the fcc didn't need to fix it. our party line vote overturned a 20-year bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. with the decision the fcc voted to give itself the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. the decision will hurt consumers by increasing broad band bills and reducing competition. the order was not the result of a transparent rule making process. the fcc has already lost in court twice and its latest order has glaring legal flaws that are sure to keep fcc mired in litigation for a long time. turning to the designated entity program. the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what once was a well-intentioned program designed to help small businesses has become a play pen for corporate giants. the recent aws 3 auction is a shocking case in point. dish which has annual revenues of $14 billion and a market cap of $34 billion holds 85% equity stake in two kaechs claiming $3.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies. that makes a mockery of the small business pr

the fcc's own preferences clear. the order argues that taxing broadband could potentially spread the base of contributions and could add to the stability of the universal services. for those not familiar with the beltway lingo, let me translate. capping broadband would make it easier to spend more of your money with minimal public oversight. we have seen this gameplay before during reform of the earache program, the fcc secretly told lobbyists that they would raise taxes after the election to pay for promises it was making. sure enough in december 2014, the agency did just that. it increased earache spending and with a telephone taxes by $1.5 billion per year. public reports indicate that the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream to spend more of consumers hard-earned dollars. so, when it comes to broadband reid my lips, more new taxes are coming. it's just a matter of when. second effect on consumers, slower broadband. these internet regulations will work in terms of broadband speeds. the record

the fcc didn't need to fix it. our party line vote overturned a 20-year bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. with the title 2 decision, the fcc voted to give itself the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. the fcc's decision will hurt consumers by increasing their broadband bills and reducing competition. and the title 2 order was not the result of a transparent rule making process. the fcc has already lost in court twice, and its latest order has glaring legal flaws that are sure to keep the fcc mired in litigation for a long time. turning to the designated entity program, the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what once was a well intentioned program designed to help small businesses has become a playpen for corporate giants. the recent aws-3 auction is a shocking case in point. dish, which has annual revenues of $14 billion and a market cap of over $34 billion, holds an 85% equity stake in two companies that are now claiming $3.3 billion in ta

the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what was once a well intentioned program designed to help small businesses has become a play pen for corporate giants. the recent us-3 auction is a shocking case in point. dish, which has annual revenues of $14 billion and a market cap of over $34 billion, holds an 85% equity stake in two company s s. that makes a mochrie of the small business braham.program. the $3.3 billion at stake is real money. it could be used to underwright pell grants, fund school lunches. incentivize the hiring of 138,000 veterans for a decade. the abuse had an enormous impact on small businesses from nebraska to vermont. it denied them licenses they would have used to provide consumers a competitive alternative. the fcc should quickly adopt these changes. the fcc is at its best when it acts in a bipartisan manner. during my service under chairman janikowski 80% of the issues were unanimous. since november of 2013 only 50% of votes at fcc meetings have been unanimous. this level of discord is unprecedented. in

the fcc used to have more independence than it has today. it is really i don't think helpful for the internet. there was a much better way that would have given protection for consumers and legal certainty for investors and it is called legislating. >> host: what kinds of protections do consumers meadneed? >> you want it make sure they are not advantageing themselves and engaging in things that are concerning to consumers. there have been examples of individual problems over the last decade that have been generally worked out and the system continued on. but we have legislation that would take the 2010 open internet order that gives consumers the protections that many seek and we could make that all legal, lawful and do it tomorrow. >> host: joining the conversation with the chairman on net neutrality is lynn stanton senior of tell communication reports >> you said you thought once it was passed there might be more opportunity or room for democrats to work with you on the legislation you mentioned that you introduced. i know it is early but h

congressman walden, give us your take on what the fcc does? >> guest: unfortunate, disappointing a big win for the communications bar because this thing will be litigated for years to come. and unnecessary i think for a lot of reasons. i think they went way too far. it's unfortunate the fcc used to have much more independence than it clearly has today. is what i don't think helpful for the internet. i think there's a much better way that would've would have given protection for consumers, legal certainty for investors and it's called legislating which is our job and we should do it. >> host: what kind of protections to consumers need? >> guest: i think first of all you want to make sure those were providing the service are not advantage and themselves over a competitor, but they're not blocking or throttling or engaging paid approach is a sure some of these other things that are of concern, advisor to consumers. nobody has proved a market failure. there have been examples over the last decade of individual problems. they have been worked out an

the fcc didn't need to fix it. but our party line vote overturned a 20-year bipartisan consensus for a free and open internet. with the title 2 decision the fcc today to give itself the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. it will hurt consumers by increasing their broadband bills and reducing competition. the title 2 order was not the result of a transparent rule-making process. the fcc has alr

the fcc did not need to fix it. our party line vote overturned a 20 year bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. with the title to decision the fcc voted to give its of the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the networks. the decision wire consumers. the title ii order was not the result of a transparent roaming process. the fcc has already lost in court twice and its later -- there are glaring legal flaws. turning to the designated entity program the fcc must take immediate action to end its abuse. what was once a well-intentioned program has become a playpen for corporate giants. the giants. the recent aws three auction is a shocking case in. dish with annual revenues of 14 billion in a market over 34 billion holds an 85% equity stake into companies now claiming $3.3 billion in taxpayer subsidies. that that makes a mockery of the small business program. it is real money. it could be used on the right of the 580,000 pell grants for school lunches for over 6 million schoolchildren f

all of these things now go through the fcc as gatekeeper. third, consumers are going to suffer as a result of the second-guessing the fcc will do through the internet conduct standard. we don't really know where this is going to go. the fcc is going to sit there as a referee to throw the flag. the problem is nobody even knows what the games is or what the rules are. i think when the fcc specifically tees up pro-consumer things like t-mobile's music freedom which allows the free streaming of music content to your smartphone and says that may be an internet violation. ironically enough, some of the competitive upstarts will want to challenge the big boys will have to say, whoa, before we offer this, let's make sure we get an advisory opinion from the fcc as to the enforcement bureau. not the full commission but the enforcement bureau to make sure this is kosher. as a result of all of this, instead of the internet working to the benefit of consumers, it is going to be lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians who decide what kind of digital opportuni

not just the fcc. d so far be it from me to get specific and say you ought to change section twob -- 2b, but i see my job as trying to adhere to the statute and the rules that have been put in place to deliver on those concepts. representative chaffetz: i think the gentleman. as i recognize mr. walker here i want to respond to what you just said and highlight, again, under the rules, you did have the discretion to make it public. and you elected not to. i think what congress should consider is compelling you to make that open and transparent rather than just simply making it discretionary. i now recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. walker. representative walker: thank you, mr. chairman. being a relatively new member in congress, i am learning new things every day. i had already known that al gore had invented the internet, but today i found out, according to ms. maloney, that the president has saved the internet. do you think that is a statement that is fair? do you think his and bowman has

all of these things now go through the fcc as gatekeeper. third, consumers are going to suffer as a result of the second-guessing the fcc will do through the internet conduct standard. we don't really know where this is going to go. the fcc is going to sit there as a referee to throw the flag. the problem is nobody even knows what the games is or what the rules are. i think when the fcc specifically tees up pro-consumer things like t-mobile's music freedom which allows the free streaming of music content to your smartphone and says that may be an internet violation. ironically enough, some of the competitive upstarts will want to challenge the big boys will have to say, whoa, before we offer this, let's make sure we get an advisory opinion from the fcc as to the enforcement bureau. not the full commission but the enforcement bureau to make sure this is kosher. as a result of all of this, instead of the internet working to the benefit of consumers, it is going to be lawyers, bureaucrats and politicians who decide what kind of digital opportuni

i think the fcc team .in may 2014 a different proposal from the one ultimately adopted. it was based on section 706 and never mentioned the public switched network or the extent of forbearance or what sessions would be. never mentioned a host of other things and the problem is one state that this plan and voted on february 6 a lot of the things there is no record to support them. there is no effort on the basis to support a finding to grant forbearance on a lot of these things and that is part of the reason why they completely recast the analysis that were drawn to that of these previous presidents in order to find forbearance and they are going to substantial legal problems with this. >> you said they would not regulate them on broadband. would you agree that regulating broadband is consistent with your views? >> i said consistently we are not trying to regulate the rates and that if congress wants to do something in that regard that as the congress authority. >> so you are not interested but what about the commissioner, do you believe that under title to the give the a

i think this isn't just the fcc. this is the executive branch agencies creating laws by regulation behind closed doors. you are defending doing it and i personally have a problem. the more we have on that, the better off a we are. something from a nonconstituent, then a form letter. then one of the things you clip. is there a break down you would share with us of the public comment and how they fall within some sort of similar hierarchy. >> i know exactly what you mean congressman. i get all kinds of notes that are -- that range -- >> i'm running out of time. can you provide -- >> i will try. i don't know if we can with break out 4 million comments. >> if it's done it's done. whatever information you can get to me. what y'all have done and i think we'll cover more of this in a judiciary committee hearing. i have two questions that are burning on me. one is as you move internet service from an information service to a telecommunications service under title ii are we opening the door to applying universal service fund t

host: is this an expansion of the fcc's traditional role? mignon: we have been in the broadband business for a while. i don't know if you know that. one of the parts of the universal service program is designed to help connect rural health care facilities. it is not new. it is evolving as we evolve. brendan: all these programs -- they are funded through fees on phone bills. so people are paying into this. is it possible to expand the lifeline program, without increasing the fees on phone bills? host:mignon: if we gain efficiencies in terms of layering the certification on existing programs demanding more from consumers, as well as from providers, i am hopeful that we will take efficiencies as we go along and except efficiencies along the program hopefully we make this more inviting, it will be more competitive. other providers will offer new and novel services. what i am hoping is through reforms, we will create a more competitive landscape that will realize the efficiencies and attract or attempt others to get into other types of partnership

and high rates were charged at various facilities to make phone calls and for the first time the fcc contemplated regulation of enter state rates they announced in july an intent to raise the rates but not the direction to at that time we paused our rfp process to make sure our rfp was responsible responsive to federal regulation in october of 2014 the fcc indicated through lob a ceiling at $0.21 for prepaid and 20 important collect calls they'll lloyd like to eliminate the surcharge fees the intent behind this to lower the fees to the inmates can have a lower amount and reduce the recidivism so in that 3 month enter eloquently process that was on hold we issued in december and our rfp district attorney meet the requirements of fcc in light intervening period the sheriff's went to washington, d.c. to mediate meet with the commissioners and talk about his position regarding inmate calling rates as you recall we drastically increased the call rates and reduce the inmate calling rates by 20 percent under the sheriff's discretion kind of opened by the indication of the fcc they were will

told the fcc to privatize certain aspects of the satellite market. we privatize it, the losses you have to report to us every single year. nonetheless every year like clockwork we get this report. a lot of staffers have to handle it. this kind of common sense streamlining proposal does not know any partisan advantage. this is something that passed the past the house i believe unanimously. i hope that congress passes a and the president signs it there are a number of other process forms and we can do as well. getting more to the logistics, i think there has to be an openness to accommodating minority commissioners to have well-founded substantive views that do not alter the core of the preferred proposal. the example i consistently give is even the rate. very up front but the plan i had to modernize the systems i understand the chairman did not like that plan, but working within his framework i said, look, here are number of different changes. i'm not crazy, but i be willing to adopt them. at the 11th hour i was told literally the tuesday before the v

it's also an issue frankly with the other part that the fcc is trying to do. president obama went to cedar falls which happens to be my market in the great state of iowa. he went to monopoly to talk about that i'm a monopoly. the cedar falls is a utility put in place before i got into the state of iowa. they have a monopoly with electric and gas and they use that monopoly status basically to compete with other markets. so he is the greatest entity in the state of iowa because they are a utility complete -- competing with rocco. rocco has 50 employees in rocco has got 1600 employees and none of my employees who voted for the present were mentioned. how unfair is that? to have to pick and choose which side frankly he's -- too and i can tell you that my people were absolutely upset. the work we have done and we have covered 300 different communities in the state of iowa and iowa is my biggest state. nothing was mentioned about the work that they are doing. just go you mentioned the bundle is a problem. wheeler has said that he is redefining in bdp to include ot se

host: what should the fcc have done instead? mr. commisso: we have been a very, very strong proponent of -- what's been in place that last 15 years under bush and under clinton and in the first six years of the obama administration is a net neutrality order we have abided to. no slow lanes. it's done it's job. because frankly, when i started my company in 1995 google was not around. none of thseese companies were around. and they succeeded. the largest for companies in the internet space just to give you an numbe. r. as we speak thaty got $250 billion other b -- on their balance sheet. how is it possible if this thing has been so bad they able to accumulate $280 billion on their balance sheet? they have debt. something has not been sent to the consumer and to the public the way it should have been said with facts and true fullness frankly, on a major issue like this which is re-regulating the entire internet under a scheme that plays back in 1934 when we only had one phone company in this country. reporter: some have said that paid p

the fcc does not have the tools to do its job. but this doesn't mean the agency should distort or ignore the current law or worse threaten to manufacture authority out of whole cloth, should regulated industries voohave the timerity to resist the commission's demands. it is not clear to me that the objections to our legislation are based on policy. but if we could work together on fixing the net neutrality situation i think we could chalk up a victory for all of us and all of the american consumers around the american economy. it starts today trying to fix the agency ourself. it is our job to do our due diligence and reauthorize this agency for the first time since 1995. i thank our commissioners and chairman wheeler for their attendance today and i look forward to our productive session ahead. i would yield the remaining 30 seconds to the vice chair. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate you for yielding holding today's hearing. i thank the commissioners for being here. the success and productivity of the communications and te

november 9 at the fcc. does that sound accurate? rep. chaffetz:--chair wheeler: if that is the list we provided. rep. chaffetz: you only provided an ex parte a one of those four meetings. why was that? chair wheeler: the rules are quite clear on what constitutes an ex parte. that is an attempt to file specifically in a specific docket and to influence the outcome of that. rep. chaffetz: did you discuss this? did you discuss this matter is -- did you discuss this matter during those meetings? chair wheeler: and there are provisions long-established going back to the bush administration. rep. chaffetz: sir, i have five minutes. chair wheeler: you are asking about ex parte. there is no requirement or need for an ex parte a file. rep. chaffetz: i don't understand. you met with them. are you telling me this proposed rule did not come up in any of those meetings but one? chair wheeler: i can't recall the details of those meetings. i can't assure you that there were no -- nothing that would trigger the next partake. -- ex partake. -- expertise.

the fcc is at its best with the bipartisan collaborative manner. during my service with the chairwoman e. 9% of the votes on the meeting items were the agency vote on the most high-profile significant matters affecting the country were unanimous. since november 2013, however 50% of the votes at the meetings have been unanimous. this level of discord is unprecedented. indeed there've been 40% more partyline votes at the fcc in the last 17 months been under the entire then under the entire chairmanship of chairman martin, jankowski and clyburn. i'm also concerned about long-standing procedures and norms that are being abused to freeze out commissioners. for example it's customary for the bureau is planning to issues and to get orders on the delegated authority to provide the items to the commissioners 40 hours prior to the release. back then if the commissioner asked for the order to be brought up for the vote that request from the single commissioner would be honored. the leadership has refused on the items that have made such a request. given this

the fcc's track in responding to requests is weak at best. at the outset the fcc denies more than 40% of all foi requests and the documents do contain redactions including some that blackout entire pages of text. this committee has received 1600 pages of unredacted paperworks through foi requests through various organizations including vice.com. today we'll compare the communications to understand what legal justification mr. wheeler's agency used to prevent this information from becoming public n. addition we'll examine the series of events resulting in the highly controversial vote to use title 2 to regulate internet like a public utility. in may of 2014 the fccirued a notice a proposed rule making for internet making that indicated broadband and mobile uses classified by title one and this demonstrates that this was the chairman 's intent during the time period. in october 2014 and after the fcc public comment period ended, media reports that chairman wheel erin tended to finalize a hybrid approach to that -- that continued to title broadba

the fcc must ensure the telecommunications and media markets are competitive and the fcc must maintain the vitality of our public safety communications and that is why look forward to hearing how the fcc can continue to serve an important role in the broadband age and thank you for coming here today and thank you for your public service. may i just asked, i know because i yield the time to you mr. chairman i wanted to yield a minute of my time to mr. lujan but i don't have it now. i could ask unanimous consent. >> without objection. >> thank you ranking member pallone pallone and let me second the comments about the need for us to work together. the policy has a long history being made on a bipartisan basis and i would hate to see the polarization to find so many of our policy debates dominate our efforts on the subcommittee. before us are real challenges. have 77% of mexicans living rural areas. as i have shared with chairman chairman wheeler up we can have internet access at 30000 feet on an airplane we should build up internet access across rural america including new mexico. i'm in

the fcc made the right decision. the agency of expertise when we created the third, fourth fifth, sixth seventh ceremony license the reason we will to do it is the first two twos companies had monopolies charging 50 cents a minute and the phone was the size of a brick. people have two devices in their pocket. but the fcc made the right decision to advance competition. that's what this is all about. the cable industry did not want at&t and the telephone companies to get into cable. they wanted a monopoly. at&t did not want the cable industry to be able to provide telephone service. they all fought. these are big players here. big players. i understand it. big players. don't want little people coming in. ruining this nice little world that they have going. and even the decision you just made on municipal broad bands, justiest just saying to individual communities across the country you can't provide provide competition. and that's a 3-2 decision here. 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, i understand. i understand the commissioners who vote

>> next is a series of changes at the fcc that requires the judicial body. we have an item vote on the item and when that happens, we have the opportunity to weigh in even after the fact. meaning there were two defenses as you know. we will respond to these and real soon the public will be able to see the finish producted. >> host: did you have any issues about voting for it? >> in 2010 i was pro-title two. i thought it gave us the best framework to fuel the innovation and opportunities we enjoy today. so i had no reservations in moving in this direction because i felt it was the least sustainable framework in which we need to have a certainty and can acustomed to. >> technology reporter for "the national journal" is joining us here. >> commissioner, i understand you pushed for some changes that got incorporated into the order and some didn't. can you talk about the changes you wanted and if you have cis appointed you didn't get combining everything you asked for. >> one thing you learn at a certain age is crow don't get everything you want. i was concerned

is it time to reauthorize the fcc? >> that's a decision that you make, that congress has made the decision not to thus far. if you want to change that decision, you're the congress, you make the rules. >> i agree, that's up to congress. but i also agree it's always good to review federal agencies and practices. >> yes. >> it's congress' decision, but i agree it's time to move forward with something. >> mr. chairman, can i say? 25 years is a long time. >> yeah. your hair was a different color back then. and very quickly, one reform that you would recommend that we make, or a top reform, as you think about fcc reauthorization? anything come to mind? >> i put a number on the table already and talked about it in my statement. but one i haven't talked about, that i think there's a need to have an accountability of our enforcement procedures. we issue a number of n.e.l.s and judgments in that case but there's no tracking what's happening to the money. are we actually getting the money that we're assigning penalties for. i thi

the fcc never propose title ii. hrough the course of the summers it was widely reported that section 706 was the only proposal. it was later reported that some sort of hybrid proposal was the only proposal. only after the pres.'s announcement's announcement on november 10 the title ii was my plan and i am asking the fcc to implement it did they suddenly change course. >> what would need to have been done for the proposal to actually have been made? >> i always i always say and said this before the president made his announcement my view was whatever the new proposal was, the american was, the american people should be allowed to see and comment on it. that would avoid the pickle that the agency is now in where he will have to litigate whether or not there was sufficient notice but they're simply was not in this case. you saw a lot of speculation in the press. what is and it? what is not in it? what changes are made? what does it mean that broadband subscriber service affect interaction? no one knew how to comment on

what the fcc's new rules mean for the future of the world wide web. welcome to the journal editorial report. i'm paul. tensions between the obama administration and benjamin netanyahu escalated this weekdays before the israeli prime minister's plan to address congress. can national security adviser susan rice calling his visit destructive to the fab lick of the relationship between israel and the u.s. speaking outside jerusalem wednesday, netanyahu said it appeared the west had given up on its commitment to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. john kerry dismissed this on capitol hill while question is the prime minister's ability to make sound judgment. >> the prime minister, as you recall, was profoundly forward leaning and outspoken about the importance of invading iraq under george w. bush. and we all know what happened with that decision. he may have a judgment that just may not be correct here. >> joining the panel this week, wall street journal columnist and deputy editor and global view columnist brett stephens. so dan let's start with

the fcc does not have the tools to do its job. this doesn't mean that the agency should distort or i iing current laws or threaten authority out the cloth should regulated independent stories have the resistance of the commission's demand. instead working with congress. we have offered away forward on net neutrality that is certain and less costly for the society and not clear to me that the objectiones to the legislation are based on policy. if we could work together on fixing the net neutrality situation we will be able to chalk up a victory for all of us and consumers and the american economy. it will started to with trying to if i can the agency itself it is our job to do due dill against and reauthorize the agency for the first time since 1995. i thank our commissioners and chairman wheeler inform attendance today and look forward to the productive session ahead. and device chair. thank you mr. chair man. i appreciate you for yielding and holding the day's hearing and i thank the commissioners for being here this is the succe

judicial precedent makes clear that the fcc simply does not have the power to do this. in taking this step, the fcc usurps fundamental aspects of stave sovereignty and it disrupts the balance of power between the federal government and state government that lies at the core of our constitution al system of governments. whatever the merits of any particular municipal broadband project, and to be clear, on this question, i take no position deferring to affected voters and elected officials i do not believe this agency has the legal power to preempt. i, therefore, dissent. let's begin with the one key point that today's order does not dispute. the fcc cannot preempt state law that flat-out prohibits municipalities from offering broadband service. why? the answer begins with constitutional law 101. our constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty between the states and the federal government. they are separate sovereigns. the distribution of sovereignty known as federalism is the defining feature of the relationship between the federal and state governments. howeve

is it time to reauthorize the fcc? >> that's a decision that you make, that congress has made the decision not to thus far. if you want to change that decision, you're the congress. you make the rules. >> i agree. that's up to congress, but i also agree it's always good to review federal agencies and practices. >> yes. >> it's congress's decision. i do agree it's time to move forward with something. >> i yield to the expert body. >> chairman, can i say 25 years is a long time. >> yeah. >> i'm agreeing with you. >> your hair was a different color back then. [ laughter ] >> and very quickly, one reform that you would recommend that we make or a top reform as you think about fcc reauthorization any come to mind. >> i put a number on the table already. and talked about it in my statement. one that i haven't talked about i think there's a need to have an accountability of our enforcement procedures. issue a number of nels and judgments in that case but there's no actual tracking of what happens to the money. are we actually

the fcc adopted the rule change on february 26th in a 3-2 vote.ernet rule making process leaves us with a lot of questions. this is a fact finding hearing. the committee remains committed -- this committee remains committed to ensuring full transparency across government. i look forward to hearing more from chairman wheeler today. with that i will now recognize the ranking member from maryland, mr. cummings for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. we are here today to discuss net neutrality, the rule, that was adopted last month by the fcc. there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue, no doubt about it. on one hand, internet service providers, including comcast, at&t verizon and time warner oppose the rule and lobbied against it. they argued that additional regulation would increase fees, reduce investments, slow network upgrades, and reduce competition and innovation. on the other hand, supporters of this new rule contend that isps should not be allowed to discrimination based on content. they believe isps should be requir

." >> president obama accused of using strong arm tactics to get the fcc to tart regularity internet providers. will that do for the internet what obamacare has done for healthcare? rich who by the way is joining us with a hawaiian shirt because he had a bad bike accident. what do you think about these new regulations on the internet? >> they're profounding unamerican. if you applied the same logic that the fcc has applied to the internet you would not have box seats at baseball stadiums, you would not have first class travel in the airline business, you would not have any discriminatory pricing, everybody would be treated the same. this is much worse actually than it appeared. >> so bruce is the consumer going to get the short end of the stick. >>. >> i don't think because i think we're going to regulate the internet like a public good and we're doing that by not having told on the information super highway i think that this will in the long-term be good for consumers. >> if it's so good i wonder why the whole process has been so secretive. the way in it which this has been rolled ou

the official fcc blog contains a post from the general counsel entitled "process of governance, the fcc, and the internet order" and i asked to enter that post into this hearing record at this time. rep. chaffetz: without objections, thank you. rep. plaskett: thank you, and they seek "to create an enforceable rule that opens public input and is able to withstand judicial review." is that an accurate statement that that is the goal of the fcc in its rulemaking? chair wheeler: yes, ma'am. rep. plaskett: and the fcc reviewed rules in light of the public record, and -- the fcc reviewed rules in light of the public record. because of the volume and interest in this. when was that done? chair wheeler: the traditional way that we do it is the comment period closes and you have an opportunity to review those comments, and then you can look at those comments and review those. rep. plaskett: can you remember what time that was closed, the review process? chair wheeler: i don't, but i can get that for you. rep. plaskett: and then there was the internal review and deliberation again, is that correc

presidents always communicate their opinions to the fcc. that's nothing new. we are the expert agency. we are the agency that has to take the concept that says i'm for an open internet, and say what is the best way to implement that based on the record. and that's what we did. and we produced a set of rules that are stronger and more expansive than the president even envisioned. we produced a set of rules based on our independent assessment of what the record told us. >> but he was very specific. you said you take a general statement, he came out with a number of specific things and the proposal addresses all of those specific items, title two, other things. >> and the proposal addresses a lot of things he didn't is what i'm saying. and the other part of that is, you know, maybe you've noticed, and there was a question that lynn asked, but and there has been a lot of stuff in the press about interpretations of title two, going down to the 11th hour here on how you want to put it. so that's -- this has been a plus. title two is this -- it is title two. title two

the fcc adopted the change on february 26 and a three-to vote. a the lack of transparency leaves us with a lot of questions. this is a fact-finding hearing. this committee remains committed to ensuring full transparency across government. i look forward to hearing more from chairman wheeler today. i will now recognize the ranking member from maryland. rep. cummings: we are here to discuss net neutrality. the rule adopted last month by the fcc. there are strong opinions on all sides of this issue. no doubt about it. on one hand, internet service providers, including comcast at&t, verizon, and time warner oppose the rule and lobbied against it. they argued that additional regulation would increase fees, reviews investment, slow network upgrades, and reduce competition and innovation. on the other hand supporters contend we should not be allowed to discriminate based on content. they believeisb's isb's should be allowed to act like phone companies. consumers, social media entities, and companies like facebook, netflix, and google favor open internet

the vote was 2-1 along party lines. here is fcc chairman tom wheeler. chairman wheeler: after a decade of debate and an open, robust, year-long process, we finally have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the internet stays fast, fair, and open. cory: over the next 20 minutes we will have an in-depth discussion on net neutrality and what it means for global business. we caught up with steve wozniak who attended the vote and had these comments. steve: the internet was so beautiful when it first came. even when it was dial-up. it was such an open and free expression form, and over time decisions were being made by the isp's, the gatekeepers, you might call it. do we trust them to make decisions? no, we need some kind of supervision of their bad behavior. are they likely to make deals and accept bribes? peter: you are confident that the rulemaking adapted today will in fact ensure an open and free internet? steve: i think it will be a positive step. i think the other side is also for open and free internet. the decision today goes a lot further than ne

today the majority offered a draft intended to reauthorize the fcc. n fact it is meant to squeeze an agency that's already operating at the lowest number of full-time staff in 30 years. the fcc has to have the names to fulfill its mission to protect consumers, prague competition and advance innovation. that is their mission. this includes huge issues and they are huge like freeing up the traditional spectrum promoting the deployment and enhancing the services. any attempt to overhaul the funding structure should be fully analyzed and the implications of the changes and should be fully understood. we shouldn't be horsing around. it's simply insufficient. so i find myself wondering why are we having this hearing today. i hope it isn't the next possession. the majority seems to have chosen to ignore the glaring fact. over 4 million americans did something. they did countless more in and contacted their members of congress and we don't want to pay more for less. we don't think any kind of discrimination blocking or throttling is good or fair. we are tired

which is the ability to regulate the internet. i see an fcc the rules two weeks ago and released the rules today which the statute requires you release the rules first so that congress and a the public can comment on them. i see an fcc that is profoundly against the free market. they are not trying to speed up the internet they are trying to prevent us like fox news pay internet provider to speed it up for us. >> net neutrality provides equal ache to every entrepreneur even the small guys get their ideas and new jobs and create it in our internet economy. >> the other side will tell you that it spurens investment and interrupt competition while the pro-side says that's what it is designed to could do. the politics is interesting on the conservative side. everyone is in lock step in the primary all the candidates running for 2016. it makes very exciting debate on capitol hill for conservatives who say this is one more overreach of the executive branch, trying to do more rule-making than it's permitted that they are investigating the white house

efforts by the fcc to regulate the internet has been struck down before. that should be pursued.ongress should also take an aggressive stand in response to this as well. >> the senator has already announced about hearing from the committee, are you going to hear from them? >> we held a hearing on this from the antitrust point to show that there is a better way to keep the internet opened than to have the fcc regulate it in any way, shape, or form. >> i wanted to ask you about the immigration bills that you're going to do next week. following up on that, and tying together the net neutrality issues, you are in the middle of the fight over homeland security funding and the claim of the power of the purse. new in the first instance of this he retreated from it. where is congress on the power of the purse? have you seated that power? are there any big issues from which the power of the purse can be used in the future? on net neutrality in order to , stop those rules, you are already doing it on the immigration issue. it seems like there's more than just the homeland security funding