rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communic

there are two agencies, the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission. however, it is only the f.c.c., the federal communications commission that can actually protect consumers by enforcing the protection. the f.t.c. does not have that authority. and so what happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from the american people? well, all the information that you give to your internet rvice provider, whether it's comcast, cable providers, charter, at&t, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, they can take all of the information that they have, my account, your account, your account, your account, and use that information to sell it to the highest bidder to make money off of it. now there's an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and that is, well, what about google and netflix and facebook, what about them? why aren't they subject to what the f.c.c. did? well, they are edge providers. they are edge providers. you don't have to go to google. you don't have to go to facebook. you don't have to go to netflix in order to get your

rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communic

even if this current federal communications commission chooses not to regulate the rates charged, the commission's net neutrality rules permit future f.c.c. commissioners from doing exactly that. these rules from the federal communication commission have the potential to cost well north of 43,000 jobs according to a recent study commissioned by the united states telecom association. the bill before us this week will take a step toward protecting inter-- the internet industry from those job losses. i urge my colleagues to support today's rule and support the underlying legislation to protect consumers from an out of control federal bureaucracy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the 30 minutes, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: we have just days before the legally mandated budget deadline and yet instead of debate yurg budget, mr. speaker, my budget, mr. speaker, anybody's bu

you name the federal communications commission. texas congressman lyndon b.nson intervened with has speaker sam rayburn to support the commission and quash the budget cuts. what is the rest of the story? [laughter] tom: this is one of those, you know, interesting tidbits you get from this political history of spectrum allocation. it turns out that there is a very powerful georgia southern democrat eugene cox in the early 1940's. powerful within the house. he, at the same time he was a congressman, was actually doing business as a lawyer, which he was. with radio stations getting renewals. license renewals. he was close to the line on what wasf is gopal -- on what ethical. the fcc at the time was headed by a man who in history has become rather well known. james fly. he later became head of the american civil liberties union. he stood up for civil liberties and wiretapping. while he was fcc chair. he is very renowned in any contemporary versions. he is the best fcc chairman in history for what he stood up and did. one of the things he stood up to was this powe

of attack on open and free dialogue by the radio commission that in 1984 became the federal communications commission. the -- in 19 34 became that in 1934 became the federal communications commission. there was further progress in this direction to keep the opinions quiet during the new deal, when, in fact, newspaper publishers, which were thought to be right wing and anti-new deal, they were told they would face restrictions on owning radio stations. that was within the roosevelt administration to keep voices silent. they have rules that came out. roles that discouraged the radio stations from editorializing. that is just around after world war ii and in the late 90 40's, out comesand explosive policy that will be mandated to carry issues of controversy, of ventures to the community in which they broadcast and to do so from a balanced perspective. ok now, the question of what is a balanced perspective, what is a controversial issue that needs to be covered. i think the chapter title, "orwell's revenge." i mean, fairness doctrine, doesn't that that wouldsomething be political to define? fast-forward

they do not have to ask the government, the federal communications commission, can i do a new radio? can i use radio waves? they compete with each other to , new systemsvices and new applications. the example used in the book is in the mid-2000, a very animated company -- innovative company is coming up with what they think is a better cell phone. that thes has a vision mobile devices we are using our they don't dousy, anything, and he comes up with something that costs a lot more, but it is beautiful. it is weak, efficient -- sleek, efficient, and does a million things that the old phones do not do, because he put a phone together that literally has today, over one million apps in the app store. he gets competitors from google heading off the apple version of this, and this all comes into the market. you can see it in the tech sector today, the great ecosystems that are developed for all of these new products, whether the mobile phones are the applications that right over them, -- ride over them, it comes because there is not a central authority, but because it is a mother may i of

you name the federal communications commission. texas congressman lyndon b. johnson intervened with has speaker sam rayburn to support the commission and quash the budget cuts. what is the rest of the story? tom: this is one of those, you know, interesting tidbits you get from this political history of spectrum allocation. it turns out that there is a very powerful georgia southern democrat eugene cox in the early 1940's. extremely powerful within the house. he, at the same time he was a congressman, was actually doing business as a lawyer, which he was. with radio stations getting renewals. icense renewals. he was close to the line on what was ethical. the fcc at the time was headed by a man who in history has become rather well known. james fly. he later became head of the american civil liberties union. he stood up for civil iberties and wiretapping. while he was fcc chair. he is very renowned in any contemporary versions. he is the best fcc chairman in history for what he stood up and did. one of the things he stood up to was this powerbroker in the house

markey: our bill returns america to the same rules which barack obama's federal communications commission put on the books in 2016 and donald trump's federal communications commission took off the books in december of 2017. we go back to the obama era. we go back to nondiscrimination. you can't just take people upside down. you can't create fast lanes and slow lanes, make people pay extra, all of that was protected against during the obama era and all my bill does is return us to that era and i'm doing it with chuck schumer and nancy pelosi and mike doyle and many other great people. i think we have a great chance to build momentum this year featuring those protections. host: it probably has a better chance in the house and the senate, correct? sen. markey: i think there is a high probability it will move through the house, but last year, i brought a congressional review act to overturn that which the trump federal communications commission had done, which is take the obama rules off the books and i won 52-47 on the senate floor with republicans voting with me. i am not ruling out once th

i've served as chief economist the federal communications commission. and i've written and researched how we allocate radio spectrum, the airwaves that go into wireless communications, now.bout 30 years >> do we do it efficiently? >> great question. how much time do we have. we're getting some things a lot more right than we used to. the basic framework of the system, which comes from the the radio act, which was brainchild of herbert hoover, before he was president. he was secretary of commerce, the first regulator of radio. he wanted a lot more discretion licensinge government process over what got out in the radio world. and he wasn't really that concerned about being a traffic cop, which had already been in ad more or less, reasonable way, but he wanted more government discretion over to broadcast and what they said. interestingly enough, the radio industry at the time, the major commercial stations, they actually wanted a similar system. the basicrote language, the public interest standard, that goes into the radio act. and for decades, lots of new

welcome to the july 2009 meeting of the federal communications commission. this is the first commission meeting that i have been 2 cents 1997. i am very happy about that. -- that i have been two since 1997. i am very happy about that. i look forward to becoming more acquainted with colleagues and meeting new ones. before beginning the meeting, i have the distinct honor and privilege to swear in commissioner robert mcdowell. his first term ended yesterday, the day before. i have lost track. the day before. i am very pleased to do this. mr. mcdowell's wife jennifer is here, and you're beautiful children who i will let you introduce. -- and your beautiful children who i will let you introduce. if you will indulgence for a minute, joining us at the front. this is the swearing in of commissioner mcdowell. pal>> excellent. if you would raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, robert mcdowell, do solemnly swear -- >> bayh, robert dole do solemnly swear -- >> that i will support, defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domest

peter: this week on "the communicators," a discussion of economic policy and the federal communications commission. our guest is hal singer. he is an economist and a senior fellow at the george washington university institute of public policy. dr. singer, in a recent paper that you co-authored, "the curious absence of economic analysis at the federal communications commission, an agency in search of a mission," is the title, you write that the fcc is often an economics free zone. what do you mean by that? dr. singer: what i mean is that they are not taking economics

commission, you have an agency, and a chairman who is forward-looking. i think this nation and the communications industry is better for it. >> just to take one regulation, just recently the federal communications commission unanimously opposed is the proposed shifting the goal of universal service fund to include broadband services sow is provided and subsidized all around the nation. is that the first step in getting broadband reclassified from title one to title to as a common carrier? >> i would not say it is the first of doing that. it is a recognition of how the market and the communications industry is evolving. they are about 26% of the nation that do not use a land line as their primary communications device. there is a recognition of that. there is recognition that with companies like skype, in terms of how they are communicating, it is not just on their mobile phones. we recognize there is a need for us to shift. there is a need for persons to be connected, especially if they are going to save money to provide them with more options. this is another example where there is a need, and we have an obligation to keep up, retrofit ourselves, retool, and as we say, we boots.

the executive session we'll be voting on nominees who will fill key positions at the federal communications commission, federal trade commission, department of commerce, and several coast guard promotions. both the fcc and f.t.c. have responsibility to expand connectivity and promote the protection of consumers online. this morning we'll be voting on the nomination of jessica woaz roesten worsele to be commissioner of the federal communications commission. if confirmed she will continue to lead the agency's important work to ensure that every american has access to reliable, affordable broadband. having strong leadership at the helm. fcc to implement the broadband investments could not be more important. i look forward to her confirmation this morning. next we have a commissioner of the federal trade commission, the f.t.c. is responsible for protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive practices, especially online and enforcing the nation's antitrust laws. he has the experience and expertise in privacy that the commission needs at this critical moment. he has bipartisan support from all the sitting

thought this could, if not derail, at least slow some of the other priorities of the federal communications commission. could you explain a little bit more about that? >> not as the commission, but perhaps on the hill too. i worked on the hill for 15 years. i am not going to predict what the is going to do, but if we are talking about incentive options and things like that, this is change, and does it change the name of the game? if you have one less competitor in the wireless market, does that make it more or less attractive? in regards to public safety and so much spectrum, these are all factors that might have the effect of encouraging some folks to say well, let's see what happens before we go ahead and act. >> gordon smith was recently on this program. here is what he had to say about potential spectrum auctions. >> would your viewers need to understand is the difference between broadcast spectrum, the way we utilize it, and the way wireless uses it, is that when we use it, our transmission is one to everyone in a desperate -- one to every one in a demographic area. if i send you a video on my te

rulemaking also requires the federal communications commission to adopt deadlines for action on several types of filings before the agency. as i know all too well from my own experience, having been regulated by the federal communications commission when my wife arnede in the radio industry, -- and i were in the radio industry, items can sit at the agencies for literally years without any action and then they're acted upon and the person bringing the action may have 30 days, on something that's sat there for 10 years. now, the second proceeding is an inquiry that deals with more complex issues. giving the federal communications commission flexibility in deciding whether and how to implement those reforms. now, by giving the f.c.c. flexibility when setting procedures and deadlines, we're not constraining the agency. rather we're providing them with goals to meet and allowing them the, the professionals there at the f.c.c., to determine the best way to meet those goals. many of the reforms in the bill are things that the commission itself already has the authority to do under existing law

he was on the presidential transition team, focused on telecommunications and the federal communications commission. dr. jamison, welcome to the communicators. biographyed in your that you were at one time head of the national association of regulatory utility commissions. what does a regulatory utility commission to -- do? mark: i was the chair of a committee within the national association, that's a very different thing. it was a subcommittee. what a public utility commissioner does in the united they regulate utility. setting what the service quality standards will it focuses on the infrastructure rollout and development. in some instances, it determines how markets will work. that's basically the job of the utility regulator. that his formal job. i train a lot of people around the world in this, the biggest job is to regulate the politicians. there was a time when utilities were regulated by legislative bodies and city councils. that system never worked well. people would get out of business, it fell. a little over 100 years ago, we set up these agencies to be a buffer between the political pre

the bill does just that, prohibits the federal communications commission from unnecessarily regulating broadband rates. this legislation ensures that not only the current commission but future commissions do not have the option to regulate broadband internet rates. protecting the free market and encouraging competition and promoting jobs. that's what we need to be all about. plain and simple, un-elected washington bureaucrats at the f.c.c. have set out with another solution in search of a problem. by shifting the classification of broadband internet to be a title 2 common carrier, the f.c.c. is simply reclassifying broadband internet to fall under their rule making purview. this is nothing more than another power grab by the administration to regulate and control yet another strifment it is i--- industry. it is estimated that if rules regulating broadband services are carried out, it could cost over 43,000 jobs. i think we could all agree, it is not time to gamble with american jobs. when bureaucrats in washington play the regulation game, no one wins. i'm a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 26

it is also important to recognize the role that the federal communications commission has played in this technological revolution. when it prioritizes competition and innovation, the fcc allows the private sector to deliver a rapid communication services at reasonable prices, that is the charge the government gave them in 1934. speaking of 1934, the newspaper. from the very first commissioner to be appointed to the fcc. the title refer to them as "rulers of the air." my ambition would be far more modest. i would not bring an ideological mission to the agency. i would not hold. it is for it against any company or technology. -- i would not hold any prejudice against the company or technology. i would stay within the bounds of the authority as set forth by congress. i would work with others to come up to solutions carefully calibrated to solve common problems. my decision making process would incorporate and reflect a respect for others outside the agency. i would seek to build a collaborative relationship with congress including the members of this committee. i would consult with the priv

c-span3, the on senate appropriations subcommittee hears from federal communications commission chair on the spectrum auctions program. servicesa house armed subcommittee on military personnel hears from judge advocate generals of the army, navy, air force, and marines on racial disparity and the military justice system. kevin landrigan his bureau chief for the union leader and he joins us from new hampshire. over the past years the granite state has become a battleground state. what has changed? guest: it is interesting. it is quite a contrast. ronald reagan when he ran for reelection in 1984, he declared the most republican state in the country right you could have case,hat state -- that other than the far and nevada perhaps. new hampshire has become more of a swing state because of migration here. we are unusual, in that now fewer people new hampshire were born here. more than 60% of residents are not natives. many come from massachusetts. taxesame to escape higher and more regulation. but particular the on social issues, their progressive. that is what we have seen over the years

then went on the federal communications commission. >> susan ness, thank you for sharing some of your expertise background, and current work. just a reminder, this communicators program and all others are available as podcasts. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from the presidential primaries through the impeachment process. now the federal response to the coronavirus. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's the leak washington journal program, or through our social media feed. c-span, created by america's cable television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. >> next, briefings on the virus -- violence following the african-americans during an arre

. >> now, the chair of the federal communications commission talks about 5g spectrum and what it could mean for national security. she highlight the united states role in the sector, challenges posed by china's advancement in the field and infrastructure investments. >> good afternoon. people don't realize that the nature of national security has changed in the last couple decades. it's not as apparent as it was. the u.s. is, in some ways, a little bit behind other countries when it comes to how we think about the spectrum, how we think about 5g. 5g is the core of economic growth in the future. paying attention to how the spectrum uses 5g is crucial. we have a great discussion today. i'm going to introduce our two primary speakers and they will be followed by a panel. let me say that we are grateful that the chair of the federal communications commission as agreed to come and speak on the topic today. topic today. she brings over two decades of communications experience, policy experience and service to the fcc. prior to joining, she was the senior communications counsel for the senate

the federal communications commission's experts with network technology. i am probably not the person to come to to define digital literacy so what i do when people ask me is i point to that ala definition. [applause] and i -- it is about having the cognitive and technical ability to find evaluate, create, and communicate with information and communications technology. patricia: thank you. and we applaud the fcc partnership and making sure we have digital literacy throughout our country. tell me more about your thinking around the homework gap and how the sec can make a difference. jessica: i first started talking about this in 2015 but i noticed when i ran around the country and i talked to school administrators and librarians, i would hear the same thing over and over. they had a lot of students hanging out in the parking lot of the library after it closed to catch the free wi-fi signal. sitting in fast food restaurants doing their homework. when i was growing up i did not meet any of that. i had paper, pencil, leaving me alone. but those days are over.

federal interpretation commission over a short period of time. we had a conscious discussion and i think we ended up with the right results saying we wanted to leave discretion with the federal communication commission , realizing that technology was evolving and there would be things that we could not anticipate so i think we made overall the right policy decision but in that regard i probably would if comeback and suggested a more prescriptive approach. >> before i get back to that, i want to go through this litany of saints. mikedingell was great, tozan.billy toes in the senate, fritz hollings and trent lott agreeing on everything, amazing. they would clear the pathway to make this possible legislatively and a relatively short. of time. you can keep going down the line. including jay rockefeller and olympia snowe working on it with so that theuse side bills for every computer in every school in america for poor children would be paid for out of this bill so we could speed up the pace at which kids get the new skill set. behind the most vulnerable kids so the bill includes now what is $40 billion spent on those poor kids. the largest single education technology program still. if there's

rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communic

the federal is, communications commission and the federal trade commission will be able to look at those disclosures and if they hurt or hurt competition, the f.t.c. is supposed to act and stop those. thinking here is, that hurt good services along with that. this way, the regulator will only go after the bad services. are questions about how effective the f.t.c. will be police broadband providers and i think that's what commissioner clyburn was getting at, the idea that in f.t.c. to act, there already has to be some kind of harm. former chairman tom wheeler pointed out that it's out of thee horse on barn but the barn burning down before the f.t.c. gets involved. one major issue with this. guest: you look at how the up, commissioner clyburn made the point that agencies like the federal communications commission is with telecom experts whereas, even though the federal trade commission has a talented technol gists, it's not necessarily as well equipped as the f.c.c. to police what are ultimately potentially very complicated business and legal arrangements that are being made between compan

i was very disappointed with what the federal communications commission did subsequent to the passage of the act. much of the intent was lost. beencouragement is going to that those that do the rewrite be as prescriptive as they can so there is a small chance that the federal communication commission will add their own intent. host: what is an example of the intense they lost? guest: we came up with a checklist of what the telephone companies had to do to be able to enter long distance and open the same day to long-distance companies to offer local telephone service. in my opinion, that interpretation what far too long. i think it went outside of what was originally intended. toagain, when it comes writing the bill this time, i think legislators need to be as prescriptive as possible homage to direct to the federal communications commission and anyone else who has to review the act, the justice department, so it is narrow so that we preserve what lawmakers intended when they passed the bill. host: because congress has not enacted another comprehensive telecommunications act in the las

the federal communications commission is facing a tough task. the chairman of the fcc, german genachowski -- german -- chairman genachowski just came out with the national broadband plan to try and look at all of the challenges that we face as a nation and how broadband can address some of those challenges. they see this as a vital infrastructure. they want innovation in the space. this is good, but they are trying to work with a statute that is not structured for this area. when we look at this world of the internet, which bill that we do not want it to be a wild, wild west. we wanted to be governed by bloc and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law -- by a rule of law and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law. >> we're talking with tom paul kirk -- thomas tauke and kim hart. >> you talk about how everyone is playing in each other's sandboxes. computer companies are selling cell phones and network providers have their own app stores. you stressed the need for the government to ensure that no player

>> it was the golden age of the federal communications commission. moved all of the lanes of the communication highway, from analog to digital. that was cable broadcasts, satellite had been launched but the service had not yet begun. we came up with the digital television standards, which are radio standards. my first commission meeting we did band plans for pcf. and we began the first auction, at which point they actually used the hand placard to bid. it was an exciting time to be there. we also implemented the 1996 telecom act, which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local telephony and video. and also radically changed the landscape for broadcasts. widening the ability to consolidate broadcast properties. >> looking back 20 years later, did you get it right? susan: some of it we did. the other thing we did, and which is so important, and c-span can appreciate this greatly, is children's television programming. we instituted the requirement three hour for children's television on broadcast. some of it we got very righ

pai is chairman of the federal communications commission. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] budget by is chairman of the federal communications commission. it's been about two years since we've seen you. have been active in closing the digital divide and a number of priorities as well, advancing public safety. i'd like to think it's been a very active commission. >> what is on the docket? executingill continue on closing the digital divide. that includes a number of different components. that includes we get more broadband to all parts of the country. funds will devote $1.5 billion to connect 713,000 homes and businesses. we will substantially increase the amount of rural broadband out there. 5g is something we are looking to extend american leadership on. we will be doing additional options in 2019. infrastructure of the future will be a big factor in 2019. we look forward to following up. doing a lot on the public safety front, hurricane season, as well as wildfires. we have been taking a look at some of the framework

peter: brendan carr is one of two republicans on the federal communications commission. he is the senior republican there. this is your first time in the minority in the commission, how is it? brendan: we have two democrats and two republicans right now, but i have no doubt i'm headed to the minority. but to be truthful, it has been going very well at the fcc. we have been engaging in good-faith compromise. i don't think any particular member of the commission has everything they wanted out of every item, but we are compromising. i think our work product has improved because of that. so it's a great thing. peter: would you support the current acting chair as full-time chair? brendan: i am not sure my endorsement of a democrat chairman would help or hurt, so i won't weigh in. but it is been great to have her reach across party lines and compromise. that has really informed the work we have gotten done together these past couple months. peter: one issue introduced has been broadband as infrastructure. where are you on this? brendan: president biden unveiled his to dollar i

the chair: a bill to restore the open internet order of the federal communications commission. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, april 9, 2019, a request for recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 116-37 offered by the gentlewoman from virginia, ms. wexton, has been postponed. . it's now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 116-37. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas seek recognition? ms. davids: i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 116-37 offered by ms. davids of kansas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 294, the gentlewoman from kansas, ms. davids, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from kansas. ms. davids: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to offer an amendment to the save the internet act that helps the american consumer. this amendment requires the government accountability office to produce a report examining the f.c.c.'s eff

eastern on c-span 3, the senate commerce committee holds a confirmation hearing for the federal communications commission the c-span now video app, the chair of the commodities future trading commission discusses what powers the agency needs to crack down on abuses in cryptocurrency markets. watch this week live on the c-span networks or on c-span now, or mobile video app. head to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video, live or on demand, any time. c-span,

full committee to close the doors to these and other powers that are granted to the federal communications commission under this bill. powers that are completely unrelated to net neutrality. all of those amendments were rejected. supporters claim the bill locks into law more than 700 instances where the federal communications commission foreborn from taking action under title 2. but supporters cannot provide members of congress the list of those 700 forebearances. nope. we asked, no list. the democrats can't or won't tell us precisely what they're putting into law if we can't see that list. we asked for an amendment to prevent the f.c.c. from imposing similar regulations in the future or through other provisions in statute and that, too, was rejected. we offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless networks, 5-g from the incompatible regulatory regime. that, too, was rejected on party line votes. so disappointingly, the democrats went back on an agreement i helped negotiate in each of the last two congresses to relieve some of our rural internet providers from some of the most burd

of cops on the beat, we'll now go to michael copps, served as acting chairman of the federal communications commission from january to june of 2009, and served as commissioner from 2001 to 2011. prior to joining the commission, commissioner copps worked right here on capitol hill, and the u.s. department of commerce. commissioner copps, chairman copps, thank you for being with us, and we look forward to your comments to round out our panel. >> thank you chairman walden, chairman upton, miss eshoo and mr. waxman, vice chairman, former chairman, all the members of the committee, i'm delighted to be here. we're here today to review whether the communications act needs to be updated or otherwise reformed. i've heard some say that simply because the act is old it must be obsolete. that no matter how well it has served us an act written 18 years ago cannot have relevance in today's altered world. as someone only a little younger than the original act of 19 34r, i would raise a caution flag or two. the declaration of independence and the constitution were written long ago, too, yet we still find them critica

chairman richard wiley who was nominated by president nixon and served as chairman of the federal communications commission from 1970 to 1977. as chairman for most of the '70s chierm wiley's tenure at the commission predates many of the major changes in the communications sector. chairman we're glad to have you here today. pull that microphone up close. thank you for being here. you'll need to push the button on the microphone there. one time. >> thank you very much chairman walden. ranking member eshoo and other subcommittee members thank you for the invitation to testify today. while i know it's not going to be self-evident, due to my youthful appearance, i've been involved for nearly 45 years in federal telecommunications policy. and from my own standpoint what has occurred during that period is simply amazing. when i was at the fcc in the 1970s, the average american enjoyed just three broadcast television stations. and one local and long-distance telephone provider, and the department of defense had just begun to explore a revolutionary computer project known as arpinet. but today our citizens have acc

, it's to straitjacket the federal communications commission. this is a bill which would severely restrict the commission's ability to operate effectively. if this bill becomes law, the f.c.c. would stand for fully constrained commission and that, ladies and gentlemen, is the goal of the republicans in this legislation. it would establish a separate administrative process to govern the f.c.c.'s internal operations that would be different and more cumbersome than any other agency in the entire federal government , without producing any policy benefits. now, we know who supports the bill. at&t, the big companies. they support this legislation. we also know who opposes this legislation. every consumer group, every public interest group in the country says, this is a particularly bad bill. from a public interest perspective. but if you're at&t, if you're a big company, you love this. this is going to tie the commission in nots. you can continue to do whatever you feel like doing indefinitely because the republicans have decided to create the most cum

it re-authorized the federal communications commission. amazing to think that we have a commission as important as that and it hasn't been authorized or re-authorized. it's time to do it and bring it up to this century as well and beyond. this bipartisan bill is good forward-thinking policy that modernizes the f.c.c. to ensure it is more prpt, efficient and able to tackle the issues of the 231st century and maintains the credibility of spectrum auctions and the promise the fcc made to michigan broadcasters and paves the way that will allow for the united states to maintain its leadership in developing and deploying technologies such as 5 g and win the race. it requires the fcc to report to congress on its efforts to promote broadband internet access for veterans, especially low-income mr. walden: i yield to the gentleman, 30 seconds. mr. walberg: it requires the fcc to report to congress in its efforts to promote brond bad access to veterans. i would love to have broadband to my home as well. this bill is critical for consumers and our nat

congratulations to the federal communications commission. when i put the language in the stimulus package mandating that the federal communications commission had to return this as a report back to the american people on the future of broadband, just 30 months ago, i can tell you right now that you met the highest expectations i had when i answer to that language into the law. the table of contents is just an indication of how thoroughly you have examined this subject -- health care, education, energy, the environment, economic opportunity, government performance, civic engagement, public safety. this is as thorough a compendium of the issues that we have to work on in order to make sure that america once again regains its position as no. 1 in the world in broadband as could ever be asked to be put together. we have dropped from second to 15th in the world, behind luxembourg, behind canada, finland, over the last eight years. with the company's going to court, going to the fcc, chipping away at the competitive rules we had put on the books. a

in in addition to fema and federal communication commission to establish communication, national guard, army corps of engineers, and department of defense will provide all the resources at its disposal to rescue and assist in clearing debris and delivering supplies. so far, over 3,600 personnel are deployed and that is growing by the day. i approved requests of governors from florida, north carolina, south carolina, tennessee, georgia, virginia, and alabama for an emergency declaratio. r i approved additional requests for the governors of north carolina, florida, south carolina, and disaster declaration to pay for removal and provide financial assistance directly to survivors. fema and small business administration are there to help the residents was homes and businesses were literally destroyed, washed away, or blown away. the federal search and rescue teams have been working with state and local officials in partners in treacherous conditions to find those missing. they will not rest until everyone is accounted for. i want to thank all of our first responders and everyone working aro

communications has been important in this country. through the department of commerce and since the 1920's through the federal trade commission and the federal communications commission, you have a government entity that has been established to examine uses and some of the licensing structure that will allow certain businesses to use certain parts of the spectrum for certain things federal government use and military use is still controlled by the department of commerce in the independent radio advisory committee. the commercial side of the business, radio, television, and cellular telephone is regulated through the federal communications commission. this spectrum was discovered when the first person under the spoken word. it is the ability to transmit and send information over which can be heard by the human ear. -- over a frequency which can be heard by the human ear. as you move up higher, we may not be able to hear them. the develop devices that are capable of listening and transmitting it back in frequencies that we can hear. it has been there. it has been commercially looked at since around the turn of the century. >> michael ca

we think it's fine for the federal communications commission to come in when there are identifiable harms leading injury, butconsumer it's another thing for the federal communications commission to be involved in the central planning of the economy and have to spin out hypotheticals or what-ifs over every new business application being offered only when it is offered by an internet service provider. that is really the concern. if the rules had been adopted or if the alternative is enacted congress, we would not be having the debate today. >> the bright line rules are good even though there was an indication previously the providers would be looking at things that could potentially run afoul of them. lewis: the bright line rules created in 2010 were overturned. i think we all wanted bright , but you have to get them in a way that's legally possible. >> lets turn away from net neutrality for a second to an issue that i think you agree on to a fair extent, and that's the issue of lifeline, which the fcc is looking at modernizing sometime in the first half of this year or 2016. of theooking a

we first raised concerns with the federal communications commission itself in a november letter from the republican members of the communications and technology subcommittee. as well as the small business committee. we urged the chairman of the federal communications commission, tom wheeler, to not only make the exemption that they'd already had in their rules permanent, but also to raise that threshold for defining what a small business is, to bring it in line with the definitions previously blessed by the small business administration itself. well, the f.c.c. instead extended the exemption for just one year. that's hardly time enough from these very onerous reporting requirements to make a difference. one-year extension. despite the overwhelming support in the record for permanent extension, it was clearly congress needed to -- it was clear congress needed to act because the f.c.c. wouldn't. so i introduced a discussion draft, to get the conversation going, that would permanently extend the exception and would increase the threshold by defining a small business to match the definiti

the open internet order established by the federal communications commission is a good place to start. but it does not go so far enough because it is not comprehensive. most of las vegas will access the internet through their wireless connection, which is not fully subject to the fcc order. it is clear that consumers across this country are going to benefit if there is more competition among internet service providers. that is not the case today. federal communications commission's estimate that 96% of the population is only one -- has only one or two isps to choose from. in order to discriminate against a provider of content, my view is that they should face the antitrust laws. senator franken and i are working on legislation to do that. to strengthen the antitrust laws to ensure that the major isps cannot use their market dominance to pit online winners and losers. a similar threat to competition -- and i want to commend public knowledge on their great work on this -- broadband dicasts. a case can be made for the caps -- for data caps that managed to ingestion. -- manage congestion.

full committee to close the doors to these and other powers that are granted to the federal communications commission under this bill. powers that are completely unrelated to net neutrality. all of those amendments were rejected. supporters claim the bill locks into law more than 700 instances where the federal communications commission foreborn from taking action under title 2. but supporters cannot provide members of congress the list of those 700 forebearances. nope. we asked, no list. the democrats can't or won't tell us precisely what they're putting into law if we can't see that list. we asked for an amendment to prevent the f.c.c. from imposing similar regulations in the future or through other provisions in statute and that, too, was rejected. we offered an amendment protecting the next generation of wireless networks, 5-g from the incompatible regulatory regime. that, too, was rejected on party line votes. so disappointingly, the democrats went back on an agreement i helped negotiate in each of the last two congresses to relieve some of our rural internet providers from some of the most burd