Transcripts For CSPAN2 FCC Open Meeting 20171121

[inaudible conversations] good morning. Welcome to november 2017 meeting of the federal communications commission. Madam secretary comeau should answer jennifer this morning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to you in good morning, commissioners. Todays video here it items for consideration. First youll consider a report and order that would expressly authorized Voice Service providers to block certain types of robocalls that falsely appear to be from telephone numbers that do not or cannot make outgoing calls. It would prohibit Voice Service providers from blocking 911 calls under these rules including a mechanism to allow subscribers legitimate calls blocked in error to drop blocking and clarify that providers may exclude blocked calls under these rules from their call completion report. Second, you will consider a second report order and second for this country and further notice of rulemaking on consideration memorandum opinion and order that would make available 1700 megahertz of additional highspeed spectrum for flexible terrestrial wireless use provides four gigahertz for satellite use and adapt, refine or affirm a number of Service Rules to promote robust deployment in the stands in a second further notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment and certain related stations build out in licensing issues. Third you will consider an to eliminate the requirement for Historic Preservation review for utility poles are replaced with polls that could support in tennis or other wireless communication equipment and consolidate historic into a rule. Forthcoming you will consider a report and further notice of proposed rulemaking in order that will revise and seek comment on further changes of pole attachment rules and disclosure process and section 2014 and a discontinuance is to remove barriers to Infrastructure Investment and promote rabin deployment and will seek comment taking targeted actions to facilitate rebuilding and repairing broadband infrastructure after a natural disaster. You will consider an important order, order on reconsideration, memorandum and order, notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of inquiry to adopt them propose measures to effective efficiently bridge divide and reduce fraud and abuse in the Lifeline Program. Sixth, you will consider in order on reconsideration in notice of proposed rulemaking that updates the Commission Broadcast Ownership and attribution rules to reflect the Current Media marketplace that denies various other requests for reconsideration find that the the commission was docked in Incubator Program with ownership diversity and seeks comment on how to structure and administer such a program. Southend, you will consider a notice of her postrulemaking on whether to eliminate form 325 of Cable Television systems or in the alternative ways to modernize and streamline the form. Eight, you will consider an important order and further notice of proposed rulemaking authorizing Television Broadcast to use the transmission standard reply no on a voluntary Market Driven basis. This is your agenda for today. The first item entitled at dans message to target and eliminate unlawful robocalls in government that fails and Patrick Weber will give the introduction. Im sorry, madam secretary, i wasnt paying attention. Could you repeat that. [laughter] thank you, madam secretary. Mr. Weber, whenever youre ready, feel free pretty receipt. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Today am pleased to introduce matta takes another important tip in combating Illegal Robocalls by enabling Voice Service providers to block obviously spoofed calls before they reach consumers phones. The item before he allows Service Providers to block certain types of spoofed caller i. D. Robocalls that are likely to be fraudulent, blocking these calls will help protect consumers from scams and annoyance. The proposed rules have support from consumers in the industry. I would like to thank other person offices for their assistance. The office of general counsel, the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau, Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau, office of Strategic Planning and policy analysis and the opposite Communications Business opportunities could with me this morning a this morning as kurt schroeder, chief of consumer policy division, john b. Adams, chief of the division and karen shorter come attorney advisor in the division. Karen will present the item. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioner. Spoofed caller i. D. Information is also designed oven robocall. These calls are frequently innovation of Consumer Privacy and vehicle for fraud. The item before you adopts rules authorizing Voice Service providers to block specific categories of robocalls with spoofed caller ids. Not all spoofing is unlawful. The caller i. D. Law action makes it unlawful to spoof with the intent to defraud, cause harm or wrongfully obtained anything of value. A fraudster that demands money supposedly owed to the irs is breaking a law but a doctor using his personal phone can lawfully display his or her Office Phone Number of the caller i. D. The item before you focuses on calls that are likely to be illegal because they use one of four types of numbers. These are repaired not used by consumers to originate calls are as a technical matter cannot be used to originate calls. Many of these numbers also cannot be called back. First, the item has the successful do not originate that is authorizing to block calls from the subscriber to a telephone number request that the outbound calls reporting from that number be blocked. For example, the irs could request these to be from telephone numbers it does not use for outgoing calls. Next, the item authorizes Voice Service for dieters to block calls when the caller i. D. Information cant possibly be accurate. Providers will not be able to block calls purporting to be from north american numbers that are valid. For example, numbers with area codes that dont exist. Numbers that have not been allocated by the north american numbering plan admin is greater to a provider and numbers allocated to a provider but not currently in use. While the record generally indicates that the blocking of calls purporting to be from these four categories of numbers presents a very low risk of error, the item as a precaution specifically prohibits Voice Service providers from including 911 emergency calls blocking. It also encourages Voice Service providers to choose to block calls to establish a simple way to identify and fix blocking errors. The item before you also seeks comment on two discrete issues related to these rules. First come in the item seeks comment on mechanisms to ensure that erroneously blocked calls can be unblocked as quickly as possible. Second, the item seeks comment on ways to measure the effect of may said the commission and the industrys robocalling effort. We recommend adoption of this item and it to make technical and confirming evidence. Thank you good tinicum mesh router. We now go to mr. Clyburn. Thank you. Last week as part of our nations veterans day observance, we pay tribute to those that protect and serve. We saw our gratitude and a great many ways to the men and women who thought for 54 and defend our country not just in thank you with a pass them by, but by donating to veterans causes. It is extremely disheartening to read press reports about scammers who prey on our gratitude. The robocall, which pulls at our heartstrings by asking for money to help u. S. Military members. One woman lost 2400 because she believed she was sending money to help a servicemember in need. Sadly, her story was not an isolated one. Scams like this have been too frequently and we must do everything in our power to stop them. According to use male robocall index, 2. 5 billion robocalls were made nationwide last month and a substantial number of them were unlawful. So today we establish rules to target these unlawful robocalls by giving Voice Service providers the ability to bill a robocalls that are highly likely to be illegitimate. Will be adoption of todays report and order put in and to unlawful robocalls . Sadly, no. Doing nothing ensures things will get worse. So the commission has a responsibility to assess whether it can make a difference and even if that difference makes only a band, a small tent at first, it will give notice to scammers that we mean business. I ask my colleagues a series of questions as part of a further notice that could enable this agent being consumers to better assess the effectiveness of our robocall efforts. I did so because i believe consumers have the right to know what kind of job it is doing. We already have valuable data at our disposal. The fccs Consumer Complaint data center coupled with obligations on providers and Commission Issues report on the state of robocalling, i believe we will be better positioned to evaluate and again conclude whether any alternative means for combating this persistent problem. Im grateful to the chairman to agree and to add this language is named painful to the consumer and Government Affairs bureau for your ongoing efforts to stop this unlawful practice. Thank you, commissioner clyburn. Mr. Oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The commission further seeks to stem the flow of an illegal robocall by allowing providers to block calls for an invalid on allocated or unused numbers as well as numbers on the do not originate list on a typically calls from such numbers are from bad act or is attempting to scam consumers and i agreed that these calls should be blocked under appropriate circumstances. At the same time, ive heard concerns locking is increasingly capturing what i call false positives. That is certain calls from legitimate businesses offering legal products and services to willing and authorize consumers also been blocked. Moreover, companies have reported it can be difficult and timeconsuming to remove inappropriate blocks. Im sure someone will face its too bad that robocalls are being blocked. Real people will be hurt. The inconvenience will lose opportunities from aggressive Call Blocking mechanisms. Consider the cases of legal robocalls the commission is exempted from our rules that pharmacies providing prescription notifications, schools contacting parents or guardians for their children are missing or Energy Companies alerting the community that catastrophe has subsided and these dont include legitimate and legal retail commerce that can benefit consumers. Additionally, unlike the donotcall list were consumers take affirmative steps to avoid certain calls, the order assumes that all Consumers Want to be blocked and allows riders to proceed without consent. Im troubled by such paternalism whether here or in other cases. The role of the government is not to protect citizens from themselves. I mention this decision will need to be revisited at some point. Through the sanction of widespread blocking without consumer approval and adequate means to challenge false positives insults our vision of liberty and serves as potential recipe for future problems. Therefore he appreciate the germans willingness to work with me to add a notice seeking comments on a process for legitimate companies to resolve Call Blocking disputes or the item is circulated in coors providers to resolve this reason im sure most providers are working in good faith to address any problems that arise here after all is the order makes clear, its a violation of federal law to block legitimate calls. Nonetheless, the record in experiences have shown today that it is already happening to have a clear process that would strike a better balance of providing certainty in avoiding the need for businesses to file complaints at the fcc. I will vote to approve. Thank you, commissioner randy. Commissioner car. In september my cell phone rang in the middle of urban meeting. I tried to stoically pay it off, but my colleagues were kind enough to call me out on it, which i appreciate. Not surprisingly, when i looked at the number after the meeting, it was a robocall. While these can be a nuisance and sometimes in my case an embarrassment, and they can also be malicious. Take for example irs scam calls. A robo colorable spoof an irs number so that their call appears in the big as caller i. D. Is coming from the irs and the imposter will attempt to defraud the amount that point. Today we take action to combat these types of Illegal Robocalls, specifically as we have heard we allow providers to block calls in response to socalled do not originate it for instance come entities like the irs did a phone number is never used make outbound calls and requests calls reporting to be from those numbers be blocked in order to prevent malicious goofing. They block calls from an assigned numbers and no subscriber can originate from an unassigned number and police calls are highly likely to be fraudulent. Importantly, we may clear the rules we adopt today do not authorize the blocking of 911 calls under any circumstances. It is not a silver bullet. A welcome part of the commissions new and much broader effort and indeed im glad this year and 2017 and the top enforcement combating them will require action on many fronts from rulemaking to Enforcement Actions to industry and stakeholder engagement. I support the commissions efforts in all of these areas and they want to thank in particular today the staff in the consumer and Governmental Affairs are further work on this item. It has my support. Commissioner rose wirth. Picture this. The family sits down to dinner. Two parents, two kids, two jobs and too little time in the day. Time around the table is special. It is sacred. Its a reprieve from the unrelenting chaos and hubbub of everyday life. I know it well because this is true for my family and so many others, that night after night, our family is interrupted by rachel from cardmember services, by someone claiming to be from the irs or from some distant voice offering me a cruise or vacation or subscription or Something Else i do not want, did not order and do not need. I dont think my Family Experience is all that unusual. I think my experience is actually incredibly common and in fact, this agency has the numbers to prove it. Year in and year out, robocalls are the largest single category of Consumer Complaints that the fcc. By one count, there were 2. 5 billion robocalls in the United States last fun. That means more than 4700 robocalls have been made since i started talking about a minute ago. That is insane. It is a good thing the agency is taking action in taking action and making the cessation of these vexing calls a priority. That is why i support todays auction and allow carriers to block calls for an invalid, on allocated an unassigned numbers and permit carriers to block calls to the subscriber to a particular number asks for the number to be blocked in order to prevent spoofing. Maybe it will help prevent robocalls. I certainly hope so. But lets be honest. This is tepid stuff and we need to bring the heat. My blood boils when those robocalls come in night after night and when the strange voices and their scams hold up my lines and invade my home. Thats why the fcc needs to do more, a lot more than just what we do here today. Moreover, i think what we do here today has a real flaw. While the Agency Offers carriers the ability to limit calls from utter likely to be fraudulent actors, we failed to prevent them from charging consumers for the service. This is the kicker. The fcc takes action to extensively reduce robocalls, but then make sure you and i can pay for the privilege. If you ask me, that is ridiculous. The consumers are fed up with these nuisance calls, so on this aspect of todays decision, i dissent. Thank you, commissioner. Robocalling remains the number one category of Consumer Complaints to the federal communications commission. As chairman i repeatedly made clear that the secs top Consumer Protection priority is aggressively pursuing this course. This report is one more step towards the feeling that commitment. Todays action i give consumers new tools to protect themselves such as do not originate with an unassigned number blocks. Importantly we do so without piling more ineffective for inappropriate regulations. Instead, we provide relief for fcc rules having a reverse effect of facilitating unlawful and unwanted robocalls. I think my colleagues for their thoughtful comments on this item and for joining me in this bipartisan endeavor. Make no mistake this is not the end of our efforts. We will need to do more and we will. We are building a Strong Foundation for fighting Illegal Robocalls today in the days to come. Im grateful to the staff for all the efforts on this report and order from the consumer Government Affairs order, Public Safety bureau, Enforcement Bureau and the office of general counsel of Strategic Planning and policy analysis and the office of Communications Business opportunity. With that, will proceed to vote on the item. Commissioner clyburn. Commissioner riley. Rule mac granted as requested. Thank you to the staff for the presentation. Madame secretary, can you take us to item number two on the agenda. The second item in your agenda will be presented by the national bureau, Wireless Telecommunications bureau in the opposite engineering and technology. It is entitled use of spectrum van about 24 gigahertz for mobile Radio Service is in donald stockstill, chief of the Wireless Telecommunications bureau will be the introduction. Thank you, madam secretary. Whenever youre ready, the floor is yours. At afternoon, chairman and commissioners. Its my pleasure to introduce the spectrum frontiers id. , which continues our efforts to make highfrequency bands available for broad band and other uses. This item would maintain the spectrum allocations and the flexible framework the Commission Adopted in the 2016 report and order and would make available an additional 1. 7 gigahertz of Millimeter Waves back drab for flexible terrestrial wireless use under similar rules. It also would take baths to provide order to maintain access to millimeter wave spectrum for satellite and unlicensed uses. After the u. S. Became the first country in the world to make these vans available for 5g and other Wireless Services, and weve seen tremendous interest and investment in the spans. We hope to build on that success by making additional spectrum available, expanding our flexible framework and eliminating burdensome mandatory requirements. The flexible marketdriven approach we are pursuing in these dams will help ensure continued United States leadership and innovation in 5g. Im joined at the table by julie nath, tom sullivan, chief of the International Bureau, blake sentelle, chief of the Broadband Division in the Wireless Bureau, michael ha, deputy chief of the oed, shouldnt they all booker t. , chief of the Satellite Division and simon banyai, Broadband Division. In addition to the people at the table, i would like to thank the broader project team and wireless for their work on this item as well as the staff at the Public Safety bureau, Enforcement Bureau and office of general counsel for their thoughtful contributions. I particularly would like to recognize rashann duvall, deputy chief of the Broadband Division for his continued leadership on this proceeding. Simon will present the item. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. The spectrum frontiers second report further notice of proposed rulemaking ordered on reconsideration presented for your consideration today would take key steps to facilitate micro spectrum for 5g deployment and other uses. Specifically, the item would make an additional 1. 7 gigahertz of spectrum available for 5g deployment under flexible rules. This could be in addition to the nearly four gigahertz of spectrum the commission made available for 5g uses in the 28, 37 and 39 gigahertz bands in the first important order. The item would make 700 megahertz available for use in the 24. 25 gigahertz band ip 24 gigahertz band. It seeks comment on adding an operability requirement similar to the operability requirements the commission adopt it across the 37 and 39 gigahertz bands. The 47 gigahertz band, which spans from 47. 2 to 48. Two gigahertz and has operations would make one gigahertz of spectrum available. Both would be licensed on a Geographic Area bases using partial economic areas. Data but also maintain the broad flexibility to operate in the 40 to 42 gigahertz and 48. Two to 58. Two for satellite and user devices can deploy as needed. For the 28 gigahertz, 37 and 39 gigahertz band, the item would ease restrictions on satellite smaller market while maintaining the use of bands for 5g. The item also addresses other uses of upper micro spectrum the unlicensed mobile devices. It would adopt rules to allow unlicensed operation on board most aircraft in the 577 gigahertz band. Those rules on the commissions prior determination proceeding to authorize unlicensed operations in the 647 gigahertz ban on rules similar to those applicable to the 64 gigahertz band. It would also decline mobile operations in 70 and 80 gigahertz band at this time, but in deadwood focused development on fix another innovative uses. The Spectrum Holding policies would decline an option in the 24 and 47 gigahertz band that would update the spectrum screen applicable to the market transactions to account for the transition of these bands. The item with the comment on the preoptions holding my meds for that 37 and 39 gigahertz and the item would decline to establish civic aberration limits for individual bands. The item and seek to burdens by eliminating to adopt unnecessary regulatory and would eliminate previously adopted requirements that licensees submit security plans and related information declined to acquire microwave licensees for digital call lines. The Wireless Telecommunications near an office of engineering and technology recommend adoption of this item in request editorial privileges to make technical and conforming packets. Thank you. Thank you. We will now turn to comments from the bench. When it voted to approve the first order allowing mobile flexible use in the upper microwave stand, i commended the commission for shifting from the conventional model of exclusive indefinite license is to try and novel approaches such as user share rules for the bands. Applying creative policies to the spectrum van about 24 gigahertz would unleash innovation spur competition and site creativity. Unfortunately my excitement for the proceeding is now subdued because by adopting this order, the commissions majority turns its back on promoting competition in spectrum policy. Last year, the agency had updated a preoption limit so that no entity could acquire more than roughly one third of the spectrum and the 24, 28, 37 and 39 gigahertz band. With substantial support from the Wireless Industry for limit, including two other top for a nation wired wireless carriers, smaller carriers and consumer a kid and further notice, the Commission Also proposed to impose a similar amendment on the amount of stock drum any one entity could acquire for 24 and 47 gigahertz bands. Many support this proposal as well. In an attempt to understand the majoritys decision to reverse course on these preauction aggregation limits, allow me to start with the current state of the industry and the communications at mandate. The commercial Wireless Industry is highly concentrated good for antitrust purposes, the u. S. Department of justice or doj uses the wellknown hirschman index or h. H. I. Doj classifieds market within hh i index of less than 1500 has been concentrated and markets within hh i have over 2500 is highly concentrated. The hhi for the commercial wireless market has been increasing every year. It is now over 3100. Spectrum is a critical input to competition in this market. For this reason, section 309 jay of the Communications Act requires the commission to Design Options to license and then disseminate licenses among a variety a wide variety of applications. A preauction spectrum aggregation limits is a neutral way to prevent the largest Wireless Company from acquiring so much extra that Smaller Companies cannot offer competitive options to consumers. This is why i strongly support the option of spectrum aggregation limits in the option and end this proceeding. Companies have the same incentives to acquire dominant holdings here as they did with lowband spectrum. Removing spectrum aggregation limits will likely leave to even greater concentration in the market, therefore, i am unable to support this policy reversal. Second, todays order declines to permit user share in almost all of the ban. Last year when we proposed the policy, we talked about the potential benefits of this approach given the limited signal characteristics, the likely use of melo watt meter instead of traditional cellular deployment. The spectrum bands are ideal candidates for usual share approach as this could maximize efficient use of spectrum. The primary reason the majority refuses to permit this innovative spectrum policy is that, quote, majority oppose the idea of any use or share mechanism. The order then cites 14 comments. The public docket of this proceeding show there are at least 16 other parties who support user share. The order also says, quote, that there is only one territory terrestrial ordinary, reasonable, and prudenter on the record as supporting user share but this finding ignores the fact that ncta, Wireless Internet Service Provider Association and the fixed wireless Communication Council all support user share. Together those associations represent hundreds of communications companies, many of which are interested in using these bands to provide terrestrial mobile services. In short, the majority misreads the record. In addition, while the majority is quick to trumpet the importance of ams and other contexts, the other presents no real costbenefit analysis on this issue. The order states difficulties that might arise from implementing use or share regime that a spectrum database would coordinate but when you consider that its making substantial progress and the gigahertz band, this argument brings hollow. While the majority will have you believe that the record clearly supports its decision to not permit user share, a fair and objective review of the record tells a much different story. The established commercial mobilist wireless provider will use same licensing approach that accompanied traditional cellular employment license. Even though the spectrum band is not conducive to traditional cellular deployment, the majority once again demonstrates in this proceeding that they will take whatever steps are necessary to give large established wireless providers whatever they want. Despite my strong disagreement on these two important issues, i concur with the other portions of the item. I thank my colleagues for agreeing on my edit for several issues including the size of the blocks of the 21st gigahertz band, 37 gigahertz and 24 gigahertz band. I have consist i consistently that you realize a promise of 5g technology, we should take an all of the above approach, by all of the above, i mean, ensuring that lowincome communities and urban and rural areas benefit as much or more than a a affluent communities. I also mean that both satellite and Wireless Communications should be a part of the evolution towards 5g services and that we should allocate sufficient unlicensed and licensed spectrum, this is a dlekate delicate and one we must strive to achieve. I want to thank don and the staff of the Wireless Telecommunication Bureau and the International Bureau for their hard work on their item. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, mr. Chairman, today we considered two items that will facilitate deployment of generation systems, i think we can all agree that to make 5g a reality and maintain u. S. Leadership position in Wireless Technology which is a top priority, the Commission Must provide adequate resource along with environmental for investment and innovation and deployment, this will require both both putting more spectrum out in the marketplace and ensuring that infrastructure can be timely and widely deployed. Contrary to some other nations, we do not execute but we have the right and obligation to make framework for our commercial wireless providers so that their flourish internationally. I will not lose race to 5g to regulatory barriers or commission ineptitude. Todays item starts with opening up an additional 1700 megahertz for wireless 5g networks, along with the bands we previously identified, the commission made available 13 gigahertz of milimeter, as part of use, i negotiated and pushed the hack of then chairman wheeler to seek comment on a handful of additional bands. At the time, i acknowledged that not all maybe capable of handling additional uses and the commission would be able to move on some bands sooner than others. These bands are ready to go now and i applaud chairman pi for moving expeditiously. Its important that we keep moving in order to create pipeline for tomorrow. To follow up this item with another in the first half of next year, i expect the order, 32, 42 and 50 gigahertz and accompanied notice tee up 20 gigahertz, popular for 5g international. Further, the Commission Must give further thought to mlds channels, all of the bands along with efforts underway in the mid band spectrum spreeding for technologies, releasing more spectrum into the marketplace will ensure that they have an opportunity to Access Spectrum resources. Having adequate supply of spectrum, along with reasonable construction requirements or renewable standards, ensure its widely efficiency, its used efficiently and not warehouse and remains competitive. Efforts by the commission to favor certain entities or engineer hold negotiation the past have been unsuccessful. Further, as i stated back in 2016, we are still in early stages of 5g and unclear about the full extent of what services will be offered or how much spectrum is need today achieve the capacity, speed and licensing goals. For these reasons, i fully support the decision not to implement any preauction special cap on 24 or 47 gigahertz bands. The commission should also eliminate the preauction spectrum limit that was set for 28, 37 and 39 gigahertz band. I would prefer that we eliminate cap today. Im not supportive of a casebycase review basis, either postauction or secondary market transactions as we have seen before, the screens have a habit of turning into spectrum caps therefore the commission should not be seeking comment on implementing a casebycase review of post auction milimeter holdings. Unfortunately, merely asking that question was robotin. I will keep this in line for future items. Moreover, should be known that under no circumstances, i intend to vote approval of transfer application on the basis of the spectrum auction screen farce. Addition, the Commission Must set auction timeline for wave bands and others and that only gives time prepare and get spectrum in the market. Excuse me. So i thank the chairman for incorporating my edit that confirms to the commission will auction the spectrum as soon as possible. But recognizing that auctions cannot be held until we are able to secure a means through auction participants to submit upfront payments. Private banks are no longer of doing this. Im supportive of legislative efforts by the u. S. Treasury. I thank representatives for leadership in helping to get this matter resolved. Finally, i have focused on wireless issues, i would also like to acknowledge that todays item also recognize it is need for spectrum for future satellite systems. I also appreciate the efforts to provide more flexibility to satellite providers in rural america. To the extent if possible, we should encourage stations to be placed in less densely Populated Areas as opposed to urban ones. Today i will vote to approve the item and i thank the chairman. Thank you, commissioner riley. Last year the fcc allocated 12millimeters of spectrum. First country in the world to identify and open up bands for 5g. The agencys leadership continues today as we allocate another 1700 megahertz of spectrum for advanced wireless offerings. In doing so u we take steps to ensure that a variety of used cases can flourish in millimeter wave brands. We provide satellite operators with additional flexibility to earth stations and 39 gig hertz band particularly in rural areas without impeding deployment of terrestrial 5g offerings. We decreased the size and increased number of spectrum blocks to create additional opportunities for a range of providers and offerings. We also got measures to maximize incentives and innovation. We eliminate rules that could have artificially limited participation in future auctions and allowed providers additional flexibility when it comes to securing 5g networks and devices including by seeking employed. At the same times we are not resting here. We continuing to look at spectrum and reviewing the record thats developing on spectrum in the midrange bands between 3 and 24 gigahertz. Im confident that the efforts will bear fruits and consumers in the u. S. Will benefit from decisions. So thank you to the staffs of Wireless Telecommunication Bureau, International Bureau, Office Engineering and technology for hard work on this and all spectrum items. It has my support. Thank you commissioner carr. With Wireless Network theres something about the power of 10. Every 10 years a new Technology Changes everything. In 1980s first generation made inrows around the world and in the Second Generation of mobile systems emerged a decade later, dominated buggy gsm standard in europe. At the turn of millennium Third Generation made debut in japan before anywhere else, but the start of this decade brought the United States to the forefront because we led the world with the introduction of fourth generation Wireless Technology, we made as far smartphones, we expect fifth generation or 5g networks to arrive. Already there is a consensus they will feature three things. First, they should be capable of giga bit speed. Third, they should be more Energy Efficient than predecessor. As a result there is now real momentum for 5g for service. The leadership of the United States is by no means guarantied. Already south korea and japan are pursuing early 5g deployment in time for the olympics in 2018 and 2020 respectively. We are willing to do this now even if it means upgrading Networks Later to comply with Global Standards as they emerge. At the same time earlier this year all 28 member european states signed flagship agreement for Common Foundation for future 5g network and china to be world leader with work on global 5g standards and commitment to invest more than 400 billion in 5g infrastructure between 2020 and 2023. Time for the United States to really get going. To be clear we can take pride in our work here making an additional 1700 megahertz available for flexible use in the 24 gigahertz. Fostering new potential for wii gig innovation. We maintain 4 giga hertz of spectrum and allowed flexibility in other bands specially in rural areas. I am pleased to support these efforts but we are simply not moving fast enough. We risk seating our current leadership in the world. We risk losing our innovative edge, we risk having the United States becoming u follower in the generation. We need to do more than what we are doing here today. What does more look like, here are five ideas for 5g, first, i think leadership in any Technology Cycle requires more than rulemaking and reconsiderations, it requires action, today we have authorized millimeter range, 24 and 27 gigahertz bands. We have al teed up from spectrum for mobile use in 32, 42 gigahertz band but what we need is more than blitz of opportunity, we need something simple, a calendar, lets commit to deadlines to the bands that we have under consideration and focus every actor in the wireless ecosystem on getting something done. We could start with the 28 gigahertz band. Right now south korea is working toward auction of air waves. Lets go first. Lets hold our auction before our counterparts in asia. Lets be the first in the world. I hope my colleagues will agree to this course. Second, while we continue to look high for new spectrum, we cannot forget that we cannot look low, we know that commercialization millimeter bands will not be easy. Its going to take some work. In the meantime, we need to move expeditiously with review to bridge the gap to the highfrequency bands we discussed here. At the same time, we need to correct course and move fast in innovative ideas and original 3 dot proposal which fcc mistakenly opened for rulemaking last month. Third, existential that we move through services, we need more Creative Strategies in the future. We do that here by affirming continued commitment to unlicensed use bands but we can do more to clarify opportunities for dynamic use of unlicensed spectrum in 37 gigahertz band by dismissing outstanding petitions seeking framework built only on exclusive use. Force to build a bigger wireless future much on the ground as on the skies. Air waves is not enough. And to do this we need to take a comprehensive look at tower sighting practices and more consistent across the country. Theres widespread agreement that this would help accelerate the deployment of 5g, after all, 5g requires us to think beyond traditional tower sights, new premium on small cells and figuring out thousand get micro cells in place and fiber facilities nearby is a big, really big infrastructure effort. Of course, making our local practices more consistent is hard, we have a proud tradition of local control in this country that makes uniform one shot preemptive legislative policies a rough way to go, still there are other ways to do this. Right now work is underway on model code on r5 5g deployment. We need to look at every aspect of our laws from fcc policy to federal and state Grant Programs for basic infrastructure and build incentives for everyone to use it. We need to remember that carrots with be swifter tools than sticks. Fifth and finally, we need to support licensing system the fcc put in place a few months ago. System provides an early and unfront way to innovate and create and safe space to play with power levels and explore frequencies and develop new services. One of the new experimental licenses is designed for innovation zones. This is like a virtual wireless sand box. Allows communities to experiment with mobile solutions and tailored made for new smart city initiatives. Its ideal for exploring the possibilities of 5g and Millimeter Wave Service and fcc needs to support and encourage the use of experimental tools and change them if we need to in order to encourage greater use. I think these 5 tasks are essential if the United States wants to lead in the next generation of wireless service. The possibilities are exciting if we see them. After all, we are on the cusp of car that is drives themselves, street that is can be safer, Emergency Services that can be more effective, health care that is more personalized and more capability across the board because we are more connected. What we do here today is a small part of making that happen, but for us to truly succeed, we will need to get going before other countries lead the way. Thank you commissioner rosenworcel. I have been instruct by benedict that mobile is eating the world. It is perfectly clear that mobile is the future of technology and of the internet. And he has a strong Factual Foundation for saying this. Mobile subscriptions have quickly grown from a tinny fraction of the adults population to virtually matching that population leaving pcs in the far distance. Smart phones have only accelerated that trend with over 2. 5 billion now in use. As a result, the fundamental questions and wireless have now changed. Instead of debating over things like platform standards, we now contemplate what breakthroughs, the internet of things, artificial and the like could take advantage of tomorrows Wireless Networks, thats where the fcc comes in. Those future networks will use spectrum in ways unimaginable a generation ago. Architecture will be different too going to thousands of small cells operating at lower power. Each of those factors cancels in forward of thinking polly. We need to produce more low and midband spectrum in the marketplace and mix of license and unlicensed and terrestrial and satellite spectrum and we need to encourage flexible use as we enter this 5g future. Well, this spectrum frontiers decision reflects these goals and in so doing further establishes American Leadership in 5g. We encourage satellite entrepreneurship by preserving a 4 gigahertz band for Satellite Services and relaxing certain rules for citing earth stations. We also maintain the full 64 to 71 giga hurts band as a massive test bed for unlicensing innovation. And we make much more millimeter wave for use. In particular, we add 1700 megahertz, if you want to be more dramatic, 1. 7 million kilohertz. On top of the spectrum that we freed up last year. In short, we begin to set the table so that however mobile consumes the world, whether its a highbandwidth reality or bandwidth industrial case, spectrum will not be the limited factor. Thats policy. Two critical points on process. First, this is not the end of our work in this field but rather the beginning. Accordingly i plan to follow up on todays achievement by presenting the neck frontier item and this will continue commitment. Second, any future leap to get this spectrum licensed requires legislation. As much as anyone, i want to move forward with a highband spectrum action in 2018 but currently we cant. As i have stated recently and repeatedly, we cannot hold any large spectrum auction unless and until congress fictions the upfront payments problem. I stand ready to assist any elected official ready helping in the problem. Promoting u. S. Leadership in 5g is an allfcc, thanks to Bureau Offices to help make this happen. Telecommunications, International Bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau, Enforcement Bureau and the office of general counsel. Your leadership will be helpful as we try to seek leadership 5g going forward. That will move on vote to the item. Commissioner riley . Aye. The item is adopted. Granted as requested. Thanks for your work. Madame secretary, item number 3 on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman, commissioner, third item will be presented by the Wireless Telecommunications bureau, it is entitled accelerating wireless broadband deployment by removing barriers to Infrastructure Investment and donald will give the introduction. Thank you, madame secretary. If you and the folks are ready, feel free to take the floor. For the next item i am pleased to present to you the replacement utility polls report in in order. Im joined at the table today by susan petro, garnet and steph and david, in addition to Wireless Bureau staff at the table, excuse me, i would like to thank Jill Springer and jennifer from our competition and Infrastructure Policy Division for their work and all of the Commission Staff listed on the slide for their input. David will present the item. Thank you, don. Good morning, mr. Chairman, commissioners. Good morning. The draft report order before you is designed for rapid infrastructure by reducing regulatory barriers, this order focuses on narrow category, replacement of utility polls with substantially identical polls to support antennas and other wireless equipment. Utility polls are being used to support communication antennas, sometimes older polls must be replaced to support the weight of added antennas or make room for equipment. The item before you would eliminate requirement that Historic Preservation review be conducted before licensee or Tower Company may begin construction of replacement utility polls provided that the poles meet specified criteria. The proposed exclusion is based on finding that such projects have no potential to protect historical properties. The national Historic Preservation act applies to all federal agencies including the commission. That statute provides that before allowing and undertaking within the Agency Jurisdiction to proceed, the agency must consider the undertakings effect on Building Sites that are eligible for protection as store properties. Agencies may refrain from conducting such review, however, if they find the category of projects has no potential of affecting any nearby Historic Properties. This draft order would find that replacement utility polls meets the standard and that such projects need not under go Historic Preservation review as long as number one, the original poll itself is not historic property, number two, the replacement poll will be placed in the same location as the original poll or no more than 10 feet away and will cost no new ground disturbance. Number three, replacement will be no more than 10 or 5 feet taller than original, number four, appearance consistent with the original. This changes Historic Preservation review procedures will have no effect on any Historic Properties but could yield significant benefits for wireless consumers by making it easier for carriers and Tower Company to deploy satellite antennas on qualified poles. They are currently in a variety of rules and orders, this order would put them into a single rule. That should make it easier for parties to find, understand and comply with these requirements. Wireless Telecommunication Bureau recommends adoption of item and editorial privilege to make technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you, we will now turn to comments by the bench. Next generation wireless innovation deserves next Generation Infrastructure policy. But success cost for regulate air approaches that promote collaboration among relevant stakeholders, federal agencies, state and local government, tribal nations, wireless and Tower Companies are all integral in meeting and implementing those sought after policy objectors. Earlier this year my Office Released a solution 2020 call to action plan which outlines several recommendations making the case for much needed collaboration. They include stakeholder committees that embrace upcoming construction and build out opportunities, encouraging private, public, Public Private and publicprivate partnerships on both supply and demand side to help resolve different pieces of the infrastructure puzzle and aggregate demands for services for economic case for buildout is weaker, ensuring transparency on both sides of the table an effective process and creating capacity from permitting and makeready work. Making municipal assets such fiber, light and power poles available are nondiscriminatory and attractive terms and creating a broadband ready building stock by integrating futurelooking broadband practices into Development Plans for residential and commercial real estate. During my offices expar, meeting, embrace a number of these elements, for those parties, this order may seem like a modest first step. But i support the replacement utility poll rules adopted today because for the most party, we follow the proper collaborative approach. We identified a few criteria that would exempt replacement utility poles from Historic Preservation review process but the industry proposed sensible changes to the location and high criteria, they include exemptive utility poles if they are cited in new holes within 10 feet of the original pole, provided that doing so does not result in new ground disturbance fanned the height of the replacement poles are no more than 10 taller than the poles they replace. Then the staff reached out to Advisory Council for approval and while the record is less clear on how much coordination our office staff had with tribal representatives, the infrastructure issues will face in the future are likely to be more difficult than the one we address today, so it is critical that we set the stage now for robust coordination with all relevant stakeholders including tribal representatives. It was a pleasure working with commissioner carr and my colleagues on this Wireless Infrastructure reform effort and i wish to thank the Wireless Communications bureau, im so excited, i couldnt get it out, for your work on this item. Thank you. Thank you commissioner clyburn. A series of action that is the commission will have to take to ensure that the necessary Infrastructure Infrastructure is deployed to deliver next Generation Wireless Services to next consumer. Certainly does not fix the entirety of the problem. It should reduce some processing delays along with total amount of fees to get necessary approvals for infrastructure citing. Sent a message that the commission was getting to work on the issue, however, it became apparent that the item did not replace how poles were cited, replacing poles are not placed in exact location of original pole and it is placed next to it and wires can be transferred over. Further, to hold the load of additional equipment poles need to be increased in size and the material needs to be changed from wood to metal. The item we are voting on today takes into account the realities, replacement polls that are within 10 feet of the original original will be excluded provided that they are previously on previously disturbed ground. And the ground is most likely in the rights of way that have been repeated disturbed. This is added benefit to lieuing providers ability to create and changes in materials as long as they are consistent in appearance and quality are exempted from review. I would prefer that replacement pole will be increased in size 10 feet without going through preservation review. I appreciate commissioner carrs leadership and the chairman and my colleagues willingness to provide additional flexibility to wireless proviersd. I approve and look forward items that will tackle infrastructure issues, tribal review process and permitting and zoning fees and delays. Hopefully relief in these areas will come soon, thank you. Thank you, commissioner oreilly. Thanks. Its one of my Top Priorities with the commission. As i said before, the current Regulatory Regime is not going to work when it comes to the deployment of next Generation Networks, it takes too long and costs too much. Fcc is looking at a number of areas for potential reform. The environmental and historic review procedures, the state and local process, the tribal review mechanisms and federal regulations. I welcome the chance to help lead the commissioner the commissions efforts on these fronts and todays order is a first time in what is our broader effort to accelerate Wireless Infrastructure deployment. This order the Commission Reach it is reasonable determination that is swamping out utility poles for the purpose of adding antennas or other wireless equipment can be done without any impact on Historic Properties. This determination provides substantial relief by eliminating what would otherwise have been unnecessary and timeconsuming review process for each and every pole replacement. Moreover, im glad colleagues and i were able to Work Together and reach consensus in changes to the item. The order now ra lows replacement pole to be sited 10 feet away, provide that theres no new ground disturbance. Similarly replacement pole can be 5 feet taller rather than limit today 10 increase. At the same time we agree today add language to the order that emphasizes the important and longstanding requirement that parties must cease work and immediately commence the notification and consultation process. Combined these changes will expand the practical utility of todays decision while continuing to ensure that theyll be no impact on Historic Properties. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues as well as all stakeholders as the commission stakes additional steps to streamline the rules governing Wireless Infrastructure deployment. Thanks. Thank you, commissioner. This is a smart and thoughtful effort to update our review practices regarding utility poles. I appreciate the back and forth in the last few days between my colleagues as well as work with Advisory Council on Historic Preservation but everyone in this room on any interest of us eventually being able to have lunch, i will not have a Statement Today and simply say that i support your efforts. Thank you, commissioner. Aint going to happen. [laughter] someone wants it. I have a snack for you. Prepared. Thank you, commissioner. Vinson, one of the most gifted painers painters of the world, specifically we exclude replacement utility poles from the burdens imposed by Historic Preservation rules and this would help pave the way for 5g networks and services powered as they will be by antennas and light that are attached to poles. Significantly we only provide relief where the replacement utility pole will not affect historical properties. And so this is not a case of replacing va vangoughs master piece, simply one pole for another pole. That simple change shouldnt be accompanied, i think, by red tape and im glad my colleagues agree. Ii would like to give special thanks to commissioner carr for agreeing to take the lead of Wireless Infrastructure issues including this order and i look forward with him and all my colleagues as we move forward with additional infrastructure streamlining initiatives. Thanks as well to dedicated staff that worked on the item, debra, linda oliver, bill richardson, jennifer salas, dana schaffer, Jill Springer, don, susan, mary claire york. [roll call vote] items adapted granted as requested. Thanks to all folks and we will now turn to the secretary for the next item on the agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the fourth item on the agenda will be presented by the Wireline Competition Bureau and is entitled accelerating wire line broadband deployment by removing barriers through Infrastructure Investments, chris, chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Thank you, madame secretary, whenever you are ready, the floor is yours. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Good morning. The Wireline Competition Bureau presents for your consideration a report and order, declaratory ruling and further notice of proposed rulemaking on accelerating infrastructure deployment. This item if adopted would implement several important reforms aimed at removing unnecessary regulateory bar yours to the deployment of highspeed broadband network. It would enable carriers to more rapidly away from outdated services and towards the construction of next Generation Networks bringing Innovative New Broadband Services to consumers. I would like to thank the Competition Policy Division team for their work on this proceeding. Our colleagues and consumer and Governmental Affairs enforcement Telecommunications Bureaus and the offices of General Council and Strategic Planning also provided us with invaluable input. Seated at the table with me are lisa hoan, associate bureau chief and from wcb Competition Policy Division, daniel khan and Deputy Division chief adam, assistant Division Team and zach ross, attorney adviser. Zach will now present the item. Great. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Good morning. This report and order declaratory ruling and further notice of proposed rulemaking, if adopted, takes several steps to accelerate the deployment of nextGeneration Networks. With respect to the commissions pole attachment rules, the report codifies excluding capital costs recovered from pole attachment rates. It also establishes a 180day shot clock for endorsement Bureau Resolution of pole access complaints. Additionally, it creates a reciprocal system of infrastructure access providing incumbent local exchanged carriers guarantied access to poles controlled by other local Exchange Carriers. With respect to network requirements, the order expedites process and eliminates unnecessary notification requirements. It also eliminates a rule that currently prohibits incumbent local Exchange Carriers from coordinating with entities that will be affected and adopt streamline notice procedures relate today force majority. Thats in addition, the report and order streamlines the section 214a discontinue process by reducing comment and automatic grant time frames for applications seeking to grandfather services, two, discontinue previously grandfathered lowspeed Data Services and three, discontinue lowspeed legacy voice and Data Services with no customers. Finally, the report in order clarify that is a carrier must consider only its own end user customers when determining when to seek discontinuing disapproval from the commission. The declaratory ruling reverses the functional tests adopted by the commission in 2014 which diverts investment from nextGeneration Networks into outdated services. The further notice of proposed rulemaking request comment on further modifications to pole attachment rules on several proposals to further streamline Network Change notification and discontinuing rules and on targeted actions to facilitate restoring broadband infrastructure after natural disasters. The bureau recommends adoption of this report and order, declaratory ruling and further notice of proposed rulemaking and requests editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you, mr. Ross. Comments from the bench. We must not lose sight in the midst of highprofile debate today around media ownership, next gen tv and Lifeline Program that many of the most fundamental protections the fcc put in place in recent years for consumers of legacy Voice Service are moments away from being dumped of regulatory history. All of this is being done under the guide of advancing infrastructure. Here i am talking about how our Technology Transitioned protections are being evaporated under the majorities carrier first agenda. Over the past several years, the fcc has balanced attention between two sometimes competing goals, minimizing the burden on industry when it comes to transition from one technology to another and protecting consumers as a move from being offered a service that they know and understand to one that maybe quite unfamiliar. In that vain, the commission previously adopted a variety of rules regarding Network Changes, copper retirement and service discontinue and i stated back then that we struck the proper consumer balance but today that balance has been upset. Back in 2015, i reflected on the comparison between these Technology Transitions and the Digital Television transition. Apparently, that reflection is still relevant since at least one party to this proceeding continued to analyze dont tell my mom i messed up on that, it to this. What was strike to go me then and now is the difference between the two transitions when it comes to ensuring that consumers understand and are prepared to the Technology Transition ahead. With the gtb transition, billions of dollars were spent on multimedia Consumer Education as well as significant staff outreach and subsidy, subsidy for converter boxes. Every one knew that the dt transition was coming and all this work was done for the president , from 16 to 19 million households that did not subscribe to paid tv. Contrast that with the 49 million households and businesses that still use landline today. There is no significant Consumer Outreach campaign planned and no subsidized converter for equipment that may no longer work. And it is beginning to show. Consumers are fearful of these changes and have commented to that effect in the record. As i mentioned in my statement when we started this proceeding, i have not heard from a single consumer that has asked for their landline to be taken away more quickly. And just how do we follow up with that today, by rolling back protections we put in place to ease the transition for consumers and competitors. Procedurally, the item tries to have its cake and eat it too. It talks about hundreds of millions of dollars in impact from rolling back these vital Consumer Protections, yet, it conducts no formal cost benefit analysis, something that the majority has said should be required for rules and especially those rules with Significant Impact. Here the item claims to have a Significant Impact but where is the supporters cost benefit analysis . The item is highly problematic for all the reasons i have articulated previously but there is more. Consumers need notice and help understating changes to their service and cop on the beat when something goes wrong. This item would actually shorten or eliminate relevant notice periods and would ensure that the fcc is nowhere to be found when something goes wrong with the consumers alarm system, businesses emergency elevator call button or other service reliant on legacy infrastructure and in the interest of time in ink, i will only mention a few issues here. The item enables carriers to stop maintaining their copper infrastructure without notice to consumers. As the misplaced reasoning in this item goes, carriers have incentive to maintain copper or else they will lose customers but the incentives are actually reversed much of the time. Commenters commented on proposition and lucrative service as they offer as costlier substitute if copper is degraded and that is just that is what is happening in the field. I heard just last week about a customer whose fixed Broadband Speed was so frustrating slow that she spent hundreds of dollars a month on a mobile hot spot just to stay connected. This item is more conscious of more of that and allowing providers to effectively retire their copper without notice. This item radically reduces notice periods for variety of scenarios making it harder for consumers, states, Government Agencies and competitive carriers to understand and react to changes in their network. Indeed, the item outright ignores input from sister agency, ntia when it flees to retain requirements that carriers provides notice to and work with government customers. Several years back, when we interested section 214 of the Communications Act to include the functionality provided to the consumer rather than simply put what the carrier said it was offering, i voted to side with consumers and innovators, to understand why this revised definition is anticonsumer and antiinnovation consider the carter phone, radio invented in 1960s to help ranters answer the phone when they were not inside residents. At t defined its service at the time to include equipment and contracts and tariffs prohibited users from attaching any equipment not provided by at t to any facilities furnished by at t, it took mr. Carter years of wrangling with the Telephone Company to allow his device on the network. Allowing service to be defined by the carrier risk these sorts of issues happening all over again. It is true that we should not keep an entire Copper Network alive for two fax machines but at the same time it is dangerous precedent to see to a carrier the definition of the service. Imagine the tariff to high highcost rural areas or only permitted use of alarm system and if consumers are using legacy line for service and carrier disables that functionality, has not service been discontinued for that person or that community . I believe so. If this carriers first item was not bad enough, it is slanted towards the largest incumbents. With all of the discussions discussion around creating reciprocal system of access to infrastructure, i thought it would make sense to revisit our decision that prohibited competitors from accessing conduit, audition from which i descended years ago. Sadly like the rest of my request, this too was denied and if you agree that the order and declaratory ruling are bad, the further notice will make your head explode. I will simply note that the majority of the items the Commission Seeks further notice on are items on the wish list. The further notice seeks comment to adopt an an inrun from 2016 Tech Transitions order by seeking comment or rather single interconnected void Service Without any Service Quality or any requirement should enable streamline discontinuance of legacy Voice Service. It also seeks comment on whether we should streamline discontinuance for higher speed Data Services. Finally, it asks whether we can help states and localities recover better from disasters by preempting their regulators as natural disasters somehow rendered states and localities unable to figure out what was best for their communities. If i have left you with any doubt on where i stand on this item, let me clear it up for you right now. I respectfully decent, nonetheless, i think thank the bureaus for the work on item. These are difficult issues and you have spent long, long hours addressing them. My hope is today that we can come to a consensus on important issues sometime in the near future. Thank you. Thank you, chair clyburn. I recommend the chairman for leadership on the proceeding which represents further steps to streamline fcc regulations and processes, reduce unnecessary regulatory process costs and broadband deployment. It restores section 214 oh the act including by making clear that the provision does not extend telecommunication carriers other lines of business. Ly vote to approve. Thank you. Thank you commissioner, riley. Thanks, to close Digital Divide we need to make it easier to deploy highspeed networks. For years fcc rules have stood in the way of providers delivering advanced services to communities across the country. So im pleased that todays item takes concrete steps to reduce regulatory burdens while ensuring that consumers remain protected. These actions will make a real difference particularly in those living in rural and areas that might otherwise miss out on deployments. One study show that is through streamlining alone the fcc can flip the Business Case for thousands of communities. Regulatory reforms could make it economical sector 46. 7 million more homes than under the existing regime. Thats additional 45. 3 billion in private Sector Investment that could be incentivized simply by removing regulatory bar years of deployment. Todays order implements many reforms. For instance, by simplifying the notice rules for copper retirement and reducing the waiting period to 90 days we enable carriers to more quickly and costeffectively transition consumers to fiber networks. In addition, the order will help mitigate the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes, by encouraging timely restoration of services to consumers. We also support the deployment of Nextgeneration Network networks, Legacy Services and providing clarity as to when fcc authorization required by eliminating the misguided functional tests. I also appreciate my colleagues willingness to incorporate edits in the further notice so we now propose to cod fie our existing precedent, cod fying this approach could help drive Fiber Deployments deeper into the Network Without the need for costly and timeconsuming regulatory approvals. These are all important steps that would make it easier for consumers to benefit from nextgeneration deployments so the order has my support and thank you to the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau for all your hard work on this item. Thank you commissioner carr. Broadband is more than a technology, its a platform for opportunity. Every choice this agency makes should further that opportunity for all of us. That is how i believe we build a more powerful future. That might be a lofty sentiment but i also think its our duty under the law. This is a duty that i think this agency should take seriously but here in this proceeding purportedly about accelerating wireline broadband deployment, the fcc fails this test. Let me explain. This proceeding is fundamentally about notice. As result of the actions the sec takes today households and businesses and communities across the country may find their service altered without advanced warning and with no guarantee of an equivalent replacement. Recognize that rural areas are at special risk because of the economics favor removing facilities without putting in place truly comparable service. Now, i know that networks need to be updated. I understand they need to swap out old services and replace them with new infrastructure. But it defies logic to suggest that this can be done with that working closely with the communities and customers where Network Change is going to hit. To those who are affected by change, the consumers, business, state officials, tribal authorities avs ponders the fcc says tough, figure it out, youre on your own. Because i think this is cold and cruel comfort for the millions who rely on these Services Today and are unlikely to see better broadband in the future. I dissent. At the risk of being technocratic but also an effort to show that we read things carefully im going to improve one aspect of todays decision. I believe the order accurately restraints the law with respect to the exclusion of capital expenses, recovered for nonrecurring attachment makeready cost. I think it also does a good job clarifying timelines for the resolution of all attachment complaints. I believe this clarity can truly help facilitate broadband deployment in the matter that could very well be consumer friendly. So on this discrete aspect of todays decision i offer my support. Thank you, commissioner. It seems like ancient history now but at one time fax machines were thought to be a necessary of any modern office. That changed rather quickly, so much so when i i joined the fcn 2012 i was surprised to learn that i had a fax machine and number two, that the agencies default was to include a fax machine number on business cards. I probably jettisoned that number in favor of my twitter handle. Technology and consumes expectations that simply outpaced the bulky device that played such a Critical Role in movies like the firm and back to the future two. Same with lexi networks we all relied on in the late 1980s. They were ever more outdated as consumers lead the migration to fiber and is advanced ipbased technologies. The world is more resilient, robust and more competitive and thats why a key to closing the Digital Divide is maximizing providers ability and willingness to invest and building a modern networks that fueled the internet economy. But onion regulations deter Many Companies from investing in these networks. Having to maintain to networks, one legacy, one modern diverts resources away from new deployments. By definition every dollar that is spent maintaining fading Copper Networks is by definition a dollar that cannot be spent on fiber. These dollars are substantial. One estimates found companies could say 40 to 50 in operating expenses per home each year by not having to maintain old copper facilities. Nationwide that translates into billions of dollars annually that could be devoted to nextGeneration Networks. That Digital Opportunity is denied into secs rule for skiers to maintain the networks of yesteryear. So today we asked to remove excessive regulation that is slowing the ip transition. We streamline our top retirement rules for carriers can efficiently switch to new technologies that better serve consumers. We allow kerry to notify consumers of changes before notifying the fcc so that they can better coordinate transitions. We speed the process for discontinuing little used or lowspeed legacy Data Services. And we turn back the misguided functional test which effectively established a mother may i approach to Building Networks, one which can serve both consumers and companies. This will especially benefit rural america. As it is the Business Case for installing infrastructure in lowdensity areas can be hard. Forcing companies and their capital through a government controlled bottleneck makes it even harder. Promoting more marketbased decisions will improve Business Cases for Rural Broadband helping rural communities. One study found a package of reforms including many we adopted a would make it economically viable for the private sector to deploy fiber to the premises and billions of additional rural occasions. These are people and places that for too long have been on the wrong side of the Digital Divide. Unfortunately, not surprisingly, some who oppose this decision have engaged in fear mongering claiming consumers will suddenly be left without service or service will be taken away without notice. So lets set the record straight. If a carrier wants to stop offering traditional telephone service, then our rules still will require notifying the affected consumers and seeking permission to the fcc section 214 discontinuing process. That is true today and that would be true after this order is adopted. Likewise with the claim this order leaves those with disabilities in the lurch. In fact, we clearly worn that carriers that are seeking to discontinue a Legacy Service in favor of an advanced service must as a matter of law to ensure that the Replacement Service is accessible, compatible and usable to persons with disabilities. It is also ironic that many of those fiercely opposed to accelerating the transition to fiber and ipbased technologies are simultaneously upset about with the claim is a lack of competition in the broadband market, the dominance of Companies Using other technologies. You cant have it both ways. Either you want to enable a company with 21st century copper plans to compete in the 21st century, or you dont. If you dont then you cant or shouldnt complain about the lack of competitive choice at the current broadband standard. The bottom line is that the ip transition is here and consumers are better off with it and prefer it. The fcc can either strand investments in the modern equivalent of a fax machine or it can deliver value for consumers. Im glad this commission has advice on the future. Thanks to the staff who have worked so hard on this item from the Wireline Competition Bureau, the office of general counsel, consume and Governmental Affairs bureau, the office of Strategic Plan in the Enforcement Bureau for the terrific work on this item. We will now proceed to a vote. Emission clyburn . The item is adopted. Thanks to the staff for the work on the item. Madam secretary can you please take us to the next item on todays agenda . Mr. Chairman, commissions the fifth item on your agenda will also be presented by the Wireline Competition Bureau and its entitled bridging the Digital Divide for the income consumers, lifeline and linkup reform and modernization, telecommunications carry eligible for universal service support. The chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Thank you, madam secretary. Welcome back. Mr. Chairman, and commissioners, the Wireline Competition Bureau presents for your consideration a fourth report and order, order on reconsideration memorandum opinion and order, notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of inquiry that takes a fresh look at the commissions Lifeline Program. The item focuses on how the program can more effectively and efficiently help close the Digital Divide for low income consumers while minimizing the contributions burden on ratepayers by tackling waste, fraud, and abuse. I would like to thank the Telecommunications Access policy divisions team for their work on this proceeding. Our colleagues in the enforcement and Wireless Telecommunications bureaus and in the offices of Communications Business opportunities, general counsel, managing director, and Strategic Planning also provide us with invaluable input. Seated at the table with me are trained, associate bureau chief, and from the bureaus Telecommunications Access policy division, ryan palmer, division chief, jody griffin, Deputy Division chief, and rachelle devall, attorney advisor. Good afternoon, mr. Chairman, and commissioners. The item before you adopted seeks to ensure that the Lifeline Program operates consistent with the authority granted to us by congress and the Communications Africa gives gratis or to provide and and addresses ongoing waste, fraud, and abuse that undermines the integrity of the program and limits its effectiveness. First, fourth report in order, order on reconsideration, and memorandum, take a series of steps to address ongoing areas of concern in the Lifeline Program to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Specifically the orders would target enhanced lifeline support to residents of rural areas on tribal lands, established mapping resource or get if i ruled tribal lands, require independent certification of residency rules tribal land and direct enhanced support to facility space providers. Increase lifeline benefit afforded by eliminating the report freezes for voice and Broadband Internet Access Services and clarify the premium wifi and other Similar Networks of wifi delivered Broadband Internet access at service do not qualify as mobile broadband under the Lifeline Program rules. Together the orders would target enhance lifeline support for tribal lands, to support the deployment of modern communication networks, promote Consumer Choice within the program and remove uncertainty and streamline our rules regarding the application of lifeline support and eligible for lifeline reimbursement. Second, the notice of proposed rulemaking if adopted proposes and seeks comment on reform such of the Lifeline Program rules comport with the authority granted to the commission in the Communications Act and to curb wasteful and abuse folks been in the Lifeline Program. Specifically the nprm seeks comment on ending the commissions previous preemption of states ruled in the city certain Eligible Communications Carriers and removing the lifeline broadband provider designation. Targeted targeting lifeline funo facilitiesbased broadband Capable Networks offering both voice and Broadband Services. Adopting a self enforcing budget cap for the program, proving the eligibility verification and recertification processes to further prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in the program, and improving providers continue to provide quality Communication Services by establishing a a maximum discount level for lifeline supported service. Finally the notice of inquiry if adopted seeks comment on how lifeline might more efficiently target funds to areas and household mostly in need of help in obtaining Digital Opportunity. Have your recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges extended only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you. Now proceed to comments from the bench. Theres a simple question i fear that is to really asked in these quarters. Just who is a lifeline subscriber . According to survey data, it is she. She makes 14,000 per year. She is middle age, single and has a child within her care. She is trapped in systemic poverty and she has picked the only device and telephone plan she could afford. To state more boldly, the plan has picked her. That service is delivered primarily by a wireless reseller because she can only afford one form of telecommunication. That device enables her to call 911. 911. That Service Allows her to speak with her childs educators. And that Service Helps her child you are a worker if she were able to stop on stay on top with a fulltime or often multiple parttime but too often dead in minimum wage schedule, and just white has the fcc majority teed up for her today . In a a final order that was circulated after i got up here, a more efficient userfriendly means to bridge the digital and communication divide . No, they did not. Before us is a carefully crafted proposal which is more likely to get rip that phone from her hands than provider with robust, enhanced and affordable service. Now, if i were to rename this agency the federal punitive rulemaking commission, you would accuse me of being over the top. But this fourth report in order, order on reconsideration, memorandum opinion and order, notice of proposed rulemaking, and notice of inquiry, it is, in fact, punitive rulemaking. And what should be most telling, even to a casual observer, is that no files are in this docket thus far supports any of the specific policy proposals here theres a slight exception in the form of one filer who every other commentor is categorically against the item. Veterans groups, Public Interest groups, civil rights groups, carriers, tribes and more have expressed these concerns about this rulemaking. So today ucb draped primarily in black this morning. Now afternoon. Because i mourn for that mother and her prospects when it comes to phone service. I mourn because before us is an absurd proposal devoid of promise and if empathy, and i n because i am forced to be critical of the majority that leaves an agency i hold dear. I mourn because this majority would rather toss out those valuable solutions already teed up when it comes to service reforms, more choice, and ensuring that low income americans can afford voice and broadband service. The majority proclaims that the item is about bridging the Digital Divide, and it boldly labeled this item as such. But this proposal does nothing to make the lives of those who qualify better, and no amount of orwellian doublespeak in the dockets title would suggest otherwise. Make no mistake, this is the widening the digital and opportunity divide item. This administration goes on about the urgency of reducing regulatory barriers. Indeed, we had that before us item after item over the past ten months that purport to do just that. But when it comes to those most in need, the most theyre willing to do is pay lip service. For them, we have and will make it more difficult for providers to enter and stay into the Lifeline Program. For those looking to serve economically poor people, this majority is very comfortable attacking, even blameless companies as they forced them to the best customers, lose millions even after they have entered the market, and they are are assured that he will take 25 years, not one year, for any provider to be able to offer nationwide service. This administration is all about ensuring that the commission encourages innovation to Service Offerings. But not of those Innovation Service offerings are designed to help those were are economiy poor. For those less fortunate, too bad. The majority is happy to dictate the exact type of facilities a provider must give to you when it comes to service, ignoring the Communications Act and the ability of the marketplace to respond and provide solutions that meet people where they are, and ignoring what they have done in every other doctor before this where they extol the benefits of a free and open market. I could go on pointing out how this administration enables providers to provide predated to consumers, but not if they are economically poor. How this administration allows universal Service Benefits to flow in perpetuity for companies, but not for those are economically poor. That this administration praise its competitive choice, but not for the economically poor. And that this administration decries consumers having to pay a minimum fee for Voice Service, but for the economically poor, we are just fine that they are suggesting that they do just that. Finally, we appraise budgets for other universal Service Programs, but he where seeking comment on having, cutting in half the amount we spend on bridging the foldable online. Could it be because these consumers are economically for . The impact of these actions and proposed actions will be severe, but the actions themselves, and they usually try not to bring emotion even when i am emotional, these actions are heartless. Over 70 of the wired lifeline consumers will be told that they cannot use their preferred carrier and preferred plan, and on top of that they must not have a carrier, they may not have carrier to turn to after all of this happens. And just where is the analysis of where these customers will go if they reach that juncture . Or just where is the analysis of telling us how we can assure that will be able to continue to afford connectivity . The item contains no analysis of this sort. And at a time when eligible telecommunication carriers are actively relinquishing their designation or have elected from the obligation to provide Lifeline Service, just where will these consumers turn . As i have said before and will repeat again, the federal Lifeline Program is not nor should it ever be an infrastructure program. It is certainly a complement to infrastructure programs, but ultimately it is an Affordability Program for even when the commission as said additional lifeline monies would have the effect of spurring deployment in the context of tribal lifeline, it has said that the primary goal is to reduce the monthly cost of service. And went on with a Detailed Analysis of how analysis, a Detailed Analysis, of how that additional funding would impact affordability. It has never suggested that affordability is an infrastructure problem, and it should never do so most disheartening is the immediate and impact this proposal have on tribal lands. And all of this is occurring doing native American Heritage month. During my travels in new mexico last year i met a young navajo woman. She told me that without her lifeline phone and without the Lifeline Program, her community would, and i quote, really be living in the 1800s. Unfortunately, many other tribes are plagued by a disproportionate share of their citizens living in poverty. Some of them lack the basics like electricity and clean running water. What this means for many of them is that lifeline phone is is te only real connection to the outside world. And that lifeline phone sometimes is their only functioning utility. The tribes have told us that losing enhanced lifeline support would be devastating because very few wireless providers provide Lifeline Service on tribal land. And for some inexplicable reason this item prohibits Satellite Service from participating in lifeline on tribal lands. As if this were not painful enough. This item offers no transition or face down. Unlike what weve done in the past for multiple other universal service and disability programs when we change rate and subsidy structures. Process wise, this item is a failure. Making radical changes without engaging tribes is contrary to our very own best practices. While the draft recirculate yesterday makes reference to mapping related consultation completed over a year ago in the last administration, there is no mention of any consultation that this administration has done. We have in internal office of native affairs and policy. My question is, with the consulted during this process . If not, that is truly bad practice and process. At a minimum we should have sought for comment on this and actively consulted with the tribes on these issues, as we said we would. And like many other things on the days agenda, this item does not include a costbenefit analysis, unlike what the fcc majority repeatedly demanded of the Previous Administration. None of this had to be this way. I was willing to meet my colleagues halfway. I have shown in the past that i would vote for notices that seek, even on things that may not i believe in. Particularly if it has a chance of resulting in an order that does good. That it has a a chance of resulting in an order that saves low income travel consumers from losing service once it is effective. Fortunately this was not to be. Unfortunately. Days at the item was circulated by office begin a conversation with the chairman office about the potential added that in the interest of compromise i suggested that we pump the brakes a bit and build a record on a major changes on this item like the elimination of resale responded pogrom and changes to tribal lifeline. That suggestion was flatly rejected. I propose we retain a streamline lpd like process for states that do not certify lifeline only etcs. That suggestion was flatly rejected. I suggested that we not we opened the door to fraud by eliminating the court freeze right now, seeking comment before proceedings. That proposal was flatly rejected. I asked that we seek, on alternative Legal Authority so that we do not prejudge our discussion on whether on the facilitiesbased providers should be allowed to participate in the program. That was flatly rejected and i suggested we not hamstring the program through an illadvised budget cap methodology, to have to tell you what the answer was . Just in case you missed it, that was flatly rejected. It is inevitable that some who bring up my admittedly failed attempt at compromise on one item, and thats the budget. Let me speak to this. We have a budget mechanism in place now for lifeline. That may not go as far or as punitive as the cap before us but it is in place. Indeed, if you were to take a look at this that seeks comment on the budget, it suggests an 820 million cap. Irrespective of my past attempt at compromise, leaving with a proposal that would cut the budgets current and cut the programs current budget by more than half is something that is not starting at the 50yard line for me. This item does not bridge the Digital Divide as it purports. It is a bridge to nowhere. It proposes to shirk one of the four pillars of our universal service promise, and that is affordability. My only hope here today is that this Commission Sees the error of its ways before does further harm to those americans who are trapped on the other side of the economic digital and opportunities divide. I dissent. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner orielly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I i appreciate the chairman undertaking this proceeding to make Critical Reforms to the Lifeline Program. He and his team have worked diligently for used to identify and quantify waste, fraud, and abuse from the program. Ayer frankly done so in the face of unfair blistering criticism simply for highlighting the many ways the program has gone off the rails including by enabling providers to claim support for dead people. These are basic undeniable facts. I have raised similar concerns as has the gao in report after report after report. Indeed given the miserable track record of the program may have called for ending it all together if the chairman of the rest of this term has attempted is a necessary fixes, bring the program back in line with the statute, directing to improve oversight and accelerate progress on the National Lifeline eligibility verifier. Now we are seeking, a more fundamental revisions. Some of argued that changes stop by the Prior Commission are sufficient but some of those are forms like the National Verifier vote be completely in place for years, if ever. In the meantime we cant and must do better to safeguard the program and the ratepayer dollars that find it. During this latest push you over a lifeline i focus three particular forms. Establishing a real enforceable budget for the program, targeting the subsidies to those consumers who would not otherwise have service, and return the program to its original purpose of providing discounted, not free, service by requiring minimum contribution from as many recipients as feasible. These are reasonable requests that i will continue to press for able expect to see in any final rules. First my call for real budget not some phony budget mechanism is not unique to the Lifeline Program. All other federal universal Service Programs are subject to the cap are very firm budget to limit the overall cost to consumers who pay the fees to support these programs. Budget is also firstline defense against gives a rapid e in the programs size and acts as a deterrent to providers and recipients to prevent oversubscription or abuse. It is unfathomable that some of my colleagues who set before congress and agreed on the need for a budget would feature removal budget. Had a policy with a 5 of the construct implement a budget this proceeding might have been in a very different posture. Second, to avoid access spin and regulatory overreach, all federal programs must be carefully tailored to solve the identified market failure. The Lifeline Program fails miserably in that regard. The gao and academics have pointed out only one in eight subscribers, and one out of 20 wireless subscribers would not have service absent the lifeline subsidy. Those are failure rates of almost 88 and 95 respectively. Let me repeat, consumers are paying more on the phone bills each month to support service for people that would assigned up and paid in full without a subsidy. A better targeted program would enable more deserving consumers to obtain Service Without unfairly charging ratepayers. Third, lifeline was intended to be a discount program. Many of the problems, waste, fraud, and abuse stem from the fact that when Wireless Services after the program to subsidize a Voice Service became free to endusers. Along with the phone and even the data allowance for requiring a minimum contribution would also be consistent with the rules for other federal programs. I recognize some portion of lifelineeligible consumers are truly destitute and could not afford to contribute one dollar to the service. Thats not who i am talking about. There are other individuals at the top end of the eligibility spectrum should be able to do so and, in fact, they we already y some additional amount to top off their lifeline plan. In those circumstances we should be able to find someone to commit a minimum contribution. Ive already heard some ideas worth exploring such as requiring a minimum contribution when consumers recertify the eligibility each year. Some would solve the problem by racing Program Requirements for providers in economic offer their service for free that raises its own set of problems. Simply having a voice line with people to text is the lifeline they want. It requires providers offer highspeed broadband can be counterproductive. I appreciate the chance to work with the chairman and any willing partners to further reform and to stamp out remaining waste, fraud, and abuse and to ensure that the program is run efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the statute. For those who just want to lambaste any possible changes to the program, far from protecting it, youre causing his critical to further erode and doing a great disservice to his many recipients. I am willing and will vote to approve. Commissioner carr. The Lifeline Program is an important part of the fcc obligation to ensure that Quality Services are available to consumers at just reasonable and affordable rates. But the important purpose is served by the program have been undermined by the waste, fraud, and abuse that has plagued it over the last several years. The gao as weve heard highlight at just some of this abuse in its may 2017 report. The gao could not confirm whether or than 1 million individuals actually participate in the qualifying benefit programs claimed on their lifeline enrollment applications. The gao identified over 6000 individuals who were reported as deceased by the Social Security administration, but nonetheless have signed up for lifeline. Whats more, their involvement in annual recertifications all took place after the supposedly subscribers have passed away. Despite the programs one per household rule, in one instance gao found 10,000 separate enrollments associate with a single address. These concerns have been echoed by members of congress on both sides of the political aisle. As well as members of the commission in 2012 and 2016 when they voted on reforms. Now, i dont view these widespread instances of fraud as a basis for eliminating the program but they are certainly a call for serious reform. Indeed the commission has responsibility to both the ratepayers who find a lifeline, and to the consumers who benefit from it to ensure our Program Goals are being met. Im glad were not taking action to increase accountability while at the same time considering ways to target lifelines support to consumers in communities that need it most. One place where the Digital Divide is most start is on tribal lands. In fact, the sec is down 68 of People Living in rural areas on tribal lands lack access to broadband. We need to do more to close the Digital Divide in these communities and doing so requires us to incentivize greater facilitiesbased deployment. The commission recognized this point in 2012. When it voted to limit the 100 linkup discount to facilitiesbased carriers serving tribal lands. The commission recent back then that by limiting the support to facilitiesbased providers, the agency will help incentivize the deployment of broadband on tribal lands. The record developed since then supports that finding and if we build on the commissions 2012 decision in todays order by extending the requirement to providers that receive enhanced tribal lifeline support. The record shows taking this step will incentivize carriers to deploy and invest broadband facilities on tribal lands. The item ask important questions about potential Program Changes to ensure lifeline works effectively. For example, recognizing universal Service Funds are finite, we propose a self enforcing budget mechanism and seek, on how to work. We propose to eliminate the state authority over the Eligible Telecommunications carrier designation process for broadband which will make sure states continue their vital role in protecting lifeline subscribers from bad actors. We seek, always incentivize continued provider participation in the program. These are important steps towards making lifeline more accountable and effective so this item has my support. Thank you, commissioner carr. Commissioner rosenworcel. The future belongs to the connected no matter who you are or where you live. You need access to modern communications have a fair shot and 20 for such a success. The fact of the matter is that today too Many Americans lack access to broadband. And last year the sec decided to do something about it it took a hard look at the Lifeline Program which got its start in 1985 when president reagan was in the white house and nearly all medications involved a corporate it update this program which is about helping low income households secure access to voice telepathy, and to refocus it on broadband. I think this was the right thing to do. I think this was the modern thing to do and thats because Internet Connections are the dial tone of the digital age. If you want an object lesson in why this is true, just consider kids and homework. Today 17 teachers assign homework that requires broadband access. Data shows as many as one in three households did not subscribe to internet service. For those numbers overlap is where i call the homework gap. According to the Senate Joint Economic committee, the homework gap is a real, by their estimate it affects 12 million children all across the country. Let me tell you what it looks like. I sat with student in texas who do homework. At fast food restaurants with fries just to get a free wifi signal. Ive listen to students in pennsylvania to make elaborate plans everyday to head to the homes of friends and relatives just to be able to get online. I effort from High School Football players in rural new mexico who linger in the School Parking lot after games in the pitch black dark because it is the only place they can get a reliable connection. These kids have grid, but it shouldnt be this hard because today no child can be left offline. Developing Digital Skills is flat out a center for education and full participation in the modern economy. You know what could help the homework gap likes the Lifeline Program could help. If properly reformed and refocus on getting broadband to low income households including those with kids in school. But instead of thinking about the future and doing something modern, today the fcc set out to slash the program from front to back. Instead of honoring our statutory duty under section 254 to support lowincome consumers, we cast them aside and cut them off. Instead of taking into account the millions of dollars that have already been spent on a new system of National Verification to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse, we discard the possibilities before we even begin. Instead of reviewing and death audits, we toss them in the trash rather than use them to inform change. Instead of recognizing that are lifeline enrollees in texas, florida and puerto rico who are using the program to pull their lives back together after devastating storms, we seek to cut off their internet and phone service. Instead of consulting with tribal authorities about changes to lifeline that impact native communities, we hang up on the least connected among us. Instead of helping the veterans who rely on lifeline for jobs, healthcare and we are acclimato civilian life, we turned them away. Instead of assisting the low Income Elderly access to modern communications, we denied in service. Instead of having kids do their school work and navigate homework gap, we disconnect their signal. We denied him a fair shot at teacher success. This is not real reform. This is cruelty. It is at odds with our statutory duty and it would do little more insight to many communities to the wrong side of the Digital Divide. I dissent. This has some of the Government Accountability office, or gao, published a report identifying deeply disturbing problems within the Lifeline Program. For example, gao discovered over 1. 2 million lifeline subscribers who apparently were not eligible to participate in the program as well as 6378 individuals who apparently reenrolled after being reported dead. That limited sample alone constituted more than 137 million in abuse each year. Just two months ago the u. S. Senate all my security and Governmental Affairs committee, so i come home as security Government Affairs committee asked me to testify at a hearing entitled fccs Lifeline Program. A case study of government waste and mismanagement. Message i and my fellow witnesses heard clear, it was urgent, bipartisan. Among other members, chairman johnson and Ranking Member mccaskill declared that Lifeline Programs are serious and persistent, and the time for action is now. At senator mccaskill democrat from missouri put it, quote, the idea that we can continue a program that is still structurally deficient in the same way weve been doing it is frankly a nonstarter for me. Its a nonstarter for the fcc, too. So today we take action. The reform to implement and proposed a seek to accomplish two important objectives. First, curtail the waste, fraud, and abuse that continue to plague the Lifeline Program, and second, make lifeline more effective at bridging the Digital Divide on behalf of low income americans. Lets start with what specifically will change as a result of this order. First, we will reduce waste by appropriately focusing enhanced tribal lifeline support. Right now the Lifeline Program provide subsidies up to nine dollars 25 a month to those living in most parts of the country. But it provides up to 34 25 a month in subsidies to those living on tribal land, 5 per month bump. In many cases that enhance subsidy rightly reflects the limited deployment and high cost of providing service on many tribal lands. But the definition that we have use for tribal lands includes many cities like tulsa oklahoma and reno, nevada. So in your income person in tulsa, in reno is eligible for 35, 34 month subsidy why one f those living in wichita in las vegas and divest major cities in the United States only qualify or 9. 25. This makes no sense. I was just in reno, consistent with being the Biggest Little city in the world its a free civic and center with good connectivity, especially when compared to tribal areas that i personally visited from the rosebud sioux reservation in south dakota to Navajo Nation in arizona. Targeting enhanced lifeline tribal support to rural tribal areas inside this waste and directs the federal health to members who really need the help. Second, we direct enhanced tribal support to provide actually Building Networks and deploying infrastructure on tribal lands. I have participated in three official tribal consultations as chairman as well as numerous other meetings with tribal representatives. I discussed the Lifeline Program and talked about ways it can be improved. What i have heard repeatedly is communities on tribal lands desperately need broadband investments. And that is why many tribes and tribal organizations have weighed in with their support for the step were taking today from the affiliated tribes trif northwest indians in oregon, to gila river in arizona. From the quarterly tried in idaho to the Sovereign Councils of the why and homeland assembly. To the red lake band of chippewa indians in minnesota. To the Village Council in alaska. These tribes understand that 34 per month subsidy is a significant sum. That when aggregated can greatly improve facilitiesbased providers Business Case for building out Broadband Networks on tribal lands. Third, we take the simple and common sense step of requiring independent certification of residency on tribal lands for those seeking enhanced tribal support. Until now the Lifeline Program has allowed for Self Certification of tribal residency. That led system allowed one resettling to sign up more tribal customers in hawaii than they were tribal residents. Simply put, the owner system is not an adequate safeguard for scarce taxpayer funds. Today we close that loophole and require residents on tribal lands to be independently verified. Fourth, we reverse and anticonsumer role that the prior fcc established just last year. The socalled port freeze a lot lifeline providers to lock in consumers for year when providing broadband service. And this past year weve heard of lifeline customers who are dissatisfied with the service but are blocked from switching to lifeline provider because of this rule. All consumers including low income consumers deserve choice and flexibility. Im glad we are repeating the part fcc still considered regulation. Fifth, we taken important steps to ensure that lifeline consumers are receiving the quality of service they deserve. Right now some of these resellers are claiming to meet lifelines minimum Service Standards to what they call premium wifi. Its a service that might work at the local mcdonalds but will not connect students want to do homework at home. Low income families deserve high Quality Services, not cheap knockoffs. So today we say secondclass service isnt good enough. Taken together these five target invention will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in the program. They will help bridge the Digital Divide on world tribal lands and they will improve service for lifeline consumers. Turning from our reforms to our proposals where exploring further ways to crack down on waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, i improving our lifeline audits and making the National Verifier work better once it is up and running. We take a hard look at wireless resellers, the group of providers that have been the subject of the vast majority of Commission Investigations for waste, fraud, and abuse. We finally propose to adopt a real self enforcing lifeline budget for the first time. Now, some say that the Lifeline Program is too important of the meaningful budget. I say its too important not to have one. Having an affordable budget mechanism promotes Good Governance and helps ensure that every dollar you spend more wisely on somebody who needs the help. And remember, every of universal service fund program, everyone, the rate, high cost and real healthcare, has a real budget preventative one of them is important, too. We also examine how the Lifeline Program can support investment in Broadband Networks where they are needed most and to lowincome and on tribal land that it eventually redlined. Far too Many Americans lack the effort will broadband options that many of us take for granted. For far too long occluding the last eight years of the Previous Administration, policymakers have let unscrupulous wireless resellers waste lending rather than demand that those funds go to support real Digital Opportunity and infrastructure in underserved communities. Finally, i want to make clear my hope that past should not be prolonged. 2016 we reached the bipartisan deal while imperfect wouldve addressed some of the problems with the Lifeline Program. That agreement was scuttled at the last moment for reasons i need not and will not explore here. As a result it halted this commission to make it a more effective tool for bridging the Digital Divide and expanding Digital Opportunity. Going forward i remain willing to work with anyone who shares those goals and is interested in meaningful reform rather than defending a failed status quo. Thank you to the staff who worked on this item. We went over to devote. Commissioner clyburn . Commissioner orielly . Commissioner carr . Commissioner rosenworcel . The item is adopted and privileges granted as requested. Thanks to the staff for the presentation. Madam secretary could you take us to item number six . Mr. Chairman, commissions, the six item on your agenda will be presented by the b2 spirit and is entitled 2014 regulatory review, review the commissions broadcast ownership rules and other rules adopted for consumer section two center of the telecommute occasion act of 96. An Michelle Carey chief of the bureau would give the introduction. All right. Thank you very much, madam secretary. Ms. Carey, whenever youre ready. That afternoon chairman and commissioners. The media bureau is pleased to present you an order on reconsideration and notice of proposed rulemaking that modernizes the commissions and ownership rules to reflect the realities of a modern marketplace. And seeks a comment on how structure and diplomat Incubator Program to facilitate new entry in the broadcast industry. Join at the table are britain holland, Benjamin Arden and chad go. Mr. Guo were present. We present an order which repeals a modified at data broadcast ownership restriction restrictions, any to get a program to facilitate entry of new and Diverse Voices the broadcast industry and seeks, and how to structure this program. The commission is required by statute to review its broadcast ownership rules every four years to determine whether to remain necessary in the Public Interest as the results competition and to repeal or modify any Regulation Commission determines to be no longer in the Public Interest. In august of last year the commission thought the cigarette for in order to complete the 2010 and 2014 reviews of emissions broadcast ownership rules. Several parties sought reconsideration of various aspects of the second report and order today for advanced in part three provisions. Finding many of the ownership restrictions adopted or retained in the order are not supported by the record and must be repealed or modified. Specifically, todays order repeals the newspaper broadcast crossownership rule. Finding the rule to longer necessary to promote Viewpoint Diversity giving the multitude of voices in the modern media marketplace and that on this is what prevents combinations that would enable both broadcasters and local newspapers to better serve consumers in their local communities. The order finds the rated reader television crossownership rule is no longer necessary, and must be eliminated. With respect to local television, the order eliminates requirement at least eight independent television station mushrooming of the ownership of two stations is combined in the market. The order finds this test was unsupported by the record for any recent basis. The order incorporates a casebycase review option in the prohibition against, ownership of two top four rated station in the market. This approach to the application will better reflect the competitive conditions in local markets. Todays order repeals the attribution rule for television joint Sales Agreements which are grievous to allow noncomedy of stations to jointly sell the advertising time. The order finds the commissions decision to treat these agreements was unsupported by the record and they are beneficial that serve the Public Interest by long broadcasters, Television Broadcasters to better serve their local communities. For the local readership on will, its presumptive waiver approach for transactions involving existed markets which are smaller markets that are part of a larger Nielsen Audio marketer in addition todays order on reconsideration retains the disclosure requirement for shared Service Agreements involving commercial television stations pick the order finds the underlying decisions defining disagreements and recording their disclosure and on my public inspections was supported by the record. Finally todays order finds casual adopt an Incubator Program to help promote new entry and ownership diversity in the broadcast industry. An Incubator Program can help, provide entities to an entity that helps facilitate station ownership or a certain class entities through the provision of Technical Expertise and or financial assistance. In todays notice the Commission Seeks comment on other structure and temperament such a Program Including how to define entities eligible to participate, incubation activities, incentives, the review process for incubation proposals, compliance, and potential cost and benefits of such a program. The media bureau recommends the commission thought disorder and request editorial privileges to making the necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Now to conference for the bench. Likely i didnt take a bet with commissioner carr. I think he predicted 1 00. I predicted 1 15 if we are both wrong. I might have to take a seventh inning stretch. [inaudible] i dont drink, but more on getting closer. [laughing] but boy, im getting closer. Resetting the time. The problems with his this ordn reconsideration are so glaring, both unprocessed and substance, it is truly hard to decide just where to begin. Do i start by describing what wholesale elimination of key media ownership rules will harm localism, diversity and competition . Do i focus on the number of loopholes this commission blesses through this order . Or do i highlight how the fcc majority has chosen to take some of the same fax used by this Commission Just over a year ago to reach the exact opposite conclusions . After addressed each of these failures in greater detail, allow me to explain the alternative proposal i put forward to my colleagues. Meet begin by establishing this, that despite what youve been told about the genesis of this order, it is not really about helping small, struggling broadcasters or newspapers. While the jury is still out, whether it could actually achieve that goal, this is really about helping Large Media Companies grow even larger, which is actually in stark contrast to what the president said just last week the discussing divorce of having as, and the quote, many news outlets as you can hear because if out anymore to provide help for the smaller entities in the tiniest of media markets, we would have adopted a narrowly tailored proposal focused expressly on these financially challenged stations. Instead, todays action coupled with the recent fcc actions, including the reinstatement of the uhf discount and the elimination of the main studio rule, we have paved the way for a new crop of broadcast media empires that will be lightyears removed from the very local communities they are supposed to serve. These media titans would have the power far beyond imagination of our local communities. Our local outlets stand to inform us of what is happening in our community. Those outlets that investigate allegations of improprieties within government, the outlets that tell us whether we need an umbrella or an overcoat, and we might need both today. They are on the ground before, during, and after major natural and manmade disasters. Our local stations clearly play a unique role in our communities, and unlike those 24 hour cable news networks, our local outlets deliver their broadcasts signal using the public airways, and with that comes the responsibility to serve the Public Interest. Now, if you were to stop someone randomly on the street and ask them who owned their local television or Radio Station, after they look at you, and possibly punch you, they would not be able to answer. Would they know that two out of the top for television stations in the community had the same owner . And the third station was affiliated with the stations through a sharing agreement . Within no that their local news anchor is reporting a story using the same script as dozens of other stations around the country . Or even another station in the very own market . While these may not be topoftheline questions for most americans, the answers matter. And the viewers and listeners have a right to know those answers. They should also be aware that these practices are already happening today. And when this order is adopted the floodgates to more consolidation will come without transparency or accountability. To be clear, the media landscape has changed a lot over the past 30 years, and when it comes to coverage of national and international events, there is no question that americans have more choice today than they did back in 1975. But if were going to play that game of making comparisons between legacy platforms and newer entry, including cable news and online sources, we need a neutral umpire to keep the score. Because of these platforms are not created equal. The reality is that they are not substitutes when it comes to local news and event coverage. As one news publication aptly put it last week, consolidating ownership will not put more reporters on the ground, but it will certainly amplify the influence of a small number of companies. I could not have said it any better. By guess what, traditional local newspaper, broadcast or television or radio outlets. These are the simple facts that we should never ignore when evaluating the Current Media landscape and while i am not here to vilify financial success, i want it for myself as much as i want it for you. The Horror Stories depicted in the exparte do not match the realities of what is being presented on wall street. One major broadcast group, in fact, reported that their revenues are up 15 this year. A new record. Anothers revenues are up 17 and yet another broadcaster saw its price reach a record high earlier this year and even further evidence of facts not matching filings retransmission consent fees, theyre up year over year by as much as 162 percent. If these are the Financial Realities on the grounds, then why are we in such a rush to eliminate protections that may protect consolidation but untold benefits on localism and Viewpoint Diversity. What maybe left obvious to the casual observer are the loops loopholes on the media ownership that this order blesses. Take the use of joint Sales Agreement, for example, as i have shared in the past statement, there have been cases in which these agreements have been shown to be in the publish interest. I have also described arrangement that amounted to the full scale control of brokered of the brokered station including the same programming, the same talent, the same management and the same studio. Such an agreement coupled with dismantling of other key media ownership rules, substantially distorts reality how much a broadcaster owner has in any given market. This also fails to acknowledge the past benefits from unwinding these gsas, in december 2014 blog, then chairman wheeler and i described how by enforcing the local Television Ownership rule 10 new minority and womenowned stations were established, similarly absent from the commissions analysis is a harm to minority ownership by eliminating ownership attributionses attributions of the arrangements, as mntc pointed out in joint filing, nonattributions of jsas coupled with reveal with eight voices test could enable a Single Company to, completely dominate Advertising Sales and make new entry impossible. Once again, the order fails to properly consider this very tangible reality. Turn nowg process, where we reverse course not much more than one year after the commission completed its last review. Certainly something must have changed in the last 15 months to warrant such a drastic change in direction, right . The facts are the facts, while my colleagues in the majority may not agreed by the policy adopted by the Previous Administration, it was based on the record that has not changed. If they disagreed with policy and that is their right to hold such a belief, then what they should have done was open a new proceeding and build a case for that position. The courts have admonished this agency in the past for changing rules without a supporting record and todays order on reconsideration ignores the courts introductions. Continuing with the topic of process, take a look at how the order incorrectly invokes section 202h to suit its policy goals. Three times, not one but three times the courts have told us that if we want to make meaningful changes to our rules to promote minority and female ownership then we must get comprehensive reliable data and the court stated that at minimum in adopting or modifying its rules, fcc must examine relevant data and articulate a satisfactory satisfaction for its action including connection with facts found and the choice made. Here the commission flips those introductions on its head by concluding without the benefit of new data that we cannot continue to subject broadcast television licensees to aspects of the local Television Ownership rule that can no longer be justified based on the unsubstantiated hope that restrictions will promote minority and female ownership. Some supporters of this order may point to the commissions newly established Advisory Committee on digital diversionty and digital empowerment as evidence that we are on the path towards better data, the problem with that notion is that we are adopting todays order less than two months after the Committee Held its first meeting. So what is the point of establishing a committee if the fcc majority has already reached the conclusion that a core media ownership rules are no longer necessary for diversity. The 31 members of this committee have agree today step away from the busy schedules to do what the chairman describes as taking important steps towards increasing diversity throughout the Communications Industry and bringing Digital Opportunity to all americans. So why not let them get to work and make recommendations to the full commission and rely on data instead of reversing the actions of the Previous Administration simply because you feel differently. News flash, there was, in fact, a path forward that could have guarded my support but regrettably the proposal i put forward was rejected, all petitions should have been denied 1. 429 of the commissions rules specifically. This section of our rules outlines a narrow set of criteria by which the commission will consider a petition that includes new facts, oral arguments which have not been previously been presented, yet here neither the facts nor arguments have changed in the years since the commission completed the last review. This majority has rejected petitions for reconsideration that fail to meet these requirements but here it ignores these rules to satisfy its own selfserving interest. Second, i propose opening a new proceeding to explore the adoption of an Incubator Program, such a concept has been debated for many years with bipartisan support, but it as you know, is largely untested. I believe the questions proposed in the accompanying notice of proposed rulemaking are the right ones to be asking but we are undertaking the process in the wrong order. Third, i urge my colleagues to initiate a proceeding that would build on comprehensive set of data, examining the impact of ownership diversity under broadcast marketplace. The proceedings should also examine how further media consolidation would impact localism and competition. I proposed that this Data Collection be undertaken and completed prior to start of 2018 review. Lastly, media ownership rules be considered as part of 2018 review at once appropriate data is collected and assessment can be made of the impact that an established ib Incubator Program has been created for new and small businesses. This ask in my opinion are not unreasonable. Consistent with rules and our commitment as an agency to be data driven. Now my colleagues in the majority and other proponents of eliminating these rules might suggest that my aim was to further delay the inevitable. This could not be further from the truth. The reality is that the rule changes made in this order are all interrelated. By looking independently at each change rather than assessing the collective impact of the changes in the media landscape, we are left left with a deeply flawed order with no data to support its conclusions. So welcome back, my friends, to entry consolidation month at the fcc where teams, my colleagues and the majority are more intent on granting industry wishes than giving a gift to those in the general public. Mark my words, today will go down in history as one when the fcc advocated its responsibility to uphold the core values of localism, competition and diversity in broadcasting. I look forward to do day when the court rights the sad wrong. Let me start my statement with a quote, today the modern media marketplace includes literally thousands of radio and broadcast television stations, hundreds of national, regional and local nonbroadcast Television Networks delivering a vastrange of content over cable and direct broadcast, satellite systems and perhaps more significantly and the internet in a host of digital technology, enabled, interactive services. The statement is from chief judge surica of the Third Circuit in 2004 as the court has remind this commission, section 202h of the teleCommunications Act of 1996 uses unmistakenly mandatory language in describing the commissions obligations despite what my colleagues will have you believe our action today is not part of larger master plan to favorably set the landscape for future merger, implying that is simply untrue and minimizes the repeated duty by the commission, instead todays item in 2017 concludes the commissions 20102014 review. Broadcast ownership rule, nbco. As the item carefully explains in todays environment, the rule makes no longer sense. This is not a new idea. The commission in one form or another has been able to justify this rule for more than 15 years, the commission concluded as part of 2002 review that a complete ban of newspaper and broadcast cross ownership was no longer in the Public Interest. Upon review, the Third Circuit agreed with conclusion and found fcc proposal to be arbitrary capricious, as a result the 1975 rule remained. Upon the next review came the 2006, once again the fcc no longer believed it could justify the ban and modify rules accordingly, once again, the court found process files and remanded the issue. As a result, 1975 rule remained. The wounds are still fresh from the 20102014 review, prior to the commission action, the Third Circuit amonoished fcr for delay and specifically highlighted the nbco rule stating that the 1975 ban remains in effect this day even though the fcc determined more than a decade ago that its no longer in the Public Interest perhaps determined to continue the process files of the past when the commission did finally act on the proceeding, it examined the full media landscape and then did nothing to adjust rules in response to that landscape. In fact, despite having the votes to eliminate the crossownership ban rules, the commission ignored precedent consensus and record before it and decided to maintain the ncbo rule. Again, 1975 rule remain. We establish thorough record and analysis justifying why the nbco wound is no longer necessary. I have no doubt this this item will wind up before the desk of the Third Circuit. The court will be hard pressed to find that the fcc fail today justify reasoning, more than a decade ago the court found that fcc reasonably concluded that the nbco rule was not necessary to promote competition or localism and todays item fully addresses why its not needed to ensure Viewpoint Diversity. According to pew, americans turned to a widerange of platforms to get local news and information. The Third Circuit recognized including cable and internet in 2004. It simply disagreed with the commission on the degree to which the services competed with local newspapers. But Something Else happened in 2004, a social media form known as facebook launched followed by twitter, social media forms along with google game goto sites that many consumers visit to first learn about breaking news, national or local news, more than a decade later it is hard to overstate the impact of social media forms and online outlets on Viewpoint Diversity. Also since 2002 the commission explored ways to modify rule otherwise known as monopoly rule. The Third Circuit upheld the eight voices test but remanded the numerical limit the fcc imposed. Once again freezing the old rules in place. I have long called for reexamining the rule and many markets are even strengthening. At the very least requirements make even less sense since 2002 since the Commission First sought to eliminate, this commission agrees, as to the top four restrictions, i prefer that we were adopting bright line rules rather than relying staff driven casebycase and how likely decisions will be reached. I trust that as we examine the issue, we will give serious weight to a full elimination of duopoly rule. I hope in 2018 that we can identify the media market as it exists today. The media marketplace have substantially evolved based on current based on the Current Record the Commission Declines to expand definition beyond local broadcasting stations. I believe theres ample evidence that Cable Operators over the top providers, internet sites and social media forms compete with local broadcasters, fortunately the item at least recognizes that market could change in future proceeding with a different record. Well, it maybe missed opportunity today, i will watching closely for this in our next review of our rules. We also eliminate the attributions rule for television joint Sales Agreements which never should have have been adopted in the first place, first, further, we agree to set up an Incubator Program while how best to structure it. Turn to go rad ii appreciate willingness to work with me and commissioner carr and denied reconsideration petition and this is a narrow issue that only applies in two market situations, new york and dc. I believe the commission should have granted the petition in full and offered the commissions methodology for determining compliance with ownership rules and markets containing embedded market. Bia make clear, the list of embedded markets in parent market is a reflection of geography, not analysis of competition, however, it appears that the Commission Wants to get more information on the record before getting this far. For this reason, i understand that the commission willing reconsider this decision in this 2018 quadrenial review. Under even most extreme circumstances in which one party were to own the maximum number of stations in each embedded market and each of the stations reached the highest ratings of the last 13 months, the owner would rank only third in new york market with 11. 2 market share. In washington, d. C. , under the most extreme example, the station would rank sixth. For the reasons i support providing a waiver that the commission will evaluate proposed transactions of Radio Stations, located in current markets with the multiple embedded markets solely by looking at the transactions, compliance with the ownership limits in the embedded markets. Not only does this record support not only does the record support this but also bring more to the marketplace until we can more fully examine the rule. These are important changes from the draft item, beyond the issue of embedded markets im disappointed that this item did not did very little to unburden the radio industry while i was pleased to see elimination of television crossownership rule. For starters, its time to review the commissions am, fm sub caps. However, i recognize it was confined and theyll be an opportunity to reexamine once again. Finally, im disappointed the Commission Declines to reverse course from the Previous Administration illadvised decision to impose Disclosure Requirements, commercial television stations, despite assurances from this commission, make no mistake, Disclosure Requirements are generally used for precursors for regulations, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but regulation wills likely come. Also counterintuitive that in one item we question whether the cost of form 355 Data Collections exceed but in this item retain i logical Disclosure Requirements. This is the wrong approach. We should treat this part of the proceeding in the same way that we have treated items within our Media Modernization Initiative with deep skepticism. I look forward to elimination in the very near future. In 2004 judge got it right, decented from the court stay suggesting that it would better allow the review process to run its course in order to allow both the commission and congress the ability to measure the media marketplace. He cautiously warrant vacating and mandating the proposed rules will preserve existing rules in place for months or even years and resulting delay will likely leave the public worse off than if the rules were allow today take effect. If only theels rules had been impose and in place for over a decade, remands results in media ownership rules, ends congressional attempt and prohibits a functioning media marketplace to detriment of the american consumer. If only the rest of the Third Circuit understood this as well. The court reminded us, rarely does a trilogy equals from a sequel. I can hope theyll be a twist at the end and update our rules to accurately reflect todays media landscape f not, i trust we have the ware wherewithal to challenge. Thank you commissioner oreilly, commissioner carr. Thats why in 1996 directed the commission to examine those rules every four years and determine whether they are Still Necessary in the Public Interest as a result of competition. Unfortunately, the commission has taken an ostrichlike approach in this requirement in nearly one of its quadrenial review and when got completed review in august 2016 the commission ignored the realities of the modern media marketplace and the many ways that americans now consume news and information. This failure does not serve anyones interest as broad range of stakeholders have made clear. The agency has longstanding process that enables us to correct errors, under rules any Interested Party can petition fcc to reconsider a final decision in a notice rule making and a number of parties did so here. In response, the commission provided Public Notice and afforded all stakeholders an opportunity to comment. As a result of this process, we now reconsider several decisions made in the commissions august 2016 order. In doing so we acknowledge the reality that media ownership rules are outdated and counterproductive. Take the newspaper broadcast ownership ban, the fcc adopted it in 1975 to promote diversity of viewpoints. At the time, the Commission Found that prohibiting one entity from owning daily newspaper and broadcast station within local market would preserve independent voices in a marketplace then characterized by a relative few number of them. But the extensive record compiled in the proceeding shows that the newspaper broadcast crossownership ban is now doing far more harm than good. The record is replete with evidence of a newspaper industry in decline with massive drops in ad revenues in the internet era and shuttering of hundreds of news rooms around the country as a result. If we want to reverse this tide, if we want to incentivize greater investment in journalism an Additional Resources for local reporting, then we should eliminate the regulations that are preventing that investment. Our decision today does just that. The benefits of our decision are not just theoretical, the record contains numerous examples of grandfathered combinations where the fcc allowed newspaper broadcast cross ownership. Those combined operations are producing more local news than other enterprises. This should come as no surprise as the commission recognized over a decade ago now that the crossownership ban likely hinders the commissions localism goals. I support todays long overdue decision to repeal the newspaper broadcast crossownership rule for similar i support the decisions to eliminate the outdated Radio Television crossownership rule and make common sense modifications to local Television Ownership rule. In light of modern media landscape, our ownership rules should give broadcasters flexibility to attract investment that would enable them to better serve markets. I support decision to repeal attributions rule for television joint Sales Agreements or jsas, enable broadcasters to attract critical revenue in a marketplace characterized by increased competition for advertising and viewers and in turn invest in services and improvements for local communities. Im glad that we are seeking common as well on an Incubator Program to promote more diversity and new entry into broadcast markets. Like wise im pleased that todays order provides relief to radio broadcasters that operate in socalled embedded markets which are smaller communities located outside of major cities. Our current policy prevents certain combinations of Radio Stations in these multiple embedded markets even doing so could enable broadcasters to improve coverage of local news and events and better compete for local listeners. On reconsideration, we grant some relief by adopting a presumptive waiver approach, i appreciate work on effort and my colleagues willingness to ultimately make changes. I want to thank the media bureau for hard work on this item. It has my support. Thanks. Thank you commissioner carr. Which one of you said we were going to be done by 1 15. 3 15 p. M. The price is right rules, arent you . There was a time when we waited in the morning for the news to hit the front and we waited at night huddling around for evening news, those days are long gone. The world has changed, not one of us expects our news and information to be able in such a limited way. Every one of us looks for content at any time at any place and on any screen handy. This is exciting. But lets be honest, its also challenging, the economic models that have sustained traditional news gathering have been forever changed by digitization. And while new platforms are multiplying, what is viral is not always verifiable. If you need a lesson in why this is true, just look how false information spreads following last months deadly attack in las vegas. The same happened following the recent shooting in texas, inaccurate information during Hurricane Season increase the peril for those stranded. Its a tough task. Knowing what sources to trust, what facts to rely on and which authorities to credit are things we need to do as citizens. Its a big job with real consequences. Consider that we are only starting to tally the scope of the falsehood peddled during election season and still struggling to understand the ramifications. This is a challenge. When takes hold online and inaccurately misinforms we have a problem. When filter bubbles emerge that never focus to consider what might be happening to the outside, we have an issue. These are not easy matters because they involve complicated questions. How do we advance journalism when algorithms are accent accentant. This is hard. There are no simple answers. I know this, the solution doesnt lie and the fcc is scrapping from top to bottom its policy to prevent media concentration. The agency kurds the ability to own broadcast stations and newspapers in the same market. Agency prevented a single entity from owning multiple television stations and Radio Stations in the same market, and these policies were designed to sustain media diversity, localism, and competition. Values may not be especially United States but i think they are solid. I think they support journalism and news jobs. I think they play a Critical Role in advancing a mix of facts we all need to make decisions about our lives, our communities, and our country. Today the fcc dismantles those values. Instead of engaging and thoughtful reform which we should do, the agency said its most basic values on fire. They are gone. As a result of this decision wherever you live, the sec is giving the green light for a Single Company to own a newspaper and bell multiple television station in your community. I am hard pressed to see any diversity, localism or competition in that regard. We should be troubled. Because were not going to remedy what ails our meeting today with a rush of new consolidation. Were not going to fix our ability to ferret fact from fiction by doubling down on just a handful of companies controlling our public airwaves. We are not going to be able to remedy the way the highest level of government is now comfortable storing up angry sentiments, denouncing dues as false facts, and distilling favors on outlets with narratives that flatter those in power rather than offering the hardhitting assessments we need as citizens. Instead we are clearing the way for mergers of greater magnitude like the one presently before us which will benefit heartily from the distraction of these policies today. Finally, a note on diversity. Media ownership matters because what we see on our screens since so much about who we are as individuals, as communities, and as a nation. Study a bit of history and you can only come to one conclusion, consolidation make our stations look less and less like the communities they serve. Women and minorities have struggled for too long to take the reins at major media outlets. A modest rulemaking on an incubator isnt going to get us where we need to go. Thats a high price to pay for the damage this order does and that is an exchange i am unwilling to make. I dissent. Thank you, commissioner. Its the simple proposition. The media ownership regulation of 2017 should match the media marketplace of 2017. That is the proposition the fcc vindicates today, nothing more, nothing less. Its about time. For few of the fccs rules are stated that are broadcast regulations are no city the congressional command we review and update these rules every four years, they remain stuck in the past. After too many years the cold shoulders and hot air, this agency finally drags its broadcast ownership rules to the digital age. Our decision is based in the law, the facts in the record, and sound economics. To be sure some say we gone too far. Others say we havent gone far enough. I think we have gotten it just about right. The order ably sets forth a detailed rationale for our decision so i will just briefly highlight for important points. First we eliminate the newspaper broadcast crossownership rule since adopted in 1975. As president clintons first fcc chairman said back in 2013 this rule is perverse. The newspaper industry in crisis it makes no sense to push regulatory roadblocks in the wake way of those who want to purchase newspapers. In the landscape has changed dramatically in the last 42 years. The idea of a company could dominate a media market by owning a Radio Station and a newspaper, utter nonsense. This is a rule that among other things predate cable news and a little thing called the internet. It reflects a world which people would come home from work, put on your slippers, revealing his paper and then watch the 11 oclock news. It does reflect a world in which we get news and announces that threat the day throughout websites, podcast and social media outlets. Indeed, one wall street journal article recently dubbed facebook quote the most powerful distributor of news and information on earth. I know for a fact from my twitter feed that many are following use of todays Commission Meeting through the outlet. To be sure, repealing the newspaper broadcast ownership rule, it will open the door to procompetitive combinations that can strengthen local voices and enable both newspapers and broadcast stations to better serve their local communities. Second, we reform the local Television Ownership rule to eliminate the test which says no company is allowed to own two television stations in the market unless there are at least eight individual field television stations in that market. We have been able to find any other industry in which the government preemptively decrees there must be at least eight competitors. No hand without any literature justify this proposition. Little wonder for the eight voices test has that strong basis that does the help myth that says you should drink eight glasses of water day. I any this entirely arbitrary test we are not efficient combinations that can help television stations thrive. This is particularly true in small and midsize markets where there may not be sufficient advertising revenue to support 85 with competitors. Third, we reversed the prior fccs mistaken and ideologically driven crackdown on television joint Sales Agreements, or gses. Whenever i think of gses i remember my 201515 visit to television stations wllon jackson, mississippi. Wllo is owned by tougaloo college, a. With black college. The station produces content and broadcast in hd at cares program created by and for africanamericans. It also offers student the chance get hands on training new trick the next generation of minority broadcasters. During my station i come we did a a tour with the general manager parker. Their joint Sales Agreement with another jackson station has been crucial to the station success. Without it he told me point blank the station would not have survived give it its limited financial resources. In fact, i had met him the you before when to the fcc to express his opposition to the Prior Commissions crackdown on j essays. Fourth, we adopted an Incubator Programs to expand ownership diversity. We heard a lot of talk during the Prior Administration even today about the need to take action to promote ownership diversity. After eight years what was there to show for it . Nothing. Zero year it was all just a talking point is underscored by the prior majorities specific rejection of my call so we use go for a need to get this fcc is taking concrete action pic today we decide to establish an Incubator Program and Seek Public Input on how it should be designed. In addition ive passed the new Advisory Committee on diversity, digital apartment and another committee that was let lapse by the Prior Administration to study this issue and provide recommendations. Wise counsel from the public and committee i am confident we can craft a program that will help bring Diverse Voices into the broadcast industry. Last but not least i i would le to thank the dedicated staff that worked on disorder, some of whom are before us and many of whom are listed in the order itself. The good news for you is that today marks the end of the 20102014 quadrennial reviews [laughing] the bad news is that its over 2017 and soon many of you begin working on the 2018 review. Good luck. With that we look to vote on the item. [roll call] the item is adopted and the privileges granted granted as requested. Madam secretary, please take us to the next item. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the seventh item on your agenda will also be presented by the media bureau and is entitled fcc form 325 collection, modernization of media regulation initiatives and once again Michelle Carey for the viewer will give the introduction. Miscarry, the floor is yours. As part of our Media Modernization Initiative, the media bureau next present a notice of proposed rulemaking that evaluates the continued need for the form 325 cable system Data Collection. Sitting with me at the table are martha ann maria mullarkey, marie will present the item. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, i am pleased to present this notice of proposed rulemaking that examines the form 325 filing requirement for Cable Systems. Form 325 collects operational information from Cable Television systems including the network structure, systemwide capacity, programming a number of subscribers. This form must be filed annually by all Cable Systems with 20,000 or more subscribers and by random sampling of Cable Systems with fewer than 20,000 subscribers. Form 325 was first was first developed by the commission 50 years ago and the less significant update occurred in 1999. Significant changes have taken place in the mvpd marketplace and in the way Cable Systems operate since the Commission Must examine the requirement to file form 325 almost two decades ago. Given these transformations of the industry and the commercial availability of cable operator related data, the notice six, on the continued utility of collecting form 325 data and what the commission should eliminate the form. A notice inquires whether the cost of the form 325 Data Collection now exceed the benefits of information and on whether they be the less burdensome way for the commission to obtain this data. Alternatively the notice six, ways to improve and modernize form 325 to reflect technological and other pertinent industry changes. If the Commission Decides to retain the form. The notice seeks to minimize the Administrative Burden on Cable Systems and improve the quality and usefulness of form 325 data. For example, the notice tentatively conclude that at a minimum the commission should exempt systems that serve fewer than 5000 subscribers and are not affiliated with the larger operator from filing form 325. Antiques, and whether other small system should be exempt from having to complete the form. The media bureau recommends the commission adopt a notice of proposed rulemaking and request editorial privileges to make the necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Given the hours i would just extend offer to my colleagues, i will wave my statement which are welcome to do so if you like all to read your statement of whatever you would like to do. Completely your call. Ive been feeling there will be a unanimous vote if i i had to hazard a guess. Its up to you. Submitted for the record. Its pretty much shorter statement ever, but but thats all right. [laughing] anybody . Were good, thanks. This is so good it doesnt merit one. I am totally sitting here. I cant go this long without protein and testing. [inaudible] really, i have no interest in your get on with it. [laughing] will proceed to a vote. Getting a a little testy ovr there. Its there. Im with you. I think i lost track but i think im okay with this. Commissioner orielly . Commissioner carr . Commissioner rosenworcel . The item is adopted, privilegs granted actively were requested. Thanks for the great work on this item and we will proceed to the next item on todays agenda, madam secretary. Can you let us know what it is . Mr. Chairman and commissioners the final item on your agenda also presented by the media bureau as well as the office of engineering and technology and is entitled authorizing permissive use of the next Generation Broadcast Television standard. Michelle carey once again will give the introduction. Ms. Carey. The last item we present to you, the joint item between the media bureau and office of engineering and technology. The report and order for the notice of proposed rulemaking before you allows Television Broadcasters to innovate by offering their use of next Generation Broadcast Television transmission standards. On a voluntary marketdriven basis. Joining at the table are martha heller, kim matthews, evan, and julie not, and marc colombo of the office of engineering and technology. Evan will present the item. Thank you, mr. Mr. Chairman d commissioners. We are pleased to present this important orbit order and for e notice of proposed rulemaking in which we let broadcasters use of next Generation Broadcast Television transmission standard while they continue to deliver current generation Digital Television service to their viewers. The nextgen tv standards will let broadcasters provide consumers with more vivid pictures and sound such as ultra highdefinition television, and superior reception. Mobile viewing capabilities, enhanced Public Safety capabilities such as advanced Emergency Alerts, greater accessibility features, and localized content. The report and order gives broadcasters flexibility to deploy this on a voluntary basis while taking steps to minimize any impact on consumers and industry stakeholders. Among other things the report and order requires local simulcasting for stations that choose to deploy nextgeneration Television Service so that viewers continue to receive current generation service. That is, nextgen tv stations must broadcast simultaneously in both 3. 0 and 1. 0. Number two, requires a programming aired on the simulcast channels to be substantially similar to the programming on the three. Co channel. Three, exempt lowpower tv and tv transmitter stations for the local simulcasting requirement. And permits casebycase waivers infestation is no viable simulcast partner. Fourth, retains mandatory rights on cable and satellite systems for simulcast hdtv signals. And next tv signals with no carriage rights satellite. Five, subject nextgen tv signals to the Public Interest obligations that currently apply to Television Broadcasters. And six requires broadcasters to provide advanced error notifications to educate consumers about nextgen tv service, deployment and simulcasting. Finally the accompanying f nprm six edition, on three topics leading to local simulcasting. The media bureau recommends the commission adopt this report and order and for the notice of proposed rulemaking and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation in the interest of time given this is an uncontroversial item i would suggest waiting all statements. [laughing] is everyone good . Just kidding. Commissioner clyburn. Are we good . Not a chance. [laughing] nine months ago when they voted to approve the notice of proposed rulemaking that informed this order, i stated that two things would please me more than to be excited about the prospects of a voluntarily and limited nextgeneration standard and how it might enhance the consumer viewing experience. Included in that statement was a series of questions that needed to be answered on how this item would affect consumers and those who choose not to make the transition. The answers i sought as i reviewed this order fell, fortunately, short over not to be found at all in this report in order and notice, and for the notice of proposed rulemaking. First i asked for assurances that consumers would not be burdened with unwanted, unexpected costs. No such assurances can be found anywhere in this order. Nextgen tv also known as 3. 0 is not backward compatible which means to those who do not speak this language that you existing Television Set and cable equipment will not be able to receive a nextgen signal. If you are an over the air viewer, youll either need to purchase a new Television Set or some sort of converter, and if you are a paytv viewer you would need to purchase a new settop box what would this cost you, if you are . I dont know. Because no answer can be found anywhere in this order. Nextgen supporters tell us not to worry. Viewers can continue to receive the existing 1. 0 signal, and for five years after this order appears in our federal register, that signal will be, and i quote, substantially similar. Five years after this order appears in our federal register, that requirement sunsets. Translation, that mandate goes away. They no longer have to send you that signal. Now, late yesterday the chair of the office revised the order to include an exception to this requirement without a requirement to make programming substantially similar, broadcasters are free to create two different tiers of television. Why is this problematic . Why am i an easy . This could very easily create an unacceptable, unjustified, and unwarranted Digital Television divide for those with limited financial means. Now, my second question in the nprm asks whether consumers that do not upgrade will continue to receive highdefinition programming through the existing 1. 0 simulcast signal. Again, no reassurance is given. While several broadcasters have stated that they intend to provide this highly popular service, they oppose any requirement to do so. Why . Just as troubling is that the order anticipates some level of service loss, meaning some viewers might not lose just hd, highdefinition, their broadcast signal altogether. If you are keeping up, thats broadcasters to, consumers of zero. My third question was whether the highresolution carrier requirement of nextgen tv, the expense of placement for independent programmers on will typecast extremes. Again, costs two concern. We are again told her trust our regulators to do the right thing but we cannot create any requirements. Broadcasters three, consumers zero. Finally i asked about fees. Assuring that we do not disadvantaged small businesses, broadcasters and paytv providers. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, many concerns remain. We know that paytv providers are worried about how this new standard will affect the retransmission consent process, especially those smaller providers. Instead of providing guidelines for this process, we are told that this is best left to marketplace negotiations. Because this would undoubtedly lead to increased cost to consumers. The tally for me is rod captures four, consumers zero. In addition to all all of the concerns i noted in my statement to the notice of proposed rulemaking back in february, this item did not mention the word privacy even once intel 9 43 this morning. Despite questions about privacy being included in the nprm. These questions are important. In light of that you weigh ipbased of this technology, and the plans to use it to enable targeted advertising. In fact, representative dingle asked the chairman how consumers demographic information would be gathered and what privacy protections will be in place. I appreciate those questions as the attention to this issue, and i am concerned that viewers are not, will not ever be able, ever be aware that this is something that they need to think about. Cable subscribers have the protections in section 631 of the Communications Act. Should there be a similar protection for broadcast viewers . Despite my misgivings and the ever growing tally let me be clear. I do not make presumptions about nextgen tv. I do not know if it is bad or inferior to the status quo, as some claim. It very well bring about all of the advantages it purports including 4k, and advanced Emergency Alerts. I also must say that i appreciate that this item does not create or does not set a date for eliminating the 1. 0 service and that it has included some Consumer Education requirements, although those have been scaled back in the final order at a cost to the viewer. But at the end of the day, i feel compelled to affirm this. My charge, my responsibility as a regulator is to strike the appropriate balance. It it is not clear how an item of standard or a transaction meets our Public Interest requirements, if it is not clear that an item protects and enhances the consumer experience, then there is only one decision left for me to render this is not about politics. This is not about the inability to separate or differentiate one docket from another. This is not about you questioning my 19 years of public service. It is about a solemn promise i made to the American People over eight years ago. To sum it up, this order is not ready for prime time. It would do more than for the future of the industry and it would do much more for those Companies Bottom lines than for the nations unsuspecting viewers. That the Main Objective is giving the industry a lot of flexibility and deploying nextgen gives me pause. Not because i am against a robut opportunities, but because millions of viewers will be at risk, and millions more could be thrust in the Digital Television badlands. For a commission that house importance of costbenefit analysis, got to say it again, theres absolutely no showing that this item has attempted to weigh the cost to consumers both in the loss of services and access costs against the touted benefits, none of which are required by this order. This order does absolutely nothing to resolve any of the concerns i offered up nine years ago. It fails to put the Public Interest first, and it is deserving of my dissent. My thanks begins with holly for taking and advise me on this order and to the chairman office for allowing this arrangement. I dont know if you are still okay with that, but speedy we will revisit it shortly. My most sincere appreciation to the media bureau for this item and other two that i may have failed to thank you on, and office of engineering and technology for your effort at all of your work on this item. Even though i cannot support this item. What is clear is that you have done a great deal of work in a relatively short amount of time. You are committed public service, and i will always appreciate your efforts. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner orielly. Trundle. I will put my longer statement in the record but i am making, snow. I am pleased to support todays item which introduces atsc 3. 0 with a consumer driven market centered flexible and voluntary approach. These provisions are vital to the success of any possible transition of 3. 0 and i will address each entered the the purpose of this i missed to allow our nations broadcasters to bring a suite of Innovative Services to consumers ultimately allowing the consumer to decide what atsc 3. 0looks like in the future. Many questions remain without answers but im looking forward to seeing with consumers drive atsc 3. 0. For these reasons that are issues in this item that we do not address this type if it does not mean we will never address them or that im completely unsympathetic to the arguments that have been made. It simply means its too early to do so. Some have tried to take us down memory lane on congressional action regarding the tv transition over to argue against our action today. Let me correct some of the record since i was actually there. The law that passed in 2005 was not the first tv related provision enacted by congress. In fact, congress provided the first structural provisions in the 96 telecom act answering who could get licenses and the revenue impact of ancillary sulfonyl services offered. Further congress return to the issue as part of divest budget act of 1997 to define for the first time when analog tv licenses we need to be returned along with other issues. Thus for those who argue everything regarding atsc 3. 0 must be decided at the time is part of one big package, congressional history does not support your claim. Indeed our action today is entirely consistent with the multistage approach congress and the commission followed for the dtv transition. One thing we do know is that broadcasters have every incentive to ensure this transition is successful picked that is why please the chapmans office work with my office to a limit prescriptive Consumer Education requirements in their draft item. I believe it should be the broadcaster not the bureaucrats who decide how best to achieve this. One broadcaster announced bitesize commercials during its thanksgiving day nfl telecast. These sixsecond spots which are proven to produce recall rate 70 greater than the same advertisers own nfl norm, 25 higher than prime time norms will run during the Live Telecast of the game. I also have some reservations about the technical standards we are incorporating into regulation. Similar to how we handle the latest while a standard i hope the commission would avoid adopting stringent standards and mandates covering this transition intervals. Instead it is mandating a 321 permanently 88322 for a period of five years arguing the certainty is necessary for device manufacturers. Ultimately broadcasters need incredible flexibility so the consumer and the market, not the commission, drive his transition. Finally, that the course of this proceeding the commission has made clear that any use of the new standard will be completely voluntary for all participants. This means voluntary to the broadcasters. They should have the opportunity to make the transition and for this reason i paid the chairmans willingness to work with me and the timeframe of the 60 days on applications filed with the commission that do not receive expedited review. This also means voluntary for distributors. For the most part the commission adopt the market play out in negotiations between broadcasters and its worth noting that attempts to make the transition in voluntary would violate the obligation for broadcasters and negotiating good faith. This is an issue the commission may need to revisit as comes concrete examples to examine. Finally, this means voluntary for consumers. Some suggest that it will be a tax on consumers. I believe they have taken great care that it is not the case. Indeed if this is a consumer tax, so is every new tablet or smart phone a consumer decides to purchase due to the enhanced and updated features. Virtually, as this proceeding has unfolded and most recently in the last few weeks and some have offered a parade of horrible and hypotheticals that could happen as a result of this transition. The problem most of these hypotheses is they are divorced from market realities because broadcasters have every incentive in the world to make sure their viewers to not lose signal during and after any transition to 3. 0. Again, this will not be her last word and i will continue to monitor the transition closely. For now, i will celebrate the septic today as well as the timeliness of the items which come very close to my selfimposed deadline of following. [laughter] thank you. Commissioner car. When it comes to technology the United States has led the world in innovation. Our greatest advancements have developed free from the heavy hand of government intervention. For its part the sec has moved steadily away from dictating the use of particular technologies or intervening in a standardsetting process. We see this perhaps most prominently in the wireless sector. The commission has adopted flexible use licenses, allow providers to sunset their Analog Networks and shutdown devices after transition periods and steered clear of mandating the use of specific technology. This is an approach has proven to be a tremendous access for consumers by providing providers to point the latest technologies. This prohibition approach speak for themselves. Today we move slowly in the direction by allowing broadcasters to use a new standard for nextgeneration tv known as a tsc 3. 0. By granting the request we give broadcasters the freedom to innovate. A freedom that their competitors and many others in the tech sector already enjoy. We enable consumers to realize the benefits of this innovation in the nextgeneration tv standard has the potential to dramatically improve free over the air Television Service by delivering higherquality picture and sound, advanced Emergency Alerts that can provide time sensitive warnings to consumers and new accessibility features. That is why a broad range of stakeholders in the Consumer Technology association, Public Television station support the possibility we provide with the decision. Some have tried to stop peers at the last minute suggesting that todays order will increase cost on consumers in the form of new tvs or higher cable bills but these bogeymen are just that. Here is the reality. In this item we adopt numerous measures to protect consumers and other stakeholders. It is not an sec mandate. We dont force consumers to buy new equipment and instead we require broadcasters to continue transmitting their signals in existing a tsc one. Dot standard so consumers can keep using their existing tvs. We dont mandate that mpds carry [inaudible] signals rather we make clear that they are under no statutory or regulatory obligation to carry these signals. We dont adopt a nextgeneration tv tuner requirement. Instead we rely on consumer demand to determine when and if a [inaudible] tutors will be included in tvs or other devices. I look forward to the innovation to come in this order has my support but i want to thank the staff of the media bureau for their diligent work on this item. Thank you. Want to discuss the future of television i think we need to make a nod to the not too distant past. I think we need to talk about 2005. Technology had a moment in 2005 and it was the year that apple introduced the ipod nano, youtube came on the scene and gaming got a boost the introduction of the xbox 360. So much about these technologies still informs our world today. In 2005 Steven Colbert also called the tune [inaudible] and i think its fair to say that this too has relevance in our world right now. In 2005 Congress Passed the Digital Television transition and Public Safety act. This law set up the future of television. It laid out a framework for the moon from analog to Digital Broadcasting but it did more than just introduce a new standard with improved sound and picture quality known as a tsc 1. 0. It created a schedule and as part of the schedule it featured an and data for our nationwide transition and a program to help ensure existing Television Sets would continue to work after the technology change. The sec then took his cues from congress and worked to ready the nation. They selected wilmington, North Carolina as a test market to fully transition nine months early. They took the Lessons Learned in this test and proceeded to take a statewide version of hawaii for any change on a national level. I think we can learn a lot about how to forge the future of television for what happened back in 2005. This effort featured three essential things first, congress led the way and set the framework. Second, a Place Program was put into place to make sure no consumer was left behind are stuck with full cost of buying a new Television Set or equipment. Third, the sec explore the transition and test markets before unleashing this change nationwide. Fast forward to the president. Today the fcc is authorizing nextgeneration television and the introduction of a new standard a tsc 3. 0. Yes, we are doing it again. There is a lot to be excited about this new standard. Ultra High Definition picture quality and immersive audio, advanced Emergency Alert and innovative interactive services. This is good stuff. It could mean real innovation for broadcasting on par with new services that emerged on so many of the other screens all around us. What we do today is rush the standard to market with an ugly disregard for the consumer consequences. Let me be very clear about this. This standard is not backwards compatible with Current Television devices. That means every one of us will need to replace our Television Set or buy new equipment. The fcc causes approach marketdriven and that is right because we will all need to be in the market for new Television Sets in devices. This will not happen immediately because of for the time being the fcc cause the new standard voluntary. While it is voluntary station to have the right to negotiate with cable and Satellite Companies for the simultaneous carriage of a tsc 1. 0 and a tsc 3. 0. That means consumers can find their bills going up because they will be stuck paying for two signals even though their current Television Set can only receive one. That sounds a lot like paying more and getting less. I think the way the fcc plans to proceed is no great boon for consumers so lets call it what it is. It is a tax on every household with a television. I think this agency needs to go back to the drawing board and find a less disruptive way to facilitate broadcast innovation and guess what . There is a way to do it. It is right there in the 2005 playbook. First, we do not have a congressional mandate. What we have is a few unelected fcc officials deciding you need to buy a new television, get new equipment and locate the hdmi port on the back of your Television Set. Second, there is no program to defray the cost of the new devices, equipment or Television Set that consumers will have to purchase. Third, there is no Test Community or sandbox to understand and learn from our policies for unleashing them on a national scale. We should be testing a tsc 3. 0 in every household in a Single Market and learning from it before giving the green light nationwide. We do this there will be plenty to study because there are still so many Big Questions about this new standard. For starters, i think we need to better understand the consumers risk of being left behind. I also think we need to better understand targeted advertising on television and the implications for privacy that use of encrypted signals and collective audio data and the susceptibility to hacking and malware. While were at it we had better make sure that the High Definition signals we are now accustomed to when we watch a Football Game or our favorite film are not downgraded to standard definition in order to ensure broadcasters experimenting with a tsc 3. 0 simulcasting two signals. One of which we cant even see. In addition, the sec needs to better understand the patent issues involved. When the agency adopted the a tsc 1. 0 standard in a clear that reasonable and discriminatory terms were part of the package. In todays order this issue is addressed in no more than a footnote. Moreover, we know that Sinclair Broadcasting which hold essential patents for a tsc threepointer has been one of biggest champions of this new standard. We also know they have pending biggest broadcast transaction in our nations history. Before we authorize billions. Patent holders and saddle consumers the bill the better understand how these rights holders will not take advantage of the special status conferred upon them by the fcc. Change is coming at all of us at lightning speed. I think broadcasters can and should be part of that innovative rush. I think the sec is doing here is irresponsible and precise and frankly, cavalier in its for the expenses it opposes on consumers. I believe the next transition leave no viewer for soft and should leave all of us better off. This decision fails that and i dissent. Thank you. Today is a promising day for consumers and an exciting day for technological innovation and a historic day for the broadcast business. By authorizing rollout of the next Generation Broadcast Television standard or next gen tv on a voluntary, marketdriven basis we open the door to a substantially improved free over the air Television Broadcast service and fiercer competition in the video marketplace. As the worlds first it based broadcast platform next gen tv has the potential to bring a wide range of benefits to american consumers. This will enable broadcasters to provide ultra High Definition video and immersive audio and will allow them to offer Innovative Services including tv on smart phones and enhanced accessibility features for americans with hearing or visual appearance. Will support me it will enhance our Public Safety capabilities. For instance next gen tv will enable advanced Emergency Alerting that could wake up sleeping devices to warn consumers of eminent emergencies like a hurricane. It will also allow for localized Emergency Alert and a variety of languages and enhanced data casting to serve Law Enforcement and First Responders more efficiently. In particular, next gen tv could be a boon for public Television Broadcasters and viewers. Public broadcasters are strong supporters of nexgen tv. They are eager to employ it and to deliver interactive educational childrens content, including the distribution of over the air learning materials that viewers broadband otherwise could cannot access. Public television stations have also told us the nexgen tv could enable them to provide innovative [inaudible]. Imagine teachers and students having customized Course Materials and lectures and class discussions in virtual field trips. Another important point this will be a voluntary marketdriven transition. Following this order no broadcaster will be required to use the nexgen tv standard and no consumer will be required to buy a new television or dongle for his or her Current Television that will allow them to receive nexgen tv programming. The choice will be up to them. Broadcasters deploy nexgen tv standard will be required to simulcast Programming Using the current Digital Television standard. In other words, the current viewers put their current tvs will be affected. It bears repeating. Current viewers with their current tvs will be unaffected. This is precisely the kind of technological innovation that the sec should champion. Of course not everyone does. When confronted with change there are always those who stubbornly cling to the past. They choose peer and opportunism over freedom and opportunity. We have seen that in spades in this proceeding. These naysayers have asked us to impose extensive government regulation in order to strangle nexgen tv in its infancy. They call for delay is that they would never concede and it certainly would never countenance if the animation pioneered by Silicon Valley rather than the television industry. They speak false fears about having to buy new equipment to see your favorite show. They seek a categorical viewer impact standard they themselves have rejected in this agencys pending vacant channel proceeding. In some they follow in the tired tradition of those who have sought to unleash the regulatory process in order to block progress. This opposition has an ignominious pedigree. It echoes what takes place at the dawn of the automobile age. Many back then demanded a requirement that a car be preceded by a person carrying a red flag to people that the car is coming. Even worse once state legislator actually passed a mandate that motorists must stop, disassemble their vehicle and conceal the part in bushes should a car right in the passing horse or pedestrian. Would these rules have kept every pedestrian and equity in safer . Marginally so perhaps but it would also have put us diaries social cost that the very impulsive strikes physical people as completely absurd. Im glad we are rejecting this attempt to block technological progress. It is also worth noting that nexgen tv could boost competition in the video marketplace. The expanded Service Offering the new features, next gen tv should enhance the free over the air Television Service that Many Americans rely on and make it a stronger competitor to paytv services. That would be good for all americans and in particularly low income television viewers. Some, what is a vote to approve this item . Among other things it is a vote for innovation. It is a vote for competition. It is a vote for better picture quality and sound quality. Its a vote for Public Safety. It is a vote for enhanced accessibility features. It is a vote for Public Television. And it is a vote for leadership. As my colleague stated at the beginning of this meeting what is needed for leadership in any industry is not rulemaking and reconsideration, it is action. I agree with her completely and that is why this is about i am proud to us. Thank you to the dignity and staff work on this item. With that we will move to a vote on the item. The item is adopted with editorial privileges adopted as requested. Would any of my colleagues like to make an announcement at this time . I would like do you want to do do you want to we will Work Together on this. [laughter] i want to join the chair and commissioners for congratulate and paul colburn who we have the privilege of meeting. You might have known before in florida preceding the 2017 excellence in engineering award. Did you want to yeah, thats okay. Lets start with the indulgence of my colleague. We do want to announce to work today in recognition of Outstanding Service to the commission by some of our pretested career staff in the first one is the excellence in engineering award which does in fact go to paul colburn. Paul is here somewhere. If you dont mind standing up s. [applause] he comes from a Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau and winner of the fcc 2017 excellence in engineering which recognizes Commission Staff for outstanding engineering, scientifics and con technical contributions. You might ask why is paul getting this award but he is getting it for his remarkable Engineering Work in the establishment expansion upgrade of the National Shared remote Equipment Network or the famous [inaudible]. It is the complex array of over 190 sites distributed throughout the commonwealth United States, alaska and perrigo that supports federal, state and local laws for the Public Safety activities. It allows the shared use of expensive radiofrequency receivers and spectrum analyzers and direction finding notes that have been purchased and used by individuals federal, state and local agencies. What is remarkable is he singlehandedly managed to incorporate castoff women from various agencies and repurpose for unified use of the lot. He built a multimillion dollar product for the sec at virtually no cost. It wasnt an academic achievement. During hurricane edema can hurt [inaudible] alleviate the need during the hurricane personnel in harms way and so it assessed and prioritized the Network Restoration efforts. Im proud to call you a coworker and i want to salute you for the 2017 engineering and excellence in engineering award. [applause] if anyone wants to make a comment about this award. Let me to the next one and then anyone say. Next up, we have the excellent in economics analysis award. The double e aa, as it is known. This marks the 16th year of this Award Program which is designed to recognize economic standard analysis. Its eugene of the medial bureau. Is he here . [applause] eugene did excellent analysis of the economics of retransmission consent payments which i understand is a topic that some in the industry might be interested in. I havent heard much about this issue but it is very important and highquality Economic Analysis is something that is commission prizes of course and its not just the lawyers should have a seat at the decisionmaking table. We want economist as well and eugene your been able to do that in a very substantial way. Thank you for your work at the commission and in particular for the work here that result in you being awarded the 2017 excellence in Economic Analysis award. [applause] if anyone would like to make a comment about these two congratulations. I wasnt sure where the accident was on her last name but i can certainly say eugene so congratulations and paul, course, once again, congratulations. Onestep announcement. Go for it. Real quick i want to welcome Jeffrey Westling to my office who has endured this is about the length of all of our meeting so hopefully he can settle into it. [applause] is a recent graduate from the university of Colorado Law School and will spend the next two months in our office is a legal fellow. He gained experience in Telecom Space and intern with tia inspector management and interned with [inaudible] in their communities and practice and interned at at t. He was a member of both the samuelson policy clinic at the university of colorado and also on the colorado law journal so thank you for joining our office and we look forward to having you on the team. [applause] we are slowly but surely filling out our race in [inaudible] as we call it. I want to welcome [inaudible] who has joined recently as a Legal Advisor for wireless and international issues. You can give a way for their. [applause] yeah, i think were clapping because he made it his first meeting. He and his family are immigrants from pakistan and he came here as a young child and he went on to the university of virginia for college at the university of virginia for law school. He became a quick occasions attorney and worked at riley and served on delegations and conferences like the 2016 world tell the occasion Standardization Assembly in the 2017 delegation conference. He has also served previously for his legal career as a firefighter and virginia and in that capacity has helped with Disaster Relief efforts following the earthquake in haiti and with a search and rescue team in greece assisting refugees and crossing the aegean sea. We have a firefighter in our midst which might come in handy. [laughter] welcome. [applause] here is hoping there is never a fire. And we are prepared in my office. I want to on a more sober note take one second and recognize the passing of [inaudible]. I only had an opportunity to meet him but it was clear that he was a well renowned technologist and visionary and wireless issues. I want to extend my condolences to his family for all those who met him and i wish his family the best in this tough time. Thank you. I have been in the zone obviously and i got to know him in aspen and this will sound heartless but i was wondering why i didnt hear back from him. I thank you for acknowledging what incredible spirit he was and im speechless right now but he was a firstrate person. Thank you very much. I agree for my colleagues just said this is a somber reminder of our time here is transient. I understand the hour is late but to my colleagues this is very important. First, with respect to the Hurricane Recovery Team the secs active response to the recent hurricane is ongoing and even as we increase the focus on the longerterm recovery for those areas impacted by Hurricane Harvey and irma and maria. I recently saw firsthand the damage wrought by Hurricane Maria in puerto rico as well as the incredible resiliency and perseverance of the puerto rican people admits to challenging circumstances. I would like to acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of a significant sec employees who have been working with folks affected by the recent hurricanes. Time does not permit me to be thorough but ill give three quick examples. One is the great paul who we is been integral to the hurricane response effort and in addition to what i just described he said 43 days on the seen on the aftermath of all three hurricanes he braved harsh weather in floods and catastrophic Road Conditions of Public Safety medications. His contributions have been immeasurable. While i was in puerto rico i was curtis lee and tirelessly got along by our colleague, an attorney in public and safety Homeland Security borough. There a native of the island and she now lives here but its ever apparent charm and his knowledge of puerto rico help facilitate connections among federal agencies, local Government Authority and Service Providers. He also knows his [inaudible] as i pointed out in the two. Hes been a Critical Research in the missions effort to facility restoration and recovery of the medications. Id like to salute the chief of operations and Emergency Management Division Within the Public Safety bureau, chris anderson. Not sure if chris is here but chris, i dont know if you mind standing up but we cannot coordinate the fcc [applause] we cannot coordinate the secs Emergency Response efforts both internally and with other Government Agencies without his extraordinary leadership. He has masterfully planned and permitted the Commission Response to the hurricanes while shepherding a committee wide multipurpose and multidisciplinary incident management team. It might not be known to the outside world or those internally but he is constantly on call to be able to provide us information and describe complex issues in a timely and cogent way. Chris, i cannot say enough about how much we appreciate your work. For paul, roberto and chris these are three of the over 100 hardworking folks all across the commission for stepping up and continuing to work on post hurricane Recovery Efforts in texas, louisiana, florida, georgia, puerto rico and the virgin islands. If any of the task force is here i know if you could please stand up so we could acknowledge her effort and thank you for what youve done. [applause] remember, this is what they do above and beyond the day jobs they got which were demanding as it is. We appreciate them taking it. In addition to employing personnel at the request of fema our team at headquarters has run 247 the Operation Centers and they spends nights and weekends crunching data from the disaster information and in our field teams initiate waivers and special temporary authorities as quickly as possible to support both industry restoration efforts and Public Safety responders and they managed to web and social Media Resources to provide a transparent and open memories of you and what the commission is doing. This work is ongoing and will continue for as long as needed and this means there so much for head for the people in providers in the hurricane affected areas but i did want to take a moment to organize them for what they did. Next, we have a new chief in the office of native affairs and policy and matthew. Is he here . [applause] my pleasure to welcome him to fcc. Matthew comes to us from the us bureau of [inaudible] where he served as a Program Manager for native american and international affairs, prior to that he was a senior policy official with the department of energy and his purple included serving as a negotiator with tribal and state governments on behalf of the department. Matthew earned his law degree with the condolences to do pans from university of North Carolina, chapel hill, with high honors. He also holds a ba in science from miami university. And a masters in public and menstruation all from unc. Among other things he served as a Brookings Institute fellow with shelley and senator ron he was a spring court fellow in the office of the late chief justice of the United States, william rehnquist. Matthew, welcome to the commission. Last but certainly not least, i see her in the back. Ashley is a new deputy counsel with response ability for admission of law issues however augustine interesting this position is, i can tell you she is the best job in the commission and i know because i once held it. Ashley joined the committee below Washington Office and during her time there she focused on complex litigation, appeals and admission of law issues and represented corporate clients in association in full makings for federal agencies and she developed particular expertise with mitigations of financial regulatory sectors. Prior to joining the firm as it started as a law clerk to a judge of the us court of appeals for the ninth circuit. She was not a spot in her academic pursuits either. She graduated from princeton with honors and got a law degree from a school in new haven, called i believe yell. In addition to her impressive legal resume she meets the primary qualification for the Chairmans Office which is a facility with pop culture and she has watched every single episode of parks and recreation price, as i understand. Shes in the devoting of ron swanson yet she still doing scales with ease. Im also informed that she committed to memory every single step of Michael Jacksons thriller. Given the time we will not make her do it but maybe well save it for december. [laughter] it goes without saying that we are thrilled to have her here and those of you who dont know this is one the most important positions of the commission because it helps advise the commission on the Administrative Law aspects of virtually everything we are doing. Ashley, welcome aboard. We are grateful for your service. [applause] i do have a whole bunch of items in circulation and we can vote on them now but in the interest of time maybe we will forgo it and leave it for another day. That sector, could you please announce the date of the next Commission Agenda meeting. The next agenda meeting is thursday, december 14, 2017. [laughter] that the Commission Meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] and. And following the meeting fcc chair karen pie spoke to reporters about the issues they voted on during todays meeting