In favor of a light touch framework that worked for decades prior to 2016. The declaratory ruling also reinstates the private mobile state ossification of mobile broad and Internet Access service and returns to the commissions definition of interconnected service that existed prior to 2015. The item restores the authority of the federal trade commission to enforce Consumer Protection and antitrust laws. It also clarifies the effects of the return to a recent protest reclassification of a Regulatory Framework, including the need to apply a federal rigorous touring approach to Information Services like broadband Internet Access service. Next, the report and order adopts a transparency rule that would require Internet Service providers to disclose information about their practices to consumers, punch partners, and other Small Businesses and the commission. Item returns to the transparency rule the Commission Adopted with certain improvements to promote transparency. It would also eliminate the commissioners conduct rule. Based on the record evidence, the item finds the conduct rules are unnecessary because the transparency requirements together with antitrust and consumer section laws, ensures Internet Service providers engaging in behavior in complicit with an open internet, can be held accountable. The actions taken in this item will advance the article work to broadband promote internet in rural america. Brightened the future of innovation both in network and at their edge, and move closer to the goal of eliminating the digital divide. The bureau recommends adoption of this ruling and order and requests editorial privileges extending to conforming edits. Thank you. Thank you. Will now turn to comments to the bench. He requested the opportunity to speak today and he was denied, that i have a copy of the statement that the congressman would have delivered had he been given the opportunity. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, i would ask that you include this in an official record of the proceeding. Without objection. Thank you. This legallyfrom lightweight consumer harming destroyingnabling Internet Freedom order. Among thebecause i am millions outraged because the sec pulled its own teeth advocating responsibility to protect the nations broadband consumers. Some may ask why are we witnessing such unprecedented groundswell of public support the same Internet Service providers that the majority say you should trust to do right by you will put profit and shareholders returns above what is best for you. Whenof us raise our hands we were sworn in as fcc commissioners. We took an old and promised to uphold our duties and responsibilities to make available so far as possible to all people of the United States, without discrimination, a rapid and efficient nationwide and worldwide wire and Radio Communication service with adequate facility at reasonable charges. Is aboute sec majority to officially abandon that pledge and millions are watching and taking note. I do not believe there is any sec or congressional offices immune to the delusion of consumer delusion of consumer outcry. We are human hearing of state and local offices fielding calls. I think the number is rising. Ofe republican Members Congress went on the record in calling for a halt to todays vote. Why such a bipartisan outcry . Because a large majority of americans are in favor of keeping strong Net Neutrality rules in place. Saddest part to me about all of this, and its painful for me to say this, that this is the new norm at the sec. A norm where the majority ignores the will of the people and stand idly by while the people they are permitted to serve, they they have taken and both to serve, are about to lose so much. We have heard story after story about what Net Neutrality means to consumers and Small Businesses from places as diverse as los angeles and skid row to cincinnati and ohio. I have here letters presented to sec to plead with the keep our Net Neutrality rules in place. But what is striking in keeping with the new norm, is despite the millions of comments, letters, and calls received, this order sites not even one. That aims about the direction the current majority is heading, this fcc is heading, and that speaks volumes about just who is being heard at the fcc. Those sole proprietors, whose entire Business Models depend on an open internet are worried that the absence of clear and enforceable Net Neutrality protections will result in higher costs and fewer benefits because you see, they are not able to pay in those tolls for premium access. Large online businesses have also weighed in, expressing concerns about being subject to added charges as they simply try to reach their own customers. Engineers have submitted comments, including many of those internet pioneers. They share with the sec majority the fundamentals fcc majority of how the internet works because from what they said, there is no way that an item like this would ever see the light of day if the majority understood the platform that some of them helped to create. I have heard from innovators worried that we are standing up a mother may i regime with a broadband provider becomes the arbiter of acceptable online Business Models. And yes, i have heard from consumers who are worried given that their broadband providers have already shown that they would charge below the line fees, raise prices unexpectedly, and put consumers on hold for hours at a time. Who will have their best interest at heart in a World Without clear and enforceable rules overseeing by an agency without any Clear Authority . With that agency be a toothless fcc . There is a darker side to all of this that we have witnessed over the past few weeks. Threats and intimidation, personal attacks, not to cheering, russian influence, fake comments. These are unacceptable. Some of these actions are illegal. They are all to be rejected. Acceptable also not is the fccs refusal to cooperate with the state attorney general investigations or allow evidence in the record that would undercut that could only be described as a preordained outcome. Many have been asking me, what next . S how will all of this Net Neutrality and internet experience look after todays decision . My answer is a simple one and when the current protections are next . Abandoned and the rules have been in place since 2015 are repealed, we will have a church iron cap version of c heshire cat version of Net Neutrality. They had teeth, however you conjugate of that. Those comforting words, we have every incentive to worry. We have every incentive to do the right thing. But what they will soon have is every incentive to do their own thing. The results of throwing out Net Neutrality protections may not be felt right away. Most folks will get up tomorrow warning, you ready for work, and over the next week waited through what will be no doubt hundreds of headlines. We will grow tired of these hundreds of headlines and hearing from prognosticators and we will submerge ourselves in a sea of holiday bliss. But what we have rocked today will one day be a parent and by then, when you really wake up and see what has changed, i fear it may be too late to do anything about it because there will be no agency in power to express your concerns. This item insidiously ensures that the fcc will never able to fully grasp the harm it may have unleashed on the internet ecosystem. Leaveat inability might decisionmakers to conclude that the next internet startup that failed to flourish, that attempted to seek relief whatever authority may or may not be in charge with however left,eeth they may have simply may have had a bad is this plan, when in fact, the actual corporate would be the absence of a level Playing Field online today. Particularly damning is what todays repeal would mean for marginalized groups like committees of color that rely on platforms like the internet to communicate. Traditional outlets rarely, if ever are concerns. It was through social media, remember, that the world first heard about missouri because of those legacy outlets did not consider them worthy enough for coverage until the started trending. It had been through online video and services that targeted Entertainment Ecosystems thrived, or stories are finally eating told because of those very same programs that were weretted for consideration rejected time and time again by Mainstream Media and and it hasn outlets been to secure messaging platforms where activists have communicated and organized for Justice Without gatekeepers who may or may not have opinions. We are over the next significant where will the next significant attack on Internet Freedom come from . Making a high traffic video provider ask, what more can it pay to make that pain go away . That will never happen, you say . Newsflash, it are he has. The difference now, is the open question of what is stopping them . The difference after todays vote is that no one will be able to stop them. Maybe several providers will quietly roll out paid prioritization packages that will enable deeppocketed players to cut the queue. Maybe the vertically integrated broadband provider decides it will favor its own services or high valued internet traffic will be subject to an additional fee. Maybe some of these actions be cloaked under nondisclosure agreements and wrapped up in clauses sorbitration that it will be a breach of contract to disclose these publicly or take the provider to court if there is any wrongdoing. Say of course this will never happen. Vote, whatodays will be in place to stop any of this . What we do know is that broadband providers did not even wait for the ink to dry on a proposed order before making their moves. One broadband provider, who had in the past, honest to not engage in paid hybridization, has now quietly dropped that promise from its list of commitments on its website. What next . Blocking or throttling . That will never happen, you say . After todays vote, exactly who is the cop on the beat that can or will stop them . And just who will be impacted the most . Consumers and Small Businesses, thats who. The internet continues to and has evolved become even more critical for every participant in our 21st century ecosystems. Government services have migrated online, as have educational opportunities, job notices, and applications. But at the same time, broadband biters have continued to consolidate. They have become bigger. They own their own content. They own their own media companies. In they own or have interest other types of competing services. So why are millions of americans so alarmed . Because they understand the risks this all poses. And even those who might not exactly know what it means when somebody says title ii authority, what they know is that they will be at risk without it. I have been asking myself repeatedly, why the majority is so single focused on overturning these wild wildly popular rules. Is it because they felt the 20 15th Net Neutrality order was 700, will over dispense with more than 25 provisions was too heavyhanded . Or is this a ploy to create a need for legislation where there was none before . Or is it to establish uncertainty where little deviously existed. Undermine the to protections in 2015 that are currently part of the Supreme Court . You know, the very same rules that were resoundingly upheld by the circuit last year . No doubt, we will see a rush to the courthouse, asking the Supreme Court to vacate and demand the rules that we have fought so hard for over the past few years because today, the fcc uses legally suspect means to clear the decks of substantial protections for consumer and competitions. It is clear white we see so much bad process these items. Because the fix was already in. There is no real mention of the thousands of Net Neutrality complaints filed by consumers. Why . The majority has refused to put them in the record while maintaining the rhetoric that there have been no real complaints or no real violations. Record evidence of massive incentives and abilities of broadband providers to act in anticompetitive ways are missing from the docket. Why . Because those in charge have refused to use the data and a knowledge the agency does have an has relied on the past to inform our merger reviews. As the majority has shown time and time again, the abuse of individuals do not matter. Including the views of those who care deeply about the substance. But may not be washington insiders. There is a basic fallacy underlying the majoritys actions and rhetoric today. Bestssumptions of what is for broadband providers is obviously what is best for america. Breathless claims about an shackling Broadband Services from unnecessary regulation are only about insuring that Broadband InternetService Providers have and maintain the keys to the internet, assertions that this is merely a return to some imaginary status quo anti, cannot hide the fact that this is the very first time that the federal Communications Commission has disavowed substantially protections for consumers online. And with the current 2015 Net Neutrality rules are laid to waste, we may be left with no Single Authority with the power to protect consumers. Now this order loudly crows about handing over authority of broadband to the federal trade commission, but what is absent from the order and glossed over in a haphazardly issued afterthought of a memorandum of understanding or at ou, is that no,fcc is an agency with nada Technical Expertise in telecommunications. The ftc is an agency that may or may not even have authority over broadband providers in the first instance. If you can reach a very high bar of proving unfair or deceptive practices and there is substantial consumer injury, it may take years upon years for and atedy to be levied most companies dont have years and years to wait for an answer. But dont just take my word for it. Even one of the fccs own commissioners has articulated these very concerns and if you are wondering why the fcc is preempting state Consumer Protection laws in this item without notice, let me help you with this simple jingle that you can easily commit to memory that will underscore all of this. If it benefits industry, preemption is good. If it benefits consumers, preemption is bad. Reclassification of broadband would do more than recapping over net eternity. It will also undermine our universal service construct for years to come, something with something the order implicitly acknowledges. It would undermine the lifeline program. It will weaken our ability to support robust broadband in for structured deployment, and what we will soon find out is what a broadband market unencumbered by a robust Consumer Protections will look like. I suspect that it will not the very pretty. I know that there are many questions on the minds of americans right now, including what the repeal of Net Neutrality will mean for them. To help understand or to answer or address any outstanding questions, i plan to host a town hall through twitter next week on tuesday at 2 00 p. M. Eastern standard time and eastern standard time. But what saddens me the most today is that the agency that is supposed to protect you if actually abandoning you. But what i am pleased to say today is a fight to save Net Neutrality does not end today. The agency does not have the final word. Thank goodness for that. Theas i close my eulogy of 2015 Net Neutrality rules, carefully crafted rules that actually struck an appropriate balance in providing tumor protections and enabling opportunities in investment, i actually take what i owe just call ironic i will just call ironic comfort in the words of commissioner pie back in 2015, because i believe is will ring true about this destroying Internet Freedom order. I am optimistic, he said, that we will look back on todays vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that has served us so well. I dont know whether this plan will be vacated by court, reversed by congress, or overturned by a future commission, but i do believe that it stays our number two. Days its days our numbered. You, i will mark you down as a no. [applause] [laughter] i will have a longer statement if believable since as debated extensively and exhaustively in the record of this proceeding. I agree with this decision and i support such a low recent and soundly justified order. But i have longstanding views on this topic. I approach this proceeding with an open mind. I met with anyone i could no matter what their particular viewpoint. In the end, im simply not persuaded that heavyhanded rules are needed to protect against hypothetical harms. In all this time, ive yet to hear recent unquestionable evidence of dim stretchable harms to consumers that demands providers be constrained by this completely flawed regulatory intervention. I still cannot endorse by imagination. It is a shame that this topic has been plagued by baseless fear mongerin