Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160223

This proposal. Yeah, that is a new slide that just got put up except for the fact that looks identical to the previous slide. There was identical service delivery. There is identical entitlement optimization. There is identical relaying of choice back to the cable system and there was identical delivery of programming. So what is the difference . Desire to systems that work the same. The difference is one is close and one is so good. They have no choice today. So with the competitive box or app functions exactly like the box or act in the cable system forces you to rent today, then the protections for copyright and security are the same. That is required. Theres nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content, sell advertising around it, you know . Theres a misrepresentation thats been made today with the assertion that this item does allow that, an assertion that it creates all kinds of opportunities for free riders. It takes the same product that goes through the cable system and the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a Different Box requiring the same structures. As a result, existing copyrights and programming agreements are unaffected. Consumer privacy is protected. Emergency alerts are passed through, and Child Protection laws are unaffected. And nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation. You know, in fact, we all know that history has been clear that innovation is a result of competition, not a result of a forced you must rent this box from me month after month after month. And nothing changes minority programmer relationships with the Cable Companies, but it sure does create more opportunities more minority programmers for minority programmers to reach consumers through the internet. Finally, this is not a new topic for this agency. In 2010 the cable industry supported, and i quote, crossindustry approaches to develop a fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace. So the people who have said this is the end of the world actually supported a competitive video device is and made seven recommendations which are consistent with todays proposal. Let me just highlight a couple of them. Theyre here in this letter youll see on the screen. The option to purchase video devices other than those supplied by the Cable Company. Thats the cable industry saying that they support that. The option to access video content on the internet. The option to search for content across multiple sources including the internet. This is what the cable industry proposed, and they have the list goes on to the next slide where there are others that i wont read you all. But as i say, this is not inconsistent with what were opening the discussion on and proposing today. So lets go back to where we tarted. This is not come started. This is not complex. The law mandates it, Technology Allows it, the industry at one time proposed something similar to it. And consumers deserve a break and a choice. So we will call for the vote on the item. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed . No. The ayes have it. The item is adopted. The request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. Thank you very much to the bureau. Madam secretary. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, third on your agenda today, the item will be presented by the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau. It is entitled closed captioning of video programming, telecommunications for the deaf and hard of hearing. Allison cutler, acting chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thank you very much. Look at this. Cgb has decided to change the color of the name signs. Place cards. Finish. [inaudible] they also what . Moved left. Now, wait a minute [laughter] all things are relative here. Allison, go ahead, please. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Nearly 20 years ago the Commission Adopted its first set of rules governing the provision of closed captioning on television, enabling viewers who are deaf and hard of hearing to Access Television programming along with the rest of the general public. At the time the commission stated that it expected to revisit these rules as changes in technology and industry practices made it possible to improve both the availability and quality of captioning. The experiences of viewers over the past several years have confirmed the need to update these rules to achieve Congress Goal for all americans to have equal access to video programs, particularly as these programs also become available on the internet. Pursuant to the 21st Century Communications and video accessibility act. Today the consumer and Governmental Affairs bureau presents you a report and order that would assign some of the responsibilities for the delivery of high quality captions to entities that have direct control over the production of such captions on video programming. This item also addresses certifications by video programming entities and the handling of captioning complaints. The item provides for flexibility on ways to achieve compliance and balances the benefits that fully accessible programming can achieve for people who are deaf and hard of hearing with the impact these actions would have on try. Joining me at the table today are Karen Strauss, deputy chief of cgb, and Elliott Greenwald, deputy chief of the disability rights office. Karen will give us context and the history of this proceeding, and elliott will present the item. In addition to karen and elliott, i would like to thank greg highbach, chief of the disability rights office, susie singleton, michelle carey, mary beth murphy, maria few lahr key and Jeffrey Newman of the media bureau, sharon lee and Tracy Randolph of Enforcement Bureau and susan aaron of the general counsels office for their work to support this item. Thank you. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We have often heard it said that if of all of the improvements in accessibility achieved in the last century for people who are deaf and hard of hearing, closed captioning was the most significant. As was true for the last item presented, the obligations for closed captions came from the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act celebrated now by its 20th anniversary. But until february 2014, problems with the quality of captions had gradually been making Television Viewing with closed captioning increasingly difficult. In the years leading up to this order, consumers reported inconsistencies in the way that captions were being provised with many people provided, with many people reporting captions were with often inaccurate and delayed behind the programs audio track. Two years ago the commission took landmark tens to insuring that tv programming includes high quality captions that accurately reflect the dialogue and other sounds and music in the audio track are synchronous with the programs audio, are complete from the beginning to the end of the program to the fullest extent possible and do not block other Important Information or content in the program on the screen such as characters faces, text or graphics needed to understand the programs content. However, that february 2014 order left open who would be responsible for achieving compliance with the new captioning quality rules. Back in 1997 when the Commission First adopted rules governing tv captioning, the commission placed sole responsibility for the provision of captions on video programming distributers. But its video programmers not distributers that are the ones that exercise the most control over captioning quality. Theyre the ones that work with the captioning agency that both develop and insert captions on tv programs. For this reason in a notice that companied the february 2014 order, the commission sought comment on whether it was appropriate to divide the responsibilities and place some of of the responsibilities addressing captioning quality and the provision of captions on video programmers. The item before you continues to place primary responsibility on the provision for the provision of closed captions on distributers but recognizes that many problems dealing with caption quality originate during the Production Phase which is under the control of video programmers. For this reason the item allocates responsibility for caption quality to both distributers and programmers, making each entity responsible for the captioning issues that are primarily within eachs control. We believe that this allocation of responsibilities will bring about better compliance and make enforcement of the new captioning quality rules easier and more effective. Elliott will now provide you with greater details about this item. Thank you. Good to morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. We are pleased to present the second report and order in the closed captioning quality proceeding. This item extends some of the responsibilities to the quality and provision of closed captioning to other entities involved in the production and delivery of video programming, revises procedures for the handling of complaints, revises video programmer Certification Requirements and makes other procedural modifications. Specifically, this second report and order assigns respondent for the quality responsibility for the quality of closed captioning to video programming distributers and video programmers, making each entity responsible for closed captioning issues that are primarily within its control. Video programmers are responsible for closed captioning problems that stem from production of the captions as well as transmission of the the captions up to the point where theyre handed off to video programming distributers. Video programming distributers, in turn, are responsible for the quality problems that are a result of the distributers faulty equipment or their failure to pass through the closed captioning data intact. The item also maintains current rules that place primary responsibility for the provision of closed captioning on video programming distributers but also holds video programmers responsible for a lack of captions where they have failed to provide captions on nonexempt programs. In addition, it requires each video programmer to file with the commission a certification that the video programmer is in compliance with the rules requiring the inclusion of closed captions and either is in compliance with the captioning quality standards or has adopted and is following best practices or is exempt from the captioning obligations. If exempt, the video programmer must include in its certification the specific exemptions claimed. Under current procedures video programming distributers are required to make best efforts to obtain widely available certifications from video programmers. The second report and order would remove video programming distributers from this certification process, and instead obligate video programmers to file their certifications directly with the commission. This will result in having all certifications located in one place, making it easier for video programming distributers and Commission Staff to locate the certifications. The item also revised the procedures for receiving, for receiving, serving and addressing television closed captioning complaints in accordance with a burdenshifting compliance model. This model requires video programming distributers to initially address complaints but allows the video programming distributer to shift the responsibility for responding to a complaint if the video programming distributer after conducting an investigation determines that the problem was not within its control. The second report and order also establishes a compliance ladder for the commissions television closed captioning quality requirementings. The compliance ladder provides video programming distributers and video programmers with opportunities to take informal and prompt corrective action to reduce the need for enforcement action by the commission. Finally, the item requires each video programmer to register with the commission its Contact Information for the receipt and handling of written closed captioning complaints using the commissions web page. We believe that the actions taken in the second report and order by clearly defining the responsibilities for the quality and provision of closed captioning and adopting other procedural reforms will help insure compliance with the commissions closed captioning rules. The bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. Thank you very much to all of you and everyone in the bureau for their efforts. Commissioner clyburn. Just over 19 years ago the Commission Adopted its first set of closed captioning rules. This decision marked a major first step in granting full access to video programming for deaf and hard of hearing or hearingimpaired citizens. Much has changed since 1997, and today it is most fitting for us to update these rules to reflect the insights gained from the experiences by industry, advocates and the fcc. First, this item will place the responsibility for closed captioning quality on video programming distributers as well as video programmers. Each will be held accountable both for the provisioning and the quality of closed captioning issues that are primarily within their control. A common sense update, to be sure. Video programming distributers will continue to be responsible for the provisioning of closed captioning, but now video programmers will be held responsible for the absence of those captions if they fail to provide them. This item also enhances the transparency of compliance certifications and updates compliance procedures whether those complaints are received by the commission or the video programming distributer. It is my hope that these updates will not only help in compliance with our closed captioning rules, but will assist in streamlining the resolution of closed captioning complaints or problems Going Forward. Many thanks are due for this item, and as the bureau chief mentioned, those names, i want to thank them. But i also, as always, would like to act knowledge and include thanks to Karen Strauss and Elliott Greenwald for such an excellent item. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner rosenworcel . Earlier this month we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the telecommunication cans act of 1996, and though its been said before, a lot has changed in the past two decades, including the evolution of Television Sets away from those that were big with fake wood paneling around them to what we have today. Razorthin screens and, of course, theyre not the only game in town. We live in a world where those screens surround us and opportunities for viewing continue to multiply. All this change is terrific, but we have got to make sure that we continue to honor the values that we had 20 years ago or 19 years ago when we first put in place our new closed captioning policies. And its important because there are an estimated 36 million americans who are deaf or have hearing loss. And there are 40 million more over the age of 65 who experience varying degrees of hearing loss atom point in their at some point in their lives. They all rely on accurate, synchronized, complete and wellplaced captions to enjoy video programming. Now, two years ago we took significant steps to update our closed captioning policies, and today we close an enforcement gap so that the fcc can step in when need be. And we also recognize that video programming distributers and programmers alike work hard to provide high quality closed captions. We implement strict timelines for consumers complaints to be addressed, and this is important, we implement a compliance ladder so that improvements can be made without immediate threat of enforcement. So thank you to the Consumer Governmental Affairs bureau not just for the excellent work here today, but for your absolutely unyielding commitment to improving the quality of closed captioning. Here, here. Commissioner pai. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Video programmers and distributers each play an Important Role with respect to the provision and quality of closed captions. And todays order at its core embraces a common sense approach to allocating responsibility for complying with the commissions closed captioning quality rules. A distributer will be responsible for those aspects of closed caption quality over which it has primary control, and a programmer will be responsible for those aspects of closed captioning quality over which it has primary control. Of course, the devil is in the details. For example, this order establishes a compliance ladder for our closed captioning quality rules which is designed to encourage parties to quickly address and remedy problems without involving the agencys Enforcement Bureau. I had concerns about language originally in the language that would have delegated vast discretion to avoid the compliance ladder and refer matters directly to the Enforcement Bureau. This would have defeated the entire purpose of the compliance ladder. But through some tough negotiations, we were able to significantly limit the possibility of evading the ladder. Compromise language may not be ideal, but it is good enough to merit my concurrence. Accordingly, i am voting to approve in part and concur in part. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner orielly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Our main focus is to shift the burden involving the quality of closed captions from the programming distribute us to the programmers themselves. I can generally agree with the concept. I suspect itll be much messier than the text. I also worry that the item doesnt make a similar shift for the burden to provide closed camses. The same logical argument should apply to the provisioning. In any event, i will sport these provisions notwithstanding. Disappointingly, the item seeps into two troubling areas. First, the item creates an exceptionally con convoluted mechanism by which a consumer closed captioning quality complaint can be forwarded from a video distributer to the programmer and then back again. Under this structure the personal Consumer Information would be redacted before forwarding could occur. But during consideration of an item just last month, it was alleged it was too difficult to redact personal information for broadcasters correspondence files. So the chairman graciously agreed to move a separate item to eliminate the correspondence file in its entirety. How can it be that redacting personal information and the creation of a unique identifier is easy for video distributers but not for broadcasters . Does anyone not check these items for consistency . Second, the item creates a threetiered compliance ladder for the electronic newsroom technique procedures and then subsequently rejects it by establishing a special, and i quote, rule allowing cgb to refer a captioning quality rule violation directly to the Enforcement Bureau or for the Enforcement Bureau to pursue an action on its own without first going through the compliance ladder for certain violations. Thanks to commissioner pai, we now have a tighter standard of intentional and deliberate. Anyone want to guess how thats going to be applied by the bureaus . Why wouldnt the compliance ladder capture such a violation . No justification is given. Instead, the item creates a fake compliance ladder that the cgb or Enforcement Bureau or both will climb over anytime they want. In essence, this creates an illusioning of a thoughtful and judicious regulator, but it preserves the right to throw out the window without any questions asked whenever the bureaus feel like it. No thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Oh, okay. Thanks. I have a statement for the record, but, you know, this summary this is basically about responsibility. Its the responsibility to those who hear with their eyes, and its the responsibility of those who provide closed captioning whether you create it or distribute it. So i think the bureau has done a great job, and i look forward to support it. So lets call for the votes. All in fair say aye. Aye. Opposed . The ayes have it. The item is adopted. The request for editorial privileges is granted. Thank you very much. Madam chair, will you please announce the madam chair you got a promotion. [laughter] better days you could have [laughter] madam secretary, would you please announce the Consent Agenda . As mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, today you will consider a Consent Agenda composed of the items listed under Consent Agenda on the commissions sunshine notice. For your convenience during this vote, mr. Chairman and commissioners, i provided each of you with a copy of the sunshine notice. Thank you, madam secretary. Well now go to a vote on this. For the Consent Agenda items listed on the sunshine notice, we have received no objection from any commissioner. Accordingly, i will shortly call the vote on this Consent Agenda. If you are voting to adopt all of the Consent Agenda items, please indicate by voting in favor. If you oppose the adoption of any of these items on the Consent Agenda, please vote to oppose, and i will call on you in turn to identify the item you are opposing by the number assigned to it on the sunshine agenda. So with that, ill call for the vote. All in favor of adopting the list on the Consent Agenda please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed . Yes, down here. Yes, sir. I have nevers one, two and three . I would like to be recorded as concur in part and dissent in part on each. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. The items are adopted. The Consent Agenda is adopted, and it is so ordered. In a moment i want to go to the commissioners and the opportunity to make other observations. But before i turn to my colleagues, all of us lost a good friend and a bright mind, a big heart and a good laugh when dan brenner was tragically killed on monday in a pedestrian rundown accident in los angeles. Dan was a former member of the team here at the fcc, a Senior Adviser to both commissioners ferris and fowler. He served for 17 years as the chief Regulatory Council at ncta. And in 2012 governor jerry brown of california appointed him to the Los Angeles Superior Court where he has sat since then in a robe, something that those of us who knew dan always thought was an interesting attire for a guy who was so quickminded and so funny. He was a mentor to many in the policy community. He was a friend to us all. He was a leader in the lgbt community. And something that a lot of folks didnt know about him, he spent a lot of time teaching math in the underprivileged community. Hes truly going to be missed. He was a great person, good man, and and im sure my colleagues share this and would want to express themselves, and let me just say that well go down the bench. And then at the end lets just ask for a moment of silence to remember our good friend dan. Commissioner . Mr. Chairman, i did not know dan well. He came in less than a handful of times to see me representing his clients and, of course, with cable interests. But what i remember was a tall, lean, dapper individual with a good sense of humor and just deep knowledge of media policy. He will, of course, be missed by the bar, by those of us in the fcc family. Our hearts are heavy. Our condolenceses go to his family and many, many, many friends, and its tough when a light like that is dimmed, but he will never be forgotten. His wit and his depth, again, will be replicated by if were smart will be replicated and remembered by us all. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Commissioner . I didnt know dan. Condolences to his family and friends. And in addition to the many things that he is known for in these parts and elsewhere, he was a terrific standup comic which makes me think that it must have been a blast to be in his courtroom. And i will count it among my regrets that i never got the opportunity to see that. But again, condolences to his family and friends. Commissioner pai . I would agree with everything that has been said. Dan was a great lawyer, a good man and a very funny man. The one the first and only case i had the opportunity to argue in the d. C. Circuit was actually against dan, very arcane insane wiring case. I told him afterwards he had challenged the regulations adoption many years ago, i thought off the record he had a pretty decent chance of winning. He said, well, now you tell me, five years later. [laughter] you just had to be there, sort of the joie de vivre that he brought to everything he did was something that was so remarkable, especially in this field which tends to be obscure, to say the least. But we thank him for his Public Service to the people of california and for the labors of the fcc, and well remember him in years to come. Commissioner . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would just say god bless dan and provide comfort to his family at this time. Thank you. So lets just take a moment to each think about our own special relationship with dan and remember him. As everybody said, hell be greatly missed. Commissioner clyburn, you have anything you want to add for the betterment of the body . Yes. I was going to join you, and i dont know what sequence you wanted to do. Weve got a couple of departures, so i dont know if far be it from me to try and preempt you from doing anything, commissioner, so go for it. To the American Public, this is very unusual for him to behave like this [laughter] i really wanted to say that when it was announced that Roger Sherman was going to be the next bureau chief, i was thrilled. As acting chairman, he was the democratic chief counsel to the House Committee on energy and commerce where he provided my staff with incredible support. There are a number of wireless highlights and achievements that, you know, can be accredited to rogers wise counsel and leadership. The aws iii auction, the mobile Spectrum Holdings order that accomplished procompetitive spectrum reserve rules to implement, you know, this that we will implement in the reform of the part i Competitive Bidding rules. I know this is, people out there, this is putting them to sleep, but it is enabling incredible opportunities for you that you probably take for granted, but these are important. One of the things i respect the most about roger is when we wanted to insure that more members of the Wireless Bureau staff received the proper credit for the contributions they made to various policy decisions, he did so. So for that and so much more, roger, i have no idea where you are like typical great. Typical, in the back. We thank you so much for your service. Anything else . Oh, yes. Also thank you. I am not thinking today, so i also want to the acknowledge so shook up with the thought that rogers leaving. I know. It was make sense to and speaking of, i want to acknowledge, and ill try to keep this not as interesting as it would normally be off camera to jonathan chambers. Jonathan is here somewhere. Im also there he is over here. Who has been incredible to our office and always has looked out for consumers in creative and innovative ways. Hes instrumental in the Video Relay Service reform adopted during the transition just before the chairman got here. And i just saw with him a demonstration of the ace interoperable platform which could unleash significant benefits while reducing the cost to the funds. You know, some of these things go under the radar, but they are extremely important and innovative and, my goodness, we thank you so much for this. His thoughtful advice on everything from, again, the vrs fund to connect america fund to erate. He is an outthebox thinker. He is out the box, but thats another thinker who challenged normal expectations and policies. And whenever i asked for how can we do this, how can we do this again if i was not in sync with that, he always managed and always attempted to come up with alternatives. My nickname for him, for those who know him, is mr. Happy. If you know him, you know why. That is a joke. But i am not [laughter] i am not so happy today, my friend, to see you leave this place. But i am grateful to you for all of theport that youve lent the support that youve lent to this office and given to this agency. So the best to you always and thank you. Commissioner rosenworcel . First of all, i want to call out Wireless Bureau chief Roger Sherman who is sitting in the back row today like the former congressional staffer he is. [laughter] dutifully trying to avoid the limelight. But the truth is roger was never very successful of that. He was always a goto person here in every role ive had in policy dialogues around this town because he is so savvy, so smart and so knowledgeable. And rather than bid him well, im just going to stay in denial that hes departing. [laughter] it just seems easier. Best wishes, too, to jonathan chambers. Finally, circle of life though. Im going to bring someone in. And i want to introduce mark paul. Mark pauls joining my office, taking on the role of media legal adviser. Mark is an old hand, he has been at law firms lucas nace and also at step, toe and johnson. He also did some time on capitol hill serving for his home state senator, thensenator joe biden. And more recently and where i got to know him, he served as senior counsel to former senator, the deceased senator Frank Lautenberg from new jersey. So mark is a terrific political mind, he is a first rate lawyer and a friend, and im to thrilled to have him join my office and the agency. Wonderful. Welcome, mark. Commissioner pai . Just two sad notes and two bittersweet notes. First, i wanted to note that Diane Douglas recently passed away. Diane joined the fcc in april of 1985 in the Common Carrier Bureau as a clerk typist. In 1986 she moved to omd where she spent the next 18 years in the finance department. In 2004 she went to cgb first in the Reference Information Center as an information technician and then to the consumer inquiries and Complaints Division can. According to her supervisor, eric, she always told me she wanted to make sure she had work to do. She didnt want to be sitting around with nothing to do. That was the mark she left for over three decades at this agency, and all of us are grateful for her work both as a coto worker and as american citizens. Secondly, i wanted to note the passing of a Supreme Court justice antonin and a lie ya. She was and a lee california he was, obviously, a giant in the history of the Supreme Court. His opinions in constitutional cases are very well known, but he also had a substantial impact on this agency. With respect to the telecom act, for example, he authored the 1999 opinion in at t v. Iowa utilities board which was one of the first major cases in which the Supreme Court blessed the fccs regulation following the 96 act. In 2004 he authored the courts opinion which established that the purported violation of telecom act duties didnt necessarily state an antitrust claim which was a pretty hot issue back then. Even recently he authored the opinion in city of arlington v. Fcc which was critical for those of us who think about the nuances of whether agencies should have the jurisdiction to decide whether they have jurisdiction. But for me personally, my affinity came for him in law school. And i think most law students would agree with this, whether you agree with him or not in his opinions, he was a delight to read. If we were reading tons of cases, and some of them are exceptionally boring, to read a scalia opinion was something that made you sit up and thinking. And for me, one of the reasons why i became an antitrust lawyer in the first place and started my career in the department of justices antitrust division was his 1992 decision regarding whether market power should be construed to convey market power in another market. One of the great joys in my life was being able to meet a few years ago for a judge that i clerked with up here in washington, and he said ive got a surprise for you, weve got another guest, and i said whos it going to be . Oh, its going to be Justice Scalia. Right, come on. Sure enough, the justice arrived. And to borrow from the quote, the wolf came as a wolf. He was funny, he was smart, and i had a chance to tell him about that dissent in kodak, and without missing a beat, he Just Launched into, essentially, recapping the dissent. It was just incredible to have that conversation with him. I also asked him how it was possible for a yankees fan to be married happily for to a red sox fan for so many years. He managed to bridge that divide. I will miss justice and a scalia and am grateful for his service. Roger has been a terrific chief of the wtb. I had a chance to meet him first when he was on the hill, and as chief here he really was at the center of so many of the Critical Issues we handle. Its hard to think of anything weve done that you havent been able to contribute to. I especially appreciate his work on the aws iii aftermath. It was exceedingly difficult, but i appreciate rogers good faith efforts to reach out to our office. John chambers, what a distinguished career in Public Service that youve had. All the way back to the years you spent with senator canforth, that ill plus trues member of the senate from missouri all the way to here. I want to echo what commissioner clyburn said with respect to your work on the Video Relay Service proposal. This is one of those items that has languished for years, but you took the initiative to seize it by the horns, to put it on solid footing for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers. Its something that deserves everybodys plaudits, and you certainly have mine. I also think its especially significant that you have an affinity for Kansas City Sports teams. Thats something i hope you continue to exhibit in the years to come. With that, i am done, mr. Chairman. Commissioner orielly . Slightly different order than my colleague. First to roger, i want to thank you for representing your bosses over the years very well. I didnt always agree with the policy outcomes or advice that you provided, but i did respect it, and i do respect it. I enjoyed my time working with you on capitol hill, and ive enjoyed my time working with you at the commission, and i wish you best in the future. To jonathan chambers, i want to thank you for the spirited debates that weve had on a number of issues in my office. I enjoyed that hour we would have every month to kind of talk through different policy issues and i want to thank you for your interest in saving consumers and the commission money in the offering of disability technology. And i want to join my colleague in acknowledging the work of Justice Scalia. I only had the opportunity to meet him once, but i wish i just extend my best and say god bless. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner. Well, lets pile on, roger, here. I agree entirely with the commissioner rosenworcel. Its so typical youre hiding back will in the back, roger. Back there in the back, roger. So when i found out i was going to get this job, i began looking around. And knowing that we were going to raid the Wireless Bureau chief, ruth milkman, and make her chief of staff here, who could fill those rather large shoes . Shell be offended by that, because she has petite feet, but large shoes. And i started casting around, and roger and i had lunch one day, and we talked about some opportunities that might exist at the commission. And i remember when he said, yes, he was interested. And im going, wow this is great news. And so, you know, when roger came in, i mean, it was a wonderful day for this agency. You, my friend are a great leader who will be missed. Thank you very, very much. To john chambers. I will challenge anybody for who has no job the longest. I think it is probably approaching 30 years that weve known each other. He has been the head of os peace and 2013. He helped modernize the u. S. Have in his leadership in the issues the community have been repeated up here and make a difference, which is about all anybody can ask for. John will always be grateful to you for your service in the next mountain you are going to climb. Now having talked about all of these downer thing, some good news. Fortunately, john wilkins, our current managing director has the read to step into rogers shoes and become the new chief of the Wireless Bureau. Are you here, john . We all know what a great job he has done as managing director. He led the charge on e. U. Rate. He has played a similar role in a lifetime reform which we will take up shortly, so the early issues with regard to software and some of the functionality. Johnston in mean his mckinsey experience and expertise senators expertise. He is a superb manager and creative individual. So the ability to happen to have been behind roger because theres a few things going on in the wireless. I dont know if anyone is counting 41 days until the options tired. And its great to have a guy like john in the way of his bureau who has been involved in this process. And then john needs to avoid and mike stevens who has been our cfo is stepping into that as acting managing director. We have all grown to appreciate and respect mark in the great skills that he brings and so we are looking forward to his continuing like that that john put his fun. If there are no other things, i would request one privilege of the chair to ask the secretary where she was yesterday and tell us about this story from the Great American who happens to be her grandfather. I had the honor and privilege of attending a premier of the incredible true story and i look forward to everyone going this weekend. It truly is a wonderful movie. Not a wonderful man. Im honored to be a part of that legacy in order to another generation inspired by this door in the person that he was. Well, as you know common i was privileged to know your grandfather. Are you kidding . And he was a great, warm, humble man. And i look forward to seeing him. It is fabulous you are on the red carpet yesterday. It is even better for my 14yearold son. Manor secretary, why dont you walk us through what happens next is the next agenda meeting of the federal Communications Commission is thursday, march 31, 2016. Until then, we stand adjourned. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] afternoon, everyone. We are Getting Started with the press conference. Before we get her to come a few reminders, the large crowd we will try and stick to one question per recorder. Also, please speak into the microphone when you ask your question so everyone can hear. If possible, say your name. We will give a brief introduction and a right to your questions. Good morning, everybody. Good afternoon, everybody. Moments ago, the Commission Approved two distinct item which share common themes. The first of these is to clear choice. Can numerous essentially have no choice when it comes to picking the equipment that they use to access the tv service is. 99 of consumers access their video provider through a settop oxo application that the provider leases to them every single month and they dont have any choice. By introducing competition into the settop market place as congress has mandated, consumers finally have options for how they access the tv. Those competitive options will do what competition always does, which is drive better services, drive down costs and free up opportunities. And when it comes to video content, consumers have more choices than other on multiple platforms. But on the most popular plot form, television, there are concerns that the range of diverse programming choices are narrowing. Thanks to the leadership of commissioner clyburn, the commission is taking a fresh look at the video marketplace to help sure that viewers have diverse Programming Options as congress has mandated. The sacking key theme linking today items is removing terriers than expanding opportunity. Two days settop box marketplace has closed the standards, closed standards controlled by the industry. We propose to establish open standards for settop boxes, the same way we have open standards for cell phones, routers, other devices. We hope that by removing those barriers, innovators will step up to develop new ways for consumers to enjoy their favorite programming on their terms. On the content side, the commission has turn on chair and her time and again that demands made with cable providers and other mvpds are obstacles to reaching enough viewers to have a viable business. But todays notice of inquiry, we take a fresh look at the video marketplace, examining these challenges and how best to remove terriers and expand the availability of independent diverse programming. When we expand opportunities for innovators to innovate and let consumers choose their favorite products, programs, services, everybody wins. So it back, i will be happy to answer any question. Money, comp daily. Commissioner oreilly prepared the settop proposal with the effort to turn to expand the definition of a tree and 11. Those are two things working handinhand to expand the reach. Do you have any reaction a relationship between the settop box proposal and the ott thing . Now, these are not. High, mr. Chairman. He said the item doesnt require the network, but the opposite doesnt require this. They will pour money into the network to comply. Is there something that you know about members that they dont know . Can we put the chart that began . The devices work exactly the same way. The four steps of backandforth between the cable operator they are identical whether or not it is a device you are forced to have for a device that you can choose amongst companies. First official goes down and says okay, what channels are available . What numbers are they on . The signal goes down. Set to the signal goes down and says with the authorization for this box is going to look at, record, things like that. The signal comes back saying this is what the consumer has chosen and the content goes down. That is unchanging. Cable operators have wrote who, for instance. They didnt have to rebuild their networks to do that. Is the idea here that the criticism here from the industry that they would be required to build their networks so they could then respond to every potential thirdparty device that wants it and that would be a conflict to do, regardless of what the capabilities of the device work . You come up with this is the way of the interface. One standard, here is how it works and give consumers choice. Your hope is the standards process will lead to a solution that is not required. So much look at how the standards process works. When wifi routers are standardized for a standard process and you go from beta 2. 11a to b. To c. To d. , e. , imap through, you dont have to rebuild the Network Every time you do that and its not one of the things taken into consideration. Yes, sir. Tim mccabe from the hill. Im looking at the next couple months and there may be a point the next couple months. The lifeline and almost certainly privacy. Im wondering how you expect to handle the challenges of fighting three different fronts and whether you are concerned at all that that might make it harder to get consensus on less controversial items. So, again, the reality comes down to the fact that there is roughly 90 of the time there was consensus that all you get to see if the fund status. I was interested during the Media Coverage of Justice Scalias status that one of his close was he which he surprised the number of times that we agree. I identify with that. I dont like to associate myself with my colleagues today that comment. I too have the privilege of knowing Justice Scalia and he was a force measure a day say. To your question, i think we would handle things. Just to make clear, you are talking about your office and staff will be able to have the resources to fight the battle. Im not sure its fighting different values. Do we have the resources masses theory to work the processes, to try and come together with some kind of a majority consensus on the commission. I believe so. Hello, chairman. David haas, policy and regulatory report. On another topic, top lawmakers on the antitrust Committee Just wrote the fcc morning the average charter Time Warner Cable could your fear with online video distributors. Do you share that concern . Is that an issue you want to address or conditions on the deal . Where 144 days. If anybodys counting and you know im not going to comment. Whether you share that general im not going to comment. I never comment. You know that. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Lydia at bloomberg. Some representatives have said they have no problem with arrangements of Tech Companies that distribute video content. By the sounds of it does seem quite complex with contractual measures. How is your proposal for ending access for content . I dont if it will change the contractual relationships. When i was trying to explain in my statement is this is giving consumers choice. It is not forcing the Cable Operators change the way they do business. If you question the does the signal go to a red box sorry blue box . You mentioned briefly the privacy would not be implemented by the settop box item. So what does that mean . Are you contemplating requirements on these thirdparty manufacturers or add developers or how do you plan to get back to Consumer Privacy . Good question. The standard you are going to have to comply with the title vi section 631 privacy rules which apply to Cable Operators. Thank you good Margaret Harding with political pro. My question is looking forward to lifeline. I want to discuss when you might see specifically on the minimum Service Standards issue. I know that theres issues that standards are too high and outofpocket costs for subscribers. I want to see how you feel about outofpocket costs. Were working hard with commissioner clyburn on this issue and i hope you will be able to bring it forward and we will know the answer to that quickly. Some people say the government has implored a track record of trying to force innovation. What potential risks have you considered moving forward with some name like that question eric so, the issue here is are consumers going to have Competitive Choices . Are they going to be forced to release month after month in total of several hundred dollars and there will be innovative solution, that is just light the Telephone Company used to say, you have to lose by phone. The only phone will work when i telephoned him for is my phone. This agency said no. We are going to open not a period what happened . The functionality of phones when not in the prices went down. Thats the kind of thing that happens when you open things up to can them a choice, to competition and innovation. What you say to people that the market should speak for itself . There is no market. 99 of consumers have no choice. That is not a marketplace. Im tempted to ask about the mandated colors of these boxes but i think i will wait. Last night you can insure lock in the box isnt going to unlock their security and license protection for their content. So today, they are content or happy with the security that happens when they deliver to a road crew box. It has to be secured and they deliver it to an ipaq. For an android device. Same story. Ive janet adkins sin. Regarding the know why approved, can we expect the fcc to develop a well helping independent programmers for the current and assertion comes to an end and if not, what is the likelihood new leadership will continue the effort or abandon it altogether . No idea what happens. Can you tell me whos going to win . And was hoping you could. Were Going Forward. Has a timeline established. Yes, weve got 30 im not we have im not is for comment. 30 days for comment. I was curious about a couple of your colleagues mentioning commissioner pai specifically about eliminating the box instead of unlocking. Im curious why you believe this path forward is better than eliminating the box altogether. I tried to make that clear in the statement. We are moving towards an act economy. The only difference between an app and a piece of hardware is moving from hardware to software. It is the same in that functionality. What is important in is to consumers have a choice . Right now, whether it is the box or an app, they dont have choice. Things get in terms of box. I try to be clear talking about boxes and apps. The issue is they should be both open and can tumors should have choice in either. Matt damon, communications daily. On the anna y, this is an issue that has come to a number of times in the past. Do you see a possible areas where the fcc could make regulatory differences in what was of hypotheticals they could look at . Matt, we just published the sub sixfigure asking this . I want to know if you have some calendar interop settlements as everyday 144 days on the time clock, 41 days on the spectrum. The answer is fortunately for the spectrum option, the math is simple. It is the 29th and there were 29 days in this month, so you just kind of start counting back. I can actually do it in my head. I do have a real question i promise. I would love to get a little bit inside the mind of tom wheeler. Right, scary. You spoke at length today about the proposal before the vote, something is done in the past, but not a ton. You mentioned that you pointed. I sigh you shake your head a few times. Given this could have been a wonky preceding to come out of a wonky or proceeding to come out of their walk year bill, to be frank, you seemed relatively frustrated with how this has all played out and a lot of the slack you have got. Tell me how you feel. I think you are reading and to this. This is a simple question. We are trying to provide the choice for consumers that was mandated by congress. Was i disappointed that folks didnt even want to ask the question . Sure, i was. The surface of a proposed rulemaking was to say lets build the record and make a decision on that record. When you say now, ive already made up my mind. I dont even want to build a record. I didnt know i was shaking my head, but that was probably cause for shaking your head. The high, chairman and bryan barber from the national journal. You invoke section 629 of the Communications Act, put it up on the project or screen. Before your comment, commissioner riley was talking about how it refers to equipment. Featuring very clear to shame between the intent about the applied to equipment and not software, the app you are talking about. How much of it is or is that for you as we enter this rulemaking stage and is this anything that is stripped of the commission in the past in any proposal . The statute talks about Equipment Systems and services. That covers maps and everything else. [inaudible] well, good. Sorry, john. John brought ken. I want to ask about the issue of advertising and thirdparty settop boxes. You said nothing will change that. What are the exact events for putting advertising, something in the mprm that does that, and existing law they would be breaking and is it any different ,com,com ma and a role preventing tivo or another cablecard user and asserting apps right now. Good question, john. There will prohibited. You need to have the sanctity of the content. Nobodys going to insert ads into it. Nobodys going to make a split screen. No one will say theres a frame around it. Is going to require the sanctity of the content be passed through unchanged. Does that include neighborhood agreements, too . The programming agreements are included. Part of the sanctity of the concept. One of the things in the first data stream that comes out is what channel it goes on. That is still there. Will specifically prohibit extra advertising. Yes, sir. Well, thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] we have questions here on the bureaus. Are there questions for the media bureau and other items question mark . High, though lake, happy to take your questions. Im wondering if you can tell us the length of the comment. The settop box. 30 and 60. 30 days for comment, 60 days for replies. You mentioned the new representing the item, you said Something Like this a mvpd offers an application, they will also be required to open up the stream to applications. I want to be clear. Are they required to open up to applications regardless of whether or not they personally offer an application to video content . Yes, that was referring to a parody role. It provides a free information flows. What we propose is if a mvpd provide service through a nap without any need with a piece of equipment, they have to provide the information in a way that will enable someone else to write map it also wont require the equipment. Its a matter of making sure develop by a developer will provide service on an equal basis to one author by the mvpd. Just to clarify if they dont have enacted their own, they dont have to provide access to developers. They do have to provide the free information flows. This goes to whether we require a box be provided by the mvpd. We are not. We may implement requirements in a way that requires a device. That is up to mvpd. They can do it in software or the cloud. What we are saying if they do choose to provide service through a nap without a piece of equipment provided, they have to make the capability to competitive manufacturers. Can you provide a sense of when the item will be out in more details on the twoyear adoption. August the second part . More details on the twoyear adoption. We hope the mprm will be released today if not tomorrow. Our goal is to get it out today. Over the knowledge is there a certain amount of Standards Development committee that needs to be undertaken by the industry in order to provide all the standards that are necessary to implement this. We think that two years as an ample time for that, so weve indicated we would expect them to comply within the twoyear period. Is a mvpd can make content available via the open enterprise in another piece of equipment they so choose, they dont like this proposal to do that, thereby effectively mandating and the whole point of saving money less effective . Is there anything the commission can do or the mprm does that promotes doing this in a simpler way rather than allowing the companies to use a second box. We have not prescribe a specific technical standard that must be used. The information flows have to be provided in a standard openly and publicly available. We hope and expect the Standard Development process will facilitate a world rather than insisting on a box. If they do provide apps that can be used without a piece of mvpd supplied equipment, they have to enable competitors to do the same. Just one quick other one. I thank the chairman mentioned it maybe misspoke. There could be any published open standard. Just want to make sure. The proposal that defines a device in a way that would include or preclude a native app on a tablet or phone be considered a device . Nothing. We contemplate we do not lock people into hardware or software, but the solutions can be hardware or where our soft word running on hardware. Here the phone manufacturer included native app for your mvpds. No one is watching on the tablet. Would that same bring them under the requirement . Yes. That would be a nap approved were developed and if they are offering not, they would have to allow competitors also to offer a nap that doesnt require hardware. Thank you. Comcast has said improving the regulation would make consumer costs go up, make security weekend, what do you say to consumers . Competition doesnt usually make costs go up. It makes costs go down. As the chairman indicated, we propose the Device Manufacturers will respect the same standards that they have. Hi, mr. Lake, could you elaborate a bit on what the proposal says about the neighborhood in. Cable companies spend time and money spending channels in one place, movies and another. What is it say about keeping those lineups intact . Competitor should be allowed to have an interface that would include one of the things consumers really want an integrated search capability. That is something you can get on a tivo cablecard box today. What you need to do is look how things are developed under the cablecard regime and what we tried to do is provide something in an ip world will have the same kind of innovation more generally. [inaudible] ag provide the ability to do an integrated search across content from various is and that is sent and that we know that manufacturers very much want to provide because it is some need consumers have said that they want. The cable channel lineup, but also the ability to search for a particular program and find it available on cable, over the top service and get those results in one place. I am not ryan with the washington post. A few minutes ago the chairman said in order to life in this standard device makers will have to abide by title vi rules in the industry says that title vi only applies to mvpds and not other parties. Can you explain with how the proposal addresses . Proposal includes a licensing proposal under which the mvpds would be required to provide information flows only have the entity they are providing to, the device manufacturer agrees to comply with various requirements. What we propose is one of those requirements will be they abide by the same privacy standards as title vi carriers. Is there some sort of violation . We raise questions about the enforcement regime. These would we commitments. One result would be the mvpd doesnt have to provide those requirements. I have a followup and then a different question if you want to go first. So, how was it someone will verify these companies are abiding by title vi . Will they go when it will manufacturer certified to the fcc or another body . We asked about that. Well be interested to get input on that. Our intention is the same privacy standards will apply in this unlike the box environment that applied to the mvpds. We propose to do that through regime and ask questions about the enforcement mechanisms. Does this have to propose you wouldnt recognize a standard licensing that does not include the title vi privacy. The fcc gets in the position of requiring these commitments because they dont license it. Yes, we have authority in what we propose is to require them to make these information was available to innovators. But to them it that requirement. They wont agree to various restrictions. Thank you. One more, which is the chairman just that certain types of frames of sidebyside. Im wondering if you can walk through how specifically is it explicitly banning you will see that teacup in the item. No recommendations . Not as data that would be implemented, no. Thank you. [inaudible] trying to figure out what exactly is that and what does that look like and what is the time i guess the time led to move beyond that . You are referring to the noi programming . The settop box. What it is is notice of proposed rulemaking. We have proposed rules that we have a comment. Im not in the next step in a rulemaking proceeding would likely be development of an order based on the record that will develop. In the comment. In 60 days . Is that which you referred to earlier . Yeah, 30 days and then another 30 days, yes. Thank you very much. Are there any questions on the governmental conservative affairs item . On the enforcement or items . All right. I think we are im sorry . [inaudible] i dont know. Is anybody here from the worsening euro . I would get back to you. I think commissioner pai and oreilly are here. Hello, cleveland. Yeah, the chairman told me that the mvpd and ott thing are not related at all and you are wrong about two sides of the same plan. Do you have any reaction . Why do you think they are connected . I outlined in my statement where they are connected. Two and half pages tie the two together very nicely. Youre attacking to build lake about the licensing piece the licensing pizza now the burden is going to apply. The chairman is talking about facts and right and wrong. I pulled out the law itself. I got the old statute. He mentioned the question was over here racing regarding devices. The systems and some other thing i think he said i actually highlighted the language. Of converter boxes, Interactive Communications equipment and other equipment used by consumers to access multichannel video programming and other Services Offered over multichannel systems. He says the equipment, devices converter box. Not applications. Doesnt matter the applications really complicated that . Yeah, i happened to be there that was my own box is a provision. We didnt complicated application world where you wouldnt need a settop box box. My colleague and i have highlighted in our statements we believe there shouldnt be a need for a box. We should eliminate the boxes. I dont know if we talk about or something we talk to the industry about eliminating altogether. You talk about saving money. That is a better opportunity than having in this path. Earlier asked a question to the chairman about now where preengineering and the idea of a second box that someone might need a second box in addition to a thirdparty box. I guess with seems like from what he is again that he hopes the standards process will produce some outcome that will be relatively costless, do you see any solution coming out of the process that could address that . Will come i am hopeful for middle east peace as well. The notion that delegates havent opened tenders body for jordan, syria, israel get together and come up in a couple years with the model is not likely to happen at the same thing is true here. Part of the reason i suggested you simply cant aok, we expect the mandate to issue on the basis of consensus. You just cant do that by government fiat. Are consumers able to tell the difference between the fcc forcing Cable Companies to force consumers versus the Cable Company and another settop box . Im not sure to whom the consumer will attribute the existence of the second box. The whole point as commissioner oreilly has pointed out, what Consumers Want to eliminate the box altogether. It is telling the majority relies on this marketing slogans when not the box, which is just a backward looking view with the video marketplace is going. We would rather have an adbased economy, much better suited to the consumer and one that is much cheaper as opposed to having a second box which is inevitably for the majority proposal will lead. It is also telling, by the way, that this is one of the two proposals for Downloadable Security Technology Advisory Committee recommended. The other was a more apt taste approach. One thing we suggested afloat, with the document came on each of those proposals. Lets let the American Public have input. They are hellbent on one proposal to the exclusion of the other. If you look, this is one reason i wish documents were published before we voted on them. We were able to look through dozens of pages and find three paragraphs with the sec tees up the other proposals and sorted the ways that we seek comment on what proposals and why this proposal would harm consumers. We seek comment and when we dont have Legal Authority to do this. That is not the way to tf in a fair and full way the issue they wrestled with, which are complicated issues as pointed out. Can i jump onto your point . There is no energy setting body we are talking about. It is fiction that we will send it to somebody and they will do with it. It doesnt exist today. I dont know they will get consent is from. How i highlighted the middle east example. We dont have to dont have to we are sending this to. We are trusting something will develop for consideration. The second part of your question is the network costs. We are talking years before this had actually happened. Im pretty confident this will fall apart before we got to that point. I would like to dig down on the nature of your opposition, particularly to the portion that would open up the video stream, which the chairman is saying what have these ultimately eliminating the box. Can you get closer and say they commission why you dont think the portion of the item is good not to do that . As i said, theres a number of different objections. First and foremost, the item places heavy reliance on the open standards body to come up with a consensus solution that would enable the platform and the entire point they may does what in the past gives you the future particular herd of cats is going to be herded. Its very difficult to see how thats going to happen. Secondly an issue of timing. Under the notices on approach, two years at the very least before this takes effect. In the meantime, we can even conceive of right now. I could easily imagine amazon at kobe in the navigation device i use to access video content of my choice. Simply a matter of time. I think two years from now its entirely plausible to see that as a video navigation device. Thirdly, if you look at the proposal is likely to develop, mvpds will face one of two choices. Number one they reconfigure so anybody can access. Where they put out another box that meets the specifications of the theoretical open standards consensus it comes up with. What weve heard is the second path, while sub optimal is much cheaper than reengineering its network architecture. You would have consumers as a choice of unwanted hardware double down on the mistaken approach from 1996. That i dont get the right way to go. Other than that that is wonderful. I just disagree with the chairmans assessment that he is supporting eliminating the box. You havent had the benefit of the item. I have pushed for months that you all should have the item. The question was asked before, the chairman was disappointed that we didnt support his item. My colleague highlighted how forward how the item goes about and the conclusions throughout. Its not about asking a question. It is about slanting the piece to the direction they wanted to go. Hes got the right to do it, but he cant be surprised we will agree with him saying to the direction same issue we had on the noi to get to a point that was more middle ground and more natural and got to a concurrence place. I disagree with his analysis in what he says as happening in and of itself. I disagree that hes eliminating the box. In what exists today, you can go to the programmer and get content. You dont have to go if you dont want to. Some programming to have relationships, but most is not tied to the cable subscription. You have an option in that regard. That is developing for a very eyes and i do want to shut the world down by going to a revision based on the hardware structure. The second point with the statutory problem. I highlighted how this is about equipment. We are going to an application world where we dont have that authority. What the mvpds are telling you as you reach your decision. To make a point, arguing they were saying something all several years ago and we are supportive of an item like this. Im wondering what you make and if the statements by Brien Roberts cited in some pieces and whether that factored into the way you approach this. Speaking for myself, i tend to base judgment on the ground now, not letters submitted six years ago when the marketplace but dramatically different. When you look at this statement, but for the content community for minority programmers and democrats on the hill. It is the political and technological brat and something the majority simply ignored. Six years is an awful long time. I make my decisions based on not only parties in the meetings i have but also the information. I am the life of that in terms of my decision. Whether the group has one factor has a lot going my decision, not just theirs. Commissioners, what sorts of companies do you see this as helping the most . You see it as beneficial to google and amazon and apple and netflix at the expense of comcast, at t and other video incumbents. I have heard that argument. I cant say one way or the other. I have no idea, but its consistently argued the government should be picking winners and losers. I would hope there wouldnt be any motivational on those grounds. If i could followup, is an essay proposal that goes well beyond settop boxes and is designed to encourage an end elevate the google of the world at the expense of incumbent players . I think it is critical not to accept baseball spamming up the issue. Its not encouraging competition in the marketplace. The entire reason we are here is the Regulatory Framework that has created a noncompetitive marketplace. As i said in a statement of commissioner rightly pointed out as well, with 20 years of regulation of this marketplace with the emigration ban as well as the cablecard machine. We had anything but a free market, competitive approach to this marketplace and not as part of the reason we would prefer getting rid of the box and allowing the economy to flourish, free from the tech logical mandate that simply arent going to serve the consumer very well. I have an unrelated question for you both. Commissioner rob riley come a few weeks ago you spoke at the new america foundation. You said that auto manufacturers should only keep spectrum that is necessary for safety of life applications that seems to imply the remainder, the majority of the allocation should be freed up, taken away and freed up for sharing. Can you confirm or clarify that . Commissioner pai, i would be curious of your comment on that. I dont think it would verify or certify. My point is not that i want to take spectrum. The spectrum they you should be for safety purposes. I know what spectrum is for parking spot for a host of other things contemplated by many different folks including the report on different purposes could be used for. I want the spectrum allocated for safety purposes that should be used. I generally agree with them with respect to what spectrum they should have. No. I asked whether your comments, commissioner oreilly come and play the remainder not use for safety of life applications should be freed up from control of the auto industry. Well, we have competing proposals before the commission on moving forward. I think the commissioners are considering which they like better, which is the most appropriate and we will hopefully work through that in the coming months as we move to testing overseen by the commission. We will get a better feel for the two different ideas, whether you do a top or whether you segregate the bandow. My purpose in making the comments was i want this band, a very valuable spectrum because its probably the best opportunity to expand unlicensed use of wifi given proximity tutelary gigahertz. And that purpose i want the spec job if the industry will use it for safety and not things that the commercial purposes can be done through other agreement. Did you want actively considering us love the qualcomm proposals. Whether explicit or attacker segregation, it remains yet to be determined. Am hopeful we can get moving on this soon. It has been going on for years since Congress Passed the spec are not which is the possibility for the next generation. Thats okay. I feel pretty confident i understand you dont like settop box and mprm. Im confused as to what you think the fcc should be doing the might of the fact there is a man date mandate. Yet, you want the box to go away in the replaced by a nap. What should the commission do with this section of the mandate . Just ignore it . No, i will not ignore the provision. There are provisions that do become dated over time and if we talk about application which i dont think its covered by this statute, that provision doesnt apply. The question becomes the best avenue and i indicated earlier starting from the provision that asks for recommendations didnt have the next piece that congress did not agree the commissions and mandate requiring it to do anything. They just set provide recommendations and that was accomplished. Congress can consider what is best to do. If there are things we can provide advice on how this market is changing, i am happy to participate and there is value in that. I am not going to supersede their role. I would agree with that. I think it highlights one of the approach of the approaches justice delayed is to take to say that, if you think the love is outmoded, the solution is not to force regulatory change to an administrative fee. It is to go back to congress to get them to update the lab is strictly speaking, the sec shall adopt regulations to assure the commercial availability of third devices. We do have regulations on the books right now. The majority suddenly finding this statute. They say look, we are hiring handlers of the statute says they have to have regulations is completely wrong. We do have regulations that have not solved the problem. Theyve only made the problem worse. What we are saying is why dont we simply encourage development of this appbased approach that will be much better and reduce costs for consumers, would try to herd cats for a number of years and ultimately isnt going to satisfy the purpose of the original statute. Mark regarding the guild. My question is for commissioner oreilly. I want to hear more about your concerns with notice of inquiry on the independent programmers issue. I think you mentioned that the plague of regulatory push. I was hoping you could expand on that a little bit. Evacuated chance to read my statement in whole. The item is presented, certainly had a tilt to it in a direction that they thought, that the other side. My colleague and i had very good effects trying to bring language to make it more natural and therefore hopefully facilitate some kind of record at some point whether some action should be taken or no action taken. I was highlighting throughout the statement, the point was made beginning a conversation. The truth is this comes has been going on for decades. I highlighted five or six different examples of many where would that get the issue. It has been tied into merger conditions in a number of different settings. It is not something new. We will continue to have the conversation Going Forward. Cap my colleagues wouldnt take a simple modification language and say we seek information instead of the conversation that began before i was working on these issues. Hayek, jim with the l. A. Times. Settop box bring in what would be the motivation to step away from that . You could argue some trials that have been ruled out might just be motivated by the fact the fcc is considering rules in this area. What is the motivation to move away from a highly lucrative rental situation right now . Part of the motivation is it is technically difficult to maintain boxes. Hardware is not a growth industry for most companies. They would much rather move the functionality to it applebased platform where you can accomplish for a fraction of the cost with the boxes do. Obviously, the effort predates any suggestion st. Vitus made in the notice by a number of years. I dont think they are doing it simply as a hedge against regulatory action. It is simply good for the business and serendipitously good for consumers. How i consider video of the time, i could use a crackle laugh by codifying. I watched her on her own website. Theres so many different ways to get content now that this conversation is the best of 2016. I would agree with what my colleague said. I would add a number of Cable Companies have been testing mailboxes for quite a bit of time. The cable show last year or two years ago were looking into Significant Companies to figure out if this is the direction we should go, technical issues we need to deal with and that is a thoughtful conversation that nothing to do with what we adopted today. They tried to move for multiple different reasons. The analysts have argued they are already trying to get rid of the box industry on the ballot shes Going Forward. It is not something we created a peer. My colleague and i have been talking about it for quite a bit of time in the dignity of today will just dump the problem. Stunned the problem. Technology in cable systems, you guys talked about perhaps the mythical standard you arent sure of happening. There is something called dla which they have members that include a lot of companies. I talked to them a few weeks ago. Their message was generally yeah, we are following what the sec is doing and we are interested in participating. Paraphrasing there. You guys seemed to really think theres a high likelihood that the standards they wont work out. There is something we could work with. What am i missing . This is a good example of what my former Administrative Law professor called them completely tear rights agreement. If you say when it be great if we had a body where we could reach consent is . Everybody will say yeah, that would be great. Lets get involved in the conversation. When it comes time to put pen to paper and you have to have the highly technical specific decisions made, that i think is where the rubber will meet the road. That is where the tenor of the conversation received leading up to the notice is really going to be brought to bear. If you think that these highly disparate actors and interests are going to sit in a room and come to a consensus, great. The results suggest that is not going to be the case. If you do think that, the notice is tailormade for you. If you have a view based on the reality of the situation, it is highly unlikely that will happen. Two parts. One, now that the entities have an opportunity to read with the commission has put forward i would be interested in their their. After the fact. We talk about a universe much different conditions than what people have been talking about. If you read the report, its a good inch and a half day. You will not see this moment for industry is in agreement. You see a very fractured, very combative discussion that will take years. I just disagree the idea will be simple and magically come together in time the solution. If i could add a plug for commissioner oreilly, and he has long been leading the charge for the public release of the proposals remix before we vote on them. The notice is a good example of why. A lot of foundational questions would have to be asked if you yourself could see it before we voted on it. The whole questioning about the insertion or removal of advertising is a great case in point. Nothing in this document prevents a thirdparty manufacturer from removing the ad where they reign over on another part of the screen. There is nothing in there. I have read it, commissioner randy has read it. The best way to prove us wrong would be to release the document. Until then, we simply have battles of talking points that peer. I wish we would embrace the openness and transparency in this agency is the American People expect us to do. Not too much on the section, but when we talk about this question of whether its software. I want to make sure i understand the upshot of this. Are you going so far as to say the fcc is not within the Statutory Authority for our use authority for are using this to say its a misguided effort. It is a mprm. They have a vision of where they want to go. Im arguing the statute doesnt provide that. For the experience i have 20 some odd years and a month ago february 8th. Maybe less than a month. I worked on this. My boss was the lead author of the provision so im pretty familiar with thinking about type universe and converter boxes equipment is not an application structure. The nasa structure. A massive question to have authority to go in this direction. They want to go in this direction and capture of the application discussion. Which is truly problematic. Commissioner pratt, he briefly weighed on this a little bit ago. If you could just elaborate on where you stand in terms of the reading of 629. I defer to my colleague matt. He was well versed having worked on it. My point was simply the notion that 629 is an affirmative and date that we have to adopt these regulations to cover every aspect of the marketplace is a mistake. I dont think there is some affirmative mandate they have to act. We wouldve been in breach for the statutory obligation for almost two decades. Given your skepticism about the stakeholders to come together and find a solution in the standards process and considering the fact that chairman seems to have the adoption. As a kind of way to put a backstop on this proposal, in your view, what happens if theres no consensus . What do you anticipate they will do . Do you expect it to come down or what is the alternative . There have been a few sad imo on twitter. Im not sure what the result will be. Everything depends on not. Sort of the scenic one of the entire proceeding. Im not sure what if anything the fcc would do in a couple years there is a solution on the table. I would only respond in two years i imagine a different changed Commission Said they may have different reaction to any type of agreement thats probably not going to be reached. The sec didnt do anything in the commission launched today. Theyre all moving towards a mapbased environment because they dont want these on their boats. Eight dollars per subscriber. I didnt give the impression that everyone was. Anyway, what then is your vision, obviously youre not making business decisions, but as a consumer i end up paying 8 a month for up with no choice of getting a different function because it is not like a lot of different navigational maps. Theres only one that will get me the content i am already paying for from my trip to london. Is that a good outcome or do you think thats the likely outcome that is too pessimistic and is going to be mvpd incubate away apps for free. I mean, its always difficult to predict the future. Its hard to say where things are going to be in a couple years. We are evolving to a place where consumers will get rid of the settop box and is apps exclusively to access video content. Whether it is a proprietary app or a thirdparty ad, a lot of consumers had simply cut the cord and used apps like that to access video content that they want. I dont think it is the choice is saying either consumer be locked in to the settop box purgatory forever earlier going to have this grand slew of competition with third party settop box manufacture products. There will be an aptbased economy that will take over. But the shape is i dont know. Leave that to wiser minds. The chairman indicated or included to the fact that some Cable Companies may be renting apps today and im not aware of that occurring. They are available on the operating systems, so im not aware of anyone charging today. It is also describing a universe which i have not predict i dont want to get into that game. Im ascribing a universe that may occur where you go to berkeley to the programmer. The sports leagues consider offering their content directly over the top. Skipping the need for a mvpd, there is a universe where the programming can get today. Cbs will get the certain programming separate from having confirmed a subscription with my cable provider. I can see a universe that im not going to say how predict the universe. But i can see a way where they dont even Going Forward and we are not talking about potentially talking about channels anymore. When you actually talk to consumers, millennial if you want to know what will happen in the marketplace, go between 14 and 24. What are you using today . They are not subscribers. They are not even loyal to a particular channel. They will binge watch on a number of different things. They have different viewing habit and that is a possibility with the market may go. On the advertising placement. As you have noted we havent seen the mprm. The chairman wheeler says the sanctity will be protected, you wont wrap ads around it, there is nothing in there right now that goes to that point at all. The fcc does not propose any measures that would guarantee the sanctity of the program. Are there any measures regarding that . Verbiage used his market for us. The sanctity is not considered last to market forces, which generally i appreciate the concept. But here it is used as a complete punt and so it doesnt answer the question that he perceived to answer. Thanks, everyone. [inaudible conversations] u. S. Senate committee today to continue debate on the food and drug administration. Senators voted yesterday to move the nomination forward your confirmation vote could take place later today but is likely tomorrow. Now, live coverage here on cspan2. The chaplain, dr. Barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. The chaplain let us pray. Lord, you are great and highly to be praised. Make yourself known in the hearts and minds of our lawmakers. May your presence create in them a hunger and thirst for righteousness. Help them to see the opportunities that reside in