>> 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 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. >> mr. mcdowell, did you have anything to add to that, to the child safe viewing act? >> no, i think he's done a great job. he's on a roll. you mentioned the -- the cvaa. 21st century disability act.

the commission is what, halfway through or maybe more in trying 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 rosenworcel -- >> 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, senator pryor, senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, we spoke last week about several issues, enforcement action on the declaratory 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 -- 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-sponsored a resolution of disapproval 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 warner, then --

>> thank you, mr. chairman, i'll try to be brief so we can get in before the vote. the spectrum, one of the things i would point out, i think commissioner mcdowell said 55% owned by the federal government. we still haven't -- we have a bipartisan bill to do a spectrum 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. full relow indication. it's my understanding you are

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, as we go forward to repurpose that spectrum, how is the pentagon being included in this to protect our national security interests and how can we ensure it's an open and transparent process so that all stakeholders can weigh in so we handle it properly? >> the ntia represents all of the federal agencies in the process. we coordinate with ntia and speak with the military agencies. of course i agree it's important to make sure anything that happens in this area protects the needs of the military, but as others pointed out, there's wide agreement that there's inefficient spectrum use on the part of the federal government and it's in all of our interests to address those and move forward to free up spectrum. >> and has the pentagon expressed any concerns about how you're moving forward with that band? >> my understanding, there's real interest in this idea of sharing mechanism for that band that would free up significant spectrum for commercial users in options soon and preserving the military's ability to use that

in the limited area where it needs it. >> i quickly want to jump in on the universal service fund, because you know, it's the usf fund. certainly we all have different viewpoints on it, and new hampshire in the last data out, 2009, is donor state, $25 million. so i commend you on the reform, and i do think it's important that you're slowing the growth of the money that's being held in the fund. so i think that the more we can get the money out it's important, but even donor states like new hampshire have rural areas that aren't, don't have broadband access. how do i continue to ensure my constituents with reforms being made that as a donor state, that that is going to be addressed in a better way for the return or investment for my constituents? >> look forward to working with you. our uniformed goal, joint goal is to make sure that unserved americans everywhere including new hampshire get the benefits

of the money that goes into this fund. so if you're an unserved american, our commitment is in the years ahead, this money will be use efficiently to provide service to you and not wasted where it's not needed. >> great. real quick, you only have data from 2009 by each state. we've been trying to get data from you for 2010 and '11 for each state-by-state breakdown. i hope you'll get it out soon so everyone can see what it means in each of the states and what they're contributing or not contributing. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. the vote is in process, senator wicker, you're free to ask a question, but you'll also be chairing the hearing. >> thank you, and shall i adjourn to them? thank you. >> let me ask if you will be willing to answer questions, also, that we didn't get the chance to ask for the second round? >> of course. >> i have a couple. >> oh, yes. >> i appreciate you accommodating me. we'll report the bill to the

full senate in your absence, mr. chairman. chairman genachowski, thank you for sticking around. we all have full schedules this afternoon, and i'm sorry i haven't been here for most of the time. you know i've advocated device interoperability along with a number of competitive wireless carriers operating in the united states. so let me commend you for moving to a notice of proposed rulemaking, addressing the prospect of interoperability in the lower 700 megahertz band. of course, this is only a step. so if you could, tell us what is the status of this notice and when do you expect the fcc to take final action on the issue? >> we're taking this seriously

and we appreciate your, your urging in this regard, interoperability is a real issue for the smaller carriers that have that a-block spectrum. there are interference issues that came up and we're working with stakeholders to analyze and determine if there's a way to address them. ultimately to make sure that all the carriers who have spectrum in that band have the ability to use it and get devices for their consumers. >> okay. now, how is that process going? because i'm, what i'm trying to get is the timeline. >> i -- if i could respond in writing to that. i don't remember whether the proceeding is still open or not, but our intention is to move quickly because it's a real issue in the marketplace for the carriers that have the spectrum. >> well, good, then. if you could take that, for the record, and give me a specific answer on when you expect to the take final action. that would be terrific. and let me just ask this to commissioner mcdowell.

about the -- the universal service fund and relief mechanisms. the last time the committee addressed this issue, i said the fcc needed to focus on broadband availability while reigning in costs and being responsive to the unique needs of rural america, which most of my state compromises. not all of my colleagues agreed with every aspect of the order, particularly the funding dedicated to wireless service. and i share that concern. however, i believe the commission took an important and necessary first step. i urge the fcc to move forward on the second part of usf reform, focusing on the contribution to ensure that we complete modernization of usf.

however, i do understand that some companies will have growing pains during this transition. it's my understanding that part of the usf order includes several relief mechanisms for those who believe that reform will have an adverse effect, adverse impact on their businesses. so are you in a position today to elaborate on those relief mechanisms, mr. mcdowell? >> i believe you're speaking about the waiver process at the fcc. >> all right. >> and we had an interesting dialogue earlier regarding that. we do, we're taking this very seriously. we want to make sure that the waiver applications are as detailed as possible. so we truly understand what the hardships may or may not be for the applicants. we also want to keep it as streamlined as possible. this is a work in process, and we hope to be able to refine our process going forward, and learn a lot as we go. >> the process proceeding. >> i think it's proceeding fine thus far and we will make determinations as quickly as

possible. on those waiver applications. >> well, thank you very much. and i appreciate folks sticking around. i look to counsel, to see if there's magic words i need to say. do i need to adjourn the hearing or -- >> this is the most power i've had in quite a while. if there's no objection from the other members of the committee, we'll keep the record open for two weeks. hear nothing objection -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the hearing is adjourned. >> thank you. up next on c-span3, radio and tv talk show host ed schultz

talks about the 2012 campaign. then the chief economist for citigroup weighs in on the global economy. and later, a meeting on u.s./russia relations. the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that struck japan in 2011, washed nearly 5 tons of debris into the pacific ocean. some of that debris has reached the u.s. and canadian shores with much more expected. tomorrow, officials from the coast guard and noaa will testify about the u.s. response to this growing problem. live coverage starts at 10:30 eastern here on c-span3. >> when immigrants start to show up in significant numbers which is somewhat the case in the 1820s and 1830s, but really very much the case in the 1840s and afterwards, they're showing up in a political environment in which they're already qualified