is proposal does not provide or mandate paid prioritization. there is nothing in this proposal that authorizes a fast lane. we ask questions. but don't jump to conclusions. cecilia. >> my question is more philosophical. in your opinion, do you believe that broadband internet has become a utility, a public utility? >> you know, the term public utility has a multiplicity of concepts. let me express what i do believe. do believe that broadband is an essential pathway what for america, is crucial to the growth of our economy. and that is why it needs to be open. it needs to be robust. and it needs to be fast. how many times have i stood up here in other sessions talking about here's what we need to do to increase expectations? here what we need to make sure that there is robust -- that there are robust? now, here's what we need do to make sure it's open. >> when you say special? >> i think that it's clear. that's the whole discussion that we're having with our i.p. transition activities, that we're moving from a switch circuit environment to an ll-

i believe that the intention was to band paid prioritization. prioritization.nd that in fact, they talked about it and they talked about abuses that have happened. but i can't -- we never got to that point with rules. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know that you've been in a lot of pressure about the neutrality session and it's such a key issue for the obama administration. your fellow commissioner said you made some changes in recent weeks. during that time, did you seek opinions from the white house or from your predecessor? did you seek on their opinion when you were thinking things through? >> julia and i haven't talked talkedus and i haven't since before this, let alone about this. and the white house has been from the outset, very respectful about the fact that this is an independent agency. i've heard from congress a lot. >> i want to know why because there's been a lot of pressure. so, thank you. >> hi, mr. chairman. you noted the complexity of designing rules for the world's first incentive auction. you also noted the concerns raised by non-participatin

what prioritization arrangements specifically will be better for the internet than the no prioritization norm we have today? >> what we are trying to do in this item is to say that anything that affects that virtuous cycle the court talked about and i talked about before is not appropriate. is unlawful and that would include paid prioritization. the court told us to look at this on a case by case basis. we have asked the question in the rule making as to whether we should look at it generically and say it's all out. and we are soliciting comments on that. when i buy internet access, i am buying the full pipe. i am buying access to everything that's out there. if somebody comes along and says, oh, no, you can't get this unless you pay more, that's unreasonable. and should be banned if somebody says to a consent provider you can't get on unless you pay more, that's unreasonable and would not be permitted. >> okay, well, other than public safety, i believe paid prioritization should be banned. i think another concern here is a last mile equivalent we are seeing and hearing. the fact that th

i just want to say that i'm of paidto any form prioritization. paid prioritization divides the internet into the haves and the notes and will en trench the big companies at the expense of startups. is that you'veg asked comment on a multifactor determining whether, determining when paid prioritization is permissible be prohibited.ld my concern is that this will create a lot am big you'dity and a lot of litigation. i believe bright lines would be market and for the for innovation. so i'm going to ask you to a presumption against all paid prioritization as you rules.nal will you agree to consider this option? >> absolutely. have asked in the nprm whether 'and if so how do you accomplish it. is a debate that is in the nprm right now, sir. that theerstanding is reason you have propose a complicated multifactor test is the court ruling. and i agree that if you're sectionto acting under 706, your options could be limited. but you are not limited to section 706. you could establish a presumption against paid prioritization under title 2. that's why it's

at the top of the list is prioritization. even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognized that some amount of traffic prioritization or differentiation must be allowed or even encouraged. voice must be prioritized over e-mail. video over plain data. prioritization is not a bad word, a necessary component of a reasonable network management. the notice is skeptical of paid prioritization and contemplates banning some or all of these arrangements out right. companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of net neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience. they have been doing it for years. in short fears that paid , prioritization will be a great -- the great service for other users, relegating them to a slow lane, have been disproven by years of history. because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. the notice suggests providers could seek a nonbinding staff guidance or prospective reviews

embracingheeler is paid prioritization. he is arguing that they are proposing that it should not necessarily be the norm. there is a base level of service. debate, whether the scope of the rules has to be a predicate before we get into whether we want to be in a certain category. it is hard to say which theory i would jump to until you decide what vision for the internet you would like to have. >> the commission has proposed questions on whether they think paid prioritization is good or not good. nprm did not advocate paid prioritization. the first part of that will necessarily inform the answer to the second part. >> a couple points on title ii. there are a lot of misconceptions. choice policy driven that the fcc has discretion to make. some advocates talk about if we , it will drive a certain result. they are classifying other lines. they will look closely at how these services are provided to the consumers. it will make a technical termination of how that fits. the supreme court affirmed it on that basis. factual particu

five years and prioritize what we do. and with that. >> he okay. so, how do we prioritize the goals within the mdc housing resolution? any ideas from the councilmembers ~? councilmember sardon? there we go. >> there we go. so, in looking over some of the goals, co-chair supanich, i'm seeing that there's different categories we can use to prioritize which ones are the most important. one of the ones that popped out initially was number 10 the city pursue development and maintenance of a single accessible and affordable housing portal. that to me touches on information access, and that is one of the biggest key issues that is preventing a lot of our community from being able to access and go forward with pursuing housing. and, so, that is probably one of the major goal to pursue and being one i believe could be pursued. other ones are disability specific. still are important as far as trying to categorize and prioritize these such as that one, pops out as being crucial. >> others? well, i have one. i -- you know, it's a bug

what prioritization arrangements specifically will be better for the internet than the no prioritization norm we have today? >> what we are trying to do in this item is to say that anything that affects that virtuous cycle the court talked about and i talked about before is not appropriate. is unlawful and that would include paid prioritization. the court told us to look at this on a case by case basis. we have asked the question in the rule making as to whether we should look at it generically and say it's all out. and we are soliciting comments on that. when i buy internet access, i am buying the full pipe. i am buying access to everything that's out there. if somebody comes along and says, oh, no, you can't get this unless you pay more, that's unreasonable. and should be banned if somebody says to a consent provider you can't get on unless you pay more, that's unreasonable and would not be permitted. >> okay, well, other than public safety, i believe paid prioritization should be banned. i think another concern here is a last mile equivalent we are seeing and hearing. the fact that th

let's talk about prioritization they will be scored it's in our packet the vulnerable tool. this is a tested tool that's promoted by one hundred expert and san francisco will conduct a register week it will be scheduled at the end of june and it will be social workers and other experts on homeless veterans and volunteers taking to the streets where the veteran congregate and scoring them on the tool and coming up with a range of list >> when when is this going to start. >> late july or early august this is speed originated process. >> great. >> that work will gone and our vulnerable vets where they are and the most vulnerable will be prioritized for all our properties this talks about the opportunity to house the veterans on kearny that will be one hundred and 6 new are supportive beds for homeless vets those will be filed with our most vulnerable veterans who live on the streets and in shelters so that's fantastic. the continuum of adults will not be focused on one property there this will be in the portfolios there will be 8 in a month and when a new property opens obvious

embracingheeler is paid prioritization. he is arguing that they are proposing that it should not necessarily be the norm. there is a base level of service. debate, whether the scope of the rules has to be a predicate before we get into whether we want to be in a certain category. it is hard to say which theory i would jump to until you decide what vision for the internet you would like to have. >> the commission has proposed questions on whether they think paid prioritization is good or not good. nprm did not advocate paid prioritization. the first part of that will necessarily inform the answer to the second part. >> a couple points on title ii. there are a lot of misconceptions. choice policy driven that the fcc has discretion to make. some advocates talk about if we , it will drive a certain result. they are classifying other lines. they will look closely at how these services are provided to the consumers. it will make a technical termination of how that fits. the supreme court affirmed it on that basis. factual particu

>> i have to prioritize where i think it's important.elieve it's important that we add resources to the southwest border, which is why we asked for -- >> why didn't -- did you ask for less -- >> surveillance resources. >> you asked for less beds. why less beds? >> because my budget realities, we must prioritize. >> mr. chairman, with all due respect, a nonsensical answer. it's circular. you're asking for less resources but saving you had more resources you would do your job better and you're asking for less. that doesn't add. mr. chairman. >> may i be allowed to answer? >> the secretary definitely can answer the question. >> thank you. we make a budget submission every year. we're given a top line to work with. we're given a budget reality to work with. and we have to make hard choices, and in my view, in my judgment, the priorities must be border security, without a doubt, particularly southwest border and some of the challenges we face there we asked for additional surveillance technology there we have to deal with cyber security and c

at the top of the list is prioritization. even ardent supporters of net neutrality recognized that some amount of traffic prioritization or differentiation must be allowed or even encouraged. voice must the prioritized over e-mails, video over data,. prioritization is not a bad word, a necessary component of a reasonable network management. the nose is skeptical of -- the notice is skeptical of paid participation. companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of net neutrality, or teeny pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience. they have been doing it for years. fears that paid prioritization will a great service for other users, relegating them to slow link them have been this disproven. because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. the notice just providers could seek a binding staff guidance or prospective reviews of their practices. but that is very troubling when legitimate committees are put into the po

voice must be prioritized over e-mail. video over plain data. prioritization is a economies come opponent of reasonable network management. the notice of paid prioritization and contemplating banning some or all of these arrangements outright. the companies that do business of the internet, including some of the strongest supporters of net neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience for their consumers. they've been doing it for years. in short, fears that paid prioritization will automatically degrade service for other users, revel gait thing tome so-called slow lanes, have been disproven by years of history. because there's no evidence of actual harm that could help inform the proposed rules they nor na e tailored but vague and unclear. they suggest seeking -- but that is trouble egg when legitimate companies are put in the position of having to ask the government for its very blessing every time they need to make a business decision in order to avoid costly enforcement or litigation. and even mor

that whens the data we prioritize that, productivity goes up, creativity goes up. one baby step is 30 minutes more sleep a night. sleep is a wonder drug. we used to dismiss it as something unnecessary or something we will do when we are dead as we used to say. our health and proves, mental clarity improves, creativity improves. if you don't sleep, you will get sick. they say, i don't remember the last time i was not tired. motherd be a single having two jobs and two children. put on your own oxygen mask first. you will be able to be a better mother and overcome the obstacles. and not get discouraged. i wanted to ask you about whether or not -- is there a particular message you want women to take? is the time for the third women's revolution. vote,ird -- the first was the second was access to every job at the top of the field and it is incomplete. and we need the third which is to say that we don't just want to be at the top of the world, we want to change the world. it is not working for women, men, or for any of us. still have 50 million people living in poverty.

it does not prioritize. it simply gives an additional role and augments the military's use of their equipment, particularly the i.s.r. equipment, to focus pecifically, but only on the poaching issue. it is very clear from studies that have been done by conservation organizations through ask that this is a -- throughout africa that this is extreme. we ought not to ignore that. i would ask for a positive vote on this matter, in that it does detour in any way from what the gentleman from texas says the military is already doing, but adds to it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski. mrs. walorski: i thank the gentleman from texas. i rise to oppose the amendment. while i appreciate the intention, we have immense security challenges in africa. defense has been cut over a trillion dollars and the military is facing shortfalls in readiness. and terrorism threats are expan

if we're going to prioritize where these devices go right away and where we have our pilot skwool where all this is happening all at once, let's do it there. let's do it at the schools where communities who don't have access to this sort of technology and really are going to benefit tremendously from it, we fulfill our promise to them and prioritize those schools first and make it clear that that's -- that this technology and the future of our district is also in line with our values around equity as a school system. thank you so much for this and for everyone and i'm really excited to see what happens. thank you. >> any other comments? no, seeing none. my only question is when we start to purchase a lot of these devices and projectors and those kind of things, is about the security. i know some schools struggle with having to buy cases for i pads, so just about security and make sure we get a count of what is actually sfusd property as far as devices, because to be quite frank with you, i've been a pta president at many schools and ptas have bought much equipment for the schools and th

in july we'll be checking in with the partners to prioritize accountability long terms recommendations and come back proposing to come back to the board in may 2015 with the results of the impact from our first year intervention and we'll be excited to return in september at a hearing to give an update in terms of the progress. in other words we have outlined a few recommendations there be procedure from the mayor's office of housing of community development and the arts commission the project oversight will be a joint committee including mo h is arts commission and grants for the arts and department of public health and the human services and the department of the office of economic workforce development and the request will be for a 3 year period 2014 through 2017 they'll be in good financial standing what we work with the nonprofit with those in social services and must have a strong nonprofit sector for the arts intermediatey and they must have expertise in the original real estate and they must have experience working with small organizations understanding the support and pifrpdz

the school district should spend it in the schools, in the classrooms, prioritize what we do, pay the educators, pay the teachers. thank you. [applause] >> good evening, my name is darcy, i'm a first grade teacher at share dan elementary school. i'm trained and constantly urged to meet the needs of my students and i try to do that everyday. takes about 12 hours a day to do it. i may be naive and foolish, but i look to you, the district, and expect that you will also take care of me, the para professionals at my site and the other educators there. today i had some of that faith and you shattered. you know how much money the employees have given back to this district to keep it going when times were bad. you know how much money will be coming to you because we all work for proposition 30. you heard today how much more money will come to the schools because the economy has been good and your negotiators with you authority offered me a 2 percent raise. and you think this is the promised taking care of our employees that we keep hearing about from the superintendent and the school board. i

prioritizing some traffic by forcing the rest of the traffic onto a congested lane won't be permitted under any proposed open and travel. we will not allow some companies to force internet users into a slow lane so that others with special privileges have superior service. consumers have rightfully come to expect quality access to all points on the internet.

embassy should be prioritized and expedited.congress could be helpful and accelerating the full engagement of international fight can -- financial institutions. the u.s. has stated that the prevention of mass keys constitutes a core moral and national security priorities. if the u.s. takes its commitments seriously, now is the moment to secure long-term support. it cannot be understood simply in the face of ongoing atrocities against civilians, it must be seen as investing in infrastructure to mitigate them long before they start. there is a long road ahead of recovery. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to any questions. >> thank you very much for your testimony and your work. >> chairman smith, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify at this critical moment for the central african republic. i have been working as a field researcher and have traveled over the country for the past two years. i've been looking at the drivers of the violence, and the prospects for sustaina

but being a patriot doesn't mean prioritizing service to government above all else. being a patriot means knowing when to protect your country, knowing when to protect your constitution, knowing when to protect your countrymen from the violations of and encroachments of adversaries and those adversaries don't have to be foreign countries. they can be bad policies. they can be officials who, you know, need a little bit more accountability. they can be mistakes of government and simple overreach and things that should never have been tried or that went wrong.

. >> the definition of a security state is any nation that prioritizes security over all other considerations. i don't believe the united states is or ever should be a security state. ife want to be free we can't become subject to surveillance. we can't give away our privacy. we can't give away our rights. we have to be an active party. we have to be an active part of our government. and we have to say there are some things worth dying for. i think the country is one of them.

lastly we encourage the school district to expand and prioritize already existing programs and critique -- curriculum that engage youth and include students. thank you. next is priority no. 5. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is michelle lee and i'm with this years youth employment and immigration committee. our goals this year to increase employment opportunities for undocumented youth. they face employment, scholarships and loan and other state and federal services. as a result of federal requirements. the san francisco public sector has not hired undocumented youth who would otherwise be eligible. the youth population has been identified as a need of the community, various forms or various sum it's. in response to this the 2013 summer jobs program, funding by dcyf and united way provided programs for undocumented youth through a series of stipends. while successful, it only employed 44 students which is only 4.8 percent of this population. with this we are asking the board to take action to allow undocumented youth to participate in sf summer jobs plus public youth programs by

page prioritization can harm consumers but it also can benefit substantially consumers. going to a strong title ii model where foreclosing the possibly of certain business plans that could benefit consumers and spit it can ask you to clarify? matt made it very well what title ii was but that seems to be a lot in the press, a lot of conversation title ii is common carriage. it's been around for 80 years and over that time common carriage in telecommunications has a lot of things attached to it like over the years layers and layers and layers of regulation. sometimes be with her we're going back 80 years rather than innovating. what do they mean by that and why is that not a problem? quickly and then maybe markham can say that's not a problem. >> the basic question with title ii is we don't know what will happen. title ii has a lot of provisions that would by virtue of reclassification automatically apply to the internet ecosystem and the fcc would be to go the process of weeding most of them. they would be -- >> forbearance. >> it would be to go through forbearance proces

network i want to thank a couple folks and their staff wore working in the community to permitting prioritize two prop fund. as a reminder for the people prop w a funds are on the registration that the voter approved and finally speaking of transportation ability i want to thank john hayley and his staff who generously spent the afternoon to provide a tour of the transit district we >> offhand how they face the service each day among the crowded sfalts. we were struck by the investment of the katrero yard this houses our trolley cars. at the green yard their producing parts that are no longer available and they climb into pits to work on the under carnival. what was really impressive how much the muni staff are putting together resources to fix what should be minor problems if we had the up-to-date material. fortunately, we've been helping to address those needs and toured the metro east that's a more than facility that will oscillate the burdens of the yard and it will add storage for our to 60 foot couples and finally your central replacement fund will help with the fund to provide the tran

let's talk about prioritization they will be scored it's in our packet the vulnerable tool. this is a tested tool that's promoted by one hundred expert and san francisco will conduct a register week it will be scheduled at the end of june and it will be social workers and other experts on homeless veterans and volunteers taking to the streets where the veteran congregate and scoring them on the tool and coming up with a range of list >> when when is this going to start. >> late july or early august this is speed originated process. >> great. >> that work will gone and our vulnerable vets where they are and the most vulnerable will be prioritiz