And charging extra for socalled fast lanes to any websites or apps. News conferences by the individual fcc commissioners followed the session [inaudible discussion] good morning. Welcome to the may 2017 open meeting of the federal Communications Commission. Please introduce our agenda this morning. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and good morning, commissioners. For todays meeting youll hear a presentation and six items for your consideration. First, you will hear a presentation on the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureaus final report on its investigation into the faulty 911 outage at t mobility experiences march 8, 2017. Second youll consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that would both facilitate deployment of and russ regulatory burdens on three times of fixed Satellite Service earth stations authorized to transmit while inr motion. Earth stations on vessels, vehicle mounted earth stations and earth stations aboard aircraft. Third, you will consider a report and order that would amend provisions of the personal Radio Services located in part 95 of the commissions rules in order to address two petitions for rulemaking, update andking modernize various rules to reflect current technologies, remove outdated regulatory requirements and organize rules to make them easier to read and understand. Fourth youll consider a Public Notice that two launch review of the commissions rules applicable to media entities ani seeks comment on what rules should be modified or epeeled. Fifth, youll consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that would propose to he name the commissions main studio rule based on a tentative finding thats rule is now outdated and unnecessarily burdensome for broadcast stations. Sixth, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that will propose to restore the internet to a light touch Regulatory Framework by classifying Broadband Internet Access Service as an Information Service and by seeking comment on the existing rules governing Internet Service provider practices. Id seventh, you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes to eliminate a rule requiring rule telecommunication Service Providers receiving usf support pr item pose higher minimum monthly rates on their customers than the rates paid by some of their urban court counterparts ofot lose some usf support. The commission will consider a related order that would freeze the current rate. This is your agenda for today. Please note the Consent Agenda listed in the commissions may 2017 Sunshine Notice has been deleted from todays agenda. First, leak a voces, active chief to the Public Safety and Homeland Security buryover we reel lee this final report on the investigation into the faulty 911 outage at t mobility experienced march 8, 2017. Thank you, madam sect. Good morning, are ine chairman, commissioner clyburn, commissioner oreilly. One of the commissions fundamental responsibilities is to promote the safe of life and property through the use of communications services. Ensuring that the public has rely able access to 911 is central to that mission. That is why understanding the causes of 911 outages with a view towards preventing and mitigating the effects effects e 911 outages is one of to commissions where most important tasks. On march 8, 2017, at t mobility experienced a nationwide 911 outage affects customers in its voice over lte service. Voiceover lte is the technology atth use to transmit calls ofse the 4glte net on marry 8, 12,006 hub unique callers were unable to reach 911 over a fivehour period. This was one of the largest 911 outages ever reported to the commission. Chairman pai ordered an investigation. Y today the bureau presents its pt findings. With me today from the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau is julia tu, electronics engineer, james whiley, attorney advisor, and megan henry, law clerk from Cyber Security division. We thank the bureaus and offices that contributed. Mr. Wiley will present the report. Thank you. Good morning, chairman pa and i commissioners. As lisa notes, the bureaus report presents the findings of its investigation into theoutage that interrupted faulty 911 calling for five hours on march 8, 2017. The failures that caused the outage occurred entirely within ats network. In order to route 911 calls to the appropriate call centers, at t maintains connections with subcontractors, compact and west. These subcontractors provide at t with 911 call routing information. Since these connections are critical to 911 service,ec at ts 911 network is programmed to reject all incoming connections except those originating from trustedct ip addresses. On march 8, at t unintentionally broke its connection tocome tech and initiated a Network Change that results in the a mismatch chen the twisted set of inaces the in the at t network and the ip addresses used to send the call routing information to at t. This mismatch resulted in a loss of connectivity between at t and com tech. At t was not able to receive routing information and could not automatically route the 911 calls to the appropriate 911 call center. Instead, at t rerouted those calls to a backup call center for manual processing. But the backup call center dropped the majority of 911ro calls it received. When at t lost connectivity to com tech the network responded by resetting the paths between com tech and at t. This reset failed to restored connectivity bass the root cause of the problem, the mismatched ip addresses, had not been fixed. Further, it preventedss from receiving 911 call routing information from west while the paths were being reset because com tech and west shared agents to at ts 911 network. The outage affected nearly all 911 calls on at ts network. Both the ip address mitch match that caused the outage and the Network Configuration issue that exacerbated it likely could have been avoided had at ted implemented Network Reliability best practices with respect toto critical 911 Network Asset ise while at t reports it has fixeds the issues that caused the march 8th outage, this event offers an illuminate case study for 911 Network Reliability. Among the Lessons Learned from the outage is the need for further outreach to industry to promote better air wareness and understanding of network reliable best practices. Cardboard leg the bureau plans to release a Public Notice reminding Companies Best practices and their importance. In addition the march 8th 8th outage demonstrates the need for close coordination between. When 911 service sales, call centers play a Critical Role in advising communities of alternative ways to reach help. While at t, com tech and west made efforts to notify customers apparently not all call centers received notification. Furthermore, some 911 call centers reported the notifications were sent too late and were insufficiently informative. Timely and effective outage notification is critical to protecting Public Safety. Accordingly, the bureau recommends working with stakeholders, including industry and 911 call centers to ensure that consumers know how to best reach Emergency Services when 911 is unavailable. The group plans to convene consumer groups, Public Safety entities entities entities entities and participate in a workshop to develop recommendations for improving Situational Awareness during 911 outages. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Wiley. Well now turn to comments from the bench, starting with commissioner clyburn. Isth it is vital we ebb sure that the simms supporting our nations 911 services are both reliable and resilient. The steps at t proposes to take to prevent future 911 outages in this network in its network, are laudible and necessary. It is my sincere hope, however, that other industry carriers have taken the necessary steps to ensure their 911 Network Infrastructures are sound, but they are working to implement the voluntary networkng reliability best practices developed by the Communications Security reliability and interoperatability council. We might have forgotten. I want to thank chairman pai for quickly initiating the investigation on the heels ofn the outage as well as lisa folk the team for the commendable work on this final report. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I hads a question. You has mismatched addresses. How did that otour and is that human error or did they get mismatched. There was a latent mismatch in the provisioning system that at t uses to assign ip dresses to its network and to its white list of trusted ip addresses. When at t made an unrelated Network Change it resulted in that latent mismatch being input into the live network, and that is what broke at ts connectivity to com tec. Thank you, chair. Thank you. On march 8, 12,539 meshes who were at t customers trade to call 911. But they couldnt reach Emergency Services because of a nationwide outage we heard of the 911 network. They placed that call, they heard fast busy signals, endless ringing or silence. This was unacceptable. In times of trouble, americans who are in need, need to be able to reach americans who can help. Thats why as soon as this outage occurred i immediately directed the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau to investigate. Today as you have heard the bureau has delivered a thorough fact, based report of findings. These findings are based on data derived from the fccs Network Outage reporting system and several affected Public Safety answering points or psrps, including the office of unite communications here in washington, dc. The findings are highly instructive. Most importantly, as we heard from mr. Whiley, this outage could have been prevented. It was a result of mistakes made by at t. There were shortfalls in operational redone den sis, Risk Assessment and stake holder and consume outreach. Had at t followed certain breast best practices, security, reliable, and interoperable counsel this outage would have been less impact and could have been addressed with periodic audits of network. Thats the bad news. The good news is that at t has now addressed the vulnerabilities that led to this outage, and had these safeguards been in place on marsh 8 it is unlikely this outage would have occurred. Going forward, i urge every carrier to address similar vulnerabilities and their networks. Er i ask industry, and consumer groups to work with the bureau to explore ways to improveh notifications to psaps and consumers when 911 outages occur women cant turn back time and undo this outage but by learning the right lessons we can, we must, and we will reduce the odds of such an outage happening again. I, too like my colleague us, want to thank the bureau staff for expertise, speed and ten nagsty they brought to bear on this task. I comment at t for cooperating if the be bureau to help us get to the bottom of this outage. In particular id like to think michael, a shill, michelle,and lisa, jeff, john, megan, nikole, jerry, julia, and james wiley of the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau for your tireless efforts to secure the safety of all americans. Le with that madam sect, if you could please announce the next item on the agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissions the next item will be presented by the International Bureau. It is entireled amendment of part 2 and 25 of the biggse rules to facilitated the use of earth stations in motion, communicating with geostationary orbit space stations and in frequency bands allocated toto fixed Satellite Service and Thomas Sullivan will give the introduction. A mouthful. Thank you, madam sect. Re please proceed. Good morning mr. Chairman and commissioner. The International Bureau is very pleased to present you with the notice of proposed rulemaking. An exciting time for theed satellite industry and one of the Fastest Growing segments is earth stations providing Satellite Broadband Services on ships, aircraft and vehicles. Collectively known as earth stations in motion, or esims. The notice examines the rules governing the licensing and operation oses esims and had two broad goals. Firs the notice proposes to consolidate the three times of esims into a single regulatory category. This harmonization wouldstreamline ruled for the entire segue satellite. Industry. The notice also proposed to eliminate unnecessary and outdated regulations. Second, and most significantly,. The notice proposes to extend the rules for esimms to portions of the conventional ka band. These proposals, if adopted, will facilitate the licensing and deployment of earth stations in this growing market. Im joined the table by troy tanner, deputy chief over the International Bureau, jennifer gillson, assistant chief, hose say albuquerque, chief on the satellite division, chip fleming, chief engineer, cindy spears attorney advise in the satellite policy branch and like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions on this item from other staff and be interimagine bury re, especially paul blake and joe hill and colleagues in the wire has Telecommunications Bureau. Office of engineering and technology, and the office of general council. Cindy will present the item. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. This draft notice of proposed rulemaking opens review of the commissions rules that govern the licensing and operation of earth stations in motion, esims, which includes earth stations on vessels, vehicles and aircraft. The commissions current rules provide authorize blanket licensing for operations of earth stations communicating with cband and kuband, geostationary orbit satelliteness the fixed Satellite Service. The regulation of these earth stations have developed in separate but overlapping proceedings, divided by the individual types. Organize stations on vessels, vehicle mounded earth stations and earth attentions aboardircrf aboardcraft. The changes we propose would integrate the rules governing the licensing and operation of the different categories of esims operating in different frequency bans. These changes would reduce rehundred dan si and increase efficiency in processing applications in this growing market. Currently, part 25 includes four different sections addressing operation of esingles with gso, fss satellites. The nprm vehicles comments to implement rules into the four sections into a consolidated esingles techna technical rule sex; the esims rule would included ka band. Several companies have appliedhe and received licenses to operate esims in the ka band. The license applications were processed on an ad hoc basis and the los angeless were grandded with waivers of the table of frequency of allocations and the commissions kaband plan. The nprh proposes amendmentsing a footnote so that ka band esims applications could be routinely processed. Specifically the amended footnote to the table would state that in the frequency band, conventional ka band, esims are an application of the fss and may be authorized to communicate with satellites in gso, fss on a primary basis. Finally, the item includes proposals to eliminate repetition and unnecessary rules. For example, the nprm seeks comment on eliminating certain repetitive esims rules by referring to provisions in existing rules that apply to other gsofss earth stations and also seeks comment on the proposal eliminate unnecessary rules. For example, proposed to pro eliminates rules requiring precise pointing or earth station antennas which are unnecessary in view of the wording of the rules restricting transmission toward adjacent satellites and further the mprm seeks rules on logging of data location which to the best of our knowledge has never been invoked. The international bury re represents doings of the notice of proposed rulemaking and requests editorial privileges for technical and conforming edits. Thank you for the presentation. Now comments from the bench, commissioner clyburn. Today the commission initiates a proceeding to harmannize and update rules the governing the licensing and operation of earth stations in motion or esims, and the gso o fixed Satellite Service. Esims includes earth station is on venezuelaings used to provide teem Communication Services, including enter it in dent to cruise ships, merchant ships and u. S. Navy vessels among other. Earth stations aboard everycraft which provide connectivity to commercial and private aircraft and vehicle mounded earth stations which provide Broadband Services to land vehicle and perhaps one day your connected car. An overarching objective of the proceeding is to facilitate deployment of esims and promote innovative and flexible use of t Satellite Technology to the benefit of consumers. Our goal, think, weeing a all share. Look forward to reviewing the record that develops and thank the staff of the International Bureau for your hard work on this item and the especially thank my friend, cindy, for presenting the item. Thank you, commissioner. Commission oreilly. Fo i appreciate all the efforts went into the Commission Rulesci and ill put the rest of my statement in the record. Thank you. L thank you, commissioner. The fcc has ruled for satellite earth stations on ships and has identical rules for satellite erring stations on Land Vehicles and has almost identical rule are now satellite earth stations on aircraft of have three seats of rules is unnecessary anden ineffect and we want to combine them with an esims. This is appealing, some speculated what popular reference might try to tie in here. Will not go so far as to refer to the live simulation computer game from the sims and not mention the Heisman Trophy winner billy sims nor phil sims and i will not go so far as to reference mollie sims. The facts are that esims are earth stations on the go. You can think of them as roving infrastructure, connected to the Satellite Network if the the potential to promote Broadband Services pleasely playables hard 0 send, such as remote land mags and barren seas. If this will help to make easier for Satellite Companies to offer customers Additional Service options. In authorizing esims to operatea in bands including ka band, meaning more opportunity for tee employment and competition. Ino sum this proposal meets two of the key goals of the commission reducing unnecessary red tape, and enabling the private sector, in this case, a fast growing segment of the satellite industry to innovate and investg in new technology. Many thanks to all of those who worked on this item. In particular, thanks to jose albuquerque, chip, jennifer, joe hill, my cindy spears who knows these issues and gives me Good Parenting advice, walt, and troy tanner in the International Bureau, howard, michael, nicholas, and james in the office of engineering and technology. Steve, tim, matt, paul, blake, and joel. And last but not least, debra and david from the office of general counsel. All of your efforts are much appreciated. I will now proceed to a vote on the item. Commissioner lyman. Ed. Aye. Commissioner pole reilly. The chairman votes awas well. The request is adopted. Mad secretary, if you could please announce the next item. Mr. Champion and commissioners the next item is the Wireless Telecommunications ballroom row. S om entitle review of thee commissions part 95 percentage Radio Services ruling petition for rulemaking of farmin international inc. And llc and acting chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Whenever youre ready. Good morning, measure chairman. And commissioners. Wireless Telephone Communication bureau is pleased to present a report and order that comprehensive i updates and modernizing the part 95 personal Radio Service rules. Personal Radio Service rules allow further it of devices that the public can purchase and operate for personal communication needs without having to go through a Service Provider and usually without having to get to an fcc license. Example of these devices cover common and simple users like ha walkietalkies, radio controlled toy cars, boats and planes, hearing assistance devices and cb radios. These devices also include more complex and lifesaving applications like medical implant devices, medical telemetry trieses and personal locator beacons. This order would revise the rules to reflect current uses and technologies be moved off the regularlier to requirements and organize the rules to make them easier to read and follow. The item will nut a more consistent, clear, and con concise set of rules that willll better serve the needs of the public. Im joined the table with susan, ta roger, tom, and scott. In addition to the wtb staff seated the table, would like to thank our team in the Mobility Division for their hard work on this items as well as staff from the office of engineering and technology, media bureau, and also general counsel, listed on the slide for providing their valuable expertise, tom will present the item. Good morning, mr. Champion and commissioner. Im pleased to present the part at Radio Service update report and order. Breaker, breaker, whats your 1020, good buddy . Not everyone in this room remembers the days before cell phones when there were cb radios in millions of cars and Homes Across America but some of us still remember what the earlly form of percentage communications do is did to affect a way of life, just ask smokey some the been date. C smokey and the been did. Cb is only one of Many Services under the personal radio rules. The personal Radio Service rules aloud allow for a wide variety of devices the public purchase without having to go through a ip provider. They use low power transmitters, communicate over shared radio frequencies and use a talk etiquette to facilitate sharing. Examples of the devices cover walkietalkies, radio controlled toys, boats, planes, hearing assistance devices and cb radios. These Services Also cover more complex and lifesaving applications like medical implant devices, medical telemetry devices and personal locator beacons. In this proceeding we dade fewer row review of all part 895 rule part 95 rules because many are outdated and inconsistent with the current use. Would remove any such outdateded requirements, update the rules to reflect modern uses of services, reduce burdens on equipment manufacturers and users and increase flexibility. It would also streamline and reorganize rules to make it easier to find information and translate them into plain language format to make the rules easier to read and understand. For example, to increase the flexible use of general mobile Radio Service or gmrs, and the family Radio Service, frs, which shares spectrum in the 460 megahertz band the im too allow additional changes to maximize the use of the spectrum. It would increase the power for frs from two whats from the half what currently allowed at 462 mega hurt channels to reflect the publics demand for longer range deviceses. Its would modernize the rule to allow gmrr do ises of the limited options such at gps and short textmessages which areten permitted. The changes will allow many combination radioses that previously required a license to continue to be used under frs were no license is required. Thereby removing the burden to have to get a license for many thousands of americans tomorrow. Reduce the burden on gmrs licensees the item wouldd increa increase the license term from five to ten years to increase the flexible use of cb radio the draft clarifies that hands free headsets are permitted with cb radio and removes the restriction on communicatingo over long distances when conditions allow such communications. It would also remove outdadeth dated and burdenm requirements on cb manufacturers, such as rying crystal control and that serial numbers engraved on the a chassis of cbs, radios to reflect our cb radio has evolved. The draft make others adjusts to various part 95 services as requested be commenters to increase the publics options in personal communications devices, russs buffered on equipment reduces burdens on equipment manufacturers and updates the rules. The bureau recommend adoption of the item and requests editorial privileges to make technical and conforming edits. 1040, over and out. Thank you. Now turn to comments from the bench. Thank you. With this item, the commission updates, reorganizes, and streamlines our part 95 rules to not only reflect changes in technology but how personal Radio Services, devices, are used by the public. Prs devices are used for a variety of applications, including by hobbiests, Remote Control aircraft, those with hearing difficulties, First Responder to locate lost persons, medical professionals to retrieve data from implanted medical devices and of course, by families and groups who use walkietalkieses to communicate. This reorganization rules in rules that are clear and easier for consumers to understand. Notably it makes clear that the devices labeled personal locator beacons and maritime survivor locating devices which are used to aid locating those who are aid in those locating those who are lost on land or water, must meet spiffed technical standards to order to be marketed as such. This clarification will help ensure that all televizes advertised with these terms provide expected level of location capability. As a former walkietalkies enthusiast, even though it was short lived, and a former owner of a cb radio, cho i cannot remember my handle, i wish to thank the staff of the Telecommunications Bureau for your hard work on this item, and thomas, before these meet is over i vow to either come up with my handle or remember it, whichever comes first. Thank you. Thats good to hear. I appreciate it. Thank you. Who knew . Wow. Learn something new every day. Interesting picture in my head right now. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im fairly certain when the notices was released back in june 2010 no one ever imagined it would be presented 2017. Seven years later and no one has a great reason for the delay so its not in the fault of the staff. This is exactly the type of vision that causes the chairman and congress to push for the commission to have deadlines for actions on pet televisions and notices. Count me in as supporting the effort as things shouldnt languish due to inertia. Im generally supportive of the issue. It is never bad to eliminate a fewer pages in tight code. The families andies that use the gmrs and family Radio Service should best interest from change wes adopt today such as making internal channels available, providing longer license terms and permitting gmrs users to transmit location data and text messages. Look forward to future items. Thank you. A number of citizens band or cb radio codes relevant to our work here. 1075 means you are causing interference. 1030 means does not conform to fcc rules. And 1011 means something that are wonderful and know i am guilty of, talking too rapidly. Over the decade cb radio slang has changed. So has certain commissioners universe 0cb radio. The fcc results have not. Fringes, we still have on the books a requirement that manufacturers engrave the serial number the transmittedder chassis of each raid ya. Whatever the merits of the rule, the marries have faded into memory just like bj and the bear. And the collses of complying with it today have greatly exceeded any benefit from Theft Prevention and the like. So today we reorganize, extremeline and eliminate regulations relating to the personal Radio Service. These results govern the use of devices like cb radios, Remote Controlled toys andtr walkietalkies. Ol toy fringes, we consolidate sections of the rules into one placent where possible. And reorganize the approvals in categories that are easier for the public to understand and easier to find. This modernization effort will help anyone who use a cb raidover or other personal communications device. To more easily understand and comply with our rules. Whether youre a truck driver who needs to communicate on the road or Remote Control toy this just you can but down the engraving pen and law books and focus on your handle. Ta thank you to all who worked on the item, thank you to tom, joyce, jean, roger, matt, beckyt scat, and susan, in the wirelese telecommunications ball row and martin, tim, jamison, and bruce. Tom from the media bureau, daniel and steve from the enforcement bureau, david, keith, and angela, and to those who have been call opening the commission to modernize rules ill mickelson mimic tom ande say, 104. Over and out. The e the item is adopted with editorial privilegeses granted. Madam secretary, please announce the next item. Are in chairman and commissioners, the fourth item on the agenda will be presented by the media bureau and is entitled commission launches modernization of mediaia regulation initiatives and michelle, agenting chief of the bureau. Will geoff the introduction. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Today the media bureau presents a Public Notice of the commissions media regulations. Media entities in todays market place are subject to a multitude of rules, many ofdecadessed old. The proceeding we watched todayeds is end bed to identify rules outdade, undoesly burdensome for cable operator. Our goal is to eliminate or modify rules to foster more competition, innovation and invest. Joining me the table are maribeth, martha, and ray of the media bureau. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, we are pleased to present the Public Notice that launches review of Commission Rules applicable to media entitieses including television and radio broadcasters, Cable Operators and satellite change providers. Rules that are joust dated or impose unnecessary regulatory burdens can stand the way ofd greater competition, innovation and investment in the marketplace. The proceeding we initiate today is intended to ensure only the rules relevant in and necessary remain on the books. To that end the Public Notice seeks input from affected parties including small businesses, as to which rules should be modified or repealed. We will take such input into consideration in determining whether to propose eliminating or changing rules in subsequent rulemaking proceedings. Through the review, the Commission Takes another step toward modernizing the rules to the benefit of american businesses and consumers. The media bureau recommendeds the commission adopt the Public Notice and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edit. Thank you. Thank you. Questions from the bench. The purpose of a Public Notice should be to gather information and build a record before drawing conclusions. There seems in the case of this, the fccs majority starts with a premise that advancing the Public Interest can only by achieved by clearing the books of rules for the benefit of industry. To be clear, i have no objection to reviewing the commissionsi rules, making a determination if a valid objective remains for a given regulation, and concluding that there is a better, more efficient way to achieve a particular goal for the benefit of stakeholders, consumers and the commission. This is in fact what the commission is required to do as part of its biennial review. Section of 11 of the Communications Art of 1934 instructs the commission to determine whether any such regulation is no longer necessary in the Public Interest as a result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service. Today are pn turns the mandate on the head by ignoring the basic question whether the regulation subject to review remain in the Public Interests. It is assumed that to advance the Public Interest we must undo unnecessary regulation and regulatory burdens. The term modernization is really code for deregulation the expense of the american consumer. Let me explain what i mean. By sharing a few glaring examples of Commission Rules that pertain to the audio and video marketplaces and why they remain important today. Our equal opportunity rules require broadcasters and mvpds of a certain size to maintain an eeo recruit program. The rules prevent discrimination in hiring. Eeo compliance is as soon as possible shalingly the only Public Service the commissioner requests of radio stations and one of the very few publicadio Services Required of television stations and mvpd. Perhaps some stations or mvpds find the recordkeeping and reporting requirements burdensome but that does not negate the importance of these rules to the Public Interests. Similarly, one Industry Insider suggested that as part of this review, the commission should make broadcast ownership report can every four years rather than every two years. Not only is the information contained in these reports vital tone hansing viewpoint diversity, but Third Circuit has told us we need better data on minority and female ownership, less frequent Data Collection would do absolutely nothing further these objectives. Yet another example is the commissions rules governing competitive access to cable programming and the regulatione of carrier agreement is. As someone who has heard from countless independent programmers about challenges they face in gaining carriage, she be strengthening our rules, not eliminating or weakening protections on the books. El now, some may claim that i am overreacting. And that the commissions majority will ultimately conclude that many of these critical rules further the Public Interests and should be preserved. But i believe it is important to sound the alarm and remind my colleagues our job is protect the Public Interest, not give perpetual hall passes to big broadcasts and cable companies. Finally, where the majority concludes that regular laying shoots be eliminate it my sincere hope this will result in the freeing up of appearing resources to actually enforce the rules remaining on the books. This could include Program Access and carriage complaints, compliance with childrens pro Educational Television reporting and allegations of redlining. While i disagree with the premise of the pm, and willprem therefore respect my dissent, thank the staff of the media bureau for hearing my concerns and for your tireless efforts over the years to promote localism, competition, and viewpoint diversity. Thank you, commissionersity clyburn. This item exempreliminary flies the openness to stakeholder inand it shift towards reality based decisionmaking, as notice by dismiss others our regulations in the media space or full offingfing a crow systems. A wholesale review is necessary and ongoing overdue so i support the initiative and fully expect that it will generate quick results to follow on to our previous successes in this space. Ccesses broadcasters, cable plate rots and stakeholders are very familiar with any calls for idea about specific regular layings outdated and no longer necessary inch Previous Commission is was able to champion changes to superintendentsed to me and get them moving. Now were opening this entire proceeding and the entire commission stands ready to hear your ideas and act ton them which is refreshing change of pace. Ad the commission should not be in the business of generating busy work or collecting reames of data no one ever looks at. Since the beginning of the year i have heard a number of ideas im hope there could be limited as part of the process, including updates of reporting requirements. For example, all tv stations are required to file an ancillary tv report actually regarding the five percent dtv ancillary fee. This report must be filed even if the answer as is often the case is simply no fee due. This form can and should be eliminated for party that toois not owe other fee. Similarly form 397 requires a name and a copy of the annual eeo reports phenomenon the last tao two years from the last two years but thank you know reports filed in the commission in a operators Online Public fill. This is due mix qatif and does not change the oo reports themselves. Notification requirements are another area where many updates be made now that so much communication is digital. Requires require broadcasterred to give Public Notice of Certain Applications in local newspapers but with newspaper circulation dwarfed by the broadcasters a own audience these notices would be much more effectively given on a stations web site. Our rules also require broadcasters to send notices of their decisions to opt in to retransmission consent versus to Cable Operators via snail mail, process that could be more easily accomplished online. These and more ideas will have an effective fast track for conversation and if appropriate, action. I will do my part to help obtain con consensus. Chew. A few years ago early in my tenure the commission, we voted to forebear from enforcing regulations first adopted bid the fcc tell Gravel Division in 1936. The rule was intended to address issues with claims against telegraph carriers from errors in or delayed delivery or nondelivery of messages and money orders. I marveled at the time that 77 years later the rule still remained on the books. In that proceeding made me keenly aware of a fundmental truth. One of the most powerful forces in government is regulatory inertia. Rule that have been necessary as one time can become as least and repeal of obsolete and repeal of such a rule is good housekeeping. The rule is literally irrelevant. In other cases repeal is an necessity. The rule stands in the way ofer innovation and investment that would benefit consumers. This applies to the fccs media regulations, or lat least its should. By compare san every two years, like commissioner clyburn pointed out, the fcc undab canas abiennial review. Section 11 of the communication act Congress Told us to consider all regulations applying to Telephone Communication services and if we determine any such regulation is no longer necessary in the Public Interest as a result of meaningful economic competition between providers, we then must repeal or modify it. Now, the act done require is to review our media rules. But that doesnt mean we cant. And hence this Public Notice. The goal here is simple. And it is the same as it is with our biennial review. That is we want to figure out with respect to meds ya regulations how to update thewi rules to match the reality of todays marketplace. We aim to get public input on which rules are Still Necessary and should be modified or eliminated. Way want holiday concernize our rules to clear a path for more competition, innovation and investment. This is simply good government. In order for this effort to be successful we need your help. So i encourage all interests parties to file comments in this proceedings and to africa our attention rules that deserve the africa our attention rules that deserve consideration. My thanks to the the staff for putting together this Public Notice. Michelle, martha, mary beth and raylan. Your efforts to come you may not come up with a dictate as the telephone graph rule telegraph rule i mentioned. We resident proceed to a vote. Chair votes aayes. The item is adopted with editor principal as requested. Mr. Chairman and commissioner, the fifth item will be presented be the media bureau and is entitled, elimination of main studio rule. And michelle with give the introduction,. The next item the media bureau presents is a notice of proposed rulemaking that proposes to reduce costs and regulatory burdens for broadcasters by eliminate thing main studio rule this. Require recalls each am, fm, and division broadcast station to have a main studio located in or near its local community. T the notice proposes to eflame existing requirements associated with the main studio rule including the requirement that they main studio have fulfilltime management and staff during normal Business Hours and be able to originatete programming. Joining me the table are holly, martha, and diana of the media bureau. Diana will present the item. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, i. A pleased to present this notice of proposed rulemaking seeking commend on the proposal to eliminate the main studio rule and associated staffing and program origination capability requirements. As discussed in notice we tentative live conclude that the Technological Innovations have rendered a local studio requirement unnecessary. When the Commission First conceived the main studio rule more than 70 years ago, the intention was to facilitate input from Community Members and stations participation in community activities. Today in contrast wide very available of communication enables members of the community to contact stations and stakeses to participate in their local communities wont the physical presence of a local broadcast studio. In addition, as a result of the fccs judge inspection final requirements Community Members no longer will need to visit a stations main studio access the public inspection file. Television stations have already transitioned to the Online Public file, and radio stations will complete their transitionon by early 2018. The notice proposes the commission retain the currentnt rule that requires each am, fm, television, and class a television station to maintain a local telephone number in the community of license or a toll free telephone number. It could ensure members of the n community have access to localur broadcast stationings if the main studio requirements oar he name it and the stations choose to relocate main studios. We believe eliminating the main studio rule and associated staffing and program origination requirements would eliminate a burden on protestor that is no longer protestor that is no longer net. They request editorial rivers to make any necessary tech nick or conformingeds. For years ourors he meek about the uanytime instinct roll broadcasters play in local communities, gordon smith reinforced the view in his 2012 congressional testimony by saying that localism underpins each of our fcc licenses, our stations demonstrate their commitment to this promise in times of every emergency, reminding us of broadcasters important roll as first inners. Fine its perplexing the veryex same broadcasters arrived indicating to absolve themselves from maintaining local roots in anywhere community of license. A broadcaster main studio is often the only physical tie to a community. Broaders are often month the first to report an knowledge in and when it comes to radio, that physical presence means they actually know and are experiencing and are with interacting first hand what theyve the listened want and head to to mere. By proposing to eliminate the main studio rule, it steams steo me that with are embracing a world in which Automated National programming is the new normal. When the Community Wants to know what is going on in their backyard, my question is, will simulcasting fill the gap . I understand the financial chance challenges in small ands midsize market and if elimination of the main studio rule is what gives that small market station with just five or fewer employees the chance to keep the lights on and continue producing local programming, then i am emthe tick. But we need to think long and hard about the Practical Implications of eliminating this rule altogether. While it is true that with the publics file now accessible online, members of the public have one less treason visit less reason to visit a stations main feud studio and a local number is a good thing but i nobody there is to answer the call and the only option is to leave a voice mail, how often will that voice system be checked, when will that call be returned, and who is going to report if heaven forbid there is, say, Train Derailment andd hazardous chemicals are spilled, jeopardizing the safety of theic surrounding community. This was the case back in 2002 when it took several hours to location station managers. I thank chair pai for hearing my concerns. And including a series of questions focusing on rather eliminating me main studio rule what impact a stations ability to communicate time sensitive or emergency nothings the public. The nprm also asks in my request weather a stations phone number be staffed, during the hours in which that station is on the air. This would provide a means for the public and local officials to communicate lifesaving information during an emergency. Am also grateful for the inclusion of questions on whatus impact elimination of this rule would have on lpfm and noncommercial stations. So, while i admit that i remain skeptical about moving forward with an outright elimination of this rule, i believe that the mprmts of the appropriate questions needed to bill a full record. For these reasons will vote to approve todays mfrm. Re my thanks to the staff of the media bureau for working with me to ensure that broadcasters remain a core part of every local community in this country. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner pole reilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With this item the commission makes a much needed move toward eliminating an unnecessary requirement on then nations broadcasters that restrictions their ability to make decisionss and allocate resources in a way that best serves audiences. I long contended the main studio rule is ripe for elimination bu the commission was stuck in a buying u bygone area roo. They rule may have been the only available means to ensure the local broadcasters would remainn engaged and responsive to communities. Now, with multiple electronic means of Communications Available we have other means to do. So the old rationale has dissolved leaving the rule usefulness questionable at best. It is intended to only for micromanagement and gotcha set ups of licenseees. November withstanding my main rule broadcasters are ever focuses serving the need offered rollins listens but a because its the only way to be successful and i hope we can reach a disselfcontribution in the near five. Thank you. Re the first commercial radioyo broadcast in the United States took place on november 2, 1920. And pittsburgh, barr. Ro that night kdka reported the rules of the president ial election between Warren Harding and james cox. The studio was a tiny makeshift wooden shack on the westinghouse companys plant in east pittsburgh. Broadcast studios have changed a lot over the last 90 years, chug kdka. The purposes that a studio serves serves and that bring uses to the main constitutesow rule. The fcc first conceived the main studio rule 80 years ago. The rule requires each am, fm and Television Broadcast station to maintains a main studio located in or near itsan communication of license. Oa back then perhaps it made sense for the reasons explained but today the rule is outdated, unnecessary and unfewly burdensome. O communication access andly engagement are import in the unc digital era and such activities occur bay social media, emails or phone, rather than threw an inperson visit to a broadcast studio. Further motion broader have shown the main studio rule is a continuous cost that keeps them from serving local communities in meaningful ways, like broadcasting additional local programming. Recently a broadcaster in minnesota wrote to me saying that this archaic rule has outlived its usefulness. He added he would like to build out his Construction Permit for an am station in a nearby ton but the studio rule is a killer. The cost do maintain a staff would simply make the construction of this facility a ticket of doom. He con. Doom. They would have meaningful content. The flexibility to the limited resources that best serves the communities. Todays notice is an important step towards bringing the rules into the digital age and for that and from the media bureau to as we aim to modernize our media rules to reflect the marketplace with that we will proceed to vote on the item, commissioner clyburn. The ayes have it the item is adopted and granted as requested. Madam secretary if you could give the next item on todays agenda. Hymn thank you chairman and commissioner the six item on your agenda will be submitted by the wireline Communication Bureau and is entitled restorine Internet Freedom. Chris asked acting chief editor will give the introduction. Hymn thank you madam secretary. Whenever you are ready feel free to proceed. Good morning mr. Chairman and commissioners. A Wireline Competition Bureau presents for your consideration a notice of proposed rulemaking that would take the first step toward returning to the successful bipartisan framework that supported a flourishing free and open internet for almost 20 years. By proposing to and ease utility style regulations of the internet, todays notice is the first step in preserving the future of Internet Freedom and promoting infrastructure investment, innovation and consumer choice. I would like to thank the dedicated staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau and the office of general counsel wereel their contributions to this item seeded with me at the table or Madeline Findlay deputy chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, dan kahn chief of the Competition Policy Division christine Legal Adviser for the Wireline Competition Bureau and nathan deagan attorney adviser in the Telecommunications Access and policy commission. Good morning mr. Chairman and commissioners. The notice of proposed rulemaking that we present today proposes to and the fccs public utility regulation of the internet and seeks comment on returning to the bipartisan light touch Regulatory Framework in the free and open internet flowers prior to that 2013 adoption of the title ii. There are several key elements to notice. First, the notice proposes to and title ii regulation of the internet and return Broadband Internet access to its classification as an Information Service. The notice examines the text, the structure and history of the Communications Act. The Technical Details on how the internet works the conditions goal of benefiting consumers their innovation investment and competition. Second, the notice proposes to reinstate the determination that mobile Broadband Internet Access Service is not a commercialle bd mobile service and to return to its original classification as a private mobile service. In conjunction with this proposal the notice proposes to revisit the elements of the title ii that modified or reinterpreted in section 332 of the Communications Act and the commissions implementing rules. Third, the notice proposes to eliminate the general conduct standard and the nonexhaustive list of factors intended to guide applications in the rule. The notice also specifically seeks comment on whether the commission should keep, modified or eliminated the bright line rule set forth in the title ii order. The bureau recommends adoption e of this notice and request editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you. We will now hear comments from the bench. Mr. Chairman have a longer statement for the record at this time i wish to share wc docket number 17108. Last wednesday i took part in a publicly session on skid row. For those of unfamiliar skid ros is a Los Angeles Community housing one of the larger homeless populations in the United States. It was there i met a fascinating woman who calls herself frenchy. She would stop me about three times over the course of the evening going on about how much i look like my and we all know that is not true but i love her anyway. And you know how happy she wasas that some unlike me would not only visit the listen. For the third time it turned out to be the most helpful. I was moments away to be honest from politely but firmly asking to be excused because it was the third time we talked when frenchy said something that made me pause. She was without a home in the traditional sense to reach it was able to secure an address, a stable personal email address which helps ground her and enabled her to keep in touch with the world through the power of the internet. That continuity, that identity, that stable electronic footprint was the only permanent presence she had when much in her physical life was in turmoil. She got through the hardest time she said thanks to an open internet because those very same connections led her to the services to provide her a more stable life. I also heard from marco that night. The former filmmaker lost hishe family, his livelihood and for a time struggled with mentalntal illness. He lived on skid row at the doctor made the greatest headway with his recovery was more than 200 miles away. Rather than having to spend hours on Public Transportation he was able to skype with his therapist and along with a friend from argentina who spoke his language and the commission who is ruling pronounce his name correctly he has gotten through the hardest of times thanks to the power of an open internet. R denise and artist, writer and mother of six separated from the world because of the challenges of being a stayathome mom. She first turned to blogging as an avenue of expression and that blog would eventually become the Retail Outlet for her artistryet work as well as a source of income that has enabled her and her husband to support theirppot family thanks to the power of an open internet. These are just three of the millions of examples of those whose lives have been uplifted by one of the most enabling platforms for speech, commerce and innovation of our time. Like the nearly 4 million voices who weighed in on the previous proceedings just over two years ago, these three individuals need to tell this agency to keep the internet open and free. We can get hung up on semanticss todays classification or the internet as a luxury but rock band is a necessity in thedb 21st century and access allows the most vulnerable among us to hold on during our darkest moment and lift ourselves up to a brighter tomorrow. For those who are fortunate enough to have Broadband Access at home and do not have to go to the library and wait for freewaf terminal or stroll for free wifi on the street corners or in fast food establishments not only are you fortunate that you know that this is among the first of your utilities that you make sure is working right after electricity and water and just what does one expect when you get connected . That you can run your on line business, access content over the internet and exercise education without your Service Provider or anyone else getting in the way. Those expectations it pains me to say are now at risk. Todays notice of proposed rulemaking for appropriately, ia should be known as the destroying internet nprm. If ratified it would deeply damaged the ability of the fcc to be a champion of consumers and competition in the 21st century. It contains a hollow theory of trickledown internet economics suggesting that if we just remove enough regulation fromen the broadband provider they will automatically improve your service, pass along discounts from the speculative savings, deployed more infrastructure with haste and speed. It contains ideological interpretive whiplash boldly proposing to god the very samemr consumer and competitive protections that have been secured by the court and contains an approach to broadband that will throw universal Service Money to broaden its reach but abandoned users when something goes wrong particularly if they are faced with anticompetitive or anticonsumer practices. It jeopardizes the ability of the open internet to function ti tomorrow and it does today. But if you unequivocally trust that your broadband provider will always put the Public Interest over selfinterest or the interest of their stockholders then the destroying Internet Freedom nprm is for you. I find it ironic however that many of the voices supporting this item including a majority said that it should be congresss place to decide the future of rod and regulation. If that is so then why are we here today . Just why is it that the majority proposes to undo a classification and twice affirmed rule . Is it so congress can act . A vacuous assertion to what i find particularly troubling is that this proposal has the potential to damage our authority to provide broadband for the poorest and most remotely located americans unless the underlying goal is to actually weaken our ability to support broadband there are universal service program. I most vociferously dissented from this nprm because it has of a political rush and let me say that again. I most vociferously dissented from this nprm because it has every into shia of a political russia. Month after month i didnt listen to repeated calls from the current leadership about how economic analyses were missing from the last Administration Items and how troubling that wasnt because of the advent in the analysis that we were jeopardizing our ability to make sound decisions. Unless ive missed it i would welcome a correction if im in error, there was no fcce economist or technologist in the drafting of this item. If they were and i majored in economics but i admittedly have been out of practice for number of years i cannot find anyye evidence of it given the dearth of economic and Technical Depth in this nprm. The only real factual question about the effects of the 2015 open Internet Order that the majority is trying to drive home is their assertion that it has harmed investment. For the nprm at most one third of the economic picture of the market. You see from reading the item it would be reasonable to assume that the open internet policy question is rather a policy increase ordered decrease ride than provider Capital Expenditures. It is a relevant question but the only econometric analysis that the majority cites in the report clearly states that its inappropriate to use investment as a policy. Even if i accepted the majoritys premise that the key question is investment the analysis fails to take into account what entrepreneurs invest in the internet business, what to risk of Venture Capital plows into the internet andit Telecom Market and what consumers pay for and how they use all of the services to create economic value. It even fails to account for broadband investments. Beyond Capital Expenditures b including spectrum perp purchases and mma both of which are a robust and profitable market for Broadband Services. The majority seems willfully blind to these effects of broadband investments and even if we were to ignore all those claims and narrowly focus on the affirmative case that the majority puts forward it isjo lackluster at best. As i have mentioned previously ive yet to see a credible analysis that suggests that brought an invite or Capital Expenditures have declined as a result of our 2015 open Internet Order but of course that does not keep those dead set on dismantling open internet protections as we know them from repeating the same tired unproven talking points. The most recent analysis on the market actually suggests that total Capital Investment by publicly traded iasc your Internet Service providers wass. Up 5 since the 2015 open Internet Order was adopted. Investments up, broadband revenues up. This trend makes perfect sense since no broadband provider has ever told wall street, has ever told the security and Exchange Commission that the 2015 open Internet Order was responsible for decreases in Capital Expenditures so just why do we p appear to be in a literal he said she said exchange on this s issue . One analyst articulates that it is impossible to know whether the open internet rules have affected investments. There is no way to provide a serious answer that rises above simply trying to reverse engineer the answer you want to find. There simply has not been enough Market Experience in this framework in order to tell whats is what so what should we look to for answers . With all of the assertions about how burdensome and draconian the current framework is what should be instructive is that the title to framework that the fcc adopted for broadband in 2015 was actually less intrusive thas the one that was applied to mobile voice in the early 1990s. Now we all know how much of a bust the Wireless Industry has been between 1993 and 2009. The mobile industry invested more than 271 billion in building our networks. During that same time period industry revenues increase by 1300 and subscribership grew over 1600 . So answer this, why is it that the leadership is now proposingd to get rid of what is essentially the same Legal Framework that we know was highly successful as a driver in the mobile industry context . What is becoming increasingly clear is this, that the majority is willing have the Communications Act entirely, not just for broadband but for all Telecommunications Services. Now why do i assert this . Show me one modern Consumer Service that the majority will unequivocally say is a Telecommunications Service and its provider should be regulated as a common carrier. Broadband, voiceover ip, voice messaging, all of these i suspect the majority will say are either unequivocally or most likely Information Services. There is much fury about applying the Communications Act to larger Communication Services but none about applying the revolutionary era First Amendment to speech on the internet. The point is this, Technology Neutral definitions do not and it saddens me to say in this context, should not ever become obsolete by enhances and obsole technology. Let me touch his broadband specifically. The majority seems to be on board and so far with thet so fr whiplash on title ii and neton t neutrality but they are forgetting that their constitutional and statutory interpretation will conclude that they are engaging in an turk creative the late antonin scalias guiding framework for legal interpretation was that lawic should be interpreted based on the actual text and their public meaning but how quickly they forget when it comes to an issue where they have a preferred policy and come that converges from rigorous textualism. Remember we have seen this andav we have been here before. The fcc went before the Supreme Court in 2005 you remember when it attempted to classify cable broadband as an Information Service. The majority of the Court Interpretation was within the interpreted discretion of the fcc but not Justice Scalia is. And its weathering to send an ncta verses brand x. Accused the commission of attempting to and i quote concoct a whole new regime of regulations under the guise of statutory construction. In its attempts to achieve this scheme of nonregulation done so through an implausible meeting of the statute. Congress in its wisdom tied competition and Consumer Protection to the nature of the service being offered and indeed those services are changing but the underlying transmission remains largely the same. Sam innovation has and will continuh we have moved from copper toco glass circuit switching but using interpretive gymnastics tshirt competition and Consumer Protection responsibility is the antithesis of putting consumers first. We should not let broadband providers define the rules of engagement when congress has clearly instruct that the federal Communications Commission with that responsibility and just to make it absolutely clear that this is in and justified rather than the legally justified seating one need only to look at the renumbering database for an answer. That database is a common Carrier Service. Its a massmarket broadband which transmits data across the globe in the blink of an eye is not a common Carrier Service and numbering database access is, this clarification exercise is just an expedition in absurdity. In sum, it simply makes no sense in the era of the 21st centuryer connectivity to say that we areo not dealing with a Telecommunications Service. Just what are consumers getting when they signed up for broadband if not the ability to transmit and receive . The majority claims it has an eye towards the future but both speak im feed im sad to say are firmly stuck in the past going back to the database for subscriber purchased a basic tdm telephone a service in a separate dialup in order to access the internet. No matter that most of us no longer use dialup to access the internet, no matter the consumers via broadband because all the Information Services they want to access and use require a broadband subscription as a necessary prerequisite but i should not be surprised that the majority is peering through a lens of yesteryear are we just revised in 1985 a logically obsolete uhf discount, so why not continue to wind back the clock and base our regulatory structure on a 1990 version of the internet . As far as the open internet rules go this is the nprm. The open internet rules are so openended that the rules are both alive and dead until the commissioner adopts in order. Will any of the open internet i rules provide this rulemaking . I am doubtful given both the tenor of the questioning and the fact that the rulemaking is proposed seems to get rid of the only authority that would underpin strong open internet rules. Tellingly the majority does not propose any provision of law to underpin any of the open internet rules on which it seeks comment. In fact, its propose to reinterpret the one provision that has served as the basis of even limited rock band regulation. Of course im talking about section 706 of theab telecommissions act of 1996. While paying lipservice to the idea that we should ground open internet rules and other forms of Statutory Authority like section 230b which the comcast court rejected, i am also concerned at the proposal to reinterpret section 706 as merely port authority. We have litigated the statutory history and the courts have upheld section 706 as a grant of authority. Walking down the stationau particular in a world where we do not have title ii is sure open internet rule. While the majority files rhetoric about not touching regulation and so on and so forth the endgame appears to be no touch regulation in the wholesale destruction of the fccs publicinterest authority in the 21st century. Undermining the ability of poor people get broadband. Declining to review and 85 billiondollar transaction with massive publicinterestrest implications, encouraging consolidation will and higher pricing will broadband in playing ball the conglomerates who gobble up will each is a l to the Public Interest in the majority will keep it comingee unless america stands up make their voices heard and challenges the fcc of court because it is said where are we obvious to all with each meeting that the ability of the majority to protect consumers and competition in the broadband era has come to a screeching hault. Nonetheless i think the staff for the Wireline Bureau and the officer general counselor for their hard work on the site and then i may think is rulemaking is a horrible path to go down but your hard work should be recognized regardless. Thank you. Thank you commissioner clyburn. Commissioner orielly. Thank you mr. Chairman hereog at today we formally initiate a proceeding Net Neutrality order. I dissented from the prior decision because i was not persuaded on the record of four is that was evidence of harm to businesses or consumers that warranted the adoption of Net Neutrality rules much less the imposition of heavy handed title ii regulation on broadband providers. Now we are commencing a new proceeding and i will prefer my obligations under the Administration Procedures that you certainly have my views views on a topic you restate my approach to look to the law the necessity for any rules and record of substandard commentes. That accumulates. Thankfully our rulemaking proceeding is not decided like a contest. T comments submitted have only so much value. I want to commend the chairman for his leadership and staff for excellent work on this item. This meeting is conducted in an open and transparent manner and all interested parties have the full and fair opportunity to present common data and analysis. One of the reasons why a welcome the opportunity to resist these rules is that the Prior Commission change course sooco abruptly that he did not take the time to sufficiently examine the law and record and did not adequately respond to opposing viewpoints of alternative proposals. At this time im confident that whether you agree or disagree on the need for Net Neutrality rules or Legal Authority youll see in order to fully enter the response source of san of argument. To help bring order to notice proposes to conduct an actual costbenefit analysis. Its a critical improvement. Instead of operating an economic free zone with benefits and rules are assumed commenters will need to provide evidence to support their arguments that the rules are or are not needed. It would enable the commissiond. To ground its position in factth rather than in hypotheticals. The notice as for a range of questions on a proper legal classification of Broadband Internet Access Service. These include critical questions that should have been explored by the commission before it barreled down the title ii path disavowing decades of precedent and conjuring chirp dictations that stood in the way that now the Commission Presents the case that a previously ignored that the act and Public Policy support classification of Broadband Internet Access Service and Information Service. My prayer made goal has been to ensure the commission as sufficient questions to lay the groundwork for a legally sustainable final position. D be on the table here. One such issue concerns jurisdiction over Broadband Internet Access Service and if the Commission Decides it is an interstate Information Service and state and locality should be foreclosed from regulating it has some art attempting i think the chairman for working with me by including questions to enable parties to make comments and we are closed on issue. I vote to approve, thank you mister chairman thank you commissioner oreilly. For two decades the internet florist under a bipartisan light touch Regulatory Framework. In the span of recent memory the internet went from a university recent Research Project to an essential tool for participating in the modern world. That success was not an accident. 1986 president clinton founded the act of 1966 and established a National Policy to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet, unfettered by federal regulation. In 1998 senators ron wyden and john kerry among others said that if the fcc quote, suddenly subjected some or all Information Service providers to telephone regulation, it would seriously chill the growth and development of advanced services. The very next year democratic fcc chairman bill canards, it is not good for america to pick up this whole morass of title to telephone regulation and dump it wholesale on the internet pipe. This wasnt controversial. This was the consensus. Though it would remain for almost 2 decades. Under this touch approach private sector invested in networks to the tune of 1. 5 trillion dollars. Internet speed accelerated from kilobytes to gigabytes per second. Conductivity expanded from 1g to g to 3g to 4g and beyond. And an entire internet economy sprung up to develop applications riding on those networks. Companies like google, facebook, netflix and amazon grew from scratch to become global powerhouses. To some, we had a free and open internet in which consumers could gain immense benefits. The internet was not broken in 2015. We were not living in a digital dystopia. Nonetheless the fcc that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the white house and change course. Though the sec couldnt find any evidence of market failure turned back on almost 2 decades of success. On all Service Providers for rs isvs big and small heavyhanded Regulatory Framework designed to drain the Roosevelt Administration to micromanage the telephone monopoly. These utility style regulations known as title ii were and are like the proverbial sledgehammer feel being wielded against the fleet accepted here there was no fleet. As a result of these rules, small isps face new regulatory burdens associated with carrier compliance. And the providers hoping to offer the consumers new, even Free Services had fear washington bureaucracy that might disapprove to take enforcement action against them. To the possibility of broadband rate regulation looming on the horizon, Companies Investing in next Generation Networks dedicated to build or expand networks. Im sure if the government let them compete in the free market. Today, we propose to repeal utility style regulation of the internet. We propose to return to the clinton era light touch framework that has been proven to be successful. And we proposed it with not just an engineer but within lawyers and accountants at the center of the online world. Evidence bar strongly suggests that this is the right way to go. Among our nations 12 largest Internet Service providers, domestic broadband Capital Expenditures decreased by 5. 6 percent or 3. 6 billion between 2014 and 2016. The first two years of the title ii era. Just to give you context, this decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. To be sure, Study Released by a pro title ii special Interest Group claimed there had been no such decline. That report makes a basic mistake like counting Network Investments in mexico as Network Investments in the United States. Now, this investment pullback is affecting smaller isps as well. We received letters from dozens of small isps explaining how title ii hurts them and their consumers. 76 wireless Internet Service providers say and i quote, our challenges are exacerbated by the title ii order which is increased compliance burdens and Regulatory Risk from heavyhanded regulation that is right right with uncertainty. Seven, smaller mobile wireless providers have uncertainty surrounding the framework from wireless Broadband Services, hinders our ability to meet our customers needs, burdens are companies with unnecessary and costly obligations and inhibits our ability to build and operate networks in Rural America. 22 of the nations smallest isps reported they have flown is not wanted halted development and Innovative New service offerings. 32 additional rule isps point to the bureaucratic straitjacket of outdated regulations known as title ii as a barrier to the vigorous investment they want to pursue. And perhaps most notably, 19 nonprofit municipal isps, that is government owned broadband providers championed by title ii advocates observed that for the past two years, substantial cost of 2015 decision have harmed our businesses. Now, consider for a moment why these statements are so important. These are 150 small isps, most of which americans had never heard of. These are the very companies that are critical to injecting competition into the broadband marketplace. These are the very companies that are critical to closing the Digital Divide by building out in lower income rural and urban areas. Free of it all too often dont see investments at all or who are the first to see investments dry up. Again, these are the very companies telling us title ii makes it harder for them to connect americans with digital opportunities. It consumers last , not first to push these companies out of the marketplace and to stifle competition. In addition to proposing to reverse title ii classification we are proposing to eliminate the socalled internet product standard. The standard with the sec on rolling mandate to pursue Business Models and prohibit Service Plans that benefit consumers. With this expansive authority, the sec could investigate any provider for offering the public virtually any service the agency might find problematic. Thats in fact what the sec did. Within months of conferring this newfound authority upon itself, the sec met the enemy. Consumer friendly free data programs offered by federal wireless companies. Despite the event leadership of the agency having deemed him of these programs highly innovative and competitive, the fcc began investigating them. Preventing consumers from getting something for free doesnt benefit consumers. Additionally, this authority let bureaucrats question literally any Network Management decision is reasonable. This is especially unwise when it comes to the networks of the future. Consider 5g, the generation of wireless. The colonists magazine recently explained what this technology will require. Slicing the networking to multiple networks each optimize for a different users needs. Having to hire lawyers to make sure your engineers dont run afoul of the sec while putting that off sounds like a recipe for disaster. That helps explain why mark andreasen, famed entrepreneur and creator of the netscape browser and a Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist has said and i quote, if you have these pure Net Neutrality rules, youre not ever going to get a return on continued Network Investment which means you will stop investing in the network. It is todays notices the start of a new chapter in the discussion about how we can best maintain the free and open internet while making sure isps have strong incentives to bring next Generation Networks and services to all americans. I reiterate, this is the beginning of the process. Not the end. The sec is simply seeking comments on these proposals to draw on the clinton era light touch approach. Also we ask questions about these line rules. Over the next 90 days the American Public will have a chance to share its views on them and in the time on the fcc will follow the facts and the law where they take us. Additionally there are a few things that are different in the last round. First we are proceeding and are far more transparent way and the sec did in 2015. Back then the agency pushed through the 317 page title ii order before anyone outside this building was allowed to see it. In that document i proposed to my colleagues has been available to the public online for three weeks. The public already submitted over 1 million comments on that draft and i will go one step further today and publicly commit to this. On my watch, any order that we may adopt in this proceeding will also be made widely available while a floor vote is called. If they agree or disagree with what the sec is doing, you have been and will be able to see what it is we are doing and why. Second, we aim to conduct a credible costbenefit analysis of our policy decisions. This wasnt done back in 2015. Due to the Economic Analysis and the title ii order has been called wrong, unsupported and irrelevant by the fccs own chief economist at the time. This time as we make our decisions, we will have our expert staff carefully review the evidence on investment and other variables. We will not rely on hyperbolic statements about the end of the internet as we know it and 140 character ardell bartel but rather on the data. Finally, like my colleagues i would like to thank the staff of the Competition Bureau, the Wireless Communications bureau and the office of general counsel for their work on this document. Nancy ian, christine bernstein, david horowitz, marcus ayer, Chris Monteith, linda alber, Bill Richardson and pedro ryan yates. Id like to thank my wireline advisor doctor j schwartz, phd in economics for the intensive work over the last few weeks. Im deeply grateful to all of you for your hard work on this important issue. That will proceed to a vote on the item. The item is adopted, editorial privileges as as granted. Thank you to the staff of the bureau. If you could please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mister chairman, there is a seventh and final item on your agenda presented by the Wireline Competition Bureau and is entitled connect america. Again, Chris Monteith will give the introduction. Thank you madame secretary, miss moncrief, free to proceed. Mister chairman and commission, Wireline Competition Bureau is pleased to present for your consideration a notice of proposed rulemaking and order revisiting whether the rule adopted in 2011 requiring Rural Telephone companies recover a minimum dollar amount for Voice Services from their customers, commonly referred to as the rate score continues to further our statutory obligation to ensure Quality Services available at just reasonable and affordable rates. The accompanying order winfrey rate floor for two years unless or until further actions are taken in this proceeding. Joining me at the table today are lisa holmes, associate bureau chief, alex minard, deputy position chief of the delegation indications access policy division and jesse jackson, an attorney advisor in the division. I would like to acknowledge and thank others in the Wireline Competition Bureau that have worked on this item including roger, division chief Industry Analysis and Technology Vision and dan yellen, assistant division chief Industry Analysis and technology division. And stephen wang, an attorney advisor. I would also like to thank our colleagues in otc for their review and invaluable input. We will present the item. Good afternoon mister chair, and commissioners. The rate floor rule adopted in the 2011 usf icc transformation order requires that any i like recipient of high cost and the rate for local service plus state regulated fees is below the rate floor shall have its quote, high call support produced by an amount equal to the extent to which is great for residential local service plus date regulated fees are below the local urban rate core multiplied by the number from which is the receiving report. The rate floor is determined based on an annual urban rate survey. Under a waiver adopted in 2014, court reductions for charting prices lower than the rate floor are being phased in. Such carriers do not lose universal Service Support, the rates are at or above 18 and that number will rise to 20 on july 1, 2017. 22 on july 1 2018. Various stakeholders have argued that the rule is not fully consistent with 250 40 of the Communications Act and that a Single National rate floor does not necessarily account for the differences in rural and urban areas. Accordingly, the npr mc comment on whether changes to the current rate floor methodology are needed to address these concerns and if so, what those changes should be. As an alternative to changing the methodology, the npr mc comment on eliminating the rate flooraltogether. And prm , on the interaction of the rate floor with state ratemaking and estate universal service fund and on the administrative and compliance call of the rate floor. As well as ways to reduce those area. The npr and invites stakeholders to submit a costbenefit analysis of the rule. Adding a review of the record that developed into this proceeding the voter freezes the monthly rate floor at 18. The order finds that temporarily freezing the rate floor at its current level rather than allowing it to increase in 2017 and 2018 in these unique circumstances serve both the Public Interest and the purpose of the rule by ensuring again unduly low rates for subsidized consumers. The bureau recommends adoption of this notice of proposed rulemaking and orders and request editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits, thank you. Thank you and im shocked that the room has clear out for the main event but nonetheless we will proceed to comments from the bench starting with commissioner cliburn. Asked if it was related to you. Not related, we sell our last name differently. Look at it again. Is wishful thinking, im sorry. Ill get my statement because its going nowhere fast. Imagine being asked would you rather pay five dollars for lunch or 20 per month for the exact same Voice Service plan. If there really is no difference, and if the offers were truly identical, you would not for the Cheapest Service plan, right . But in this scenario is only made possible by your carriers ability to shift the true cost of service on the other carriers in other words, through everyone elses contributions to the universal service fund and i must regrettably inform you that we have a real Public Policy problem. This is exactly the scenario that the commission addressed a few years ago while we were in the process of reforming our universal service and intercarrier compensation mechanism. Some rate of return carriers were charging their customers extremely low Voice Service rates and recovering the rest of the revenue requirement from intercarrier compensation at the universal service fund. This resulted in shifting the cost of service from the people who were actually receiving the service on two other ratepayers nationwide including those who were least able to afford it. The commission addressed this issue by adopting a requirements that carriers must recover a certain portion of the ultimate cost of service from the end user customers, rather than from other ratepayers. This was known as the rate floor and it was paid to the average urban cost of service. Carriers could charge less than this amount but they would be unable to recover the difference from the universal service fund. Over two months ago, i made a public commitment to fix some outstanding, unforeseen issues that resulted from our efforts at the rate of return reform. This package of actions included a fix for the Capital Investment allowance, pausing and finding a new path forward on the rate floor and dealing with waste, fraud and abuse in the highcost program. I have also spoken out in the past as you may note about means testing in the highcost fund and in an ideal world, we would have dealt with all outstanding rate of return issues at the same time. In part because many of these issues are neither difficult nor novel but they all have an impact, not only on rate of return carriers but on ratepayers nationally. Admittedly, last month we fixed one of the issues that i considered part of that package, on a standalone basis. I had my misgivings about that issue on and on cla carte bases go and support that item because i believe it was good policy. It got something done sooner rather than later but i continued to hold out hope that the next steps would address those issues left outstanding. I made it clear then as i do now that dealing in tandem with the rate floor and with waste fraud and abuse were key. Dcjcvu. Now we are considering a second item, pausing and fixing of the rate floor and surprise, comes before us for consideration on a standalone basis. My repeated calls for addressing waste, ron and abuse in the highcost program ignored. Any hope of addressing these concerns in a balanced, comprehensive package smashed and the freeing up of additional money to impactthe budget control mechanism which would have been the result of a more efficient process , not happening. So i respectfully dissent. Going after waste fraud and abuse in our universal Service Programs only seems to happen when one program is being discussed and that is lifeline. Addressing blatant abuses in the highcost program, no mention here. Even though every dollar that is wasted in the highcost fund means one less dollar to support rule Broadband Networks that is neither fair , equitable nor consistent and it comes to policymaking. The American Public should not be guaranteeing a return on investment for personal travel and expenses, entertainment, alcohol, corporate jets, corporate growth and mortgages of company employees. This is common sense. It is good stewardship and many in the industry generally support the kind of clarity so it is unbelievable to me that when a clear opportunity presents itself, we failed to take action. Commissioner oreilly and i have spoken about ways we can work to improve the Service Consumers get in rate of return study areas and i remain hopeful that these discussions will bear fruit. I would like to thank the staff of the Wireline Competition Bureau for their work on this item. If i am counting right, yours has substantial involvement in at least eight or nine meeting items over the past four months. Was to blame for that . I know the work has been hard. And the hours are long. And what i have occasionally disagreed with what you have been asked to draft, i sincerely appreciate your professionalism and dedication to Public Service, thank you. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you mister chairman, compared to the circulated version seeking to eliminate the rate floor as it come to be known, the doctorate that we considered today contain vital taxes and revision that are the only reason i do now supported. During the new freeze. I will lurk in good faith with my colleagues to find other ways to accomplish the same goals but if they cannot be achieved, then the rate floor will be restarted. This structure is intended to provide sufficient impetus to explore and develop more precise makings to get to the same outcome make no mistake, i support the rate floor contact and im puzzled when everyone else done. Contrary to all of misinformation, the policy is built on a solid apprentice. Commission , as stewards of the contributions made by those that pay in to the universal service fund expect a certain level of company to be recouped from its own subscribers prior to receiving subsidies. In other words, theres a basic level of fairness expected for consumers throughout the nation contribute to cover the lower rates offered in more rural parts of america. The obligation in the law to promote rates to Rural Communities was meant to ensure the cost of service in Rural America was not too high. The rate floor originated when the commission was particular and demonstrable evidence of a number of rural companies charging far, far below reasonable rates subscribers but seeking full reimbursement of their cost and scares better usf dollars. To be clear, the policy does not mandate higher rule telephone late and the commission is not engaging in rate regulation. Companies are free to charge lower rates. Commission or more accurately the hardworking citizens throughout our country just want to contribute to keep those rates artificially low. If Rural Telephone Companies Want to charge their customers one dollar per month, they most certainly can but subsidies will be provided to the delta between the consumer rate in the separate floor which is based on the average of rates in nonRural America. Are there better ways to actually rate floor . Probably. And i will happily explore those to all interested parties but anyone thinking this is a backdoor way to end the policy, forget it. Additionally we should not ignore that setting a more generous rate floor will have an impact on the rate of standalone broadband. To be more specific, because we have a cap on highcost budgets, dollars spent the rate floor artificially low is one dollar less available to bring down the consumer rate for Broadband Services and rate of return areas. This very issue came up in our last Senate Commerce Committee Oversight hearing. As it presently stands, it is a zerosum game and the prognosis for additional highcost funding seems difficult. And i do not count me among those that will ever support imposing usf contributions on broadband. This is a nonstarter for me. Is also expected the stone pole reality. Rural does not necessarily mean poor. There are plenty of rich, middle class and poor people throughout all Rural America. Our job is to ensure that those who face higher costs cannot afford them are still able to ask access Communication Services. It means we should subsidize telephone or broadband rates for the very wealthy people no matter where they live. If god has bestowed an american with high levels of material wealth, we ought to expect that person to pay for services themselves instead of forcing potentially poor and middle income individuals elsewhere to provide subsidies. Low overall incomes in Rural America can be lower in some communities compared to the nation as a whole, so can the cost of daily necessities. For this reason i reject that. That we must or should subsidize everyone who happens to live in a particular area, no matter their income. Thats a waste of resources and its why the federal government needs to test the majority of federal programs, certainly the bigger and more expensive ones medicare. For instance if a person receives medicare, if a person receiving medicare next more than a certain income per year, they pay higher partly on a monthly rate. We can means test medicare, why not the secs highcost programs . There is no reason why anyone who earned more than 1 million last year shouldnt pay the full cost of their telephone or broadband service. Or to that end, i worked with commissioner clyburn on draft taxes to take the first steps on this project. We tend to put this out for consideration shortly. I firmly agree that it may take a bit of time to get all the pieces to work and i have no intent of adding layers upon layers of the burdens on Communication Companies or disrupting parts of the program that have already been adopted. Moving the instruction is the right thing to do. At the same time, examining ways to alter the rate floor does not mean there are other adjustments needed to the rate of return regime. What we instituted major reforms during the last commission that the industry still early supports, there are a number of socalled punchlist items for small fixes that are appropriate. For example, there seems to be general support at the commission and irrelevant associations that ratepayers shouldnt have to pay more to cover the cost of some companies official golf club memberships. And im disappointed that we couldnt get it all done as part of this package if they seem like reasonable and commonsense steps to ensure dollars are spent on actual broadband deployment but i do appreciate the chairmans commitment to working to accomplish these items one way or another in the near future. I think the chairman. Commissioner riley. The average rate for basic phone service in washington dc was 13 . 78 per month. But since july 1 of last year, federal law has mandated that Rural Telephone companies charge the customer at least 18 per month for the same service. Why . It relates to the federal subsidies or highcost universal Service Support the sec directs to these companies. In 2011, im concerned that certain rural carriers were over subsidize, the sec required the companies to charge artificially higher minimum rates in favor of losing federal fundings, this is known as the rate floor. The rate floor today is 18. And scheduled 20 just july and 22 next july. This is an especially hard hit on the consumers who can least afford it. Thats because Rural Americans make less money than their urban counterparts. The Median Household Income in washington dc is over 75,000. Median Household Income in lyon county kansas i visited last october is under 41,000, less than 55 percent of the capitals tally. Mandating higher rates under these circumstances in my view violates the spirit if not the letter of section 250 4b of the Communications Act and requires the sec to ensure Quality Services available at just, reasonable rates. Generally the rate floor imposes higher costs on consumers without any corresponding federal benefit. It hasnt saved federal taxpayers any money. Because companies can avoid losing support by raising rates area and it wont save taxpayers money Going Forward either because now any subsidies that are lost by one provider are simply redistributed to others. Its time to give the rate floor hard look and thats why im please offer this notice that we will explore whether to fix or eliminate this broken policy. Im also glad we will freeze the rate floor at 18 to prevent the impending 11 percent price hike that rural consumers would otherwise face a few weeks from now. Its unfortunate we couldnt get a unanimous vote since we have been working in good faith to address the problems with our rate of return rule. 13 2017 for instance commissioner clyburn says i would support fixing our rules regarding the per location on the Capital Investments allowance. Only 34 days later at our most recent fcc meeting, we adopted this fix to the limitation. We Work Together to put consumers first. And that seems be by colleagues said and i quote i would support hitting the cause button on rate floor increases we teed up an item in the pause button on rate floor increases and for the past two weeks, we accommodated rick literally every single item my colleague asked for on this item but now 52 days after calling for a stay of the rate floor, my colleague is voting against the state of the rate floor and to be sure, that is consistent with the 2011 vote command higher prices for rural consumers but it isnt consistent with putting consumers first. As always, i am grateful to the staff of the Competition Bureau for their excellent work on this matter. In particular lisa cohen, jesse chatman, alex kennard, chris monthly and susan yellen. Your work is help consumers spend their dollars on the family instead of on their phone bills. With that, we will proceed to vote on the item. Commissioner riley. The item is adopted, the privilege is granted as requested. With my colleagues like to make any announcement that it is time . X i know you will join in all this but were also a number of the sec, carolines office and you know, when you see people in the hall interacting with them on a daily basis and they give you a smile and ask how youre doing, that might be the only positive gesture you get. She was very friendly to you. Okay. But i just want to pay tribute to her. Again, we lost her the end of last month and i believe her family wants to celebrate her life on monday so i want to mention that. On a more positive note, i wanted to mention the present of commissioner glory shoddy. In the audience, i wanted to say hello. I miss you hello to you the last time you were here. I was going to do that second time i wanted to acknowledge that, mister chairman. I join my colleague. Thanks for recognizing this sound, she spent 21 years one month and 10 days of the federal Communications Commission. She was a consumer advocacy and mediation specialists, the Governmental Affairs bureau and as importantly, he was a smiling face as commissioner clyburn pointed out in the hall and its always sad when a member of our family talks away and thats certainly true of mrs. Fix. We have her family and her friends in our thoughts and prayers. I also have to announce another departure, that is the bill friedman. Hes one of the mainstays of odcs Administrative Law division, my former home and he will be retiring at the end of the month. Thats what makes the sec staff terrific, the experience, judgment and legal skills and ability to work well with people inside and outside the building and very dry sense of humor which one has to have when one labors in the field of acronyms and the like. Has kept the commission on the straight and narrow since 1978. He began with the safety and special Radio Services bureau. I never even knew that one existed, that long ago but he worked in the Hearing Division in the old broadcast bureau and finally energy c. Electronic practice but as ive quoted in the godfather goes, we kept bringing him back in so he came back to odc to work in the enforcement bureau. He spent over five years as associate t cell of the bureau and a cd with stances acting Media Advisor for commissioners baker. He returned to odc in 2013 where his primary focus has been on the most challenging media bureau actions and other adjudication. Bill will be relocating to fenwick islanddelegate delaware where itold you will spend more time with his family. Loud music and his nearby grandson harry. Hes going to, i imagine still show up for the world series which hes hoping cleveland will finally win after a 50 year wait visiting the Cleveland Hall of fame as well. No, we will miss you. Thank you for your service to the commission, friendship and your wise counsel over the past year. With the partners, also arises. I want to announce a couple and at the sec one is brian hart who i believe as that mentioned in the corner over there, brian is the new director of Media Relations ryan came to us from the offer office of senator once, i got to know him when we were working together for senator brownback. Many years ago. He spent time at the director of government regulation at h r block at the Vice President attention Public Relations and as he was often tormented me with practical jokes and humor these many years, keep your enemies close i guess is the best way to explain that but brian, we are really glad youre on board. The drone is one of our first of our summer law, if you dont mind standing up. He started this week and hes getting me to the point that such a boring week to come to the sec. Its a sleepy and uneventful time but any of the graduates of the university of connecticut and he completed his first year at George Washington university. He interned with the business and human rightscenter in london, girardi, not er for those keeping score and in the Connecticut Republican Party in hartford. Hes an avid sports fan , we havent yet ascertained his affiliation but im sure he has a good sense that we think he does, no root for the chiefs, royals and jayhawks. He also coached to youth basketball teams, importantly he is also incorrect a so anyone tries to mess with our office this summer, youre going to have to sweep the leg area for those of you work as of friday. Anthony grew up in islam connecticut and margaret new jersey, beach towns what he says hes thrilled to be here along the beautiful waterfront of washington dc and southwest, anthony, were grateful that you are here. Last but not least i want to make an announcement. For decades we have recognized National Police week, first started under president kennedy in 1962 to recognize lawenforcement officers who had fallen in the course of their duties. The officers who are here at the fcc although i think deserve our commendation. We easily can take it for granted and i often do myself but the dozens of Security Officials here go the extra mile for each and every day to keep us a and make sure we can do our job free from interruption. Thats why i had the privilege of taking the time this past tuesday walk around and visit with all the guards and the security staff of the sec and to thank them for their work. We are so grateful that all of you are here. Fred, i believe the rest of the team, you are terrific. On number is among the security offers, they knew who they are but they are to tell you how much it means to see a smiling face and engage in a matter that starts today on a positive note so if my colleagues dont have any further announcements, then secretary if you today on the next sec candidate. Next meeting of the federal Communications Mission is 2017. Second day of summer. Until then we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversation] im really disappointed in the lack of protest. [inaudible conversation]. [inaudible conversation]
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.