commissioner o'rielly in your testimony discuss the problems associated with editorial privileges. can you describe specific examples of what needs to be addressed to ensure a transparent and open process? >> i have had difficulty in the last meeting the chairman asked for, the bureau asper writes for editorial privileges and i objected and part of the reason was i had an opportunity to look at our manual and they are not contained within, there are no rules on what we have. there just practices we written down in the commissioner's guide to what the agenda meeting should be so what i've suggested is one we ought to codify our practices rather than having them as free-floating but two i've had a problem with the practice of cell. .. >> he had argued that it had been done separately. then the interconnection issue would be separate. and here they put a footnote in and said no it's contained in here. they had to back out. >> just to be sure on that. what you you're quoting is a speech that i made over one year ago in which i said that i'm not so sure and i have been saying as we lead

michael o'rielly of bloomberg news.re ahead how the fed rescued its sense of humor along with the economy. wall street is staying straightfaced as it awaits the stress test verdict. ♪ betty: etsy wants a piece of the market action. it plans to go public. we will have that story in the next hour. ♪ betty: welcome back to "in the loop." futures indicate stocks will rise. the number of americans filing from employment than her -- benefits rose. the u.s. ambassador to south korea says he will be back at work soon despite getting 80 stitches for knife wounds. mark lippert was stabbed in the face and arms. his attacker says he opposes south korean military exercises. north korea called the attacks just punishment against american warmongers. hillary clinton says she wants the public to see her e-mails. clinton has asked for the release of messages she sent from a personal account while she was secretary of state. mrs. clinton is being criticized for using a private system for official business. she wants the state department

commissioner o'rielly, but they can do for a moment.r a cost-benefit analysis, and we look at what had been said by ppi free press professor farber, you become what they would happen with taxes "new york times" agreed with the. i want to hear from you a little bit, 30 seconds worth about why we should have a cost-benefit analysis of what you think the outlook is. >> i believe we should do that at the sec on cost-benefit analysis. this is a perfect case. >> none was done. >> this was a woeful job done in this instance. we are talking hypothetical harm and real world impact on businesses. in terms of your question on taxes, i would switch 40 tax and see the question of bit on universal fees and what happens in universal service going forward. the chairman has made very clear the item in and of itself the for us does not -- that is something we will punt for about a month or two over waiting for the joint board meeting. we are going to see does fees in the months ahead. >> commissioner pai, you gave an interview this week and stated there

before i get to my questions for commissioners o'rielly and pai one follow-up to mr. johnson's questions, chairman wheeler there were ten meetings and we do understand there was on the ex parte side disclosure on one of those ten meetings. it's my understanding that on the other nine meetings there was nothing of significance discussed relative to the fcc where under the rules of ex parte you should have or would be required to otherwise disclose those. is it true there was nothing disclosed on nine of the ten meetings? >> no there's -- the test is -- >> was there anything -- sir, i'm asking the questions. was there anything disclosed on the other nine meet sngz that's a yes or a no. >> i had no instructions -- >> yes or no. >> no. i had no instructions. >> well, i guess i am befuddled that in nine of the ten meetings in the white house there was nothing of any consequence discussed with the fcc. i'll take you at your word. one thing we were clear about is the importance of certainty. and mr. cheeler, chairman wheeler more than anybody stressed the importance to the p

number one mobile as my commissioner -- as colleague commissioner o'rielly pointed out, mobile data has never been a title 2 service. but secondly it strained credulity to argue that the increase -- the tremendous increase in mobile investment has been attributable to title 2 application to mobile voice. obviously, to anyone who's objective looking at this the introduction of the smartphone in 2007 generated an explosion in mobile data usage which carriers then had to struggle to keep up with and they did that by investing billions of dollars in spectrum and billions more in wireless infrastructure. and it was because mobile data was lightly regulated as an information service that we saw all this benefit to consumers. i would also argue that it's sort of paradoxical to me at least that in january the fcc made a big show about 25 megabits per second being the starpd for broadband but then in february decided that mobile broadband would be subjected to title 2. as my colleague has pointed out, you can't have it both ways. mobile doesn't count when it comes to this artificially high thres

. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this order highlights the unprecedented lengths that the commission is willing to go in undermining the free market system, the federal statute, the u.s. constitution, and common sense in order to try to dictate where, when and how broadband is provided in this country. the commission is just about to vote to rewrite the communications act to assume vast new regulatory authority over broadband providers in the next item. and here the commission has the arrogance to try to rewrite state laws as well. the order is both legally infirm and bad public policy and i cannot support it. let me start by expressing my profound opposition to the offering of broadband or any communication service by a government entity. in this case a municipality. some people like to talk about the principles of network compacts. but this issue goes to more of a core important principle the foundations of the u.s. economy, and free enterprise. for historians you remember how government involvement was debated and

wheeler who will kick it off then we'll go no alphabetical order of that with commissioner clyburn, o'rielly and commissioner pai and commissioner rosenworcel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a privilege to be here with my colleagues. we're five type a individuals who have been working together for the public interest. let me make three quick observations in keeping with your three-minute rule. one the open internet decision, as you indicated is a watershed. your leadership, mr. chairman, has illustrated that there really aren't any differences about this need to do something, as you said today. we need clear rules. there are different approaches to be sure. >> wireless is causing cancer and the fcc has been hiding it from everyone. suffering with brain injuries, breast cancer. >> you're subject to arrest! >> cancer. world health organizations classify -- >> order in the hearing room. >> world health organizations classify all of the wireless as the class 2 b cancer again. these aren't safety standards. >> sorry, mr. chairman. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, there are

and commissioner o'rielly, i want to ask you briefly about europe because europe isn't exactly known for its laissez-faire hands-off regulatory approach but as i understand the proposals the europeans are discussing appear to be much less stifling than the fcc's recent rules. i mean, normally we're not looking to them as the model of where we want to be in terms of regulations. but can you help me understand as what i see some recent examples where in fact we could be disadvantaged to some of our foreign competitors. >> yes, senator i appreciate that. i just came back from barcelona as a number of my colleagues did and i had an opportunity to talk to a mub of people there as my colleagues did. and europeans particularly notice the decisions unlike the chairman's conversations, my conversations suggest they're very aware what we did and are willing to exploit it and take advantage of it and say if you're going to regulate we're going to go the opposite direction and we're willing to be less regulatory and try and drive traffic to their way, drive companies their way and let the united

[laughter] commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. look forward to my scorecard as well. i had a chance to review some of the tweets while you were giving your last statement. don't worry, i was multitasking. i heard your statement. there is quite a critique of the length of my last statement. well, sit back -- [laughter] -- put your feet up. you have not seen anything yet. i promise i will put my even longer one in the record. today the majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of congress. to forbear from certain monopoly air to regular but reserving the right to impose and using other provisions or at some point in the future. the commission abdicates its role as an agency by defining and classifying services based on unsupported findings. it fails to account for substantial differences between fixed and mobile technologies. it opens the door to apply these rules to edge providers and delegates substantial authority to bureaus, including how the rules are interpreted and enforced on a case-by-case basis. it also reinstates net neutrality rules. indeed,

let's go to commissioner o'reilly, michael o'rielly, he is a former republican senate staffer who has been an active proponent of the open internet rule. is that a fair s statement, do you not be the case? chair wheeler: yes or. rep. cummings: when we requested documents from you, we also requested documents from mr. o'reilly, and we receive them. we received information between republican and commissioner and three e-mails from outside the sec, they were robert mcdonald of april large firm that represents a variety of communication clients and economic consultant to the communication sector, and the president of tech freedom a libertarian think tank on policy issues. in this exchange, commissioner o'reilly saw edits -- sought edits on a draft of an op-ed proposing an internet rule. german wheeler, were you prepared that commissioner o'reilly was having private queue indications with these individuals? chair wheeler: no sir. rep. cummings: all three of these individuals will be affected by the passage of these bills, is that right? chair wheeler: yes sir. rep. cummings: several provid

wheeler who will kick it off then we'll go no alphabetical order of that with commissioner clyburn, o'riellynd commissioner pai and commissioner rosenworcel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a privilege to be here with my colleagues. we're five type a individuals who have been working together for the public interest. let me make three quick observations in keeping with your three-minute rule. one the open internet decision, as you indicated is a watershed. your leadership, mr. chairman, has illustrated that there really aren't any differences about this need to do something, as you said today. we need clear rules. there are different approaches to be sure. >> wireless is causing cancer and the fcc has been hiding it from everyone. suffering with brain injuries, breast cancer. >> you're subject to arrest! >> cancer. world health organizations classify -- >> world health organizations classify all the ways of wireless -- you can hide it in the fcc guidelines. these aren't safety standards. >> sorry, mr. chairman. please proceed. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i said, there are different appro

i do want to ask you, commissioner o'rielly, because you've commented on this order that it will negatively impact edge providers. of course many of the edge providers have been proponents of these net neutrality regulations. but you've raised some concerns about how even they would be negatively impacted, people that asked for this. if you could comment on that. >> a snub of people have commented on this. the lines between an edge provider and a telecommunications provider in our new definition, they're blurring over time. today you may be an edge provider. tomorrow you might be something else. you might have multiple parts to your business. that is problematic as you try to figure out how best to comply with our rules. more importantly our commission is going to continue to push its regulations up the chain. and so today is about telecommunications providers. we talked about that under our new definition. and then we're going to -- we now are having a debate in terms of some kind of structure to deal with interconnection or the inner mile, what use the to be known as peery. in my conversa