structured is something that says, okay let's ask a couple of questions. what's the impact on consumers of this action? what's the impact on content providers, those who want to be delivering? and what's the public interest? and i think we can probably all agree that nobody wants to sit by and see something evil happen to any three of those legs of the stool. and those are the tests. and we look and say okay, now, what happens on those three legs of the stool with this kind of an action that we have had a complaint on? the important thing is as i was saying to senator nelson, that this is not us saying, we're so smart, we know what you should do. this is specifically doing what the isps have been saying to us don't make rules but rather look

at things on a case by case basis. that's what we tried to build in, that kind of flexibility. >> with that flexibility though, what do you do with these entrepreneurs, innovators that are coming up with things that i can't even imagine? and there's a process that they're going to have to go through with the fcc that they don't know if they're going to be required to go through it or not. what do you say to them? they wait and get their -- >> we don't move up the stack. we're talking about the delivery services. we're not talking about regulating two guys and a dog in a garage and they have to get permission. >> you think that's clear? >> yes, ma'am. we're very clear on that. and that is an essential component of this. first of all i mean i think it's questionable what our reach would be in terms of statutory authority. we're dealing with the delivery

of what these creative people want to do and making sure that they have open delivery. >> if i could just switch gears here. in your testimony i read that you are trying to move forward with a voluntary incentive auction no later than early 2016. >> yes, ma'am. >> are you committed to that? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to begin by associating myself with commissioner pai's remarks about designated entities. we visited about this. the thing that's -- the rest of the story that was not explained is that not only was this a very big company using small businesses to get a $3 billion advantage -- a $3 billion advantage, one of the entities used was an alaska native corporation which if i think most people are aware that they

don't have any rules about being small. so it is insult to injury because alaska native corporations are multibillion dollar multinational corporations that get special deals under our law. they don't have to compete. they don't ever age out of the program. they never get too old for the program. they never get too big for the program. and you can front legally. so this is really, i think outrageous. i hope we can figure out a way to get to the bottom of it. i want to talk about life line. you visited with many of you about life line. i think it is a program that began under i believe president reagan and president bush. you know it was a subsidy. it changed into a program without any regulation and control. it was a mess. i know we have had some enforcement. but i know we have had a pilot program on expanding it to

broadband. let me ask you first chairman wheeler, when will the report on the pilot program be available? >> senator, i can't give you the specific date. but it's in the next couple of months. >> well, we had some enforcement. there hasn't been much in a year. there is a list of reforms i think that include -- if any of you disagree with these reforms, if you would speak up for the record, i would appreciate it. taking eligibility determination out of the hands of carriers. competitive bidding. making sure consumers have skin in the game. placing a cost cap on the program. anybody disagree with those four reforms? okay. i would like to see those instituted. and i would like a discussion from you about whether or not it makes sense to continue the life line program. doesn't dp makeit make more sense

to make it a broadband program? looking inging at the homework gap, at the capability of making calls over the internet. doesn't it make sense to institute these structural reforms as we transition this from a program where no one has skin in the game and we have allowed the carriers to commit massive fraud in this country? doesn't it make sense to convert this whole program over to broadband? i would love your take on that. >> i'm not sure who -- >> any of you can speak up. i would love somebody to speak up who disagrees with doing it. >> i was showing my southern graces. i cannot sit before you and say i necessarily agree with everything you laid out. one of the things that i am adamant about, i put forward five principles last year. one of which i think is the most important that would get to the heart of some of the problems

we're having is getting the companies out of the eligibility game. they should not be in that space. when it comes to grocery stores do not certify or have people eligible you know, for snap. they are not in that game. doctors do not qualify people for medicaid. providers should not qualify people for that program. it should be an independent arm. i think -- i truly believe a lot of the issues that have plagued this program, if we take them out of that, would go to the heart of what we are seeing. >> i wanted to -- i have had an opportunity to talk to the chairman about this idea. would you be willing to work with the democratic commissioners on a program that had controls and had reforms in it that transitioned over to a

broadband program? >> absolutely. as you may know, i actually wrote recently about this issue and put forward some of my principals in reform. thought it would be helpful to start in a review of existing program that it faces before we go to the broadband -- expand to broadband. that hasn't seemed to be the direction we have been getting signals internally. so i tried to put forward reforms that i think we could do going forward. i think we should have that conversation on the reforms that should be in place before we go there. >> maybe there in lieu of. >> i would be open to that as well. >> i want to thank you for your leadership on issues of fcc fiscal responsibility. with respect to life line, i think it's critical for us to learn the lessons from the pilot before expanding to the entire broadband industry. we want to understand how the pilot worked. i put forward in a speech a number of reform, including the ones you talked about. it's critical to institute those to ensure the programs is on

stable footing. the life line program is the only one of the four universal service fund programs that's not capped. if we don't have the basic reforms for the process as the program stands if we expand it to include broadband there's no telling what kind of problems we might encounter. >> sure. in 1985, when ronald reagan was in the white house that's when we started this program. it was last updated during the bush administration. it's time to modernize along the lines you described, make sure it's free of waste, fraud and abuse and then make it address broadband and things like we described, the homework gap. >> great.lm >> this is not a question of how do we take what's there now and just do a paste here or a change there. we have to look at this entire program soup to nuts and say, wait a minute, this started in a twisted pair environment, met

more if a sized into a mobile environment. we now live in a broadband environment. why in the world are we sticking with the decisions of the past? >> great. thank you all. >> thank you. try to keep it to five, if you can. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks for calling this hearing. i have a statement i would like to submit. i want to thank the commissioners for being here. chairman, thank you for attending. today what i would like to focus on is how rules are adopted. commissioner o'reilly, your opening statements and comments were near and dear to some of the comments i want to make before today. i would like to make an observation. it was my opinion that the purpose for the affordable care act was to guarantee all americans have the same bad healthcare. i believe that this title ii decision made by this commission is to guarantee all americans

the same bad internet service. i also believe two things. i don't believe i'm wrong. one is the purpose of this open internet order is, one, to regulate and restrict content. number two to open the door to taxation. what i would like is commissioner owe'reilly and pai to tell me why i'm wrong. >> i will tackle part of the question with respect to taxation. you are right. it opens the door to billions of dollars in taxes and fees on broadband. with respect to reclassification that alone as the order tees up, we will expect to get a recommendation from the joint board on april 7. it might be kicked off by a short period. reclassification will lead to the imposition of new broadband taxes. if you look at promises that the fcc is considering, that extra spending has to come from somewhere. that will come from the consumer's pocket. in addition to taxation one of the issues that has been relatively unremarked upon is

the fact that reclassification opens the door to a lot of taxes on the state and local level. for example, with respect to state property taxes a lot of jurisdictions tax telephone at a higher rate. in the district of columbia alone where we sit, d.c. imposes an 11% tax on gross receipts. that's immediately an 11% tax off the bottom line that the broadband providers pay which costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. the taxation aspect of this completely irrespective of the internet tax freedom act, which does not apply to fees associated with broadband is critical for us to keep mentioning. it does affect consumers where it hurts the most. >> i would -- it would impolite to suggest any senator is wrong. but i don't do healthcare anymore. i have no comment regarding that part of your point. in terms of your substantive comment on the content i might refine that and say, i do believe eventually that this

item, the direction we're going, will get to edge providers. i made that point consistently. if you look at where we are going on interconnection and how far we have gone, there are blurry lines between what is actually the middle mile and what providers are offering today. in terms of the structure. i do believe eventually this is going to affect edge providers and the wonderful benefits they bring to the american economy. >> i want to go to your opening comments calling for amendments to a rule that at least 21 days prior to publication of a rule that it be displayed and made available to the public. i don't think that's a partisan issue. i think that's an issue that we can agree with. there are many other ways to make the fcc more transparent. i have suggested for example that i have concerns with staff changes that take place after votes are -- have already been taken. i think all commissioners should

be asked -- should be able to ask for a vote on any order a bureau passes. commissioners should be able to collaborate more freely. i think any rule that impacts economy by more than $100 million should be subject to a cost benefit analysis. i believe that that would make or increase the transparency in the collaboration of the commission that you have. i guess the question is, do you agree with that? are there any other suggestions that you believe would add more transparency? >> sure. you suggested good changes that i would agree and have advocated. i should make clear, i don't think it is reflective of the item that we talked about. these could be -- these should apply across the board and go forward. it's not just about neutrality. that's indicative of some instances. it should apply going forward for everything, certainly on the 21 day availability.

i have a host of ideas that i think would help. my time being on the congressional staffer and now being someone who has seen this for 15 months. you highlighted the delegation issue. one interesting -- we have a ununiform situation where it is called our 48 hour rule. in some instances we're notified we have 48 hours -- we're given a heads up for 48 hours. only in certain instances. sometimes it's 48 hours. sometimes it's 24 hours. sometimes it's zero. i got an e-mail friday from one of the bureaus and said, as a courtesy, we're letting you know. that's how -- it's a courtesy they're letting me know what they're going to do. i think that's the wrong approach. i went through the process to get on the commission to make as many decisions as possible. i'm happy to vote in a quick and timely way. i don't think it's something that as a courtesy i'm allowed to know what's happening at the commission. we see that problem in delegation area where things get delegated by previous

commissions that i wasn't part of. now the delegation authority continues. i don't even have an ability to track what is being decided by the bureaus separate from what's happening at my level. >> thank you. i look forward to working with you. mr. chairman i look forward to working with you on the reauthorization of the fcc. i hope some of the ideas myself and the commissioner mentioned could be put forth and looked at. >> i appreciate the good work that you put into that already. i look forward to working with you on it. >> thanks. thanks for working in such a bipartisan way on this hearing and on the bills that we will be considering relating to these issues. first of all, thanks to all of you for being here today. chairman wheeler i appreciate your remark about the wild and crazy ceos and the wild and crazy commissioners who might follow the present occupants of those offices. i want to assure you, nobody asks us about the wild and crazy

senators who may follow us. i'm not going to go farther with that. i want to express my strong support for the fcc internet -- open internet order. this decision was unequivocal, emphatic and ep cal in its affect. it was a victory for consumers and innovators. that's all too rare in washington these days. i know that it will be challenged in the courts. i want to commit to you that i would be pleased to lead whatever efforts may be necessary to support it. i believe there will be a lot of support for such involvement by my colleagues. i believe it's strongly grounded in the authority that the united states supreme court has provided repeatedly under chevron, most recently under smiley v. citibank. you alluded to it in paragraph

329 of the order. i want to express my gratitude to all of you for joining in the bipartisan vote to repeal the sports blackout rule that i long called for with my colleague, senator mccain. we plan to pursue that issue in the fans act because the sports leagues unfortunately have themselves continue to retain the power to blackout games through their private contract agreements. my special thanks go to commissioner clyburn for starting the proceeding, commissioner pai for announcing your opposition and chairman wheeler for folk using the attention on this issue. i want to express to all of you the action that you have taken strong and again emphatic action on cramming. particularly lyly for coming to

connecticut and helping to educate consumers there about the effects of cramming and the attention that they need to pay to it. this action on stopping cramming through the settlements that tu reached with at&t and t mobile i hope will lead to rules that go beyond those settlements. as important as they were i think that there need to be rules establish eded embodying the conditions that were expressed in those settlements that require express consent from subscribers before any third party wireless company, any wireless carrier allows third party access to their customers' bills, ensure third party charges are clearly and con lyly shown.

i would like to know from each of you -- you can say it sim spli ply yes or no whether it should be applied to the whole wireless industry and ensure all carriers protect their subscribers from all of these kinds of deceitful practices rather than profiting from them. i'm assuming that you would agree. you can indicate simply yes or no. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. cramming is pickpocketing. we need to stop it. >> yes in two flavors. one is you suggest and, two, we will keep enforcing. >> thank you. i hope that it will be possible for those rules to be promulgated. i don't ask for a firm commitment, mr. chairman. i'm hoping by the end of spring we can anticipate those rules will be on the books.

i would like to just turn briefly to the comcast time warner merger. as the reviews this merger, i would like your assurance, mr. chairman, that you will take into account anything that the fcc can do to protect consumers. because i think a number of us are concerned about the potential increases in prices and reduction in consumer choice that could come from continued excessive consolidation in the broadband market place. >> so senator, as you know, this is an adjudicatory proceeding and i should not opine, as we're sitting in judgment. the responsibility that we have is to make a decision in the public interest, convenience and necessity. that will be the basis of our decision.

senator markeed and then senator gardner. >> thank you so much. and i want to congratulate you on your decision. i think it's very consistent with the positions that the fcc has taken over the years and including what you mentioned in 1993 about the light touch approach for the wireless industry, under title ii, that led to an explosion of hundreds of billions of dollars in that sector. that's in the best tradition of what the fcc does. and i think under title ii, you'll be able to continue that as well, ensuring not only that there is a robust competitive market place, but also that privacy is protected president that the rights of the disabled

are also protected. to be shoo you are that additional protections are built into the law. i have a letter from 140 efficacy groups and companies, that support the title ii decision of the fcc and i have unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so i would like, if you could, just to talk a little bit more about title ii and how in fact, it was rate regulation that made it possible for there to be a universal phone system across the country. and without it, and the subsidies that flew, that system, that we could not have had universal service. but that the opposite here is the goal of the fcc, in terms of, in terms of your intention to use the 1993 wireless precedent, as the approach which

you think is wisest. can you expand upon that again, mr. wheeler? >> thank you, senator. i think there's two historical approaches here. the first is the internet wouldn't have existed if the fcc wouldn't have required that telephone companies controlled who was able to attach equipment to the phone network. and it was those old screeching modems that we bought and hooked up to our first generation home computers that allowed the internet to begin to take place. and so the root of the internet is in open access. and then the question becomes, okay, how do you balance out the fact that there need to be consumer protections is, at the same point in time, you want to be incentivizing competitive construction of ever-faster speed capabilities?

and, and it was clear that -- and as everybody knows, i had an evolutionary process in my own thinking, on this. and the realization that in 1993, what you had structured in the, in section 332, produced the kind of success where there was not rate regulation, there were not all these things that used to come with this old structure. and the most important thing there, senator, i think is that, is that, is the realization that on the day after this order takes effect, the consumer revenues for the isps should be exactly the same if not better than the day before it took effect. because we're not touching those. and one of the things that's key here also is that, you know, when the president made his announcement and joined the 64 members of congress, including

you and many on this committee, who said that we ought to be doing title ii, the following day, stocks went up. and so if the concern was that there is a negative impact of this kind of light touch regulation that allows rates to be set by the market, not by government officials, if there was a concern that that was going to have an impact on capital formation, it certainly has been disproved and disproved again after we made our decision, and the stocks are beating the s&p. >> and if i may say this, what we've done is we've created, you have created, a more predictable investment environment, where we know that 62% of all venture capital in america two years ago went to internet and software companies. knowing that they could get in, reach their customers, that there would not be

discrimination. that there would not be throttling and blocking, that they could reach their customers. that's where the energy is, that's where the growth is in the sector, and you've done a great job in identifying those tens of thousands of companies that are out there. and similarly, i just want to say here, that the internet tax freedom act originally passes, you know, 1998, and prohibits states, local governments from taxing internet access, electronic commerce. it's reauthorized every few years. and as an internet tax freedom forever act, that senator thune has introduced, that i'm an original co-sponsor of. so i think we have to be careful in this area, and i would just say to you, commissioner rosen, that you've done a fantastic job. the whole commission has, in focusing on e-rate. as we pass new trade bills, as

we speed up the pace of change in our economy, we have to paycheck sure that we speed up the pace at which young kids get the skill set they need, for the new jobs in our country. so if you're thinking about t-tip or ttp and you want to speed up the pace of change, you have to speed up the pace of change for kids and by raising the e-rate from $2.3 billion to $3.9 billion per year, you're going to close that homework gap and make sure that the kids in the poorest cities in town, poorest homes get access and the skill sets they need to compete with the smartest kids in the world and i congratulate you for that, because it's a vision of what america has to be in this global economy. >> thank you, senator markey. senator gardner? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding the hearing today and thank you to the commissioners for joining us today. chairman wheeler, i know chairman thune covered this, so i want to reiterate what he said. last year i led almost 90 members of the house and members of congress signing a retro, for a rural rate of return carriers that would encourage broadband adoption. i know senator thune led that

earlier. and i wanted to reiterate my support for broadband areas that truly need it. >> can i have a commercial here? >> the same unity your answer did earlier? >> yes, sir. >> the answer is yes, sir. we are going to do that. >> very good. >> we need -- the great thing about the rate of return here is that there are these small, vibrant, heart of the community organizations in very small communities. getting accord amongst them as to the best way to help them do their job is worthy of henry kissinger. and i hope that we can have the help of you and senator thune and the committee to help send a message that says, hey, folks, it is time to quit bickering over details.

let's have a common approach, because we're going to move and we'll make that decision if we have to make that decision. but it sure would be good if we understood that the various segments of the industry could pull together and say, hey, this is the sort of north star you should be guiding to. >> we're so close together, i feel like we should be having a cup of coffee. >> want a beer? >> i'll take that. commissioner clyburn, if there's one thing the fcc's title ii proceeding displayed, this is something senator heller talking about earlier as well, the need for greater transparency, for an order with such sweeping regulatory reach, it makes little sense that the general public did not have access to the text of the order until two weeks after the commission voted on it. my commissioner to you,

commissioner clyburn, is this, should the fcc publicly release items put on circulation prior to a commission vote, especially those that significantly impact the economy? >> one of the things i like to talk about in terms of this process, it is one of the most open in the world, we had a notice and 4 million comments that allowed people to weigh in. one of the things i'm also cautious about, when we talk about -- and i'm open to it, any type of, you know, ways that we can improve the transparency and the like, is, there is a deliberative process that takes place among us, that i would love for that to continue. i am able to speak in unbridled fashion, and one of the things i'm worried about, in terms of releasing things, prematurely, what i would say is prematurely, is that could be compromised. if i have a question or concern, or want to get some feedback, i would not like for that to necessarily get out before i come to terms with the exchanges. there are apa issues. real quasi-judicial body, and again, abide by apa requirements, and although those things, i think, need to be fleshed out before we make any type of move in the direction -- >> thank you, commissioner

clyburn. commissioner reilly, i know you spoke of this. commissioner pai, would you like to add to this? >> i agree that these documents should be revealed at least three weeks before the commission votes. i pointed out in this particular case, the fact it wasn't revealed, created a big haze of confusion, both among net neutrality supporters and opponents. and what you saw in the days leading up to the order, a substantial portion of the order was revised, with respect to the so-called broadband access service. there's a great deal of press interest, and if you google it, you'll wonder, what does this change about? how does it affect the order? how are we going to respond to it? but because of the sunshine prohibition, none of those people were able to have any

input. if we had our product on the table on day one when it was circulated, the american people could see it and ultimately it would have made our work product a lot better. it would have helped it be more legally sustainable. >> and i'm running out of time here on a couple of questions, so perhaps we can work on answers for the record. talking about petitions, a number of petitions before the fcc, u.s. clarity, petitions for reconsideration or forbearance petitions. other petitions that have been before the fcc and wondering how we can make sure that these petitions are addressed in a timely manner. perhaps you can get back to me on how we can -- what internal processes should we change at the fcc to facilitate, to have a more timely processing. and one last question. chairman wheeler, $25 million was transferred out of the fy 2016 budget from the universal service to fcc's general budget. i'm concerned that that could affect something that i'm very,

very concerned about, and that's rural funding usf issues. chairman wheeler, what additional, not ongoing, agency activities will this funding shift pay for? >> well, it's a proposed shift. and the attitude is this. the idea is this. the money has to be spent. that kind of money has been spent traditionally on the activities of the wireline bureau, the wireless bureau, and others on usf. we fund our auction activity through the revenues from auctions. the question is, why should universal service activities be funded by people who are not involved in universal service. so why should a broadcaster have to pay fees for programs they're not involved in? why should, you know, some marine licensees, why should, you know, et cetera, et cetera. and so all this was, was an attempt to say, okay, how do we make sure that they are balancing each other out? because it's -- it has to be paid.

and if the decision is that the congress wants to say, hey, yes, you ought to make sure that broadcasters pay for this, so be it. what we were trying to do was to say, what makes logical management sense? >> so let me just clarify. the $25 million isn't dedicated to anything, it's just being put back into the general budget. >> the money -- the money gets spent, okay? so the question is, does that money get raised by the general assessment that goes against everybody who is involved with the commission. or does it get raised by -- through the program that it relates to. and, you know, there will be a significant decrease for broadcasters, for instance, if they no longer contribute to something that they do not participate in. >> thank you, senator gardner. senator booker? >> first of all, i want to say

thank you to all five who are serving our country. often debates in congress get personal. but every one of you have done a great service in trying to achieve noble aspirations and noble goals and i'm grateful for your work. some of the issues that individuals have been bringing up have been really important to me and they won't get headlines. honorable clyburn, criminal justice reform is critically important to me and what you're doing through your advocacy with your fellow commissioners and with the chairman is, to me, absolutely essential to end the nightmare of broken families and those linkages that are so important for us to bring justice back to our legal system. i just want to jump in and really, commissioner wheeler, give you a chance to just address some of the things that i hear said, consistently, that i see no evidence for, whatsoever.

and i would just like to give you a chance to talk for the brief time that i have, a little bit about this idea, that somehow what you did was anti-business. that somehow, it undermines the ability for companies to thrive in this market place. some of the other folks talked, i'm a passionate believer in the importance of us to have a free and open internet, net neutrality. it is critical for the growth of the american economy. and more importantly, as i work with kids, especially urban kids, and see that those skill sets that they can learn, the democratizing force of internet access, to democratize education information, job opportunities, business opportunities, access to capital, all that excites me. and so as a guy who's kind of pro-business, i wonder if you can, can address the issue, because when i read that t-mobile, google, cablevision, windstream have acknowledged that using title ii with

forbearance doesn't change their investment plan, executives at verizon, folks many my state, comcast, time warner cable charter have said the same thing to their investors. not going to undermine their investors. wall street and capital markets barely noticed the title ii news. that's because investors understand the order and the title ii framework does not regulate rates or impose other so-called utility regulations. so wall street didn't budge. the heads of companies that i know and talk with on a regular basis say it's not going to affect their behavior. so what these rules do plain and simple is keep broadband providers from discriminating. would you address the mountain of evidence rebutting the speculation about investment harms? and i think that users deserve the right to an open internet, not just rhetoric, and how title ii, in a sense, does not undermine, but still actually, in my opinion, could provide an environment where there's more investment in the space. >> thank you, senator.

you know, i think it would be hard to find a bigger capitalist sitting at this table than me. i am a capital "c" capitalist and have been involved in starting companies and helping build companies for most of my professional life. the key -- there are multiple keys to the success of risk capital enterprises. the reason that steve case was able to build aol as he was is because he had this open network that would scale like this. and, you know, he could get six and that has been a threshold issue with me, from day one, of this topic. that they deserve because that is the only reason they will invest the capital to build the pipes to begin with.

that has been a tleshold issue with me from day one of this topic. and again, i come back to the model they have used most successfully, and not having rate redlation. -- rate regulation. not saying this is what consumer prices were going to be not having tariffing, not saying you build something and having to

unbundle it is a structure that encourages the investment. and i think thirdly, that is a reality that has been proved out by the market. as you said, sprint says this works for them. t-mobile says they'll invest. google fiber, who has never been regulated under title ii, says of course we'll continue to build. cablevision says, it's not going to change our business practices. the small rural rate of return carriers that we've been talking about here in this hearing, they filed in support of title ii with us, because i think everybody understands that appropriately done, title ii provides certainty and serious opportunity for return.

>> i'm going to stop you there. i've seen the chairman bench press. i don't want to tick him off. >> thank you senator booker. >> that's quite a statement from senator booker, too. >> i'm not cory gardner. i just got moved up from the kiddie table here. it's good to be up here. my background was 12 years in technology cloud commuting, we took public and we were part of the free wheeling wild west of the internet and see what does that for innovation and value creation here in american jobs. i'm up with that believes unconstrained innovation, speed of light commerce, and i'm just hoping that the only constraint that we'll see in this incredible story with what's going on with the internet is technology constraints, but not regulatory constraints. so it just gives me pause. and i heard, you know, i have great respect for my friends across the aisle here, and some of the proof points i've demonstrated in terms of the capital markets didn't move with these announcements. the ceos saying things will be okay with some of these companies.

i'm more concerned about where this all goes long-term. there have been a lot of hearings in washington. what's began is well intentioned and good idea, turned into overreach. i had not seen many federal agencies and regulations ever diminish. they tend to only grow. so i'm looking here for kids and grandkids here, where this all heads, because i think we've got something very, very special here in america, which is this free and open internet. so with that as background, i do want to shift gears and talk about the transparency and accountability of the fcc. i'm concerned about the commission's routine practice of granting broadband editorial privileges for staff beyond, the technical and conforming edits. commissioner o'reilly, in your testimony, you discussed the problem with these broad staff editorial privileges. could you describe some specific examples of what needs to be addressed to describe a transparent and open process? >> sure. i've had difficulty, in the last

meeting, the chairman asked -- the bureau asked for rights to editorial privileges and i objected. and they are actually not contained -- there are no rules on what we have. they're just practices that we've written down in this commissioner's guide to what the agenda meeting should be. so what i've suggested is, one, we ought to codify our practices here, rather than just have them as free-flowing. but two, i've had a problem with the practice itself, because what's been encompassed within editorial privilege has been changes to the text itself, and substantial changes. in fact, early on in my time, the changes were quite -- i want to be careful in my wording, but they were quite negative to one of my colleagues, in terms of what was -- what the changes that were being suggested. i'm like, it's unnecessary to criticize another one of my colleagues when it's something i had voted for. it's unnecessary to do that -- >> so look that line, were there staff editorial edits made to the open internet order after the commission voted on february

26th? >> yes. >> were you allowed to discuss those changes made to the order? >> i think that i can suggest there have been changes since the item we voted on and the item that was released. one of them was that they, you know, effectively had to backtrack on the chairman's speech regarding the -- as i pull out the specifics here, regarding the peering issue. he had argued that it was going to be done separately and not part of this item, and the interconnection issue was going to be separate. and here, they actually put a footnote in and said, no, it's actually contained in here. they had to back out their own statement. >> just to be clear on that, mike, this, what you're quoting is a speech that i made over a year ago, in which i said. you know, i'm not sure that that -- i have been saying throughout this process, as we led up to it, that

interconnection needed to be on the table. this was not an editorial decision that was made in secret. this was a policy decision that was put forth to everybody. >> let me bring it back here. >> but can i also say, i would like to identify myself with commissioner o'reilly and the points that he made in opening. he and i both walked in, essentially at the same time, and -- >> the same day. >> and were handed -- well, i was a couple of minutes -- >> let me ask chairman wheeler, then why did you choose not to have the entire commission revote on the advisory order on march 12th, especially if the fcc staff made substantiative editorial changes. >> the changes that got made were changes that were in response to dissents, which we are required by law -- >> and in the spirit of transparency, can you make the february 26th order available to us?

>> sure. it's on the website. >> february 26th. >> it's on the website, yes. >> the final one. he's saying the one we voted on the day of. >> the day it was finally voted on, february 26th. >> the final order is on the website. and that's the public -- >> i don't believe it is. maybe we'll follow up on that. but maybe we could get to the bottom of that. the issue right now of transparency and accountability, even within the commissioners here -- >> the final order is not on the website? >> the document as we voted on, on february 26th, is not on the website. >> the final document, as required by the process and the law -- >> to prove the transparency around the process. >> so i would like then to associate myself with commissioner clyburn, who was absolutely right when she said, this is an editorial process. and going back and forth, if we open that process up, there are multiple things that are going to end.

markets aren't going to understand, well, you know, commissioner clyburn wants to change "glad" to "happy." what's that mean? this is a quasi-judicial rule that we exercise. we need to be going through and having an ability to have our own discussions. but 30 seconds more, sir. i think there's a misunderstanding that the end of the game is the final rule. because what happens is, you put it out, publish it on the federal register, and the next thing that happens is people are going to file in reconsideration. and reconsideration is the entire decision is out there for everybody to see, and then the public comes in and comments and says, no, we think you ought to reconsider this and we're going to have to vote again. >> and i'm out of time, but let me summarize by saying, you know, the stakes are awfully high, as we're looking at something, instead of stepping into title ii and to the internet. and i would hope we could work

together here to improve the accountability and transparency of that process, so that we -- one, can ensure we have trust as well as better outcomes. and with that, we're out of time. >> senator schotts? >> thank you. chairman wheeler, thank you for enduring today's hearing and yesterday's hearing and thank you to all the commissioners for your great work, we really appreciate it. i want to thank the chairman for the bipartisan process that he's undertaken, to explore the possibility of legislating in this space. i'm not clear that we're going to be able to get there, because i think that we don't have a meeting of the minds, even on the kind of basics of a negotiation, which is to say, it's hard to imagine that president obama or house and senate democrats would agree to legislation that would undermine the basic principles of net neutrality. i think there is some openness among some of us, to enshrining those net neutrality principles in statute, but if we're unable to kind of reach common ground in terms of the beginning of a

negotiation, i'm not necessarily hopeful, but i think it is worth exploring, i think it is worth discussing. i'm a little concerned about the litigation risks, not just on the title ii side, but on the forbearances side. so i think it's worth exploring, but i also think we ought to be direct with each other, about what's realistic, in terms of a legislative strategy or a litigation strategy. and i'm not sure at some point, we're not going to have to decide which it is and what's the most practical course of action. can you tell me, mr. wheeler, how you arrived at the forbearances? did you sort of start with the net neutrality principles and then forebear everything else, or how did you arrive at those forbearance questions? >> thank you, senator. we started with back to 332 and senator markey. and those 19 that clearly have,

experience has shown, are not necessary. and then we went through and said, what are other ones that in this situation are not applicable. and that got us a list of 27, up from the 19 of earlier. >> so what remains of the four principles of net neutrality that haven't been foreborn? >> i won't go through the list, but the highlights, the big ticket items. section 101 and 202, which is basically where this just and reasonable test resides. section 208, which is the consumer protection aspect. section 222, which is the privacy activities. section 254, which is universal service and that's probably the first hand.

>> is it fair to say this is unprecedented as far as the number of things that have been foreborn. has that been done before. >> it was done for section 332 and has stuck. >> and been successful. >> and has the commission in its history undone a forbearance? i think people are calling it unforebearing. but has the commission -- there's this concern that, well, you may have foreborn all of these provisions in the statute, but that doesn't prevent a future fcc from -- is there any evidence that a future fcc would do that in the future, based on past actions? >> that's the right question. here's the issue. so section 10 of the act instructs us how we forebear it. we must forebear if certain

things are met. if you were to go and reverse that, that would have to be an on the record, notice and comment proceeding that follows section 10 and says that, here is the record that builds to deforbear. so technically, you could. realistically, there's a lot -- >> you're actually on my next question now, which is, how procedurally and legally would you kind of do the evaluation and then on an operational level, how would you forebear. but in the fcc's history, has it taken to undo a forbearance? does it do that? >> not that i'm aware of, sir.

and, again, what you would have too -- so, for instance, let's just hypothetically say, five years from now, somebody wants to come in and deforebear on rate regulations. there's going to be a serious test that has to be done to say, what is it that has changed, and that, of course, will be an appeal decision itself. and it will be an open proceeding. and it will have everybody in the country involved in it. so i think, i think the ability to deforebear is going to be a high bar to hurdle. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator schotts. senator cantwell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i am reminiscing of the time that we had a major discussion about use of just and reasonable and the end run of energy markets. and even though just and reasonable was in place, the majority of commissioners still had a long time, struggled with a long time about whether manipulated rates could before just and reasonable. so i would suggest that that interpretation of just and reasonable is probably going to be left up to the determination of whoever's in the majority of the commission. so hopefully people will get

some common ground on that and a framework. but thank you for your work. i'd like to follow up on senator fisher's question, as it related to the auction of spectrum, since, you know, people are saying, well, we want to get it right, but we also want to get it done. and when we're talking about a delay for a third time, i just want to make sure that we have all the tools and all the information we need now, resources to get us there, given that i think this is for our rural communities, something that we really need to pair with resources, so we can get robust broadband networks out there. so, i just want to go back over what we think -- you know, do we have any problems that are undiscovered here that we think there's going to cause us problems in actually getting this done? in the fall of 2015, starting the auction in 2016. >> it's never been tried. >> it's never been what?

>> it's never been tried. that's a huge problem, senator. we are -- you know, we are inventing from whole cloth. so, for instance, when i walked in the door, i said, wait a minute, we have to have a time-out here, because i come from a software background, like you, and there is -- i've never seen code work the first time, okay? and we didn't have an appropriate testing structure in place, and all of this sort of stuff. so we delayed six months, while we could put a red team in place, while we could do the kinds of things that normally get done. but having said that, i believe that we will be able to begin the auction in the first quarter of 2015 -- i'm sorry, 2016. and we are managing to that

goal. we will be bringing forth to the commission later this year, in ample time for the people who might be bidders, the final package of rules that bidders will be using. we are on road trips, which i guess i'm not supposed to call road trips, information sessions around the country, meeting with broadcasters and sitting down, helping them understand what the financial considerations that they want to keep in mind are. and we are -- we are managing this for a first quarter of 2016 auction. >> besides the uncertainty of trying it, are there any other obstacles that you see at this point? >> well, we have a lawsuit that we have to get through here. the nab and a broadcaster have filed, but i'm confident that we'll get on the other side of that and be able to move on. we have a situation where everybody, wlu start talking about spectrum, everybody wants

a piece, or to keep their piece, or to not change. we need to deal with that. the commissioner's incredibly valid point about a license spectrum. we need to make sure this unlicensed spectrum in here. at the same point in time, congress instructed us to use the spectrum that wireless microphones and others have been using. we've got to find homes for them. i mean, i believe this is all doable. i do not understand the challenge that we have now been at it for three years and i can see light at the end of the tunnel, and better than that, we are managing to that date. >> okay. i saw inclinations to speak, but i have half a second. i mean, i have a minute left. >> senator, if i could jump in,

i think the biggest challenge we confront right now is the complexity of the auction as it is currently structured. just to give you two examples of that, first, the dynamic reserve pricing proposal, which is on the table, it's exceedingly difficult for members of the commission, myself, to understand exactly how it would work in realtime. and when you're dealing with a broadcaster community that is unused to dealing with these kinds of auctions at all, it's going to be exceptionally difficult. and if we want to incentivize them to participate, this proposal essentially would undercut the amount of money that the market would determine they are eligible to get, by wireless carriers in the auction. the second example of complexity is the potential variability in the band plans. so you would have some situations in which some spectrum might be occupied by a wireless carrier, in an adjacent market, it might be occupied by a broadcaster. how those -- how that interference will work is a very complicated,, and we have to get it right. we only have one shot. otherwise, you end up with. >> chairman wheeler, the fcc is

an independent agency commission created and accountable to congress. correct? >> i kind of want to walk you through a timeline here. i really only need yes or no answers to confirm i have this right. january 14, 2014, the d.c. circuit struck down portions of the fcc's 2010 open internet order. correct? >> yes, sir. >> in that decision d.c. circuit provided the fcc with a road map to follow an order to craft net neutrality rules that it would uphold. correct? >> they said -- >> just -- >> no, but section 706 was a solution if you are not going to do title 2. the reason we were throwing out this decision, the court said, is because they did not use title 2. >> then on february 2014 you

announced your intent to file the road map the d.c. court laid out. >> correct. >> in april 2014 you circulated notice of proposed rule making that tentatively concluded the fcc should base its net neutrality rules on its authority under rule 706. >> correct. >> that rule making was voted on in may 2014. >> yes. >> according to reports, you were planning on holding a vote on net neutrality order in december 2014 based on section 706 or hybrid approach. correct? >> 706 or a hybrid approach? no. >> right. you did not -- >> no. >> -- announce your intention to hold a vote on -- >> yes. i did say we were trying to do things in december, and what we were trying to manage to at that point in time was a title 2 section 706 approach. not an "or." >> on november 10, 2014, president obama announced his

support for regulating the internet under title 2. >> correct. >> were you aware of that announcement before he made it? >> they came to see me november 6, i believe. >> so you were made aware of that a few days before that. >> yes, sir. >> ultimately you decided not to hold a vote on the net neutrality order in december. correct? >> that's correct. we couldn't get it done. >> yesterday you told the house oversight and government affairs committee you delayed the vote because you did not have the time to "whip the horses" to complete an order in time for the december 2014 open meeting. >> i think i used some metaphor like that. >> finally, the fcc voted to reclassify broadband services under title 2 on february 26, 2015. correct? >> correct. >> the next day on february 27th, the dnc sent an e-mail boasting that, "the fcc has approved president obama's plan." were you aware of that?

>> i saw it after it went out. >> now based on the actions of that timeline, do you think an objective observer taking a look at those actions would really view your actions as chairman of those -- of an independent chairman, of an independent agency? >> yes, sir. >> you don't think somebody would come to the conclusion you were really just carrying water for this administration? >> no, sir. i was looking at a title 2 and section 706 approach before the president filed his position and we came out with a title 2 section 706 approach. the president in his filing did not suggest we should cover interconnection. we covered interconnection. the president did not suggest the breadth of the kind of forbearance that we have talked about. and the president talked only in terms of doing something with title 2. so i think that actually what we

came out with is stronger, as well as more deregulatory than what the president filed with us in his -- >> commissioner, were you a little surprised about the about-face of chairman wheeler in respect to his order on internet? >> not sure if i was surprised but i was disappointed that the independence of the agency in my view had been compromised by the imposition of political considerations by the executive branch. >> can you describe or are you concerned about potential lawsuits under those rules and regulations that currently are going to be forborne? whatever that is. under this current rule making. >> absolutely. i think there are significant legal flaws in the order throughout and i detailed them in my dissent. with respect to forbearance alone, the fact the fcc crafted a novel and completely unprecedented competition analysis which is essentially we don't have to do one in order to forbear was unprecedented. the order repeatedly uses phrases "we forbear for now" was unprecedented. i think it the jettisoning of a lot of forbearance precedents

which at its core was unprecedented. i think a review in court will have a great deal of scrutiny to apply to some of the decisions with respect to forbearance. >> there's going to be a great deal of uncertainty in terms of investment and how people view is the internet over the next few years because of this ruling. >> absolutely. if i could elaborate a little bit, companies that are responsible for the largest capital expenditures in this industry have told us title 2 will impede investment. if i might quote from a letter we got on february 10th, title 2 regulation will undermine the business model that supports our network, raise our costs and hinder our ability to further deploy broadband. you might ask what corporate titan wrote that? it was 43 municipal broadband provided who told us that title 2 is a road map to a regulated monopoly. that's not something that creates incentives to invest and innovate.

i would suggest that's completely not the case. first of all the reason we refrain from rate regulation and the other title 2 regulations on mobile was because the fcc explicitly found that there was competition in the wireless marketplace so these regulations weren't necessary, market forces would protect the consumer. here in the net neutrality order the agency says specifically there is not a specific competition which is part of the reason why title 2 is necessary. similarly the argument is made, well, people are going to invest anyway. bottom line is broadband networks don't have to exist. what is remarkable is the fact that right now google fiber does not offer voice service. why? it would cost zero. they've already built the fiber. the reason they've said on the record is because there are title 2 regulations that apply to voice.

it strains credulity to think on one hand you can apply title 2 regulations that are even stronger than what the president suggested, but on the other hand revenues won't be affected. but on the other hand in a few weeks or months we're going to increase broadband tax s toes to pay for these promises. you have to pay the piper when it comes to title 2. the proof is going to be in the pudding in the months to come. >> i will say if it is not broke, don't fix it. i would say there is a lot of people having buyer's remorse on this rule making. >> thank you, senator johnson. >> thank you very much. commissioners and mr. chairman, thank you for your presence today. i look forward to this conversation. i have appreciated what i've heard so far. look forward to seeing at least some of you in if the appropriations proceeding. we'll see you again. i've met on one-on-one meetings with each of you other than commissioner o'reilly. i would welcome that at some point in time when it fits your schedule, commissioner. i actually have enjoyed the conversations we've had and i

appreciate the respectful manner in which those have occurred. let me ask about, as you would expect, my focus will be upon rural providers and consequences to rural america. first on net neutrality and then i will shift to the e rate issue. on net neutrality, one of the providers shared with me the regulatory burden they currently exist. that they have a calendar of things they do to comply with the regulations, three pages in front of me. the amount of time, they indicated that it would take -- first of all, i should tell you this is a less than 20-employee business, covers less than 1,000 square miles of service territory, has less than 2,000 customers and their calendar

indicates that it would include 62 different federal filing mandates that would require 1,490 man hours, person hours. and i'm worried that net neutrality, the order that the commission has entered will only increase that burden. and in the same way that i think mandating health insurance is only valuable if you can find a doctor. mandating network management rules does nothing to protect the person who has no access to broadband. and many of our conversations, commissioners, one-on-one has been about access to folks who live in rural places in the country. so let me ask, i'm going to ask commissioner pai this question. mr. commissioner, i am reluctant to ask you because i would lose all my time in your answer. commissioner pai, how does the

net neutrality rules impact network providers? was the commission provided evidence input before making the decision related to net neutrality as to the cost of compliance, and ultimately who pays the price of those regulations? >> thank you for your concern. i think that title 2 is when you have a devastating impact on the rural broadband customers. simple reason is that it is a challenging enough business case as it stands to build broadband networks in rural america given the sparse population, great distances. when you layer on top title 2 regulations, it would make it exceptionally more difficult for broadband companies to take the risks, deploy the capital to make that infrastructure work. wave wireless, which supplies broadband internet service to my own parents. as it is, it is tough for them to get a reasonable alternative when it comes to broadband. wave has said it is going to be challenging for them. they have to have people comply with these regulations, it won't be easy to deploy more infrastructure in the field. the fcc neglected, unfortunately, the statements of

the many, many companies that wrote to us and said broadband is -- or title 2 is a bad solution for these small rural broadband providers. we got a letter from 24 of the country's smallest isps, all serve less than 1,000 customers. one ever them served four customers in canon falls, minnesota. because they have no budget line items for outside counsel. repeatedly we've heard from smaller providers title 2 will reduce their ability to compete. one of the great ironies to me in title 2 in this entire debate has been the key thing that people say i think -- or that they mean when they say net neutrality is that we want more competition, we want more broadband providers offering better choices, better prices at faster speeds. title 2 takes us exactly in the opposite direction.

heavy handed regulations affect smaller competitors. we see this in all these other regulated industries. >> i don't want top accuse you of being biased, but i want to make sure you don't take all my time either. i want to set a record for a 30-second response. the record and the information that we gathered in the record does not ignore the question you asked, as has been suggested. the ntca, the association that represents all of these small 20-employee kinds of companies, filed, again, obviously representing a consensus in their industry, saying they supported title 2 in this open internet. >> this is absolutely critical. they did not support -- what they supported with respect to title 2 is a last mile connectivity they already offer as a title 2 transmission service. they did not assert title 2

jurisdiction over interconnection -- >> no, i don't think -- >> next time i'm going to ask commissioner o'reilly. then perhaps either commissioner rosenworcel and commissioner clyburn can respond. thank you for that answer. my time is up. we always say that before we ask the next question. what i would say is we have a great appeal that's been on file for four years. we have asked you to respond. it has not been responded to. and i would ask your commitment that you would get the details from us. >> i'm sorry, what is it -- there is an appeal? >> can ed. yes. on appeal. four years. for rates that were established -- they filed -- i'm sorry, they filed in 2011. it is a case dealing back to the funding of 2005. >> yes. >> so we'll follow up. mr. chairman, thank you very much. i'll submit the rest of my questions for the record. >> thank you senator moran. senator cruz.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioners, thank you for being here. the internet has proven to be an incredible haven for innovation and for opportunity. and i believe the commission's order imposes a profound threat to continued innovation on the internet and in time will hurt small content providers and favor large corporations with influence in washington. i also believe the order is contrary to law. i'd like to ask you mr. chairman, initially, just a simple question. in the order, am i correct that what the commission has done is now to treat broadband providers as common carriers? >> yes, sir. >> how then, mr. chairman, does the commission justify that given that last year when the d.c. circuit struck down the commission's previous failed attempt at regulating the internet, the d.c. circuit said

on page 45 of the opinion, and i quote, we think it obvious that the commission would violate the communications act. were it to regulate broadband providers and common carriers. >> sir, i'd be happy to get a specific legal response for you on that. i think that what the court was saying was that the commission was imposing common carrier-like regulation without stepping up and saying you are a common carrier. that's what essentially that statement says, i believe. they were saying you're violating the communications act if you're doing these common carriage-like requirements without making a finding that in fact they are common carriers. >> let me ask -- >> -- was the gut of that. >> the specific order was it subject to ordinary notice and

comment, and specifically was the public able to look at details and comment on it before it was adopted? >> there was a full notice and comment proceeding and longer than average. >> let me ask that question again. was public able to read the specific details and comment on specific details of this order before it was adopted? >> the order was put out in keeping with the total process -- a precedence -- >> mr. chairman, you're avoiding saying the word no -- >> because with due respect, sir -- and the o'reilly rule never disagree with me -- >> my question simply was the public able to read the order and comment on it before it was entered. the answer is no, correct? >> that's not the way the process works. >> i did not ask the way the process worked. i asked was the public able to read and comment on it before it was entered? that's either a yes or no, you could go and read it before it came into affect, or no, you could not. >> the public never reads

orders, sir. so the answer to that is -- >> the answer is no. i would note that just a few weeks ago president obama's executive amnesty was enjoined by a federal court for violation of notice and comment. and i think the commission's action represents an abuse of its authority. let's shift though to the effect of this order. treating broadband providers as common carriers, putting them under title 2, treating them as public utilities subjects them to section 201. section 201 gives the commission the authority, according to section 201, all charges and practices shall be just and reasonable. is that correct? >> correct. >> that means -- i want to understand the effect of the commission's order. it is the commission's position that it has full legal authority from this day forward to regulate every charge and every

practice of every broadband provider to determine whether they are just and whether they are reasonable. >> we have said, sir, that we believe this should operate the same way that section 332 has and that that has not been the result. >> but mr. chairman, you seem to be misunderstanding my question. i understand that you're currently telling us you're going to forbear from using this authority. my question is to understand what legal authority the commission is claiming. >> 201 is the legal authority. we are using 201 and 202 in this order. >> so i am correct that it is the commission's position that it has the legal authority to regulate every single charge and every single practice of every broadband provider and to determine in the commission's own judgment whether those charges and those practices are just and reasonable. >> there has been removed from the item the procedures that the commission would use to do that as in tariffing, as in retail rate regulation, those tools -- >> you're not arguing that you lack the legal authority. you're saying right now you're refraining from doing that. correct? >> no, sir.

i'm arguing that the tools to make that happen -- tariffing ability, rate regulation ability -- have specifically been removed and that we expect that 201 will function as it has for the last 22 years in wireless. >> well, mr. chairman, would you support legislation from this committee to codify the forbearance you're suggesting explicitly prohibiting the increase of rates of broadband providers. would you support legislation making that explicit? >> i need to be real careful on that. i would be very happy to provide input to the committee. i want to be careful about saying i'm endorsing legislation or arguing against legislation or whatever. i think the point you raise, however, is that in any open internet rule or legislation, there should not be consumer rate regulation. >> let me ask one final

question. my time is expiring. but commission pai, would you share with this committee what the impact is likely to be of this order on consumers, the taxes and the impact on innovation and opportunity online. >> it is a terrific question, senator cruz. thank you for it. the impact is going to be substantial. first and foremost, consumers broadband bills will go up. the door is opened to billions of dollars in new taxes through the universal service fund contribution. independent study have suggested it is going to be $11 billion each and every year. that assumes that the fcc doesn't increase the amount it promised to spend on some of these universal service fund programs. additionally funds for these fees will go up as a result of the increase in state and local taxes that broadband providers will have to pay as a result of reclassification. telecom providers traditionally pay a higher rate than nontelecom providers. the fees are going to go up additionally because pole

attachment rates are going to go up. right now a lot of broadband providers pay a lower rate. that will go up. that cost has to be born by someone. it's going to be born by the consumers. that's just the bills. in terms of the actual service, in rural america it is going to you've heard our exchange about how some smaller isps in particular will have to suck up the costs or go out of business altogether. some of the larger providers will have to include a line item. will the commission employ section 201 authority to second-guess the infrastructure we're putting into place for interconnection? the three routes that traffic has to go over could be second-guessed by the commission. all of these things now go through the fcc as gatekeeper. third, consumers are going to suffer as a result of the second-guessing the fcc will do through the internet conduct standard. as the chairman pointed out, we don't really know where this is going to go. the fcc is going to sit there as a referee to throw the flag. the problem is nobody even knows what the games is or what the rules are. i think when the fcc specifically tees up pro-consumer things like

t-mobile's music freedom which allows the free streaming of music videos or music content to your smartphone outside of data cap, and says that may be an internet violation ironically enough, some of the competitive upstarts will want to challenge the big boys will have to say, whoa, before we offer this, let's make sure we clear this with the fcc make sure we get an advisory opinion from the fcc as to the enforcement bureau. not the full commission but the enforcement bureau to make sure this is kosher. as a result of all of this, instead of the internet working to the benefit of consumers, it is going to be lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians who decide what kind of digital opportunity we will have in the future. other than that, it is okay. >> thank you very much. four powerfully said. >> thank you, senator cruz. senator peters is back. >> thank you to each of the commissioners. this has been a very long afternoon for you. there is a few more questions for you but i appreciate your service, your public service,

your commitment to these issues. it is complicated and as we see can be contentious from time to time. thank you for your service. this goes primarily to commissioner rosenworcel because of your work in this area. i'll ask the chairman as well to comment on this. there is, without question, tremendous demand for wi-fi and devices using unlicensed spectrum right now. as a result, the upper 5 gigahertz band is being targeted for potential sharing, particularly the 75 megahertz and 5.9 gigahertz band for use in intelligence transportation systems, including vtov and vtoi. which utilizes dedicated short range service systems. those short of sharing this band point to the many years spectrum has been reserved without actually being used. i think this ignores millions of dollars that have been invested

and thousands of hours spent focused on the technology's development to this point. the reality is that these connective vehicles are being deployed today in pilot programs, on the streets of ann arbor, michigan, and the national highway traffic safety administration has taken action that will likely lead to a rule making this year to require nationwide deployment of vehicles using the v2v during the next few years. the agency has said the v2v and v2i -- i think this is incredible -- potential to mitigate or eliminate 80% of all accidents that occur right now with the non-impaired drivers. if we continue to focus on advanced intelligent transportation systems of vehicles and in a smarter infrastructure we can spur innovation, we'll be able to create jobs, we'll be able to discover new business models and opportunities that haven't been previously possible and we can save thousands of lives in the process. i would contend that we should not do anything here in congress or at the fcc, for that matter,

that would derail this incredible comment. i'd like your thoughts on this and hopefully today you might be willing to commit not to move forward on opening the 5.9 gigahertz band to wi-fi until it has been proven that it can be done without any harmful interference to these life-saving technologies with our vehicles. >> thank you, senator peters, for the question. as you undoubtedly know, the demand for our airwaves has grown exponentially over the last decade. and certainly that's true since 1999 when the spectrum was set aside for the kind of intelligent transportation systems you're describing. and i know that the development has been slow, but i also know a lot of resources have been poured into that effort. since 1999 when that spectrum was set aside, something else has happened. we've grown much, much better at managing interference in all

sorts of radio spectrum. it is my hope we can explore how this can be a shared spectrum for both unlicensed and its services but i take your point we absolutely cannot sacrifice safety in the process. >> i appreciate that and your concern to make sure that that's going to be at the top of your list. chairman wheeler, if you'd care to comment as well. >> i think commissioner rosenworcel is spot-on. the future is all about how can you share. the encouraging thing here is that intelligent transportation systems and wi-fi are not that dissimilar. and so i think that there is a way that technology can -- if you're essentially sending bits the same kind of way, there ought to be a way that you can figure it out. that's what we're encouraging. >> i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, senator peters. senator rubio. >> thank you.

thank you for yielding your place so i can make it to the next one. commissioner o'reilly, i want to begin with you. use of wireless broadband and internet connected devices has provided all sorts of economic growth and innovation that was previously, quite frankly, unimaginable. wireless traffic as we all know is projected to grow exponentially in the years ahead. because of this i introduced legislation to free up additional spectrum for commercial use, both licensed and unlicensed. i strongly believe that we should be enacting policies that ensure that the united states continues to lead the world in wireless innovation and technology. unfortunately, it's my personal opinion -- i think those of others -- that the fcc net neutrality order is quite frankly the opposite of what we should be doing. i would be interested to hear you talk a little bit about the impact the order is going to have on wireless and wireless consumers who are interested in this topic and may not understand its true impacts on them. >> absolutely. thank you for your leadership on wireless issues. i would say i think the commission is backwards and has flipped in how it approaches wireless issues for purposes of

judging whether wireless should be -- actually offering broadband services, we say no. for purposes of applying title 2, we say yes. i think one is a violation of the statute. i think that's why we're most exposed to in a court proceeding. i think the statute is fairly clear on that. people pointed out that 332c gets to the question of wireless voice. but wireless data has never been treated as a common carrier service and shouldn't be in my opinion. it is something we should celebrate ratheren this than trying to regulate. it is something you've been a leader on and i think we should move forward. i think the commission is backwards on what we're trying to do here. >> i've introduced the wi-fi innovation act with senator booker. i did so because of the potential for growth in wi-fi and the need for more unlicensed spectrum for wi-fi. i plead the commission has made it available in the lower five band, but i'm also hopeful we

can make progress in the upper band. that's where our bill is focused. my question is, what is the process and timing for bringing that additional band into use? i'm concerned these have become mired in all sorts of technical arguments. and stall tactics. what is your plan to break that logjam and can the fcc use its leadership to push the process ahead? >> thank you for your leadership on legislation. i don't mean to comment since senator peters is no longer here but i think it is something we can move forward. i worked with my colleagues on this issue. i think this is something we can do in a short order while still protecting the dsrc. we can do both in this band. it is something that is necessary and i think the chairman articulated this a couple of moments ago that they aren't too far apart and it is something we can do. it has been bogged down in technical reasons for some interests who aren't interested in sharing their band. i think that's problematic. >> and commissioner pai, internet has become an incredible incubator for jobs,

growth freedom, under the stewardship of this country, of the united states. and in a speech last year at the free state foundation policy seminar, you said, i wanted to quote, public utility regulation would embolden those foreign governments around the world that want to impose greater international regulation upon the internet. like you, i'm not only concerned about the negative impact on investment innovation here at home by subjecting broadband to these title 2 regulations, i'm also very concerned about the message this sends to other governments around the globe who do seek quite frankly blatant greater control of internet governance. we see that in china and russia and other parts of the world. in your opinion, what are the international implications, potential international implications of the fcc applying title 2 to the internet. >> senator, thank you for the question. i think the international implications are worrying and that concern was best expressed by the state department's own ambassador in 2009 when he said that this net neutrality proceeding will be viewed by foreign countries as an excuse

to regulate content and infrastructure in a way that might be not be consistent with our own policies. the fcc or the u.s. government wants to micromanage how the internetworks. and i think it becomes difficult for us to maintain on the international stage as the investor pointed out six years ago, we want a free and open internet, when the same reprissive foreign regimes can say, you yourself said the internet is broken, the competition is insufficient and the fcc is going to stand as the gatekeeper. >> sending a mixed message. our own government has said there is a problem we need to solve and therefore has injected itself. >> i agree. >> with due respect, i disagree. and i have met with foreign regulators on this topic. my message to them is, this is no more regulating the internet than the first amendment

regulates free speech. this is saying that the internet is open. that everybody has the right to express themselves. i met two weeks ago with all of the european regulators, and they understand this. what it is. i met last week with the head of the international telecommunications union which is the -- kind of the international body that comes up with this. this is not -- you need to understand, this is not the regulation of the internet. this is making sure that the internet is open. the regulation of the internet is the regulation of numbers, names, routers, this kind of activity. and tariffing and rates. that is not what this country stands for, i said. when putin tries to shut down pussy riot on facebook, when china tries to shut down access to google when turkey tries to shut down access to twitter

those are absolute violations of what we are talking about here, because no party, whether government or private sector, should act as a gatekeeper to who gets on the internet. that's what this rule does. >> as you said at the outset of your statement you are applying, you are saying this is more regulation than the first amendment. the problem is putin doesn't have a first amendment. and neither does china. i understand your meeting and talking with that europeans but the ones we're concerned about the china and russia and others. and who do not understand this concept in china, the notion of free speech. so when you make the argument to them that for example as you have made now that we're not regulating content this is -- for them it is literally a foreign concept. they don't have a first amendment or a societal or governmental commitment to the notion of free speech. what they see is a governmental agency in the united states involved in setting terms for how the internet can be provided.

maybe even if it is content neutral. and i think it gives them an excuse to say if your government can do it, ours can do it too. >> with respect i don't think it sets the rules. and the other thing is when i met with secretary general sao, who is chinese, okay, and said you need to understand that's what this is. and in your home country, when you are blocking, that would be a violation of our open internet rules. because that is what this is about. not the operation of the network but making -- >> and i'm confident he probably informed you that in his country they set rules and in your country you can set your own rules. but he'll remind you of their sovereign the i and the demotion of their view of -- >> the position of our country hasn't changed. >> if i could add one critical point. even at a level less profound than free speech, nonetheless is the case that what we have done sends a message. the fcc explicitly tease up

practices such as sponsored data as potentially be net neutrality violations. if we were to find a sponsored data practice, which gives consumers something for free, would violate net neutrality now we see foreign countries engaging that same practice. the same people who pushed us to adopt the net neutrality order have called sponsored data and human rights violation. now we see foreign countries doing the same thing. banning sponsored data and other pro consumer type innovations that allows smaller competitors to distinguish themselves. so we can't act it is if what the fcc does is in a vacuum when it is bad. but the message it sends when it is good is somehow going to be transmitted through the globe. you can't have it both ways. >> thank you senator rubio. senator ayotte. >> thank you chairman and ranking member. appreciate it. commissioner pai. shortly after the latest spectrum auction, you and i penned an op-ed in the "wall street journal" about the flaws in the program and i think we

used and showed a very egregious example where in the most recent auction that companies with billions of dollars in revenue were able to get taxpayer credits to purchase discounted spectrum. and since our op-ed, it's been interesting to see that a wide variety of groups have come out to say this issue needs to be addressed by the fcc, including groups ranging from the naacp to americans for tax reform. can you update us on this program? and i hope that the commission as a whole will take a very thorough review of what happened here. because it can't have been what we intended with this so called designated entity program. because this isn't benefitting truly small or disadvantaged businesses. >> thank you senator for the question and for your leadership. since we had a chance to

collaborate we have seen a broad raising of concern across the country and across the political spectrum about this issue. senator mccaskill expressed concerns, representative palone on the house side as well. and aside from the naacp and americans for tax reform, other groups have pointed out that this was not the way it was supposed to work. unfortunately i wish i had a better story to tell with respect to the facts. but since you and i worked together it's come to my attention that not only were there people who didn't participate in the auction at all, like the gentleman we cited in our op-ed, there are specific companies from nebraska to vermont who put in bids but were outbid by one or both of the entities run by dish who ultimately were denied a license and didn't get anything out of the auction, or had to bid much more than they wanted to. and part of the problem is these are facilitates based carriers. these are actual companies

providing actual service to actual customers in a lot of these places. and instead they had to give way to arbitrage in the auction. so that's why currently the fcc is undergoing the review of the auction. and petitions filed by ors or others concerned about it. and i welcome the chairman when he said we want to make sure the integrity of the program remains in tact. that no one was unjustly enriched. it is important to have that further notice of proposed rule making where we make sure once and for all these loopholes are closed and corporate welfare ends. >> could i pick up on this. because we could make news. >> i would like to. >> commissioner pai and i are going to agree. there are people back here who are falling off their chairs at this moment. >> i'm glad we can agree on this. >> you know, i am against slick lawyers coming in and taking advantage of a program that was

designed for a specific audience and a specific purpose. i'm as opposed to that as i was when commissioner pai and i disagreed last year on the way the slick lawyers were trying to take advantage of our rules on broadcasting. we are going to fix this. these are rules that have been in place since the bush administration. as the commissioner said we've got a rule making under way on this. we are going to issue a new public notice on this to make sure that this specific issue is teed up. and we are going to make sure that this -- that designated entities have the opportunity to participate and not to have designated as beards for people who shouldn't. >> and senator i want you to know that i've been pushing for change in this since 2010. it's been a constant refrain from me to ensure more opportunities in the space. as you know, as was said, we are reviewing those applications. no final -- nothing final has been said. people have an opportunity to weigh in. >> great.

thank you. important issue. but i can't leave without addressing the commissions recent order. you know, i think it's only in washington actually that something as innovative has driven so much growth and new ideas as the internet, where we would end up with an order that essentially applies 1930s style utility regulation and think that may be the best way going forward to ensure there is future innovation. and so i want to just share the concerns of so many of my colleagues that have been raised about the commission's order. and commissioner o'rielly. i want to ask you briefly about europe. because europe isn't exactly known for laissez faire hands off regulatory approach. as i understand proposals europeans are discussing appear to be much less stifling than the fcc's rules.

normally we are not looking to them as the model of where we want to be in terms of regulations. can you help me understand, what i see recent examples where in fact, we could be disadvantaged to some of our foreign competitors. >> yes, senator. i appreciate that. i just came back from barcelona as a number might have colleagues did. and had opportunity to talk to a number of people there as my colleagues did. and europeans particularly noticed the decisions, unlike the chairman's conversations, my conversations suggest they are very aware what we did and are willing to exploit it and take advantage of that and say if you are going to regulate the net we're going to opposite direction and willing to be less regulatory and drive traffic their way and companies and let the united states suffer in the process which i think is the completely backwards. >> i met with the european 9j regulators and told them what we had done. and what we hadn't done. and i came away with exactly 180 degrees different. and then i talked to the ceos of

the major international wireless carriers. one of whom then was quoted in the press as saying, yeah, you know, i think that this approach that america is taking and is responsible and applicable. and you know what the key thing for all of them was? was what we did in terms of so called specialized services. managed services. non public internet services. and how we specifically said that isn't going to be covered. because the growth in the internet business. verizon, their cfo just had a statement about this at an investors conference. the growth in the internet business is going to be in specific services. internet of things, over the top services, that are not public internet services and are specifically precluded from regulation in this. that was the big thing that the europeans wanted to talk to me

about. because they had heard over you're going to cover it. i said no we're not. and then everybody said oh okay. well then we're pretty copacetic. >> my time is up. i'll do the follow up because there is a specific example where i think of that already europeans are proposing things that are not as onerous as what was proposed by the commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> we had a joint economic committee hearing with jason furman. i was there and on the floor so it's good to come back. this week i'm introducing the improving world call quality and reliability act with senator tester. i know problems with world call completion are of interest to many members of the commission and i welcome. i thank you for that and also members of the committee. i hope you will consider co-sponsoring our bill which is going to directly assess -- address one of the root causes

of the problem, least call routers. recently you took enforcement action against verizon for failure to investigate problems with calls not being completed to rural areas. we thank you for that. part of the settlement included a commitment to addressing the number of least call routers verizon uses. i would like to again think you and particularly commissioner clyburn for the continued attention to this issue and this problem, which is now five years old, and we still clearly have problems outside of verizon. so i will ask both chairman wheeler, commissioner clyburn, least cost routers seem to be a major source of these call completion problems. do we need to know at least who they are and require them to follow minimum quality standards? and do you agree that we need to get to the source of the problem? and for my colleagues who aren't familiar with this, this is what it sounds. actually calls being dropped at businesses and homes for no reason. and they are not getting the

kind of service they need. they are getting substandard service. so mr. chairman. >> so the -- first of all, i think you pinpointed something very important. e dath on wllal start getting first of next month when theormation, when carriers are required to file with us. so we'll be able to say to you with statistical specificity what, senator, i believe is the situation that you are attempting to solve. and that you are moving this legislation is terrific. and that in that this is something we're also considering in our further notice on this topic. but i think you have identified it. >> thank you so much. commissioner clyburn, thank you for your leadership on this issue. >> thank you. one of the things that was

positive about the consent decree you mentioned with verizon is now we're going to have workshops and there is going to be research. in terms of the overall issue, of course the chairman mentioned that april 1st the requirements kick in. in august we'll have a clear picture with reports being released. so i know right now one of the things you mentioned, the least cost routers today. the rules don't apply to them today. but thank you very much for reinforcing an issue that we will continue to review. >> okay. very good. thank you all of you. last congress i introduced the smart phone theft prevention act, as we all know this is an unbelievable problem across the country with smart phones being stolen and people getting beat up, sometimes killed over cell phones and the bill required smartphone manufacturers and

wireless carriers to install kill switches on all smartphones so consumers could lock the device and wipe the information if it was stolen. additionally, minnesota and california passed laws to require consumer protections on all phones sold in their states. we've come a long way on the issue instead of pretending it is not happening or that we can't do anything about it. but i think we need to keep on the pressure and that is why i'm actually reintroducing the bill. chairman wheeler, are you committed to keep working with me to address smartphone theft? and do you think there can be more done the national level and any other commissioner that wants to chime in? >> yes, ma'am. and thank you for your leadership and coming down and help us kick off on the workshop we had on this. and let me tell you about the results of that. yes, you are right the kill switch volunteer agreement, the kill switch. i've seen reports, uncorroborated in major cities where theft has gone down as a result of this.

i'm not going to break our arms patting ourselves on the back but there are three things here under way. one is that there needs to be a non-wipable, as in you can't wipe it out and substitute something else unit identifier for each device. like a vehicle identification number on a car that can't go away. the -- at our request, the 3 gpp which is a standards body have said they will come out with a standard for that by the end of the year. step forward. but only moving towards it. doesn't solve it. second issue is there needs to be an on device, remote lock, ability to wipe -- this sort of thing. the devices after july of this year, the devices that come into the market will have that capability the third component that we have

to have is we have to have a good stolen phone database. there is currently one run by the gsm association. but it is, well, if you will participate in this, and it is not quite user friendly and it is not -- and we need to work with them, or with law enforcement, to improve that. and we've been working with law enforcement to bring pressure on either one of those. but i think those are the three steps that we have to take. but you have been a leader and thank you. >> did you want to add anything? >> one in three robberies today involves theft of a mobile device. and in some major metropolitan areas it is one in two. and by any measure that is an epidemic. so i think it is vitally important every consumer have access to the ability to remotely wipe their device and that should be on every device free of cost and we should make sure that's available as soon as

possible. >> thank you. >> senator wicker has returned. so senator wicker. senator sullivan, senator manchin. >> thank you very much. [ inaudible ] eight hearings in five days? is that what i've heard. >> five hearings in eight days. >> well. i've had four hearings in one day. so there you go. breathlessly rushed back in. and thank you all for filibustering until i could get here. mr. pai. let me ask you. you know, we -- sometimes we vigorously disagree with our colleagues. it is clear you have vigorously disagreed with a majority of this panel on the so called open internet rule.

and i appreciate you doing it cheerfully. but also forcefully. and i -- i want you to help us understand the reasons that you have given procedurally and substantively under the statute as to why this decision is violative of requirements and violative of the communications act. >> thank you for the question. i could go through all 67 pages but i will abbreviate it for the sake of the panel and for everyone watching. in short there are problems with process and problems with substance. in terms of process, my view is the agency failed to comply the administrative procedure act. in terms of giving public fair notice and an opportunity to comment on the proposal that it ultimately adopted. here is the indisputable truth.

the fcc never proposed title 2. it adopted a proposal in may 2014 that was based on section 706. through the course of the summer it was widely reported that section 706 was the lead proposal. later it was reported that some sort of hybrid proposal, based on ms. mizula initiative was the lead proposal. only after did the fcc suddenly change course. >> what would need to have been done for the proposal to actually have been made? >> i will say and said this before the president made his announcement when i held the only fcc hearing that allowed people to comment on net neutrality. by view was that whatever the proposal was the american people should be allowed to see it and comment on it. we should have a new round. that would avoid the pickle they are now in. where they have to litigate for a couple years.

whether or not there was sufficient apa notice. but there wasn't notice in this case. and the best evidence is you saw a lot of speculation in the press wens once we got the document on february 5th. what's in it what's not in it? what changes were made leading up to january 26th? what does it mean broadband subscriber access was removed? none of the details were public and no one knew how to comment on it because they didn't know what was in the plan. >> now with regard to the substance. >> with respect to substance i think the text of the communications act and the fcc's own precedence make it difficult for title 2 to be applied to the broadband industry. one example, with respect to the mobile broadband, section 332 explicitly prohibits private mobile service. to be sure through the order if you had a chance to read it, you'll see all sorts of legal gymnastics in which the fcc cleverly tries to redefine the public switch network in order to have it apply to the internet the mobile broadband services but i don't think a review in

court is certainly going to see that passes muster. and with wire line. i would argue there are substantial hurdles the agency is going to have to broach to make it stick. both reasons of the process and substance there is serious litigation risk in this order. >> is there any question in your mind that is going to result in years of litigation? >> the best proof is what happened in the past. the first case which was the comcast bit torrent case took two years. the 2010 open internet order was resolved in 2014. the silver lining to this order is the communications bar will be busy some time trying to figure which courts to challenge this and the courts will have a long time to savor its many details. >> and in terms of protecting the flexibility and the ability going forward of this huge

engine of the economy, what does this order do? >> i think it is going to have a significant negative impact. and the best example of that is mobile data. the argument has been made repeatedly here today that while title 2 as applied to mobile has been successful because it's somewhat diluted. two points. one mobile as commissioner o'reilly pointed out mobile data has never been a title two service. secondarily, arguing the tremendous increase in mobile investment has been attributable to the title two application to mobile voice. anyone's looking at this the introduction of the smart phone in 2007 generated explosion in mobile data usage which carriers then had to struggle to keep up with and did it by billions of dollars in spectrum and billions more in wireless infrastructure. and it was because mobile data was lightly regulated that we saw benefit to consumers. also argue that in january the fcc made a big show about 25 mega bits per second being the

standard for broadband but then in february decided it would be subjected to title 2. you can't have it both ways. >> thank you very much. >> thank you senator wicker. senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chairman. and thank you commissioners. i know you have had a long day. and i have a bunch of basic questions. you are the experts. i'm a freshman senator here trying to figure out what's going on. obviously there is a lot of press. let me just ask a couple base questions. and to the extent you can keep them short but i want a number of different responses. fcc reauthorization. when was the last time that happened? by congress. >> i think the chairman said 25 years ago. >> so do you think that is a good idea? why? chairman wheeler why do you think that is a good idea?

should we do that? i know the chairman said he thinks it is a good idea. >> i think congress makes the rules. congress decided not to for 25 years. if congress wanted to decide to do it again congress makes the rules. >> commissioner pai. >> i think it is a useful exercise. it allows congress to modernize our operations and make sure rules keep pace with the times and i think that is important for congress to be involved with. >> so big policy decision -- you're an independent agency. so big policy decisions, who makes those calls? congress? the president? you? who is responsible for making big policy decisions that impact telecommunications. >> sorry i -- >> i have so many questions. >> congress has historically set down the parameters and said this is what we want the agency to do --

>> you think -- do you think regulating the internet is a big policy decision that wasn't contemplated 70 years ago that should be more of a congressional action than an independent agency action? >> i think that the congress instructed us to protect the public interest, convenience and necessity and gave specific authorities to do that -- >> on a -- >> and that's what we were following. >> on a portion of the economy that wasn't contemplated 70 years ago. >> well this was '96. but the early days of the internet. >> so commissioner pai? >> i agree. and that is why i said in the wake of the verizon versus fcc decision in 2014 that now the fcc now twice having failed in court to have its open internet rule sustained we should turn to congress for guidance. >> is there anything in the law quickly that gives the president kind of -- so let's say chairman thune or ranking member nelson give a big speech on the internet and it's regulated and

well thought out. and then the president gives a speech too. is there anything in the law at all that says this agency should give more deference to the president? >> absolutely not. >> absolutely not. >> in terms of consensus, do you try to work consensus as commissioners? there is obviously some pretty differing opinions of this rule. is that the typical approach to try to work on consensus? do you think that is important to try to achieve consensus? a lot of times if you are the chair you want to work on consensus. do you think that's important? >> i totally agree. 90% of our decisions are five 5-0. the difficult decisions often become contentious. we had a series of 4-1 decisions. >> you think that -- you think that decisions like this that are highly contentious,

splitting the commissioners as mentioned, do you think it will lead to a lot of litigation? do you think this decision is going to lead to a lot of litigation? >> the big guys said they're going to sue on this one. >> some of your commissioners think it's illegal action, do you think that invites litigation? >> you know, the beauty of it is you get three lawyers in a room and you'll have three opinions. >> i'm not sure there's a beauty here at all, to be honest. years of litigation are going to create uncertainty. do you think uncertainty is good for investment in this part of the economy? >> one of the things that the -- >> you think uncertainty is good for investment? >> uncertainty is never good. there's all kinds of uncertainty, including what's the commission going to do. we have set out a certain set of rules. people know what the rules of the road are now, what the yardsticks are. they didn't, that, didn't exist before.

and remember that under the 2010 rules, they were not stayed by the court. and so they were in effect for four years. >> can you give me an example. >> there was great investment during the period when they were in effect. >> give me an example of regulating a large part of the economy that's resulted in spurring innovation and increasing economic activity in jobs? >> look at the period 2010 to 2014 when the previous open internet rules were in place and we had unprecedented growth. >> commissioner -- >> there's other examples too such as when dsl was regulated under title 2 during its greatest period of growth. there is -- i think there are track records here that establish this kind of growth. >> do you have a sense of that. >> i respectfully disagree with the chairman. the explosion in particular when it comes to wireless investment was specifically because the 2010 order exempted wireless from the net neutrality rules. one of the reasons why we now