broadband internet access services, given that paid privatization agreements would be used as a barrier of entry to start-ups and small business? what prioritization arrangements specifically will be better for the internet than the no prioritization norm we have today? >> what we are trying to do in this item is to say that anything that affects that virtuous cycle the court talked about and i talked about before core and is not lawful in would include this. we have asked, and we are soliciting comments on that. but when icepts are all,

apply internet access, i am buying the full thing. to i am buying access everything that is out there, and if somebody comes along and says, no, you cannot get this unless you pay more, that is unreasonable. and should be banned. get this unless you pay more, that's unreasonable. and should be banned if somebody says to a consent provider you can't get on unless you pay more, that's unreasonable and would not be permitted. >> okay, well, other than public safety, i believe paid prioritization should be banned. i think another concern here is a last mile equivalent we are seeing and hearing. the fact that there is so much uncertainty with paid prioritization is troublesome. if this concept moves forward, we could inadvertently block the

next google or amazon from the market without even knowing it. i'm concerned your hands may be tied here even if the commission wanted to ban anti-competitive paid prioritization deals, you may not have the authority or tools to do so. chairman wheeler, if you were to explain to my constituents about the two mergers, content agreement and paid prioritization could be legitimized on a commercial regional standard, what would you tell them not just what it means for them but competition and for economy as a whole? >> i would tell them i felt paid prioritization was commercially unreasonable and therefore, could be dealt with.

and that on the question of peering, that is a separate issue that the commission needs to look at and will be looking at, but i would emphasize that i am a strong supporter of the open internet. i would tell them a story when i was a entrepreneur i was shut out of cable systems because they were closed networks. i would come with a new product and couldn't get on. then when i was a venture capitalist before taking this job, that the companies i was backing had to have access to the internet. could only succeed if they had access to the internet. so i would say to them that i believe in an open internet. i experience d closed networks

and the harm they cause and i want to protect and preserve an open internet. >> you know, i think this is a very critical time. when i have ordinary people off the street coming to me and asking me about all these things they've heard because people today really depend on the internet. ordinary citizens the entrepreneurs concerned about this, who else we know out there, so it is very concerning to all of us that there is a potential that we may have a situation where we won't have an open internet. i would like you to consider some of these mergers. we feel like we are in the wild west of the digital economy now. can you commit to us these large

mergers that are before us, they may be different than each other, but can you commit to us here that fcc will carefully scrutinize these deals? with a focus toward public. >> without hesitation. >> chair recognizes former chair of the full committee mr. barton for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo the last question you asked chairman wheeler about low-power television. you and i are working on a bill to give them some protection. we understand under current law they don't have standing when they repackage. we hope to give them some at least priority or some help if and when we do repackaging.

i hear my friends repeatedly talk about the open internet and whether you should try to regulate it under section 706 or title ii. i think you're asking a false question. the internet is open. the question is what does the fcc do in terms of monitoring to make sure it stays open? the analogy i'm going to use is not perfect but i think is instructive and educational. the airways we fly back and forth from washington to our districts are open. they are regulated and monitored by the faa. if i want to go from washington reagan to dfw, say it's $350 one way, but when i show up with my

ticket, i get one seat on that plane. i don't get to take 100 of my friends and put them on the plane with me because i happen to buy the ticket first and show up first. so it's obvious it would be great for $350 if i could fill the plane. we allow the airlines to price by volume. maybe if you want to buy the whole plane they do give you a discount and it's only $250, but we don't let first person to buy the ticket use the whole plane for $350. for all the bold talk about open access what people really are trying to do is, i want to pay a minimum price and get all this broadband and download everything from netflix and i

don't want to pay if i download every movie they went. netflix pays a basic price and can service $10 million instead of whatever it would be. the broadband providers who spent billions and billions of dollars and have networked this country and provided access through the competitive market principles are not going to somehow all of a sudden decide as long as the fcc, under your chairmanship, make sure that it stays a competitive model. they are going to continue to provide an internet some pricing system that allocates that it is a limited spectrum.

i see no reason to try to shoe horn an approach. explain why my approach, which is what we've been doing, which works, is the wrong approach? >> let me respond to both questions. first, as i said to the chairman, we do not want to move those who don't have to be moved as a part of it. we also believe there is opportunities to go to digital and the new efficiencies that brings just like it did in the class a stations. thirdly, we are opening a new rule making to specifically deal with that. we agree with the importance of low power and translators. to the second part of your

question, let me take the chairman's hat off and put my consumer hat on for a second. two weekends ago, i called my isp and increased my capacity because i wanted faster through put. they said for another $10 a month, we'll give you another what turned out to be another 20 mig. that is a marketplace transaction. that is something accepted now. that is not something that is part of the open internet rules. what the open internet rules are trying to say is that when i guy that capacity, i bought that ride to every place on the internet. that somebody can't turn it around and say, oh, but you can't get that.

or somebody can't say, well, you can deliver that to tom, but you've got to pay me an extra fee. so the concept of the open internet is that i have bought this broad partway. and i have the right to use it unfettered on an open basis. and that's what we're trying to deliver in this rule making. >> i'm not trying -- my time expired. i'm not trying to oppose that, but if you want -- you're looking at it from a consumer standpoint and i accept that. that everybody should have access, but if you are a provider of content, you should be willing to pay more based on the number of items you are going to put at any given time on the open internet so that everybody has access to it. if you have a con strained pipeline, somebody has to make a

decision how you put things into the pipeline, whether it's the airplane or whether it's the air waves. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chair now recognizes the former chairman on the democratic side mr. waxman. >> thank you. chairman wheeler, i commended your leadership earlier in my opening statement about the spectrum auction. i want to ask questions about a different subject. that's net neutrality. >> yes, sir. >> i commend you for tackling this issue and for seeking comment on a broad range of issues, but i have serious concerns about some proposals that have been discussed. you said there would be presumption against broadband providers like verizon, at&t and comcast entering into arrangements that give exclusive advantages to their affiliates, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> what i don't understand is why this presumption against exclusive arrangements would be limited to affiliates.

suppose netflix entered into exclusive arrangement with at&t or comcast for faster speeds for its videos that block competitors like amazon prime from getting similar service, i think that would be a serious threat to competition and an open internet, yet your proposal does not create a presumption against these exclusive arrangements. why would you allow any exclusive arrangement that guarantees some content providers faster speeds than competitors can access? >> thank you, mr. waxman. this goes to, back to this virtuous cycle that the court talked about. it was interesting yesterday in the "wall street journal" there was an article that interviewed a bunch of infrastructure manufacturers about the impact in neutrality. they flat out said that if you

offer fast lanes for some, you are going to degrade service for others. i think that's at the heart of what we are talking about here. that would be commercially unreasonable under our proposal. >> okay. the problem with exclusive arrangements is that they would let some companies block their competition from similar advantages in markets where there is no or only limited choices of broadband providers that would stifle openness and competition. i judge just want to say to you i'm opposed to any form of a paid prioritization. paid prioritization divides the internet into the haves and have-nots and will entrench the big companies at the expense of start-ups. my understanding is that you asked comment on a multifactor test for determining when paid prioritization is permissible and when it would be prohibited. my concern is that this will

create a lot of ambiguity and a lot of litigation. i believe bright lines would be much better for the market and for innovation. so i'm going to ask you to consider a presumption against all paid prioritization as you develop final rules. will you agree to consider this option? >> absolutely. we have asked in the mprn specifically whether and if so how do you accomplish it? so that is a ripe debate that is in the nprm right now, sir. >> my understanding is that the reason you have proposed a complicated multifactor test is concern about the court ruling. i agree that if you are limited to acting under section 706, your options could be limited. you are not limited to section 706. you could establish a presumption against paid prioritization under title ii. that's why it's important, so

important for us, for you to use your title ii authority as backstop authority. you don't have to settle for a week open internet rules if you exercise your full powers. i'm glad you're looking at that possibility. let me close by thanking you for seeking comment on the backstop proposal in that proposal adopted last week. i'm committed to working with you to ensure the commission adopts strong and open internet protections for consumers and innovators, while encouraging continued investment in the online content and services we all rely on and enjoy today. i think it's important that we get the substance right. we tried three times. we meaning you at the fcc, because of the concern that the consumer have full access to what is on the internet and full access to be able to use the internet to its greatest maximum

potential. i would hate to see that net neutrality in any way be diminished if we have an opportunity under the law as we look at it to make sure we get the substance right. >> thank you, mr. waxman. >> gentleman yields back his time. i turn to the distinguished gentleman from ohio mr. lata. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. again, chairman wheeler, thanks very much for being here. there's been some discussion on title ii. i would like to follow up on some of that questioning. central premise of title ii regulation always been that the regulation was a substitute for competition. in two parts for the question then. what types of findings has the commission made to justify entertaining the idea of title ii regulation of the internet? and then do you believe the fcc should have to make a specific showing that of a market failure forum proposing rate regulation

or reporting requirements are the precursor to rate regulation? >> again, these are the kinds of questions we have tried assiduously not to decide on but ask about in this rule making. we have to make a decision on exactly those questions at some point in time. but what we want to achieve is a record that gives everybody the opportunity to opine on that so we can be appropriately informed. >> what is your time line on that then? >> so we've got 60 days for comments and then 45 days a for reply comments. >> okay. so are you saying then that you're not ruling out rate regulation? >> i'm saying we have asked the question about title ii and the

full panoply of title ii. >> what have you been hearing from the community thus far especially when saying you are asking those questions? what have you been hearing out there? >> excuse me. well, we heard very little on the record, thus far. there has been a great outpouring of people speaking to us through the press. people speaking to us through letters and this sort of thing. as i indicated at the outset, there are two diametrically opposed positions. our job is to find that which is best for consumers and best for encouraging investment in the internet, which itself is best for consumers.

>> let me go on with this question. while you resolved some of the issues in the 5 gigahertz rule making there are a number of issues outstanding that have potential to open up another 191 megahertz of spectrum for unlicensed use. what is the fcc's and your plan for tackling the open issues? >> in 5 gig? >> right. >> think about 5 gig in three bytes. the first byte is the lower end of 5 gigahertz. in the middle component of 5 gigahertz, there are lots of national defense kinds of activities, radar and this sort of thing. the question is how can you work out sharing arrangements there? we are working with those parties. on the upper end is where you have spectrum that has been identified for intelligent

traffic, itfs kinds of activities. that is based around an 80211 standard. there are strong feelings about the need to protect that. i believe it's possible to work together to meet both sets of needs since it's based around a common 80211 standard. >> the 2011 order requires they set minimum prices they can charge consumers if the provider wants to continue receiving the same amount of funds to support the high cost of the business. so as a result, many of our rural consumers that i represent out there see the rate go from $14 to about $20.46. while the communications act requires rural rates to be

recently comparable to rates in urban areas as affordable, reasonably comparable does not mean that the rural rate should be the same as the rural rate when they might be able to call only a few thousand people locally while urban can call many times more than that. should the rate be the same in the rural areas where the average income significantly lower than it might, in fact, not be as affordable? the rate forward continues to be a tern for many telecommunications providers in my district and others servicing rural america. i understand that the fcc agreed to phase in the increase $2 a year and propose that start date or postpone that start date until after 2015, can you explain why the fcc interprets the reasonably comparable rates to mean exactly the same rates between urban and rural areas considering the smaller population of the rural calling areas and the fact that it was what is affordable in the largest urban areas is not what is also affordable to the consumers in the rural? >> thank you. i'm glad you asked that

question. it's an important question. so as you stated, we are supposed to make sure things are reasonably comparable. the reason for that is to make sure that the subsidies that some americans are paying to deliver service to other americans don't end up being subsidies that some americans are paying to reduce the bills of other americans. but to overcome the high cost of getting to them. in some instances, it has been unfortunately the former. there are in 16 states, there are situations where consumers are paying, some consumers are paying $5 a month for telephone service because they're being subsidized by people in your district and other districts. we need to get our arms around that. so what we've done is to say okay. step one is, goes into effect

january 15. then what we are going to do, and that can't be more than $2, by the way. and then what we are going to do is go back out with another survey that hits the kind of granularity you were talking about in terms of service and including long distance and all these kinds of things. so that we have a better understanding of exactly what comparable means and then look at that issue again. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time has expired. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chairman recognizes the chairman emeritus of the committee chairman dingell. >> i thank you for your courtesy and thank you for holding this friend mr. wheeler back. fine public servant. we're looking forward to good things of him. at least week's open, a number

of big ticket items. including a new nprm and draft rules for the upcoming incentive auction of broadcasters spectrum. concerning the former, i commend you for your efforts to keep the internet open and will be watching the matter closely as it goes forward. it's my hope the commission will work with this committee for any authority it takes to conform especially concerning title two, reclassification. with respect to the incentive option, i'm interested in what the committee intends to do about treating broadcasters fairly. my questions will require a simple yes or no answer. >> yes, sir. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to begin with a parochial matter.

specifies the commission made to the coordination on the border with mexico and canada reassigned and relocate and reallocate broadcast frequencies. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> chairman wheeler, in the commission's july 2013 response to my letter of inquiry of the reverse option, gary epstein head of the task force stated the following. the language used in section 6403-b-1 of the action is, quote, identical to that used by the commission in describing its handling of the earlier d-tv transition in which the commission adopted our proposed allotments for these stations subject to our continuing negotiations with canada notwithstanding the

broadcasters' request to the contrary. one here could reasonably assume based on the statement that the commission may reassign and reallocate broadcast frequencies pursuant to the act while negotiations with canada and mexico are still ongoing. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> i'm going to ask you to submit for the record how you're going to assure protection to the broadcasters and the viewers in that process. >> yes, sir. >> now, mr. wheeler, does the commission believe concluded negotiations with canada and mexico prior to commencing the reverse action action will get broadcasters particularly in border regions greater certainties and likely to increase their willingness to

participate. yes or no. >> yes, sir. >> now, mr. wheeler, does the commission expect to conclude negotiations with canada and mexico prior to commencing the reverse action next year? yes or no. >> the expectation is it is the goal. >> you may not make it is what you're saying. >> it is the goal, and as i answered in your previous -- >> will you notify this committee as soon as that becomes likely? >> yes, sir. >> now, in this matter mr. chairman, i'd like to state for the record it's my understanding based on exchange with counsel on the community and technology, december 1, 2011, markup of the border negotiations are to be

completed before the commission reassigns broadcast channels. i hope that chairman wheeler will honor that understanding. i hope, mr. chairman, you understand i have great apprehensions about that. because of the impact it could have on the broadcasters and also on my constituents. >> mr. chauirman, this is -- i share your deep concern about this. not only because of the very legitimate concern you have about your constituents and other americans getting service along the border, but also the effect as allocation goes into the middle of the country. i can assure you this is an incredibly high priority. i can also assure you that our canadian colleagues have been

very forthcoming and very helpful. >> i would like to have this submitted for the record. now, mr. chairman, i note that the commission proposes to use a method called, quote, scoring to set individual prices for each broadcast station participating in the reverse option. is that correct? >> it's one of the things we're considering. we have not made the final decision yet. >> there are others? >> we are looking at others. >> i'm going ask that you submit in response to correspondence a proper answer on that. >> yes, sir. >> concerned with scoring as opposed to competitive bidding will decrease willingness to participate in the reverse option. yes or no. >> no. >> do you intend to work in good faith as the commission refine this rules for reverse option in

order to see to it their needs are met as the acts specifies to the best of your abilities. yes or no. >> absolutely. >> i want to quote admiral rick who once observed the devil's in the details but so is salvation. i hope you're going to see that the salvation is there and not just that we are going to find ourselves amidst trouble because of carelessness. not by you, but by some of your over. enthusiastic and less than competent predecessors. i thank you. i yield back my time. >> the gentleman's time expired. we now recognize the gentleman. >> thank you. i'm going to try to get through three quick points if i can. as you know, there's a lot of

concerns on this side of the dias. the question for me is how do you build out. we want more, not less. does a monopoly insent vise more buildout, more pipelines or does a insent vised work -- we've got a lot of different ways for data to now flow. and we want to encourage that. and you think only -- i kind of like the idea of incentivizing people who want to use more, making them pay more to incentivize those who want to have more. my position is more pipes, not less. competitive markets versus controlled markets.

so -- because here's an example of that -- on may 16th a wire line released seeking on status of dialup internet traffic. dialup? that's a dinosaur. it's hardly used. so there is no -- you want to talk about uncertainty for the state and for the providers when we're still in this process more than 15 years after the fcc first discussed the treatment of dialup, we're now to this process? that's just kind of a statement. that doesn't create certainty. would you agree? >> well, what we're trying to do is to create an environment that assures consumers and those who rely on the internet that there is openness while at the same

point in time encouraging investment. >> let's just go back. i get that, but this is dialup. >> so if we're dealing with the dialup, that's a different topic -- >> well, it is, but it's not. it's the whole debate about certainty. and we actually have a dinosaur application, why are we even -- >> so we still have 40% of our consumers on dialup telephone lines. one of the challenges that we have is how do we evolve that into an all-ip environment which would be an internetlike environment. and one of the things that i have said to this committee is that we believe that this ip transition is a crucial part -- >> okay. in one deal in the sweet spot is the public service, 911, call

for the creation of the do not call registry, and the automatic dialing issue. the commission keeps saying there's not enough money to do this. i would ask you to check into that. i think there's a lot of money in the fcc. and because this automatic dialing freezes up lines and it's a public safety concern. i hope we would work together to try to -- >> i would look forward to that. let me get back. >> myself and the ranking member are better involved as you have in the early days also. the last thing i want to -- from rural america is there seems to be a de facto freeze on this shared service agreement. and this is in the broadcast local. when you represent a third of the state of illinois as i do now, 33 counties, the shared agreements are now helping to provide. we've got real cases, better

local service to the local folks than less. i guess the basic question in my last minute is what's your plan ensuring the fcc action is predictable, consistent, fair, and timely? >> so thank you. what we have done is to put out a public notice on how we look at transfers. and i consider this to be a procedural reform. because the way it used to be was broadcasters would come together in some kind of a merger situation. and they would come to the commission which was a black box that had constantly changing. what i wanted to do was say, okay. what are the things that we will look at so that everybody has

notice and everybody understands and it is not a black box. that's the process we have now established to be able to make those kinds of decisions. >> thank you. i know my time is expired. i'd appreciate it if you keep me in mind as you move forward. >> yes, sir. thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentlelady from colorado. >> thank you. i want to follow-up, chairman wheeler, on this open discussion on the nprm. leading up to the commission's vote last week, there was a public exchange amongst isps and others about the impact of paid prioritization on their models. we've been hearing from a lot of our constituents about this as well. now, you talked very briefly about a few minutes ago about what the fcc is doing in under

the circumstances review process to look at the effect of this on broadband bills. i want you to talk about what you think the proposed internet rules will have on access to new and innovative connection. >> they each should be encouragement of new and innovative programming because of the fact that it assures that they will be able to reach the consumer unfettered and without having to pay special fees. >> and what impact do you think that the rules will have on average broad band speeds, network investments, and overall quality of service? >> that's a terrific question. >> thank you. >> i'm glad you asked that. one of the fascinating things is that 2010 when the open internet rules were first proposed, since

then there has been hundreds of millions of dollars of broadband investment made. so the rules don't seem to have a chilling effect. and speeds have been doing this, going up. and this is what the cord was talking about when they talk about this virtuous cycle. in the internet ecosystem, everything adds to everything else. >> so what do you think the new rules, what effect would they have on these issues? you just talked about what's been happening. >> we believe that the rules that we have designed will continue to encourage investment in broadband, continue to encourage throughput and as a

result continue to encourage innovation from providers. >> and so are you saying also that average broadband speeds will increase? >> yes, ma'am. >> and overall quality of service will increase? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. one last thing no one has raised yet is the issue of industry consolidation. and this year we've seen two major merger proposals in the telecom industry. clearly the industry is going through a period of change and some folks think consolidation is the best approach to this. all things being equal, do you think industry consolidation is good or bad for the consumers? >> so i read the other day that we are probably the -- in the last decade, the biggest year for telecom mergers.

and what we're doing is open a record on each of them and we will make that decision based on the record -- >> so you don't have an opinion? >> i would not want to prejudge the record. >> oak. and as you know, congress has recognized the importance of the market place by giving the fcc the ability to review. do you think the conditions the fcc placed on the comcast/nbcu merger were effective at protecting the public interest? >> that is a decision that my predecessor made. i know that it had impact. my goal is to look at the record before -- that we presented before me and my colleagues and make a difference on those. >> do you think it promoted the

public interest? yes or no. >> i think there were multiple things in it that promoted the public interest. >> and what other lessons do you take away from the commission's previous attempts to promote the public interest by placing conditions on mergers as you go forward? >> that it is an important role that the commission has. there's a lot of discussion as to why should there be any authority at the fcc to look at. i strongly believe that there is a big difference between the statutory rigidity and the broader public interest issues that you've raised that the statute asks the fcc to look at. >> chairman, i just ask if you could supplement your testimony with some specific takeaways this has given you.

thanks very much. >> gentlelady yields back. the chair now recognizes -- i'm sorry the chair recognizes the chairman. >> i just wanted to clarify one thing, make sure i heard it right. did you say 40% of americans are still using dialup for internet access? >> no. i'm talking about dialup phone service at large. >> all right. i was going to say it's more like 3%. i thank the courtesy. >> thank you for clarifying that, sir. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you. it's good to know my 82-year-old father is in the 3%. that makes him very elite. i'm trying to talk him out of that, but that's a work in progress. >> we remember those days we were thrilled to get 56 kb, right? >> yeah. so switching gears just a little bit, i want to ask about

regression analysis progress and i do think you probably captured its deficiencies better than anyone else has. and i appreciate that work. i was glad to see the commission's follow-up by repealing the qra formula. so congratulations. i appreciate that. i'm curious on your thoughts of how it should be replaced and if you could walk me through what factors are going to be used in any decision making and timetables in the process. >> i respect the question, but i can't really answer it right now because we're in the process of -- there's several proposals. we're in the process of looking at what the best components of each other. we do have proceedings underway to say, okay, what is it to

replace qra with. >> so where are we within the process of those? >> i think we're probably heading into something you would see before fall. >> for the rest of you, that was humor. now, then let me go to a broadcast question since we dealt with one i thought would take all of five minutes. the spectrum bill that was authorized and passed through the committee was a bipartisan bill. unfortunately the order that recently removed the fcc was not bipartisan.

some commissioners stated the order treats tv broadcasters that choose not to participate in the option unfairly and that has me concerned. congress set aside the 1.75 to reimburse broadcasters to fully recover their expenses. why did the fcc not adopt a number as its repacking budget to ensure broadcasters would not have to go out of pocket when forced to the fcc to move? >> thank you. congress said a billion, 750 million is the max that, spe ca spent. we think that would be sufficient. there have been broadcasters that expressed a concern that it might not be sufficient.

so we said we don't think that's going to happen, but we will put in place a process that will have a structure in place if and when that should happen. sir, i don't expect that we're going to get will. >> all right. i'll just yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from utah. >> thanks, many chairman. mr. wheeler, thanks for your testimony. i appreciate your candor and your articulate way you answer questions. >> thank you, sir. >> i just want to commend you on your efforts to open up more spectrum for unlicensed uses. the fcc took an important step last month by opening up the 100 megahertz for unlicensed uses. i'm pleased to see in your testimony that the fcc is trying

to free up additional unlicensed. could you provide an update on where things currently stand with resolving the technical issues in the its band used for vehicle-to-vehicle communications and the parts of the band used for military radar? >> yes. so as we talk, there's three slices to five gigahertz. the middle as you suggest is d.o.d. we're having ongoing conversations with them. i have been personally involved in those discussions about a wide range of spectrum issues including this. there are strongly held beliefs on both sides, sir. i continue to believe, however, that people of good faith can

finance if you sit at the table long enough. in so far as the high band in five gig, yes. that's intelligent transportation wuch offers such great opportunities. we've seen the google smart car and all this sort of thing. the thing that's really encouraging is that's an 802-type of standard. it's not a dissimilar reality, though, where we need to make sure that people are sitting around the table looking for commonalities rather than looking for differences. >> it's something we ought to do around congress. >> you have a little experience. >> yeah. >> but that's the goal of what we're trying to do here. >> do you have a sense of what the -- do you have a time frame for when this additional spectrum could be freed up. >> i wish i did. i would be misleading you if i gave you a date right now.

>> i understand. another issue i want to mention, the goal to bring 100 megabit broadband to every school in the u.s. to the extension this is implemented, what can the commission do to maximize efficiency and get the most bang for the buck? >> wow. thank you. great question. there are multiple challenges in that. one is that we need to spend our money, the people's money, on 21st century broadband solutions. not 20th century like dialup and long distance service. right now about half of the $2 billion that's being spent is spent for old stuff. >> today. >> today.

second part is that we have to design a system that helps schools and library administrators find their way through the maze that is telecom. i mean, we put them in those jobs to educate students, not to be telecom whizzes. so we're trying to develop a process that says here's what you ought to be paying. here's what somebody next door is paying. here's like situations so they can go in and understand where their bargaining position is. we're going to be talking about having longer contracts. buying it on a monthly basis is the worst way to buy. let's talk about several years. we're going to be encouraging

constotioia so you can buy in bulk and get better prices. i think there is a myriad of things we could do to get more efficiency. we intend to do that. >> does the fcc plan to use the broadband map to find fiber already in place so it can be leveraged towards these goals? >> yes. >> i yield back. >> thank you very much. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri. >> thank you very much and good afternoon to you. i believe that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would prefer to title to reclassification. and if the commission were to decide to proceed in that

direction, i'm concerned that it might trigger a lot of ill-fitting regulations that might not make sense in the context of these services. in your opinion, chairman, would the process of going through forbearance to separate, could it be a messy exercise and could it lead to more years of litigation and uncertainty is my real concern, sir. >> thank you, congressman. that's one of the things that gets teed up and we ask about title two versus section 706. and i presume that will be exhaustively discussed in the responses. and that's exactly the kind of questions that we're asking. >> thank you. one concern has been raised

about the proposed neutrality rule making protections that would be afforded companies who use a carrier providing the same service as another carrier. for example, the large carriers are starting to bundle services well beyond the internet and television to include smart home services such as temperature control, home health monitoring which of course is important to another subcommittee of this committee, as well as alarm services such as monitoring of home intrusions and fires. video surveillance or personal emergency response systems. what protections will the fcc provide to make sure they don't give preference over a company using them as a broad based carrier? >> i'm not sure i exactly understand.

your concern is will there be preferences among providers of those services? >> yes, chairman. >> that's contrary to the concept of an open internet. >> so you can assure us and through us the american people that will not be the case as these other services are provided moving forward. >> let me give you an example personally. i just switched out adt in my home security system for another company. and i was able to access both of them over the internet and both of them over my mobile device. and there should be no interference with my ability to move from adt to the other provider. >> thank you. that's the goal of the commission and you will assure us that's how we'll proceed moving forward. >> it's open -- there needs to be open access to all providers.

>> thank you. i understand you're a proud graduate of ohio state. >> you bet, sir. >> please be gentle with rutgers now that rutgers has entered the big whatever it is, the big 16 or whatever. >> it's the big 10 that can't count. >> i defer back to the chairman the balance of my time, a proud representative from ohio. >> thank you very much for the gentleman yielding back the balance of his time. chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. >> thank you very much. and thank you to you chairman wheeler for your service and thank you for your testimony today. i especially thank you for your clarity. i told you that the first time that i met you. whenever i hear you speak, it is unambiguous. at least until the subject of your home security comes up. then you are a little ambiguous on who the new provider is. but thank you so very much.

mr. chairman, in the communications act, congress mandated that the commission ensured diverse participation in media and telecom that includes a participation of minority owned. that the mandate is to create economic opportunity and competition by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applican applicants. it seems to me that the response of the commission to judicial criticism of the fcc's inaction in this area and the lack of meaningful study and progress as well as the low level of minority in women-owned participation and media telecom licensing that the commission it seems to me are s not committed to these goals.

if i'm wrong on this, i ask you correct me. on may 14th, members of the caucus addressed these concerns in a letter to you. i suppose the letter may not have made its way to your desk yet, but ski you that you look at it very carefully when you do. question. precisely what do you need beyond the judicial criticism to get the commission to create opportunities for diverse communities? >> thank you, congressman. and i got the letter this morning, so thank you. first of all, i agree that we have a mandate to have a broad swath of opportunity for all americans to participate in all

aspects of telecommunications. i can assure you that that's a goal of mine. let's talk about some specifics. number one, i think what we did on the jsas and the broadcast space actually opens up opportunities for minority and small operators. it's why it was supported by more than a dozen representative minority groups. secondly is we are going to move on the option to make sure that there are appropriate steps taken to assure that minorities can participate through waivers and other kinds of processes in that. thirdly we are going to have an -- and i should pause and all of these call out commissioner clyburn who has been the

constant pusher on all of these issues. there will be designated entity rules for the incentive option that will create bidding credits for appropriate designated entities. and i very much take to heart both an institutional responsibility and a personal responsibility the language that you read. >> and so when the spectrum is auctioned, do you make a it a point diversity will be an overriding part of the commission? >> we want to make sure there are opportunities for designated entities to get bidding credits so that, for instance, they can bid with 75 cent dollars against at&t and verizon. >> in light of the growing number of mergers in the communications industry, how is

the commission encouraging companies to partner with diverse businesses in the secondary market? >> we have been doing that in both formally and informally that there are great opportunities when there are transactions for minority companies, the grain teleconference is operating both at&t and verizon. which they purchased as farther of settlements with the commission. those opportunities are important and worthwhile. i also believe that there can be new opportunities in the broadcast space particularly after the auction in terms of being able to share spectrum and

offer other kinds of services. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming today. i know you had a busy week, so your time is appreciated. my colleague from california and i have spent a lot of time together on spectrum issues. we founded the congressional spectrum caucus with the goal of looking at different ideas how to move forward on spectrum. and i appreciate the efforts you've done to move the incentive auction forward. and i have a couple of questions about the guard bands and the 680 megahertz band. carefully considered the importance of maximizing license spectrum and adhered to the standard set by congress for a gap. and i applaud the commission for its work in this regard. two questions. one, how do you see going

forward out isolated spectrum in the gap? it will be important for those who bid on adjacent there will not be interference. and are you sure the fcc to say there will be no interference. >> the answer to both w, you showed technical standards. yes, sir. >> and we've been using social media to reach out to interested americans. one came from kelly on facebook. and kelly asked this question, well kelly submitted through facebook who would like to ask you the questions about your plans for future spectrum policy and can you give kelly a brief answer to her question about what your broad future spectrum policy. overall. >> thank you, kelly.

the answer is they're not making it no more. so what we have to do -- i believe we are today on the cusp of the new horizon on spectrum policy. with two things that we're doing. one is the incentive auction that you all created. because when you boil everything down, it ultimately comes down to economics. and if you can address the other person's economics, you can probably go a long way to solving your economics issue. and that's what the auction does. the other component is spectrum sharing. and the days of here, this is all yours, you use it are over. and unfortunately digital allows that kind of sharing. think about going into a starbucks and everybody is sharing that wi-fi spectrum. you put that together and i think that's part of kelly's

question as to where is spectrum policy going and we're in the middle of making both of those work right now which is why what we're doing is so terribly important. >> i've often used the metaphor and it's a simple metaphor in this, we don't have special for balanc ambulances and fire trucks. we move out of the way. that's a way to put it. i was a state senator in kentucky before here. and there's been concerns in places like utah and oregon where there's been municipal broadband deployed and the projects have failed in areas where there are competitive providers. property taxes and sales and franchise taxes at risk. i believe leaving city taxpayers on the hook for tens of millions of dollars. five states or so passed laws

saying that cities can't do this. because the state's usually on the hook for it as well. i believe in your written testimony you've said that you believe the fcc could do in this area over state law. i want you to clarify that and why you think washington could have a better view of this than frankfort in kentucky. >> so there are about 20 states that have put some kind of restrictions in place. and i see it through just exactly the opposite end of the telescope, with all due respect. that if the citizens of a community want to organize through their local government to say -- to bring competition in broadband providing, they should not be inhibited -- >> by their elected

representative. >> they should not be inhibited by the fact the incumbents have been urging the adoption of legislation that would ban it. and if we believe in competition, we ought to let competition flourish. so what i have said is that i'm following, again, judge silv silverm silverman's comments in the open internet case in which he said if there is ever an example where 706 would apply, it is in the ability to say to states, you cannot get in the middle of this virtuous cycle. and prohibit consumers from being ability to have access. >> because of incumbents or

because they don't want to be on the hook for a situation. >> i go back to first principles that is this is a decision that ought to be made by the people of the community and that if they want to take the risk if they own it themselves, but you don't have to own it yourself. it is also the gentleman from utah has left but for instance in utah there's a group of cities that has banded together to solicit bids for somebody else to own that they would have a participation in that kind of structure. if the people say that's what we want, we want this kind of competition, then i think they ought to be encouraged to get it. and competition has clearly been shown to be the best tool.

>> i don't disagree with you on that. but my time is expired. i'll yield back. thank you. >> thank you very much. the chairman would never do that to the gentleman from kentucky. the chair recognizes mr. welsh. >> we have five minutes so we can go lickety-split. we started the caucus and appreciated you coming in. enormous concern in rural america that we get access to the internet. it's essential for our future. net neutrality is a big deal. that's the big topic you've been getting comments. there's an e mor nous amount of concern that if we make the wrong decision, the big guys will get the fast lane, many in rural america are going to get the break down. at the end of this process we're going to have access on terms for folks in rural america to the internet. >> you want a quick answer? >> yes.

>> yes. >> you can give a full sentence to reassure all of us that we're going to be driving in the fast lane. >> there should not -- there is one internet. there is not a fast internet. there is not a slow internet. there is not a urban internet. there is not a rural internet. there is one internet. everyone ought to have full access to the ability of the internet. >> rural america is spread out and the investors want to put their money where they can make the money. we all understand that. that was true for electricity. but we've got to get that internet out into rule america so we can be part of the modern economy. and we have a universal service fund with the mobile fund. we need to have that and i'm wondering if you could comment on the status of that to make sure the funds are there to build out that broad band. >> specifically on mobility, here's the interesting question

that gets raised by mobility. broadband wireless is lte. it is being built out across america. recently just one of the major carriers announced a new initiative in rural america with lte. the question becomes that we're wrestling with is should we subsidize something if it's already happening and that prudent fiscal responsibility suggests probably not. >> i got three more questions. so we want to work with you on that to make it rational and not have us investing in things that aren't work. but invest in things to help rural america. >> yes, sir. >> we've got to work with you and the entire commission, the republicans and democrats, and when you came into our rural working group, you explained a couple of problems you had. each in i.t. and also procedures where i guess it's easier to hire a

lawyer than an engineer. i'm a lawyer, so maybe i'd like that, but i wouldn't be very much use to you. what are the things that this committee can advocate to help your entire commission who want to do the job. >> thank you for asking. our i.t. infrastructure is worthy of the smithsonian. i came from a business background. the things that you cannot do is -- that are common sense in the business world. the fact that we're still using computers that have known cyber risk associated with them. the fact that we can't organize a consumer complaint process online for american consumers because our i.t. system isn't up to it. it's ridiculous. so we have serious problems

there. and the issue of lawyers versus engineers, far be it from me to take a side on that, but we do need more engineers, sir. >> okay. thank you. >> and economists. >> right. well, i'd like our committee to work with you on that next, section 706. there's a lot of concern about whether you have the sufficient authority under that section in order to give you the rule making power to guarantee the outcome being net neutrality. can you comment on that? do you still feel that is sufficient and the court gave you a road map forward? >> i think that we do have sufficient authority and then when the court talked about this virtuous cycle and they said anything that interferes with that cycle is a violation of 706, that that is a broad grant of authority. >> my last question in 26 seconds. retransconsent content. we've seen that where people can't get access to the signal.

now that's starting to migrate into the online content. is this the beginning of the cablization of the internet? >> sir, i think it is the right question. our authority goes to the transmission and program access goes to the authority of good faith negotiations. i think there is reason to be concerned when because i happen to subscribe to an isp who is in a dispute with a program provider, that the program provider blocks access from all coming from that isp, i think that is something that is of concern. and that we should all worry about it. >> i yield back. thank you very much. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't want to spend a lot of time on net neutrality. i have a different view. i view it as nothing more than a price control. we've seen how that works in creating supply. i think it's very dangerous path that you're headed down. i want to ask process questions related to that. have you spoken to anyone at the white house in the last month regarding net neutrality? >> only to keep them appraised. they have been assiduous in their recognition that we are an independent agency. >> and did you call them or did they call you? >> i called them. >> and has anyone else on your staff spoken to folks at the white house or omb in the last month? >> not to me -- well, on -- the answer is i'm sure. on this issue, i don't know. but i can assure you from my

discussions with everybody from the president on down, the recognition of the independence of our agency and i'll go further and assure you that never have i or to my knowledge any one of my staff felt any pressure to decide any issue. >> i appreciate that. thank you. want to follow up on something representative guthrie was saying. you believe the fcc has the power to preempt state laws. >> yes, sir. >> under section 706. >> yes, sir. >> do you believe that states have the same authority? >> i think that that's the -- the issue i believe is do we have the authority to preempt. that raises the question of what is the authority of the state. i think we'll probably end up having this answered in court. >> i just read the statute. the language is identical.

it says whatever authority you have, they have. >> it says state commissions. we have preemptive authority over state commissions. >> so states have the same authority you do. it's the same statute. >> i think that it says that both of us have authority but that we have preemptory authority on this issue and i think that's what judge silverman was saying in his dissent. >> these broadcasts talk not only about future broadcasts but pending applications. first, how many applications have been singled out for close scrutiny since the new guidelines have been issued?

how many have been approved in those two months? and when might those broadcasters see the resolution of their applications? >> i don't know the answer to any of those three off the top of my head, but i'll be happy to get it for you for the record. >> you can understand these are pending applications under a set of rules you've now moved the goal posts on them. >> yes, sir, i understand your point. what we're trying to do is not move the goal posts, but to open up the process so that everybody knows what the -- >> but that's what you did. you changed the rules with respect to applications already submitted under a pre-existing set of standards. so i don't know how you could describe that as anything but moving the goal posts. >> with all respect sir, we had a series of transactions that were in place and in the decisions on those transactions,

we said, note, going forward there will be a new look at what financial structures are in transactions. not in these transactions that we're approving. then we put out a public notice that said, here is how we are going to open up this black box. and here is what is going to be going on. it is that standard. so there was notice as a part of a decision that was not affected. then there was notice and now those that the bureau is reviewing are subject to both of those. >> my last 20 seconds, with net neutrality and cyber security issues, do you plan to give network providers liability protection to protect as part of your rule making. >> it was not considered as part of the rule making to have that.

>> mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> thank you. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new mexico. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. chairman wheeler, thank you so much for being here as well. chairman wheeler, two weeks ago this committee added my amendment calling on the fcc to conduct a study on reforming the designated market area system to the reauthorization bill. as you know, currently provide by the research company based upon the reach of television, broadcast antennas. this network of antennas is based on technology deployed back in the '40s and '50s. but current rules prevent the viewership of much of that content. i believe that system embraced by these technologies could revitalize television broadcasting reaching viewers who have more in common than on

the old map. it is my hope the commission takes this study seriously and brings the policy into the 21st century. i hope we might be able to work for that. >> thank you for your leadership on this. and that i assure you we will take it seriously. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and mr. chairman, it wasn't too long ago that a company would not allow access to another company's apps. there was a question with at&t and facetime and an apple product as i talk about fixed versus mobile. they defended it by saying it was allowed under the fcc's net neutrality rules. granted this was under 3g. the proposal suggests a no blocking rule that -- sorry, the no blocking rule was applied a different standard to mobile broadband internet access and mobile internet access service was disclosed from the

discrimination rules. we're seeing mobile getting faster now and with the new spectrum options, even faster than fixed. i appreciate and agree with you that we're talking about one internet with open and equal access. with my colleagues in rural areas, i have shared with you before if there's a conversation about taking phone calls and with bandwidth capabilities as well as streaming of content on airplanes, in rural america we should be able to get the same treatment. i don't understand why we're not there yet. but noneless, it's coming. i'm hopeful that while we have this conversation, we're able to have equitable treatment. i know there's -- as i read in the proposal, that there's elements of asking for a look into this in the rule. but i'm certainly hopeful that this will be treated with the same scrutiny and level of attention and again as i talk about an old antiquated rule within the '40s and '50s we

talked about dialup. that this is another area we're going to have equitable service as well. mr. chairman, in another area i know that there's a number of my colleagues who join me in their concern for recent reports of inter-connection deals particularly the one between comcast and netflix. you stated that pairing is not a net neutrality issue. there is a matter of the open internet and a matter of the internet connection among the various pathways that become the internet. and while i understand that net neutrality refers only to the behavior of internet service providers blocking or throttling the speeds of certain websites, my question is how is an inter-connection agreement that essentially throttles content substantially different? >> so, thank you, sir. that's a very good question. they -- you can think of the internet in three parts.

there is the -- actually four parts. there is somebody like netflix getting on the internet and then riding so-called middle line providers to a peering point which is a fancy word for interconnection. where they then have access to comcast, verizon, whoever the case may be. the consumer buys from their computer up to the peering point. traditionally peering has been i'll take mine, you take yours. back and forth kind of a thing. and for free. that has begun to change over time. >> if i may, i apologize, my time is going to lapse. if we could get that into the record. all i would add is once upon a time, peering agreements didn't have an exchange of money. people found a way to work with each other. >> exactly right. >> and i'm hoping we can get some certainty with the treatment of fixed versus mobile in that area, and, lastly, i'd like for the record if there's

any way that you might be able to provide us more specifics and details with what's been talked about as commercially reasonable as well as we talk about putting smaller companies at a disadvantage. i apologize to cut you you a. i could always sit and visit with you. president obama is in support of an open internet and i would encourage you to speak with him as well. >> let me just, congressman, so am i. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for having the hearing and thank you, commissioner wheeler, for being here today and answering our questions. i know as we look at the potential changes that have been proposed, a lot of us that want to continue to maintain a free and open internet want to make sure that we're going about it the right way. i know i've got some concerns with the fact that the fcc would even consider going the title two route in terms of

reclassifying broadband. a lot of us have reached out to our constituents to have them also give us suggestions on things that they would like to ask you as well, and a lot of the comments that we got, i know that i got in my district, were just concerns about maintaining that open internet and keeping the government out of regulating it in trying to make sure that the government doesn't impede the ability for the innovations that we've seen which have been so dramatic and revolutionized not only the country but revolutionized the entire world and it's a lot of innovation that's made in america and we want to continue to see that innovation thrive. when you look at going into the reclassification, and it's a proposal that's out there. like i said, i have concerns about that, but in your written statement you assert that the private sector must play the leading role in extending broadband networks to every american. if it were to be reclassified

under title 2 who would pay for extending those networks if they're subject to common carrier regulations. >> the private sector. >> but then when you look at the title 2 route, would the fcc have the authority to regulate broadband pricing. >> so in the vastness of title 2, that is conceivable. one of the reasons that we are asking for title 2 versus section 706 comments in this proceeding is to be able to specifically zero in on what are issues such as that, what are -- >> so you think you may have the ability to regulate broadband pricing? is that something you think would be an open possibility for the fcc? >> should a full title 2 regime be chosen, which it has not been -- >> but you're making the

proposal. >> what we're doing is proposing section 706 as the approach, and then we've asked questions about title 2, and these are the kinds of issues that come up, will come up in that discussion and that are going to warrant serious consideration. >> but telecommunications services, because that puts broadband in a different realm, if you do try to choose to put it there, would state public utility in our state -- we have a publish service commission. would those state publish service commissions and other related entities in the states be able to regulate broadband at that point? >> so what we have proposed is not title 2. it's section 706. what we have asked is for a discussion of title 2 in those kinds of issues, but our proposal for which i have taken

a lot of heat is not title 2. >> you don't have to go forward with the proposal. you could stop taking the heat right now and pull that back. >> i said that title 2 was on the table, that we're willing to look at title 2, and mr. waxman has a specific proposal where he think that is title 2 ought to be a backup, and that's a proposal that is important and worth considering, but the proposal that we made is section 706. >> let me ask you this because you're also -- it seems like a one-way street where you're just targeting this toward internet providers. there are a lot of content providers, a lot of members have used the netflix example or google, other content providers that also have a play in this realm that you seem to just be targeting this towards internet service providers, and so i'm not sure if there's some ax to grind there, but it just seems like it's a one-sided approach that you're taking even in the

review. i wouldn't recommend going down that road for any of these folks but just wanted to point that out. one last thing because i know i'm running out of time. in a february report, the fcc, some of your staff and a working group, recommended eliminating some of the reports that are out there, the orbit report, the international broadband report, the modifying video competition report, some of those things. i have got a piece of legislation we've passed out of the full house twice now, very bipartisan, i think it was unanimous earlier in this congress called the fcc consolidated reporting act which really tries to take a broad view and to eliminate a lot of the outdated reports, to streamline the reporting process. something that i think you have seen bipartisan support to do in the house. we're trying to get the senate to take that up. i'm not sure if you have a comment on what you think should happen there, if that's something you're supportive of generally, especially as it relates to the bipartisan bill in the house trying to move

through the senate to ultimately become law to streamline the process as your staff has suggested. >> so on the senate side, it's senator heller who has been pushing on this, and i know that he and senator rockefeller are talking about it in terms of their package of legislation over there. i definitely agree that there are -- there is a plethora of reports and that we're spending a lot of time that could be better organized, shall we say. >> including competitiveness on the telegraph industry which is still on the books which we're trying to get rid of. appreciate that. anything you can do to help advocate for advancement, hopefully we can get the heller bill moved through the senate as well and get that to the president's desk. thank you very much for your time and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you very much.

i do not see any member on the democratic side. mr. kinzinger of illinois. >> thank you for being here with us. >> thank you for your patience, mr. kinzinger. >> you're welcome. i might be the end. wow. we have a lot of big issues we want to talk about. i'm just going to hit a couple. i'd like to talk to you a little -- i know it was touched earlier about the e-rate program. i'm a big supporter of the intentions of this program and especially its modernization, and i appreciate the commission putting on the recent workshop on this issue. i have a few concerns i want to address. i represent a rural district with a number of very small schools and libraries, and over the past few months i have reached out to a lot of these entities and asked them what their concern is and asked them about their participation or their lack of participation in the program to see what concerns or issues they have with the program itself. the number one problem raised in these conversations was the complexity involved in both

applying for and eventually receiving the funding necessary to move forward in implementing new technology in their facilities. in hearing this, i actually looked into the issue a little further and found out the basic application for funding, this is the process, but the basic application is 17 pages long and with additional technologies not deemed necessary it can run longer. i would rather punch myself in the face than be the guy who has to fill this out. the complexity of the application process has actually caused a number of these schools to spend money on outside consultants to help guide them through this process. this is money that's no longer being spent on our students and automatically puts many smaller rural schools at a disadvantage as they don't have the funds necessary to pay these consultants essentially leaving individuals in a technological desert. as the commission continues its efforts to modernize the program, what are your plans to simplify the application process for these small and rural

districts and also will you commit to working to address the issues faced by these schools who have routinely told me they simply cannot afford to pursue these funds? >> congressman, i share your shock and dismay. we're going to fix it. >> good. all right. do you have an idea of a time frame? how long? this is easy. we're going home. >> it's going to be part of our e-rate modernization program that we're bringing forward. there's actually a series of things that we're going to begin administratively even before that rulemaking takes place. it is -- yes, sir. i mean, i'm as -- you know, how do we get online? it becomes an interesting challenge. so here we are talking about broadband access for schools and libraries, and we have a 17-page paper process. >> right.

>> so, unfortunately, it's not something you can solve just like this because as i indicated i think to mr. welch, we have awful i.t. systems, but what i would like to get to is for your schools and all schools and libraries to be able to get online, to make their filing, to be able to track that filing and where things stand, and to do it less frequently than annually. >> right. well, i appreciate that. i want to touch on one other quick issue in the short amount of time, and, again, thank you for your consideration with the e-rate issue. i'm concerned with the process and policy rationale used to change the fcc's treatment of broadcast jsas. the decision to count tv jsas ownership has the effect of tightening ownership restrictions without the comprehensive review of the ownership rules that is required

by statute, and your analysis cemented to lack an appreciation for the public interest benefits fostered by jsas. in rockford, without these agreements, the fox station produces actually a hispanic newscast and they've said they will not be able to produce that hispanic newscast, for instance. while i don't believe my local tv station should have to fight for a waiver, and we can have a broader issue on the whole discussion in general, i do want to say in light of your rule, are you going to make sure that these stations can take advantage of waivers and will there be clear, transparent standards for applying for waivers in this process? >> thank you, congressman, because you have raised a really important point about waivers. the reality was why we had to deal with jsas is there was becoming a cottage industry in this town down on k street of lawyers figuring out creative ways to get around the ownership rules that the commission has

had in place forever. and jsas were a favorite way of doing that. what we have said is that you have to have attributable ownership as you indicated. but that there is a waiver process to address exactly what you're talking about in rockford and, yes, there's an expedited process, and it's a situation, unfortunately, where the process took over and perverted the underlying rules and the basic concepts of ownership. >> and we can have that broader discussion when i have more time. my time has expired but i will say, i have heard a lot of concerns from local tv stations even in my district, and i hope that while we disagree with the rule, i hope that you make it very clear how they can apply

for these waivers and how they can get this taken care of. mr. chairman, i will yield back. and thank you. >> thank you very much. on behalf of mr. mathieson and of myself, thank you, chairman wheeler, for your testimony this morning. we look forward to working with you in the future, and the hearing is now adjourned. >> c-span's newest book, a collection of interviews from 25 years. >> at that point i was what you might call a democrat.

the greatliever in society, but also a believer in the tough approach to the soviet union. democratice in the policy. you had pat moynihan. on, that element of the democratic party shrunk to nothing. as it did, i was without a home. but you could call me a neoconservative era >> one of the nation's top tory tellers -- storytellers. in oregon,elections idaho, arkansas, pennsylvania, georgia, and kentucky. you can see the latest results

online at c-span.org. one of the most closely watched races was be senate primary in kentucky where a businessman challenged mitch mcconnell, who won by a significant margin. mitch mcconnell spoke to supporters in louisville for 20 minutes. ♪ [country music plays] ♪

>> thank you. [applause] thank you very much. something must have happened today. i'm not sure what it was. [laughter] my friends, tonight we begin the process of putting kentucky first again. [applause] 45 pipe -- 45 .5 years, the powers that be in washington have treated the people of the state with contempt. message i have a simple for them. those days are numbered. [applause] a little while ago, i spoke to and congratulated

him on a hard-fought campaign. the race. tenacity to he made me a stronger candidate. the race is behind us. it is time to unite. for my opponent possible is, i hope you will join me and know youryour i is my fight. -- fight is my fight. let's have a big hand for him. [applause] this race has always been much bigger than one candidate. it is about the kind of state we want. it is about the kind of country we want. it is about restoring america. it starts tonight. [applause] i am so happy to be joined by my wife. [applause]

many of you know the story, but it bears repeating. in lane came to this country and the whole of a cargo ship which was eight years old. when she injured a public grade school, she didn't speak a word of english. less than 40 years later, she was sitting at the cabinet table devising the president of the united states. the only kentucky woman in history to bp member of a president's cabinet -- to be a member of the president's cabinet. [applause] she is not just my wife, she is an inspiration. i am lucky to have her in my life.

think ofelp but another woman who helped to get me here. that was my mother. my mom and dad were wonderful people. they were wonderful parents. when i was two years old, i contracted polio. it was a frightening diagnosis in those days. my mom responded with uncommon determination. through her patients, tenacity, she gave me what every child wants. the normal childhood. she gave me an example i would never forget. i have tried to bring that same determination and tenacity to every cause i have take up on behalf of the people of the state. whether fighting for people who had been exposed to radiation at in richard platt ichment plant or doing

battle with those who want to destroy coal, i learned this from my mom. the only way to fail is to die or stop trying. [applause] when it comes to fighting for the causes and principles i believe in, i never let up. ever. [applause] i fight for good kentucky jobs every single day. willht for policies that make us more competitive. that make our state better, safer, more beautiful place to live and work. and raise a family. every day, i fight against policies that make life harder for the people of kentucky. there is my opponent. my opponent is in this race

because barack obama and harry reid want her to be in this race. there is a reason, my friends. a reason every hollywood liberal is sending her a check. because they care about kentucky, i assure you that. it is because they know as well as we do that there is a dime's worth of difference, not a dime's worth of difference between a candidate who puts harry reid in charge and harry reid himself. [applause] a vote for my opponent is a vote for a guy who says cold makes you sick -- coal makes you sick. for a guy who thinks nothing for the state if he thinks about it at all. a votefor my opponent is

for obama care and the president who sold it to us on a mountain of lies. that is why this race is not about one party against another. it is about a government that thinks it can lie to its own citizens and get away with it. [applause] it is about holding the people who did this accountable. rac is aboute vindicating people like angela, a mother of five girls from owens burls. owensboro.- from she was at her wit ends when she wrote me this year. after being told up and down she did not have to worry about a result coming out of obamacare that she did not favor, she was she found out she was going to lose her doctor and her

plan. her premiums had more than tripled. she was out of patience. obamacare agents told her she was out of luck. when she spoke up about it, harry reid told her she was a liar. another woman wrote me saying her deductible went up sevenfold. she said, she is a democrat and she is furious. i feel deceived, she wrote. another woman wrote saying that in order to pay her new premium under obamacare, she would have to either reduce payments or stop contributing to her 401(k). all these women have something in common. they got a raw deal and they've got nothing but a blind stare from the people that did these things to them and their families. that is how this crowd operates. they think they can get away with it if they just push ahead. if they can just make it through

cycle or news election. i've got news for them. the american people have had enough. they have -- are running out of time. [applause] barack obama's allies have one goal this year. just one. to cling to their power. they have made an art form of handpicking candidates who pose no threat to the power whatsoever. is how obamacare became law. every single candidate that barack obama and harry reid senated to send to the fell in line to pass a bill the american people do not want. if you look at my democratic opponent, it is clear she would be no different. person whortisan's

has been practicing party politics since she learns to talk. i mean, let's be honest. learned politics at the schedule -- at the school of underginnder can -- l will not be a model of bipartisanship. [applause] preachdidates independence but they practice loyalty. that kentuckians are not going to be deceived. is barack obama's candidate. they know it. they will issue the same verdict . they cannot afford to empower

the people that have been waging a war on jobs for the last 5.5 years. [applause] tonight, i ask every voter to help us win this race. put kentucky first. the people who hand-picked my opponent are not on your side. they don't care a whit about kentucky. let me tell you what i am talking about. administration said we could not raise the water level down at lake cumberland because it might disrupted the natural 8a min of the minot -- now. they wanted to keep the water low, throw people out of their destroy one of the

most popular tourist spots to help a two inch fish. this is the only time anybody has tried to save a fish from too much water. [laughter] [applause] i fight back and we won. [applause] i will keep fighting this and every other attempt by the obama crowd to tell kentuckians how to live their lives. send me back to washington and kentucky will always have a champion in the capital. [applause] if the american people give republicans the majority of the

senate, you will be proud of the united states senate once again. [applause] i will never say one thing and do another. -- restore the senate as a place of high purpose. i will carry out my office with dignity and respect. these are my values and i intend to practice them. , i can seeel around it in people's eyes. the sense that washington does not care about them. they view people as an obstacle to overcome rather than someone to help. the government is working against them. us how to webefore change that. how do we get america back on track?

we can take the reins of power away from harry reid and make this president accountable. . [applause] make me the majority leader and kentucky will lead america. [applause] put this son of the commonwealth in the senate. [applause] i will do everything i can to repeal and replace obamacare. [applause]

i will keep the liberal judges from rewriting our carts. -- our courts. wholl hold the bureaucrats are waging war on our people and our way of life to account. [applause] kentucky my friends will lead america. [applause] i will put the concerns of working and middle-class americans ahead of the liberal interest groups. [applause] i will make the people of the state crowd. -- proud. kentucky will lead america.

we have had a president and a party in control of the senate. it doesn't care what you think. tonight, we begin the work of changing that. i have stood up to this president. i will make sure he is forced to doingabout what he's to the people of kentucky every day. [applause] i don't care what party you are in. it doesn't make a difference. i am asking you to join me in this effort. when the pundits and historians look back on the last two years

of barack obama's presidency and try to explain how to in administration that started out so to stream -- started out so extreme was finally made to listen, they will say it started right here in kentucky. [applause] they will say this very night the people of kentucky began to fight back. [applause] friends, we will renew this country. it starts this evening. thank you all for being here. [applause]

[country music plays] ♪ >> senator mcconnell's challenger spoke to his supporters in lexington.

♪ >> thank you. you need to stop now or i will start crying on you. that is not. thank you for being here. you have seen the numbers and the numbers are shaping up like they are. i cannot tell you how grateful i am to see you all here tonight. the energy here, the enthusiasm here, the fact that you are here is speaking to something that is so much bigger than any one race. so much bigger than any one person. so much bigger than anyone of you individually. give yourselves a round of applause for all you have done. [applause]

nine months ago, people thought we were crazy. some have thought we were crazy the whole time. here is the reality. we know why we are here. we don't significance of this. we -- we know the significance of this. foundinghat when their fathers pledged their lives and sacred honor, their midnight runs to plant signs all over god's green earth -- [applause] the firstpledged three of those things, they meant it. every one of you has given some or all of the above. i am ambled the by that. i'm a guy that nine months ago, most of you would not have