konl without strong rules that help ensure markets work properly. a few companies that control the pipe and that face little competition have already begun to exercise their gate keeper power to limit the promise of this new platform. today, we have arrived at thexd moment where you decide the future. the right decision, the one that will benefit creators, innovators the economy and most importantly, the american people, is to reclassify broad band internet service. only reclassification will allow the commission to institute the rules that will ban blocking and pay prioritization and all the ways in which the companies that control distribution can tip the scales in their favor. what you do today can secure the future of the open internet and make sure our voices are heard. thank you. >> thank you.my and now i'd like to ask our team to play the video from --

>> thank you for the opportunity to address you at what is a critical moment for the future of internet. more than anything else, the action that you take today will preserve the permissionless invasion invasion. let me explain. the web was invented 25 years ago. to people and let them run on computers which were connected to the internet. all that was necessary for those computers were plugged in to internet. they were then communicating. didn't have to ask anybody's permission. frome1 this, the worldwide web spread to reach all the corners

of the global and connected world, enabling hundreds of billions of dollars of economic growth and enhanced free speech and democracy around the world. didn't have to get permission from anybody to introduce a thing. i didn't have to pay isp and special fees. i didn't have to convince c should be let through. if it would be good for their business. i didn't have to worry they would block it because it was compete competing with the businesses they have. so, i didn't have to ask permission from anybody and the web itself on top of internet is another platform. you don't have to ask me to take a new website. so, that is really, really important. it's a wonderful system. the openness of the internet created that opportunity for me 25 years ago will ensure also that the next innovator to come home with a great new app,

service, some great improvements to the web itself, will have the opportunity to try their ideas in the free market just as i did. so today's fcc action is about consumer rights, free speech. it's about democracy because the internet is a platform for democracy. it is also, it's very importantly about platform for business. the openness of internet the fact that internet is mutual it's very important considering where to put a business. i can connect to businesses and start new ones and start new ideas. without having to ask permission. so applaud the chairman's position to rely on the time tested authority communications act. this will enable the commission to write hopefully, the kind of simple, clear rules as being the basis of infrastructures on

which our society depends. the fact that some oppressive regimes abuse their legal systems, stifling speech on the internet can't deter us from protecting internet openness and free speech. rather, we're setting an example of how free speech and an open society sets basic rules and transparent and principled manner. many countries now in fact are facing the question of what to do about net neutrality. i'm proud the qfcc's leading the way to ensure how to lead the internet. we are a society of laws and we know the free markets depend on a sign of rules to be sure that the money supply works, that property is protected, that fraud is punished, for example, we're used to those things. in a world in which the flow of information from internet is in fact, our economic and our social life blood. we have to add net neutrality to

a list of basic market conditions that we protect. thank you again, mr. chairman, and members of the commission for the important step you are taking today and the opportunity to make this contribution.ózk >> the remarks we've heard from tour guest and from sir tim reflect the widespread consensus on the record of this proceeding of the importance of protecting and promoting an open internet. an item of this scope requires quite a team. economists, engineers, technologists and attorneys across the commission all played roles in preparing the item that's before you. on behalf of the wire line competition bureau like to thank our colleagues in the office of general counsel, consumer and governmental affairs bureau and enforcement bureau as well as our chief technologist, scott jordan. with me at the table are john a5o cf1 o salat and stephanie weiner of

the office of general counsel. roger sherman and jim of the wireless telecommunications bureau and claude aiken matt and melissa of the wire line competition bureau. melissa will present the item. >> good morning. mr. chairman and commissioners. >> good morning. >> at the outset, the order before you sets forth three bright line rules to ban conduct that we know threatens the open internet. first, broadband providers may not block access to legal content, application, services or non harmful devices. second, they may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, services or any other services. third, they may not favor some internet traffic over other traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. in other words, no fast lanes.

as in the commission's 2010 order, today's order also adopts a standards for judging concerns on a case by case basis. that standard will prohibit providers from interfereing with or unreasonably disadd advantaging edge providers from reaching one another. all of these providers other than the ban on paid prioritization are a common sense exception. but the order makes clear that the commission will not tolerate abuse of this exception. it also enhances the rule adopted in 2010. which is still in effect. it provides smaller broadband providers with a temporary exepgs and sets in motion a process to consider whether to make that or another exception permanent. the order also notes that some data services like facilities based voigt are not broadband

internet access services and not subject to the rules. the order however does ensure that these services do not -- also the order allows the commission to address any problems that arise in the exchange of traffic between broadband access and other networks and services. the order recognizes that when connection breaks down, ultimately, it is consumers that bear the harm. the order grounds these new protections in multiple sources of authority. first, it classifies broadband access, both fixed and mobile as a telecommunications service. the order recognizes that in offering this service, the provider makes a promise to the end user to transmit traffic to and from all lawful internet end points and the end user. this is no less true this mobile than it is in fixed.

accordingly accordingly, the order finds mobile access service is is a commercial mobile service under section 332 of the commune communications act. and all of the open internet protections that apply to fixed broad band also apply to mobile broadband and with respect to interconnection, the order explains that this promise encompasses the duty to make the necessary arrangements that allow consumers to use the internet as they wish. these findings concerning internet access service provide the best legal certainty for rules guaranteeing an open internet and reflects the reality of how broadband providersñr offer their services to the public today. to ensure ta that the service classification results in continued light touch framework for broadband, the order exercises the authority granted to the to the commission by congress fore bearing some 27 provisions of title ii and over i7 00 regulations adopted under

it. the order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices. protect consume errs and support universal services. the order makes clear that providers will not be subject to utility style regulation. this means no unbundling or other forms of rate regulation and the rate does not require providers to contribute to the service fund nor does it subject or authorize any new taxes or fee fees. in short, the order before you responds to the unprecedented record in this proceeding by adopting strong, open internet protections and resting them on solid league grounds. requests editorial privileges. thank you. >> thank you for your substantial efforts on this. >> thank you, mr. chairman. following years of vigorous debate,my the united states

adopted the bill of rights in 1791. the framers recognize that basic freedoms as enshrined in the first ten amendments to the constitution were free to a democratic society. james madison gave life to tp first amendment in a scant 45 words, mr. chairman, which are fundamental to the spirit of this great nation. almost two centuries later justice william brennan would write the historic 1964 "new york times" versus sullivan decision that quote, debates on public issues should be uninhibited, rowbust and wide open. i believe president madison and justice brennan would be particularly proud of the rigorous, robust and unfettered debate that has led us to this historic moment and what a moment it is. i believe the framers would be pleased to see these principles

embodied on a flat form that has become such an important part of our lives. i also believe they never envisioned a government that would include the input in leadership of women, people of color and immigrants or that there would be an open process where nearly 4 million citizens have had a direct conversation with their government. they would be extremely amazed because we are extremely amazed.5a so, here we are 224 years later at a pivotal fork in the road. poised to preserve those same virtue virtues of a democratic society. free speech. freedom of religion, a free press, freedom of assembly and a functioning, free market. as we look around the world, we see foreign governments block ing access to websites including social media. in some curtailing free speech.

there are countries where it is routine for government not the consumer, to determine who has access and what kind of content can be accessed by its citizens. i am proud to be able to say that we are not among them. absent the rules we adopt today however, any internet service provider has the liberty to do just that. they would be free to block, throttle, favor or discriminate against traffic or extract tolls from any user for any reason or for no reason at all. this is more than a theoretical exercise. providers here in the united states have in factñi blocked applications on mobile devices which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts comp tils and innovation by allow allowing companies, not the consumers, to pick winners and losers. as many of you e1know, this is not my first open internet rodeo.

while i did vote to approve the 2010 rules, it was no secret that içó prefer edred a different path than the one the commission ultimately adopted. specifically title ii 2 with forberns, mobile parody, a ban on pay prioritization and preventing the specialized services exception from becoming a loophole. so, i am grateful to youmy mr. chairman, for your willingness to work with my office to ensure this order strikes the right balance. this is our third bite at the apple and we must get it right. today, we are here to answer a few simple questions. who determines how you use the internet? who decides what content you can view and when? should there be a single internet of fast lanes and slow

lanes? shouldn providers be left free to slow down or throttle certain applications or content as they see fit? should your access to the internet on your mobile device have the same protections as your fixed device at home? these questions for me get to the essence of the open internet debate. how do we continue to ensure that consumers have the tools they need to decide based on their own user experience the consumer, not me, not the government, not the industry, but you, the consumer. keeping in touch with your loved one overseas. interacting with your health care provider. even if you are miles away from the closest medical facility enrolling online for classes. without worrying whether the university can pay for a fast lane so that lecture can be

watched. not buffering for hours, but the quality has been degraded or throttled. not that. not wondering if businesses affiliated with your internet services provider is gettingzf5 preferential treatment over that start up you worked so hard to establish. we are here. so that teachers don't have to give a second thought about assigning homework that can has to be resernled online. because they are sure that their pupils are free to access any lawful website and such websites won't load at dial up speed. of more than 4 million commenters, who raised their voices and made a difference through civic, yet sometimes, not always so civil, discourse. we are here to ensure that every american has a ability to communicate by their preferred

means over their chosen platform because as one of our greatest civil rights pioneers, representative john lewis of georgia said, if we have the internet doing the movement, we could have done more. much more. to bring people together from all over the country to organize and work together to build the beloved community. that is why it's so important for us to protect the internet. every voice matter he says. we cannot let the interest of profit silence the voices of those pursueing dignity, unquote. we are here to ensure that there is only one internet where applications, new products ideas and points of view have an equal chance of being seen and heard. we are here because we want to enable those with deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets. the same opportunities to

succeed. there are many aspects of this item that i am particularly pleased to support and while time and stamina prohibit me from naming them all, i do want to highlight a few. users of mobile dwilss should not be relegate today a second class internet. we know many low income americans rely heavily on their mobile device and some rely heavily on that mobile phone as their only sk sk says to the interin the. they need, they deserve a robust experience on par with their wired peers, so again, i thank you, mr. chairman, for ensuring equality and erasing the mobile versusw3 fixed distinction. the item contains strong clear rules that ensure that all content, all applications and all bits are treated equally. these are essential to the free

market and this is pro competition. we must also ensure that companies are not able to take actions that circumvent or undermine the opevp ternet rules rather through exceptions and the definition or at a point of interconnection and despite the flurry of press reports earlier this week, very interesting for me i would never advocate for any policy that undermines oversight or enforcement of any open internet protections including interconnection. i am pleased that this order commits to monoitor r internet traffic exchanged arrangements and enables the commission to intervene if appropriate. i have also been vocal about my call to modernize the lifeline program, which has been stuck in an mc hammer parachute pants time warp since 1985.

this order enables the fcc to support broadband as a separate service, which would help low income communities break out of the digital darkness. i hope mc hammer is not watching. not watching. in the seemingly endless meetings with stakeholders, my office has heard concerns from many sides. to some, the item does not go far enough. others want a ban on access fees, and there are those who advocate a ban for zero rating and others who feel that it goes too far rather on the scope of forberns. we work closely to strike an appropriate balance and, yes, it is true, that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of the sender side classification. but i firmly believe these edits have strengthened this item. and reports that this week is

our legal authority over interconnection are completely inaccurate. but it should come as no surprise that with any item in excess of 300 pages, that there may be a few issues that i would have decided differently, mr. chairman. first, i would have preferred to readopt the unreasonable discrimination rule and reasonable network management rules from 5a2010. second, i think we should tread lightly when it comes to preeveryoning the state's ability to adopt and implement their own universal service funds. not doing so could put a strain on the tremendous federal-state partnership i've worked to hard to create and the state universal service fund, by the way, are completely distinct from any federal program. finally, i have been struck by how much rhetoric in this proceeding is completely divorced from reality. while as a rule i general ri refrain from responding in these

cases, i must address concerns about rate regulation. many of you know that reforming the inmate calling services regime has been a priority for me. despite clear legal authority the fcc dragged its feet for over a decade while families, friends, lawyers, and clergies paid egregiously high and unlawful fees to make a simple phone call to and from inmate facilities. i bring this up todayxd because -- for those in a panic about rate regulation, there are millions

who can testify to how high the bar is when it comes to the fcc intervening when it comes to rates and charges. and i repeat this challenge to anyone willing to accept it. highlight examples where the federal communications commission has ruled that a rate is unreasonable in a context other than inmate calling or a tariff investigation over the last decade. to date, no one has come forth with any examples and that in and of itself is telling. and lest we forget that over 700 small broadband providers in rural america offer broadband internet access pursuant to the full pan that plea of services. amazingly, the sky has not fallen. things are okay. we have not regulated their

rate, and i am unaware of any stream of class-action lawsuit. even so the item does assert primary jurisdiction to reduce such concerns. so mr. chairman, today i support this item because i believe it provides the strong protections we need and balances the concerns raised by stakeholders both large and small. the order we are poised to endorse is not a product however, of some artificial life force. a dedicated team of wire lined competition and wireless telecommunications bureaus and the officer general counsel worked extremely hard on this item. there are too many people to thank, but i would be remiss if i did not mention jonathan salad, stephanie weiner matt deer in row, claude aiken,

marcus mayor, and michael jansen. but i also must thank two people in my office especially luis perez and rebecca goodheart. i thank you very much. last but not least i would like to thank you, the american people. more than 4 million of you weighed in. thank you for your amazing role in framing this historic order. today, because of your effort, we are better able to allow millions of americans to tell their stories, to reach their potential, and to realize the american ideal. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner. [ applause ]

and thank you for your leadership on this, recognizing that as mr. lewis said every voice matters. commissioner? >> so there's been a little noise on the way to this decision today. so i'm going to do something radical. i'm going to be brief. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the applications economy began right here on our shores. the broadband below us and the air waves all around us deliver its collective might into our homes and businesses all across the country. what produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. and sustaining what has made us innovative, fierce and creative

should not be a choice. it should be an obligation. we also have a duty, a duty to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our printing press. it is our town square. it is our individual soap box and our shared platform for opportunity. that is why open internet policies matter. that is why i support network neutrality. we cannot have a two-tiered internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. we cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online. and we do not need blocking inging

throttling or paid prioritization schemes. for these reasons i support chairman wheeler's efforts and rules today. they use our existing statutory tools, including title two authority, to put back in place basic open internet policies that we all rely on but last year our courts took away. the result honors the creative collaborative, an open internet envisioned by those who were there at the start, including the legendary sir tim burners lee. what is also a big deal is 4 million voices. 4 million americans wrote this agency to make known their ideas, thoughts and deeply held opinions about internet openness. they lit up our phone lines clogged our e-mail inboxes and

jammed our online comment system. that might be messy but whatever our disagreements are on network neutrality, i hope we can agree that's democracy in action and something we can all support. >> commissioner. [ applause ] thank you for your presentation. what you edited out was your leadership throughout this process, your championing of open voices, and we'll hear a lot of words up here today but the most important words is one simple short word, i. thank you. commissioner pie. >> thank you, mr. chairman. americans love the free and open internet. we relish our freedom to speak,

to post, to rally, to learn to listen, to watch, and to connect online. the internet has become a powerful force for freedom here and around the world. so it is sad to witness this morning the fcc's unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control. it shouldn't be this way. for 20 years, there's been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. a democratic president and republican congress enshrined in the telecommunications act of 1996, the principle that the internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market quote, unfettered by federal and state regulation. and dating back to the clinton administration, every fcc chairman republican and democrat, has let the internet grow free from utility-style regulation. the results speak for

themselves. but today the fcc abandons those policyies policies. it reclassifies broadband internet access service as a title two telecommunications service. it seizes unilateral authority to regulate internet conduct to direct where internet service providers, or isps make their investments, and to determine what service plans will be available to the american public. this is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have served us so well over the past two decades. it is also an about face from the proposals the fcc itself made just last may. so why is the fcc turning its back on internet freedom? is it because we now have evidence that the internet is broken? no. we are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only. president obama told us to do so. >> i'm asking the fcc to

reclassify internet service under title two of a law known as the telecommunications act. >> on november 10th president obama asked the fcc to implement his plan for regulating the internet. one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. as has been widely reported in the press, the fcc has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. the courts will ultimately decide this order's fate. litigants are already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. and given this order's many glaring legal flaws they'll have plenty of fodder. but if this order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the consequences. higher broadband prices slower broadband speeds,less broadband deployment, less innovation, and fewer options for american consumers. put simply, president obama's plan to regulate the internet is

not the solution to a problem. his plan is the problem. this order imposes intrusive government regulations that won't work to solve a problem that doesn't exist, using legal authority the fcc doesn't have. accordingly, i dissent. to start, the commission's decision to adopt president obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the internet. it gives the fcc the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. it's an overreach that will let a washington bureaucracy and not the american people decide the future of the online world. one facet of that control is rate regulation. for the first time, the fcc will regulate the rates that isps may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial arrangements. the order goes out of its way to reject calls to fore bear from

section 201's authorization of rate regulation. and it expressly invites parties to file such complaints with the commission. a government agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation. now, although the order plainly regulates rates the plan takes pains to claim it is not imposing what it calls ex-anti rate regulation. of course, that concedes the new regulatory regime will involve ex-post rate regulation. even the agency's suggestion that it can today, quote cannot envision ex-anti regulations in this context says nothing of what a future commission, perhaps this very commission, could envision. just as pernicious as the fcc's new internet conduct standard, a vague standard that gives the fcc a roving mandate to review business models and upend pricing plans that benefit consumers, usage-based pricing

plans and sponsored data plans are the current targets. so if a company doesn't want to offer an expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the fcc's crosshair. if you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. the fcc shouldn't take it away from you. diverse service plans would just hurt consumers, especially the middle class and low-income americans who are the biggest beneficiaryies beneficiaries. in all, the fcc will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what business practices clear the bureaucratic bar. these won't be the last plans targeted by the agency. as the electronic frontier foundation wrote just two days ago, this open-ended rule will quote, be anything but clear and suggest that the fcc believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices.

the eff went on, and a multifactor test gives the fcc an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence. well said. then there is the temporary fore baerns. although the order crows it yields a light-touch regulatory framework, in reality it isn't light at all. coming as it does with a caveats that the public has come to expect from washington, d.c. in addition to rate regulation tariffs, last mile and bundling burdensome administrative filing requirement, and entry and exit regulation, the plan also repeatedly states it's only forbearing at this time. for other rules, the fcc will refrain, for now. at this time, for now. to be sure, with respect to some rules, the agency says that it

cannot envision going further. but as the history of this very proceeding makes clear assurances like these don't tend to last very long. in other words, expect forbearance to fade and the regulations to ratchet up as time goes on. moreover consumers will be worse off under president obama's plan to regulate the internet. consumers should expect their bills to go up, and they should expect that broadband will be slower going forward. this isn't what anyone was promised, to say the least. first, broadband taxes. one avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. and he's the background. if you look at your phone bill you will see a line item that says universal service fee, or something like that. these fees what most americans call taxes are paid by americans on their telephone service. they funnel about $9 billion each year through the fcc.

now, consumers haven't had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a title two service. but now it is. and so the order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes. indeed, it repeatedly states it's only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes, not prohibiting them. this is fig leaf forbearance. indeed, the fcc has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the federal state joint board on universal service and has requested a recommended decision by april 7th 2015, right before tax day. it's no surprise that many view this referral as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband. states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. the fcc's own preference is pretty clear. the order argues that taxing broadband, quote potentially

could spread the base of contributions and could add to the stability of the universal service fund. for those not familiar with this beltway argo, let me translate. taxing broadband would make it easier to spend more of your money with minimal public oversight. now, we've seen this game played before. during reform of the e-rate program in july of 2014 the fcc secretly told lobbyists it would raise usf taxes after the election to pay for promises it was making. and sure enough in december of 2014, the agency did just that increasing e-rate spending and with it these telephone taxes by $1.5 billion per year. public reports indicate the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream and soon to spend more of consumers' hard-earned dollars. so when it comes to broadband, read my lips. more new taxes are coming.

it's just a matter of when. second effect on consumers slower broadband. these internet regulations will work a serious harm on consumers in terms of broadband speeds. the record is replete with evidence that title two regulations will slow investment and innovation in broadband networks. let's just remember that broadband networks don't have to be built. capital doesn't have to be invested. risks to deploy don't have to be taken. the more difficult the fcc makes the business case for deployment, the less likely it is that broadband providers big and small, will connect americans with digital opportunities. the old world offers a cautionary tale here. compare the broadband marketplace in the united states to that of europe, where broadband generally is treated as a public utility. today, 82% of americans have access to 25 megabit per second broadband speeds. in europe, that figure is only

54%. moreover, in the united states average mobile broadband speeds are 30% faster than they are in western europe. it's no wonder that many europeans are perplexed by what is taking place at the fcc. just this week, the secretary general of the european peoples party, the largest party in the european parliament, observed that the fcc, and i quote, at behest of president obama was about to impose the type of regulation which has led europe to fall behind the u.s. in terms of levels of investment. making all of this worse is the fact the fcc now welcomes litigation from individual claims about the justness and reasonableness of isp pricing, the sprawling class actions for violations of the new internet conduct rule, as an appropriate means of regulating the internet economy. judging from what we've seen in the patent world this will be a boon for trial lawyers. what i've mentioned so far are just the intended consequences

of reclassification. there are unintended consequences as well. the fees that broadband providers from small-town cable companies to new entrants like google must now pay to deploy broadband using things like utility polls will go up by an estimated $150 million to $200 million per year. reclassification will expose many small companies to higher state and local taxes. here in washington, d.c., for instance companies will face an instant 11% increase in taxes on their gross receipts. that's a big bite that's going to leave a welt on consumers' wallets. all of these new fees and costs add up. one independent estimate puts the total at $11 billion each and every year. and every dollar spent on fees it and new costs like lawyers and accountants has to come from somewhere, either from the pockets of the american consumer or projects to deploy faster broadband.

and so these higher costs will lead to lower speeds and higher prices. in short, less value for the american consumer. that's certainly not what i heard consumers wanted when i hosted the texas forum on internet regulation in college station, texas. the fcc's only field hearing on net neutrality where audience members were allowed to speak. there, internet innovator, student, every day people told me they wanted something else from the fcc, something that i thought had a familiar ring to it. they wanted competition competition, competition. and yet literally nothing in this order will promote competition among isps. to the contrary reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of business. monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us in the direction of a monopoly. president obama's plan to regulate the internet is nothing more than a kingsbury commitment

for the digital age. if you liked the monopoly in the 20th century you'll love broadband in the 21st. but this isn't just my view. the president's own small business administration, apparently acting independently, admonished the fcc that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses. following the president's lead, the fcc ignores this admonition by applying heavy-handed title two regulations to each and every small broadband provider as if it were an industrial giant. ton surprisingly, small internet service providers are worried. and i heard this for myself at the texas forum on internet regulation. one of the panelists joe portman, runs alamo broadband, which is a wireless isp that serves only 700 people across 500 square miles south of san antonio. what does joe think of title two? he thinks it's pretty much a

terrible idea. his staff is and i quote, pretty busy just dealing with the loads we already carry. more staff to cover regulations means less funds to run the network and provide the very service our customers depend on. others feel the same way. just last week, 142 of them joined the chorus. these wisps have deployed wireless broadband to customers who have no alternative, including my parents. they often run on a shoe string budget with just a few people to run the business install equipment, and handle service calls. they have no incentive, and even if they did, they have no ability to take on commercial giants like netflix. they say the fcc's new regulatory intrusions into our businesses would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both. or consider the views of 24 of the country's smallest isps. each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers.

they told us that title two will badly strain our limited resources because we have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel. or how about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the fcc that title two will trigger consequences can beyond the commission's control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers, that the market is not already proving today without the aid of additional regulation. and there's a special irony given that right before this vote, as you heard, the fcc voted to pre-empts7 stay laws regarding city-owned broadband projects. this is an incentive president obama announced just last month in cedar falls, iowa. the fcc dutifully is implement implementing it. but cedar falls utilities, the very municipal broadband provider the president promoted tells us that title two is quote, a tremendous mistake.

so what does the order tell americans whose isp isn't a comcast, an at&t, a google, or a sprint? what does it tell those whose service will be more expensive as a result of reclassification? what does it tell those who may lose their internet service? what does it tell those who worked for years to serve their community and build a business, one that's finally in the black? there's no explanation. there's not even an acknowledgment. instead, there's just the smug and implicit assurance that it won't be that bad, and you probably had it coming anyway. so the fcc is abandoning a 20-year bipartisan framework for keeping the internet free and open in favor of great depression era legislation designed to regulate mob bell. but at least we're getting somebody in return right? wrong. the internet is not broken. there is no problem for the government to solve.

that the internet works that internet freedom works should be apparent to anyone with an apple iphone or microsoft surface, a samsung smart tv or roku a nest thermostat or a fitbit. we live in a time where you can buy a movie from itunes, watch a music video on youtube, listen to a personalized play list on pandora, watch your favorite novel come to life on amazon's streaming video, help someone make a potato salad on kick starter, check out the latest comic on xkcd, navigate bad traffic with waze watch an eventful fcc meeting online, and do literally hundreds of other things with an online connection. at the start of this millennium we didn't have any of this internet innovation. and, no, the federal government didn't build that. somebody else made that happen. for all intensive purposes the

internet -- as we developed it in the 1990s and has been the commercial internet that has led to the creativity, the engineering genius we see today. but nevertheless, the order ominously claims that -- rules necessary to deceive skmurs, degrade content, or disfavor the content they don't like. and it asserts the fcc continues to hear concerns about other broadband providers involving blocking or degrading third-party applications. the evidence of these continuing threats, there is none. it's all anecdote hypothesis and hysteria. and if you are allowed to see this plan, you would see that for yourself. a small isp in north carolina allegedly blocked void calls a decade ago. comcast capped traffic to ease

upload congestion eight years ago. apple introduced facetime over wi-fi first cellular networks later. scattered examples this stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. the boogieman never had it so easy. so what is there to fear? a sober reader might borrow from the father of title two. the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. but if the fcc instead intones the nine scariest words for any friend of internet freedom i'm from the government and i'm here to help. to put it another way title two is not just a solution in search of a problem, it's a government solution that creates a real world problem. this is not what the internet needs, and it's not what the american people want. so that substance a few words on process, briefly. when the commission launched this rule making, i said that we needed to give the american people a full and fair opportunity to participate in

this process. unfortunately, we have fallen woefully short of that standard. most importantly, the plan in front of us today was not forged within this building through a transparent notice and comment rule making process. instead, "the wall street journal" reports that it was developed through, quote an unusual secretive effort inside the white house, unquote. indeed, white house officials, according to the journal functioned as a parallel version of the fcc. their work led to the president's announcement in november of his plan for internet regulation a plan which the report says blindsided the fcc and swept aside months of work by chairman wheeler toward a compromise. now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. here's what a leader for the government-funded group fight for the future had to say. we've been hearing for weeks from our allies in d.c. that the only thing that could stop fcc chairman tom wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to

gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. so we did everything in our power to make that happen. we took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. congratulations. what the press has called the parallel fcc at the white house opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. daily coasts, demand progress, fight for the future free press, and public knowledge, just to name a few. indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman's driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. but what about the rest of the american people? they certainly couldn't get white house meetings. they were shut out of the process altogether. they were being played for fools. and the situation didn't improve once the white house announced president obama's plan. and quote, asked the fcc to implement it. the document in front of us

today differs dramatically from the proposal that the fcc put out for comment last may, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in in recent days, to make last-minute filings registering their concerns that the fcc might be going too far. yet, the american people, to this day have not been allowed to see president obama's plan. it has remained hidden. especially given the unique importance of the internet,ht commissioner o'rye lee and i ask for the plan to be released to the public. senate commerce committee chairman john thune and house of representatives chairman did the same. according to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm 79% of the american people favored making the document public. still, the fcc has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. we have to pass president obama's 317-page plan so the american people can find out

what's in it. this isn't how the fcc should operate. we should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record. we shouldn't be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the white house. and we should have released this plan to the public solicited their feedback incorporated that input into the plan and then proceeded to a vote. there was no need for us to resolve this matter today. there is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now, the backers of the president's plan know this. but they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. they know that the more the american people learn about it the less they will like it. that is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the white house. and that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view. these aren't my only concerns. even a cursory look at the plan

reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, i will reserve them for my written statement. at the beginning of this proceeding, i quoted google's former ceo who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn't understand. this proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the fcc still doesn't get it. but the american people clearly do. the proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. i'm optimistic we'll look back on today's vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that's served us so well. i don't know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by congress or overturned by a future commission but i do believe its days are numbers. for all of these reasons, i dissent, and i would like to take a moment to thank the hard-working staff in my office

matthew berry nick, brendan carr, and all of the others who have labored these many weeks on a very difficult item under trying personal circumstances to deliver the product we delivered today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner. i tried to keep score on all the things i disagreed with that you said, but i've got you on my score card now as undecided but probably wavering against. commissioner o'riley. >> thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to my score card as well. i had a chance to review some of the tweets while you were giving your last statement. don't worry, i was multitasking. i heard your statement. there's quite a critique of the length of my last statement. well, sit back. put your feet up. you haven't seen anything yet.

i promise i'll put my even longer one in the record. today the majority of the commission -- by rewriting the communications act. the item claims to forbear from certain monopoly era title two regulations but reserving the right to impose them using other provisions or at some point in the future. the commission abdicates its role as an expert agency by defining and classifying services based on unsupported and unreasonable findings. it fails to account for substantial differences between fixed and mobile technologies. it opens the door to apply these rules to edge providers. it delegates substantial authority to bureaus, including how the rules are interpreted and enforced on a case-by-case basis. and lest we forget how this proceeding started. it also reinstates net neutrality rules.

indeed, it seems that every bad idea ever floated in the name of net neutrality has come home to roost in this item. to read public statements over the last few weeks, one might think this item uses title two in some limited way, solely to provide support for net neutrality rules and to protect consumers. and the casual observer might be misled to believe that the ends justify the means. along the way, however, the means became the end. net neutrality is now the pretext for deploying title two as far greater extent than anyone could have imagined just months ago. and that is the reality that this commission tried to hide by keeping the draft from the public and releasing a carefully worded fact sheet in its place. well, i see no need for net neutrality rules. i am far more troubled by the dangerous course that the commission is now charting on title two and the consequences it will have for future broad broadband investment. the commission attempts to down

play the significance of title two, but make no mistake, this is not some make-believe modernized title two light that's somehow tailored to preserve investment while protecting consumers from blocking or throttling. all of title two applied through the back door of sections 201 and 202 of the act and section 706 of '96 act. moreover, all of it's premised on a mythical, virtuous cycle, not actual harms to edge providers or consumers. in some ways, this evolution is not surprising. i've consistently expressed concerns across a number of proceedings. tech transitions, text to 9 1i over the top video, voip symmetry. that this commission has been slowly but steadily attempting to bring over the top and other ip services within its reach. now the commission goes all in and subjects broadband networks, the foundation of the internet to title two itself. furthermore, because there's no limiting principle, the other

providers will eventually be drawn in as well. i cannot support this monumental and unlawful power grab. while the item claims the decisions are a logical outgrowth of a few open-ended questions tacked on to the nprm that argument is not at all persuasive. this is clearly a situation where interested parties would have to define the agency's unspoken thoughts because the final rule was surprisingly distant from the proposed rule. interested parties effectively had no notice or opportunity to respond to the vast evolution that took place from nprm to final order. key points include the scope of a newly defined service including how they relate to each other the legal analysis underlying the classification or reclassification of each service, how forbearance would apply in the context of these newly defined contexts.

even after enduring three weeks of spin, it's hard for me to believe that the commission is establishing an entire title two net neutrality regime to protect against hypothetical harms. there's not a shred of evidence that any aspect of this structure is necessary. the dc circuit called the prior scaled-down version a prophylactic approach. i call it guilt by imagination. moreover, the commission once again takes a pass on performing a market power analysis in favor of repetitive invocation of the virtuous cycle nonsense. that may have been good enough to narrowly survive review when all that was at stake was net neutrality rules, but that's no guarantee that such flimsy reasoning will withstand another round or two of scrutiny now that all of title two hangs in the balance as well. while some providers may have been willing to live with net neutrality rules under section 706, it's an entire different

matter to impose title two without concrete evidence that doing so is absolutely necessary. the item supposedly invokes title two in order to put net neutrality rules on the firmest legal ground. title two is far more than a convenient legal theory. it is a comprehensive set of regulations designed to reign in monopoly telephone companies, and it's laid within decades of precedent that cannot be shrugged off with simple incantations like, to the extent our prior precedents suggest otherwise, the reasons discussed in the text, we disavow such interpretation as applied to the open internet context. there's reasonable title two has been called the nuclear option. no matter what the fcc tries to do to limit the fallout, the decision will still impact investment. as one analyst reportedly wrote last week terminal growth rate assumptions need to be lowered. title two is about price regulation. and it would be naive to believe

that the imposition of a regime that fundamentally is about price regulation in an industry that the fcc now has repeatedly declared to be noncompetitive wouldn't introduce risk to future pricing power. well, the fcc tailors certain statements from providers to reject assertions that title two will substantially diminish overall broadband investment. that doesn't give me a lot of comfort. even a modest reduction is too great a price to pay when weighed against pure speculative harms. moreover, the harms to small isps will addition proportionately be severe, and the fcc gives them no reprieve from title two whatsoever. incredibly, the item gives significant weight to a theoretical cost of foregone innovation, but gives essentially no weight to the cost of foregone investment. i'm far more concerned about americans that will remain unserved as a result of our rules. forget about open internet. they have no internet. we need to be focused on ways to

promote deployment and not in some round about virtuous cycle way but through proven deregulatory measures. i'm very concerned that far from virtuous cycle we're creating a vicious cycle where regulation deters investment and broadband and that begets more regulation to stimulate competition and deployment that will further deter investment. in other words, the beatings will continue until morale improves. notably, the items not only reverses its decisions to treat broadband internet access services but it also determines for the first time that title two applies to the entire service, not just the transmission component. as one provider put it the conclusion that retail broadband internet access is a telecommunications service is contrary to the plain text of multiple parts of the communications act decades of commission decisions and views of all nine supreme court justices in brand x. the item also gives short shift

to the argument that prior decisions to classify broadband internet access as an information service endangered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. i'm just as troubled by the substantial factual errors underlying the decision. adherence to factually unsupportable assertions shows that the commission has abdicated its role. the record is replete with evidence that content providers and network operators enter into interconnection relationships with isps through individually negotiated private arrangements. regardless of the form they take, peering transit, or on-net only prorks vieders do not only themselves out to serve the public indifferently. as such, these arrangements which some mistakenly refer to as interconnection have never been regulated as common

carriage subject. undeterred by this long history the item concocts a novel service laundering scheme. it attempts to transform this interconnection into telecommunications service by subsuming it into another service, broadband internet access service and just like that retail broadband internet access service is no longer a last-mile service. it is the entire internet path, including all internet traffic relationships. this approach is riddled with holes. first, such interconnection has always been understood to be a distinct for the last mile including this proceeding. second, the item does not show how this service laundering scheme is consistent with precedent. third, it depends on broadband internet access service being a telecommunications service, which it is not. fourth, there was absolutely no notice for this novel approach. even parties that guessed that interconnection might be subject to title two despite the lack of notice clearly did not

understand that the primary mechanism for doing so would be to reinterpret broadband internet access services to include interconnection. moreover, this shift to regulate internet traffic exchange highlights that the commission's real end game has become imposing title two on all parts of the internet, not just setting up net neutrality rules. and subjecting a thriving, competitive market to regulation in the name of that neutrality the commission is trying to use a small hook and a thin line to reel in a very large whale. this line will surely break. similarly, this item for the first time subsumes mobile broadband services under title two, common carrier regulation reversing decades of precedent. until now, the commission has followed congress' mandate under section 332 of the communications act and it's correctly exercised regulatory restraint by classifying mobile broadband as an information

service, free from common carrier regulation as required by the statute. yet today, we use a slight of hand to change our definitions so that overnight mobile broadband magically falls under the confines of title two. and subjecting wireless broadband to title two, the majority ignores fundamental differences between wireless and fixed broadband industries and technologies. unlike last century's voice only telephone service, the wireless sector has developed and flourished in a fiercely competitive environment. wireless consumers have ample choices and can readily switch between offerings. this competition has yielded unparalleled investment and innovation, lower prices, higher speeds, and product differentiation. as sector participants vie for an edge to attract and retain subscribers. applying a regulatory regime established monopoly service to the mobile sector defies logic. the majority also flagrantly

ignores the fundamental operational requirements necessary for mobile broadband networks, unlike fixed systems, mobile network capacity is constrained by the relatively scarcity of spectrum resources. given this unique limitation, wireless providers must maintain their ability to vigorously and nimbly. i expect rules adopted today will hamstring the smooth functioning of these networks. some may argts the exception for reasonable network management will allow such flexibility, a case-by-case approach whereby a wireless provider congestion management practices are judged after the fact by the commission's enforcement bureau is unlikely to provide much comfort or certainty to wireless providers. finally, the majority defines mobile broadband as a telecommunications service without adequately explaining its rational for the drastic change of course. in addition, there's been no

meaningful opportunity for public comment on this changed definition. this action is nothing less than an attempt to improperly capture mobile broadband under title two in direct contra invention of congressional intent, and it's not likely to survive judicial scrutiny. perhaps the most surprising aspect of the item is it promises forbearance for most of title two, but it does not actually forbear from the substance of those provision. instead, the item intends to provide the same protections using a few of the core title two provisions that are retained chiefly sections 201, 202, and 706. i call this maneuver faux baerns. the item is quite candid about the strategy stating applying section 201 and 202 enables us to protect consumers of broadband internet access from potentially harmful conduct by broadband providers both providing a basis for our open

internet rules and the important statutory backstop they provide regarding broadbands provider practices more generally. indeed, section after section, the item claims to forbear from a provision then quickly points to a valuable protections and other provisions that effectively gut the forbearance. it's an end run for purposes of spin and allows proponents to claim that it's a new modern title two when really it only would exclude 56% directly and even then allow the inexcuse bli broad language of certain sections to govern. suffice it to say the majority seems comfortable with the suggestion they can forbear from parts of title two because section 201 does it all anyway. i will highlight just a few examples in this meeting to make my point. faux bearance from tariffing. it's our predictive judgment that section 201 and 202 will be adequate to protect the interest of consumer, including the

interest in just reasonable and nondiscriminatory conduct that otherwise might be threatened by the actions of broadband providers. importantly, providers are also subject to complaints and commission enforcement in the event they violate section 201 or 202 of the act open internet rules, or other elements of core broadband internet access requirements. this is back door rate setting authority. two, forbearance from disapproval. further, the conduct standards in our open internet rules provide important protections against reduction or impairment of broadband internet access service short of complete secession of providing that service. forbearance from interconnection and market opening. the item again. the commission retains authority under section 201 and 202 and the open internet rules to require a provider of broadband internet access to address interconnection issues should they arise including evaluating

whether conduct is just and reasonable on a case-by-case basis. we therefore conclude that these remaining legal protections that apply with respect to providers of broadband internet access service will enable us to act if needed to ensure that broadband provider does not unreasonably refuse service. the supreme court has made clear that an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by interpreting a statute to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress that designed it. yet, the item attempts to do just that by engaging in a wholesale rewrite of the communications act to advance its own vision for the internet. the item casts its rewrite as a modernized version of title two. in doing so the commission forgets it may not exercise its authority in a manner that is inconsistent with the administrative structure that congress enacted into law. congress gave us 48 provisions

in title two, but apparently all we need is really 151 and 201 or perhaps to put it another way presto we have a new statute. moreover, the commission cannot cast aside specific provisions in favor of more general provisions of the act. if congress had thought that sections 201 and 202 provided the authority necessary to regulate interconnection for example, then why was it that congress felt compelled to all section 251 in the '96 act? additionally, the fact that the agency has forbearance authority does not justify the rewrite. using title two combined with forbearance authority to cherry pick its preferred provisions is an egregious abuse of forbearance authority. as the d.c. circuit has explained, to further the deregulatory aims underlying the '96 overhaul of the communications act congress provided the fcc with the unusual authority to forbear from enforcing provisions of the act as well as its own

regulations. that is, forbearance was intended to relieve carriers of existing regulations during a time of regulatory transition. it was not meant to be used as a tool to selectively subject new services to previously inolympicable provisions. the use of congressional authority is especially troubling, given that congress started the process to legislate in this space. the fcc leadership did not even consider a brief pause to see that progress play out. instead, they invited congress to supplement the fcc's rewrite. not surprising, the fcc's arrogance has already invited greater congressional scrutiny, and the fcc ultimately could see its authority curtailed in many areas. the fcc's fact sheet promised bright line rules, but the reality is that the bulk of this rule making will be conducted through case-by-case adjudication, mostly at the bureau level and the courts. to be sure, there are three

bright line rules. no blocking, no throttling and no paid piratization. those are mere needles in a title two hay stack. many practices will be reviewed under the general conduct standard that will be quite literally a catch all. rates, charge, and classifications will also be reviewed under the just and reasonable standard in sections 201 and 202. parties will have no way of knowing in advance how a bu roar or commission, much less the court, acting pursuant to sections 206 and 207 will rule on a particular matter. there will be no certainty. indeed, one public interest group called the catch-all a recipe for overreach and confusion. the item notes that parties may seek an advisory opinion, which appears utterly useless. they're only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding. i'm not sure why in party would want to refer itself to the enforcement bureau when its request could be used against it later. although there are many caveats

about this item the commission's path forward is clear. for example, the commission claims this item does not require broadband providers to contribute to the federal universal service fund at this time. but that's because it defers that decision to a pending proceeding, which is likely to result in new fees on broadband services. nor can providers take any comfort in the item's other promises to refrain from further regulation. in particular, the item repeatedly disavows any present intent to adopt ex-anti rate regulation. banning paid priorization itself is a form of ex-anti regulation. the commission contemplates examining whether interconnection agreements are just an reasonable under section 201 and 202. that necessarily includes an evaluation of the rates, terms, and conditions of such arrangements. the commission also intends to review data allowances and usage-based pricing on a

case-by-case basis. moreover, last mile isps aren't the only ones that should be concerned about today's actions. the item attempts, albeit in a failed way to carve out for now cdns transit providers, backbone providers edge providers, and certain specialized services including e-readers. but the new legal framework for telecommunications services has let the proverbial genie out of the bottle. the fact certain decisions will happen later does nothing to diminish the cup pablt of the current majority. thank you mr. chairman. >> so for those of you who are keeping score at home you've seen the kind of debate that goes on every day here at this commission. and gets resolved by the democratic process of taking a

vote. let me start the process towards that vote by thanking the nearly 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet, and your participation has made this the most open proceeding in fcc history. not all of you agreed with each other, and not all of you agreed with the action we're going to take today. but you made our process, and thus our decision, stronger. we listened and we learned. i believe that's what congress intended when they established the rules by which this agency operates. those 4 million comments also

illustrate the importance of an open and unfettered network and the role it as a core of free expression and democratic principles. while some other countries try to control the internet the action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one, whether government or corporate, should control the free and open access to the internet. the internet -- the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. it simply is too important to be

left without rules and without a referee on the field. think about it. the internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. the internet has redefined commerce and entertainment. and as the outpouring from 4 million americans has demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. the internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. so let's address an important issue head on. this proposal has been described by one opponent as quote, a

secret plan to regulate the internet. nonsense. this is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. they both stand for the same concept. openness expression an absence of gatekeepers telling people what they can do where they can go and what they can think. the action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness. now, let's make no mistake about it. broadband access providers have the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet. is the d.c. circuit said in its

decision remanding this matter to us, quote, broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness and could act in ways that would ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment. but today, a majority of this commission establishes that will not come to pass. today is a red letter day for internet freedom, for consumers who want to use the internet on their terms, for innovators what want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers for a future in which there are rules to protect the internet and its users. but importantly today is also a day that gives network operators what they require if they're to continue to expand broadband

service and competition. the rules for a fair and open internet are not old style utility regulation, but a 21st century set of rules for a 21st century service. rate regulation tariffing and forced unbundling have been superseded by a modernized regulatory approach that already has been demonstrated to work in encouraging investment in wireless voice networks. it is important for consumers and companies that nothing in today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion. the isps revenue stream will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday before today that

revenue enabled companies to build ever faster networks. nothing in what we do today changes the equation for consumer revenues to isps for tomorrow. and i believe that's why sprint t-mobile, frontier communications and google fiber, along with hundreds of smaller phone company isps have said they're comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach and bulletin, aaccording to this morning's wall street journal, and the headline, quote, cable vision ceo plays down business effective fcc proposal, which quotes the ceo of cable vision as saying, quote, we don't see at least what the chairman has been discussing as having any real impact on our business

unquote. today's order is more powerful and more expansive than any previously considered or suggested. it provides a statutory 1-2 punch, if you will, that combines title two of the communications act with the significant powers of section 706 of the telecommunications act. this is the fcc using all the tools in our toolbox to prevent -- to protect innovators and consumers to ban paid prioritization, the so-called fast lanes, they will not divide the internet into haves and have-nots, to ban blocking consumers will get what they pay for, unfitered access to any lawful content on the internet, and to ban throttling because

degrading access to legal content and services could have the same effect as blocking and it will not be permitted to exist. these are enforceable, bright line rules. they will allow consumers to go wherever they want, when they want. they will also protect the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission. the order also includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. any action must not unreasonably interfear with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers to use the internet.

there is one thing we can all agree on up here, i'm sure. and that is that we cannot possibly imagine what is going to happen next on the internet. we want to encourage that kind of innovation by making sure that there are ground rules. those ground rules are in place. everybody knows what's expected. and for the first time, those ground rules will apply to both wired and wireless access to the network. mobile networks account for the vast majority of internet access access. mobile is a critical pathway and it must be open and fair. today's order also for the first time asserts jurisdiction over the connections by which

isps plug into the internet. and the core principle there is the same as elsewhere, that the internet must remain open. we will protect the values of an open internet. both in the last mile as well as at the point of interconnection. so let me close where i began with a shoutout to 4 million americans, who took their time to share with us their views. today history is being made by a majority of this commission as we vote for a fast fair and open internet. and with that i will call for the ayes and nays. all in favor say aye.

all opposed. the ayes have it. >> there has been an objection now on the last two requests for editorial privileges. so let me just turn to my colleagues and ask for a vote on granting editorial privileges on the -- both the municipal broadband as well as this. all in favorite say aye. opposed, no. the ayes have it. madam secretary, want to tell us what's coming up next? >> okay.

there are no announcements. >> are there -- are there any announcements? i get so carried away banging the gavel here. are there any announcements anybody wants to make? okay. now your turn. i'm sorry. >> anyone else? just want to take a second to recognize two people federal employees, co-workers of mine who have done well for this commission and for the american public. first, christine kerth who is here today. christine spent 19 years in public service including five years here at the federal communications commission. she has deep knowledge of telecommunications issues and she has rendered excellent service on the capital hill and here at the fcc. she's also just frankly a personal friend and so christine, i want to say thank you for being such a great co-worker all these many years. we wish you well as you enter into the private sector whatever the future holds for you will be bright, i'm sure. and we appreciate, again your service to the fcc. [ applause ]

as secondly i had the privilege on tuesday of speaking at the ng 911 institutes award gala. one of the people who was awarded the government leader award was our own david firth. david, to those of you on this dias and on the commission, he's an expert on everything public safety, i can tell you without looking at his notes how any public safety system is structured, what any legal issues are he's really the gem of our public safety bureau here at the commission. and i just wanted to recognize the fact that he had been recognized for his contributions to public safety by the ng 911 institute. they don't give that out to just anybody. so david wherever you are -- [ applause ] as i told him on tuesday, a lot of people sometimes wonder, what

do all these fcc employees do. he's a great example of quietly behind the scenes really putting the nuts and bolts of our public safety policies in place so the american people are safer whether or not they know to whom to attribute that credit. so thank you. >> we stand adjourned.

so the fcc voting 3-2 in favor of the chairman tom wheeler's open internet or net neutrality proposal. we're going to short break here. we expect in a few minutes chairman wheeler will take questions from reporters. so we're going to stay in the room and wait for that, bring that to you live shortly. and then following that, we expect fcc staff to also answer questions from reporters. again, the vote on party lines, 3-2, chairman tom wheeler's open internet or net neutrality proposal passing today at the

fcc. his plan is designed to prohibit internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content, moving through their networks. it would also prevent content providers from paying for so-called fast lanes or preferential treatment. the new rules are in response to a federal court decision striking down the fcc's enforcing of net neutrality. it is the idea that no internet service provider can give preference to or discriminate against a website by changing the speed that consumers can access its content. again, we're waiting for the chairman to take questions from reporters. in the meantime, we want to check on the question we have been asking you on facebook today, should the internet be considered a public utility? just a quick update on the votes we have received to date to this moment. no votes 271, yes votes 273.

we would like to hear from you. logon to our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span to leave your comments or tweet us using the #c-spanchat when you're on twitter. here's what some of you are saying so far in response. emory writes yes, if not then big corporations can block out content and websites. this isn't just about economics, people, it's about information access. randy, though, feels differently saying, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. don't make it a regulated utility. if you missed any of today's fcc meeting, by the way, it will be available shortly online at our website. go to c-span.org to watch that. or watch it again tonight at 9:00 eastern on our companion network, c-span2. again, we're waiting for fcc chairman tom wheeler to take questions from reporters. the fcc voting 3-2 in favor of the chairman's open internet or net neutrality proposal today.

do we trust them and trust them to make decisions? no, we need some kind of supervision supervision. [ inaudible ] >> i think it is a big step, a positive step. i think the other side is also for open and free internet in terms of net neutrality. [ inaudible ] title two -- oversight. there could be a lot of things that are illegal,

unconstitutional behind the scenes. [ inaudible ] the people the consumers, the average joes against the big people that have all the power and the wealth to make the decisions for them and they feepl hopeless and helpless. [ inaudible ] i don't think this is running their business. i think all it is is basically there is an oversight -- [ inaudible ] >> what about the issue this is

a solution to a problem? [ inaudible ] >> there is a fear that there are maybe things in the background we don't know about. as far as net neutrality goes everyone agrees -- [ inaudible ] >> if you were trying to start a company, with today's decision -- [ inaudible ] >> i don't think it would make any difference. yes it would. yesterday it would. in early days the whole industry was growing and starting from nothing. and everybody had a -- after a while it condenses down to a few big players. the big 800 pound gorillas and

they do everything they can to stifle. [ inaudible ] there's no big isp that will bring broadband to my house. i'm in silicon valley. i have no choice. it is a monopoly. everyone gets broadband brought to you by a company, a monopoly, that pipe -- that's what i grew up knowing, these are the utilities, the things we needed for life that came into our house that we had no control over and didn't have choice. >> steve wozniak, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. cory, back to you in san francisco. a lot more reaction to come from

here. >> again, here at the federal communications commission, the fcc, just a short time ago voting 3-2 in favor of chairman tom wheeler's open internet or net neutrality proposal. right now we're waiting for the chairman, he'll be speaking to reporters in just a few moments here. we'll cover that for you live on c-span3. after that we expect to also hear from fcc staff. they'll take questions from reporters as well. michael copps former fcc commissioner there on your screen now in attendance at today's fcc meeting. again, we're waiting for those pair of news conferences. we'll continue our live coverage here on c-span3. while we wait, we'll show you chairman tom wheeler's remarks to the commission and to the audience at the meeting room just before today's vote.

>> so for those of you who are keeping score at home, you have seen the kind of fulsome debate that goes on every day here at this commission. and gets resolved by the democratic process of taking the vote. let me start the process towards that vote by thanking the nearly 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet. and your participation has made this the most open proceeding in fcc history. >> -- talk with the chairman to address your more technical questions. hand it over to chairman

wheeler. >> thank you, kim. thanks, everybody, for coming. because as you know today the fcc took important steps to assure that the u.s. has a world leading broadband network that are fast, fair and open. the landmark open internet protections that we adopted today should reassure consumers innovators and financial markets about the broadband future of our nation. and the action we took to get rid of state level red tape that served as nothing more than a barrier to broadband competition will allow communities to determine their own broadband future. let me first say a brief word about the community broadband item. we do not take preemption

lightly and we respect the important role that states play in our federal system. but when state laws directly conflict with federal laws and policy, we have an obligation to act. here we are acting to ensure that communities in tennessee and north carolina can take steps to ensure their citizens don't get left behind in the 21st century. we saw some graphic illustrations of those citizens today talking about the challenges that we are trying to address. the open internet order puts in place bright line rules that ban blocking, ban throttling, and ban paid prioritization fast lanes. for the first time open internet

rules will be fully applicable to mobile. consumers now know that content online will not, cannot be blocked or their service throttled. today's action ensures the rights of internet users to say what they want, and go where they want when they want. no matter how or where they access the internet whether it is on their desktop computer, or their smartphone. innovators now know that they will have open access to consumers without worrying about pay for preference fast lanes or gatekeepers. today's actions ensure the

rights of entrepreneurs to introduce new products and services without getting anyone's permission. financial markets now know that there will be common sense open internet protections in place that rely on modernized -- a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work, not old style utility regulation. the rules underwhich the wireless voice industry has invested $300 billion to build a vibrant and growing business are the model for the rules that we adopted today. that means no rate regulation, no tariffing and no forced unbundling. today's action ensures isps

continue to have the economic incentive to build fast and competitive broadband networks. it is in the interest of consumers, innovators, and investors that nothing in today's order alters the economic model of that has continued expansion thus far. that's why hundreds of smaller phone company isps have said they're comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. and a word about process. last year most fcc rules to protect consumers and innovators online were struck down. we acted immediately to begin a process to restore open internet

protections. over the past year we received input from nearly 4 million americans in one of the most transparent proceedings that this commission has ever run. there was 130 day or so public comment period. we held six round table discussions with experts on legal, technical and market issues. we heard from and responded to over 140 members of congress. our team had dozens of meetings with congressional staff. i spoke with and listened to hundreds of consumers, innovators entrepreneurs, in meetings across the country. so today, after a decade of debate and an open and robust year long process, we finally

have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the internet stays fast fair and open. i'll be happy to take any of your questions. >> -- what we see the order and why do you think that it has a better shot in holding up court review? >> two questions huh? >> first one is easy. >> well, then why did you ask it? >> it is also important. >> we'll see the order and we will publish the order on the website as soon as we have the next two steps that happen. one, we need to get the dissents in from the commissioners that dissented. second, we have to look at those dissents, there is a court opinion that requires the majority to be responsive to the

dissents. but that will happen quickly as soon as we get the dissents in. then we will put it on the web. and at that point in time, we will also file it with the federal registrar and they will publish it in the federal registrar in their own, but it will be on the web as soon as we have gone through our hoops. >> why do you think this will stand judicial review when the other didn't? >> so, you know so the d.c. circuit sent the previous order back to us and basically said, hey, you're trying to impose common courier-like regulation without saying -- stepping up and saying that these are common couriers. we have addressed that issue. that is the underlying issue. that's all the debates that have happened thus far. so that gives me great confidence going forward.

>> brendan. >> hi chairman. do you think that the fcc has become more partisan and if so whose fault is that? >> you know, as i tried to express today, strongly held beliefs, articulated by articulate and thoughtful people, and eventually you come down it a vote. 90% of our votes are unanimous here. you just get to see the ones that get staged here that -- where there is more dissent. but, you know i think that it is a -- continues to be a collegial process. >> lynn? >> lynn? >> thank you -- [ inaudible ] broadband subscriber access service but now apparently you don't think it is. >> so i mean, this is one of the issues you know, about -- there has been a lot of talk

about why don't you release the rough draft of things? this is one of the reasons, because it is a rough draft. because it is a work in progress. andy to the best way to structure a common result. there was no difference in the result. it was just the way in which to go about it. and we wanted to make sure that in the process we were saying hey, there are services that are provided to consumers, like you and me and there are services that are provided to edge providers. and called both of those up but they both exist under the same kind of rules which there has to be open access and transparency. >> the u.s. has a global position that governments should not regulate the internet. former commissioner robert mcdonald carried that message to

the telecommunications union but raised concerns about net neutrality. do you think net neutrality weakens the u.s. global position that government should not regulate the internet? >> absolutely not. it strengthens the position by making clear as i said in my statement that no one, whether it is government, or corporate interests, should be standing astride the internet to thwart the ability of consumers to have free and open access. and that's what we're talking about. we're making sure that there is open access. >> yesterday ranking member poulenc brought up an issue about the white house's consumer privacy bill of rights where he complained the fcc's authority on section 222 would be -- would not -- the fcc would not be allowed to use that authority to enforce privacy rules on data

breach and social security issues. can you sort of respond to that concern? is that something that you heard has the white house reached out to you about that issue at all? >> i think mr. poulenc raises a very good point. i've had no conversations with the white house about it. we take our responsibilities with privacy quite seriously here. >> last year you collected troves of information about interconnection deals that are happening in the industry. can you talk about what you learned from those documents and how they factored into the way interconnection is tackled? >> our decision is made on the record in terms of information about interconnection that was put into the record. obviously we didn't waste people's time by asking those questions. but our decision is based onned

record, not that inquiry. >> not that inquiry. >> right. >> hi, chairman. can you tell us a little bit more about the internet conduct standard, what sorts of activities could it regulate and what are some examples of how the fcc might use it? >> the internet that -- the general conduct standard says that there should not be unreasonable interference and there should not be -- that should not unreasonably disadvantage those who want to use the internet. i notice the concept of unreasonable. and, again, that's why title two became so important to us over the summer because it brings the just and reasonable test to the fore. but as i said in my statement, you know we don't really know. no blocking, no throttling, no fast lanes, those can be bright line rules because we know about

those issues. but we don't know where things go next. and so using this kind of a construct of what is reasonable, then we have created a playing field, where there are known rules, and the fcc will sit there as a referee able to throw the flag. >> thanks, commissioner. barring any unknown unknowns this is probably most high profile issue and vote at the open meeting you'll have as a chairman. as a student of history yourself, who do you think we'll look back on this in five ten, 15 years? >> i have spent a lot of time in public policy. today is the proudest day of my public policy life. >> mr. chairman, about the standard for future conduct, what are the factors that the fcc will use to determine

whether a future practice like zero rating, for instance, or sponsored data plan from a wireless carrier is, in fact unreasonable? >> so unreasonable and just and reasonable is something that has developed over time. and it is something that you build a record on, and then you look at that record and you say, okay is this a just and reasonable activity? is this an activity that unreasonably interferes? is this an activity that unreasonably disadvantages or my favorite, is this an activity that hurts consumers hurts competition, or hurts innovation? and you milwaukee a decisionake a decision based on the record. >> tom with the wall street journal. >> hi, tom. >> when it