Close to old media, to a lot of different places in old media not just broadcast licensees. So need to be careful to balance. Theres no balance here. It says requires on air identification of the sponsors of advertisement. So does that mean you are a no . There are already both fcc rules and fcc rules regarding these sorts of things. So all the mouse print and the quick fast talk at the end of ads cover all of that. We just came to more than a billion dollars, probably two to 3 billion of outside ads from these undisclosed sources. So this is not a matter of, its not an issue in front of the public. Its here. Its right now. What about you, ms. Clyburn . I will look forward to working with you if there is anything that we have or have not done, or that you identified as deficient. We moved a long way in moving information that stations were previously keeping on premises to the airwaves. It may be opportunity for investigative work and the like of more clear. Again, if there is anything we left out, if theres any ice not daughter i look forward to further engagement with you. So thats a maybe. How about you, commissioner rosenworcel . I will make it easy. Yes, i agree with you. Sunlight is the best disinfectant and we should look at our rules, make sure theyre updated under section 317, and make sure that the findings that we receive are as transparent as they need to be. Commissioner pai . I share my colleagues value of openness and transparency in all phases of our work. One of issues i think that we are confronting is the section 317, requires the disclosure of persons, committees, corporation or other entities that are sponsoring the advertisements of is the question and accruals whether that requires the disclosure of all the sponsors who are underlying the actual sponsor. So theres also some practical considerations. A report studied this issue in some depth and pointed out regardless of what Congress Says with respect to the law and what we do with respect to our will, it wouldnt hurt forced update some of our guidance to broadcasters be some that guidance has been updated since 1963 and is still talks about the fact that the expensive kinescope print that used to produce a film might want sponsorship identification t. I think theres things we could do internally to provide greater clarity for industry. That sounds like a maybeyes. In which case need one more vote. [laughter] need three votes. Now, this is a great consequence to the political sphere of how it was influenced by undisclosed, unlimited money. Thank you, mr. Chairman spent will the senator yield to a question . To my chairman, of course. Its a fascinating question, and it goes to the very root of the integrity of democracy. And there were two fairly, one fairly clear, one fairly clear yes, and then it was sort of a yes maybe and then, theres no complexity to the question. Theres no way, cerebrally, to avoid answering his question. To say that the fcc or someone could do. Thats not what hes asking. Do you have the power to do, and hes asking will he do it. I dont think its unfair for him to insist that you have my permission, santa cruz doesnt kill me and senator cantwell, senator begich will kill me nation i think he should press his point. Spinning id be happy to answer that. We took a major step last year in increasing transparency around political ads and the making the Information Available to consumers. You migh mightve done that,i commend you for that. But it didnt affect the outcome. Heres the outcome. Its disclosure. Once all those entities have to put their mouths where their money is, its too embarrassing for some of them. Now, some of them of course it was obvious. They made no bones about it. But when you hide behind that committee of the flag, mother and country, and in the name of that entity, all of the contributions are made, you are violating the statute and the rule that youll implemented to flesh out the statute. Thank you, senator nelson. Senator begich. That was very interesting debate, and it would be interesting at some point to further the discussion. But let me come as many of you know, i always start coming for someone to say thank you for all the work youve done in regards to some of the just mentioned in an award given in regards to alaska, but always been parochial and always caring about my state, i want to live data points and had a couple questions, country if i can direct them your way another they want to respond. A new study came out i think called session could Respective Group found that 6 , 60 of alaska has wholly inadequate telecommunications. 16,000 census blocks in alaska no wireline Broadband Service or no Wireless Service whatsoever. Another 4300 census blocks have no Wireless Service at all. To get to 3g, forget for gee, just to get to 3g in alaska is a quarter of a billion dollars of investment. So we have significant investment needs. Mr. Chairman, im going to ask a couple of questions in regards to resource for and i just finished i think he was order six and with the issues that are the issues that a think as a order six they came out and let me just kind of stated here. Youve got some positive impacts, again for alaska, but its clear and it appears theres an error in the analysis that first i the consumer is the designation of tribal lands. The fcc itself and previous dockets considered lifeline and linkup services recognize alaska as designated 100 tribal land. Were not like any other state. We dont have reservations. And so in 2012, july, the Wireline Bureau conceded that mounting alaska is 100 tribal land was an error and should be corrected. To date that direction has not happened. Whats more disturbing is the most recent arbitrary designations, i mean, 23 tribal. Where to come up with a data to back that up . Being born and raised, im going to kill you, i know, they will be anxious to talk about what a tribal land is and will come to you because you some commentary which i appreciated. I d dont how you come up with these designations. Im anxious, one, how you came up with it, and i want to see the data. Because someone to tell you, i would be surprised if the fcc understand, no disrespect to all of you and your staff, what tribal lands are. 23 of the north slope bureau, thats one simple, its not tribal and. The whole areas tribal land. Odyssey to be referring am a little agitated because it has offended many of my constituents in alaska how an agency can determine what tribal lands is. When you already have, when bureau is saying they made an error to be 100 . The mr. Chairman, how do you respond to the . I want to get the data, it comes from somewhere. Where ever that summer is. Thank you for the positive remarks on our overall Reform Efforts begin i spent much time talking about this in alaska although not in the north slope. And certainly i recognize, well recognize, the staff recognizes the other elements of alaska that are unique and we have to take into account in our rule, and that the tribal issues in alaska are complex and very important. On the specific question asking him if it meant i like to follow up with you on that because the north slope tribal issues not something thats just one. Its throughout alaska. I just want to know what the data came to determine the speed was applied that and work with you. Senator, first of our, thank you for raising this issue. As you know, if it werent for senator ted stevens, i would not be here, and im eternally grateful for that. Spin im just here to help you remind you of that fact. Its been a priority of mine since my very first trip as a commissioner was to alaska in august 2006. Ive been to the north slope in winter when it was a balmy 55 degrees below zero. Someone to work with you on this issue to correct it. Very good. And senator, as you know, i came to alaska in the dead of summer last night and im unapologetic for that. But i want to assure you, we talked several times that we run a data driven process, and all data and message in terms of analysis and many of the analysis that we come up with, are open to you. So again i invite you to come down to the office or we can come to you. Might be easier for you to come down to the office for some of us. And if there are any remaining questions, which will make it happen to my time is about run out. Spend ive been to alaska. Ive been up there with you and i think our to post think our to post it personal when you have a regression model it is only as good as the data you put into it. The second point is alaska is big and fast, its possible that does not fit into the model that we use in the lower 48 states. Very good. Mr. Chairman, if i could take two seconds to kind of go through one other one was a letter that was sent to alaska delegation david august 2012, mr. Chairman, adopted a variable that specifically account for Provision Services in alaska. That variable adopted commission for construction in alaska is a negative coefficient of the work, the data says, doesnt make trying to hold myself here for a second 46 lower to construct in alaska than the lower 48. That is impossible based on my experience. As you said, data going in, create something that doesnt work. One gets a 679 higher cost to construct in alaska. We have less than four months. San juan may be warmer come 12 months. How do explain that . Can you give me the data that explains this, or fix this problem but it doesnt make sense. I think there may be a misunderstanding. Our staff recognizes the cost and expense of building out in alaska. So we will pursue that with you and your staff, and i look forward to that. Let me just in and say, commissioner pai, thank you come again in the data i showed him some of your commentary, i did not read the nine page speech but i got good comments commentary on a. But as you, you agree that it makes no sense or that they should be clear review of additional reduction . The u. S. Have fun, special in alaska based on this data that i just laid out on the 60 accessibility issue . First i want to think he im tagging you because you had a little different view on the last order. I wanted to express my appreciation for productive changes both in public and private that i know its important to you and to support to me and my colleagues as well. I think one of the issues that we are confronting and you encapsulated in your question which had used the words negative coefficient and things like that, an elegant model, even one in abstract is mathematically sound can often run aground on the shores of alaska. There are a number of unique challenges that the state faces that are not adequately captured in the model. There are two solutions. One is to stay with things the way the ivory the others to make the necessary changes to the model either by tweeting triples are putting in better day. As you know ive expressed it before, i stand with you in terms of my willingness to get it right. Make sure that we do what we can to provide predictability and adapt to the condition of alaska spent look forward to seeing you in june. June, july, august. We will look forward to that. Thank you. Thank you, thank you spent thank you, senator begich. The most patience, senator chris. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking the chairman, thing each of the commissioners for your service, for being here, for your extended testimony today. I appreciate your being here. I like to ask a couple of questions about the spectrum policy. I would like to begin with just a word of caution. About the recent exchange with senator nelson. The fcc has a long tradition of being nonpartisan. And as each of you know, to disclose act as a subject of deep, deep Division Within the United States congress. And many are concerned the disclose act, if passed, would have a proud profoundly partisan impact and would raise grave First Amendment issues. So the word of caution i would raise is, where the commission to endeavor through rulemaking to end run congress and adopt a rule that would be perceived as overtly partisan, i would caution that doing so could well undermine the integrity of the commission and imperil the independence of the commission. So i give you that word of caution. You have an important statutory mission. And my council at least would be to leave the political disputes to the members of this body who are elected to decide. And i dont, dont require an answer to that. That is simply a word of caution. And i want to turn to questions of spectrum now. Ive seen estimates that the federal government owns or controls roughly 85 of spectrum that is suitable for wireless broadband. And the question i would ask the chairman, and each of you, is twofold. Number one, do those estimates, are this consistent with your understanding . And in your learned judgment come is it appropriate for the federal government to control such an overwhelming majority of the spectrum that is suitable for broadband and for the public, the private sector, to be allocated only 15 . So its an important question, santa cruz, and other members have fasted as a which is a good thing because we do need to take this issue seriously. Ive seen the number 60 , maybe measuring different spectrum, but either way when you compare the usage needs to the amount of spectrum that the federal government has, it doesnt make sense longterm, given the very powerful demand for commercial spectrum. So we are working together on this, its essential. We need to clear it and reallocate much more federal spectrum. And i believe we also need to look at created sharing ideas and pursue those tracks. Does anyone disagree with that . Actually the number could be 6 , it could be 85 , it could be more depend on what to determine the best spectrum and technological innovation is actually expanding that. There was junk spectrum years ago which is now prime spectrum. But the federal government cant and must do more to relinquish spectrum for auction for exclusive use licenses. Let me ask of any followup question. Are any of you aware of any reliable assessments of the value of all of the spectrum that is controlled by the government . And if not, can you imagine any sensible process for valuing its and assessing just how significant of an asset is this spectrum that is in control of the federal government speak with the idea of an audit of federal spectrum has, earlier in the hearing. It is important and i grieve my colleagues that it should be done. That should not hold up steps we can take in the nearterm to free up spectrum of we know theres inefficient use and we can get on the market. The value could be, im told them if you look a 400 megahertz, maybe three gigahertz, and thats of the 85 data points are looking at, based on the 2. 70 per megahertz pop auction, if all that could be used in an unencumbered way at maximum valley, i cant get enough. Thats a lot of zeros but thats in tens if not hundreds of billions. Yes, the value of federal Spectrum Holding is really, really big. Too many zeros to count. But i think what we need this is the body that would generate a lot of zeros. Far too many. I know. Will need to do right now though is we need to find ways to give incentives to the federal government be more efficient with its spectrum. We need to make sure that when we knock on the federal governments door and ask for more spectrum for commercial broadband use, they dont just see loss from relegation if they see the possibility of gain and i think valuing it is the first step in identifying have to do that. If i may as with the chairmans intelligence one final followup question, which is in your judgment, what is the appropriate level of control by the federal government and the value of that and what is the appropriate level of control and or ownership by the private sector . Very briefly i do think that audit would be the best process as pointed out. We can value spectrum on a megahertz pop basis i would encourage that path. The audit plus borrowing a concept from zerobased budgeting, which is the federal, should justify use of its spectrum in a transparent way, as transparent as the federal government can be. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, senator. Senator campbell. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing. I know its been a long afternoon already but i appreciate the opportunity to address the commission. I think alaska the last time we were taught about media ownership rules, and i more or less know what car, looking at a steady at this point in time to give you more feedback on the proposed rules. And so it seems as if youre going to pursue what your republican predecessor did with urging more media consolidation, obviously something i dont support your proposed rule. So not going to spend a lot of time on that today, other than just to say we will certainly pursue a resolution of disapproval if thats where you end up. I just want to point that out. Not that i dont want to ask a lot of questions about it, i just now you are at the stage where youre getting more input from a steady. And i want ask about unlicensed spectrum, and i guess first i want to start with a basic concept or question to you, the chair, but against anybody else who wants to jump into. The you agree or disagree that the spectrum crunch that we hear about also applies to the unlicensed spectrum . We spent a lot of time on the licensed spectrum i want to make sure everybody gets the demand on the unlicensed. Do people think thats really should . I completely agree. We feel that when we are at conferences or airport and we are using unlicensed spectrum which is what wifi is built on, and we see and feel the congestion. This is more likely to get worse than better as more and more video and high bandwidth use traveled over wifi. I agree with you we need to free up more spectrum for wifi. We propose another 200 megahertz recently. And i also think we need to pursue a new generation of unlicensed which we can do as part of the incentive auction process. Do you agree or disagree theres different characteristics of these different so like 600 megahertz or 900 or 2. 4, 3. 5 gigahertz, five, there are different, enabled and precludes others spent agree. Okay, good. And that obviously its very important for innovators to have access to unlicensed spectrum at different frequencies, including below one gigahertz . I agree. And is both frequencies and its also the power at which they are permitted to transmit. There is some wifi frequency available at lower frequencies, but it its Power Limited and so the next generation of unlicensed them which can be both lower frequencies but also higher power levels can make a big difference and create new innovation market. And so how do you see us resolving these issues . How do we get the attention to these issues so we can have this clarity . This is in front of the commission but it was in front of congress, and there was a direction given to the commission with respect to guard bands and looking to unlicensed and those