two items followed by statements from the bench on both items. after that, we will proceed to individual votes on the two items. madame secretary, will you please announce our next item, and to the bureau and all caps -- to the bureau and off the general counsel staff who have worked so diligently on the id. we just adopted, our hearty and heartfelt thank you. >> good morning, everyone. are you asking questions or no?

ok. so we'll start over you. >> this is neil's last time for oing, this guys. when we announced today's agenda a month ago, i recall somebody on twitter saying that the may commission meeting was going to be epic. understatement. today, the commission took big steps forward on two of the most significant issues before the agency prerktsing and promoting the open internet and making available spectrum to assure a vibrant and competitive wireless marketplace. on the open internet, obviously, 've seen an outpouring

response to this has been so tremendous because the stakes were so high. the internet's openness has made platform ispensable for economic growth, for innovation and as we've seen, for free expression, and that must be preserved. but today, there are no rules on the books to stop broadband oviders from acting on clear economic incentives to limit internet openness. the commission has grappled with this issue for more than a decade. today, we took a big step forward. i want to emphasize it's a first step. it is an opening proposal, not a inal rule.

when the d.c. circuit issued its rule in january, i stated that we would move quickly to reinstate the goals of the 2010 open internet order using the section 706 road map that the court had laid out for us. that's what we proposed today. seeking me time, we're input on the prospect of rules under title ii and we're pecifically asking for omparative input between title ii and section 706 as to which might be preferable to the

other. i strongly support an open internet and i look forward to engaging with the american people into finally enact to fill the void that exists today because there are no rules to finally enact open internet rules. now, i've said i support an open internet. you also know that i support competition and that's what this historic incentive auction decision that we made today is all about. how do we promote a healthy

competitive mobile marketplace? the approach that we just approved is a turning point in our work on the incentive auction. as i said, we've been hard at work since the congress first authorized this in 2012. nobody has ever done this before in the world. this has been arduous. i'm confident that the wireless industry including providers of all sizes will rally around the rules package and make clear that they want to participate aggressively in this auction. so with this consensus on a path forward, we can turn our attention to making clear to the broadcast industry that they really have a once in a lifetime opportunity to step up and say do i want to reconfigure or

reconceptualize my business? because there are companies that are willing to bid on that spectrum. here's the bottom line for the first time. we've established a viable spectrum reserve for competitors n every market nationwide. but most importantly, this reserve will make sure that consumers are more likely to benefit directly from increased ompetition in all parts of the country, in all parts of the country -- rural, suburban, and urban. with that, i'll be happy to take your questions. paul? >> mr. chairman, would it be fair to say that in the holdings order, you have not gotten the

third vote if you had not agreed to the compromise sought by the commissioner? >> so, you know, i think it's mportant that we focus on what the results were. i just laid out the incredible results that for the first time, there has been a spectrum eserve throughout the country. it's interesting. i don't know whether you saw one of the late ex-partes that came in. at&t indicated that they thought that they would be bidding -- of a dollar and a half per mega hertz pop that they would be bidding for 20 to

40 mega hertz across the market. now, if i do my math right and i've tried it a couple of times so i'm sure as the are the right numbers, that means nine to 18 billion dollars. at that kind of number, we have blown past in debate as far as lower spectrum numbers because there will be demand. because -- and that demand will put enough money on the table that will incentivize broadcasters to show up. so this is -- you know, my favorite term is saying this is a big deal. this is a big deal, not only because we -- for the first time, set aside a reserve, but also because we're seeing indications that there is going

to be sufficient demand at sufficient prices to incentivize broadcasters to show up and produce significance spectrum. hi. >> so it came up several times that there are some interests in reinstating the anti-blocking provision. how can you do that without title ii and still stay in compliance with the circuit court provision? >> because we're going to establish procedures and that's ow we're proceeding on this. >> commissioner pie said that it is unfair to non-participating broadcasters. you sponsor that and explain the rationale of that? >> i think whatever happens in this, we want to make sure that there is flexibility.

there have been concerns that have been raised by broadcasters and we're trying to say to broadcasters, hey, there's flexibility. i think it's going to be the billion 750 that has laid out, period. >> in the mobile spectrum holdings proceedings, are those rules subject to change if the wireless structure changes? and if so, what are the details behind that? >> the answer is yes, they are based on the current structure and they could be changed should that structure change. >> mr. chairman, are you concerned that this will tie your hands and bog down your tenure at the commission? >> nope. [laughter] next question. i don't expect something that direct from you.

you normally -- >> given the outpouring of input that you've gotten over the last few weeks, what do you think you're going to experience over the next few months given now that you're formerly asking for comment? will you hold forums outside of washington, d.c. hearings or whatever to solicit comments? >> what we were -- so it was interesting. -- ple of sessions back there she is, right next to you. a couple of sessions back, happened on the day that boxes of petitions about open internet and i think cecilia asked me the question about how do i feel about all of that? i said hooray is my answer to you, in terms of yes. we want this kind of discussion.

yes, we want this kind of debate. it is healthy. it is good. it produces good results. and yes, we're going to be reaching out to do that. i'm not ready to announce what the exact plan is but you've seen we've already been on twitter head -- gigi had a twitter session. we're going to use the media and we're going to get out of an isolation that might occur if ou just secure it 44512. peter? >> you walked through in your discussions about hypotheticals that would be prohibited in your view. i was hoping that you can help us better understand the flip side of that. what would not be prohibited? what potentially sort of prioritization agreement could pass legal muster with you?

can you give us any sense something that might pass muster ith you? >> so, because i'm a public official with responsibilities, i have to carry in my wallet this, which is called gets government emergency elecommunications systems. i can go to any phone in america and type in this number and get priority access that you use in a case of emergency. i think we probably don't want .o rule out something like that >> user of the american

internet. >> no, what might be priority. i think we might want to prioritize a 911 call. you know, yeah. but do we want to have paid prioritization? i've told you where i am on that issue. i think that paid -- i think hat if a consumer buys surface from their internet service provider, that they ought to have the right to use all of that bandwidth to reach all of the internet, not this part or that part oar prioritizer. they should have the right to se it all. >> are they synonymous anymore? and what are the differences? >> i use them mom? mousely.

-- synonymously. >> would your proposal would real net neutrality if someone can pay for priority? >> let me be real clear. there has been a huge misconception. you all can do a great service. is proposal does not provide or mandate paid prioritization. there is nothing in this proposal that authorizes a fast lane. we ask questions. but don't jump to conclusions. cecilia. >> my question is more philosophical. in your opinion, do you believe that broadband internet has become a utility, a public utility? >> you know, the term public

utility has a multiplicity of concepts. let me express what i do believe. do believe that broadband is an essential pathway what for america, is crucial to the growth of our economy. and that is why it needs to be open. it needs to be robust. and it needs to be fast. how many times have i stood up here in other sessions talking about here's what we need to do to increase expectations? here what we need to make sure that there is robust -- that there are robust? now, here's what we need do to make sure it's open. >> when you say special? >> i think that it's clear. that's the whole discussion that we're having with our i.p. transition activities, that we're moving from a switch circuit environment to an ll-i.p. environment.

>> chairman, the 706 approach seems to rely on a strong enforcement hand by the commission. what about net neutrality that after your tenure, your successors may not prove so vigilant in enforcing the order? >> i think there are a couple of things. as has been discussed so frequently, we're living today my predecessor made a decade ago. there does seem to be a precedent and policy established. the second is if we established rules and people decide not to follow them, then there is, you know, a right to petition the commission to follow its rules. there is a right of court review. and we're trying to make sure that we've solve the problem that right now, there are no rules.

>> hi, chairman. from all the things you just told us, especially in your answer to cecilia's question, is it safe to assume then that if there was no threat of legal challenge to your rules, you would have preferred reclassification? >> i'm not even sure i understand that question. there's so many hypotheticals in there. if there was no threat, would i have -- i mean, let me be clear. i have said from the outset that i supported the open internet and after the court decision, i said that we would use 706 to follow the road map of the court decision. one of the reasons i believe that that is an important route to go is that i believe it is the quickest way to make shire that -- sure that we have

protections in place to solve the problem that there are no rotections in place right now. hi, lynn. >> would it be allowable under this commercial reasonable standard for a provider to pay for access beyond -- you say not to use what the consumers already paid for but something beyond what the consumers are paying for and the provider needs 10 giving seconds and they pay the i.s.d. to provide that. >> let's just understand what the reality is here. the -- the reality, i just dealt with my broadband provider to make sure that i had sufficient apacity. i buy a pipe. i buy a pathway.

nobody can mess with that. they can't degrade it. they can't tell me i can't get something. they can't tell somebody you can only get on tom's pathway if you pay me a price. they can't block. i bought a path to the internet. it's my -- this is the path to the internet. u're going off and inventing hypothetical path to the internet. there is a path to the internet. i bought it. >> did the 2010 rules band paid prioritization? >> the interesting thing about he 2010 rules is that that was something that wasn't frankly addressed as much in the 2010 rules. i believe that the intention was to band paid prioritization.

and that in fact, they talked about it and they talked about abuses that have happened. but i can't -- we never got to that point with rules. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know that you've been in a lot of pressure about the neutrality session and it's such a key issue for the obama administration. your fellow commissioner said you made some changes in recent weeks. during that time, did you seek opinions from the white house or from your predecessor? did you seek on their opinion when you were thinking things through? >> julia and i haven't talked for since before this, let alone about this. and the white house has been fulm the outset, very respect

about the fact that this is an independent agency. i've heard from congress a lot. >> i want to know why because there's been a lot of pressure. so, thank you. >> hi, mr. chairman. you noted the complexity of designing rules for the world's first incentive auction. you also noted the concerns raised by non-participating broadcasters. are you in the agency -- and the agency prepared for the possibility of an appeal by broadcasters? >> oh, golly. you know, i think almost every option -- auction the committee has ever held has had some kind of appeal in it. and yet the auctions have gone forward. matthew? >> i'm struck by the fact that it was a 3-2 vote. what do you think about this seemingly partisan risk and then

the republican commissioners say they were frozen out of the process. do you think there's a way to come to bipartisan agreement on this or do you think that the republicans are simply wrong about how best to protect the consumers on the internet? >> they were frozen out of the process. i mean, the drafts went out three weeks early. >> -- after the democrats. >> they -- i think there's a couple of things there. one, everybody got it three weeks early. there were a couple of early o's. you go to put something together -- somebody says excuse me, i want to participate with you on that. sends a message. 'm a no. i'm trying to think

here. yeah. ddy draft, there was not one single comment from the mayor's offices. we're trying to move ahead. >> so is it possible to come to partisan agreement? >> i'm always looking to have bipartisan agreements. i have a hard time associating myself with either of the comments of my republican colleagues today, however, who were pretty adamant that they think that the whole idea of open internet is something we should not be involved in. and i disagree with that strenuously. >> thank you. >> brooks. >> you've said that the idea of

an internet haves and have knots were born to you and the proposal doesn't like mandate a fast lane. but doesn't the very nature of 706 allow for a fast lane? >> let me go even beyond that, brooks. nothing in this authorizes a fast lane. in fact, it asks questions about fast lane. >> hi, mr. chairman. could you please characterize those questions? could they lead to the agency authorized under fast lanes in some conditions? i'm just so used to a question like that coming from brooks, you know. todd, i'm not going to -- here's what we're doing. there is nothing in this rule --

in this proposal, that authorizes fast lanes. the blocking section of the roposal, we asked the question should there be a ban on paid prioritization as an example of blocking? question. and the non-discrimination portion of the proposal, we asked the question should there be a ban on paid priority accusation? question. talk to me after we get the input on those questions. but there is nothing in the rule that authorizes fast lanes or paid priority accusation. -- prioritization.

>> would you consider comcast or netflix a form of paid priority sedation and is that something that you would ban? > so ed, as i said, that's a hearing question. so, let's make sure we get all our language straight here. -- applies ernet is to the service that the consumer uys to get from their computer where that pipe interconnects with the greater network. that's a peering point. that's a connection issue. that is the issue in comcast and net flicks. -- netflix. and i say that's an entirely different issue from this

transmission. it's an issue that we are investigating. it's an issue we're very interested in, but it's not the issue that's here today. >> thank you. >> thank you, everybody. >> several live events to tell you about on our companion networks today. on c-span2, the brookings institution holds a forum on the future of american infrastructure. that's at 9:30 a.m. eastern. also on c-span2 at noon, the congressional internet committee meets to discuss the f.c.c.'s plans to open internet rules. and on c-span3 from the national press club, a look at veterans

jobs programs including comments from a representative of the american legion. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. and in a few moments, a look at today's headlines plus your calls live on "washington journal." at 11:30 eastern, former secretary of state, hillary clinton speaks the america foundation. naacpst noon, the ncaa -- marks the 60th anniversary of the supreme court's brown vs. board of education decision. in 45 minutes, we will focus on the housing decision. a senior editor with telecommunications reports will take your questions about the sec's vote to move ahead with

new rules for noted internet. analyzelook at ways to gross to mastic product with erich strassner. ♪ host: a rather busy news week in washington and around the country. we will want to hear your views on some of the public policy issues that are in the news this week. this morning on "washington journal," you can see the numbers on this rain. if you are a democrat, democrats, (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. independents, (202) 585-3882. you can contact us via social media if you want to make a commen