in some cases to relinquish spectrum that they have, or to move more quickly to share spectrum. that's the single most promising area to free up a substantial amount of spectrum along with the incentive auction provisions that the committee and congress adopted recently. >> do you have any ideas how that sharing might work? or how the government community could give up total control of parts of spectrum in a way that would be mutually beneficial or at least beneficial to the use of spectrum? >> yes, sir, first of all, the federal government alone probably occupies about 60% of the useable spectrum. that's just the federal government. that tells you a lot right there, spectrum sharing is an ill defined term. it can mean a lot of different things, one question i could have is, if a private sector user is not going to have priority, should the government want to break into its channels.

if a private sector user is using their device and all of a sudden the call is dropped because the government needs to use it, what is the value of that to the marketplace? probably minimal. it's along the lines of the rights of an unlicensed user, if you don't have priority if you think of your walkie-talkie or baby monitor. usually got cut off by the stronger person or your neighbor. that's not an idea situation if that's what we mean by spectrum smaering. the use of the unlicensed tv light spaces is a form of sharing. using scraps in between channels. there are a lot of different ways we can approach the sharing concept, i don't think it's a cure all. i think the executive branch needs to look a lot harder at what kind of spectrum they need to relinquish for auction, and they need to do it yesterday. >> thanks, senator blunt. now senator lautenberg.

>> thanks, mr. chairman. chairman janikowski. if we look at today's "new york times" it talks about the hacking case, and the head of the rupert murdoch british newspaper empire was formally charged on tuesday, along with their husband or for perverting the course of justice if the phone hacking situation that's going on. and i'm looking into that, because it bolsters the case that i want to make with you. there is evidence that news corporation has been volled in a broad range of misconduct reaching the highest levels of the new york based company, and involving acts in the u.k. and the u.s. now, if we look at the list here

and we see these are senior people from the company from newscorp they applied for license in 2007. despite this long list, the fcc is not announced any plans for proactive investigation into whether or not newscorp holds the broadcast license in the u.s. and i address this to each one of you. what does it take for the fcc to begin an investigation. >> obviously we have important responsibilities under the law, we have serious issues that we see in the u.k., these matters may come before the fcc, i think it would be appropriate for us to prejudgment is.

>> we with don't comment as other agencies of agency don't comment on the status of investigations. we have important responsibilities that we will take seriously, it's important we not prejudge it. >> that would be very good. take seriously. >> doesn't that suggest we ought to be looking at them to see what effect that has. it's been a long time. it's my understanding that the fcc is looking into allegatios s of renewing wwor in new jersey. mr. mcdowell do you have a point of view here on when we ought to

get started on looking at this? >> i think the chairman has stated it quite eloquentlies that -- >> i heard it. >> i agree with what the chairman said. >> we have a process in place. a petitioner has a right to file before us, when they do, we'll take all those matters seriously, and review in a timely manner. >> the communications app speaks in terms of technical and broadcast for license es. the commissioner should monitor the situation. >> at the risk of going last, i will associate myself with my colleagues. and commit to you, i will state for the record carefully and support it for redaction. >> i think some action here is

absolutely required. and we ought to get going on this. new jersey where one of the stations exists, would be the fourth largest media market in the country. and here these people have a license and they're fiddling around with this, charges are flying in all over. and i think while we're not -- there's not enough evidence for us to make a 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, we're going to award the license to a deserving party? many americans aren't able to get broadband service because they live in areas where companies won't make it

available or simply can't afford it. yet 19 states currently restrict local government's ability for broadband. states are passing laws to prevent municipal broadband. >> we've seen some terrific examples of municipal innovation around broadband. my own view is that those should be encouraged. we look forward to working with the committee on addressing obstacles and barriers to that. >> so thank you, senator lautenberg. i hate to do this, but we really have a number of people who are -- >> thanks, mr. chairman. >> senator rubio. >> i'll be brief, because i have two questions i want to get in. commissioner mcdonnell, you wrote a piece for the wall street journ ap will i think you

were talking about the international telecommunication union. can you give us a brief update as to where we stand on that issue? what role the commissioner will play in that regard? >> the commissioner plays a supporting role as a technical adviser to the state department. i understand through both private and public information thatted state department will be announcing ahead of the u.s. delegation, ahead of the negotiator sometime next month. this comes at a crucial time as some very crucial meetings are going to take place internationally later in june. it's really of utmost importance that the united states cultivate allies throughout the world. especially the developing world which could be devastated by international regulation of governance. >> does the commission anticipate putting out recommendations to the state department as to what our position should be? what we should be advocating for or against? in terms of having the agenda

for the summit. >> i've been encouraged by my administration statements on this particular issue. there was a blog posting a couple weeks ago, by the white house and state department and commerce department jointly. that's a very good sign. and as far as i know, the sec is on board with that. >> i want to raise it, anyone can comment on it. we spoke about this briefly when we first met. the 2010 706 section report found that 4 million puerto ricans had no broadband access, which is one sixth of all americans identified. 70% of puerto rico was still unserved. my understanding is the national broadband plan does not factor in puerto rico as if it's not part of the united states. and it explicitly excludes

puerto rico. where do we stand on this issue? i think it's of critical importance. you may be able to update us son that? >> it is an important issue much puerto rico is very much a part of our plans, and we have our goal of reaching unserved americans with broadband, puerto rico is very much a part of that. the funds have to come from somewhere, which is why the more support we can get from the committee on a bipartisan basis to bring savings out of the program, the stronger and faster -- the stronger we'll be, and the faster we'll be able to move. there's good news in puerto rico. mobile connectivity has increased rapidly, also supported by government programs, you're right, there is an issue with people in puerto rico unserved by broadband. >> i look at this in terms of process, especially from a mobile perspective as a down

payment. we made a commitment to work within a certain budgetary framework, and, of course, that means the types of engagement or restrictions that we speak of today. my office -- we take a lot of meetings from those who care and represent those persons in that territory, and a lack of connectivity. we have friends on the islands who deserve the same type of engagement as we have, and so hopefully again, the savings that are being -- may have time to speak more about, will be able to again connect those on that -- in that area. >> is the mobile capacity expansion, does it -- is it at par with the rest of the -- the national level or is it at -- in essence, where the demand going is the mobile route, because of the broadband route? you talked about the rapid

growth in mobile connectivity, is that based on demand? that's what's available so it's growing faster than the national around? >> i think that's part of it, there's no question the rate of increase has been fast. i don't remember the level of mobile penetration as compared to other states, but we can get that to you. >> the last point, just to go back to, i think it's important. a lot of people are not aware of what the itu is, the implications it can have in the 21st century, especially with some countries that are engaging in this regard. in china, we've seen recently. they're not bastions of internet freedom. any place that bans certain terms from search should not be an internation wall framework. i hope we'll continue to stay engaged and involved. i hope the committee will keep a close eye on that as well. >> they're serious issues. the proposals are just a bad idea, they're 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 strongly. >> thank you for your resolution too, senator. >> than you. >> thank you, senator rubio. >> i'm going to call now on senator toomey, senator globuchar and senator cantwell should she return. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank all the commissioners as well for being here today. ed first question that might go to the chairman for this. the passage of the internet order doesn't rest on title 22 of the communications act at all, right?

>> correct. >> if the court strikes down the validity of this order, do you support reclassifying broadband as a telecommunications service under that app, under title two? >>ed framework with we've adopted is working. it's widely supported. i hope the court doesn't strike it down, if it does, i hope congress will fill the gap immediately and make it clear we have the authority. this is a case where through a lot of hard work, we were able to take a big radioactive dispute, increase certainty and pregiktability and create a climate and it's important that continue. >> i know that's your view, you know that's not shared universally here to say the least. neither of us knows what the court is going to do. there's a distinct possibility they could strike this down. my question for you is, do you believe -- do you intend, would you support reclassifying

broadband to have it considered under title ii? >> the title ii approach is not the best idea, i believe we have title i authority. and i'm optimistic the court will uphold that, and we can look forward in the direction we're on. >> commissioner mcdonald, do you have an opinion on this manner? >> i think the title ii docket ought to be closed. the implications of having it open are devastating. >> does anyone else want to comment on this? >> i mentioned earlier that the current framework is working. that there were high level rules of the road that fit on one page, that it lends to certainty and transparency that i think is beneficial to the american way of life and way of communicating, and i am hopeful also that the courts will recognize that. >> i understand. i had a different question, though. >> it was about the

applicability of title ii. >> again, i am hopeful and if the court hands down a different -- a decision that's contrary to that, i'll come back and we'll have another topic. >> anyone else have anything they want to add? >> as i said during our previous hearing, i would not support reclassification of title ii assuming the court rules as you suggested. >> i acknowledge that for the last decade, the commission has been in the business of reclassifying these services as information services and there's been substantial reliance on that regime. in addition the supreme court has upheld that regime. i support the approach that the chairman has recommended. >> can i have one quick thing, senator? the scc has never considered broadband internet access services via telecommunication

services under title ii. that is a myth, and i'm happy to supply the committee with information on that regard. >> i apologize if i missed a 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 date where -- 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 so we maximize participation by broadcasters and have a successful launch. >> okay. and do you have -- can you share with us any guiding principles on what kinds of conditions you might consider attaching to the auction process? >> i can't because my mind is open, i expect we'll have a robust process, hearing from a lot of stakeholders, consulting

with the committee, our goal is on maximizing the opportunity of mobile broadband, learning from experience and maintaining u.s. leadership. >> commissioner mcdonalds do you have anything you'd like to add? >> i think buildout provisions are important. carriers should be investing -- license es should be investing in building out that spectrum. beyond that, i think we ought to be very careful about any other conditions. >> anybody else like to add anything? okay. thank you, thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. i will call upon senator globuchar, then senator cantw l cantwell, warner and ayott. >> all right. thank you very much. welcome to our two new commissioners.

i wanted to applaud you for your recent action on wire line cramming. that's something we've had a lot issues with in our state. i wonder 23 you could elaborate a little, mr. chairman maybe commissioner mcdonnell on how you are going to investigate this, and what your plans are, and why you think it's a problem. >> our work was informed about the excellent work this staff did, the hearing that the committee held, and the complaintses that we received at the sec about cramming and wire line. we found same as the committee staff report did, that with respect to wire line, there was evidence of consumer abuse, and we needed to act, and we did, unanimously at the commission, putting in place a set 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 look at

the space. we've heard some reports of issues in the wireless space at the point where we announced our order. if problems occur, we will act. let's avoid them upfront. >> commissioner mcdonnell? >> 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? >> this is something i've been working on with senator warner, we introduced a bill known as dig once. which requires states to install broadband conduits. could you just address how you're going to work with the secretary of transportation in carrying out this program? >> we're encouraging the transportation department and others to move on this as quickly as possible. because it is a no-brainer. since the idea was first conceived, it's clear it's fwlot

own will a wire line opportunity. but a wireless one as well. many people don't realize that a wireless call. most of it -- distance travels through wire line networks, lowering the cost of infrastructure buildout of fiber in the roads will help not only wire line but wireless and we're hopeful we'll see some action concretely in the near future. >> very good. >> mr. chairman, last weekend the senate appropriations hearing, you indicated that the fcc had been working closely with rus to ensure reforms do not undermine the rus' asset portfolio. can you share the details of how those discussions are going, and are you going to work to make sure that there's not any harm to the portfolio zm. >> we recognize that there are issues for some u.s. recipients, resolving it is going to require

flexibility on the sec's part, on the rus part, potentially flexibility on congress's part. we don't want to let the tail wag the dog and have rus loans mean that consumers are paying for unjustifiable services for a long time. we recognize near term business realities, we're going to work with rus, with this committee to address these issues. >> very good. then i had a question about the first phase of the connect american fund. it was in the usf reform order. it's supposed to provide $300 million in support for 2012 broadband investments to unserved census blocks. on the map i'm hearing some portions of it may go unused. what's going to happen to this money? >> my understanding that the very responsible has been very strong. i will get back to you with an exact percentage on how much will be utilized, we want to encourage the maximum possible use. i just met with one company

recently that told me they were going to use every penny, both in the first phase and the second phase and we have mechanisms to address unclaimed money, but i think we're hearing a positive response on companies taking the money and spending it, with the accountability mechanisms we've attached to it. >> last, and you can answer this in writing, we have some remote areas of our state on the canadian border to the point where one parts of our state you cannot get to except going through canada called the northwest angle unless the ice freezes over. they applied for allocation, but had too wait years for approval from the canadian government. this is about -- and we can talk about it in writing, coordination with canada going-forward with regard to the incentive auction legislation that was passed in february and some other issues we think we

could do a better job of working with our canadian friends. >> we'll respond in writing. >> thank you develop. >> i would remind we have six people to go. votes are meant to start at 3:50, there's a possibility that it may slip. people who waited to ask questions, should be respectful. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. janikowski on april 3rd of this year, senator bagitch and i sent you a letter, that the fcc not implement other reductions until the reform is adopted. as of yet there has not been an official reply to the letter. my question is, will there be a reply forthcoming in the near future? >> there will be a reply forthcoming in the near future. >> maybe this will be addressed

in the letter. can you answer the question about whether you would delay additional reductions in usf pursuant to the further notice until the implications of the reforms are adopted in last fall's usf order are properly evaluated. >> i think it's important we continue to move forward while listening carefully to the issues that come up and make appropriate modifications. one the reasons i haven't responded to your letter yet, was that we made some modifications in the last two or three weeks. we want to respond to the concerns. stopping the reforms would be counter productive. inconsistent with fiscal responsibility. and unfair to unserved americans who would benefit from us moving forward. including if south dakota. >> this question has to do with the concern of the wireless and telecom industry about the need for additional spectrum and you know great consumer demand for

wireless services, and economic reports are great concluding unleashing 300 mega hertz by 2016 would spur new california spending create between $300,000 to 770,000 new jobs and add $230 billion to gdp. would you look at the entire wireless ecosystem and all the economic benefits derived from this type of investment, i think it's no wonder this has been one of the good news stories we've had in the u.s. economy. and i guess my question has to do that, with the issue how we get new spectrum out there. i believe we've got to do more to identify a new spectrum and get it into the hands of those who will invest and continue to 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 provide more detail how we get spectrum to market quickly and avoid the pitfall of kicking the can down the roads? >> i agree with all your points, so thank you for the incentive auction authority. including spectrum from government is important, and working on a bipartisan basis with the committee will help. and then there are airs where we've identified whereby removing regulatory barriers to spectrum use we can free up spectrum that is already commercial for tress treeal broadband and we look forward to working on that as well. >> 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 disabilities community and

industry, and i think it's been a success, and we're committed to see it continue to 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 rosenworcel initiatives here in the committee. but go ahead. >> i'll apply that differently. 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 schos