Transcripts For CSPAN FCC Votes On Net Neutrality 20171216

In favor of a light touch framework that worked for decades prior to 2016. The declaratory ruling also reinstates the private mobile state ossification of mobile broad and Internet Access service and returns to the commissions definition of interconnected service that existed prior to 2015. The item restores the authority of the federal trade commission to enforce Consumer Protection and antitrust laws. It also clarifies the effects of the return to a recent protest reclassification of a Regulatory Framework, including the need to apply a federal rigorous touring approach to Information Services like broadband Internet Access service. Next, the report and order adopts a transparency rule that would require Internet Service providers to disclose information about their practices to consumers, punch partners, and other Small Businesses and the commission. Item returns to the transparency rule the Commission Adopted with certain improvements to promote transparency. It would also eliminate the commissioners conduct rule. Based on the record evidence, the item finds the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirements together with antitrust and consumer section laws, ensures Internet Service providers engaging in behavior in complicit with an open internet, can be held accountable. The actions taken in this item will advance the article work to broadband promote internet in rural america. Brightened the future of innovation both in network and at their edge, and move closer to the goal of eliminating the digital divide. The bureau recommends adoption of this ruling and order and requests editorial privileges extending to conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Will now turn to comments to the bench. He requested the opportunity to speak today and he was denied, that i have a copy of the statement that the congressman would have delivered had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, i would ask that you include this in an official record of the proceeding. Without objection. Thank you. This legallyfrom lightweight consumer harming destroyingnabling Internet Freedom order. Among thebecause i am millions outraged because the sec pulled its own teeth advocating responsibility to protect the nations broadband consumers. Some may ask why are we witnessing such unprecedented groundswell of public support the same Internet Service providers that the majority say you should trust to do right by you will put profit and shareholders returns above what is best for you. Whenof us raise our hands we were sworn in as fcc commissioners. We took an old and promised to uphold our duties and responsibilities to make available so far as possible to all people of the United States, without discrimination, a rapid and efficient nationwide and worldwide wire and Radio Communication service with adequate facility at reasonable charges. Is aboute sec majority to officially abandon that pledge and millions are watching and taking note. I do not believe there is any sec or congressional offices immune to the delusion of consumer delusion of consumer outcry. We are human hearing of state and local offices fielding calls. I think the number is rising. Ofe republican Members Congress went on the record in calling for a halt to todays vote. Why such a bipartisan outcry . Because a large majority of americans are in favor of keeping strong Net Neutrality rules in place. Saddest part to me about all of this, and its painful for me to say this, that this is the new norm at the sec. A norm where the majority ignores the will of the people and stand idly by while the people they are permitted to serve, they they have taken and both to serve, are about to lose so much. We have heard story after story about what Net Neutrality means to consumers and Small Businesses from places as diverse as los angeles and skid row to cincinnati and ohio. I have here letters presented to sec to plead with the keep our Net Neutrality rules in place. But what is striking in keeping with the new norm, is despite the millions of comments, letters, and calls received, this order sites not even one. That aims about the direction the current majority is heading, this fcc is heading, and that speaks volumes about just who is being heard at the fcc. Those sole proprietors, whose entire Business Models depend on an open internet are worried that the absence of clear and enforceable Net Neutrality protections will result in higher costs and fewer benefits because you see, they are not able to pay in those tolls for premium access. Large online businesses have also weighed in, expressing concerns about being subject to added charges as they simply try to reach their own customers. Engineers have submitted comments, including many of those internet pioneers. They share with the sec majority the fundamentals fcc majority of how the internet works because from what they said, there is no way that an item like this would ever see the light of day if the majority understood the platform that some of them helped to create. I have heard from innovators worried that we are standing up a mother may i regime with a broadband provider becomes the arbiter of acceptable online Business Models. And yes, i have heard from consumers who are worried given that their broadband providers have already shown that they would charge below the line fees, raise prices unexpectedly, and put consumers on hold for hours at a time. Who will have their best interest at heart in a World Without clear and enforceable rules overseeing by an agency without any Clear Authority . With that agency be a toothless fcc . There is a darker side to all of this that we have witnessed over the past few weeks. Threats and intimidation, personal attacks, not to cheering, russian influence, fake comments. These are unacceptable. Some of these actions are illegal. They are all to be rejected. Acceptable also not is the fccs refusal to cooperate with the state attorney general investigations or allow evidence in the record that would undercut that could only be described as a preordained outcome. Many have been asking me, what next . S how will all of this Net Neutrality and internet experience look after todays decision . My answer is a simple one and when the current protections are next . Abandoned and the rules have been in place since 2015 are repealed, we will have a church iron cap version of c heshire cat version of Net Neutrality. They had teeth, however you conjugate of that. Those comforting words, we have every incentive to worry. We have every incentive to do the right thing. But what they will soon have is every incentive to do their own thing. The results of throwing out Net Neutrality protections may not be felt right away. Most folks will get up tomorrow warning, you ready for work, and over the next week waited through what will be no doubt hundreds of headlines. We will grow tired of these hundreds of headlines and hearing from prognosticators and we will submerge ourselves in a sea of holiday bliss. But what we have rocked today will one day be a parent and by then, when you really wake up and see what has changed, i fear it may be too late to do anything about it because there will be no agency in power to express your concerns. This item insidiously ensures that the fcc will never able to fully grasp the harm it may have unleashed on the internet ecosystem. Leaveat inability might decisionmakers to conclude that the next internet startup that failed to flourish, that attempted to seek relief whatever authority may or may not be in charge with however left,eeth they may have simply may have had a bad is this plan, when in fact, the actual corporate would be the absence of a level Playing Field online today. Particularly damning is what todays repeal would mean for marginalized groups like committees of color that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate. Traditional outlets rarely, if ever are concerns. It was through social media, remember, that the world first heard about missouri because of those legacy outlets did not consider them worthy enough for coverage until the started trending. It had been through online video and services that targeted Entertainment Ecosystems thrived, or stories are finally eating told because of those very same programs that were weretted for consideration rejected time and time again by Mainstream Media and and it hasn outlets been to secure messaging platforms where activists have communicated and organized for Justice Without gatekeepers who may or may not have opinions. We are over the next significant where will the next significant attack on Internet Freedom come from . Making a high traffic video provider ask, what more can it pay to make that pain go away . That will never happen, you say . Newsflash, it are he has. The difference now, is the open question of what is stopping them . The difference after todays vote is that no one will be able to stop them. Maybe several providers will quietly roll out paid prioritization packages that will enable deeppocketed players to cut the queue. Maybe the vertically integrated broadband provider decides it will favor its own services or high valued internet traffic will be subject to an additional fee. Maybe some of these actions be cloaked under nondisclosure agreements and wrapped up in clauses sorbitration that it will be a breach of contract to disclose these publicly or take the provider to court if there is any wrongdoing. Say of course this will never happen. Vote, whatodays will be in place to stop any of this . What we do know is that broadband providers did not even wait for the ink to dry on a proposed order before making their moves. One broadband provider, who had in the past, honest to not engage in paid hybridization, has now quietly dropped that promise from its list of commitments on its website. What next . Blocking or throttling . That will never happen, you say . After todays vote, exactly who is the cop on the beat that can or will stop them . And just who will be impacted the most . Consumers and Small Businesses, thats who. The internet continues to and has evolved become even more critical for every participant in our 21st century ecosystems. Government services have migrated online, as have educational opportunities, job notices, and applications. But at the same time, broadband biters have continued to consolidate. They have become bigger. They own their own content. They own their own media companies. In they own or have interest other types of competing services. So why are millions of americans so alarmed . Because they understand the risks this all poses. And even those who might not exactly know what it means when somebody says title ii authority, what they know is that they will be at risk without it. I have been asking myself repeatedly, why the majority is so single focused on overturning these wild wildly popular rules. Is it because they felt the 20 15th Net Neutrality order was 700, will over dispense with more than 25 provisions was too heavyhanded . Or is this a ploy to create a need for legislation where there was none before . Or is it to establish uncertainty where little deviously existed. Undermine the to protections in 2015 that are currently part of the Supreme Court . You know, the very same rules that were resoundingly upheld by the circuit last year . No doubt, we will see a rush to the courthouse, asking the Supreme Court to vacate and demand the rules that we have fought so hard for over the past few years because today, the fcc uses legally suspect means to clear the decks of substantial protections for consumer and competitions. It is clear white we see so much bad process these items. Because the fix was already in. There is no real mention of the thousands of Net Neutrality complaints filed by consumers. Why . The majority has refused to put them in the record while maintaining the rhetoric that there have been no real complaints or no real violations. Record evidence of massive incentives and abilities of broadband providers to act in anticompetitive ways are missing from the docket. Why . Because those in charge have refused to use the data and a knowledge the agency does have an has relied on the past to inform our merger reviews. As the majority has shown time and time again, the abuse of individuals do not matter. Including the views of those who care deeply about the substance. But may not be washington insiders. There is a basic fallacy underlying the majoritys actions and rhetoric today. Bestssumptions of what is for broadband providers is obviously what is best for america. Breathless claims about an shackling Broadband Services from unnecessary regulation are only about insuring that Broadband Internet Service Providers have and maintain the keys to the internet, assertions that this is merely a return to some imaginary status quo anti, cannot hide the fact that this is the very first time that the federal Communications Commission has disavowed substantially protections for consumers online. And with the current 2015 Net Neutrality rules are laid to waste, we may be left with no Single Authority with the power to protect consumers. Now this order loudly crows about handing over authority of broadband to the federal trade commission, but what is absent from the order and glossed over in a haphazardly issued afterthought of a memorandum of understanding or at ou, is that no,fcc is an agency with nada Technical Expertise in telecommunications. The ftc is an agency that may or may not even have authority over broadband providers in the first instance. If you can reach a very high bar of proving unfair or deceptive practices and there is substantial consumer injury, it may take years upon years for and atedy to be levied most companies dont have years and years to wait for an answer. But dont just take my word for it. Even one of the fccs own commissioners has articulated these very concerns and if you are wondering why the fcc is preempting state Consumer Protection laws in this item without notice, let me help you with this simple jingle that you can easily commit to memory that will underscore all of this. If it benefits industry, preemption is good. If it benefits consumers, preemption is bad. Reclassification of broadband would do more than recapping over net eternity. It will also undermine our universal service construct for years to come, something with something the order implicitly acknowledges. It would undermine the lifeline program. It will weaken our ability to support robust broadband in for structured deployment, and what we will soon find out is what a broadband market unencumbered by a robust Consumer Protections will look like. I suspect that it will not the very pretty. I know that there are many questions on the minds of americans right now, including what the repeal of Net Neutrality will mean for them. To help understand or to answer or address any outstanding questions, i plan to host a town hall through twitter next week on tuesday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern standard time and eastern standard time. But what saddens me the most today is that the agency that is supposed to protect you if actually abandoning you. But what i am pleased to say today is a fight to save Net Neutrality does not end today. The agency does not have the final word. Thank goodness for that. Theas i close my eulogy of 2015 Net Neutrality rules, carefully crafted rules that actually struck an appropriate balance in providing tumor protections and enabling opportunities in investment, i actually take what i owe just call ironic i will just call ironic comfort in the words of commissioner pie back in 2015, because i believe is will ring true about this destroying Internet Freedom order. I am optimistic, he said, that we will look back on todays vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that has served us so well. I dont know whether this plan will be vacated by court, reversed by congress, or overturned by a future commission, but i do believe that it stays our number two. Days its days our numbered. You, i will mark you down as a no. [applause] [laughter] i will have a longer statement if believable since as debated extensively and exhaustively in the record of this proceeding. I agree with this decision and i support such a low recent and soundly justified order. But i have longstanding views on this topic. I approach this proceeding with an open mind. I met with anyone i could no matter what their particular viewpoint. In the end, im simply not persuaded that heavyhanded rules are needed to protect against hypothetical harms. In all this time, ive yet to hear recent unquestionable evidence of dim stretchable harms to consumers that demands providers be constrained by this completely flawed regulatory intervention. I still cannot endorse by imagination. It is a shame that this topic has been plagued by baseless fear mongering. Many Small Businesses have been misled into thinking they are going to be forced to pay more to continue to do business online. Others have been told that free speech and civil rights are on the line. It simply isnt true and we know that from experience. The internet has functioned without Net Neutrality rules far longer than with them. Nobody can name more than a handful of examples that occurred over the course of the entire decade prior and network readily dealt with. The legend of a Cable Company trying to break the internet may make scary bedtime stories for children of telecom geeks, but it isnt reality. For those of you out there fearful for what tomorrow may bring, lease take a deep ref. This decision will not break the internet every we are reverting back to the highly successful, bipartisan governmental approach that existed before 2015. We depart from the prior commissions approach because we determined the decision was flawed and our statutory interpretation and course of action is the better one and our decision is grounded in and supported the record. The text has been publicly available for three weeks and our staff summarized for us today. There is no need for me to step to the policies in detail. I will highlight that few key parts and address some of the false arguments and misconceptions. Will repealing Net Neutrality reversings headlines, the classification of Broadband Internet service accesses is far more consequential, Net Neutrality started as a consumer issue, but its in stepping stone to impose vastly more onerous, and carry regulations on broadband companies. Even the previous chairman initially attempted to reinstate Net Neutrality rules under more limited Legal Authority in Many Companies would have accepted the compromise and lived with the rules as long as the commission didnt and post title to. Thanks to one infamous Youtube Video posted by the prior administration, this socalled independent agency was quickly railroaded into treating isp t isps like Public Utilities instead. Andiscussed in the order dissents of german pie and myself, wrote have response to the 2015 order, there were fundamental legal problems and factual errors underlying that decision. That decision opened the door for broader regulation of broadband providers and as we saw, the commission quickly walked through that door. Companies continue to face uncertainty that business decisions, commercial negotiations, service offerings, and pricing decisions would be scrutinized by the commission. I believe these legitimate concerns are wellfounded and if there had not been a change in administration, the agency would have proceeded further down the path is devastated by its zero waiting zero rating witchhunt. To reinstate the classification of both fixed and mobile broadband Internet Access service as an Information Service under Section Three and the classification under mobile sensible, restores a bipartisan approach to Broadband Services. The fcc asserts jurisdiction access,adband internet but applies regulation to address specific concrete concerns. There is no remaining legal basis for the Net Neutrality bright line rules and general misconduct standard, so we must repeal them. Ive questioned the need for rules that impose costs but do not solve real problems. So the removal is completely appropriate and this isnt necessarily the end of the story. Congress may enact legislation providing new rules and Legal Authority to support them. I believe this will be the better course and the only way to get to finality to this issue. I would humbly suggest the general conduct standard remain forever in the ash heap. The policy gave the commissions Enforcement Bureau unbounded power to make up the rules as it went along, a frightening prospect. Businesses could find themselves subject to investigation without any prior notice that the conduct could be considered a violation. It was the height of pretoria capriciousness and should never be resurrected. I am hopeful if congress does the down this path, it will see merit in rejecting a ban on paid hire position. There are cases today and many more in which the option of the paid privatization offering would be a necessity based on either technology or needs of consumer welfare. I see great value in the privatizations of telemedicine and Autonomous Car technology over cap videos. Speaking of Autonomous Cars, we must ensure wireless providers to manage their systems. Wireless networks have capacity restraints aced on the physics of the spectrum they use. Generally, wireless use is booming and more and more americans are using Wireless Networks to access the internet every this is just the beginning. Consider each a taunus car or vehicle is predicted to generate an additional four terabytes of data a day, much of which will be carried by Wireless Networks. It is hard to imagine some privatization of traffic will not be necessary, further undermining attempts to ban such practices. Although the order illustrates the bright line rules and general conduct standard, it does leave a version of the transportation requirements in place, in fact the requirements are more extensive than those adopted in 2010. While i remain skeptical of the authority for them without a mexican is mechanism to get them removed, if a business fails to disclose relevant information or its practices differ in what is described as the subject to investigation and enforcement is outlined in the recent sec memorandum of understanding. I sincerely doubt the legitimate businesses are willing to subject themselves to a pr nightmare for attempting to engage in blocking, throttling, or improper discrimination. 218 ort believe section the provisions of title three cited in the secluded vision of the order, should be invoked here. Im relieved they have been removed from the item at my request. , but certainly not least, the order contains a clear declaration that run band is an interstate Information Service. The order makes plain that broadband will be subject to uniform National Framework that promotes investment in innovation. This is eminently reasonable and completely consistent with the constitutions commercial climbers commercial commerce clause. Pertainingticularly to Wireless Services, where mobile devices can easily crossed state lines. This could have genetic and drastic results where it was possible for these medications to be prioritized in one state and not another. The hodgepodge of state rules were not only contain the next generation of wireless systems which have been working so hard to promote, also the technology that may rely on these networks in the future. Accordingly, any laws or regulations conflict with or undermine are preempted. I would actually have gone further, but i can only carry the debate so far today. This is not a novel edition. The board also announced a firm petition to excise our authority to preclude states from imposing obligations on Broadband Services that are inconsistent deskcarefully inventoried regulated schemes related schemes. Although the order does the knowledge and extremely limited state role in enforcing their Traditional Police powers, state actions that go beyond this you will have muscle respect and profound appreciation for your work. I will vote to approve. Thank you commissioner. Day foris a great consumers, for innovation, and for freedom. For reversing the obama era fccs unprecedented decision to apply title ii regulations to the internet. I am proud to help end this twoyear experiment with heavyhanded regulation, this massive regulatory overreach. Decision,he fccs consumers and providers alike benefited from a free and open internet. This is not because the government imposed utility style regulations. Had anot because the fcc rule regulating internet conduct. Instead the republican and democratic administrations alike , including through the first six years of the Obama Administration, the fcc abided by a 20 year bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet Access. The internet has flourished under this framework. The private sector invested over 1. 5 trillion in broadband networks. Consumers were protected and enjoyed the freedom to access the websites and content of their choosing. Every part of the internet economy benefited from innovators on the edge to startups and businesses of every size. Title ii did not build that. Title ii did not create the open internet. Title ii is not the way to maintain it. The regulatory touch coupled with the robust Consumer Protections we restore today supported our countrys extraordinary internet success story. After a twoyear detour that has seen investment decline, broadband deployment put on hold , and Innovative New offerings shelved, it is great to see the c returning to this proven regulatory approach. There is no doubt the debate over internet regulation has generated significant public attention. I have learned some colorful new turns of phrase is through the course of this proceeding. Knows prize knows prize no surprise. But many are simply fanning the false flames of fear. The apocalyptic rhetoric is quite something, even by washington standards. Is not ending the internet, or as an obama official of put it, the sky isnt falling, consumers will be protected, and the internet will flourish. What we are doing with todays vote is reversing a 2yearold decision and returning to a triedandtrue Regulatory Framework that we know from our own experience works for consumers and for innovation. Out there goyths to what i call the great title fake, attributing things to title ii that it simply does not do. Some say it prevents isps from selling bundled plans that access only a portion of the internet. That is not true. The fcc explicitly stated that title ii allows isps to do just that. It prevents isps from increasing its prices. But title ii involves no rate regulation. Some say it is preventing isps from blocking, throttling, or websites, and block to throttle applications chosen by isps, and filter content into fast and slow lanes based on isp commercial interests, provided they disclose those practices. Is notr words, title ii the thin line between where we are right now and some mad max version of the internet. There are reasons that consumers enjoyed a free and open internet long before title ii. There are reasons why consumers are free to access any online content of their choosing, and those reasons will continue to hold true long after our title ii experiment ends today. What are they . The d. C. Circuit judge offered its view. When it observed that title ii allows isps to filter Internet Access, it also said none have chosen to do so. In other words, Market Forces, not the title ii rules, are regulating misconduct. There are some that will never accept Market Forces as a solution either in the broadband marketplace or otherwise, but for them, todays order has some more good news. We are not relying on Market Forces alone. Freee not giving isps reign to dictate your online experience. Our decision today includes powerful legal checks. First, americans will enjoy a robust online protection. Classifiedc broadband as a title ii Information Service, it divested the trade confederation of its authority over isps, including the ability to police isps that engage in unfair or deceptive practices. Repealing title ii will restore important protections for him and for internet openness. Consumers will regain strong Online Privacy protections. Before the fcc stripped it of broughttion, the ftc over 500 privacy enforcement actions, including against isps. By reversing title ii, consumers get those privacy protections back. Lawd, federal antitrust will protect against discriminatory conduct by isps. As a former Obama Administration ftc chairman recently said, this is a formidable hammer against anyone who had harmfully blocked, throttled, or prioritized traffic. Fourth, state Consumer Protection a Protection Laws will apply. These authorities will provide another strong set of Legal Protections against unfair Business Practices by isps. In short, this is no freeforall. This is no thunder down. The fcc is not killing the internet. While i spent most of my time today talking about the policy debate, there is also a threshold legal question that the Commission Must answer. Does Internet Access service all of my as a title i Information Service or a title ii tele Communication Service . Actually i do not need to go beyond what the order itself says on this point. In 2005, the Supreme Court expressly found the fcc has the authority to classify Internet Service as a title i service. This remains the only classification left. Our decision today rests on sound legal footing. In closing, i want to look back two years ago to 2015 one more time. In october of that year, long before i became a commissioner, i gave a speech where i talked about the fccs then recent decision. I ended that speech by saying this. I am optimistic the u. S. Will return to the successful light touch approach to the internet that spurred mastiff spurred massive investment in our anddband infrastructure rivers the sec decision reverse the fcc decision. Two years ago, i certainly cannot imagine that i would be part of the fccs new composition, but i am very grateful for this opportunity to serve. I am grateful that my optimism back then has proven to be wellfounded. I am glad to cast my vote today in favor of Internet Freedom. Thanks. Thank you commissioner. Ok. Net neutrality is Internet Freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back Net Neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point, and i dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing pathpast today this today. It puts the federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the law, and the american public. The future of the internet is the future of everything. That is because there is nothing in our commercial, social, or civic lives that has been untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. And here in the United States, our internet economy is the envy of the world. This is because it rests on a foundation of openness. That openness is revolutionary. It means you can go where you want to do what you want online without your broadband provider getting in the way or making choices for you. It means everyone of us can ,reate, without permission build Community Without geography, organize without fiscal constraints, consume content we want win and where we want it, and share ideas not just around the corner, but across the globe. I believe it is essential that we sustain the foundation of openness, and that is why i support Net Neutrality. Neutrality has deep origins in Communications Law and history. In the era when communications meant telephony, every call went through and your phone company could not cut off your call or edit the content of your conversations. This guiding principle of nondiscrimination meant you were in control of the connections you make. This principle continued as time advanced technology changed and Internet Access became the dialtone of the digital age. So it was 12 years ago when president george w. Bush was in the white house that this agency first put its Net Neutrality policies on paper. In the decade that followed, the fcc revamped and revised its Net Neutrality rules to keep them current and find them a stable home and the law. In his 2015 order, the fcc succeeded because in the following year in a 184 page opinion, the agencys Net Neutrality rules were fully and completely upheld in court. Our existing Net Neutrality policies have pat have passed court muster. They are widely popular. But today we destroy this progress and burn down timetested values that have made our internet economy the envy of the world. As a result of todays misguided actions, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new power. They will have the power to block websites, the power to throttle services, and the power to censor online content. They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they had a pay for play arrangement and the right to confine all others to a slow and bumpy road. , our broadband providers will tell you they will never do these things. They say just trust us. But know this. They have the technical ability and business incentive to discriminate and manipulate your internet traffic, and now this agency gives them the legal green light to go ahead and do so. This is not good. Not good for consumers, for businesses, for anyone who connects and creates online. Not good for the democratizing force that depends on openness to thrive. Moreover, it is not good for American Leadership on the global stage of our new and complex Digital World. I am not alone with these concerns. Everyone from the creator of the World Wide Web to religious leaders to governors and mayors towns, toand small musicians and actors and andesses and entrepreneurs academics and activists have registered their upset and anger. They are reeling at how this agency could make this kind of mistake. They are wondering how it could areo tone deaf, and they justifiably concerned that just a few unelected officials could make such a vast and farreaching decision about the future of the internet. So after erasing our Net Neutrality rules, what is left . What recourse do consumers have . We are told, dont worry. Competition will save us. But the fccs own data shows that our broadband markets are not competitive. Half of the households in this country have no choice of broadband provider. If youre broadband providers blocking websites, you have no resource. You have nowhere to go. We are told, dont worry. The federal trade commission will save us. But the ftc is not the Expert Agency for communications. It has authority over unfair and deceptive practices, but to invade ftc review, all any broadband provider will need to do is add the provisions to the fine print in its terms of service. In addition, it is both costly and impractical to report difficulties to the ftc. By the time they get around to addressing them in court proceedings, it is fair to assume that the startups and Small Businesses wrestling with discriminatory treatment could be long gone. Moreover, what little authority the ftc has is now under question in the courts. We are told, dont worry. State authorities will save us. But at the same time, the ftc all but clears the field with sweeping preemptions of anything that resembles state or local Consumer Protection. Substance that got us to this point is bad, the process is even worse. Lets talk about the public record. Lets talk about the public record. The public has been making noise speaking up, raising a ruckus. We see it in the protest, those outside today, and we see how it lines, up our phone clogged our email boxes and jammed our online comment system. That might be messy, but disagreements are, i hope we can agree, that is action andn something we all can support. To date, nearly 24 million comments have been filed in this proceeding. There is no record in the history of this agency that has attracted so many filings. But theres something foul in this record. Two million comments feature stolen identities. Half a million comments are from russian email addresses. 50,000 consumer complaints are inexplicably missing from the record. I think thats a problem. I think our record has been corrupted and our process for Public Participation lacks integrity. 19 state attorneys general agree. They have written us demanding we halt our vote until we investigate and get to the bottom of this mess. Identity theft is a crime under state and federal law, and while it is taking place, this agency has turned a blind eye to its victims and callously told our fellow Law Enforcement officials it will not help. This is not acceptable. Its a stain on the f. C. C. And this proceeding. This issue is not going away. It needs to be addressed. Finally, i worry that this decision and the process that brought us to this point is ugly. Its ugly in the cavalier disregard this agency has demonstrated to the public, the contempt it has shown for citizens who speak up, and the sheer disdain it has for public opinion. Unlike its predecessors, this f. C. C. Has not held a single public hearing on Net Neutrality. There is no shortage of people who believe washington is not listening to their concerns, their fears, and their desires. Add this agency to that list. Now, i, too, am frustrated, but heres a twist. I hear you. I listen to what the callers to my office are saying. I read the countless individually written emails in my inbox, the posts online, and the very short and sometimes very long letters. And im not going to give up. And neither should you. If the arc of history is long, we are going to bend this toward a more just outcome in the courts, in congress, wherever we need to go to ensure that Net Neutrality stays the law of the land. Because if you are conservative or progressive, you benefit from internet openness. If you come from a small town or a big city, you benefit from internet openness. If youre a company or a nonprofit, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a startup or an established business, you benefit from internet openness. If you are a consumer or a creator, you benefit from internet openness. And if you believe in democracy, you benefit from internet openness. So lets persist, lets fight, lets not stop here or now. Its too important. The future depends on it. Chairman pai thank you, commissioner. The internet is the greatest free market innovation in history. Its changed the way we live, the way we play, the way we work, the way we learn, the way we speak. During my time at the f. C. C. , ive met with entrepreneurs in south dakota who started businesses. Ive met with doctors in ohio who have helped care for patients. Ive met with teachers in alaska whove educated their students. Ive met with farmers in missouri whove increased their crop yields, and i met with many more who have succeeded all because of the internet. As the internet has enriched my own life immeasurably. The past few days alone, i set a facetime call with my parents and kids, downloaded blocksting podcasts about chain technology, i ordered a burrito, i managed my playoffbound Fantasy Football Team and, as many of you might seen, ive tweeted. What is responsible for the Phenomenal Development of the internet . Well, certainly wasnt heavyhanded government regulation. Quite to the contrary. At the dawn of the commercial internet, president clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of the United States to, and i quote, preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet unfettered by federal and state regulation. This bipartisan policy worked. Encouraged by light touch regulation, americas private sector invested over 1. 5 trillion to build out fixed and mobile networks throughout the United States. 28k modems gave way to gigabit fibers. And entrepreneurs grew startups into global giants. And americas internet economy became the envy of the entire world. And this light touch approach was good for consumers too. In the free market full of permissionless innovation, Online Services blossomed. Within a generation, we have gone from email as the killer app to High Definition video streaming. Entrepreneurs and innovators guided the internet far better than the clumsy hand of government ever could have. But then in early 2015, the f. C. C. , under political pressure, jettisoned the successful bipartisan approach to the internet on express orders from the previous white house, the f. C. C. Scrapped the tried and true light touch regulation of the internet and replaced it with heavyhanded micromanagement. It decided to subject the internet to utility style regulation, designed in the 1930s to govern ma bell. This decision was a mistake. For one thing, there was no problem to solve. The internet wasnt broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia. To the contrary, the internet is one thing, perhaps the only thing in American Society that we can all agree has been a stunning success. Not only was there no problem, this solution hasnt worked. The main complaint consumers have about the internet is not and has never been that their Internet Service provider is blocking access to content. Its that they dont have access at all or not enough competition. These regulations have ironically taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under title 2, investment in High Speed Networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. When there is less investment, that means fewer next Generations Networks are built. That means less access and less competition. That means fewer jobs for americans building those networks, and that means more americans are stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide. The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet Service providers. They dont have the time, the money, or the lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. They dont get a lot of press, certainly not here in washington. But i personally visited some of them, from spencer municipal utilities in spencer, iowa, to Wave Wireless in parsons, kansas. I have personally spoken with many more, to air Link Services in oklahoma, and so theres no surprise that the Wireless Service internet providers association, which represents very small fixed Wireless Companies that typically operate and lowincome urban areas, surveyed its members and that over 80 , quote, incurred additional expense in complying with title 2 rules, or reduced network expansion, delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the new rules. Other small companies, too, have told the f. C. C. These regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail Fiber Network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying that the f. C. C. s heavyhanded rules affect our ability to find financing. Now remember, these are not the big guys. These are the small companies, the kinds of companies that are critical to providing a more competitive marketplace. These rules have also impeded innovation. One major company, for instance, reported that it put on hold the project to build out its outofhome wifi network due to uncertainty about the f. C. C. s regulatory stance. And a coalition of 19 municipal Internet Service providers, that is city, governmentowned nonprofits, have told the f. C. C. That they, and i quote, often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because they cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action. None of this is good for consumers. We need to empower all americans with digital opportunity. Not deny them the benefits of greater access and competition. And consider, too, that these are just the effects that these rules have had on the internet today. Think about how they will effect the internet that we need 10, 20 years from now. The Digital World bears no resemblance to a water pipe or an electric line or sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time. Very few would say that theres been dramatic innovation in these areas. By contrast, online traffic is exploding, and we consume exponentially more traffic and data over time. With the dawn of internet of things, with the high bit Applications Development like Virtual Reality, with new activities we cant fully grasp yet like high volume bit coin mining, were imposing more demands on the network and over time that means our networks themselves will need to scale too. On the advice of security, we need to take a brief recess. Everyone, i need everyone to leave everything that you have in place. Do not take anything out of here except for your body. Do not take anything. The only thing that leaves out of here is just your body. We will call everybody back in once we clear the room. Thank you. Chairman pai sorry for the interruption. We were recessing on the recommendation of the security service. We can now reconvene. Where was i . Consider, too, that these are just the effects that our rules have had on the internet of today. Think about how they will affect the internet we need 10, 20 years from now. The Digital World bears no resemblance to a water pipe or electric line or sewer. The use of those pipes will be roughly constant over time and very few would say theres dramatic innovation in those areas. By contrast, online traffic is exploding, and with the dawn of the internet of things, the development of high bit rate applications like virtual realities, with new activities we cant grasp yet like high bit coin mining, we are imposing demands on the network. Over time, that means the networks themselves will have to scale too, but they dont have to. If our rules deter the massive Infrastructure Investment that we need, eventually well pay the price in terms of less innovation. Consider these words from ben thompson, a highly respected Technology Analyst from a post on his blog supporting my proposal. Its an extended quote but with your indulgence its important. The question that must be grabbled with is whether or not the internet is done. By that i mean that todays bandwidth is all well ever mean need, which means we can risk chilling investment through prophylactic regulation and the price signals that may spur infrastructure buildout. If we are done, then the potential harm of a title 2 reclassification is much lower. Sure, i. S. P. s will have to do more paperwork but honestly they are just a bunch of mean right . Ists anyways, best get laws in place to preserve what we have. But what if we arent done . What if Virtual Reality with 8k displays actually became meaningful . What if imagine remote medicine applications are actually developed. Or what if the internet of things moves beyond this messy experimentation phase and into realtime Value Generation . Not just in the home but in all kinds of unimagined commercial applications . I certainly hope we will have the bandwidth to support all of that. I do too. And as thompson put it in another post, and, again, i quote. The fact of the matter is there is no evidence that harm exists in the sort of systematic way that justifies heavily regulating i. S. P. s. The evidence does suggest that current regulatory structures handle bad actors perfectly well. The only fear the only future to fear is the one we never discover because we gave up on the approach that already has brought us so far. Now, remember, folks, networks dont have to be built. Risks dont have to be taken. Capital doesnt have to be raised. The cost of title 2 today may appear, at least to some, to be hidden, but the consumers and innovators of tomorrow will pay a severe price. So what is the f. C. C. Doing today . Well, quite simply we are restoring the light touch framework thats governed the internet for most of its existence. We are moving from title 2 to title 1. Wonkier it cannot be. It is difficult to match that mundane reality to the apocalyptic rhetoric we have heard from title 2 supporters. As debates have gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. So lets be clear. Returning to the Legal Framework that governed the internet from president clintons 2015 isement in 1996 to not going to destroy the internet. Its not going to end the internet as we know it. Its not going to kill democracy. It is not going to stifle Free Expression online. If stating these propositions alone doesnt demonstrate their absurdity, our internet experience before 2015 and our internet experience tomorrow once this order passes will prove them so. Simply put, by returning to the light touch title 1 framework, we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Broadband providers will have stronger incentives to build networks. Especially in unserved areas and upgrade networks to gigabit 5g. S and this means will be much more competition and more ways for startups and tech giants alike can deliver applications and content to more users. In short, its a freer and more open internet. We also promote much more robust transparency among i. S. P. s than existed three years ago. We require i. S. P. s to disclose a variety of Business Practices and the failure to do so subjects them to enforcement action. This transparency rule will ensure that consumers know what theyre buying and startups get the information they need as they develop new products and services. Moreover, we empower the federal trade commission to ensure consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago the title 2 order stripped the f. T. C. The jurisdiction over broadband providers. But today were putting the nations premier Consumer Protection cop on the beat. The f. C. C. Will have the authority to take action against Internet Service providers that engage in anticompetitive, unfair or deceptive acts. As f. T. C. Chairman recently said, and i quote, the f. T. C. s ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isnt something new and farfetched. We have a long established rule role in preserving the values that consumers care about online. Or as president obamas first f. T. C. Chairman just put it yesterday the plan to restore f. T. C. Jurisdiction is good for consumers. The sky isnt falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the internet will continue to thrive. So lets be clear. Following todays vote, americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. They will still be able to enjoy the services they want to enjoy. There will still be cops on the beat guarding a free and open internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015, and this is the way they will be once again. Now, our decision today will also return regulatory parity to the economy. Now some Silicon Valley platform giants favor imposing heavyhanded regulations on the internet ego system. But all too often they dont practice what they preach. Edge providers regularly content that they dont like. When you go online, do you decide what news, search results and products you see . Perhaps not. They regularly decide what they and perhaps more importantly, what you dont. And many thrive on the Business Model of charging to place content in front of eyeballs. What else is accelerated mobile pages or promoted tweets but prioritization . In what is worse, there is no transparency into how decisions that appear inconsistent with an open internet are made. How does a company decide to restrict someones account or block their tweets because it areks their views inflammatory or wrong . How does a company decide to demonetize videos from political advocates without notice . How does a company expressly access to websites on rival devices or prevent dissidents content from appearing on its platform. Decide to Company Block a cigar aficionado app because it believes it promotes tobacco use. You dont have any power over these decisions and neither do i. Actuale are real, threats to the internet, ironic, that claim toies support it. Ironic that socalled net littleity advocates have or nothing to say about these threats. That growingeats number of officials, democrats and republican, house and beginning to take notice of. Certaink, perhaps Companies Support saddling with heavyroviders regulations because they work to their advantage. I dont blame them for that position. And im not saying these same rules should be slapped on them, too. What i am saying is that it is not the job of the government to be in the business of picking theers and losers in internet economy. We should have a level Playing Field and let consumers decide prevails. Many words have been spoken during this debate but the time come for action. It is time for the internet, once again, to be driven by andneers and entrepreneurs consumers rather than lawyers and accountants and bureaucrats. Is time for us to act to bring faster, better, and cheaper Internet Access to all americans. It is time for us to return to the bipartisan regulatory under which the internet flourished prior to 2015. It is time for us to restore Internet Freedom. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to the staff who have long hours on this item, from the wire line bureau, nathan egan, madeline finley, doug galby, kirkel, ken lynch, chris monteith, eric ralph, deborah jane taylor. From the office of general vowsle, jimley scott novak mayer, and bill richardson. From the wireless bureau, stacyions ferrero, betsy mcintyre, sallis, jimmy shang, john stock stockdale. From the office of strategic analyses. From the consumer bureau, from the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau, and from the media bureau. With that, we call the vote. Commissioner clyburn. Dissent. Commissioner carr . Chairman pai the item is adopted with editorial privileges. In his weekly address, the president talked about the military and immigration laws. Representative Mike Thompson california delivered the weekly address, giving his reaction to the g. O. P. Tax reform bill. President trump my fellow i signed, this week the National Defense authorization act, a historic to rebuild our military. Now, it is critical for congress to pass the clean government