website as well. have a great weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] ♪ number of event here in washington. at 11:30 a.m. we will hear from hillary clinton, 2016 presidential candidate. we will be speaking at the conference today. we are also the hearing from eric schmidt. we will have a here on c-span. the naacp legal defense

and education fund will mark the 60th anniversary of brown versus board of education. holder,l include eric deval patrick, and cecilia , wife of pharaoh good marshall. live coverage starts about 12:20 p.m. eastern here on c-span. holdeisty commission will the federal communications vote yesterday. it will allow internet providers to charge content providers such as for faster and more reliable service. you'll be able to watch this live over on c-span. >> several members of congress acting in good faith that a just our long-term issue. we applaud them for their efforts. i know there will be more discussion in town this week on

those attempts. others are suggesting that the political realities will have to settle for an infusion of cash into the trust fund as a stopgap measure. it used to be there were ways to do it. tighter now than it was. in may be true that you can get an infusion. it is hardly the long-term solution we need. every few years we wake up and abouthe same conversation theing, the same fight in same scramble for money. the only problem is we have not been doing very well. we have been doing this for 20 years. it has been 20 years since we increased the gap tax. money is important. you cannot make the dash if you

don't have the cash. do not think that is all we have to do to get the infrastructures working and looking at everything being discussed in recent days and weeks around the environmental issues. many of those are somewhat in conflict, not because they are wrong, but what we're trying to do and where we are trying to spend our money. what everybody would agree to is that we need a comprehensive program that meets the needs of a competitive 21st-century. support of as the jaded citizen. >> this week in, it looked at -- a look at america's aging infrastructure and a look at the economy. and dump of tv, where the gaithersburg book festival with live coverage throughout the day. john paul stevens on suggestions

to improve the constitution. rich lowery on the 14th president worth ethic and political ambition in the lincoln unbalance. sunday night at 8:00 on c-span3. discussionow at the on a net neutrality proposal. while it would ban them from blocking or slowing down access to websites, it would allow them to charge netflix for more reliably dutch revival service to their users. this forward move and begin formally collecting public comment. this is about one hour.

>> [indiscernible] [applause] >> the internet is our free speech. we're losing our rights to free speech. >> [indiscernible] [applause] >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible]

>> ok, we now have -- >> [indiscernible] >> for the may 2014 meeting of the federal medications commission, let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. first of all, we have a particularly full agenda today, and so for the benefit of my colleagues, we will be taking a break between the third and fourth items of about 10

minutes. we will be coming back quickly for that. i just want to say at the outset insofar as before the meeting began, there was some activity here. the purpose of what we are doing here today on the open internet is to make sure that we hear from everyone and that we start a process that fully opens the doors for comment by the american people. we are going to move through

that process today, and disruption does not help adding to the point where the american people can provide input to the process. we look forward to a full and complete discussion of all of these issues. and that is the important thing that we are beginning today. so, madam secretary, will you please introduce our agenda for the morning? >> thank you. good morning to you and good morning, commissioners. four items. first, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the d.c. court of appeals remand a portion of the 2010 open internet order and proposing enforceable rules to protect and promote the open internet.

second, you will consider an order that provided limited expansion to the class of wireless microphone users eligible for a license. third, you will consider an order that adopts key policies and rules for the broadcast television spectrum incentive auction, laying the groundwork for an unprecedented market-driven process for repurpose of spectrum for mobile broadband use in promoting competition and innovation. last on your agenda, you will consider a report and order that modifies the commission's policies and adopt rules regarding the aggregation of the spectrum for mobile wireless services through initial licensing and secondary market transactions to preserve and promote competition. this is your agenda for today. the first item will be presented by the wireline bureau. the chief of the bureau will be the introduction. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. we present for your consideration an item seeking broad public comment on the best way to protect and promote the internet.

the commission has emphasized for almost a decade the importance of open internet protections. but following the court of appeal's decision earlier this year, there are no legally enforceable rules insuring internet openness. to remedy this absence, the item before you proposes rules to protect and promote internet as an open platform for innovation, competition, economic growth, and free expression, as well as being a driver of broadband investment and deployment. i would like to thank our colleagues in the consumer and governmental affairs bureau and the wireless bureau, as well as the office of engineering and technology for their significant

contributions to this item. with me at the table are roger sherman of the wireless bureau. stephanie from the office of general counsel. matt and kristine of the wireline bureau. i would like to acknowledge carol simpson of the wireline bureau for her efforts on this item. kristine will now present the item for your consideration. >> good morning. >> to notice we proposed a six comment on that framework of internet rules that would affect consumers identified in the 2010 order and fosters innovation. the goal of this notice is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting internet openness. there are six key elements to this notice. first, in order to fulfill the objectives of the 2010 open

internet order, the notice proposes to retain the scope of the 2010 rules. it seeks comment on whether to revisit the scope of the 2010 rule, including with respect to the differential treatment with regard to mobile and fixed for broadband internet access. second, the notice tentatively concludes that the commission should enhance the transparency rule that was upheld by the d.c. circuit to ensure that consumers and providers and the internet community at large has the information that they need to understand the services that they are receiving an offer to monitor practices that could undermine the open internet. third, the notice proposes

adopting a tax of the 2010 no blocking rule that the rule prohibits broadband providers from providing edge providers of a minimum level of access to the broadband providers' subscribers. this would provide an important foundation in the efforts to protect and preserve internet openness. fourth, for contact not prohibited by that no blocking rule, the notice reposes a rule that would require broadband providers to adhere to an enforceable legal standard of commercially reasonable practices. the notice asks how internet can be prohibited under this standard and whether certain practices like paid

prioritization should be barred altogether. for any practices that are not prohibited outright, the notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. fifth, the notice proposes a multifaceted dispute resolution process to enforce the open internet world. this enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, decision-making, and effective access for users from providers and broadband networks alike. for instance, the notice proposes to establish the role of an ombudsman person who would act as a watchdog that would represent the interests of consumers, startups, and other small entities. the notice proposes these enforcement mechanisms include the self-initiated investigation and formal complaints and formal complaint processes adopted in the 2010 open internet order.

sixth and finally, the notice proposes to rely on section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996 as the source of authority for adopting the rules that will protect the open internet. it seeks comment on the best source of authority for production of internet openness, whether section 706, title 2, or another source of legal authority, such as title 3 for wireless services. with respect to the possibility of proceeding under title 2, the notice seeks comment on whether and how the commission should exercise its authority under section 10 of the act or section 332c1 for wireless services, to forbear from specific title 2 obligations that would flow from the classification of service. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges.

thank you. >> thank you and all the bureau. let's get comments from the bench. commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman, when my mother called about public policy concerns, i knew there was a problem. in my 16 years as a public servant, emily clyburn has never called me about an issue under consideration, not during my time serving on the south carolina public service commission, not during my tenure here at the commission, nor as a chairwoman, never. but all that changed for me and us on monday, april 28. indulge me for a moment. my mother is a very organized, intuitive, and intelligent woman. she was a medical librarian who earned a master's degree while working full time and raising three very interesting girls. she is smart, thoughtful, and engaged, and she is a natural researcher. so when she picked up the phone to call me about this issue am i

knew for sure something was just not right. she gave voice to three basic questions, which as of today's date her message remains on my telephone -- what is this net neutrality issue? can providers do what they want to do? and if it already passed? like any good daughter with an independent streak, i will directly answer my mother's questions in my own time and in my own way. [laughter] but her inquiry truly echoes the calls, letters, e-mails i received from thousands of consumers, investors, startups, health care providers and educators, and others across this nation who are equally concerned and confused. all of this demonstrates how fundamental the internet has become for all of us. so why are we here at exactly what is net neutrality or open internet? let me start from a place where i believe most of us can agree, that a free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a democratic society.

consumers with the ability to visit whatever website and access any lawful content of their choice can interact with their choice can interact with the government, apply for job, or even monitor their household devices, educators having the possibility to access the best digital learning tools for themselves, and students in health care treating patients with the latest technology, all of this occurring without the services or content being discriminated against or blocked, all content being treated equally. small startups on a shoestring with novel ideas, having the ability to reach millions of people and competing on a footing with those established carriers and their considerable budgets, innovation abounds with new applications, technologies, and services. at its core, an open internet means consumers, not a company, not the government, determine winners and losers. it is a free market at its best. all of us, however, does not nor will it ever occur organically.

without rules governing an open internet, it is possible that companies and broadband providers could independently determine whether they want to discriminate or blocked content, pick favorites, charge higher fees, or distort the market. i have been listening to concerns, not just for my mother, but from thousands of consumers and interested parties. startups this year, they want a chance to succeed if access is controlled by corporations rather than by a competitive playing field. investors who say they will be reticent to admit to companies because they are concerned their new service will not be able to reach consumers in the marketplace because of high

costs or differential treatment. educators, even where there is high capacity connection at their school, feel their students may not be able to take advantage of the best and digital learning. health care professionals worrying the images they need to view will load too slowly and patients will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies and specialized care made possible through remote monitoring, and i'm hearing from everyday people who say that we need to maintain the openness of the internet and that this openness enables today's discourse to be viewed by thousands and offers them the ability to interact directly with policymakers and engage in robust exchanges like we are experiencing today. in fact, let me say how impressed i was when i spoke to some of you clear this week. you came from washington, north carolina, new york, virginia, on your own dime, to voice how important this issue is to you. average consumers should have the same access to the internet

as those with deep pockets. there are dozens of examples across the globe where we have seen firsthand the dangers to society when people are not allowed to choose. government locking access to content and stifling free speech and public discourse, countries including some in europe where providers have degraded content and apps are being blocked from certain mobile devices. problems have occurred at home, particularly with regard to apps on mobile devices, even though providers in the united states have been subject to net neutrality principles and rules with the threat of enforcement for over a decade. to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our democratic values of free speech, competition, economic growth, and civic engagement.

the second question she posed was, can providers do what they want? the short answer is yes. as of january, we have no rules to prevent discrimination or blocking. this is actually a significant change because the fcc has had policies in place dating back to 2004 when the commission unanimously adopted four principles of an open internet and internet policy statement. these principles became the rules of the road with the potential for enforcement. in 2010, commission formally adopted rules to promote an open internet by preventing blocking

and unreasonable discrimination. when the commission approved these rules, i explained why i would have done something differently. for instance, i would have applied the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband, inhibited paid prioritization, limited any exceptions to the rules, and i am on record as preferring a legal structure. the 2010 rules are a compromise. yes, mom, i do compromise at times. in january of 2014, the d.c. circuit disagreed with our legal framework, and here we are

again. so i say again that the court decision means that today we have no unreasonable discrimination or no blocking rules on the books, so nothing prevents providers from acting in small ways that go largely undetected. and nothing prevents them from acting in larger ways to discriminate against or even lock certain content. to be fair, providers have stated that they intend for the time being not to do so and have publicly committed to retain their current policies of openness. but for me, the issue comes down to whether broadband providers should have the ability to determine on their own whether the internet is free and open or whether we should have basic

clear rules of the road in place to ensure that this occurs as we have had for the last decade. and this may be surprising to some. but i have chosen to view the court decision in a positive light, for it has given us a unique opportunity to take a fresh look and evaluate our policies in light of the developments that have occurred in the market over the past four years, including the increased use of wi-fi, deployment of lte, and the increased use of broadband on mobile devices, to name a few. this enables us to issue a clarion call for the public or they can once again help us answer that most important question of how to protect and maintain a free and open internet. that ability officially begins for everyone today. the third question, and judging by the headline and subsequent reactions, my mother is in good company here? has it passed? no, it has not, but let me explain. some accounts have reported that the chairman's initial proposal is what we are voting on and have conflated proposed rules

with final rules. neither is accurate. for those of you who practice in this space can i ask that you bear with me for a few minutes. when the chairman circulates an item, it is indeed a reflection of his vision. my office then evaluates the proposals, listens to any concerned voice by interested parties, including consumers, and considers whether we have concerns, and if so, what changes we want to request so that we can move to a position of support. this item was no different. it is true, i too had significant concerns about the initial proposal, but after interactions among staff, my office and the chairman's office, and the chairman, this item has changed considerably over the last few weeks, and i appreciate the chairman for incorporating my many requests

to do so. and to have a robust dialogue a\nd to have a robust dialogue about the best path forward. when the chairman hits the gavel after the vote is cast on this item this morning, it will signal a start of 120 unique days of opportunity, each of you have, in shaping and influencing direction of one of the world's most incredible platforms. the feedback up to now has been nothing short of astounding. but the real calls to action begin after this vote is taken. comments are due on july 15, and there's ample time to evaluate any of the proposals and provide meaningful feedback. you have spoken, and i am listening. your power will never be underestimated.

i sincerely hope that your passion continues. as i have said to those i met outside of the fcc headquarters, this is now your opportunity to make your point on the record. you have the whole ear of the fcc. the eyes of the world are on all of us. i will do all that i can independently and with the chairman to identify ways to encourage more interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, town halls, workshops, social media, because i know with a robust record this commission will be able to move quickly and get to the finish line with rules that are clear and enforceable. so, mom, i hope that answers most of your questions. and i sincerely hope you will not be compelled to ask me any more significant policy questions for another 16 years. in all seriousness, i want to

thank the dedicated staff from the office of general counsel, including jonathan and stephanie, as well as the wireline competition and telecommunications bureau for their work on this significant item, and i want to thank my wireline legal advisor rebecca for her expert work on this item, and, rebecca, yes, you may take tomorrow off. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner, both for your significant contributions to this item as well as to explaining to your mother and everyone how this process works. commissioner? >> thank you. i support an open internet, but i would have done this differently. i would've taken time before proceeding to understand the future, because the future of the internet is the future of

everything. there is nothing in our commercial and civic lives that will be untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. i would have taken time for more input, because i think as public servants we have a duty to acknowledge and respond to the great tide of public commentary that followed in the wake of the chairman's proposal. even now, the phone calls continue, the e-mails pour in, and the web itself is ablaze with commentary on how this commission should proceed. it is no wonder. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the broadband beneath us and the airwaves all around us deliver

its collective might to our homes and businesses in communities across the country. the applications economy began here on our shores. it produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. sustaining what has made us innovative and creative should not be a choice. it should be an obligation. as we proceed, we are also obligated to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our modern town square. it is our printing press. it is our shared platform for opportunity.

online, we are sovereign. we can choose, create, and consume content unimpeded by that prefaces of our broadband providers. sustaining this freedom is essential. so as we proceed, we almost keep in mind the principles of fairness and protection from discrimination, that have informed every proceeding involving the internet that has been before this agency. these are the essential values in our communications laws. they are the ones we have honored in the past. they must guide us in the future. so going forward, we must honor transparency, ban blocking, and prevent unreasonable termination. you cannot have a two-tiered

internet. so i support network ecology. i believe the process that got us to this rulemaking today is flawed. i would have preferred a delay. i think we moved too fast to be fair. so i concur. but i want to acknowledge that the chairman has made significant adjustments to the text of the rulemaking we adopt here today. he has expanded its scope and put all options on the table. our effort now covers law and policy, section 706, and title 2. if passed, this prologue, the future of this proceeding, the future of network neutrality and the internet is still being written. i'm hopeful we can write it together, and i am mindful that we must get it right. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner? >> thank you. a few years ago google's ceo was quoted as saying the internet is the first thing humanity has made that humanity does not understand. if this is so, then every american who cares about the future of the internet should be wary about five unelected

officials deciding its fate. after the u.s. court of appeals here in washington struck down the agency's latest attempts to regulate broadband providers practices, i recommended that the fcc seek guidance from congress. instead of plowing ahead, yet again on its own. in my view, recent events have only confirmed the wisdom of that approach. let's start by acknowledging the obvious. the chairman's proposal has sparked a vigorous public debate. but we should not let that debate obscure important common ground, namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. in 2004, then fcc chairman michael powell outlined four principles of internet freedom -- the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain

service plan information. one year later, the fcc unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the internet policy statements. respectful of these, these freedoms have propelled the internet's tremendous growth over the last decade. it has shielded online competitors from anti-competitive practices. it has fostered long-term investment in broadband infrastructure. it has made the internet and unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more.

and it has made the united states the epicenter of online innovation. i support the four internet freedoms, and i am committed to protecting them going forward. it is not news that people of good faith disagree when it comes to the best way to maintain a free and open internet. or as i think of it, how best to preserve the four internet freedoms for consumers. some would like to regulate broadband providers as utilities under title 2 of the communications act. this regulation would scrap the clinton-era decision to let the internet grow and thrive free from price inflation and other obligations applicable to telephone carriers. there are others, and i am one of them, who believe that president clinton and congress got it right in the telecommunications act of 1996 when they declared the policy of the united states to be preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet, unfettered by federal or states' regulations. i think we should recognize the benefits made possible by the regulatory regime that has been in place for the most art of the last decade. after all, nobody thinks of

plain old telephone service or utilities as cutting edge.

but everyone recognizes that the internet has potential, and that is because governments did not set the bounds early on. today's items strikes yet a third approach, a lawyerly proposal of a minimal level of access role, and not too much discrimination rules. it allows for paid prioritization under unspecified circumstances. it will brighten or hamper the future of innovation within the networks. it will determine whether control of the internet will reside with the u.s. government or with the private sector. it will impact whether consumers are connected by smart networks or dumb pipes. and it will advance or undermine american advocacy for an internet free from government control. my view of the dispute is not for us to decide. instead, it should be resolved at the people's elected representatives, those who choose the directions of government, and those whom the american people can hold directly accountable for that choice.

therefore, i am disappointed that today rather than turning to congress we have chosen to take matters into her own hands. it is all the more disappointing because we have been down this road before. our prior attempts ended in court. even with the newfangled tools that the fcc will conjure up out of the legal grab bag, i'm skeptical that the third time will be the charm. for these reasons, along with others that are detailed in my written statement, i respectively dissent. nevertheless, if we are going to a suitable role of many legislatures and punch the commission into this morass, we need to use a better process going forward. i agree with my colleague that we have rushed headlong into this rulemaking by holding this vote today. and when there is any bipartisan

agreement on net neutrality, that is something. we have seen what happens when the american people feel excluded from the fcc's deliberations. on several recent issues, many say that the commission has spent too much time speaking at the american people and not enough time listening to them. we need to give the public a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process. \and we must ensure that our decisions are built and based on a robust record. so what is the way forward? here is one suggestion. just as we commissioned a series of economic studies and passed media ownership proceedings, we should ask economists to study the impact of our proposed regulations and alternative approaches on the internet ecosystem.

to ensure that we get a wide range of perspectives, each commissioner should pick two authors to ensure accuracy. each study should be peer reviewed. and to ensure public oversight, we should host a series of hearings where commissioners can question the authors of the studies and the authors of these studies could discuss their differences. surely, the future of the internet is no less important than media ownership. but we should not limit ourselves to economic studies. should also engage computer scientists, technologists, and other technical experts to tell us how they see the internet's infrastructure evolving. they should be subject to peer review and public hearings. alternately, any decisions we make on internet regulation should be based on sound economics and engineering, and an accurate understanding of how networks actually function. they should be informed by the judicious and successful regulatory approach embraced by both democrats and republicans in recent years. and they should avoid embroiling everyone in yet another

years-long legal waiting game. in short, getting the future of the internet right is more important than getting this done right now. going forward, i hope that we will not rush headlong into enacting bad rules. we are not confronted with a crisis that requires immediate action. if we are going to usurp congress' role and make fundamental choices for the american people, we must do better than the process that led us here today. i respectfully dissent. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you. it should come as no surprise that i cannot support today's notice. as i said before, the premise for imposing net neutrality rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a faulty foundation of the believed statutory authority.

i have serious concerns that this item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope. the notice proposes to grant the net neutrality rules in section 706 of the telecommunications act of 1996. i have expressed my views that congress never intended section 706 to be an affirmative grant of authority to the commission to regulate the internet. at most, it could be used to trigger to regulation. the notice does not stop there. it takes comments to ensure additional language in section 706 and events just using section 230-b to broaden the scope of the usurp authority. this is absurd. now the commission is trying to cast a wider net of authority. service providers could become ensnarled in its future. the notice explores years of

investment by reclassifying access as a title 2 service. the commission examined applying monopoly era telephone rules to modern broadband services solely to impose unnecessary and effective net neutrality regulations. courts can recognize that they may legally reverse course as long as it explains the reasons for changing its position. i am concerned about real-0 world impact that such a decision could have on the communications industry and the economy as a whole. the current framework has provided a climate of certainty and stability for broadband investment and internet information. i also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently fails to meet statutory deadlines to eliminate all rules by supposing obsolete provisions. the notice just because location could be accompanied by substantial forbearance from the title 2 requirements, the need

to forbear from a significant number of provisions in title 2, for that title 2 is an inappropriate framework for today's technologies. indeed, title 2 includes arcane provisions. the idea that the commission can impose just the right amount of title 2 on broadband providers is giving commission more credit than it ever deserves. additionally, before taking any action on any issue, the commission should have a specific evidence that there is a market failure. the notice does not examine the broadband market, much less identify any failures. a true and accurate review of the broadband market which must include wireless broadband which show how dynamic it is. the notice fails to make the case that there is an actual problem resulting in real harm to consumers. the notice identifies at most two additional examples of alleged harm, and in one instance the condition conceived it did not find a violation.

in an attempt of a problem, the notice points to suppose it had conduct occurring outside the united states without explaining how it is relevant to a very different u.s. broadband market and regulatory structure. having come up empty handed, the notice proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns. at the top of the list is prioritization. even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognized that some amount of traffic prioritization or differentiation must be allowed or even encouraged. voice must the prioritized over e-mails, video over data,. prioritization is not a bad word, a necessary component of a reasonable network management. the notice is skeptical of paid participation. companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of net neutrality, pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience.

they have been doing it for years. fears that paid prioritization will be a great disservice for other users, relegating them to a slow internet, have been disproven. because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. the notice allows providers could seek a binding staff guidance or prospective reviews of their practices. but that is very troubling when legitimate committees are put into the position of having to ask the government every time they need to make a business decision in order to avoid litigation. it is more telling -- the notice devotes several pages to a wish list of disclosures, requirements, and certifications. they will impose new burdens and carry real costs, they may not ever wind up having meaningful ends to use. what will be the average consumer do with the information on packet corruption and jitter question at the approach to cost-benefit analysis cannot continue, and i intend to spend time in the proving this

important fraction. proposed net utility rules and legal theories will stifle innovation and investment by private sector can provide no help to consumers, and thrust the commission into a place it should not be. i respectfully dissent. >> [indiscernible]

>> please. we are trying to move ahead. >> [indiscernible] >> we are trying to move ahead. [applause] >> i strongly support an open internet. this agency supports an open internet. although you have seen today that the ability to a sure and open internet is a matter of dispute.

there is one internet. not a fast internet. not a slow internet. one internet. attention is being paid to this topic throughout the country, here in this room, is proof positive as to why the open and free exchange of information must be protect did. thank you to all of the thousands who have e-mailed me personally about this. thank you to those who feel so strongly about this, that they have been living in tents outside the building, and i enjoyed our meetings. one could only conclude that the founding fathers must be looking down and smiling at how the republic that they created is carrying out the ideals that they established. by releasing this item today, those who have been expressing themselves will now be able to see what we are actually

proposing. they have been heard. we look forward to further input, and i say thank you for your passionate caring about this very important issue. but today we take another step. this is been a decade-long effort to preserve and protect the open internet. those previous efforts were blocked twice by court challenges who sell internet connections consumers. today this agency moves to surmount that opposition and to stand up for consumers in an open internet. there has been talk up here about freedoms, about whether or not there has been market failures.

the d.c. circuit in its opinion on the 2010 decision of this commission made an interesting observation that i would like to quote. there is little dispute that broadband providers have a technological ability to distinguish between and discriminate against certain types of internet traffic. the court found there have been examples of abuses from individual cases to mobile carriers denying access to apps for banking or voice or video. so this notice of proposed rulemaking starts an important process where it ends, we will learn during the process. that is why am grateful for the attention this has received. we start with a premise -- protecting the open internet is important for both consumers and economic growth. we are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open internet. and as commissioner clyburn much more eloquently pointed out, what we are dealing with today is a proposal, not a final rule. with this notice we are asking for specific comment on different approaches to o'connor's same goal -- an open internet. nothing in this proposal nothing in this proposal, by the

way, authorizes paid

prioritization, despite what has been incorrectly stated today. the potential for there to be some kind of an "fast lane," available to only a few, has many concerned. personally, i don't like the idea that the internet could become divided into haves and have-nots, and i will work to see that that does not happen. in this item we specifically ask whether and how to prevent the kind of paid prioritization that could result in "fast lanes." two weeks ago, i told the american convention of -- the convention of america's cable

broadband providers something that is worth repeating here. "if someone acts to divide the internet between haves and have-nots, we will use every power at our disposal to stop it." i will take no backseat to anyone that privileging some network users, in a manner that squeezes out smaller voices, is unacceptable. today, we have proposed how to stop that from happening, including consideration of the applicable it he of title ii. there is one internet. it must be fast. it must be robust, and it must be open. the speed and quality of the connection the consumer purchases must be unaffected by what content he or she is using. and there has to be a level playing field of opportunity for new ideas. small companies and startups must be able to affect the ugly reach consumers with innovative

products and services and they must be did against harmful conduct by broadband providers. the prospect of a gatekeeper or choosing winners and losers on the internet is unacceptable. let's stop for a minute and look at how the internet works at the retail level. the consumer accesses the

internet using conductivity that they have her just from an internet service provider. that on activity should be open and in violet. it is the simple purchase of a pathway. i believe it would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore not her metadata under this proposal, for the isp not to deliver the contracted for open pathway. but let's consider specifically what that means. i want to get rules that work like this. if the network operators slowed the speed below that which the consumer bought, it would be

commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. if the network operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no blocking rule and be commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited. when content provided by a firm such as netflix reaches the consumer's network provider, it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use the bandwidth for which the consumer had already paid and therefore prohibited. when a consumer buys specified capacity from a network divider, he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity the network provider can prioritize for their own profit purposes.

prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore prohibited. simply put, when a consumer buys a specified bandwidth, it is commercially unreasonable, and thus a violation of this proposal, to deny them the full connectivity, the full benefits that connection enables. also included in this proposal are two new powers for those who use the internet and for the commission. expanded transparency will require networks to inform on themselves. i call it the "rat out rule." the proposal expands existing transparency rules to require that networks disclose any practices that could change a consumers or a content provider's relationship with the network. i thus anticipate that, if a network ever planned to take an action that would affect the content providers access there would be time for the fcc to consider petitions to review such an action. recognizing that internet entrepreneurs and consumers should not have to hire a lawyer to call the commission's attention to a grievance, and on

the buds person would be created within the fcc to receive their complaints and, where warranted, investigate and represent their case. a separate and apart from this connectivity is the question of interconnection between the consumer's network provider in the various networks that deliver to that i asked he. that is a different matter that is better addressed separately. today's proposal is all about what happens on the broadband providers network and how the consumers connection to the internet may not be interfered with or otherwise compromised. the situation in which the commission finds it self is inherited from the actions of re-vs commissions over the last decade. the d c circuit's ruling in

>> the d c circuit ruling in the last year upheld the determination that we need rules to protect internet openness. upheld action to adopt such rules. in even found it was response to that authority. the two706 is one of proposed for the goal of open internet.

we are specifically asking for input as to the benefits of each and why one might be preferable and we have established a link the comment and reply timeframe in order to allow everyone to participate today. i would like to make a personal point as a former entrepreneur and venture capitalist. i know the importance of openness firsthand. hadn entrepreneur, i have products and services shut out of closed cable networks. as a venture capitalist, i invested in companies that would

not have been able to innovate if the network were not able to open. i've had hands-on experience with the ordinance of network openness. and i will not allow the national asset of an open internet to be compromised. understand this issue in my bones. i've got scars from when my companies were denied access in the pre-internet days. the consideration that we are beginning today is not whether the internet must be open am my we willt how and when

have rules in place to ensure an open internet. been to laye has out the d c circuit in the believe that it was the fastest and best is -- best way to get protections in place. i have also said repeatedly i'm open to using title ii. this rulemaking begins the process by putting forward the proposal, asking important and specific questions and opening the discussion to all americans. we look forward to the feedback on all of these approaches. and now, we will proceed to a vote. aye.hose in favor say all opposed? the eyes have it. the order is adopted. the request for editorial privileges is granted.

before we move onto to our next item, i would like to note that the order will be slightly different for the next two items. we will first hear presentations from the fcc staff for the next two items followed by statements from the bench on both items. proceedat i'm a we will to individual votes on the two items. madam secretary, would you please announced the next item, a hearty and heartfelt thank you. >> that fcc meeting took place yesterday. we will have more from the fcc in just a moment. from we are expecting more the sec over -- fcc over net neutrality, scheduled at

onn p.m. -- at noon eastern c-span. also, secretary -- former secretary of state hillary clinton. from ericso hear schmidt, the chairman of google. that is coming up live at 11:30 a.m. eastern this morning. and at 12:20 p.m. eastern, the legal fund is marking the 60th anniversary of the landmark decision of the supreme court in brown versus board of education striking down school aggregate -- segregation. live coverage starts at about 12:20 p.m. eastern here on c-span. we will return now to the fcc, following yesterday's meeting. the commissioner -- commission chair tom wheeler spoke with reporters about net neutrality along with the decision to limit

spectrum that carriers can buy next year. it would allow room for smaller carriers to compete in the low-frequency market. this news conference is just under 30 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we will start with some housekeeping. are you asking questions or no? ok. so we'll start over you. the chairman wants to say a few words. >> this is neil's last time for doing 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 protection and promoting the open internet and making available spectrum to assure a vibrant and competitive wireless marketplace. on the open internet, obviously, we've seen an outpouring response to this has been so tremendous because the stakes were so high. the internet's openness has made it and indispensable platform 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 providers 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 final rule. when the d.c. circuit issued its ruling 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.

at the same time, we're seeking input on the prospect of rules under title ii and we're specifically asking for comparative 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 in every market nationwide. but most importantly, this reserve will make sure that consumers are more likely to benefit directly from increased competition 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 -- you would not have gotten the third vote if you had not agreed to the compromise sought by the commissioner? >> so, you know, i think it's important 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 reserve 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 -- that a price of a $1.50 per megahertz pop that they would be bidding for 20 to 40 megahertz across the market. now, if i do my math right and i've tried it a couple of times so i'm sure as they are the right numbers, that means $9 billion to $18 billion. 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? -- the circuit court's decision? >> because we're going to establish procedures and that's how we're proceeding on this.

>> commissioner pie said that it is unfair to non-participating broadcasters. can you sponsor that and explain -- can you respond to that and explain the rationale of the packaging? >> 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, $1 billion, $750 million that has been 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. a couple of sessions back -- cecelia? there she is, right next to you. a couple of sessions back,

it 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 you 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 with you? >> so, because i'm a public official with responsibilities, i have to carry in my wallet this, which is called gets government emergency telecommunications 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 to rule out something like that. >> user of the american internet. for the average american. >> 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 that if a consumer buys surface -- service 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 or a prioritizer. they should have the right to

use it all. >> we hear the terms net neutrality and open internet used synonymously. are they synonymous anymore? and what are the differences? >> i use them synonymously. >> would your proposal would -- continue to provide 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. this 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. i 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? announcing, here is what we do >> you sure it is open? think it is open? >> 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 all-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. number one is as has been discussed so frequently, we're living today my predecessor made a decade ago. -- living today with decisions 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 protections 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 capacity. 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. you'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

paid prioritization? >> the interesting thing about the 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. 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 talkedus and i haven't since before this, let alone about this. and the white house has been from the outset, very respectful 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 ft and then thek 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 no's.

you go to put something together -- somebody says excuse me, i want to participate with you on that. sends a message. i'm a no. the draft -- i'm trying to think here. yeah. the friedey draft, there was not one single comment from the mayor's offices. we're trying to move ahead. -- from republican offices. we are 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

-- authorizing fast lanes under some conditions? >> brooks -- 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. in the blocking section of the proposal, 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 prioritization? 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 prioritization. >> would you consider comcast or netflix a form of paid priority sedation and is that something -- paid prioritization 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. the open internet is -- applies to the service that the consumer buys to get from their computer to 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

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. >> [inaudible] will that be today or later? >> hopefully. >> thanks. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

fcc thisn the afternoon. wife coverage -- live coverage starts at noon. , formere speakers today secretary of state hillary clinton. it was set to start at 11:30 a.m. this morning, but they have now pushed that back to 11:45 a.m. we will have live coverage when it gets underway on c-span.

again, waiting for former secretary of state and possible 2016 presidential candidate hillary clinton. she is one of the speakers today at the new america foundation conference. we will have her comments live in about 10 minutes from now. right now, though, secretary of state john kerry was in london yesterday for a meeting with britain's foreign secretary on the situation in syria will stop he spoke with reporters afterwards and called the countries june elections a farce. he also commented on ukraine and warned of additional sanctions if russia interferes in the may 25 elections. >> good afternoon, everybody. first of all, let me thank the foreign secretary for his terrific hosting today, convening all of us together to be able to talk about a number of challenging issues that we

are facing together. and i think after today, with the and even better -- with an even better sense of direction. i think it is, safe to say, frankly, more united than we have been in some time. unanimouslyof us, remain committed to changing the dynamics on the ground in syria. since we last met, the opposition has itself taken some significant steps forward to expand their leadership, to expand their reach into syria to become more effective. and we know, as you know, we just hosted a delegation in washington for a number of days and a series of meetings, including with the state department, the white house, and the president.

the truth is, we all know that the grave humanitarian crisis is growing more dire by the day, notwithstanding the best efforts of people today -- to date. and the bloodshed of the syrian people has not stopped. so today, in one unified voice, remain it clear that we committed, even more so, to taking steps that could, in fact, make a difference. most importantly, we start in one unified voice with rejecting any notion whatsoever that the elections that the assad regime have called -- has called reflect any legitimacy whatsoever. there is no way this illegitimate effort for an impossible circumstances for another -- and election to

somehow give legitimacy where there is none. together we are unified in saying that assad's staged elections are a farce. they are an insult. they are a fraud on democracy, on the syrian people, and on the world. and the fact is, the cynical political theater he is engaged in will not change one thing the day after it happened. , histatus in the world position with respect to future , and inip in syria fact, the potential of any resolution will be exactly where they were the day before the election, although perhaps even slightly worse because of the fraud of this effort. i mean, ask yourself, how do you a legitimate election when half of the people in your country are displaced and not able to vote? how do you have a

legitimate election when another several million people are in refugee camps unable to vote? how do you have it when hundreds of thousands of people, almost one million perhaps, are scattered in various countries in the region seeking safety from assad? it is impossible to believe that under those circumstances where people are hunkered down in their homes, intimidated, and afraid to be able to come out, afraid of being forced to do one vote or another, you know, you just have no climate, no framework within which you can talk about legitimacy. today that we have to redouble our efforts, all of us, in support of a modern opposition in order to bring about a peaceful resolution that the people of syria wants.

and that requires the full support of the international community, and that was the focus of our discussions today. i'm sure your question would be -- what is different today? well, look at the length of the communiqué. it is short, and purposely short. points to the election, and there is a new sentence -- i think it was the last sentence that point out that our teams will come together in very short order now to lay out a very specific set of steps that we can and will take together in order to have a greater impact here. there is not anybody that came -- that didn't come together today without the realization -- or is not anyone that came together today without the realization that there have been hurdles. from the time that we announce the possibility of a geneva conference in moscow -- a geneva conference last year, things

changed on the ground. hezbollah enter the fight. iranian forces entered the fight on the ground. and more terrorists were attracted to the fight against assad, regrettably, thereby creating the framework that some of the opposition was fighting the terrorists and not assad. that has been the simple reality of what has taken place over the last year. that has changed. there is a greater level of unity, a greater level of understanding of purpose. and over the next days as those teams meet, there will be a serious definition of steps that can be taken in order to have a greater impact. the united states is committed to doing our part. sat there andoday discussed what they felt they could do to grow the effort. and that is what is different.

announcedweek, we that the syrian opposition coalition representative offices are now foreign missions. and we are also working to provide new, nonlethal assistance, and to speed up the delivery of assistance to the free syrian army. hastreasury department imposed new sanctions and restrictions against members of the regime, and we will continue to strengthen our ties with the syrian opposition, as i think you've seen firsthand in a visit to washington this past week. on behalf of the united states, i want to extend our deep concern for the two british journalists who were shot, and were beaten while trying to share with the world the real story of what has -- is happening in syria. this is not the first time that courageous reporters have been hard -- part of the

heartbreaking story of syria. far too many journalists and innocent civilians have been hurt, killed, or held hostage in syria. and just two days ago in washington, we met with one of the families, with many of the families, actually, of those being held in syria. we are keeping up a very focused effort to try to secure their release. reiterateerate -- we our respect for the reporters who put their lives and liberty on the line to tell the stories to the world that otherwise people would never learn. let me also say a quick word about two other issues that we -- hereon this week today in the early part of our meeting this morning. that is, ukraine and libya. an -- a very good discussion with british, french,

german, italian for ministers, our counterparts, on ukraine. we welcome the successful dialogue, the roundtable in kiev that took place yesterday, and we welcome the decentralization, constitutional reform, and protection of minority rights. and we hope the separatists, we hope the russians, and we hope others who are disgruntled by what is taking place will take note of legitimate effort to try to reach out and bring people to the table and find political compromise. we are absolutely committed to the notion that there must be a protection of these minority rights, and we support the efforts toin kiev's reach out with serious, concrete plans for increased autonomy and decentralization. i would note that the level of decentralization and autonomy that prime minister yatsenyuk

has articulated far exceeds any level of decentralization or autonomy that exist anywhere in russia. i think it is important for everybody to know that. the roundtable coupled with the providesprofound -- ukraine with the opportunity to heal the divide. and that will now be encouraged through a second meeting of a roundtable that will take place in eastern ukraine in a few days. this morning, we also underscored the vital importance of a free and fair presidential election across ukraine on may 25, including importantly, the eastern provinces. they're also working with ukrainians and the osce to protect the rights of all ukrainian citizens to make their voices heard through the ballot boxed in a legitimate election. we call on the separatists and

the russians to respect the election process, to help make it happen even, to encourage ukrainians to find their -- define their future. that is the best way to de-escalate the situation. we believe this effort to legitimize this effort and move to have a broad-based election according to the constitutional process of ukraine is in stark contrast to the agenda of the pro-russian separatist and their supporters, who are literally sowing mayhem in communities viansk.ow beyond -- slo they are seeking to speak for everybody through the barrel of a gun and through their own narrow sense of what they want for an outcome. we agreed this morning that if russia, or its proxies, disrupt

the elections, the united states and those countries represent it here today in the european union will impose economic sanctions as a result. our message is quite simple -- let ukraine vote. let the ukrainian people choose their future, and let them do so in a fair, open, free, accessible election. and finally on libya, the united states and our quintet of partners reiterated today our shared commitment to this -- the stability and security of the people in libya and the region. we agreed that we need to do more and we understood there is a challenging moment in libya. and we need to try to accelerate the effort to bring about stability and security and governance that is necessary to provide the time for libyan authorities to confront the threat from extremism and to

confront the challenges that their country faces for just providing governance to their people. in that light, and in support of the libyan government, we are working collectively through a number of different on voice -- fromice -- envoys britain and others and we will work in concert. we have cast them to work as one entity, not -- we have tasked them to work as one entity, not as individuals. and we will be working with the libyans in the next days to try to help them gain control of their revenues and to try to build a coalition that can build the offices of governance that are necessary. this is a small country, 6.5 million people, small abandoned the state -- smaller than the state i represent it in the senate, privileged to represent

from all 35 years. libya is a country rich in resources, rich in people with valiant capacity. and we hope that in the days ahead, we will be able to tap into that and find a way to help the libyan people to move forward and have the kind of peaceful governance that they aspire to. with that, i will be happy to take a couple of questions weekly. >> thank you, secretary. on syria, i think you correctly put the -- your finger on what , whatestion is, which is is different after today? in terms of u.s. policy, could you tell us whether the united states is prepared to do what britain has done, which is to change the way its aid is sent into syria and start sending it through ngo's or other means instead of through the united nations?

and also, on the expanded aid that you have talked about to both the military and political sides of the opposition, has repeatedly called for military assistance to stop the attacks against civilians, including the barrel bombs that you have personally announced. are you and our allies prepared to take this step? if not, why not? and finally, it was said this 14k that france has seen chemical attacks by the steering government since october. secretary hagel said yesterday that the u.s. has seen no such evidence. is this because you have not seen what the french have seen? or you have seen it and do not find it conclusive? thank you. >> let me take them, 1, 2, 3.

open to the idea of providing aid through any means that we'll get to the people who need it. and while the decision has not been categorically made, i just repeat, we are open to anything that will get the aid to the people. and we are very frustrated with the current process. people.t getting to it is flowing through one day, one entryway, and it is going through damascus, and/or controlled by the assad regime. that is unacceptable. we need to get it in more directly and we are working to do that. that is a certainty. karen,addition to that, we are going to in the united nations security council challenge the appropriate level of follow-through that is necessary to be able to fulfill

what was passed in the rebels -- resolution previously a few months ago in order to guarantee the delivery of aid. it is not being fulfilled. it has to be fulfilled, and our patience is gone. we will join with other countries in an effort to try to guarantee accountability to make that happen. we are determined that people will be able to get aid. that people who left their homes, for instance, did so because they were literally under siege. they were being starved to death. civilians and others, and that is against the laws of war, and not to mention anybody's levels of values and decency, but obviously not a thought -- assad. we will press this issue in any way possible in the days ahead. on the issue of weapons, i'm not going to discuss what specific weapons or what country may or may not be providing.

as you know, we are providing nonlethal aid. of i will say that out today's meeting, every facet of what can be done is going to be ramped up, every facet. and that includes political effort, it includes aid to the opposition. it includes economic efforts, sanctions. today, we announced him as i told you, additional sanctions. it will be a ramped up efforts to make it clear that despite the fact that assad may think today he's doing better and this process has somehow -- is somehow going to come to a close , the answer is, no. are not going away. the opposition is not going away. a are determined to reach political settlement that protects all of the people of syria. , all want to make it clear

minorities can be protected here. is just assad protecting himself. and the fact is, in doing so, he is making a partnership with terrorists elements, attracting terrorists, engaging in terrorist activities against his own people. and i don't think anybody today in theterred one iota notion there might be a better route, another route other than a political settlement, which can only be thought about when he is prepared to negotiate. as everybody looks at the resignation of brahimi and makes a judgment about it, it is not -- you know, he performed valiantly against great odds. but if the parties are not prepared to perform under the standards they have accepted to nothinge on, there is

that a negotiator or intermediary can do. we remain committed to try to find that solution, and i will not discuss specific weapons systems or otherwise except to say that every possible avenue that is available is going to be pursued by one country or another. issue, the issue of i suspect -- i have not talked to secretary hagel about what was in his mind or what he was referring to with respect to that. chlorine is not listed on the items byrohibitive itself, freestanding, under the chemical weapons convention. used as a chemical weapon in the conduct of war is

against the chemical weapons treaty. .nd i have seen evidence yet and hasrified not been confirmed, but i've suggestsraw data that that there may have been, as france has suggested, a number of instances in which chlorine has been used in the conduct of war. and if it has come and if it can be proven, then that would be against the agreement of the chemical weapons treaty, against the weapons convention that syria has signed up to. >> [indiscernible] thank you. secretary kerry, to follow up on your last point, if it was asven that chlorine was used a chemical in war, which is

prohibited, what will the syrian government face? what steps can you face? and i want to go back to military aid. i know you will not going to the details of assistance, but i would like to ask you if you are more comfortable with the free syrian army now, and i want to use ofur opinion of the weapons by them in general. >> i think the free syrian army has clearly improved. it has clearly gained in its capacity. it has gained in its command and control. it is also now being supported in a more coordinated way than as one countryr, may have been supporting one group or another. that has now been more concentrated. we think they are making progress.

are they a trained army in the context of a nationstate that we measure things by in many places? no, not yet. , andhey are improving under very difficult circumstances holding their own and even making gains in certain parts of the country. we are committed to continue to be a help to them and give them greater capacity in many different respects, and everybody there today shares in that commitment. cw and what to the the consequences are, it has been made clear by president obama and others that use would result in consequences. we are not going to pain ourselves down to a precise time, date, manner of action. but there will be consequences

if it were to be proven, including, i might say, inc. that are way beyond our control and nothing to do with us, but the -- things that are way beyond our control and nothing to do with us, but the international criminal court. and as you know, we have a resolution that will be before the united nations with respect to culpability the in the circumstance of crimes against humanity in this type of conflict. one way or another, there will be accountability. >> mr. secretary, you just told us that the foreign ministers agreed that sanctions will be imposed on russia if russia or 25 proxies disrupt the may election. the foreign minister referred 'secifically to russia specific improvements. i want to know russia has