>> the dinner will also include the announcement of several journalism awards as well as college scholarships but by the association. president trump will not be attending the dinner. he will be holding a rally in pennsylvania. >> now fcc chair by talks about the future of internet regulation. freedom works and the small business partnership council hosted the event at the museum. >> good afternoon everyone. my name is adamant. adam. i'm the president of freedom works and what welcome everyone here. a lot of people are talking today about president trump's first 100 days. i would suggest that yes, the supreme court is a big deal but the things that chairman pai are working on right now potentially have the longest impact of anything coming out of this administration. that is definitely debatable. so i've been a freedom works fr 12 years. in 12 years ago when i started,, visit one of the first issues we worked on. and last year i was very nervous that we were going in the wrong direction. president obama had passed new regulations on the internet that i feared would probably stop innovation, particularly they are 15 billion devices connected to the internet today. 15 billion. in 2020 that number will go up to 50. so obviously it's, we will be getting into a whole new level of change and we can either try and unregulated that change or let the market develop. so we are encouraged to hear that the chairman pai, denouncements you will be making today, we will be looking at opening up the internet for development, in a way that will increase competition -- sorry. will throw the uni internet open a way that increases competition and does away with china having any stipulation. so elections have consequences. and as i sit at the end of the first 100 days, this potential is going to be the greatest impact on our economy in the long run. so with that i'd like to introduce karen carriage and from the small business and not partnership council. karen. [applause] >> well, thank you very much, adam. it's a pleasure to cohost today's event with freedom works. i know our members are very excited. they are watching the live stream right now on the freedom works platform, on facebook and like all of you are very excited to hear from chairman pai and commissioner o'rielly about the future of internet regulation. it's not good to come as any surprise i think to all of you gathered in this room or even our members who are watching the event right now that when small business owners think about their experiences and think with regulation or the regulatory process, those thoughts are not that kind to say the least. regulations very costly, archaic, outdated, complex, conflicting. the regulatory process itself most times does not consider the impact on small firms and entrepreneurs and ignores their concerns on final rules are actually released. that being said they are very excited about the new direction that this administration has taken on the regulatory foreign front and regulation in general across all agencies and are very excited about what the sec has done so far under the chairmanship of chair pai. we were very delighted, for example, that when the chairman, when he first put on the chairman said i guess if you will, that his first action was one protecting small pieces. that was the order that extended protection for small firms for additional five years, the burdensome transparency reporting requirements embedded within the net utility rules. but it's been a series of actions. comments and actions that are supported by my members, actions and reforms that have long advocated for all agencies. those reforms include more transparency, inclusiveness, using actual economic data and analysis to guide rulemaking. actually listening on a proactive basis to the concerns of small business owners and entrepreneurs, to understand what the impact is going to be on your firms as consumers, technology and telecommunication services, as well as in the marketplace. as an organization dedicated to protecting small business and promoting entrepreneurship we are very concerned about the state of small business to many of them continue to struggle. they have reached plateaus in terms of growth. we are very concerned about entrepreneurship because audible worship remains very, very weak in the u.s. in fact, a gap analysis report that was published by my chief economist who is here with us today found that because of this low in entrepreneur activity in the last ten years, that our economy is missing 3. 3.7 millin firms. that's a lot of business. that's in packs, job creation, innovation and obviously the overall growth of our economy. but thankfully things are changing it we'll hear about a tax reform plan today that will create come help create sort of an ecosystem that we need to encourage more small business growth in entrepreneurship. today's world ip day so we are suffering that and that is a protecting ip is a critical piece of ecosystem in terms of start up activity. and we need a regulatory system that also very friendly. and that is why what chairman pai and commissioner o'rielly are doing on the regulatory front really matters. investment is key to innovation and bring our small businesses and people who want to start businesses, affordable high-quality broadband so they can use the internet to start scaling, compete in the global marketplace in the location of your choice. so we're very excited to hear remarks about the future of internet regulation. we again thank chairman pai and commissioner o'rielly for the leadership if we look forward to working with them in the years ahead as well. so we are going here a couple remarks i believe from a a few stakeholders and friends of our organization i know, and katie, you are up next, he was federal affairs manager for americans for tax reform and executive director of digital liberty. so katie. >> hey, thanks everyone for being here. this is a really exciting day, a red letter day, if you will. and i want to say first of all thanks to chairman pai, commissioner o'rielly for everything you guys are going to be undertaking for the free market and for open internet going forward. i want to be clear that no one is against net neutrality. we are against a government takeover by regulatory fiat without congressional input. that is a major problem. so moving forward i just want to say that if you are for competition you are against title to pick a moving for you are looking ahead to this open transparent process for comments, something revolutionary to be able to comment in this way ahead of time as we were not able to do before. we are very excited about the road ahead of us. thanks. [applause] >> thanks, katie. the americans -- glad to be here today with chairman pai and commissioner o'rielly to talk about the future of the internet. the internet as we know it flourished under light touch regulatory models, despite all the evidence and many studies of billions of dollars of consumer welfare losses, many studies that we led commission voted to put the internet under the yoke of the 1934 law meant for a rotary dial telephone services. since these regulations have taken effect, broadband investment has declined and broadband slowed negatively impacting consumers, especially those in underserved areas. aci looks for to the commissions plan to right this wrong so that consumers can benefit from increased investment and innovation that will fuel advances in telemedicine and other 21st century innovations and technologies. with that do have a representative of the national range? i'll turn it over to you. [applause] >> thank you. good afternoon. my name is betsy, president of the national grange. i'm honored to stand alongside chairman pai, freedom works in the small business and entrepreneurship council to talk about the importance of connectivity to our rural communities. for 150 years the national grange has worked to ensure that all communities are able to benefit from the latest advancements and communications technologies and gain access to them. today that's why we are committed to ensuring an open internet to connect all entrepreneurs from the silicon valley to the silicon prairie. we look forward to working with the chairman on his efforts to spur inclusive innovation that connects all of american citizens, including those in our rural and small-town communities. i would like to introduce mario lopez from hispanic leadership fund. [applause] >> thanthank you, betsy. welcome, everyone. great to see everyone here. we are thrilled you could be for today's announcement. i'm the president of the hispanic leadership fund, a public policy advocacy organization dedicated to promoting liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all americans. like many of our members i'm a tech enthusiast. i'm excited about all the innovations and emerging technologies coming from the tech sector. on a personal level but also because of the transformative power that the sector has in terms of creating jobs, economic growth and affording opportunity for all communities. hispanic leadership fund police one of the primary reasons that technology sector has flourished is because it has been allowed to operate in a light touch regulatory and private. this approach to technology regulations has served us well under the president of both democrat bill clinton and republican george w. bush. we believe it will work again to allow innovative ideas and technological solutions to improve the lives of working families across the country. the latino community after all is heavy with small business growth, latino start small businesses at a rate two-thirds that, three times that of the general population and our traditionally first adopters of technology, relying on these technologies to improve their lives and seek education and other important areas. .. or lobbyist or a lawyer. i am none of the above. in 2011 and move to silicon valley after company i started was accepted into -- we had to register as a common carrier with the fcc because we were improving communication between businesses and consumers. we have completed five reports, useless reports per year that required over 50 hours of work according to an omb estimate. although the company that i found it was acquired a year and a half half ago and my cofounders and i haven't been operational for the past six months my co-founder on monday received a call from south carolina, regulators there asking for $20 in fees that were owed from 2016. i'm just happy they don't have my number. [laughter] while jumping through the regulatory hoops we built a product that dismisses wanted and paid for to create jobs. to create payroll. everyday entrepreneurs in silicon valley and across the country are fighting to build companies that might transform education, transportation, health care and many other industries. many are doing important work that they are not superheroes. they are simply continuing a tradition of americans who pursue a dream, who solve problems, could tinker and experiment until something? we all must work to preserve the system to ensure the people who grow up in the midwest in rural appalachia in low income neighborhoods like belmont heights florida where i am from, have a shot at pursuing their dream whatever that might be. this is way lincoln worked to connect policymakers and the technology community. as you all know the rate of new firm creation is declining for the first time in recent history. the technology community and government leaders must work together to reverse this trend and promote more access and more innovation. i believe in a free and open internet and i am sure you and most reasonable people would at the process of getting to this outcome and how rules are enforced makes all the difference. the internet is not a monopoly. it has not experienced severe market failures. the internet is always evolving and improving unlike our water services or other public utilities. companies in order to stay relevant in the marketplace do work to provide consumers with faster speeds, new products and new services. in february of this year nearly 200,000 californians where i live were forced to evacuate the coast of a collapsing dam due to years of neglect but something its a good idea to give the same regulatory authority over power grids and bridges and our waterways in the country to regulating the internet. i disagree. government control of the internet in variably leads to more taxes, new rate regulations, new fees and micromanagement. if the goal is to keep the internet open and free to promote more access and innovation something we all agree with, it should not be managed or controlled by the government. i'm i am honored this afternoon to introduce someone who perhaps more than any single person in the country today is shaping the future of technology and policy. in january he was nominated by the president to be the next chairman of the federal communications commission. he took the helm of this important federal agency guided by a handful of principles. consumers benefit from market competition, not competitive for preemptive government regulation policymakers should be skeptical of any technology calling for increased regulation on their competitors or any kind of special treatment. federal regulations when they are needed should be created to reflect today's technology and today's dynamic marketplace rather than decades old regulations and industries. the fcc like other government agencies, is bound by the laws created in congress and cannot and should not be a super legislator. the fcc functions best and this is critically important, functions best when policy is created in consensus and bipartisan by you. he is a first-generation american a graduate of harvard university, the university of chicago, ladies and gentlemen please welcome to the podium chairman ajit pai. [applause] >> thank you garrett for sharing your inspirational story and perspective. thank you for the kind introduction. thank you to freedom works and the small business and entrepreneurship council for hosting us. thank you for americans for tax reform the consumer institute, the hispanic leadership fund and garrett's lincoln network for supporting this event. it is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. for most five years i've had the privilege of serving as federal communications commission or. during that time i've had a chance to travel all over the country to speak with americans from all walks of life. when it comes to high-speed internet access or broadband i found there is far more that unites us than divides us. whether i'm i am in red america purple america or blue america whether i'm in the permafrost above the arctic circle are in the bayous of louisiana people tell me the same thing. they want fast, affordable reliable internet access. they say they want the benefit comes from competition and they tell me they want content and applications services and devices of their choice. the questions that we have the fcc must answer our what will give the american people what they want? that question has been the subject of a fierce public debate and this afternoon and new chapter of that debate will begin. but before looking to the future let's briefly review how we got to where we are today. put simply, the internet is the greatest free-market success in history. this is due in large part to landmark decisions made by president bill clinton and the republican congress in the telecommunications act of 1996. that legislation they decided on a bipartisan basis that it was the policy of the state to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that currently exists for the internet unfettered by federal entity regulations. for almost two decades the fcc respected that law. it adopted a regulatory framework one explicitly approved by the courts and one which enable the internet to grow and evolve beyond almost anyone's expectations. under this framework is free and open internet emerged. under this framework america's internet economy produce one some of the most successful on line country -- companies in history google facebook in net? just to name a few. under this framework the private sector invested about $1.5 trillion to build the networks that gave americans high-speed access to the internet and under this framework american consumers benefited from unparalleled innovation. but two years ago the federal government's approach changed. the fcc on a partyline vote decided to impose a set of heavy-handed regulations on the internet. they decided to slap an old regulatory framework called title ii originally from the 1930s to mama bell telephone among service providers big and small. it decided the federal government was the center of the internet. why? unfortunately the answer has nothing to do with the laws are the facts. nothing about the internet was broken in 2015. nothing about the law had changed and there was not a rash of internet service providers blocking consumers from accessing the content application or services of their choice. no, it was all about politics. days after disappointing 2014 midterm election and in order to energize dispirited base the white house released an extraordinary unprecedented youtube video instructing the fcc to implement title ii regulations. this was a transparent attempt to compromise the independence of the agency and it worked. notwithstanding the revisionist history offered by some the fcc was not moving toward title ii regulation before the white house announcement and the way it was dragged kicking and screaming down that path. what was the problem that title ii was about to address? we were warned that without it the internet would probably devolve into it digital dystopia of fast lanes and slow lanes but strangely the case for title ii was a fact free zone. the internet entrepreneur mark cuban said at the end of 2014 if it ain't broke, don't fix fix i. d.c. circuit 2014 decision has created an opportunity for the fcc to introduce more rule-making. it shouldn't. it works well as he put it there is no federal platform in the world to do business than the internet in the united states. to these fast lanes and slow lanes even exist? no. the truth of the matter is we decided to abandon successful policies solely because of hypothetic hysterical prophecies it's almost as if the special-interest pushing titles weren't trained on the row problem but an excuse to achieve the long-standing goal of forcing the internet to control of the internet. more on that later. two years ago i warned that we were making a serious mistake. most important is that title ii regulation which reduces investment in broadband if the structure. the economics are simple here. the more heavily you regulate something the less of it you are going to get. when you talk about investment many peoples eyes glaze over but i think it's important to explain in plain terms what the consequences are. reduced investment means fewer americans will have high-speed internet access. it means fewer americans will have jobs and that means less competition for american consumers. so what happened after the fcc closed title to? sure enough infrastructure investment climb. among our nation's 12 largest internet service providers domestic broadband capital expenditures decreased by 5.6% for $3.6 billion between 2014 and 2015, the first two years of that title ii arrow. this decline is extremely unusual and the first time that such investment had declined outside of a recession in the internet era. and importantly the impact has not been limited to highest. smaller competitive services have so been hit. one isp called aristotle told congress last year before the tightly order was adopted it was her intention to triple our customer base covering three county areas however we have pulled back on this plan scaling back our deployment to three smaller communities. aristotle wasn't alone. quick internet which serves four to 75 customers in rural northern illinois delayed his plans to upgrade its network increase consumer speed from three megabits per second to 20 megabits per second. whisper eyes. provider that serves 8000 customers in and around st. louis missouri also cut back on investments resulting in slower speeds. just this week 22 small isp's each of which has 1000 broadband customers told the fcc that title ii order had and i quote affected their ability to achieve financing. they said it imploded if not halted the development of innovative new offerings to their customers. they set title ii hung like a black cloud over businesses. america's smallest providers simply do not have the means or the margins to withstand the title ii regulatory onslaught and remember these are the small companies who were critical in meeting consumer broadband marketplace. we are fighting against the big guys in the market and closing the deep divide. now none of this that i described should come as a surprise. after all we were warned back in 1998 that the agency and that quote suddenly subjected some or all the information service providers telephone regulation it was seriously chilled the growth of advanced services. which radical republicans issued that warning? senators john kerry and ron wyden among others. that's why we heard a 1999 dead it is not good for america to quote just pick up this whole morass of telephone regulation and dump at wholesale on the internet pipe which right-wing zealots have back? president clinton's fcc chairman in more recent years we were told that title ii order itself was an economic free zone in the agency's economic analysis was wrong, unsupported or irrelevant which anti-government extremists have back? the fcc's own chief economist at the time the title ii order was adopted. now according to one estimate by a nonprofit foundation title to has our to cost our country fipa $1 billion in broadband capital investment and the multiplier effect from such spending means title to has our to cost us approximately 75,000 to 100,000 jobs. but what about the who? who has been the most harm to? well when businesses cut back on capital expenditures that means the areas that provide those marginal returns on investments are the first to go. in the case of broadband that low income rural and urban neighborhoods. as a result title to this countless consumers from getting better at it -- internet access or access period enlightening but did juggle divide in the country and accentuating the practice of digital redlining fencing off lower income neighborhoods and saying it's just not worth the time and the money to deploy them. so that is where we are today. where do we go from here? from a political standpoint there is no question that the easiest path would be to do nothing. we have title ii alone and move on to other issues. i didn't pursue a career in public service to mark time are to hold titles. i did it in order to better the lives of my fellow americans including those that grew up with in rural kansas. so we are saddled with fcc rules that will deny many americans high-speed of internet access, doing nothing is nothing doing. going forward we cannot stick with regulations from the great depression that were meant to micromanage ma bell. we need rules to focus on growth and infrastructure investment, rules that expand high-speed internet access everywhere rules that give americans more on line choice esther speeds more innovation. in short digital opportunity and we are going to deliver. earlier today i shared with my fellow commissioners to proposal to reverse the mistake of title ii and to return to the regulatory framework that served our nation so well during the clinton administration, the bush of administration and the first six years of the obama administration. the document will be voting on in the fcc's public meeting on may 18 is called a noticed a rulemaking. if it's adopted the fcc will seek public input for this proposal. in other words this will be the beginning of the discussion, not the end. some of called upon the fcc to reverse title ii immediately and what is known as a declaratory ruling. but i don't believe that's the right path forward. this decision should be made for an open transparent process which every american shares his or her own views. so what are the basic elements of his rule-making? first we are proposing to return the classification of broadband service from a title ii telecommunication service to a title i information service. that is regulation drawn directly from the clinton administration. as i mentioned earlier the title i classification was expressly upheld by the supreme court in 2005 and is consistent with the facts and the law. second we are eliminating the so-called internet context data. this 2015 roque is the fcc a roving mandate to micromanage the business practices of internet companies. he made the following fcc votes adopting titles for instance my predecessor was asked what the internet conduct standard meant. the answer was we don't really know what it means and we don't know where things go next. i have never heard that definition of regulatory uncertainty. later of course we did see where things were heading and it wasn't toward consumers. they use the internet conduct standard to list free data programs printed out these programs were as companies offered customers the ability to stream music and video alike. very popular among consumers especially lower income americans but no the fcc have met the enemy and it was consumers getting something for free from their wireless providers. following the presidential election we terminated this investigation before the fcc was able to take action but we shouldn't leave this internet standard on the books for a future commission to make the decision. the third major feature his rule-making papers seeking content on how we should approach the white line rules of adopted in 2015. but you won't just have to take my word about what is in the newest rulemaking. i will be publicly releasing the entire text of the document tour after noon and this too will be a market change for what happened in 2015. eight years ago the fcc had the title ii order from the american people until after it had been adopted. only a favored few were given access to the documents and allowed to make major changes including at the last minute. the fcc had to pass the 313 page order before the american public was allowed to see it. this time under my leadership things will be different. you may agree or disagree the proposal but you will note stackley what is in it. now that i've outlined the process for the substance of the proposal let's address to the question. what are the benefits and why is this proposal good for the american people? first it will bring high-speed internet to more americans. not the overhang of heavy-handed regulation. companies will spend more money building next-generation networks. as the networks expand many americans as there's little low income americans in rural and urban america, americans have been forgotten will get high-speed access for the first time pay more americans generally will benefit from better and faster broadband. the second benefit, it will create jobs pay more americans will go to work building these next-generation networks. these are good-paying jobs laying fiber laying utility poles and digging trenches. established businesses additionally cool build these networks creating further jobs. third it will loose competition. remember title ii was designed for a monopoly in the regulatory framework designed for monopoly will tend to move the marketplace towards monopoly. it should come as no surprise we have seen greater consolidation during the title ii era. heavy-handed regulation is especially tough on new entrants of small businesses and don't have the compliance officers or the lawyers that the large well established companies do. so we want to encourage smaller competitors to enter the broadband marketplace as well or to expand we must and title ii. fourth, this proposal is the best path toward protecting america's on line privacy. the topic has received a lot of attention lately. i understand that many disagree with congress's decision to stop the fcc's privacy rules from going into effect later this year. wherever you stand one thing is indisputable, congress would be obtaining the status quo that the fcc put in place when it imposed title ii. that fcc decision actually strips the federal trade commission of its authority to regulate internet providers privacy and security practices and that's because the fcc cannot regulate common carriers which the prior fcc suddenly deemed broadband providers to be. this decision was a mistake. repealing title ii will simply restore the federal trade commission's authority to release broadband providers practices. that means the nations most expert experience privacy regulators will once again be a cop on the beat for taking americans on line privacy. in short, we will simply return to the tried-and-true approach of protecting their digital privacy effectively before 2015. now in any debates there are at least two sides so i would like to briefly address a few of the main arguments that you are going to hear for title ii supporters. throughout the discussion that is to come we will hear from the other side the title ii is the only way to preserve a free and open internet. let me be clear, this is a lie. it was her. over and over again but it's just not true. you don't have to be a regulator or lawyer to figure it out. you just need to have a memory. for decades before 2015 we had a free and open internet. to keep the free and open internet develops and pours under such regulation before living in a digital dystopia before the partisan position of a massive plan hatched in washington saving all of us from ourselves. the next argument you are going to here's the title ii is necessary to protect free speech that's right, some will argue that the government control keeps your ability to express yourself on the internet. most americans recognize the absurdity for what it is. for government regulation is not a friend of free speech but an enemy. after all the first amendment doesn't give the government the power to regulate. it denies the government that power. anyone who thinks otherwise should remember the wise words of former president gerald ford. the government is big enough to give you everything you want and the government is big enough to take from you everything you have. it's no different when it comes to the internet. consider for example the leading special interest in favor of title ii the spectacularly -- beltway special interest of the free press. co-founder and current board member makes no effort to hide the agenda. while he says we are not at the point yet where we completely eliminates the cell phone and cable companies he admits that i quote the ultimate goal is to get rid of the capitalist cable companies and to divest them from control. who would assume control of the internet? the government of course. the overall goal as he put it was to remove rick by brick the capitalist system itself for building the entire society on socialist principles. what would government do once it's in control? it certainly wouldn't protect free speech as we in the united states know it. for example he said we need to do whatever the weekend to eliminates properties -- propagandist speech and even eliminated. the pre-free press founder takes its inspiration from united states but from venezuela. no, really. back in 2007 he said the aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the venezuelan livestream idiot in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known including our own. how is that working out for you? he and another co-founder of the special interests argued during the obama administration that quote only government can make policies and subsidies to provide the initial framework for quality journalism. this report was a journalist is the very building week gather. to be sure it is tempting to dismiss the statements as isolating rants. unfortunately it is all too typical of the larger movement in our country today that is fundamentally to free speech and expression. we see it as an effort to banish those who express unpopular statements on my to see it when speakers are barred from college campuses sometimes violently. we see with university bureaucrats who are willing in phrases like we will continue empowering a culture of prevention and receive the members of the federal election commission seek to restrict political speech, regulate on line platforms like the drudge report. and where do the people who are driving this closing of the american mind stand on the internet? they don't just favor a space strongly demand it. they make money on and we are somehow supposedly their true motive is to protect free speech on line? please. so the choice in front of us could not be more clear. do we want the government to control the internet or do we want to embrace deep approach established by president clinton and the republican congress in 1986 and reaffirm the democratic republic in fcc li? do we want to discourage the private sector from assessing building and expanding networks are doing on to encourage more investments for on line if the structure for more digital opportunity? do we want to have fewer american employees or do we want to put more americans back to work building next-generation networks? .. when the fcc iran through the order last year, i expressed hope that we would look back through temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that it served as well. i voiced my confidence that the title to orders days were already numbered. the fcc's next meeting on may 18 th we will take a significant step to making a prediction a reality and later this year i am confident that we will finish the job. make no mistake, this is a fight that we intend to age and this is a fight we are going to win. thank you very much mac. [applause] >> i have the pleasure and honor of introducing michael o'reilly, a great champion of small business and entrepreneurs at the commission, common sense as well. he was nominated for a seat on the federal medications by president obama on august 1st 2013 and confirmed unanimously by the united states senate. sworn into office on january 209 th -- he was first sworn in on november and then on january 2015 he was sworn into office for a new term following his renomination by the president and confirmed by the united states senate. please join me in welcoming commissioner o'reilly. [applause] thank you for being here. i'm really excited to be here. i never knew this day would come . let me start by extending my deep thanks to freedom works and small business and entrepreneurial ship council. for hosting this event and discussing a thought unimportant topic. my colleague and i announced a beginning of a process to free the internet from the terrible constraints of commentary or regulation now imposed on america's broadband providers. after almost two years of experience it is clear that this archaic regime never been opposed in the first place. it's been hyperbole, rent singing, imaginary problems and liberal ideology, the previous fcc took the internet policy into a dark and horrible abyss. today were here to declare those days are over. were bringing sanity and evidence-based decision-making back to the commission's rules. were releasing a new noticeable rulemaking and the necessary procedures to expunge net neutrality regulation from the internet. following a methodical and transparent path which i command come and determine for doing. instead we will follow the initiative procedure act to the letter of the law. hopefully, over the course of the next few months we can move forward to a final order. i must apologize in advance because i'll get into the weeds on the subject matter. i must smile when i hear proponents try to defend net neutrality they inevitably refer to the near 4 million comments the commission received on the topic. [inaudible] house the simple truth that more than 1.6 million of these comments oppose the imposition of the rules. morning portly, efficient outcomes are not and cannot be decided by numbers or letter counts. net neutrality argues that the rules are causing no harm and therefore should be left in place. beyond being inaccurate, the irony is that those of us will post the rules in the first place said the same thing prior to their adoption. more simply, i argue that there was no credible evidence upon to businesses or consumers that warranted interest of net neutrality regulations. the handful of examples constantly trotted out as the basis for regulation were either dated or debunked after further investigation. indeed, the commission itself had conceded and the courts agreed that its net neutrality rules pretended to be prophylactic. to address hypothetical future harms as to actual problems in the marketplace. it is clear that the decisions to regulate broadband companies like old telephone monopoly despite competitor choices available to most consumers was a maneuver design in part to resurrect a wish list of common carrier regulation. there is virtually no limit to what an agency's vast regulatory imagination can do. privacy is one of the first steps taken by the prior commission and if the november election had turned out differently, the commission most certainly would've headed down the road to broadband price regulation, including the areas that you are rating and interconnection. examining the specifics of net neutrality and its rules exist on a precarious route. the concepts of no blocking, no throttling are relatively straightforward, paid prior in the general kind of standard are more amorphous topic. being on necessary their existence cause unintended problems. with your indulgence, i'd like to focus on the majority of my speech on those two elements of the net neutrality order. they are particularly problematic. certainly with limited time, i will be able to fully look through each and every policy objection but i'll do my best. starting with the ban on prioritization it's starting to see some of the hypocrisy and weak legal foundation on which it rests. even our ardent supporters recognize as i said before, it some amount of. [inaudible] privatization must be allowed or even encouraged. voice must be prioritized over e-mail. video over plain data. privatization is not a bad word but if the necessary component of reasonable management. this is either in exchange for consideration, monetary or otherwise from a third party, or to benefit an affiliated entity. that is no reason for an outright ban. consider the fact that for all of the high-minded bluster companies that do business over the internet including some of the strongest supporters of net neutrality routinely pay for a variety of services to ensure the best possible experience for their customers. they've been doing it for years. these arrangements have been viewed as good for the internet. in fact, the net neutrality order describe in detail the arrangement of many large ad providers have with broadband providers. of course, some might say that this would actually meant by paid privatization, the order certainly avoided using that label but as judge williams of the dc court of appeals explained regardless of the name , these arrangements involve expenses to ensure accelerated transmission through its content via a broadband provider. in other words, it is another forum of paid privatization that was not banned outright by the net neutrality order. adding to the confusion is the long-standing category of specialized services which were also exempt from the rules. recognizing this potentially large loophole, the commission try to limit its use stating that it's not a broadband internet access data services provided in a manner that undermines the purpose of the old internet rules will be not permitted. it could be subject to further commission action. that is unless the service is something the commission wanted to encourage such as telehealth in which the parties were expressly invited to use the loophole to put the service beyond the reach of the open internet rules. in short, far from banning all so-called fast lane, the commission sanctioned a system of good fast lanes and bad fast lanes. it set itself up as the arbiter. the difficulty the commission had in drying these lines of its own creation should be a lesson that this is far from a bright line rule. indeed, some proponents of the ban argued it's meant that all traffic must be treated exactly the same in any current commercial to alter this edict should be rejected. that could include enhanced quality of service or other favorable treatments such as zero rating, what started as an outcry over hypothetical fast lane transformed into an even more radical idea that no bit could ever be treated than any other bit. in addition to these line drawing problems, many commenters pointed to the inefficiency that could be created by a ban on paid privatization. williams is on point here as well. he argued that it would result in either a requirement of identical speeds which would be subbed optimal for some packets -underscore two, a system of packet senders that require faster speeds, free ride on other senders and have less incentive to reduce their transmission capacity. taking to the general product standard my colleague meant the net neutrality order set forth a process that the former fcc chairman described as a referee throwing flax. except, no one knew what game was being played, what the rules were or how long the game would last spring i hope the zero rating fiasco has disavowed everyone of the notion that this could be a process compatible with innovation. for a year, companies business plans were put in limbo is the commission staff sent a series of letters to a few major providers endeavoring to find something wrong with her offering that consumers actually like. this process also confirmed what any general conduct was driven solely by the personal belief and whims of the man or woman driving the process absent of any real limitations or guidance it creates a king of the internet. another aspect of the general kind of standard was a theoretical option for companies to obtain advisory opinions on plant offerings. it made little sense because the offerings couldn't be hypothetical or currently available, add to the fact that the opinions weren't binding on the commission and would be decided within the first enforcement bureau and should come as no surprise that this was not a popular option. even if the substantial flaws could be fixed, however, i would still object to the commission maintaining a catchall type of authority. it indexed significant, unwarranted, uncertainty into the market place. companies are afraid to innovate given the risk they might be called a task after the fact by fcc staff. there is no need for roving, enforcement authority. the only way to bring resolution to the net neutrality once and for all for congress to consider and enact legislation on the subjects as it deems appropriate there can be no lasting peace until that happens. without a statutory resolution each election could bring large screens into not a child a position preserving uncertainty and confusion for both consumers and industry alike. is duly elected representative of the american people, only congress is in the position to balance all of the relevant concerns and make appropriate trade-offs that is necessary to bring this matter to a rate will close. in some respects, our action in the coming weeks and months will deliver this debate squarely to congress' doorstep. may god bless them with wisdom, patience and inner strength to find the right outcome. at the same time, let me reiterate that the concepts of banning paid privatization and creating a general conic standard still should not be part of any discussion. with that, i want to thank you very much for your attention. it's been my pleasure to be here and i wish you well for the rest of the day. [applause] thank you, mike for making this comment. we'll look back on this point and this will be a turning point in our economic history. as we move from 15 billion devices connected to the web to over 50 billion devices in just the next couple of years, it's clearly the internet of things will be the next generation of our economy and removing title ii will help free up investments i applaud for believing in composition and laying the foundation for the future. at this point, all questions direct them to the fcc. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> were hearing about what some senators thought about this afternoon's top administration briefing on north korea. steve holland tweeted that senator chris coombs said that senators received a sobering briefing of the us military and diplomatic options prepared for north korea. mike mentally who is in the la times dc bureau says senate foreign relations committee bob corker after returning to the capital said i'm not sure i would've had a briefing. all senators were invited. the briefing was held in a building next to the white house the bbc is reporting on some of president trump's strategy writing it aims to pressure by tightening economic sanctions. also, reuters writing that senior white house official says us official putting north korea on the state-sponsored of terrorism. the white house team that briefed senators afternoon are also speaking to members of the house later. that meeting will be at the us capitol. meanwhile president trump will mark his first 100 days in office with a rally that's in harrisburg pennsylvania this weekend. you can watch live coverage saturday at 7:30 p.m. eastern on c-span.