Transcripts For CSPAN3 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20160930

Improve wea message content, delivery, training and outreach. With respect to message content, we would increase the maximum message length from 90 to 360 characters for 4g, lte and future networks. Wed significantly improve the quality of information that alert originators are able to transmit by requiring participating wireless carriers to support embedded urls and phone numbers in all wea messages, including amber alerts within one year of the rules publication in the federal register. This would enable the public to view a photo or place a call to authorities by simply clicking on a link in a wea alert. We would create a new alert classification for Public Safety messages, defined as essential Public Safety advisories that prescribe one or more actions likely to save lives or safeguard property. We would also require carriers to support transmission 5 alerts in spanish. The order would also adopt rules to meet originators needs for the delivery of alerts, specifically, wed require participating wireless carriers to create and maintain alert logs they must make Available Upon request. Wed require carriers to improve alert delivery by geographically targeting alerts to an area that best ax proximates the target area and allow carriers to begin implementing devicebased geotargeting as soon as practicable to create a clear path forward for meeting an even more accurate geotargeting standard. The order would adopt rules that they create a frahmwork for Emergency Managers to test and raise Public Awareness about wea to support community proficiency in the use of wireless alerts. In the further notice, we propose and seek additional measures to improve the effectiveness of wea. We propose to require that wea capable devices preserve alerts for easy user review. We propose requiring carriers to deliver earthquake related alerts in fewer than three seconds and also sikh comment on additional steps we can take to optimize wea as a means of communicate with the public during disaster reefforts, including becausing it for crowd sourced community feedback. Wed also seek to incorporate future technical advancements to improve wea. Require support for certain multimedia content and Safety Measures and geotarget alerts to areas that match rather than approximate target areas. We would also sikh comment on ways to deepen weas support for alerts in multiple languages and on whether and how 5g networks could enhance media even further. Finally, wed take steps to promote the development of Consumer Education tools for wea and propose to facilitate and inform state and local Emergency Management agencies use of wea by requiring carriers to annually report crittal performance metrics. They request adoption and editorial measures. Thanks james and to all of you for all the work thats gone into this. Commissioner clyburn . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its in our darkest hours that we, unfortunately, are most reminded of the importance of robust, reliable connectivity. In the wake of the recent bombing in manhattan, the wireless Emergency Alert system listed millions of new yorkers to be the eyes and ears of law enforcement. Thanks in large part to this valuable tool, the suspect was swiftly captured. This first of its kind message is appointed example of the innovative ways wea can be utilized to help save lives. Todays item enhanced weas effectiveness and utility by adopting rules to improve message content, delivery and testing. Notably, we increase the maximum alert message length from 90 to 360 characters for 4g, lte and future networks to enable them to more clearly communicate with their communities. We also require participating mobile providers to support embedded references in all alerts as contemplated in the underlying nprm. As a recent incidents in new york and new jersey underscore, providing Emergency Managers with the ability to direct their communities to a comprehensive and authoritative resource in an emergency situation is a must. Equally important is ensuring that alerts are delivered to the intended audience. To support this goal, we require participating wireless providers to narrow their geotargeting of alert messages to locations that best approximate the areas specified by an alert originator and we confirm our commitment to ensuring wea alert messages are only received by those for whom they are relevant. The further notice of a series of questions and technical considerations that must be resofld before we get there. But were unwavering in our goals to reduce overalerting and improve weas effectiveness in this regard. In addition, the further notice seeks comment on a number of important issues such as expanding the language capabilities of wea beyond english and spanish, providing the public more choice in the types of alerts received, as well as the manner and timing of the alerts. And ensuring that enhanced wea capabilities are considered and factored into the 5g development process. The importance of this lifesaving tool cannot be overstated. And i encourage all stakeholders to continue to participate in the ongoing dialogue as technological improvements are made to mobile networks. We have a lot to be proud of today, but more work remains, and time is of the essence. How appropriate it is, mr. Chairman, that we are releasing this item during National Preparedness month. It gives us another opportunity to thank the nations emergency professionals for all they do to keep us safe, including those who came to the rescue during yesterdays tragic shooting incident at townville elementary in my home state of south carolina. I would also like to thank admiral David Simpson for his leadership and the staff of the Public Safety and Homeland Security bureau for their dedication and tireless efforts on behalf of the American People. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner . Thank you. As you heard my colleague say, september is National Preparedness month. It was also in september more years ago than i care to count that i moved into an apartment in new york. It was small and unlovely. It was also within easy walking distance of the neighborhood where a bomb exploded earlier this month. What i learned from my time in new york is that its residents may shuffle down the sidewalks in an anonymous blur but when crisis ensues, they rally. They love their city. So on september 19th, when mobile phones blared with a piercing sound of a wireless Emergency Alert, urging them to look for a bombing suspect, they took note. He was located a few hours later, and last week, he was charged by federal and state prosecutors. The question now is how we can make alerts like this better. Thats not just a question for new york. Its a question for all of us. Our wireless devices are in our palms, pockets, our purses. They are with us always. So lets recognize them for what they are. A formidable tool for Public Safety. Congress saw this very clearly when it created the wireless alert and Response Network act ten years ago. But the engineering and approach behind this Emergency Alert system is dated. And though its power has been demonstrated in new york and elsewhere, so have its limitations. We tackle some of those limitations today. We update and modernize key elements of the wireless Emergency Alert system. In particular, we increase the length of alerts from 90 to 360 characters. This will allow them to include embedded references, including telephone numbers. In addition, we better target the geographic delivery of messages. We also expand testing opportunities for state and local Public Safety authorities. But by no means should we stop here. Because the episode near my Old Neighborhood did more than burn and budget buildings. It dej straighted Going Forward we can do more with these messages. Vague directives in text about where to find more information about a suspect just as we saw in new york are not good enough. As we move into the 5g future, we need to ensure that multimedia is available in all of our alert messages. Because as a new yorker, senator schumer has said, when it comes to a terrorist or other very dangerous criminal on the run, a picture is not only worth a thousand words. It could save a thousand lives if the right person sees it. Amen. Lets make this happen. Thank you very much, commissioner. Commissioner pine. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Before i discuss this item, i havent had a chance to make a statement about some news today that the public and folks in this room most likely just learned about. And so i wanted to take this opportunity to say happy National Coffee day. As you can see, im observing the occasion by the leader. And i hope you will, too. Okay. The wireless Emergency Alert or wea system has a similar simple purpose. To send Public Safety information to americans on their mobile devices during emergencies. Weas implement auation has bee more difficult. I noted they were targeting wireless alerts to more specific geographic locations. Thats because of a phenomenon sometimes referred to as overalerting. And this happens and has happened to me when you get an alert that has no real connection to your location. Instead the alert is about a storm or some other event at a nearby neighborhood or even a distant community. Receiving an irrelevant message isnt just an annoyance. It undermines the effectiveness of the entire wea system by causing people to tune out all alerts. This has serious Public Safety consequences as weve seen over the past weeks and months. For example, as louisiana was drenched by catastrophic floods this august, officials used wea to send out at least six flash flood alerts. But as our communications security, reliability and inoperablity ground, the alerts went unheeded by tens of thousands of people. Residents ignored the messages because they previously received flood alerts that only applied to homes within a traditional flood zone. This time around, people assumed that the alert was not for them since their home had never flooded before. In the end, over 30,000 people had to be rescued. The need for enhanced geotargeting was brought home again less than two weeks ago during the bombings in new york and new jersey mentioned by my colleagues previously. Public safety officials activated the wea system three times in response to the bombing in manhattan september 17th. When they found a suspicious package in the chelsea neighborhood, they attempted to send targeted alerts directing them to stay away from their windows. Those messages were broadcast far beyond that neighborhood. To ensure that kind of overshoot doesnt happen in the future, new york citys Public Safety officials have urged the fcc to adopt a device assisted geofencing approach. This approach would help ensure that eas messages are delivered only to areas where they are relevant. The problem with overalerting isnt limited to cases where too many people are receiving messages. The opposite is also true. Citizens and Public Safety officials alike are opting out of the system altogether. For instance, the city of seattle says it, quote, doesnt use wea because of overalerting. Houston says it has shied away from using wea because of the high likelihood of overalerting. Harris county, texas. It chose not to use it during four recent disasters due to significant concerns over the granularity of alerts. Millions of people who live in these communities could miss out on potentially lifesaving information because weas current brush stroke is too broad. Thats why the Public Safety Community Says enabling more precise alerting is the single most important action the fcc can take to make wea relevant for first responders. After studying the record and speaking with Public Safety officials, including those in new york city, i agreed that we need to do more than simply codify the status quo. So i proposed to my colleagues we be more forward lining, commit in this order to moving ahead with the devicebased approach to geotargeting. By enabling devices to screen emergency messages and only allow the relevant ones through, this approach would allow Public Safety officials to target information to specific Geographic Areas. And it would advance wea as a platform by reduce alert fatigue. Im happy to report this order incorporates this approach in adopting in addition to adopting other enhancements to our geotargeting rules. Moreover, further notice now seeks additional comments on ways to implement our commitment to device assisted geotargeting. Taking a step back, these are major steps toward promoting Public Safety solution as advanced as Wireless Services themselves. And so, todays order moves us in the right direction, it has my support. Thanks to the staff of the Public Safety bureau and others in the commission for their hard work on this item. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner oreilly . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Wireless alerts are one of the many tools that provide americans with information during emergencies from tornados to amber alerts to terrorist attacks, these alerts can provide beneficial warnings that there is danger ahead or to be on the lookout for a missing child. I can generally support such ideas as 360 character alerts. A new category of Public Safety messages and narrower geographic targeting as a means to improve the wireless Emergency Alert system. And i appreciate that the certain number of my edits, including the elimination of the legacy timeline on 360 character alerts by date certain and reduction in the message log retention were incorporated in the text. At the same time as we make changes to the functionality, its necessary to encourage participation by weighing the burdens placeod industry and recipients by ensuring the system is reliable so that consumers receive necessary information but not annoyed by overalerting. I believe portions of this item fail to strike such a balance and this is where my ideas and views differ from my colleagues. I cannot support requiring participating wireless providers to add functions that are not based on what can reasonably be achieved with existing technology and realistic timelines. Todays order requires certain components to be completed within 30 months and others a year. People undoubtedly say these timelines are sufficient, these solutions will need to go through standards process, divisive network development, testing and be deployed in the marketplace. Thats not likely to happen within these tight timelines. Weve seen this approach on multiple occasions in the Public Safety context such as location accuracy where the political pressures and headlines take precedent over technological feasibility. Big announcements lead to big expectations which eventually result in multiple wavers because that technology lags behind the hype. Overpromising and underdelivering does not improve Public Safety. We also need to consider the standards bodies have their hands full preparing for next generation technologies. I certainly wouldnt want to see 5g deployments stuck on the sidelines in order to incorporate not ready wea solutions into development of 5g networks and devices. Thats exactly what is being contemplated by provisions in this further notice. This trend also permeates the further notice where we propose earthquake alert prioritization and delivery within three minutes which the system is not currently designed to do and which may not be feasible. We see common and multilingual alerting beyond english and spanish which also requires standards and new character sets. To top it off, the item acknowledges thats many Emergency Management agencies do not have the capability to send such messages. Second, we seem completely oblivious to the potential unattended consequences of unproven technologies. The requirement to include embedded references such as urls and phone numbers is a beware for what you wish for. While the availability of these links may seem useful, affected individuals may not be able to use them because encouraging internet use and phone calls at those exact moments could lead to Additional Network congestion at a time of already beyond capacity during an emergency. This is directly contrary to the comments from Network Operators and technical experts such as alliance for Telecommunications Industries standards in the record. The Pilot Program that is initiated in this item is more than troubled. Take for example the period for such a trial will conclude and the rurment goes into effect wfr the standards are likely finali finalized. How does that allow us to determine if Network Congestion is an issue. Instead of getting answers were ignoring the warnings of Network Operators and experts in Network Congestion. This item doubles down on this idea by incorporating multimedia such as photos, images and maps into wea alerts. This issue we considered in the further notice but through consideration will be needed with real testing beyond the prototyping envisioned in the tord the Network Effects such messages before we force providers to accommodate Additional Data intensive messaging. Third, we must ensure that weas only used when appropriate. Otherwise theres increased risk that consumers will opt out of these alerts. My colleagues have claimed the bombing in new york is illustrative of how weas system works and can be improofed. But after the alert was issued tock on the lookout for the suspect, there were articles in social media posts about how frightened and annoyed some recipients were. If some found the screeching tone of countless cell phone alerts going off in subways offputting, imagine if it was a Public Service announcement informing you of the benefits of wea. I strongly oppose the use of Emergency Alert signals for the purposes of psas. Lastly, the further notice adds a host question ofable ideas such as requiring a uniform format for alert log, standardized opt out menus for consumers and extensive Data Collection and annual reporting requirements which will add unnecessary costs for wireless providers with little benefit to consumers. The unnecessary point of sale disclosures are burdensome and could mislead consumers because your wea experience can change depending on your geographic yairx what network you are on and whether there is congestion. While i approve a good portion of this, i must dissent for those reasons. We began this proceeding last november for a simple reason. And that is that when Technology Gives us the opportunity to save lives, to increase Public Safety, shame on us if we dont seize on that opportunity. As my colleagues have said, we know of the importance of wireless emergency reports, from the headlines. Whether they be in the bayous of louisiana or the canyons of new york. And in those experiences weve learned how the alerts can be made better, from including links to further information, including photos to more precise geographic targeting, to expanding the length of the message and the languages in which it is offered. A couple of weeks ago, i guess less than a couple of weeks ago, it was probably last week, nypd chief james oneil wrote us a letter in which he talked about the importance of these alerts and said, quote, lives are truly on the line. We all know how mobile technology has changed our lives generally. With this action today, we are now doing even more to allow mobile technology to save lives. So i will call for the vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed . The ayes have it. The item is adopted. The request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. Madam secretary . Mr. Chairman and commissioners, the next item on your agenda today will be presented by the International Bureau and the media bureau and is entitled review of Foreign Ownership policies for broadcast, common carrier and area nautical radio licensees under section 310b4. Good morning, everybody. Whenever youre ready. Good morning, chairman. Good morning commissioners. The report and order before you today would extend to broadcast licensees the same streamlined Foreign Ownership approval process the Commission Applies now to common carrier wireless licensees with appropriate broadcast specific modifications. This standardized approval process under section 310b4 of the Communications Act will provide the broadcast sector with a clearer path for investment. In addition, this report and order would reform the methodology that a publicly traded broadcast or common carrier licensee uses to ascertain its Foreign Ownership levels. This new methodology would eliminate the need for surveys or random samples of shareholders which are impractical for Public Companies in todays marketplace. The media bureau and International Bureau collaborated with invaluable assistance from the office of general counsel and the Wireless Telecommunications bureau. The International Bureau has worked closely with the media bureau on Foreign Ownership issues for nearly two decades. To my right is bill lake, chief of the media euro with ben arden and christine. To my left are susan oconnell, kim cook and Gabrielle Kim from the International Bureau. In addition, i would like to recognize from the media bureau david roberts, lisa scanlon and jamila bessjohnson. Behind me, our team from deputy chief of the bureau troy tanner, kate collins, denise coca and francis gutierrez. Also Bill Richardson from the office of general council, linda ray and kathy harris of wtv. And Diane Cornell who championed this when she was in the Chairmans Office and now holly saur started reviewing this in the media bureau and has it as her first International Bureau from the Chairmans Office. Gabrielle will present this item. Shes one of our star honors attorneys, and this is her First Commission presentation. Good morning, mr. Chairman, commissioners. As noted, the report and order before you extends streamlined Foreign Ownership rules and procedures to broadcast licensees but also reforms the methodology that publicly traded broadcasts and common carrier licensees and controlling u. S. Parent Companies Use to ascertain compliance with the Foreign Ownership limits of the Communications Act. The item discusses the procedures for the finding and review of broadcast petitions for declaratory ruling under section 310b. It allows the broadcast licensee to request approval for up to and including 100 aggregate Foreign Ownership of its controlling u. S. Parent. A broadcast licensee may also request approval for a proposed controlling foreign investor to increase its equity and or voting interest in the u. S. Parent up to and including 100 at some future time. And for a foreign investor to increase its ownership interest in the u. S. Parent up to and including a noncontrolling 49. 99 interest at some future time without requiring a new ruling. Broadcast licensees, including any covered affiliates or subsidiaries that have Foreign Ownership rulings may apply those rulings to after acquired broadcast licenses regardless of the broadcast service or Geographic Area served by the stations. Broadcast licensees would need specific approval only for foreign individuals or entities with a greater than 5 ownership interest or in some cases, an interest greater than 10 in the licensees u. S. Parent. The item recognizes that in some instances it is appropriate to apply existing broadcast requirements to minimize disruption to broadcasters. For example, broadcasters would use a broadcast atribution criteria to determine those u. S. And foreign interests that must be disclosed. And would use a broadcast insulation criteria to determine whether a particular foreign investor requires specific approve ag. Next, the item reforms the methodology a publicly traded broadcast or common carrier licensee or controlling u. S. Parent uses to ascertain its compliance with the 20 Foreign Ownership limit under section 310 310b3 under section 310b4. It relies on information thats known or reasonably should be known to the company in the ordinary course of business. The methodology requires Public Companies to exercise Due Diligence in identifying and determining the citizenship of their known or reasonably should be known interest holders. It specifies the information Public Companies can rely on for purposes of complying with section 310b. It eliminates the need to conduct surveys or random samplings of Public Company shares or apply presumptions about the citizenship of unknown shareholders. It provides license ease with greater certainty and reduces burdens in determining aggregate levels of Foreign Ownership. And it allows such companies to focus their efforts and resources on identifying and determining the citizenship of those shareholders that may present a realistic potential to influence or control the Company Rather than on smaller unknown shareholders that lack such potential. The International Bureau and media bureau recommend adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. Thank you. Thank you very much, gabrielle. And nice job. Commissioner clyburn . Thank you. As an owner of a small weekly outlet former owner. Dont want rumors to get out. A lot of rumors floating around here today. I know all too well the importance of adequate capital to enable operations, support new and Innovative Service offerings and provide value to customers. Todays order recognizes these benefits by extending in large part to the broadcast industry, the streamlined rules and modified procedures the Commission Adopted three years ago for Foreign Ownership reviews of common carrier licenses. We address headon the complexities and difficulties faced by publicly traded broadcast companies when attempting to ascertain the extent of Foreign Ownership. And we provide more efficient approaches, offer Greater Transparency and predictability and enhance access to capital opportunities for broadcasters while reducing regulatory burdens and costs. The leadership and staff of the International Bureau and media bureau are to be commended because this order is a praiseworthy example of how the commission unleashes opportunities by harmonizing and streamlining rules to facilitate Capital Investment as we protect important policy goals. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Great job, gabrielle. And i look forward to the vote. And thank you. Commissioner . Broadcasting has a storied history. For decades, it has been where we turn for local news and entertainment in communities all across the country. The change is in the air. Spectrum used by broadcast stations is now in demand by other services. A new broadcast standard is in the workses. And new media platforms are multiplying. To ensure the future of broadcasting is bright, investment is key. But the laws that govern broadcast investment can get in the way. Thats because they have a distinctly vintage quality. In fact, by and large, they were put in place to prevent foreign powers from disrupting ship to Shore Communications during warfare. But just as horses and bayonets are not the tools of modern warfare, the cyberthreats we face today are not especially well guarded by these prohibitions. Moreover, these policies can create artificial constraints that make it tough for broadcasters to Access Funding on a global scale. This is not right, and its not fair. So today we update our policies by extending to broadcast licensees the same streamlined rules and procedures applicable to common carrier licensees under the law. We clarify our rules on Foreign Investment across the board. And we also improve our method for counting Foreign Ownership in both common carriers and broadcasters. These actions remove barriers for investment and provide clarity for broadcasters seeking support for new technologies and new ways to reach the communities they serve. This effort has my full support. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner pie . Four years ago i called for the fcc to relax restrictions. At the time, i said this could give broadcasters greater access to capital and the commissions rules with respect to Foreign Investment didnt make sense in todays marketplace. For example, our approach allowed a Foreign Company to own a majority interest in one of our nations nationwide wireless carriers. But it did not allow that same company to own a single a. M. Radio station in kansas. In 2013, the commission took action. We ended our de facto ban on any Foreign Investment in u. S. Broadcast Holding Companies exceeding 25 . That was a step in the right direction, and i was pleased to support it. But i also noted we still had to develop additional procedures for applicants seeking to take advantage of the commissions policy change. In this order, the commission does just that. We decide to streamline the procedures that apply to a Foreign Investment in broadcasters. And these same streamlined procedures have worked well in the common carrier context. So im confident theyll work as well in the broadcast context. Well make it easier for broadcasters to Access Capital while at the same time ensuring that any Foreign Ownership above the 25 benchmarket is forth in section 310 does not comprise our National Security or any other public interest. Theyll also promote regulatory parody and ensure different sectors of the communication industry can compete for investment on a level playing field. We also modernize in this order the commissions methodology for assessing compliance to the Foreign Ownership limits set forth in section 310. Our prior approach, which broadly focusod all shareholders, may have made sense given the way the stock market operated decades ago. But today, about 85 of the shares held by an institution are held by an institution or individual on behalf of someone else. So this makes it very difficult for companies to figure out the identity, let alone the citizenship of many of their shareholders. And that was a particular problem given the commissions presumption that any unknown shareholders are not u. S. Citizens. Thankfully, the commission ends at presumption today and our new methodology focuses on ownership information that is known or reasonably should be known to a Public Company. This reform makes sense because these are the ownership interests that could influence a companys operations. Furthermore this reform will eliminate the need for companies to conduct costly and unreliable surveys of individual shareholders. Im therefore optimistic this will reduce the regulatory burdens on Public Companies and make it easier for them to comply with our rules. At the end of the day, the commissions rules in this area need to strike a balance. On one hand, promote investment of the United States and make it easier for Communication Companies to Access Capital. But on the other, we must ensure that any specific Foreign Investment in this sector of our economy is in the public interest. Because this order generally strikes the right balance, im pleased to support it. Id like to thank the staff of the International Bureau n the media bureau for their hard work in this proceeding, particularly Gabrielle Kim and my old classmate kim cook for her hard work. And commissioner oreilly for his advocacy of a Regulatory Framework in this area. Thank you, commissioner. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ive often spoken of the need to promote Foreign Investment opportunities for broadcasters and further streamline ownership reviews under section 310b of the Communications Act. Quite simply, todays order is a helpful step as the changes are likely to produce significant benefits without jeopardizing National Security. By allowing broadcasters to follow the streamlined process available to common carrier licensees, we facilitate new avenues of capital that will help stations compete in todays highly competitive video marketplace. We also modify the methodology that broadcasters and common carriers use to assess compliance with the statute. The old method of determining Foreign Ownership levels was practically um possible and not Cost Effective to implement for publicly traded companies in todays fastpaced, global markets. Further, by focusing primarily on those shareholders with more than 5 interest which are reported in certain s. E. C. Filings. The burden on licensees will be greatly reduce while retaining the ability to review companies with significant Foreign Ownership held by entities more likely to be able to exert influence over a company. There are some things, however, that i would like to have done differently. I had hoped the item would raise the overall reporting threshold. Raising this level which triggers the timeconsuming review process would reduce costs on industry participants. A align the u. S. With nations that permit he are levels of foreign owned investment and reduce the efforts of other countries to restrict u. S. Investment based on our own ownership restrictions. We do not do this today, i am very pleased the item states we may pursue such measures in the future. In that regard, the Commission Must finish its mission to truly streamline its Foreign Ownership review. We can take all the steps we want but if team telecom can hold of regulations for years all of the improvements we do today are of ril value. Failing to identify the concerns hidden behind opaque structures and delaying or refusing to conclude review has been problematic. That dock set near the university filled with filings indicating drastic improvements to team telecom are needed, and it needs to be resolved in the very near term. So i want to thank the chairman for incorporating my edits, and i cant thank enough the teams for all of their work on this important item. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, commissioner. I liked that. I cant thank enough. I think thats a true and well put statement to the media bureau and International Bureau. And all of you worked so hard for this. I have a statement for the record. I wont read it into the record here but i want to say thank you to all of you and commissioner oreilly for his leadership on this issue. So well go to the vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed . The ayes have it. The request for editorial privileges are granted with the objection noted. Thank you to all of you. Mr. Chairman, commissioners, the third item on your agenda will be presented by the media bureau and is entitled promoting the availability of diverse and independent sources of video programming. And bill lake, chief of the media bureau, will give the introduction. Didnt even have to move. You know . Just sit there, and the whole world comes to you. I do have different reinforcements this time. This is okay. All right. The floor is yours. Good morning again, mr. Chairman, and good morning commissioners. The media bureau presents a notice of proposed rule making that seeks to foster Consumer Choice and access to diverse mr. Chairman and commission ers and variety of their video programming and greater flexibility and the means and manner of accessing program content. The media recommends that you adopt the proposal and address privileges. Thank you. Its appropriate that you are the fist commenter here since you have been leading the charge on this. Commissioner. Thank you, mr. Chairman. You have been dropped. These are three of the most paralyzing words a smaller independent programmer could ever hear. They render a content provider powerless and frustrated. As for the consumer, with little or no warning, they suddenly discover that a Favorite Network or show has been removed from their channel lineup leaving them with little or no alternative means for assessing niche content. What some may call niche programming is that customers preferred viewing. Strong ratings . Rave reviews . Neither of these seem to matter. Their favorite station is now missing from the programming lineup because the cruel reality is that inpent programmers live by a different set of rules. Some understandable. Others quite perplexing. Just last month as part of my offices connecting communities tour, i visited one such programmer in a small town called indianland, south carolina, which is an Unincorporated Community just south of charlotte. There i toured the facilities and met with the leadership of insp, a familyfocused content provider that reaches more than 80 million u. S. Households. Inspiration network, like countless other independent programmers i have heard from, faces a number of significant challenges and make it difficult to compete on a level playing field, though they will be the first to admit that comparatively speaking, they are quite fortunate. But its because insp and dozens of others who are not as fortunate that i urge seven months ago for the adoption of a notice of inquiry that enabled the commission to embark on a Fact Finding Mission on the current state of programming diversity, Consumer Choice, and the evolving video marketplace. What did we learn from this exercise . More than 36,000 filings and reviewing the transcripts, several themes emerge. Most notably, independent programmers from all ends of the idealogical spectrum told us that they regularly must accept clauses in their Program Carriage agreement, including most favored nation and alternative distribution methods provisions that inhibit their ability to grow and innovate. Now, i must admit that when we launched the noy in february i was unsure what path, if anything, we would tread. I knew that there were significant problems facing independent programmers, but i was always aware that tackling these issues head on would require a robust docket and clear Legal Authority. Building on the extensive record and the authority granted under section 116 of the Communications Act, the npr and we consider today appropriately targets two troubling practices. Unconditional mfns and unreasonable adms. For those outside of the Communications Law space, imagine that as an independent programm emer eager to grow subscribership, you strike a carriage deal in which you agree to accept a lower rate per subscriber in exchange for, say, better channel placement. Now, in negotiating with another distributor, you are told that because of your previous deal with the other entity that they will not take your discount that they will not only take your discounted rate, but put your channel in a tier with just a quarter of the subscribers you thought you were negotiating for. Now, just how fair does that sound . Similarly, what if you were told that to strike a carriage deal with the traditional pay tv provider, you must agree to a clause that will forever prevent you from striking similar agreements in the future with online video distributors, or what we call ovds. These very real situations are what independent programmers face each and every day. But do not take my word here when it comes to the fanature o these practices. Look at what the department of justice said in its review of the charter Time Warner Cable deal earlier this year. Doj stated that adms and other contractual provisions have the effect of making ovds less competitive. As a result of this determination, the department of justice imposed conditions on new charter that prohibit the company from entering into or enforcing adms with programmers as well as mfns if they are inconsistent with this underlying prohibition. I am also pleased that this nprm asked about potential recourse when customers find that their favorite Programming Network has been dropped from the channel lineup. Some are locked into a multiyear lineup, and the prospect of finding another pay tv provider that carries their favorite channel, if one even exists, means paying stiff cancellation penalties. The npr at my urging also asked a series of questions about other practices such as bundling that may prevent independent programmers from gaining carriage. For new entrants, some who are even willing do initially offer free carriage, this can be challenging. Its also challenging to get your telephone call returned. In sum, i respectfully ask this body are we satisfied with a few large conglomerates dominating the pay tv channel lineup . Do we believe that independent and Diverse Voices have a place in a vibrant media landscape . Do these voices play a role in a strong democracy . The adoption of the days nprm insures that these questions and more are addressed and for that i sincerely thank the chairman for his support of this factfinding kper sides, the media bureau staff, including michelle carrie, march that hth and for diving into the complex issues in looking at carriage issues. I must thank my advisor David Grossman for his keen attention to detail. Thank you. Thank you, commissioner. I think we will probably shortly find the answers to those questions you posed. Mr. Mrs. Rosen. So much content. So many ways to watch. So few hours in the day. This is what viewing now feels like for me. And probably a lot of other people too. We have a dizzying array of channels. We have programming available any time anywhere and on any screen. New platforms are multiplying at a rapid clip keeping up with a show, a season, a meme, a hash tag. Its exhausting. While all kinds of content is available to exhaust and excite us. For those who create it, breaking through and being seen is hard. Cutting through the crowd often requires securing space on the lineup of cable and satellite systems. Although there are new ways to watch, these platforms still dominate viewing. As a result, they were made an important part of building an audience and building an audience, in turn, is essential for new investment, which provides the opportunity to create more new and diverse content. Todays notice of proposed rulemaking takes a hard look at the situation. It asks about carriage agreements programmers signed to get on cable and satellite systems. In particular, it seeks comment on the operation of certain clauses in those agreements known as unconditional most favored nation provisions and alternative distribution method provisions. In practice these clauses can make it tough for new and independent programming to get on the channel lineup of satellite and Cable Systems and tough for them to show their programming online. We asked for ways to seek new and diverse programming and to give them a fair shot at being seen. I look forward to the record that develops, and thank my colleague commissioner kleiburn for encouraging us to get this dialogue going. Commissioner i believe that our media should ideally reflect the diversity of the country in which we live. When it comes to the video marketplace, we have played a lot of progress over the last decade. There are now more outlets through which createors of video content can distribute their programming than ever before. Over the top video has been a game changer. Its given Diverse Voices a new way to be heard and its given americans access to novel content they might not previously have seen. In my notice of inquiry, for example, i discussed the second episode of master of none, a Netflix Series who is the shows cocreator and cowriter. That episode focused on the relationship between asians who came to this country in the 1960s and 1970s and their americanborn children. As an americanborn son of indian immigrants myself, that episode really hit home with me. It told a story that i had really never seen before on american television. Evidently that episode impacted a lot of other people as well. Earlier this month it won the emyil for outstanding writing for a comedy series. Im sure that most of the emmy voters werent the children of asian immigrants, which i think just goes to show that a compelling story has universal appeal. Given my support for greater diversity in the video marketplace, i had hoped that i would be able to support this notice of proposed rule making. Indeed, it used to be the case that almost all fcc votes were unanimous. Notices were meant to represent the beginning of the rule making process. Not its end. Their purpose was to identify all period of time nant issues and ask the right questions so that the commission would be able to make a decision about whether to move forward with new rules and if so what the new rules should be on the basis of a complete factual record. For this reason commissioners were generally able to add questions to draft notices. Even if commissioners were ultimately likely to disagree on how substantive issues should be resolved, the norm within this building, when i heard during my years as a staffer in the office of general counsel, used to be that theres nothing wrong with asking a question. Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Too often, notices are now onesided documents that leave little doubt that the commission has already made up its mind on the issues about which it is purporting to seek the publics input. They suggest that the comment part of notice and comment rule making is merely an administrative hoop through which the Commission Must jump rather than a critical component to shaping the fccs decision making. Accordingly, questions that could generate answers suggesting flaws with the commissions predetermined conclusions are excluded entirely from the document. Efforts to bring balance by just describing each sides arguments in a fair way are rejected out of hand. I was disappointed when the draft for this notice that i received three weeks ago reflected that approach. So, as a result, i suggested a number of edits to make it less slanted. Those that would not have blocked the intended direction. I proposed a number of questions to insure that all aspects of the issues raised in the document were explored, and its especially critical to make one other point. Had my ideas been accepted, there still would have been adequate notice for adopting the final rules that this notices most vocal prop oonents favor. The vast majority of my edits and suggestions were ignored. This is effectively an order masquerading as a notice. This is a note littered with statements indicating to the commission that theyve already decided. Many of the most important issues about which we are seeking comment. This is a notice that doesnt include many questions that could yield answers the commission might dpiend inconvenient, and this is a notice that i cannot support. In particular, i would like to briefly discuss two of my most serious concerns. First, im not convinced that the fcc has the Legal Authority to adopt the proposals set forth in this notice prohibiting unconditional most favored nation or mfn provisions, and unreasonable alternative distribution method or adm provisions and Program Carriage agreements between mvpds and independent video programming vendors. Now, the notice contends the section 616 a of the Communications Act gives the agency general Rule Making Authority over programming content contracts. In particular, the Commission Points to that part of the provision that reads, the Commission Shall establish regulations governing the Program Carriage agreements and related practices between Cable Operators or other mpvds. It goes on to specify things that those regulations should include, contain, or provide. Six specific things. Now, commission claims that these regulations promulgated may not be limited to those since things and may include others, such as prohibiting mfn and certain adm provisions, but i have my doubts. To begin with, the almost quarter century since section 1 616 was enacted, the commission has never issued regulations you should this provision that go beyond the six requirements specified in the provision. Weve only implemented the specific terms set forth in section 616 a 1 through 6. Moreover, if section 616a does give the Commission General Rulemaking Authority over programming agreements, well, then what are the limits on that authority . No one within the agency or without has yet answered this question. The notices interpretation simply gives the commission Carte Blanche to regulate programming contracts. I see no evidence that congress intended to give the fcc such limitless authority. Im also concerned that such an interpretation of 616 a1 could give rise to serious constitutional difficulties. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress Must provide agencies with an intelligle principle to base its regulations, but under the portion of 616a that the commission believes it provides general rule making authorities, what is the principle . There is none. Additionally, the notice fails to ask about the significance, if any, of the contrast between the structure of 616a and that of section 628c. In the latter section it directed the sec to establish regulations to prohibit Cable Operators and others from engaging in unfair methods of competition, or deceptive acts or unfair practices. The purpose of which is to hinder significantly or to prevent any from providing satellite programming or satellite broadcast programming to consumers. Then in section 628 c 2 congress specified four different types of regulations that the Commission Must adopt. This provision, however, is entitled minimum contents of regulations, thus signaling that congress didnt intend for the fccs rule making power under 628 c 1 to be cabined by the particular regulations discussed in 628 c 2. Congress entitled 6 of the Communications Act clearly knew how to indicate the particularly regulatory mandates established aa floor for the commissions authority, rather than a ceiling. Such an indication is found in section 628c, but not within section 6716a. Moreover, it contains a clear principle that can be used to guide a general grant of Rule Making Authority. 616a by contrast doesnt appear to include any such principle. Shouldnt all these differents impact the commissions interpretation of 616a . The second major concern is that im worried if the proposal set forth in this notice could have unintended consequences . In my meetings with programmers, and there have been many, ive heard their concerns about how unconditional mfn provisions as well as adm provisions are impacting their businesses . I have sympathy for their perspective. Particularly with respect to unconditional mfns. We need to consider fully the potential results of Commission Action here. Remember, mvpd are under no obligation to carry any i understand percnt programmers i the first place. We have to consider whether banning mfns and adms would make it less likely that independent programmers would be able to secure carriage by mvpds at all. Would banning such contract terms make it more likely that those independent programmers already being carried by mbpds would be dropped, or would prohibiting such provisions make it more likely that a large mvpd would insist on exclusive deals with independent programmers . Thus, limiting these programmers reach. In short, would the commissions proposals make it easier or harder for independent programmers to gain distribution . Unfortunately, its evident from the notice that the commission has already fixed upon an answer before the record has even been compiled. One last point. I voted against the charter Time Warner Cable brighthouse marerg because i was concerned that it would over time be transformed into industrywide rules. When i took that stand, i heard from many who insisted that this wouldnt be the case. Less than five months after that vote, here we are. The fcc is already proposing in this notice to impose on an industrywide basis restrictions on programming agreements agreed to by the Justice Department and a Single Company during a single merger proceeding. Even before the use of the Time Warner Cable name has been completely phased out, we see the commissions first effort to demand of the entire industry the regulatory tribute exacted from charter. Mark my words, it wont be the last. I respectfully descend. Mr. Oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Todays item takes up the cause of independent programmers who want all the benefits of cable distribution, including advertising revenues, while also seeking to prohibit certain distributor limits and acquire the ability to completely bypass their cable agreements to selfdistribute. I understand why independent programmers would want this. It just doesnt seem to be the role of the government to further it. In the end i suspect the effort will not be as fruitful as anticipated, as independent 3r578ers will face more difficulty getting underlying carriage. Thereby, reducing their viability and longevity. That means there will be fewer diverse programming sources, not more. I do have some empathy for independent programmers. They seek to fill niche consumer programming interests often without diverse financial backing. In todays media marketplace, its certainly difficult to generate such programming. Survive a whirlwind of changing consumer taste and technologies and make overall finances work. At the same time distributors often take a chance to carry such independent programming, when it would be easier and perhaps more lucrative to carry other channels. In exchange, distributors seek certain conditions to justify their risks of carriage. With this item, the Commission Seeks to improperly jump in the middle of programmerdistributor relationships and eliminate certain practices that the independent programmers have in the past and continue to voluntarily accept during private commercial negotiations. To argue that these are not free negotiations because it is an unbalanced negotiating table completely ignores the fact that such circumstances exist in so many other parts of our economy. For instance, if you want your product to be carried by walmart, marriott, or home depot, you have to deal with the potential for unbalanced negotiating table. Its not illegal, inappropriate, or necessarily worthy of government involvement. Complicating this item is the simple fact that is an extension of the conditions imposed on a merged Charter Communications in its acquisition of time warner and brighthouse. Having been totally shut out of any involvement in the crafting of those conditions, im now being told we must burden the entire industry with the same. At least charter got something in return for acquiesing to such market interference. This commission, you should this leadership, has proven the sentiment totally laughable. Just think about this very subject matter. We were told that the noi was to be very vague and sit out there for quite a while before any action was even contemplated, and, yet, here we are with a determined outcome and a march to completion. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Well, you know, the issues here are really quite simple. We had a notice of inquiry. We had a series of workshops in this room, and those activities found discriminatation against independent programs. Youve heard the term onesided mfn most favored nation, kicked around up here. Lets talk about what it means. It means give us the good stuff that you got in other deals, but we wont give you the terms that made such a transaction a fair deal. Weve heard the term adm, alternative distribution methods. Restrictions. Thrown around up here. Whats it mean . It means im a big cable system. If you want to get on, i must be able to dictate your use in other media. Now, the statute is pretty clear. The statute requires us, says shall the statutes requires us to prevent Cable Operators from engaging in conduct with the affect of unreasonably restraining unaffiliated video programmers. Is there anything reasonable in those two examples i just gave . So this notice proposes to ban both of these discriminate ory practices. It is an mprm. It is an nprm which like all nprms we say here is the nugget of what were talking about that we are proposing. Focus your attention on this. We also specifically ask the question about our Legal Authori authority. I look forward to a physical input into making a decision based on that record. Again, we want to thank the commissioner for keeping us focused on these issues. With that ill call for the vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. No. The ayes have it. The item is adopted. The request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. Madam secretary. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting today, you will consider item five listed under the Consent Agenda portion of the commission Sunshine Notice. For your convenience, we have provided you a copy of the noti notice. I will shortly call dpor votes on these personnel actions. I guess were having something mr. Chairman, were doing the Consent Agenda. We have one Consent Agenda item. Item number five that were going to consider right now. Got it. We previously sought consent of all the commissioners for the inclusion of the items on the Consent Agenda. Weve removed from the proposed Consent Agenda any item for which we received an objection from any commissioner or which was voted. For the remaining Consent Agenda item listed on the Sunshine Notice weve received no objection from my commissioner. Accordingly, ill shortly call for the vote on this Consent Agenda. If you are voting to adopt a Consent Agenda item, please indicate by voting in favor. If you oppose, please vote to oppose. All those in favor of adopting the item listed on the Consent Agenda, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed . So ordered. Now, would you like to go talk about the other item . I was just, you know, so anxious to roll along here. Okay. Now we will consider the personnel actions listed on the commissions Sunshine Notice. We will consider each one of them separately. I will shortly call for votes, as i said before, on these personnel actions. Because theyre personnel actions, there will be no discussion of the items. If youre voting to accept these personnel action items, please indicate so by voting in favor. If you oppose the adoption of these personnel actions, please vote to oppose. Madam secretary. Will you please announce each of the items . For personnel action number one. All in favor say aye . Aye. Opposed . No. The ayes have it. So ordered. Personnel action number two. Thats you. Thats not me. Yes. Personnel action number two. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed . No. The ayes have it. So ordered. For personnel action number three. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. No. The ayes have it. So ordered. Personnel action number four. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. The eayes have it. So ordered. Personnel action number five. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. Nay. The ayes have it. So ordered. Personnel action number six. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Nay. The ayes have it. So ordered. Completed. Thank you very much, madam secretary. Would any of my colleagues like to make any announcements at this point in time . Commissioner kleiburn. Aye. Aye . Sorry about that. I was yes. I would like to, if you will allow me to introduce our three fall law clerks. If you would stand as i call you. Megan sun is a 2l Catholic University Columbus School of law and university of miami school of law. She has interned with us, as you might recognize her, in the Wildlife Conservation bureau and was named the earl k. Moore fellow last spring. Megan enjoys thrift shopping, and she started a Digital Media ink ba incubat incubator. I dont know if some of you had time to watch a Little Television this morning when they talked to sean combs. He made more money than his fashion line than a future. Its a bruight future if you ge a cut from all the people subscribing in your service. Im not promoting. Im just stating a fact. Next, theres adriana, who is a 2a at Columbus School of law. She graduated from the university of pittsburgh and is originally from youngstown, ohio, mr. Chair. She is a Pittsburgh Penguins fan and loves to bake in her free time. We will put her to work before the season is over. Wait, wait. The penguins. Does she have any other sports teams that she follows . You will take that up later after she bakes us something. Last but not least is kelsey rutherford, who is from cincinnati, ohio. An invasion here. Shes a 2l. Columbus school of law. We know they rule the world here, right . She graduated from the university of tennessee in 2015, and she enjoys hiking, photography, and, of course, being a tennessee volunteer fan. Here is my class, so to speak, of 2016 fall law clerks, and i would like to welcome. They are doing a fine job. Thats great. You are very fortunate to have two buckeyes on your team. Commissioner rosen. Commissioner pie. I have awe few law clerks as well. Julia balermo. Shes from george mason. Shes a proud jersey girl, and she is not despite rumors to the contrary, best friends with snooki. Julia graduated from marris college. At marist she started a program to teach karate to underprivileged kids. When she isnt talking tra, in our Fantasy Football League, shes sparring with us to keep her black belts uptodate. Shes the first intern in pie Office History to be on a first name basis with brandon carr. Secondly, alex mcleod is a third Year Law School at american. She grew up in a small town just outside of the bay area and graduated from Sonoma State University where she received a degree in economics with a minor in political science. While at sonoma she worked as an ra, volunteered at a local Charter School for Underprivileged Youth and i think this is the most important part, became a wine and cheese officianado. Alex says shes always watched the Golden State Warriors even before she went 739. Yeah, right. The as and the raiders, much to my chagrin. She also claims shell be taking my first place in the spot of the Fantasy Football League next week, but i have my doubts. Last but not least is kirk garner. A second Year Law School at george mason. He grew up in northeastern pennsylvania and is still surprisingly a devoted Philadelphia Eagles and phillies fan. At least for now. Prior to mason, kirk graduated from the university of pennsylvania, majoring in philosophy, politics, and economics. While at penn he was a member of the glee club, no relation, i dont know i dont think, to the tv show. He prefers washington to philadelphia, but he still longz f longs for the day when wawa will have the sense to move southward. All thanks to our folks, and were excited for the semester to come. Mr. Oreilly. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to mention a somber moment for me. A friend of mine on capitol hill, jim lyons, an employee on the Senate Finance committee, had a Charity Basketball event last week and suffered a massive heart attack. This afternoon they will be turning off his life support, so i wanted to extend my opportunity to thank jim for getting to know him, and i wanted to mention that while we may fight on this and disagree on policy matters, we certainly know whats important, whats really important, our friends and our family, and thank you for your time. Here here. We, too, would like to welcome some new folks into the Chairmans Office. Steven cline. Steven, are you back there . Where are you . Whoops. Okay. Steven must be in class. He is a returnee. He was in the Enforcement Bureau this past summer. He is a third year student at Georgetown University of law school where he is the production editor for the federal Communications Law journal and a member of the student intellectual property law association. Steven received a bachelor the science in education from the university of miami. And timothy campbell, tim, are you here . This is great. Everybody from the Chairmans Office decides not to show up. They went to class. Hey priorities. Timothy is also a third year student. Attends american university, Washington College of law. Got a masters in American History and both have been with us now for several weeks, have already jumped in, and we are glad that theyre both in class as well as working in the Chairmans Office. Are there any other things that should come before us at this point in time . Madam secretary, tell us about our next date, please. The next agenda meeting of the federal Communications Commission is thursday, october 27th, 2016. Thank you very much. Until then we are adjourned. Here we are. Kill ae killers row. Were going to start with the press conference now. Thank you, kim. Obviously, there was a great deal of interest in what the commission did not have on the agenda today. So i want to address that at the top here. It was simply a matter of running out of time. The set top box item remains on circulation, remains in deliberation among the consumers. I trust that you have seen the joint statement that commissioners rosen, warsal and kleiburn put out and the commitment in that statement to unlock the box. Lets dauk about what we did today. Since it was established in 2012, the wireless Emergency Alert system has been a tremendous success that has literally saved lives, whether by giving advanced notice for people to seek shelter before an oncoming tornado or transmitting amber alerts that led to the safe return of dozens of missing children. While the system has worked, we know it can work better as evidenced by the recent experience in new york city. Were an alert identifying the alleged perpetrator had to say go to the media to see his picture. This on a device where youre always looking at pictures. The updated rules would enable the public to receive additional Vital Information in wireless alerts. Public officials will now be able to send embedded links in all wireless Emergency Alert messages, including amber alerts. The public can click to see a photo or to call authorities. It will enable local officials to send Spanish Language alerts while seeking comment on whether we ought to be thinking about that in other languages as well. Participating wireless carriers will now be required to deliver alerts to more specific Geographic Areas. As i said in my statement, nypd commissioner james oneil couldnt have said it better. Lives are truly on the line. I agree, and thats why im gratified that the commission has taken such swift action on this item. With that ill be happy to answer any questions. Lets start at this end. Sorry. Monty taylor. Can you be more specific about why you ran out of time on the set top item . Were there things that needed to be edited, or did you not have the votes to get it approved, or what . Were going back and forth on edits and content. Personnel question. No, set top boxes. Im just wondering it seems like from the record thats developing the realisticing point is this licensing thing. Why not just drop that if the content industry and at least three other commissioners doechblt want. The point of the matter is as i said, we ran out of time. We keep it on circulation. Brian. Are you still planning to do something on zero rating before the end of the year . So, you know, as i have said all along, we are carefully examining what has been developing in zero rating. Its interesting to see that new things continually come on. Its interesting to see that old things continually continue to evolve, and were trying to make sure that we understand the dynamics of all of those. You have been looking at this for a long time though now, right . Months. What are your thoughts after having i love it. Lets see. Sometimes i get beat up for the fact weve been taking too long. Other times i get beat up because were moving too fast. Were things move at the pace that is appropriate for that and i think were doing a good job with our examination of the everevolving issue of zero rating. I am wondering ill give you a braeeak from the set top box. On wireless Emergency Alerts you mentioned the incident in new york. That came up a lot. You were lobbied by the city of new york on it. At the same time after that incident there were concerns that the way new york used this alert to put on the the name of a suspect they were could lead to racial prodpielg. Im wondering how you balance those concerns as you are working on this and what you plan to do . Were the technology agency. Were not the agency that makes a decision which alert gets set. One of the proposals they want considered is whether the fcc chairman should be added as a permanent member. Im wondering if you have an opinion on that . Would you support it . Would you oppose it . Well do whatever they tell us to do. Do you have an opinion . Do you think this agency should be this is a this is something that congress is the one that decides kwl things are in or who was participating in this and will abide by whatever Congress Wants do decide. On the inquiry study thats the right word. Did you going into it and do you now have as an end goal some kind of action like npr or was your intention is your intention now more of informational kind of study of so its premature to speculate on something that might result from something that hasnt resulted. Okay . And, you know, again, zero rating is something that there has been continual evolution in the old programs. There have been some new things. Were trying to make sure that we understand everything thats going on. Hi. Alicia green, rollcall. Hi. Lawmakers have suggested that you should issue a new notice of proposed rule making for the set top box item and open up comments again. Is that something that you would consider . Oh, golly, you know, this is something that has had Public Comment that has been going on for a couple of years. I mean, lets go back to the destack report and all of the comments filed in that, all the comments filed in this. I dont think this is an issue where the public has not had an opportunity to express themselves or has not been heard. Morning consult. I wanted to ask about the isp privacy rules that you recently said in the Senate Hearing you were looking to finalize by the end of the year. Im wondering are you guys in talks right now at the ftc about potentially kind of streamlining those rules to go along with what they already have . Well, i think i said at the hearing and although i didnt see the ftc subsequent hearing, i think they also address the issue that, yes, they have been they have made a formal filing with us. A filing that was bipartisan and unanimous. We have been working with them, and i think i even in my in my comment at the senate referenced how i had been in touch with them the last 24 hours. Youre not howard simons. I know that for a fact. Despite that name in front of you. Im im i was going to ask about the nprm, but she took that from me. I wanted to ask you about reports that there was a revised item that was put out by your office on tuesday and that part of the issue was that at least one Commissioners Office was concerned that there wasnt enough time to review and comment on that revised item. Were talking about set top boxes. Yeah. As i said, this is a timing issue. This is a do we have enough time for everybody to be able to do all the diligence they need to do and to be able to have the dialogues that are necessary . Again, i reiterate what i said in at the outset that its clear from the statement of three of us that we intend to get something done. Clarm communications daily. Hey, matt. The commission didnt do anything in the circumstances for test evil waualuation back r this year . What makes sense for it now to be the npr on this way as opposed to an opportunity taken months ago . I think the question becomes lets see what develops in the record. We have proposed something, and that proposal was specifically targeted in order to lets see what the record develops and well make the decision based on that. There have been a lot of calls planned and the fact sheet. Was there time for it to be a longer fact sheet and what look, all thats happened here is that the deliberative process that has been going on continues to go on. Thats the only change. The timing because on the one hand you say that you argued for 20 years that what makes you believe it can be passed how far in the distance we have a statement all three of us want to do something. Were just making sure you got a lot on your agenda to get done. You have i dont feel a set top box, Business Data Services and the privacy rules. Right. Is this the setback of getting your entire agenda done on set top boxes, or is this not a big setback . This is this is ticktock. This is clock. This is oops. You know, we ran out of time. Business Data Services and the privacy rule done before the election . Well, were managing what ive said all along is were managing to get it done by the end of the year. I had hoped to have it done as soon as possible. John. Do you think that there was any pressure from the hill that made any difference in this outcome today on set top box . John, the hill has made itself known on both sides of this issue since it started, and i agree with cecilia. It was 20 years ago. Since the destack and everything started a couple of years ago. She already asked a question from are you going to put up with that when he says youre one in the same . Mark that. Alekts, w alex, yes, sir. Two major logistical question. You pulled the set top box item because you didnt have three votes for it. If so, when did you know that you did not have the votes for it . What did you not hear about what i said . I dont think its been explicitly stated that the reason that it was pushed was because you didnt have votes for it. Youre we are in the process of a deliberative trying to get to the deliberate the end of deliberations on how to do it. We ran out of time. It is a large document. It goes back and forth. There were it rags that didnt come out until late last night. People need time. You know, youre period. Janet rfd tv. Do you see that something might actually a rule might be set before the end of the year . Well, were going to its a notice and comment proceeding. There will be, you know, a notice there will be a comment period. Then there will be a reply comments period. Then there will be, you know, how do we make sense out of all of that. I dont want to set an arbitrary date to it. Todd, sneaking up from the back row. Yes, sir. With a small question. On set top boxes saying people need time, when would you expect the item to be resolved . I hope soon. I got a followup. Nice try, monty. Questions for Public Safety. Raise your hand. Public safety. Come on up. Some of you may have noticed that we had a test of the Emergency Alert system 22,000 stations have responded to us, and were continuing to compile those results with our partners at fema and industry. As well as the state commission. Really excited about the results of that national test. I have a question about the test if you are taking. I think we can if the others dont mind. Some stations that would put on the a spanish alert didnt because do you know if any spanish alerts did go out yesterday . They did. Thats exactly the kind of thing that we wanted to test because the way the alert system is set up, its set up to be fail safe, right . If it doesnt get it through, the connection that rides over the ip network, it will get it through the broadcast relay. The spanish part through the broadcast relay and so we believe this would give us the data necessary to refine the transmission at the second language. Thats where were at with that. Do you think that this was a more successful test than the 2011 it would be hard for me to compare because the work that was required to get the first one going i know is very significant. My good friend jamie barnett, my position at the time, and i hesitate to say that one was bet than the other. I can tell you that foundations set the first test built upon, and we think we were in a better place to capture results. Not just from the broadcasters themselves, but from the disability rights organizations as well as communities in general. If we were better, its only because that team prepared the table for us and we built upon that. Greg, is that fair . I think thats accurate. Regarding the waea item today, could you clarify regarding the requirement for support for pictures and multimedia . Was that in the order, or is that in the further notice, and is it both the pictures and the multimedia that its i may ask james to clarify because we wanted to bring in as much capability as we could when the technology and the platforms that the providers operate kwoo support it. We make allowable as soon as possible the inclusion of some. Ill have james walk through the timeline. Then we walked through a timeline that that transition from its allowable to you have to support it. James, can you we identify in the order of Public Safety value that it would have to include that kind of content in alerts themselves. We seek comment on technical perimeters that should be paramd be associated with the multi media and alerts as well as on appropriate type compliance program. The pictures. Right. So, specifically, with respect to multi media, the kind of content that we will contemplate including thumbnail sized images and hazard symbols, informational symbols. Thats multi media sent over the data channel as an included part of the alert. We, after 30 days, now will allow the inclusion of a link to images, which we think will be very important. While it wont be that the alert pops up the picture on your screen as soon as you look at the alert, youll with one click be able to get to the picture. And that we will make allowable 30 days after 30 days after it. So with respect to embedded references, it will be permitted to include in alert, 30 days federal register and required to provide support for the notification for register. Did that answer the question . I think so, im actually asking it for paul and he sent my paul is proxy. Thank you. Did you have something on that issue . Yeah, go ahead. Just to be clear, he said images and video. James answered the question first about multi media. Thats part of that multi media piece where its allowable, but we defer to the future notes suppose well make it on Details Associated with videos. Got it. That said, there would be nothing that would preclude with the embedded links to have alert originator host at that link that video clip of something. Are there any restrictions on where you can link to. We leave those details to work that we will do in its limitation with Public Safety community, clear theres a number of considerations to make sure we do that in a safe manner that that has the right to very confidence between alert or ring nater originators. They do not allow video to be included in the alerts themselv themselves. Does the order require during the presentation it was referring to allowing carriers to deploy the device based geo targeting as soon as practical. Does that mean just if its okay you do it if you dont have to. Does the further notice, is it looking towards moving towards that in the future. Yeah, this is part of our thought process, lets make it available as soon as practical and so within 30 days we believe that the rapid advancements have been made and the ability for messaging, in general, to consult the Location Based Services within the phone, that its becoming a very useful competitive feature between phones. We want to make clear that we appreciate and applaud that kind of effort. We see reasonable compliance time frame it would be for that they match the target area and the dates we see coming down 42 months the federal register or 24 months from the data that standards are completed, whichever is sooner. Thats an important key point we wont require it, but the requirement that we expected to find in the future notice to exactly match, we think would while being neutral, it will drive the need for Solutions Like device based alerting or it could be by then were so good at 9 t 11 location that it could mean it that way as well. You just said it will be Technology Much wall. Does the item contemplate any type of specific technology for the improved go targeting. This item does not. And we are have been working for some time now on improved geo location associated with 911 and in that proceeding and the engagements since there are no for that proceeding with the industry, we see the e ver jens of some wonderful new technologies that will make geo location devices at scale across providers much more achievable and we think that that will have a complimentary effect, useful effect for this item. Questions, anybody. Okay. Then well do the media bureau for video programming diversity, any questions . Great. Questions about the programming item. Sure, does the item define what an independent programmer is, is that anybody not connected to an mepd or any large programming entity or how do you describe that . Its a notice so it proposes a definition for independent programming. Can you share what the definition is. Essentially, its someone who is not linked with a major studio, dont know exactly what the wording is. Its not only independent for but also independent from the major studios. Got it. Is there also consideration of some kind of rule that will require paid tv companies to have a certain percentage of the content they carried independent programmers or was that left out. No, thats not proposed. Can you give a little bit better sense of what kind of questions youre asked . We ask very questions in the noi and what weve identified are two sets of issues with respect to contract provisions on which weve made specific proposals. One is unconditionals and the other is unreasonable adms and what weve said is that we dont propose to forbid any clauses that relate to putting programming on an alternative distribution methods, but we want help in defining those that are unreasonable because we did find in the record that independent programmers say that these adms are a great obstacle for them in getting their initial carriage and also being able to get additional carriage over the top. I guess i was under the impression that how long would those at the mpr muzzle ask sort of questions yeah, we dont have a specific question on bundling but weve got a lot of record input and the possible effects from programmers and weve asked additional questions on that . What sort of additional questions are being asked . Essentially what effect there may be of bundling practices in eliminating the opportunity for independent programmers to get carriage. Some of the suggestions weve had there may be capacity limitations so if theyre required to carry large bundles, they may not have room for independent programmers. There have been some suggestions that it may be a financial matter that if theyre carrying channels that they might not otherwise carry because of bundling restrictions that might not leave the money to be able to carry additional programmers, thats the kind of questions that have been raised in the record and that we pose further in the notice. Thanks. Hey, everyone, just a brief statement from me and then i dont know mr. Morelli. With respect to the set top box proposal, to me the proposal doesnt need more time behind closed doors, it needs the publics input for both legal and policy reasons and that input can only happen if the commission considers its proposal in the context of a further notice. And thats why i believe the majority should release the red line that was circulated at 9 00 p. M. Last night. We need to let the public know what the fccs proposal is and provide informed views on it. So lets unlock the plan, with that im ready for any questions you may have. Can you tell us anything about what was in that version. Yes. Please do. No. [ laughter ] okay. Did it contain a licensing body of any kind . Still not going to do it . Unfortunately i cant. But i think this illustrates the importance of open and transparent process. This process we heard about a couple of weeks ago can only be such if the American People have a chance to have a seat at the table. Can you tell me when you found out it was going to be pulled and how you were going to vote on it before it got pulled . I found out about it at 10 00 a. M. This morning. Around 10 00 a. M. I couldnt help but notice that the joint statement didnt include you guys from chairman wheeler and the two democratic commissioner. Should we read anything into that are you not prepared to support the item if you can get it to the place. That means youre having any kind of conversations on the item, notwithstanding the pledges of bipartisan deliberative discussions that would occur, weve had none. So if there was conversation the chairman alluded to late last night, i had zero. We actually were told by the Chairmans Team that when we made suggested that its to the last document, not to this document, the previous document we made and talked about previously things we want to see happen. We made specific requests and we were told that unless they were included in commissioner the other two democratic commissioner lists, they would not be included in any form, there was no conversation about that. They were immediately ignored. I dont know how thats deliberative and i dont know how thats inclusive of any of our thoughts. Unless they propose them and we just happen to agree with their thoughts on our list they have been overlapped. Then none of our thoughts mattered. Im having a tough time. At the same time some people are, you know, have argued that im the problem with bipartisan ship at the commission. So its a very interesting dynamic we have. Hi, 360, do you think theres any chance this doesnt get done this year . Are you pleased to see a delay . Im pleased because i dont think the document itself is ready and ive suggested a number of changes to it. Im never pleased that the we want the document to be in the best form it should be in and whenever its ready. I have no clue in terms of the timing and have not been part of any discussions this morning. Ive learned the same time they called this just before the meeting to say theyre going to get pulled so lets hope so. To me the lesson of this particular episode is bad process yield bad out comes. If the Commission Adopted a open trance parns and bipartisan from the get go. I have to think what you saw tran transpire today and last night would not have occurred or would have been mitigated. Weve been excluded from the process, we put our proposals on our internal email chain and said, look, here is a way forward, we think, we would like to get your input. This is all too typical, our suggestions were just dismissed out of hand. Can you be a it little bit more specific about when you offered up your proposals for the item . Speaking for ourselves, it was, i want to say, it was over the weekend. It was not this week. I think it was sunday. Maybe saturday. Ive got two quick questions, the first is can you speak at all to what your way forward was, it wasnt adopted by the leadership and then the second one is for commissioner riley, you alluded to this, you were essentially accused of being partisan strife by signing democrats. And im wondering if you regret the comments that were brought up at that hearing as evidence you were contributing to african atmosphere and second if youve had any conversation about the senator about those concerns . The first question was what your what was your way forward on this item . Here yeah, i cant get into the details. What i can say it would have been consistent, i think with our Legal Authority and would have reflected largely where i think the marketplace is evolving and, if youll get some of the previous statements ive made, what i suggested would not be a surprise to you. I think fundamentally it is to get the commission out of the placement between programmers and distributors and multiple layers and multiple parts of the item. Still, you know, this licensing entity Commission Still has its tent cals in that and i dont believe it should. So i would like to, you know, those are two areas that ive identified as part of my testimony and set of commerce committee. More specifics, there are a bunch of different other things that have come forward that are lesser known but still need to be addressed, in my opinion, we a v to see if theres any willingness. During the second question im happy to address. I didnt find my comments intended to insight partisanship. I said to general nelson that wasnt that i wasnt tried to an tieg niez or inflame, i was speaking what i think were inaccurate. This interesting process weve had here that were not included and yet thats that i shouldnt be upset about that in some form. You know, i have not talked to the senator since the hearing, but i think my proof is that i work on all items and was happy to work on this item, if included. So im one of the sources of, you know, we had a good dialogue on Foreign Ownership, ive been pushing hard op that and try to get us forward. Team tell con did a ton of things that i would try to find a bipartisan agreement on. Do you feel the language that you used at the time, forgetting some of the substance of your concerns, the language you used suggesting that democrats could be trusted whether thats on the hill or here, do you think that was the right language to use . I was repeating a phrase. Its not a long its been used for decades. And i just restate in it. That wasnt my phrase. I was repeating it and it went to the heart of the fact that in multiple items, you know, since my time has been here my colleagues have backed away either the morning of or right up to delayed meetings, you know, its problematic part of this i said to the senator, part of my commitment to committee and to him was that ill keep my word and that you can trust what ive said. I think ive honored that, i dont know that everyone else has done that. Oreilly, youve emphasized today that the team tell con review needs to be completed. I recognize that youre in the minority. Do you have the sense of the status of that review and do you think a final vote can take place this year. I think the record is complete on that item and we can move forward. I dont have idea of a timing for that or any of the other items, potentially. Is there any census to whether the parties are stalled or grid locked over the proposed changes. I dont get that impression. I think theres quite a good deal of agreement on the item. There was, you know, certain some administration i thought were not reflective of the Current Situation and may be a little unnecessary in protective. I think theres a way to get to home, in my opinion. In the coming months. I just dont control the agenda. Thanks. Regarding the global star order, can you give us an update on your status on when you think youll make a final decision. Sure. I dont have any new data or information to provide on this situation. You can see from my exparties i continue to have conversation with anyone who is interested in coming in. I dont have any idea of the timing. I dont know that its any different than last month. The two of you voted no on all of the personnel items, can you give which we dont know what they were and theyll be the ones to tell us. Can you give us any insight at all as to what there would be about personnel item that will cause you to do that. We cant get into the merits of any particular item. What i will say is that the term unilaterally and without consultation changed the process and, that, at least, i think informed