In behind roger and pick up. Because theres a few things that are going to be going on in the wireless i dont know if anybodys counting but its 41 days until the auction starts. And its great to have a guy like john in the Wireless Bureau who has been involved in this process leading up. And then john leaves a void. Fortunately mark stevens has been our cfo is stepping in to that. As acting managing director. Weve all grown to appreciate and respect mark, and the great skills that he brings. So were looking forward to him continuing that glide path that john put us on. So if there are no other things, i would have request one privilege of the chair to ask the secretary where she was about ay, and to tell us the story of that Great American who happens to be your grandfather. I had the honor and privilege of attending the premier in new york city of race. The incredible and true story of my grand father jesse owens. And i look forward to everyone going this weekend, opening weekend. Wonderful y is a movie about a wonderful man. Just very honored to be a part of that legacy and look forward to another generation just being inspired by his story and the person that he was. Well, its just fabulous that that story is getting told. As you know, i was privileged to know your grandfather. The buck aye bullet. Are you kidding . Nd he was a great, warm, humble man. And i look forward to seeing the movie. But i think its fabulous that you were ond rhett you were on the red carpet today. Even better for my 14yearold son. Ok. Madam secretary, why dont you walk us. What happens next . The next agenda is thursday march 31, 2016. And until then we stand adjourned. Thank you. Following the meeting chair tom wheeler met with reporters to talk about his agencys adoption of an open standard for settop boxes and what it means to consumers. He was followed by f. C. C. Media bureau chief william lake who answered questions on how the proposal would be implemented. Then the two republicans on the commission discussed their opposition to the measure. This is just over an hour. Good morning, everyone. Its a large crowd. So well limit to one question. Please speak into the microphone. Please say your name as well. With that the chairman will give a brief introduction and we will get right to your questions. Good morning, everybody. God afternoon, now, everybody. Moments ago the Commission Approved two distinct items which share common themes. The first of these is consumer choice. Consumers essentially have no choice when it comes to picking the equipment that they use to access paid tv services. Their consumers access video provider through a set op box or application that the every r leases to them single month and they dont have any choice. By introducing competition into the set top marketplace, as congress has mandated, consumers will finally have ptions for how they access paid tv. And those competitive options will do what competition always does. Which is drive better services, drive gown costs, and create opportunities. When it comes to video content, consumers have more choices than ever on multiple platforms. But on the most Popular Platform television, there are concerns that the range of diverse programming choices are narrowing. Thanks to the leadership of commissioner clyburn, the commission is taking a fresh clook at the video marketplace to help ensure that tv viewers have diverse Programming Options as congress has mandated. The second key theme linking todays items is removing barriers and expanding opportunities. Todays settop box marketplace has closed standards. Closed standards. Controlled by the paid tv industry. We propose to establish open standards for settop boxes. The same way that we have open standards for cell phones, for routers, for other devices. And we hope that by removing those barriers innovators will step up to develop new ways for consumers to enjoy their favorite programming on their terms. On the content side the commission has heard time and again that demands made during carriage negotiations with cable providers and others are often obstacles to reaching enough viewers to have a viable business. With todays notice of inquiry were taking a fresh look at the video marketplace and examining these challenges and and est to remove barriers expand the availability of independent and diverse programming. And when we expand opportunities for innovators to innovate, and let consumers choose their favorite products, programs, and services, everybody wins. So with that i will be happy to answer any questions. Shall we pick on monty first . Monty. Thank you. Commissioner oh riley paired the settop proposal with the effort to expand the definition and he said those are two things working hand in hand to expand the f. C. C. s reach. Is there any relationship between the box and the thing . No. Hes wrong. Earlier you said that the item on set top boxes doesnt require a multidollar reengineering of the network but they say the opposite. Even though the item doesnt require this whats ultimately going to happen is they will have to pour money into the network to comply. So is there something that you know about networks that they dont know . Whats going on there . Thats why i tried to show those charts today. Can we throw the charts up again. So the devices work exactly the same way. If you look at those four steps of back and forth between the cable operator and the device, they are identical whether or not it is a device that you are forced to have or a device that you can choose amongst companies. So first is signal goes down says ok what channels are available . What numbers are they on . Signal goes down. Thats step one. Step two, signal goes down. And says whats the authorization for this box . What tiers can it look at this can it record . Things like that. The signal comes back saying this is what the consumer has chosen. And then the content goes down. Thats unchanged. The Cable Operators have roku, for instance, as a box that some of them have blessed and used. They dont have to rebuild the networks to do that. Is the idea here that the criticism here from the industry is that they would be required to build their networks so that they could then respond to every potential third party device that wants to connect to the network and that would be the costly thing to do regardless of what the capabilities of the device were. Thats why you have standards. You come up with this is the way it will interface. One standard. Heres how it works. Consumers choice. So your hope is that the standards process side but your hope is that the standards process will lead to a solution that does not require expensive network engineering. Reengineering. So lets look at how the standards process works. When wifi routers are standardized through a standard 802. 11 and you go from a to b to c to d to e to on up through all the various iterations, you dont have to rebuild the Network Every time you do that. Thats one of the things that is taken into conversation as youre doing the standard. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. Im looking at the next couple of months. It seems like there may be a point where youre fighting prety contentious battleles on three fronchts. The set top box and privacy ruling. Im wondering how you expect to handle the challenges on fighting on three different fronts and whether you are concerned that might make it harder to get consensus. Again, i think the reality comes down to the fact that there is roughly 90 of the time theres consensus. And all you get to see is the fun stuff. I was interested during the Media Coverage of justice scree scalias death that one of his quotes was you would be surprised the number of times that we agree. And i go, i identify with that. And i would also like to associate myself with some of my colleagues today that commented on that. I too had the privilege of he ing Justice Scalia and was a force major, as they say. But to your question, i think we will be able to handle things. Youre talking both about that your office and staff will be able to have the resources to fight these three different battles. And that i would im not sure its fight three different battles. I think its a question of do we have the resources necessary to work the processes to try and come together with some kind of a majority consensus on the commission. I believe so. The top ther topic lawmakers on the Senate AntitrustCommittee Just wrote the f. C. C. Warning that a merged cable could interfere with video distributors. Do you share that concern . Is that an issue that you want to address through conditions onts deal . Were at 144 days. If anybody is counting. And you know that im not going to comment on the details. Can you comment jenly . Im not going to comment on this proceeding. I never comment on these. You know that. Lydia. Some cable representatives have said that they have no problem negotiating paid distribution arrangements. And by the sounds of this proceeding sounds quite complex. How is your proposal a better method for expanding . I dont think its going to change the contractual relationships. What i was trying to explain in statement is that this is giving consumers choice. It is not forcing the Cable Operators to change the way they do business. Its simply a question of does the signal go to a red box or a lue box . With regard you mentioned breevel that privacy would not be implicated by the set top box item. So what does that mean . Are you contemplating imposing requirements on these Third Party Manufacturers or App Developers . How do you plan to get apps maturing the privacy section . Good question. So the standard, youre going to have to scomplie with the title 6 section 631 privacy ules which are by to Cable Operators. My question is kind of looking forward to life line. I wanted to ask when you might see some action on lifeline and specifically on the minimum Service Standards issue. I know that there has been concern that the standards are too high will that lead to out of pocket costs for subscribers. So i wanted to see how you feel. Were working lrd with commissioner clyburn on this issue. I hope we will be able to bring it forward. You will know the answer to that quickly. Some people say that the government has a poor track record of trying to force innovation. What potential risks have you considered moving forward Something Like that . The issue here is are consumers going to have competitive choices. Are they going to be forced to lease a box month after month and total up several hundred dollars a month. There will be Innovative Solutions to that. Its just like when the Telephone Company used to say you have to lease my phone. The only phone that will work on the Telephone Network is my phone. And this agency said no. Were going to open that up. And what happened . The functionality of phones went up and the prices went down. Thats the kind of thing that happens when you open things up to consumer choice, to competition and innovation. What do you say to people who think the marketplace should speak for itself . There is no marketplace today. 99 of consumers have no choice. That is not a marketplace. Im temperatured to ask about the mandated colors of these boxes but i think i will wait. How can you assure the content industry that unlocking the box isnt going to unlock their security and licensinging protections . So today they are content with theyre happy with the security that happens when they deliver to a roku box. Theyre happy with security that delivers to an ipad. Theyre happy security delirs to an android device. The same story. Regarding the noy that was approved can we expect the f. C. C. To develop a rule helping independent programs before the Current Administration comes to an end . Whats the likelihood that new leadership will continue the effort or abandon it altogether . I have no idea what happens. Can you tell us me who is going to win . I was hoping you could. Were going to move forward on the noi and that will inform next steps. Has a time line been established for commented period . Yes. I think weve got 30 on that. Im looking for my signals. 30 days for comments and then reply comments after that. Thank you. I was curious about a couple of your colleagues mentioned commissioner paes specifically about eliminating the box. I was curious about your thoughts on why you believe this path forward is better than eliminating the box altogether. Im all for eliminating the box. I tried to make that clear in the statement. We are moving towards an aps economy. The only difference between an app and a piece of hardware is moving from hardware to software. Its the same exact functionality. To is important is consumers have a choice . Right now whether its a box or an app, they dont have choice. Now, things get simplified in terms of were talking about boxes. I tried to make clear were talking about boxes and aps. And the issue is they should both be open and consumers hould have choice in either. On the noi, this is an issue thats come up a number of times with the f. C. C. In the past. Do you see any kind of possible areas where the f. C. C. Could make regulatory differences in this marketplace what sorts of hypotheticals could the f. C. C. Look at . We just published the noi and youre asking me in my 20 minutes. Come on. I want to know if you have some calendar in your office or at home which says every day 144 days on the charter clock whatever the the answer is for the spectrum auction the math is simple m. Its the 29th and there are 29 days in this mons so you just kind of start counteding backwards. Is i actually do it in my head. I do have a real question. I promise. I would love to get a little bit inside the mind of tom wheeler. You spoke at length today about the set top box proposal before the vote, something youve done in the past but not a ton. I saw you mentioned that you were disappointed in the stances from the republican thats why you shake your head a few times. Given that this could have been just sort of a wonky proceeding to come out of a wonkier proceeding to come out of a wonkier bill to be frank you seem relatively frustrated with how this has all played out and a lot of the flack that youve gotten. Tell me how you feel. I think youre reading things. This is a simple question. Were trying to provide the choice for consumers that was mandated by congress. Was i disappointed that folks didnt even want to ask the question . Sure i was. I mean, the purpose of a noticed of proposed rule making is to say lets build the record and then make a decision on that record. And when you say no, no, ive already made up my mind. I dont even want to build the record, i guess i didnt know i was shake mig head but i think thats probably cause fosh shaking your head. You invoked section 629 today of the commune exations act. Before your comments the commissioner was talking about that section and how it really refers to equipment and he drew a very clear distinction between the intent of that law applying to equipment and not the software, the aps that youre talking about. How much of a concern is that for you as we enter this rule making stage . And is this anything thats tripped up the commission in the past in any kind of proposals . So the statute talks about quipment systems and services. I think that covers aps and everything else. I want to ask about the issue of advertising in third party set top boxes and you said nothing will change that. So what exactly prevents a third party set top box maker from putting advertising in . Is there an existing law that they would be breaking . Is it any different from cable . Is there any rules preventing cable card user to insert adds now . The rule will prohibit it. Sanctity o have the of the content. Nobody is going to insert adds into it. Nobody is going to make a split screen where theyre putting ads next to it. Nobody is going to say theres a frame around it where you can say go to joes auto repair. Its going to require the sampingety of the content be passed through unchanged. Does that include like the neighborhooding agreements, too . Programming agreements are included in this. And are part of the sanchingtety of the content. And one of the things that is in that first data stream that comes out is what channel it goes on. And thats still there. So the rules specifically adver advertise sng yes, sir. Thank you very much. The burrows are radio here. Are there questions today for the media bureau on any items . Yes. Ok. I was wondering if you can tell us the length of the Comment Period. 30 and 60. 30 day force comments, 60 days for replies. You mentioned when you were presenting the set top box item that you said Something Like if an mpvd offers an application they will also be required to open up the stream to Application Developers. I want to be clear. Are they required to open up their information streams to Application Developers regardless of whether or not they personally offer an application to access video content . Yes. But that was referring to is a parity rule. Theres the basic requirement to provide the information flows. And then what we proposed is that if an mvpd provides service through an app without any need for an mvp provided piece of equipment they have to provide the information in a way that will enable someone else to write an app that also wont require a piece of equipment. So its making sure that an app developed by an independent app developper will provide service on an equal basis. Thank you. Just to clarify that. If they dont have an app of their own they dont have to provide access to App Developers . They do have to provide the free information flows. This goes to the question of whether were requiring a box be provided, we are not. They may choose to implement these requirements in a way that requires a device. But thats up to them. They can also do it entirely in software or in the cloud. What were saying is that if they do choose to provide service through an app without a piece of equipment provided, they have to make that capability also available to competitive manufacturers. Can you provide a sense of when the item will be out and also more details on the twoyear adoption period that was discussed . So what was the second part . More details on the twoyear adoption period. Yes. Nprn m we hope that the will be released today. If not tomorrow. What weve acknowledged is that there are a certain amount of activity that needs to be undertaken by the industry in order to provide all the standards necessary to implement this and we think that two years is an ample time for that. So weve indicated that we will expect mvpds to comply within that two year period. N if they can make their conat the present Time Available via the open standard by using another piece of equipment if they so choose arent all the paid tv providers who dont like this are going to choose that to do that thereby effectively mandating a second box, the whole point of saving money less effective . Is there anything that the commission can do or that the nprm does that sort of promotes doing this in a simpler way rather than allowing if companies to use a second box . Yes. We have not prescribed a specific technical standard that must be used. What weve said is that these information flows have to be provided in a standard thats openly and publicly available. We hope and expect that that process will facilitate a boxless world rather than insisting on a box. And as i mentioned we have proposed a parity rule so if they provide aps that can be used without a piece of mvpd supplied equipment they have to enable the competitors to do the same. One quick other one. Youre talking about the open standards. I think the chairman mentioned it maybe he misspoke. He said at some point he was answering the question. He said one standard. But am i right that it can be any published open standard . Yes. I want to make sure. Is there anything in the proposal that defines a device in a way that would include or preclude a native app on a tablet or phone being considered a device if its native to the nothing. No. Nothing going either way . No. We contemplate that this will not lock people into hardware or software but that the solution ks be either hardware or software or Software Running on hardware. But in terms of the parity requirement. If there were a tablet manufacturer or phone manufacturer that included a ative app that for the mppds. Everybody thought everybody is watching on their tab lets. I want to get in on that. Would that bring them under the requirement . Yes. That would be an app thats approved or developed. And if theyre offering that then they would have to allow competitors also to offer an app that doesnt require hardware. Thank you. Sir, comcast said that oochprufling the regulation would make consumer costs go up would make security weaken. What do you say to consumers to kind of ease that . Competition usually doesnt make costs go up. It usually makes costs go down. We think that will be the case here. As to privacy as the chairman indicate weve proposed that these device manage manufacturers will have to respect the same privacy. Bit on you elaborate a what the proposal says about neighborhood sng i know Cable Companies spend a lot of negotiating time and money setting sports channels in one place, movies in another the big networks in another. What does it say about keeping those lineups intact . What weve said is that competitors should be allowed to a offer a competitive interface. Consumers have said they want a search capability. Thats something that you can get on a tivo box today. So what you need to do is look at how things are developed with tivos under the cable card regime and what were trying to do is to provide something that in an ip p world will enable the same kind of innovation to occur more generally. Could you explain that . What they provide is an ability to do an integrated search across content from various sources. We know that the manufacturers very much want to provide because its something that consumers have said that they want. So there can be a channel lineup but also the ability to search for a particular program. And find that its available on cable, over the top service. On that over the top service. And get those results all in one place. [inaudible] a few minutes ago the chairman said that in order to license the technology or the standard device makers will have to abide by title 6 rules. And the industry says that title 6 only applies to mvpds and not to other parties. Can you sort of explain what how the proposal addresses that . The proposal includes a licensing proposal under which the mvpds would be required to provide these information flows only if the entity that they are providing information flows to the device manufacture agrees to comply with various requirements. What weve proposed is that one of those requirements will be that they abide by the same privacy standards. If there is some sorted of violation . We have raised questions about the enforcement. These would be binding commitments. One result would be that they dont have to provide the information flows to someone who wont abide by those requirements. I have a follow up and then i have a different question. So then how is it that they will be able to verify that these companies are by the title 6 rules . Will they be able to go in and look or will the manufacture certify to the f. C. C. Or to another body . We ask about that. Well be interested to get input. Our intention is that the same privacy standards will apply in this unlock the box environment that apply to the mvpds. Weve proposed to do through a licensing regimes. Mprms propose that you wouldnt recognize a standard the licensing of which did not include this title 6 privacy . Im how the f. C. C. Gets to be in the position of requiring these commitments. Because they dont license it. Yes. We have authority over the mvpds. What weve proposed is to require them to make these information flows available to competitive innovators. But to limit that requirement in fact forbid them to provide the information to innovators who wont agree to these various restrictions. Thank you. A couple more. Which is the charnle just said that certain types of advertising, like frames around video content side by side advertising would not be allowed. Im wondering if you can walk us through how specifically to your recommendation works. Is it a general standard . Is it explicitly banning certain types . That question is teed up in the item. But no recommendations made . Not as to how that would be implemented. No. Thank you. So inaudible] trying to figure out what exactly is that . What exactly does that entail . What does that look like . And whats the time i guess the time line to move beyond that . Youre referring to the noi on programming. No. The set top box. Well, as to the set top box what it is is notice of proposed rule making. We have proposed rules. We have a Comment Period and reply commented period on that. And then the next step in a rule making proceeding would likely be the development of an order based on the record that will develop. Thats the 30 day Comment Period in 60 days . Is that what you referred to earlier as the 30 day Comment Period . Yes. Its 30 days and then another 30 days. Yes. Thank you very much. Thanks. Are there any questions on the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau item . Ok. And then finally on the Enforcement Bureau items. All right. I think we are im sorry. Is anybody here from the Enforcement Bureau . Then i will get back to you. All right. I think the commissioners are ere. Hello, cleveland. You want to lead off . The chairman told me that thing and set top box are not related and you are wrong about there being two sides of the same plan. Do you have any reaction to that . Why do you think they are connected . I think i outlined why i think they are connected at length. Twoandahalf pages that tie the two together. I think i see where youre talk about the licensing piece and how that burden is going to fly on to the app provider. The chairman was talking about facts and being right and wrong. I pulled out the law itself. I have the old statute. He mentioned the question was over here i think p regarding devices. And it was note off the cover smingses and some other thing i think he said. I thought i would share. Of converter boxes Interactive Communications equipment and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other Services Offered over multichannel video programming systems. But it says the equipment devices equipment concerter boxes. Not applications. Does it matter that those applications werent really contemplated then . Because i actually happened to be there and that was actually my old boss about provision. We didnt contemplate an application world but my colleague and i actually have highlighted in our statements we believe there shouldnt be a need for a box. We should eliminate all the boxes. I dont know if thats something we go to congress and talk about. I am happy to talk to congress about. Or its something we talk about eliminating boxes together. Talk about saving money. Thats the better opportunity. Than the world were heading in this path. Earlier i asked a question to the chairman about network re are consumers going to be able to tell the difference between the f. C. C. Forcing Cable Companies to force consumers to have another is the top box versus the Cable Company forcing consumers . Im not sure what the consumer is going to to whom the consumer is going to attribute the existence of the second box. But the whole point is what consumers actually want is to eliminate the box altogether. Its telling the majority relies on this of unlock the box. Just the backward looking of view of where the marked place is going. We would rather have an appbased video economy one more consumer than just having a second box which is where i think the majority proposal is going to lead. I think its also telling that remember this is one of the two proposals that the d stack recommended. The other was a more app based approach. So one of the thing that is we suggestd is look what if this document simply sought comment nuletly on each of those. Lets let the American People. No. If you look this is one of the reasons where i wish documents were published before we voted op them. Because if you were able to look through the dozens of pages you would find three paragraphs where the f. C. C. Tees up in highly slanted fashion the other proposals. And its sort of the way it seeks comment is essentially in the mold of we see comment on why this is so terrible. Why this would harm consumers. On why we dont have Legal Authority to do this. And thats not the way i think to really tee up in a fair and full way the issues that the d stack wrestled with which will complicated. Could i jump on to your point. There is no industry setting body that were talking about. Its fiction that were going to send it to somebody and that theyre going to deal with it. It doesnt exist today. So i dont know who theyre going to get consensus from. I think my colleague highlighted the middle east example. But we dont have an entity that were sending this to. Were trusting that something is going to develop for conversation. So to your second part of your question is how the cost and some other the network cost. Were talking years before this would actually happen. Im pretty confident this will fall apart before we got to that point. I would like to dig down a little on the nature of your opposition to this, particularly of the portion of this that would open up the video streams to App Developers. Which it seems the commission is saying or the chairman is saying would have the effect of ult plate eliminating the box. So can you get a little closer on what the daylight is . You say we want the commission to encourage the system why you dont think that portion of the item is good to do that. Look, as i said, there are a number of different objections. First and foremost the item places heavy reliance on the open standards body to come up with some kind of consensus solution that would enable this open platform. The entire point ive made what gives you any confidence that any future these particular herd of cats is going to be herded . Its very difficult to see how thats going to happen. Secondly, is an issue of timing. Under the notices own approach its going to be two years at the very least before this takes effect. In the meantime there is going to be rapid innovation in this marketplace that we cant conceive of. I can imagine my amazon echo being the navigation device i use to access content of my choice. You can order an uber and pizza. I think two years it is entire plausible. So i think if you look at how this proposal is likely to develop, theyre going to face one of two choices. Either number one they reconfigure their Network Architecture so that anybody can access it. Or they put out oods box that meets the specificications that the theatrical open standards body consensus comes up with. Now, what weve heard is that the second path, while suboptimal, is cheaper than reengineering its architecture. So then you would have consumers having the choice but having the choice of unwanted hardware simply double down on the mistaken approach from 996 and i dont think thats the right way to go. I just disagree with the chairmans assessment that he is supporting eliminating the box. I think you havent had the benefit of the item. I have pushed for months that you all should have this. I think and the question was asked before how does the chairman was disappointed. He shook his head that we didnt support his item. My colleague highlighted how forward the how the item goes about. And there are conclusions throughout. Its not about just asking a question. It is about putting the piece to the direction they want it to go. He has that right to do it but cant be surprised that were not going to agree. Its the same issue we have on the noi. We were able to get to a point more middle ground. I got to a concurrence place. So i disagree with his analysis on what he says is happening in the item in and of itself. And i disagree that he is eliminating the box. In the application world that exists today you can go to the programmer and get content. You dont have to go if you dont want to. There are some programming. But most is not tied to the exact cable subscription. So you have an option in that regard. That world is developing before our very eyes. And i dont want to shut that world down by going back to a provision based on a lardware structure. So it gets to the second point. Statutory problems. I highlighted how this is about equipment. That were going to an application world where we dont have that authority. You cited what they are telling you. Use reached your decision. The chairman is seeming to make the point or arguing that the mvpds were saying Something Else several years ago. Im wondering what you make of those letters theyve shown and the statements that have been cited in some pieces and whether that factored into the way you approached those meetings. Speaking for myself. I tend to make judgments based on the facts on the ground now not letters submitted six years ago when the marketplace looked different. If you look at the statements from from the content community, from minority programmers, from democrats on the hill. Its a sort of rising tide of opposition which is remarkable for its political and technological breadth. I think thats something the majority simply ignored. I would agree with my colleagues point. Six years is an awful long time. But i make my decisions based on not only parties and the meetings i have but also on the breadth of information. And i analyze all of that and come to my decisions. So whether a particular Industry Group has a viewpoint thats one factor. There are a lot of factors that go in my decision not just theirs. Commissioners, what sorts of companies do you see this as helping the most . Beneficial to google and amazon and apple and netflix at the expense of say comcast, att and other video incumbents . I have heard that argument. I cant say that one way or the other. I have no idea. But i think its consistently be argued that the government shouldnt be picking winners and losers. So i would hope there wouldnt be any motivation along those grounds. Isnt this really a propole that goes well beyond set top boxes and are designed to encourage competition in the marketplace . And to the extent it would do that wouldnt it elevate the googles of the world . Not to nk its critical accept this false framing of the issue. Its not encouraging competition in the marketplace. The entire reason we are here is because of a Regulatory Framework that has created a noncompetitive marketplace. As i said in my statement, weve had 20 years now of highly interest of f. C. C. Regulation of this marketplace with the integration ban as well as the cable card regime. Weve had anything but a free market competitive approach to this marketplace. Thats parted of the reason why we would prefer i think just getting rid of the box and allowing apbase to flourish free from mandates that arent going to serve the consumer very well. Spoke on eeks ago you the ban. You said that auto manufacturers should only keep spectrum that nhtsa determines is safe. Can you confirm or clarify that and for commissioner i would be curious on your comment on that thought. Sure. So i will clarify and im happy to pull down my statement. But i dont think i said that nhtsa would verify or certify. I didnt tie it. But my point is not that i want to take spectrum for them. Used for it should be safety purposes. Not for parking spots or other things contemplated. Im not trying to take spectrum for them. I want it for safety purposes. I jemly agree with that. With respect to what spectrum they should have . No. I had asked whether your comments implied that the remainder of the spectrum that is not used for safety of life applications should be freed um from control of auto industry, for spectrum sharing. Ok. Well, we have competing proposals before the commission on how to move forward. I think commissioners are considering which that they like better, what do they think is most appropriate. And we should be able to work through that as we look to testing overseen by the commission. So we will get a better feel. Theres ideas whether you do a listen before talk or whether you segregate the band out. My purpose in making the comments was that i want this band this is very valuable spectrum because its probably the best opportunity to expand unlicensed use in wifi giving its proximity to the lower and mid band. So in that purpose i want spectrum to industry thats going to be used for safety purposes that it be used for safety and not commercial purpose that is can be done hrough other agreements. Were act illinois considering the proposals. So whether its listen before talk or segregation of the band i think remains yet to be determined. But im hopeful we can get move ong this. Its now been going on four years. I feel pretty confident that i understand that you dont like the set top box. Im a little confused as to what you think the f. C. C. Should be doing in light of the fact that there is a mandate in the 629. Right . And that as you pointed out the mandate refers to equipment and devices and boxes and hardware type things. And yet you want the box to go away and fw replaced by an app. What should it do with this . Ignore what congress is telling it to do . No. I will not ignore the provision. There are provisions in the statute that do become dated over time. And if here were talking about applications. I think that provision doesnt apply. So the question becomes whats the best aff new . I think we should started from a dstack provision in stellar that asked for rementations. Didnt have the next piece. Congress did not agree that the commission and mandate a requirement to do anything. They just said provide recommendations and that was accomplished. So the congress can consider whats best to do and i would leave it in their hands. If there are things we can provide advice, im happy to participate. I think theres value in that. But im not going to super seed their role. I would agree. I think it high lights one of the approaches that Justice Scalia used to take. If you think that the law is outmoded then the solution is not to force regulatory change through an administrative agency. Its to go back to congress to get them to update the law. And strictly speaking if you look at the text of 629, the f. C. C. Shall adopt regulations to ensure the commercialability of devices. We do have rules on the books. They say our hands are tied. The statute sizz we have to have these regulations. Thats completely wrong. The regulations have only made the problem worse. So what were saying is why dont we simply encourage the development of this second proposal. This apbased approach would be much better. Wouldnt implor the f. C. C. To try to herd cats. And would satisfy the purpose of the original statute. My question is i wanted to hear a little more about what your concerns were with notice of inquiry on the independent programmers issue. I think you mentioned that it looked like a regulatory push. I was hoping if you can expand. I think youve had a chance to read my statement in wole. What i said is the item was presented certainly had a tilt to it. The direction they thought the authors sought. I think that my colleague and i had very good effect in trying to bring language to make it more neutral and therefore get to basic questions. They will hopefully facilitate some type of record at some point whether some action or no action. But i was highlighting throughout my stafmente its not the point was made this is beginning a conversation on, my colleague said were starting a conversation. The truth is this has been going on for decades. Its not a new conversation. I highlighted five or six different exams of looking at this issue. Its been tied into merger conditions in a number of different settings. So its not something thats new. Well continue to have this going forward. I was getting to that point. Yet my colleagues wouldnt take a simple modification language and say we seek information instead of beginning a conversation that began before i was working on these issues. Set top box rentals bring in a lot of revenues. Absent some rule making, what would be the motivation for them to step away from that . And you could argue that some of these trials that have just been rolled out might just be motivated by the fact that the f. C. C. Is considering rules in this year. What would their motivation be to move away from a highly lucrative rental situation right now . I think part of the motivation is its technically difficult. Hardware is not its not a growth industry for most companies. They would much rather move that to at anbeased platform where you can accomplish for a fraction of the cost what the boxes do. So obviously the reference predates any suggestion that the f. C. C. Might have made in this. Its been a few years. So i dont think theyre doing it as a hedge. I think its simply good for the business and good for a number of consumers. I just think about how i consume video now all the time. I can use a crackle app or go to vine. I watched her on her own website. Theres so many different ways to get content now that this conversation has just smacks of 1996 as opposed to 2016. I would agree and add a number of Cable Companies scr been testing no box force quite a bit of time. I remember at the cable show they were looking at Significant Companies trying to figure out is this the direction we should go . What are the technical issues . Thats a thoughtful conversation. It had nothing to do with what we ah adopted today. The number of analysts have argued that they are already trying to get rid of the box industry on their Balance Sheets going forward. So its not something that we just created up here. My colleague and i. It is something that had been talked about for quite a bit of time. The activity of today will just stunt that problem. [inaudible] Standard Technology or cable systems. But you guys talked about this perhaps like mythical standards body that youre unsure if thats going to happen. I know spls something called d theres something called dnla. They have members that inchewed a lot of these companies. I talked to them a few weeks ago. It was a relatively brief conversation. But their message was jnlly were following, and we would be interesting in saving et cetera. Again paraphrasing. But you seem that you think its a high likelihood that the standards thing wont work out. But it seems theres something there. What am i missing there . I think this is a good example of what my former law professor called an incompletely theerized agreement. Wouldnt it be great if we had a standards body that would reach technical consensus . Everybody would say thats great. When it comes time to put pen to paper and you have to have these highly technical and specific decisions made, that i think is where the rubber is going to meet the road. I think thats where the tenor of the conversation weve seen leading unto this notice is really going to be brought to bear. If you think that these highly disparate actors with highly dispranlt answers are going to sit in a room and come to these consensus, great. The d stacks result thats not going to be the caw. But if you do think thats the notice is taylor made for you. But if you have a view based on the reality, its highly unlikely thats going to happen. Two parts. One, none of the entities had an opportunity to read what the commission put forward. So i would be interested after the fact. But i agree with what my colleague just said flt were talking about a universe much different envisions than what people have been talking about. If you read the report its a good inchandahalf thick. Youre not going to see the industry in agreement. Its very fractured, combative discussions that will take years. So i just disagree with that idea. That the industry body would magically come together and find a solution. If i could just add a plug for commissioner. Hes been leading the charge for the public relief of these, well three weeks before we vote on them. I think this notice is a good example of why. A lot of these wouldnt have to be asked if you saw it before we voted on it. The whole questionsing about the remove of advertising is a great case in point. Theres nothing in this from removing the add from a programming stream or layering over another add in another part of the screen. Theres notsding in there. We are telling you this is the case. But the best way to prove us wrong is to release the document. Until then were simply having battles of talking points. So i just wish we would eesm brace the transparency that the American People would expect us to. When we talk about this question over whether over equipment versus software, i want to make sure im understanding if upshot. Are you going so far as to say that the f. C. C. Is not within its Statutory Authority here . Or are you just using this argument to say its a misguided effort . The question what Statutory Authority do we have. They have a vision of where they want to go. Im arguing the statute doesnt provide that. For the experience i have work ong this provision 120some odd ago. I guess 20 years i was there, worked on this. My bod was the lead author. So im familiar that we werent thinking about an app universe. We talked about concerter boxes equipment is not an application structure. Question, ask the can we go in this direction. But they havent made the decision they want to go in this direction and capture the discussion. Before the commissioner you briefly weighed in on this a little bit ago. If you could just sort of maybe elaborate on where you stand here in terms of the reading of 629. I defer to my colleague on that. Obviously he was well versed on the legislative history. But my point is the notion that 629 is a mandate that we have to adopt these highly intrusive regulations to cover every aspect of this marketplace is mistaken. I dont think the mandate that they have to act. If thear we would have been in each for almost two decades. Your skepticism about the ability toft stakeholders to come together and find a solution in the standards process. And considering the fact that the chairman seems to view this to your adoption period as kind of way to put a backstop on this proposal, in your view, what happens at tend of that two years if theres no consepssuss . What do you anticipate the commission will do . Do you expect some kind of technological mandate to come down or what is the ralt gnative . Alternative . Other than a few sad emogies, im not sure what the result is going to be. Everything depends on that. And so sort of the one on this entire proceeding. So im not sure what, if anything, the s senchclnch is going to do if within a couple of years. I would respond and say in two years i imagine a different shaped commission. So they may have a different reaction to any type of agreement thats probably not going to be reached. If the f. C. C. Didnt do anything in this proceeding that was launched today, and theyre all of their own accord moving towards an appbased environment because they dont want these box ons their books. Theyre making 8 per subscriber. I didnt give the impression that everyone was. Oh. But anyway, so what then is your vision of what would obviously youre not naking the business decisions. But as a consume irim sort of pick turg, i end up paying 8 a month for an app with no choice of getting a different app to form the same function because its not like theres a lot that i can put on to my tablet. Theres only one app that is going to get me the contasked that im already paying for. So is that a good outcome or do you think thats going to the outcome . M i too pessimistic . Its always what did yodea say . Its always difficult to predict the future. But i think were evolving to a place where consumers will be able to get rid of the set top box and use aps almost exclusively to access video conat the present time. Whether its a proprietary app or third party app. I mentioned crackle for example. A lot of consumers have simply cut the cord and used aps like that. So i dont think its a choice of either consumers are going to be locked into this set top box forever. Or were going to have this grand slew of competition with third parties. I think theres going to be an appbased economy that will take over. What the shape is i dont know. But i leave that to wiser minds. Two parts. The chairman had said that indicated to the fact that sosme Cable Companies may be renting the aps today. Im not aware of that occurring. Most are giving away. Theyre available on the ot ratele system. But i also was describing a universe in which i am not predicting. But im describing a universe that may occur where youre going directly to the programmer. You see the sports leagues consider offering their content directly over the top. Skipping the need for an mvpd, theres a universe where that programming may already be and you can get some of that in today. I can go to cbs separate from having a confirmed subscription with my cable provider. There so i can see a universe and im not going to say i can predict the universe but i can see where they dont need an mvpd going forward. Not about where that. But were not talking about channels. The conversation when you talk to consumers. Millenials. If you want to know, go talk to someone between 14 and 24 is usually the answer. So i do that. What are you using today . And theyre not mvpd subscribers. Theyre not even loyal to a particular channel. They like a particular program. Theyll ginnage watch on a number of dinchts things. They have different viewing habits. And i think thats a possibility of where the market may go. On advertising placement, so obviously youve had as weve noted we havent seen it. But when chairman miller says the sanctity of the program will be protected. Theres nothing in there right now that goes to that point at all. The f. C. C. Does not propose any measures that would guarantee the sarkety of that programming. Sanctity of that programming. Ulte get a chance to read language, i think that the verbage used is marketed forces. Theres no sanctity left. Its left up to market forces. Which generally i appreciate. But here its used as a complete pundit so it doesnt answer the question so he perceived to answer. Thanks, everyone. Our road to the white house coverage continues today from nevada as they prepare for the republican caulk cugs on tuesday. Caucuses on tuesday. Senator cruz holds a rally and donald trump also in las vegas. That starts live at 10 00 eastern. See them both on cspan. This week on q a, talkshow host bill press. He talks about his book, buyers remorse how obama let progressives down and the controversies raised by senator Bernie Sanders endorsement of it. Brian bill press, when did you think about writing this book, buyers remorse how obama and the democrats let progressives down . Mr. Press i could not give you the date, but it was when i was sitting in the White House Briefing room, maybe for the 15th or 20th time. I was so frustrated by hearing president obama, a man i voted for twice, and glad i did, but announcing measures or making arguments, or taking moves that betrayed the promise he had made to progressives, and not what i thought a progressive president should be doing. Shouldhought, somebody tell that story. And then i remember the president that on more than one occasion, hold me accountable. He said, hold me accountable. So i think it is fair as we near the end of his presidency, told him accountable. Brian how long ago . Mr. Press about a year and a half. Brian you became an intern in Bernie Sanders office in 2010 at your age