"politico." you can read more at politico.com. thanks for joining us. >> thanks for having me, bill. >> the sec held an open meeting and voted on several issues flgt robocall blocking regulations, media ownership rules. held in washington dc. this is four hours. >>

good morning. welcome to the november 201 meeting of the federal communication commission. madame secretary, announce the agenda for the morning. >> thank you chairman. good morning. for today's meeting you will hear eight items for consideration. first you will consider a report in order that would expressly authorize voice service providers to block certain types of row bow calls that falsely appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make out going calls. it would prohibit voice service providers from blocking 911 calls urpd the rules and encourage voice service providers to provide a mechanism to allow subscribers who le jet mat calls are in order to stop such blocking and clarify providers may exclude blocked

calls under these rules from their call completion report. second you will consider a report a second report in order and second further notice of proposed rule making order on reconsideration and memorandum opinion in order that would make available 1,700 megahertz of the additional high frequency spectrum. provide four gigahertz for satellite use. and service rules to promote robust deployment in the bands. and a second further notice of proposed rule making seeking comment on certain related earth station build out and licensing issues. third you will consider a report in order to eliminate the rirpt for historic preservation review why utility poles are replaced with substantially identical

poles that can support antenna or other wireless communication equipment and consolidate the commission historic preservation review rules and into a single rule. fourth you will consider a report and order to declaratory ruling and further notice of proposed rule making order that will revise and seek comment on further changes to commission poll attachment rule. net work change disclosure process and section 214 a discontinue process to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote broad band deployment and seek comment on taging targeted action to facility rebuilding and repairing broad band infrastructure after natural disaster. fifth you will consider a fourth report and order order on

reconsideration, memorandum opinion and order. notice of proposed rule making and notice of inquiry to adopt and propose measures to effective and efficiently bridge the digital divide nor lifeline skub scribers and reduce waste, fraud and abuse in the lifeline program. sixth you will consider an order on reconsideration and notice of proposed rule making that updates the commissions broadcast ownership and at trix rules to reflect the current media marketplace. that denies various other requests for reconsideration. finds the commission will adopt and incubator program to promote owner ship diversity and seek comment on how to structure and administer such a program. seventh you will consider a notice of proposed rule malk making that seeks comment on whether to eliminate 325. annual rrt of tv systems or ways

to modern use and streamline the form. eighth you will consider a report and order and further notice of proposed rule making authorizing tv broadcasters to use the nebs generation television transmission standard. on a voluntary market driven basis. this is your agenda for today. the first item entitled advanced methods to target and eliminate unlawful robo calls will be rented by the consumer and bureau. patrick weber will give the introduction. >> i'm sorry, madame secretary. can you repeat all that. i wasn't paying attention i'm just kidding. >> thank you. mr. weber, when ever you are ready. proceed. >> good morning. today i'm pleased to introduce an item that takes another

important step in combatting illegal calls. by enabling voice service providers to block obviously spoofed calls before they reach consumer phones. the item before you allows voice sfts providers to block certain types of spoofed caller id calls that are likely to be fraudulent. blocking these calls will help protect consumers from scams. and annoyance. the proposed rule have wide support from consumers and the industry. before turning the presentation over to staff. i would like to thank bureaus and offices for the assistance. office of general counsel. wire line competition bureau. the public safety and homeland security bureau. the office of planning and policy analysis. and the office of communication business opportunity. with me this morning are chief of consumer policy division. john b adams. deputy chief of the division. and karen sloeder. attorney advic add --

the truth in caller id makes it unlawful to spoof kal you are id information. with the intent to defraud, cause harm. or wrongfully obtain anything of value. so fraud ster who spoofs an irs phone number and demands money owed to the irs is breaking a law. a doctor using his personal phone to call patient can lawfully display his or her office phone number as the caller id. the time before you focuses on calls that are likely to be

illegal. because they use one of four types of phone numbers for their caller id information. these phone numbers either are not used by consumer to originate calls or as a technical matter cannot be used to originate calls. many of these numbers cannot be called back. requests that the out bound calls reporting to be from the number be blocked. for example, the irs could request the voice providers block calls reporting to be from telephone numbers it doesn't use for out going calls. next, the item authorizes voice service providers to block calls when the caller id information can't possibly be accurate. providers will be able to block calls reporting to be from north

american numbers that aren't valid. for example, numbers with area codes that don't exist. numbers that haven't been allocated by the north american numbering plan administrator to a provoider. and numbers allocated to a provider but in the currently in use. while the record generally indicates that the blocking of calls reporting to be from the four categories of numbers presents a very low risk of error. the item as oo precaution specifically prohibits including 911 emergency calls in the blocking. it encourages voice service providers that choose to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking error. the item before dwrou also seeks comment on two discreet issues related to the rules. first the item seeks comment on potential mechanism to ensure that a erroneously blocked calls

can be unblocked as quickly as possible. second the item seeks comment on ways to measure the effectiveness of the commission and industry robo calling effort. we recommend adoption of the item and request privilege to make technical and conforming edits. >> thank you. reproceed to comments from the bench. >> just last week as part of the nations vert rans day observance. we paid tribute to those that protect and serve. we show our gratitude and in a great many ways. to the men and women who fought for and defend our country. not just by saying thank you when we pass them by, but also by donating to veterans causes. so it is extremely disheartening to read reports about scammers who prey on our gratitude. that fraudulently call which pulls at our heart strings by

asking for money to help u.s. military members. one woman lost $2,400 because she believed that she was sending money to help a service member in need. sadly her story is not an isolated one. scams like this they happen too frequently. and we must do everything in power to stop them. according to to, 2.5 billion robe calls were made in nationwide last month. substantial number of them were unlawful. so today we establish rules to target these unlawful calls. by giving voice service providers the ability to block those calls. that are highly likely to be illegitimate. will the adoption of today reporting and order put an end

to unlawful calls for good? sadly, no. but doing nothing ensures things will get worse. so the commission has a responsibility to assess whether it can make a difference and even if that difference makes only a dent. a small dent at first. it will give notice to scammers that we mean business. i ask me colleagues to include a series of questions as part of a further notice. that could enable this agency and consumers to better assess the effectiveness of our calling efforts. i did so because i believe consumers have the right to know what kind of job the voice provider is doing. we already have valuable data at our disposal. through the fcc consumer complaint data center. and coupled with the reporting obligation on providers and

commission issued report on the state of row bow calling. i believe that we will be better positioned to evaluate our efforts to date and evaluate and again conclude any alternative means for combatting this persistent problem. so i am grateful to the chairman for agreeing to add this language and thankful to the consumer and government affairs for the ongoing efforts to stop this unlawful practice. >> thank you. we turn to commissioner o ryely. >> thank you. the commission further seeks to stem the flow of illegal calls to provide to block calls from invalid or unused numbers as well as numbers on the do not origin gnat list. typically calls from such numbers are from bad actors attempting to scam consumers. i afwree they should be blocked

under appropriate circumstances. at the same time i have heard concerns that blocking is increaseingly capturing what i call false positive. that is certain calls from legitimate businesses offering legal products and services to willing and authorized consumers are also being blocked. companies have reported it can be difficult and time consuming to dispute and remove inappropriate blocks. i'm sure someone will say it's just too bad calls are being blocked. real people will be hurt. inconvenienced or lose opportunities. consider the cases of legal calls the commission already exempted from the rule. such as pharmacy providing prescription notifications. schools contacting parents or guard yap yans when children are missing or energy communities alerting a community. these don't include legal retail commerce that can benefit consumers. unlike the do not call list where consumers take steps to

avoid certain calls, the order assumes that all consumers want to be blocked and allow providers to proceed without consent. lt role of the government is not protect citizens from themselves. i imagine this decision will need to be revisited at some point. the sanctioning of widespread blocking without approval and means to challenge false positives insults or vision of liberty and a recipe for future problems. therefore i appreciate the chairmans willingness to work with me to add a notice seeking comment on a process for legitimate companies to resolve call blocking disputes. after all, as the order makes clear it is a violation of federal law to block legitimate

calls. the record and experiences have shown to date it is already happening to have a clear process in place that would strike a better balance of providing certainty. and the avoiding the need for birzs to file complaints at the fcc. i will vote to approve. >> thank you. >> as my colleagues may recall, in september. my cell phone rang in the middle of the open meeting. i try to play it off. but colleagues were kind enough to call me out. which i appreciate. not surprisingly when i look at the number after meeting it was a row bow call. the calls can be a mu sans and embarrassment. they can be malicious. take for example irs scam calls. a caller will spoof an irs phone number. so their call appears in the victims caller id as coming from the irs. and attempt to defraud the

victim. today we take action to combat the types of illegal calls. specifically as we have heard we allow providers to block calls in response to so called do not originate request. for instance entities like the irs that have phone numbers that are never used to make out bound calls can request a call reporting to be from the in your opinions be blocked nrd to prevent malicious spoofing. totd's order we adopt rules permitting providers to block calls from unassigned numbers. notary public subscriber can originate a call from an unassigned number. these are highly likely to be fraudulent. importantly we make clear the rules were adopting today do not authorize the blocking of 911 calls under any circumstances. today action is not a silver bullet. it's a welcome part of the commissions new and much broader effort to address the problem of illegal row bow calls. i'm glad this year in 2017 the

commission elevated calls to the top enforcement priority. combatting them will require action on many fronts. from rule making to enforcement action. to industry and stake holder engagement. i want to thank in particular today the staff of the consumer and government affairs bureau for the work on this item. it has my support. >> thank you. >> all right. picture this. a family sits down to dinner, two parents, two kids. two jobs and two little time in the day. it's time around the table is special. it's sacred. it's a reprieve from the unrelenting chaos and hubbub of every day life. i know it well. this is true for my family and so many others. but night after night our family bliss is interrupted by rachel

from card member services. by someone claiming to be from the irs. or by some distant voice offering a cruise or vacation or subscription or something else i do not want. didn't order. and do not need. i don't think my family experience is all that unusual. i think my experience is incredibly common. and in fact this agency has the numbers to prove it. year in and year out. row bow calls are the largest single category of consumer complaint at the fcc. by one count there were 2.5 billion calls in the united states last month. that means more than 4,700 calls have been made since i started talking about a minute ago. that's sane. it's a good thing this agency is taking action and making this vexing calls a priority.

that's why i support today's action and allow carriers to block calls from invalid, unallocated and unassigned numbers and permit carries to block calls when the subscriber to a particular number asks for the number to be blocked. in order to prevent spoofing. maybe it will help prevent robo calls. i certainly hope so. let's be honest. this is tepid stuff. and we need to bring the heat. my blood boils when those calls come in. night after night. and when td strange voices and scams hold up many u line and invade my home. that's why the fcc needs to do more. a lot more. than just what we do here today. i think what we do here today has a real flaw. while the agency afrs carriers the ability to limit calls from what are likely to be fraudulent actors. we fail to prevent them from charging consumers for the

service. so this is the kicker. the fcc takes abs to reduce calls but then makes sure you and i can pay for the privilege. if you ask me, that's ridiculous. it's an insult to consumers who are fed up with the nuisance calls. so on this aspect of today decision i descent. >> it remains the number one category of consumer complaint. to the federal communication commission. as chairman i have repeatedly made clear that the fcc top consumer protection priority is aggressively pursuing this skorge. this report is one more step towards fulfilling that commitment. with the today's actions we give consumers new tools to protect themselves such as do not originate list. and unassigned number block. importantly we do so without piling more ineffective or inappropriate regulations upon industry. instead we're providing relief

from rules that are having the proverse effect of facilitying unwanted calls. i thank colleagues for the comments on this item and joining me in the endeavor. make no mistake this is not the end of the our efforts. we'll need to do more and we will. we'll building a strong foundation for figing illegal calls. today and in the days to come. i'm grateful to the staff for the efforts. the competition bureau. the public safety bureau. the enforcement bureau and the office of general counsel. the office of planning and policy analysis. and the office of communication business opportunity. with that we'll proceed to a vote on the. >> aye. >> the item is adopted with editorial privileges provided.

>> can you take us to item number two. >> mr. chairman, the second item will be presented by the international bureau. wireless telecommunication bureau and office of engineering and technology. it is entitled use of spectrum ban above gigahertz. chief of the wireless telecommunication bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you. madame secretary. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. it is my pleasure to introduce the spectrum frontier item. which continues our effort to make high frequency bans available for broad band and other use. this item would main ta the spectrum allocation and the flexible frame work the commission adopted in the 2016 report and order. and it would make available an

additional 1.7 gigahertz and wave spectrum for flexible wireless use. under similar rules. it also would take steps to provide maintain access to mill meet waver sprek trum for satellite and unlicensed uses. after the u.s. became the first country in the world to make these bands available for five g. and other wireless services, we have seen tremendous interest and investment in the bands. we hope to build on that success by making additional spectrum available. expanding our flexible frame work and eliminating burdensome regulatory requirements. the flexible market approach we're pursuing in the bands will help to ensure continued united states leadership and innovation in 5 g.

i am joined by chief of the office of engineering and technology. tom sullivan chief of the international bureau. blaze, chief of the broad band division and wireless bureau. michael ha deputy chief of the oet. chief of the sat satellite division. and attorney in the broad band division. in addition to the people who at the table i would like to thank the broader project team in wireless eot and ib. for the wrk on this item. as well as the staff of the public safety bureau enforcement bureau and office of general council. i particularly would like to recognize john deputy chief of the wireless bureau broad band division. for his continued leadership.

on this proceeding. >> good morning, mr. chairman. spectrum second report and order. order on reconsideration and memorandum opinion and order presented for your consideration today would take key steps to facility greater access. specifically the item would make an additional 1.8 gigahertz of spectrum available for 5 g deployment. this would be in addition to the nearly 4 gigahertz of licensed spectrum the commission previously made available. in the bands in the first report and order. the i testimony would make 700 megahertz available for flexible yous in the gigahertz band. for this band the item seeks comment on adding a requirement

similar to the opera blt requirements the commission adopted in the 28 gigahertz ban. and across the bands. in the 47 gigahertz band which spans from 47.2 to 48.2 gigahertz. the item would make one gigahertz of spectrum available. both bands would be licensed on the geographic area basis. the item would maintain the broad flexibility of satellite systems to operate in the 40 to 42 gigahertz. where satellite and user devices can deploy as needed. for the 28 gigahertz, 37 and 39 bands the item would ease certain le strixs on satellite and smaller markets while maintaining the use of the bands for 5 g. and addresses other use of spectrum beyond licensed mobile

devices. those rules built on the commission prior determination and proceeding to authorize part 15 unlicensed operations under rules similar to those applicable to the 57 to 64 gigahertz band. the item would decline to permit mobile operations in 70 and 80 gigahertz ban at this time. focus the development of those bands on fixed and other innovative uses. the respect to spectrum holding policy the item decline to limit the 24 and 47 gigahertz bands and update the spectrum screen applicable to secondary market tran transactions to account for the bands. finally decline to establish certain limits for individual bands. the item would seek to minimize regulatory burdens by declining to department unnecessary

regulatory requirements for example the item would eliminate previously adopted requirements that license security plans and related information and decline to require upper licenses to transmit digital call signs. the wireless telecommunication bureau and office of engineering and technology and the international bureau recommend adoption of this item. and request editorial privilege to make technical and conforming edits. >> when i voted to approve the first order. allowing mobile flexible use in the upper micro wave bands i commended the commission for shifting from the conventional model of exclusive and definite licenses to trying novel approaches such as user share rules for the bands. i say applying creative policy to the spectrum bands above 24 gigahertz would unleash invasion. spur additional competition and

incite boundless creativity. unfortunately, my excitement for the proceeding is now subdued. because by adopting this order, the commission majority turns its back on promoting competition in innovative spectrum policy. last year the agency adopted a preauction limit. so that no entity could acquire more than one-third of the spectrum and the 24, 38, 37 and 39 gigahertz band. substantial support from the commercial wireless industry for limits in those bands, including two other top four nationwide wireless carriers. smaller carriers and consumer advocates. the first further notice the commission also proposed to impose a similar limit on the amount of spectrum any one ent te could acquire in the 24 and 4

gigahertz ban. many support this proposal as well. in an attempt to understand the majority decision to reverse course, on the preauction ago gags limits. allow me to start with the current state of the industry and the communications acts mandate. the commercial wireless industry is highly concentrated. for antitrust purposes the u.s. department of justice uses a well known index. hhi. index of less than 1,500 as unconcentrated and markets with an hhi of over 2,500 as highly concentrated. the hhi index for commercial wireless market has been increasing every year.

it is now over 3,100. spectrum is a critical input to competition in this market. for this reason, section 309 j of the communication act requires the commission to design auction to prevent the excessive concentration of licenses and desimilar nate licenses among a variety of wide variety of applicants. a preauction spectrum ago gags limit is a neutral way to prevent the largest wireless companies from acquiring so much spectrum that smaller companies cannot offer competitive options to consumers. this is why i strongly supported a commission adoption of spectrum limits in the incentsive option. and in this proceeding. so why does a majority reverse those decisions here?

their primary reason is that beare making 4950 megahertz of millimeter wae spectrum available for flexible mobile use. relying on this amount of spectrum is not enough. to ensure licenses are distributed widely through the industry. companies have said that wide blocks consisting op 100 of mergts of spectrum are necessary to obtain the data speeds and capacity requirements of wireless 5 g uses. given the importance of the spectrum bands to the future of the commercial wireless industry the large wireless companies have the same incentive to acquire dominant holdings here. as they did with low band spectrum. removing spectrum ago regrags limits will likely lead to even greater concentration in the market. therefore i am unable to support

this policy reversal. second, today's order declines to permit user share in almost all of the part 30 bands. last year, when we proposed this policy, we spoke about the potential benefits of the approach. given the limited signal characteristics the lightly use case of millimeter wae spectrum is targeted. geographically limited coverage instead of traditional cell deployment. that means these spectrum bands are ideal candidates for user share approach and this could help us maximize the efficient use of spectrum. the primary reason the majority refuses to permit this innovative spectrum policy, is that a quote majority of commenters oppose the idea of any use or share mechanism.

the order then cites 14 comments. the public docket of the this proceeding shows at least 16 other parties who support user share. the order also says quote that there is only one territory tres yell operator on the record as supporting user share. but this finding ignores the fact that the wireless internet service provider association and the fixed wireless communication counsel all support user share. together those associations represent hundreds of communication companies. many of which are interest nd using these bands to provide in addition. why the majority is quick to

trumt the importance of cost benefit analysis. the order presents no real cost benefit analysis on this issue. the order simple hi lists general difficulties that might arise from implementing a use or share regime that a spectrum data base would coordinate. when you consider that the industry is making substantial progress, toward implementing a similar approach and the 3.5 gigahertz ban. this argue rings hollow. while the majority would have you believe that the record clearly supports its decision to not permit user share. a fair and objective are view of the record has a much different story. the providers would prefer the commission use the same licensing approach that accompanied traditional cellular

deployment. long term licenses. even though the spectrum ban is not conducive to traditional cellular deployment the majority demonstrates in this proceeding they will take whatever steps are necessary to give large established wireless providers whatever they want. despite my strong disagreement on the issues i concur with the other portions of the item. i thank my colleagues for agreeing to my edits on several issues including the size of the blocks in the 21st ban. declining to prohibit user share in the 37.0 to 37.6 gigahertz. and seeking comment on the proposal to impose operate blt on the 24 gigahertz ban. i have consistently said that to fully raelds a promise of 5 g

technology we should take in all of the above approach. but all of the above i mean ensuring that low income communities and urban and rural areas benefit as much as or more than a fluent communities in urban rule and sur burr ban area. i also mean that both satellite and wireless communication should be a part of the evolution towards 5 g services. and we should allocate sufficient unlicensed and licensed spectrum. this is as delicate balancing act. one we must strive to achieve. i want to thank you and the staff of the wireless telecommunication bureau. of the office of engineering and technology. for the hard work on item. >> thank you. today we consider two items. we consider two items that will

facility the development and deployment of the next generation system. we can all agree to make 5 g a reality and maintain u.s. leadership position in wireless technology which is of top priority the commission must provide adequate resources along with appropriate environment for investment innovation and employment. both putting more spectrum out in the marketplace and ensuring infrastructure can be timely and widely deployed. contrary to some other nations we do not execute industry policy in the united states. we do have the right and obligation to make spectrum bands available and establish a hospitable regulatory frame work for the commercial wireless providers so their creativity with flourish. i will not let the u.s. lose the race to 5 g due it regulatory. today's item starts with opening up an additional 1,700 megahertz

for in the bands. along with the band we previously identified the commission is made available almost 13 gig hert of millimeter wave spectrum for use. part of the first order of the proceeding i negotiated wd sdp pushed the heck out of chairman wheeler to seek comment on a handful of additional bands. at the time i acknowledge the not all bands maybe capable of handling additional use and the commission would need to be able to move on some bands sooner than others. these bands are ready to go now. i applaud for moving expeditiously. so we can create the spectrum pipeline for tomorrow. so to be true form i appreciate the chairman team is committed to mine to follow up this item with another in the first half of next year i expect the order will deal with remaining items in the 2016 notice.

should at minimum tee up 26 gigahertz. a band that's highly popular for 5 g interfashlly. commission must give further thought. all of the bands along with efforts under way in the proceeding provide a good foundation for future wireless technology. releasing more spectrum into the marketplace will ensure all interested parties have an opportunity to access spectrum resources. having an adequate supply of spectrum along with stringent and reasonable construction requirements or renewable standards will ensure spectrum and widely efficient. and not warehoused and had that the sector remains competitive. efforts by the commission to favor certain entities or engineer spectrum holdings in the past have been unsuccessful. further as i stated in 2016 we're in the early stages of 5

g. and what services will be offered. to achieve the capacity, speed and licensing goals. for the reasons i fully sport the decision not to implement preauctioned spectrum cap on a 24 or 47 gigahertz band. the commission should eliminate the preauction spectrum limit set for 28, 37 and 39 gig letters bands in the previous spectrum proceeding. i would prefer that we eliminate this cap today. i'm pleased we're proposed to eliminate the rule in the future notice. i'm not supportive of case by case review of millimeter wave spectrum holdings. post auction or secondary market transactions. as we have seen before these screens have habit of turning into spectrum caps. therefore the commission shouldn't be seeking comment on implementing a case by case review of post auction millimeter wae holdings. seeking comment on eliminating the secondary market screen.

i it should be known under no circumstances do i intend to vote in favor of denying or conditioning the approval of any auction or transfer application on the basis of the spectrum auction for spectrum option screen farce. additionally the commission must set an auction time line for the millimeter wave bands and others. not only do stake holder need time to prepare. we must move to get the spectrum to the market. i think thank the chairman for incorporating my edit. recognize that auctions cannot be held until we're able to secure a means for auction participants to submit up front payment. private banks are no longer willing to do this. i'm supportive of legislation efforts to permit auction deposits to be held by the u.s.

treasury. finally, i have focussed on wireless issues i would also like to acknowledge today's item recognizes need for sprek trum for future satellite systems. i appreciate the effort to provide flexibility to satellite providers. to extent the possible we should encourage earth stations to be placed in less densely populated areas opposed to urban ones. today i will vote to approve this item. >> thank you. last year the fcc allocated 12 gig hert of spectrum for 5 g and other next generation wireless services. with that decision the u.s. became the first country in the world to identify and open up bands for 5 g. the agencies leadership continues today. as we allocate another 1,700 megahertz of spectrum for advanced wireless offerings.

we take steps to ensure a variety of used cases can flourish and the millimeter wave bands. for instance we provide satellite operators. with additional flexibility to locate earth stations in the 28 gig hert bands. particularly in rural areas without impeding the deployment of offerings. similarly we decrease the size and increase the number of spectrum blocks in the 24 gigahertz band. to create additional opportunity for a range of providers and offerings. for example we eliminate rules that could have limited participation in future auctions we allow provoiders additional flexibility when it comes to securing 5 g net works and devices include k seeking input. these are all welcome steps.

at the same time we are certainly not resting here. we'll look at additional spectrum to open up. and reviewing the record between 3 and 24 gigahertz. i'm confident that the efforts will continue to bare fruit and consumers in the u.s. will soon benefit from the decisions. thank you to the staff. the international bureau. for your hard work. on this and all the spectrum items it has my support. >> with wireless net works there is something about the power of ten. every ten years a new technology changes everything. in the 1980s the very first generation of cell systems made inroads arn the world. in the second generation of mobile systems merged a deck raid later. dominated by the standard in europe. at the turn the third generation

both voice and data service made its debut in japan. before anywhere else. the start of this decade brought the united states to the forefront. because we led the world with the introduction of fourth generation wireless technology. we made smart phones and help put unprecedented computing power in the palms, polkts and purses. laurels are not fwood resting places because like clock work in a few short years we expect fifth generation or 5 g net works to arrive. already there is a consensus they will feature three things. first, they should be capable of gig bit speed. second they should have routesed to under a millisecond. and third, they should be more energy efficient. as a result there is now real momentum for 5 fw service. going forward the leadership of

the united states is by no means guaranteed. already south korea and japan are pursuing early 5 g deployment in time for the olympics in 2018 and 2020. they are willing to do this now even if it means upgrading their net works later to comply with global standards as they emerge. at the same time earlier this year all 28 european member states signed a flag ship agreement for the common foundation for future 5 g net work. china is also on course to be a world leader. with early work on global five g standards under way and commitment to invest 400 billion in 5 g infrastructure. between 2020 and 2023. it's time for the united states to really get going. to be clear we can take pride in our work here. making an additional 1,700 megahertz of millimeter wave spectrum available for flexible

use. we expand opportunity for inlicense use fostering new potential for wide gig innovationment at the same time we maintain 4 gigahertz of spectrum as core satellite bands and allow greater satellite flexibility and other millimeter wave bands especially in rural areas. i am pleased to support these efforts. we are not moving fast enough. we risk seating our current leadership in the world. we risk losing our innovative edge. we risk having the united states become a follower in the next generation of mobile technology. we need to do more than what we're doing here today. wla does more like. here are five ideas. first i think leadership in any technology cycle requires more than rule making. it requires action. we have authorized spectrum for mobile use in the 28, 37 and 39

gigahertz bands. and 24 and 47 gigahertz bands. we have teed up from spectrum for mobile use in the 32, 42 and 50 gigahertz bands. what we need now is more than a blitz of spectrum opportunity. we need something simple. a calendar. let's commit to deadlines for the bands we have under consideration and focus every actor in the wireless eco-system on getting something done. we can start with the 28 gigahertz band. right now south korea is working towards an auction of the air waves by october 2018. so here's my big idea. let's go first. let's hold our auction before our counter parts in asia. let's be the first in the world. i hope my colleagues will agree to the course second we continue to look high for new spectrum we

cannot forget we need to look like. commercializing bands will not be easy. give p the challenging propagation characteristics. simply putting your hand in front of a transmitter can result in the degradation of service. we can get there but it will take some work. in the meantime we need to move expeditiously with the review to bridge the gap to the high preekt si bands we discuss here. at the same time we need to correct course and move fast on the innovative ideas and original 3.5 proposal which the fcc reopened for rule making last month. third, it is essential that we move past the traditional by nar choice between license and unlicense services. we need more creative spectrum access strategy in the future. we do that here by.

we can do more to clarify funt opportunities for use of unlicensed spectrum in the band. by dismissing out standing petition seeking a frame work built only on exclusive use. fours, to build a bigger wireless future we need to focus on ground and sky. air waves alone are not enough. without good infrastructure. to do this we need to take a lack at tower sighting practices and make them consistent across the country. there's widespread agreement that this would help accelerate the deployment of 5 g. after all, five g requires to think about traditional tower setting. a new premium on small cells and figuring out how to get the cells in place and fiber facilities nearby is a big, really big infrastructure effort. of course making our local practices more consistent is

hard. we have a proud tradition of local control in the country that makes uniform one shot preemptive legislative policy a rough way to go. there are other ways to do this. right now work is under way on a model code for small cell and 5 g deplimt. if we produce something good we need to share the model fair and wide. and look at every aspect of the law from fcc policy to federal and state grant programs for basic infrastructure. and build incentive for everyone to use it. we need to remember that carrots can be swifter tool for change for sticks. we need to support the licensing system put this place a few months ago. providing an early and up front way to innovate and create. a safe space to play with power levels. exploers frequency and develop services. one of the new experimental

licenses is designed for innovation zones. this is like a virtual wireless sand box. it allows communities to expeere experiment with mobile solutions. it's ideal for exploring lt possibility of 5 g and millimeter wave service in a variety of settings. the fcc needs to fully support and encourage the use of the tools. and change them if we need to in order to encourage greater use. i think the five tasks are essential if the united states wants to lead in the nebs generation of wireless service. possibilities are exciting. if we seize them. after all, we are on the cusp of cars that drive themselves. streets that can be safer. emergency services that can be more effective. health care that is more personalized and more capability across the board because we are more connected. what we do here today is a small part of making that happen. for us to truly succeed we will

need to get going before other countries lead the way. >> thank you. i have long been struck by the insight from benedict that mobile is eating the world. as he's pointed out it is perfectly clear that mobile is the future of technology and of the internet. he has a strong foundation for saying this. mobile subscriptions have grown from a tiny fraction of the adult population to matching that population. leaving pc in the far distance. smart phones accelerate that trend. with 2.5 billion in use. the questions in wireless have changed. instead of debating over platform standards we contemplate what breakthroughs. artificial intelligence. could take advantage of tomorrow's wireless net work. that's where the fcc comes in.

those future net works will use spectrum in ways unimaginable a generation ago. going from a few massive cell towers to thousands of small cells operating at lower power. each of those factors counsels in favor of a forward thinking spectrum policy. we need to enter tus low, midand high band spectrum into the marketplace. we need to include a mix of license and unlicense. and satellite spectrum. and we need to encourage flexible use as we enter the 5 g future. this frontier decision flekts the goals and so doing further establishes american leadership. in five g. we earn courage satellite entrepreneur ship. and relaxing certain rules for earth stations. we also maintain the full 64 to 71 gigahertz band as a massive test bed for unlicense innovation. and we make a much more

millimeter wave spectrum available for wireless use. in particular we add 1,700 megahertz or if you want to be dramatic, 1.7 million kilohertz. on top of the spectrum we freed up last year. in short, we begin to set the table so that however mobile consumes the world whether it's a high band with virtual reality application or narrow band industrial use case. spectrum will not be the limiting factor. that's policy. two critical points on process. first this is not the epd of the work in the field but rather the beginning. according toly i plan o follow up by presenting the next item in the first half of next year. this will continue our commitment to enabling access to the high band frequencies. second, any future leap to get

the spectrum license requires legislation. as much as anyone i want to move forward with a high band spectrum auction in 2018. but currently we can't. as i have stated recently and repeatedly we cannot hold any large spectrum auction unless and until congress fixes the up front payment problem. i stand ready to assist any elected official. interested in helping us solve this problem. we'll do any and all leg work in the meantime. studying other bands for wireless use and moving forward through a rule making process to get them ready for option. promoting a u.s. leadership and 5 g is an all fcc expert. thanks to the staff who helped today make this result happen. from the wireless telecommunication bureau, the international bureau, public safety and homeland security. the enforcement bureau and the office of general council. your leadership will be helpful as we try to seek leadership in

the 5 g going forward. we'll move to a vote. >> aye. >> the chair votes aye as well. adopted. thanks to the staff for your work. >> madame secretary, item number three on the agenda. >> it will be presented by the wireless telecommunication bureau. it is entitled accelerating wireless broad band deployment. and chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you. madame secretary. >> all right. mr. stock dale. if you are ready.

feel pree to take the floor. >> for the next item, i am pleased to present to you the replacement utility poles report and order. i'm join pd at the table today by staff at the table, i would like to thank you jill springer and jennifer salas from our competition and infrastructure policy division for their work and all the competition ner's staff listed on the side for the input. david will present the item. >> thank you don. good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. the draft order before you is designed to limeliminate the infrastructure. this order focuses on a cat

fwoir of projects, the replacement of utility poles with identical poles. increasingably utility poles are being used to support old ante thats. the item before you would eliminate the climate that historic preservation review be conducted before licensing and tower company may begin construction of these replacement utility poles provided they meet criteria. it's based on the findings that such project has no attempt to restrict. this applies to all federal agencies including the commission. that statute provide that before undertaking the agency must consider the undertaking effect

on buildings and siting eligible for protection as historic properties. agencies may restrain from conducting such review if they find a category has no potential to effect historic properties. this will find the replacement of utility poles meet this standard and such projects need not undergo historic preservation review as long as, number one, the original pole itself is not historic property. number two, the replacement pole will be placed in the same location as the original pole or no more than 10 feet away. and will cause no new ground disturbance. number three, the replacement will be no more than 10% or 5 feet taller than the original, whichever is greater. number four, the replacement will have an appearance with the original. this narrow may change to the --

will have no effect on any historic properties but could yield significant benefits for wireless consumers, making it easier for carriers to destroy other equipment on repraisism poles. there are currently a variety of rules and orders, this order will fit them into a single rule. that should make it easy for parties to find, understand and be in come plyment with these orders. thank you. >> thank you. we'll now share comments from the bench. >> next wireless generation deserves next generation infrastructure policies. this calls for promotions

that -- tribal nations, wireless and tower companies are all integral in leading and implementing both sought after policy objectives. earlier there year my office released a 2020 call to protection plan which outlines several recommendations making the case for much needed collaboration. they include stake holder committees that embrace stake holder companies. to help resolve different pieces of the infrastructure puzzle and demand for services where the economic case for build out is weaker. insuring transparency on both sides of the table. creating capacity from permitting and make ready work.

making municipal assets such as fiber, light and power poles available on nondiscriminatory and attractive terms. during my office's ex parte's pleating on this item, tower and wireless company recommended broader replacement poles with proposals that embraced a number of these elements. for those parties this order may seem like a modest first step. i support the replacement utility pole rules adopted today, because for the most part we follow the proper collab tifr approach. in our initial draft we identified a few criteria that would exempt replacement poles from the preservation of the

viewing process but the industry propose sensible changes to the location and high criteria. they include exempting yaultty replacement holes if they are sited within new holes of 10 feet of the original hole. inviting doing so does not result in new ground disturbance and if the height of the replacement poles are no more than 10% taller than the poles they replaced. then the staff reached out for its approval. while the record is less clear on how much coordination our office staff had with tribal representatives, the infrastructure issues we will face in the future are likely to be more difficult than the one we address today. so it is critical that set set the stage now for robust accord nation with all relevant stake

holders including tribal representatives. it was a plsh working with commissioner carr and my colleagues on this wireless infrastructure reform effort. and i wish to thank the wireless communication education bureau. i'm so excited i couldn't get it out, for your work on this item. thank you. >> commissioner riley. >> thank you. to be sure the necessary infrastructure is deployed to deliver wireless services to the wireless consumer. the replacement poles does not fix the entirety of the problem, it should produce some processing delays along with total amount of fees that customers are paying to net the necessary approvals for the siting.

the -- it became apparently how the item may not site how replacement poles are sited. replacement poles are not placed in the location as the original pole, instead it is placed next to it so the other wires can be transferred over. no one wants an electrical wire laying on the ground. a material pole sometimes needs to be changed from wood to metal. the item we are voting on take into account these realities. poles within 10 feet of the original will be excluded from historic preservation review, provided they are previously on undisturbed ground. this is also an added benefit of allowing providers the ability to increase the sir come fresno of their poles. further, a replacement pole 5 feet taller than the original changes in material as long as

their consistent in quality are also exempted from our view. a replacement pole can be increased in size to 10 feet without going through historic review. i appreciate commissioner carr's leadership on infrastructure and the chairman and my colleague's willingness to accept my suggestions. i approve and look forward to future items that will tackle infrastructure issues such as twilight tower, the tribal review policy. >> thank you commission near o'rally. commissioner carr. >> thanks. as i said before, the current regular story ra yeem -- regulatory regime is not going to work when it comes to deployment of next generation networks. it takes too long and cost too much. so the fcc is looking at a number of areas for reform.

envinyl historic review procedures. the tribal review mechanisms and federal relations. i welcome the chance to lead commissioner's efforts on these fronts and today's order is a first step to celebrate wireless infrastructure deployment. in this order the commissioner reaching the determination that swapping out utility poles for purpose of adding antennas or other wireless equipment can be done without any impact on historic properties. this provide relief on eliminating what could have been time concerning for replacement. i'm glad my colleagues and i have been able to work together and reach a consensus on changes to the item. for now the order allows replacement poles to be sited up to 10 feet from the original

pole. it can now be up to 5 feet taller than the original rather than being limited. we agree to add language to the order that emphasis the important and long-standing requirement that companies must cease work if they discover any historical artifacts and commence the notification in the process. combine this will span today's decision while continuing to ensure there'd be no impact on historic properties. i look forward to continuing to work with my cleelgs as well as all stake holders as additional steps are taken. thanks. >> thank you commissioner car. >> this is a smart and thoughtful effort to update or rev practices regarding utility poles. i appreciate the back and forth in the last two days with my

colleagues, i will not have a statement and simply say that i support your efforts. thanks. >> thank you commissioner. >> ain't going to happen. >> if someone want it, got a stock for you. came prepared. thank you commissioner. vincent van go one of the gifted painters in history once says great things are done by a series of small thing brought together. it is in this vain that we adopt this order. specifically we exclude replacement utility poles from the burdens currently imposed by our historic reservation rules. this is help empower the 5g net works. significantly we only provide this relief where the replacement utility pole will

not affect historic property. so, this is not a case of replacing van go's masterpiece with the crayola creations i make with my kids, it's simply one pole for another pole. that simple change should be accompanied i think by red tape, and i'm sure my colleagues agreeism ooud like to gave thank to commission near carr for agreeing to take the lead, and i look forward to working with him and all my colleagues as we move forward with additional infrastructure streamlining initiatives. thanks as well to the dedicated staff that worked on this item. with that we'll proceed to vote on the item.

the i'm's adopted as requested. we'll now turn to the secretary temporary the next item on the agenda. >> the fourth item on your agenda will be presented by the wire line bureau. it's entitled accelerating wide broad ban deployment while we moving barrier. chris monotina fey, chief of bureau will give the intersection. >> thanks. miss monteith when your ready the floor is yours. >> good morning mr. chairman and commissioners. >> good morning. >> the bureau presents for your consideration an important order, declaratory ruling and federal notice of proposed rule making on slering wire line

broad ban infrastructure deployment. this item if adopted will implement several important reforms aimed at removing unnecessary regulatory barriers to the high of high-speed broadband netd networks. it'll allow towards the construction of next general right's networks, bringing innovative new broadband services to consumers. i'd like to thank the division team for their work on this proceeding. our colleagues in the consumer and governmental affairs, enforcement and wireless communication bureaus and the in the offices of counsel and planning provided us with invaluable input. seated at the table with me, lisa hone, associate achieve.

and daniel cone, division chief terry, deputy division chief adam coastly, and zack ross. attorney adviser. zach wi zack will present the item. >> good morning. this rule if adopted will take several steps to accelerate the deployment of the networks. the important order called fies a rule excluding costs from whole tax rates. it also establishes a 180-day of stock shock. additionally it creates a system of infrastructure access, providing incumbent local exchange carriers guarantee to

access of poles by other carriers. the order expedites the process and eliminate unnecessary requirements. it also eliminates the rules -- and adopts streamlined copper retirement notice procedures related to force majority events. in addition, the important order streamline the section 2.38. two, discontinued previously grandfathered low speed data services and three, discontinue low speed legacy voice and data services with no customers. finally, the report and order clarifies a carrier must

consider its own customers when determines it must seek approval from the commission. the declaratory ruling reverses the functional test adopted by the commission in 2014 which diverts investment from next generation networks into outdated services. the further notice pole making request comment on further modification to our rules on further proposal to streamline our change and notification and discontinue rules, and on targeted actions to stipulate deploy -- facilitate deployment actions. thank you. >> thank mr. russ. comments from the bench beginning with commissioner clayborn. >> we must not lose sight in the midst of our high-profile debate

aren't media ownership, that many of the most fundamental protections, the fcc put in pla recent years for consumers of legacy voice servers are moments away from being dumped in the trash from regulatory history. all of this is being done under the guise of advancing infrastructure. here, i am talking about how our technology transition protections are being evaporated under the majority, carrier-first agenda. over the past couple years, the fcc has balanced attention between two competing goals. machine mizing the burden on industry when i comes to transitioning one item to the other. and protecting the consumer that

they know and understand to one that may be quite unfamiliar. in that vain, the commission previously adopted a variety of rules regarding network changes, copper retirement and service discontinues. i stated back then that i believe we struck the appropriate consumer-first balance, but today that balance has been upset. back in 2015, i reflected on the comparison between these technology transitions and the dujtal television transition. apparently, that reflection is still relevant since at least one party to this proceeding continue to eyal jiez -- analogize it to this. what was striking to me then and now is the difference between these two transitions when it

comes to ensuring that consumers understand and are prepared for the technology transitions ahead. what dpt transition, billions of dollars were spent on multi proceed ya consumer education as well as standard outreach and a subsidy for converter boxes. everyone knew the ztp was coming and all this work was done from 16 to 19 million households that did not subscribe to paid t.v. contrast that with the 49 million households and businesses that still use a landline today. there's no significant outreach campaign planned and no subsidize converter for equipment that may no longer work, and it is beginning to show. consumers are fearful of these

changes and have commented to that effect in the record. as i mentioned in my statement when we started this proceeding, i have not heard from a single consumer that has asked for their landline to be taken away more quickly. and just how do we follow up with that today? by rolling back protections we put in place to ease the transition for consumers and competitors. procedurally the item tries to have its cake and eat it too. it talks about hundreds of millions of dollars in impact from rolling back these consumer protections, yet it deducts no analysis, something the majority said should be required for rules and especially with those rules with significant impact. here the item claims to have a significant impact, but where is the supportive cost benefit

analysis? sub substantiatively the item is highly problem ma high highly problematic from all the reasons i have articulated. consumers need help in changing to these services when things go wrong. this item will shorten or eliminate relevant notice period and ensure the fcc is nowhere to be found when something goes wrong with the consumer alarm system. a business emergency call button or other service reliant on legacy infrastructure. in the interest of time in inc. i will only mention a few issues here. the item enables carriers to maintain their copper infrastructure without notice to consumers. as the misplaced reasoning in this item goes, carriers have an incentive to maintain their

proper, else they will lose customers. but these incentives are actually reversed much of the time. congress sited on this competition has more wireless service that they offer as costlier substitutes if copper is degraded. and that is what is happening in the field. i heard just last week about a customer whose if i canned broad ban speed was so slow that she spend hundreds of dollars a month on a mobile hot spot just to stay connected. saddling consumers with -- and allowing provider to retire their copper without notice. this item reduces notice period for a variety of scenarios making it harder for consumers,

states, government agencyings and competitive carriers to understand and react to changes in their network. indeed, the item outright ignored output for our senior agency when it pleads with the commission to retain retirements that carriers provide notice to and work with government customers. several years back when we interpreted section 214 of the communications act, to un conclude the functionality provided to the consumer rather than put what carrier said it was offering i voted to side with consumers and innovators. to understand why this revised definition is anti-consumer and anti-innovation, consider the carter phone. a radio invented in the 1960s to help rain chers answer the phone while not inside their residence. at&t defined its service at the time to include equipment and is

contract and tears prohibit users from attaching any equipment not provided by at&t to any facilities furnished by at&t. it took mr. carter years of rangling with the telephone company to allowing his device on the network. allowing service to be defined by the carrier risk these sorts of issues happening all over again. it is true that we should not keep an entire copper network alive for two fax machines but at the same time, it is dangerous precedent to see to a carrier the definition of a service. imagine the tariff that excluded cost to high-cost areas, or one that only permitted use of the carrier's alarm system and disallowed others. and if a group of skplconsumers

using their legacy line for a service and that cable disabled that functionality, has not service been discontinued for that person or community, i believe so. if this carrier's first item were not bad enough, it is slanted towards the largest incumbents. with all of the discussions around creating reciprocal system of access to infrastructure i thought it would make sense to revisit our decision that prohibited competitors from accessing incumbent's con due wit, a decision from which i descented years ago. sadly like the rest of my requests, this too were denied. if you believe the order and declaratory ruling was bad the further notice will make your head explode. i will simply note the majority of the item the commission seeks further notice on are eyelet of

the wish list. the further seeks -- order by seeking comment on rather a single interconnected voip service withoutfully service quality or other requirements should enable stream lin discontinue once of legacy voice service. it also seeks comments on whether we should streamline discontinue onces for -- recover better from disasters by preempting their regularities as if natural disasters somehow rendered states and localities unable to figure out what was best for their communities. if i have left you with any doubt on where on stand on this item let me clear it up for you right now.

i respect my descent. nonetheless i thank the bureaus for their work on these items, these are difficult issues and you have spent long long hours addressing them. my hope is today that we can come to a consensus on important issues sometime in the near future. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner other riley. >> thank you. i commend the chairman on this meeting. reduce unnecessary regulatory compliance cost. also restores the correct interpretation of section 214 of the act, making clear the provision does not extend -- i will vote to approve. >> commissioner carr. >> thanks. to cloed the divide we need to make it easier for providers to

deploy threatworks. for year the fcc has stood in the way. so i'm clear -- while ensuring -- [inaudible]. these actions will make a real difference, particularly for those living in rural and less densely populated parts of the country. areas that might otherwise miss out on advanced wireless deployment. the fcc can clip the business case for thousands of communities. regulatory reforms can make it economical for fine -- to 26.7 million more homes than under the existing regime. that's an additional 45.3 billion in private sector investment that can be

incentivize simply by moving to deployment. by sirch fieing the notice rules for copper retirement androadsing the waiting period. in addition, the order will help mitigate the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes by encouraging the timely restoration of communication services for consumers. we also support the deployment of next generation networks by shortening the time frames, for couriers to discontinue low speed legacy services and providing -- by eliminating the misguided functional test. i also appreciate my colleague's willingness. so we -- as of right. coddifing this approach can help drive fiber deployments deeper

into the network without the meed for costly and time consuming regulatory approvals. these are all important steps that will make it easier for consumers to benefit. so the order has my support and thank you to the staff of the wire line competition beau roar for your hard work on this matter. >> broadband is more than a technology, it's a platform for opportunity. every closure this agency make should further that opportunity for all of us. that is how i believe we build a more powerful future. i think it's our duty under the law. this is a duty i think this agency should take seriously. but here in this proceeding purportedly by siting broadband

deployment the agency fails this. this proceeding is fundamentally about notice, as a result of the actions the fcc takes today, households and businesses in communities across the country may find their service altered without advance warning and no guarantee of an equivalent replacement. recognize that rural areas are at special risk because the economic favors removing facilities without putting in place truly come rabble service. i know networks need to be updated, i understand the need to swap out old services and replace them with new infrastructure, but it defies logic to suggest this can be done without working closely

with the community and consumers where network change is going to hit. those that were affected by change, consumer businesses, state officials, tribal authorities and first responders, the fcc says tough, figure it out. you're on your own. because i think this is cold and cruel comfort for the millions who we lie on this today, i descent. at the risk of being tech krask but also in an effort we read thing carefully. i'm going to approve one as spect of today's decision. i believe the order accurately restate the law with respect to exclusion of capital expenses reoccurring of make ready cost. i believe this clarity can truly help facility broadband deployment in a manner that can

very well be consumer friendly. on this discreet access of today's decision i offer my support. >> thank you commissioner. it seems like ancient history now but at one time fax machines were thought to be the commonly ground of offices. when i joined the fcc if 2012 i was surprised to learn, number one i had a fax machine, and number two the agency default was to include a fax machine number on business cards. technology and consumer's expectations about it outways to the bulky device that plays critical roles in movies like "the firm" and "back to the future ii." that all ip world is one that is

more resilient, robust and competitive, and that is why a key to closing the digital divide is maximizing provider's ability and willingness to investigate in the modern -- invest in the net work that fuel the committee. having to maintain two networks, one legacy, one modern dwerts resources away from new deployments. my definition, every dollar spent maintaining fading copper networks is by definition of dollar that cannot be spent on fiber and these dollars are substantial. one estimate found company can save -- nationwide, that translates into billions of dollars annually that could be devoted to next generation networks. that general opportunity is

denied. so, today we act to remover excessive regulation that is slowing the ip position. we've streamlined our carrier rules so carriers can switch that benefit consumers. and speed the process. and we turn back the misguided function fall test which established a mother may i approach to building networks, one that concerned both consumers and companies. this decision will benefit rural america. as it is the business case for installing infrastructure in low density areas can be hard. forcing companies and capital through border control makes it larder. promoting more market decisions

will improve communication for broadband helping communities. one stade found that -- study found a package of reforms, including one we adopted today will make it -- these are people and places that for too long have been on the wrng side of the digital divide. now, unfortunately, though unsurprisingly, some who oppose this decision have engaged in fear mungering, claiming consumers will suddenly be left without service or that service will be taken away without notice. so, let's set the record straight. if a carrier wants to stop offering -- seeking permission through the fcc, section 214 discontinue wants process. that is true today and will be true after this order is adopted.

likewise. the claim this order leaves those with disabilities. we warn carriers attempting to seek -- must as a matter of law ensure the replacement service is accessible, compatible and usable to the persons will disabilities. it is also ironic many of those oppose to accelerating the transition are upset about what they claim is a lack of competition in the broadband market and the dominance of companies using other technologies. well, you can't have it both ways, either you want to enable a company with 20th century copper or plant to compete in the 21st century or you don't. if you don't, then you can't or shouldn't complain about the lack of competitor closure at the broadband standard. the bottom line is that the ip transition is here and consumers are better off with it and prefer it.

the fcc can strand investment or deliver value for consumers. i'm glad this commission has its eyes on the future. thanks to the staff who have worked so hard on this. the consumer bureau, the office of planning and the enforcement bureau for the work on this item. commissioner claiborne. >> nay. >> o'reilly. >> i. >> it's adopted as requested. thank you to the staff for the work on the item. madam secretary the next item. there's chairman and commissioners, the fifth item on your agenda will also be presented by the wire line competition bureau and it's enentitled bridging the divisional divide for low income consumers, telecommunications carriers eligible for

communication and service support. and chief monteith will give the intersection. >> thank you madam secretary. chief monteith welcome back. >> more chairman and commissioners. the wire line competition bureau presents for your consideration, a fourth report in order, order on consideration, memorandum opinion order, notice of rule making requesting notice of inquiry. that takes a fresh look at the commission's life long program. it focuses on how the program can help close the died for low income consumers while minimizing the burden on rate payers by tackling rate, frauds and abuse. i'd like to thank the telecommunication access policy division team for their work on this proceeding. our colleagues on the enforcement and wireless telecommunication bureaus and in

the wireless communication business opportunities. seated at the table with me are trent, associate bureau chief. and from the telecommunication access policy division, ryan palmer, jodey griffin, and ra ha shawn duvall. ha shawn will present -- rashawn will present the item. >> the item before you if adopted seeks to ensure that the life long program offer assistance granted to us by the congress and communications act. it addresses ongoing waste fraud and abuse. first, the fourth ordering order, order on consideration and memorandum and opinion in order takes a series of steps to

address an ongoing problem in the program, to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. the orders would target and enhance life long support to rural areas on tribal lands. inspire map sources to identify tribal lands. and direct enhance support to facility and base providers. and clarify that other it inworks do not apply as mobile brad band under the rules. promote consumer choice within the program and remover uncertainty and team line our rules for life long support and

eligibility for life line reimbursement. second, the notice of rule making if adopted, proposed to seek -- comport with the authority granted to the kmings commissions and communication act. the rpm seeking comment on any commissions state's role if designating certain elements and removing the life long broadband providing organization. offering both voice and broadband services. adopting a self-enforcing budget cap for the program, improving the eligibility certification and recertification processes to further prevent waste, fraud and abuse in the program. improving provider insent ever to provide quality information services by establishing a maximum discount level for

services. finally, the notice of inquiry if adopted seeks life line in households needing help. the bureau recommend approval on this item. >> thank miss duvall, comment from the bench. commissioner clayborn. >> there is a simple question i fear there is -- that is too rarely asked in these quarters, just who is a life line subscriber? according to survey's data it is a she. she makes $14,000 per year, she is middle aged, single and has a child within her care. she is trapped in systemic poverty and she has picked the only device and telephone plan she could afford. stated more boldly, the plan has picked here.

that service is permitted primarily by owireless provider because she can afford one source of telecommunication. that source allows her to keep with her child's educators. and that service, she is able to help her child with that homework. she was able to stay on top of that full time or often multiple part times but too often dead in minimum wage shift schedule. and just what, have the fcc majority tee'd up for her today? in a final order that was circulated after i got up here, i more efficient user friendly means to bridge the digital and communication divide, no they did not. before us is a carefully

practiced performer that is ready to rip that phone from her hand. if i was to rename this agency the federal punitive rule making commission you would accuse me of being over the top. this fourth report in order, order on reconsideration, memorandum opinion and order, under oath of proposal making and notice of inquiry it is in fact punitive rule making. and what should be most telling even to a casual observer is that no fowler in this dock thus far support any of the specific policy proposal. there is one -- but every other commenter is categorically against this item. federal groups, public interest groups, civil rights groups,

carriers, tribes and more have expressed deep concern about this prime making. i mourn for that mother in her prospects when it comes to phone service. i mourn because before us is an ab sorted proposal ze void of -- i mourn because this majority would rather toss out those valuable solutions already tee'd up whennet comes to service perform and assuring that low income americans can afford broadband service. the majority proclaims the item is about digital divide and boldly labeled this item as such. this proposal does nothing to make the lives of those who qualify better, and no amount of

double speak if the docket's title will suggest otherwise. make to mistake, this is the widened, the digital and opportunity divide item. this administration goes on about the urgency of reducing regulatory barriers, indeed we have had before us item after over the past 10 months that purport to do just that. when it comes to those most in need, the most they are willing to do is pay lip service. for them, we have and will make it more difficult for providers to enter and stay into the life line program. for those looking to serve economically poor people, this majority is very comfortable attacking even blameless companies as they force them to divest commerce customers, lose

millions of dollars as they enter the market. and they've ensured it'll take years for any provider to be able to offer nationwide service. this administration is all about ensuring the commission encourages innovation service offers but not if their innovative service offerings are designed to help those who are economically poor, for those less fortunate, too bad. the majority is happy to dictate the exact time of facilities a provider must give to you when it comes to service, ignoring the communications act, and the ability to have the marketplace to respond and provide solutions that meet people where they are and ignoring what they have done in every other docket before this. where they extol the benefits of a free and open market. i could go on pointing out how this administration enables providers to provide free data to consumers, but not if they

are economically poor. how this administration allows universe sall service benefits to flow in perpetuity for companies but not for those who are economically poor. that this administration praise its competitive choice, but not for the economically poor. and that this administration the cries consumers having to pay a minim minute fee for voice service but for the economically poor we are fine that they are suggesting that they do just that. finally, we have raised budgets for other universal service programs but here we are seeking comment on having, or worse cutting in half the amount we spend on bridging the vulnerable online. could it be because these consumers are economically poor? the impact of these actions and proposed actions will be severe,

but the actions themselves and i usually try to bring emotion when i'm mother-in-lemotional, actions are partyless. over 70% over the the consumers will be told they cannot use their preferred carrier. and on top of that, they may not have a carrier to turn to after all this happens. and just where the theal sis of where these customers will go if they reach that junk cure, or just where is analysis telling us how we can be sure they'd be able to afford connect tifrt. the item contains no analysis of this sort. at a time when eligible communication carriers are releasing their -- to provide life long service, just where

will these consumers turn. as i have said before and will repeat again, the federal life line program is not, nor should it ever be an infrastructure program. it is certainly a compliment to infrastructure programs and ultimately it is an afford ability program. even when the the competition has said that additional life line moneys will have the affect of spurring infrastructure deployment in the context of tribal life line, it has said the primary goal is to reduce the monthly cost of service. and went on with a detailed analysis of how analysis -- a detailed analysis of how that additional funding will impact ford ability. it has never suggested that afford ability is an infrastructure problem and it should never do so.

most of this is happening on tribal lands. and all of there is happening in the time of tribal month. during my travels to new mexico a young tribal woman, she told me withoutler phone her community would really and i quote, be living in the 1800s. many tribes are displayed by their share of citizens living in poverty. some of them lack the basis like electricity and clean running water. with this mean for many of them is that life line phone is they're only real connection to the outside world and that life

line phone sometimes is there only functioning utility. the tribe haves told us that losing enhanced life long support will be devastating because very few wireless actually provide life long service on tribal lands. and for some reason, this item prohibits satellite service from participating in life line on tribal lands, as if this were not painful enough. this item offers no transition or phase down period. unlike what we have done in the past, for multiple other universal service and disability programs where we change rate and subsidy structures. process wise, this item is a failure. making radical changes without engaging trains is contrary to our very own best practices. while the draft recirculated yesterday makes reference to rapid related consultation

completed over a year ago in the last administration there is no mention of nikon suddenly tags that this administration has don't. we have an internal office of native affairs and policy. my question is were they consulted during there process, if not that is truly bad practice and process. at a minimum, we should have suffered the comment on this and actively consulted with the tribes on these issues as we said we would. and like many other things on today's agenda, this item does not include a cost benefit analysis, unlike what the fcc majority repeatedly demanded of the previous administration. none of this had to be this way. i was willing to meet my colleagues half way. i have shown in the past i'd vote for notices that seek excellent even on things that i may not believed in. particularly, if it has a chance

of resulting in an order that does good, that it has a chance of resulting in an order that saving low income tribals from removing service once it was inserted, unfortunately this was not to be. somedays after the item was circulated my officer began a conversation with the office about edit. in the interest of compromise i suggested we pump the breaks a bit and build a record on the major changes in this item, like the elimination of resellers from the program and changes to tribal life line. that suggestion was rejected. i proposed that we retain a streamline, lbb like process for states that do not certify lifeline ttes. i suggested we not open the door to fraud by eliminating the

proceeds right now, seeking comment before proceeding. that was rejected. i asked we seek existent on alternative legal authority so we do not rejudge or discussion on where only facility-base providers should be allowed to participate in a program, that was flatly rejected. i suggested we not hamstring the program through -- do i have to tell you what the aanswer was, case you missed it. that was rejected. we have a budget mechanism in place now for lifeline. that may not go as far or be as pun tifr as the cat before us but it is in place. indeed, if you were to take a look at the lead sentence that seeks comment on the budget, it

suggests an $820 million cap. ir respective of my past attempt at compromise, leading with a proposal that will cut the program's current budget but more than half is something that is not starting at the 50-yard line for me. this item discuss not bridge the digital devise as it purports. it is a bridge to nowhere. it proposes to -- one of the four pillars of our universal service promise and that is afford ability. my only hope here today is that this commission sees thor recover of its ways before it discuss further harm to those americans who are trapped on the other side of the economic digital and opportunities divide. i descent.

>> thank you competition ner. commissioner o'riley. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the chairman undertaking this proceedings to make critical reform to this program. he and his colleagues have worked for years. they have done so in the face of unfair and blistering chr criticism -- these are basic undeniable facts. i've reached similar concerns as has the gao in report after report after report, indeed given the miserable track record of the program many have all for any and all together. the chairman has attempted to u. accelerating progress on the

national lifeline eligibility. some have argued that changes adopted by the prior commission are sufficient, but some of those are forums like the national verifier won't be completely in place for years if ever. in the meantime, we can and must do better to safe guide the program and the rate payer dollars that fund it. during there push i have focused on several forms. and returning the program to its original purpose of dividing discounted, not free service by requiring minimum contribution from as many recipients as feasible. these are reasonable requests i'll continue to push forward. first, my call for real budge, not some phony budget mechanism is not unique to the life long

program. all programs are subject to a cap or fine budget to eliminate the everyall cost or consumers who pay the fees to support these programs. budget, also the first line of offense against the rapid increase in the program size and acts as a deter rent. it is unfa tham bl to me that some of my colleagues who sat before congress and sought out a budge would seek to remove discussion for the budget. to avoid access spending and overreach all budgets must solve the market failure. the lifeline budge program fails in that regard.

one and eight subscribers would not have service absent the life line subsidies. those are failure rates. consumers are paying more on their phone bills each month to support service for people who would have signed up and paid in full without a subsidy, a better targeted program would enable more consumers to obtain service without unfairly charging rate payers. third, lifeliners were continuing to be a program. stemmed from the fact that when wireless service was added to the program the subsidize voice service became free to users along with the found and a data allow wants. i recognize that some portion of life line eligible consumers are

truly december constitute and could not afford the services. there are other consumers who should be able to do so and play pay some additional amounts to top off their lifeline plans. i've already heard some ideas worth explores such as requiring a minimum contribution when skpl consumers recertify their eligibility every year. for some consumers, simply having a voice line with the ability to text is the lifeline they want. so requiring providers to offer high speed broadband can be counter productive. i appreciate the chance to work with the colleagues and my partners to stamp out abuse and

ensure the program is run factorially. for those who want to run lam base to the program -- and doing great disservice to its many recipients. i'm willing and will vote to approve. >> thank you. commissioner carr. >> the lifeline program is an important part of the fcc's obligation to ensure quality services are available to consumers at just, reasonable and affordable rates. the important purpose served by the program has been undermined by the waste, fraud and abuse over the last several years. the geo as heard highlighted some of the abuse in its may 2017 report. it could not confirm whether more than a million individuals participated in the benefits program claimed on their lifeline enrollment applications. the geo identified thousands of

individuals who were reported as deceased. despite the program's one per household rule, in one instance, gau found 10,000 enrollments associated with a single address. these concerns have been echoed by members of congress on both sides of the political aisle as well as members of the commission in 2012 and 2016 when they voted on reforms. now, i don't view these widespread instances of fraud as a basis for eliminating the program but they are a call for serious reform. indeed, the commission has a responsibility to both the rate players who fund lifeline and to the consumers who benefit from it to ensure our program goals are being met.

i'm glad we're taking action to increase able, while at the same time considering ways to target lifeline sport to consumers and communities that need it most. one place where the dujtal divide is most dark is on tribal lands. the fcc have found 58% of people living in rural areas on tribal lands lack access to broad bank. we need to do more to close the dujtal divide in these communities. the commission recognizes this point on a bipartisan basis in 2012 when it voted to limit the $100 link-up discount facilities base served on tribal lands. by limiting these providers the agency will help -- the record since then supports that

finding. unless we build on the commissioner's 2012 decision in today's order by extending the base requirement to proceed enhanced tribal lifeline support. the item also ask important questions to ensure lifeline work effectively. recognizings that universe sall funds are -- we propose to eliminate the authority over the process to make sure that states continue their vital role in protecting lifeline performers from bad actors. these are all important steps towards making lifeline more

accountable and effective, this item has my support. >> thank you commissioner carr. >> the future belongs to the connected no matter who you are or where you live. you need access to modern communications to have a fair shot at 21st century success. but the fact of the matter is that today too many americans lack access to broadband. last year the fc c decided to do something about it. it took a hard look at the lifeline program which got its start in 1985 when president reagan was in the warehouse and all communications divided a cord. it helped low income households to continue to voice and refocused it on broad ban. i think this was the right and modern thing to do, that's because internet connectiones

are the dial tone of the digital age. if you want an object lesson in why this is true just consider kids and home work. today 7 and 10 teachers assign home work that requires broadband access. data from the fcc shows as many as one and three household do not subscribe to internet service.