Pills when they needed one or two, so in the kind of takes us to the question that you are asking about medical education. If we want dentists to give one or two pills instead of 30, if we want doctors to recognize that these are not good treatments for headache and fibromyalgia and low back pain. They need very good information on that. Both of the education on this topic right now is not teaching doctors that using these medicines long term is a bad idea. The cdc has put out Educational Programs out there. The bulk of the education is really telling doctors when you follow certain rules when you prescribe, it will turn out rowsy in the end. If you check a urine, somehow the patient wont wind up addicted. Close monitoring is the thing to do for people on this treatment. It doesnt turn it into something thats safe. These strategies dont prevent addiction. These are not good treatments for most people with chronic pain. Okay. Do you think we should mandate the states to mandate that medical programs essentially to mandate physicians licensed to use drug monitoring programs . Yes, i absolutely do. I think that new york, tennessee, and kentucky did that and use went way up in states that dont require the prescriber to consult the database before writing the prescription. A doctor thinks they know what a addict looks like and they dont. Thank you very much. Everybody. I think it was a very good hearing, and weve got some very good notes and food for thought. So thank you very much. Its appreciated, and the hearing is adjourned. A look at what is ahead tomorrow morning. Bloomberg News Reporter ian katz will talk about the new book by former treasury secretary geisinger and his geithner and his legacy. More on secretary geithner. And a former ambassador talks about reports the Syrian Government recently used chemical weapons against its own people. As always, we will take also and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. Washington journal, live tomorrow morning and every morning at 10 00 a. M. These are in on eastern on cspan. A lot of times you would say, look, this is not for attribution. This is for background. You can attribute it to a white house source. You cannot do that with live cameras. You cannot say, i am just giving you this for background. This is not for publication. Did you brief on background from the podium at the white house . Sure. Not all the briefing, but let me give you something on background so you will know it is coming, Something Like that. So quite. Quaint. [laughter] i the fatal mistake i made, did not put the restriction we had. It was not available for a live broadcast. It was available for use as part of the stories you would produce, because the briefing is not a news event. It is part of the way in which people gather information, but their stories together, test other sources, get information, put together a comprehensive report, and deliver it to consumers of news. I once did 56 questions on, what is universal health care . 97 . About 0 that sounds vaguely familiar. [laughter] 56 questions in one briefing. She woulde a column, be a nice person if you could take her for a beer and ask her what this Health Coverage is. The life of a White House Press secretary and how it has changed over time. Sunday at 5 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3. For over 35 years, cspan brings Public Affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings, and congress. Offering complete gaveltogavel coverage of the house, all as a Public Service from private industry. Cspan, treated by the cable industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a Public Service by your local cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. Of ae fcc voted in favor new proposal aimed at guaranteeing an open internet and fully the plan would implement prohibit and at Service Providers from blocking or discriminating against legal contents moving through their networks while allowing others to pay for a guaranteed fast lane of service. This meeting was held before the vote. It is about one hour. It attacks the legitimacy of our democracy. We want to make sure we get the context of this. That we have the people ruling. Equally s all [indiscernible] without any kind of discrimination. We want to see the cc do it and regulate the internet for the people, not for corporations [applause] my name is margaret and im with popular resistance. The internet is our free speech, but in this country we are losing our rights to free speech. The internet was created as part of the Public Comments. [indiscernible] [applause] keep the internet free. [indiscernible] constitutionates you are trying to destroy First Amendment rights to free speech and free press. I am opposed. [indiscernible] ok for the people 58,000 soldiers died. For the may 2014 meeting of the federal communications commission, let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. First of all, we have a particularly full agenda today, and so for the benefit of my colleagues, we will be taking a break between the third and fourth items of about 10 minutes. We will be coming back quickly for that. I just want to say at the outset insofar as before the meeting began, there was some activity here. The purpose of what we are doing here today on the open internet is to make sure that we hear from everyone and that we start a process that fully opens the doors for comment by the American People. We are going to move through that process today, and disruption does not help adding getting to the point where the American People can provide input to the process. So we look forward to a full and complete discussion of all of these issues. And that is the important thing that we are beginning today. So, madam secretary, will you please introduce our agenda for the morning . Thank you. Good morning to you and good morning, commissioners. Todays agenda includes four items. First, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the d. C. Court of appeals remand a portion of the 2010 open Internet Order and proposing enforceable rules to protect and promote the open internet. Second, you will consider an order that provided limited expansion to the class of wireless microphone users eligible for a license. Third, you will consider an order that adopts key policies and rules for the broadcast Television Spectrum incentive auction, laying the groundwork for an unprecedented marketdriven process for repurposing spectrum for mobile broadband use in promoting competition and innovation. Last on your agenda, you will consider a report and order that modifies the commissions policies and adopt rules regarding the aggregation of the spectrum for mobile Wireless Services through initial licensing and secondary market transactions to preserve and promote competition. This is your agenda for today. The first item will be presented by the Wireline Bureau. The chief of the bureau will be give the introduction. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We present for your consideration an item seeking broad Public Comment on the best way to protect and promote the internet. The commission has emphasized for almost a decade the importance of open internet protections. But following the court of appeals decision earlier this year, there are no legally enforceable rules insuring internet openness. To remedy this absence, the item before you proposes rules to protect and promote internet as an open platform for innovation, competition, economic growth, and free expression, as well as being a driver of broadband investment and deployment. I would like to thank our colleagues in the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau and the enforcement bureau, the media bureau, and the wireless bureau, as well as the office of engineering and technology for their significant contributions to this item. With me at the table are Roger Sherman of the wireless bureau. Stephanie from the office of general counsel. Matt and kristine of the Wireline Bureau. I would like to acknowledge Carol Simpson of the Wireline Bureau for her efforts on this item. Kristine will now present the item for your consideration. Good morning. Technical difficulties. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Chairman and fellow commissioners. The notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a framework of internet rules that would affect consumers identified in the 2010 order and fosters innovation. Both within networks and other edges. The goal of this notice is to find the best approach to protecting and promoting internet openness. There are six key elements to this notice. First, in order to fulfill the objectives of the 2010 open Internet Order, the notice proposes to retain the scope of the 2010 rules. It seeks comment on whether to revisit the scope of the 2010 rule, including with respect to the differential treatment with regard to mobile and fixed for Broadband Internet access. Second, the notice tentatively concludes that the commission should enhance the transparency rule that was upheld by the d. C. Circuit to ensure that consumers and providers and the Internet Community at large has the information that they need to understand the services that they are receiving an offer to monitor practices that could undermine the open internet. Third, the notice proposes adopting a tax of the 2010 no the text of the 2010 no blocking rule that the rule prohibits broadband providers from providing edge providers of depriving edge providers of a minimum level of access to the broadband providers subscribers. This revived no blocking rule would provide an Important Foundation in the efforts to protect and preserve internet openness. Fourth, for contact not conduct not prohibited by the no blocking rule, the notice proposes a rule that would require broadband providers to adhere to an enforceable Legal Standard of commercially reasonable practices. The notice asks how internet can internet openness harms can best be prohibited under this standard and whether certain practices like paid prioritization should be barred altogether. For any practices that are not prohibited outright, the notice proposes a number of factors that the commission can consider when determining whether the conduct in question would harm internet openness. Fifth, the notice proposes a multifaceted dispute resolution process to enforce the open internet world. Rule. This enforcement mechanism is intended to provide legal certainty, decisionmaking, and effective access for users from providers and Broadband Networks alike. For instance, the notice proposes to establish the role of an ombudsman person who would act as a watchdog that would represent the interests of consumers, startups, and other small entities. The notice proposes these Enforcement Mechanisms include the selfinitiated investigation and formal complaints and formal complaint processes adopted in the 2010 open Internet Order. Sixth and finally, the notice proposes to rely on section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the source of authority for adopting the rules that will protect the open internet. It seeks comment on the best source of authority for production of internet openness, whether section 706, title 2, or another source of legal authority, such as title 3 for Wireless Services. With respect to the possibility of proceeding under title 2, the notice seeks comment on whether and how the commission should exercise its authority under section 10 of the act or section 332c1 for Wireless Services, to forbear from specific title 2 obligations that would flow from the classification of service. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you. Thank you, christine, and all the bureau. Lets get comments from the bench. Commissioner clyburn . Thank you, mr. Chairman, when my mother called about Public Policy concerns, i knew there is a problem. In my 16 years as a public servant, Emily Clyburn has never called me about an issue under consideration, not during my time serving on the South Carolina Public Service commission, not during my tenure here at the commission, nor as a chairwoman, never. But all that changed for me and us on monday, april 28. Please indulge me for a moment. My mother is a very organized, intuitive, and intelligent woman. She was a medical librarian who earned a masters degree while working full time and raising three very interesting girls. She is smart, thoughtful, and engaged, and she is a natural researcher. So when she picked up the phone to call me about this issue am i knew for sure something was just not right. She gave voice to three basic questions, which as of todays date her message remains on my telephone and in my personal memory. What is this Net Neutrality issue . Can providers do what they want to do . And did it already passed . Like any Good Daughter with an independent streak, i will directly answer my mothers questions in my own time and in my own way. [laughter] but her inquiry truly echoes the calls, letters, emails i received from thousands of consumers, investors, startups, Health Care Providers and educators, and others across this nation who are equally concerned and confused. All of this demonstrates how fundamental the internet has become for all of us. So why are we here at exactly what is Net Neutrality or open internet . Let me start from a place where i believe most of us can agree, that a free and open exchange of ideas is critical to a democratic society. Consumers with the ability to visit whatever website and access any lawful content of their choice can interact with their government, apply for a job, or even monitor household devices. Educators having the possibility to access the best Digital Learning tools for themselves, and students in health care treating patients with the latest technology, all of this occurring without the services or content being discriminated against or blocked, all content being treated equally. Small startups on a shoestring with novel ideas, having the ability to reach millions of people and competing on a footing with established companies and considerable budgets. Innovation abounds with new applications, technologies, and services. At its core, an open internet means consumers, not a company, not the government, determine winners and losers. It is a free market at its best. All of us, however, does not nor will it ever occur organically. Without rules governing an open internet, it is possible that companies and broadband providers could independently determine whether they want to discriminate or block content pick favorites, charge higher , fees, or distort the market. I have been listening to concerns, not just for my mother, but from thousands of consumers and interested parties. Startups this year, they want a chance to succeed if access is they will not even get a chance to exceed if access is controlled by corporations rather than by a competitive Playing Field. Investors who say they will be reticent to admit to companies commit money to new companies because they are concerned their new service will not be able to reach consumers in the marketplace because of high costs or differential treatment. Educators, even where there is high capacity connection at their school, feel their students may not be able to take advantage of the best and if theigital learning quality of the content is poor. Health care professionals worrying the images they need to view will load too slowly and patients will be unable to benefit from the latest technologies and specialized care made possible through remote monitoring. And im hearing from everyday people who say that we need to maintain the openness of the internet and that this openness enables todays discourse to be viewed by thousands and offers them the ability to interact directly with policymakers and engage in robust exchanges like we are experiencing today. In fact, let me say how impressed i was when i spoke to some of you earlier this week. You came from washington, north carolina, new york, virginia, on your own dime, to voice how important this issue is to you. You made it clear that the internet is a great equalizer in our society, and that average consumers should have the same access to the internet as those with deep pockets. There are dozens of examples across the globe where we have seen firsthand the dangers to society when people are not allowed to choose. Government blocking access to content and stifling free speech and public discourse, countries including some in europe where providers have degraded content and apps are being blocked from certain mobile devices. Hints of problems have occurred at home, particularly with regard to apps on mobile devices, even though providers in the United States have been subject to Net Neutrality principles and rules with the threat of enforcement for over a decade. So to mom and all of you, this is an issue about promoting our Democratic Values of free speech, competition, economic growth, and civic engagement. The second question she posed was, can providers do what they want . The short answer is yes. As of january, we have no rules to prevent discrimination or blocking. This is actually a significant change because the fcc has had policies in place dating back to 2004 when the commission under former chairman Michael Powell unanimously adopted four principles of an open internet and internet policy statement. These principles became the rules of the road with the potential for enforcement. In 2010, commission formally adopted rules to promote an open internet by preventing blocking and unreasonable discrimination. When the Commission Approved these rules, i explained why i would have done something differently. For instance, i would have applied the same rules to both fixed and mobile broadband, kroeger admitted paid by our prohibited paid priority agreements limited any , exceptions to the rules, and i am on record as preferring a legal structure. The 2010 rules are a compromise. Yes, mom, i do compromise at times. But in january of 2014, the d. C. Circuit disagreed with our legal framework, and here we are again. So i say again that the Court Decision means that today we have no unreasonable discrimination or no blocking rules on the books, so nothing prevents providers from acting in small ways that go largely undetected. And nothing prevents them from acting in larger ways to discriminate against or even block certain content. To be fair, providers have stated that they intend for the time being not to do so and have publicly committed to retain their current policies of openness. But for me, the issue comes down to whether broadband providers should have the ability to determine on their own whether the internet is free and open or whether we should have basic clear rules of the road in place to ensure that this occurs as we have had for the last decade. And this may be surprising to some. But i have chosen to view the Court Decision in a positive light, for it has given us a unique opportunity to take a fresh look and evaluate our policies in light of the developments that have occurred in the market over the past four years, including the increased use of wifi, deployment of lte, and the increased use of broadband on mobile devices, to name a few. The remand enables us to issue a clarion call for the public or they can once again help us answer that most important question of how to protect and maintain a free and open internet. That ability officially begins for everyone today. The third question, and judging by the headline and subsequent reactions, my mother is in good company here. Has it passed . No, it has not, but let me explain. Some accounts have reported that the chairmans initial proposal is what we are voting on and have conflated proposed rules with final rules. Neither is accurate. For those of you who practice in this space can i ask that you bear with me for a few minutes. When the chairman circulates an item, it is indeed a reflection of his vision. My office then evaluates the proposals, listens to any concerns voiced by interested parties, including consumers, and considers whether we have concerns, and if so, what changes we want to request so that we can move to a position of support. This item was no different. It is true, i too had significant concerns about the initial proposal, but after interactions among staff, my office and the chairmans office, and the chairman, this item has changed considerably over the last few weeks, and i appreciate the chairman for incorporating my many requests to do so. Though i still may have preferred to make a portion of the draft more neutral, what we are voting on today asks about a number of alternatives which will allow for a wellrounded record to develop on how best to protect the public interest. Second, today, we are voting only on proposed rules, not final rules. This item is an official call inviting interested parties to comment to discuss pros and cons of various approaches and to have a robust dialogue about the best path forward. When the chairman hits the gavel after the vote is cast on this item this morning, it will signal a start of 120 unique days of opportunity, each of you have, in shaping and influencing the direction of one of the worlds most incredible platforms. The feedback up to now has been nothing short of astounding. But the real calls to action begin after this vote is taken. Comments are due on july 15, and theres ample time to evaluate any of the proposals and provide meaningful feedback. You have spoken, and i am listening. Your power will never be underestimated. I sincerely hope that your passion continues. As i have said to those i met outside of the fcc headquarters, this is now your opportunity to make your point on the record. You have the whole ear of the fcc. The eyes of the world are on all of us. Use your voice and this platform to continue to be heard. I will do all that i can independently and with the chairman to identify ways to encourage more interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, town halls, workshops, social media, because i know with a robust record this commission will be able to move quickly and get to the finish line with the adoption of permanent rules that are clear and enforceable. So, mom, i hope that answers most of your questions. And i sincerely hope you will not be compelled to ask me any more significant policy questions for another 16 years. In all seriousness, i want to thank the dedicated staff from the office of general counsel, including jonathan and stephanie, as well as the wireline competition and Telecommunications Bureau for their work on this significant item, and i want to thank my wireline Legal Advisor rebecca for her expert work on this item, and, rebecca, yes, you may take tomorrow off. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner, both for your significant contributions to this item as well as to explaining to your mother and everyone how this process works. Commissioner . Thank you. I support an open internet, but i would have done this differently. Before proceeding i wouldve , taken time before proceeding to understand the future, because the future of the internet is the future of everything. There is nothing in our commercial and civic lives that will be untouched by its influence or unmoved by its power. I would have taken time for more input, because i think as Public Servants we have a duty to acknowledge and respond to the great tide of Public Commentary that followed in the wake of the chairmans proposal. Even now, the phone calls continue, the emails pour in, and the web itself is ablaze with commentary on how this commission should proceed. It is no wonder. Our internet economy is the envy of the world. We invented it. The broadband beneath us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might to our homes and businesses in communities across the country. The applications economy began here on our shores. What produced this dynamic engine of entrepreneurship and experimentation is a foundation of openness. Sustaining what has made us innovative and creative should not be a choice. It should be an obligation. As we proceed, we are also obligated to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. It is our modern town square. It is our printing press. It is our shared platform for opportunity. Online, we are sovereign. We can choose, create, and consume content unimpeded by that prefaces of our broadband providers. Sustaining this freedom is essential. So as we proceed, we almost keep in mind the principles of fairness and protection from discrimination, that have informed every proceeding involving the internet that has been before this agency. These are the essential values in our communications laws. They are the ones we have honored in the past. They must guide us in the future. So going forward, we must honor transparency, ban blocking, and prevent unreasonable discrimination. You cannot have a twotiered internet. With fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. So i support Network Neutrality. But i believe the process that got us to this rulemaking today is flawed. I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast to be fair. So i concur. But i want to acknowledge that the chairman has made significant adjustments to the text of the rulemaking we adopt here today. He has expanded its scope and put all options on the table. Our effort now covers law and policy, section 706, and title 2. If passed, this prologue, the if past is prologue, the future of this proceeding, the future of Network Neutrality and the internet is still being written. Im hopeful we can write it together, and i am mindful that we must get it right. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner . Thank you. A few years ago googles ceo was quoted as saying the internet is the first thing humanity has made that humanity does not understand. If this is so, then every american who cares about the future of the internet should be wary about five unelected officials deciding its fate. After the u. S. Court of appeals here in washington struck down the agencys latest attempts to regulate broadband Providers Network management practices, i recommended that the fcc seek guidance from congress. Instead of plowing ahead, yet again on its own. In my view, recent events have only confirmed the wisdom of that approach. Lets start by acknowledging the obvious. The chairmans proposal has sparked a vigorous public debate. But we should not let that debate obscure important common ground, namely, a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. Indeed, this consensus reaches back at least a decade. In 2004, then fcc chairman Michael Powell outlined four principles of Internet Freedom the freedom to access lawful content, the freedom to use applications, the freedom to attach personal devices to the network, and the freedom to obtain service plan information. One year later, the fcc unanimously endorsed these principles when it adopted the internet policy statements. Respectful of these, these freedoms have propelled the internets tremendous growth over the last decade. It has shielded online competitors from anticompetitive practices. It has fostered longterm investment in broadband infrastructure. It has made the internet and unprecedented platform for civic engagement, commerce, entertainment, and more. And it has made the United States the epicenter of online innovation. I support the four Internet Freedoms, and i am committed to protecting them going forward. It is not news that people of good faith disagree when it comes to the best way to maintain a free and open internet. Or as i think of it, how best to preserve the four Internet Freedoms for consumers. Some would like to regulate broadband providers as utilities under title 2 of the communications act. This regulation would scrap the clintonera decision to let the internet grow and thrive free from Price Inflation and other price regulation and other obligations applicable to telephone carriers. There are others, and i am one of them, who believe that president clinton and congress got it right in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 when they declared the policy of the United States to be preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet, unfettered by federal or states regulations. They think we should recognize the benefits made possible by the Regulatory Regime that has been in place for the most art part over the last decade. After all, nobody thinks of Plain Old Telephone Service or utilities as cutting edge. But everyone recognizes that the internet has potential, and that is because governments did not set the bounds early on. Todays item strikes yet a third approach, a lawyerly proposal of a minimal level of access role, and not too much discrimination rules. It allows for paid prioritization under unspecified circumstances. To date, people outside this no one outside this building has asked me to support this proposal. It brings to mind a texas politicians observation that there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos. Nothing less than the future of the internet depends on how we resolve this disagreement. What we do in this proceeding will imperil or preserve Internet Freedom. It will promote or deter broadband Infrastructure Investment throughout our nation. It will brighten or hamper the future of innovation within the networks and at the edge. It will determine whether control of the internet will reside with the u. S. Government or with the private sector. It will impact whether consumers are connected by Smart Networks or dumb pipes. And it will advance or undermine american advocacy for an internet free from government control. In my view, a dispute this fundamental is not for us, five unelected individuals, to decide. Instead, it should be resolved by the peoples elected representatives, those who choose the directions of government, and those whom the American People can hold directly accountable for that choice. I am therefore disappointed that today rather than turning to congress we have chosen to take matters into our own hands. It is all the more disappointing because we have been down this road before. Our prior attempts ended in court. Even with the newfangled tools that the fcc will conjure up out of the legal grab bag, im skeptical that the third time will be the charm. For these reasons, along with others that are detailed in my written statement, i respectfully dissent. Nevertheless, if we are going to assume the role of minilegislature and lunch lunch the commission into this morass, we need to use a Better Process going forward. I agree with my colleague that we have rushed headlong into this rulemaking by holding this vote today. And when there is any bipartisan agreement on Net Neutrality, that is something. We have seen what happens when the American People feel excluded from the fccs deliberations. On several recent issues, many say that the commission has spent too much time speaking at the American People and not enough time listening to them. Going forward we need to give , the public a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process. And we must ensure that our decisions are built and based on a robust record. So what is the way forward . Here is one suggestion. Just as we commissioned a series of economic studies and passed media ownership proceedings, we should ask economists to study the impact of our proposed regulations and alternative approaches on the internet ecosystem. To ensure that we get a wide range of perspectives, each commissioner should pick two authors to ensure accuracy. Each study should be peer reviewed. And to ensure public oversight, we should host a series of hearings where commissioners can question the authors of the studies and the authors of these studies could discuss their differences. Surely, the future of the internet is no less important than media ownership. But we should not limit ourselves to economic studies. We should also engage computer scientists, technologists, and other technical experts to tell us how they see the internets infrastructure evolving. They should be subject to peer review and public hearings. Ultimately, any decisions we make on internet regulation should be based on sound economics and engineering, and an accurate understanding of how networks actually function. They should be informed by the judicious and successful regulatory approach embraced by both democrats and republicans in recent years. And they should avoid embroiling everyone in yet another yearslong legal waiting game. In short, getting the future of the internet right is more important than getting this done right now. Going forward, i hope that we will not rush headlong into enacting bad rules. We are not confronted with a crisis that requires immediate action. And if we are going to usurp Congress Role and make fundamental choices for the American People, we must do better than the process that led us here today. I respectfully dissent. Commissioner oreilly . Thank you. It should come as no surprise that i cannot support todays notice. As i said before, the premise for imposing Net Neutrality rules is fundamentally flawed and rests on a Faulty Foundation of the believed statutory authority. I have serious concerns that this illadvised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope. The notice proposes to grant the ground the Net Neutrality rules in section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. I have expressed my views that Congress Never intended section 706 to be an affirmative grant of authority to the commission to regulate the internet. At most, it could be used to trigger deregulation. The notice does not stop there. It seeks, to construe additional language in section 706 and events just using section 230b to broaden the scope of the usurped authority. This is absurd. Now the commission is trying to cast a wider net of authority. Service providers could become ensnarled in the future. Becase it proves to inadequate for this regulatory boondoggle the notice explores , years of investment by reclassifying access as a title 2 service. The commission examined applying monopoly era telephone rules to modern Broadband Services solely to impose unnecessary and defective Net Neutrality regulations. Courts can recognize that they an agency may legally reverse course as long as it is adequately explaining the reasons for changing its position. I am concerned about real0 real world impact that such a decision could have on the Communications Industry and the economy as a whole. The current framework has provided a climate of certainty and stability for broadband investment and internet innovation. I also worry about the credibility of an agency that consistently fails to meet statutory deadlines to eliminate all rules by supposing obsolete hold rules but is supposedly open to applying obsolete provisions. The notice suggests reclassification could be a company by substantial forbearance from the title 2 requirements, but the need to forbear from a significant number of provisions in title 2, for that title 2 is an inappropriate framework for todays technologies. Indeed, title 2 includes arcane provisions. The idea that the commission can magically impose just the right amount of title 2 on broadband providers is giving commission more credit than it ever deserves. Additionally, before taking any action on any issue, the commission should have a specific evidence that there is a market failure. The notice does not examine the broadband market, much less identify any failures. A true and accurate review of the broadband market which must include wireless broadband which show how dynamic it is. Moreover the notice fails to , make the case that there is an actual problem resulting in real harm to consumers. The notice identifies at most two additional examples of alleged harm, and in one instance the commission concedes it did not find a violation. In a lastditch attempt to find problems, the notice points to suppose it had conduct occurring outside the United States without explaining how it is relevant to a very different u. S. Broadband market and regulatory structure. Having come up empty handed, the notice proceeds to explore hypothetical concerns. At the top of the list is prioritization. Even ardent supporters of Net Neutrality recognized that some amount of traffic prioritization or differentiation must be allowed or even encouraged. Voice must be prioritized over email. Video over plain data. Prioritization is not a bad word, a necessary component of a reasonable network management. The notice is skeptical of paid prioritization and contemplates banning some or all of these arrangements out right. Companies that do business over the internet, including some of the strong supporters of Net Neutrality, routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience. They have been doing it for years. In short fears that paid , prioritization will be a great the Great Service for other users, relegating them to a slow lane, have been disproven by years of history. Because there has been no evidence of actual harm, they are not tailored, but vague and unclear. The notice suggests providers could seek a nonbinding staff guidance or prospective reviews of their practices. But that is very troubling when legitimate committees are put into the position of having to ask the government every time they need to make a business decision in order to avoid costly enforcement or litigation. It is even more telling that the commission is suggesting new layers of enforcement for which it has no experience. For instance, where are ombudsmen mentioned in the statute . What are they supposed to do . To say the cost benefit analysis is inadequate is an understatement. The notice devotes several pages to a wish list of disclosures, requirements, and certifications. They will impose new burdens and carry real costs, they may not ever wind up having meaningful ends to users. I intend to spend time improving this important function. In sum, the regulation will provide no help to consumers and thrust the commission into a place it should not be. I respectfully dissent. I protest for a free and open internet. Please come we are trying to move ahead. Providing service in general terms and indiscriminately. A free and open internet [applause] i strongly support an open internet. This agency supports an open internet. Although you have seen today that the ability to assure an open internet. It is a matter of dispute. Not a fast internet. Not a slow internet. One internet. Attention is being paid to this topic throughout the country, here in this room, is Proof Positive as to why the open and Free Exchange of information must be protected. Thank you to all of the thousands who have emailed me personally about this. Thank you to those who feel so strongly about this, that they have been living in tents outside the building, and i enjoyed our meetings. One could only conclude that the Founding Fathers must be looking down and smiling at how the republic that they created is carrying out the ideals that they established. By releasing this item today, those who have been expressing themselves will now be able to see what we are actually proposing. They have been heard. We look forward to further input, and i say thank you for your passionate caring about this very important issue. But today we take another step. In what has been a decadelong effort to preserve and protect the open internet. Unfortunately, those previous efforts were blocked twice by Court Challenges by those who sell Internet Connections consumers. Today this agency moves to surmount that opposition and to stand up for consumers in an open internet. There has been talk up here about freedoms, about whether or not there has been market failures. The d. C. Circuit in its opinion on the 2010 decision of this commission made an interesting observation that i would like to quote. There is little dispute that broadband providers have a technological ability to distinguish between and discriminate against certain types of internet traffic. The court found there have been examples of abuses from individual cases to mobile carriers denying access to apps for banking or voice or video. So this notice of proposed rulemaking starts an important process. Where it ends, we will learn during the process. That is why i am grateful for the attention this has received. We start with a simple, obvious premise protecting the open internet is important for both consumers and economic growth. We are dedicated to protecting and preserving an open internet. And as commissioner clyburn much more eloquently pointed out, what we are dealing with today is a proposal, not a final rule. With this notice we are asking for specific comment on different approaches to accomplish the same goal, an open internet. Nothing in this proposal authorizes paid prioritization, despite what has been incorrectly stated today. The potential for there to be some kind of an fast lane, available to only a few, has many concerned. Personally, i dont like the idea that the internet could become divided into haves and havenots, and i will work to see that that does not happen. In this item we specifically ask whether and how to prevent the kind of paid prioritization that could result in fast lanes. Two weeks ago, i told the convention of americas cable broadband providers something that is worth repeating here. If someone acts to divide the internet between haves and havenots, we will use every power to stop it. I will take no backseat to anyone that privileging some network users, in a manner that squeezes out smaller voices, is unacceptable. Today, we have proposed how to stop that from happening, including consideration of the applicability of title 2. As i said, there is one internet. It must be fast. It must be robust, and it must be open. The speed and quality of the connection the consumer purchases must be unaffected by what content he or she is using. And there has to be a level Playing Field of opportunity for new ideas. Small companies and startups must be able to effectively reach consumers with Innovative Products and services and they must be protected against harmful conduct by broadband providers. The prospect of a gatekeeper or choosing winners and losers on the internet is unacceptable. Lets stop for a minute and look at how the internet works at the retail level. The consumer accesses the internet using connectivity that they have purchased from an Internet Service provider. That activity should be open and inviolate. It is the simple purchase of a pathway. I believe it would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore not permitted under this proposal, for the isp not to deliver the contracted for open pathway. But lets consider specifically what that means. I want to get rules that work like this. If the Network Operators slowed the speed below that which the consumer bought, it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited. If the Network Operator blocked access to lawful content, it would violate our no blocking rule and be commercially unreasonable and therefore doubly prohibited. When content provided by a firm such as netflix reaches the Consumers Network provider, it would be commercially unreasonable to charge the content provider to use the bandwidth for which the consumer had already paid and therefore prohibited. When a consumer buys specified capacity from a Network Provider, he or she is buying open capacity, not capacity the Network Provider can prioritize for their own profit purposes. Prioritization that deprives the consumer of what the consumer has paid for would be commercially unreasonable, and therefore prohibited. Simply put, when a consumer buys a specified bandwidth, it is commercially unreasonable, and thus a violation of this proposal, to deny them the full connectivity, the full benefits that connection enables. Also included in this proposal are two new powers for those who use the internet and for the commission. Expanded transparency will require networks to inform on themselves. I call it the rat out rule. The proposal expands existing transparency rules to require that networks disclose any practices that could change a consumers or a content providers relationship with the network. I thus anticipate that, if a network ever planned to take an action that would affect the content providers access there would be time for the fcc to consider petitions to review such an action. Recognizing that internet entrepreneurs and consumers should not have to hire a lawyer to call the commissions attention to a grievance, an ombudsperson would be created within the fcc to receive their complaints and, where warranted, investigate and represent their case. Separate and apart from this connectivity is the question of interconnection between the Consumers Network provider and the various networks that deliver to that isp. That is a different matter that is better addressed separately. Todays proposal is all about what happens on the broadband Providers Network and how the consumers connection to the internet may not be interfered with or otherwise compromised. The situation in which the Commission Finds itself is inherited from the actions of commissions over the last decade. The d. C. Circuits ruling in january of this year upheld our determination that we need rules to protect internet openness, and upheld our authority under
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.