THE FOURTH ITEM ON YOUR
AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE
WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU AND
IS ENTITLED RESTORING INTERNET
FREEDOM.
 KRIS MONTEITH,
 BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELINE
 COMPETITION BUREAU
WILL GIVE THE INTRODUCTION.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> I THINK IT IS STILL GOOD
MORNING SO GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN
AND COMMISSIONERS.
THE WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU
PRESENTS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION
A DECLARATORY RULING REPORT AND
ORDER AND ORDER ON RESTORING
INTERNET FREEDOM.
THE ITEM WOULD ELIMINATE
BURDENSOME REGULATIONS THAT
STIFLE INNOVATION AS THE FIRST
INVESTMENT AND EMPOWER AMERICANS
TO CHOOSE THE BROADBAND INTERNET
ACCESS SERVICE THAT BEST FITS
THEIR NEED.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
COMPETITION POLICY DIVISION TEAM
FOR THEIR AMAZING WORK ON THIS
PROCEEDING.
WE ALSO RECEIVED INVALUABLE
INPUT FROM OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE.
SEATED AT THE TABLE WITH ME FROM
THE WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU
 ASSISTANT DIVISION CHIEF,
 COMPETITION POLICY DIVISION,
 DEBORAH SALONS,
 ATTORNEY ADVISOR, COMPETITION
 POLICY DIVISION.
JOINING ME AT THE TABLE FROM THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU ARE
 DONALD STOCKDALE,
 BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU,
 NESE GUENDELSBERGER,
 DEPUTY BUREAU CHIEF, WIRELESS
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU,
 JERRY ELLIG,
 CHIEF ECONOMIST, OFFICE OF
 STRATEGIC PLANNING, SEVERAL
ACTIONS TO RESTORE INTERNET
FREEDOM.
FIRST, THE DECLARATORY RULING
RESTORES BROADBAND INTERNET
ACCESS SERVICE TO TITLE I
INFORMATION SERVICE
CLASSIFICATION.
THE ITEM FINDS THAT
RECLASSIFICATION AS ITEM ENDS
HEAVY-HANDED UTILITY STYLE
REGULATION OF THE INTERNET IN
FAVOR OF OF MOBILE
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE AND RETURNS TO THE
COMMISSION'S DEFINITION OF
INTERCONNECTED SERVICE THAT
EXISTED PRIOR TO ANTITRUST LAWS.
IT ALSO CLARIFIES THE EFFECTS OF
THE RETURN TO AN INFORMATION
SERVICE CLASSIFICATION AND OTHER
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS INCLUDING
THE NEED TO APPLY A UNIFORM
FEDERAL REGULATORY APPROACH TO
INTERSTATE INFORMATION SERVICES
LIKE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE.
NEXT THE REPORT AND ORDER ADOPTS
A TRANSPARENCY WORLD THAT WOULD
REQUIRE YOUR INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS TO DISCLOSE
INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR
PRACTICES TO CONSUMERS
ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES AND THE COMMISSION.
HE RETURNS TO THE TRANSPARENCY
ROSE THE COMMISSION ADOPTED IN
2010 WITH CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS
TO PROMOTE ADDITIONAL
TRANSPARENCY.
THE REPORT AND ORDER ALSO
ELIMINATES THE CONDUCT RULES
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IT FINDS
THAT THE RULES ARE UNNECESSARY
BECAUSE THE TRANSPARENCY

REQUIREMENTS TOGETHER WITH
ANTITRUST AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS ENSURES THAT
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS
ENGAGING IN BEHAVIOR
INCONSISTENT WITH AN OPEN
INTERNET CAN BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN THIS ITEM
WILL ADVANCE THE COMMISSION'S
CRITICAL WORK TO PROMOTE
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT IN RURAL
AMERICA AND INFRASTRUCTURE
INVESTMENT THROUGHOUT THE
NATION.
BRIGHTENING THE FUTURE OF
INNOVATION BOTH WITHIN THAT WORK
AND AT THEIR EDGE AND MOVE
CLOSER TO THE GOAL OF
ELIMINATING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE.
THE BUREAU RECOMMENDS ADOPTION
OF THIS DECLARATORY RULING,
REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER AND
REQUEST EDITORIAL PRIVILEGES
EXTENDING ONLY TO TECHNICAL AND
CONFORMING EDITS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU FOR
THE PRESENTATION.
WE NOW TURN TO COMMENTS FROM THE
BENCH BEGINNING WITH
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
>>COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:  THANK
YOU.
BEFORE BEGINNING MY STATEMENT I
WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT
CONGRESSMAN JERRY MCNERNEY, A
MEMBER OF THE CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEE THAT HAS OVERSIGHT
OVER THIS AGENCY REQUESTED THE
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.
HE WAS DENIED, BUT I HAVE A COPY
OF A STATEMENT THAT THE

CONGRESSMAN WOULD HAVE DELIVERED
HAD HE BEEN GIVEN THE
OPPORTUNITY
HARMING, CORPORATE ENABLING,
DESTROYING INTERNET FREEDOM
ORDER.
I DISSENT BECAUSE I AM AMONG THE
MILLIONS OUTRAGED, OUTRAGED
BECAUSE THE FCC PULLS ITS OWN
TEETH ADVOCATING RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROTECT THE NATIONS BROADBAND
CONSUMERS.
SOME MAY ASK WHY ARE WE
WITNESSING PLAINLY
SEE THAT A SOON TO BE TOOTHLESS
FCC IS HANDING THE KEYS TO THE
INTERNET
PROFITS AND SHAREHOLDERS RETURNS
ABOVE WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU DUTIES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES TO MAKE
AVAILABLE SO FAR AS POSSIBLE TO
ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED
STATES WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, A
RAPID, EFFICIENT, NATIONWIDE AND
WORLDWIDE WIRED AND RADIO
COMMUNICATION SERVICE WITH
ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND
REASONABLE CHARGES.
TODAY THE FCC MAJORITY IS ABOUT
TO OFFICIALLY ABANDON THAT
PLEDGE AND MILLIONS ARE WATCHING
AND TAKING NOTE.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE
ANY FCC OR CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
IMMUNE TO THE DELUGE OF CONSUMER
OUTCRIES.
WE ARE EVEN HEARING ABOUT STATE
AND LOCAL OFFICES FIELDING CALLS
AND ONE IS NEWSWORTHY THAT AT
LAST COUNT AND I THINK THE
NUMBERS RISING, FIVE REPUBLICAN
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WENT ON THE
RECORD IN CALLING FOR A HALT TO
TODAY'S VOTE.
WHY SUCH A BIPARTISAN OUTCRY?
BECAUSE THE LARGE MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS ARE IN FAVOR OF
KEEPING STRONG NET NEUTRALITY
RULES IN PLACE.
BUT THE SADDEST PART TO ME ABOUT
ALL OF.
A NORM WHERE THE MAJORITY
IGNORES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
A NORM WHERE THE MAJORITY STANDS
IDLY BY WHILE THE PEOPLE THEY
ARE COMMITTED TO SERVE, THAT
THEY'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO SERVE,
ARE ABOUT TO LOSE SO MUCH.
WE HAVE HEARD STORY AFTER STORY
ABOUT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY MEANS
TO CONSUMERS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES FROM PLACES AS
DIVERSE AS LOS ANGELES SKID ROW
TO MARIETTA OHIO.
I HAVE HERE LETTERS THAT JUST
WERE SENT TO ME THAT PLEAD WITH
THE FCC TO KEEP OUR NET
NEUTRALITY RULES IN PLACE.
BUT WHAT IS STRIKING, AND IN
KEEPING WITH THE NEW NORM, IS
THAT DESPITE THE MILLIONS OF
COMMENTS, LETTERS, AND CALLS
RECEIVED, THIS ORDER NOT EVEN
ONE.
THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE
DIRECTION THE CURRENT MAJORITY
IS HEADING.
THIS FCC IS HEADING.
AND THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT
JUST WHO IS BEING HEARD AT THE
FCC.
SOLE PROPRIETORS WHOSE ENTIRE
BUSINESS MODELS DEPEND ON AN
OPEN INTERNET ARE WORRIED THAT
THE ABSENCE OF CLEAR AND
ENFORCEABLE NET NEUTRALITY
PROTECTIONS WILL RESULT IN
HIGHER COSTS AND FEWER BENEFITS
BECAUSE YOU SEE, THEY ARE NOT
ABLE TO PAY THOSE PREMIUM ACCESS
FEES.
LARGE ONLINE BUSINESSES HAVE
ALSO WEIGHED IN EXPRESSING
CONCERNS ABOUT BEING SUBJECT TO
ADDED CHARGES AS THEY SIMPLY TRY
TO REACH THEIR OWN CUSTOMERS.
ENGINEERS HAVE SUBMITTED
COMMENTS INCLUDING PROVIDER BECOMES THE
ARBITER OF ACCEPTABLE ONLINE
BUSINESS MODELS AND YET I HAVE
HEARD FROM CONSUMERS WHO ARE
WORRIED GIVEN THAT THERE
BROADBAND PROVIDERS HAVE ALREADY
SHOWN THAT THEY WILL CHARGE
INSCRUTABLE BELOW THE LINE FEES,
RAISE PRICES UNEXPECTEDLY, AND
PUT CONSUMERS ON HOLD FOR HOURS
AT A TIME, WHO WILL HAVE THEIR
BEST INTEREST AT HEART IN A
WORLD WITHOUT CLEAR AND
ENFORCEABLE RULES OVERSEEN BY AN
AGENCY WITHOUT ANY CLEAR
AUTHORITY?
WITH THAT AGENCY BE A TWO LIST
FCC?
THERE IS A DARKER SIDE TO ALL OF
THIS THAT WE HAVE WITNESSED OVER
THE PAST TWO WEEKS.
THREATS AND INTIMIDATION,
PERSONAL ATTACKS, RUSSIAN
INFLUENCE, STATE COMMENTS.
THESE ARE UNACCEPTABLE.
SOME OF THESE ACTIONS ARE
ILLEGAL.
THEY ARE ALL TO BE REJECTED.
BUT WHAT IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE
IS THE FCC'S REFUSAL TO
COOPERATE WITH THE STATE
ATTORNEY GENERAL INVESTIGATION
OR ALLOW EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD
THAT WOULD UNDERCUT WHAT CAN
ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A
PREORDAINED OUTCOME.
MANY HAVE BEEN ASKING ME, WHAT
HAPPENS NEXT?
HOW WILL ALL OF THIS NET
NEUTRALITY COME UP MY INTERNET
EXPERIENCE LOOK AFTER TODAY'S
DECISION?
MY ANSWER IS A SIMPLE ONE.
WHEN A CHESHIRE CAT VERSION OF
NET NEUTRALITY.
WE WILL BE IN A WORLD WHERE
REGULATORY SUBSTANCE FADES TO
BLACK AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS A
BROADBAND PROVIDERS TOOTHY GRIN,
THEY HAVE TEETH, HOWEVER, YOU
SAY THAT.
AND THOSE OLD COMFORTING WORDS,
WE HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE, DON'T
WORRY.
WE HAVE EVERY INCENTIVE TO DO
THE RIGHT THING.
BUT WHAT THEY WILL SOON HAVE IS
EVERY INCENTIVE TO DO THEIR OWN
THING.
THE RESULTS OF THROWING OUT NET
NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS MAY NOT
BE FELT, RIGHT AWAY.
MOST FOLKS WILL GET UP TOMORROW
MORNING, GET READY FOR WORK AND
OVER THE NEXT WEEK, WADE THROUGH
WHAT WOULD BE HUNDREDS OF
HEADLINES.
WE WILL GROW TIRED OF THOSE
HUNDREDS OF HEADLINES AND GROW
TIRED OF HEARING FROM ENDLESS
PROGNOSTICATORS AND QUICKLY
EMERGE OURSELVES INTO A SEA OF
HOLIDAY BLISS.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE BROUGHT TODAY
WILL ONE DAY BE A PARENT AND BY
THEN, WHEN YOU REALLY WAKE UP
AND SEE WHAT HAS CHANGED, I FEAR
IT MAY BE TOO LATE TO DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THERE
WILL BE NO AGENCY EMPOWERED TO
ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS.
THIS ITEM ENSURES THAT THE FCC
WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO FULLY
GRASP THE HARM IT MAY HAVE
UNLEASHED ON THE INTERNET
ECOSYSTEM.
AND THAT INABILITY MIGHT LEAD
DECISION-MAKERS TO CONCLUDE THAT
THE NEXT INTERNET STARTUP THAT
FAILS TO FLOURISH, THAT
ATTEMPTED TO SEEK RELIEF BY
WHATEVER AUTHORITY MAY OR MAY
NOT BE IN CHARGE, WITH HOW MANY
TEETH THEY MIGHT HAVE LEFT,
SIMPLY THAT MAYBE THEY HAD A BAD
BUSINESS PLAN WHEN IN FACT,, THE
ACTUAL CORPORATE WOULD BE
ABSENCE OF A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
ONLINE.
PARTICULARLY DAMNING AS WHAT
TODAY'S REPEAL WOULD MEAN FOR
MARGINALIZED GROUPS LIKE
COMMUNITIES OF COLOR THAT RELY
ON PLATFORMS LIKE THE INTERNET
TO COMMUNICATE.
TRADITIONAL OUTLETS RARELY IF
EVER CONSIDER THE ISSUES OR
CONCERNS OR THEIR COVERAGE.
IT WAS THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA,
REMEMBER, THAT THE WORLD FIRST
HEARD ABOUT FERGUSON MISSOURI
BECAUSE THOSE LEGACY OUTLETS DID
NOT CONSIDER THEM WORTHY ENOUGH
FOR COVERAGE UNTIL THAT HASHTAG
STARTED TRENDING.
IT HAS BEEN THROUGH ONLINE VIDEO
SERVICES THAT TARGETED
ENTERTAINMENT ECOSYSTEMS THRIVE
WHERE STORIES ARE FINALLY BEING
TOLD BECAUSE THOSE VERY SAME
PROGRAMS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR
CONSIDERATION WERE REJECTED TIME
AND TIME AGAIN BY MAINSTREAM
MEDIA AND DISTRIBUTION --
MAINSTREAM DISTRIBUTION AND
MEDIA OUTLETS.
AND IT HAS BEEN THROUGH SECURE
MESSAGING PLATFORMS WHERE
ACTIVISTS HAVE COMMUNICATED AND
ORGANIZED FOR JUSTICE WITH
GATEKEEPERS WHO MAY OR MAY NOT
HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS.
WHERE WILL THE NEXT SIGNIFICANT
ATTACK ON INTERNET FREEDOM COME
FROM?
MAYBE A BROADBAND PROVIDER
ALLOWING HIS NETWORK TO CONTRAST
MAKING A HIGH TRAFFIC VIDEO
PROVIDER ASK WHAT MORE CAN IT
PAY TO MAKE THAT PAIN GO AWAY?
THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN YOU SAY.
NEWS FLASH, IT ALREADY HAS.
THE DIFFERENCE NOW IS THE OPEN
QUESTION OF WHAT IS STOPPING
THEM.
THE DIFFERENCE AFTER TODAY'S
VOTE IS THAT NO ONE WILL BE ABLE
TO STOP THEM.
MAYBE SEVERAL PROVIDERS WILL
VIOLENTLY ROLL OUT PAY
PRIORITIZATION PACKAGES THAT
WILL ENABLE DEEP-POCKETED
PLAYERS TO CUT THE CUBE.
MAYBE A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED
BROADBAND PROVIDER DECIDES THAT
IT WILL FAVOR ITS OWN ACT ON
SERVICES OR SOME HIGH VALUE
INTERNET OF THINGS TRAFFIC WILL
BE SUBJECT TO AN ADDITIONAL FEE.
MAYBE SOME OF THESE ACTIONS WILL
BE CLOAKED UNDER NONDISCLOSURE
AGREEMENTS AND WRAPPED UP IN
MANDATORY ARBITRATION CLAUSES SO
IT WILL BE A BREACH OF CONTRACT
TO DISCLOSE THESE PUBLICLY OR
TAKE THE PROVIDER TO COURT IF
THERE IS ANY WRONGDOING.
SOME MAY SAY OF COURSE THIS WILL
NEVER HAPPEN BUT AFTER TODAY'S
VOTE, WHAT WILL BE IN PLACE TO
STOP ANY OF THIS?
WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT
BROADBAND PROVIDERS DID NOT EVEN
WAIT FOR THE INK TO DRY ON A
PROPOSED ORDER BEFORE MAKING
THEIR MOVES.
ONE BROADBAND PROVIDER WHO HAD
IN THE PAST PROMISED TO NOT
ENGAGE IN PAY PRIORITIZATION IS
NOW QUIETLY DROPPING THAT
PROMISE FROM THIS LIST OF
COMMITMENTS ON ITS WEBSITE.
WHAT IS NEXT JUST WHO WILL BE IMPACTED
THE MOST?
CONSUMERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES,
THAT'S WHO.
THE INTERNET CONTINUES TO EVOLVE
AND HAS BECOME EVEN MORE
CRITICAL FOR EVERY PARTICIPANT
IN OUR 21ST CENTURY ECOSYSTEM,
GOVERNMENT SERVICES HAVE
MIGRATED ONLINE AS HAVE
EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES, JOB
NOTICES AND APPLICATIONS BUT AT
THE SAME TIME BROADBAND
PROVIDERS HAVE CONTINUED TO
CONSOLIDATE, THEY HAVE BECOME
IN OTHER TYPES OF COMPETING
SERVICES SO WHY ARE WHAT
IT MEANS WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS
TITLE TWO AUTHORITY, WHAT THEY
KNOW IS THAT THEY WILL BE AT
RISK WITHOUT IT.
I'VE BEEN ASKING MYSELF
REPEATEDLY WHY THE MAJORITY IS
SO SINGLE FOCUSED ON OVERTURNING
THESE WILDLY POPULAR RULES.
IS IT SIMPLY THEY FELT THAT THE
2015 NET NEUTRALITY ORDER WOULD
THROW OUT OVER 700 RULES WOULD
DISPENSE WITH MORE THAN 25
PROVISIONS WAS TOO HEAVY-HANDED?
IS THIS A PLOY TO CREATE A NEED
FOR LEGISLATION WHERE THERE WAS
NONE BEFORE OR IS IT TO
ESTABLISH UNCERTAINTY WHERE
LITTLE PREVIOUSLY EXISTED?
IS IT A TACTIC TO UNDERMINE THE
NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS
ADOPTED IN 2015 THAT ARE
CURRENTLY PART OF THE SUPREME
COURT?
YOU KNOW, THE VERY SAME RULES
THAT WERE RESOUNDINGLY UPHELD BY
THE DC CIRCUIT LAST YEAR.
NO DOUBT WE WILL SEE A RUSH TO
THE COURTHOUSE ASKING THE
SUPREME COURT TO VACATE AND
REMAND THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES
THAT WE HAVE FOUGHT SO HARD FOR
OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS BECAUSE
TODAY THE FCC USES LEGALLY
SUSPECT MEANS TO CLEAR THE DECK
OF SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTIONS FOR
CONSUMERS AND COMPETITION.
IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR WHY WE
SEE SO MUCH BAD PROCESS WITH
THIS ITEM BECAUSE THE FIX WAS
ALREADY RHETORIC THAT
THERE HAVE BEEN NO REAL
COMPLAINTS OR NO REAL
VIOLATIONS.
RECORD EVIDENCE OF MASSIVE
INCENTIVES AND ABILITIES OF
BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO ACT IN
ANTICOMPETITIVE WAYS ARE MISSING
FROM THE DOCKET.
WHY?
BECAUSE THOSE IN CHARGE HAVE
REFUSED TO USE THE DATA AND
ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE AGENCY DOES
HAVE AND HAVE RELIED ON IN THE
PAST TO INFORM OUR MERGER
REVIEWS.
THE MAJORITY HAS SHOWN TIME AND
TIME AGAIN THE ABUSE OF
INDIVIDUALS DO NOT MATTER.
INCLUDING ABUSE OF THOSE WHO
CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE.
BUT MAY NOT BE WASHINGTON
INSIDERS.
THERE IS A BASIC FALLACY
UNDERLYING THE MAJORITY'S ACTION
AND RHETORIC TODAY, THE
ASSUMPTIONS OF WHAT IS BEST FOR
BROADBAND PROVIDERS IS OBVIOUSLY
WHAT IS BEST FOR AMERICA.
CLAIMS ABOUT ON SHACKLING
BROADBAND SERVICES FROM
UNNECESSARY REGULATION ARE ONLY
ABOUT ENSURING THAT BROADBAND
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE
AND MAINTAIN THE KEYS TO THE
INTERNET.
ASSERTIONS THAT THIS IS MERELY A
RETURN TO SOME IMAGINARY STATUS
QUO CANNOT HIDE THE FACT THAT
THIS IS THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT
THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION HAS DISAVOWED
SUBSTANTIAL PROTECTIONS FOR
CONSUMERS ONLINE.
AND WITH THE CURRENT 2015 NET
NEUTRALITY RULES ARE LAID TO
WASTE, WE MAY BE LEFT WITH NO
SINGLE AUTHORITY WITH THE POWER
TO PROTECT CONSUMERS.
NOW THIS ORDER LOUDLY CROWS
ABOUT HANDING OVER AUTHORITY OF
BROADBAND TO THE FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION BUT WHAT IS ABSENT
FROM THE ORDER AND GLOSSED OVER
IN A HAPHAZARDLY ISSUED OF A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING OR
MOU IS THAT THE FCC IS AN AGENCY
WITH NO, NO, NONE, NADA,
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE AND
TELECOMMUNICATION.
THE FCC IS AN AGENCY THAT MAY OR
MAY NOT EVEN HAVE AUTHORITY OVER
BROADBAND PROVIDERS IN THE FIRST
INSTANCE.
THE FTC IS AN AGENCY THAT IF YOU
CAN EVEN REACH A VERY HIGH BAR
OF PROVING UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES AND THAT THERE IS
SUBSTANTIAL CONSUMER INJURY, IT
MAY TAKE YEARS UPON YEARS FOR
ANY REMEDY TO BE LEVIED AND MOST
COMPANIES DON'T HAVE YEARS AND
YEARS TO WAIT FOR AN ANSWER.
BUT DON'T JUST TAKE MY WORD FOR
IT.
EVEN ONE OF THE FCC'S OWN
COMMISSIONERS HAS ARTICULATED
THESE VERY CONCERNS AND IF YOU
ARE WONDERING WHY THE FCC IS
PREEMPTING STATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS IN THIS ITEM
WITHOUT NOTICE, LET ME HELP YOU
WITH THESE SIMPLE JINGLE THAT
YOU CAN EASILY COMMIT TO MEMORY
THAT WILL UNDERSCORE ALL OF
THIS.
IF IT BENEFITS INDUSTRY,
PREEMPTION IS GOOD.
IF IT BENEFITS CONSUMERS,
PREEMPTION IS BAD.
RECLASSIFICATION OF BROADBAND
WOULD DO MORE THAN WREAK HAVOC
OVER NET NEUTRALITY, IT WILL
ALSO UNDERMINE OUR UNIVERSAL
SERVICE CONSTRUCT FOR YEARS TO
COME.
SOMETHING, WHICH THE ORDER
IMPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGES.
IT WILL UNDERMINE THE LIFELINE
PROGRAM.
IT WILL WEAKEN OUR ABILITY TO
SUPPORT ROBUST BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT AND
WHAT WE WILL SOON FIND OUT IS
WHAT A BROADBAND MARKET
UNENCUMBERED BY ROBUST COMMUNITY
-- CONSUMER PROTECTIONS WILL
LOOK LIKE.
I SUSPECT THAT IT WILL NOT BE
VERY PRETTY.
I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY
QUESTIONS ON THE MINDS OF
AMERICANS RIGHT NOW INCLUDING
WHAT THE REPEAL OF NET
NEUTRALITY WILL MEAN FOR THEM.
TO HELP UNDERSTAND OR TO ANSWER
OR TO ADDRESS OUTSTANDING
QUESTIONS SADDENS
ME THE MOST TODAY IS THAT THE
AGENCY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO
PROTECT YOU IS ACTUALLY
ABANDONING YOU.
BUT WHAT I AM PLEASED TO BE ABLE
TO SAY TODAY IS THAT THE FIGHT
TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY DOES NOT
END TODAY.
THE AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE THE
FINAL WORD.
THANK GOODNESS FOR THAT.
AND AS I CLOSE MY EULOGY OF THE
2015 NET NEUTRALITY RULES,
CAREFULLY CRAFTED RULES THAT
ACTUALLY STRUCK AN APPROPRIATE
BALANCE IN PROVIDING CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS AND ENABLING
OPPORTUNITIES AND INVESTMENT, I
ACTUALLY TAKE WHAT I WILL CALL
IRONIC COMFORT IN THE WORDS OF
THEN COMMISSIONER PAI BACK IN
2015 BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS WILL
RING TRUE ABOUT THIS DESTROYING
INTERNET FREEDOM ORDER.
I AM OPTIMISTIC HE SAID THAT WE
WILL LOOK BACK ON TODAY'S VOTE
AS AN ABERRATION, A TEMPORARY
DEVIATION FROM THE BIPARTISAN
PATH THAT HAS SERVED US SO WELL.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS PLAN
WILL BE VACATED BY A COURT,
REVERSED BY CONGRESS OR
OVERTURNED BY A FUTURE
COMMISSION BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT
IT DAYS ARE NUMBERED.
AMEN TO THAT MR. CHAIRMAN.
AMEN TO THAT.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
I WILL MARK YOU DOWN AS A NO.
[LAUGHING]
COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY.
>>COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY:  TO THE
MAIN EVENT.
I WILL HAVE A LONGER STATEMENT
IF THAT'S BELIEVABLE SINCE IT'S
LONG IN AND OF ITSELF.
THE ORDER BEFORE US REPRESENTS
THE CULMINATION OF EXTENSIVE
WORK BY AGENCY STAFF TO
CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHETHER NET
NEUTRALITY RULES ARE TRULY
WARRANTED, THOROUGHLY REVIEWING
THE LEGAL UNDERPINNING, ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS AND PRACTICAL EFFECTS
AS DEBATED EXTENSIVELY AND
EXHAUSTIVELY IN THE RECORD OF
THIS PROCEEDING.
I AGREE WITH THE DECISION AND
SUPPORT SUCH A WELL REASONED AND
SOUNDLY JUSTIFIED ORDER.
WHILE I HAVE LONG-STANDING VIEWS
ON THIS TOPIC I APPROACH THE
PROCEEDING WITH AN OPEN MIND.
I'VE READ THESE SUBSTANTIVE
COMMENTS WITH INTEREST AND WITH
ANYONE, I COULD, NO MATTER HOW
OR WHAT THEIR PARTICULAR
VIEWPOINTS.
IN THE END I'M SIMPLY NOT
PERSUADED THAT HEAVY-HANDED
RULES ARE NEEDED TO PROTECT
AGAINST HYPOTHETICAL HARM.
IN ALL THIS TIME I HAVE YET TO
HEAR RECENT UNQUESTIONED
EVIDENCE OF DEMONSTRABLE HARM TO
CONSUMERS THAT DEMAND PROVIDERS
BE CONSTRAINED THAT FROM EXPERIENCE.
THE INTERNET HAS FUNCTION
WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY RULES FAR
LONGER THAN WITH THEM.
NOBODY CAN NAME MORE THAN A
HANDFUL OF EXAMPLES THAT
OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE OF AN
ENTIRE DECADE PRIOR AND THAT
WILL READILY DEALT WITH WHETHER
ACTUAL VIOLATIONS ARE NOT.
THE LEGEND OF A CABLE COMPANY
TRYING TO BREAK THE INTERNET
MAKES SCARY BEDTIME STORIES FOR
CHILDREN OF CELLCOM GEEKS BUT IT
IS NOT REALITY.
SO FOR THOSE OF YOU OUT THERE
THAT ARE FEARFUL WHAT TOMORROW
MAY BRING, PLEASE TAKE A DEEP
BREATH.
THIS DECISION WILL NOT BREAK THE
INTERNET.
WHAT WE ARE DOING IS REVERTING WE DETERMINED
THE DECISION WAS FLAWED.
WE BELIEVE THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION AND COURSE OF
ACTION IS A BETTER ONE AND OUR
DECISION IS GROUNDED IN AND
SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD.
THE TEXT HAS BEEN PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE FOR OVER THREE WEEKS
AND THE STAFF HAS SUMMARIZED FOR
US TODAY SO THERE IS NO NEED FOR
ME TO STEP THROUGH THE POLICIES
AND REASONING AGAIN IN DETAIL.
INSTEAD I WILL HIGHLIGHT A FEW
KEY PARTS AND ADDRESS SOME OF
THE FALSE ARGUMENTS AND
MISCONCEPTIONS REGARDING THE
SUBSTANCE AND PROCESS.
REPEALING NET NEUTRALITY RULES
GRABBED HEADLINES, REVERSING THE
CLASSIFICATION OF BROADBAND
INTERNET ACCESS SERVICES
ENTITLED TO TELECOMMUNICATION
SERVICES IS FAR MORE
CONSEQUENTIAL.
NET NEUTRALITY STARTED AS A
CONSUMER ISSUE, BUT SOON BECAME
A STEPPING STONE TO IMPOSED
VASTLY MORE ONEROUS COMMON
CARRIER REGULATION ON BROADBAND
COMPANIES.
EVEN THE PREVIOUS CHAIRMAN
INITIALLY ATTEMPTED TO REINSTATE
THE NET NEUTRALITY RULES ON
WORTLEY LOOK -- LIMITED LEGAL
AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES WOULD
HAVE ACCEPT THE COMPROMISE AND
LIVED WITH NET NEUTRALITY RULES
AS LONG AS THE COMMISSION DID
NOT IMPOSE TITLE II.
THANKS TO ONE INFAMOUS YOUTUBE
VIDEO POSTED BY THE PRIOR
ADMINISTRATION THE SO-CALLED
INDEPENDENT AGENCY COULD BE
RAILROADED INTO TREATING ISPS
LIKE PUBLIC UTILITIES INSTEAD.
AS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN THE
ORDER AND THE DISSENT OF
CHAIRMAN PAI AND MYSELF WROTE IN
RESPONSE TO THE 2015 ORDER THERE
WERE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PROBLEMS
AND FACTUAL ERRORS UNDERLYING
THAT DECISION TO TREAT FIXED AND
MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICES AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.
ADDITIONALLY THAT DECISION
OPENED THE STRUCTURE COMPANIES
CONTINUE TO FACE UNCERTAINTY
THAT BUSINESS DECISIONS,
COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS, SERVICE
OFFERINGS AND PRICE DECISIONS
WOULD BE SCRUTINIZED BY THE
DECISION.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A LEGITIMATE
CONCERN WELL-FOUNDED AND HAD
THERE NOT BEEN A CHANGE IN
ADMINISTRATION THE AGENCY WOULD
HAVE PROCEEDED FURTHER DOWN THE
PATH AT DEMONSTRATING A ZERO
WAITING WITCHHUNT.
THE DECISION TO REINSTATE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF FIXED AND
MOBILE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE AS INFORMATION SERVICE
UNDER SECTION THREE AND RESTATE
THE CLASSIFICATION OF MOBILE
BROADBAND TO PROVIDE THE MOBILE
SERVICE UNDER SECTION 332
ELIMINATES THESE CONCERNS AND
RESTORES A BIPARTISAN APPROACH
TO BROADBAND SERVICES.
UNDER THIS FRAMEWORK THE FCC
ASSERTS JURISDICTION OVER
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE AND INTERSTATE
INFORMATION SERVICE BUT APPLIES
REGULATION ONLY TO THE EXTENT
WARRANTED TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC
CONCRETE CONCERNS.
WITH THE ELIMINATION OF TITLE II
THERE IS NO REMAINING LEGAL
BASIS FOR THE NET NEUTRALITY
BRIGHT LINE RULES AND CONDUCT
STANDARD SO WE MUST REPEAL THEM.
IN MANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE
AGENCY TO QUESTION THE NEED FOR
RULES THAT IMPOSE COSTS BUT
DON'T SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS SO THE
REMOVAL IS APPROPRIATE AND
NECESSARY.
IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE END OF
THE STORY HOWEVER.
CONGRESS MAY ENACT LEGISLATION
PROVIDING NEW RULES AND THE
LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THAT
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WILL BE A
BETTER COURSE AND THE ONLY WAY
TO GIVE FINALITY TO THIS ISSUE.
I HUMBLY SUGGEST HOWEVER THAT
THE GENERAL CONDUCT STANDARD
REMAINS IN THE ACTION.
THIS POLICY GAVE THE COMMISSION
ENFORCEMENT BUREAU UNFOUNDED
POWER TO MAKE UP THE RULES AS IT
WENT ALONG, A FRIGHTENING
PROSPECT.
BUSINESSES COULD FIND THEMSELVES
SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION WITHOUT
ANY PRIOR CONFUSION.
IT WAS THE HEIGHT OF REGULATORY
CAPRICIOUSNESS AND SHOULD NEVER
BE RESURRECTED.
SIMILARLY I AM HOPEFUL THAT IF
THE CONGRESS DOES GO DOWN THIS
PATH IT WILL SEE MERIT IN
REJECTING THE BAND ON PAY
PRIORITIZATION.
CLEARLY OUR CASE TODAY AND MANY
MORE THAT WILL DEVELOP IN TIME
IN WHICH THE OPTION OF A PAID
PRIORITIZATION OFFERING WOULD BE
A NECESSITY BASED ON EITHER
TECHNOLOGY OR NEEDS OF CONSUMER
WELFARE.
I FOR ONE SEE GREAT VALUE IN THE
PRIORITIZATION OF TELEMEDICINE
AND AUTONOMOUS CARD TECHNOLOGY
OVER CAT VIDEOS.
SPEAKING OF AUTONOMOUS CARS, WE
MUST ENSURE THAT WIRELESS
PROVIDERS CAN MANAGE THEIR
SYSTEMS.
WIRELESS NETWORKS HAVE CAPACITY
CONSTRAINTS BASED ON THE PHYSICS
OF THE SPECTRUM THEY USE.
GENERALLY WIRELESS USE IS
BOOMING AND MORE AND MORE
AMERICANS ARE USING WIRELESS
NETWORKS TO ASSESS THE INTERNET
BUT THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
CONSIDER THAT EACH CAR, VEHICLE
IS PREDICTED TO GENERATE AN
ADDITIONAL FOUR TERABYTES OF
DATA PER DAY MUCH OF WHICH WILL
BE CARRIED BY WIRELESS NETWORKS.
IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THAT SOME
PRIORITIZATION OF TRAFFIC WILL
NOT BE NECESSARY TO FURTHER
UNDERMINING ATTEMPTS TO BAND AT
SUCH PRACTICES.
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER IN ELIMINATES
THE BRIGHT LINE RULES AND
GENERAL CONDUCT STANDARDS IT
LEAVES A VERSION OF THE
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS IN
PLACE AND THE REQUIREMENTS ARE
MORE EXTENSIVE THAN THOSE FIRST
ADOPTED IN 2010.
I REMAIN SKEPTICAL OF THE LEGAL
AUTHORITIES OR THE VALUE GIVEN
THE FCC'S AUTHORITY AND WITHOUT
A MECHANISM.
IF A BUSINESS FAILS TO DISCLOSE
RELEVANT INFORMATION OR DIVERSE
THAN WHAT IS DESCRIBED IT WILL
BE SUBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION
AND ENFORCEMENT OUTLINED IN THE
RECENT FCC FTC MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING, BUT I SINCERELY
DOUBT THAT LEGITIMATE BUSINESSES
ARE WILLING TO SUBJECT
THEMSELVES TO A PR NIGHTMARE FOR
BLOCKING, THROTTLING OR IMPROPER
DISCRIMINATION.
IT'S NOT WORTH THE REPUTATIONAL
COST AND POTENTIAL LOSS OF
BUSINESS.
WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE DECISION
TO RELY ON THE AUTHORITY FOR THE
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT, I DO
NOT BELIEVE THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF TITLE THREE CITED IN THE
CIRCULATED VISION OF THE ORDER
SHOULD BE INVOKED.
I AM RELIEVED A ROBUST PREEMPTION ANALYSIS
INCLUDED.
THE ORDER MAKES PLAIN THAT
BROADBAND WILL BE SUBJECT TO
UNIFORMED NATIONAL FRAMEWORK
THAT PROMOTES INVESTMENT IN
INNOVATION.
IT'S EMINENTLY REASONABLE
COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE
CONSTITUTION'S COMMERCE CLAUSE. CARRY
CAN GO ACROSS STATE LINES.
IT WILL HAVE DRAMATIC AND
DRASTIC RESULTS WHERE POSSIBLE
FOR SUCH COMMUNICATIONS
PRIORITIZE IN ONE STATE AND NOT
ANOTHER.
THE HODGEPODGE OF STATE ROLES
COULD SEVERELY CURTAIL NOT ONLY
THE NEXT GENERATION OF WIRELESS
SYSTEMS THAT WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING SO HARD TO PROMOTE, BUT
ALSO THE TECHNOLOGIES THAT RELY
ON THE NETWORKS IN THE FUTURE.
ACCORDINGLY ANY LAWS OR
REGULATIONS THAT CONFLICT WITH
OR UNDERMINED THE FEDERAL
BROADBAND POLICIES ARE
PREEMPTED.
GIVEN MY DRUTHERS I WOULD
ACTUALLY HAVE GONE FURTHER ON
PREEMPTION BUT I CAN ONLY CARRY
THE DEBATE SO FAR TODAY.
IT'S NOT A NEW OR NOVEL
POSITION.
2015 ORDER ALSO ANNOUNCED A FIRM
INTENTION TO EXERCISE A
PREEMPTION AUTHORITY TO PRECLUDE
STATES FROM IMPOSING OBLIGATIONS
ON BROADBAND SERVICE
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CAREFULLY
REGULATORY SCHEME.
THE RULES WE ADOPT TODAY ARE
OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT THAN THE
2015 ORDER THE CONCEPT WE WILL
PREEMPT INCONSISTENCY AND LOCAL
REQUIREMENTS IS WELL
ESTABLISHED.
ALTHOUGH THE ORDER DOES
ACKNOWLEDGE EXTREMELY LIMITED
STATE RULE IN ENFORCING THE
POLICE POWERS STATE ACTIONS THAT
GO BEYOND THIS RAMP WILL BE
SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY AND
CHALLENGE.
THE ORDER MAKES IT CLEAR THAT
ANY REQUIREMENT AKIN TO COMMON
CARRIER REGULATION ARE BARRED
AND MY REQUEST THE ORDER ALSO
SPECIFIES THAT STATES MAY NOT
ADOPT TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS
WHETHER LABELED AS SUCH ARE
UNDER THE GUISE OF CONSUMER
PROTECTION.
I WOULD ALSO BE OF STATE
BROADBAND PRIVACY ACTIONS
OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT IS
PERMISSIBLE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDER IS TO
RESTORE A LIGHT TOUCH APPROACH
TO DEREGULATION.
THEREFORE, ANY ACTION TO
INCREASE THE REGULATORY BURDEN
ON BROADBAND PROVIDERS WOULD RUN
DIRECTLY COUNTER TO OUR EFFORTS.
I HOPE THAT MOST STATES AND
LOCALITIES WOULD NOT WASTE TIME
AND RESOURCES ATTEMPTING TO PUSH
THE BOUNDARIES BUT I REALIZE
SOME WILL DO SO REGARDLESS.
I EXPECT THE AGENCY TO BE
VIGILANT IN IDENTIFYING AND
PURSUING THESE CASES.
I ALSO COMMIT TO WORK CLOSELY
WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND THE
GENERAL COUNSEL TO QUASH ANY
CONFLICTS THAT ARISE.
BEFORE CONCLUDING I WANT TO
ADDRESS THE ATMOSPHERE
SURROUNDING THE PROCESS OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.
I'LL START WITH THE NUMBER AND
IDENTITY OF THE COMMENTS
SUBMITTED.
SOME WOULD LIKE TO HAVE US
BELIEVE THAT THE COMMENT PROCESS
HAS BEEN IRREPARABLY TAINTED BY
THE LARGE NUMBER OF FAKE
COMMENTS.
THAT VIEW REFLECTS A LACK OF
UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT.
THE AGENCY IS REQUIRED TO
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO
SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS IN THE
RECORD.
MILLIONS OF COMMENTS THAT SAY
SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF KEY
NET NEUTRALITY OR OTHER COLORFUL
LANGUAGE CAN'T SAY IN PUBLIC
INCLUDING A COUPLE THAT REFERRED
TO ME AS A POTATO.
[LAUGHING]
[OFF MIC]
SAY THAT I LOOK LIKE A POTATO.
SORRY.
-- MEANT IT IN A GOOD WAY.
>>COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY:
WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE
SUBMITTED BY REAL PEOPLE OR
HONEY BADGER HAVE NO IMPACT ON
THE DECISION IN THE ORDER MAKES
CLEAR WE DO NOT RELY ON ANY SUCH
COMMENTS.
TO BE CLEAR IT DOES NOT MEAN
COMMENTS WERE IGNORED.
I COMMEND STAFF FOR THE EXTRA
EFFORT THEY HAD TO
TO ALL THE SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS
INCLUDING THOSE THAT TOOK A
DIFFERENT POSITION.
ADDITIONALLY I DISAGREE WITH THE
SUGGESTION THE COMMISSION SHOULD
HAVE HELD PUBLIC HEARINGS.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT
WANTED TO EXPRESS A VIEW COULD
HAVE DONE THROUGH SO THE COMMENT
PROCESS AND MANY, MANY MANY DAD.
PUBLIC HEARINGS MAY BRING ABOUT
SOME ADDITIONAL PEOPLE IN
PARTICULAR LOCATIONS BUT IS
INEFFICIENT FOR REACHING LARGE
NUMBERS OF INTERESTED PARTIES
AROUND THE COUNTRY.
FINALLY, I SEE NO MERIT IN THE
SUGGESTION THE AGENCY SHOULD
HAVE DELAYED THE VOTE UNTIL
AFTER THE NINTH CIRCUIT ISSUES A
DECISION FOR THE FTC VERSUS AT&T
MOBILITY.
THE PANEL DECISION RAISE SOME
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FCC'S
JURISDICTION IT WAS WIDELY
VIEWED WITH SKEPTICISM.
MOREOVER THE COURT ORDER
GRANTING THE PANEL DECISION
RENDERED IT ILLEGAL THEREFORE,
THE FCC IS NOT PRECLUDED FROM
ENFORCING ISP NET NEUTRALITY
COMMITMENTS.
IN SHORT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR
DELAYED.
I COMMEND THE CHAIRMAN AND HIS
TEAM FOR HARD-WORKING AND
DILIGENT STAFF FOR THEIR
ENORMOUS EFFORT TO PRODUCE AN
ORDER OF THIS QUALITY AND
SIGNIFICANT.
I'M SURE THE TASK REQUIRES LONG
DAYS SINCE MUCH TIME SPENT AWAY
FROM FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND I
HOPE YOU CAN REST AND RECONNECT
OVER THE HOLIDAY SEASON.
IT'S VERY DESERVED AND YOU HAVE
MY FULL RESPECT AND PROFOUND
APPRECIATION FOR YOUR WORK.
I VOTE TO APPROVE.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER CARR.
>>COMMISSIONER CARR:  THIS IS A
GREAT DAY FOR CONSUMERS,
INNOVATION, FREEDOM.
FOR REVERSING THE OBAMA ERA FCC
UNPRECEDENTED DECISIONS TO APPLY
TITLE TWO REGULATIONS TO THE
INTERNET.
I AM PROUD WITH HEAVY-HANDED
REGULATION AND MASSIVE
REGULATORY OVERREACH.
PRIOR TO THE FCC 2015 DECISION
CONSUMERS AND INNOVATORS ALIKE
BENEFITED FROM A FREE AND OPEN
INTERNET.
THIS IS NOT BECAUSE THE
GOVERNMENT IMPOSED UTILITY STYLE
REGULATIONS, NOT BECAUSE THE FCC
HAD A RULE REGULATING INTERNET
CONDUCT.
INSTEAD THE REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS ALIKE
INCLUDING THROUGH THE FIRST SIX
YEARS OF THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION, THE FCC ABIDED
BY TWENTY-YEAR BIPARTISAN
CONSENSUS THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD NOT CONTROL OR HEAVILY
REGULATE INTERNET ACCESS.
THE INTERNET FLOURISHED UNDER
THIS FRAMEWORK.
THE PRIVATE SECTOR INVESTED OVER
1.5 TRILLION IN BROADBAND
NETWORKS, CONSUMERS WERE
PROTECTED AND ENJOYED THE
FREEDOM TO ACCESS THE WEBSITES
AND CONSTANT OF THEIR CHOOSING.
EVERY PART OF THE INTERNET
ECONOMY BENEFITED.
FROM INNOVATORS ON THE EDGE TO
STARTUPS AND BUSINESSES OF EVERY
SIZE.
TITLE II DID NOT BUILD THAT.
TITLE II DID NOT CREATE THE OPEN
INTERNET.
AND TITLE II IS NOT THE WAY TO
MAINTAIN ITS.
THE FCC'S LIGHT REGULATORY TOUCH
COUPLED WITH THE ROBUST CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS WE RESTORED TODAY
SUPPORTED OUR COUNTRY'S
EXTRAORDINARY INTERNET SUCCESS
STORY.
AFTER A TWO-YEAR DETOUR, ONE
THAT HAS SEEN INVESTMENTS
DECLINE, BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
PUT ON HOLD, AN INNOVATIVE NEW
OFFERINGS SHELVED, IT IS GREAT
TO SEE THE FCC RETURNING TO THIS
PROVEN REGULATORY APPROACH.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE
DEBATE OVER INTERNET REGULATION
HAS GENERATED SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC
ATTENTION, AS IT SHOULD.
I FOR ONE HAVE LEARNED SOME
COLORFUL NEW TERMS AND PHRASES
THROUGH THE COURSE OF THIS
PROCEEDING AND MUCH OF THIS IS
NO SURPRISE.
AMERICANS CHERISH THE FREE AND
OPEN INTERNET.
WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PROCEEDING
FAR TOO MANY ARE SIMPLY FANNING
THE FALSE FLAMES OF FEAR.
THE APOCALYPTIC RHETORIC IS
QUITE SOMETHING EVEN BY
WASHINGTON STANDARDS.
THE FCC IS NOT ENDING THE
INTERNET OR AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S
FIRST FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN PUT IT AT THE SKY IS
NOT FALLING, CONSUMERS WILL
REMAIN PROTECTED AND THE
INTERNET WILL FLOURISH.
WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH TODAY'S
VOTE IS REVERSING A TWO-YEAR-OLD
DECISION INTO RETURNING TO A
TRIED AND TRUED REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK ONE WE KNOW FROM OUR
OWN EXPERIENCE WORKS FOR
CONSUMERS AND FOR INNOVATION.
MANY OF THE MYTHS OUT THERE GO
TO WHAT I CALL THE GREAT TITLE
II HAD FAKED.
WHICH IS ATTRIBUTE INTO TITLE II
THINKS THAT IT SIMPLY DOES NOT
DO.
SOME CLAIM FOR INSTANCE, THAT
TITLE II IS PREVENTING ISPS FROM
SELLING BUNDLED OR CURATED PLANS
THAT OFFER ACCESS TO ONLY A
PORTION OF THE INTERNET.
NOT TRUE"
SOME CLAIM THAT TITLE II IS
PREVENTING ISPS FROM BLOCKING
THROTTLING OR ENGAGED IN PRIVATE
-- PAID PRIORITIZATION.
ALSO NOT TRUE.
THE DC CIRCUIT SAID TITLE II
ALLOWS ISPS TO, "BLOCK WEBSITES
AND THROTTLE APPLICATIONS CHOSEN
BY ISPS AND TO FILTER CONTENT IN
THE FAST LANE SINCE LOW LINES
BASED ON ISPS COMMERCIAL
INTEREST PROVIDED THAT THEY
DISCLOSE THOSE PRACTICES" .
IN OTHER WORDS, TITLE II IS NOT
THE THIN LINE BETWEEN WHERE WE
ARE RIGHT NOW AND SOME MAD MAX
VERSION OF THE INTERNET.
THERE ARE REASONS THAT CONSUMERS
ENJOYED A FREE AND OPEN INTERNET
LONG BEFORE TITLE II.
THERE ARE REASONS WHY CONSUMERS
ARE FREE TO ACCESS ANY WEBSITE
OR ONLINE CONTENT OF THEIR
CHOOSING AND THOSE REASONS WILL
CONTINUE TO HOLD TRUE LONG AFTER
OUR TITLE II EXPERIMENT AND
TODAY.
WHAT ARE THEY?
THE DC CIRCUIT HAS OFFERED ITS
VIEW.
WHEN IT OBSERVED TITLE II ALLOWS
ISPS TO OFFERED FILTERED
INTERNET ACCESS AT SAID NONE
WERE DOING SO BECAUSE WHAT IT
SAID IS FEAR OF SUBSCRIBER LOSS.
IN OTHER WORDS, MARKET FORCES.
NOT THE TITLE II RULES ARE
REGULATING THIS CONDUCT.
THERE ARE SOME THAT WILL NEVER
ACCEPT MARKET FORCES AS A
SOLUTION EITHER IN THE BROADBAND
MARKETPLACE OR OTHERWISE.
BUT FOR THEM TODAY'S ORDER HAS
MORE GOOD NEWS.
WE ARE NOT RELYING ON MARKET
FORCES ALONE, WE ARE NOT GIVING
ISPS FREE REIGN TO DICTATE YOUR
ONLINE EXPERIENCE, OUR DECISION
TODAY INCLUDES POWERFUL LEGAL
CHECKS, FIRST AMERICANS WILL
ENJOYED ROBUST ONLINE
PROTECTIONS.
WHEN THE FCC CLASSIFIED
BROADBAND AS A TITLE II SERVICE
IN 2015, IT DIVESTED THE FEDERAL
TRADE COMMISSION OF 100 PERCENT
OF ITS CONSUMER PROTECTION
AUTHORITY OVER ISPS INCLUDING
ITS ABILITY TO POLICE ISPS THAT
ENGAGE IN UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE
PRACTICES.
REPEALING TITLE II WILL RESTORE
IMPORTANT PROTECTIONS FOR
INTERNET OPENNESS.
SECOND, CONSUMERS WILL REGAIN
STRONG ONLINE PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS.
BEFORE THE FCC STRIPPED IT OF
JURISDICTION THE FTC THE
NATION'S MOST EXPERIENCED
PRIVACY ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
BROUGHT OVER 500 PRIVACY
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS INCLUDING
AGAINST ISPS.
BY REVERSING TITLE II, CONSUMERS
GET THOSE PRIVACY PROTECTIONS
BACK.
THIRD, FEDERAL ANTITRUST LAW
WILL PROTECT AGAINST
DISCRIMINATORY CONDUCT BY ISPS.
AS A FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
FTC CHAIRMAN RECENTLY SAID THIS
IS A FORMIDABLE HAMMER AGAINST
ANYONE WHO WOULD HARMFULLY
BLOCK, THROTTLE OR PRIORITIZE
TRAFFIC.
FOURTH, STATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION LAWS WILL APPLY AND
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CAN
BRING ACTION AGAINST ISPS.
THESE AUTHORITIES PROVIDE
ANOTHER STRONG SET OF LEGAL
PROTECTIONS AGAINST UNFAIR
BUSINESS PRACTICES BY ISPS.
IN SHORT, THIS IS NO FREE FOR
ALL.
THIS IS NO THUNDERDOME.
THE FCC IS NOT KILLING THE
INTERNET.
WHILE OF I'VE SPENT MOST OF MY
TIME TODAY TALKING ABOUT A
POLICY DEBATE SURROUNDING TITLE
II THERE'S ALSO A THRESHOLD
LEGAL QUESTION THE COMMISSION
MUST ANSWER DOES INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE QUALIFY AS TITLE I OR
TITLE II TELECOMMUNICATION
SERVICE?
THANKFULLY I DON'T NEED TO GO
BEYOND WHAT WAS SET ON THIS
POINT.
AFTER ALL IN 2005 THE SUPREME
COURT EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT THE
FCC HAS AUTHORITY TO CLASSIFY
INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE AS A
TITLE I SERVICE.
THIS REMAINS THE ONLY
CLASSIFICATION LEFT BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
SO OUR DECISION TODAY RESTS ON
SOUND LEGAL FOOTING.
IN CLOSING, I WANT TO LOOK BACK
AT TWO YEARS AGO 2151 MORE TIME.
IN OCTOBER OF THAT YEAR, LONG
BEFORE I BECAME A COMMISSIONER,
I GAVE A SPEECH WHERE I TALKED
ABOUT THE FCC RECENT TITLE II
DECISION.
I ENDED THAT SPEECH WAS SAYING
THIS, "I'M OPTIMISTIC THE U.S.
WILL RETURN TO THE SUCCESSFUL
LIGHT TOUCH APPROACH TO THE
INTERNET THAT SPURRED MASS OF
INVESTMENT IN BROADBAND
INFRASTRUCTURE.
EFFORTS ARE UNDERWAY IN THE
COURTS AND CONGRESS TO REVERSE
THE FCC'S DECISION.
AND FOLLOWING NEXT YEAR'S
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THE
COMPOSITION OF THE FCC COULD BE
SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN IT
IS TODAY.
"
TWO YEARS AGO I DID NOT IMAGINE
I WOULD BE PART OF THE FCC'S NEW
COMPETITION -- COMPOSITION BUT
I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE.
I'M GRATEFUL THAT MY OPTIMISM
THAT BEEN -- BACK THEN HAS
PROVEN TO BE WELL-FOUNDED.
I'M GLAD TO CAST MY VOTE TODAY
IN FAVOR OF INTERNET FREEDOM.
THANKS.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
>>COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL:
OKAY ... NET NEUTRALITY IS
INTERNET FREEDOM.
I SUPPORT THAT FREEDOM.
I JUST SENT FROM THIS RASH
DECISION TO ROLL BACK NET
NEUTRALITY RULES.
I DISSENT FROM THE CORRUPT
PROCESS THAT HAS BROUGHT US TO
THIS POINT AND I DISSENT FROM
THE CONTEMPT THIS AGENCY HAS
SHOWN OUR CITIZENS IN PURSUING
THIS PATH TODAY.
THIS DECISION PUTS THE FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ON THE
WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY, THE WRONG
SIDE OF THE LAW, AND THE WRONG
SIDE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET IS
THE FUTURE OF EVERYTHING.
THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING
IN OUR COMMERCIAL, SOCIAL OR
CIVIC LIVES THAT HAVE BEEN
UNTOUCHED BY AN INFLUENCE OR
UNMOVED BY ITS POWER.
AND HERE IN THE UNITED STATES,
OUR INTERNET ECONOMY IS THE ENVY
OF THE WORLD.
THIS IS BECAUSE IT RESTS ON A
FOUNDATION OF OPENNESS.
THAT OPENNESS IS REVOLUTIONARY.
IT MEANS YOU CAN GO WHERE YOU
WANT AND DO WHAT YOU WANT ONLINE
WITHOUT YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER
GETTING IN THE WAY OR MAKING
CHOICES FOR YOU.
IT MEANS EVERY ONE OF US CAN
CREATE WITHOUT PERMISSION, BUILD
COMMUNITIES BEYOND GEOGRAPHY,
ORGANIZED WITHOUT PHYSICAL
CONSTRAINTS, CONSUME CONTENT WE
WANT, WHEN AND WHERE WE WANT IT,
AND SHARE IDEAS NOT JUST AROUND
THE CORNER BUT ACROSS THE GLOBE.
I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL WE
SUSTAINED THIS FOUNDATION OF
OPENNESS AND THAT IS WHY I
SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY.
NET NEUTRALITY HAS DEEP ORIGINS
AND COMMUNICATIONS LAW AND
HISTORY.
IN THE ERA WHEN COMMUNICATIONS
MEANT TELEPHONY EVERY CALL WENT
THROUGH AND YOUR PHONE COMPANY
COULD NOT CUT OFF YOUR CALL OR
EDIT THE CONTENT OF YOUR
CONVERSATION.
THIS GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF
NONDISCRIMINATION MEANT YOU WERE
IN CONTROL OF THE CONNECTIONS
YOU MAKE.
THIS PRINCIPLE CONTINUED AS TIME
ADVANCED, TECHNOLOGY CHANGED AND
INTERNET ACCESS BECAME THE DIAL
TONE OF THE DIGITAL AGE.
SO IT WAS 12 YEARS AGO WHEN
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS IN
THE WHITE HOUSE THAT THIS AGENCY
FIRST PUT ITS NET NEUTRALITY
POLICIES ON PAPER.
IN THE DECADE THAT FOLLOWS, THE
FCC REVAMPED AND REVISED ITS NET
NEUTRALITY RULES SEEKING TO KEEP
THEM CURRENT AND FIND THEM A
STABLE HOME IN THE LAW.
IN ITS 2015 ORDER, THE FCC
SUCCEEDED BECAUSE IN THE
FOLLOWING YEAR IN A 184 PAGE
OPINION THE AGENCIES NET
NEUTRALITY RULES WERE FULLY AND
COMPLETELY UPHELD IN COURT.
SO OUR EXISTING NET NEUTRALITY
POLICIES HAVE PASSED COURT
MUSTER.
THEY ARE WILDLY POPULAR.
BUT TODAY WE WIPE AWAY THIS
WORK, DESTROY THIS PROGRESS AND
BURN DOWN TIME TESTED VALUES
THAT HAVE MADE OUR INTERNET
ECONOMY THE ENVY OF THE WORLD.
AS A RESULT OF TODAY'S MISGUIDED
ACTION, OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS
WILL GET EXTRAORDINARY NEW
POWERS.
THEY WILL HAVE THE POWER TO
BLOCK WEBSITES, THE POWER TO
THROTTLE SERVICES AND THE POWER
TO CENSOR ONLINE CONTENT.
THEY WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO
DISCRIMINATE AND FAVORED THE
INTERNET TRAFFIC OF THOSE
COMPANIES WITH WHOM THEY HAVE A
PAY FOR PAY ARRANGEMENT AND THE
RIGHT TO CONSIGN ALL OTHERS TO A
SLOW AND BUMPY ROAD.
OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS WILL
TELL YOU THEY WILL NEVER DO
THESE THINGS, THEY SAY JUST
TRUST US.
BUT KNOW THIS, THEY HAVE THE
TECHNICAL ABILITY AND BUSINESS
INCENTIVE TO DISCRIMINATE AND
MANIPULATE YOUR INTERNET TRAFFIC
AND NOW THIS AGENCY GIVES THEM
THE LEGAL GREEN LIGHT TO GO
AHEAD AND DO SO.
THIS IS NOT GOOD.
NOT GOOD FOR CONSUMERS, NOT GOOD
FOR BUSINESSES, NOT GOOD FOR
ANYONE WHO CONNECTS AND CREATES
ON LINE.
NOT GOOD FOR THE DEMOCRATIZING
FORCE THAT DEPENDS ON OPENNESS
TO THRIVE.
MOREOVER IT IS NOT GOOD FOR
AMERICAN LEADERSHIP ON THE
GLOBAL STAGE OF OUR NEW AND
COMPLEX DIGITAL WORLD.
I AM NOT ALONE WITH THESE
CONCERNS.
EVERYONE FROM THE CREATOR OF THE
WORLD WIDE WEB TO RELIGIOUS
LEADERS TO GOVERNORS AND MAYORS
OF BIG CITIES AND SMALL TOWNS,
TO MUSICIANS, ACTORS, ACTRESSES,
ENTREPRENEURS, ACADEMICS AND
OTHERS HAVE REGISTERED THEIR
UPSET AND ANGER.
THEY ARE REELING AT HOW THIS
AGENCY COULD MAKE THIS KIND OF
MISTAKE.
THEY ARE WONDERING HOW IT COULD
BE SO TONE DEAF AND THEY ARE
JUSTIFIABLY CONCERNED THAT JUST
A FEW UNELECTED OFFICIALS COULD
MAKE SUCH A VAST AND
FAR-REACHING DECISION ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF THE INTERNET.
SO AFTER ERASING OUR NET
NEUTRALITY RULES, WHAT IS LEFT?
WHAT RECOURSE DO CONSUMERS HAVE?
WE ARE TOLD DON'T WORRY,
COMPETITION WILL SAVE US.
BUT THE FCC'S OWN DATA SHOW THAT
OUR BROADBAND MARKETS ARE NOT
COMPETITIVE.
HALF OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THIS
COUNTRY HAVE NO CHOICE OF
BROADBAND PROVIDER.
SO IF YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS
BLOCKING WEBSITES, YOU HAVE NO
RECOURSE.
YOU HAVE NOWHERE TO GO.
WE ARE TOLD DON'T WORRY, THE
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION WILL
SAVE US.
BUT THE FTC IS NOT THE EXPERT
AGENCY FOR COMMUNICATIONS.
IT HAS AUTHORITY OVER UNFAIR AND
DECEPTIVE PRACTICES, BUT TO
EVADE FTC REVIEW ALL ANY
BROADBAND PROVIDER WILL NEED TO
DO IS ADD NEW PROVISIONS TO THE
FINE PRINT IN ITS TERMS OF
SERVICE.
IN ADDITION, IT IS BOTH COSTLY
AND IMPRACTICAL TO REPORT
DIFFICULTIES TO THE FTC.
BY THE TIME THE FTC GETS AROUND
TO ADDRESSING THEM IN COURT
PROCEEDINGS OR ACTIONS, FAIR TO
ASSUME THE STARTUPS AND SMALL
BUSINESSES WRESTLING WITH
DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT COULD
BE LONG GONE.
MOREOVER WHAT LITTLE AUTHORITY
THE FCC HAS IS NOW UNDER
QUESTION IN THE COURTS.
WE ARE TOLD DON'T WORRY, DATA
AUTHORITY WILL SAVE US BUT AT
THE SAME TIME, THE FCC ALL BUT
CLEARS THE FIELD WITH PREEMPTION
OF ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES STATE
OR LOCAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.
IT'S THE SUBSTANCE THAT GOT US
TO THIS POINT AND THE PROCESS IS
EVEN WORSE.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE PUBLIC
RECORD.
THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN MAKING NOISE
SPEAKING UP, RAISING A RUCKUS.
WE SEE IT IN THE PROTESTS ACROSS
THIS COUNTRY, THOSE THAT ARE
OUTSIDE HERE TODAY AND WE SEE
HOW THEY HAVE LIT UP OUR PHONE
LINES, CLOGGED OUR E-MAIL
INBOXES AND JAMMED ARE ONLINE
COMMENTING SYSTEM.
THAT MIGHT BE MESSY, BUT
WHATEVER OUR DISAGREEMENTS ARE
ON THIS DAIS I HOPE WE CAN AGREE
THAT IS DEMOCRACY.
THERE IS NO RECORD IN THE
HISTORY OF THE AGENCY THAT HAS
ATTRACTED SO MANY FILINGS.
BUT THERE IS SOMETHING FOUL IN
THIS RECORD.
2 MILLION COMMENTS FEATURE
STOLEN IDENTITIES.
HALF A MILLION COMMENTS ARE FROM
RUSSIAN E-MAIL ADDRESSES.
50,000 CONSUMER COMPLAINTS ARE
INEXPLICABLY MISSING FROM THE
RECORD.
I THINK THAT IS A PROBLEM.
I THINK OUR RECORD HAS BEEN
CORRUPTED AND OUR PROCESS FOR
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION LACKS
INTEGRITY.
19 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
AGREE.
THEY HAVE WRITTEN US DEMANDING
WE HALT OUR VAULT VOTE UNTIL WE
INVESTIGATE AND GET TO THE
BOTTOM UP THIS MESS.
IDENTITY THEFT IS A CRIME UNDER
STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AND WHILE
IT IS TAKING PLACE THIS AGENCY
HAS TURNED A BLIND EYE TO ITS
VICTIMS AND CALLOUSLY TOLD OUR
FELLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
IT WILL NOT HELP.
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IT'S A STAIN ON THE FCC AND THIS
PROCEEDING.
THIS ISSUE IS NOT GOING AWAY.
IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
FINALLY, I WORRY THAT THIS
DECISION AND THE PROCESS THAT
BROUGHT US TO THIS POINT IS
UGLY.
IT IS UGLY IN THE CAVALIER
DISREGARD THIS AGENCY HAS
DEMONSTRATED TO THE PUBLIC, THE
CONTEMPT IT HAS SHOWN FOR
CITIZENS TO SPEAK UP AND THE
SHEER DISDAIN IT HAS FOR PUBLIC
OPINION.
UNLIKE ITS PREDECESSORS THIS FCC
HAS NOT HELD A SINGLE PUBLIC
HEARING ON NET NEUTRALITY.
THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF PEOPLE
WHO BELIEVE WASHINGTON IS NOT
LISTENING TO THEIR CONCERNS,
THEIR FEARS, AND THEIR DESIRES.
ADD THIS AGENCY TO THAT LIST.
I TO AM FRUSTRATED, BUT HERE'S
THE TWIST, I HEAR YOU.
I LISTENED WITH THE CALLERS TO
WHAT MY OFFICE ARE SAYING.
I READ THE COUNTLESS
INDIVIDUALLY WRITTEN E-MAILS IN
MY INBOX, THEY POST ONLINE AND
THE VERY SHORT SOMETIMES VERY
LONG LETTERS.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE UP.
AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU.
IN THE ARC OF HISTORY AS LONG,
WE ARE GOING TO BEND THIS TOWARD
A MORE JUST OUTCOME IN THE
COURTS, IN CONGRESS, WHEREVER WE
NEED TO GO TO ENSURE THAT NET
NEUTRALITY STAYS THE LAW OF THE
LAND BECAUSE IF YOU ARE
CONSERVATIVE OR PROGRESSIVE YOU
BENEFIT FROM INTERNET OPENNESS.
IF YOU COME FROM A SMALL TOWN OR
A BIG CITY, YOU BENEFIT FROM
INTERNET OPENNESS.
IF YOU ARE A COMPANY OR A
NONPROFIT YOU BENEFIT FROM
INTERNET OPENNESS.
IF YOU ARE A STARTUP OR AN
ESTABLISHED YOU BENEFIT FROM
INTERNET OPENNESS.
IF YOU ARE A CONSUMER OR A
CREATOR, YOU BENEFIT FROM
INTERNET OPENNESS.
AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN DEMOCRACY
YOU BENEFIT FROM INTERNET
OPENNESS.
SO LET'S PERSIST, LET'S FIGHT,
LET'S NOT STOP HERE OR NOW.
IT IS TOO IMPORTANT.
THE FUTURE DEPENDS ON IT.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
THE INTERNET IS THE GREATEST
FREE-MARKET INNOVATION IN
HISTORY.
IT CHANGED THE WAY WE LIVE, THE
WAY WE PLAY, THE WAY WE WORK,
THE WAY WE LEARN, DURING MY TIME
AT THE FCC I'VE MET WITH
ENTREPRENEURS WHO STARTED
BUSINESSES.
I'VE MET WITH DOCTORS IN OHIO
WHO HAVE HELPED CARE FOR
PATIENTS.
I'VE MET WITH TEACHERS IN ALASKA
WHO HAVE EDUCATED STUDENTS.
I MET WITH FARMERS IN MISSOURI
WHO HAVE INCREASED THEIR CROPS
AND MANY, MANY MORE WHO HAVE
SUCCEEDED ALL BECAUSE OF THE
INTERNET.
THE INTERNET HAS ENRICHED MY OWN
LIFE IMMEASURABLY.
THE PAST TWO DAYS ALONE I SET UP
A FACE TIME CALL WITH MY PARENTS
AND KIDS, DOWNLOADED INTERESTING
PODCAST ABOUT BLOCK CHAIN
TECHNOLOGY, ORDERED A BURRITO,
MANAGE MY PLAYOFF BOUND FANTASY
FOOTBALL TEAM AND AS MANY OF YOU
MIGHT SEE I TWEETED.
WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PHENOMENAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE
INTERNET?
CERTAINLY WASN'T HEAVY-HANDED
GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
QUITE THE CONTRARY.
AT THE DAWN OF THE COMMERCIAL
INTERNET PRESIDENT CLINTON AND A
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AGREED IT
WOULD BE THE POLICY OF THE
UNITED STATES TO, "PRESERVE THE
VIBRANT COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET
THAT EXISTS FOR THE INTERNET
UNFETTERED BY FEDERAL AND STATE
REGULATION."
THIS BIPARTISAN POLICY WORKED
ENCOURAGED BY LIKE CUT
REGULATION AMERICAS PRIVATE
SECTOR SPENT OVER $1.5 TRILLION
TO BUILD FIXED AND MOBILE
NETWORKS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED
STATES.
28K MODEMS GAVE WAY TO GIGABIT
FIBER.
INNOVATORS AND ENTREPRENEURS
GREW STARTUPS INTO GLOBAL GIANTS
AND AMERICA'S INTERNET ECONOMY
IS THE ENVY OF THE ENTIRE WORLD.
AND THIS LIGHT TOUCH APPROACH
WAS GOOD FOR CONSUMERS.
FREE MARKET FULL OF INNOVATION,
ONLINE SERVICES BLOSSOMED.
WITHIN A GENERATION WE HAVE GONE
FROM E-MAIL AS THE KILLER APP TO
HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO STREAMING.
ENTREPRENEURS AND INNOVATORS
GUIDED THE INTERNET FAR BETTER
THAN THE HEAVY HAND OF
GOVERNMENT EVER COULD HAVE.
THEN IN EARLY 2015 THE FCC UNDER
POLITICAL PRESSURE JETTISONED
THE SUCCESSFUL BIPARTISAN
APPROACH TO THE INTERNET ON
EXPRESS ORDERS FROM PREVIOUS
WHITE HOUSE THE FCC SCRAPPED THE
TRIED AND TRUE LIGHT TOUCH
REGULATION OF THE INTERNET AND
REPLACED IT WITH HEAVY-HANDED
MICROMANAGEMENT.
AND DECIDED TO SUBJECT THE
INTERNET TO UTILITY STYLE
REGULATIONS DESIGNED IN THE 1930
TO GOVERN MA BELL.
THIS DECISION WAS A MISTAKE.
FOR ONE THINK THERE WAS NO
PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
THE INTERNET WAS NOT BROKEN IN
2015.
WE WERE NOT LIVING IN SOME
DIGITAL DYSTONIA.
TO THE CONTRARY THE INTERNET IS
ONE THING, PERHAPS THE ONLY
THING IN AMERICAN SOCIETY THAT
WE CAN ALL AGREE HAS BEEN A
STUNNING SUCCESS.
NOT ONLY WHERE THERE ARE
PROBLEMS, THE SOLUTION HAS
WORKED.
THE MAIN COMPLAINT THE CONSUMERS
HAVE ABOUT THE INTERNET IS NOT
AND HAS NEVER BEEN THAT THEY ARE
SERVER PROVIDERS BLOCKING ACCESS
TO CONTENT.
THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS AT
ALL OR NOT ENOUGH COMPETITION.
THESE REGULATIONS HAVE
IRONICALLY TAKEN US IN THE
OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM CONSUMER
PREFERENCES.
UNDER TITLE II INVESTMENT IN
HIGH-SPEED NETWORK HAS DECLINED
BY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
NOTABLY THIS IS THE FIRST TIME
SUCH INVESTMENT HAS DECLINED
OUTSIDE OF A RECESSION IN THE
INTERNET ERA.
AND THERE'S LESS INVESTMENT THAT
MEANS FEWER NEXT-GENERATION
NETWORKS ARE BUILT.
THAT MEANS LESS ACCESS AND LESS
COMPETITION.
THAT MEANS FEWER JOBS FOR
AMERICANS BUILDING THOSE
NETWORKS AND THAT MEANS MORE
AMERICANS ARE STRANDED ON THE
WRONG SIDE OF THE DIGITAL
DIVIDE.
THE IMPACT HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY
SERIOUS FOR SMALLER INTERNET
SERVICE PROVIDERS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE TIME, MONEY
OR LAWYERS TO NAVIGATE THE
THICKEST OF COMPLEX RULES AND
THEY DON'T GET A LOT OF PRESS
CERTAINLY NOT HERE IN
WASHINGTON.
BUT I HAVE PERSONALLY VISITED
SOME OF THEM FROM SPENCER
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES TO WAIVE
WIRELESS IN PARSONS KANSAS.
I'VE PERSONALLY SPOKEN WITH MANY
MORE FROM OHIO TO AIRLINK
SERVICES IN OKLAHOMA.
IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT THE
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION, WHICH
REPRESENTS A VERY SMALL FIXED
WIRELESS COMPANIES THAT
TYPICALLY OPERATE IN RURAL AND
LOW INCOME URBAN AREAS SURVEYED
MEMBERS AND FOUND OVER
80 PERCENT, "INCURRED ADDITIONAL
EXPENSE COMPLYING WITH THE TITLE
TWO RULES AND DELAYED OR REDUCED
NETWORK EXPANSION AND HAD
DELAYED OR REDUCED SERVICES AND
HAD ALLOCATED BUDGETS TO COMPLY
WITH THE RULES."
OTHER SMALL COMPANIES HAVE TOLD
THE FCC THAT THESE REGULATIONS
HAVE FORCED THEM TO CANCEL,
DELAY OR CURTAIL FIBER NETWORK
UPGRADES.
AND NEARLY TWO DOZEN SMALL
PROVIDER SUBMITTED A LETTER
SAYING THE FCC HEAVY-HANDED
RULES AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO FIND
FINANCING.
REMEMBER IT'S NOT THE BIG GUYS,
THESE ARE SMALL COMPANIES, THE
KINDS OF COMPANIES THAT ARE
CRITICAL TO PROVIDING A MORE
COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.
THESE RULES HAVE ALSO IMPEDED
INNOVATION.
ONE MAJOR COMPANY FOR INCIDENTS
REPORTED TO PUT ON HOLD THE
PROJECTS TO BUILD OUT ITS OUT OF
HOME WI-FI NETWORK DUE TO
UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE FCC'S
REGULATORY STANCE.
AND A COALITION OF 19 MUNICIPAL
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, CITY
GOVERNMENT OWNED NONPROFITS HAVE
TOLD THE FCC THAT THEY, "OFF
UNTIL LATE OR HOLD OUT FROM
ROLLING OUT A NEW FEATURE OR
SERVICE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT
AFFORD TO DEAL WITH THE
POTENTIAL COMPLAINTS AND
ENFORCEMENT ACTION."
NONE OF THIS IS GOOD FOR
CONSUMERS.
WE NEED TO EMPOWER ALL AMERICANS
WITH DIGITAL OPPORTUNITY, NOT
DENY THEM THE BENEFITS OF
GREATER EXCESS AND COMPETITION.
AND CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE JUST
THE EFFECTS THAT THESE RULES
HAVE HAD ON THE INTERNET TODAY.
THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WILL AFFECT
THE INTERNET WE NEED TEN, 20
YEARS FROM NOW.
THE DIGITAL WORLD BEARS NO
RESEMBLANCE TO A WATER PIPE OR
AN ELECTRIC LINE OR ESA WERE.
USE OF.
BY CONTRAST ONLINE TRAFFIC IS
EXPLORING AND WE CAN ASSUME
EXPONENTIALLY MORE TRAFFIC AND
DATA OVER TIME.
WITH THE DAWN OF THE INTERNET OF
THINGS COME UP WITH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF HIGH BIT RATE
APPLICATIONS LIKE VIRTUAL
REALITY, WITH NEW ACTIVITIES WE
CAN'T FULLY GRASP YET LIKE
HIGH-VOLUME BITCOIN MINING, WE
ARE IMPOSING EVER MORE DEMAND ON
THE NETWORK.
OVER TIME THAT MEANS OUR
NETWORKS THEMSELVES WILL NEED TO
SCALE.
ON ADVICE OF SECURITY WE NEED TO
TAKE A BRIEF BREAK.
>> [OFF MIC]
[ BREAK TAKEN ]
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  SORRY FOR THE
INTERRUPTION.
WE WERE ACTING ON THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE FEDERAL
PROTECTIVE SERVICE AND CANNOT
RECONVENE.
WHERE WAS I?
CONSIDER THAT THESE ARE JUST THE
EFFECTS THAT ARE RULES HAVE HAD
ON THE INTERNET OF TODAY.
THINK ABOUT HOW THEY WILL AFFECT
THE INTERNET WE NEED TEN, 20
YEARS FROM NOW.
THE DIGITAL WORLD BEARS NO
RESEMBLANCE TO A WATER PIPE OR
ELECTRIC LINE OR SEWER.
THE USE OF THOSE PIPES WILL BE
ROUGHLY CONSTANT OVER TIME AND
FEW WOULD SAY THAT THE DRAMATIC
INNOVATION THOSE AREAS WE
CAN'T FULLY GRASP YET LIKE
HIGH-VOLUME BITCOIN MINING WE
ARE IMPOSING EVER MORE DEMAND ON
THE NETWORK.
OVER TIME THAT MEANS THAT OUR
NETWORKS THEMSELVES WILL HAVE TO
SCALE.
BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
IF OUR RESPECTED
TECHNOLOGY ANALYST FROM A POST
ON HIS BLOG SUPPORTING MY
PROPOSAL.
IT'S AN EXTENDED QUOTES, BUT
WITH YOUR INDULGENCE IT'S
IMPORTANT.
THE QUESTIONS THAT MUST BE
GRAPPLED WITH IS WHETHER OR NOT
THE INTERNET IS DONE.
BY THAT I MEAN THAT TODAY'S
BANDWIDTH IS ALL WE WILL EVER
NEED WHICH MEANS WE CAN RISK
CHILLING INVESTMENT THROUGH
PROPHYLACTIC REGULATION AND THE
ELIMINATION OF PRICE SIGNALS
THAT MAY SPUR INFRASTRUCTURE
BUILDOUT.
IF WE ARE DONE THEN THE
POTENTIAL HARM OF A TITLE TWO
RECLASSIFICATION IS MUCH LOWER.
SURE ISPS WILL HAVE TO DO MORE
PAPERWORK, BUT HONESTLY JUST A
BUNCH OF MONOPOLISTS ANYWAY.
THAT'S TO GET LAWS IN PLACE TO
PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE.
BUT WHAT IF WE AREN'T DONE?
WHAT IF VIRTUAL REALITY WOULD DO
WILL A.K.A. DISPLACED BECOMES
MEANINGFUL.
WHAT IF
NOT JUST IN THE HOME, BUT IN ALL
KINDS OF UNIMAGINED COMMERCIAL
APPLICATIONS.
I CERTAINLY HOPE WE WILL HAVE
THE BANDWIDTH TO SUPPORT ALL OF
THAT.
I DO TOO.
AND AS THOMPSON PUT IT IN
ANOTHER POST I QUOTE, "THE FACT
OF THE MATTER IS THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT HARM EXISTS IN THE
SORT OF SYSTEMATIC WAY THAT
JUSTIFIES HEAVILY REGULATED ISP
IS.
EVIDENCE DOES SUGGEST THAT
CURRENT REGULATORY STRUCTURES
HANDLE BAD ACTORS PERFECTLY
WELL.
THE ONLY.
REMEMBER FOLKS, NETWORKS DON'T
HAVE TO BE BUILT.
RISKS DON'T HAVE TO BE TAKEN,
CAPITAL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE
RAISED.
THE COST OF TITLE TWO TODAY MAY
APPEAR AT LEAST TO SOME, BUT THE
CONSUMERS AND INNOVATORS OF
TOMORROW WILL PAY A SEVERE
PRICE.
WHAT IS THE FCC DOING TODAY?
QUITE SIMPLY WE ARE RESTORING
THE LIGHT TOUCH FRAMEWORK THAT
IS GOVERNED THE INTERNET FOR
MOST OF ITS EXISTENCE.
WE ARE MOVING FROM TITLE II TO
TITLE I.
WONK YEAR CANNOT BE.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT
MUNDANE REALITY TO BE
APOCALYPTIC RHETORIC WE'VE HEARD
FROM TITLE II SUPPORTERS.
AS THE DEBATE GOES ON THE CLAIMS
HAVE GOTTEN MORE AND MORE
OUTLANDISH.
SO LET'S BE CLEAR.
RETURNING TO THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
THAT GOVERNS THE INTERNET
PRESIDENT CLINTON'S
PRONOUNCEMENT IN 1996 UNTIL 2015
IS NOT GOING TO DESTROY THE
INTERNET.
IT'S NOT GOING TO END TO THE
INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT.
IT IS NOT GOING TO KILL
DEMOCRACY.
NOT GOING TO STIFLE FREE
EXPRESSION ONLINE
INTERNET EXPERIENCE TOMORROW
ONCE THIS ORDER PASSES WILL
PROVE THEM SO.
SIMPLY PUT, BY RETURNING TO THE
LIGHT TOUCH TITLE I FRAMEWORK WE
ARE HELPING CONSUMERS AND
PROMOTING COMPETITION.
BROADBAND PROVIDERS WILL HAVE
STRONGER INCENTIVES TO BUILD
NETWORKS ESPECIALLY IN UNSERVED
AREAS AND TO UPGRADE NETWORKS TO
GIGABIT SPEEDS AND 5G.
WHICH MEANS THERE WILL BE MORE
COMPETITION AMONG BROADBAND
PROVIDERS.
IT ALSO MEANS MORE WAYS STARTUPS
AND TECH GIANTS ALIKE CAN
DELIVER APPLICATIONS AND CONTENT
TO MORE USERS.
IN SHORT IT'S A FOUR-YEAR MORE
OPEN INTERNET.
WE ALSO PROMOTE MUCH MORE ROBUST
TRANSPARENCY AMONG ISPS THEN
THREE YEARS AGO.
WE REQUIRE THEM TO DISCLOSE A
VARIETY OF BUSINESS PRACTICES
AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO
SUBJECTS THEM TO ENFORCEMENT
ACTION.
THIS TRANSPARENCY WORLD WILL
ENSURE CONSUMERS KNOW WHAT THEY
ARE BUYING AND STARTUPS GET THE
INFORMATION THEY NEED AS THEY
DEVELOP NEW PRODUCTS AND
SERVICES.
MOREOVER WE EMPOWER THE FCC TO
ENSURE CONSUMER AND COMPETITION
IS PROTECTED.
TWO YEARS AGO THE ORDERS
STRIPPED THE FTC OF JURISDICTION
OVER BROADBAND PROVIDERS.
TODAY WE ARE PUTTING THE
NATION'S PREMIER CONSUMER
PROTECTION BACK ON THE BEACH.
THE FCC WILL ONCE AGAIN, HAVE
THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION
AGAINST INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS THAT ENGAGE IN ANY
COMPETITIVE UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE
ACTS.
AS FTC CHAIRMAN RECENTLY SAID,
"THE FTC'S ABILITY TO PROTECT
CONSUMERS AND PROMOTE
COMPETITION IN BROADBAND IS NOT
SOMETHING NEW AND FAR-FETCHED.
WE HAVE A LONG-ESTABLISHED ROLE
IN PRESERVING THE VALUES THAT
CONSUMERS CARE ABOUT ONLINE."
AS PRESIDENT OBAMA'S FIRST FTC
CHAIRMAN PUT IT JUST YESTERDAY,
"THE PLAN TO RESTORE FTC
JURISDICTION IS GOOD FOR
CONSUMERS.
THE SKY IS NOT FALLING,
CONSUMERS WILL REMAIN PROTECTED
AND THE INTERNET WILL CONTINUE
TO THRIVE.
"
LET'S BE CLEAR FOLLOWING TODAY'S
VOTE AMERICANS WILL STILL BE
ABLE TO ACCESS THE WEBSITES THEY
WANT TO VISIT.
THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ENJOY
THE SERVICES THEY WANT TO ENJOY.
AND WILL STILL BE COPPS ON THE
BEAT REGARDING A FREE AND OPEN
INTERNET.
THE WAY THINGS WERE PRIOR TO
2015, THIS IS THE WAY THEY WILL
BE ONCE AGAIN.
NOW OUR DECISION TODAY WILL ALSO
RETURN REGULATORY PARITY TO THE
INTERNET ECONOMY.
SOME SILICON VALLEY PLATFORM
GIANTS FAVOR IMPOSING
HEAVY-HANDED REGULATIONS ON
OTHER PARTS OF THE INTERNET
ECOSYSTEM.
BUT ALL TOO OFTEN THEY DON'T
PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH.
EDGE PROVIDERS REGULARLY BLOCK
CONTENT THEY DON'T LIKE.
WHEN YOU GO ONLINE, DO YOU
DECIDE WHAT NEWS SEARCH RESULTS
AND PRODUCTS YOU SEE?
PERHAPS NOT.
THEY REGULARLY DECIDE WHAT YOU
SEE AND PERHAPS MORE
IMPORTANTLY, WHAT YOU DON'T.
AND MANY THRIVE ON THE BUSINESS
MODEL OF CHARGING TO PLACE
CONTENT IN FRONT OF EYEBALLS.
WHAT ELSE IS ACCELERATED MOBILE
PAGES OR PROMOTED TWEETS BUT
PRIORITIZATION?
WHAT IS WORSE, THERE IS NO
TRANSPARENCY INTO HOW DECISIONS
THAT APPEAR INCONSISTENT WITH AN
OPEN INTERNET ARE MADE.
HOW DOES A COMPANY DECIDE TO
RESTRICT SOMEONE'S ACCOUNT OR
BLOCK THEIR TWEETS BECAUSE IT
THINKS THEIR VIEWS ARE
INFLAMMATORY OR WRONG.
HOW DOES THE COMPANY DECIDE TO
DE- MONETIZE VIDEOS FROM
POLITICAL ADVOCATES WITHOUT ANY
NOTICE OR ASK HOW DOES A COMPANY
EXPRESSLY BLOCK ACCESS TO
WEBSITES ON RIVAL DEVICES OR
PREVENT DISSIDENT CONTENT FROM
APPEARING ON ITS PLATFORM?
HOW DOES A COMPANY DECIDE TO
BLOCK FROM ITS APP STORE A CIGAR
AFICIONADO AT BECAUSE THE
COMPANY BELIEVES THE APP
PROMOTES TOBACCO USE.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INSIGHT INTO
ANY OF THESE DECISIONS AND
NEITHER DO I.
YET THESE ARE VERY REAL ACTUAL
THREATS TO AN OPEN INTERNET.
IRONIC COMING FROM THE VERY
ENTITIES THAT CLAIM TO SUPPORT,
IRONIC THAT SO-CALLED NET
NEUTRALITY ADVOCATES MOST
VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED TO OUR
REFORMS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
ABOUT THESE THREATS.
THESE ARE OMISSIONS, THESE ARE
THREATS THAT A GROWING NUMBER OF
OFFICIALS DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS, HOUSE AND SENATE
ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE NOTICE OF.
NOW LOOK, PERHAPS CERTAIN
COMPANIES SUPPORT SETTLING BROAD
HAND -- BROADBAND PROVIDERS WITH
REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY WORK
FOR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.
I DON'T BLAME THEM FOR TAKING
THAT POSITION AND I AM NOT
SAYING THIS SAME ROLES SHOULD BE
SLAPPED ON THEM.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT IT IS
NOT THE JOB OF THE GOVERNMENT TO
BE IN THE BUSINESS OF PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS IN THE
INTERNET ECONOMY.
WE SHOULD HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING
FIELD AND LET CONSUMERS DECIDE
TO PREVAIL.
MANY WORDS HAVE BEEN SPOKEN THE
DURING THE DEBATE AND THE TIME
HAS COME FOR ACTION.
THE TIME FOR THE INTERNET ONCE
AGAIN, TO BE DRIVEN BY
ENGINEERS, ENTREPRENEURS AND
CONSUMERS, RATHER THAN LAWYERS,
ACCOUNTANTS AND BUREAUCRATS.
TIME FOR US TO BRING FASTER
BETTER AND CHEAPER AND INTERNET
ACCESS TO ALL AMERICANS.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO RETURN TO
THE BIPARTISAN REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK UNDER WHICH THE
INTERNET FLOURISHED PRIOR TO
2015.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO RESTORE
INTERNET FREEDOM.
I WANT TO EXTEND MY DEEPEST
GRATITUDE TO STAFF WHO HAVE
WORKED SO MANY LONG HOURS ON
THIS ITEM FROM THE WIRELINE
COMPETITION BUREAU, JOE, MEGAN,
PAULA, NATHAN, MADELEINE, DOUG,
DAN, GAIL, SUSAN, KEN, KRIS
MONTEITH, ERIC, DEBORAH, JANE
TAYLOR.
FROM THE OFFICE OF GENERAL
COUNSEL ASHLEY, JIM, CHRISTINE,
TOM JOHNSON, DOUG KLEIN, MARCUS,
SCOTT, LINDA, AND BILL
RICHARDSON.
FROM THE WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU STACY,
BETSY, JIMMY,, RON, PETER AND
OTHERS.
FROM THE OFFICE OF POLICY
ANALYSIS ERIC, JERRY, FROM THE
CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENTAL
AFFAIRS BUREAU, FROM THE PUBLIC
SAFETY AND HOMELAND SECURITY
BEAR AND THE MEDIA BUREAU TRACY.
WITH THAT WE WILL CALL THE VOTE.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL THE
CHAIR VOTES I.
ITEM IS ADOPTED.
THANKS TO THE STAFF FOR YOUR
COLLECTIVE WORK ON THIS ITEM.
MADAM SECRETARY COULD YOU PLEASE
ANNOUNCE THE NEXT ITEM ON
TODAY'S AGENDA.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND
COMMISSIONER'S THE NEXT ITEM
WILL BE PRESENTED BY THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU ENTITLED AMENDMENT TO
HARMONIZE AND STREAMLINE PART 20
OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES
CONCERNING REQUIREMENT FOR
LICENSEES TO OVERCOME A CMRS
PRESUMPTION.
DONALD STOCKDALE CHIEF OF THE
BUREAU WILL GIVE THE
INTRODUCTION.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
MADAM SECRETARY.
MR. STOCKDALE, THE FLOOR IS
YOURS.
>>COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:
MR. CHAIRMAN CAN I INTERRUPT?
I WANT TO KNOW IF HIS PHONE IS
OFF.
>> I DID TURN IT OFF.
[LAUGHING]
>> MR. CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS
I'M PLEASED TO PRESENT YOU THE
CMRS PRESUMPTION REPORT AND
ORDER.
I'M JOINED AT THE TABLE TODAY BY
SUSAN, ROGER NOEL, KATHY HARRIS,
TOM REED AND
 JESSICA GREFFENIUS.
IN ADDITION TO STAFF AT THE
TABLE I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE
STAFF LISTED ON THE SLIDE FOR
THEIR INPUT.
TOM REED WILL NOW PRESENT THE
ITEM.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON MR. CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONERS.
WE PRESENT TO YOU TODAY A REPORT
AND ORDER THAT UPDATES AND
HARMONIZES REGULATIONS REGARDING
CLASSIFICATIONS OF COMMERCIAL
MOBILE RADIO SERVICES PRIMARILY
BY ELIMINATING SECTION 20.7 AND
20.9 OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES.
THESE RULES CLASSIFY OR PRESUME
CERTAIN SERVICES FOR COMMERCIAL
MOBILE RADIO SERVICES OR CMRS OR
PRIVATE MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
BASED ON BAND USED TO PROVIDE
SERVICE RATHER THAN ON THE
CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE SERVICE
PROVIDER.
THAT APPROACH IS PREMISED ON
PARADIGMS DEVELOPED MORE THAN 20
YEARS AGO WHEN THE RULES
CONTEMPLATED DISTINCT WIRELESS
TO SERVICES IN EACH BAND.
INCONSISTENT HOWEVER, WITH THE
COMMISSION'S CURRENT FLEXIBLE
APPROACH TO LICENSING WHICH
GENERALLY PERMITS A LICENSEE TO
PROVIDE SERVICES SUBJECT TO
TECHNICAL RULES FOR THAT BAND.
THIS REPORT AND ORDER WILL
REMOVE PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT
WHETHER MOBILE SERVICES ARE
REGULATED AS COMMERCIAL OR
PRIVATE AND ALLOWED LICENSEES TO
RELY ON THE STATUTORY
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS TO IDENTIFY
THE NATURE AND REGULATORY
TREATMENT OF MOBILE SERVICES
CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE
SERVICE RULES.
ELIMINATING 24/7 AND 20.9 WILL
REDUCE DISPARATE REGULATORY
TREATMENT OF SIMILAR SERVICES
AND FREQUENCY BANDS AND ALLOWED
LICENSEES TO OFFER A VARIETY OF
SERVICES RAPIDLY IN RESPONSE TO
CONSUMER DEMAND AND COMPETITIVE
FORCES AND HELP BRING BENEFICIAL
SERVICES TO BUSINESSES AND STATE
AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITY WHILE
REDUCING ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN
AND PROCESSING DELAYS THAT
CERTAIN PROVIDERS CURRENTLY
FACE.
THE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU RECOMMENDS ADOPTION OF
THIS ITEM AND REQUEST EDITORIAL
PRIVILEGES TO MAKE TECHNICAL OR
CONFORMING EDITS.
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU FOR
THAT COMPELLING PRESENTATION.
COMMENTS FROM THE BENCH
BEGINNING WITH COMMISSIONER
CLYBURN.
>>COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:  WHAT
I'M ABOUT TO SAY IS REINFORCING
THE LOOK.
IT'S THE TOPIC OF PART 20 OF THE
COMMISSION RULES WERE INTRODUCED
AT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DINNER
TABLE IT MIGHT GO OVER AS WELL
AS SERVING OF ROCKY MOUNTAIN
OYSTERS.
NEITHER WOULD BE WARMLY RECEIVED
AT MY HOME.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THAT'S JUST
WRONG.
[LAUGHING]
EVEN WE HAVE LIMITS HERE
COMMISSIONER.
[LAUGHING]
>>COMMISSIONER CLYBURN:  OKAY.
THE CHANGES PROPOSED IN THIS
ORDER COUPLED WITH THE
MAJORITY'S DISMANTLING OF THE
OPEN INTERNET HAVE MANY UNSAVORY
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF
COMPETITION POLICY.
HE WONDERED HOW I WOULD TIE THAT
IN RIDE.
AND I MADE CLEAR IN MY
STATEMENTS AND PROCESSING THE
ROLLBACK OF OUR OPEN INTERNET
RULES I BELIEVE THE PROPER
INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 332 OF
THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT IS THAT
MOBILE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICE SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
A COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO
SERVICE OR CMRS, NOT A PRIVATE
MOBILE RADIO SERVICE.
ELIMINATING OUR CURRENT PART 20
RULES MEANS WE WILL REMOVE
PRECEDENTS AND PROCEDURES THAT
COULD HELP PARTIES DEMONSTRATE
THAT A WIRELESS COMPANY'S MOBILE
BROADBAND SERVICE SHOULD BE
CLASSIFIED AS CMRS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME MAY SEE
THIS AS A MERE STREAMLINING OF
COMMISSION RULES, BUT IN MY
OPINION THIS ORDER REMOVES
IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS
SUCH AS REQUIRING THE COMMISSION
TO PUT CERTAIN APPLICATIONS OUT
ON PUBLIC NOTICE WHICH CAN HELP
INFORM PARTIES WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN CHALLENGING A
COMPANY CLAIM THAT IT'S MOBILE
BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS
SERVICES SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
A PRIVATE MOBILE RADIO SERVICE.
SINCE THAT RESULT IS
INCONSISTENT WITH MY VIEW OF
PROPER CLASSIFICATION FOR MOBILE
BROADBAND SERVICES, I
RESPECTFULLY DISSENT FROM THE
ORDER AND WILL ADMIT MY FIRST
EXAMPLE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE
EDGY.
[LAUGHING]
THANK YOU.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN.
COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY.
>>COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY:  THANK
YOU FOR THE STUFF OF THEIR WORK.
NO STATEMENT.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  COMMISSIONER
CARR.
>>COMMISSIONER CARR:  THE FCC'S
DECISION TO EMBRACE A FLEXIBLE
USE SPECTRUM MANDATE -- CHOKED
UP ON THIS ONE.
INSTEAD OF MANDATING THAT A
PARTICULAR SECTOR BAND BE USED
WITH A SPECIFIC TYPE OF WIRELESS
TECHNOLOGY OR SERVICE WOULD
GENERALLY LEAVE THAT CHOICE OF
HIGH SECTOR, WHICH HAS A MUCH
BETTER SENSE OF CONSUMER DEMAND.
THIS APPROACH ENABLED WIRELESS
NETWORKS IN THE U.S. TO EVOLVE
WITH TECHNOLOGY AND DO SO MUCH
MORE QUICKLY THAN IF OPERATORS
HAD TO OBTAIN GOVERNMENT SIDE
OFF EACH STEP OF THE WAY PICARD
LEADERSHIP IN 4G IS ONE EXAMPLE
OF HOW THIS POLICY HAS WORKED
FOR CONSUMERS.
TODAY WE CARRY THAT APPROACH
FORWARD BY ELIMINATING
20-YEAR-OLD RULES THAT REFLECT A
DIFFERENT APPROACH TO SPECTRUM.
ONE THAT REQUIRED PROVIDERS
OPERATING PARTICULAR BANDS TO
OBTAIN FCC PERMISSION BEFORE
INNOVATING OR BRINGING CERTAIN
SERVICES TO THE MARKET.
THIS CHANGE WILL NOT ONLY HELP
LEVEL THE REGULATORY PLAYING
FIELD FOR WIRELESS PROVIDERS,
BUT ALSO RESULT IN MORE TIMELY
AND EFFICIENT USE OF SPECTRUM.
THE FLEXIBILITY WE PROVIDE TODAY
WILL BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
AS WE EXTEND OUR GLOBAL
LEADERSHIP IN WIRELESS AS 5G AND
INTERNET OF THINGS OFFERINGS
CONTINUE TO COME ONLINE.
I SUPPORT THE ORDER AND HOPE WE
CAN CONTINUE THE AGENCY EFFORTS
TO IDENTIFY AND ELIMINATE
OUTDATED UNNECESSARY REGULATORY
BURDENS.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
>>COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL:  IN
THE INTEREST OF MOVING THIS
ALONG I WILL SAY I SUPPORT
TODAY'S DECISION.
IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ALTER THE
STATUTORY DEFINITION OF CMRS OR
PMRS NOR DOES IT AFFECT THE
UNDERLYING REGULATORY
REGULATIONS ASSOCIATE WITH THE
SERVICE THAT'S LIGHT HAS MY FULL
SUPPORT.
>>CHAIRMAN PAI:  THANK YOU,
COMMISSIONER.
I TO SUPPORT THE ITEM.
THIS IS AS COMMON SENSE AND GOOD
GOVERNMENT MEASURE AS YOU WILL
FIND AND FINALIZES THE PROPOSALS
WE INANIMATE SLEEP CONDUCTED
LAST YEAR.
SO I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR
THEIR WORK TO HELP US MODERNIZE
THESE RULES TO GET TO THIS POINT
IN PARTICULAR JEFF, KATHY
HARRIS, ROGER, TOM REED,
JENNIFER, PETER FROM THE
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
BUREAU, JENNIFER AND CARL FROM
THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU, JIM
BRADSHAW FROM THE MEDIA BUREAU,
CHRISTINE FROM THE W WIRELINE
COMPETITION BUREAU.
THE OFFICE OF COMMUNICATION
BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND DAVID
HORWITZ FROM THE OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL.
WE PROCEED TO VOTE ON THE ITEM.
COMMISSIONER CLYBURN
COMMISSIONER O'RIELLY.
COMMISSIONER CARR.
COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL.
CHAIR VOTES I AS WELL.
ITEM ADOPTED AND EDITORIAL
PRIVILEGE GRANTED.
MADAM SECRETARY PLEASE TAKE US
TO THE NEXT ITEM.