tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN September 19, 2016 9:00am-11:01am EDT
i don't think my comments are inaccurate. i am not trying to inflame any member of this body in my thoughts. i return to the point i am willing to sit down and negotiate any item that is before the commission and have done so on multiple occasions. i am not trying sult you in any w way. my views are reflecting what had happened. it's not trying to insult you in
any way. >> do you think the d.c. court was packed in order to determine the net neutrality outcome? >> the net neutrality in itself, no, sir. do you believe it was done to change the outcome of the direction of multiple administration, yes. i know we had talked about this before. there are a couple of comments from senator reid. he said, we put on to the court three people. i don't think they deserve to be on any court. we put them on there and they have been terrible. they are the ones that said the president can't have recess appointments which we have had since this country started. they have done a lot of bad things and are focusing very intent on the d.c. circuit. we need one more. there are three vacancies. we need at least one more and that will switch the majority. >> i think what is happening is this hyper partisan atmosphere is causing these venting comments to come out when in our
government function, we have to have a modicom of civility after law. i would encourage people to be mindful of their comments in the future when observing that. >> senator wicker? >> i think this committee has worked on a bipartisan basis. i have the highest regard for the chairman and the ranking member. i will simply say this. i don't want it to go unchallenged. commissioner o'rielly has not said anything that isn't accurate. i agree with what he said.
it may sound partisan but it was what happened to the d.c. court. in quoting, the democratic leader, he is correct. i would like to get on with other issues but i feel that i have to defend the commissioner in that what he said is factual. let's talk about something that is bipartisan. chairman wheeler, 26 of us sent you a letter july 11th. it was led by senator manchin and by this senator regarding the build-out of rural broadband and the mobility fund. july 11th, 2606 us on a bipartisan basis signed that. thank you, senator manchin for helping with that and thank you
for of ul thyou that signed us. we got an answer yesterday. mr. chairman, it is disappoint tog me that we have to have a hearing to get a letter back on something that over a quarter of this body asked about. basically, the response was, we're looking into it. we hope to get back to you by the first of the year. no decisions have been made. the commission staff is continuing to process reviewing the record. i appreciate the fact that apparently this hearing being scheduled today persuaded you to write a letter to us dated yesterday. can you give us any specific steps beyond what you said in the letter? are you unable to do that about how the commission might be expanding broadband into the
rural community. >> thank you, senator. yes. let me be specific in that regard. in two areas. the first thing that we have to know is where is there not coverage? >> we pretty much know that. >> the record available on that, with all due respect, sir, has not been good because of the manner in which the commission collected the data. first way that we did that was the national broadband plan in which we relied on the states to provide information. it wasn't very good information.
then, we went out and hired a third party to collect information on a census block basis. gee, that's pretty small, getting down to a small area. it wasn't granular enough, because, okay, well, there is coverage in the census block but it could be on the left side of the census block but not the right side of the census block. it was insufficient information. it is my hope that by the end of this month the analysis of the new form 77 that we have required the carriers to provide. a new bite of the apple. let's get the characters to give us specific information with responsibility for that data and
put that into what is called a shape file. that means, let's see it in this area and show where there is coverage here. there is not coverage here, specifically, and not just jenalitie generalities. we hope to have that by the end of this month. step one. we will have the information on which to make a decision. step two is then, how are we going to fund that? i am hopeful that by the end of this year we will have moved a broadband mobility fund revision. it's gonna have to make some really tough decisions, because there are recipients of our
funds today who are serving areas where there is already coverage. the question we're going to have to decide is whether we should be funding only those areas where there is not coverage, where we now have this very granular information and if that's the case, how do you be fair to those who have been continuing -- who have been receiving universal service funding in competitive situations to give them some kind of a glide path? that's the challenge we are working on right now. >> well, let me say, your answer is certainly more comprehensive today than it was yesterday.
i hope you can move quickly on that. let me just say, i've got to ask a question about set top boxes and the answer from chairman wheeper was long and extensive. there man wheeler's talking point says this. the proposed final rules will allow consumers to access their pay tv content via free apps on a variety of devices so they no longer have to pay monthly rental fees. i think mr. o'reilly said an app centric owe proechs was what he wanted. enable, search and protect content and privacy. is at least that much of his talking points accurate. are there going to be more or fewer set top boxes if this proposal by chairman wheeper
goes forward? >> thanks for the question, senator. i wish i could say it were. i don't think it is. i think the last point of that is critical, the protection of content is something i think a lot of people have focused on it. it underscores the importance of making this public. the prob posele would inject it into two different relations in terms of the terms they would be allowed to agree with, and the relationship between those two and the third party device manufacturers in terms of the standard licensing agreement. the fcc says the media bureau can second-guess any consensus in terms of what should be in that agreement. if they don't reach an agreement, they will directly write the standard licensing
agreement. it makes it unlikely contend would be protected in the view of all share holders. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not sure i understand every nuance of the discussion we have been having about partisanship. i'm very glad the fcc decided to stand up and protect the internet. to me, it is one of the most economic tools and drivers of our economy and continuing to have that consumer protection from being charged for fast or slow lanes is vitally important. as you go through this discussion, it is vitally important. the ranking member brought this up a little bit. there was a little bit of discussion during that whole net neutrality discussion that we were going to see a flight of capital outside because of this
rule. have you seen that thus far? do you have any comments on this i can discussion and some of my colleagues concepts about what they think they can do here in controlling the internet as a u.s. domestic product? we have seen increased investment in broadband networks. we have seen a 13% increase in fiber. this is all since the open internet order. we have seen an increase in venture-backed activities using the now open he internet. we have seen an increase in usage in the internet and as a result, we have seen an increase in the revenues coming from the
internet to the carriers all since the development of the adoption of the open internet order. insofar as your question about p "i can" is concerned, that's a matter in the department of commerce. i'm glad of it. >> you have no thoughts on -- >> it is not in my remit, ma'am. >> well, we had a discussion long ago on this committee and which one of our colleagues called it a bunch of tubes, which obviously wasn't really what this is. to have a global network is critically important for that functionality. we want to access international markets and having it to work from is very important. thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator mccaskill?
>> so many subjects. so little time. it is really hard. very briefly, i do just want to make a comment on bds. the business data services has been in front of the commission for ten years. count them, ten years. you are waiting on data. you have data. let's go, let's go. let's make a decision. this is morn. bds is important. i wanted to be a cheerleader for a decision on bds within the coming weeks. set top boxes. interesting about this, i am big on competition. i think competition is really important. as i'll speak to you in a moment, i think the set top box have been a source of some of the many scams involved with billing in the cable and satellite billing industry. i've never seen a unanimous opposition from providers, programers and the creative community. usually, in this chair, they are on different sides. they are all arguing with each
other. they are all unified in their opposition to this. the licensing part of this. can you chairman wheeler or any of the other members explain where congress has granted you the authority to involve itself in copy write licensing as it relates to the creative community. this is new. i would like to know where the authority comes from. >> thank you very much, senator. your first comment. the report that you put out on cable pricing and consumer activities, as you know, one of the major issues in there was the surprise that comes at the end of the month? oh, my golly, i to have pay this for this box. nobody told me i don't have any choice. on your specific question,
insofar as copyright authority. what the commission is trying to do is not to write copy right policy but to write one that does not interfere with existing co copyright holders do inside that authority. we worked for months with the co copy right holders to try and find the way to do that. we're probably 90% there. it is not our goal to become a judge of the contracts between
between mpds and programers. >> i'm glad you acknowledge you are not there yet. >> we are down to the deliberative process at the commission and we have got five smart commissioners. i am sure we are going to have a very full discussion back and forth on this. this is an important part of it. >> you mentioned our investigation through the permanent subcommittee on investigation. senator portman and i have been doing a by parcy tan investigation on the cable and satellite industry. we have done the first hearing. we have another one coming up this report talks a lot about what we found. if any of you haven't read it, i hope you will. it is startling, startling, the practices that have been embrace. i know you have the authority to issue customer service and truth in billing guidelines for cable. it is my understanding, disagree with me if i'm wrong, that you do not have the authority with
satellite? >> correct. >> i would urge you to listen to the phone call i taped when i called my satellite provider about an item on my bill. i taped the conversation. i said, clearly who i was. they were charging me a maintenance fee for the equipment they own. i was trying to get them to explain to me, why are you try charging me for equipment that you own. they tried to tell me, they were going to charge me to quit charging me. it's all on tape. it is on the website. it was a startling -- this was two days before the hearing. this is the kind of stuff that's been going on. i just hope that we deal with the fact that you do not have the authority with satellite to clean up some of these practices and people are outraged at the bait and switch and the business model that this uncovers that is
not consumer friendly. thank you. >> thank you, senator mccaskill. senator fisher. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mayor ch chairman wheeler, thank you. i sent you a letter in june. this letter echoed the concern of 100 state commission thers that by creating a broadband designation, the fcc is effectively eliminating the state's rule in deciding which carriers can offer life line within their borders. this new designation directly contradicts the language of the communications act, which gives states primary responsibility for designating carriers to participate in the federal universal service programs. 12 states, including mine in nebraska, are suing the fcc so it appears to agree. mr. chairman, do you assert that the fcc's recent preemption of
the states is lawful? >> thank you, senator. >> nothing that we did changed the existing authority of any state puc. the question that had to be dealt with was how do you determine an atc when for broadband service, that broadband provider is a nationwide provider. unlike a telephone company, not just located in nebraska or wherever and with a relationship with the b.u.c. by national broadband providers that they would not be able to
offer broadband if they had to do individual state etc certification. the goal was, how do we get broadband to all americans? so the decision that got made was not to reduce any existing state authority but to say that for broadband, which the statute does provide, the fcc can say, you are an atc and that's what we did. >> first of all, i would ask, did you share the broadband providers concerns with the state commissions? >> throughout the proceeding, there was a healthy back and forth on this. >> haven't the states always designated carriers where they took jurisdiction by state law
and then the fcc by law only fill fills in the gaps? >> i think you just specifically put your finger on the issue, when you said the state identified carriers. we were talking about companies that are broadband providers that are not carriers under state jurisdiction. >> commissioner pie, how would you answer my questions? >> thanks for the question. i do think the fcc divested states of the authority to decide which eligible telecommunications carrier should be vert fied, which i think is an obvious legal problem given the statutes as i read it. it creates an important policy problem because the states have been on the front laws in rooting out a lot of the abuse we see. in oklahoma, it was the state that was critical in determining a carrier had fleeced taxpayers of over $27 million. we want to keep states as a
cooperative partner as opposed to shutting them out on the front end, which is one of the reasons why a wide variety of states have unfortunately seen fit to sue us to make us follow the law. >> mr. chairman, in your response to my letter, you mentioned a partnership between the states and the fcc and i have heard the states and program administrator are unclear about what role the states are supposed to play after the fcc's order. how do you plan to remedy that? >> i did not realize that usac was unclear. we will move to get usac and the appropriate authorities together with whoever the appropriate state body is to work through what our belief is as to what the process is? >> you will work with the state commissions as well in trying to clarify the issues that are before them? >> i'm sorry, i said usac, i
meant naruk. to work with the state commission. i'm sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator fisher. who is up next? >> thank you, chairman. chairman wheeler, i i intended to talk about copyright law but i think my colleagues from missouri and senator thune have both done that. i will look at what you had to say about that. i chair the rules committee, which is the committee that has jurisdiction over the library of congress, which has the copyright rules. i may want to submit some questions on that topic. i want to talk about two other things we talked about before. in august, the commission adopted like in many other cases apparently on a party line vote its quadrennial review of broadcast ownership rules. nothing substantially changes in those, except there are two areas i want to mention just to be sure we are understanding
what you have done and the way i believe it has been done. one, on joint sales agreements where one broadcaster selling advertising on behalf of another in local markets. this committee has been particularly active in challenging how these agreements would go forward. after multiple bipartisan letters, two acts of congress and a court ruling by the third circuit court, the fcc, i believe, in its new rule acknowledges grandfathering joint sales agreements when there is a transfer of ownership and then the second thing that i think is new is in another joint agreement, joint service agreements. those are contracts to share resources like a helicopter that two news teams might use. there are new disclosure levels in these rules that stations
have never had to disclose before in terms of the specific, as i understand it, the specific economic terms involved. that would be outside anything a station independently would have to disclose. so is this a step towards regulation is the second question. the first question is, am i right in believing that now the new rule as lou these joint sales agreements to go forward. >> yes, sir, you are correct. what we tried to do was to take the specific language or the specific intent of the language as it was explained to us in the appropriations writer about grandfathering in to adopt that. insofar as ssas -- >> joint service? >> the issue here is how do we make a judgment as to whether or
not the rules are being circumvented through contractual arrangements? one of the ways you do that is to have information. what you cited was a collection of information, not a decision. what is the information? we just had a discussion a minute ago about how we have had imperfect information on which to make decisions. this is an attempt to get good information. >> two of you did not vote for this package. this may or may not have been one of the topic. if either mr. oaechlt rielly or mr. pai would like to comment. >> i did dissent because of the decision on joined agreements and shared service agreement. the record is clear and unchallenged. some of these agreements have
been useful in helping prod casters provide the public vital information. with respect to shared services agreements, the writing is on the wall. the fcc is collecting information as a step toward, as you put it, toward more regulation prohibiting shared service agreements. that's something i would think would be unfortunate for the marketplace and consumers in particular. >> mr. o'reilly? >> i agree with my colleague on these two points. the fsa declare torre structure is intended for future commission toss impose new rules and limitations on stations and their abilities to share such activities. >> can any one tell me a way that these new broadcast own. >> narrator: ship rules could now be appealed or ask for a change? mr. pai? >> i think they can be appealed.
i would imagine the third circuit will change this. they said the fcc needs to take a serious look as to whether these regulations need necessary. the fcc having not just double downed on them but made them stricter. the court will have serious concerns with what the fcc did. >> thank you. thank you, chairman. >> i also had some questions on the cross ownership rules. i will put those on the record. i thought i would start with you commissioner rosenworcel, with the o work you have done on the 911 issue. you have come out to my state and senator burr and i have long chaired that caucus along with representatives eschu and kukus, including getting the $115 million in grants and it worked to further the technology. could you talk particularly about the grant program and how
it is best leveraged. >> thank you and thank you for visiting a 911 center in minnesota with me. here is the thing. this program was set up four years ago. we don't have many federal programs to help access rate 911 and bring it to next generation. congress asked that rules would be developed within 120 days of passage. we are probably some 1500 days since this law was passed. i think we should get it up and running and bh we do, we need a national generation of next jen rargs 911 based on nationally accredited standards and we have to make sure we take these funds and use them to develop blueprints in rural communities, urban communities and everything in between so that when we are done with it, communities all across the country can copy and benefit. >> thank you very much. as you all know, i have worked hard on the broadband issue with
the chairman. we appreciate the bipartisan work you did to get this done. i wasn't one of those votes up there. as you know, there is still more work to be done. i think i will just put some record questions here about the universal service reforms. chairman wheeler, concerns we have in getting those done. i thought i would turn to one quu about data services. i joined sol colleagues in writing that it is based on complete and accurate data. do you have any other concerns that would prevent the proceeding from moving forward? i know that you indicated you are confident that the commission has the right data. is there anything else that would hold it up? >> is there anything else that would hold it up? i hope not. i hope we are going to be moving on this very soon. i believe we do have the data.
there are on going discussions virtually every day to generate more data. >> very good. on the set top box, i support reducing the cost, increasing choice for consumers. i'm the ranking member of the judiciary antitrust committee which focuses on the fcc. i know the issue is raised already which i appreciate on the ftc, fcc issue of enforcing the privacy standards and also, there have been mayor copyright discussions here. i wanted to focus on that with regard to smaller programers with the current proposal which face narrow margins and difficult competitive landscape. any changes that would inadvertently harm the value of their copyrighted material that could force the innovative and competitive companies out of business? what assurances would you give
them? i am trying to figure out how this would work for them and some of the other concerns raised by my colleagues. >> thank you, senator. yesterday, we received a letter from the writers guild west endorsing our new proposal and specifically talking about how it created opportunity for independent programers. >> so you believe that there aren't any problems at all for independent programers? >> the challenge independent programers face today is that, afrm "a," will the cable operator let them on and "b," are they subjected to some kind of a purr ga torre, where they have to be out here and hard to find. if you have the kind of integrations search that we are talking about, it creates opportunity for independent programers.
that's why we have a very robust record of independent programers saying they support what we are doing here. >> i think i will go back to my universal service reform question. when can carriers expect to have all the information they need to make a decision on the reforms to the u.s. >> i'm glad you asked that question. they have to make a decision november 1st. right now, we have workbooks out and we are working with the various rate of return carriers to help them understand. this is the question about whether they want to choose the new model or want to stay with the legacy approach. we are working with them right now, including having a new workbook that is out. how are you going to be able to look at capital cost? there are all kinds of detailed questions we are trying to walk through and give them tool toss do that. >> do we know the timing thoon? >> it is out.
the work book is out. >> so they have what they need now? >> i hope that the workbook is the beginning of the determination of what they need and that we are available and working with them through various means. >> so all the information on their buildout obligations and budget cap budget caps, is that out? >> yes. >> thank you. >> senator more ran? >> thank you, mr. chairman for being here. i recognize the member of the commission from kansas and thank him for his call to action in regard to broadband deployment rule communities. there are a number of pending orders before the fcc. i want to make sure we don't
forget the dollars being spent and deployment of broadband particularly in rural areas. rather than using the inadequate broadband deployment as a pretext for additional regulation, commissioner, you seem to try to remove the barriers toward that broadband deployment and i appreciate that. with the short time and the vote that has been called, i am going to save chairman wheeler for the last so he gets to keep talking and not cut into my time. first of all, commissioner rosenworcel, on the set box top proposal, tell me what you are thinking, how do you see the proposal? what's on your mind? >> sure. thank you, senator, for the question. set top boxes are clunky and they are costly. consumers don't like them and they don't like paying for them. that is not just my professional opinion. it is my personal opinion too. have so we're taking a hard look at what the chairman has put
before us. there is a lot in there that seems to work. i will be very candid with you. i have problems with licensing and the fcc getting a little too involved. when i look at the communications act in section 629, i just don't think we have the authority. i will commit to keep on working with my colleagues. i think bringing some change to the set top box market would be a good thing for consumers, my household included. >> chairman wheeler, on this topic, under your final proposal, will device manufacturers be required to ply with section 631, 338i, of the communications act with respect to privacy or simply be subjected to the ftc and state attorney general's unfair deceptive practices act? >> thank you, senator. let me say one thing. i look forward to working with commissioner rosenworcel and all
my colleagues on the first issue you raised. secondly, as far as we do not have jurisdiction over device manufacturers. we have worked with the ftc on this issue and are advised that if our rule requires that devices warranted to consumers that they are complying with 338 and 631, that the ftc will have the ability to do the necessary enforcement to protect that privacy. >> thank you. we will have the ftc in front of my subcommittee in the near future. we have some reference in the way that they do business. on the topic of broadband relocation, the options, i'm
following the incentive option remains increasingly concerned about the potential funding shortfalls and i'm committed to working with senator schatz and others to see that we have a plan in case the things that we're fearful of happening actually do happen. we look forward tower reports in regard to that as this process goes forward. again, on options, i'll ask this to you, mr. chairman. i'm particularly focused on 5-g. the last time you and i spoke here at commerce committee, i asked about spectrum frontiers and the upcoming highband auctions. i appreciated that you moved to complete the frontier proceedings quickly. i would like to ask about the timing for high band spectrum auctions as the retention of option forms in your budget request, this year, they
totalled $124 million. i'm concerned about the on going incentive auctions. when we will hear about the high-band auctions? >> as i told you in your appropriations, i'm seriously concerned about the cuts that have been proposed to the auction budget and our ability to do all the heavy lifting on auction that is we have. insofar as specifically auctioning off the new millimeter wave spectrum, that is not scheduled, because it has to work its way through the python in the auction operation. at the same point in time, there are some pieces of what we have identified that already have lie sen sees. we are working to facilitate sharing transfers and whatever activities may be necessary to get that spectrum to work.
>> thank you. you have added to my voe kak larry. i have never heard of a pig working his way through a python. >> thank you, senator moran. senator schatz? >> thank you. there are no snakes in hawaii. so this hearing started with a very important principle to say that the commerce committee and you all know this, having many of you worked on the committee or certainly with the committee. the fcc has been a bastian of bipartisanship but not recently. i'm struck by the collective desire described from sort of different ends of the elephant to get to 5-0 where we can. it seem tos to me there are two principles to adhere to when we are trying to get to 5-0. one is compromise. i will get to that on set top
box. the other is conduct. the exchange senator had with commissioner o'rielly. all of us say things that don't plend us to getting to 5-0. i would offer to you, commissioner and all of us, that whether or not things we are saying are constructive and leads us to strengthen the fcc, which is done so much over so many years and to strengthen the institution of the senate to get back to that history to get to 5-0. on settop boxes, i absolutely support the principle that people shouldn't be ripped off by being forced to rent a device. i think that is a commonly held bipartisan principle. it wasn't without some objections over the months and years. we are very, very close to getting across the finish line.
my concern both on process and policy is that the thing i thought i was agreeing to and advocating for may be accomplished in the next 15 days. lots of other things which i think deserve more scrutiny and oversight and discussion may also be accomplished. it is not at all clear to me that it is necessary to do all of these other things in order to get across the finish line when it comes to providing consumers with some relief on set top boxes. i am absolutely encouraged by all of the commissioners desire to get to what the offending provisions may be. i heard them talk about the two offending provisions that had to do with how licensing agreements would be overseen in the future by the commission. commissioner rosenworcel and wheeler talking about their
willingness to discuss and probably pursue a compromise. i want to just get as clear as i can without sort of refereeing the commission's deliberations. fir, for commissioner wheeler t sounds as though you are open to modifying this to accommodate some of these quite legitimate concerns. is that accurate? >> yes, sir, if we can do that and protect the mandate from congress, which i believe we can. >> commissioner pai, part of the difficulty when conducting a negotiation is to find out whether or not these are two of the many objection that is you may have to the current proposal or if these are the two main objections. to the extent commissioner wheeler makes accommodations and you pop up with three new objections, that would, and i'm not suggesting that you would, i just want to get it clear. if we are trying to get to 5-0 and he does backflips to
accommodate these concerns that we don't find three new concerns 72 hours out. commissioner pai, you want to comment on that? >> absolute live. that's why my office makes it a practice to put the suggested changes to these orders that we vote on on our internal chain at least one week and sometimes several weeks in advance so na everyone knows what the universe of our concerns might be and what other proposals are. those are key. another one is i don't want anything to inadvertently deter owe vague. any change to the standard licensing agreement has to be approved by the media bureau. that might end up slowing things down. the other thing is, i don't want the mvpds to be deterred or delayed in introducing new innovations in their own equipment. one of the concerns i have is that they might be delayed or deterred, because they would have to insure that the consumer experience is replicated on every app or way of accessing
the program. they would have to make it away on every other platforms. >> you are just flushing out these objections? >> this is separate, related to that core concern. that's one of the things we are going to be hopefully talking about in the days to come. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, senator schatz. senator days? >> thank you, madame chair. in the spirit of senator schatz trying to help broker the peace process within the fcc, let me take a shot of that as well. >> in march of this year, the house passed the broadband employment act. it was a vote to zero. there are very few votes you have zero to anything. then. it came over here. it passed this committee 21-3.
three touchdowns versus a field goal. that's about as strong by partnership as we will see around here. the commission is set to consider extending the exemption again in december. it is pretty clear congress has spoken on this issue. i would say it hasn't stuttered orren but shout the pretty loud. maybe i will start with the chairman. do you agree that congress's intend i clear and will you vote to extend the exemption for small businesses? >> thank you very much, senator. one of the issues on the whole small business question is, just what is the definition of a small business when you are in the broadband business. the sba defines a small business as $38 million or less in the broadcasting space. >> i am looking to strat phi and see how you segment businesses
within a particular vertical. congress has spent a lot of time. we debated that. i worked very hard with some of my colleagues across the aisle. we took a subscriber view versus a revenue view. we have 250,000 subscribers. >> we're sensitive to what you are saying. 250,000 subscribers is about $250 million in revenue when you take a revenue approach. you have to say to yourself, are you going to keep transparency because its, quote, too expensive, away from consumers who are on company that is do a quarter billion dollars a year in revenue? i'm not trying to be judgmental with that. that's the facts. as you know, we have until the end of the year to decide if we
are going to extend. >> it is not so much whether you principlely agree whether there should be a line drawn but perhaps where the line us drawn. >> yes, sir. >> in the spirit of trying to hopefully generate more bipartisan agreement at the fcc level, congress has spoken very loudly on that, very clearly on that. i hope you would respect at least our guidance there as you deliberate on where that line should be drawn. >> thank you. >> the only difference between the two chambers was a five versus three is the difference. we are in agreement on the level where the line should be drawn. i want to shift gears and talk about wireless coverage mobility fupd. in mon ttana, the wireless is really a public safety issue. many live many miles from the next home, from a hospital. having that kind of connectity is very essential. chairman, you talk about
competition. thank you for coming to montana. in montana, competition can be limited. i'm curious on your thoughts around what can be done and what are you doing to promote compet america? >> thank you very much senator. i think that there are multiple things. one, i know your question was about competition. first we have to make sure that everybody has coverage. that's what i was talking to senator wicke rerks ar and we'r adapt to that. i think that there are great promises and rue wonda that's worse than montana has some really interesting infrastructure sharing things that they're doing. i suggest things at the cellular
convection two weeks ago that they may want to look at things like that. i think that 5 g and the promise of 5 g. the folks at verizon say that they think that it's a rural solution in many ways. that they refer to it as wireless fiber. i think that there are multiple solutions including our policies innovative approaches in 5 g. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm out of boy. boy, it goes by fast when you're having fun. just a closing comment. we're getting a fair amount of o imput from those back home on am radio. i look forward to working with you to discuss it a little bit further. sometimes you cannot get connectivity and am radio sometimes is your link. it really becomes the link for the weather forecast for folks
that are out there spending time on tractors that we want to take care of. thank you much. >> thank you senator daines. senat senator marky. >> two years ago i voted for him. commissioner two years ago was promised to vote. by that consent, we can bring it up on the floor this afternoon so that we don't have to cloud that's ahead. i ask that we confirm her. we can do it immediately. i think it's an important statement to make. this is a relic of the past. it's a typical satellite box,
but it's today. this could be in your house 20 years ago or this could be in the house today. investigation led by us found that one, 99 percent of all american paid tv subscribers rent this from the paid tv provider. two, they spend on average $89 a year erenting a single one. the average household spends $232 of fees & two and a half boxes. over two years the average family is paying 2,300 hours to rent this box. $2,300. that's a good business to be in. the box rental market maybe worth $9.5 billion a year. now, this little device that i have in my hand is an amazon
fire stick. it costs $40 for a consumer to purchase. there are many other things like this out there like r ooku and chrome box. they can use these to watch things from multiple sources like hulu and netflix. this device cannot play the programming package that consumers pay each month from the satellite providers. put it on the way and the only way for the consumer and approximate approximately 100 million households that subscribe to paid tv is to watch the programming that they are paying for is to rent a box from their cable, satellite or telco company. consumers cannot watch their tv on these third party boxes. $2,300 every year for this. good business. that's what the fcc is
considering right now. how do we transition to the modern technology? we did it with the black rotary dial phone. it was a big thing in 1992 and one in eight had slate dishes but they were not willing to sell hbo and show time and cnn to them. we had to change the laws so that the 18 inch dishes had to get access to the programs. it has to be reasonable, but we changed the law. who would imagine a world today without direct tv. who would imagine that? we had to create it. so this device is something that only the fcc now can do something about. the fcc's proposal is going to insure that through an app created by the cable company,
the cable programming package can be played on the third party device so that consumers are not going pay huge rental fees. it's that simple. that's what this debate is all about. we don't want consumers to have the rent a box for the paid tv provider when they can buy a device that gets the same job done. that lack of choice has to end now, so chairman wheeler you have heard the concerns on programming, copyright. we had the same issue back with the 18 inch satellite dish. we worked it out and the standard to make it work. talk about how open you are to finding a common sense solution so that over the next 14 days the consumers can be freed from these chains that have been binding them since the day that they first had a cable system installed in their house. >> thank you very much senator.
not from principle that our new proposal respects is a real life indication of how we're willing and seeking to resolve remaining concerns while allowing that chain to be chopped. thank you. >> again, if anyone wants to continue to rent this for the rest of their life, they're going to be allowed to under the lauchlt nobody is going to stop them for paying $2,300 over the years. they will have the options. >> an interesting thing is that comcast is shipping 40,000 boxes
a day -- a day right now. >> so that's our job and your job to find this common sense solution. we have to find a solution. we did it for 18 inch satellite dish and we did it for rotary dial phone, and we found the answers and i urge you to do nit the next two weeks. i think that american people will say it's a great day to be freed from this kind of a chain. >> senator from massachusetts hold up the amazon fire stick right there. okay. there it is. the letter from the amazon is opposed to this proposal by the way. point of fact. >> well, i will add one more fact. all of the programmers back in 1992 opposed having to sell their praogramming to the 18 inh satellite dishes. discovery came in and said i
don't want to sell it. you can write in years when you have four up. i understand that you got a call that cannot refuse, but we know the only way that it's going work is to free them up so that they can sell it to as many devices. >> it's not often that a company opposes the self-interest. they say that the process to create a license and over site body is going to delay the competition and delay customers from receiving the services that they pay for. >> that's what they say on the license board. not a concern on whether or not this device should be able to process the license -- and cnn and hbo. we can work out the issues and these commissioners are briel ye brilliant and have a capacity.
>> yeah it's good if they could writ out so people can read it before they buy it. >> chairman wheeler, as we discussed before satellite subscribers and in southeastern colorado currently receive new mexico based broadcast and in addition to the challenges leave the vase majority of the viewers without access and that is a significant mountain in denver, the front range and i command the work that the broadcasters and others and satellite providers continue to engage in as they work to deliver colorado tv to all four corners of colorado. congress also worked to address this issue in 2014 by extending the market modification process to satellite tv.
as they crafted the vinyl rules, i along with others urged the fcc to permit county commissioners to commission and i thank you for for adapting that option. in light of those rules, we have expressed interest in moving forward with the market modification process. a dish is also indicated that provided the colorado television is not in feasible. the colorado broadcasters sent both senator bennett and i a letter to do the dish in the two counties. with this process, i am calling on the county commissioners at this hearing and calling on the county commissioners in colorado and the broadcasters and dish together so that we can convene in a meeting next month in colorado to discuss ways that we can reach a final resolution. i hope that senators bennett and others were joining me as well. we have to get this finally
solved. >> you have given it to me here and before. we will have the review for of market modifications. >> thank you very much for that. >> and in light of the discussions, and i'm sorry senator i don't mean to offend the mexico tv. that's certainly not intended to be that way. just the broncos. we talk about the rules and regulations that they brought up that the char man is talking about. commissioner just a couple of months ago you expressed concerns with the come pleexty and the box proposal and washington dc is the only place that we make things simpler by adding to the complexity. it's the new proposal as being
simple la identified. do you agree with that and the concerns on the complexity been addressed? >> as i said before it's time to inject competition into the set top box marked. nobody's written me saying that they love them. maybe it's happened to you, but i doubt that it's happened to anyone in the room. i appreciate that the chairman has made an effort to get this started on this point. if i have a concern, it's that the licensing scheme that we have here gets the business of trying to figure out the model licenses, and i don't see how that easily fits under the statue that we have. that would be the complexity that i see that it needs work. i am exit kmitcommitmented to t them and see if we can iron that
out and make it simple. >> would you like to address the complexity? >> i would agree with the concerns that they have expressed. the proposal as it was presented to us was a much simpler one than the one that we have now. it imports a lot of the problems with the original proposal and so i would hope that we embrace more of the original apps proposal and instead of adding in the layers of the fcc review and the programming agreements and the standard license agreement and so forth. >> yeah, i would agree and i think that what's been presented and circulated is simpler than before. it still has the difficulties and problems that are outline and the areas have to be addressed and hopefully we can do that in the coming weeks. >> yeah, thank you senator and senator booker has returned. senator booker? >> i am really grateful and
always excited when there's a corey to corey connection here. it's thriving. >> both four letter words. >> so as you all know i was the mayor of new york and mayor of the cities is where the innovations are happening and finding ways to get things done and innovative public partnerships. i am excited about these mayors across the country. as the mayors says there's no way to fix a pothole but to just fix it. you see people saying that they have problems, let's get it down. this is why i am so supportive of the ideas of the broad band. especially in areas where there's poor folks and rural folks that are not getting service. this idea that somehow the private sector is going get i down, and they're not. other countries have greater penetration than we have.
so we see that when it comes to overall this crisis in the country ask that's the broad band employment, we have to really start to focus on all allowing to get things done. as a result of all of this one of the early things that i did as a senator was introduced the broad band act with a lot of my colleagues here in a way to preserve the rights of local governments to invest in broad band networks. now, with content, i would like to put in the record a new york times story from august 28th and it was really disturbing. it's about some folks who are rural consumers that did not in wilson, north carolina in my father's home state. if i have consent to enter it into the objection.
it's a rural broad band program that have done and they were b able to make massive upgrades on the farms. that's all at risk and it's going force them off the super highway. this is not just a bunch of people doing online sports betting. these are folks that need this for education and for work and for the businesses. i was disappointed by the anger and over turned by the actions to approve the petitions for the communities seeking to supply them with the local broad band. i was troubled to learn that the fcc will not pursue the case further. i simple tiez with the commissions and need to make the tough choices for the families and businesses to fight to make
sure that they can get broad band access. in light of the court's decision, how important is it and the in ability to put the resources into pursuing the case? can you you just give the chairman thoughts how important it is for congress to act upon this? >> a number one importance. there's a few words. >> that's a few words. man, if everybody was cooperative in my life as you were, i might be married. >> it catches up with you. >> moving on. i know there's been a lot of dialogue and i forgive me for stepping out to vote but i want to get back to the set top box of the controverscontroversy. i have a polling method and when my twitter blows up, this is an issue on the mind of a lot of
different diverse groups in america. one of the most robust topics to a guy like me that has a tivo in one room and a regular cable box in another room. the product is so inferior and so much more costly over time and so much worse technology, and i live in a poor neighborhood and it's below the poverty line and seeing my neighbors get billed for the device. there's a lot of my friends i trust who are some the greatest company in this country who create tremendous wealth or responsible for the greatest american exports that have expressed to me legitimate concerns. i want to conclude if you would in a way before because right before i left if i can find it. you said that you have been talking with them and you're
90 percent of the way there. i just want for mine own benefit, can you be specific on the progress that you have made and the ten percent gap and how do we get to a point that some of them are valued and the companies in america are satisfied and what is going to get us to 100 percent? >> thank you very much senator. let me say it in a complex area. the congressman dated competitive boxes and the industry responded with a licensing body that they created, so all of this stuff about the licensing body. the licensing body that they created that then put out -- did not put out the licenses. okay. now, as we look at the situation that we have here, how do we set it up so that the industry --
not us is determining how this licensing structure works? but how do we learn from the snast one thing that we did was said okay let's put a little bit of tension on the board. let's put the programmers on there so that the kascable operators and the programmers are keeping them honest. there's a back scratching that goes along with the two. we said why don't we put on the equipment manufactures and have a three way discussion there. everybody keeping everybody else honest so that the licensing can move forward. absolutely not. programmers would not agree. cable would not agree. that is going blow everything up. who is going be the backstop in
this? well, why not the commission. that's the thought process that brought us to where we are. i have said that we're open to whatever can solve the problem that's been identifying for license er. i am opened to how you solve it, and at the same time respect the mandate of the congress that says you shall have competition. i am heartened by the commissioners up and down the table saying that they want to work together on the proposal, and i want to join with them in trying to resolve this. >> i amway over time.
i want to thank my chairman for the indulgence. >> thank you senator booker. thank up is senator -- >> i want to thank y'all and whether you're supportive of not by the second quarter and we were close so i appreciate the work that you're doing and the funding issue, and i know that the staffs are work okay that as well with alaska price cap carrier. mr. compare man you mentioned that it's about coverage in the rural communities and the extreme communities that i like to say that i was out like all of us back home or over the summer and was in a lot of the
communities still struggling. sometimes you think about the most remote communities that do not have a will the of activiti activities. i was in dutch harbor. this is the number one seafood port in america. it has enormous economic activity out there, but still concerned with, you know, the lack of broad band access. i know that the work that the commissioners did is going to help on that. i want to thank everybody for working hard on that issue for my state i want to build on senator daines and broad it to the broader issue of the lack of the economy growth. this is an incredible industry
that you see and when you look at the growth from a nation's perspective in the last ten years, it's been very substandard. president obama is going to be those that never hit the growth in one quarter. we have had a lost decade and one of the reasons that i think that's clearly happened is that we over regulate ourself in so many different sectors. we have had the secretary of transportation saying that it's taking five to six years on average to perm nate a bridge. we have one saying that it took 14 years and then it took seven years and seven billion dollars for a company to get permission to drill one exploration well off the coast of alaska.
we're our own worse enemy on inhibiting economic growth. we are trying to get the projects moving and get dirt moving. starting to build things and so i offered an amendment that would have an application granted and if there's time that passes on federal land. what i want to hear is on the issue and i know that you're thinking about it a lot what are the big issues that we need to help to deploy the resources of this very dynamic industry so
that we can start to grow the economy? i know that you have been thinking about it and i know that you have been thinking about it. i really want to open this up to all of you. what can we do and what should we do help us start building thing in this country gain. particularly in this dynamic sector of the economy. >> thank you senator. we know that we're in the early day of a wireless revolution. it's becoming such an important part of civic and commercial life and the challenges to get it built everywhere as we move to the future and the internet of things. we spend so much time talking about what's happening in the skies and the least glamourous part is what is happening on the ground. i deserves attention and we dig the policies all around the country in the federal lands to make sure that every time that we have a construction project that we lay fibber. that serves the wireless facilities and towers. we're going to start to hold the
contest for the communities and tell them that there's a reward in it if you figure out a way to expedite and in the infrastructures and then when it comes to federal authorities to control about one-third of the nation's real-estate. we should make sure that there's master contracts and we're required to use them. >> we want to work with you and you need the legislative approval to do that kind of stream lining to deploy these assets, isn't that correct? >> that's a debate over that senator. i have been encouraged to hear my go colleagues today talk about how we have to step up do the question on site and issues and we need to respect the
rights of the localities. >> of course. >> but the rights of localities do not extend to hording the construction of the information pathway of the 21st century and how do we work that out in a balancing act. that's what they're doing possible. >> we want to work with you mr. chairman. i know that my time is expired. your idea on the federal land and to me that's where we have a role and it does not get into the issue of the smaller communities and the local caltys and then we have to get the support to start to build things, and i want to work with all of the commissioners on the idea skpis think that we can really lay clooef some bipart son consensus here. >> 30 seconds. >> tw patch is the guy that deserves the credit for getting the bail rolling on the alaska
plan that you were talking about. i just want to make sure that they gets the public recognition. >> well he is a good friend of mine, so i am glad that you're mentioning it in the hearing, and i will pass it on. >> thank you. >> we will never forget the first responders that ran to the rescue. sadly radio problems led to further loss of life. this should remind us that the nation's communications network do more than just let us call
>> i have other questions for the record, but i want to ask each of you yes or no question and my home state of new mexico 80 percent of those living on tribal lands do not have the access to broad band. four out of five people without broad band access. i find that appalling. so i would like to ask a simple yes or no. will you support chairman wheeler's effort to take action this year to address the divide on tribal land? >> absolutely. >> i don't know what the issue is, but i'm willing to work. >> yes, senator. >> obviously. >> please say a few words on -- >> let me hang my head for a
minute because in a previous hearing i said that this would be taken care of by football season. we're in football season. we are going to deal with this, sir. we will deal with this before the end of football season, but as you've heard the colleagues support for doing this and dealing with the rate and return carriers and how do we make sure that they're sufficient rate of return on the tribal lands, yes, sir. >> thank you chairman wheeler for the commitment to this. commissioner, we met with students when you were in new mexico at hatch, new mexico who do homework in the parking lot or a pick wick store where there's free wifi. we need to close this gap. a football player at the high school had a bright idea and j o ona said that there should be wifi available on the school
bus. that would help him do a homework when the team travels to the long games. they receive support at school but not on the buses. do you agree that wifi on the buses could close the homework gap? >> well, first of all for having me in hatch, new mexico. it was a treat, and i still remember the football player that told me in rural, new mexico that he would take the bus an hour and a half out to play games and an hour and a half back at night and then sit there in the darkness of the school with his device because it was the only way that he could get the homework done. it seems to me that that's trying to hard and we should be able to help him, and i think that we should use the e rate program so make sure that the school buses are wireless buses and have wifi on wheels. >> thank you.
i don't know if anybody else has anything on that. >> far be it to me to close the homework gap. >> it may require a change in the statue, and may not be allowed to be done in the current provision. this is the first time and there maybe other opportunity toss help this particular individual. i don't know if that's the best solution, but i am open to solving the problem. >> okay. we will share the authorities with you that indicate that there's an ability to do this. thank you very much. thank you chairman. >> thank you senator. >> let me make a couple of simple pointings. i know that your rule is a common one but here are some really simple points.
the united states congress must confirm commissioner rose bus. she is a lead ner the homework gap and a tireless advocate for public safety officials and she has been a leading thinker at the fcc on creative ways to update the spectrum and then for the license and unlicensed use. she is a distinguished member of the fcc and her conformation was part of an agreement that led to confirmation of the commissioner o riley. i'm looking at you, sir. i know that you were not part of this agreement. you were part of this but would not be there for this agreement, and i'm calling on the majority
leader to keep his promise. number two on the set top box office, senator wheeler i want to express my agratitude to you on behalf of the consumers of connecticut that will stand to save millions of dollars as a result of the rule that you're proposing and to be simple and not overly simple, there's a law that requires it. i am a law enforcement guy. the first and foremost duty of anybody in public office is to enforce the law. if it's unin forced, it underminds everybody and that in forces a law that's been unenforced since the 1990s as we
all everybody and that in force law that's been unenforced since the 1990s as we all underminds n forces a law that's been unenforced since the 1990s as we all know. it will save connecticut and consumers all across the country millions of dollars. there have to be standards and got us into the mess and only reliable and consistent and enforcement law and will help to preserve consumers pocketbook. i want to enter into the record editorials from some of the newspapers that have expressed them on the issue and most recently in new york times and then today and that's very in fat i cannily coming down and this issue is a classic inside the belt way verses the people of america issue. inside of of the belt way there's a hand bringing and my goodness what are we doing.
outside of the bemt wlt way, ths no question that consumers deserve to save money through more choice and through more competition. that's the way that the markets work. so i am lead to go a question here, but i want to express the strong view that this rule is needed and deserved by the consumers of america, and i would like to just open it to you sir to explain what perhaps the numbers are here in the terms of savings. the set top boxes are dollar devow ers. they suck money out of consumers pockets without any real need, and what are the numbers in term of the savings? >> well, thank you very much senator. you know, i was talking to
senator earlier about the study that she did and how one of the major findings of that was the surprise oh my goodness, i have this additional charge. this is not what they were telling me on the ads. there's an additional charge. skbrou senator markey did it showing 230 something a month on a household. you the math on that and that's about a billion $600 million every 30 days. >> without any benefit to the consumers. >> without a choice. by the way -- i don't mean to
kwooifle, but you're going to apay this or the money that you pay on the cable subscription is down the tube. yes, you get a result from the payment because you're being held hostage. as the kbhicommissioner has sai repeatedly, it's time to do something about this. we respect greatly the corporations harrell coming to see us, and we're trying to work with coming to see us, and we're trying to work with them. they gave us a responsibility to
the consumers, and our job is to mandate. >> thank you very much. my time has expired. i offered, and i guess i did not wait for the potential objection but if there's no objection, i will have them part of the record. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> senator peters? >> i want to thank everyone for being here today and the tireless work on some complic e complicated issues and working to employee some of the 21st century technology. it's a sful time job. i have some questions for chairman wheeler, but it relates to a letter that aranking member nelson, senators booker and i sent to the fcc, department of
transportation endorsing a plan for the joint testing for spectrum sharing in the 5.9 van and in june they announced that it was prefreshing the record and then in july the public comment period closed and now it's my understanding that the commission has received devices and is prepared to begin both field and bench testing. so chairman, just some brief questions here as we wrap up here. i understand that the fcc will release the test plan prior to beginning phase one of the interference testing. when is the testing plan going to be release today the public? >> so thank you very much sen is or t senator. as you know there's a three test line. we have just received the equipment for five manufactures,
so we are beginning immediately to assess that equipment, it's characteristics, it's power levels and the interference and all of these things that we're responsible for on a bench test, but we want to get through that quickly and get off on to to the dot and to and their facilities to be able to test it in that environment and then to move on and test it in a real life environment, so this is something that we're moving with dispatch on. it's actually the equipment came a little bit later than hoped for, but it's here now. >> when do you plan to complete all of the phases of the interference testing? do you think that you will reach the target? >> i can't -- i will get an answer for you on that from the lab folks. we're hopeful to push this forward. >> so you're hopeful for
january? >> that's not a commitment. i will get you a real date from those that know what they're talking about know what they think. >> i appreciate that. when i talk ability commitment itself, will you commit to making public all of the day that that's collected by the fcc during the bench and field testing phases? >> we will commit to the spirit of what you're saying if there is private data that is company specific asked for confidentiality. we will have to respect that. >> next is what is the target date for making a final determination on spectrum share nothing the 5.9 gig hertz on the devices? >> i they we have to wait to see what happens here. >> so you don't have a target? >> yes, sir. >> and most importantly mr. chairman, i can't over state how
critical it is when you're evaluating the proposals, that it's based on facts and science and judgments on what will and will not work. it's not going substitute for the hard engineers and data. it's the importance of the spectrum and then some of the incredible things that are going to be happening in the years ahead and we have to have both riggous and open reviews. i hope that the commission's final determination on the sharing is base ond that data and then we will under go that review and there's plenty of transparency given the restrants possible and that this is an open process and that it's a very important one and one that has tremendous benefits and it's being done properly. >> yes, sir. >> senator, can i just add one more thing on things that you and i have talked about
previously? i just want you to know that i have learned in the next couple of weeks at the ohio state university, they will start driving automated cars around camp campus as a part of it. i want to make sure that the information is complete in that regard, sir. it's going to be operational in the last saturday of november as well. >> well, i appreciate that. at another time i will talk about the work at the university of michigan. >> thank you senator peters. next up is chairman of the homeland security and fellow packer fan johnson. >> well, last year we opened up the regular season and we had the unfortunate circumstances and many of those in wisconsin
were forced to watch the vickings beat the titans instead of having the joy of watching the green bay packers beat the jacksonville jaguars. i worked with a dpfellow packer fan and one of his qualities and fellow packer fan, and so we had inserted in the realization the ability to allow broadcasters to petition the ability for the fcc to carry the signals on the satellite and wrote to you on december 15th and asking you to act on this petitions that asked you in a hearing to do so. i am glad to announce that we have our first petition filed in wisconsin by the great television up in wasa and asking for them to be carried up in iron and ashland docounty.
would you put that out to excepts? we have the comment period. >> yes. there are components here and one this is great. we have the local petition. two, we all have to sit down and work with the satellite provider for the technical capacity. >> the satellite provider has agreed do that. >> i have said o senator gardener about bringing the various parties together and we will be happy to come to the table as well if that's helpful. >> can you give me a date? packers fans are weight to see the green bay packers on the satellite signal. >> a date for when you put approximate it out? >> yeah, so we can start the clock ticking to celebration. >> i don't know why we can't put it out instantously.
>> they will kill me as fast as how manically possible. >> we will keep on asking the question. >> good. >> commissioner, are you aware of anything and the set top box proceeding for the commission? >> senator, i am not. >> should there be? >> i do think that any regulation should have cost analysis or otherwise it seems to portray that the regulation that would be bad for the consumers would be passed. >> it's a cost analysis because we're constantly having folks come in and say here what is cost is or someone saying here
is what the benefits are, and so, you know, i like in the notice process and then someone opposes something and then changes it and it goes here. this is what the whole process goes through. it's a benefit and it's done. >> yeah, it's a cost benefit and i kind of like to actually see the figures. we're in a more formalized one. >> well, how can you collect as much information as possible and then the challenge in a cost benefit comes back to that old harry truman quote that he says that i want a one hand because they're saying on one hand and another. it's less mass and more judgment. as we're going through this
entire long running administrative process, i think they're going up to all of the members of the commission just what the cost and benefits are as put forward by vary paerrtie. they went out and hired, you know, a former chief of the congress to come in and give a quantify case of their numbers. others have quantity identified it the other ways. >> yeah i would like to see the former process and then commissioner riley you said that they were holding free data plans because they're afraid of what the commission may do. can you talk more about that briefly? >> yeah, so we are -- the commission is in the process of exam whag is known as zero rating plans and that process is going on for ten months. i have been trying to get better information from the bureaus on when the process is going to conclude and what is the cliexly
hood and what is a conclusion of it. are they going to get a star and then to the endporsment skpax what's the likelihood of that. we check in periodically. we got the last answer yesterday surprisingly. the answer came back and that was that we continue to work through and how each polly will conclude. we do not have a time frame to pro pro vied. it's an ongoing process. we have no idea when it's going to conclude. in the meantime carriers are left wondering if the particular service that they want to offer is permitted or are they subject to going into enforcement action. i think that's a problem. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you senator johnson. senator markey further questions? >> no, just thanking skbrou for the hearing. i thought that it was excellent,
and i just want to korch lament you on that. i would just say to the fcc i would urge you to take up the privacy and the bds so that we can make the process on that. i just urge you to put that on the agenda. thank you for a great hearing. >> thank you. senator nelson. anything else? >> i want to enter into the record a letter that i had written to the fcc back in february on the boxes. >> without objection. >> just to make a comment we had an earlier conversation of packing the dc circuit court and senat senator wicker expressed that he sees it one way, and i want to
make the distinction that for a senator to express on the court packing, these particular issue is appropriate because the senate in fact votes on the confirmation of the judges. for members of an in at tindepet agency, is a separate issue. i want that distinction made clear. >> thank you senator nelson. very quickly i want to ask a couple of questions and this is something that the senator to h rosenworcel touched on and then the commission adopted several changes to the companies that serve rural america. these funds are vital for the
broad band services in the states like south dakota. it's my understanding that there's very little information that's been releersed since march on how they're going to implemented. i can tell you that i suspect most of the states and the committy is concerned that unless more specific information is available soon, the investment plans for 2017 are going to be seriously impacted. i find that to be unacceptable. so the question has to do and i would like every commissioner to answer the question as to whether you will commit to do everything that you can and all of the information that you need to make the critical investment plans for 2017 and beyond. >> yes, sir i they we have rarely do we move as quickly as and we have been deliberate and
we have for a number of years it's the firsthand and it's really the service and there's areas of known and then to provide for the dollars that are lim limited. >> yes, my staff is working to expedite the answers that they think that they need. we have been given that on the rate of return item. >> yes, mr. chairman. it's not just providing the information but there's a number of things and we need to address those with the dispatch in order to know if it's appropriate and those pending ones are appropriate. >> the answer is yes senator. >> chairman? >> yes, sir. >> thank you. in one final point and i don't want to go over this because we covered it in length but my question of three two party line
votes are on open meetings votes. you brought up the affective cho competition order and that was not a three two vote and it was part unanimous but not an open meeting vote. the vote that i refer to and it's almost a third of the open meeting vote is typically where the most important matters are voted on and those have been three to two party line votes and that's unheard of in the relative to modern history, and i just want to ask one last question and it has to do with that particular pattern but with respect to a different issue. i direct this to pai. i have mentioned and you mentioned in the descent of the ownership revie that a bipart son majority is tlog appeal the newspaper rule. you went on to say that
commissioners were told that it would not be repealed unless all agreed and one in the end picked to exercise the veto. can you elaborate on that vote opposed to on so many issues and chairman wheeler that's embraced a partisan outcome. >> well, thank you for the question. the it was an odd situation and we have an unwilling partisan and that the cross ownership restriction that was adapted in 1975 had long sense o ouut live and instructed us to take a look at it. they told the staff to support the restriction and believe that most of the members do, but if any member objects, then we're going to support the rule. as i pointed out in the descent
it went off as exercised that option and objected. what i thought was unfortunate was not that it just ended up the bad policy. it should be removed and most people would agree and most people would agree with that, at least behind closed doors of the fcc. but also the process is very strange to require unanimity, where as, you point out on your chart, there are a number of issues, particularly where suggested changes or made objections. those suggestions or objections are either ignored or either dismissed out of hand. my preference would be to move forward in a bipartisan manner. let's move the broadcast ownership with regulations into the 21st century together as opposed to these random requirements of unanimity. >> mr. chairman. >> rather than rely on hearsay, i think what's important to recognize here, is that for
eight years, there had been a failure at the commission. to comply with the statute that required these quadrennial reviews. the reason that that situation existed, was because it had not been possible, to get three commissioners, to represent a majority. on this issue for eight years. working together, we got a majority on this issue. it was not possible to keep a majority and make the kind of change that commissioner pai talked about. we have been criticized for not
having a majority. we worked, we got the majority, for the first time in eight years. and the exercise then became okay how do we follow through on our statutory mandate that everybody from congress to the third circuit criticized us on, because we didn't have a majority. >> well, it seems like this is an issue where we could have done a separate rule making, where you had bipartisan support. but i guess my observation in this circumstance is that it is contrasted quite sharply from the pattern that sigh pointed out earlier, where we had 3-2 votes on a whole training of controversial issues and then a requirement on unanimity, that strikes me as somewhat odd.
overall, i want to say thank you for all the committssioners bei held here. and deeply held differences of opinion on how to proceed, we deal with that on this committee on a regular basis, too. we try as best we can, senator nelson and i and members on both sides to find consensus. we don't always succeed, but we work very hard to make that happen. i would hope at the commission, we see a similar approach and attempt, because the stuff that you're dealing with, as i said earlier, incredibly important to our country. and the commission's role is incredibly important to our country and economy. and i think the nation's congress is incredibly important. we have an oversight role that we take very seriously. we appreciate your remarks today in answer to our questions. i would just point out for anybody who wants to ask additional questions for the record, we'll get to those if
definitively. >> all right. even if you're not the one -- >> right, right. >> -- you have colleagues [ inaudible ]. >> right. >> is there anything you can do to [ inaudible ]? >> you know, we'll have an ungoing conversation, i suspect. particularly when we get back art election about the number of nominations, as well as i hope other legislation that we're trying to get cleared. and so, i'm kind of hopeful all of these things will bust loose at some point, but it would be helpful, i think, for those colleagues on our side, who have issues with the nomination, some of which are related to the question of whether or not he'll stay on. if he would make that statement clearly, that would probably help. >> what you think [ inaudible ]. >> well, i'm working -- we're
trying to get language through in the c.r., that would at least delay it. there are a lot of folks on our side. probably some democrats as well who just think it's not really good. and we've got some things on our side who don't want to see it at all. what i'd like to see happen, put the brakes on this thing. there are a lot of questions to be raised. we've raised some of them and letters we've submitted to ntia and there are critical issues with the whole house, judiciary and commerce chairs, and on this side, house and judiciary chairs asking the ntia to reconsider a decision from october 1st, today put that out of and allow some of these issues to be addressed. if this is going to move
forward, to develop a political consensus that i think makes it much more possible. [ inaudible question ]. >> yeah, i think that we're hoping procedurally to get on the bill early next week, on monday. and my assumption is that they're close enough they think they'll get a deal over the weekend that would enable us to get a final series of votes. i'm not sure -- how much -- depends on how much cooperation there is in terms of procedural votes, what all the time line allowed for between those get collapsed or pointed out. but i could see if things come together, i hope they're real next week. >> thank you. >> you bet. [ inaudible question ]. >> oh, yeah, since i was a little kid. bart star.
hernandez research institute. discuss how the united nations and others are reducing that trend. >> i think you're seeing an explosion to recruit americans to isis. to use social media like twitter which was a popular choice for years now telegrammed where they're largely concentrated. you're seeing individuals in the u.s., and routinely online to find those recruiters or radicalizers. >> you want that, you want geography, you could have it in blood loss, you want revenge, you want whaacko killing, you he that as well. you want a way that bypasses regular media. >> wat