onths. vietnam, 13 months, for iraq and afghanistan an initial enlistment with 45 months. these deployment costs are huge and are hidden. half a million returning vets suffer some form of ptsd. they suffered disproportionate unemployment numbers. the average divorce rate is 80%. at worst, friends, worse, the suicide rate among our vets a -- our best and our brightest is 23 a day. as we gather here, we are safe secure, we are having fun, at a conference, in these four days 92 of our veterans will have taken their lives. have we lived up to washington's wish for our vets?

i do not ask this as a politician. as dakota was suggesting. i ask as one of so many mothers of a combat vet. when my son went off to war the first time as a teenager, i was confronted with the same reality that all the other moms have to face and just realizing, i was not going to be there to help, to protect. moms can't be there when they hurt. i can pray, and i did and i do. but fewer things are more difficult than to kiss a child goodbye. those first deployments is when a parent goes from calling him son to calling him sir. america hands over her sons and daughters in service with the promise they are going to be taken care of. our troops are promised no one will be left kind. they are promised that a

grateful nation will spare no expense to patch them up and bring them back to health when wounded. and now they come home wounded. too many broken in body and spirit. well we their mothers and their fathers and their house and their weives, we are here to collect on the promises made. we cannot wait for d.c. to fix their blunders. this bureaucracy is killing our vets. they wait for months -- they wait for years to get treatment at the v.a. and they are losing hope. the v.a.'s mistakes and those coverups they have cost the lives of 500 vets in the last four years, and that does not account for those who took their own lives. we witness the way a corrupt government treats are vets. the v.a., putting them on their secret waiting list and --

spying on investigators were trying to get the bottom of it. don't be fooled into thinking the problem is resolved simply because the media does not cover lame duck scandals anymore. just because one guy at the top resigned. the problems did not resign. the reason you do not hear about them is because our vets wondon't whine. they are not whiners who complain. that is why this ran under the radar so long. our debt of gratitude it starts payment with three simple solutions that government can and should do right now because it is time to demand solutions. first with health care, give vouchers for treatment outside the v.a. [cheers and applause] give our vets the same freedom

they gave us and instead of illegal aliens cutting and line be rewarded up a hand up ahead of u.s. benefits, we demand the vets are first in line. the second allow vets who are reentering the workforce let them use the skills they used in the military. today, say a vet with superb computer or mechanical skills often they have to go backward. they have to take classes to get a paper degree or paper certificates to slap on the w all, that says i am certified in the fields they already knew. let them test out. and their military certification can transfer over. common sense yeah. common sense, which i know is an

endangered species in these parts. yeah. third, secure their benefits. congress, secure their benefits. did you know that last year, congress actually voted to cut vet's retirement benefits by 20%a? did they vote to cut their own? no. and they only reverse course when enough of us rose up in protest. so take the issue away from the politicians. after legislation to secure benefits permanently. now, health care and benefits -- this is part of the equation. general washington wished for our veterans and that there deeds in war would be recognized as glorious and honorable. the deeds have been certainly. there is no question. but the thing that those vets

from the revolutionary war, what they had that today's troops do not is victory. and that is the thing they chairs most -- cherish most. they deserve to know their sacrifices are not in vain, to know that what they fought for and what their friends died for was worth it. it is said -- it's said that old men declare wars then they sent a young wants to fight them. so, it is the duty of he who sends them to make sure we win those wars. and it's our duty to elect an honorable commander in chief who is willing to make the same sacrifices he says others a way to make. we must provide our troops the political will to win. and the rules of engagement to

win. how many americans are harmed today because politically correct rules of engagement are opposed by those who are too uncomfortable to give troops the trust and the tools they need to win? that leads to a very unpleasant question. and it is one that every gold star mom and every veteran will live with forever. did we actually win in iraq and afghanistan? before we wave the white flag. the jury is still out. but when evil islamic terrorists are on the march from syria to iraq and yemen, and the streets of paris, it does not look like victory. the middle east is a tinderbox and is coming apart at the seams. it is a playground.

isis expands. it takes back land we just spilled our blood to secure with their goal of a state that extends from baghdad to damascus to jerusalem itself. only in egypt is jihan in retreat and that is no thanks to the obama administration. remember they support of the muslim brotherhood which was finally toppled by the people in one of the largest popular revolts in history. now, in 2009, when obama took over the war on terror islamists were in retreat and al qaeda was a broken force. now islamists, they control more territory than ever. it is where they train and launch more attacks o nus and our allies. and that was predictable. military brass wantarned the left, do not pull out without

allowing a residual force to keep a lid on it and maintain the ground. friends, the rise of eyes is, it is the direct result of this administration's refusal to he that morning. it is. and now everywhere you look well, islamists are on the march from boko haram selling schoolgirls as slaves and isis crucifying christians. and burning the innocent a life. and beheading children. babies. a side from god almighty, what is the only force strong enough to keep this rolling tide at bay? the only thing standing between us and savages is the red, white and blue of united states military.

we are in a long term civilizational struggle against the forces of evil now, if we intend to beat them, we had better get serious about victory. the consequences of weakness is retreat and defeat. in the past, our leaders confronted evil with more clarity, eliminated facists and the nazis. they consigned communism to the dustbin of history. make no mistake, radical islam is just as dangerous as those ideologies. and islamists, they swear they are going to bring the fight to our shores. isis threatens to raise his black flag over our white house. they told president obama, we will cut off your head in the white house. but our lead from behind president thinks we can coexist with these genocidal thugs.

he thinks the islamic state isn't really islamic? pretending it is not there does not make it go away. calling it something else will not make it so. and lecturing christians to get off our high horse about radical islam will not stop islamist from killing christians. stop blaming the victim. mr. president. while christians bow our heads to pray for you, radical islamists want to cut off your head. the world that they want is a world that would submit. we will ne never submit to evilv . we will consign radical islam to the ash even if history, just like the nazis. oh, the naive obama state

department. they say, we cannot kill our way out of war. really? tell that to the nazis. wait you can't, because they are dead. we killed them. history proves the destruction of an enemy's military operation that leads to victory. and from victory to peace. so we will not tolerate politicians who squander the precious lives of our sons and daughters on the battle field. and then when they come home, politicians tell us -- callously refusing to respect and repay them. our vets deserve better, and we demand better. because, friends, if you look for the virtues that sets our nation apart from the enemy, you'll find them and those who wear the uniform, who take the oath, who pay the price for

our freedom. the jihadists fight out of hatred, hatred of hews, christians and women -- and jews and diversity and freedom. our troops, they fight out of love. love of family and country and freedom. and itf you love freedom, thank a vet! and i would ask any veteran in here today or active duty military, honor us by please standing. we want to thank you. we salute you. as ask you to stand. we love you. thank you.

mm. we love you. look call to action time. conservative action starts here. here is our call to action. not just here but everywhere and every day find a vet, talk to them, thank them. thank them and honor them and tell them that yes, you love your freedom and you know who it is that needs to be thanked. so we will honor general washington's wish. he said with a heart for the love and gratitude to achieve glories and honorable victory on the battlefield and help our freedom fighters, their civilian days. be as prosperous and happy as their service to us was brave a nd true. so, with one voice, let us say god bless the united states military. we thank you, veterans. and god bless the united states of america. thank you.

[cheers and applause] thank you, guys. thank you, guys. >> good evening. >> thank you so much and of course i am happy to take any questions you all would have for me and they give me time to answer. >> good evening. we have time for a couple quick questions and we are going to do a lightning round. one word answers. barack obama. one word answer. >> sorry. [laughter] >> hey, we came in second out of two. >> hillary rodham clinton. >> i'm sorry. >> lady margaret thatcher. >> iron. >> and governor, we have a lot

of young people tonight. a lot of millennials. governor palin, what do you think the issues of concern that should be on the forefront of the mind of our young folks as they are the next generation of leaders? >> through osmosis, hopefully some of the message i just delivered will be received by them but i know the folks in this room get it. they have that love and that honor of those who are willing to use back of ice all in -- sacrifice all in the name of freedom for us. but also, these kids need to understand, like thomas pain said, if there be trouble, let it be in my day. that my child will have peace. meaning, we have got to make some sacrifices today and not be so -- well politicians anyway -- so. unselfish that they would give these kids and their kids and their kids after that so in debt that they are shackled and

that they are so constrained and confined to what we are doing today it's unfair, immoral, i think it is illegal -- that debt. >> one last question. do you think there is a double standard in the way that the media treats republican women who run for office as opposed democrat women to run for office? >> yes. >> thank you. governor sarah palin, everybody. thank you so much. ♪ >> coming up on the next "washington journal, " two hours of your calls and comments about the events of the week in washington, d.c. you can join the conversation every morning at 7:00 a.m. is been. -- on c-span.

today, the justice department unveils the portrait of outgoing attorney general eric holder. president obama will be among the speakers. we will bring you the event live starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. here are some of our feature programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span 2's book tv saturday at 10:00 p.m. on afterwards, allan ryskind whose father was a screenwriter for the marx brothers talks about the commonest party in hollywood during the 1930's. sunday at noon, our live three-hour conversation with harvard law professor and author lani quiner. on american history tv on c-span 3, saturday at 6:00 p.m. on the civil war, a discussion about

the burning of lumia, south carolina, all on the surrender of 80 two union general william tecumseh sherman. and sunday afternoon at 2:00 on oral history, an interview with former consultant to the nixon white house daniel ellsberg on the pentagon papers, a classified study on vietnam which he copied in gave to the new york times in 1971. find our complete schedule at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us at -- email us at -- or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. on thursday, the federal communications commission voted three to two to approve new open internet rules. the rules are designed for -- to

prohibit inners that service providers from discriminating against content moving to their network and for charging for preferential treatment. this portion of the meeting is an hour and 35 minutes. >> we are now pleased to present for your consideration an order that was set forth clear sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open internet as a place for innovation and free expression. the order builds on the views of 4 million americans who commented in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking you adopted that's may -- last may. we have two guests with us

today. chad dickerson and the creator of the tv drama -- we also have a brief video from an inventor of the worldwide web and founder of the worldwide web consortium. they will provide brief remarks about the importance of an open internet to innovation invest, creativity, and free expression. i'f ifd first like to turn it over to mr. dickerson. >> thank you, chairman wheeler, for the opportunity to his today. as the ceo of etsy, i'm here to thank you and your colleagues for taking decisive action to protect the internet. etsy's is an online marketplace for you can buy handmade and vintage good from artists around the world. we've democratize access to a

different ownership for -- entrepreneurhsipship for 1.2 million sellers. most are sole proprietors work from home. they live in all 50 states and the depend on their etsy income to support their families. 18% support themselves full-time on etsy. etsy and our sellers rely on a free and open internet that allows the company to grow from a tiny startup to -- in a brooklyn apartment to a global company with over 600 employees. it allows the micro businesses that sell to reach buyers around the world and compute with much bigger, more established brands. bqackack in 1993, it allowed me, in english major with a data entry job at a newspaper to jump start my career in technology by teaching myself how to code. there is hope for endless

majors. -- for english majors. without strong rules prevent discrimination, the economy would suffer. take etsy. we charge 20 cents to list and item, and we take only 3% of every transaction. we could not afford to pay for priority act as to consumers but we know that delays in milliseconds have long-term impacts on revenue. absence of rules you are voting on today we would be forced to raise fees or leave ours dollars in this low lane redding the micro business who depended our platform us about. the etsy community knows what is at stake. on september 10, 30,000 of them joined millions urging congress and the fcc to protect the open internet. many others meehan credit -- made handcrafted objects: for net neutrality. several more sense thank you cards, which i gave to chairman wheeler earlier.

i've a handwritten note in my hands from nancy from california. she wrote "my note is a personal thank you to you for protecting the free internet for all. i worked in the medical field for 30 years and loved it that a couple years ago a girl texting on the freeway took my career way for me. my injuries forced me to find income from something i could do from a chair. i turned to my passion for creativity and vintage items and joined etsy. my dream is alive and viable because of the free internet neutrality and etsy. thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support for me and countless other little people trying to glean income fr om their argosy -- artistry. " i applaud the fcc for establishing clear rules that ban dissemination online. over the last year, over 4 million people weighed in on

this proceeding. today's vote demonstrates they have been hurt. thank you for voting to protect the internet as an engine for economic opportunity the likes of which we have never seen. thank you. >> thank you for your leadership and please say thank you to nancy. >> good morning. thank you for the opportunity to speak. i am a television producer and a member of the writers guild of america west. i developed a tv series, a show that survived two near deaths. it originally ariedired on amc. notetflix offered to share the cost. we were able to end the series,

all because of the internet that has opened up competition. we told some of our best stories, our toughest most heartbreaking once in the last two seasons of the show, stories that never would have been on the air had it not been for the open internet. we talked about the death penalty and homelessness and drug addiction. i'm so grateful we had that opportunity. what the open internet means for creativity innovation is by no means limited to my own experience. series lieke " transparent" are giving voice to world and experiences never be forced in on the small screen. while little more than 20% of comedies and dramas on traditional television have a woman at the helm, almost 40% of the series airing on these new online platforms this season will be run by women. this progress is a result of new competition let loose on an industry that is highly consolidated. it is the result of pent-up

demand by an american public tired of hearing the same old same old. it is result of innovation on a platform that does not require permission that is expanded how, where, and by whom stories can be told. because of the open internet, we are in your free-market ideal work as adam smith intended with increasing, titian rich rewards consumers and creators. however, this will not continue without strong roles that help ensure that markets work properly. the few companies that control the pipe and face little competition have already begun to exercise or gatekeeper power to limit the promise of this new platform. today, we have arrived at the moment where you decide the future. the right decision, the one that will benefit creators, innovators, the economy and the american people is to reclassify broadband internet service as a telecommunications service. only reclassification will allow the commission to its to the rules that will ban paid

prioritization and all the ways in which the companies that control distribution can tip the scales in their favor. what you do today can secure the future of the open internet and make sure all our voices are heard each and every one of us. thank you. >> thank you. and now i'd like to ask our audiovisual team to play the video from sir tim. [video clip] >> thank you. and the members of the commission for the opportunity to address you at a critical moment for the future of the internet. more than anything else, the actions you take today to preserve -- let me explain. 25 years ago the internet -- so 25 years ago the internet user i could sit down, write a

program, write the web server, give copies of people and let them run on computers -- [feedback] all that was necessary was to plug into the internet. i didn't have to ask anybody's permission. from this, the worldwide web spread to reach all corners of the global, interconnected world, making hundreds of billions of dollars for economic growth -- i didn't have to get permission from anybody. i didn't have to pay isp specialties. i did not have to convince anybody that this new technology should be let through. i did not have to worry that they would not -- [indiscernible]

so i did not have to ask permission from anybody. the web itself on top of internet is another platform. thank you. so that is really -- it's a wonderful system. the openness of the internet -- created an opportunity for me 25 years ago, will ensure that the next innovators come home with a great new service and great improvements, the web will have the opportunity to try their ideas in the free market just as id did. fcc action is about consumer rights, free speech. it is about democracy. it's also about business. the openness of the internet -- [indiscernible]

the fact that the internet is mutual -- so i applaud the chairman on the time tested -- to authority which enables the commission to write hopefully the kind of simple, clear rules -- that are the basis on which our society depends. the fact that some repressive regimes of use the legal system on the internet can't deter us from protecting openness and freeze each. -- and free speech. rather we set an example of how freeze peach sets basic rules -- free speech sets basic rules. facing the question about what to do with net neutrality. the fcc is leading the way and showing how to continue the fight in innovation.

we are society of laws. the free market depends on -- based on rules. [indiscernible] in which the flow of information on the internet is her economic and social life blood. we have to add net neutrality to a list of basic market conditions. thank you again mr. chairman, and members of the commission for the important stuff you are taking today and the opportunity to make this contribution. >> the remarks we have heard from our guest and from sir tim reflect the widespread consensus of the importance of protecting and promoting an open internet. an item of this complexity and scope requires quite a team. economist, engineers

technologists and attorneys across the commission all played roles in preparing the items before you. on behalf of the competition bureau, i would like to thank our colleagues and general counsel, wireless telecommunication bureau and consumer and governmental affairs bureau, and the enforcement euros, as well as our chief technologist scott jordan. with me at the table are -- of the office of general counsel. roger sherman and jiim of the wireless telecommunications bureau. and claude aikin and melissa of the competition bureau. melissa, will present the item. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. at the outset, the order before you sets for three bright line rules to ban conduct that we know threatens the open internet. first, broadband providers may

not block access to legal content, application, services or non-harmful device. second they may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content applications services, or any classes thereof. third, they may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. in other words, no fast lanes. as in the commission's open internet order today's order also adopts a standard for judging concerns with any future practice is on a case i case basis. that standard will prohibit broadband providers from unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging the ability of consumers and providers to reach one another. all of these rules, other than the ban on paid prioritization, are subject to a common than's exception for reasonable network management. that the order makes clear that they commission will not tolerate abusive this exception. the order also enhances the

transparency rule adopted in 2010, which is still in effect. it provides smaller broadband providers with a temporary exemption from these enhancements and set in motion a process to consider whether to make that or another exemption permanent. the order also notes that some data services, like facility space voice are not broadband internet access and not subject to the context rules. the order however, does ensure that these services do not undermine the effectiveness of the open internet rules. also, the order allows the commission to address any problems that arise in the exchange of traffic between broadband internet access providers and other networks and services. the order recognizes that when internet -- interconnection breaks down, ultimately it is consumers that their the harm. the order grounds these news protections in multiple sources

of authority. first, it classifies broadband internet access, ficxed and mobile, as a telik medication service. in offering this service, the broadband providers make a promise to the end-user to trance that traffic to and from all lawful internet and points. -- end points. this is no less true in mobile than it is in fixed. accordingly, the order finds that mobile broadband internet access their various is a commercial mobile service under section 332 of the communications act and all of the open internet protections that apply to fixed broadband also apply to mobile. with respect to interconnection, the order explains that this promise encompasses the duty to make the necessary traffic exchange arrangements that allows consumers to use the internet as they wish. these findings concerning broadband internet access service provide the best legal certainty for rules guaranteeing

an open internet and reflect the reality of how broadband providers offer their services to the public today. to ensure the service classification results in continued light touch framework for broadband, the order exercises the forbearance authority granted to the commission by congress, forbearing from some 27 provisions of title ii in over 700 regulations adopted. the order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protects consumers, and support universal service. the order makes clear that broadband providers will not subject to utility style regulations. this means no unbundling tariffs or other forms of rate regulation. the order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the universal service fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees. in short, the order before a

response to the unprecedented record in this proceeding by adopting strong, open internet protections and resting them on solid legal ground. the beer recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges -- the bureau recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. >> thank all of you for your efforts on this. >> thank you. following years of vigorous debate, the united states adopted the bill o f rights in 1791. the framers recognized the basic freedoms as enshrined in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were fundamental to a free and open democratic society. james madison gave life to the first amendment in a scant 45 words, mr. chairman, which are fundamental to the spirit of this great nation. almost two centuries later justice william brennan would write the historic 1964 " new york times" vs. syllabus --

sullivan decision that debates on public issues should be on inhibited, robust, and wide open. i believe predecessor madison and justice brennan would be proud of the rigorous, robust, and unfettered debate that has led us to this historic moment and what a moment it is. i believe the framers would be pleased to see these principles embodied on a platform that has become such an important part of our lives. i also believe they never envisioned a government that would include the input and leadership of women, people of color, and immigrants or that there would be an open process where nearly 4 million citizens have had a direct conversation with their government. they would be extremely amazed, i would venture to say, because we are extremely amazed. so, here we are 224 years later

at a pivotal fork in the road. poised to preserve those same virtues of a democratic society -- freeze each, freedom of religion, -- free speech freedom of assembly and a functioning free market. as we look around the world, we see foreign governments blocking access to social media and some curtailing free speech . there are countries where it is routine for governments, not the consumer, to determine who has act fast and what kind of content -- who has access. i am proud to be able to say we are not among them. absent the rules, we adopt today, however any internet service provider has the liberty to do just that. they would be free to block throttle, favor or discriminate against traffic or extract tolls from any user for any reason or for no reason at all.

this is more than a theoretical exercise. providers and united states have in fact blocked applications on mobile devices which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts competition and innovation by allowing companies, not the consumers, to pick winners and losers. as many of you know, this is not my first open internet rodeo. while i did vote to approve the 2010 rules it was no secret that i preferred a different path than the one the commission ultimately adopted, specifically title ii was forbearance, mobile parity, a ban on paid prioritization, and preventing the specialized services exemption from becoming a loophole. so i am grateful to you, mr. chairman for your willingness to work with my office to better ensure that this order strikes the right balance and it

position to provide us with strong, legally sustainable rules. this is our third fight -- bite at the apple, and we must get it right. today we are here to answer a few civil questions. who determines how you use the internet? who decides what kind content -- what content you view and when? should there be a single internet or fast lanes or slogans? should internet service providers the free to provide content as they see fit? should access to the internet on your mobile device have the same protection as your fixed device at home? these questions get to the essence of the debate. how do we continue to ensure that consumers have the tool they need to decide, based on their own user experience, the consumer not me, not the government, not the industry,

but you, the consumer? keeping in touch with your loved one overseas, interacting with your health care provider, even if you are miles away from the closest medical facility enrolling online for classes to improve your educational professional potential without worrying about whether the university can pay for a fast lane so that that lecture can be watched. not buffering for hours where equality has been degraded. not that. not wondering if this is with your enters-- your internet service provider is getting preferential treatment over that stardom. we are here so that teachers do not have to give a second thought about assigning homework has to be researched online because they are sure their pupils are free to access any lawful website and such websites

will not load at dial up speed. and we are answering the calls of more than 4 million commenters who raise their voices and made a difference through civic yet sometimes not always so civil discourse. we are here to ensure that every american has the ability to communicate by thei preferred means over their chosen platformr because as one of our greatest civil rights pioneers representative john lewis of georgia said, if we had the internet during the movement, we could have done more, much more to bring people together from all over the country to organize and work together to build the beloved community. that is why it is so important for us to protect the internet. every voice matters. we cannot l et the interest of profit silence the voices of

those pursuing dignity. we are here to ensure that there is only one internet where applications, new product ideas, and points of view have an equal chance of being seen and heard. we are here because we want to enable those with deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets the same opportunities to succeed. there are many aspects of this item i am pleased to support and while time and stamina prohibit me from naming them all, i do want to highlight a few. users of mobile devices should not be relegated to second class internet. we know many of lone income americans rely heavily on their mobile device. and some rely heavily on that mobile phone as their only access to the internet. they need, they deserve a robust

experience on par with the wired peers. i thank you, mr. chairman, for ensuring equality and erasing the mobile versus fixed distinctive. the item contains strong, clear rules to ensure that all content, all applications, and all are treated equally. these are all essential to the free market and this is pro- competition. we must also ensure that companies are not able to take actions that circumvent or undermine the open internet rules through exemptions or at a point of interconnection. despite the flurry of press reports earlier this week, very interesting for me, i would never advocate for any policy that undermines oversight or enforcement of any open internet

protections, including interconnection. i am pleased that this order commit to monitor internet traffic -- exchange arrangements and enable the commission to intervene if appropriate. i have also been vocal about my call to modernize a life line program, which has been stuck in a parachute pants time warner since -- time warp since 1985. this would support broadband as a separate service that would help low income communities breakout of digital darkness. i hope mc hammer is not watching. in the and this mee -- endless meetings with stakeholders, my office is heard concern for many side. for some the item does not go far enough. others want a ban on at and there are those who advocate a ban for zero rating, and others feel that it goes too far on the

scope of forbearance or the focus on interconnection. we work closely with the chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and yet it is ture reue that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of this vendor side classification but i believe these edits have strengthened this item. and reports that this week -- weakens our authority over connection are in accurate. it should come as a surprise with any item in excess of 300 pages that there may have been a few issues i would've decided differently. first, i would've preferred to readopted the unreasonable did -- discrimination rules and reasonable network management rules from 2010. and,, i think we should tread lightly when it comes to preempting the state's ability to implement their own universal service fund. not doing so could put a train

-- a strain on a federal-state partnership i work so hard to create and this date universal service fund are completely distinct from any federal program. finally, i have been struck by how much rhetoric in this proceeding is completely divorced from reality. while as a rule i generally refrain from responding in these cases, i must address concerns about rate regulation. many of you know that reforming the inmate calling services regime has then a priority for me. despite clear legal authority, the fcc dragged -- this its f -- dragged its feet for a decade while family and rent paid high needs to make a simple phone call to and from inmate facilities. i bring this up today, because the inmate calling preceding represents a prime example of

how the fcc resisted rate regulation for years even when consumers were subjected to blatantly unreasonable charges by providers with a clear monopoly, where severe cough to society were evident -- cost to society were evident and where there was a clear taste of market failure. so for those in a panic about rate a galatian, there are -- -- about rate regulation, there are millions who can testify to high hot -- how high the bar is when it comes to the fcc intervening when it comes to rates and charges. i repeat this challenge to anyone willing to accept it. highlight examples where the federal communications commission has ruled that a rate is unreasonable in a context other than inmate calling or a tariff investigation over the last decade. to date, no one has come forth

with any examples. and that in and of itself is telling. and lest we forget that over 700 small broadband providers in rural america and offer access pursuant to the full panoply of title iii a universal service and the sky has not fallen. things are ok. we have not regulated their rates. and i am unaware of any stream of class-action lawsuit. even so, the item does assert primary jurors action to reduce -- primary jurisdiction to reduce such concerns. today i support this item because i believe it divides the strong protections we need -- it provides a strong protections we need and balances the concerns raised by stakeholders large and small. the order we are poised to endorse are not a products, however, of some artificial life

course. a dedicated team of wireline competition and wireless telecommunications euros and the officer -- of general counsel worked externally hard on this item. there are too many people to thank but i would be remiss if i did not mention -- claude aiken roger sherman jim slickly joe thank you. and michael jansen. i must thank two people in my office especially. louie perez and rebecca goodhart who will work days on end to see that it item is right. i take you very much. but last but not least i would like to thank you, the american people. more than 4 million of you wait -- weighed in.

thank you for your role in framing this historic order. today, because of your effort, we are better able to allow millions of americans to tell their stories, to reach their potential, and to realize the american ideal. thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner. [applauds] thank you for your leadership on this recognizing that as nmrmr. lewis said every voice matters. >> there has been a little noise on the way to this decision. so i am going to do something radical. i'm going to be brief. our internet economy is the envy of the world. we invented it. the applications economy began right here on our shores.

the broadband below us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might into our homes and businesses all across the country. what produce this dynamic engine of onto for nor -- entre preneurship is a foundation of openness. and sustaining what has made us innovative fears and creative should not a choice. it should be an obligation. we also have a duty, a duty to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. it is our printing press. it s our -- it sis our town square, our soapbox and our shared platform for opportunity. that is why open internet policies matter.

that is why i support network neutrality. we cannot have a two-tiered internet with fast lanes that's beat the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. he cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online. and we do not need locking, -- blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the internet. for these reasons i support the chairman's efforts and rules today. they use are a distinct -- a tory tools, including title ii -- statutory tools, including title ii authority to put in place a sick open internet policies we all rely on but our courts took away last year. the result honors the creative collaborative and open internet envisioned by those who were there at the start including

the legendary sir tim berners-lee, the creator of the world wide web whom we have had the privilege of to hear from today. this is a big deal. what is also a big deal is 4 million voices. 4 million americans wrote this agency to make known their ideas, thoughts, and deeply held opinions about internet openness. they lit up our phone lines clogged our e-mail inboxes and jameedmed our online comment system. that might the messy but what ever are disagreements are on network neutrality, i hope we can agree that is democracy in action. and something we can all support. >> commissioner? [applause] thank you for your trenchant presentation. what you edited out which are

leadership throughout this process, your champing -- ch ampioning of open voices. we will hear a lot of words up here today but the most important words is one simple short word -- i. thank you. commissioner? >> thank you, mr. chairman. americans love the free and open internet. we relish our freedom to speak, post, rally, to learn to listen, to watch, and to connect online. the internet has become a powerful force for freedom here and around the world. so it is said to witness this morning the fcc's unprecedented attempts to replace that freedom with government control. it should not be this way. for 20 years there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. a democratic president a

republican congress enshrined in the telecommunications act of 1996 the principle that the internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market " unfettered by federal and state regulation." and dating back to the clinton administration every fcc chairman, republican and democrat has let the internet grow free from utility style regulation. the result speak for themselves. but today, the fcc abandons those policies. it reclassifies broadband internet access service a a s title ii. it sees is where isp's make their investment and determine what service plans are available to the american public. this is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan market-oriented policies that have your best so well over the past two decades.

it is an about-face from the proposals the fcc itself may just last may. so why is the fcc turning his back on internet freedom? is it because we now have evidence the internet is broken? no. we are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason only -- president obama told us to do so. >> i'm asking the fcc to reclassify internet service under the telecommunications act. >> on november 10, president obama asked the fcc to implement his plan for regulating the internet. one that favors government regulation over marketplace petition. -- competition. as had been widely reported, the fcc has and scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. the courts will ultimately decide this order's fate. litigants are already lining up to see judicial reviewk.

giving this order's glaring legal laws, they will have plenty of fodder. but if this order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the judicial review, these will be the consequences. higher broadband prices, slower broadband speeds, lest broadband deployment -- less broadband deployment less innovation, and fewer options for consumers. put simply, president obama's plan to regulate the internet is not the solution to the problem. his plan is the problem. this order imposes intrusive government regulations that will not work to solve a problem that does not exist using legal authority the fcc does not have. accordingly, i dissent. to start, the commission's decision to adopt president obama's plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of even. it gives the fcc the power to micromanage virtually every

aspect of how the internet works. it is an overreach that will let a washington bureaucracy, and not the american people, decide the future of the online world. one facet of that control is rate regulation. for the first time, the fcc will regulate the rates that if c's may charge and can set a price of zero for commercial arrangements. it goes out of its way to reject calls from rate regulation, and invites parties to file such complaints with the commission. a government agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation. although the order plainly regulates rates, the plan takes pains to claim it is not imposing what it calls next anti-rate regulation. that concedes there will be ex post rate regulation.

but even the suggesting that it cannot envision regulations in this context says nothing about a future commission, perhaps this very commission, could envision. just as pernicious as the fcc's new internet conduct standards, a vague standard that is the fcc a ruling mandate to review business models and upend pricing plans to benefit consumers, usage space present plans and sponsor data plans are the current targets. so if the company does not want to offer and expenses unlimited data plan -- and expensive unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the fcc's crosshairs. our standard should be simple. if you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. the fcc should not take it away from you. banning diverse service plans would hurt consumers, especially the middle class and low income

americans, the biggest beneficiaries of these plans. in all, the fcc will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what business practices clear the bureaucratic bar. these will not be the last plans targeted by the agency. as the electronic frontier foundation wrote two days ago this open-ended rule will "be anything but clear cocoa and will suggest that the fcc has broad authority to suggest a number of practices. "and a multifactor test gives the fcc an awful lot of discretion, giving unfair advantage to parties with insider influence." well said. then there is the temporary forbearance. although the order yields a light touch regulatory framework, in reality it is not light at all, coming as it does with the caveat that this public has come to expand from -- has come to expect from washington, d.c.

in addition to rate regulation tariffs, burdensome administrative filing requirements accounting standards, the plan repeatedly states it is only forbearing at this time. for other rules, the fcc will refrain for now. at this time, for now. hmm. to be sure, with respect to some rules, the agency said it cannot envision going further. but as the history of this very proceeding makes clear assurances like these do not last long. expect forbearance to fade and regulations to ratchet up as time goes on. moreover, consumers will be worse off under president obama 's plan to regulate the internet. consumers should expect their bills to go up and they should expect that broadband will be slower going forward. this is not what anyone was

promised, to say the least it first, broadband taxes. one avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. here is the background. if you look at your phone bill, you will see a line item this is universal service fee. these fees, what most americans call taxes, are paid by americans on the telephone service. they funnel $9 billion each year through the fcc. consumers have not had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because. now the order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes. it repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes, not prohibiting them. this is fig leaf forbearance. the fcc has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the federal state joint board on

universal service and has requested a recommended decision by april 7 2015, right before tax day. it is no surprise many review -- many view this deferral as how not whether, to tax broadband. states have begun discussions on how they wilson and the extra money. that on how they will spend the extra money. -- on how they will spend the extra money. it could add to the stability of the universal service. for those not familiar with this beltway argo, let me translate -- taxing broadband would be easier that would make it easier to spend more of your money without oversight. we have seen this game before. the fcc secretly told lobbyists it would raise usf taxes after the election.

sure enough, in december of 2014 the agency did just that and increasing the rate spending, and with it these telephone taxes by $1.5 billion per year. public reports indicate the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream and soon, to spend more of consumers' hard-earned dollars. when it comes to broadband, read my lips -- more new taxes are coming. it is just a matter of when. second effect on consumers, slower broadband. these internet regulations will work a series -- the record is replete with evidence that title ii regulations will slow investment and regulations on broadband network. broadband networks do not have to be built. capital does not have to be invested. the more difficult the fcc makes

the business case for deployment, the less likely it is that broadband providers will connect americans with digital opportunities. the old world offered the cautionary tale here. compare the broadband marketplace in the united states to that of europe, where broadband generally is treated as a public utility. today, 82% of americans have access to 25 megabit per second broadband speeds. in europe, that figure is only 54%. moreover, in the united states, average mobile broadband speeds are 30% faster than they are in western europe. it is no wonder many europeans are perplexed by what is taking place in the fcc. just this week, the secretary-general of the european people's party, the largest party in the european parliament observed the fcc, at the behest of president obama was about to propose the type of regulation which has led europe to fall behind the u.s. in terms of levels of investments.

making all of this worse is the fact that the fcc now welcomes litigation from individual claims about the justness and reasonableness of isp pricing. as an appropriate means of regulating internet economy. judging from what we've seen in the patent world this will be a boon for trial lawyers. i have mentioned the intended consequences of reclassification. there are unintended consequences as well. the fees that broadband providers from small-town cable companies to new entrants like google, must now pay to deploy broadband, will go up from an estimated $150 million to $200 million per year. the reclassification will cause small companies to pay higher state and local taxes. come reason washington d.c. will see an increase in taxes

under gross receipts. that will leave a welt on consumers' wallets. one independent estimate puts the total at $11 billion each year and every dollar spent on fees and new costs like lawyers and accountants have to come from somewhere, either from the pockets of the american consumer or projects to deploy faster broadband. so these higher costs will lead to lower speeds and higher prices. in short, less value for the american consumer. that is really not what i heard consumers wanted when i hosted the texas forum on internet regulation. the fcc's only field hearing on net neutrality where audience members were allowed be. there, internet innovators, students, everyday people told me they wanted something else from the fcc, something that had a familiar ring to it. they wanted competition

competition, competition. yet, literally nothing in this order will promote competition among isp's. to the contrary, reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of business. the monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us into the direction of a monopoly. president obama's plan to regulate the internet is nothing more than aching's berry commitment for the digital age. -- nothing more than a king's berry commitment for the digital age. this is not just my view. the president's own small business administration apparently acting independently admonished the fcc that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses. following the president's lead the fcc ignored the admonition by applying heavy-handed regulations to every small

broadband provider as if it were an industrial giant. small providers are worried. i heard this myself in the texas forum on internet regulation. one of the panelists runs alamo broadband, a wireless isp that serves only 700 people across 500 square miles south of san antonio. what did he think of title ii? he thinks it is a terrible idea. his staff is "pretty busy dealing with the loads we already carry. more regulations means less funds to run the network and provide the very services our customers depend on." others feel the same way. last week 142 of them joined the chorus. these wisps have served customers who have no alternatives, including my parents. they often run on a shoestring budget with a few people to run the business.

they have no incentive, and even if they did, no ability, to take on commercial giants like netflix. they say the fcc's new regulatory intrusions into our businesses would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both. or consider the views of 24 of the country's smallest isp's, each with fewer than 1000 residential broadband customers. they told us that title ii will badly strained our limited resources because they have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel. how about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the fcc that title ii will trigger consequences beyond the commission's control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without concrete benefit to consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of additional regulation. there is a special irony, given

that right before this note, as you heard, the fcc voted to preempt state laws regarding city-owned projects. this is something president obama announced last month in cedar falls, iowa. the fcc dutifully is implementing it. but cedar falls utilities the very municipal broadband provider the president promoted, tells us title ii is "a tremendous mistake." so what does the order tell americans whose isp is not comcast or at&t or google or sprint? what does it tell those who may lose their internet service if they're small provider goes out of business? what does it tell those who worked for years to serve their community and build a business? one that is finally in the black? there is no explanation. there is not even an acknowledgment. instead, there is a smug

implicit assurance that it will not be that bad, and you probably had it coming anyway. so the fcc is abandoning a 20 year bipartisan framework for keeping the internet free and open in favor of great depression era legislation. at least we are getting something in return, right? wrong. the internet is not broken. there is no problem for the government to dissolve. that the internet works that internet freedom works, should be apparent to anyone with an apple iphone or microsoft service. a samsung smart tv. or a fit bit. we live in a time where you can buy a movie from itunes, watch a music video on youtube, listen to a personalized playlist on pandora, watch your favorite novel come to life on amazon streaming video, help someone make a potato salad on kick starter. check out the latest comic, see

what seinfeld has been up to. navigate bad traffic with waze. watch an eventful fcc meeting online, and do hundreds of other things with an online connection. at the start of this millennium, we did not have any of this internet innovation. and, no, the federal government did not build that. somebody else made that happen. for all intents and purposes, the internet as we knew it did not existence of the private sector developed it in the 1990's. it has been the commercial internet that has led to the creativity and innovation, the engineering genius that we see today. nevertheless, the order ominously claims that threats to internet openness remain today. it argues that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to feed consumers great content. and that the fcc continues to her concerns from other

broadband providers. the evidence of these continuing threats -- there is none. it is all anecdotes, hypothesis and hysteria. if you were allowed to see this plan, you would see that for yourself. a small isp in north carolina allegedly blocked calls decade ago. -- blocked calls a decade ago. apple introduced face time over wi-fi first, cellular networks later. scattered examples this picayune and stale are not enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. the boogie man never had it so easy. so what is there to fear? the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. the fcc instead intones serious warnings -- i am from the

government and i am here to help. title ii is not just a solution in search of a problem, it is a government solution that creates a real world problem. this is not with the internet needs, and it is not what the american people want. so, a few words on process briefly. when the commission launched this rulemaking, i said we needed to give the american people a full and fair opportunity to participate in the process. unfortunately, we have fallen woefully short of that standard. most important like, the plan in front of us today was not forged within this building through a transparent notice in rulemaking process. instead, "the wall street journal" reported it was through a secretive effort inside the white house. white house officials, according to "the journal," functioned as a parallel version of the fcc.

a plan which the report says blindsided the fcc and swept by months of work. a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. here is what a leader for the government-funded group fight for the future had to say. "we have been hearing for weeks from our allies in d.c. that the only thing that can stop fcc chairman tom wheeler from moving ahead with his sham or proposal was to get the president to step in. so we took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory to congratulations. " what the press has called a parallel white house fcc -- has led to -- indeed, even before

activists were blocking the chairman's driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. what about the rest of the american people? they certainly could not get white house mediums. they were shut out altogether. they were being played for fools. the situation did not improve once the white house announced president obama's plan. and asked the fcc to implement it. the document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal the fcc put out for comments last may, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in to make last-minute filings registering their concerns that the fcc might be going too far. if the american people to this day have not been allowed to see -- yet the american people to this day have not been allowed to see president obama's plan.

senate commerce committee chairman john thune and house committee -- house of representatives committee chairman john upton did the same. 79% of the american people favor making the document public. but still, the fcc has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. we have to pass president obama's 317 page plan so the american people can find out what is in it. this is not how the fcc should operate. we should be an independent agency, making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts and the record. we should not be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the white house. and we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan and then proceeded to a vote. there was no need for us to resolve this matter today. there is no immediate crisis in

the internet marketplace that demand immediate action. the backers of the president's plan know this but they also know it cannot stand up to the light of day. they know the american people -- that the more they know about it, the less they will like it. that is why it was done behind closed doors and has remained hidden from public view. these are not my only concerns. even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws. rather than address them today i will reserve them for my written statement. at the beginning of this proceeding i quoted google's former ceo, eric schmitz, who once said the internet is the first thing humanity has built that humanity does not understand. this proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the fcc still does not get it. the american people clearly do. proposed government regulation

of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. i am optimistic we will look back on today possible as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. i do not know whether this plan will be vacated by a court reversed by congress or overturned by a future commission, but i believe its days are numbered. for all of these reasons, i dissent, and i would like to take a moment to thank the hard-working staff of my office. matthew, net brendan, and all the others who have labored low these many weeks with a difficult item to deliver the products we delivered today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i tried to keeps score on all the things i disagreed with that you said, but i have got you on my scorecard now as undecided but probably wavering again. [laughter]

commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to my scorecard as well. i had a chance to review some of the tweets while you were giving your last statement. don't worry, i was multitasking. there is quite a critique of the length of my last statement. well, sit back -- [laughter] put your feet up. you have not seen anything yet. i promise i will put my even longer one in the record. today the majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of congress. to forbear from certain monopoly air to regular but reserving the right to impose and using other provisions or at some point in the future. the commission advocates --

abdicates its role as an agency by defining and classifying services on -- based on unsupported findings. it fails to account for substantial differences between fixed and mobile technologies. it opens the door to apply these rules to edge providers and delegates substantial authority to bureaus, including how the rules are interpreted and enforced on a case-by-case basis. it also reinstates net neutrality rules. indeed, it seems every bad idea ever floated in the name of net neutrality has come home to roost in this item. to read public statements over the last few weeks, one might think this item uses title ii in a limited way solely to provide support for net neutrality rules and to protect consumers. the casual observer might be misled to believe that the ends justifies the means. along the way, however, the means became the end. net neutrality is now the pretext for deploying title ii

to a far greater extent than anyone could have imagined months ago. that is the reality that this commission tried to hide by keeping the draft from the public and releasing a carefully worded fact sheet in its place. i see no need for net neutrality rules. i am far more troubled by the dangerous course the commission is charting on title ii and the consequences it will have on future will -- on future broadband investment. the commission downplays the significance but make no mistake , this is no title ii light that is tailored to reserve investment and protect consumers from blocking. it is for parents. all of -- it is forbearance. section 706 of the 1996 act -- moreover, all of the premise on a virtuous cycle, not actual harms to providers or consumers. in some ways, this evolution is

not surprising. i have consistently expressed concerns across a number of proceedings -- tech transitions text to 911 -- that this commission has been slowly but steadily been bringing over the top, and other ip services in its reach. now the commission goes all in and subjects broadband networks to title ii itself. furthermore, because there is no limiting principle, the other providers will be drawn in as well. i cannot support this monumental and unlawful power grab. the item claims the decisions are a logical outgrowth of a few open-ended questions tacked on to the end of nprm. this is clearly a situation were all interested parties would have to divine the agencies unspoken thoughts. interested parties effectively

had no notice or opportunity to respond to the vast evolution that took place from nprm the final order. key points include the scope of a newly defined service including how they relate to each other. the underlying classification or reclassification of each service, how forbearance reply in the context of newly defined services. even after enduring three weeks of spin, it is hard for me to believe the commission is establishing an insider -- an entire title ii regime. the d.c. circuit called the priors, scaled-down version a prophylactic approach. i call it guilt by imagination. the commission once again takes a pass on performing a market power analysis in favor of

repetitive invocation of the virtuous cycle nonsense that may have been good enough to narrowly survive review when all that was at stake were net neutrality rules. the but that is no guarantee that flimsy reasoning will stand another round or two. some providers may have been willing to live with net neutrality rules under section 706 based on nothing more than speculative harms, it is an entirely different matter to impose title ii without concrete evidence that it is necessary. the title title ii is far more than a convenient legal theory it is a complex set of regulations. it cannot be shrugged off with simple incantations.

"we disavow such interpretation is applied to the open internet context." there is a reason title ii has been called the nuclear option. no matter what the fcc tries to do to limit fallout -- and it is not trying very hard to do that -- the decision will impact investments. as one analyst reportedly wrote last week, terminal assumption rates need to be lowered." it would be naive to believe the imposition of a regime that fundamentally is about price regulation in the industry the fcc has declared to be noncompetitive would introduce risk to future pricing power. the fcc taylor's certain statements to reject assertions. it does not give me a lot of comfort. even a modest reduction is too great a price to pay when weighed against pure speculative harms. moreover, the harms to small isp's will disproportionately be

severe, and the fcc gives them no reprieve from title ii whatsoever. the item gives significant weight to a theoretical cost to foregone innovation, that no weight to the cost of foregone investment. forget about open internet. they have no internet. we need to be focused on ways to promote deployment and not in some roundabout virtuous cycle way but through proven regulatory measures. i am concerned that the far from virtuous cycle is creating a vicious cycle that regulates broadband, and that will further deter investment. the beatings will continue until morale improves. notably, the items not only reverses its decisions -- it

also determines the first time that nprm title ii -- the conclusion that retail broadband access is a telecommunications service is contrary to the planin tack of multiple communications acts, and interviews of all nine supreme court justices. it gives short shrift to the argument that prior decisions to classify broadband internet access as an information service endangered reliant service that must be taken into account. adherence to factually unsupportable assertions shows that the commission has abdicated its role as an expert federal agency on communication networks and services, ignored the administrative record in this proceeding. the record is replete with evidence that content providers

and network operators enter into interconnection relationships with isp's through individually negotiated private arrangements. regardless of the forum they take providers do not hold himself out to serve the public in differently. as such, these arrangements, which some refer to mistakenly as interconnection, have never been regulated as common carriage subject to title ii. undeterred by this long history, it concocts a scheme transforming this interconnection to telecommunications service by subsuming it into another service, broadband internet access service. just like that coming retail broadband internet access service is no longer a last-mile service. it is the entire internet path including all internet traffic relationships. this approach is riddled with holes. interconnection has always been understood to be distinct

from last mile, including this proceeding. second, the item does not show how the service laundering scheme is consistent with precedent. third, it depends on broadband access service being a tele-communications service, which it is not. fourth, there was no notice for this novel approach. even parties that guessed it did not understand that the primary mechanism for doing so would be the reinterpreting of broadband internet access service to include interconnection. this shift to regulate internet traffic exchange highlights that the commission's real end game has become imposing title ii on all parts of the internet, not just setting up net neutrality rules, but suggesting -- but subjecting it to a regulation in the name of net neutrality. the commission is trying to use a small hook and a thin line to really in a very -- to reel in

a very large whale. until now, the commission has followed congress' mandate and has correctly exercised regulatory restraint by classifying mobile broadband as an information service free from common carry regulations as required by the statute. yet today we used sleight-of-hand to change our definition so that overnight mobile broadband magically falls under the confines of title ii. in subjecting wireless broadband to title ii, the majority ignores fundamental differences. unlike last century's only -- voice only service, broadband has developed in a fiercely competitive environment.

wireless consumers have ample choices. the competition has yielded unparalleled investment, higher speeds, and product differentiation, as factor participants five for an age to attract and retain subscribers. applying a regulatory regime to the dynamic mobile sector defies logic. the majority also flagrantly ignores the fundamental technical and operational requirements necessary for mobile broadband networks, unlike fixed systems, mobile capacity is restrained by the scarcity of resources. given this unique limitation, those providers must mitigate the congestion in haran to wireless networks. i expect rigid title ii rules adopted today will hamstring smooth functioning of these networks. some may argue that the exception to network management

will allow such flexibility, a case-by-case approach, whereby a wireless provider is judged after-the-fact by the enforcement bureau is not likely to provide much comfort or certainty to wireless providers. finally, the majority defines mobile broadband as a telecommunications service without adequately is planning its rationale for the drastic change of course. in addition, there has been no meaningful opportunity for public comment on this change definition. this action is nothing less than an attempt to improperly capture mobile broadband under title ii in direct contravention of congressional intent, and it is not likely to survive judicial scrutiny. perhaps most surprising and troubling is that it promises forbearance for most of title ii but it does not actually forbear from the substance of those provisions. instead, it intends to provide the same protections using a few

of the core title ii provisions retained, chiefly sections 201, 2 01 and 706. the item is candid about the strategy stating applying section 201 and 202 enables us to protect consumers from potentially harmful contact -- potentially harmful conduct by providers and from the statutory backstop. indeed, section after section the item claims to forbear from a provision, then quickly point to available protections and other provisions that effectively gut forbearance. it is an end-run for the purposes of spin. it only would exclude 56% directly and even then allow the inexcusably broad language of certain sections to govern.

the majority seems comfortable with the suggestion they can forbear from parts of title ii since section 201 does it all anyway. i will highlight a few examples to make my point. forbearance from terror thing. it is our predictive judgment that sections 201 and 202 will be adequate to protect the interest of consumers. importantly, broadband providers are also subject to complaints and commission enforcement in the event that they violate those sections of the act, or other elements of broadband access requirements. this is backdoor ratesetting authority. two, forbearance from discontinuance approval. further, the conduct standards in our open internet rules provide important protections

against reduction or impairment of broadband internet access service short of complete dissension of providing that service. forbearance from interconnection and market opening. the item again -- the commission retains authority on section 201 and 202 and the open internet rules to revive esther require a provider of broadband internet -- including evaluating whether an providers' conduct is reasonable on a case-by-case basis. it will enable us to act if needed to ensure broadband providers do not unreasonably refuse to provide service or interconnect. the supreme court has made clear that an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by interpreting a statute to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress

that designed it. the item intends to do just that by engaging in a wholesale rewrite of the communications act to advance its own interne vision for the internet. it is cap is a modernized version of -- it is cast as a modernized version of title ii. it is inconsistent with the administration struck her congress gave us 40 revisions and titles -- 48 revisions in title ii. perhaps to put it another way -- presto, we have a new statute. the commission cannot cast aside specific provisions in favor of other provisions of the act. why did congress feel compelled to add section 251 in the 96

act? using title ii combined with forbearance authority to cherry pick its preferred provisions is an egregious abuse of forbearance authority. as adc circuit has explained, to further the regulatory aims underlined, congress provided the fcc with the unusual authority to forbear from enforcing provisions of the act as well as its own regulations. that is, forbearance was intended to relieve carriers of existing regulation during a time of regulatory transition. it was not meant to be used as a tool to selectively subject new services to previously inapplicable provisions. the use of congressional authority is can -- the usurping of congressional authority is particularly troubling. fcc leadership did not even consider a brief pause to see that it play out.

instead, they invited congress to supplement the fcc's rewrite. the fcc's arrogance has already invited greater congressional scrutiny, and the fcc ultimately concedes authority curtail in other areas. the reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking be conducted through case-by-case adjudication. there are three rules -- no blocking, no throttling, and no pirate legislation. many practices will be reviewed under the general conduct standard that will be quite literally a catchall. moreover rates and charges will be reviewed under the amorphous just and reasonable standard in sections 201 and 202. parties will have no way of knowing whether the commission, much less the courts, will act on a rule in a particular

matter. one public interest group called the catchall a recipe for overreach and confusion. the item notes that parties may seek an advisory opinion which appears utterly useless. they are only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding. i am not sure why any party would want to refer itself to the enforcement euro when its request -- the enforcement bureau when it its request to be used later. the commission claims this item does not require broadband providers to could trigger to the federal universal service fund at this time. that is because it defers that decision to a pending proceeding which is likely to result in new fees on broadband services. nor can providers take any comfort in the items -- the item repeatedly disavows any present attempts to a doubt x anti-rate regulations.

the commission expressly contemplates examining on a case-by-case basis whether interconnection agreements are just and reasonable under section 201 and 202. that necessarily includes an evaluation of the rates, terms, and conditions of such arrangements. the commission also intends to use data allowances on a case-by-case basis. moreover, last mile isp's are not the only ones that should be concerned about today's actions. the item attempts, albeit in a failed way to carve out for now cdm's, backbone providers, edge providers, and specialized services including the readers -- including e-readers, has let the proverbial genie out of the bottle.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> so, for those of you keeping score at home, you have seen the kind of debate that goes on every day here at this commission. and gets resolved by the democratic process of taking a vote. let me start the process toward that vote by thinking the nearly 4 million people who participated in this proceeding. you told us you were concerned about the future of the internet , and your participation has made this the most open

proceedings in sec history. not all of you agreed with each other, and not all of you -- in sec history. not all of you agreed with each other and not all of you agree with the action we are taking today. but you agree with the process. we listened and we learned. i believe that is what congress intended when they established the rules by which this agency operates. those 4 million comments also illustrate the importance of an open and unfettered network and the role it plays as a core of free expression and democratic principles. well, some other countries try to control the internet. but the action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one, whether government or

corporate, should control free and open access to the internet. [applause] the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. it is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. think about it. the internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. the internet has redefined commerce and entertainment. and as the outpouring for 4 million americans, as demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. the internet is simply too important to allow broadband

providers to be the ones making the rules. [applause] so let's address an important issue head on. this proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the internet." nonsense. this is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the first amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. they both stand for the same concept -- openness, expression, and an absence of gatekeepers telling people what they can do, where they can go and what they can think.

the action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness. let's make no mistake about it. broadband access providers have the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet. as the circuit said in its decision remanding this matter to us, "broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness and could act in ways that could ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment." but today a majority of this commission establishes that will not come to pass. today is a red letter day for internet freedom, for consumers

who want to use the internet on their terms, for innovators who want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers for a future in which there are rules to protect the internet and its users. but importantly, today is also a day that gives network operators what they require if they are continued -- if they are to continue expanding broadband service and competition. the rules for a fair and open internet are not old-style utility regulation but a 21st century set of rules for a 21st century service. rate regulation, tara thing, -- tariffing and forced unbundling have been superseded by a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work in an encouraging investment in wireless voice networks. it is important for consumers as

well as companies that nothing in today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion. the isp's revenue stream will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. before today, that revenue enabled companies to build ever faster networks. nothing in what we do today changes the equation for consumer revenues to isp's for tomorrow. i believe that is why sprint, t-mobile, frontier communications, and google fiber, along with hundreds of smaller phone company isp's have said they are comfortable with the commission's modern

regulatory approach. and, bulletin, according to this morning's "wall street journal," which quotes cablevision as saying, "we do not see at least what the chairman has been discussing as having any real impact on our business."

today's innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission. the order also includes the

general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. any action must not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers and content providers. to use the internet. there is one thing we can all agree on up here, i am sure. and that is that we cannot possibly imagine what is going to happen next on the internet. we want to encourage that kind of innovation by making sure that there are ground rules, and that those ground rules are in place. everybody knows what is expected. for the first time, those ground

rules will apply to both wired and wireless access to the network. mobile networks account for the vast majority of internet access. mobile is a critical pathway and it must be open and fair. today's order also, for the first time, serves jurisdiction over the connections by which isp's plug into the internet. and the core principle there is the same as elsewhere. the internet must remain open. we will protect the values of an open internet. both in the last mile as well as at the point of interconnection. so let me close where i began. with a shout out to 4 million

americans who took their time to share with us their views. today history is being made by a majority of this commission. as we vote for a fast, fair, and open internet. and with that, i will call for the a's and nays. all in favor say i. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >>[cheers and applause] >> today is the second day of the conservative political action conference.

live coverage starting at 7:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. on c-span2's book tv, on after words, alanllan ryskind talks about the communist party in the 1930's. and our three-hour conversation with lani guinier. and on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, a discussion about the burning of columbia, south carolina.

sunday afternoon at 2:00 on oral histories, an interview with former consultant to the nixon white house daniel ellsberg. find our complete television schedule at c-span.org, and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching to recall us at 202-6 26-3400. e-mail us at comments @c-span.org. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook. >>"washington journal" is next. at 5:00 eastern, the official unveiling of attorney general eric holder, does it justice -- the official portrait unveiling of attorney general eric holder.

coming up, two hours of your calls and comments on the major events this week of washington. host: this is one of those weeks when washington has a lot going on. homeland security funding, net neutrality regulations, the nomination of loretta lynch -- the house is in session at 9:00 a.m. to talk about dhs funding. we thought we would use this washington journal to listen to your views on some of the issues that have been discussed. 202-748-8001 fo repubr