is the response has been very strong so far. i will get back to you on how it will be utilized. one company said they would use every penny. both in the first phase and the the second phase. and we have mechanisms to address unclaimed money, u i think we're we're hearing a positive response from companies taking the money and spending it with the accountability mechanisms that we've attached to it. >> very good. last, and you can answer this in writing because i know my colleagues want to get through this. we have some very remote areas of the state on the canadian border to the point where you

cannot get to except going through canada. called the northwest angle. unless the ice freezes over. so they have applied after the transition but had to wait years to get approval from the government. and this january, this is about -- and we can talk about it in writing, coordination with canada going forward with regard to the incentive auction legislation passed in february and some other issues that we think we could do a better job of working with our canada friends. >> we'll respond in writing. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator. and i would say, we have six people to go. those meant to start at 3:50. the people who waited to ask questions should be respected. so if people could exercise discipline. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mrs. genachowski, we sent you

a letter with requesting among other things that the sec not implement additional reductions in usf support until the implications in the reform is adopted and can be properly evaluated and understood. as of yet, there's not been an official reply to the letter. will there be a reply forthcoming in the near future? >> there will be a reply. >> maybe this will be addressed in the letter. but can you answer wlrnt you would delay addictional reductions pursuant until the implications is adopted in last fall's usf can be properly evaluated and understood. >> i think it's important that we move forward with implementing the reforms. i'm listening carefully to the issues that come up. so one reason i haven't responded to your letter yet, is that we've made modifications in

the last two or three weeks that i want to put in place to tell you about them. stomping the reforms would be counter productive. inconsistent with fiscal responsibility and unfair to american who is would benefit from us moving forward. including in south dakota. >> this question has to do with the concern of the wireless industry. as you know, there's great consumer demand for wireless services. we have great economic supporters that conclude unleashing 300 megahertz would spur $75 billion in new capital spending, create somewhere between 300,000 to 770,000 new jobs and add 230 billion to gdp. would you look at the entire wireless eco system and all the benefits derived from this type of investment. i think it's no wonder this has been one of the few good news stories that we've had in the

u.s. economy. i guess my question is the issue of how to get new spectrum out there. we need to identify new spectrum, get in the hands of those build robust wireless networks. i know you're looking at some ways to get more spectrum to market but i'm concerned the process may take too long and will just say in some cases we need for time and i don't think that's going to be sufficient based upon the demand. so the question is consistent with what the president's called for in the form of an additional 500 megahertz of spectrum. can you proip for detail how we get spectrum to market quickly and avoid the pitfall of kicking the can down the roads? >> thank you for the authority. that will make a big difference. we'll move forward quickly. from government, it's important and working on a bipartisan basis with the committee will help, and then there are areas where we've identified whereby

removing regulatory bear dwroers spectrum use we can free up spectrum that already is commercial for terrestrial and we look forward on that. >> we welcome that opportunity. we think it's very important. i would follow-up -- i. just beg of you. the votes are meant to be starting right now. they haven't. we have four people waiting to ask questions. will you yield? >> i guess i'll yield, mr. chairman, if that's your desire. go ahead. >> i will -- >> i'll submit questions for the record. >> okay. i appreciate it. >> i know. >> one, actually, but do you have that. senator pryor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, i want to jump in on the child safe viewing act and this is the bipartisan bill that was directed, that basically directed fcc to move beyond the v-chip, as you know, and look at

other advanced blocking technology. can you give us a quick update on the status of what the fcc is doing? >> yes. first of all it's a tremendous accomplishment for congress to have passed this bill by ensuring that the industry takes disabilities issue into account early. it will solve a lot of problems and really take advantage of the opportunities of technologies to serve people with disabilities. the statute gives us a list of target dates to hit. we've hit all of them so far. working very well with t disabilities community and industry ands a success and continuing to see it be a success. >> thank you. also on the child safe viewing act, the one about the v-chip? >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay. >> my apologies. the child safe -- >> getting those confused because they're both rosenworsal initiatives. >> i ply that i'll apply that d. you and i have talk it a long

time pap real opportunity. seeing more and more new technologies hit the market to do that, and continuing to work together to incentivize, promote those technologies and the awareness of parents about those technologies is important. >> and is the fcc taking steps to try to bring those technologies to bear to allow parents especially parents to utilize those technologies. >> yes. we've been doing outreach. doing events at schools and with parents, worked with the education department to the extent that we can resolve these issues through better technology in the hands of more parents, that would be preferable and should work better than other courses of action. >> ms. mcdowell, anything to add to the child safe viewing act? >> done a great job. he's on a roll. >> thank you. you mentioned the -- the cvaa.

21st century disability act. the commission is what, halfway through or maybe nor tmore in t implement that? >> that's about right and hitting our targets and will continue to do that. >> one of the commissioners helped on, basically, it has the -- has the commission taken steps to get the clearinghouse established yet? >> i don't remember. commissioner rosenworsal -- >> i believe it's underway, but certainly we will make sure that that continues. >> okay. thank you, mr. chairman. i'll yield back my time but i do have other questions for the record. >> i understand. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, we spoke last week ar several issues, enforcement action on the deck claer to order on call completion to make sure that's being taken seriously. about phantom traffic and how we can get the inclusion of carrier identification close to close the loophole, find a solution.

the implementation from the local community radio act and so i'm optimistic we will be seeing low powered fm stations in the near future or by the end of the year i should say, but we spent a lot of time talking about the media over ship ru-- ownership role and cross-ownership. i've expressed my disappointment where the commission is when released in december. seems to be the habit. then congress is gone. oops. where's congress' ability to raise objections on this. i'm curious. because the martin rule that came out, this is very, very similar, had 28 senators including senators obama and biden co-sconcer a resolution of disprival that subsequently passed the senate. what has changed that you think is going to convince me and my colleagues that the martin rule

and now the genachowski rule from four years ago is simply okay? to follow-up, too, on that, when you are looking at that public interest standards, why did you look across media ownership rules in the top 20 markets versus the top 10 or the top 30 and so -- just because i'm trying to get it all in for the chairman here. >> good. i'll keep my answer brief. senator, you've been strong and consistent on these issues, and the views that you're expressing have been expressed by others in the record. the proceeding is still open and reviewing the record and we recognize the conviction that you have on these issues and all of these arguments will be taken into account as we move from the notice to an order. >> well i would encourage you to come to seattle as a previous commission did and encourage you to really pay attention that many members of congress passed, the senate passed, the disapproval of the very thing you're thinking about issuing again. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you.

senator warn th thwarner, then -- >> i'll be very brief. one of the things i would point out, i think commissioner mcdowell said, 55% owned by the federal government. a bipartisan bill, to do an inventory. we won't know how to reallocate or nudge or federal partners unless we have that full inventory. unfortunately, we've had some parts of the administration pull back on that. i think it is essential to us. senator wicker just coming in at this point, talking about the spectrum inventory bill. it's an important step to move forward. i've been concerned with mtia's approach on some of the government spectrum about spectrum sharing as opposed to sharing. working on something innovative with mtia and the private sector that might allow a more official use of spectrum sharing.

do you want to comment? >> two things. one, spectrum sharing is important opportunity. not reallocation, that's inefficiently used by government. in some cases it may be more effective to have sharing to, for example, auction a license, but protect particular areas around the country where there is a use where it's very expensive to move. so t-mobile with support of the wireless industry filed an application for an experiment's license to conduct tests around a military base. we're very supportive of that to identify the base to move forward and free it up quickly. >> i would commend you to move forward on that and again recognize with one of the senators here i would add i really support the efforts you've done in usf reform. clearly, there is going to be, i was -- curious with your answer

that said, none of the fixed rate return players will see a decrease. i'm sure how that all happens on a going forward basis, since we're re-doing the formula, but i -- i do think that getting these dollars out towards broadband towards the 18 million unserved americans and really appreciated the fact that you all are working together and i hope we won't have, there will be many efforts to try to delay that. while we may hear from certain, we don't flare an organized fashion from the 18 million americans who don't have broadband so godspeed. thank you. >> senator? >> thank you, chairman. chairman genachowski, we talked a lot about the spectrum being held by the government right now. i just want to the ask you about a particular band. 1755 to 1780 which you commented on your opening statement, and my question to you is,