1.0 and atsc 3.0. that means consumers could find their bills going up because they will be stuck paying for two signals, even though their current television set can only receive one. that sounds a lot like paying more and getting less. i think the way the sec plans to proceed is no great boon for consumers. so let's call it what it is. it's a tax under a the television. i think this agency needs to go back to the drawing board and find a less disruptive way to facilitate broadcast innovation, and guess what, there's a way to do it. it's right there in the 2005 playbook. first, we do not have congressional mandate. what we have instead is a few unelected fcc officials deciding you need to buy new television, get new equipment, and locate the port on the back of your television set. second, there is no program to defray the cost of the new devices, equipment our television sets that consumers will have to purchase. and third, there is no test community or stand box to understand and learn from our poli

that i was part of when we adopted the original piece in 1996, and my old bosses sent a letter on atsc-1.0 and the commission adopting that long before the converter box was in place. so there'll be time to consider all these components and different variations. i made the point regarding the carriage issue is something i want to keep my eye on. i'm not oblivious or unsympathetic to arguments made. i think we're way too early the know before the first -- we're still in, you know, cleveland, and they're going to set up one in phoenix to see different components of those. i think it's way too early to lay down the law on certain pieces in that respect, in my opinion. >> do you agree with that? i mean -- >> sorry, could you ask it again? sorry. >> oh, sorry. just in term -- do you think this will ultimately require people to buy new televisions or converter boxes, and what have the requirement that you're going to require people to pay for a service they're not actually getting? >> yeah. we have a lot of experience with different transitions. i talked in my statement about the wireless si

i am pleased to support today's item which introduces atsc 3.0 with a consumer driven market centered flexible and voluntary approach. these provisions are vital to the success of any possible transition of 3.0 and i will address each entered the the purpose of this i missed to allow our nation's broadcasters to bring a suite of innovative services to consumers ultimately allowing the consumer to decide what atsc 3.0-looks like in the future. many questions remain without answers but i'm looking forward to seeing with consumers drive atsc 3.0. for these reasons that are issues in this item that we do not address this type if it does not mean we will never address them or that i'm completely unsympathetic to the arguments that have been made. it simply means it's too early to do so. some have tried to take us down memory lane on congressional action regarding the tv transition over to argue against our action today. let me correct some of the record since i was actually there. the law that passed in 2005 was not the first tv related provision enacted by congress. in fact, congress prov