Transcripts For CSPAN3 FCC Takes First Vote On Reversal Of 2015 Net Neutrality Rule 20170525

Aint s Saint Andrews and rick snyder in michigan at the community college, saturday night at 8 00 on cspan and cspan. Org. The federal Commission Voted 21 to start the process of repealing regulations on Internet Service providers known as Net Neutrality rules. The repeal would allow providers like verizon and comcast to slow tract to some websites and apps. Well show you that two hour public hearing from the start. Welcome, to the 2017 open hearing. Madame secretary, will you please introduce your agenda this morning. Thank you, good morning to you. You will hear a presentation and six items for your consideration. Final report on its investigation into the faulty 911 outage at t mobility experience on march 8th, 2017. Second, you will consider a proposal of reducing regulatory on the three types of fixed Satellite Service of earth stations authorize to transmit files in motion. Vehicle mounted and earth stations and earth stations aboard aircraft. Third you will consider a report order that would amend of the personal Radio Services located in part of 95 of the commissions rules in order to address two petitions for rule making, update and modernized and various rules to reflect current use and technologies. Removing out dated and regulatory requirements and reorganizing the rules to make them easy to understand. Fourth, you will consider a Public Notice that would launch a review of the Commission Rules applicable to immediate entities and seek comments on what rules should be modified or repealed. Fifth, you will consider a notice of proposed rule making thatll propose to eliminate commissions main studio rules. Based on attentive finding that the rules are out dated and unnecessarily burden some for broadcast stations. Sixth, you will consider a notice of proposed rule making thatll proposed to restore the internet to a light touch and Regulatory Framework by classifying broad band Internet Service as an Information Service and by seeking comments on the existing rules, government Internet Service provider practices. Seventh, you will consider a notice of proposed rule making that proposes to eliminate a rule requiring rule, Service Providers. Usf support to impose higher, minimum monthly rates on their customers than the rates paid by some of their urban counter parts or lose some uss support. The commission will consider a related order thatll freeze the current rate. This is your agenda for today. Please note the Consent Agenda listed in commission may 2017 Sunshine Notice have been deleted from todays agenda. Acting chief of the homeland skur security and bureau thank you madame secretary and if you are ready, please proceed. Good morning. One of the commissions fundamental property is to promote through the use of services. Ensuring the public has reliable access to 911 is essential to that mission. Thats why understanding the causes of 911 outages with a view towards mitigating the future of 911 averages is one of the commissions most important task. On march 8th, 2017, at t experiencing nationwide 911 outages of voice over lte, it is a technology that at t uses to transfer voice calls over to the network. A approximately 12,600 callers were not able to reach 911 over a five hour period. This was one of the largest 911 outages ever reported to the commission. The chairman conduct an investigation. Today the bureau presents its findings. With me today from the Public Safety and homeland bureau are our electronic engineer, james wylie, attorney advise and megan henley from the Bureau Communications reliability division. I would like to thank staffs with their hard work on this report as well as other bureaus in offices that contributed. Mr. Wylie will present the report. Thank you, lisa. Good morning chairman and commissioners. As lisa notes, the Bureau Report presents the findings of the investigation of the outage of 911 callings. The failure that caused this outage occurred entirely within at t network. In order to route 911 calls to the appropriate call center, at t remains connections with sub contractors, comcast and west. These sub contractors providing with call routing information. Since these connections are critical to 911 service, at t 911 network is programmed to reject all in coming connections except those originating from trusting ip addresses. March 8th, at t broke their connections. The ip addresses sending 911 information to at t. This mix match resulted in a lost of connectivity between at t and contact. At t was not able to receive 911 calls and could not route those 911 calls to the appropriate 11 call center. At t rerouted this call to a backup call center. The backup call center drops the majority of 911 calls that were received. When at t lost connectivity to contact, the network responded as program by resetting the pads between contact and at t. This reset failed to restore at ts connectivity to contact because the root cause of the problem of the mix match of the ip addresses have not been fixed. It prevented at t receiving calls from west while the pads were being reset. The outage affected nearly all 911 calls on at t faulty netw k network. Both the ip address that cause the outage and the Network Configuration that exacerbated likely could have been avoided had at t implemented liability of best practices with respect to critical 911 assets. At t reports that it has fix the issues that caused the march 8th outage and case studies for 911 network liability. Among Lessons Learned from the march 8th outage to promote federal awareness. The bureau plans to release a Public Notice reminding companies of best practices and their importance. Not all calls center receiving notification. Timely and effective outage notification is critical. Accordingingly ensuring consumers know how to best Reach Services when 911 is unavailable. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Wiley. Well turn to comments from the ben. As demonstrated in this report. It is vital that we ensure the systems supporting our nation 911 services are reliable and resilience. The steps at t proposes to take to prevent future 911 outages in its network are allowable and necessary. Other industry carriers have taken the necessary steps to ensure their Network Infrastructure are sound but they are working implement the Network Reliability practices developed by the communications reliability. We may have forgotten i want to thank you the chairman for initiating this investigation on the hills of the outage as well as lisa fowlkes for the commendable work on this report i just had a question. How will the mixed match addresses, how did that occur . Is that human error . So there was a late mixed match in the provisioning system that at t uses to assign ip addresses to its network an and when at t made an unrelated network change, it resulted in that mixed match and being input in the network and thats what broke at t in the contact thank you, chair. On march 8th. They could not reach Emergency Services because of nationwide outage as we heard of at t faulty 911 network. They heard fast busy signals and end less 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 addressed the Public Safety and Homeland Security burreau to investigate. These findings are based on data, outage reporting system and numerous interviews. Officials from at t and sub contractors with including the office of United Communications here in washington, d. C. These findings are highly instructed. Most importantly refas we heard from mr. Wiley, this can be prevented. It was mistakes made by at t. There was shortfalls in operational redundancy. This outage would have had much less impact. The cause of the outage could have been and addressed with periodic autoddits of the netwo. The good news is at t has address these vulnerabilities that led to the outage. It is exceedingly unlikely that this outage would occur. Going forward like mr. Clyburn and i urge every carrier to assess to work with the bureau and explore ways to improve notifications to consumers when 911 outages occurreoccu occur. We cannot turn back time and undo this but by learning the right information from it, well reduce the odds of such an outage wont happen again. I, too, and the colleagues want to thank the staff for their speeds and tenacity. I would like to thank michelle connerly and john healy and megan henry and Nicole Mcginnis for your tire less efforts to secure the safety of all americans. If you can please announce the next item on todays agenda. The next item on your agenda will be presented by the International Bureau. It is entitled amount in parts of 2 and 25 to facilitate the youth of earthations in motion and communicating with orbit space station and Frequency Bands allocated to the fix satellite surface, our acting chief of the bureau will give the introduction. Thank you, madame secretary. When you are ready, please proceed. Thank you. Good morning mr. Chairman and commissioners. The International Bureau is pleased to present you this of this proposed rule making. It is an exciting time. One of the Fastest Growing segment is earth station providing satellite Broad Band Services on ships and aircrafts and vehicles. Earth stations and motions or esims. The notice examines the rules governing of the licensin licensing first, the notice proposes to consolidate the three types of esims into a single regulatory category. This harmonization would streamline our rule. Second, most significantly t notice proposes to extend the rules for esims. These proposals if adopted will facilitate the licensing and deployment of our station in this growing market. I am joined at the table by troy tanner, department chief of the International Bureau. Jennifer gilson, our assistant chief, chip fleming, chief engineer and cindy spears and attorney adviser. I would like to acknowledge the outstanding contributions on this item. Paul blaze and joe hill as well as colleagues from tele Communication Bureau. Cindy will present the item. Thank you, good morning mr. Chairman and commissioners. It includes stations on vessels, vehicles and aircraft. The commissions current role providing for blanket sciencing for operations of these earth stations communicating with cspan or geo stationary in the satellite. The regulation of these earth station havs from developed in separate but over lapping lapping vehicles mounted stations or emes. As initial matter, the changes we proposed would integrate the rules governing of the different categories, operating in different frequency. These changes would reduce redundancy and increasing in this growing market. The mprmc kmecomments on the proposal this section would be designated section 25. 228. Consolidated esims rule would be in the kk band. Several company havies are appl and received the licensing of kk band. The licenses were granted with waivers of the table of frequency and the commissions k band plan. Specifically of the amended footnote to the table would state Frequency Band defining of conventional k band. Finally the item includes proposals eliminating reputations and unnecessary rules. The mprm sees referring to provisions of existing rules that apply to other gso or fss statio stations. It eliminates unnecessary esims rules. Requiring a precise pointing of earth station and further, the mprmprm the International Bureau recommends the proposed rules making and requesting privileges for technical and confirming e d edits. Thank you. In the gso fix Satellite Service. Esims including our station, including Internet Access to cruise ships and merchant ships and u. S. Navy and vessels among others. Earth station avoids aircraft. Vehicle mounted earth stations providing broad band service to land vehicle and perhaps, one day your connected car. Of the objective of this proceedings of the facilitating deployment of esims. A goal i like we can all share. I like forward to reviewing the record that develops in this proceeding and thank the staff of the International Bureau for your hard work and i would like to thank my friend cindy for presenting the item. Thank you. I appreciate all the efforts going into the streamliner on esims and i will put the rest of my statement in the record. Thank you commissioners. It has identical rules for satellite stations on land vehicles. It also has almost identical rules for satellite stations on aircraft. Having three sets of rules is unnecessarily. We are proposing to combine these three rule collections into one. With an acronym, some speculated as to what popular references i might try to tie in here. I will however not go so far as to refer to the simulation of computer games. I will not mention the quarterback will sims, i will not go far to super actress molly sims. You can think of them as infrastructure connected to these Satellite Network that have the potential Broad Band Services that are in places that are hard to serve such as remote land masses and bering sea. It will make it easier for Satellite Companies to offer customers additional servicing. Some, this proposal meets two of the key goals of this commission, reducing unnecessary red tape and enabling the private sector as mr. Sullivan pointed out of a fast growing in the industry to innovate. Many thanks to all of those who work on this item. Thanks to everyone who worked on this item. Tom sullivan and troy tanner in the bureau, michael ha and the office of engineering and technology. Matt pearl and paul powell and the wireless Communication Bureau, and the office of general counsel. All of your efforts are appreciated. Now, well proceed to the voting of the item. Aye. Aye. Thank you to the National Bureau and madame secretary, if you can announce the next item on the agenda. Thank you, next item is wireless teleCommunication Bureau. Personal Radio Services for rule making for acting chief of the bureau giving the introduction. When ever you are ready. Thank you, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Good morning. This Communication Bureau is pleased to present this order that updates and modernizes the radio service. It allows for a variety of devices that the public can purchase and operate for personal communication needs without having to go through a Service Provider and usually having to get to fcc license. Examples of these devices cover common and simple uses like walkietalkies and hearing assistant devices and radios. These devices include more compl complex usage like medical implant devices and personal locater beacons. In addition to the staff seated at the table, i would like to thank our team in the Mobility Division for their hard work of the item and for the officer of engineering. Tom will present the item. Breaker breaker, your 1020. Not everyone remembers the day before cell phones some of us still remember what this early form of cases well, cb, radio is still a vibrant way for many to communicate. There is only one of the Mini Services these devices generally uses low power translators and communicating over shared radio frequencies and using a list before talking etiquette before sharing to these channels. Radio control toys and plains and hearing assisted devices of the cd radios. These Services Also cover more complex and life savings applications like medical devices and personal locater beacons. In this proceeding, we did a review because many are decades old. Before you, it will remove any such out dated requirements and updating the rule of reflecting moderate usage of services. It would streamline and reorganize the rules to make it easier to find information and translate them to plain language format to make the rules easier to read and understand. For example, to increase the flexible use of general motor service, and Family Radio Service of mrs, of the 460 megaspan, allowing a lot of additional channels by using channels. It would increase the power from 2 watt from the half watt. It would modernize rules to allow our data options such as gps location data and short Text Messages which is permitted from frs from the same channel. These changes will allow many existing radios that previously hired a license to continue to be used under frs where no license is required. Having to get a license for many thousands of americans. To reduce the burden on gmrs licensees. To increase the flexibility use of cd radio, the draft clarifies o f the hand free headset of usage. It would remove out dated requirements on cb radios of manufacturing. And serial number being engraved on cbs radio to reflect how cb radios evolved over the decades. The draft making adjustments requested by commoners to increase the publics options and personal Communications Devices and reducing burden on equipment manufactures and updates rules to reflect technological and service demand changes. The bureau recommends options of the item and requesting editorial privileges to makinii edits. Thank you, now, well turn to comment fs from the bench. With this item, we update and organize and streamline apart of 95 rules. How personal Radio Services and devices are used by the public. Pr devices are used for a variety of applications including hobbiest anddifficultt responders to locate lost persons, medical professionals to retrieve data from implanted medical devices, and of course by families and groups who use walkietalkies to communicate. This reorganization results in rules that are clear and easier for consumers to understand. Notably, it makes clear that devices labeled personal locator beacons and maritime survivor locating devices which are used to aid locating those who aid in located those who are lost on land or water must meet specified technical standards in order to be marketed as such. This clarification will help ensure that all devices advertised with these terms provide the expected level of emergency location capability. As a former walkietalkie enthusiast, even though it was shortlived, and a former owner of a cb radio, although i cannot remember my handle, i wish to thank the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications bureau for your hard work on this item. And thomas, before this meeting is over, i vow to either come up with my handle or remember it, whichever comes first. Thank you. Thats good to hear, thomas, i appreciate it. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Who knew . I know. You learn something new every day. I have an interesting picture in my head right now. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im fairly certain when the notice for this item was released back in june 2010, no one ever imagined it would be presented at a Commission Meeting in may 2017. Seven years later, and no one has a great reason for the delay, although its clearly not the fault of the staff. This is exactly the type of situation that has caused the chairman and congress to push for the commission to have deadlines for actions on petitions and notices. Count me in as wholeheartedly supporting that effort as things shouldnt languish due to inertia. This notwithstanding, im generally supportive of todays item to streamline the prs rules in a manner that should make them more user friendly. Its an always a worthwhile exercise to review and consolidate rules to the extent possible and its never bad to judiciously remove a few pages from the code of federal regulations. Additionally, the families and others that use the grms and Family Radio Service should benefit from the changes we adopt today such as managing additional channels available, providing longer gmrs license terms, and permitting gmrs users to transmittal location data and Text Messages among others. I appreciate the efforts to streamline the rules and look forward to future items that seek to reduce regulatory burdens. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner. As weve heard, there are a number of citizens band or cb radio codes in use at the fcc. 1030 means does not conform to fcc rules. And 1011 means something that our wonderful interpreters know that i am guilty of, talking too rapidly. Over the decades, cb radio slang has changed, as has certain commissioners use of cb radio. We still have on the books a requirement that manufacturers engrave the serial number into the transmittaler ch transmitte cb radio. The costs of complying with it today greatly exceed any benefit from threat of prevention and the like. So today we reorganize, streamline, and eliminate regulations relating to the personal radio service. These rules govern the use of devices like cb radios, remote controlled toys and walkietalkies. For instance, we consolidate various repetitive sections of our rules into one place where possible. We also reorganize these rules into categorizes that are easier for the public to understand and easier to find. This modernization effort will help anyone who uses a cb radio 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 a remote controlled toy enthusiast, youll be able to put down the engraving tools and the law books and focus on your handle. Thanks to all of us past and present who worked on this item. Thank you to the wireless Intelligence Communications bureau as well as nese guendelsberger from the office of engineering and technology. David horowitz from the office of general counsel. To those who have been calling on the commission for many years to modernize our rules in this area, i will mimic tom and simply say 104, over and out. The item has been adopted with editorial privileges granted as requested. Thanks to the bureau for the presentation. And madam secretary, if you could please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the fourth item on your agenda will be presented by the media bureau and is entitled commission launches modernization of media regulation initiative. And initimichelle carey, actingf of the bureau, will give the introduction. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. Today the media bureau presents a Public Notice that begins a top to bottom review of the commissions media regulations. Media entities in todays marketplace are subject to a multitude of roles many of which are decades old. The proceeding we launch today is intended to identify those rules that are outdated, unnecessary or unduly burdensome for broadcast stations, Cable Operators and satellite providers. Our goal is to eliminate or modify those rules to foster more competition, innovation, and investment in the marketplace. To the benefit of american consumers. Joining me at the table are Mary Beth Murphy, martha heller, and ray lynn murray. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, we are pleased to present this Public Notice that launches a review of the commissions rules applicable to media entities including television and radio broadcasters, Cable Operators, and Satellite Television providers. Rules that are outdated or impose unnecessary regulatory burdens can stand in the way of greater competition, innovation and investment in the marketplace. The proceeding we initiate today is intended to ensure that only those rules that are relevant 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 as part of this review. We will take such input into consideration in determining whether to propose eliminating or changing rules in subsequent rulemaking proceedings. Through this review, the Commission Takes another step toward modernizing its rulings to the benefit of american businesses and consumers. The media bureau recommends that the commission adopt this Public Notice and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner clyburn. Thank you. The purpose of a Public Notice should be to gather information and build a record before drawing conclusions. It seems in the case of this pen, the fccs majority starts with a premise that advancing the Public Interest can only be achieved by clearing the books of rules for the benefit of industry. To be clear, i have no objection to reviewing the commissions 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 review. Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934 specifically 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. Todays pn turns the mandate on its head by ignoring the basic question of whether the regulation subject to this review remain in the Public Interest. It assumes that to advance the Public Interest we must reduce unnecessary regulations and undue regulatory burdens. It seems the word modernization as this proceeding has been ironically named is just really code for deregulation at 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 mpvds of a certain size to retain a recruitment program. These rules also prohibit discrimination in hiring. Eeo compliance is essentially the only Public Service the Commission Requests of radio stations and one of the very few Public Services required of television stations and mvpds. 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 Interest. Similarly, one Industry Insider recently suggested that as part of this review, the commission should make broadcast ownership reporting every four years rather than every two years. Not only is the information contained in these reports vital to enhancing viewpoint diversity, the Third Circuit has explicitly told us we need better data on minority and female ownership. Less frequent Data Collection will do absolutely nothing to further these objectives. Yet another example is the commissi commissions rules governing competitive programming and the regulation of carriage agreement. As someone who has heard from countless independent programmers about challenges they face in gaining carriage, we should be strengthening our rules, not eliminating or weakening those protections that are currently on the books. 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 Interest and should be preserved. But i believe it is important to sound the alarm and remind my colleagues that our job is to protect the Public Interest, not give perpetual hall passes to Big Broadcast and cable companies. Finally, when the majority concludes that regulations should be eliminated, it is my sincere hope that this will result in the freeing up of Agency Resources to actually enforce the rules that remain on the books. This could include Program Access and carriage complaints, compliance with childrens occasional television reporting, and allegations of redlining. While i disagree with the premise of this pm and will therefore respectfully dissent, i thank the staff of the media bureau for hearing my concerns as well as for your tireless efforts over the years to promote localism, competition, and viewpoint diversity. Commissioner oreilly. As has been noted by myself and others, our regulations in the media space are strewn is anachronisms more appropriate for a different set of circumstances. A wholesale review is necessary and indeed long overdue. So i support this initiative and fully and that it will generate some quick results to follow on to our previous successes in the space. Broadcaste er broadcasters, Cable Operators and other stakeholders are familiar with my calls for specific regulations that are outdated and no longer necessary. In my Previous Commission i was able to champion the changes that were suggested and get them moving in one form or another. Now were opening this entire proceeding and the entire commission stands ready to hear your ideas and act on them which is a refreshing change of pace. The commission should not be in the business of generating busy work or collecting reams of data that no one ever looks at. Im hopeful ideas could be implemented as parts of the process including updates of many of our reporting requirements. For example, all tv stations are required to file an ancillary tv report annually regarding the 5 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 parties that do not owe a fee. Similarly, form 397 requires simply a name and a copy of the annual eeo reports for the last two years. But now the eeo reports are filed with the commission in the partys Online Public files. This form is duplicative. It does not change the eeo reports themselves. Notification requirements are another area where many updates should be made now that so much communication has gone digital. For example, our rules often require broadcasters to give Public Notice of Certain Applications in local newspapers. But with newspaper circulation often dwarfed by the broadcasters own audience or nonexistent in some localities, these notices would be much more effectively given on a stations website. Our rules also require broadcasters to send notices of their decisions to opt into retransmission consent versus must carry by Cable Operators via snail mail which can be more easily accomplished online. These and other ideas will now have an effective fast track for consideration and, if appropriate, action. I certainly will do my part to help obtain consensus and move as many forward as possible. I thank the chair. Thank you. A few years ago, early in my tenure at the commission, we voted to forebear from enforcing a regulation from the telegraph division in 1936, to address claims from telegraph carriers arising from errors in or delayed delivery of messages and money orders. I marvelled at the time that 77 years later, that rule still remained on the books. And that proceeding made me keenly aware of a fundamental truth. One of the most powerful forces in government is regulatory inertia. A rule that might have been necessary at one time can become yellowed and obsolete with age. In some cases, repeal of such a rule is just a matter of good housekeeping. The conduct covered by the rule simply doesnt happen anymore. So the rule is literally irrelevant. In other cases, repeal is a necessity. The rule stands in the way of innovation and investment that would benefit consumers. This applies to the fccs media regulations or at least it should. By comparison, every two years, as commissioner clyburn pointed out, the fcc undertakes what is known as a biannual review. In section 11 of the Communications Act Congress Told us to consider all regulations that applied to Telecommunications Services and if we determine that any such regulation is no longer necessary in the Public Interest as a result of meaningful economic competition between providers of such service, we then must repeal or modify it. Now, the act doesnt require us to review similarly our media rules. But that doesnt mean we cant. And hence this Public Notice. The goal here is simple. And it is the same with our biennial review. We want to figure out with respect to our media regulations whether and how to update our rules to match the realities of todays marketplace. We aim to get public input on which rules are Still Necessary and which should be modified or eliminated. We want to modernize our rules in order to better promote the Public Interest and clear a path for more competition, innovation, and investment in the media sector. This is simply good government. In order for this effort to be successful, we will need your help. And so i encourage all interested parties to file comments on this proceeding and to bring to our attention rules that deserve the commissions consideration. My thanks along with my colleagues to the media bureaus terrific staff for putting together this Public Notice. Michelle carey, martha heller, Mary Beth Murphy and ray lynn. In the efforts to come you may not dig up a dictate as dated as the telegraph rule i mentioned but your work is critically important. The ayes have it. The item is adopted with editorial privileges granted as requested. Madam secretary, if you could please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the fifth item on your agenda will also be presented by the media bureau and is entitled elimination of main studio rule. Michelle carey, acting chief of the bureau, will again give the introduction. Secretary, michelle. Thank you. The next item the media bureau presents is a noticed of proposed rulemaking that proposes to reduce costs and regulatory burdens for broadc t broadcasters by eliminating the main studio rule. This rule requires each a. M. , f. M. , and Television Broadcaster to have a studio in their community, including the requirement that the main studio have fulltime management and staff during normal business hours. Joining me at the able are holly sawyer and diana heller who will present the item. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, i am pleased to present this notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on the proposal to eliminate the main studio rule and the program origination capability requirements. We tentatively conclude that Technological Innovations have rendered a local studio requirement unnecessary. When the Commission First conceived the rule more than 70 years ago, the intention was to facility input from Community Members and station participation in community activities. Today in contrast, widespread availability of electronic communication enables members of the community to contact broadcast radio and television stations and stations to participate in their local communities without the physical presence of a local broadcast studio. In addition, as a result of the fccs Online Public inspection file requirements, Community Members no longer will need to visit a stations main studio to access its public inspection file. Television stations have already transitioned to the Online Public file and radio stations will complete their transition by early 2018. The notice proposes that the commission retain the current rule that requires each a. M. , f. M. , and class a television station to maintain a local telephone number or tollfree tell number. Such a requirement could ensure that members of the community continue to have access to their local stations if the main studio requirements are eliminated and the stations choose to relocate their main studios. We believe that eliminating the main studio rule and the associated staffing and program origination requirements would eliminate a burden on broadcasters that is no longer necessary. The media bureau recommends the commission adopt the notice of proposed rulemaking and requests editorial privileges to make any necessary technical or conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Sokolow. Commissioner clyburn. For years youve heard me speak about the unique broadcasters play in local communities. Nab president and ceo gordon smith reinforced this view 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 Role as first and foremost. So i find it perplexing that those very same broadcasters are advocating to absolve themselves from maintaining local roots in their community of license. A brobroadcasters main studio often the only physical tie to a community. Broadcasters are often among the first to report an emergency. And when it comes to radio, that physical presence means they actually know and are experiencing and are interacting firsthand with what their listeners want and need to hear. By tentatively proposing to eliminate the commissions main studio rule, however, it seems to me that we 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 economic challenges facing many challenges, particularly in small and midsized markets. And if the 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 empathetic. But we need to think long and hard about the Practical Implications of eliminating this rule altogether. While it is true that with the public file now accessible online, members of the public have one less reason to visit a stations main studio. And yes, a local or tollfree telephone number is a good thing. But if nobody is there to answer that call and the only option is to leave a voicemail, 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 a Train Derailment and hazardous chemicals are spilled, jeopardizing the safety of the surrounding community . This was indeed the case back in 2002, during the menoe Train Derailment when it took several hours to locate station managers. I thank chairman pai for hearing my concerns and including a series of questions focusing on rather eliminating the main studio rule would impact a stati stations ability to communicate time sensitive or emergency information to the public. The mprm also asks in my request whether a stations phone number should be staffed during the hours in which that station is on the air. This would have provided means for the public and local officials to communicate lifesaving information during an emergency. I am also grateful for the inclusion of questions on what 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 mprm tees up the appropriate questions needed to build a fulsome record. For these reasons i will vote to approve todays mprn. My thanks once again go 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 clyburn. Commissioner rileoreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. With this item the commission makes a move toward eliminating an unnecessary requirement on our nations broadcasters in a way that best serves their audiences. I have long contended the main studio rule was ripe for elimination but it seemed the commissions mindset was stuck in a bygone era when it came to the media marketplace. When implemented, this rule may have been the only available means to ensure that local broadcasters remained engaged and responsive to their communities. Now with multiple electronic means available, we have other means to do so. The old rationale has dissolved leaving the rules usefulness questionable at best, intended to only cause micromanagement and gotcha setups of its licensees. Broadcasters are ever focused on serving the needs of their local listeners and viewers because it is the only proven way to ensure a stations success. So i thank the chairman for putting forth this proposal and im hopeful we can bring the providing to a decisive conclusion in the near future. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. The first broadcast in the United States took place on november 2nd, 1920, in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. That night, kdka provided the Election Results between Warren Harding and james cox. The studio was a tiny makeshift wooden shack on top of the westinghouse companys plant in east pittsburgh. Broadcast studios have changed a lot over the last 90 plus years, including kdkas, which i have had the privilege to visit. That brings us to the fccs main studio rule. As was observed, the fcc first conceived the main studio rule almost 80 years ago. The rule requires each a. M. , f. M. , and Television Broadcast station to maintain a main studio located in or near its community of license. Back then perhaps it made sense for the reasons explained during ms. Sokolows presentation. But today, the rule appears outdated, unnecessary, and unduly burdensome. Community access and engagement are important in the digital era. But technology has rendered physical studios unnecessary for those purposes. Thats because such activities are much more likely to occur via social media, email or phone, rather than through an inperson visit to a broadcast studio. Furthermore, broadcasters have shown that the main studio rule is a continuous cost that keeps them from serving their local communities in meaningful ways like broadcasting additional local programming. Recently a broadcaster in minnesota wrote to me saying this archaic rule has outlived its usefulness. He added he would like to build out his Construction Permit for an a. M. Station in a nearby town but that the main studio rule, as he put it, is a killer. The cost to maintain the staff would make the cost of construction for this facility a ticket of doom. Unfortunately, despite his belief that he would be able to air meaningful local content without a main studio, it appears that the cost of complying with the rule may make it hard for him to extend service to that nearby community. So the proceeding we begin today could grant this broadcaster and all others affected by the rule the flexibility to use their limited resources in a way that best serves their local communities. Todays notice is an important step toward bringing the media rules of the fcc into the digital age. And for that, we have michelle carey, martha heller, holly sawyer and diana sokolow. We aim to modernize our media rules to reflect todays marketplace. With that well proceed to a vote on the item. The ayes have it, the item is adopted with editorial privileges granted as requested. Madam secretary, if you could please announce the next item on todays agenda. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the sixth item on your agenda today will be presented by the Wire Line Competition Bureau and is entitled restoring Internet Freedom. Thank you, madam secretary. Did i say it wrong . Kris monteith, acting chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thank you, madam secretary. Ms. Monteith, feel free to proceed. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. The Wire Line 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 end the utility style regulation of the internet, todays notice is a 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, the Wire Line Competition Bureau, and the office of general counsel for their contributions to this item. Seated with me at the table are madeleine finley, deputy chief of the Wire Line Competition Bureau, dan khan, chief of the competition policy division, christine fargetstein, legal adviser, and nathan eagan, attorney adviser in the Telecommunications Access and policy division. Nathan will now present the item. Good morning, mr. Chairman and commissioners. The notice of proposed rulemaking that we present today proposes to end the fccs public utility regulation of the internet and seeks comment on returning to the bipartisan light touch Regulatory Framework that saw the free and open internet flourish prior to the 2015 adoption of the title 2 order. There are several key elements to the notice. First, the notice proposes to end title ii regulation of the internet and return broadband Internet Access service to its classification as an Information Service. The notice examines the text, structure, and history of the Communications Act. The Technical Details of how the internet works. The commissions precedent. And the commissions goal of benefiting consumers through innovation, investment, and competition. Second, the notice proposes to reinstate the determination that mobile broadband Internet Access service is not a commercial mobile service, and to return it 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 order that modified or reinterpreted key terms 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 application of the rule. The notice also specifically seeks comment on whether the commission should keep, modify, or eliminate the bright line rules set forth in the title ii order. The bureau recommends adoption of this notice and requests editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you. Commissioner clyburn. Mr. Chairman,ly have li will longer statement for the record. At this time i would like to share a few impressions about 1708. Last wednesday i took part in a public listening session in skid row. For those unfamiliar, skid row is a Los Angeles Community housing one of the largest homeless populations in the United States. It was there i met a fascinating woman who calls hers frenchy. She would stop me about three times over the course of the evening, first going on about how much i looked like my picture. We all know that was not true. But i love her anyway. Next, letting me know how happy she was that someone like me would not only visit but listen. But the third time turned out to be the most telling. 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. When she was without a home in the traditional sense, she was able to secure an address, a stable personal email address, which helped to 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 at times the only permanent presence she had when much of her physical life was in turmoil. She got through the hardest of times, she said, thanks to an open internet, because those very same connections led her to the services that appear to be providing her a more stable life. I also heard from marco that night. The former filmmaker lost his family, his livelihood, and for a time struggled with mental illness. He lived in skid row. But the doctor who made the greatest headway with his recovery was more than 200 miles away in fresno. 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 a clinician who was willing to pronounce his name correctly, he has gotten through the hardest of times thanks to the power of an open internet. Denise, an artist, writer, and mother of six, felt separated from the world because of the challenges of being a stayathome mom. She first turned to blogging as an avenue of expression. But that blog would eventually become a Retail Outlet for her artistic work as well as a source of income that has enabled her and her husband to support their 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 proceeding just over two years ago, these three individuals asked me to tell this agency to keep the internet open and free. We can get hung up on semantics, debate classification of whether the internet is a luxury. But broadband is a necessity in the 21st century and access to it allows the most vulnerable among us to hold on during our darkest moments 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 trek to the library and wait for a free terminal or troll for free wifi on the street corners or in fast food establishments, not only are you fortunate, but you know that it 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 online business, access content over the internet, and exercise free speech 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 more appropriately should be known as the destroying Internet Freedom nprm. If ratified, it would deeply damage the ability of the fcc to be a champion of consumers and competition in the 21st century. It contains a hollow theory of trickle down internet economics, suggesting that if we just remove enough regulations from your broadband provider, they will automatically improve your service, pass along discounts from those speculative savings, deploy more infrastructure with haste, and treat edge providers fairly. It contains ideological interpretive whiplash, proposing to gut the very same consumer and competitive protections that have been twice upheld by the courts. And it contains an approach to broadband that will throw universal Service Money to broaden its reach but abandon 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 tomorrow as 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 who support this item, including the majority at the commission, say that it should be congresss place to decide the future of broadband regulation. If that is so, then why are we here today . Just why is it that the majority proposes to undo a twiceaffirmed classification and twiceaffirmed rules . Is this so congress can act . A vacuous assertion. What i find particularly troubling is this proposal has the potential to damage our ability to provide broadband for the poorest and most remotely located americans unless the underlying goal is to actually weaken our ability to support broadband through our universal Service Programs. I most vociferously dissent from this nprm because it has the very indicia of a political rush job. Let me say that again. I most vociferously dissent from this nprm because it has every indicia of a political rush job. Month after month, i listen to repeated calls from the current leadership about economic how economic analyses were missing from the last administrations items, how troubling that was, and because of the absence of any analysis, that we were jeopardizing our ability to make sound decisions. But unless i missed it, and i would welcome a correction if i am in error, there was no fcc economist or technologist consulted during the drafting of this item. If they were, and i majored in banking and finance and economics, but i admittedly have been out of practice for a number of years, i cannot find any 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 keeps trying to drive home is their assertion that it has harmed investment. But the nprm presents at most onethird of the economic picture of the market. You see, from reading the item, it would be reasonable to assume that the key open internet policy question is whether a policy increases or decreases broadband provider Capital Expenditures. It is a relevant question. But the only econometric analysis that the majority cites for support clearly states that it is inappropriate to use investment as a policy objective. Even if i accepted the majoritys premise that the key question is investment, the analysis fails to take into account what entrepreneurs invest in their business, what risk venture capitalists plow into the internet and telecom market, and what consumers pay for and how they use all of these services to create economic value. It even fails to account for broadband investments. They may be beyond narrow Capital Expenditures, including spectrum purchases in m a, both of which are indicia of a robust and profitable market for Broadband Services. The majority seems willfully blind to these aspects of broadband investment. And even if we were to ignore all those points, and narrowly focus on the affirmative case that the majority puts forth, it is lackluster at best. As i have mentioned previously, i have yet to see a credible analysis that suggests that broadband provider Capital Expenditures have declined as a result of our 2015 open Internet Order. But of course that doesnt 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 isps or Internet Service providers was up 5 since the 2015 open Internet Order was adopted. Edge investment, up. Broadband revenues, up. This trend makes perfect sense, since no broadband provider has ever told wall street, has ever told the securities and exchange commission, that the 2015 open Internet Order was responsible for decreases in Capital Expenditures. To just why do we appear to be stuck in a literal he said she said exchange on this issue . One analyst articulates that it is impossible to tell whether the open internet rules have affected investment. 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 with this framework in order to tell what caused what. So what then shall 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 ii framework that the fcc adopted for broadband in 2015 was actually less intrusive than 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 in, right . Between 1993 and 2009, the mobile industry invested more than 271 billion in building out networks. During that same time period, industry revenues increased by 1300 and subscribership grew over 1600 . So answer this. Why is it that the leadership is now proposing 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 to read the definition of a Telecommunications Service out of the Communications Act entirely, not just for broadband, but for all consumer 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 that its providers should be regulated as a common carrier. Broadband. Voice over ip. Volte. Messaging. All of these the majority will say are either unecan i havically or most likely Information Services. There is much sound and fury about applying the Communications Act to Communications Services but not about applying the revolutionary era First Amendment to speech on the internet. The point is this. Technology neutral definitions do not, or it saddens me to say in this context, should not ever become obsolete by advances in technology. But let me turn to broadband specifically. Those in lockstep with the majority seem to be on board at least so far with the whiplash aboutface on title ii and Net Neutrality. But they are forgetting that their constitutional and statutory interpretation will conclude that they are engaging in interpretive jiggery pokery. The late justice antonin scalias guiding framework for legal interpretation was that laws should be interpreted based on their actually texts and original public meaning. But how quickly they forget, when it comes to an issue whether they have a preferred policy outcome, that divergence from rigorous textualism. Remember, we have seen this and we have been here before. The fcc went before the Supreme Court in 2005, remember . When it attempted to classify cable broadband as an Information Service. The majority of the court felt that such an interpretation was within the internetive discretion of the sec. But not justice scalia. In his withering dissent he accused the commission of attempting to, and i quote, concoct a whole new regime of regulation under the guise of statutory construction. In his attempt to achieve this scheme of nonregulation, done so through an implausible reading of the statute. Congress in its wisdom tied many of our competition and Consumer Protection functions to the nature of the service being offered. And indeed, those services are changing. But the underlying transmission remains largely the same. Innovation has and will continue. We have moved from copper to glass, and from circuit switching to packet switching. But using interpretive gymnastics to shirk competition and Consumer Protection responsibilities is the antithesis of putting consumers first. We should not let broadband providers define the rules of engagement when congress has clearly instructed the federal Communications Commission with that responsibility. And just to make it absolutely clear that this is an ends justified rather than a legally justified proceeding, one need only to look at the tollfree numbering database for answers. That database is a tariffed common Carrier Service. If mass market broadband which transmits data across the globe in the blink of an eye is not a Carrier Service and numbering databases service is, this clarification exercise is just an expedition into whimsical absurdi absurdity. In sum, it makes no seven nse ty we are not dealing with a Telecommunications Service. Just what are consumers purchasing when they sign up for broadband if not the ability to transmit and receive . The majority claims it has an eye towards the future. But both feet, im sad to say, are firmly stuck in the past. Harkening back to the dialup days where a subscriber purchased both a basic Telephony Service and a separate dialup service in order to access the internet. No matter that most of us no longer use dialup to access the internet. No matter that consumers buy 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, for we just revived a 1985 technologically obsolete uhf discount. So why not continue to wind back the clock and base our regulatory structure on a 1990s version of the internet . As far as the open internet rules go, this is so openended that the rules are both alive and dead until the Commission Adopts an order in this proceeding. Will any of the open internet rules survive this rulemaking . I am doubtful, given both the tenor of the questioning and the fact that the rulemaking is proposing 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, it proposes to reinterpret the one provision that has served as a basis of even limited broadband regulation. Of course i am talking about section 706 of the teleCommunications Act of 1996. While paying lip service to the idea that we should ground open internet rules in other forms as Statutory Authority like section 230b, which the comcast court rejected, i am also concerned at the proposal to reinterpret section 706 as really hortatory. We have litigated the statutory history and the courts have upheld our use of seconds 706 as a substantive grant of authority. Walking that interpretation back, particularly in a world where we do not have title ii, is a sure death sentence for any open internet rules. While the majority engages in flowery rhetoric about light touch regulation and so on and so forth, the end game appears to be no touch regulation, and a wholesale destruction of the fccs Public Interest authority in the 21st century. Undermining the ability of poor people to get broadband, knee capping funding for rule telecommunications, declining to review an 85 billion transaction with massive Public Interest implications, encouraging consolidation and higher prices in business broadband, and enabling massive broadcasting conglomerates to gobble up more local voices. Each action is a cut against the Public Interest. And the majority will keep it coming unless americans stand up, make their voices heard, and challenge the fcc in court. Because it is glaringly obvious with each open meeting that the willingness and ability of the majority to protect consumers and competition in a broadband era has come to a screeching halt. Nonetheless, i thank the staff of the wire line bureau and the office of general counsel for their hard work on this item. I may think this rulemaking is a horrible path to go down, but your hard work should be recognized regardless. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner clyburn. Well mark you down as a no on this one, i think. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Today we formally initiate the proceeding to consider reversing the 2015 Net Neutrality order. I dissented from that prior decision because i was not persuaded based on the record before us that there 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 fully fulfill my obligations under the administrative procedures act. I certainly have my views on the topic. I restate my approach to look to the law, the in he necessity fo rules and record of substantive comments that accumulates. Thankfully our rulemaking proceeding is not decided like a dancing with the stars contest since counts of comments submitted have only so much value. At the outset, i want to commend the chairman for his leadership and staff for their excellent work on this item. This proceeding is being conducted in an open and transparent manner. And all interested parties will have a full and fair opportunity to present comments, data, and analysis. One of the reasons why i welcome the opportunity to revisit these rules is that the Prior Commission changed course so abruptly that it did not take the time to sufficiently examine the law and record and did not adequately respond to opposing viewpoints and alternative proposals. This time i am confident that whether you agree or disagree on the need for Net Neutrality rules or our legal authority, you will see an order that fully and fairly responds to all substantive arguments. To help bring order and rigor to the debate to come, the notice proposes to conduct an actual cost benefit analysis. This is a critical improvement. Instead of operating an economicsfree zone where the benefits of the rules are assumed to outweigh any costs, commenters will need to provide evidence to support their arguments that the rules are or are not needed. It will enable the commission to ground its decision in fact rather than in hypotheticals. The notice also asks for a range of questions on the proper legal classification of broadband Internet Access service. These include critical questions that should have been explored and answered by the commission before it barrelled down the title ii path, disavowing decades of precedent and contrary interpretations that stood in the way. Now the Commission Presents the case that it previously ignored, that the text of the act, commission precedent, and Public Policy support classification of broadband Internet Access service as an Information Service. My primary goal with respect to this notice has been to ensure that the Commission Asks sufficient questions to lay the groundwork for us legally sustainable final decision. Accordingly, any issue that is related to this proceeding and could be part of the decision should be on the table here. One such issue concerns jurisdiction over broadband Internet Access service. If the Commission Decides that it is an interstate Information Service then states and localities should be foreclosed from regulating it as some states are currently attempting to do with new broadband privacy laws, fees, approval processes and other requirements. I thank the chairman by working with me by including a question to enable parties to submit comments and proposals on the issue. I vote to approve. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner oreilly. For nearly two decade, the internet flourished under a bipartisan light touch Regulatory Framework. In the span of recent memory the internet went from a University Research project to an essential tool for participating in the modern world. This success wasnt an accident. In 1996, president clinton signed the teleCommunications Act of 1996 and established a National Policy to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that preemsently exists r the internet, unfetterred by state regulation. Ron wyden said if the fcc subjected providers to telephone regulation it would chill the growth and development of advanced services. The very next year democratic fcc chairman bill canard said, quote, it is not good for america to just pick up this whole morass of title ii regulation and dump it wholesale. This wasnt controversial. This was the consensus. So it would rema mairemain for two decades. The private sector invested to the tune of 1. 5 trillion. Internet speeds accelerated from kilobits to gigabytes per second. An entire internet economy sprung up to develop applications riding on networks. Online Companies Like google, facebook, netflix and amazon grew from scratch to become global power houses. Some we had a free and open internet, one in which consumers reaped immense benefits. The internet was not broken in 2015. We were not living in a digital distopia. Nonetheless, the fcc that year succumbed to partisan pressure from the white house and changed course. Even though the fcc couldnt find any evidence of market failure, it turned its back on almost two decades of success. They imposed upon all Internet Service providers or isps big and small, the heavyhanded Regulatory Framework designed during the Roosevelt Administration to micromanage the at t telephone monopoly. These utilitystyle regulations known as title 2 were and are like the proverbial sledge hammer being wielded against the flea, except that here there was no flea. Small isps faced new regulatory burdens. Internet providers hoping to offer their consumers new, even Free Services had to fear washington bureaucracy that might disapprove and take enforcement action against them. With the possibility of broadband rate regulation looming on the horizon, Companies Investing in next Generation Networks hesitated to build or expand networks, unsure if the government would let them compete in the free market. Today we propose to repeal utilitystyle regulation of the internet. We propose to return to the clinton era light touch framework that has been proven to be so successful, and we propose to put technologist and engineers rather than lawyers and accountants at the center of the online world. The evidence so far 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 or 3. 6 billion between 2014 and 2016. The first two years of the title 2 era. Just to give you some context, this decline is extremely unusual. It is the first time that it has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. To be sure, a Study Released by a pro title 2 special interest this week claimed that there had been no such decline, but that report makes basic mistakes, like counting Network Investment in mexico as Network Investment in the United States. This investment pullback is affecting smaller isps as well. We receive letters from dozens of small isps explaining how title 2 hurts them and their consumers. 70 fixed wireless Internet Service providers say, i quote, our challenges are exacerbated by the title 2 order which has significantly increased compliance burdens and Regulatory Risk through heavyhanded regulation that is rife with uncertainty. Seven smaller mobile wireless providers tell us that the uncertainty surrounding the title 2 Regulatory Framework for wireless and Broadband Services hinders our ability to meet our customers needs, burdens our companies with unnecessary and costly obligations, and inhibits our ability to build and operate networks in Rural America. 22 of the nations smallest isps report that they have slowed if not halted the development and deployment of Innovative New service offerings. 32 additional rural isps refer to the outdate regulation of title 2 as a barrier to the Business Investment they want to pursue. Perhaps most notably, 19 nonprofit municipal isps, that is governmentowned broadband providers often champions by title 2 advocates observe that for the past two years, the substantial cost of the 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 have 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, areas that all too often dont see investment at all or are the first to see investment dry up. And again, these are the very companies telling us that title 2 makes it harder for them to connect americans with digital opportunity. It puts consumers last, not first, to push these companies out of the marketplace and to stifle competition. In addition to proposing to reverse the title 2 classification, we are also proposing to eliminate the socalled internet conduct standard. The standard gives the fcc a roving mandate to review Business Models and prohibit Service Plans that benefit consumers. With this expansive authority, the fcc could investigate any provider for offering the public virtually any service that the agency might find problematic. And thats, in fact, what the fcc did. Within months of confirming this newfound authority upon itself, the fcc met the enemy. Consumerfriendly, free data programs offered by several wireless companies. Despite the then leadership of the agency having deemed some of these programs, quote, highly innovative and competitive, the fcc began investigating them. Preventing consumers from getting something for free doesnt benefit consumers. Additionally, this authority lets bureaucrats question whether literally every Network Management decision is reasonable. This is especially unwise when it comes to the networks of the future. Consider 5g, the fifth generation of wireless, for instance, the economist magazine recently explained what this technology will require. Slicing the network into multiple networks, each optimized for a different users needs. Having to hire lawyers to make sure your engineers dont run afoul of the fcc while pulling that off sounds like a recipe for disaster. And that helps explain why mark van dreessen, the famed entrepreneur, the creator of the net scape browser and prominent Silicon Valley venture capitalist has said and i quote, if you have these pure neutrality rules, youre not every going to get a return on investment, which means youll stop investing in the network. Todays notice is the start of a new chapter in the public discussion about how we can best maintain a free and open internet while making sure that isps have strong incentive to bring next Generation Networks and services to all americans. To reiterate, this is the beginning of the process, not the end. The fcc is simply seeking comment on these profiles which draw on the clinton era light touch approach. We also ask questions about the existing bright line rules. Over the next 90 days, the American Public will have a chance to share its views on them. In the time to come, the fcc will follow the facts and the law where they take us. Additionally, there are a few things that are different from the last time around. First, we are proceeding in a far more transparent way than the fcc did in 2015. Back then, the agency pushed through the 317page title 2 order before anyone outside this building was allowed to see it. Draft document i proposed to my colleagues has been available to the public online for three weeks. Indeed, the public has 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 well before a vote is called. You may agree or disagree with what the fcc is doing, but you have been and will be able to see what it is were doing and why. Second, we aim to conduct a credible cost benefit analysis of our policy decisions. This simply wasnt done back in 2015. Indeed, the Economic Analysis in the title 2 order has been called wrong, unsupported, and irrelevant by the fccs own chief economist at the time. Now, 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 140characters but, rather, on the data. Finally, like my colleagues, i would like to thank the staff of the teleCommunication Bureau and the office of the General Council for their work on this argument. Nathan, christine, david, madeline, marcus, chris, linda, bill, suzanne and ryan. Id also like to thank my wire line adviser, dr. Jay 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 issue. With that, well provide to vote on the item. The item is adopted with editorial privileges as granted. Thank you to the staff of the bureau. Madam secretary, if you could please announce the next item on the agenda. The seventh and final item on your agenda will also be presented by the wire line bureau. Again, chris monteith, acting chief of the bureau, will give the introduction. Thank you, madam secretary. Ms. Monteith, feel free to proceed. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the Wire Line Competition Bureau is pleased to present for your consideration a notice of proposed rule making and order, revisiting whether the rule adopted in 2011 requiring rule Telephone Companies to recover a minimum dollar amount for Voice Services from their customers commonly referred to as the rate floor continues to further our statutory obligation to ensure Quality Services available at just reasonable and affordable rates. The accompanying order would freeze the rate floor for two years unless or until further actions are taken in this proceeding. Joining me at the table today are lisa hone, associate bureau chief, alex menard, Deputy Division chief of the telecommunication access policy decision and jesse jackson, attorney in the division. I would like to acknowledge and thank others in the Wire Line Competition Bureau that have worked on this item, including roger wook, division chief Industry Analysis and Technology Division, suzanne yellen, assistant chief in analysis and Technology Division and steven wang, attorney and adviser. I would like to thank our colleagues in ogc for their review and invaluable input. Jesse will present the item. Good afternoon, mr. Chairman and commissioners. The rate floor rule adopted in the 2011 usficc transformation order requires that any recipient of high cost loop support whose rate for local service plus state regulated fees is below the rate floor shall have its, quote, high cost support reduced by an amount equal to the extent to which its rates for residential local service plus state regulated fees are below the local urban rate floor multiplied by the number of lines for which it is receiving support, end quote. The rate floor is determined based on an annual urban rate surv survey. Under a waiver adopted in 2014, support reductions for charging prices lower than the rate floor are being phased in such that carriers do not currently lose universal Service Support if the rates are at or above 18, and that number will rise to 20 on july 1, 2017 and 22 on july 1, 2018. Various shake holders have argued that the rule is not consistent with 22 b 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 nprm seeks whether changes are needed to address these concerns. If so, what those changes should be. As an alternative to changing the methodology, they seek comment on eliminating the rate floor all together. They also seek comment on the interaction of the rate floor with state rate making and state universal Service Funds and on the administrative and compliance calls of the rate floor, as well as ways to reduce those costs. The nprm invites stakeholders to submit a cost benefit analysis of the rule. Pending our review of the record that develops in this proceeding, the order 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 serves both the Public Interest and the purpose of the rule by ensuring against rates for subsidized assumers. The bureau recommends this notice of rule making and order and requests editorial privileges extending only to technical and conforming edits. Thank you. Im actually shocked that the room has cleared out for the main event. Nonetheless, we will proceed with comments starting with commissioner clyburn. I was going to ask whether you were related to hugh. Not related. We spell our last names differently. I was wondering. Anyway just wishful thinking, im sorry. Not that youre anyway, ill get to my statement because this is going nowhere fast. Im sorry. Imagine being asked would you rather pay 5 per month 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 opt for the Cheaper Service plan, right . But if this scenario is only made possible by your carriers ability to shift the true cost of service onto other carriers, in other words, through everyone elses contributions to the universal service fund, then i must regrettably inform you that we have a real Public Policy problem. This is the exact scenario that the commission addressed a few years ago while we were in the process of reforming our universal service in intercarrier compensation mechanisms. Some rate of return carriers were charging their customers extremely low Voice Service rates and recovering the rest of their revenue requirement from intercarrier compensation and the universal service fund. This resulted in shifting the cost of service from the people who were actually receiving the service onto other rate payers nationwide, including those who were least able to afford it. The commission addressed this issue by adopting a requirement that carriers must recover a certain portion of the ultimate cost of service from the end user customers rather than from other rate payers. This was known as a rate floor, and it was paid to the average urban cost of service for voice. 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 rate of return reform. 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 High Cost Program. I have also spoken out in the past, as you may note, about means testing in the High Cost Fund. 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 payers nationally. Admittedly, last month we fixed one of the issues that i considered part of that package on a standalone basis. I let my misgivings about addressing that issue on an a la carte basis go and supported that item because i believed 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. Deja vu. Now we are considering a second item, the pausing and fixing of the rate floor, and surprise, it comes before us for consideration on a standalone basis. My repeated calls for addressing waste, fraud and abuse in the High Cost Program, ignored. Any hope of addressing these concerns in a balanced, comprehensive package, smashed. And the freeing up of additional money to impact the budget control mechanism which would have been the result of a more efficient process, not happening. So i respectfully dissent. Aggressively going after waste, fraud and abuse in our universal Service Programs only seems to happen when one program is being discussed, and that is life line. Addressing blatant abuses in the High Cost Program, no mention here, even though every dollar that is wasted in the High Cost Fund means one less dollar to support Rural Broadband networks. That is neither fair, equitable, nor consistent when it comes to policy making. The American Public should not be guaranteeing a return on investment for personal travel and expenses, entertainment, alcohol, artwork, corporate jets, corporate boats, and mortgages of company employees. This is common sense. It is good stewardship, and many in the industry generally support this kind of clarity, so it is unbelievable to me that when a clear opportunity presents itself, we fail to take action. Commissioner riley 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 Wire Line Competition Bureau for their work on this item. If i am counting right, youve had substantial involvement in at least eight or nine leading items over the past four months. You know who to blame for that, right . I know the work has been hard and the hours are long, and while i have occasionally disagreed with what you have been asked to draft, i sincerely appreciate your professionalism and dedication to Public Service. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Compared to this circulated version seeking to eliminate the rate floor as its come to be known, the document we consider today contains vital fixes and revisions. During the new freeze period i will work in good faith with my colleagues to find other ways to accomplish the same goals. Bull but if they cannot be achieved, the existing rate floor will be restarted. This is impetus to explore and develop more precise means to get to the same outcome. Make no mistake, i support the rate floor concept and im puzzled why everyone else doesnt. Contrary to all of the misinformation, the policy is built on a solid premise. The commission as stewarts of the contributions made by those to pay into the universal service fund expects a certain level of Company Revenue to be recouped from its own subscri subscribers prior to receiving subsidie subsidies. In other words, a basic level of fairness is expected before consumers throughout the nation contribute to cover the lower rates offered in the rural parts of america. The obligation of the law to provide reasonably come rather rates was meant so that the rate was not too high. The commission was presented with evidence of a number of rural companies charging far below reasonable rates to subscribesers but seeking full reimbursement from the cost. To be clear, the policy does not mandate higher Rural Telephone rates, and the commission is not engaging in rate regulation. Companies are free to charge lower rates. The commission are more accurately, the hard working citizens throughout our country just wont contribute to keep those rates artificially low. If rural Telephone Companies want to charge their customers 1 per month, they must certainly can. But subsidies wont be provided for the delta between the consumer rates and the set rate floor which is based on the average of rates in nonRural America. Are there better ways to calculate the rate floor . Probably, and i will happily explore those with all interested parties, but if anyone thinks that this is a back doorway to end the policy with my support, forget it. Additionally, we should not ignore that setting a more generous rate floor, as commissioner clyburn just mentioned, will have an impact for rates on standalone broadband. To be more specific, because we have a cap on high cost budget, each dollar spent to keep the rate floor artificially low is 1 less available to bring down the consumer rate for Broadband Services in rate of return areas. This very issue came up in our last Senate Commerce Committee Oversight hearing. As it presently stands, it is a zero sum game and the presentatiprognosis for additional funding seems difficult. Do not count me among those that will ever support imposing contributions on broadband. This is a nonstarter for me. Lets also accept this stone cold reality. Rural does not necessarily mean poor. There are plenty of rich, middle class and poor people throughout all Rural America. Our job at the commission is to ensure that those who face higher costs and cannot afford them are still able to Access Communication services. That means we shouldnt 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. While over all 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 the theory that we must or should subsidize everyone who happens to live in a particular area no matter their income. Thats a waste of resources. Its why the federal government means tests the majority of federal programs. Certainly the bigger and more expensive ones like medicare. For instance, if a person receives medicare if a person receiving medicare makes more than a certain income per year, they pay higher part b monthly rates. If we can means test medicare, why not the fccs High Cost Program . 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. Toward that end, i worked with commissioner clyburn on draft text to take the first steps on this project. We intend 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 burdens on Communication Companies or disrupting parts of the program that have already been adopted. But moving in this direction is the right thing to do. At the same time, examining ways to alter of existing rate floor doesnt mean there arent other adjustments needed to the rate of return regime. While we instituted major reforms during the last commission that the industry still fully supports, there are a number of socalled punch list items or small technical fixes that are appropriate. For example, there seems to be general support at the commission and relevant associations that rate payers shouldnt have to pay more to cover the cost of some Companies Officials golf club memberships. Im disappointed that we couldnt get this all done as part of one package as they seem like reasonable and common sense steps to ensure that dollars are spent on actual broadband. I do appreciate the commissions support in accomplishing these items in the very near future. Thank you. In 2016 the average rate for basic phone service in washington d. C. Was 13. 78 per month. Since july 1 of last year, federal law has mandated that rural Telephone Companies charged the customers at least 18 per month for the same service. Why . It relates to the federal subsidies or high cost universal Service Support that the fcc directs to these companies. In 2011, aus tensiblely concerned that certain rural carriers why over subsidized the fcc required these companies to charge higher than minimum rates. This is whats known as the rate floor. As i said, the rate floor today is 18. Its scheduled to climb to 20 this 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. For example, the Median Household Income in washington d. C. Is over 75,000. The Median Household Income in lion county, assikansas is unde 41,000. Mandating higher rates under these circumstances, in my view, violates the spirit if not the letter of section 254b of the Communications Act which requires the fcc to ensure Quality Services available at just, reasonable and affordable rates. Notably, the rate floor imposes higher costs on rural consumers without any corresponding federal benefit. It hasnt saved federal taxpayers any money, and thats because companies can avoid losing support by simply raising their rates. It wont save taxpayers money Going Forward either. Thats because now any subsidies that are lost by one provider are simply redistributed to others. Its time to give the rate floor a hard look. Thats why im pleased that under this notice we will explore whether to fix or eliminate this broken policy. Im also glad that we will freeze the rate floor at 18 to prevent the impending 11 price hike that rural consumers would otherwise face a few weeks from now. Its unfortunate we couldnt get a unanimous vote since we had been, wind working in good fait. In march commissioner clyburn said i would support fixing our rules regarding the cap on the Capital Investment allowance. Only 34 days later at our most recent fcc meeting we adopted this fix to the cap limitation. We worked together to put consumers first. In that same speech my colleague said and i quote, i would support hitting the pause button on rate floor increases. So we teed up an item, hitting the pause button on rate floor increases. For the past two weeks, we accommodated literally every single item my colleague asked for on this item. But now, 62 days after calling for a stay of the rate floor, my colleague is voted against a stay of the rate floor. To be sure, that is consistent with the 2011 vote to mandate higher prices for rural consumers. But it isnt consistent with putting consumers first. As always, i am grateful to the staff of the Wire Line Competition Bureau for their excellent work on this matter, in particular, lisa, jesse, alex, chris and suzanne. Your work has helped low income rural consumers spend their hard earned dollars on their families instead of on their phone bills. With that we will provide to vote on the item. The item is adopted with editorial privileges granted as requested. Would my colleagues like to make any announcements at this time . Mr. Chairman, i know you will join in this but we lost a member of the fcc family, as you know, carolyn foust, and when you see people in the hall, even if you dont interact with them on a daily basis and they give you a smile and ask you how youre doing, that might be the only positive gesture you get. She was i just really wanted to pay tribute to her. Again, we lost her the end of last month and i believe her family celebrated her life on monday. So i want to mention that. On a more positive note, i wanted to mention the presence of commissioner gloria strasani. I wanted to say hello to you. I missed saying hello to you the last time. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I join my colleague in her point she made. Very well done. Thank you for recognizing ms. Foust. She spent 21 years, one month and ten days at the commission. She was a consumer advocacy specialist in the Governmental Affairs bureau and as importantly, she was a smiling face in the halls. Its always sad when a member of our family passes away and that is certainly true with respect to ms. Foust. Certainly have her family and her friends in our thoughts and prayers. I also have to announce another departure. That is bill freedman. She hes one of the mainstays of the law division, my former home, and hell be retiring at the end of the month. Bill epitomizes that makes the staff so terrific. Legal skills, the ability to work with people inside and outside of the building and also a very dry sense of humor which one has to have when one is in the field of acronyms of cfr and the like. Bill began with the safety and special Radio Services bureau. I never even knew that one existed that long ago. He then worked in the Hearing Division in the old broadcast bureau and then finally at ogc. He left private practice but as that quote in the godfather goes, we kept bringing him back in so he came back to work in the enforcement bureau, spent five years and then deputy chief of the cgb. He returned in 2013. Bill will be relocating, as i understand it, to fen wick island, delaware where im told hell spend time with his family, fast cars, music and his nearby grandson. Hes going to, i imagine, show up for the world series which i think hes hoping cleveland will win and visiting the rock and roll hall of fame. Bill, we will miss you. Thank you for your service and for your wise counsel over the past many years. With depar tours come arrives. One is brian hart. Brian is the new director of office of media relations. Brian came to us from the office of senator roy blount from missouri. We were both working together for the staff of senator brownbeck many years ago. Hes spent time as the director of government relations, as the vicepresident at kech um and as somebody whos often tormented me with bad jokes these many years. Keep your enemies close, i guess, is the best way to explain that. Brian, were really glad youre on board. Anthony patron, if you dont mind standing up, please, he started this week and hes got to be disappointed that he picked such a boring week to come to the fcc. Anthony is a graduate of the university of connecticut and he just completed his first year at the George Washington University Law school. He interned in london and the Connecticut Republican Party in hartfo hartford, connecticut. Hes an avid sports fan. Im sure if he has the good sense that we think he does, hell root for the chiefs, royals and jayhawks. He also coached two youth basketball teams and hes a plaq black belt in karate. If anyone tries to mess with our office in the summer, youre going to have to sweep his leg. Anthony grew up in east lime, connecticut and margate new jersey. Anthony, were very grateful youre here. I wanted to make an announcement. For decades we in this country have recognized National Police week. It was first started under president kennedy in 1962 to recognize officers who had fallen in the course of their duties. The officers of the fcc also i think deserve our come endays. The dozens of Security Officials here go the extra mile each and every day to keep us safe and make sure that we can do our jobs free from interruption. I walked around and visited with all the guards and security staff and to thank them for their work. We are so grateful that all of you are here. Fred, the rest of the team, youre terrific. Number of characters among the security officers. They know who they are, but they really brighten our day and cant tell you how much it helps to walk in seeing a smiling face and engage in the banter that starts off the day on a very positive note. So, if my colleagues dont have any further announcements, madam secretary if you could announce the date of the next meeting. Thursday, june 22, 2017. The second day of summer. Until then, we stand adjourned. News out of richmond, virginia today, the Fourth Appeals Court rules against president trumps revised travel ban targeting muslimmajority countries. It upholtds a Lower Court Ruling that blocked the ban temporarily. Buzzfeeds chris guidener notes that they remain unconvinced that section 2c has more to do with National Security than it does with effectuating the president s muslim ban. We have the oral argument on our website at cspan. Org. Search for it by the case name, International Refugee Assistance Project versus trump. This holiday weekend, on American History tv on cspan 3, saturday at 10 00 p. M. Eastern on real america, the 1977 documentary, men of bronze about the all black 369th u. S. Infantry regimen during world war i. Approximately 24 germans attack attacked. Roberts got slugged almost immediately and johnson fought them off. He shot and he caught and he swing his rifle around and defeat defeated, those who didnt wound or kill, cut out. He had 21 wounds in his body, but he refused to die. Sunday at 9 10 p. M. , historian and author Elizabeth Kobs on the women telephone operators of the u. S. Army signal corps. Now in france before they got this entirely american line up, that meant that the local operator had to speech to a french operator. They had to give bilanguaingualn this job. They began recruiting women not because they were as good as men, otherwise you would just use men, but because at least at this job they were better than men. Monday at 9 00 a. M. Eastern, well visit the nio