>> test. test. >> test. >> test. test.

>> well, the interesting thing is that we actually took the language from the current cable card license, which has been very successful in protecting copyright. >> okay. now, on to the whole issue of minority-focused programming. critics allege that the fcc's proposed rule, and you know this, would actually limit the availability of minority programming and content. now, robert l. johnson and all the members have a copy of the letter that i received last night. i think it's an important letter to read and i'd like to ask for

unanimous consent, mr. chairman, for mr. johnson's letter to be placed in the record. >> without objection. >> thank you very much. now, why is this issue even being raised? there is a woeful record under what we are operating under now because cable companies have really moved it at a glacial pace in their efforts to make more minority programming available to consumers. essentially, there are two or three large cable companies effectively determining today what the american public sees and how they see it. so i don't know why there is a defense of this abysmal record when we have an opportunity to open new doors to diverse programming. do you want to respond to this? >> well, thank you -- >> or would you respond, please.

>> there are four african-american owned channels in the 500 channel universe on a cable system. >> four out of how many? >> in a 500 channel universe. and most of them are on the most expensive tier, by the way. >> uh-huh. >> but the interesting thing here is that there are literally hundreds of programmers who are seeking to get on and who are having the door slammed in their face. so the question is, how do you provide a way -- how do you create equal opportunity so that these programmers can have an equality of standing with the few handful that are there and have competition and opportunity? >> the gentle lady's time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll go to the gentle lady from tennessee, ms. blackburn, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i wanted to first raise an issue involving a consortium of schools in tennessee. usac has deny millions of dollars of e rate funds informing the sweet rate consortium and many rural schools to be detrimentally impacted and the schools tanned to be finally crippled by the denial and the educational opportunities limited and suffer significantly with such a decision. the sweetwater consortium just received a final decision from usac on friday denying their appeal. and my office is continuing with other offices to gather information from the interested parties. and we expect that this is going to end up with you all before very long. and, mr. chairman, the tennessee delegation wrote the fcc last year and received a response on july 21st, 2015. we appreciate that. i understand that usac needs to be a thorough watchdog of the taxpayer dollars and that the

commission is not yet in a position to offer an opinion on the merits of usac's review. and you have noted that in your response to us. however, i'm concerned about the amount of time that the process has taken. and i know chairman wheeler, you also expressed that concern in our reply. and i will just say that we look forward to working with you to find a resolution to this. commissioner o'reilly, i want to thank you for your letter. and it was your statement of dissent on the choices in the all individual issue. and i agree that it is that it is regulation by speculation. and mr. chairman, you just said, you know, that hundreds are seeking a way to get on. talking about some of the independent producers and the content producers that are seeking an avenue for the

content they produce. and i have to tell you, you don't create equal opportunity by not paying people for what they have created. and, chairman pie, coming to you, i will have to tell you, a lot of my content producers that are there in tennessee, they are very concerned about the set-top box proposal and about honoring copyright. the text of the proposal is something that has caused them tremendous concern. and they talk about it. and they bring it up to me. the chairman had said, oh, we are going to honor those copyright laws. but then they are reading this and they are saying i don't see how this matches up. because it would mandate that pay tv providers transmit to third parties all the programming.

the pay tv provider's license, allowing third parties to use that without obtaining the permission of the copyright holders or of compensating them. and, you know, one of the concerns is the way the proposal explicitly declines to prohibit third parties from replacing or altering advertising or manipulating the content. so i would like for you to respond to me. doesn't the proposal exceed the fcc's authority and create conflicts between commission regulations and copyright and contract law? >> congresswoman, i believe its do. your constituents are not alone. many told us that this would compromise legitimate

intellectual property rights that content creators and minority content creators had in their creations. >> i thank you for that. i would hope that the commission would look very closely at what some of these innovators and content creators are pushing forward to the marketplace and protecting their copyright laws. to do this where you are looking at the set-top box proposal that is out there i think is a dangerous step. it diminishes the value of content. it diminishes the ability of those that have created this to be appropriately paid. it undercuts and undermines contract law. and for people who are innovating in this space as we have more delivery avenues that are opening up to us, i think that the proposal that is out

there is a dangerous proposal when it comes to the validity and the value of contracts and i yield back. >> gentle lady's time expired. we now go to the ranking memberq of the committee. >> i wanted to start with commissioner rosen morris, i wanted to thank you for coming up to my district before the last snowstorm to discuss the sandy act and how to improve communications during disasters. one idea we had coming out of these discussions is whether we could take a city in the area impacted by sandy where we could work with industry and government officials to develop best practices that could be used across the country. i just wanted to ask, do you think that that would be a worthwhile experiment. >> congressman palone. i have been in your district just after hurricane sandy and now before snowstorm jonas. i know that mother nature's wrath visits the new jersey

coastline with some frequency. and i think developing a smart city that's a resilient city on the coast is a terrific idea. and my hope is that by preparing for the worst we can take those best practices from new jersey and export them all around the country. >> thank you. i wanted to ask commissioner o'reilly about pirate radio. i wanted to personally thank you for leadership in addressing the spike in pirate radio stations. the last time you were here we talked about how this is an important issue. and i was hoping to be able to introduce a bill that would put a stop to these illegal signals. i know you have a long background in crafting legislation. do you have any suggestions for what to include in a bill like that? >> one of the issues that i've been working on and the commission has been gracious and the chairman has been gracious in helping me facilitate is getting to some of the money side of the equation. how do we dry up money for pirate radio broadcasters? i think that's something where we can focus in legislation and working with your good staff and trying to target how to get at the money part from -- and we have a number of people

advertising. we have political campaigns that are advertising on pirate radio stations. we have concert venues that are advertising. we need to figure out how best to go after the money side. but i want to be careful on that and i want to make sure it's narrowly targeted so we don't go after those that are trying to do a good job that are unfortunately captured in the universe such as building owners and renters. we want to go after those that are facilitating. not that's that may have provided some -- >> thank you. we'll work together. >> i'd like that. >> chairman wheeler, i released a discussion draft bill called the viewer protection bill that would make sure that consumers keep access to the channels that are staying on air channels they are watching before the spectrum

auction. at the same time it's critical that the bill is introduced with enough time to go through regular order so it's ready when the repacking process begins. i think it would be helpful for us all to better understand the schedule for the auction going forward. could you walk us through your estimate of how the next few months will play out, paying particular attention to when we would know how many broadcasters will need to be repacked? >> thank you mr. palone. as i said in my statement, the reverse auction bidding will start in may. exactly when in may, we don't know yet. it depends upon what we find out when we're sorting through all this data to come up with a channel plan. how long it lasts after that is a function of the marketplace. if i were a betting man -- and i have no insight into this because it's totally in control of the market not in control of

the commission, but i think we are looking at, if we start in may sometime late summer, early football season until we have a resolution. again, that's something that's totally out of our control and that the market will determine. >> all right. thank you all. appreciate your input on all these questions. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> chair now recognizes the gentlemen from texas, mr. barton, for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, and i well the commission to energy and commerce committee. so far no one has asked you one question about your budget which is theoretically while we're here. and i'm going to continue that tradition of not asking you questions about your budget. [ laughter ] my question, though, is extreme ly serious, actually. this morning we had three

explosions rock brussels airport and metro station. we think at least 26 people have been killed. there are over 100 that have been injured. the last time the commission was before this subcommittee was just after the paris attack. and i asked mr. wheeler then what the committee could do in conjunction with the fcc to try to counter these terrorist attacks and the way that they use internet to broadcast their terrorism. mr. commissioner, chairman, you mentioned that maybe the congress needed to update the definition of what a lawful intercept is under calea. have you all looked at that since you were before the committee? if so, do you have any recommendations for the committee? i want to be clear.

i'm not trying to ask the fcc to shut down the internet. but i do think that in an open society you can strike balance between openness and protecting the public good. so i'm going to ask the question to the chairman, but if the other commissioners want to chime in, you are very welcome to. >> thank you mr. barton. and yes, this is a tragic time and a terribly serious issue. congress has said to the fcc that our responsibility -- and i use that word not just our authority. our responsibility is to make sure that in the networks that we regulate, there is the equipment to carry out lawful

intercepts. that is the definition that congress has given us, and the scope of our authority. the question of what is a lawful intercept is something that is beyond the statutory authority that you have given us. the discussion that we had last time was to the effect that it is up to congress to make the determination as to what is the scope of a lawful intercept. but i will assure you, sir, that we will fully take the steps necessary to make sure that the equipment that is required to be able to make that lawful intercept is in place. >> okay. any of the other commissioners want to comment?

okay. on something a little bit more mundane, this issue of set-top boxes custom the chairman and congresswoman blackburn alluded to, i'm co-chair with the privacy caucus here in the house. there's a real concern that you are going to make it possible, perhaps inadvertently, to allow the collection of large amounts of data, perhaps even mega data, without the consent or knowledge of the customer, of the client. mr. chairman, you were not real forthcoming to our subcommittee chairman, mr. walden.

can you at least acknowledge that it is an issue and that we've got to be very cognizant to try to, whatever the commission does, protect the legitimate privacy rights of the individual? >> without a doubt, congressman, and let me see if i can be specific on this, because if you say i wasn't specific enough. section 631 of the act establishes privacy expectations on cable operators and satellite providers. and what our -- well, and they then have that relationship with roku and tivo and folks that they're working with, and say in their contracts with them, you will maintain the same kind of privacy protections that we do. and what we're saying that any

competitive box, set-top box or app, has to be able to make the same kind of assurances and that if those assurances are not made, that the cable operator then doesn't have to do business with that box. and that just like smart tvs and tablets and smart phones all have that same kind of ability to collect information and have the ftc oversight, that if -- that protections that we've put in place are still not sufficient, that the ftc has authority to do something. here as recently as last week the ftc put out a notice to smart tv manufacturers as they intended. >> my time is expired.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman. we'll turn to mr. doyle for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman wheeler, i want to thank you for your leadership on special access and for advancing this issue threw a very thorny process. it's critical that we get this right. and it's critical that we get this done. i believe our team is working diligently on this proceeding. i would only ask that as you work through this issue you be sensitive to the harm that's being done at this moment to competition across the country and that as you proceed you keep in mind that this is an ongoing issue that's not only hurting competitors, but hurting consumers as well. with regards to lifeline, as you move forward with lifeline reform, i've asked you to be mindful and ensure that low income americans can still use this program with no additional cost. opening up the program to more competition and enabling participants to choose how they use their subsidy is great, but i would ask you to take

particular care to ensure that free options remain available and that enough flexibility exists in the program so that people don't lose their access to this critical resource. with regards to privacy, thank you again for moving forward on this issue. i was happy to see the commission take action in the order to prohibit super cookies as well as the enforcement action it took on the same issue. however, i must say i was disappointed to not see a prohibition on deep packet inspection or a proposal to prohibit companies from manipulating consumers to giving up their privacy for a discount on their bills. privacy shouldn't be a luxury for a few that can afford it. so as you move forward with this proceeding, i would ask the commission to ensure that it is not enabling isps to charge consumers for their own privacy. finally on zero rating i remain concerned about zero rating in the marketplace. consumers by far prefer zero

rated apps. and services when faced with busting their data caps. this gives isps a natural advantage in the market place and enabled them to choose winners and losers. i don't think we need a blanket ban on zero rating. but when isps zero rate their own apps and when zero rating programs are anti-competitive consumers are being harmed. i would ask you to take action to police these programs. i went through all those quickly to give you some time. you and commissioner pie -- commissioner pie said quite a few things today that i think might have hurt your feelings. and i wanted to give you the opportunity to maybe comment on your stewardship of the commission. and also there seems to be a disagreement here on whether or not the issue of set-top boxes that copyright is being protected.

and that whether it's true, that people can take other people's content and not pay for it. so in the remaining 2:26, mr. chairman. >> that's all i have -- >> the floor is yours. >> let me see if i can tick through a couple of those. number one on the copyright issue, the interesting thing is that there are today competitive -- the equivalent of competitive set-top boxes available in the market. for instance, google chrome. now, a lot of things that we hear about, oh, this is google's big plan to take over cable tv. malarkey. the google chrome, which attaches in your port in your tv to allow you to get things off of the web, does not violate copyright, does not overlay commercials, does not do all of the horrible things that

everybody said a set-top box like that would do. so -- and -- because copyright law is sacrosanct. the second thing is i think the people would go crazy and revolt if something like that happened. that's on the copyright issue. secondly on the process issue. there is an interesting dichotomy of criticism that we have heard this morning. one is is that we have been operating in a unilateral fashion and not being collegial. and the other is that the collegial efforts that we have had to address process that haven't resulted in a consensus being built are somehow witness of a nefarious intent. i find those two to be in

conflict. to the other issues you list, you are absolutely right. lifeline, we have to make sure that lifeline is updated and that it is available. and the fascinating thing -- have i got time? the key thing here is that digital is cheaper than analogue voice. you notice that every single consumer who signs up to lte service, which is 80-some percent of americans get free unlimited voice? but if you are a poor person, we are limiting what you can do. we're saying you can't get on the internet, you can't have

access, we're going to stick you in this analogue world and that's one of the things that we're going to take on. >> thank you sir, glad your feelings weren't hurt. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> chair, the gentlemen's time has expired. now recognize mr. lotta from ohio. >> thank you very much. and to the commission thanks very much for being here today. and oddly enough, commissioner pie, i'm going to be talking to you and asking some questions about set-top boxes and integration bands, things like something that's been discussed quite a bit this morning. as you know, congressman green and i were able to secure language in stellar to rid the marketplace of an outdated technology and to foster greater competition and innovation. the fcc is now contemplating mandates that would leave multichannel. practicing distributors no choice but to provide a box on top of the third party device. this is once again going to bring us back to the problems of high consumer prices and higher energy costs as well. in this committee room when we

were having the second of energy before us he even said that about higher energy costs. you stated that the fcc should be seeking a boxless solution which i believe is the future of pay tv. does the apps-based proposal that was put forth through the downloadable security technical advisory committee, the dstac get consumers to a boxless world? let me ask you also as you answer that question, what we're looking at with the fcc's proposing, are we going forward, backward, staying static? i think with what the consumers out there want to know is where we are going to be in ten years, not where we were ten years ago. commissioner? >> thank you question the question congressman, if i could tackle the second question first, to encapsulate what the

fcc's approach has been is back to the future. instead of moving to an app based world where consumers can free themselves of expensive clunky equipment, the fcc is doubling down on 1990s technology. it's essentially going to force operators and the like to do one two of things, re-engineer their entire network or supply consumers with a second box. i submit that the natural effect is going to be the second because re-engineering a network is expensive. that's not what consumers want to do. i would have hoped that the agency, going to the first question, would have teed up in a full and fair manner the other proposal that the downloadable security technology advisory committee proposed. one it was to have the 1990s technology embraced again. the other one was an app based approach. instead there was a slanted three paragraph discussion in this huge document asking why the app base approach was all things bad.

i think if we allowed the american people to comment we wouldn't be in the pickle we are in where the former chairman of this committee said this is a 20th century solution to a problem the market has already solved on its own. >> why is that? why did the fcc do that? >> frequently the natural inclination as of late has been to solve problems that don't exist. secondly there is a recognition among some people that this marketplace hasn't developed as expected. i completely agree. the reason is that this marketplace is the creation of a 20-year regulatory framework that's highly intrusive. i would submit that technical mandates and agency micro management is not the way to get us to the next stage of the digital video revolution. instead we should embrace a consumer friendly approach, an apps based approach and let the marketplace develop free from some of these legacy regulations that have essentially held us back.

a set-top box is not the wave of the future. my kids will be familiar with being able to access the content they want on the device they want using an app or other device that they want. that is the future, not 1990s. >> let me follow up, commissioner. over the past several congresses, i have introduced a bill that would conduct a cost benefit analysis at the time of the proposed notice of rule making. again at the time the final rule is issues. i think it's foreign the public and the commission to have a better understanding of the monitoring impact of the fcc rules. in respect to the proposed set top box, i think would be a great value to identify the costs and benefits this rule could have, especially on small and medium providers. did the commission complete a cost benefit analysis of this rule? >> it did not. >> why not? >> frankly because if you objectively tallied up the possible costs and benefits it would be clear that the approach

would have yielded disadvantages to the consumer at the end of the day. >> thank you very much. and as my time expires, i yield back. thank you very much. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. now the gentleman from iowa, mr. lobesack. >> i apologize, mr. chair. i was thinking that i was not going to go for a little bit yet. but thanks to all of you for being here. i really appreciate this conversation we're having. i was going to ask about set-top box but i think it's been covered exhaustively. i to want to say, commissioner pie, i'm all for the jayhawks, too, because i'm an iowa state alum. hopefully the cyclones are going to do well as well. >> i can't sign on to that, congressman. >> that's all right. it's okay. i do speak to former congressman jim rank quite often about this issues as you might imagine. at any rate, and commissioner, i know you are all concerned about

rural broadband. thank you for your tremendous efforts on that front. look forward to seeing you in iowa down the road when we can chat with folks in iowa who are particularly concerned about this. thank you. what i'd like to do is first ask chairman wheeler about the enhanced transparency issue having to do with broadband development and small businesses. you had your particular order that was out there and i worked with chairman walden and other members recently to get a bipartisan bill passed where we have a different approach to that in terms of how we define small business and extend the period for the exemption, if you will, for these small broadband providers. there's really broad bipartisan support to make sure that we provide the necessary regulatory relief to these folks so that they really can, in fact, expand that broadband capability to as many folks in these rural areas as possible.

we're hopeful that the senate will take this up and the president will sign whatever legislation comes out of this. if that's not the case, might it be true that the fcc does intend to further exempt small providers from the enhanced transparency rules? >> thank you, congressman. as you know, we have exempted them and we've recently extended that exemption. any decision -- there's been a lot of talk about the transparency of process and everything here. it's inappropriate for me to sit here and say, oh, yes, there will be an extension or whatever. we will go through the process, we will build the appropriate record and act accordingly. >> right. and -- >> just basically what we've done thus far. >> recognizing that there is that bipartisan support here to extend it further. any others here want to comment on that particular issue? >> on that particular issue, as the chairman alluded to, we're going through a paper reduction process which will look at and

examine the impact on those particular carriers. i believe it's 100,000 aligned and below. i was pushed for them being exempted while we reviewed that and see if the impact is in proportion with their capacity. >> thank you. and also, chairman wheeler, on the incentive auction, mr. chairman, regarding the upcoming incentive auction itself, i'm concerned about the impact that the fcc's repacking plant might have on broadcasters and viewers in rural america, as you might imagine. if the fcc implements a regional repacking plan, will broadcasters in areas like iowa be repacked last because there's less of a spectrum crunch, and if so, can you assure me that broadcasters in rural markets will have as much time to transition as broadcasters in areas where there is a spectrum crunch? i'm concerned that there is a 39-month deadline to transition,

and whether broadcasters in rule areas may not be able to start right away. can you address that issue? >> thank you, congressman. this is one of the reasons why we have now, as the chairman indicated, begun the pivot to, okay, what happens after the auction. everybody is thinking about the bidding, but okay, then you have to implement it. we're putting together a team that will deal with that question. one of the proposals on the table right now is some kind of regional repacking plan. we have not yet made a decision on that. there are all kinds of extenuating circumstances that exist in various parts of the country. clearly it doesn't make sense to have the limited assets of folks who erect antennas racing hither and yon to be able to do things. we have to be able to manage that appropriately and to deal with the kinds of issues that you raise. i can't sit here and say, sir, i've got the written out answer, but i can say, sir, yes, we're on top of that. >> thank you very much.

again, as you can see the rural theme to my questions obviously. i know a lot of folks on this panel and on the larger committee have these very same concerns that i have on a bipartisan basis. that's why i've raised those issues. thank you, mr. chair. i'll yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a good hearing. i think we've talked about a broad range of different issues that you all are dealing with. i have two. one has already been asked so that will save me a little bit of time. in the country right now there is a revolt brewing in the country, and i attribute it to a couple things. one i think i attribute it to is an understanding of the legislative activities of passing of bills and then of bills being signed into law. also understanding that the

executive branch is defined by the constitution to enforce those laws. so when we see duly passed statutes in law and then an agency disregard that, that's kind of leading to this revolt and this frustration out there. i can say i just came through a primary and so i was with the public 24/7 for two months, and it is visceral and it is real. to commissioner pie, i want to ask this question first because this is an example. i think it spreads across the agencies, not just here. so, we passed a bill signed into law on joint service agreements that then delayed that for ten years. it wasn't ambiguous.

there weren't exceptions included. it just said all jsas. of course, i think you were surprised, i was shocked to see that last month that the chairman's office forcing parties to eliminate jsas through merger review. how is this not an example of this frustration out in america of an agency disregarding the clear statute of law and congressional intent, and could you comment on that? >> thank you for the congressman. unfortunately that's an example of the agencies disrespect the rule of law. it's pretty rare that this party reaches a bipartisan agreement on anything. in december of 2015, both houses of congress and the president instructed the agency to

grandfather existing joint sales agreements between certain broadcast tv stations. the agency simply thumbed its nose at that command and ordered the unwinding of certain sales agreements, including one joint samgs assails agreement by introversion in my home state of kansas which provides the only spanish language news in the state. it's obviously diverse programming that i and my fellow kansasens can benefit from but it's an express commitment to the congress that there's, quote, nothing in what we are doing that would make that go away. now, that was simply flouted and i think it is telling that a couple of weeks ago, a bipartisan group of 12 senators, including senators tim scott, charles schumer and others told the agency that it was, quote, bypassing congressional will and ignoring bipartisan concerns by forging ahead with this path. if the agency can't stick to the law, it's a majority of commissioners at any given point in time. that's not how i think the agency should operate under any

leadership. >> commissioner riley? >> i agree with my colleague on both the content and the point he is making and the points you have made. i take it to another example, and i know we've talked about set-top boxes in a number of different questions but if you look at the statute, the commission is taking this beyond the equipment itself and taking it to applications. the statute says converter boxes interactive communication boxes and other equipment. and yet we're taking it to applications. first we take equipment and interpret it to be software and then software goes to applications. applications have nothing to do with the set-top boxes that they operate today that would be covered by our rules. >> i just want to end on this because this kind of also talks about this aspect, i am very concerned about the fcc process debate and the opening statements on that. because maybe some of these things that have occurred, had

there been an open process -- i would call on the commissioners to enact civil disobedience and disregard the chairman's edict, and if the chairman can speak to people anyplace any time on something coming down, i would challenge you. i did some research -- no one has done that yet, but by golly, if there's ever a time to fight for transparency and the rule of law, it's now, it's in this environment, and i would encourage you to do that and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentleman for yielding back. now recognize the gentle lady from colorado. >> thank you so much. as a former constitutional lawyer, i was really quite dismayed to hear commissioner pie's testimony about that the commissioners are prohibited from commenting on future rules. chairman wheeler, someone asked you that question, and i didn't quite get the answer so i'm going to ask you a series of

questions and i'd like you to help me clarify this. under the current rules of the fcc, commissioners are prohibited from releasing the language of pending rules until they're voted on in the proceedings. is that right? >> yes, ma'am, for the final rule but on an mprm we put out the draft language. >> so you put out draft language, is that correct?prm w the draft language. >> so you put out draft language, is that correcnprm we the draft language. >> so you put out draft language, is that correct? >> the notice of proposal rule rulemakings that we vote on always include in them a rebuttable presumption, here's what we are proposing in terms of specific language -- >> stop, stop. now, you do put out proposed language. >> yes, ma'am. >> in the notice of proposed

rules making. then you debate on it and vote on it. >> yes, ma'am. >> then the rule is released, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> now, do you have a prohibition on commissioners talking about the proposed rules in advance of the vote? yes or no will work. >> no. >> thank you. >> because -- and we have these discussions. speeches, blogs -- as a person who spent 30 years practicing before the commission, i can assure you that throughout history there has been an ongoing dialogue where commissioners have been speaking out, speaking publicly, talking to the various parties. >> so under your leadership, what you're saying is that when there's a proposed rule making, commissioners are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights and speak about the pending proceedings, correct? >> nothing has changed -- >> can you just answer my question? >> i'm sorry, would you -- >> yes.

are commissioners allowed to speak publicly about proposed rule makings? >> they are allowed to speak about the substance of the rule making. >> right. >> the rule that they keep citing goes to can they take the specific language and circulate it. >> right. see, that's what i'm trying to help you get out. so they can talk about the proposed rule making. >> yes, ma'am. >> but they're not allowed to release the underlying language while it's still under consideration. is that correct? >> other than proposed rule making where it is -- >> what is the rationale for doing that? >> it has always been that way, ma'am. >> what's the rationale? >> i believe the rationale is in order to facilitate deliberation amongst the commissioners. >> great. thank you. that's all i was trying to ask you. now, commissioner clyburn, in your written testimony, you mentioned interest in how the

broadband can play a role in health care outcomes. as you might know, chairman upton and i and the rest of the commerce committee are working on 21st century cures. a lot of this bill relies on expansion of the ability to collect data and then to aggregate that data in clinical trials. and so i just wanted to let you know that i think what you're talking about is really important, and i think we need to be working together to make sure that we can get these benefits all around the country because part of the whole process with this big data and healthcare research is to get a much bigger diversity both gee geographically and ethnically of people who are involved in clinical trials. so i'd like to be able to work with you going forward to make sure we can achieve these ends. >> absolutely. we have a task force and we look forward to working with your office to realize the potential that health and technology, that

marriage, would bring. >> thanks. i've got a few seconds left. let me just go back to what i was talking to chairman wheeler about. what i was trying to get out of him is this. once it was explained to me, i can see a real reason why you would want the proposed actual language of the proposed rules to be handled through the chairman's office. you would want to have people be able to talk internally about that, and you wouldn't want people just releasing bits and pieces of that language. so i agree with that. but i also think it's important that the commissioners can exercise their first amendment rights without releasing that language, and i think that's what's happening now, so i think we just need to everybody take a deep breath and step back and try to have a little bit more comity on the commission. thank you. i yield back. >> thank the gentle woman for yielding back. i now recognize mr. lance from new jersey. >> thank you.

and i also practiced constitutional law in new jersey, and so i would like to ask commissioner pie and commissioner o'reilly to comment on the colloquy between my colleague, the congress women, and the chairman. >> thanks for the opportunity, congressman. it is flatly not true that commissioners have full and fair latitude to discuss what is in the commission proposal or commission order. right now i cannot hand you this document, which is the commission's notice of proposed rule making on privacy. i cannot quote you anything in this document. >> and if you were to do that, would you be subjected to some sort of legal action? >> absolutely. there are sanctions that are unspecified but i would have no doubt i would be given the benefit of lenity. >> commissioner o'reilly, this is as clear as mud.

>> i agree to the point that you may be concerned about the specific language being shared. the ideas themselves, nonpublic information is the term used in the rule. anything that's nonpublic. there's an idea in here -- >> presumably that is nonpublic. i do not know what is in that document of 15 or 20 or 30 pages and there's no way i, in the branch of government that's mentioned in article one of the constitution, i am not privy to that. is that accurate? >> that's accurate. >> commissioner pie? >> not only that, the rationale for keeping all of this secret is completely baseless. there's no reason why we couldn't have deliberations while still having transparency. first of all, we don't have internal deliberations now on any item of significance so the suggestion is inaccurate. even beyond that, there's no reason why if you propose a bill, congresswoman, there's no

reason why you and congressman lance canned sit down and hammer out agreements and have deliberations in a full and fair way. the agency is no different. the american public knows bha we propose to do before we propose to do it. >> if you were to release a portion of it or if you were to mischaracterize a portion of it, undoubtedly another member of the commission would say, no, this is the full and fair interpretation of the larger document. this happens in the branch of government in which we are involved and i would hope in the executive branch as well. so if, for some reason, you were to mischaracterize or not fully disclose the entire intent of the document under the marketplace of ideas, wouldn't that be corrected by another member of the commission, commissioner pie, commissioner o'reilly. >> absolutely right. >> i agree with your analysis but it actually happens today under the current structure.

the fact sheets that are being put out are inaccurate, and i don't have the right under our rules to correct them. >> you characterize them as inaccurate, and that may be true. that may not be true. i tend to think it's true. but regardless of whether it's true or not, what would be wrong with a full discussion? >> i would be fully comfortable releasing the information so we can make a judgment whether my analysis is right or wrong. >> commissioner pie? >> nothing would be better than to avoid all these he said/she said disputes by releasing the documents. that way at least no debate about context and everybody could see for himself or herself. >> whether or not this has been the situation over the years regarding the commission, do you believe, gentlemen, that it would be better moving forward if this were to change and why do you think it should change? >> whoever is leading the agency, republican or democrat,

i would hope that they would embrace the same spirit of transparency that the congress has in terms of making things public before they're voted upon. >> commissioner rosen, your comments on the discussion i've had with your colleagues?

#. i appreciate the discussion. that's a lifeline. access to broad band is absolutely essential for the participation in the 21st century economy. we all know that affordable has been a major obstacle for americans that live alongside the digital divide. we all know it's not a luxury but an absolute necessity. for parents -- for businesses and all our community and every american to succeed, i'm thrilled that the fcc is finally modernizing the lifeline program into the 21st seven try. it's been something i've been calling for since 2005.

now, as we do so, i hope the sec makes sure that these changes are beneficial to the low income consumers the program is designed to help and i believe others have brought up this concern and does not harm the vulnerable consumers and the lifeline consumers today. what i have heard is about the fcc's proposed changes to support for mobile voice service. and as we expand lifeline to broad bangd, we know that peopl still need to make calls in the case of an emergency. can you explain the proposed changes you are making to lifeline support. >> the goal is to create a glide path, a phase in where over the next 3 1/2 years, we are moving from an all analog lifeline service, to a digital lifeline

service where we can take advantage of the fact that a digital voice minute costs less than and an log voice minute, and by the sheer fact that we're not delivering things digitally, give those using your phone, in your example, access to the internet as well. let me give you a specific example. we are talking about two gigabits of data, being the minimum threshold in 2018, two gig bits of data for the price, would be giving the consumer access to 1,700 web pages and 900 minutes of voice talk. there are 50% of the existing

lifeline users use less than 100 minutes. 2/3 use less than 200 minutes, so what we're talking about here is a quantum leap in the ability to have access to minutes. and this incredible ability to access the internet. >> commissioner clyburn, think that you struck the right balance here. we are still deliberating, we are listening to parties, winding up our ex parte process. a lot of people didn't want to take this particular journey. we are on the cusp of making a tremendous changes for those 39 million households that are eligible and i'm looking forward to continuing to work with you to make sure that this program is one we can all be proud of.

>> spectrum is the invisible infrastructure that powers mobile networks. as we look ahead to 5g, networks will be transporting more data than ever before, a wired service also depens on wires. commission commissioner, do you agree that we need a competitive aspect market so that we can continue to lead the world in 5g. >> i agree with your assessment that our wireless networks require wired infrastructure as well. >> there's something that was said earlier from the panel about in search of a problem that doesn't have a solution or we don't need one, et cetera, et cetera, relative to set top

boxes, an i just want to put this on the record. since the telecommunications act, opened everything up to competition, including set top boxes. the price of everything else has gone down, 90%. the increase of fees for set top boxes has increased by 1185%. and o'it's consumers who are picking up the tab, it's essentially a monopoly. in my district, talk about boxes, they say think outside the box. we don't have any boxes, i think it's about time in the 21st century that we get rid of set top boxes.

>> i thank the fcc kpig nevers, chairman, did you have a chance to go out to the skyline barbecue at south by sweft? >> i went to salt lake. >> and the ncaa march madness, i'm a proud texan, guys, i have to tell you, the aggies from college station, texas a&m university, had the best college basketball game in history. we'll play kansas maybe in houston for the time four. my first question is about privacy. on input from the stake holders, before passing the rules, before, there are no

conclusions, but the texans i work for back home, say this privacy issue, this propose rule is full of conclusions, they say that's putting the cart before the horse. >> mr. rally, are there conclusions? >> yes, there are. >> there are conclusions. >> is there something like a notice of intent that was passed earlier this year to base this conclusion upon? >> i can tell the people back home, how they got there, where? why? >> i can't tell you the entire reason for this enterprise, it's important to remember that the ftc had run this entire -- it's

incumbent now upon the fcc to form late what the privatity rules will be on the internet provider space. >> in terms of cart before the horse, here's a quote from the fcc staffer working on the issue, in terms of precise information about how information is being used right now, i don't know that we have that. they didn't know what's being used by the isps today, but we don't have a solution. >> i won't say what they will say back home. but one final question, has commissioner caught himself in a corn, where to undo the rules, these new mandates, is this going to be hard to do? can we stop this? or has the train pretty much left the station? >> unfortunately, congressman, the commission is proposing to oll

leave the station in -- the agency's direction as you'll see is pretty clear. >> mr. riley, your comments? >> our constituents are so tired of going to court. it's one week away, not talk about this issue back home, with the texas association of broadcasters, the t.a.b. and they're worried about not being compensated, the towers may have to be moved and that costs a lot of money. and the fcc has not given any assurances. the example they gave is amarillo, texas, a decent sized town, they have nine tv stations

there, four spanish language stations, four. they came here to d.c., met with the fcc, and their concerns were basically dismissed, don't worry, it will be taken care of, all will be fine and if it's not fine, we got your back. that was not reassuring. does the fcc have enough funds to cover rural tv stations if they have to build a new power? is there somebody out there that can do that or is that a wish and a prayer? >> i don't know the answer to that and part of it is because we have a variable band plan. so we don't know how many people are going to be displaced, so some of that will require a little bit of time to figure out. what i have said is that i will be the first one here if the 1.5

isn't sufficient. >> that's one of the reasons why we should have treated the 1.5. >> the gentleman yields back, and with that, we recognize the yes has been from kentucky. >> thank you for doing what you're doing to ensure there's access to broad band throughout our country so that everyone can participate in the 21st century economy. come november, it's estimated by some that there will have been somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion on political advertising in this cycle.

a significant portion of it will be sppt by front groups that are under no requirement to disclose their donors. that's why 168 of our colleagues wrote to chairman wheeler asking to use it's authority under section 317 to require the disclosure of donors for all of these fun ads, funding organization ads, and we wrote in january, received this response, based on their deaf

nigsz of editorial -- using the scan dart of editorial control, based on a 1979 interpretation by staff as to what the standard should be for a sponsoring organization. you mentioned that in january proceedings that you expanded the requirements to cable companies and satellite providers and so forth as if that would be satisfactory to us. i think that's an internalization of the conception for the -- this standard of editorial control is absolutely the most useless stan dashed for the american people in trying to decide -- these

groups, americans for puppies and kittens, or the americans for a brighter tomorrow--the american petroleum institute, they want to form a group and fund it. can you imagine what would happen if the organization they founded, america for a brighter tomorrow ran ads saying we need to burn all fossil fuels? those ads wouldn't stay up very long. they don't have control, they're doing what their funders want them to the. that's why this is such a deceit that's being fostered on the american people. they have no idea that people are saying that puppies and kittens are great. in the we get this type of

disclosure, billions of dollars will be spent to deceive american voters and i don't understand why the commission would not at least enter into a review of the standard they're using, you are using to determine what is the most beneficial standard for deciding what a true sponsor is. sponsor is who pays for it. those entities who are paying for it are not being to be public. in tefrls of the public interest, in terms of a vital and open democracy, sand a transparent democracy, i would request, first of all, i would reassert our request to take action, but short of that, i would hope that maybe we could immediate with commission staff to talk about this whole notion of editorial control and see

exactly what their perception of editorial control is. as a former editor, i know who has control of the editorial process and i know who has control of the advertising process. this is saying we're running an ad called the prosoft drink ad. one of the advertising agencies instead of coca-cola, so i hope you'll reconsider this decision and do something that's more appropriate. >> mr. chairman, chairman wheeler, we have had conversations in the past regarding the rate regulation bill that i introduced last year and at the time of our initial conversation, there was a lot of concern regarding the authority

your commission possesses, but chooses to forebear for the most part in regards to regulation, and i appreciate the forbearance to that. we talked about putting into statutory law that would ensure yours and future commissions do not have the role of setting internet rates. but now since the time of our original conversation, you along with many of our colleagues in this committee somewhere said that the bill i introduced is far greater than it seems. i'm willing to work with anyone who's willing to work with me to make sure that the intent of the bill is moved forward in a reasonable manner. following conversations with members on both sides of the aisle, we passed what i think was an amendment to make sure that a number of issues brought

forward by my colleagues and yourself. in that hearing, i have the transcripts actually, you are against data that you will not regulate broad band rates. you sailed you would be operating with crenshaw, more specifically you agreed to provide them with assistance on march 15. would you be willing to provide that language to our bill when it's completed around march 29? >> yes, sir. >> in our recent -- given that i

read you the text of the bill before it was originally introduced, i'm a comit confused by your letter, so i just warnlts to clear something up. this is just yes or no, do you believe that the fcc should have the authority to regulate rates after the fact through enforcement? >> yes, sir. >> okay. >> what i was talking about was the request r question of d forebearing, and i believe that in the open internet rule, as we did, we should forebear from rating are wlags. th that's kind of inconsistent. >> here's the concept, for instance, chairman walden's amendment that you just read to us, the amendment to your original idea, when she said this will not have any impact on

rate regulations. >> i appreciate i and we're willing to work with you, but what i'm concerned got is you went from saying, hey, we're going to noer bear it, we have no sbhengs of regulating rates on the sbr net. we're willing to work with you on the details. >> so for instance, as chairman walden's position said, throttling could be rates, and we have all agreed we don't want to do throttling, because how do you throttle? there's a rate you are paying, you are delivering less than the service that you say you're going to offer. there is a rate impact.

>> do you believe that the open intern internet. >> i don't want the sec to regulate broad banged access rates, i don't want to -- i don't have a problem with congress codifying that, there should not be an objection when congress actually tries to codify that commitment. >> that's the -- to make these

laws, to make these things that we want our folks to live by or not live by. unfortunately, i'm confused but i'm out of town. >> i thanning the gentleman for yielding back. i recognize miss clark now from new york. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i thank our ranking member good afternoon chairman and the entire panel of commissioners i want to get right to my question. mr. chairman a former chief of staff to a democratic fcc commissioner, and i quote. if the fcc adopts the wheeler

proposal? final order later this year, it will embed a regime that creates more, not fewer hurdles, for smaller players, to pierce the silicon curtain, end quote. mr. chairman, you don't to state that you don't believe this disruption will -- has the fcc gathered evidence to this effect? has a disparity study been conducted to surface the unintended consequences of this proposal for programmers whose viability is not only improved with this business model?

>> you would consider a delay? >> i would. >> commissioner clyburn, i want to congratulate you on this bill. i know it will happen. i have a question about the

martinization of the life line program. i'm hearing from many constituents that they are concerned with the portion of the proposal that would start charging for services that have been free for years. i think that's been a consistent theme here this morning. would you further explain the proposal and the martinization of the lifeline program? >> what we were attempting to do, and it was a very simple objective. and it was to make sure that the lifeline looks like everyone else's options and opportunities. right now it just goes to finance voice services, in a world that's insufficient. particularly on a mobile voice

problem, they consider it to be a problem here. but what i want to assure you is, i'm going to take all those into consideration because i want, as i have, the option to pay little, none or more depe depending on -- my abilitynd what i want from the market and that is what we're attempting to create. all price points starting at zero. it is my wish that whatever your

meet is from a communication standpoint, that this is a program that answers your needs. >> i thank the gentle lady for yielding back. rooptly i was shown a quote attributable to a former venture capitalist, you, in regards to the faa captioning of what was then a regulation service. i would hope the commission recognizes that despite the fact that they have very capable and dedicated individuals, it's not smarter than the functions of the market blase. in that regard, i would just point to the cellular industry. the reason the industry has reached the point it has is because the fcc was smart enough to know that they didn't have all the knowledge, end quote. so looking at the situation with

bing on and other products, you have a team scrutinizing them, not with standing the overwhelming consumer response, it sounds like now the fcc's enforcement bureau does have all the knowledge in your opinion. what has changed in the fcc since you ahemade that statemen? >> far be it from me to change the statement. the model that we built for the open internet is based on section 3312 and what i was speaking about at that point in time.

so too do we then look at other common carrier responsibilities that may fall out and be affected by internet service providers. >> great. sounds like your position has changed, that now the enforcement bureau does one of our colleagues said earlier that we're not talking about your budget, which is -- on your watch, average personnel calls for employees in the enforcement bureau was the fact under chairman genokovski.

>> you have given me a piece of information that i was unaware of. can you get back to us? we'll take that question for the record. we would like to know that. also, chairman, wheeler, the fc clrks, as a matter of practice, sends a contingent of enforcement bureau to the super bowl, it's their job to ensure that no harmful interference interrupts broadcast or public safety, is that correct? >> yes. >> this group went this past february? >> yes, sir. >> i assume given the task that this group is responsible for, they can react to problems, is that correct? >> i don't know the answer to

that. >> can you get back to us on that? >> did the chief of the enforcement bureau attend the super bowl as part of the fcc's presence? >> i don't know, sir. >> and would you get back to us on that? and do you know if any chairman has attended the super bowl in the past? >> i don't know. >> sticking to you chairman wheeler but changing focus, as the head of an important agency, i'm sure you're aware of challenges like the epa, the state department with respect to the use of nonofficial means of communication, often to avoid or amend things like the freedom of information act and the federal records act. does the fcc have a policy that clearly requires fcc employ gees to comply with these obligations? and how do you enforce that policy and ensure that personal

cell phones and the right messaging over social media platforms are not used by your employees to avoid the sunshine and openness we expect in a regulatory agency like the fcc? >> you're saying what policy do we have to make sure that you don't do business on private -- >> yeah. >> that's policy. >> do you have that policy? >> yes. >> what do you do to enforce it? what kind of enforcement mechanism do you have? >> we don't go spying on our employees. >> how do you enforce it? >> we have the rule in place. >> so you don't enforce it. >> if there's a complaint made against the rule, i'm sure we would enforce it. >> what you're saying is that you don't enforce it. >> i thank the chair. concerning the isp privacy proposal, chairman wheeler, i believe that consumers should have control over their data,

what they disclose and how their data is used. recognizing that the average internet users may not be aware of the multiple entities such as the isp and the websites that collect their data. will your proposal ensure that consumers have an understanding of what entities are collecting their information? >> yes, sir. >> how will you do that? >> there are three legses to this duel. first is transparency, that it must be disclosed what information is being collected and then how that information is used when it is collected. a second is that you must be given choice insofar as do you want that information to be collected and used? and the third is that information must be secured so that it does not end up violating your privacy by leaking out to some other source?

>> will you going to require opt ins or opt outs? >> any information that is collected by an isp that may not be distributed to a nonisp. >> data security, at least in my opinion, one of the things you could co-is called out by requiring reasonable steps, but what does the commission mean by reasonable steps, what does that constitute? >> well, that is -- the reality is one company's solution may be

as adequate as another company's solution, but what we didnon't t to do is say here's is black and white cookie cutter that everybody has to do. there was one company that allowed their employees to operate -- allowed is the wrong word, under whose supervision their employees. >> we establish the expectation that we can do it. but there are multiple ways that it can be accomplished. >> i wrote a letter to you with mr. barton and ms. elmers

regarding the pray si issues under your proposals, i appreciate you responded, you got that later last week. how would consumers go about raising a potential violation of independent certification? >> so the enforcement exists as it does today under section 1 applicable to the second is an appropriate complaint to the ftc or the state a zbrks. >> we have the same privacy protections that get put in place today with set top boxes

such as r such as tivo and roku. some of our providers are saying that even with that very -- the most generous state subsidy in the united states, they're still not able to supply, provide the basic services that are warranted. how do you see that problem? >> we always knew there would be certain limitations in terms of allocation resources be it state or local. so what we are attempting to do

through our other initiatives and conversations and partnerships that we are continuing to forges is to ensure that the market has options that would be more in line with the affordable concept that you laid out. i think we're on the correct trajectory. >> we always knew that $9.25 from a federal coffer would not be enough in all cases to bridge the digital wide. as you mentioned, states like california, who recognize that, who complement the phone economically and we're hoping for more interaction with the private marketplace to bring things closer to affordable.

>> the chair now recognizrecogn >> we understand that a lot of row bow calls and tek messages are an unwanted part of life and should be limited as they are now under the telephone consumer protection act. but in some cases, customers have a legitimate need and a real desire to receive important information from some businesses. for example repairs, service restore ration or other important service updates. this is specially true in florida when we face emergencies like hurricanes. the tcpa does not apply to

nontelemarket information communications from utilities to their customers. does the commission plan to act on this? or can you comment on the status of the petition, please? >> thank you, congressman, we're dealing with several issues, i would love to get back to you with an answer. >> we recently had first net up here along with your public safety bureau. one of the things you discussed was a correlation with first net.

>> i don't believe so. >> is that a no, sir? >> commissioners o'reilly, the market definitions in the chairman's set top box propoed sal seems to have -- how consumers watch video today. the video market already competes for consumers giving numerous viewing options based on channels or bundled. isn't the fcc's market position backward looking considering where the market is going. >> our next question for the entire panel, is the commission

worried about all the cases being decided in court on a case by case basis? should the commission revisit and help to bring clarity to the issuing so the committee can have clear guidance? >> what we are trying to do queue to is the specific changes. the wireless subscriber has the rights to determine whether or not you get calls. >> so i interpreted your -- how

we look at them in mass, there are a lot of commonality to these calls and we will address them in such a manner that would be in sync with that. >> thank you. >> any other commissioner wish to comment? >> as the chairman alluded to, we did address auto dialer capacity in the summer of 2015. if i could make one point, it would be a plea, this is a law from 1991. and one of the challenges that the agency has right now is we are take we are as a result struggles with morrow bow calls for consumers and more challenging lawsuits for companies that never intended to be on the -- >> should the commission revisit

the definition and help reclarify the issues? >> i think as commissioner rosen russell pointed out, i think it would be helpful for the congress to update the consumer protection act. on one hand, to include everything for sophisticated. all these businesses are seeking temperaturation from the tcba's strictures. at the same time, the administration is exempting entire categories of favored row bow callers including government -- they get a pass, whereas a lot of these legitimate businesses. >> the chair now recognizes th

gentleman from new jersey, mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and before i give my remarks, i would like to with many others send out thoughts and prayers to the victims of the tragedy in brussels today including a u.s. service member and four of his family members that were injured and three mormon missionaries who were also injured too. which i and another note, note the passing of my predecessor's father, roy blunt passed away last night and i know a lot of folks had not heard that yet and i want to add to the accolade, even though he's not in the room, after he wrote wizard of oz, i thoug he would be done, i thought he could live off his residuals.

but he's a great, great guy. i was an optionor and a real estate broker for many years and i'm a salesman and a salesman has to be upbeat, optimistic and open. i wish him the best of luck over at the nab. and i just realized out in the hall that -- i know you can't tell by looking, but i look younger than him, i'm sure, but congratulations to ray on his move. commissioner rosen xz i want to commend you on your trip down to austin, promoting the broad band to rule areas, which is a very, very key object or whatever we have been working on, i too spoke in austin and i spoke on that very subject on delivering

broad band to the rural areas. there's studies and everything, it's critical that we get that down. chirm wheeler, in the spirit of john dingle, i'm going to ask you for yes or no answers to my questions. on your treatment of television sales agreements, i don't know if you're aware, in 2011, when the ef-5 tornado ripped through joplin killing 161 people in a town of 50,000, so everyone knew

someone from that tragedy. i. >> when it ripped through joplin. my doppler radar tracked a tornado, and it stated on the groungd for six miles, and the only reason that they were able to afford this peeing of equipment was the jfa. amgt i've got to admit that i was frustrated with the fcc when they made the decision to outlaw the jfa. also in my hometown of springfield, clearly many others in congress had the same frustration, which is why last year, we included a 10-year grandfather that was created before march of 2014, in the omnibus spending bill. chairman wheeler, were you aware of the passage of this law? >> yes, sir. >> okay, good.

i i thought when congress passed the law, but unfortunately to my surprise, i see the fcc decided to use the merger process to circumvent our recently passed law. is that, correct, yes, ma' yes ? >> no, sir. >> that's not correct? >> i'm aware that you argue that there's long standing press accident that gives fcc seegs the right to -- have you read the language in the omnibus bill. can you tell me if the omnibus language contains any exceptions? >> it talks about -- >> can you answer yes or no for me? let me repeat the question and i

would like a yes or no. can you tell me if that omnibus language contains any exceptions to the 10-year grandfather in the jsas? >> in the definition of. >> yes or no? can you give me a yes or no? it's a simple question. >> yes. >> did the language include any exception of merger reviews or sec president, yes or no? >> yes. >> in the case of an sec president which conflicts with a federal statute which trumps -- it's in the statute, isn't it? >> the statute does not conflict. >> it appears that others were as surprised as i was by your interpretation of the statute recently the 12 bipartisan senators represented a null political senator to sherman to senator blount and wicker

september you an e-mail telling you the intent of that language, namely the grant father's all jsas created before march 14. and you are in receipt of that letter, correct? >> thank you to our panel i am going to continue the tradition that we are carrying on here with congressman dingle and chairman wheeler, as you know, i have legislation requiring the fcc publish any rule changes on area website within 24 hours, hr 2589. transparency has been a -- i find it strange that some have balked at this proposal. so i wouldlike to ask you a few yes or no questions, does the fcc have the ability to publish rule changes online within 24 hours? >> yes.

>> they do? so you confirm that within 24 hours, we will be able to publish that information at the sec? >> you're ask the question, do we have the technical ability to publish within 24 hours? >> yes. >> and your answer is yes? >> yes. >> thank you. i want to move on to another subject, chairman wheeler, i have been a little disturbed to read about the fcc's quote anti-business buy yaz in a recent hill article. approximate commissioner's job to ensure that the communications marketplace is dpungsing to promolt benefits for consumers and not to be beholden to radical special interest groups, are you really listening to the wide range of stake holders involved in the fcc matters or is there a real bias as pointed out in this article? >> yes and no. >> there were two questionses is

there? one was to my listening and the other was was there a bias? >> yes. >> yes, there was a bias. >> in 2012, there was a white paper that was created. and mr. chairman, i ask for unanimous concept to submit this for the record. it was a white paper from one of these special interest groups called public knowledge, which seems to indicate that you're listening to very few voices, i look at the executive summary and find that there are four recommendations listed herea you have basically initiated by your administration sarnd i'll go through a couple of them one, the fcc should issue a declaratory ruling that multiprogramming distributors, goes on to say may not engage in unfair practices with regard to

online video distributors. you started at this process to that question, have you not started that question? >> i wasn't chairman in 2012. >> you were metro of the fcc at the time, though? >> no. >> i was -- basically the point i'm making is in this 2012, not that you were there in 2012, this white paper was generated in 2012. the point i'm trying to make is that you are adhering to this white paper? >> i'm sorry, ma'am, i'm unfamiliar with that white paper. >> i will just point out then that this particular white paper outlined that suggestion and you're following it. >> i will read it again for you, the fcc should issue a

declaratory ruling that video programming distributors and it goes on to say, may not engage in unfair methods of competition or deceptive acts and practices with regard to online video distributors. and that's part of the white paper. you started this process. with questions to that practice, is that not true? >> i guess. i apologize, an online video distributor. >> i tell you what, let's leaf that one aside. the fcc, and this is again in that white paper, the fcc should determine which regulations ought to apply to ovds who choose to operate as ovpds as well. have you not? >> i have proposed and then -- >> yes or no. >> have not moved on.

>> there again, i would like to submit a couple more of the quotes from the white paper, we're submitting the white paper for the record. but mr. chairman, i'll be honest and tell you, after watching this process, i'm not sure whose opinion you are actually taking. my time has expired and this is very troubling to me, stir, this is very troubling and i think that we need to take more time to acknowledge the fact that you may be taking opinions that are truly biassed and that's very frightening to me moving forward. and i yield back. >> did the gentleman said what he wanted to add to is last comment? >> basically, mr. chairman, and i thank you. i have a couple of quotes and basically i'm -- i will ask for those yes or no answers in written form thank you.

>> thank you witnesses, this is almost a three-hour hearing, i have to admit, i took a break and had lunch. but what would be a hearing without the new york guy asking about pirate radio. mr. wheeler, you and i have had this discussion back and forth. so in questions after following the march 19 oversight hearing, you were asked about the report that showed a decline in enforcement on pirate radio. and the question was, has any guidance or instruction been given by the office of the chairman or enforcement bureau to commission staff not to enforce the statute or commission rules with regard to unlawful operations? july 21, we did get a response, july 21, 2015 from you that stated, the office of the chairman and the endporsment

bureau have not given or instructed to the commission staff not to enforce the statute or commission rules with regard to unlawful operation? i'm assuming you remember that? >> okay. so, one week later, july 28, we spoke again in this hearing, and i asked you if there was any truth to the reports to the suggestion that the fcc had actually directed field offices to step down and back away from an enforcement. you responded, and i quote, "i have heard that." and you further added that any such command did not come from you. so, last december, the existence of an internal e-mail within the enforcement bureau -- this was last december -- was disclosed that in october of 2014, the staff of the bureau's northeast region was informed that the fcc's response to pirate radio

operations was being scaled back and the enforcement bureau would not be issuing notices of apparent liability to the majority of individuals engaged in such unlawful behavior. so, my question is, since that disclosure came forward last december, have you looked into that? >> i have not looked into that, which i maybe had, you know, was not -- at the time, if you read that into the record, i do not remember that. but i have taken serious interest in pirate radio. and i'm told that about 20% of the activities of the enforcement bureau are directed to pirate radio, that we've had about 130 enforcement actions last year that we continue on

that, and i would add my voice to commissioner o'reilly's comment earlier about one of the realities that we're finding here is that we need to get to those who enable it. we can't just pat ourselves on the back for playing whac-a-mole, that we need to get to those that enable it, and if there could be legislation that would address that and empower us to deal with it -- >> well, i've got a couple of questions. first of all, i would like, if you could, look into that directive and get back to our committee. >> thank you. >> about who issued that directive. we'd like to know where that came from. but also -- >> the e-mail does not say? i'm sorry, i just -- does the e-mail -- is there an e-mail? >> i don't have the details. >> okay. i will get on top of that. >> but real quickly, my last -- you just mentioned the need for congressional action to take on, you know, the landlords and the

others that might be behind the scenes working on this. but by the same token, there was recently released from the fcc an advisory notice from the enforcement bureau that stated that the fcc already has the ability to take fcc enforcement against those individuals. your own bulletin said that. so, i think that it's disingenuous to say you need congressional action when your own enforcement bureau regulation says you've already got the authority. >> we would love to come back to you and be able to specifically identify the legislative authority that we're talking about. >> but your own enforcement people say you've already got the authority, so i would encourage you to -- >> the question is what is the extent of that -- >> in my last 12 seconds, because i don't want to hold us over, i also want to ask the very direct question, because it's been suggested that senior managers of the enforcement bureau do not want to shut down

pirate radio operations because they serve certain communities, certainly within new york city, that might not have otherwise access to that. is there any truth in that? >> that would be wrong. >> so, there's no truth in that? and it would be wrong? >> that's news to me. >> well, i appreciate that fairly direct answer. i yield back. >> thank you for yielding back. the chair recognizes ranking member ms. eshoo. >> thank you. i have a unanimous consent request to place into the record, a compilation of documents. the documents include press reports documenting that broadband investment has not decreased as a result of the title ii reclassification. the documents also include an analysis of s.e.c. filings and earnings reports of the major telecom companies similarly showing that broadband investment has not decreased,

and also a letter relative to broadband privacy rulemaking, all of which we have shared with your counsel and ask that these be placed in the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i remind members that they have ten business -- first of all, i want to thank the panel for being with us today. thank you very much. i'm not used to sitting in this chair, so i almost forgot that part. thank you. thank you for being here. i remind members that they have ten business days to submit questions for the record and i ask the witnesses to respond to the questions promptly. members should submit their questions by the close of business on april 6th. without objection, the subcommittee is adjourned. >> thank you.

tonight on "the communicators," virginia representative bob goodlatte, chair of the house judiciary committee, talks about some of the key issues in technology, encryption, privacy, surveillance, and e-mail. he's joined by politico's technology reporter kate tumerello. >> encryption is an important thing and we have got to find our way through this not by weakening encryption but by continuing the effort to strengthen it. and you only need to look at the problems that we've had with foreign governments, with criminal enterprises, with just plain hackers stealing millions of documents from government agencies and millions of credit card records from retail establishments, from financial establishments, to know that we need to be moving towards stronger uses of encryption and stronger encryption itself. >> watch "the communicators"

tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. tonight on c-span, the supreme court cases that shaped our history come to light with the c-span series "landmark cases: historic supreme court decisions." our 12-part series explores real-life stories and constitutional dramas behind some of the most significant decisions in u.s. history. >> john marshall in marbury versus madison said, this is different, the constitution is a political document, it sets up the political structures, but it's also a law. and if it's a law, we have the courts to tell what it means, and that's binding on the other branches. >> what sets dred scott apart is the fact that it is the ultimate antipresidential case. it is exactly what you don't want to do. >> who should make the decisions about those debates? and lochner versus new york, the supreme court said it should make the decisions about those demarks. >> tonight we'll look at the case that established the constitution as the supreme law

of the united states and affirming the supreme court's power of judicial review, marbury v. madison, tonight at 10:00 eastern on c-span and c-span.org. later today, a review of the u.s./north korea nuclear agreement from 20 years ago and how lessons learned can be applied to the current u.s. agreement with iran. the carnegie endowment for international peace hosts this forum live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up on c-span3 next, american university hosts a forum on puerto rico's debt crisis and political status. then the potomac institute hosts a discussion on returning navy and marine corps commanders. after that, naacp president cornell brooks makes remarks at the national press club. legal scholars and