recently. first, the fcc continues to be an in a bipartisan -- in partisan fashion. since the december 2013, there have been 20 separate partyline votes at monthly meetings. that is twice as many as under chairman martin, chairman clybourn, and others, combined. collaboration has fallen by the wayside. during my first months on the job, chairman let us into consensus 89.5% of the time on fcc meeting items. over the past two years, that number has dropped to 56.4%. reflecting this shift the , chairman's office frequently shares nonpublic information with the press and outside parties, while leaving commissioners in the dark. for example, two weeks ago my the fcc leadership shared the proposal with the new york times and promoted it on a call with reporters before sharing it with my office. that is hardly an opening for a good-faith cooperation. it epitomizes how business is done at the agency. third, the fcc continues to shun transparency.

this last week, the chairman's office denied a request for me and commissioner o'reilly, to release the rate of return plan -- rate of return reform plan before we vote. even though the commissioner helped write it and even though advocates have told us that it is, quote, "essential to see the written words on the page to understand the effectual nest of -- the effectual nest -- effeectualness of reforms." the fcc has had success having headlines, but it's follow there has been abysmal. since 2011, the fcc has proposed over $374 million in fines, but it has collected only $7.8 million. that is a meager 2% recovery rate. only with additional transparency can the public and the subcommittee hold the fcc accountable for this failure.

none of this half to be this way. i testified a year ago and there is widespread agreement that the process was broken. the chairman acknowledged that issues had been raised and he announced a task force. i took this project seriously and i suggested reforms. among other things, i suggested the chairman provide final versions of in order a set time before we vote. i proposed that every commissioner respond when a commissioner proposes edits. and that every commissioner provided input by a date certain. but after participating in dozens of meetings, the chairman's task force has accomplished nothing. not a single reform has been made one year later. indeed, the task force has proven to be a village designed to persuade congress that agency -- that the agency is doing something on process reform, hence the oversight is not required. but at this point, the only way to ensure meaningful process reform is through legislation and vigorous oversight. i want to turn next to the topic

of broadband deployment, and i salute the committee for their leadership in this area. there is more that the fcc can and should be doing. we need to open the five gigahertz band for innovation. this issue we called for in a joint edition. we need to move forward with an -- 500 megahertz of millimeterwave spectrum and we need to launch a rulemaking to study spectrum. on the wireline infrastructure side, we must continue to reform our rules for pole attachments. let's reduce the cost for this cost is polls , a major barrier to competitive entry. the subcommittee targeted them as ripe for reform. let's exclude an owners capital cost. this would reduce broadband

prices and spur deployment. and let's work on this that. although the committee has a special docket for these cases, complaints language. we have three of them from 2013, 3 of them from 2015, still pending. we need to take care of those in weeks, not years. members of the subcommittee, thank you again for holding this hearing. i look forward to working with you to ensure a better future for all americans, in particular, the kansas jayhawks. [laughter] chairman wheeler: wow. that last point was slipped in there. inid not see ohio state there, but my ducks are certainly there. now we will move along. >> may i duck the question? chairman wheeler: yes. we have a long way to get even. back to football.

commissioner o'reilly. good morning. set us back on course. mr. o'rielly: thank you for the honor of appearing today. let me start with the issue of fcc process reform. i find it necessary to reiterate that my efforts are not about undermining the chairmanship. as i previously stated, even if every one of my proposals were adopted, the chairman would still control the agenda and win every vote. additionally, this is not a response to the process or outcome of net neutrality, these problems existed before that and remain today. instead, my efforts are an attempt to empower the public to engage with the commission through a fair process, rather than one slanted to ensure that only the insiders get information and can influence outcomes. at the same time, we must ensure the rights of commissioners are not overrun by the chairman and the bureaucracy.

take for example our rules prohibiting all employees from releasing nonpublic information about our proceedings. it sounds noble, until you realize that the current practice prevents testing out ideas and exchanging ways to consider an issue. moreover, the role is being applied in a discriminatory manner to ensure that certain , staff can push selected information to favorite parties where the commissioners remain muzzled. as for the chairman's process review task force, it is important for the subcommittee to realize what is occurring. the chairman came before this body three times last year and essentially said some of ideas -- my ideas are legitimate and he was going to consider each one through a special task force. the reality is, one year later, the task force hasn't shown its real purpose, to diffuse debate and reflect legislation in congress. on friday, ironically, the last day of so-called sunshine week, the message was delivered to the general counsel, chairman and other majority commissioners

, had rejected each and every idea i raised. my proposals to beef of rationales for authority, provide a check for instances when delegated authorities have been taken too far, represent the opposing viewpoints when allowing outside witnesses at open meetings, or give the public more information about proposals considered, were all denied. they were even unwilling to agree on basic courtesies as holding off on press rollout until an item has actually been circulated to commissioners. in sum, all the chairman leadership team can agree to do is set expectations for timelines to propose edits on the internal e-mail chains. this demonstrates that there is no intention of making a real absent congressional directives that would improve , the ability of americans to participate in their government. to the extent, the committee needs additional areas of review and i would observe that the office of the general counsel has turned to focusing on

providing analysis and defending before the court into what it believes is effectively a six th commissioner with the ability to supersede other commissioners. harmful to the fcc and will enter the impartiality and rule of law are forever limited to secondary considerations. turning to substance, i applaud the subcommittee for their efforts to increase the amount of commercial spectrum and remove barriers to the deployment of wireless facilities. part of my attention is on opening millimeterwave's for the next generation. accordingly, all potential bands should be considered and proven frameworks should be adopted to ensure maximum investment innovation. the commission is on track to meet the commitment for small but more can be done for infrastructure deployment, mainly concluding the tower review and addressing localities that continue to hinder sites.

in the same vein, we must increase efforts to open up the van -- ban for lessons use. this would permit increased speed and capacity. it is not my intention to undermine short-range communications deployment, as sharing can occur without causing harmful interference with the safety of life applications. thank you very much mr. , chairman. mr. walden: thank you. we appreciate all of the tests. have severalpai, i questions about the privacy you are considering. the predicate is an assumption that isp's have unique access to data that is requiring regulation, is that true? underi: unfortunately, the rules, i am prohibited from disclosing the particular details of the proposal, unless the chairman expressly

authorizes it. chairman wheeler: seriously? mr. walden: you can't disclose to us? mr. pai: under the current rules, that is correct. mr. walden: can you address this? i am confused as to why the fellow commissioners cannot answer questions on the proposal you have circulated? i understand that you and your media team and operate about -- are not free to talk. wayow that it was run that in the past, but it seems peculiar that they cannot comment, but you can? can you adjust this -- address this? chairman wheeler: i do not think that i heard the commissioner -- is the question, it is there a difference between the data on it what it provider sees? answering that question has

nothing to do with what any specific paragraph of a proposal might say. -thereake my point two is a full throated discussion already about these kinds of concepts. mr. walden: but which do not translate into the specific language. chairman wheeler: the notice of proposed rulemaking is very specific. the reason that you have proposed rulemaking is so specific language can be put out , so that it can become -- b commented on by the public and have a full voice debate, which we will have on the specifically which starting next week -- specifically, starting at week. mr. walden: it is disheartening that the commission is set up in a way that the chairman can

propose something, talk about something come i am not picking on you personally, but the way the system works. it is like if i circulated a bill among us, and then my friend mr. doyle is prohibited on commenting on it publicly. i think that you would have a different view of the process. is that not a corollary, and affect that is what happens, take mr. wheeler out of it -- any chair that proposes something, that person may, in comment onrson may it, but you as a commissioner cannot. mr. pai: that is right. we have to pass something before the american public before we can see it. with -- an exception otherwise, push their agenda before we have a chance to look at it. mr. walden: commissioner o'reilly, do you see the same?

mr. o'rielly: i think there is an ability to write a letter to authorize all commissioners to speak as needed on any item through the year of -- through his tenure mr. walden:. have other chairs done that? mr. o'rielly: they have been specific on other items gone but the current process is broken. i am not the other commissioners or chairmen have provided descriptions as my colleague has provided, where they are getting the blog, the press rollout -- mr. walden: and you are prohibited from commenting? mr. o'rielly: i am printed by correcting the fact -- prohibited from correcting the fact sheets. cannot tell them, you are wrong. mr. walden: this flies in the face of open transparent government, in my opinion. it needs to change. and chairman, and hope that you will take the comments to heart.

i do not know if we need to pass something here, or what, but 2016, this iss not 1816. we want an open and transparent process. we do it or we try to the best of our ability to put these things up for discussion, we have rules, everybody has their chance. i think it needs to change. i want to ask one other question in the seven seconds i have left. mr. wheeler, the review of broadcast ownership rules due in june, i know that you have a lot on your plate. thorn -- a is a burr under the saddle. eight years late. chairman wheeler: in the schedule i gave you, -- mr. walden: you will get it done? it will be done this time?

chairman wheeler: i will put it on the floor. mr. walden: my time has expired. member go to the ranking on the subcommittee. >> thank you. have -- youeler, we have and the full commission has huge issues before it. so i want to go through three of them. withight, this have to do box proposal. the issue of copyright, privacy, impact onsue of minorities, both from the professional side and the consumer side. first, copyright. weis important to all of us know. of more thaneblood

one industry and they depend on it being protected. ms. eshoo: now, there are critics in all of this. that is not a surprise. proposedjor shift is disruptiveed, it is to a $20 billion a year income to the industry. so people are going to fight hard, because there is a lot of money on the table. but on the issue of copyright, is there anything about this arrangement and the fcc's changed, has it relative to copyright? mr. walden: the answer is no. chairman wheeler: let me take you to 71. to achieve the statutory mandate, our revelations must ensure that navigation devices

have content protection, that protects content from theft, piracy, and hacking. technicallycannot impede or impair the delivery of services. it goes beyond that. the fact of the matter is that we have specified copyright protection is a essential and can be maintained. i would submit that there are tens of millions of examples of ipads,alled iphones, smart tvs, where copyright protection has been maintained through boxlike activities. ms. eshoo: does the fcc giveaway unpaid rates -- rights for video programming? chairman wheeler: no. ,s. eshoo: in your first answer are there and additions to the protections of copyrights, or is it the same step of principles

and rules that apply today? chairman wheeler: we actually took the language from the current cable card license to which has been very successful in protecting copyright. ok. ms. eshoo: now to the issue of minority focus programming. fcc'ss allege that the rules would limit the availability of minority programming and content. johnson and all members have a copy of the letter that i received last night. i think it is an important letter to read. i would like unanimous consent for mr. johnson's letter to be read. mr. walden: without objection. ms. eshoo: thank you. now, why is this issue being raised?

a record under what we are operating under now, because cable companies have really moved at a pace in an effort to make minority programming available to consumers. essentially, there are 2-3 large cable companies effectively determining today that the american public -- what the mac in public sees and how they -- what the american public sees and how they see it. i do not know why we're not opening doors. do you want to respond? or would you? chairman wheeler: thank you. there are four african-american owned channels in the channel universe on a cable system. ms. eshoo: out of how many? chairman wheeler: 500. most of them are on the most

expensive tier, by the way. the interesting thing is, there are literally hundreds of programmers who are seeking to get on and they are having the door slammed in their face and how do you provide -- face. so how do you provide a way, or create equal opportunity, said that these programmers can have inequality of standing with the few handful that are there and have competition, and opportunity? mr. walden: time has expired. chairman wheeler: thank you. mr. walden: now we will go to the vice chair of the committee, ms. blackburn. ms. blackburn: i wanted to raise an issue on the schools in tennessee. you denied millions of dollars in funding to the sweetwater consortium and many schools could be detrimentally impacted

and it looks like they will be crippled by the denial and the education opportunities limited and suffering with such a decision. the sweetwater consortium received a final decision from usac on friday, denying their appeal, and my office is continue with other offices to gather information from the interested parties and we expect that it will end up with you all, before very long. and the tennessee delegation wrote the fcc last year and received a response on july 20 1, 2015, we appreciate that. i understand that you sack -- usac needs to be a watchdog of dollars and they are not in a position yet to give merits on the review. however, i am concerned about the amount of time that the process has taken, and i know

that this chairman also expressed concern in our reply. i will say that we look forward to working with you. to find a resolution to this. commissioner o'reilly, i want to thank you for your letter, or -- it was your statement of dissent on the choices in the op-ed issue. i agree with you that it is regulation, not speculation. said,. chairman, you just 100 -- hundreds are seeking a way to get on. talking about independent reducers and content producers, that are seeking an avenue for the content they produce. and i have to tell you, you do not create equal opportunity by not paying people. for what they have created.

, chairman comeou i will have to tell you, a lot of my content producers that are in tennessee, they are very concerned about the set-top box proposal and about honoring copyright. the text of the proposal is something that has caused them tremendous concern and they talk about it. and they bring it up to me. the chairman had said, we are going to honor those copyright laws, but then they are reading this and if they do not see how this matches, because it would mandate that tv providers transmit to either party all the programming. tv providers license it and allow them to use it without obtaining information of the copyright holders, or of compensating them.

and, one of the concerns is the way the proposal explicitly declines to prohibit third parties from replacing or altering advertising, orman and deleting the content -- or manipulating the content, so i would like you to respond to me -- does this exceed the sec's authority and create conflict between commission regulation and copyright and contract law? mr. pai: i believe it does. one of the most notable features that we have heard from a like evaprogrammers, longoria, and members of this us thatey have told this would compromise legitimate intellectual copyright and that minorityight producers, impetigo. ms. blackburn: i hope that the

commission will look closely at what these content creators are pushing forward to the marketplace, and protecting their copyright laws. to do this where you are looking proposal that box is out there, i think it is a dangerous step. it diminishes the value of content. it diminishes the ability of those who have created this to be appropriately paid. it undercuts and undermines coract law. for people who are innovating in this space, as we have more delivery avenues opening up to us, i think that the proposal that is out there is a dangerous proposal when it comes to the validity and value of contracts. i yield back. mr. walden: we will not go to the ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you. i wanted to start with the

commissioner. i want to thank you for coming to my district right before the last major snowstorm to discuss the sandy act and how to improve connection -- medications during -- communications. during our discussions, we talked about whether we can talk city where we can take the and develop best practices across the country, so i want to say that that will be a worthwhile experiment. >> thank you. i have been in your district just after hurricane sandy. and now i can say i was there just before snowstorm jonas. thatosenworcel: i think developing a smart city, a resilient city, with -- that is a terrific idea. either parent for the worst come a we can take the best practices from new jersey and exploit them all over the country. >> i wanted to ask commissioner

o'reilly about pirate radio. i want to thank you for your leadership in addressing the pirate radio stations. last time you were here, we talked about this as an important issue and was hoping to introduce a bill that would put a stop to these illegal signals. i know that you have a background in crafting legislation, do you have any suggestions to what include -- to what should be included in a village that? -- in a bill like that? mr. o'rielly: how do we get the money for pirate radio broadcasters, that is something we can focus on in legislation. we are looking at how to target the money part. there are a number of people advertising, political campaigns advertising on pirate radio stations, concerts, then use -- venues, so it would help to go after the money side.

i want to be careful and narrowly target it, so that we do not go after those that are and weto do a good job o want to go after those that are facilitated, maybe not those who are providing. >> we will work together. remember theler, i discussion draft, the protection act which we have discussed, that would make sure consumers have access to channels that they on the air. i hope that this bill will be bipartisan, but i have heard that some colleagues want to wait and see how many broadcasters will need to be repacked. it is critical that it is introduced with enough time to go through with regular order, so that it is ready. so i think would be hopeful for us all to better understand the schedule for the auction going forward. can you walk us through the estimate of how the next couple of months will play out, paying

attention to when we will know how many broadcasters will need to be repacked? as i said, ther: reverse auction bidding will start in may. exactly when, we do not know yet, it depends on what we find out when we are sorting through the data to come up with a channel plan. that is it lasts after a function of the marketplace. a betting man and i have no insight into this, because it is dependent on the market, but i think we are looking at -- if we start in may, sometime late summer, early football season, we have a resolution. that is something totally out of my control, our control, and the

market will determine. >> thank you. i appreciate your input. i yield back. mr. walden: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. barton. mr. barton: thank you. i welcome the commission. so far, nobody has asked about the budget, which is why we are here. i will continue that tradition and not ask any questions. [laughter] my question though is extremely serious, actually. this morning, we had three explosions rock brussels airport and metro station, 26 people i think have been killed, over 100 injured. last time the commission was before this subcommittee, it was

just after the paris attacks. , whatd mr. wheeler then the committee could do in conjunction with the sec -- fcc to try to counter these terrorist attacks in the way that they use the internet to broadcast their terrorism. mr. commissioner, chairman, you mentioned that maybe the congress needed to update the definition of what a lawful intercept is. have you all looked at that since you were before the committee? if so, do you have any recommendations for the committee? and i want to be clear, i am not trying to ask the fcc to shut down the internet, but i do think that in an open society, you can strike a balance between openness and protecting the

public good. so, i will ask a question to the chairman, but if the other commissioners want to chime in, you are welcome to. yesrman wheeler: thank you, , this is a tragic time in a terribly -- and a terribly serious issue. the congress has said to the fcc that our responsibility, i use that word, not just our authority, our responsibility is to make sure that in the networks that we regulate there is the equipment to carry out lawful intercept. s. that is the definition that -- thes has given us scope of our authority. the question of what is a lawful

intercept is something that is beyond the statutory authority that you have given us. the discussion that we had last time was to the effect that it is up to congress to make the determination as to what is the scope of a lawful interest that -- intercept. i after you, that we will fully take steps necessary to make sure that the equipment that is required to have or to be able to make that lawful intercept is in place. barton: any other commissioners want to comment? ok. on something more mundane, this issue, the top boxes which the chairman alluded to and ms.

blackburn alluded to, i am cochair with the privacy caucus in the house and there is a you are going to make it possible, perhaps inadvertently, to allow the collection of large amounts of data, perhaps even make a data mega data, without the consent or knowledge of the customer or client. mr. chairman, you are not forthcoming to our subcommittee chairman, mr. walden, can you at least acknowledge that it is an issue and we need to be very cognizant on whatever the commission does, to protect privacy rights of individuals? chairman wheeler: without a

doubt. let me see if i can be specific, because you say i was not specific enough. section 631 of the act establishes privacy expectations on cable operators and satellite providers. our -- they then have that relationship with roku , tivo, folks that they are working with, to say that you will maintain the same kind of privacy protections that we do. saying, is that any competitive box, top box or app, have to be able to make the same kind of assurances and that if those assurances are not

made, that the cable operator does not have to do business with the that box. set-top --st like smart tvs, tablet, and smartphones, they all have that same kind of ability to collect information and have the ftc if protections that we have put in place are still not sufficient, that they have the authority -- the ftc put out a notice to smart tv manufacturers, whether they intended. mr. barton: thank you. mr. walden: we will not turn to mr. doyle for questions. thank you for advancing this issue.

it is critical that we get this right and it is could go that we get it done. i believe that your team is working diligently on this proceeding, i would only ask that as you work through the issue, to be sensitive to the harm that is being done at this moment to competition across the country. and as you proceed, keep in mind this is an ongoing issue that is not only hurting competitors, but consumers as well. with regard to lifeline, as you move forward with reform, be mindful and assure that low income americans can still use this program with no additional cost. opening up the program to more competition and enabling participants to choose how they use subsidy is great, but i would ask you to take particular care to ensure that free options remain available and enough flexibility exists so that people do not lose access to this critical resource. , thankgards to privacy

you again for moving forward on this issue. i was happy to see the commission take action to prevent super cookies, as well as the enforcement action when it took on the same issue. i was disappointed to not think aohibition on inspection and proposal to prohibit companies from manipulating consumers into giving up privacy for a discount on bills. privacy should not be a luxury for a few that can afford it. as you move afford with proceedings, i ask the commission to ensure that they are not enabling isps to charge consumers for their own privacy. finally, on ratings, i remain concerned on the rating in the marketplace. studies show that consumers by far prefer zero rated apps and services when faced the expense of busting data caps. this gives isps and advantage in the marketplace and enables them to choose winners and losers. i do not think that we need a blanket ban on zero rating, but

when isp zero rate their own acts and when writing programs are competitive consumers are being harmed. i would ask chairman wheeler to police these programs. i went to those quickly to give you time. youand commissioner pai, said a couple of things today that i think might have hurt your feelings. i wanted to give you the opportunity to comment on your stewardship of the commission. there also seems to be a disagreement on whether or not, on the issue of set-top boxes, that copyright is being protected and whether it is true that people can take other people's content and not pay. in the remaining two minutes, 26 seconds, mr. chairman, the floor yours.rs -- uo

chairman wheeler: on the copyright issue, there are today competitive -- the equivalent of competitive top boxes in the market. google chrome, for instance. a lot of things we hear, this is google's plan to take over cable tv, that is malarkey. the google chrome, which attaches in your port in your tv to allow you to get things off of the web, does not violate copyright. it does not violate or overlay commercials. it does not do all the horrible things everybody said a set-top box would do. because copyright law is sacrosanct. the second thing, i think that people would go crazy and dribbled if something like that -- and revolt is something like that happened.

is an interesting dichotomy of criticism that we have heard this morning. one that we have been operating in a unilateral fashion and not being collegial. and the other is that the collegial efforts that we have and a process, that have not resulted in a consensus being built, are somehow witness of a nefarious intent. i find those to be in conflict. issues, you are absolutely right. lifeline, we need to make sure and lifeline is updated that it is available.

if i have time -- the key thing cheaper thanal is analog voice. you notice that every single consumer who signs up for service, which is 87% of americans, get free unlimited voice. but if you are a poor person, we are limiting what you can do. we are saying that you cannot get on the internet, you cannot have access, we are going to stick you in this analog world. that is one thing we will take on. mr. doyle: thank you. i'm glad that your feelings were not hurt. has expired.ime we now reckon i'd the doma from ohio. -- recognize the gentleman from

ohio. >> thank you. commissioner pai, i will be asking questions about the integration ban. something you have discussed this morning. we were able to secure language to eliminate the integration ban and the rid the market place of outdated technology. and to foster greater competition and innovation. the fcc is contemplating mandates that would leave programming distributors no choice but to provide a box on top of the third-party device, once again bring us back to the problem of higher costs for consumers and higher energy costs, as well. in this committee, we were having -- the secretary of energy even said that about higher energy costs. you stated that the fcc should be seeking a box list solution, future doesk is the

propose, for downloadable , tority advisory committee get consumers to a boxless world. i will ask, also, what we're looking out the fcc proposing, are we going forward, backwards, staying static -- and i think with the consumers want to know, where we will be in 10 years? commissioner? mr. pai: i think the best way, if i could tackle the second question. it is that to the future. instead of moving to in at based based world, where we can free ourselves of this equipment, the fcc is doubling down on 1990's technology and it will force cable operators to do one of two things, number one, it reengineer the entire network. or supply the consumers with a

second box. i submit to you the natural effect will be the second, because reengineering a network is expensive, compared to supplying a second box. but it is not what consumers want to do. wouldd propose, that they keep up the other proposal, the -- whatable security they proposed. to have the 1990's technology embraced again. the other one was in at based -- app based approach. there is a discussion in this document asking why this theoach would go toward destruction of america and all things bad. think what we have embraced in this manner, and allow the american people to comment, we would not be in the pickle that we are in. just yesterday, the chairman said that this approach is a 20th century solution to a problem at the market is already solving on its own. mr. doyle: why?

they have been trying to solve problems that don't exist. and there is a recognition among some people that this marketplace has not developed as expected. i completely agree. entireson is, this market place is the creation of a 20 year regulatory framework that is intrusive. and i would submit that technical mandates and agency micromanagement is not the way to get us to the next stage of the digital revolution. instead, we should embrace a more consumer friendly approach and let the marketplace develop, free from some of the legacy regulations that have held us back. the set-top box is not the way of the future, my kids will not know what this equipment is. what they will be familiar with, is accessing what they want, using a device that they want. that is the future. congresses, ist

have introduced a bill that would look at cost at the time of the rulemaking. isthe time of the final rule issue. i think it is important for the public to have a better understanding of the impact of the fcc rules. in respect to the top box propose, they would be upgraded to identify the costs that the role have on consumers and providers. did the commission complete an analysis of the cost? mr. pai: it did not. i think frankly because if you objectively tallied the cost of benefits, it would be clear that the commission's approach would ultimately given disadvantages to the consumer. >> thank you. i yield back. mr. walden: thank you. liptak -- nize mr.

>> i apologize. i was thinking that i was not going for a little bit. thank you to all of you for being here. i appreciate the conversation that we are having. i think that that box is being covered. i do want to say that, commissioner pai, i am for the jayhawks too. hopefully, the cyclones will do well, as well. i do speak to former congress meant-- the work on this -- ca i know that you are all concerned about role -- rural broadband. i look for to seeing you in iowa at some point. we can chat with some of those folks who are particularly concerned about this. thank you. what i would like to do is first

ask the chairman about the enhanced transparency issue, having to do with broadband development and small businesses. you had a particular order that was out there. i worked with chairman walden and other members recently to get a bipartisan bill passed where we have a different approach. on how we define small business and extend the period for the exemption for these small broadband providers. and it was bipartisan support that major that we provide the necessary relief to these folks, so they really can expand the broadband capabilities to as many folks in those areas as possible. and we are hopeful that the senate will take this up and that the president will sign whatever legislation comes out. but if that is not the case, might it be true that the fcc would provide a further exempt

for the enhanced transparency rules. chairman wheeler: as you know, we have extended that exemption. any decision, there has been a lot of talk about the transparency process, it is inappropriate for me to sit here and say, there will be an extension. we will go through the process, build the appropriate record and act accordingly. that is what we have done thus far. >> and recognizing that there is bipartisan support extends it further. any others want to comment on that particular issue? we are going to a process that will look at and thosee the impact on particular carriers, i think 100,000. i pushed for them being exempted while we review that and see if

the impact is in proportion with their capacity. >> thank you. and on the incentive option, mr. chairman, regarding the upcoming auction itself i am concerned that the plan -- on what the plan will have on broadcasters in america. if the fcc implements the repackaging plan, will providers areas thed in rural last? well they have as much time where there is a spectrum crunch? i am concerned, this is a 39 month deadline to transition. and broadcasters in rural areas may not be able to start right away. chairman wheeler: this is one of the reasons why, as the chairman we have begun to pivot.

everybody is thinking about the bidding, but then we need to implement it. we are putting together a team that will do with that. one proposal on the table right now, some kind of regional repacking plan. we have not yet made a decision on that. there are kind -- all kinds of circumstances that exist in parts of the country. it does not make sense to have racing assets of folks, to be able to do things. we have to be able to manage that appropriately. and to deal with the kind of issues you raised. i cannot say, we have the written out answer, but i can say, we are on top of that. >> thank you. as you can see, the rural theme to my questions, obviously. i know that a lot of people on this panel have these same concerns on a bipartisan basis, so that is why raise these

issues. i yield back. mr. walden: thank you. -- the recognizes chernow recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> think it. i think that we have talked about a broad range of issues. i have two of them, one has already been asked. in the country right now, there is a revolt brewing. i attribute it to a couple of things. one thing, and understanding -- an understanding of legislative activities of passing a bill, then the bill signed into law. i also have a feeling that the exact of branch is that executive branch is defined to enforce those laws. so when we see duly passed -- in a law,sed statutes

then an agency disregards that, revolt leading to this and this frustration out there. i can't say, i just came through a primary, so i was with the public 24-7 for two months and it is visceral, and israel. so -- and it is real. commissioner pai, this is an example. i think that is spread across the agencies, not just here. so, we passed a bill, signed into law on joint agreement, thenbeen delayed -- but delayed it for 10 years. there are not exceptions included, it is said all j essays -- jsa's. i think that you were surprised, i was shocked, to see that last

month the chairman's office was to remove them from review. how does this not lead to frustration, that an agency disregard in the clear statue of intent andgressional can you comment on that? mr. pai: i think unfortunately there is an example of the agencies disrespect for the role of law. it is rare that this body reaches an overwhelming bipartisan agreement on anything, but in december, with a unified voice, those in congress and the president instructed the agency to grandfather joint sales agreement between certain stations. ordered that sales agreements be unwinding, including one by intermission, the only spanish-language news in the state.

number one, this is diverse programming that i and others can benefit from. secondly, it contradicts and expressed commitment of fcc leadership, that there is nothing in what we are doing that would make that jsa go away. i think it is telling that a couple of weeks ago, a bipartisan group of 12 senators, scott, carl schumer and others, told the agency that they were bypassing congressional will and ignoring concerns by forging ahead. so if the agency cannot be constrained by law, then it is just the caprice of one individual or a group at any point. that is not how the agency should operate under any leadership. >> commissioner o'reilly? mr. o'rielly: i agree. and another example, i know that we've talked about set-top

boxes, but if you look at the statute -- the commission is taking this beyond equipment and taking it to apps. converter boxes, equipment, and we are taking this to applications. first, we think of equipment as software, then that goes to applications, but the application has nothing to do with the set-top boxes that operate today. >> i want to end on this. aspect, i am very concerned process and the opening statement on that, because maybe some of these --ngs that have occurred had had there been an open process that i would: commissioners to an act civil disobedience and disregard the chairman. to if the chairman can speak

people anyplace, anytime on something coming down, i would challenge you. i did research, nobody has done that yet. if there is ever a time to fight for transparency and the rule of law, it is now, in this environment and i would encourage you to do that. mr. walden: thinking. we recognize the gentlelady from colorado. >> thank you. constitutional lawyer, i was quite dismayed to hear commissioner pai's testimony about the commissioners prohibited from commenting. chairman wheeler, simply asked you that question -- someone asked you that question and i do not in the answer. i want you to clarify. under the current role -- rule of the sec, commissioners are prohibited from releasing billing with a pending rules, until they are voted on in the

proceedings, is that right? chairman wheeler: yes. on the npr m, on the things we have done, we put out the draft -- >> so you put all caps -- draft language? chairman wheeler: what we vote include in them, a rebuttable -- here is what we are proposing in terms of specific line which -- language. >> so you do put out proposed language? then you debate and you will on it -- vote on it and then the rule is released? chairman wheeler: yes. >> do you have a prohibition on commissioners talking about the proposed rules in advance of the vote?

chairman wheeler: no. and we have these discussions. yearserson that spent 30 practicing before the commission, i can assure you that throughout history, there has been an ongoing dialogue were commissioners have been speaking out publicly, talking to various parties. >> so under your leadership, what you are saying is that when there's a proposed rulemaking, commissioners are allowed to exercise their first amendment rights and speak about the pending proceedings, correct? \ chairman wheeler: i am saying that nothing has changed. >> can you just answer my question? are commissioners allowed to proposedlicly about rulemakings? chairman wheeler: they are allowed to speak about the substance of the rulemaking. >> right. chairman wheeler: the rule that we are citing is, can they take

the specific language and circulate it? >> that's what i'm trying to help you get out. so they can talk about the proposed rulemaking, but they are not allowed to release the underlying language while it's under consideration. is that correct? chairman wheeler: other than proposed rulemaking, where it is-- >> and what is the rationale for doing that? chairman wheeler: it has always been that way ma'am. >> and what is the rationale? chairman wheeler: i believe it is in order to facilitate deliberation amongst the commissioners. >> great, thank you. that is all i was trying to ask you. commissioner clyburn, in your written testimony, you mentioned interest in how the broadband can play a role in health care outcomes. as you might know, the rest of the energy and commerce committee are working on 21st century cures. a lot of this will relies on -- this bill relies on expansion to

collect data and aggregate that in clinical trials. thatted to let you know what you're talking about is important. need work together -- we to work together to get these benefits all over the country. part of the whole process with this big data and health care research is to get a much bigger diversity, both geographically and ethnically. i would like to work with you going forward to make sure we can achieve these ends. >> absolutely, we have a connect to health task force. we look forward to working with your office to realize the potential that health and technology's marriage would bring. >> thanks. i thought a few seconds left. this is what i was talking to chairman wheeler about. what i was trying to get out of him is this -- what was explained to me, i can see a

real reason why you would want the proposed language of the rules to be handled through the chairman's office. and you would want to have people talk internally about that. you wouldn't wanteople just releasing its and pieces of that language. pieces ofing bits and that language. but it's also important that the commissioners can exercise their first amendment rights without releasing that language. and i think that is what is happening now. i think we just need to take a deep breath and step back and have a bit more comity on whole commission. i yield back. mr. walden: i think the gentlewoman for yielding back. now mr. lance from new jersey. >> thank you. i also practiced constitutional law in new jersey. so i would like to ask commissioner pai and o'reilly to comment on the colloquy between

commercial mendicant and the chairman. >> thank you for the opportunity congressman. is not true that commissioners have full and fair latitude to discuss proposals or commission orders. i cannot hand you this document, which is the commission's proposed rulemaking on privacy. i cannot quote you anything in the document. >> and if you were to do that, would you be subjected to some sort of legal action? comm. pai: i believe there are sanctions unspecified in the rules. but i have no doubt i would not have been given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to enforcing it. [laughter] >> commissioner o'reilly, this to me is clear as mud. >> even the ideas themselves, nonpublic information is a term used in the rules. there is an idea in here--

>> i do not know what is in that document of 15, 20, 30 pages. i, and the way branch of government mentioned in article one of the constitution, i'm not privy to that. is that accurate? >> that is accurate. comm. pai: natalie that, the rationale -- not only that, the rationale for keeping this secret is baseless. firs tt of all, we don't have internal deliberations now, so the suggestion is inaccurate. beyond that, there is no reason why if you propose a bill, there is no reason why you and congressman lance can't have deliberations in a full and fair way. the agency is no different. the american public deserves to know what we do before we propose it. that is not too much to ask. >> if you were to release only a portion of it, and if you were to mischaracterize a portion of

it, undoubtedly another member of the commission would say no, this is the full and fair interpretation of the larger document. this happens in the branch of government in which we are involved, and i would hope in the executive branch as well. if for some reason you were to mischaracterize or not fully disclose the entire intent of the document under the marketplace of ideas, wouldn't that be corrected by another member of the commission? o'reilly: that actually happens today under the current structure. the fact sheets put out or inaccurate. i don't have the right under our rules to correct them. and you characterize them as inaccurate. that may or may not be true. >> i tend to think it is true.

rerdless of whether it is true or not, what would be wrong is a -- what would be wrong with a full discussion? o'reilly: i would be fully open, whether my analysis is open -- analysis is right or wrong. comm. pai: there can be no debate about context, they can see for himself or herself. >> whether this has been the situation over the years regarding the commission, do you believe, gentlemen, it would be better moving forward if this were to change? i placed this in the subjunctive voice, if this were to change. and why do you think it should change? comm. pai: whoever is leading the agency, republican or democrat, i hope they would embrace the same spirit of transparency. >> any comments i have had with

your colleagues? >> i have not found in our existing policies get in the way of substantive conversations with stakeholders. i am a bit confused by the difficulties my colleagues are having. i know that they too held regular meetings with public interest authorities, industry, and have general discussions about the matters before us. i'm sure everyone of us here uses those discussions to inform deliberations and decision-making. >> in your opinion, do you and i have a right to go back-and-forth in the document that commissioner pai has at his desk? >> i believe we have the right to go back-and-forth and discuss any matter before the agency. >> i don't know what is contained in that document. are you able to release to me what is contained? >> i don't believe we are. >> and why is that, commissioner? >> that is under our rules right now. >> i understand the rules, i am questioning the rules. i am easily understand what the rules are.

they may say that this room is painted pink, it's actually painted green. i understand what the rules are. do you agree with the rules? >> i think that we can do more so that our discussions are transparent. but i also think it's essential that we preserve the right to have deliberations among the five of us and review the text and discuss it. i think we should strive to be more transparent, but we have to preserve space for honest deliberation. >> i think it's essential to the american people that under article, one we have the ability to review what is contained in the document. thank you mr. chairman. >> we recognize ms. matsui from california. >> i cannot provide any more clarity to this as a constitutional lawyer. but i appreciate the responses. let me talk about something i am passionate about, and that is

lifeline, access to broadband is essential for the participation in the 21st century economy. we all know this, that affordability is a major obstacle for the americans that live on the wrong side of the digital divide. we know that broadband is not a luxury, what a necessity and as the commissioner says, helping kids with their homework. that the sec is == cc isc is -- the f modernizing its program. i believe the first legislation to explained lifeline -- to expand lifeline to broadband. i hope that the fcc make sure these changes are beneficial to the low income consumers it was designed to help. i believe others have brought up this concern. and that it does not harm the vulnerable consumers and the lifeline program today.

what i've heard or concerns about the fcc's proposed changes to the port for mobile voice service. as we expand lifeline to broadband, we can't forget that low income consumers still need to make voice calls, especially 911 in the event of emergencies. chairman wheeler, quickly, can you explain the proposed changes you are making to lifeline support for mobile voice services? chairman wheeler: thank you congressman. e-ingoal is to create a phas where, over the next 3.5 years, you're moving from an all-analog lifeline service to a digital lifeline service. where we can take advantage of digital voicea minute costs less than an analog voice minute. and by the fact that we are

delivering things digitally, gives those using the phone to the internet as well. let me give you a specific example. we are talking about two gigabits of data being the minimum threshold in 2018, as we face and. -- as we phase-in. two gigabits of data for the existing price would be giving the consumer access to 1700 ofpages and 900 minutes voice talk. are 50% of the existing lifeline users use less than 100 minutes. 2/3rds use less than 100 minutes. what we are talking about is a quantum leap in the ability to have access to minutes. and this incredible ability to

access the internet. clyburn, do you think you have struck the right balance here? are winding upe our process. when i started on this, it was a process that a lot of people did not want to take. we are on the cusp of making changes for the 39 households that are eligible. i am looking forward to work for with you that this program is when we can be proud of. >> thank you. i often speak about the need of access to spectrum. spectrum is the invisible in the structure of the powers mobile networks. as we look ahead to 5g, networks transporting more data than ever before. but wireless services also rely on wires, which is one of the reasons i care about special access reform.

commissioner rosen whistle -- comm. rosenworcel, do you agree we need a competitive access market so that the u.s. can continue to lead the world in 5g? comm. rosenworcel: think you for the question. yes i do and i agree with the assessment that while our wireless networks require wired into structure as well. >> thank you. i yield back. yes, i yield. >> there is something that was said earlier from the panel problemn search of a that doesn't have a solution, or we don't need one, etc, related to set-top boxes. i want to put this on the record. acte the telecommunications , it thing up to competition, including set-top boxes. the price of everything else has

gone down 90%. the increase of fees for set-top boxes has increased by 185%. and its consumers that are picking up the tab. and it is essentially a monopoly. it's essentially a monopoly. in my district, talk about boxes -- they say think outside the box. we don't have any boxes. i think it's about time that in the 21st century, that we really open up set-top boxes. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. >> thank you. chair welcomes the commissioner from texas. >> happy birthday to mission or clyburn. rosenworcel, did you have the chance to go out to the barbecue on--

comm. rosenworcel: no, i went to salt lick. >> we mentioned march madness. i'm a proud texan guy. texas a&m university had the greatest comeback ever in college basketball. [laughter] 12 with 39 seconds left, double overtime. so we play kansas and maybe houston for the final four. my first question is on privacy commissioner pai and commissioner o'reilly. on the purpose of the nprm, before drafting a passing rule, it is the before. there are no conclusions, but the text i work for back home says this proposed rule is full of conclusions. they say that is putting the cart before the horse. so my question is, are there forisions in this nrpm

privacy? comm. pai: yes, there are. >> there are conclusions. is there something to base these conclusions upon? comm. pai: there is not. >> any clue what they are based upon? can't tell you the motivation for any particular conclusion. the entire reason for the enterprise, the fcc disrupted the work that the ftc had done. th had regular did this entire ecosystem for the past decade. it is incumbent now upon the fcc to formulate what the privacy rules will be in the internet service provider space. o'reilly: there's a code from an ffc staffer, in terms of

how information is being used now, i don't know that we have that. i don't know what's being used today, but we have a solution in the proposals. well,ple back home says, i won't say what they will say back home. [laughter] one final question. has the commissioner caught himself in a corner, where to undo these new mandates -- can we stop this, or has the train left the station? comm. pai: unfortunately, the commission is proposing to leave the station in a certain direction, notwithstanding what the american people might tell us after the stock amid becomes public. -- this document becomes public. the agency's direction is clear. i expect it will be challenged in court. we will see if it survives that. barring a change in the direction,-- >> the people back home are tired of going to court to get

rules to be real written. -- to be rewritten. they are so sick and tired of going to court's. i want to talk about the upcoming spectrum auction in rural texas. it is one week away. i talk about this issue a lot back home with the texas association of broadcasters, tab, and they are losing about losing parts of spectrum without being compensated. the towers will have to be moved, and that costs a lot of money. the fcc has not given any assurance they will be fully reimbursed, especially in rural areas. the example they gave me was amber low, texas. about 200,000 people on the panhandle, a decent sized town. they have nine stations there. four spanish-language stations. they came here to washington dc, not the fcc. their concerns were basically dismissed, don't worry, it will be taken care of, all will be

fine. we gort your back. that was not reassured. does the fcc have enough funds to cover rural tv stations if they have to build a new tower or lose spectrum? is there money to do that, or is that just a wish and a prayer? comm. o'reilly: i don't know the answer to that. we don't know how many people, how much spectrum we are selling. we have to let the market decide listings through the good legislation you drew. we don't know how many will be displaced. that will require some time to figure out. the $1.75 million is not sufficient. we would like congress to reconsider this number. comm. pai: i would agree with commissioner o'reilly. that is one of the reasons why i've consistently said we should have treated the 1.5 --$1.75 million --$1.75 billion as a

budget rather than a suggestion. >> the gentleman yields back with a woo. [laughter] we now recognize the gentleman from kentucky. >> thanks to all of you for being here today and for doing what you are doing to ensure that there is access to broadband throughout our country so that everyone can purchase great in the 21st century economy. come november, it's estimated by some there will have an spent $10 billion on political advertising in the cycle. letter that is going to be spent by entities, candidates, and party organizations that are required by law to disclose their donors. but a significant portion of it will be spent by front groups that are under no requirements to disclose their donors. 168 of our me and colleagues wrote to chairman wheeler, asking the commission

to use its authority under section 317 to require the disclosure of donors for all of these front organization ads. we wrote in january, received this response in march 10 from the chairman. it's basically a "thank you for writing" response. something i don't think you would believe that we would be satisfied with. thinki don't necessarily we expect you to say, okay, will do that right away, i certainly expected more than this. one particularly disturbs me is that when we talked about -- the basis for the commission's refusal to do it is based on their definition of using the standard of editorial control based on a 1979 interpretation by staff as to what the standard should be for what sponsoring

organization is. you mentioned that in january proceedings that you expanded the requirements to cable companies and satellite providers and so forth, as if that would be satisfactory to us. personally i think that is a further institutionalization and deception of the american public. this standard of editorial control is absolutely the most useless standard for the american people in trying to decide, or trying to determine the credibility of political advertising. most of my career was spent in media prior coming to congress. i have a little bit of idea what editorial control is. increased situation, these groups, americans for puppies and kittens, or americans for a brighter tomorrow -- they don't have editorial control. they may be crafting a message, but they don't have control of that message. so if you can imagine the

american petroleum institute, they want to form one of these front groups and funded. can you imagine what would happen if the organization they funded, americans for a brighter tomorrow, ran ads saying we need to do away with burning fossil fuels? those ads wouldn't stay on very long. they don't have control. they are doing what their funders want them to do. that's why this is such a deceit that is being fostered on the american people. they don't have any idea who is saying the puppies and kittens are great. until we get this kind of disclosure, billions and billions of dollars will be spent to deliver early to see the american voters. i don't understand -- to deliberately deceive american voters. i don't understand why the commission would not at least enter into a review of the standard you are using to determine the most beneficial standard for deciding what a

true sponsor is. sponsor is who pays for it. thoses situation, entities are paying for it are not willing to be public. that is why they are using the facade they are using. in terms of the public interest, in terms of a vital and open --ocracy, i would request first of all, i would reassert our request to take action. but short of that, i would hope that maybe we could meet with commission staff to talk about this whole notion of editorial content. exactly what their perception is of editorial control. it seems what their perception of editorial control is. as a former editor, i know who has control of the editorial process. i know who has control of the advertising process. this would be like coca-cola saying, we want to get a pro

ok, drink ad, and you say it has to be paid for by one of the advertising agencies instead of coca-cola. we hope you would do something more sensible. i yield back. mr. walden: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you chairman and thank you all for being here. i know it is like christmas day when you get to come before us. thank you for your service. wheeler,man, chairman we had conversations about the terms of the rate regulation bill i introduced. at the time of our conversation, there was concern regarding the authority your commission possessions, but chooses to forbear for the most part in regards to rate regulation. i appreciate the forbearance of that. i want to make that clear. during the conversation we talked about putting into statutory law a phrase that would ensure yours in future commissions to not have the ability to set up retail rates

on broadband internet, which i think it's important role for congress to play. but since the time of our original conversation, you along with many of her colleagues on this committee, has said this bill is far greater than what it seems that it could end the ability of the fcc to regulate a plethora of other activities not in the bill. i understand there's concerns and willing to work with anyone willing to work with me to ensure that the intent of the bill moves forward in a reasonable manner. following the number of conversations and negotiations with members on both sides of the aisle, we passed what i think was an excellent amendment to the bill during a recent markup to ensure that a number of issues by fourth of our colleagues and herself were specifically exempt it from adding or detracting from the fcc authority. not more than a few hours after we passed that bill out of commite, you were in front of another committee where the same issue was brought forward. in that hearing -- i have the transcripts -- you against rated that we will not relate rates.

again, i appreciate about. you said you would offer your assistance to representative crenshaw in developing legislative language on this topic. more specifically agreed to provide them with language and assistance within a couple weeks from the date of that hearing, march 15. would you be willing to provide that language to our committee when it's completed, around march 29? chairman wheeler: yes or. -- yes sir. >> okay. in a recent markup on hr 26, 66, a letter was entered into the record in which you go to great lengths to explain why my bill his inconsistent with your comments before the senate committee. given that i read the text before it was originally introduced, and you stated this is what we are trying to accomplish, i'm a bit confused by your letter. i want to clear something up. this is just yes or no, do you believe that the fcc should have the authority to regulate rates after the fact, through enforcement? chairman wheeler: yes sir.

was talking about was the question of de forbearing. i believe that in the open internet rule, we should forbear from rate regulation. >> for you believe you should have the authority to regulate rates, even though you choose not to at this time, the commission should have that authority? to regulate broadband rates? chairman wheeler: yes sir. >> that is kind of inconsistent-- chairman wheeler: here's the concept. for instance, this amendment you just reference, that this will not have any impact on prioritization. is a rate being charged, right? >> right, and were willing to work with you. we went from you saying hey, we have no intention of wriggling rates and we will forbear -- of regulating rates and we will

forbear it, and we are willing to work on the details. but you are saying that you actually chariman wheeler: that is what i'm trying to address. for instance, as chairman walden's amendment said, well, paper motivation could be a rates. that is, we are talking about. throttling could be a rate. we all agree, we do not want to do throttling. because, how do throttling? there is a rate that you are paying, you are delivering less than the service that you say that you are going to offer. there is a rate impact. >> i understand that. there's a lot of details, but we went from you saying i agree, we should not be able to regulate broadband rates to now saying, we should regular broadband rates but also bear it for this moment. we are willing to work with you and a lot of these details. and we are happy to do it with the other side of the aisle, with you all.

and i think that is important. maybe we made a little headline. to the commissioner, do you believe the open internet water leaves open the ability of the fcc to regulate rates in any fashion after the fact? do believe that congress should act? >> yes and yes. chairman's commitment should be taken at its word. rate regulation is indeed on the table. it should not be that big of a leap if the president has said when he instructed the fcc to title ii, i do not want the fcc to regulate broadband internet access rates, chairman says, i don't want to regulate access rates and i don't have a problem with congress codifying that. there should not be an objection when congress tries to gratified commitment. >> that is the role of congress to make these laws. to make these things that we want folks to live by or not live by. i guess i'm confused, but unfortunately i'm out of time. thank you all, thank you for being here. >> thank you for your thing back. i recognize ms. clark from new york.

clark: goodve afternoon chairman willer and to the entire panel of commissioners. my time is sure, so want to get white to my question. as you know, some of my colleagues and the congressional black caucus, the congressional hispanic caucus and i've express her concerns about the potential irreparable harm if the set-top box proposal could have on small minority programmers, content providers, and broadcasters. this concern was also express recently by a former chief of staff to a democratic fcc commissioner. i quote, if the fcc adopts the will or proposal and a final order later this year, it will in that a regime that creates more, not fewer hurdles for smaller players, new entrants, and minority content providers. it appears the silicon curtain. ".

you continue to assert that you continue to assert they do not believe that this disruption will harm or limit minority and independent programming, so, has the fcc gathered evidence to this as a fact? has a disparity checkbeen projected to the unintended consequences of the proposal for programmers's viability is not only driven by increased viewership but also proven business models? >> thank you. nprm isre npr and -- designed to elicit this kind of information. and then to collect that information in the first round, and then to have a rebuttal to that information. >> there is no study. >> what i'm saying is that is the process. >> i consider this a reasonable

request. would you consider delaying the rulemaking until the report is completed and to work with the committee to address any concerns that may be raised by report? chariman wheeler: we would look forward to working with you and the committee on any issues that are raised. you and i have discussed previously on this. >> you would consider delays? chariman wheeler: i don't know how long the delay would be. >> we can talk about that. tomissioner clyburn, i want commend to congratulate you on all of your efforts on calling services. it means so much to 70 families across our nation and i know it will happen. i've a question about the modernization of the lifeline program. i am hearing from a constituent that they are concerned with the portion of the proposal that would start charging for services that have been free for years. i think that has been a constant theme here this morning. would you frederick slain a proposal of the modernization of

the lifeline program. >> what we are attending to do, and it was a very simple for me, for me to ensure that the lifeline program looks much like everyone else's offerings and options and opportunities. right now, it just goes to finance -- services and we believe in the 21st century, and a world that is insufficient. we are still in a deliberative stage, i have heard concerns as i mentioned in my opening remark from consumers that a concerns, particularly on the mobile voice problem. they consider to be a problem here. what i want to assure you is that i'm going to take all of this into consideration because i want, as i have, the option to pay little, nine, or more, on my ability and what

i want from the market and that is what we are attending to create, all price points starting at zero. to theuestion is related maintenance of the voice service for constituents that may not have access to high the broadband or who may not want to adopt the modern technology because they are seniors or, disabled, or perhaps less literate. is the fcc being put to presumptuous that broadband will be competitively available to all americans in the next three years as outlined in the agency's draft proposal? >> i will answer this way, more physically. it is my wish that whatever your desire is from a communication standpoint, whatever your need is for communication standpoint, that this is a program that answers your needs. >> very well, mr. chairman i yelled back. >> i thank you. the chair recognizes itself for five minutes. german will or, recently i was shown a quote attributed to a

, you, venture capitalist regarding the sec's regulation of what was then a cutting-edge, innovative service. i quote, i would hope the commission recognizes that despite the fact that they have very capable and dedicated individuals, it is not smarter than the functions of the marketplace. in that regard, i would just point to the cellular industry. the reason the industry has reached the level it has is because the fcc was smart enough to know that they did not have all of the knowledge. with --at the situation on and other products, you have a team scrutinizing them, notwithstanding the overwhelming consumer response, it sounds like now the fcc enforcement bureau does have all of the knowledge. in your opinion. fcc has changed at the

since you made that statement as head of ctia? chariman wheeler: far be it for me to challenge the wisdom of that statement. model -- the model that we built for the open internet is based on section 332, and what i was speaking about at that point in time, and the job that the congress and the commission did, in saying, it is a common carrier, and here are the things from which you will forbear. responsibilities of common carriage continue to obtain. common carrier responsibilities of data roaming, they were applied to wireless carriers. in the last several years. at othero we then look common carriers responsibilities

that may fallout and be affected by internet service providers. >> great. it sounds like your position has changed and that now the enforcement bureau does have more of the knowledge than the private market. let's go on to a second question. on your watch, and one of our colleagues earlier said that we are not really talking about your budget, which is what you are here to talk about. i'm going to set way to that. on your watch, average personnel costs for employees in the enforcement bureau have grown faster than was the case under the previous chairman. certainly, average salaries for those in the enforcement bureau have gone up your in your tenure than was the case under your predecessor. how do you explain this trend toward higher spending? chariman wheeler: you have given me a piece of information that i was quite aware of, -- >> will you get back with us and take that question for the record? thank you.

also, chairman, the fcc has a matter of practice, as a matter practice, since a contingent of enforcement bureau field agents to the super bowl, correct? chariman wheeler: yes. >> it is the job of the still agents to make sure that no malicious interference interest communications, broadcasting, or public safety, is that correct? >> yes. >> a group went this year, and i correct? chariman wheeler: yes. >> i assume that given the task, that this team is responsible for, they are made up of primarily engineers that can resolve those problems, is that correct? chariman wheeler: i don't answer to that. >> could you get back to us on that? chariman wheeler: yes. >> did the chief of the enforcement bureau attend the super bowl as part of the fcc's presence? chariman wheeler: i don't know. >> would you get back to us on that? do nothing enforcement bureau chiefs in the past have attended the super bowl? chariman wheeler: i don't answer

to that. >> so there are three or four questions for you to get back to us on those. sticking with you, but changing focuses, the head of an import agency, i'm sure you are aware of the challenges that have arisen in agencies and departments like the epa, irs, state department, with respect to the use of nonofficial means of communication. often, to avoid or evade things like the administrative procedures act or the freedom of information act. and the federal records act. does the fcc have a policy that clearly requires fcc employees to comply with these obligations and how do you enforce that policy and ensure that personnel's cell phones and wreck messaging over social media platforms are not being used by your employees to avoid the sunshine and openness we expect on a regulatory agency like the fcc? chariman wheeler: let me seem to understand. you are saying what policy do we have to make sure that you do

not to business on private --? >> essentially. chariman wheeler: that's policy. >> have you enforce a? will kind of enforcement mechanisms? chariman wheeler: we do not go spying on our employees. we don't go looking at what our employees are doing. >> how do you enforce a? chariman wheeler: we have the role in place. >> so you don't enforce it. chariman wheeler: if there is a complaint made against the role, i'm sure we would enforce it. >> what i hear is that you do not enforce it. i yelled back. now i recognize mr. daschle california for five minutes. >> concerning the privacy proposal, the chairman, i believe that consumers should have control over their data, what they disclose, and have their data is used. recognizing that the average internet user may not be aware of the multiple entities, such as the isp, and the websites that collect their data, will

your proposal ensure that consumers have an understanding of what entities are collecting the information? chariman wheeler: yes. >> how will you do that? chariman wheeler: there are three legs to the stool, the first is transparency. it must be disclosed what information is being collected and then how that information is used when it is collected. the second is that you must be given choice in so far as, do you want that information to be collected? and used. in the third, that information must be secured so that it does not end up violating your privacy by leaking out to some other source. >> are you going to require options or opt out? chariman wheeler: yes. >> that consumers will have to opt in or opt out depending on what they want? chariman wheeler: any information that is collected by that may not be

distributed to a non-isp, and other words, may not be sold to an advertiser somebody like this. without the opt in consent of the consumer. >> thank you. data security is a critical elements of the isp privacy proposal, at least in my opinion. one of the things that you could do is call out by requiring reasonable steps, but what does the commission mean by reasonable steps? what does that constitute? is then wheeler: that absence of -- the reality is that one company's solution may be as adequate as another company solution, but what we do not want to do is to say, here is the black and white cookie cutter that everybody has to do. for instance, let me give you an example, there was one company employees totheir

operate -- allowed is the wrong word. their employees so the information for about 280,000 customers. a reasonable structure in place to prevent that kind of activity. >> you don't believe in establishing a standard through some process --? chariman wheeler: we establish the expectation that you will do it. but there are multiple ways that it can be accomplished. >> thank you. regarding set-top boxes, as you know, i wrote a letter to you along with mr. barton and misnomers regarding the privacy issues under your proposals. i appreciate that you responded. we got the letter last week. although i have a few questions about the certification process, how would consumers hold that raising a potential violation of self certification, or independent certification?

chariman wheeler: the enforcement exists as it does today under section 631, applicable to wireless carriers. that is the expectation that applies. their first role of responsibility is the cable operator themselves. second, is an appropriate complaint to the ftc or the state ag. but, that we have the same level of privacy protection that get put in place today with existing , alternative set-top boxes such as tivo and roku. >> who decided they violation warrants a revocation? chariman wheeler: the revocation of the license? >> the certification. chariman wheeler: the cable operator can make that decision and there can be enforcement action taken place by the ftc or a jeez. >> thank you.

i'm also interested in the lifeline. in california come our customers get a state subsidy along with the lifeline subsidy and yet some of our providers are saying that even with that very generous state subsidy in the united states, they're still not able to apply or provide the basic services that are warranted. do you see that? had easy addressing that problem? >> are universal service construct has always been viewed three public and private lands. we always knew that there would be certain limitations from a government standpoint in terms of application resources, be it state or local. so, what we are tending to do through our other initiatives and conversations in partnerships that we are continuing to forge, is to ensure that the market has options that would be more in affordability construct that you laid out.

it is a continual work in process. i think that we are on the correct trajectory to marry and close these --. >> there could be copayments involve? >> we always knew the $9.25 from a federal -- would not be enough in all cases to bridge the divide. that is light is so important for, as you mentioned, states like california, who recognize that -- a complement to the fund economically and we are hoping for more interaction with the private marketplace to bring things closer to affordability for those who could use -- when he brought in the most. >> thank you. >> thank you jenna meant for yielding back. the chair recognizes the derailment from florida. >> thank you. thank you to the panel for your testimony today. i have a couple of questions. chairman, i understand that a lot of robo calls or automated text messages are not a welcome part of modern life and should

be limited as they are now under the telephone consumer protection act. --, in some cases, consumers customers have a legitimate need any real desire to receive important information from some businesses. for example, utilities may need to contact their customers with information about outages, repairs, service risks, or other important service updates. this is especially true in a situation that we face in florida we have hurricanes and tropical storms. it is a public safety issue. i understand there's a petition from electric and gas utilities currently pending at the commission to clarify that the tc pa does not apply to non-telemarketing informational communications from utilities to their customers. does the commission plan to act on this? can you comment on the status of the petition, please? chariman wheeler: i'm unfamiliar that specific petition.

we are dealing with several issues that come out of tc pa and i would love to get back to an answer. >> please do. second question. we recently had -- after along with your public safety bureau, what are the things that we discussed was coronation between sec and first met, on closing sec field offices since the field agents play a critical interferenceving to public safety committee occasions. yet, i still don't have a clear answer to my question, was there any consultation between first net and the sec about reducing the size of the field office presence? chariman wheeler: i don't believe so. >> you don't believe so. chariman wheeler: correct. >> that is probably a no. chariman wheeler: no. commissioners, the market definition and the chairman's set-top box proposal seems to --

divorce from the reality from how consumers watch video today. the video market already competes from consumers getting numerous viewing options based on civil programs, channels, or bundles. is in the sec's market definition backward looking, considering where the market is going? what you think? >> i agree with that characterization, i cannot put a better than the former chairman of this committee, they said just yesterday tt this is the 20th century solution to a problem that the market has already solving on its own. >> i agree. >> thank you. our next question for the entire is, is the commission word about all the automated telephone dialing systems case being decided in court on a case-by-case basis? should the commission revisit the definition and help to bring clarity to the issue so that businesses can have clear guidance? chariman wheeler: we had a large

proceeding on that within the last six or eight months. q2 is thee trying to specific language that is in tcpa that says in so far as wireless calls are concerned, wireless subscribers have the right to determine whether or not -- your --erpreted hopefully my interpretation is in sync with the spirit of your question. one of the things that we recognizes that every situation is different. we must have the capacity when it comes to intake of those calls and complaints, which are huge, they are larger number. we have the capacity to compartmentalize them and address them, so how we look at them en masse, there are a lot of commonalities to many of these calls. we will address them in such a manner that would be in sync with that. >> thank you.

you wish to comment? chairman alluded to, we did address autodialer capacity in the summer of 2015, and our most recent decision under the telephone consumer protection act, but if i can make one point, it would be a 1991,this is a law from and one of the challenges that the agency has right now is we are taking all sorts of technologies that did not exist in the early 90's and trying to figure out how to fit them into this old law. are, as result, struggling with more robo calls for consumers, and more challenging lawsuits for companies that never intended to be on the wrong side of the consumers that they are calling. >> should the commission revisit the definition and help to bring clarity to the issues that businesses -- [indiscernible] >> without a question, but without an absence of the mission doing that, i think as the commissioner pointed out, it would be hopeful for congress to update the telephone consumer protection act.

one of the strange situations a finer cells and now, on one hand, having perverted the definition of auto dialing, including everything more sophisticated and that a rotary phone, all legit businesses are seeking special exception from sec from tcpa strictures and very class sessions that are sure to follow. at the same time, administration's extent entire categories of favored rober color such as governments and debt collectors. present paper industry and others. they get a pass. whereas legitimate businesses don't. that is untenable. i agree, i think the definition was wrong at the time. and we should clarify. >> thank you, i yield back. >> that you are not recognizes the tournament from missouri. >> thank you. before i give my remarks, i would like to just, along with many others, send out thoughts and prayers to the victims of the tragedy in brussels. today. service member.

and four of his family members that were injured. ,nd three mormon missionaries two of which i know are constituents of the germans. passing of note, the my predecessors father, mr. bradley. i know that a lot of people have not heard that yet, and i want to add to the accolades even though he is not in the room, that everybody has been throwing out to raybon today, and after he woke the wizard of oz i thought he would be done. i thought he could live off of the residuals. he's a great guy. i can to congressman different background than most. i was not share and real estate broker for over 30 years. i'm a sales man. a salesman has to be upbeat and optimistic and open, and ray, i've never seen them in a bad mood.

optimistic, upbeat, and open regardless of the challenge. i wish in the best of luck. i just realized down the hall, that he has one week -- he is one week younger than i am. i know you cannot tell because i looked under the him, i'm sure. anyway, congratulations to him on his move. commissioner, i want to commend you on your trip down to austin. broadband to rural objecthich is a very key or whatever that we've been working on that we need to work on. i too, spoke in austin and participated in a panel 10 days ago on that very subject. but laboring rural broadband to rural areas. there are studies in everything and it is critical that we get that doctrine and want to congratulate you on your trip to austin to promote the same thing. of --an, and the spirit i'm going to ask you for a yes

or no answer to my questions. i don't have a lot. morning orocus this this afternoon i guess it is now, on your treatment of television joint sales agreements known as jsas. i don't know if you are away, but there is one in my district between tv stations in joplin, missouri, and it was because of this jsa that one was able to buy the other, which at the time was obviously a benefit to the joplin community. but, in 2011, when the ef five tornado ripped through joplin killing 161 people, in a town of 50,000, so everyone knew someone from that tragedy. when it came to joplin there was nothing much more important to my community and the doppler radar which tracked a multiple vortex tornado, stayed on the ground for six miles, and the reason k o'dea was able to

afford this piece of whether quitman was because of the jsa. i have to admit i was pretty frustrated with the fcc when they made the decision back in 2014 to basically outlaw jsas, especially when i saw firsthand the difference that they can make too small and medium-size markets joplin. clearly, in my hometown of springfield, there was a jsa operating there. many in congress have the same frustration which is why last year, we included a 10 year grandfather for jsa created before march of 2014 in the omnibus spending bill. chairman, and the spirit, yes or no answer. were you aware of the passage of this law? chariman wheeler: yes. >> good. i thought that when congress passed a lie would have been the end of the conversation on this, but impartially to my surprise, i see the fcc has decided that the merger process -- decided to use the merger process to circumvent or recently passed

law. in a number of instances, the fcc has not provided the lost 10 year grandfather to jsas involved in a merger, is that correct? chariman wheeler: no. >> that is not correct? chariman wheeler: that is not correct. >> i'm aware that you argue that there is long steady presidents that gives the ssc the right to modify new licenses, have you read the language in the omnibus bill that grandfathers jsa? chariman wheeler: yes. >> can you tell me a feeling which includes any exceptions to the 10 year grandfather? yes or no. let me repeat. i would like a yes or no. if that homage if other of jsas? the definitionr: -- >> yes or no. chariman wheeler: yes.

>> thank you. did a language include any exception in the kcc precedents go >> they said you a letter telling you the congressional intent of the omnibus linkage, namely to grandfather all jsas created before march of 2014, and you are in receipt of that letter? chariman wheeler: yes. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelaro