Transcripts For CSPAN Open Internet Rules 20150301

Same area. They too are concerned. Any sense, that may be a good thing. Their strength is going to be if they can act collectively. What the chinese are doing here, in one case, building airfields so that they can launch aircraft to do patrols and surveillance. Further exerted what they consider their sovereignty over the south china sea. It has been impressive in the last year or year and a half since they have been doing this. As they pursued drilling. Which has caused conflict with the vietnamese. This is a worrisome trend of the chinese because of the tensions it is going to create in the south china sea. They have been very aggressive about it. You have not only the kit bodhi be to build an airfield but weapon systems capability to build an airfield but also weapon systems. It will be interesting to see what they do. Our attention is on other parts of the world. This is really quite a major step on their part. I thank you for helping us out on it. One question and react in reaction. We understand there is a Huge Campaign isolate is undertaking to attract recruits. You may not be able to comment in this setting. Are we taking steps to interdict that communication . So they are not able to put things up and attract recruits . Communicate . The problem there is they are using the media ubiquity seeitously. The problem is, how do you take down the internet. In the day, it was channelized. They have gotten wise to that and they make it difficult. Because the universal forms and the way they get things out so ubiquitously. Very hard to control. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] click today, House Majority whip today, House Majority leader mccarthy and with courier whip hoyer. Live coverage begins at 5 00 p. M. Here on cspan. Baltimore Police Commissioner on the challenges of policing the city. It is clear to me i had an issue of public trust in people having an issue of the things that were said. Regardless of the fact i stand before you like i did today that this person can bring it down to 53 , that the lawsuits are down an officer involved shootings are dramatically down people in the communities say, we dont believe it here it are co it. The cspan city tour takes book tv in American History tv on the road to learn about history and literary life here next weekend, we partnered with comcast for a visit to texas. Opening the canal in 1869 sailing sailing ships were almost dealt a death well. With the opening of the canal ships had a shorter route to the far east, to india and ships really needed to find a way to make their own living. Instead of highvalue cargo, they started carrying low value cargo. Coal, oil, cotton, etc. She really found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting into the market and fast pace. Saturday, march 7, at noon eastern. On thursday, in a partyline vote of 32, federal Communications Position approved new open internet rules designed to prohibit Internet Service providers from blocking or discriminating against illegal content moving through their networks. It would also stop providers from having fast lanes or preferential treatment. This is about one hour and 35 minutes. We are now pleased to present for your consideration an order that has set forth clear sustainable, enforceable rules to preserve and protect the open internet as a place for innovation and Free Expression. The order builds on the views of 4 million americans who commented in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking you adopted last may. We have two guests with us today. Chad dickerson and the creator of the tv drama we also have a brief video from an inventor of the worldwide web and founder of the worldwide web consortium. They will provide brief remarks about the importance of an open internet to innovation, invest, creativity, and Free Expression. Id first like to turn it over to mr. Dickerson. Thank you, chairman wheeler for the opportunity to his today. As the ceo of etsy, im here to thank you and your colleagues for taking Decisive Action to protect the internet. Etsys an online marketplace for you can buy handmade and vintage good from artists around the world. Weve democratize access to entrepreneurship for 1. 2 million sellers. Most are sole proprietors work from home. They live in all 50 states and the depend on their etsy income to support their families. 18 support themselves fulltime on etsy. Etsy and our sellers rely on a free and open internet that allows the company to grow from a tiny startup in a brooklyn apartment to a Global Company with over 600 employees. It allows the micro businesses that sell to reach buyers around the world and compute with much bigger, more established brands. Back in 1993, it allowed me, in english major with a data entry job at a newspaper to jump start my career in technology by teaching myself how to code. There is hope for english majors. [laughter] without strong rules prevent discrimination the economy would suffer. Take etsy. We charge 20 cents to list an item, and we take only 3 of every transaction. We could not afford to pay for priority act as to consumers but we know that delays in milliseconds have longterm impacts on revenue. Absence of rules you are voting on today we would be forced to raise fees or leave ours dollars in this low lane redding the micro business who depended our platform us about. The Etsy Community knows what is at stake. On september 10, 30,000 of them joined millions urging congress and the fcc to protect the open internet. Many others meehan credit made handcrafted objects for Net Neutrality. Several more sense thank you cards, which i gave to chairman wheeler earlier. Ive a handwritten note in my hands from nancy from california. She wrote, my note is a personal thank you to you for protecting the Free Internet for all. I worked in the medical field for 30 years and loved it that a couple years ago a girl texting on the freeway took my career way for me. My injuries forced me to find income from something i could do from a chair. I turned to my passion for creativity and vintage items and joined etsy. My dream is alive and viable because of the Free Internet neutrality and etsy. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your support for me and countless other Little People trying to glean income from their artistry. I applaud the fcc for establishing clear rules that ban dissemination online. Over the last year, over 4 Million People weighed in on this proceeding. Todays vote demonstrates they have been hurt. Thank you for voting to protect the internet as an engine for Economic Opportunity the likes of which we have never seen. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership and please say thank you to nancy. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am a Television Producer and a member of the Writers Guild of america west. I developed a tv series, a show that survived two near deaths. It originally aired on amc. Netflix offered to share the cost. We were able to end the series all because of the internet that has opened up competition. We told some of our best stories, our toughest most heartbreaking once in the last two seasons of the show, stories that never would have been on the air had it not been for the open internet. We talked about the Death Penalty and homelessness and drug addiction. Im so grateful we had that opportunity. What the open internet means for creativity, innovation is by no means limited to my own experience. Series like transparent are giving voice to world and experiences never be forced in on the small screen. While little more than 20 of comedies and dramas on Traditional Television have a woman at the helm, almost 40 of the series airing on these new Online Platforms this season will be run by women. This progress is a result of new competition let loose on an industry that is highly consolidated. It is the result of pentup demand by an American Public tired of hearing the same old same old. It is result of innovation on a platform that does not require permission that is expanded how where, and by whom stories can be told. Because of the open internet, we are in your freemarket ideal work as adam smith intended with increasing, titian rich rewards consumers and creators. However, this will not continue without strong roles that help ensure that markets work properly. The few companies that control the pipe and face little competition have already begun to exercise or gatekeeper power to limit the promise of this new platform. Today, we have arrived at the moment where you decide the future. The right decision, the one that will benefit creators, innovators, the economy and the American People is to reclassify broadband Internet Service as a Telecommunications Service. Only reclassification will allow the commission to its to the rules that will ban paid prioritization and all the ways in which the companies that control distribution can tip the scales in their favor. What you do today can secure the future of the open internet and make sure all our voices are heard each and every one of us. Thank you. Thank you. And now id like to ask our Audiovisual Team to play the video from sir tim. [video clip] thank you, chairman wheeler and the members of the commission for the opportunity to address you at a critical moment for the future of the internet. More than anything else, the actions you take today to preserve let me explain. 25 years ago, the internet [inaudible] so 25 years ago, the Internet User i could sit down, write a program, write the web server, give copies of people and let them run on computers [feedback] all that was necessary was to plug into the internet. I didnt have to ask anybodys permission. From this, the worldwide web spread to reach all corners of the global, interconnected world, making hundreds of billions of dollars for Economic Growth i didnt have to get permission from anybody. I didnt have to pay isp specialties. I did not have to convince anybody that this new technology should be let through. I did not have to worry that they would not [indiscernible] so i did not have to ask permission from anybody. The web itself on top of internet is another platform. Thank you. So, that is really its a wonderful system. The openness of the internet created an opportunity for me 25 years ago, will ensure that the next innovators come home with a great new service and great improvements, the web will have the opportunity to try their ideas in the free market just as i did. Fcc action is about consumer rights, free speech. It is about democracy. Its also about business. The openness of the internet [indiscernible] the fact that the internet is mutual so i applaud the chairman on the time tested to authority which enables the commission to write hopefully the kind of simple, clear rules that are the basis on which our society depends. The fact that some repressive regimes of use the legal system on the internet cant deter us from protecting openness and free speech. Rather we set an example of how free speech sets basic rules. Facing the question about what to do with Net Neutrality. The fcc is leading the way and showing how to continue the fight in innovation. We are society of laws. The free market depends on based on rules. [indiscernible] in which the flow of information on the internet is her economic and social life blood. We have to add Net Neutrality to a list of basic market conditions. Thank you again, mr. Chairman and members of the commission for the important stuff you are taking today and the opportunity to make this contribution. The remarks we have heard from our guest and from sir tim reflect the widespread consensus of the importance of protecting and promoting an open internet. An item of this complexity and scope requires quite a team. Economist, engineers technologists and attorneys across the commission all played roles in preparing the items before you. On behalf of the competition bureau, i would like to thank our colleagues and general counsel, Wireless Telecommunication Bureau and consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau, and the enforcement euros, as well as our chief technologist scott jordan. With me at the table are of the office of general counsel. Roger sherman and jiim of the Wireless Telecommunications bureau. And claude aikin and melissa of the competition bureau. Melissa will present the item. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. At the outset, the order before you sets for three bright line rules to ban conduct that we know threatens the open internet. First, broadband providers may not block access to legal content, application, services or nonharmful device. Second, they may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or any classes thereof. Third, they may not favor some internet traffic over other internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. In other words, no fast lanes. As in the commissions open internet order, todays order also adopts a standard for judging concerns with any future practice is on a case i case basis. That standard will prohibit broadband providers from unreasonably interfering with or disadvantaging the ability of consumers and providers to reach one another. All of these rules, other than the ban on paid prioritization are subject to a common thans exception for reasonable Network Management. That the order makes clear that they commission will not tolerate abusive this exception. The order also enhances the transparency rule adopted in 2010, which is still in effect. It provides smaller broadband providers with a temporary exemption from these enhancements and set in motion a process to consider whether to make that or another exemption permanent. The order also notes that some data services, like facility space voice, are not Broadband Internet access and not subject to the context rules. The order, however, does ensure that these services do not undermine the effectiveness of the open internet rules. Also, the order allows the commission to address any problems that arise in the exchange of traffic between Broadband Internet access providers and other networks and services. The order recognizes that when internet interconnection breaks down, ultimately it is consumers that their the harm. The order grounds these news protections in multiple sources of authority. First, it classifies Broadband Internet access, fixed and mobile, as a telik medication service. In offering this service, the broadband providers make a promise to the enduser to trance that traffic to and from all lawful internet and points. End points. This is no less true in mobile than it is in fixed. Accordingly, the order finds that mobile Broadband Internet access their various is a commercial mobile service under section 332 of the Communications Act and all of the open internet protections that apply to fixed broadband also apply to mobile. With respect to interconnection, the order explains that this promise encompasses the duty to make the necessary Traffic Exchange arrangements that allows consumers to use the internet as they wish. These findings concerning Broadband Internet Access Service provide the best Legal Certainty for rules guaranteeing an open internet and reflect the reality of how broadband providers offer their services to the public today. To ensure the Service Classification results in continued light touch framework for broadband, the order exercises the Forbearance Authority granted to the commission by congress forbearing from some 27 provisions of title ii in over 700 regulations adopted. The order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protects consumers, and support universal service. The order makes clear that broadband providers will not subject to utility style regulations. This means no unbundling tariffs or other forms of rate regulation. The order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the universal service fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees. In short, the order before a response to the unprecedented record in this proceeding by adopting strong, open internet protections and resting them on solid legal ground. The beer recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges the bureau recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. Thank all of you for your efforts on this. Thank you. Following years of vigorous debate, the United States adopted the bill o f rights in 1791. The framers recognized the basic freedoms as enshrined in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were fundamental to a free and open Democratic Society. James madison gave life to the First Amendment in a scant 45 words, mr. Chairman, which are fundamental to the spirit of this great nation. Almost two centuries later Justice William brennan would write the historic 1964 New York Times vs. Syllabus sullivan decision that debates on public issues should be on inhibited, robust, and wide open. I believe predecessor madison and Justice Brennan would be proud of the rigorous, robust, and unfettered debate that has led us to this historic moment and what a moment it is. I believe the framers would be pleased to see these principles embodied on a platform that has become such an important part of our lives. I also believe they never envisioned a government that would include the input and leadership of women, people of color, and immigrants or that there would be an open process where nearly 4 million citizens have had a direct conversation with their government. They would be extremely amazed i would venture to say, because we are extremely amazed. So, here we are 224 years later at a pivotal fork in the road. Poised to preserve those same virtues of a Democratic Society freeze each, freedom of religion, free speech, freedom of assembly and a functioning free market. As we look around the world, we see foreign governments blocking access to social media and some curtailing free speech. There are countries where it is routine for governments, not the consumer, to determine who has act fast and what kind of content who has access. I am proud to be able to say we are not among them. Absent the rules, we adopt today, however, any Internet Service provider has the liberty to do just that. They would be free to block, throttle, favor or discriminate against traffic or extract tolls from any user for any reason or for no reason at all. This is more than a theoretical exercise. Providers and United States have in fact blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers Free Expression, it also restricts competition and innovation by allowing companies, not the consumers, to pick winners and losers. As many of you know, this is not my first open internet rodeo. While i did vote to approve the 2010 rules, it was no secret that i preferred a different path than the one the commission ultimately adopted, specifically title ii was forbearance, mobile parity, a ban on paid prioritization, and preventing the Specialized Services exemption from becoming a loophole. So, i am grateful to you, mr. Chairman for your willingness to work with my office to better ensure that this order strikes the right balance and it position to provide us with strong, legally sustainable rules. This is our third fight bite at the apple, and we must get it right. Today we are here to answer a few civil questions. Who determines how you use the internet . Who decides what kind content what content you view and when . Should there be a single internet or fast lanes or slogans . Should Internet Service providers the free to provide content as they see fit . Should access to the internet on your mobile device have the same protection as your fixed device at home . These questions get to the essence of the debate. How do we continue to ensure that consumers have the tool they need to decide, based on their own user experience, the consumer, not me, not the government, not the industry but you, the consumer . Keeping in touch with your loved one overseas, interacting with your health care provider, even if you are miles away from the closest medical facility enrolling online for classes to improve your educational professional potential without worrying about whether the university can pay for a fast lane so that that lecture can be watched. Not buffering for hours where equality has been degraded. Not that. Not wondering if this is with your enters your Internet Service provider is getting preferential treatment over that stardom. We are here so that teachers do not have to give a Second Thought about assigning homework has to be researched online because they are sure their pupils are free to access any lawful website and such websites will not load at dial up speed. And we are answering the calls of more than 4 million commenters who raise their voices and made a difference through civic, yet sometimes not always so civil, discourse. We are here to ensure that every american has the ability to communicate by their preferred means over their chosen platform because as one of our greatest civil rights pioneers, representative john lewis of georgia said, if we had the internet during the movement, we could have done more, much more to bring people together from all over the country to organize and Work Together to build the beloved community. That is why it is so important for us to protect the internet. Every voice matters. We cannot l et the interest of profit silence the voices of those pursuing dignity. We are here to ensure that there is only one internet where applications, new product, ideas, and points of view have an equal chance of being seen and heard. We are here because we want to enable those with deep pockets as well as those with empty pockets the same opportunities to succeed. There are many aspects of this item i am pleased to support and, while time and stamina prohibit me from naming them all, i do want to highlight a few. Users of mobile devices should not be relegated to second class internet. We know many of lone income americans rely heavily on their mobile device. And some rely heavily on that mobile phone as their only access to the internet. They need, they deserve a robust experience on par with the wired peers. I thank you, mr. Chairman, for ensuring equality and erasing the mobile versus fixed distinctive. The item contains strong, clear rules to ensure that all content, all applications, and all are treated equally. These are all essential to the free market and this is procompetition. We must also ensure that companies are not able to take actions that circumvent or undermine the open internet rules through exemptions or at a point of interconnection. Despite the flurry of press reports earlier this week, very interesting for me, i would never advocate for any policy that undermines oversight or enforcement of any open internet protections, including interconnection. I am pleased that this order commit to monitor Internet Traffic Exchange arrangements and enable the commission to intervene if appropriate. I have also been vocal about my call to modernize a life line program, which has been stuck in a parachute pants time warner sinc time warp since 1985. However, of some Artificial Life course. A dedicated team of wireline competition and Wireless Telecommunications euros and the officer of general counsel worked externally hard on this item. There are too many people to thank but i would be remiss if i did not mention claude aiken, roger sherman, jim slickly, joe, thank you. And michael jansen. I must thank two people in my office, especially. Louie perez and Rebecca Goodhart who will work days on end to see that it item is right. I take you very much. But last but not least i would like to thank you, the American People. More than 4 million of you wait weighed in. Thank you for your role in framing this historic order. Today, because of your effort, we are better able to allow millions of americans to tell their stories, to reach their potential, and to realize the american ideal. Thank you very much. Thank you, commissioner. [applause] thank you for your leadership on this, recognizing that as mr. Lewis said, every voice matters. There has been a little noise on the way to this decision. So i am going to do something radical. Im going to be brief. Our internet economy is the envy of the world. We invented it. The applications economy began right here on our shores. The broadband below us and the airwaves all around us deliver its collective might into our homes and businesses all across the country. What produce this dynamic engine of onto for nor entrepreneurship is a foundation of openness. And sustaining what has made us innovative, fears and creative should not a choice. It should be an obligation. We also have a duty, a duty to protect what has made the internet the most dynamic platform for free speech ever invented. It is our printing press. It is our town square, our soapbox and our shared platform for opportunity. That is why open internet policies matter. That is why i support network neutrality. We cannot have a twotiered internet with fast lanes thats beat the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. He cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online. And we do not need locking, blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the internet. For these reasons i support the chairmans efforts and rules today. They use are a distinct a tory tools, including title ii statutory tools, including title ii authority to put in place a sick open internet policies we all rely on but our courts took away last year. The result honors the creative collaborative and open internet envisioned by those who were there at the start, including the legendary sir tim bernerslee, the creator of the World Wide Web whom we have had the privilege of to hear from today. This is a big deal. What is also a big deal is 4 million voices. 4 million americans wrote this agency to make known their ideas, thoughts, and deeply held opinions about internet openness. They lit up our phone lines, clogged our email inboxes and jammed our online comment system. That might the messy but what ever are disagreements are on network neutrality, i hope we can agree that is democracy in action. And something we can all support. Commissioner . [applause] thank you for your trenchant presentation. What you edited out, which are your leadership throughout this process, your championing of open voices. We will hear a lot of words up here today, but the most important words is one simple short word i. Thank you. Commissioner . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Americans love the free and open internet. We relish our freedom to speak post, rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The internet has become a powerful force for freedom here and around the world. So, it is said to witness this morning the fccs unprecedented attempts to replace that freedom with government control. It should not be this way. For 20 years there has been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open internet. A democratic president , a Republican Congress enshrined in the teleCommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the internet should be a vibrant and competitive free market unfettered by federal and state regulation. And dating back to the clinton administration, every fcc chairman, republican and democrat, has let the internet grow free from utility style regulation. The result speak for themselves. But today, the fcc abandons those policies. It reclassifies Broadband Internet Access Service as title ii. It sees is where isps make their investment and determine what Service Plans are available to the American Public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan, marketoriented policies that have your best so well over the past two decades. It is an aboutface from the proposals the fcc itself made just last may. So, why is the fcc turning his back on Internet Freedom . Is it because we now have evidence the internet is broken . No. We are flipflopping for one reason and one reason only president obama told us to do so. Im asking the fcc to reclassify Internet Service under the teleCommunications Act. On november 10, president obama asked the fcc to implement his plan for regulating the internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported, the fcc has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that. The courts will ultimately decide this orders fate. Litigants are already lining up to seek judicial review. Given this orders glaring legal flaws, they will have plenty of fodder. But if this order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the consequences. Higher broadband prices, slower broadband speeds the courts will ultimately decide its fate. Already lawyering up to seek a judicial review of these new rules. To start, the commissions decision to adopt president obamas plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of even. It gives the fcc the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the internet works. It is an overreach that will let a washington bureaucracy, and not the American People, decide the future of the online world. One facet of that control is rate regulation. For the first time, the fcc will regulate the rates that ifcs may charge and can set a price of zero for commercial arrangements. It goes out of its way to reject calls from rate regulation, and invites parties to file such complaints with the commission. A Government Agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation. Although the order plainly regulates rates, the plan takes pains to claim it is not imposing what it calls next antirate regulation. That concedes there will be ex post rate regulation. But even the suggesting that it this is nothing of what a future commission could envision. Just as pernicious as the new internet conduct standard, a vague standard that gives the sec a roving mandate to review business models. Usagebased pricing plans are the current targets. A company doesnt want to offer an expensive data plan, it could find itself in the fccs crosshairs. Our standard should be simple. If you like your Current Service plan, you should be a will to keep your Current Service plan. The fcc should not take it away from you. Banning diverse Service Plans would hurt consumers, especially the middle class and low income americans, the biggest beneficiaries of these plans. In all, the sec will have unfettered discretion to decide what practices clear the bar. These will be the last plans targeted by the agency. As the Electronic Frontier foundation wrote two days ago, this open ended rule will be anything but clear and suggests that the sec believes it has Broad Authority to pursue any number of practices. He gives the fcc on off a lot of discretion, potentially giving unfair advantage to parties within seller with insider influence. Well said. Although the order crows that this forbearance from title to rules yields a regulatory framework, in reality, it is not like that all with what you expect from washington dc. In addition to write regulations the plan also repeatedly states that is only forbearing at this time. For her rules, the fcc will refrain for now. At this time, for now to be sure, the agency said that it cannot envision going further. As the history of this proceeding makes clear assurances like these dont tend to last long. In other words, expect forbearance to fade. Moreover, consumers will be worse off under president obamas plan to regulate the internet. They should expect the bill to go up. This is not what anyone was promised. First, broadband taxes. One avenue for hire bills is new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Heres the background. If you look it your phone bill you will see a line item that says universal service fee. These fees what americans call taxes, are paid by americans on the telephone service. They funnel about 9 billion each year through the sec. Consumers have not had to pay these taxes on the broadband bills because broadband has never been a title ii service. Now it is. The order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes. The repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes, not prohibiting them. This is fake leave forbearance. The sec has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the federal state joint board on universal services and has requested a decision by april 7 2015, right before tax day. Its no surprise that many view this as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband. States have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. The fccs own preferences clear. The order argues that taxing broadband could potentially spread the base of contributions and could add to the stability of the universal services. For those not familiar with the beltway lingo, let me translate. Capping broadband would make it easier to spend more of your money with minimal public oversight. We have seen this gameplay before during reform of the earache program, the fcc secretly told lobbyists that they would raise taxes after the election to pay for promises it was making. Sure enough in december 2014, the agency did just that. It increased earache spending and with a telephone taxes by 1. 5 billion per year. Public reports indicate that the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream to spend more of consumers hardearned dollars. So, when it comes to broadband reid my lips, more new taxes are coming. Its just a matter of when. Second effect on consumers, slower broadband. These internet regulations will work in terms of broadband speeds. The record is replete with evidence that title ii regulations will slow investments and innovation and Broadband Networks. Lets just remember that Broadband Networks dont have to be built, capital does not have to be invested. The more difficult the sec makes the case for deployment come the less likely broadband providers will connect americans with digital opportunities. The old world offers a cautionary tale. Compared to the United States to that of europe where broadband is treated as a public utility. 82 of americans have axis access to highspeed. In europe, that figures 54 . Moreover, in the United States average broadband speeds are 30 faster than they are in western europe. Its no wonder that many europeans are perplexed by what is taking place at the sec. The secretary general of the european peoples party, the Largest Party in the european parliament, observed the fcc, at the behest of president obama, was about to propose the type of regulation which has led europe to fall behind the u. S. In terms of levels of investments. Making all of this worse is the fact that the fcc now welcomes litigation from individual claims about the justness and reasonableness of isp pricing. As an appropriate means of regulating internet economy. Judging from what weve seen in the patent world, this will be a boon for trial lawyers. I have mentioned the intended consequences of reclassification. There are unintended consequences as well. The fees that broadband providers from smalltown Cable Companies to new entrants like google, must now pay to deploy broadband, will go up from an estimated 150 million to 200 million per year. The reclassification will cause Small Companies to pay higher state and local taxes. Come reason washington, d. C. Will see an increase in taxes under gross receipts. That will leave a welt on consumers wallets. One independent estimate puts the total at 11 billion each year, and every dollar spent on fees and new costs like lawyers and accountants have to come from somewhere, either from the pockets of the American Consumer or projects to deploy faster broadband. So these higher costs will lead to lower speeds and higher prices. In short, less value for the American Consumer. That is really not what i heard consumers wanted when i hosted the texas forum on internet regulation. The fccs only field hearing on Net Neutrality where audience members were allowed be. There, internet innovators students, everyday people told me they wanted Something Else from the fcc, something that had a familiar ring to it. They wanted competition, competition, competition. Yet, literally nothing in this order will promote Competition Among isps. To the contrary, reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of business. The monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us into the direction of a monopoly. President obamas plan to regulate the internet is nothing more than achings berry commitment for the digital age. Nothing more than a kings berry commitment for the digital age. This is not just my view. The president s own Small Business administration, apparently acting independently, admonished the fcc that its proposed rules would unduly burden Small Businesses. Following the president s lead the fcc ignored the admonition by applying heavyhanded regulations to every small broadband provider as if it were an industrial giant. Small providers are worried. I heard this myself in the texas forum on internet regulation. One of the panelists runs alamo broadband, a wireless isp that serves only 700 people across 500 square miles south of san antonio. What did he think of title ii . He thinks it is a terrible idea. His staff is, pretty busy dealing with the loads we already carry. More regulations means less funds to run the network and provide the very services our customers depend on. Others feel the same way. Last week 142 of them joined the chorus. These wisps have served customers who have no alternatives, including my parents. They often run on a shoestring budget with a few people to run the business. They have no incentive, and even if they did, no ability, to take on commercial giants like netflix. They say the fccs new regulatory intrusions into our businesses would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both. Or consider the views of 24 of the countrys smallest isps, each with fewer than 1000 Residential Broadband customers. They told us that title ii will badly strained our limited resources because they have no inhouse attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel. How about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the fcc that title ii will trigger consequences beyond the commissions control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without concrete benefit to consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of additional regulation. There is a special irony, given that right before this note, as you heard, the fcc voted to preempt state laws regarding cityowned projects. This is something president obama announced last month in cedar falls, iowa. The fcc dutifully is implementing it. But cedar falls utilities, the very municipal broadband provider the president promoted, tells us title ii is a tremendous mistake. So what does the order tell americans whose isp is not comcast or at t or google or sprint . What does it tell those who may lose their Internet Service if theyre small provider goes out of business . What does it tell those who worked for years to serve their community and build a business . One that is finally in the black . There is no explanation. There is not even an acknowledgment. Instead, there is a smug implicit assurance that it will not be that bad, and you probably had it coming anyway. So the fcc is abandoning a 20 year bipartisan framework for keeping the internet free and open in favor of Great Depression era legislation. At least we are getting something in return, right . Wrong. The internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve. That the internet works, that Internet Freedom works, should be apparent to anyone with an apple iphone or microsoft service. A Samsung Smart tv. Or a fit bit. We live in a time where you can buy a movie from itunes, watch a music video on youtube, listen to a personalized playlist on pandora, watch your favorite novel come to life on amazon streaming video, help someone make a potato salad on kick starter. Check out the latest comic, see what seinfeld has been up to. Navigate bad traffic with waze. Watch an eventful fcc meeting online, and do hundreds of other things with an online connection. At the start of this millennium, we did not have any of this internet innovation. And, no, the federal government did not build that. Somebody else made that happen. For all intents and purposes the internet as we knew it did not existence of the private sector developed it in the 1990s. It has been the commercial internet that has led to the creativity and innovation, the engineering genius that we see today. Nevertheless, the order ominously claims that threats to internet openness remain today. It argues that broadband providers hold all the tools necessary to feed consumers great content. And that the fcc continues to her concerns from other broadband providers. The evidence of these continuing threats there is none. It is all anecdotes, hypothesis, and hysteria. If you were allowed to see this plan, you would see that for yourself. A small isp in North Carolina allegedly blocked calls decade ago. Blocked calls a decade ago. Apple introduced face time over wifi first, Cellular Networks later. Scattered examples this picayune and stale are not enough to tell a coherent story about Net Neutrality. The boogie man never had it so easy. So what is there to fear . The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. The fcc instead intones serious warnings i am from the government and i am here to help. Title ii is not just a solution in search of a problem, it is a government solution that creates a real world problem. This is not with the internet needs, and it is not what the American People want. So, a few words on process briefly. When the commission launched this rulemaking, i said we needed to give the American People a full and fair opportunity to participate in the process. Unfortunately, we have fallen woefully short of that standard. Most important like, the plan in front of us today was not forged within this building through a transparent notice in rulemaking process. Instead, the wall street journal reported it was through a secretive effort inside the white house. White house officials, according to the journal, functioned as a parallel version of the fcc. A plan which the report says blindsided the fcc and swept by months of work. A few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here is what a leader for the governmentfunded group fight for the future had to say. We have been hearing for weeks from our allies in d. C. That the only thing that can stop fcc chairman tom wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal was to get the president to step in. So we took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory to congratulations. What the press has called a parallel white house fcc has led to indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairmans driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. What about the rest of the American People . They certainly could not get white house mediums. Meetings. They were shut out altogether. They were being played for fools. The situation did not improve once the white house announced president obamas plan. And asked the fcc to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal the fcc put out for comments last may, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous Net Neutrality advocates frantically rushed in to make lastminute filings registering their concerns that the fcc might be going too far. If the American People to this day have not been allowed to see yet the American People to this day have not been allowed to see president obamas plan. It has remained hidden. We asked for the planned to be released to the public. Chairman john thune and house of Representatives Committee chairman john upton did the same. According to a survey last week, 79 of the American People favor making the document public. But still, the fcc has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass president obamas 317 page plan so the American People can find out what is in it. This is not how the fcc should operate. We should be an independent agency, making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts and the record. We should not be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the white house. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demand immediate action. The backers of the president s plan know this, but they also know it cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more they know about it, the less they will like it. That is why it was done behind closed doors and has remained hidden from public view. These are not my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws. Rather than address them today i will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, i quoted googles former ceo, eric schmitz, who once said the internet is the first thing humanity has built that humanity does not understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the fcc still does not get it. The American People clearly do. Proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I am optimistic we will look back on todays vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that has served us so well. I do not know whether this plan will be vacated by a Court Reversed by congress, or overturned by a future commission, but i believe its days are numbered. For all of these reasons, i dissent, and i would like to take a moment to thank the hardworking staff of my office. Matthew, nick, brendan, and all the others who have labored low these many weeks with a difficult item to deliver the products we delivered today. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I tried to keeps score on all the things i disagreed with that you said, but i have got you on my scorecard now as undecided but probably wavering again. [laughter] commissioner orielly . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Look forward to my scorecard as well. I had a chance to review some of the tweets while you were giving your last statement. Dont worry, i was multitasking. I heard your statement. There is quite a critique of the length of my last statement. Well, sit back [laughter] put your feet up. You have not seen anything yet. I promise i will put my even longer one in the record. Today the majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of congress. To forbear from certain monopoly air to regular but reserving the right to impose and using other provisions or at some point in the future. The commission abdicates its role as an agency by defining and classifying Services Based on unsupported findings. It fails to account for substantial differences between fixed and mobile technologies. It opens the door to apply these rules to edge providers and delegates substantial authority to bureaus, including how the rules are interpreted and enforced on a casebycase basis. It also reinstates Net Neutrality rules. Indeed, it seems every bad idea ever floated in the name of Net Neutrality has come home to roost in this item. To read public statements over the last few weeks, one might think this item uses title ii in a limited way solely to provide support for Net Neutrality rules and to protect consumers. The casual observer might be misled to believe that the ends justifies the means. Along the way, however, the means became the end. Net neutrality is now the pretext for deploying title ii to a far greater extent than anyone could have imagined months ago. That is the reality that this commission tried to hide by keeping the draft from the public and releasing a carefully worded fact sheet in its place. I see no need for Net Neutrality rules. I am far more troubled by the dangerous course the commission is charting on title ii and the consequences it will have on future on future broadband investment. The commission downplays the significance but make no mistake, this is no title ii light that is tailored to reserve investment and protect consumers from blocking. It is for parents. It is forbearance. Section 706 of the 1996 act moreover, all of the premise on a Virtuous Cycle, not actual harms to providers or consumers. In some ways, this evolution is not surprising. I have consistently expressed concerns across a number of proceedings tech transitions, text to 911 that this commission has been slowly but steadily been bringing over the top, and other ip services in its reach. Now the Commission Goes all in and subjects Broadband Networks to title ii itself. Furthermore, because there is no limiting principle, the other providers will be drawn in as well. I cannot support this monumental and unlawful power grab. The item claims the decisions are a logical outgrowth of a few openended questions tacked on to the end of nprm. This is clearly a situation were all interested parties would have to divine the agencies unspoken thoughts. Interested parties effectively had no notice or opportunity to respond to the vast evolution that took place from nprm the final order. Key points include the scope of a newly defined service, including how they relate to each other. The underlying classification or reclassification of each service, how forbearance reply would apply in the context of newly defined services. Even after enduring three weeks of spin, it is hard for me to believe the commission is establishing an entire title ii regime. The d. C. Circuit called the priors, scaleddown version, a prophylactic approach. I call it guilt by imagination. The commission once again takes a pass on performing a market power analysis in favor of repetitive invocation of the Virtuous Cycle nonsense that may have been good enough to narrowly survive review when all that was at stake were Net Neutrality rules. But that is no guarantee that flimsy reasoning will stand another round or two. Some providers may have been willing to live with Net Neutrality rules under section 706 based on nothing more than speculative harms, it is an entirely different matter to impose title ii without concrete evidence that it is necessary. The title ii is far more than a convenient legal theory, it is a comprehensive set of regulations. It cannot be shrugged off with simple incantations. We disavow such interpretation as applied to the open internet context. There is a reason title ii has been called the nuclear option. No matter what the fcc tries to do to limit fallout and it is not trying very hard to do that the decision will impact investments. As one analyst reportedly wrote last week, terminal assumption rates need to be lowered. It would be naive to believe the imposition of a regime that fundamentally is about price regulation in the industry the fcc has declared to be noncompetitive would introduce risk to future pricing power. The fcc tailors certain statements to reject assertions. It does not give me a lot of comfort. Even a modest reduction is too great a price to pay when weighed against pure speculative harms. Moreover, the harms to small isps will disproportionately be severe, and the fcc gives them no reprieve from title ii whatsoever. The item gives significant weight to a theoretical cost to foregone innovation, that no weight to the cost of foregone investment. Forget about open internet. They have no internet. We need to be focused on ways to promote deployment and not in some roundabout Virtuous Cycle way but through proven regulatory measures. I am concerned that the far from Virtuous Cycle is creating a vicious cycle that regulates broadband, and that will further deter investment. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Notably, the items not only reverses its decisions it also determines the first time that title ii the conclusion that retail Broadband Access is a Telecommunications Service is contrary to the plain tack of text of multiple Communications Acts, and interviews of all Nine Supreme Court justices. It gives short shrift to the argument that prior decisions to classify Broadband Internet access as an Information Service endangered reliant service that must be taken into account. Adherence to factually unsupportable assertions shows that the commission has abdicated its role as an expert federal agency on Communication Networks and services, ignored the administrative record in this proceeding. The record is replete with evidence that content providers and Network Operators enter into interconnection relationships with isps through individually negotiated private arrangements. Regardless of the forum they take, providers do not hold himself out to serve the public in differently. As such, these arrangements which some refer to mistakenly as interconnection, have never been regulated as common carriage subject to title ii. Undeterred by this long history, it concocts a scheme transforming this interconnection to Telecommunications Service by subsuming it into another service, Broadband Internet Access Service. Just like that, retail Broadband Internet Access Service is no longer a lastmile service. It is the entire internet path including all internet traffic relationships. This approach is riddled with holes. Interconnection has always been understood to be distinct from last mile, including this proceeding. Second, the item does not show how the service laundering scheme is consistent with precedent. Third, it depends on broadband Access Service being a Telecommunications Service, which it is not. Fourth, there was no notice for this novel approach. Even parties that guessed it did not understand that the primary mechanism for doing so would be the reinterpreting of Broadband Internet Access Service to include interconnection. This shift to regulate Internet Traffic Exchange highlights that the commissions real end game has become imposing title ii on all parts of the internet, not just setting up Net Neutrality rules, but subjecting it to a regulation in the name of Net Neutrality. The commission is trying to use a small hook and a thin line to reel in a very large whale. This line will surely break. Until now, the commission has followed congress mandate and has correctly exercised regulatory restraint by classifying mobile broadband as an Information Service free from common carry regulations as required by the statute. Yet today we used sleightofhand to change our definition so that overnight mobile broadband magically falls under the confines of title ii. In subjecting wireless broadband to title ii, the majority ignores fundamental differences. Unlike last centurys voice only service, broadband has developed in a fiercely competitive environment. Wireless consumers have ample choices. The competition has yielded unparalleled investment, higher speeds, and Product Differentiation as sector participants for an age to attract and retain subscribers. Applying a Regulatory Regime to the dynamic mobile sector defies logic. The majority also flagrantly ignores the fundamental technical and Operational Requirements necessary for mobile Broadband Networks, unlike fixed systems, mobile capacity is restrained by the scarcity of resources. Given this unique limitation those providers must mitigate congestion inherent to wireless networks. I expect rigid title ii rules adopted today will hamstring smooth functioning of these networks. Some may argue that the exception to Network Management will allow such flexibility, a casebycase approach, whereby a wireless provider is judged afterthefact by the Enforcement Bureau is not likely to provide much comfort or certainty to wireless providers. Finally, the majority defines mobile broadband as a Telecommunications Service without adequately explaining its rationale for the drastic change of course. In addition, there has been no meaningful opportunity for Public Comment on this change definition. This action is nothing less than an attempt to improperly capture mobile broadband under title ii in direct contravention of congressional intent, and it is not likely to survive judicial scrutiny. Perhaps most surprising and troubling is that it promises forbearance for most of title ii but it does not actually forbear from the substance of those provisions. Instead, it intends to provide the same protections using a few of the core title ii provisions retained, chiefly sections 201 202, and 706. The item is candid about the strategy, stating applying section 201 and 202 enables us to protect consumers from potentially harmful contact potentially harmful conduct by providers and from the statutory backstop. Indeed, section after section the item claims to forbear from a provision, then quickly point to available protections and other provisions that effectively gut forbearance. It is an endrun for the purposes of spin. It only would exclude 56 directly and even then allow the inexcusably broad language of certain sections to govern. The majority seems comfortable with the suggestion they can forbear from parts of title ii since section 201 does it all anyway. I will highlight a few examples to make my point. Forbearance from terror thing. It is our predictive judgment that sections 201 and 202 will be adequate to protect the interest of consumers. Importantly, broadband providers are also subject to complaints and Commission Enforcement in the event that they violate those sections of the act, or other elements of Broadband Access requirements. This is backdoor ratesetting authority. Two, forbearance from discontinuance approval. Further, the conduct standards in our open internet rules provide important protections against reduction or impairment of Broadband Internet Access Service short of complete cessation of providing that service. Forbearance from interconnection and market opening. The item again the commission retains authority on section 201 and 202 and the open internet rules to require a provider of Broadband Internet including evaluating whether an providers conduct is reasonable on a casebycase basis. It will enable us to act if needed to ensure broadband providers do not unreasonably refuse to provide service or interconnect. The Supreme Court has made clear that an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by interpreting a statute to create a regulatory system unrecognizable to the congress that designed it. The item intends to do just that by engaging in a wholesale rewrite of the Communications Act to advance its own vision for the internet. It is cast as a modernized version of title ii. It may exercise is the doherty in a manner that is inconsistent with the administration structure. Congress gave us 48 revisions in title ii. Perhaps to put it another way presto, we have a new statute. The commission cannot cast aside specific provisions in favor of other provisions of the act. Why did congress feel compelled to add section 251 in the 96 act . Using title ii combined with Forbearance Authority to cherry pick its preferred provisions is an egregious abuse of Forbearance Authority. As adc circuit has explained, to further the regulatory aims underlined, congress provided the fcc with the unusual authority to forbear from enforcing provisions of the act as well as its own regulations. That is, forbearance was intended to relieve carriers of existing regulation during a time of regulatory transition. It was not meant to be used as a tool to selectively subject new services to previously inapplicable provisions. The usurping of Congressional Authority is particularly troubling. Fcc leadership did not even consider a brief pause to see that progress played out. Instead, they invited congress to supplement the fccs rewrite. The fccs arrogance has already invited greater congressional scrutiny, and the fcc ultimately concedes authority curtail in other areas. The reality is that the bulk of this rulemaking be conducted through casebycase adjudication. There are three rules no blocking, no throttling, and no pirate legislation. Many practices will be reviewed under the general conduct standard that will be quite literally a catchall. Moreover, rates and charges will be reviewed under the amorphous just and reasonable standard in sections 201 and 202. Parties will have no way of knowing whether the commission much less the courts, will act on a rule in a particular matter. One Public Interest group called the catchall a recipe for overreach and confusion. The item notes that parties may seek an advisory opinion which appears utterly useless. They are only available in certain circumstances and are nonbinding. I am not sure why any party would want to refer itself to the Enforcement Bureau when it its request to be used later. The commission claims this item does not require broadband providers to could trigger to the federal universal service fund at this time. That is because it defers that decision to a pending proceeding which is likely to result in new fees on broadband services. Nor can providers take any comfort in the items the item repeatedly disavows any present attempts to a doubt x antirate regulations. The commission expressly contemplates examining on a casebycase basis whether interconnection agreements are just and reasonable under section 201 and 202. That necessarily includes an evaluation of the rates, terms and conditions of such arrangements. The Commission Also intends to review data allowances on a casebycase basis. Moreover, last mile isps are not the only ones that should be concerned about todays actions. The item attempts, albeit in a failed way to carve out for now cdms, backbone providers, edge providers, and Specialized Services including the readers including ereaders, has let the proverbial genie out of the bottle. Thank you, mr. Chairman. So, for those of you keeping score at home, you have seen the kind of debate that goes on every day here at this commission. And gets resolved by the democratic process of taking a vote. Let me start the process toward that vote by thanking the nearly four main people nearly 4 Million People who participated in this proceeding. You told us you were concerned about the future of the internet, and your participation has made this the most open proceedings in fcc history. Not all of you agreed with each other, and not all of you in agreed with each other and not all of you agree with the action we are taking today. But you agree with the process. We listened and we learned. I believe that is what congress intended when they established the rules by which this agency operates. Those 4 million comments also illustrate the importance of an open and unfettered network and the role it plays as a core of Free Expression and democratic principles. Well, some other countries try to control the internet. But the action that we take today is an irrefutable reflection of the principle that no one, whether government or corporate, should control free and open access to the internet. [applause] the internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The internet has redefined commerce and entertainment. And as the outpouring from 4 million americans, as demonstrated, the internet is the ultimate vehicle for Free Expression. The internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules. [applause] so lets address an important issue head on. This proposal has been described by one opponent as a secret plan to regulate the internet. Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. [laughter] they both stand for the same concept openness, expression, and an absence of gatekeepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think. The action that we take today is about the protection of internet openness. Lets make no mistake about it. Broadband access providers have the technical ability and the economic incentive to impose restrictions on the internet. As the d. C. Circuit said in its decision remanding this matter to us, broadband providers represent a threat to internet openness and could act in ways that could ultimately inhibit the speed and extent of future broadband deployment