that is help productivity -- that has helped productivity in many respects and may not be a bad thing. i think the caller was thinking in terms that it takes positions away from people entering the labor market. i think the real issue is how you grow the overall market and not necessarily forcing the older worker out. host: michael niemira is the chief economist and director of research for the international council of shopping centers. thank you for joining us to talk about 2011 and holiday season spending. that is the end of "washington journal" today. we will be here over the holiday weekend 8622 twitter followers on cspanwj. y'all are crazy.

i don't know how you keep up with the conversations, but it is interesting to see it develop. three days of booktv. you can get a full schedule on booktv.org. enjoy your holiday weekend. ho[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] and >> a live look at traffic capital this morning here on this thursday morning. the congress gaveled out for the

last time yesterday. several items were sent to president obama's desk, among them "don't ask, don't tell," the repeal. the ratification of the u.s.- russian nuclear arms deal, known as the start treaty. $4 billion for 9/11 first responders. the next congress calm and on wednesday, january 5. you can see the senate here on c-span. the house is on c-span2. richard blumenthal is a new lawmaker. another is the returning senator, dan coats returns to the chamber. he beat democrat brad ellsworth to succeed evan bayh.

>> it should not take a constitutional crisis, a terrorist attack, or a financial calamity to summit from each of us and from this body the greatness of which we're capable, nor can america afford to wait. >> search for a farewell speeches. more than 160,000 hours, all online, all free. it is washington, your way. >> the federal communications commission approved new regulations this week. they will allow providers to charge consumers different rates for different levels of service. the three democrats voted to approve the plan. both democrats opposed it. the sec has started slick ways

to incorporate broadband into 911 emergency services. this is about 2 1/2 hours. >> the agenda includes two items for your consideration. voiced-only 911 systems. you'll consider a report adopting basic rules of the road to preserve the open internet as a platform for innovation, investment, competition, and free expression. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be presented by -- jamie barnett

will give the introduction. >> good morning. the bureau is pleased to present a notice of inquiry that was announced as part of the 2010 broadband action planned agenda. this notice of inquiry will examine how the deployment of it broadband-enabled networking can harness the life saving potential of text, photos, and video in emergencies. technological innovation has cautioned an era that has vastly enhanced the ability of the public to communicate. the 911 system is not able to accommodate many of these vast technologies, such as the ability to transmit and receive photos, text messages, and

video. this notice of inquiry seeks to gain an understanding of how modern networks and devices can be bridged. this notice seeks to ensure that individuals with disabilities and special needs receive the appropriate benefits from the next generation 911 systems. joining me at the table is our engineering fellow, a visiting to us this semester and next semester from columbia university. next to him, david furth, our bureau chief. and then patrick donovan, our lead attorney. to my right, laurie flaherty from the national highway traffic safety administration. she has been a great partner with us on that. also, i like to acknowledge the team that worked so diligently on this item, including tom

beerrs, david seals. a like to thank the office of engineering, the governmental affairs bureau, the office of general counsel, the competition bureau, and wireless bureau for their assistance. collective think jeff cohen. he is a valued member of our team. he's detail for the energy and commerce committee. he has been essential in all of our 911 things. also, representatives from 911 institute who happen working to further the transition to next- generation 911. the president of afco was going to be here today. he is sick.

we have the vice president of afco. we have steve o'connor, the ceo, and the director of governmental affairs. we welcome the executive director of the 911 institute. we look forward important with all these agencies as we go forward. i have asked laurie flaherty to say a few words about 911 as it relates to today's item. today's notice build on the work fat lard and her team have done to map out many of the technical elements of the 911 platform. we expect work closely and have a close working relationship with them as we move forward.

>> thank you. i have a very short presentation. the graphic represents the three major components. in order to respond to any emergency, all three of the components need to cooperate and courtney, work together to provide a response for an emergency. the first the public access. the sec has jurisdiction with regard to this area. in the middle is the 911, the hub of the communication system. that is the world i live in. at the dot, we administer a grant program for 911 call centers. we support and promote 911 services, principally the local and stayed 911 -- the local and state 911 services.

the usa -- there was a dot initiative. moving forward, just as these components work together at the local level, it makes sense for us at the federal level to coordinate our efforts. in moving forward, the activities of the national 911 program are complemented by what the fcc does and we are often able to build off of each other's success. we thank you and we thank them for their support in moving forward with a supporting and promoting 911 services. thank you very much. >> patrick donovan one now present the notice of inquiry -- will now present the notice of inquiry. >> the notice represents a first

step in bridging the gap between the capabilities of moderate networks and devices and today's 911 system. first, the noi request comments that next generation 911 could provide to the public. next generation 911 architecture is it-based. messages-based tax, real-time tax, photos, and video. the noi seeks comments on these . second, the noi examines the network architecture.

a variety of protocols can be used to transport media types across the network. comments, eks whether there is in need to develop standards. if so, which entity should update those standards. third, the noi seeks comments on next-generation 911 applications. emergency calls will be able to be placed by individuals and but automatically triggered devices. examples of such devices include environmental sensors, highway cameras, security cameras, alarms, personal medical devices, telmeatics. the noi seeks six, on how --

they also examine whether to risk and need to modify existing laws, regulations, or tariffs to ensure these devices have access to the next generation network. the deployment of next- generation 911 has the potential to provide additional data to public entering points and first responders, such as the caller's medical history or business location. to that end, the noi seeks comments on the additional data. the noi seeks comment on the next generation 911. the transition is likely to be gradual. we examine what can be done to in sure that networks operate seamlessly with legacy 911

networks throughout the transition. the noi seeks , another transition issues such as privacy and security concerns, consumer education, and location capability in the next generation 911 environment. the noi seeks comment on the extent of the jurisdiction and the role that states and other federal agencies should plight during the transition to next- generation 911. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. >> 2 i, mr. chairman -- thank you, mr. chairman. \ >> commissioner copps. [laughter] >> welcome.

thank you very much, admiral and your team. thank you for being with us today and for the productive working relationship we have with your agency. the last part of your presentation in talking about the need to cooperate with state agencies and federal agencies is so important in whenever we do. the safety of the people is always the first obligation of the public servant. so we're true to that today. in point of fact, the challenge in this item is not all that different from the other item on our agenda today. how to take a system that was designed for the world of voice and insure it keeps pace with our 21st-century telecommute nication network.

applying the potential of this quickly evolving technologies. each year to wonder 40 million 911 calls are made, i am told. the availability is not the same thing as maximizing viability and effectiveness and convenience. i welcome the fact that today we asked important questions about how to enhance the breath and depth of information. next generation 911 is thinking about thinking beyond communications in using tax and video and it does not take a lot of imagination to see how this can improve public safety and personal safety, too. it will require a lot of hard- working as we transition and to make it as seamless as possible,

it will require real skill and dedication in all levels of government policy and working with all levels of public safety. we know it is worth it because the tools will save lives. we begin to fill one of our responsibilities in the 21st century communications and video accessibility act, a wonderful piece of legislation. it enabled 911 access for individuals with disabilities. there are important questions about communication and taking into effect the needs of individuals with speech or hearing disabilities. it is one of many hearings where we hope to ensure that people with disabilities can be full participants in our society and also be entitled to the full protections. i commend the chairman for bringing this important item for

consideration. i want to thank the staff and the homeland security bureau for working their way through this analysis and i'm especially grateful for the work and presence here today of folks from the 911 institute. thank you for being here and for the immense contribution you have made to the success of this item. ellicott forward to working with all of you as we continue to strengthen our requirements -- i look forward to working with all of you. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner copps. >> i look forward to gaining a better understanding of how best to meet -- the current events broadbent capabilities. i like to learn more about possible avenues for local agencies to obtain funding to upgrade systems and pay for

technological education. this is not within the commission's purview. it is a critical component of the solution and must be part of our discussion. many thanks to the staff of the deer for your work and creativity. i want to acknowledge brian and his team. we appreciate your expertise. i look forward to working on never went on this matter as we go forward. >> if you would allow, i have a couple of questions. thank you for bring so -- for being so gracious. the broadband plant recommended that there should be report to identify a nationwide mg 911 system. which you share the status of that report? >> the report recommended is

significant, both in its breadth and depth. we don't have the resources to complete that report. we are developing the cost estimate for that report. it will be completed within the next couple of months. >> ok. is there anything the fcc could do? [laughter] to ensure the funding needs are met? >> we submitted a plan last year. three things or recommended. one thing is a consistent source of funding. second was a complete list of technical standards. third is court nation. to the extent that the fcc can use its jurisdiction for any one of those, that would be extremely helpful. we will be happy to help you in that regard. >> thank you. admiral, good morning.

the order we passed in september -- standards were adopted that would help and would help improve this nation's emergency communications. how important is similar industry cooperation to a 911essful implementation nmg networks? >> this is going to be a team effort. we have to work with industry. this is one thing we considered in developing this. i might refer to david furth, our bureau chief. >> as you are well aware, when we're talking about next generation 911 architecture, we're talking about a more

complex fabric in because our project -- in the architecture that we have with legacy 911. e're certainly going to seek out opportunities to bring it industries together to look for areas of consensus. beyond just putting out the notice and waiting for comments, we intend to be proactive and invite industry and other stakeholders in for on the record meetings as we build the record in this proceeding so that we can identify those issues. that'll help us to focus and narrow down the problems that we need to address in further proceedings. i think taking that step of bringing the community in, bringing stakeholders in and looking for those areas will help us to maximize the

potential for consensus. >> thank you for the engagement. if constructed correctly, next generation mg911 no work should be a vast improvement. these new networks will give consumers the ability to have emergency media messages through more platforms that are available today. they will include more affirmation when sending emergency communications. mg 911 networks will give public safety entities more options for funny person in an emergency and will provide continued improvement and location accuracy over the current system. this is not just an opportunity to solve past problems, but a chance to design state-of-the- art emergency communications network that make the most of the benefits ip technologies have to offer. there are some important differences.

mg 911 can be accessible by in number of end users, many of which will have identifiers other than telephone numbers. there will be no word access and communication services. these differences offer advantages in emergency communications. they present challenges in short a successful migration mg 911 networks. there are two reasons what i am optimistic we will meet these challenges. a number of relevant stakeholders have demonstrated that they understand the successful implementation of this policy will -- was a collaboration and the consensus. when the new emerging technologies act was enacted, congress recognize the importance of such collaborations by critic the national e911 office.

a new plant was developed for migrating to this emergency networked by consulting with the public safety committee groups representing people with disabilities, technology developers, and communication providers. laurie flaherty has reaffirmed the value of on going interagency communications. i was pleased to see that there have been many who haven't actively in gays in developing technical standards to support the ip-based solutions that will be necessary to make the migration a success. i urge our relevant private and public entities to continue such cooperation. the second reason for my optimism is that this notice public embarks the commission on a comprehensive examination of the relevant economic and institutional issues raised by

this proceeding. i was pleased to see that the notice seeks to ensure that all people with special needs and non-english-speaking persons are included in the design of these new networks. the notes recognizes that there will be significant cost in constructing these networks. it is also important to consider the cyber security ramifications of these new networks. i join you in commending the staff at the public bureau for initiating this proceeding with an excellent and thorough notice of inquiry. to wit, mr. chairman -- thank you, mr. chairman. >> i am glad we are moving forward on this deployment.

this is something that we can all agree. today's notice of inquiry is a starting point for our work and to make sure we meet the requirements. i look forward to seeing all the comments. i hope that we will continue to be mindful of the limits of our authority here if the fcc. we cannot lose sight of the costs that are required for technology upgrades direct a would hate to see the -- putting the needed innovation out of reach. i know several of you. i have worked with you guys for so long. we have come a long way. i appreciate the leadership and laurie flaherty, i appreciate you being here. i appreciate all of your input.

we really appreciate your help. in sort we consider your noi the shadow of the net neutrality debate. it is important on its own right. we support you. i look forward to further implementation. >> thank you. animal barnett, -- admiral part rnett, laurie flaherty. we have shown our desire and the recognition of the need that we work together with other agencies of the government on these horizontal issues where we do need to work together in order to deliver to the public the benefits that can come from the next generation of communication technology.

this is a perfect example. we appreciate you taking the time here. this is the tip of the iceberg for the kind of work that you and others are putting in with our terrific team to make this vision a reality. the proceeding we're launching today to modernize our 911 system is important. a vision for a next-generation 911 that harnesses cutting edge technologies to save lives. thanks to the outstanding job that our first responders and everyone who participates in 911 operations do everyday. our current system provides a valuable service, handling more than 650,000 calls every day, over to roger 40 million calls a year, using better -- over 2.40

million calls -- over 240 million calls. system does not promote the tools of tomorrow. many do not have broadband. some are in communities where broadband is not available. today's system does not take evanish of the proliferation of mobile technology -- does not take advantage of the proliferation of mobile technology. 2/3 of all calls are made from mobile phones. the commission made location requirements -- we watched the proceeding. to many mobile 911 calls to not provide accurate location information to responders. there remains a very important initiative of the commission. we continue to work with other agencies to develop information

and resources to help people understand how they can best protect themselves, how they can best help responders when they are in areas where mobile 91 calls are not likely to provide an accurate location -- mobile 911 calls but not likely to provide an accurate location consumers are using their phones for texting. we can consult my 19-year-old son. mobile phones are the device used by most 911 calls right now. you cannot text 911. if we survey most people who are using mobile phones and using texting and ask them if they thought the text to 911 would work, they would give the wrong answer. if you find yourself in an

emergency situation and want to send a text for help, you can text anyone except a 911 call center. the virginia tech campus shooting in 2007, a tragic real- life reminder of the limitation that 911 is now saddled with. some students and witnesses tried to tell ext.99 during that duringt tried to texte 911 that emerges, but the text never went through. it is time to bring 911 into the digital age. next generation 911 will revolutionize the emergency response per it will enable texting, it will enable photos and video. will the corporate data. all this will improve situational awareness for first

responders, response for first responders, and save lives. gegn e about how honext could have helped at the urging a ticket -- at virginia tech. you can imagine a situation where you like to be able to press a button instead of talking on a phone. a hostage situation. it is easy to see how sending photos or video to 911 centers would have a tremendous benefit. imagine the caller transmitting a photo of a cart leaving the scene of an armed robbery. next generation 911 will allow emergency calls to be placed by devices in addition to human beings.

highway cameras, security cameras, alarms, consumer electronics and automobiles. the benefit, the real world parkville benefits of new technologies applied to 911 are clear and so was the need for action. modernizing 911 raises complex challenges, costly challenges that will not only take time and money but also significant court nation. that is one of the reasons why i'm so glad you are here. i'm glad others are here in the audience who are part of the committee seeking a government, a federal government, state and local government, private sector, seeking to make this a really. we need the help of our partners, communications and broadband service providers, equipment manufacturers -- all these players have to come together for us to deliver next- generation 911.

last month a visit -- last month i visited arlington and i was pleased to hear the enthusiasm among the officers i spoke with for embracing new technology as part of 911. the desire and willingness to work together is their. the level of -- there is a real embrace of learning new technology that can save lives. first responders want access to every communication technology that can help them save lives. we're committed to meeting this challenge head on and place a strong role. we cannot do it alone. adoptinghat we're starts an important process to

make sure there is a regulatory framework for states and local government. these efforts, coupled with the efforts of congress to ensure funding for this important endeavor will ensure that mg911 will become a reality throughout the nation. let me join my colleagues in thanking you. i don't want to leave anyone out. i think all of you who have participated in this. i encourage all constituencies to work with us. that is the only way we will get it done. 911 is a life-saving tool. broadband can make even better. that is what our plan said. the technology is there. will we be able to harness that technology to revolutionize 911 system?

thank you again, all of you at the table and all of you who have worked on this item. we appreciate it very much for it is indeed a very important item and it begins a very important proceedings. with that, unless there is any more discussion, let's proceed to a vote. all those in favor say aye. all opposed, say nay. the ayes have it. please announced the next item. >> the second item on your agenda will be presented by the wireline competition bureau and the wireless telecommunications bureau. it is entitled preserving the open internet broadbent industry practices.

>> today we're pleased to present -- this order would establish three basic rules to preserve the open internet. transparency, no blocking, and no unreasonable discrimination. these rules are grounded in accepted internet principles and tailored to different technologies. collectively, they protect and empower consumers, help ensure the internet continues to flourish as an engine of

commerce, creativity, and civic engagement. and provide clarity for broadband providers. they cement the credibility of the united states as we continue to advocate for other nations to let the open internet flourished within their own borders. seated with me this morning are david tannenbaum special, counsel, who will explain how the -- paul de sa, chief of the office of strategic planning, who will explain how the order will promote innovation. ruth milkman, who will explain how the rules will apply to mobile broadband services. and austin schlick who will discuss enforcement and the commission's legal authority.

the draft before you is a product of an extraordinary efforts by bureaus and offices across the entire commission. time does not permit me to enter -- to announce by name the talented staff who contributed. this draft represents a tremendous amount of hard work from some special people who are listed on the screen. >> as you know, the commission has long recognized that open communication networks spur innovation and investment, to the benefit of consumers and economic growth. in many contexts, and through a series of decisions over the last five years, the commission has maintained its commitment to the openness that facilitated the birth and the incredible growth of the internet. in 2005, the commission adopted a policy statement that saw to protect the rights of consumers to access internet content of

their choice. and the freedom to use the applications, services, and devices of their choosing. the commission later made these principles enforceable in the context of telephone company mergers, as well as in the 17 mhz auction. the commission adopted these measures with the understanding that the obligations extent to ensuring open broadband networks. these principles are reflected on the internet access. occoquan norris, investors, and innovators depend -- of entrepreneurs, investors, and innovators depend on these principles. there have been incidents, some of which whoo have -- some of which have led to action.

the rules proposed are consistent with the commission's history of protecting the internet's access from such threats. >> venture-capital funds have invested almost $250 billion. this has made this massive investment possible. by giving even the smallest businesses access to global markets. many companies have gone from ids to multibillion-dollar enterprises in just a few years. those who of logic these companies did not need to ask anyone's permission. -- those who have launched these companies did not need to ask anyone's permission. holabird broadbent went from 3% to 60% today.

they have developed and deployed technology to meet the escalating band with needs. the rules we propose have been crafted to preserve this cycle of innovation and investment, even as the market for broadband is taking. on-line services can print threats to adjacent businesses such as voice and video. the possibility that providers could interfere with the flow of internet traffic creates unnecessary uncertainty for online businesses and their investors. tactics in the short-term interest could have harmful effects on the sector as a whole. new network management are business practices could become difficult to reverse. i could define the basic principles under which most broadband providers have long operated, the rules will bring increased certainty to this vital sector while preserving the flexibility broadband providers need to keep improving their networks.

broadband providers and investors will all know what to expect under these rules because they reflect the with the internet works now. among the greatest beneficiaries of this increase certainty will be start-ups and small businesses. some will become our countries next success stories, bringing new products to market and feeling demand for new rounds of innovation and -- >> it would established three basic rules as well as the commission's prior decisions. i will describe the proposed rules tellers to technologies. the first rule is transparency. broadband providers must disclose their network management practices. this rule will ensure consumers have the information they need to understand the capabilities of broadband services while giving providers flexibility in

how they deliver that information. the second world protect blocking. providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices. this is based on the first three internet policy statements. it consolidates three separate rules. the no-parking rule bars to a provider from charging providers of -- the no-blocking role bars to a provider and end user customers. the third rule burbots unreasonable discrimination. they're not discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic. the record convinced us that there are some forms of treatment that are beneficial. and some that are harmful. a standard is preferable.

the rules of a subject to a simple network management. the practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and teller to achieving a legitimate network management purposes, taking into account the particular architecture of the broadband internet access service. the order and not just the category of specialized services, which share capacity with broadband internet service over a provider's services. there may be benefits. they present an opportunity for broadband providers to exert greater control over consumers' internet experience. the commission would observe market development to verify that specialize services promote investment, innovation, competition, and consumer benefits without undermining or threatening the open internet. >> openness is as important for

mobile broadband networks as for other broadband platforms. consumers are using mobile broadbent at an accelerating pace and access to mobile broadband is becoming increasingly essential to innovation, investment, and freedom of expression. as a result of moves toward openness by wireless providers, users are gaining greater access to the first applications, content, and services and have more opportunities to use compatible third-party devices. there have been instances of mobile providers blocking the third-party applications and concerns have been raised about inadequate transparency. there are important differences between mobile and fixed broadband. mobil broadbent is an earlier stage platform and is quickly evolving. the significant and fastest moving change in mobile broadband countless for a

measured approach that foster's -- we therefore tailored certain internet principles to mobile broadband, requiring compliance ule.the basic no-blocking rol it directs mobile broadband providers to disclose their third-party device and clearly explain criteria for any restrictions on use of their networks. the order establishes that mobil broadband providers may not block access to lawful websites. the role enables consumers to act on the content of their choosing walt allow mobile providers to access their networks. it privet's providers from blocking out the compete with their voice and video services.

this is intended to address situations in which mobil providers have the strongest incentives to limit internet openness to advantage their core businesses. the order specifies that the no- party rule does not generally applied to mobile broadband providers engaged in the operation of out stores -- app stores. all these rules allow mobile providers to allow reasonable management. the commitment to continue to monitor and solicit input on further developments including the affects of the open internet rule and the upper 700 mhz spectrum condition. >> it encourages private resolution of disputes. it establishes enforcement mechanisms to address situations in which a proper resolution is not possible. consumers can submit a formal complaint to the commission using the fcc.org website

without using a filing foee. complaints may be expedited on the so-called rocket docket procedure. i now turn to the legal authority on these internet rules. congress gave the commission a mandate to inform its rule to the aspect of the communications industry. the open internet rules response to that challenge. the commission has authority to adopt them. the commission is directed to encourage the deployment on a timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all americans. this is all consistent with the

view that the commission is directed to take action that encourages broadbent employment to all americans and promotes local telecommunications competition or removes barriers for infrastructure investment. the rules before you meets all requirements. the commission is charged with protecting competition. it has authority to ensure over the top internet voice services can develop to rival phone services. open internet rules help to do these things. the commission's authority flows from its responsibility to oversee broadcasting and advance video competition. blocking online offerings, limits the ability of television every broadcaster's to offer their programming over the internet. direct broadcast satellite

providers depend on the internet to supplement their services. interference with internet levirate the midst their ability to compete with cable and telephone companies. the commission has duties to prevent these aharms. the commission must place conditions on issues to serve the public interest to further its goal as well. open internet rules promote efficient medication which is the core mission congress gave this commission. >> as you have heard, this order winds for the continued openness of the internet that we enjoy today. there are three basic rules that are grounded in the existing legal authority. for all these reasons, we recommend that you adopt this island and we request editorial

privileges. thank you. >> thanks to each of you and all those who worked on this for your excellent work. let's proceed to comments from the bench. >> thank you. i hope in years to come as we look back on this day, we do so with an ability to see it as an important turning point in the struggle to ensure the continued openness of the internet against potential of powerful gatekeeper control. on numerous fronts before us today, the commission is taking strides forward. others, i pray that are sometimes excessive caution will not undermine the spirit of the order we're adopting. the internet was born on openness. it will achieve its full potential only through continued openness. it is my desire that with this order was start to write the

next chapter in the next great internet success story, one of continued openness, innovation, and expanded access for all americans. we cannot afford allowing special interests to relegate the awesome opportunity creating power of the open internet in the sad history of what might have been. permitting a gigantic corporations internet access service providers to exercise over americans' access to the internet not only creates risks of technological innovation and economic growth, but it poses a real threat to freedom of speech and to the future of our democracy. increasingly, our national source for news and information, our knowledge of one another will depend upon the internet. our future town square will be

paved with bricks. it must be accessible to all. as i have long argued, previous telecommunications and media technologies also conceived in openness eventually fell victim to consolidated control by a few powerful interests, fell victim to many by investors, and fell victim to mistaken government policies which assumed that wise public policy was no public policy. we were supposed to learn from history. too often, we do not. the private interests who control our 24 center information infrastructure resemble those who sees the master switch, the last century's communication networks. in 2003, i cautioned somewhat dramatically perhaps, but not

terribly inaccurate, that the internet may be dying because insurance interests were positioning themselves to control the chokepoints. i have called for clear rules to maintain openness and freedom on the internet and to fight discrimination or ideas and content and technologies. i was able to convince my colleagues to adopt an internet policy statement that contained the basic rights of internet end users to access content. run applications and run services. connect devices to the internet and to enjoy the benefits of competition. now we adopt at least some concrete rules to prevent gatekeeper's from circumventing the openness that made the internet the internet and from the stifling innovation, investment, and job creation. all we need to do is look at our

history at the fcc as a cautionary tale. it was a that long ago that one network, at&t, randall show -- ran the whole show. when an innovator show up at the door, there were often greeted with a courteous but -- they greeted by a court, galway -- by a court, get away away."y a quick, "get bigger was better. uniformity and stability were thought to be worth the price of lost opportunities for innovation and consumer benefits. all this began to change in the late 1960 bust when an innovator developed a device to

the wireline network. this device -- a converted voice signals to our real signals without the need for direct electrical connection. bring down the entire system. the entrenched incumbent did not build it, did not selling, and in a controlled i it. sound familiar? the commission worked up enough courage to change attacked -- tact and to the right thing, requiring the networked -- this decision meant the end of network quality and the end of reliable services. just the opposite came to pass.

this broke the chokehold that the gatekeeper had on the system. years after that decision, the commission reaffirmed its policy of openness and competition by protecting freedom on the access layer and the architectural layer of the internet. the computer inquiries -- they must offer those pipes to independence service providers, among others. the commission fostered competition by ensuring consumers could reach independent providers. congress moved in the telecommunications act of 1996 to protect the architectural layer. local telephone companies would have to unbundle their transmission networks.

these policies were in fairly short order decimated by the two commissions that served here between 2001 and 2009. the fcc took american consumers on the dangers dangerous deregulatory ride moving the transition component of broadband outside the statutory for work congress created to apply to telecommunications carriers. when those commissions stopped treating advanced telecommunications as telecommunications, they relegated american competitiveness to the sidelines. i do not like to see my country on the sidelines. neither do most americans. remember, this was a major flip- flop from the historic and successful approach of requiring non-discrimination in our communications networks. because of the errors of those previous commissions, a court told us earlier this year that

the legal framework on which the fcc to build its action on comcast for disrupting traffic was inadequate. since the decision in comcast, the good ship fcc has found itself adrift without the tools needed to keep the most basic consumer protections buffalo in today's communications networks. today we finally try to -- consumer protections of float into the's communications networks. we do not anchor ourselves and what i believe to be the best legal framework. nor have we crafted rules as strong as i would have liked. but with today's action, we do nonetheless appeared to steer our cells back toward a better course. i would hope we had moved full throttle to restore the kind of policies that had worked in the past. i wanted to put those eight years of public policy aberration, some may have called

of application, behind us. so i pushed as hard as i could to bring broadband communications back where they belong. were hard-won consumer protections that have been built up for many years would provide a framework under which businesses could do its job of building and managing the communications enterprise, making handsome profits in the process, while operating within the public policy framework given the uncertainty and consumers the protections they needed and deserved. i wanted to go back to that balancing act that had generally worked for so many years for the common good. so, yes, i continue to believe that a real research into our title of authority would provide a surer foundation for future commission action, and i note with interest that the commission's reclassification docket will remain open. there is more i would have liked

in this order. i would have preferred a general ban to discourage broadband providers for engaging iand paying for priority. consigning the rest of us to a second slower internet. i would evoked we would never done what we could to strip the polls to prevent company -- loopholes. we made improvements on the definition, but i still have some worries. i also argued for parity between fixed and mobile, wireline and wireless technologies. after all, the internet is the internet, no matter how you access it. and the millions of citizens going mobile nowadays for their internet, and the entrepreneurs creating wireless applications and services should have the same freedoms and protections as those in the wired context. i had other areas of concern

about something less than a bright line nondiscrimination rule, keeping reasonable network management within bounds, and the substitution of monitoring for the certainty of enforcement into many areas. couldbook, today's action and should have gone further. going as far as i would have liked was not, however, in the cards. the simpler and easier course for me at that point would have been descent. and i considered that very -- would have been dissent, and i consider that very, very seriously. but without action today, the wheels of net neutrality would grind to a screeching halt for at least the next two years. so, revert -- reserving the to route, issent spent the last weeks in discussion with all interested

parties to continue the openness of the internet and to put consumers in control of our on- line experiences. in the end, i believe we made some progress. not so much as i had hoped, but more, i think, than some people expected. the language and the order that we approved today moves the item from unacceptable to something in which i can concur, and that is what i intend to do. among the many improvements to what we achieve, we now conclude that paper party arrangements would generally pilot are no unreasonable discrimination rule. we have also explicitly changed the text of the definition to broadband internet access to close a loophole that, while protecting residential customers, would have jeopardized the open internet rights of small businesses, educational institutions, and libraries.

we insisted on providing greater context to the definition so that broadband companies cannot easily evade internet protections. we have expanded transparency requirements to give consumers the information they need to make informed choices by requiring disclosure on the broadband provider's web site, and also at the point of sale. in discussing the no unreasonable discrimination standard, we put emphasis on keeping control in the hands of users and preserving an application blind network to keep hard at making the network the in an innovative platform it is today. we also provided for rocket docket, expedited treatment to address consumer complaints. rules on the books are simply a tool waited -- waiting to be wielded unless the commission makes a parody of enforcing them. what it is -- a priority of enforcing them. while i'd like to see in the mobile section of today's order,

i believe the improvements we have made can start us on a path toward full parity with fixed broadband. we recognize that there is one internet which should remain open for consumers and innovators like all although it may be access to different technologies and services. more narrowly, we have managed to better refine the actions we take today. we clarify that a wireless broadband provider cannot block applications that compete with not only its own competitive voice and telephony applications, but also those in which it has an attributable interest. separate and apart from today's order, we must recognize that we have much urgent business to address a truly competitive broadband environment. including resolving the pending proceedings related to early termination fees and set

exclusivity arrangements, interruption ability in the 700 mhz band, and data roaming. it is not the job of just the fcc or the government at large or just consumers and citizens or just innovators and entrepreneurs to keep our infrastructure open and dynamic. it is the job all of us. why is this so important? because we have in our grasp now the most powerful and promising communications technology in all of history. if we allow this opportunity creating technology the freedom and the openness that it needs to reach its full potential, we can prepare our kids for a future that our country is finding more and more challenging. we will give our schools powerful new tools to educate

us, young and old alike. we will be able to deploy these tools to improve our health, decrease our energy dependence, and create opportunities for whole communities that are being left behind in this new century , the inner cities, minorities, indian country, and those with disabilities. the internet has to be accessible to all, responsible, responsive to all, and affordable to all. that is what this country worked for and largely achieved in building out electricity and plain old telephone service to all our citizens. it is what we need to work for with our 21st century infrastructure. if vigilantly and vigorously implemented by this commission, and if upheld by the courts, today's order could represent an important milestone for the ongoing struggle to safeguard what i refer to as the awesome

power of the internet. while i cannot wholeheartedly vote to approve the order, i will not block it by voting against it. it is a first step in the right direction. not that first dirty stet -- -- that first step that i hope my first grandchild wilson take, but the first forward hasn't movement. today's majority was crafted by discussion, respectful consideration of one another's thoughts and give and take. i would have welcomed a little more give, but i suppose the chairman might see it a little more differently. i thank him for his engagement and for his commitment. i want to state -- to pay special tribute to my colleague, commissioner mignon clyburn. at her thoughtfully creative work along with her heartfelt commitment to make this item work for consumers by which she means it all consumers, had a

lot to do with making this a better order. finally, i want to express a deep sense of gratitude to staff who worked to make this a i'd better. mine was great in every aspect of this endeavor. john ann-margret work creatively and tirelessly into the wee hours of many nights -- john and margaret work creatively and tirelessly into the wee hours of many nights. i know many folks in the german house office sacrificed similarly, especially rick kaplan and eddie lazarus. literally dozens of people in the bureau's worked mightily here, too, and i thank them all. thanks a part though, our job does not end today. we have not finished any race here. we have not guaranteed an open internet going forward. we will have, i suspect, a lot of new roads to build, and some other roads, even those that we

lay out in today's order that may require some repaving and repair before long. if that happens, i hope we will be fast off the mark to do whatever needs to be done. so, better than lapsing into a year of post-game armchair analysis, or a impugning motivations and all the rest, let us instead go to work on a job at hand. because our challenge really is nothing short of historic. it is to ensure that the liberating potential of our 21st century communications tools are used to provide the opportunities our citizens, all of our citizens require to be fully productive citizens of a fully productive country. thank you very much. >> thank you, commissioner copps. commissioner mcdowell? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your -- in the

spirit of the holidays and good givingoward all, i will - condensed statement. at the outset, i would like to thank the selfless and tireless work of all of the career public servants here at the commission who have worked long hours on this project. sharon, thank you for putting up those names. it looked like the credit for a cecil b. demille movie, with a cast of thousands. although i strongly disagree with this order, all of us should recognize and appreciate that you have spent time away from their families as you have worked through weekends, holidays, thanksgiving, hanukkah, well into the christmas season. such hours take their toll on family life, and i think you for the sacrifices made by you and your loved ones throughout. for those who might be turned -- turning into the fcc for the first time, please know that over 90% of our actions are not only bipartisan but unanimous.

i challenge anyone to find another policy-making body in washington with a more consistent record of consensus. we agree today that the internet is and should remain open and freedom-enhancing. it is and always has been so under existing law. beyond that, we disagree. the contrast between our perspectives could not be sharper. my colleagues and i will deliver our statements and cast our votes. i am confident we will move on to other issues where we can find common ground once again. i look forward to working on public policy that is more positive in constructing american economic growth and consumer choice. william shakespeare it taught us in the tempest, what is past is prologue. that axiom applies to today's action. in today -- in 2008, the fcc

tried to reach beyond its legal authority to regulate the internet, and it was slapped back by an appellate court only eight short months ago. today the commission is choosing to ignore the recent past as it attempts the same act. in so doing, the fcc is not only defying a court, but it is circumventing the will of a large bipartisan majority of congress as well. more than 300 members have warned the agency against the competing legal authority. the fcc is not congress. we cannot make laws. legislating is the sole domain of the directly elected representatives of the american people. if the majority is determined to ignore the growing chorus of voices emanating from capitol hill, in what appears to some as an obsessive quest to regulate

at all costs. some are saying that instead of acting as a, on the beat, the fcc looks more like a regulatory vigilante. the agency is further angering congress by ignoring increasing calls for a cessation of its actions and choosing instead to move ahead just as members leave town. as a result, the fcc has provocatively chartered a collision course with the legislative branch. on the night of friday, december 10, two business days before the public would be prohibited by law from committing further with us about this proceeding, the commission dumped nearly 2000 pages of documents into the record. if that were not enough, the fcc unloaded an additional 1000 pages into the record less than 24 hours before the end of the public comment. . efforts, undermining

the process have been deployed to deliver on a misguided campaign promise. i am disappointed in these ends justify the means tactics in the doubts they have created about this agency. the fcc is capable of better. today is not its finest hour. using these new rules as a weapon, politically favored companies will be able to pressure political appointees to regulate their rivals to compete -- to gain competitive advantage. litigation will supplant innovation. instead of investing in tomorrow's technologies, precious capital will be diverted to pay lawyers fees. the era of internet regulatory arbitrage has bond. to say that today's rules do not

regulate the internet is like saying that regulating highway on ramps, off ramps, and it's pavement does not equate to regulating the highways themselves. what had been bottom-up, non- governmental and grassroots- based governance, will become politicized. today the united states is abandoning the long standing bipartisan and international consensus to insulate the internet from state meddling in favor of a preference for top- down controlled by unelected political appointees, three of whom will decide what constitutes reasonable behavior. through its actions, the majority is inviting countries around the globe to do the same thing. reasonable is a subjective term. not only is it perhaps the most litigated word in american history, its definition varies radically from country to

country. the president has now been set for the internet to -- the the united nations just last wednesday, a renewed effort by representatives from countries such as china and saudi arabia is calling for what one press accounts said, "and a national body that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet." by not just sanctioning but encouraging more state intrusion into the internet's affairs, the majority is fueling a global internet regulatory pandemic. internet freedom will not be enhanced, it will suffer. my dissent this morning is based on four primary concerns. first, nothing is broken in the internet access market that needs fixing.

second, the fcc does not have the legal authority to issue these rules. third, the proposed rules are likely to cause irreparable harm. fourth, the existing law and internet governmegovernance structure and provide ample support in the event of a systemic failure i apologize if my statement does not address certain issues raised by the order, but we received the current draft at 1142 -- at 11:42 p.m. last night, and my team is still combing through it. first, nothing is broken in the internet access market that needs fixing. all levels of internet supply chain are thriving due to robust competition and low-market entry barriers. the internet has flourished because it was privatized in

1994. at this point i need to dispel a pervasive myth that broadband was once regulated like a phone company. not only was the fcc's 2002 cable modem order unanimous, it did not move broadband from titled two. it formalized an effort started under bill canard's fcc, but i will include a more thorough history as part of my statement. since its privatization, the internet has migrated further away from government controls until today. if success were the result of bottom-up collaboration at not top-down collaboration. no one needs permission to start a web site or navigate the web freely. to suggest otherwise is nothing short of fear mongering. mary had suppliers of internet related devices, applications,

and connectivity are driving productivity and job growth in our country. about 80% of americans own a personal computer. most are connected to the internet. in the meantime, the internet is going mobile 3 by this time next year, consumers will see more smart phones in the u.s. market and feature phones. in addition to countless applications used on pc's, growth in the number of mobile applications has gone from nearly zero in 2007 to half a million just three years later. mobil app downloads grow at an annual rate of 92% with an estimated 50 billion applications expected to be down loaded in 2012. probably most of which will be down loaded by my children on to my iphone. fixed and mobile and access is the -- in 2003, only 15 percent

of taxes -- of americans have access to broadband. seven years later, 95% do. national broadband providers are building facilities in addition to the -- more competition is on the way, as providers like up recently auction spectrum. furthermore, the commission's work to make unlicensed use of the television white spaces will create even more competition and choice. in short, competition, investment, innovation, productivity, and job growth are healthy and dynamic in the internet sector, thanks to bipartisan deregulatory policies that have spanned four decades. the internet has blossomed under current law. policies that promote abundance and competition rather than the rationing and the unintended consequences that come with

regulation are the best antidotes to the potential anti- competitive behavior feared by the rule's proponents. but do not take my word for it. every time the government has expanded the broadband market, its experts have concluded that no evidence of concentrations were abuses of market power exist. the federal trade commission, the ftc, not only concluded that the broadband market was competitive but it also warned that regulators should be wary of network management rules because of the unknown net effect on consumers. the ftc rendered that unanimous and bipartisan conclusion in 2007. the bond market has become only more competitive since then. -- the broadband market has only become more competitive since then. a similar conclusion was released with comments released earlier this year.

it warned against the temptation to regulate "to avoid stifling the infrastructure investments needed to expand broadband access." disturbingly, the commission is taking its radical step today without conducting even a rudimentary market analysis. perhaps that is because a market study would not support the predetermined conclusion. my second point is the fcc does not have the legal authority to issue these rules. time does not allow for me to refute all the legal arguments raised in the order. the newest wit -- the newest version of which we are still reviewing. but i will do my best. i have included a more thorough analysis in my statement. i will touch on a few of the legal arguments but divorced --

endorsed by the at toward it. this new effort will fail in court as well. the order makes a first-time claim that somehow through the deregulatory segment of section 7 06, way back in 1996 congress gave the commission direct authority to regulate the internet. the order admits that it's rational requires the commission to reverse its longstanding interpretation, but the section conveys no additional authority beyond which what is already provided elsewhere in the act. this new conclusion, however, is suddenly convenient for the for aty while it perhapgrasps foundation for a predetermined outcome. section 706 encourages legal fiction to construct additional barriers. this move is arbitrary,

capricious, and is not supported by the evidence of the record or a change of law. the commission's gains and ship- gamesmanship throughout this year is reminiscent of what was attempted through the contortions of the so-called 77 the rule three years ago. i objected to such factual legal the -- furthermore, the order desperately scours the act to find a tether to more it alleges the title one ancillary authority. the order's legal analysis ignores the fundamental teachings of the comcast case. that titles two, three, and six of the commissions act give the fcc the power to regulate specific recognized classes of electronic communications services, which consist of common carriage telephony, broadcasting, and other licensed wireless services and multichannel video programming services. despite the desires of some,

congress has not established a new title of the act to it police internet management. not even implicitly. the absence of statutory authority is perhaps why members of congress introduced legislation to give the fcc such powers. in other words, if the act already gave the commission the legal tender its six, why was legislation needed in the first place? i am afraid that this leaky ship of an order is attempting to sail through a regulatory fog without the necessary ballast of legal substance. the courts will easily sink it. in another act of legal sleight of hand, the order claims that it does not attempt to classify broadband services as title to common carrier services. yet, functionally, that is precisely what the majority is

attempting to do to title one informations services, title 3 licensed wireless services, entitled 6 video services, by subjecting them to nondiscrimination applications in the face of vague mandate. we have a title to order dressed in a title 1 disguise. we have seen -- the courts have seen this maneuver by the fcc before, and they have struck it down each time. expansive grasp for jurisdictional power here is likely to alarm any court because the effort appears to have no limiting principal. if we were to accept the order's argument, it would virtually free the commission from its congressional tether. as the supreme court explained in midwest video two, "without reference to the provisions of the act expressly granting regulatory authority, the

commission's ancillary jurisdiction would be unbounded." i am relieved, however, that in the order, the commission is explicitly refraining from regulating coffeeshops. in short, if this order stands, there is no end in sight to the commission's powers. i also have concerns regarding the constitutional implications of the order, especially its trampling on the first and fifth amendments. but again, in the observance of time, that is contained in my extended remarks. my third concern is that the commission's rules will cause irreparable harm to broadbent investment and consumers. doj's cogent observations was generate -- last january outlined the irreparable harm that would be brought out by these new rules. in addition to government agencies, investors, investment

analyst, and broadband companies themselves, have told us network management rules would create uncertainty to the point where crucial investment capital will become harder to find. this point was made over and over again at the fcc's capital octobertion workshop on ca 1, 2009. a diverse gathering of investors and analysts told us that even rules emanating from title one would create uncertainty. other evidence suggests internet management rules could not only make it difficult for companies to predict their revenues and cash flow, but a new regime could have the perverse effect of raising prices to all users. additionally, pricing regulation authority over broadband. the dc's circuit court noticed -- voted last spring that the

attorney openly asserted that "the commission could someday subject broadband service to pervasive rate regulation to ensure that the broadband company provides the service at reasonable charges." nothing indicates that the commission has changed its mind since then. in fact, the order appears to support both direct and indirect price regulation of broadband services. as lobbying groups except the invitation to file complaints asking the government to distort the market further, there will be pressure from other political interest groups to expand its power and influence over the on the market. some of my colleagues to they are complaining that the order does not go far enough. these complaints filed will create more uncertainty as the process becomes a de facto rule

making circus, just as the commission attempted in the ill- fitted comcast case. how does this framework create regulatory certainty? even the european commission recognize the harm such rules would cost to the capital market when it decided last month not to impose measures similar to these. part of the argument in favor of new rules alleges that giant corporations will serve as hostile gatekeepers to the internet. first, in the almost nine years since those fears were first sound, that regulation lobbyists can point to fewer than a handful of cases of alleged misconduct after it -- out of an infinite number of internet communications. all of those cases were resolved in the favor of consumers under current law. more importantly, many broadband providers are not large companies.

many are small businesses. take for example lariat, a fixed wireless internet service provider serving rural communities in wyoming. lariat has told the committee that network management rules will impede its ability to obtain its investment capital -- will lead the company's " furthermore, larry at echoes the views of many others by asserting that "the imposition of regulations that would drive up costs or hamper information would further deter future outside investment in our company and others like it. additionally, to mandate overburdened rates would foster lower quality of service, raise operating costs, which in turn would raise prices for all subscribers, and create a large backlog proceedings that the fcc, in which it would be

prohibitively expensive for others to participate. also knows that due to the immediate deliveries impact on investment, damaging effects would be likely to occur even if the commission's order was later invalidated, nullified, or effectively modified by a court challenge or congressional action. many other small businesses have echoed these concerns, and all of this is in the record. less investment, less innovation, increased business costs, increased prices for consumers, dissipated his -- is it manages to smaller isp's, job loss, and all of this in the name of promoting the exact opposite. the record does not support the outcome-driven conclusions. the commission's action today

runs directly counter to the laudable broadband deployment and adoption goals of the national broadband plan. no government has ever succeeded in mandating investment and innovation, and nothing has been holding back internet investment and innovation until now. the fourth point of my dissent is existing law provides ample consumer protection. the order fails to put forth either a factual or legal basis for regulatory intervention. repeated government economic analyses have reached the same conclusion. no concentrations or abuses of market power exist in the broadband space. if market failure were to occur, america's antitrust and consumer protection laws stand at the ready. both the department justice and the federal trade commission are well-equipped to cure any market ills. in fact, the antitrust law

section of the american bar association agrees -- no word as it were directed to explain why these laws are insufficient. for several years i have been advocating a potential effective approach that will not get overturned on appeal. in lieu of new rules which will be tied up in court for years now, the fcc could trade a new role for itself by partnering with already established non- government internet governance groups -- engineers, consumer groups, academics, economists, antitrust experts, consumer protection agencies, industry associations, and many others. the spotlight allegations of anti-competitive, that in the market and work together to resolve them. since it was privatized, internet governance has always been based on a foundation of bottom-up collaboration and cooperation. rather than top-down regulation.

this truly light-touch approach has created a near perfect track record of resolving internet management conflicts without government intervention. unfortunately, the majority has not even consider this idea for a moment. but once today's order is overturned on appeal, it is still my hope that the fcc will consider and adopt this constructive proposal. in sum, what is past is indeed prologue. where we left the saga of the fcc passed last-neutrality message before was a spectacular failure in the federal courts. today the fcc seems determined to make the same mistake instead of learning from it. the only a list apparent from the order is regulatory hubris.

fortunately, cures for this malady are attainable in corporate for all the foregoing reasons, i respectfully, just in case you were guessing, dissent. thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner clyburn. >> thank you. a few weeks ago i discussed important collaboration for the important it difficult policy issues before us today. i want to thank my very overt but dedicated staff, angela, a bird, louis perez, days, and there families. thank you for -- thank you so very much for the office of the chairman, the commission's staff, and the thousands of stakeholders to engage with us over the past 16 months in crafting a framework that gives both broad and providers and consumers clear guidance about

what provider behavior is acceptable and what is not. it was the result of all of your engagement from the filings you made to the meetings that we had that we have been able to get to this point today. your dedication to the process and that of those whom you represent should be commended. of course, as we all know, compromise typically must be made. as many different interests collaborate on critical and significant issues. as a result, it is often the case that one cannot be completely satisfied with the outcome. nonetheless, it is my belief that we have made great progress in this proceeding, and through this order, we are ensuring that the internet will remain open for the benefit of many consumers. after all, they are the ultimate beneficiaries of an open internet. left to my own devices, there are several issues i would have

tackled differently. as such, i am approving in part and concurring in part to today's order. while i appreciate the chairman house concerns, the adjustments made in the order to allay those concerns, there are several areas i would have strengthened so that more consumers would benefit from the protections we are adopting. first, i would have extended all of the fixed rules to mobile so that those consumers who heavily or exclusively rely upon mobile broadband would be fully protected. there is evidence in our record that some communities, namely african-american and hispanic, either rely on mobile internet access much more than other socioeconomic groups. so while this order does not go as far as i would like in protecting mobile consumers, i am pleased that it is quite clear that we are not pre

approving any action by local providers that would violate the fixed rules in the general principles of internet openness. moreover, the order provides for the ongoing monitoring of the mobile broadband marketplace, including the commission's intention to create an open internet advisory committee. that body specific mission will be to assess and report to the commission new developments and concern in the mobile broadband industry. i expect that the committee will closely observe the effects of that rule mobile providers that they will have on consumers who will cut the broadband court as well as the effect on intermodal competition. to that end, the commission will stand ready to protect mobile consumers for any actions -- from any actions by providers that are inconsistent with an open internet. sei would have prohibited

pay for priority arrangements altogether. the order stresses the harmful effects of these arrangements, including the serious threat to innovation on the internet. i believe that prohibiting such arrangements would be more appropriate based on the evidence before us. nonetheless, should providers enter such an arrangement, they are subsequently challenged at the commission, providers will have to demonstrate that their arrangement is not harmful and it is consistent with the public interest. third, and open internet should be available to all end users. presidential, enterprise, or profit or not. this order goes a long way toward protecting open internet for residents, small businesses schools, libraries, patrons of coffeeshops, bookstores, and the like. but i worry that those who may not fit into these categories

will have to negotiate for access to the open internet and that they may be denied such access. we should carefully monitor whether an open internet is truly available to all end users and correct course if needed. i hope that the after mentioned open internet advisory committee can track any harmful effects of those end users who do not qualify protections -- qualify for protections outlined today an action can be recommended as necessary. finally, earlier this year i stated my preference for the commission of legal authority -- while the route taken here is not the one i originally preferred, i believe it is appropriate act to protect an open internet. i know there will be many legal authorities studying this order in the weeks, months coming

years ahead, and judicial review will ultimately determine the state of the order. i sincerely hope that the order is upheld. today the internet is as critical to the nation for communicating as our legacy telephone, broadcast, and mobile phone networks. as described more fully in the order, without an open internet, consumers would have fewer choices and opportunities which has the potential to impact many aspects of their lives. the ability to obtain an education, telecommute, look for a job, search for information on line, shop, make investment decisions, communicate with friends, family, and colleagues, obtain news -- and i can go on and on, but i will not, given how late the meeting is going today. accordingly, i believe it is

inappropriate that brought in providers operate pursuant to a legal policy and from work assures that the internet remains open under the commission's watchful eye. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner clyburn. commissioner baker? >> respectfully, i really, really, really descent. -- dissent. i disagree with the policy, politics and procedure of this item. like commissioner mcdowell, i have a longer statement that will be put into the record, and i will try to shorten my remarks here. it is a bedrock building block on which we can all agree -- the internet is open today. our proceeding has reaffirmed that government action is not necessary to pervert -- to preserve it. yet the majority act decisively

-- yet the majority acts decisively pretty data certainly does not drive us to the result, and in the final analysis, the commission intervenes to regulate the internet because it wants to, not because it needs to. i cannot support this decision. it is not a consumer-driven or engineering focused decision during is not motivated by a tangible competitive heart or market failure. a majority bypasses the analysis all together and act on speculative harm's alone. they are unable to identify a single ongoing practice they find problematic. in the end, the internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today. the majority does all this without any apparent appreciation of the regulatory costs and effective government micromanagement of broadband networks. did the commission kill of the future of the internet today? of course not, but in this

dynamic industry, they have no rational means to estimate the real damage to the future of business models, management techniques, and core networks. the commission put some on the scale as to where innovation and how -- the order expresses concern about the significant consequences to internet and companies if their incentive to innovate and investment is killed. the majority ignored the same grave consequences of government access chilling the network cost analysis to innovate and in desperate it is incredible the majority does not take a more holistic view of the internet economy. i keep returning to what should be a threshold question. why do we intervene in the one sector of the economy that is working so well to create high- paying jobs, untold consumer choice, and entrepreneurial

opportunity? the only reason left is to deliver on one of the president of campaign promises, and i must respectfully dissent. i have seven principal objections. i have way more than that actually, but i have a plane to catch, so you are lucky. i want to touch on the question of regulatory certainty. the net neutrality title to proceedings have been an economic drag on operators for over a year. i empathize with businesses that need certainty to jump-start efforts to invest in recover -- and recover economically. it was our foundation that gave investors the confidence to pump billions into the internet economy, and i share the desire to find a new stable footing. i object to the majority suggesting that its action is premised on providing regulatory certainty. at best, the majority solves the problem of its own making. i often -- i also have apprehension as to whether the

legally promised action today can -- concern number one -- the majority position lacks an analytical framework to justify government intervention. competition and consumer demand have ensured that the internet remains open, in the majority offers no record evidence to suggest otherwise. the majority resorts to metaphors. there are cracks in the infrastructure. but the record does not support the conclusion of any real structural failing. at best there is a burned out bulbs on a christmas like and we endeavor to replace the entire electrical system to fix it. there is no global problem, no crisis of magnitude to justify the majority's overreach. the majority's repeated fall back is that network operators have consented to act badly. the language is consistently conditional. the word "could" alone appears

61 times. throughout the decision, they matureds the malign intent on the part of broadband -- this line of reasoning is flatly inconsistent with industry practice. if the incentive for misconduct is so strong, one would assume the record would include widespread examples of anti- competitive conduct. there is no such evidence. given the non-existent factual record to support its action, the majority is left to grand declarations about the internet as an indispensable platform supporting our nation paused economic and civic life. to mask the clear deficiencies of its analysis. they ignore the fcc's warning that regulators should be wary of enacting--- net neutrality regulations solely to prevent prospective car. i share the ftc's concerns. number two -- the majority's claim that consumers will benefit from this government

overreach is unsupported and deeply flawed. the majority repeatedly counts this as a pro consumer or a consumer driven approach. they try to frame this as big business gatekeeper for says the consumer. but upon closer inspection, the order is focused on promoting the edge, at internet applications and services, over networks and consumers. i disagree, because there was no choice necessary. in this instance, having the cup cake and eating it, too, is an actual option. --the majority's but quest the government has picked its own winners. in the long term, i am worried that the government pause micromanagement of tomorrow's internet will leave consumers worse off. efforts to ensure that all americans have access to broadband will be put at risk. adoption efforts to get the third of american households that are not broadband

subscribers on line will be challenged. and if network upgrades and improvements are delayed or foregone, entrepreneurs will not be able to create and consumers will not be able to use the next great application. forgive me if i do not view these potential developments as pro-consumer. orders analysis of the new rules also contradicts any claim a consumer focus paired with respect to pay prioritization, the majority concludes prioritization arrangements with consumers would be unlikely to violate our rules and in contrast deals with third-party internet companies would raise significant cause for concern. in other words, causing and butr's-end users is fine, charging companies is not. the practical effect of her and this -- the practical effect of this decision is that this will

be borne by the consumers pretty price tag is estimated to be $182 billion in the next five years alone. a similar preference for its companies over consumers is reflected by the majority's approach to transparency. transparency should be about giving consumers the basic tools to make an informed decision. we should be working across the internet economy toward standardize disclosures to inform consumer choice, shed some light, good and bad, on practices of networks, applications, and devices. that is not the approach the majority takes. the main language of the order is exceedingly prescriptive. the majority seeks to micromanage. by doing so, the order sets up transparency regime that may be so detailed and engineering focused that the average consumer will be no better off. concern number three. the majority's focus on

preserving network operators current conditions will distort tomorrow's internet. given the dynamic nature of the internet, focusing on preserving today's network and practices is the wrong objective. internet is not a mature market. networks cannot stand still. the capacity to meet the escalating demand of existing users, let alone new users, will strain the resources of all operators and test network management practices. there also continues to be a great amount of experimentation in business models and consumer expectations. the threat of government center will unmistakably kill new developments and in he -- and -- innovate at your own risk is the wrong message to send, but i think this is the -- i am afraid it is the message that will be received. i am troubled by the need of treatment so many -- of some

many components. we have turned prioritization into a dirty word. to me, it is about quality of service and optimizing services for real-time applications. 4g will not even work properly without prioritization. specialized services have been the primary drivers of video and voice competition and have been critical to justify the cost of today and tomorrow's networks. network management is similarly reviewed as a potential loophole for misconduct, not an engineering marvel. i do not think the majority believes any of these functionality is are inherently problematic, but the overwhelming focus on a potential for wrongdoing is misplaced. it is fair to highlight potential areas of concern, but only in the context of the much more balanced and objective presentation. concern number four. the majority but the commission in the unworkable role as

internet referee. the genius of the internet today is that there is no central command, no unitary authority to dictate how innovation is to occur. no one must ask for permission. the majority has altered fundamentally the winning formula, forcing the commission into the role of judging how broadband networks will evolve. by adopting rules that will require significant interpretation, by creating new undefined terms, and by modeling its analysis with cautionary notes, the majority has insured that the new innovation and new practices will be subject to its approval. this adds delay and uncertainty, and i fear the government will take too prominent a role in shaping tomorrow's internet. the majority regulates an entire sector of the internet without any legitimate legal authority to do so.

the d.c. circuit only months ago rejected our attempt to enforce net neutrality principles. the commission will return to port with the same basic -- will return to court with the same basic authorities. first, we have no explicit statutory authority to support this decision. second, the majority's legal theory it would give the commission and on bounded right to adopt any policies it wants to promote its particular vision of the internet. the fcc literally has no power to act until and unless congress gives it power. congress has never given the commission authority to regulate network management, a fact validated by the court and comcast. the majority tries the everything but the kitchen sink defense. the majority in elects sheer quantity to make up for quality, and in doing so distorts the letter and the spirit of the act

to try to justify rules in an original oriented process. the bulk of legal support is based upon ancillary authority grounds that are in distinguishable from the ones rejected by comcast. i will therefore just focus on section 706 day. i am not persuaded by the majority passed in 10 to twist a 14-year-old de regulatory policy statement into an affirmative grant of authority. section 706-day direct the commission to encourage broadband deployment, relying on a 40 elsewhere in the act. our decisions are informed by section 706. it is a guide post as to how to use our statutory mandated responsibilities. the commission held long ago that the most logical statutory interpretation is that section 706 does not constitute an independent grant of authority.

the majority at tended to unsuccessfully write this straight forward vision and it's clear cut history. the core of the majority analysis is its this characterization of the advances order. under the majority view, the commission never interpreted section 7 06 in its totality. the commission raised the identical arguments to the comcast corp. and it was appropriately rejected. even as it -- if it were a grant of authority, that provision could not support today's prescriptive and investment- chilling action that raises various to broadband network investment. the text is clear -- it is about encouraging broadband deployment with a clear deregulatory focus on removing barriers to infrastructure investment. the commission has no authority to erect obstacles in the name of removing them. it strains all credibility to

contend that opposed -- imposing net neutrality obligations promotes broadband deployment. by reading out of the provision and a regulatory focus, the deployment purpose and the removal of barriers limitation, the commission has given itself plenary authority to regulate the internet. anything that promotes the virtuous cycle in the economic -- internet ecosystem could be regulated. this is my biggest concern of the majority of 706 analysis. in essence it replaced unbounded and celerity authority rejected by comcast court typically unbounded direct authority, trading on a limited power for another is far from comforting to me. when a commission feels compelled to explicitly declined to apply our rules directly to coffeeshops, bookstores, and airlines, it illustrates the lack of any ascertainable out the limits to our authority. i also have to believe a court

will be skeptical about the timing and manner of the discussion discovered 706a to be a superpower unlocked after adverse court opinion and political pressure to find some legal foundation to justify sweeping net neutrality rules. concern number 6 -- the majority decision to act as a legislator and not a regulator is a mistake that may undermine our agency's mission. the commission adopts rules that are almost word for word a bill under consideration in congress. we are a creature of congress, not congress itself. using a legislative proposal to base our actions underscores the majority tax beyond the appropriate role of an independent agency. when the commission makes political decisions and takes action is best left to elected officials, our proceedings inevitably turned more partisan and more controversial.

issues of this magnitude with such significant long-term consequences are decisions best left to congress. and concern no. 7 -- opportunity costs. by that, i mean that we squandered months on this effort, diverting resources and political capital away from real problems that lie within our core competencies. this spring a unanimous commission called for action on broadband deployment and adoption, spectrum reform, universal service and into a carrier compensation reform and public safety network. our focus belongs on that agenda, actual pro-growth, pro- job gain plan. starting today we should redouble our efforts to craft policies to create the regulatory environment necessary to attract the billions more in risk capital necessary to expand and improve our broadband the infrastructure.

i fear that today's action is not the end of the debate because of significant consequences for the internet. for the jurisdictional authority of this agency and for the proper role of the fcc. this debate may well move f move fora but i fear it will take up too much oxygen in our community. that said, i remain always the optimist. okay, i have to admit that this was a really good test of it, but still, i believe when we can work together there is much we can do. i hope the new year brings a fresh perspective on our nation's communications challenges and a renewed focus on working collaborative lead together. while i may disagree with the decision i do want to thank all of you at the table and those who have worked on this issue through thanksgiving, much of the holiday season, and a power outage. you guys sure on the christmas break this year.

i want to thank my staff for their unbelievably hard work the past few weeks. in particular, my gratitude to brad gillan -- who i could not have done without tireless -- ok, now tired -- your unflappable good nature has been truly inspiring. thank you to all of you and to your families and particularly grateful to hillary. i know she would love -- if you expand your holiday season differently. i feel compelled to make one last statement. we can disagree about policy decisions as we do here, but we should all agree that an open and sound process is critical to our decision making, particularly when the stakes are as high as this, the future and shape of internet policy and the millions of jobs that depend upon it. regrettably, i think this process fails every step of the way. the most significant failure actually happened to be the

last one -- my office mentioned and has not received a copy of today's order until 11:30 p.m. last night and it had significant changes from the previous drafts. 12 hours before them meeting is not sufficient given the magnitude of the issues at stake and the sheer number of changes that have been made. it is inexcusable -- and, mr. chairman, you said a higher bar for this agency to be data driven and transparent and you have lived up to that, and not here. this is an inopportune time to do that -- this proceeding did not need to be done in such a rationale considered manner this month. i thing we could all do better and let us do better in the new year. >> well, let me start with a quote -- the web as we know it is being threatened. the inventor of the world wide web in a recent article --

continues, and i quote -- in neutral communications medium is the basis of a fair competitive market economy, of democracy, and of science. although the internet and web generally thrive on lack of regulation, some basic values have to be legally preserve. today for the first time the fcc is adopting rules to preserve the basic internet values. maul the commission had and the past pursued bipartisan enforcement of open internet principles, we have not had a properly adopted rules. now for the first time, we will have enforceable rules of the road to preserve internet freedom and openness. to be clear, as we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the internet are unprotected. no rules on the books to protect basic internet values, a process

for monitoring internet openness as technology and business models -- no recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. and did no predictability for internet service providers so that they can effectively manage and invest in a broad band networks. that will change once we voted to approve this strong and balanced order. the vote on the order comes after many months of debate, which has often produce more heat than light. almost everyone says they agree that the openness of the internet is essential. that openness has unleashed an enormous wave of innovation, economic growth, job creation, strong business -- small business creation, and vibrant free expression. and of course, that is right. but despite a shared allegiance to the internet as an open platform there has been intense disagreement about the role of government in preserving internet freedom and openness.

at the one end of the spectrum there are those who say government should do nothing at all on open internet. on the other hand of those who would adopt expensive overly- detailed and rigid regulations. a few on each side impose needless tests. to some, unless the test is met, open internet rules are fake net neutrality. to others, unless their test is met, open internet rules are "a government takeover" of the internet. that is hutzpah, if i can follow one of your phrases, commissioner mcdowell. i reject both in favor of a strong and sensible not ideological framework, one that projects internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment throughout the broadband universe. because none of these goals are extractions. they live or die not in theory,

but in practice. in the hard work of grappling with technology, business, and the real world consumer experiences. and this issue we do encounter familiar arguments. we heard some today. the kind trotted out to oppose almost any government action. since we are dealing with nonfiction rather than fiction, there are many points that don't need a response but let me touch on a couple. we are told by some, for example, not to try to fix what is not broken and their rules of the road protecting internet freedom would discourage innovation and investment. but countless innovators, investors, and business executives say just the opposite. including many who generally oppose government regulation. over the course of this proceeding we heard from so many

entrepreneurs, engineers, venture-capital lists, and others working daily to invent and distribute new internet products and thereby maintain u.s. leadership and innovation. their message has been clear -- the next decade of innovation in this sector is at risk without sensible fcc rules of the road. as one leading early stage investor put it in pots echoed by a letter we received from 30 prominent venture capitalists -- "the lack of basic rules of the work -- road of what network providers and others can and can't do it are starting to hamper innovation and growth." as we heard in a letter from more than two dozen leading technology ceo's "common sense baseline rules are critical to ensuring that the internet remains a key engine of economic growth, innovation, and global competitiveness." innovators, entrepreneurs, and

tech leaders recognize as i do vital need for massive investment in broadband infrastructure. based on their in market experience, they also tel as broadband providers have natural business incentives to lead to their -- gatekeepers in a way to stifle innovation and limit the benefit. the point out even after the commission announced open internet principles in 2005 we have seen a clear and troubling deviations from open practices. given the importance of an open internet to our economic future, given the potentially irreversible nature of some harmful practices and given the competition issues among broadband providers, our record is filled with violators from businesses and consumer businesses -- that the fcc fulfil its historic role as cop on the beat for vitality of communications networks and to empower and protect

entrepreneurs and consumers of their networks. at the same time, government must not overreach by imposing rules that are overly restrictive or assume perfect knowledge about this dynamic and rapidly changing marketplace. we know that to me our broadband deployment goals, broadband providers must have business incentives to invest many billions of dollars to build out their networks. they must have the ability to run their networks and effectively and the flexibility to experiment with new business models to further drive private investment. today we are adopting a set of high-level rules of the road that strikes the right balance between these imperatives. we are adopting a framework that will increase the certainty for businesses, investors, and entrepreneurs. in key respects, the interests of edged innovators, the odds of

turner's creating content services and applications, their interests, interests of broadband providers and of american consumers are aligned. innovation at the end--- at the edge, consumer demand spurs private investment and innovation and faster networks lodging ever: an ovation at the end. i believe that our action today will foster an ongoing cycle of massive investment, innovation, and consumer demand, both at the edge and in the core of broadband networks. our action will strengthen the internet to job creation engine. our action will advance our goal of having americans broadband networks be the freest and the fastest in the world. our action will ensure internet freedom at home, a foundation for fighting for internet freedom around the world.

the crux of the order we are adopting, which is based on a strong and sound legal framework rooted in the communications act is straight forward. here are the key principles it enshrines and a key rules designed to preserve internet freedom and openness. first, consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their internet access and how the network is being managed. the transparency rule we adopt today will give consumers and innovators the clear and simple information they need to make informed choices in choosing networks or designing the next killer app. shining a light on the network management practices in a non- prescriptive way will also have an important deterrent effect on bad conduct. second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful traffic. to go where they want, not say

what they want, experiment with ideas on the internet, commercial, and social, and use the devices of their choice. the rule prohibits blocking of lawful contact -- content, apps, services, and connection of devices to the network. consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. no central authority, public or private, should have the power to pick winners or losers on the internet. that is the role of the commercial market and the marketplace of ideas. so, we are adopting a ban on unreasonable discrimination, and we are making clear we are not approving so-called pay for priority arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies, but not others. the order -- order states as a general rule it would not satisfy no unreasonable discrimination standard because it simply is not consistent with an open internet, for broadband providers to skew the marketplace by favoring one idea

or application or service over another by selectively prioritizing internet traffic. fourth, the rules recognize that broadband providers needed meaningful flexibility to manage their networks to deal with congestion, security, and other issues. and we also recognize the importance and value of business model experimentation such as tier pricing. these are practical necessities that will help promote investment in an expansion of high-speed broadband networks. so, for example, the order makes clear that broadband providers can engage in a reasonable network management providing certainty. fifth, the principle of internet openness applies to mobile broadband. there has been some confusion on this, so let me be clear -- there is one internet, and must remain an open platform, however consumers and innovators access it.

today we are adopting for the first time brought the applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and consumers and prohibiting mobile broadband providers from blocking websites or blocking certain competitive applications. as i said for many months, as many innovators and entrepreneurs have told us on the record and as the facts and records bear out that, there are differences between mobile and fixed broadband that are relevant in determining what action government should take for mobile at this time. among the difference is, like you need technical issues regarding spectrum and mobile network, stage and rate of innovation and market structure. also one of the largest mobile broadband providers have just begun providing 4g service using wireless spectrum in connection with that option of the spectrum. importantly, our order makes clear we are not endorsing or approving practices the order does not prohibit, particularly

conduct barred from fixed broadband. we affirm our commitment to an ongoing press -- process to ensure continued abolition of mobile broadband any way consistent with internet freedom and openness. any reduction in a mobile internet openness would be a cause for concern, as would any reduction in innovation and investment in mobile broadband applications, devices, or networks that depend on internet openness. order finally, today's recognizes the importance of the bill would -- vigilance. in properly enforcing rules we are adopting and in monitoring developments in areas such as mobil and market for specialized services that may affect internet openness. that is why i am pleased that we are committed to create an open internet advisory committee that will assist the commission and monitoring the state of openness and the effects of our rules. we are also watching -- launching an open internet app

challenge for private sector development of applications to empower consumers with information about their own broadband connections, which will also help protect internet openness. the rules of the road we adopt today are rooted in ideas first articulated by republican chairman michael powell and kevin morton and endorsed and the unanimous fcc policy statement in 2005. they are grounded in the record we developed over the past 14 months, including more than 100,000 public comments, numerous public workshops and hundreds of meetings with stakeholders ranging across the spectrum. the list of participants also include supported input from ftc and doj, to opposite effect we heard earlier -- the chairman of ftc participated in person. i am proud of the process that we and the staff -- it has been

one of the most transparent in sec history. and i am proud of the result, which already garnered broad support from the technology industry, including technet, information technology in the -- in this big council, hundreds of technology companies those groups represent, as well as many other technology and internet companies. including some of the nation's ventures capitals. also support from key consumer, labor, a civil-rights group, a list that includes consumer federation of america, consumers union, center for democracy and technology and communication workers of america. i thank them and the other groups that have worked so hard for many months on this issue. and there framework has been supported by a number of broadband providers as well who recognize the sensible balance of our action and the value of

bringing the level of certainty. our action today culminates recent efforts to find common ground on this challenging issue. here at the fcc as well as by private parties and in congress. i think each of those who took their time over the last several months to take on these difficult issues, seeking to bridge gaps and to find solutions and who supported us in our efforts to do the same. i want to praise and thanks mike collins commissioner copps and the clyburn, particularly for their vigor in pushing this commission to focus on the interest of consumers. your work has certainly improved our rules and order. i am glad that, commissioner clyburn, you mentioned the open internet and buys the committee because that idea came out of discussions that we had and i think it will be in a poor part of our ongoing processes. commissioners mcdowell and baker, as you pointed out, the

commission does tend to agree overwhelmingly on the issues before us and i look forward to working together on a series of items that serve the public and grow our economy. i can't express enough appreciation to the remarkable staff of the fcc who have worked so hard and so well to wrestle the difficult issues and it turned complex ideas into simple rules. even as the -- we have done more than one thing at once. it has been an extraordinary challenge to some many of the staff at the commission and we can honor your service enough. that includes many offices and euros at the fcc. -- bureaus at the fcc. many others working hard behind them, including our office of general counsel, office of strategic planning, engineering

and technology, wireline, wireless, media and consumer international bureaus, broadband -- it is horizontal, stretches across the commission. we find increasingly that almost everything we work on requires coordination and collaboration among our staff, and we see it as a healthy, productive, internet -- different issues easy to hard i appreciate that. i want to join my colleagues thanking all of the staff on the eighth floor. in particular, the extraordinary team i am lucky to have in the chairman's office. tax, jim howard, daniel orenstein, you have each gone well above and beyond the call of duty, keeping a wonderful sense of humor every day, a terrific spirit. you make each other smarter and you make me a lot smarter. i thank you for that. i apologize to your families,

but i know they join me in honoring your service. thanks to the work of these incredible public servants, thanks to our new media office which has worked around the clock since the beginning of this proceeding to make sure that everything that we do is available online. we have said a new precedent, not just that the fcc but around the government and the way that we have opened up this proceeding, permitted people to file comments on line, to birds is a big interactively on line -- to participate interactively on line. they make it easy -- look easy but it is especially hard to do given the infrastructure challenge is we have at the fcc. i think each of you for your work. thanks to the work of all of the incredible public servants that i mentioned, today and strength and fcc is adopting rules to

ensure that the internet remains a powerful platform for innovation and job creation. to empower consumers and entrepreneurs and to protect free expression. these rules will increase certainty in the marketplace, spur investment both at the edge and core of broadband networks and contribute to 21st century job creation in june in the united states. finally, these rules for fill many promises, including a promise to the future, a promise to the companies that don't yet exist and the entrepreneurs who have not yet started work in their dorm rooms or rise. -- or garage. for all of that, i am proud to cast my vote and with that, let us proceed. all of those in favor say aye or concur.

trigger finger. all those opposed say nay. >> the ayes have it. so ordered. request for editorial privileges is granted. i know we have not adjourned yet. i know, commissioner baker, to get you out to your plane. if your call -- the colleagues have any announcements? commissioner mcdowell? >> everyone think their staffs -- my team does not like to be thank publicly, i get yelled at when i did that. for all the long hours that they put in, for all of the sick children they have had to deal with while working on this, for all the spouses that have been left behind, they don't want me to thank them so i will honor that. but we have a few leading us. brooke ericsson and tom curtain, they have put in long hours and i want to thank them and this made -- this may be their last

day, at least for now. thank you very much. >> thank you. let me just in closing as we did farewell to 2010, on behalf of all of the commissioners, saying goodbye to many members of the fcc family. keeping with tradition, many longtime employees will be retiring at the end of this month or just at the beginning of next year. our employees are of course the fcc's greatest assets. each of the retirees made enormous contributions to this agency. together they represent literally many centuries of service advancing the agency that emission of promoting opportunity and prosperity through communications technology. i am not going to acknowledge all of them individually. i do want to say thanks to mary beth richards and steve van roekel we had an event a couple weeks ago that honor all of the 30-plus year employees at the

fcc. we had 150-plus year, 145-plus year that was honored -- one 50- plus year, and one 45-year. we need to get the oral histories of the incredible people here at the agency who have seen technology advance year after year and decade after decade. what the commissioners and predecessors wrestled with issues a lot like those we are wrestling with today. so, i thank all of the retirees. i am glad the commission room was packed that day. as president kennedy once said, the success of this government and the success of our nation depends upon the quality of our career public servants. it is often fashionable to say the opposite. but those of us who work here understand how hard and how well the staff of the fcc works.

please, join me in thanking all of our staff, especially our retirees, for their service and wishing them well. [applause] on that note, i want to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season. see you in the new year. madam secretary, please announce the date of the next meeting. >> the next agenda meeting of the federal communications commission is tuesday, january 25, 2011. >> now we are adjourned.

>> and you are watching c-span, created by the nation's cable companies and presented as a public service. here is what is ahead. coming up next, the center's director unveils the 2010 national cow. -- census directorate followed by a "washington journal segment." and the proposed budget and relation to the federal deficit. alzheimer's treatment and research. looking live at the u.s. capital where the 111 concord gaveled out for the last time and before leaving town several legislative items were sent to the president's desk. a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." extension of both tax cuts and unemployment benefits. a ratification of u.s.-russia arms deal known as start treaty.

and deal providing $4 billion for 9/11 first responder health care. a quick reminder that the next congress will dabble in wednesday, january 5, and you can see the house live here on c-span and the senate as always is covered on c-span2. of course, the 112 will see many new faces -- former vice president dan -- dan quayle's son, ben quayle, and frederick will send who replaced kendrick meek. speaker nancy pelosi and other members of congress like the capitol christmas tree and president obama and the first family attend the annual pageant of peace. on the 50th anniversary of the first televised presidential debate, michael dukakis and charles gibson talk about the preparation for the debates and

impact on the campaign. christmas day, former british prime minister tony blair and author christopher hitchin on the role of religion, garrison keilor talk about humor in public life, and supreme court justices sandra day o'connor and david souter discussed life on the supreme court. >> the u.s. census bureau announced the result of the 2010 national account at an event tuesday. census director revealed the figures and took questions. we are going to show a portion of this event right now and will follow that with the directors appearance on today's "washington journal." >> i am proud to report to the american public the 2010 national and state population counts and apportionment results

for the house of representatives. it is the 24th -- 23rd time this country has done this. at that time we were just a nation of 3.9 million people in 1790. this is the time when all of us come together to counter ourselves and make possible the critical step in our democracy. we begin with this release with a revelation of the national population counts. the official count of the u.s. as of april 1, 2010. th population on that date is the cumulative aspect of generations of americans growing and moving throughout the country. this first graphic tracks the growth of the 50 states, even reflecting the populations of territories that later became states. 100 years ago in 1910 there were 92 million people in this country. by 1970, the population had more than doubled. 10 years ago, the resident

population, that is, the population of the 50 states and the district of columbia, was 281,421,000. 10 years ago. under our constitutional mandate, the census bureau was charged with the job of conduct in the 2010 census to update that number. following that, in early 2009, our staff visited every street in this country to update our list of addresses. then in 2010, we mailed to 132 million forms, we worked with over 250,000 community and civic organizations to promote the census. we hired 600,000 staff members to knock on about $50 million at around the country to collect data in person. then we optically stand 166

million forms, built and reviewed a very large datasets stripped of personal identifiers. at this point, i am happy and proud to note we have finished the work required to produce our first 2010 census product. and i ask that the secretary and undersecretary joining me up here in a revealing for the very first time to everyone in the country at the very same moment, both here on television and on the internet, the official u.s. april 1, 2010, population count. as of april 1, 2010, according to the 2010 census, resident u.s. population is 308,745,538 persons. [applause]

>> this represents a growth of 9.7% over the official population count of 2000. now i am going to buy more details, including the 2010 state population counts. and i am going to review the results of the reapportionment of the house of representatives. first, let's break down the national figures to see the variation within the country

showing geographical variation and population growth. here we see the continuation of a multi-decade trend of growth in the southern and western regions. the ne grew by a rate of 3.2% over the last 10 years. the midwest grew by 3.9%. regionth, already the but the largest population, grew by 14.3%. finally, the west grow by 13.8%. if you look at a state map, you seek large variation across the states. many different circumstances have combined to contribute to the population growth or decline in each state. the state with the largest rate of population growth in the last 10 years is nevada, with 35.1%,

and i know in the last census, it showed a 66% growth. and the other hand, michigan saw a decline of 0.6% and pr, 2.2%. incenses 2000,-- in the census 2000 year,had declined but in 1990, four states had a decline. but as drill into each region. within the regions you will see variation across states. we begin in the northeast where we see rhode island with 0.4% growth compared to new hampshire with 6.5% growth. in the midwest, we again see the decline in michigan, but we also see 7.9% growth in at south dakota. in the south, it was a great range among individual states. louisiana, with 1.4% growth,

west virginia with a 2.5% growth, can be contrast that with texas with 20.6% growth. in the west, there is an even wider difference between montana, 9.6% growth, and the nevada with 35.1%. now i turn to the implication of the 2010 officials census results on the membership of the u.s. house of representatives. as you know, the constitutional purpose of the senses is the redistribution of the membership of the house of representatives across states proportional to the population. since 1940, the law has specified the census bureau used the method of equal proportion to assigns seats -- seats to the states. this method is based on the population of the 50 states, excluding the district of columbia, supplemented by the

federally affiliated overseas population. if we look at the congressional reapportionment each decade since 1940, the trend is a growth in the seats for western and southern states and a tendency to lose seats from the midwest and northeast and states. in fact, since 1940 there has been a net shift of 79 seats to the south and west. the affect of the official 2010 population count at the state level on congressional apportionment is a shift of 12 seats affecting 18 different states. those states gaining seats include arizona, florida, georgia, nevada, south carolina, texas, utah, and washington. as you see on the graphic.

those of losing states are illinois, iowa, louisiana, massachusetts, michigan, missouri, new jersey, new york, ohio, and pennsylvania. for 32 states, there is no change. texas gained the most seats in this decade, a total of four. and indeed, that state has gained seats for seven consecutive decades. the next graphic shows a national snapshot of the 2010 census apportionment of the u.s. house of representatives. california will have 53 seats. texas will have 37, new york and florida will each have 27. seven states will have only one representative. the average population size of

each house district will be 710,767 persons. this is up from 646,952 at this time in 2000. i might note that in 1790, each representative represented 34,000 people roughly. we have grown. examining theo pattern of population change. over in the last 100 years, the rates of growth of the u.s. population has gradually slowed. this is true in many developed societies. but there is a lot of variation across the decades. as you can see from the red line on this graphic. there are two notable decades the -- hear. between 1930 and 1940, the small growth rate of 7.3% is thought

to be related to the great depression. between 1950 and 1960, a high growth rate of 18.5% reflects the so-called baby boom. the percentage growth this last decade, as i stated earlier, 9.7%, is thus the second lowest of the past century. the census bureau also tracks the center of the population each decade. in 1790, the center of the population was in kent county, maryland. it consistently moved west, and noticeably south. in the year 2000, it sat in southern missouri. we have not yet computed the new center. it is based on lorton geography data.

we can't wait to see whether the center will remain somewhere in the state of missouri or move south into arkansas. we will let you know as soon as we know. another way of looking at change in the population over time is to consider the relative sizes of the four major regions of the country. in 1910, the west region of comprised only 7.7% of the national population. in 1990, for the very first time, the ne became our smallest region with 20.4%. the northeast and midwest regions consistently declined and militants size over the last 100 years. in contrast, by the 2000 census, the west was 22.5% versus the early 7.7% in 1910 of the

national population. of based on the 2010 results, we note this is the very first decade in our countries history -- country's history that the western region was more populous than the midwest. let us look at the states with the largest and smallest populations in the country. in 1910, four of the five most populous states were in the northeast and midwest. texas as the fifth. starting in 1940, california displaced texas in the top five. by 1970, texas rejoined the top five. in 1990, florida joined the top five. new york is the only state that has ranked among the five largest in each decade -- in fact, this has been true since

1790. what are the top five most populous states as of april 1, 2010? california, texas, new york, florida, and illinois. and you see the population counts on the graphic. the identities of the five least populous states in very a little less over the decades. if we look, for example, alaska -- i know it grow from 64,000 people as a territory in 1910 to 627,000 in of the year 2000. yet it has always been among the least of the five least populous states. we note that delaware and vermont on the east coast are also consistently among the least populous states. today, according to the 2010 census, the least populous states include wyoming,

vermont, north dakota, alaska, and south dakota. i have been talking about the size of population, but let us turn to percentage change, the rate of growth of population over the decades. between 1920 and 1930, michigan grew at a rate of 52%, reflecting the world wheat -- the growing manufacturing sector. between 1950 and 1960, florida grew at 78.7%, reflecting large migration from new york and other northern states, prevalence of air-conditioning and economic conditions in the state. arizona has been among the five states with the highest population growth for nine out of the last 10 decades. starting with a growth rate of 63.5% between 1910 and 1920 and more recently in 1990 to 2000,

40%. based on the 2010 census data, the five states with the fastest growth rate during the past decade are -- not bad, arizona, utah, idaho, and texas. you can see the growth rates on the graphic. also a story to tell for the states with the slowest growth or declines over the past century. the 1920's saw the great migration from the south out of states such as georgia. during the dust bowl in the 1930's and 1940's, many residents of the great plains were forced to leave. also consider west virginia -- population declined for two decades and then rebounded strongly in the 1970's, reflecting the changing fortunes of coal mining.

losses, therefore, can be temporary. this decade, the five states with the slowest growth include michigan, rhode island, louisiana, ohio, and new york. geographical the dispersion. we are a large country geographically. but our population is not evenly spread throughout it. an important attribute is population density measured by the average number of persons per square mile. i have been talking a lot about movement east to west, but it is important to note the five states with the highest published in density have remained the same for the past 40 years in this country. new jersey, rhode island, massachusetts, connecticut, and maryland. all of these were part of the original 13 states in the country. the five states with the lowest

population densities have remained the same for the last 20 years. although the ranking varies somewhat over the years. alaska, wyoming, montana, north dakota, and south dakota. states with some of the large land masses in the country. let me sum up. this really complete our first look the results of the 2010 census. there is much, much more to come. a revealing how our nation has changed over the last 10 years, at levels as small as a city block, as small as school districts and counties and cities throughout the country. i want to end this press conference with some of thank yous, to the nearly 309 million residents of this country, i thank you on behalf of all of us at the census bureau for your civic participation in the 2010 census.

i want to thank the thousands of census bureau staff throughout the country and i want to congratulate them for a job well done in the 2010 census. the specially to secretary and the deputy secretary -- a phrase that precisely correctly, this was a team with a leader in secretary locke that allowed us to keep our eyes on the prize throughout this endeavor. with his input and leadership throughout. we produced a wonderful census, in my belief. i want to thank you for the hundreds of hours, both of you, that you spend ensuring that this census was successful and and portly for me, conducted in a non-partisan and professionally statistical whey, statistically valid way. i know how packed your schedules are, and i thank you for your

continued support. this ends my remarks today. [applause] >> so, what we give the secretary and deputy secretary chance to get back to their duties, some announcements. we will open up for a q&a in a second. if you are on twiiter, you can send a question to -- if you are on the phone and you are in the queue you need to press one. we will start with questions and a room -- in the room right here in the front. if you want to go to our website, either 2010census.gov -- this presentation and materials are a well -- available on the website to download right now. yes, sir.

we will get you a microphone -- and please identify your affiliation. >> what you did -- the slow growth in louisiana to and how much of an impact was hurricane katrina and read it -- or can katrina? -- or hurricane katrina? >> we look at these numbers only a few days just as you have seen them for only a few minutes. so, the growth in any state is yet to be discovered in terms of what the root causes are. >> do we have a question on the phone? we will go to the room in the front row. please identify yourself. >> alex daniels, "arkansas democrat gazette."

what is the significance of the population center and do you expect it will be in arkansas? >> the significance of the population center, the answer to the question, well, if everyone weighed the same amount and we sort of balanced the country by geography, where would the center point be. i think the value of tracking the center of the population over time is that it teaches us how we have changed as a country. this movement south and west is really a very simple way to note how we as a population have changed and how we have moved over the decades. , a question on the phone, please? >> we have a question from sean from afp. >> thank you for doing this. i have a question about the rates of growth. the slowest since the 1930's.

what do you think of the main reasons? is it because of the immigration issue or also because of fewer births? >> well, growth in our country comes both from natural increases -- fertility of the folks who live here -- and part of the growth is due to bad in the country, and part is due to immigration. based on the demographic analysis, it looks like about 60% of the growth over this decade is due to these natural increases and maybe 40% due to migration. net. >> do we have a question from twitter -- when and where do we get -- a >> starting in february, state by state, the census bureau will release data that will be used

by the states for redistricting. that information gives counts down to the block level. that will be february through the end of march. then later we will begin to have the profiles and other files released that will get results on all sorts of geographical units. >, director of senses. . "usa today" headline. the subheading is, the nation sees the slowest growth, 9.7%, since the great depression. why? guest: if you look at many decades of the last hundred years, like a lot of developed countries in the world we are gradually reducing the rate of growth.

still growing but the rate is slowing. two exceptional decades -- the decade of the great depression had the lowest overall growth rebid, then the decade of the 1950's that saw the baby boom had the huge growth rate. you take bid two points out, gradually reducing. a 9.7 over the past 10 years. we are still growing. the why of that generally believed to be the combination of the aging of the population -- as we see in this society, but also the lower fertility rate of developed countries. all the countries are experiencing immigration but the net effect is the slowing of growth. host: in the growth, how much ease immigration? guest: we do not know exactly. if we look outside to other data sources, are best best in this

decade would be maybe 60% of the growth was natural increase of resin and population and maybe 40% migration. host: if you look at this knapp from yesterday, it looks as if michigan is the only state that lost population in the last 10 years. guest: in the 2000 census, no state lost population but in the 1990 census, four states lost population. it goes up and down and changes over time. host: what surprised you about the senses this year? you come i think there are several notable things. this is the first time we have gone over 300 million. the last senses was 208 1 million. that is a bit of a threshold. the second, the slowing of growth. and then the third thatou