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

mr. chairman. >> commissioner o'rielly. >> thank you.ur main focus of this item is to shift the burden involving the quality of closed captions from the programmer distributors to the programmers themselves. while i can generally agree with the concept,ty i expect it will be more punitive than what's suggested in the text. i worry the item doesn't make a similar shift for the burden to provide closed captions. the same logical argument for the quality shift should apply to the low visioning. il support these provisions. disappointly, the item sees into two troubling areas. the item creates an exceptionally convoluted mechanism by which a consumer closed caption quality complaints could be forwarded from a distributor to the programmer and then back again. under this structure, the personal consumer information would be redacted before forwarding could occur. but during consideration of an item just last month, it was alleged of the too, too difficult to redact personal communication for broadcasters correspondence files so the chairman a

mr. pai, anything to add? >> i would agree with commissioner o'rielly, and that's one of the reasons why i've consistently saide should have treated the $1.75 billion as a budget at that readier that suggestion. >> thank you, time -- [inaudible] whoop! >> the gentleman yields back with a whoop -- [laughter] and with that, we recognize the gentleman from kentucky, mr. car movement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you all for being here today and for doing what you're doing to insure that there's access to broadband throughout our country so that everyone can participate in 21st century economy. come november it's estimated by some that there will be spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 billion on political advertising in this cycle. a lot of that's 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 requirement to disclose their donors. that's why ms. eshoo and i and 168 of our colleagues wrote to chairman wheeler asking the commission to use its authority unde

mr. chairman, i think this question raises the basic approach that commissioner o'rielly raised about and expanding it over an entirely new marketplace and in my view as a policy matter instead of doubling down on technology very few consumers i know are enthuse assic about set-top boxes ]iy> whereas spending a couple hundred on a box you could spend 0 to 50 $5 in an app to allow any navigation device to affect the same functions. >> mr. o'reilly. >> i'm happy to expand. i agree with my colleagues. >> i agree that the current construct may on its surface seem limiting. but what we have a capacity to do and i trust that we will continue to have the flexibility to do is look through and recognize that though the words may be different, the application is the functionality i believe we should look through current lenses and apply and interpret the framework which is either worked well or needs room for improvement. in order to really interpret again through today's lens how we approach the directive that you have given us to ensure a competitive marketplace when it comes to what we now refe

mr. chairman, i think this question raises the basic approach that commissioner o'rielly is concerned about. this agency is taking laws written a quarter of a century ago. instead of doubling down on 1990s-era technology, we should encourage efforts to migrate to an apps based economy. instead of spending a couple ofz hundreds on a box and $15, you could spend $0 to $5 on an app which would allow any device to a tablet or smart phone to affect the same functions. >> short answer no and i'm happy to expand on that. i agree with my colleagues with the elimination of boxes going forward. >> i agree the current construct may on its surface seem limiting, but what we have the capacity to do, and i trust that we will continue to have the flexibility to do, is look through and recognize that the words may be different, the application and the functionality i believe we should look through current lenses and apply and interpret the framework which has either worked well or needs room for improvement in order to really interpret, again, through today's lens how we approach the directive that you hav

mr. chairman, i think this question raises the basic approach that commissioner o'rielly is concerned about this agency is taking laws written a quarter of a century ago and expanding it dramatically to a new marketplace. instead of doubling down on 1990s-rather technology, very few consumers are in love with their set top boxes, we should encourage efforts to migrate to an apps-based economy. instead of spending a couple of hundreds on a box and $15, you could spend $0 to $5 on an app which would allow any device to a tablet or smart phone to affect the same functions. >> short answer, no, and i'm happy to expand on that. i agree with my colleagues with the elimination of boxes going forward. >> i agree the current construct may on its surface seem limiting, but what we have the capacity to do, and i trust that we will continue to have the flexibility to do, is look through and recognize that the words may be different, the application and the functionality i believe we should look through current lenses and apply and interpret the framework which has either worked well or needs room for i

o'rielly? >> i'll just say i agree. i think the definition was wrong at the time, and we should clarify. >> thank you. i yield back, mr. chairman. appreciate it. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. long. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and before i give my remarks, i'd like to just, along with many others, send out thought thoughts and prayers to the victims of the tragedy in brussels today including a u.s. service member and four of his family members that were injured and three mormon in missionaries who were also injured, two of which i know are jason chaffetz's, chairman of oversight and government reform, constituents of his. and another note, note the passing of my predecessor's father, roy blunt's dad passed away last night, and i know that a lot of folks had not heard that. and i want to add to the accolades, even though he's not in the room, that everyone's been throwing out to ray baum today. after he wrote wizard of oz, i thought he'd be done. [laughter] i thought he could live off his residuals. but ray is a great, great guy, and i was, came to congress from a different background than