Jessica Rosenworcel: Network Neutrality

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE

WELCOME TO THE FORD SCHOOL

I'M MICHAEL BARR, THE JOAN AND SANFORD WEILL DEAN OF THE GERALD R FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY

IT'S MY DELIGHT TO WELCOME YOU

ALL HERE THIS AFTERNOON FOR

POLICY TALKS AT THE FORD SCHOOL.

OUR FIRST ONE OF THE YEAR.

OUR TALK TODAY IS CO-SPONSORED

BY THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION.

THE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND

PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM AND THE

PROGRAM IN PRACTICAL POLICY

ENGAGEMENT.

PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING

JESSICA ROSENWARSAL, OUR SPECIAL

GUEST AND JACK BERNARD, FROM THE

UNIVERSITY'S GENERAL COUNSEL'S

OFFICE.

[APPLAUSE]

IT'S MY HONOR TO INTRODUCE

THEMSELVES BOTH.

AND I'M GOING TO START WITH

JACK, WHO WILL BE HOSTING THE

DIALOG, WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

JACK IS THE UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATE GENERAL

COUNSEL.

HE HAS BEEN WITH THE GENERAL

COUNSEL'S OFFICE SINCE 1999.

ALONG THE WAY, HE'S TAUGHT

COURSES AT THE SCHOOL OF

INFORMATION, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

AND HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL.

HE RECEIVED HIS JD FROM THE

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW

SCHOOL AND HIS MASTER'S IN

HIGHER EDUCATION FROM THE U OF M

CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHER

AND POST SECONDARY EDUCATION.

JACK IS AN EXPERT ON

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY,

COPYRIGHT, FIRST AMENDMENT AND

FREE SPEECH, AMONG OTHER TOPICS.

I WAS LEARNING THAT HE HAS

BECOME TEMPORARILY AN EXPERT IN

DEALING WITH SPECIAL STUDENT

PROBLEMS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE

YEAR.

I WON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT

THAT.

JACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

JOINING US HERE.

I'M VERY DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU.

I'M ALSO DELIGHTED TO INTRODUCE

OUR FEATURED GUEST, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER,

JESSICA ROSENWARSAL.

SHE WAS APPOINTED TO THE FCC BY

PRESIDENT OBAMA IN 2012.

AND REAPPOINTED BY PRESIDENT

TRUMP IN 2017.

PRIOR TO JOINING THE AGENCY, SHE

SERVED AS SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS

COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES

SENATE COMMITTEE, ON COMMERCE

SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION.

HER PORTFOLIO COVERED A WIDE

RANGE OF COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES,

INCLUDING SPECTRUM AUCTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY, BROADBAND

DEPLOYMENT AND ADOPTION,

UNIVERSAL SERVICE, VIDEO

PROGRAMMING, SATELLITE AND

DIGITAL TV.

BEFORE JOINING THE COMMITTEE,

SHE SERVED AS LEGAL ADVISOR OF

FORMER FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL

COXE.

AND PREVIOUSLY SHE HAD BEEN IN

PRIVATE PRACTICE.

NATIVE OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

AND GRADUATE OF NEW YORK

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW.

COMMISSIONER HAS A WELL EARNED

REPUTATION IN D.C., FOR

COMMISSIONER OF OPPORTUNITY,

AFFORDABILITY IN OUR NATION'S

COMMUNICATION SERVICES.

SHE COINED THE TERM HOMEWORK GAP

TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM

OF GROWING INEQUALITY IN SCHOOL

CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED

INTERNET, BASED ON SOCIOECONOMIC

STATUS AND GEOGRAPHY.

THIS IS I BELIEVE, THE

COMMISSIONER'S FIRST VISIT TO

ANN ARBOR.

SECOND.

SECOND.

AWESOME.

BUT LIKE MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE

WORLD, SHE HAS A SPECIAL

MICHIGAN TIE.

HER MOTHER WAS A STUDENT HERE.

GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN.

SO I WILL SHARE OUR WONDERFUL

EXPRESSION, GO BLUE.

I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE

COMMISSIONER HERE AND PLEASE

JOIN ME IN THANKING HER FOR

BEING HERE.

[APPLAUSE]

SO LET ME JUST SAY A WORD ABOUT

OUR PROCESS.

IN ABOUT 20, 25 MINUTES AFTER

THE HOUR, STAFF WILL BEGIN

WALKING AROUND THE ROOM TO

COLLECT QUESTIONS FROM THOSE IN

THE AUDIENCE.

AND THEY'LL COMPILE QUESTIONS

FROM TWITTER AS WELL, FOR THOSE

WATCHING ONLINE.

JACK WILL TRANSITION US INTO THE

Q&A AND THE COMMISSIONER WILL

TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.

THE Q&A WILL BE FACILITATED BY

FORD SCHOOL MOLLY KLEINMAN.

ALONG WITH FORD SCHOOL STUDENTS

JACKSON BOSS AND LINDSEY, WHO

ARE RIGHT HERE.

WITH THAT, LET ME TURN THINGS

OVER TO JACK.

AND I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO

THE CONVERSATION.

THANK YOU.

WELCOME AGAIN TO MICHIGAN.

WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU

HERE.

YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT A FULL

AUDIENCE.

THANK YOU.

I THOUGHT WE MIGHT START WITH

TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW

YOU GOT HERE.

I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THE DEAN

GAVE A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR BIO,

BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT

SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT

YOURSELF.

YOU KNOW, I WAS ASKED THIS

QUESTION EARLIER BY SOME

STUDENTS.

I THINK THE WAY I PUT IT WAS

THERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO KNEW

WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO FROM DAY

ONE AND THEY TOOK EVERY JOB AND

EVERY CLASS FOR THAT GOAL AND

REACHED THAT GOAL.

I WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

IT DIDN'T GO LIKE THAT.

I CAME FROM A FAMILY OF

SCIENTISTS, MY MOTHER WENT TO

GRADUATE SCHOOL HERE.

AND THE MOST REBELOUS THING I

THOUGHT I COULD DO WAS GO TO LAW

SCHOOL.

I FOUND MYSELF IN WASHINGTON AND

I PRACTICED THERE FOR A WHILE.

I WORKED ON THE PRIVATIZATION OF

A PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITY.

WHICH IF YOU SPEND SOME TIME

STUDYING ECONOMICS, ENGINEERING

AND LAW, IT'S QUITE INTERESTING.

SHORTLY THEREAFTER I HAD AN

OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE JUNIOR

STAFF OF THE FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION.

A FEW YEARS EARLIER, CONGRESS

HAD PASSED A LAW KNOWN AS THE

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO

IMPLEMENT THAT LAW.

I EVENTUALLY WENT TO WORK FOR A

COMMISSIONER.

AND THEN I WENT TO WORK ON

CAPITOL HILL, WHERE I WORKED ON

ISSUES INVOLVING THE DIGITAL

TELEVISION TRANSITION SATELLITE

SERVICE AND THEN WORKED WITH THE

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON SECURING

MORE SPECTRUM, SO FIRST

RESPONDERS COULD TALK TO ONE

ANOTHER.

AN IDEA THAT EVENTUALLY BECAME

LAW.

AND THEN I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF

GOING TO THE AGENCY TO OVERSEE

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT, WHERE

I LEARNED QUICKLY THAT

IMPLEMENTING A LAW AND JUST

COMING UP WITH THE IDEA ARE TWO

DIFFERENT THINGS.

THAT'S GREAT.

I THINK FOR SO MANY IN THE ROOM

WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT A LIFE IN

PUBLIC SERVICE, IT'S GREAT FOR

THEM TO SEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT

WHAT MIGHT BE A ROUGH AND TUMBLE

PATH TO GET TO MAYBE WHERE YOU

WANT TO GO.

ALONG THE WAY, CAUSE JUST THE

RIGHT AMOUNT OF TROUBLE TO MAKE

THE OPPORTUNITIES HAPPEN.

SO YOU ARE A COMMISSIONER ON

THE FCC RIGHT NOW.

I THINK PEOPLE IN THE ROOM HAVE

A GENERALIZED NOTION OF WHAT THE

FCC IS.

BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT

UNPACK THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR US.

WELL, I'M TOTALLY BIASED, BUT

THE FCC OVERSEES ABOUT 1/6 OF

OUR ECONOMY, COMMUNICATIONS AND

TECHNOLOGY.

I THINK IT'S THE MOST EXCITING

SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY.

SO THAT INVOLVES EVERYTHING FROM

BROADCASTING TO BROADBAND.

FROM WI-FI TO WIRELESS.

TO SATELLITE SERVICES IN THE

AIR.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU CAN'T

GO THROUGH THE DAY WITHOUT

TOUCHING SOME FORM OF

COMMUNICATIONS THAT THE SEC

OVERSEES.

IT'S AN INSTITUTION THAT

CONGRESS CREATED IN 1934.

BACK WHEN IT DECIDED THAT ON A

DAY TO DAY BASIS, THEY DIDN'T

THINK CONGRESS SHOULD BE THE

ENTITY DECIDING HOW WE DIVIED UP

OUR AIRWAVES.

COMMUNICATIONS HAS GROWN MORE

AND MORE IMPORTANT IN ALL OF OUR

LIVES.

THE FCC AS A BODY MAKES

DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION

SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY AND

CONGRESS OVERSEES US.

BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF AUTHORITY,

BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF

ISSUES BEFORE US.

HOW DOES THE FCC INTERACT

WITH THE INTERNET?

HOW DO WE INTERACT WITH THE

INTERNET?

I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO TALK

ABOUT IT IS WE THINK ABOUT

COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION.

OUR JURISDICTION AND OUR

AUTHORITY LARGELY SPEAKS TO

MAKING SURE THERE IS A WIRE IN

THE GROUND.

OR THERE ARE AIRWAVES THAT ARE

ALLOCATED FOR WIRELESS SERVICE

OR SATELLITE SERVICE.

IT'S THAT TRANSMISSION THAT IS

AN INPUT INTO EVERYTHING WE DO

IN MODERN LIFE.

AND THAT'S WHERE OUR AUTHORITY

LIES.

SO IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR

ARRIVAL HERE, I HAVE BEEN

THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR SEVERAL

WEEKS AND STARTED TALKING TO

PEOPLE ABOUT THE CENTRAL THEME

OF OUR TALK TODAY, WHICH IS

PROBABLY GOING TO FOCUS ON NET

NEUTRALITY.

SO I STARTED ASKING PEOPLE IN

OUR COMMUNITY HERE WHAT THEY

THOUGHT ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY.

AND WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS THAT

PEOPLE HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF

CONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT NET

NEUTRALITY ACTUALLY IS.

AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE VERY VERY

STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THINGS

THAT I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE ARE

NET NEUTRALITY.

SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT

GIVE US AN A WORKING DEFINITION

OF NET NEUTRALITY, AND PERHAPS

IF YOU COULD TRY TO GIVE US ONE

THAT ISN'T LADEN WITH A

PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT.

WE'LL GET DEEP INTO THE

VIEWPOINTS.

OKAY.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE ACRONYM

AND VIEWPOINT FREE.

WE'LL SEE IF I SUCCEED.

BECAUSE THAT'S A HARD TASK FOR

SOMEONE FROM WASHINGTON.

I THINK NET NEUTRALITY MEANS

THAT YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS

HAVE TO TREAT THE TRAFFIC ON

THEIR NETWORKS EQUALLY SO THAT

THEY DO NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE

BASIS OF SOURCE, DESTINATION OR

CONTENT.

LET ME PUT THAT IN BETTER

ENGLISH.

IT MEANS THAT YOU CAN GO WHERE

YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU WANT

ONLINE AND YOUR BROADBAND

PROVIDER DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS

FOR YOU.

IT MEANS YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER

DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO

BLOCK WEBSITES, TO SENSOR ONLINE

CONTACT.

YOU USED THE WORD EQUALLY

THERE.

I'M WONDERING WHEN WE'RE

THINKING ABOUT THAT, WE'RE KIND

OF LEAVING OUR DEFINITION, BUT

WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EQUALLY?

WELL, NONDISCRIMINATION IS

WHAT I MEAN BY EQUALLY.

WHICH HAS BEEN A PRINCIPLE OF

OUR COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS

LAWS FOR A LONG TIME.

I MEAN, SO MUCH SO YOU DON'T

EVEN REALIZE IT.

THINK BACK TO THE BASIC

TELEPHONE NETWORK.

IT IS A GIVEN THAT IF YOU WENT

TO A WIRED PHONE ON A WALL, YOU

CAN CALL WHOEVER YOU WANT.

AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY CAN'T

DECIDE YOU CAN'T CALL THAT

PERSON.

NOR CAN THEY GO IN AND EDIT YOUR

CONVERSATION.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE A

NON-DISCRIMINATORY RIGHT TO MAKE

THAT PHONE CALL.

IT'S UP TO YOU.

THOSE IDEAS TRANSFER TO THE

DIGITAL AGE ARE WHAT I THINK

WHEN I THINK ABOUT TRAFFIC AND

TREATMENT WITH NET NEUTRALITY.

WHICH IS AGAIN, YOU SHOULD BE

ABLE TO GO WHERE YOU WANT

REGARDLESS OF SOURCE DESTINATION

OR THE CONTENT YOU'RE SEEKING TO

ACCESS WITHOUT THE BROADBAND

PROVIDER GETTING IN THE WAY.

TO ME, WE'RE REALLY TALKING

ABOUT NON-DISCRIMINATION, WHICH

HAS BEEN A PRINCIPLE OF OUR

THINKING ABOUT NETWORKS AND

COMMUNICATIONS FOR DECADES AND

DECADES.

SO I'VE NOTICED THAT THE

DIFFERENT BROADBAND PROVIDERS

I'VE ENGAGED WITH, THEY PROVIDE

DIFFERENT SUITES OF SERVICES OR

DIFFERENT SPEEDS, A VARIETY OF

OTHER OPTIONS.

SO MY EXPERIENCE ISN'T UNIFORM.

SURE.

SO I'M WONDERING REALLY WHAT

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YEAH.

YOU CAN GET THESE THINGS, I

THINK CONFUSED.

BUT IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE

FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T DO A LOT

OF ONLINE ACTIVITY TO DECIDE

THAT THEY'RE HAPPY WITH 200

KILABIT SPEED.

IT'S GOOD FOR THEIR E-MAIL.

YOU COME TO MY HOUSE, AND YOU

GOT FOUR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL

TRYING TO WATCH VIDEOS

SIMULTANEOUSLY, I'LL PAY FOR A

GIGABIT.

AND I THINK THAT EVERY CONSUMER

SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE

THOSE CHOICES.

BUT THEY'RE MAKING THE CHOICES.

YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER IS NOT

MAKING THE CHOICE FOR YOU.

HOW IS IT THAT IN THE ABSENCE

OF NET NEUTRALITY OUR BROADBAND

PROVIDER MIGHT INTERFERE WITH

YOUR FOUR VIDEO FAMILY WATCHING

GROUP ENJOYING VIDEOS ONLINE,

WHAT COULD THEY DO THAT WOULD

UNDERMINE THE EXPERIENCE?

SINCE WE ROLLED BACK OUR NET

NEUTRALITY POLICIES, OUR

BROADBAND PROVIDERS HAVE THE

LEGAL RIGHT TO BLOCK WEBSITES,

THROTTLE ONLINE SERVICES, SENSOR

THE CONTENT.

THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO TO ANY

CREATOR AND SAY HEY, IF YOU WANT

TO REACH THAT CUSTOMER, YOU GOT

TO PAY US A TOLL.

AFTER YOU GIVE THE LEGAL ENTITY

A LEGAL RIGHT, THEY HAVE THAT

LEGAL RIGHT.

DO THEY HAVE THE TECHNICAL

ABILITY TO DO THAT?

YES.

NETWORK MANAGEMENT WOULD ALLOW

THEM TO DO THAT.

DO THEY ALSO HAVE THE BUSINESS

INCENTIVE?

WELL, YES.

IF THERE IS A GREATER REVENUE

ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BEHAVIORS,

CHARGING MORE TO REACH CERTAIN

WEBSITES, I'M SURE THEY WOULD

TRY TO ENGAGE IN IT.

WHEN YOU ALIGN A LEGAL RIGHT

WITH TECHNICAL ABILITY AND A

BUSINESS INCENTIVE, OVER TIME

YOU EXPECT THAT THOSE BEHAVIORS

WILL EMERGE IN THE MARKETPLACE.

BY ROLLING NET NEUTRALITY BACK,

I THINK WE DID JUST THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD.

I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR

CONSUMPTION OR CREATION ONLINE.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I

THINK ABOUT WHEN WE ADD

REGULATIONS TO A SYSTEM IS THAT

WE'VE INCUMBERED THE SYSTEM.

THE FCC ADDED REGULATIONS, THE

SYSTEM BECAME INCUMBERED.

WHY WOULD WE NEED TO INCUMBER

THE SYSTEM?

MARKET ACTORS MAKE SURE THEY

TRIED TO ABIDE BY THEM.

THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY,

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT REGULATION,

I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH

OVERSIGHT YOU WANT IN A

MARKETPLACE.

I BELIEVE YOU NEEDLESS OVERSIGHT

IF YOU HAVE A COMPETITIVE

MARKETPLACE.

COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACES ARE

THEMSELVES THE BEST REGULATOR OF

ACTIVITY.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE

BROADBAND MARKETPLACE, ACCORDING

TO THE FCC'S OWN DATA, ABOUT

HALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES

NOT HAVE A CHOICE OF BROADBAND

PROVIDER.

THAT'S NOT EXACTLY COMPETITIVE.

AND AS A RESULT, IF YOUR

BROADBAND PROVIDER DECIDES TO

MUCK AROUND WITH YOUR TRAFFIC,

BLOCK WEBSITES OR CHARGE YOU A

PREMIUM FOR REACHING CERTAIN

CONTENT, YOU CAN'T PICK UP YOUR

BUSINESS AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE.

THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO GO.

IT'S THE ABSENCE OF THAT

COMPETITION THAT I THINK MAKES

SOME LIGHT OVERSIGHT FROM

AGENCIES LIKE THE FCC USEFUL AND

NECESSARY FOR CONSUMERS.

SO I WANT TO DIG A LITTLE

DEEPER THERE.

BECAUSE MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH

MY BROADBAND AND CABLE PROVIDER

WAS THAT EVEN WHEN THE NET

NEUTRALITY RULES WERE IN PLACE,

I FELT THOSE CONSTRAINTS YOU

WERE JUST DESCRIBING.

THAT IS MY BROADBAND PROVIDER

ONLY PROVIDED SO MUCH SPEED AND

ONLY SO MANY OPTIONS.

I FELT CONSTRAINED BY THAT

BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF

CHOICES.

HOW IS THAT A NET NEUTRALITY

ISSUE, THOUGH?

TO ME, IF THE MARKETPLACE WAS

ROBUST AND EVERYONE HAD A

HANDFUL OF PROVIDERS, THEY WOULD

COMPETE TO PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH

THE BEST SERVICE.

AND I DO THINK THEY MAKE AN

EFFORT TO DO THAT NOW.

BUT THEY WOULD COMPETE AND

PERHAPS COMPETE ON THE BASIS OF

MAKING SURE YOUR INTERNET

EXPERIENCE WAS AS OPEN AND FREE

AS POSSIBLE.

BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING

THAT MANY PROVIDERS, WE DON'T

HAVE THAT COMPETITION.

AND THAT'S WHAT NET NEUTRALITY

RULES ARE DESIGNED TO HELP

MANAGE.

TO MAKE SURE THAT CONSUMERS CAN

GO WHERE THEY WANT AND DO WHAT

THEY WANT ONLINE, EVEN IN THE

ABSENCE OF A FULLY COMPETITIVE

MARKET.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED

WHEN WE ROLLED BACK THE NET

NEUTRALITY RULES?

WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED.

THE FCC HAD IN PLACE RULES THAT

SAID YOU CAN'T BLOCK, YOU CAN'T

THROTTLE, YOU CAN'T ENGAGE IN

PAY FOR PLAY PRIORITIZATION.

WHERE YOU TREAT TRAFFIC JUST

FINE BECAUSE THEY PAY YOU AND

CONSIGN THE REST TO A BUMPY

ROAD.

I DON'T THINK THOSE POLICIES

WERE RADICAL.

THEY WERE RADICALLY POPULAR.

THEY HAD ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE

COURTS.

AND SPEAKING AS AN FCC

COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T ALWAYS

GET THE LUXURY OF OUR RULES

BEING UPHELD BY THE COURTS.

SO THEY WERE JUSTIFIED BY

JUDGES, WELL RECEIVED BY THE

PUBLIC.

AND THEY WERE STABLE.

BUT WE CHOSE TO ROLL THEM BACK

ANYWAY.

THAT WAS DONE OVER MY DISSENT.

YOU WERE VERY VOCAL AND

BROUGHT FORWARD ARGUMENTS AND

WERE NOT ABLE TO PERSUADE YOUR

FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

YET.

YEAH.

JUST DEVIATING A LITTLE BIT FROM

WHERE WE WERE GOING, ALTHOUGH

I'LL COME BACK.

WHAT IS THAT LIKE?

WHAT'S THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING

THE HOLD-OUT OR THE LONE

DISSENTER?

WELL, I'M A DEMOCRAT IN

WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW.

SO I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE

WITH THIS.

I FIRMLY BELIEVE PEOPLE DON'T

REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID BUT HOW

YOU SAID IT.

YOU TRY TO FIND THOSE ARGUMENTS

AND THEN YOU REPEAT THEM OVER

AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

YOU STILL REPEAT THEM, AGAIN AND

AGAIN.

I THINK YOU CAN MAKE CHANGE OVER

TIME IF YOU DO THAT.

IT'S NOT A

SINGLE ACT OR A DECISION.

AND I THINK YOU KNOW, WE WERE

TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER, NET

NEUTRALITY HAS BECOME THAT.

FCC MADE WHAT I BELIEVE IS A

MISGUIDED DECISION LATE LAST

YEAR.

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WROTE OUR

AGENCY.

AND IN THE WAKE OF THEIR ANGER

ABOUT OUR DECISION, THEY DID

SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THEY WENT TO

GOVERNORS.

SIX GOVERNORS REQUIRE NET

NEUTRALITY IN THEIR STATE

CONTRACTS.

THERE IS MORE THAN 100 MAYORS

WHO COMMITTED TO DO THE SAME.

THEY WENT TO STATE HOUSES, THERE

ARE LAWS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON

AND VERMONT AND GOVERNOR BROWN

IN CALIFORNIA MAY BE SIGNING

ANOTHER LAW.

THEY WENT TO COURT.

IN CONGRESS, UNITED STATES

SENATE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED TO

OVERTURN THE FCC.

IF YOU STAND BACK AND LOOK AT

THAT SWELL OF ACTIVITY, THAT'S

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION.

THAT'S PEOPLE ACTUALLY DOING

WHAT THE SYSTEM CONTEMPLATED.

WHICH IS PARTICIPATING IN

CREATING CHANGE.

SO I DON'T THINK THE NET

NEUTRALITY STORY IS OVER.

AND I HAVE THIS OPTIMISM THAT IF

THAT CONTINUES, WE CAN ONCE

AGAIN RETURN INTERNET OPENNESS

TO THE LAW OF THE LAND.

SO HOW DO YOU -- YOU'VE HAD

THIS DIFFERENCE OF VIEW ON A

VERY PUBLIC MATTER.

WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE REALLY

UNDERSTAND IT IS STILL UP FOR

DEBATE I THINK.

BUT YOU'VE HAD THIS REAL

DIFFERENCE.

HOW DO YOU BUILD COLLEGIALITY

AFTER THIS?

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

IT'S ONE THAT YOU SHOULD

PROBABLY ASK EVERYONE IN

WASHINGTON.

I'LL TELL YOU HOW I DO IT.

I TRY TO DECIDE WHATEVER

DISAGREEMENT WE HAD IS LIKE A

BOOK THAT GOES ON THE SHELF AND

I'M MOVING ON TO THE NEXT

VOLUME.

AND I TRY TO FIND SOMETHING WITH

EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES I MIGHT BE

ABLE TO AGREE WITH ON THEM.

I HAVE A COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER

SIDE OF THE AISLE, WE DO A LOT

OF WORK OF UNLICENSED SPECTRUM

POLICY.

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH

MORE WI-FI WE CAN PUT IN OUR

AIRWAVES AND MAKE AN EFFORT TO

MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN OPEN A

BOOK TOGETHER, THERE IS

SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIND

AGREEMENT ON.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

YOU SHOULD KEEP TRYING.

IT DOESN'T ALWAYS SUCCEED.

HOPPING BACK IN TO NET

NEUTRALITY.

WE TOOK A DETOUR THERE.

BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU WOULD

BE WILLING TO TAKE A MOMENT AND

TO TRY TO STEEL MAN AS OPPOSED

TO STRAW MAN THE POSITION ON THE

OTHER SIDE.

OKAY.

LET'S SEE.

THIS IS A GOOD EXERCISE.

IT FEELS ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIC.

WASHINGTON NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL.

IT CAN OVERREGULATE INDUSTRIES.

IT CAN COME UP WITH POLICIES

THAT ARE WELL INTENDED AND THE

RESULTS CAN BE HARMFUL.

WE WANT OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS

TO EXPERIMENT AND COME UP WITH

PACKAGES AND PLANS THAT SERVE

EVERYONE.

TAKING REVENUE FROM ONLINE

PLATFORMS IS AN IMPORTANT PART

OF THAT MIX OR SETTING UP

SERVICES THAT ONLY ALLOW PEOPLE

TO REACH SMALL PORTIONS OF THE

INTERNET COULD CREATE MORE AND

DIFFERENT PACKAGES, WE WANT THEM

TO HAVE THAT FREEDOM TO

EXPERIMENT.

WE ALSO WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO

RAISE ENOUGH REVENUE AS PRIVATE

SECTOR ACTORS SO THAT THEY CAN

DEPLOY THEIR BROADBAND NETWORKS

FURTHER AND IN MORE PLACES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE

ARGUMENT THAT WOULD BE MADE ON

THE OTHER SIDE.

I COULD PICK APART WHAT I JUST

SAID.

BUT IF I WERE STILL TALKING

TO YOU AS THE PERSON BOLSTERING

THAT VIEW, AND I SAID, WELL, HOW

DOES NET NEUTRALITY INTERFERE

WITH THAT?

THIS IS GETTING CONFUSING.

GOD.

I JUST DON'T THINK IT WILL.

I'M BEING HONEST.

I THINK THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS

ABOUT WHAT'S CALLED ZERO NET

RATING WITH THAT AND HOW MUCH

EXPERIMENTATION YOU SHOULD ALLOW

PROVIDERS TO HAVE, WITH RESPECT

TO EXEMPTING CERTAIN WEBSITES OR

ACTIVITIES FROM ONLINE DATA

CAPS.

NOW WE'RE GETTING A FEW LEVELS

IN.

LET ME LET YOU BECOME

YOURSELF AGAIN.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO

BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU JUST DID.

BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU WANT TO

MAKE PROGRESS ANYWHERE, IN

WASHINGTON OR ON YOUR LOCAL

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD,

YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO

UNDERSTAND WHAT'S DRIVING THE

OTHER SIDE.

AND TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH

POLITICS AS DRIVING THE OTHER

SIDE OR WHETHER THERE IS

ACTUALLY A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

THAT'S AT STAKE.

TOTALLY RIGHT.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO PAUSE AND

SAY IF I CAME TO THAT POSITION

AS A DECENT INDIVIDUAL, WHY DID

I REACH THAT RESULT?

YOU HAVE TO SUBJECT YOURSELF TO

THAT DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE

SURE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE TIGHTER.

BUT ALSO BECAUSE YOU MIGHT FIND

BRIDGES IF YOU SUBJECT YOURSELF

TO DOING THAT.

SO ONE THING I THINK WE HEAR

A LOT FROM INDUSTRY ALONG THESE

LINES IS THAT NET NEUTRALITY IS

A BARRIER TO INVESTING IN

INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND IT'S A BARRIER BECAUSE WITH

NET NEUTRALITY, THE STATE, I

MEAN THE GOVERNMENT IS

ESSENTIALLY NATIONALIZING THE

INVESTMENT OF THESE INDIVIDUAL

PORTION OF THE SECTOR, WHO ARE

TRYING TO INVEST IN

INFRASTRUCTURE.

ESSENTIALLY CREATING A KIND OF

EASEMENT ON SPACES THEY'VE PUT

FORWARD.

THIS IS THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE

HEARD.

I'M WONDERING HOW YOU WOULD

RESPOND TO THAT.

LISTEN, WE DO HAVE BROADBAND

CHALLENGES IN RURAL PARTS OF

THIS COUNTRY.

STATES WITHOUT BROADBAND AS

WE'VE DEFINED IT TODAY.

AND REMOTE COMMUNITIES.

AND INSTEAD OF HAVING

THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT NET

NEUTRALITY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAP

WHERE THOSE PEOPLE ARE AND

IDENTIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO

BUILD SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR THE

INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NEW

TECHNOLOGY THAT IS GOING TO MAKE

SERVING THEM FOR FEASIBLE.

WHEN YOU SAY WE, DO YOU MEAN

WE THE GOVERNMENT?

WE AS A NATION.

PUBLIC SECTOR AND PRIVATE SECTOR

ACTORS.

DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE

THAT ALONG WITH ADVOCATING FOR

NET NEUTRALITY, YOU COULD

ADVOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT

INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRY TO DO

JUST THOSE THINGS?

ABSOLUTELY.

THOSE TWO THINGS ARE NOT

INCONSISTENT.

YOU CAN DO BOTH THINGS AT THE

SAME TIME.

I THINK THAT IS A FALSE CHOICE

TO PRESENT IT AS ONE OR THE

OTHER.

SO GETTING BACK TO THIS IDEA

OF EQUALITY, COULD IT NOT BE THE

CASE THAT MAYBE LESS THAN

EQUITABLE SERVICE MIGHT ACTUALLY

BE BETTER FOR THE WHOLE?

I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THINK

ABOUT THINGS LIKE ROADS, WHERE

WE GIVE A PREFERENCE TO SOME

VEHICLES, PERHAPS VEHICLES THAT

ARE TRAVELLING WITH MORE THAN

ONE PERSON IN THEM.

OR AT THE GROCERY STORE, YOU

KNOW, THERE IS A LINE FOR CASH

AND A LINE FOR CREDIT CARD.

SEE, HERE IS THE PREMISE THAT

YOU HAVE THERE.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE LINES.

THE POINT IS THAT THERE IS A

LANE FOR TRAFFIC WITH PEOPLE YOU

KNOW, CARPOOLS.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER

LANES.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS

PLAUSIBLE IN A MARKET THAT IS

COMPETITIVE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN

MULTIPLE LANES.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH OUR

BROADBAND MARKETS RIGHT NOW,

EVEN DATA FROM THE FCC SUGGESTS

IT'S NOT.

I THINK THAT THAT ANALOGY HAS

LIMITATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO

BROADBAND SERVICE.

DO THE LIMITATIONS STEM FROM

THE FACT THAT THERE TENDS TO BE

FROM EACH MARKET, ONLY ONE OR

POTENTIALLY TWO BROADBAND

PROVIDERS?

I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT

PROBLEM.

IF THERE WERE A GREATER

PROLIFERATION OF COMPETITION --

I THINK WE WOULD REVISIT

THIS, YES.

WE MIGHT NOT NEED NET

NEUTRALITY?

WE WOULD REVISIT WHETHER IT'S

NECESSARY.

THAT DOES MAKE SENSE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE FREQUENTLY

SEE POINTED OUT BY PEOPLE

ADVOCATING FOR NET NEUTRALITY IS

THIS IDEA THAT THERE WOULD FORM

CARTELS OF RELATIONSHIPS OF

PEOPLE ACROSS INDUSTRIES.

SO THERE WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WHO

-- THERE WOULD BE THE BROADBAND

PROVIDERS WHO LIKED NETFLIX AND

THE ONES WHO LIKED YOUTUBE.

RIGHT.

AND THAT IF YOU WERE WITH

ONE, YOU WOULD GET ONE SERVICE

MORE QUICKLY AND IF YOU WERE

WITH THE OTHER -- IS THERE ANY

EVIDENCE FOR THAT?

I THINK THERE IS DISCUSSION

SOME OF THAT IS STARTING TO

HAPPEN.

IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE YOU FROM

REACHING THE OTHER.

BUT WE'RE ALL SUPER IMPATIENT.

THAT CIRCLE OF DEATH COMES UP ON

YOUR SCREEN AND I DON'T KNOW

ABOUT YOU, BUT I'M SURPRISED

ABOUT HOW SWIFTLY I CLICK OFF

THAT AND TRY TO FIND SOMETHING

ELSE.

EVEN THE SLOWEST BITS OF

THROTTLING CAN CHANGE CONSUMER

BEHAVIOR.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WHAT YOU

JUST DESCRIBED IS ALSO REAL OVER

TIME CORROSIVE FOR

ENTREPRENEURSHIP.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO FIND A WAY

TO GET INTO THE MARKETPLACE WHEN

IT'S BEEN DIVIED UP BETWEEN

THESE MAJOR PROVIDERS?

IT'S MORE LIKE ORDERING YOUR

CABLE SERVICE, WHERE YOU CHOOSE

CHANNELS.

I THINK THE GREATER CONCERN OVER

TIME IS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND

THE INABILITY TO DEVELOP NEW

SERVICES THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO

AFFORD THE PREMIUM THAT IS PAID

FROM THOSE SWEET SPEEDS.

I SUPPOSE THAT CREATES AN

OBSTACLE FOR THE ARGUMENT FOR

NET NEUTRALITY.

BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT

FOR MOST PEOPLE TO IMAGINE THE

WORLD A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IT IS

RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY.

HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THAT?

YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD.

I CAN POINT BACK TO A WHOLE

BUNCH OF SMALL EPISODES, WHERE

VOICE-OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL

PROVIDER WAS DENIED SERVICE.

ANOTHER TIME WHEN GOOGLE WALLET

AND FACE TIME WERE NOT AVAILABLE

ON CERTAIN SERVICES.

BUT THE TRUTH IS, WITH CONSUMER

PRESSURE AND NET NEUTRALITY LAWS

IN PLACE, WE WERE ABLE TO

OVERRIDE THOSE.

ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, I

THINK MY AGENCY HAS DENIED

ITSELF THE AUTHORITY TO FIX

THOSE PROBLEMS AND I HAVE

CONCERN THAT ABSENT OUR PRESSURE

COMBINED WITH CONSUMER PRESSURE,

IT WON'T BE SO EASY TO DO SO IN

THE FUTURE.

ONE CHALLENGE GIVEN PEOPLE IN

THE ROOM HERE, EVERYONE HERE HAS

ACCESS TO REALLY HIGH SPEED

TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH THE

UNIVERSITY.

IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP IN THE

UNITED STATES, SOME OF THE BEST

BROADBAND IS IN BIG UNIVERSITY

TOWNS.

RESEARCH.

THE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE.

YOU ALL USE IT IN WAYS THAT ARE

NOT AVAILABLE TO SO MANY OTHER

PLACES IN THE COUNTRY.

IT'S ALMOST HARD TO FATHOM.

BUT I'VE BEEN IN SCHOOLS WHERE

STUDENTS CAN'T ALL GET ONLINE AT

THE SAME TIME TO TAKE SOME

STANDARDIZED TESTS BECAUSE WE'LL

OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM.

I'VE BEEN IN TOWNS WHERE THERE

ARE KIDS WHO ARE SITTING OUTSIDE

THE LIBRARY LATE AT NIGHT

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET SERVICE

UP THE ROAD WHERE THEY'RE AT

HOME.

JUST TO GET ONLINE.

THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING IN

THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW.

I FEEL LIKE IF WE CAN CREATE

THIS ABUNDANCE HERE, WE MUST BE

ABLE TO FIGURE OUT SUPPORT

SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES TO HELP

GET IT EVERYWHERE.

THE ONLY TIME I NOTICE A REAL

DRAG ON THE SYSTEM IS DURING

FOOTBALL GAMES.

OH, MY GOSH.

MAYBE YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE.

SO I THINK A RARE THING HAS

HAP

HAPPENED, MAYBE IT WON'T BE RARE

IN THE FUTURE.

LOTS OF AMERICANS NOW KNOW THE

NAME OF THE CHAIR OF THE FCC.

I KNOW.

WHAT'S THAT LIKE?

ISN'T THAT STRANGE?

I THINK THAT'S STRANGE.

I LIKE A LITTLE ANOMITY.

ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, IT'S OKAY.

ON ANOTHER LEVEL, I THINK THAT'S

TERRIFIC.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE JUST

MAKING DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC

INPUT.

WE'LL GET SOME BIG INDUSTRY OVER

HERE THAT WANTS THIS.

MAYBE AN INDUSTRY ON THE OTHER

SIDE THAT WANTS THAT.

BUT WHAT'S TERRIFIC RIGHT NOW IS

THAT THE PUBLIC IS STARTING TO

UNDERSTAND THE WORK OF THE

AGENCY AND THEY'RE SPEAKING UP.

THEY'RE LETTING US KNOW.

AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON

PUBLIC SECTOR ACTORS LIKE MYSELF

TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TALK ABOUT

THESE THINGS WITHOUT DROWNING IT

IN INDUSTRY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE

AND ACADEMIC TERMS AND FIGURING

OUT HOW TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE.

SO THAT A BROADER SWATH OF THE

UNITED STATES GETS TO

PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION

MAKING IN WASHINGTON.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT.

SO THERE IS UPSIDE TO PEOPLE

KNOWING WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE

DO.

IT LEAVES ME EXCITED TO REALIZE

THAT THAT IS TRUE.

WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT

HERE.

EVEN THOUGH YOU PREFER A MORE

ANONYMOUS APPROACH.

BUT I THINK IT IS REALLY

IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE

TO ENGAGE.

RIGHT.

I'M WONDERING, HAVE YOU

NOTICED WILL THERE BE ANY --

BECAUSE YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT

AGAINST THE POSTURE THAT YOUR

COLLEAGUES TOOK.

DOES THAT CREATE CONSEQUENCES?

SURE.

I MEAN, PEOPLE -- GO IN ANY

ROOM, SOMEONE IS GOING TO LIKE

YOU BETTER IF YOU AGREE WITH

THEM.

THAT'S THE WAY THINGS GO.

I LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN

WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO SPEAK OUT

CONSISTENTLY ON THE THINGS THAT

YOU THINK ARE MOST WRONG.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

SO I BROUGHT US TO THE

DISCUSSION OF CHAIRMAN, AND I'M

INTERESTED IN NEWS THAT TOOK

PLACE RECENTLY RECENTLY.

BOTH HOUSES IN CALIFORNIA PASSED

A NET NEUTRALITY LIKE BILL FOR

CALIFORNIA.

AND WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF

WEEKS, ACTUALLY, WITHIN THE LAST

COUPLE OF DAYS, CHAIRMAN PI TOOK

A STRONG POSITION AGAINST THAT

CALIFORNIA WAS ILLEGALLY TOUTING

LAW.

WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE

PROPOSAL?

HE IS A NICE INDIVIDUAL.

I HAVE PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL

DISAGREEMENTS WITH HIM ON SOME

THINGS LIKE THIS.

WITH RESPECT TO CALIFORNIA, I

THINK I ALLUDED BEFORE, I'M

EXCITED, I SEE DEMOCRACY IN

ACTION, IN STATE LEGISLATURES

GETTING INVOLVED.

I DO THINK THE FCC IS IN A

STRANGE LEGAL POSITION WHEN IT

COMES TO ISSUES WITH PREEMPTION

WITH THE STATE.

AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A LAW

DEGREE TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

BUT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT

PREEMPTION FOR A SECOND.

THE AGENCY IN ITS DECISION LATE

LAST YEAR SAID WE DON'T HAVE

AUTHORITY.

WE MADE A MISTAKE BEFORE TO HAVE

THESE NET NEUTRALITY RULES.

I'M GOING TO ROLL THEM BACK.

WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THIS

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

IF THE POSITION IS YOU DON'T

HAVE AUTHORITY, YOU DON'T HAVE

THE RIGHT TO THEN GO TELL THE

STATES THEY TOO DON'T HAVE

AUTHORITY.

BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF YOU

CHOOSING TO EXIT THIS AREA OF

THE LAW, YOU DON'T GET THE RIGHT

TO PREEMPT OTHERS.

AND I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME

COGN

COGNITIVE DISIDENCE IN THAT

POSITION.

IT NEEDS EXPLAINING.

I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT

REALLY WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT.

I WAS WONDERING WHETHER HE WAS

GOING TO MAKE A KIND OF FIRST

AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, THAT SOMEHOW

THIS WAS GOING TO BE A

CONSTRAINT ON THE ABILITY OF

CORPORATIONS TO FACILITATE

COMMUNICATIONS IN SOME WAY,

WHERE A STATE LIKE CALIFORNIA

MIGHT OVERSTEP.

I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT.

I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT

COMMERCE CLAUSE.

WE'RE NOW LIVING IN A UNIVERSE

WHERE THESE INTERSTATE NETWORKS

ARE SO IMPORTANT TO WHAT WE DO.

AND THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE

HAVE A MIX OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY

AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION

THAT MANAGES THESE KIND OF

SERVICES.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE

DIGITAL AGE JURIS PRUDENCE TO

FULLY MANAGE THAT RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I SEE HIS

POSITION, HE'S TRYING TO

ARTICULATE.

WE MIGHT COME OUT IN DIFFERENT

PLACES ON IT.

BUT I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE AND

I RESPECT THAT HE HAS CONCERNS

ABOUT IT

BEFORE WE LEAVE NET

NEUTRALITY, I WAS WONDERING IF

YOU MIGHT HELP THE AUDIENCE AT

LEAST BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE YOUR

VIEW IN A PITHY WAY.

HOW WOULD YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR

VIEW SO WHEN PEOPLE GO HOME FOR

DINNER, I JUST WENT TO THIS

AMAZING TALK TODAY, I LOVE

SEEING GOVERNMENT IN ACTION,

HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED?

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO

WHERE YOU WANT AND DO WHAT YOU

WANT WITHOUT YOUR BROADBAND

PROVIDER MAKING CHOICES FOR YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

ALMOST BUMPER STICKER.

I EXPECT WE'LL GET QUESTIONS

ABOUT THAT.

IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I WANT TO

STROLL INTO A FEW OTHER AREAS.

THE FCC HAS THOUGHT FOR AT LEAST

MEDIA.

AND I'VE NOTICED A CHANGE OF

LATE IN THAT POSTURE.

AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOU

COULD UNPACK THAT ISSUE FOR US A

LITTLE BIT AND THEN TALK ABOUT

WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.

YEAH.

LOOK, MEDIA HAS CHANGED.

THERE WAS A TIME SOME PEOPLE IN

THIS ROOM ARE TOO YOUNG TO

RECALL, WHEN YOU GOT THE NEWS IN

THE MORNING AND NEWS PRINT ON

YOUR DOORSTEP.

AND IF YOU WANTED THE NEWS AT

NIGHT, YOU TURNED ON THE TV.

AND THREE GUYS WITH REALLY GOOD

HAIR COULD DELIVER IT TO YOU.

AND THAT WAS IT.

I MEAN, I CAN'T FATHOM THAT NOW.

WE EXPECT TO GET WHATEVER

INFORMATION WE WANT, WHEREVER WE

WANT IT, ON ANY SCREEN HANDY.

THAT CYCLE IS EXHAUSTING.

BUT IT'S ALSO CHANGED THE MEDIA

BUSINESS.

AND IN MANY WAYS, FCC POLICY,

WHICH OVERSEES CABLE SYSTEMS AND

BROADCAST STATIONS STRUGGLES TO

KEEP UP.

BUT I THINK THAT YOU CAN HAVE

DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO THAT.

AND OF LATE, THE FCC'S RESPONSE

HAS BEEN WELL, WE SHOULD LET

THERE BE MORE CONSOLIDATION.

BECAUSE THESE OLDER FORMS OF

MEDIA NEED MORE HEFT AND SCALE

TO COMPETE WITH EVERYTHING THAT

IS NEW.

I UNDERSTAND THE THINKING BEHIND

THAT RESPONSE, BUT I ULTIMATELY

REJECT IT.

I THINK WE NEED MORE COMPETITION

AMONG NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT

HAVE JOURNALISTS THAT GO DIG

STUFF UP.

AND I'M WORRIED THAT DESPITE ALL

OF THE COMMENTARY THAT WE HAVE

OUT THERE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE

LESS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES

TO LOCAL NEWS.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE

CONSOLIDATION THAT WE HAVE

ALLOWED AMONG BROADCASTING.

THOUGH I RESPECT THAT THEIR

MODEL NEEDS UPDATING FOR DIGITAL

TIMES.

SO THE CONCERN THE FCC HAD

HAD ABOUT CONSOLIDATION WAS THAT

IF THERE WERE TOO MANY MEDIA

OUTLETS IN A LOCAL AREA,

CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PARTY,

THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH

DIVERSITY.

GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

SO JUST IMAGINE A MARKET,

WE'LL SAY DETROIT, SO THERE USED

TO BE POLICIES THAT SAID THE

NEWSPAPER COULDN'T OWN ANY OF

THE TELEVISION STATIONS OR RADIO

STATIONS.

THERE USED TO BE POLICIES THAT

SAID NO COMPANY COULD OWN LIKE

HALF THE STATIONS IN THE MARKET.

THERE USED TO BE POLICIES THAT

RESTRICTED OWNING SIMULTANEOUSLY

THE NEWSPAPER HALF THE STATIONS,

AND THE RADIO STATIONS.

WE GOT RID OF THEM.

LOCAL MEDIA IS STRUGGLING.

WE SHOULD LET THEM ACHIEVE MORE

SCALE.

THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT

THAT THAT MIGHT HELP THEM.

I THINK YOUR OBJECTIVE ISN'T SO

MUCH HELPING THEM.

YOUR OBJECTIVE IS HOW DO YOU

SUSTAIN DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS.

THE HEALTHIEST ECONOMIES AND

CIVIL SOCIETIES ARE ONES WITH

MANY VIEWPOINTS AND BY REDUCING

THE NUMBER OF OWNERS OF SOME OF

THOSE STATIONS, NEWSPAPERS, I

DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE

CONTRIBUTED TO DIVERSIFYING NEWS

POINTS.

WE'VE JUST CONSOLIDATED THEM.

WELL, I GUESS WHAT DO YOU

THINK ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT

STEPS ALONG THOSE LINES?

AND HOW SHOULD WE BE THINKING

ABOUT GOVERNMENT STEPPING IN IN

THIS INSTANCE?

WELL, THERE ARE CONGRESSIONAL

LAWS THAT CONSTRAIN A COMPANY

FROM NATIONALLY OWNING I THINK

IT'S 39 PERCENT BROADCAST REACH

FOR TELEVISION HOUSEHOLDS.

AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT

WHETHER OR NOT THAT THRESHOLD

SHOULD BE RAISED.

THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT

WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS SHOULD

DO IT OR THE FCC SHOULD DO IT.

ALL OF THIS MIGHT FEEL REAL AT A

DISTANCE FROM YOUR REALITY.

BUT ALL OF THIS SORT OF FEEDS

INTO THE SYSTEM OF JOURNALISM

FOR WHICH WE GET LOCAL NEWS.

FOR ALL OF THE DIVERSITY OF

RESOURCES THAT WE REACH OUT TO

TODAY, ALL OF THE DATA SUGGESTS

MOST AMERICANS STILL GET THEIR

LOCAL NEWS FROM TELEVISION AND

RADIO.

WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THOSE

RESOURCES REMAIN STRONG.

LEARNING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN

OUR COMMUNITY REALLY HELPS US BE

GOOD CITIZENS.

OVER THE LAST YEAR, I'M

SHIFTING TO SOMETHING ELSE,

WE'VE HEARD THE PRESIDENT

SUGGEST THE POSSIBILITY OF

REVOKING THE LICENSE OF A

PARTICULAR MEDIA COMPANY.

NBC IN PARTICULAR.

PURPORTEDLY THIS IS BECAUSE

THERE IS CRITICISM, MAYBE IT'S

FELT THAT THAT CRITICISM IS

UNWARRANTED OF THE PRESIDENT OR

THE ADMINISTRATION.

THAT'S COME UP A NUMBER OF

TIMES.

HOW REALISTIC IS THAT KIND OF A

THREAT AND I GUESS I'M HOPING

THAT YOU CAN UNPACK THAT FOR US

AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND A

DIPLOMATIC WAY TO DO THIS.

LET ME TAKE YOU BACK ABOUT A

YEAR AGO, WHEN I THINK THAT

THREAT WAS FIRST THROWN OVER IN

THE TWITTER-SPHERE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY FUNNY.

I BROUGHT IN A NEW MEDIA POLICY

ADVISOR THAT DAY OR THE DAY

BEFORE.

AND I DID WHAT I NORMALLY DO IN

THE MORNING, WHICH IS LIKE DRINK

TOO MUCH COFFEE, COMB THROUGH MY

E-MAIL AND SEE WHAT NEWS IS

AVAILABLE ON TWITTER.

SEE SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAS

WRITTEN.

IT'S NOT RIGHT ON SO MANY

LEVELS.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS.

WE DON'T LICENSE NETWORKS.

WE ONLY LICENSE INDIVIDUAL

STATIONS.

I TOOK A SWIG OF MY COFFEE AND

JUST PECKED OUT ON TWITTER IN

RESPONSE.

I THINK MY OFFICE THOUGHT I WAS

DRINKING SOMETHING STRONGER THAN

COFFEE.

AND I WROTE NOT HOW THAT WORKS.

I LINKED TO THE 34-PAGE SINGLE

SPACE FCC MANUAL ON BROADCAST

LICENSING.

IT'S TRUE.

AND SOMEWHERE OVER THE MORNING

IT'S LIKE THOUSANDS AND

THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE.

SUDDENLY LIKE THESE CABLE NEWS

NETWORKS ARE ON THE PHONE, WILL

YOU COME AND TALK ABOUT THIS.

WILL YOU COME AND TALK ABOUT

THIS.

BUT IN MANY WAYS, I THINK IT WAS

A STORY ABOUT WHAT'S TO COME.

ANTAGONISM TOWARDS THE NEWS.

I THINK IT'S TROUBLING BECAUSE

IT'S NOT POLITICIANS CRITICIZING

THE NEWS MEDIA.

THAT'S AS OLD AS TIME.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY DESCRIBED THE

NEWS AS HIS NATURAL ENEMIES.

THERE IS NO SHORTAGE IN OUR

HISTORY WHERE YOU SEE

ADMINISTRATIONS COMPLAINING

ABOUT NEWS AND JOURNALISTS.

SO LET'S TREAT THAT AS SOMETHING

THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON.

BUT WHAT WORRIES ME MOST IS WHEN

YOU HAVE GOVERNMENT USE THE

TOOLS OF ITS POWER TO TRY TO

CHECK ON THE MEDIA THAT COVERS

WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ABUSING

THAT POWER AND THAT YOU DON'T

WANT GOVERNMENT USING ITS TOOLS

TO PREVENT MEDIA FROM SERVING AS

A CHECK ON POWER.

YOU WANT MEDIA TO HAVE THE

ABILITY TO COVER.

AND I THINK IN THAT THREAT TO

TAKE AWAY LICENSE, UNFOCUSED

INACCURATE AND WRONG, I THINK

YOU SEE THAT PROBLEM.

AND THAT LEAVES ME CONCERNED.

SO IN THE 2016 ELECTION, DATA

CAME OUT, AND SOMEWHERE AROUND

VOTED.

SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

I KNOW THE NUMBERS VARY A LITTLE

BIT, DEPENDING UPON WHICH STUDY

YOU LOOK AT.

BUT IT SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE,

MAYBE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM,

FEEL DISENFRANCHISED AND DON'T

FEEL A PART OF WE THE PEOPLE

MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN OUR

PROCESS.

EVEN IN THE VOTING BOOTH.

AS PEOPLE ARE THINKING, IN THIS

ROOM ARE THINKING ABOUT TRYING

TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I'M

WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS,

MAYBE THEY HAVE STRONG VIEWS

ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY.

MAYBE THEIR VIEWS HAVE EVOLVED

SINCE THE DISCUSSION STARTED.

WHAT CAN THEY DO TO MAKE A

DIFFERENCE?

AND ALSO, HOW CAN THEY FEEL AS

IF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING

MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE OF MAKING A

DIFFERENCE?

YEAH.

WELL, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR

ANYONE'S CYNICISM.

I'M A PUBLIC SERVIENT.

I'M AN IMPATIENT OPTIMIST.

YOU GOT TO DECIDE, IF YOU DON'T

SPEAK UP, WHO WILL?

IF YOU DON'T VOTE, WHO WILL.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER TO

BUILD A MOVEMENT.

WE HAVE THIS ONLINE RECESS, THE

INTERNET, THAT PART OF THIS IS

ABOUT.

WE'VE GOT A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE

AND MAKE NOISE NOW THAT IS

UNPRECEDENTED IN HUMAN HISTORY.

I THINK AS CITIZENS WE NEED TO

USE IT.

I DON'T WANT TO BE LOBBIED BY

THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN

WASHINGTON.

I WANT TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE THINK

IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY.

AND I THINK THERE IS NOTHING

STOPPING EVERYONE HERE FROM

HAVING A BIGGER VOICE IN

WASHINGTON.

JUST GOT TO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE

IT.

WELL, THAT'S GREAT.

I CAN SEE THAT WE GOT A WHOLE

BUNCH OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME IN.

I WANT TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY

TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND SO I WILL TEE IT UP TO OUR

STUDENT TEAM TO TAKE THE VOICE

OF THE PEOPLE.

HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON.

MY NAME IS JACKSON BOSS.

I'M A STUDENT HERE AT THE FORD

SCHOOL AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE

STPP CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ALSO

HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL.

I'M LINDSEY, CHEMISTRY PH.D.

CANDIDATE.

WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FROM

THE CROWD.

YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER IN

ONE OF YOUR ANSWERS, LAST MILE

INTERNET ISSUE.

THE NUMBER THE PERSON HERE GAVE

IS 30 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT

RELIABLE HIGH SPEED INTERNET.

I'VE HEARD MUCH HIGHER NUMBERS.

I'VE HEARD VARYING NUMBERS.

BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS

PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT RURAL, TRIBAL

LANDS AND ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO

LIVE IN URBAN AREAS, WHO ALSO

DON'T HAVE RELIABLE ACCESS TO

HIGH SPEED INTERNET, WHAT NEEDS

TO BE DONE TO CONNECT THESE

PEOPLE?

AND THE SECOND PART OF THIS

QUESTION IS, WOULD THIS GAP

EXIST OR WOULD THIS GAP BE A BIG

A PROBLEM IF WE TREATED THE

INTERNET MORE LIKE A TRADITIONAL

UTILITY?

SO MY NUMBERS FROM MY AGENCY,

BROADBAND.

THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE.

YOU DON'T HAVE A FAIR SHOT AT

MODERN LIFE.

MOST OF THEM ARE IN RURAL

AMERICA.

BUT NOT ALL OF THEM.

SOME OF THEM ARE IN URBAN

COMMUNITIES.

IF YOU ASK ME, ONE OF THE THINGS

WE SHOULD DO AS A NATION WITH

MORE ACCURACY AND AGGRESSION IS

SOMETHING PRETTY SIMPLE.

WE NEED TO MAP WHERE 
THE

BROADBAND IS.

WE ACTIVELY HOLD UP OUR PHONES

AND REPORT HOW MANY BARS WE HAD.

WHAT IF WE CROWD SOURCED ALL OF

THAT INFORMATION.

WE HAD IT WITH GREATER ACCURACY.

BECAUSE IF WE DID, WE WOULD KNOW

WITH SOME PRECISION WHERE

SERVICE IS NOT.

AND WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGIES.

ARE YOU DEALING WITH A COMMUNITY

THAT IS SO FAR OUT THAT WE'RE

GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT OTHER

TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES TO

REACH THEM.

I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT

PART OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE

SUCCESS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

ONE OF YOU COULD START

BROADBAND FOR US.

I LIKE IT.

ALL RIGHT.

SO ANOTHER QUESTION, WHAT IS THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET

NEUTRALITY AND THE PRIVACY OF

CONSUMER CONTENT, INCLUDING

METADATA ABOUT SOURCE AND

DESTINATION AND NOT JUST THE

CONTENT?

GOOD QUESTION.

YOU CAN WATCH IN REALTIME

CONGRESS TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

TO DO WITH PRIVACY POLICY AND

YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS

CONTEMPORANEOUSLY.

CALIFORNIA JUST PASSED ANOTHER

BILL.

THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE IN

WASHINGTON TO IDENTIFY WHAT

MODERN PRIVACY POLICY WILL LOOK

LIKE.

NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE FCC,

THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF

RELATIONSHIP.

IT DOES NOT TOUCH ON THE SOCIAL

MEDIA PLATFORMS.

BUT CONGRESS, AT THE START OF

MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT BROADBAND

PRIVACY.

THAT WAS REGRETTABLE.

SO NOW I'M LEFT WITH A LOT OF

AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS

ABOUT TELEPHONE CALL PRIVACY,

BUT NOT BROADBAND PRIVACY.

I HOPE, NO MATTER WHERE WE GO OR

WHAT WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO COME

UP WITH POLICIES THAT ARE SIMPLE

ENOUGH, ALL OF US CAN UNDERSTAND

THEM.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, DESPITE WHAT

I DO PROFESSIONALLY, IF YOU READ

THROUGH THE PRIVACY POLICY ON

ANY INDIVIDUAL WEBSITE, IT'S

TORTURE.

AND I DO THIS PROFESSIONALLY.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW YOU'RE ASKED

TO TICK A BOX AND IF YOU DON'T

READ IT, YOU CAN GET FREE

SHIPPING.

THERE IT GOES.

DESPITE THAT DESCRIPTION OF MY

ONLINE ORDERING, MY HOPE IS THAT

WE CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO ALIGN

OUR PRIVACY POLICY ACROSS

SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY.

SO THAT WHATEVER YOU EXPECT FROM

A WEBSITE HAS SOMETHING TO DO

WITH WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM YOUR

BROADBAND PROVIDER.

AND IS SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT NONE

OF US NEED TO BE ENGINEERS OR

LAWYERS TO UNDERSTAND IT.

WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS

THAT I THINK ARE PARTICULAR

INTEREST TO PEOPLE HERE IN

MICHIGAN.

DSRC AND CONNECTED VEHICLES.

ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS IS

WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET OF

THINGS AND CONNECTED DEVISES AND

VEHICLES CHANGES THE

CONVERSATION AROUND NET

NEUTRALITY.

THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ABOUT

WHEN IS THE FCC PLANNING TO

DECIDE BETWEEN 5G?

THE

FCC DREAMED UP THIS

TECHNOLOGY 1999 OR SET ASIDE

SPECTRUM FOR IN 1999.

A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN 1999.

IF YOU TOLD ME ABOUT

SELF-DRIVING CARS BACK THEN, I

WOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED YOU.

THINGS BEING TESTED HERE.

WE'RE USING RADAR AND CAMERAS

AND ALL OF THESE NEW KIND OF

SPECTRUM BANDS TO TRY TO FIGURE

OUT HOW TO HAVE CARS TALK TO ONE

ANOTHER.

IT'S ACTUALLY EXTREMELY EXCITING

FOR THIS REGION OF THE COUNTRY

AND FOR ANYONE WHO IS ON THE

ROAD.

THE QUESTIONS ARE, DOES THAT OLD

SERVICE FROM 1999 STILL HAVE

VIABILITY.

ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD,

IT'S GOING TO BE A FEW DECADES

BEFORE WE COULD HAVE DSRC IN

EVERY CAR.

SO THE QUESTION IS BETWEEN NOW

AND THEN, WHAT SHOULD OUR

SPECTRUM POLICY BE?

I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

MOST NATIONS HAVE SET ASIDE LESS

SPECTRUM FOR DSRC.

I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE

COULD LOOK AT THAT BAND AND TRY

TO SEE IF WE COULD ACCOMMODATE

SOME PORTION OF IT FOR WI-FI.

SOME PORTION OF IT FOR AUTO

SAFETY.

AT THE VERY LEAST, WE SHOULD

START TESTING IN THE LAB TO SEE

IF THOSE THINGS ARE VIABLE.

ABOVE ALL, I DON'T THINK WE

SHOULD SACRIFICE SAFETY.

BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN LEAVE

OUR SPECTRUM POLICIES STRANDED

IN 1999.

I THINK THAT THE GOAL HERE IS

NOT TO DECIDE WHERE WE'RE

HEADING, BUT TO DO SMART TESTS

IN THE LAB TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND

WHAT MODERN AUTO SAFETY

TECHNOLOGY LOOKS LIKE WITH THIS

SPECTRUM AND WHETHER OR NOT

THERE CAN BE OTHER USES THAT ARE

NEARBY.

SHOULD WE BE NARROWING THE

SPECTRUM OF ANY PARTICULAR

INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW?

THAT'S A LOADED QUESTION.

BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH

SPECTRUM, RIGHT?

WE HAVE CHOICES TO MAKE.

AND YOU TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY

EXPANDING SOME.

WHERE WOULD WE CUT?

OKAY.

SO THIS IS THE TWO-MINUTE

VERSION OF THE HISTORY OF

SPECTRUM REGULATION.

READY?

WE USED TO SET ASIDE OUR

AIRWAVES, THINK OF IT AS ZONING,

HERE YOU CAN DO THIS, YOU CAN

BROADCAST ONLY.

HERE YOU CAN DO THIS FOR AUTO

SAFETY.

YOU CAN DO THIS FOR RADIO.

BUT THEN WE DECIDED YOU KNOW

WHAT, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO LESS OF

THAT SETTING ASIDE FOR A

SPECIFIC PURPOSE.

MAYBE I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERY

AIRWAVE SHOULD BE USED FOR AND

WE SHOULD START AUCTIONING OFF

FOR FLEXIBLE USE.

AS LONG AS WE CAN MANAGE

INTERFERENCE, CAN WE LET THE

MARKETPLACE FIGURE IT OUT.

THAT WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL

BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE A MOBILE

DEVICE IN YOUR POCKET.

AND IT'S BASED ON THAT

PRINCIPLE.

NOW GOING FORWARD, THE PROBLEM

IS OH, MY GOSH, EVERYONE WANTS

SOME.

YOU'VE GOT THESE LAWS OF

PHYSICS.

CAN YOU OVERWHELM THEM AND

SUDDENLY DO MORE WITH OUR

AIRWAVES.

WE'RE EXPERIMENTING WITH HIGH

AIRWAVES THAT HAVE LOTS OF

CAPACITY.

WE REQUIRE MANY MORE MICRO

TOWERS.

I THINK WE HAVE TO GET MUCH MORE

CREATIVE ABOUT SHARING AND COME

UP WITH THINGS LIKE DYNAMIC

FREQUENCY SHARING.

THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, INSTEAD

OF SAYING THIS SPECTRUM IS FOR

YOUR WIRELESS PHONE USES, AND

THIS IS FOR WI-FI.

WHAT IF WE CREATED LIKE A

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS, SAID THIS

IS SUCH A PRIORITY AND INVOLVES

SAFETY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, YOU

GET PREEMPTIVE RIGHT.

IF SOMEONE IS NOT USING IT,

MAYBE WE CAN LICENSE OFF A

SECONDARY RIGHT.

AND THEN OPPORTUNISTIC USE FOR

WI-FI.

IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT GOING

TO EXPAND THE PHYSICS.

BUT CAN WE BE MORE EFFICIENT

WITH THE WAYS WE DISTRIBUTE OUR

AIRWAVES.

WE COULD DO THAT WITH DATABASES

OR WE COULD LOOK AT NEW

DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGIES

LIKE BLOCK CHAIN.

THAT'S SUPER BUZZY.

BUT I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO

HAVE TO START EVOLVING SPECTRUM

POLICY TO THINK ABOUT IT.

BUT WE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THERE IS

PUBLIC SAFETY USES THAT ARE

GOING TO BE PRIMARY.

BUT MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH

SYSTEMS OF RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT

EXCLUSIVELY YOU OR THEM BUT

CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL OF

US TO QUITE LITERALLY SHARE THE

ROAD.

AT TIMES THEN, IN THE HYBRID

MODEL WHERE LOTS OF US ARE USING

THE SAME FREQUENCIES, I MIGHT

GET THROTTLED BACK?

WELL, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE

TERMS OF USE.

YOU KNOW, SPECTRUM THAT WOULD

MANAGE YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN

THOSE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE

DIFFERENT.

AND WHEN YOU USE UNLICENSED

SPECTRUM, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF

YOU USE THE TWO DOT FOUR TO

CONNECT, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE

EXPECTATION THAT YOU FALL OFF

THE WI-FI.

THERE ARE DIFFERENT SERVICES

THAT YOU BUILD DIFFERENT

EXPECTATIONS FOR.

NEAT.

OUR NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT IS

YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON LOCAL

PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND, SUCH

AS WHAT'S IN CHATTANOOGA AND

WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT

COULD PLAY IN ENSURING AN

ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN INTERNET?

GREAT QUESTION.

WHAT'S THE FUTURE OF MUNICIPAL

BROADBAND.

HALF THE STATES IN THIS COUNTRY,

THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS

PROHIBITED IT.

I THINK IT'S REGRETTABLE.

IT'S NOT THAT IT'S EASY OR THE

RIGHT SOLUTION FOR EVERY

JURISDICTION, IT'S EXPENSIVE TO

FINANCE, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN

A NETWORK.

THERE IS A REASON THAT THERE ARE

EXPERTS IN THAT.

IT'S HARD STUFF.

AND EVERY CITY OR STATE MAY NOT

BE UP TO THAT TASK.

WE'VE GOT SOME COMMUNITIES IN

THIS COUNTRY THAT FEEL THAT THEY

DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE BROADBAND

SERVICE.

IT'S LIKE THE TRAIN PASSING THEM

BY IN ANOTHER ERA.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO

SUSTAIN THEIR ECONOMIC FUTURE IF

THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING.

AND IF THEIR INCLINATION IS TO

COME TOGETHER TO BUILD ROADS OR

BRIDGES OR BARNS, MAYBE IT'S

BROADBAND IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT

WITH THAT.

AND I THINK FOR THOSE WHO FEEL

LIKE THE DIGITAL ERA IS PASSING

THEM BY, I THINK IT'S

UNFORTUNATE THAT THE STATE LAWS

LARGELY PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING

SO.

ALL RIGHT.

DELVING BACK INTO SOME NET

NEUTRALITY RELATED QUESTIONS.

BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL.

WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FROM

PEOPLE I THINK WHO WERE

WONDERING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT

THE ABILITY TO CHARGE FOR

INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO

CHARGE COULD BE OF SOME UTILITY.

SO THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS

BASED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE

ANALOGY, WHAT MAKES A TOLL FOR

AN INTERNET PASSAGE, IF YOU WERE

GOING TO USE THE TOLL TO PAY FOR

CYBER SECURITY DIFFERENT FROM

PAYING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR

EXAMPLE?

AND ALSO, WHY SHOULDN'T

PROVIDERS BE ABLE TO CHARGE A

LITTLE TO DISTRIBUTE THINGS THAT

THEY -- THAT THAT -- SO ONE

EXAMPLE THAT WE GOT IS FOR

PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITES.

WHICH MAKE UP A MASSIVE AMOUNT

OF THE INTERNET.

SHOULDN'T PROVIDERS BE ABLE TO

CHARGE A LITTLE TO DISTRIBUTE

THIS KIND OF STUFF IS THE

QUESTION.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO

ALWAYS COME UP WITH USE CASES

THAT SEEM PLAUSIBLE.

THE PROBLEM IS THE ONES THAT

SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO YOU MAY NOT

SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO THEM OR HIM OR

HER.

WHAT YOU WANT IS THE CONSUMER TO

HAVE FULL CONTROL OF THEIR

ONLINE EXPERIENCE.

WE ARE EXCEEDING A LOT OF

AUTHORITY TO OUR BROADBAND

PROVIDERS TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE

THAT DECISION.

IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY

DON'T HAVE A LOT OF COMPETITION,

I'M NOT SURE THEY WANT TO GIVE

THEM AUTHORITY AND CONTROL AND

NOT HAVE A VOICE IN IT.

BEFORE YOU DIVE INTO THE NEXT

QUESTION, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS

BEFORE, I WANT TO TEASE IT OUT A

LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE WE DON'T

HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL.

RIGHT.

I MEAN, WE HAVE THE SERVICE

PROVIDER THAT WE HAVE.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS,

YOU SHOULD CORRECT ME, PLEASE,

IS IF WE DON'T HAVE NET

NEUTRALITY TO PROVIDE SOME SIGN

POSTS, GUIDANCE, CONSTRAINT, WE

HAVE EVERY REASON TO EXPECT IS

OVER TIME BROADBAND PROVIDERS

WILL DO THINGS THAT CREATE

ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE.

LIKE FORMING RELATIONSHIPS AND

SPEEDING UP SOME TRAFFIC AND

SLOWING DOWN OTHER TRAFFIC.

YES.

I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR US

RIGHT NOW IS WHILE THERE ARE

INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE

DOING THAT, WE HAVEN'T -- EITHER

WE HAVEN'T NOTICED IT THAT MUCH

OR WE'RE JUST COUNTING ON THE

FACT THAT PEOPLE WILL BEHAVE THE

WAY THAT -- OR COMPANIES WILL

BEHAVE THE WAY WE EXPECT THEM

TO.

I THINK IT'S FAIR.

I THINK THIS IS WHY IT'S HARD

TO MAKE THE NET NEUTRALITY

ARGUMENT WHEN YOU'RE SITTING

ACROSS THE TABLE FROM SOMEBODY.

BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING I DON'T

SEE FIRE HERE.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS

EARLIER, THE UNIVERSITY OF

MASSACHUSETTS AND NORTHEASTERN

UNIVERSITY.

THEY'RE NOW DOING TESTING.

AND LOTS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING I

THINK STUDENTS, DOWNLOAD AN APP

TO TRY TO TEST HOW FAST THEY CAN

GET TO CERTAIN VIDEO WEBSITES.

DOES IT INDICATE REASONABLE

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT?

WHICH WOULD ENTAIL TREATING LIKE

SERVICES THE SAME OR DOES IT

INVOLVE SOME KIND OF BIAS FOR OR

AGAINST CERTAIN CONTENT.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN

INTERESTING UNIVERSITY CAMPUS TO

TRY TO DO THAT KIND OF

EXPERIMENTING ON AS WELL.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS

CONSUMERS AND AS CITIZENS, START

PAYING ATTENTION TO THOSE

THINGS.

AND DEVELOPING WAYS TO TEST

WHAT'S HAPPENING.

ANOTHER THINGS I'LL MENTION

ALONG THESE LINES, WHEN YOU

THINK ABOUT HOW WE DON'T HAVE AN

ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT

THIS IS HOW COMPANIES WILL

CONDUCT THEMSELVES, YOU DO HAVE

TO TAKE SOME TIME TO IMAGINE

WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE IF THEY

ALREADY HAVE.

THAT IS IN A WORLD WHERE THEY'RE

UNCONSTRAINED AND NOW WHEN THE

GOVERNMENT COMES IN AND SAYS,

OH, IT TURNS OUT WE'RE SEEING

THE PROBLEMS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE

ANTICIPATED, NOW IT LOOKS A

WHOLE LOT MORE LIKE A TAKING.

BECAUSE THEY'VE INVESTED AND THE

INFRASTRUCTURE HAS CHANGED AND

IT BECOMES DISRUPTIVE

REGULATION.

AS WE'VE TRANSFERRED

OVERSIGHT TO THIS TO THE FEDERAL

TRADE COMMISSION, THEIR TOOL IS

TO TAKE SOMEONE TO COURT.

I'VE AT LEAST GOT SORT OF THE

ABILITY TO MAKE RULES AND SAY

YOU CAN DO THIS, YOU CAN'T DO

THIS.

BUT TAKING SOMEONE TO COURT IS

ADDRESSING THE HARM AFTER IT'S

OCCURRED.

AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM DOESN'T

MOVE ALL THAT FAST.

IF YOU'RE A SMALL WEBSITE OR A

SMALL BUSINESS, I MEAN, DO YOU

HAVE THE RESOURCE, TIME AND

ENERGY TO COME TO WASHINGTON,

FILE A COMPLAINT, FOLLOW IT UP,

TO IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE SIMILAR

OTHER COMPLAINTS, SO THAT YOU

CAN GO TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO

GET RESOLUTION, TO ME THAT'S

IRRATIONAL FOR SMALL BUSINESSES

IN THIS COUNTRY.

JUST SETTING UP A CLEAR SET OF

RULES WORKS A LOT BETTER FOR

THEM.

IT'S ANOTHER REASON I THINK

THERE IS A PRO BUSINESS SIDE TO

HAVING NET NEUTRALITY RULES IN

PLACE.

IT'S UNDERAPPRECIATED.

WE TALK ABOUT BROADBAND

PROVIDERS AN INFRASTRUCTURE.

BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT

SMALL BUSINESSES RELY ON ONLINE

ACTIVITY AND ONLINE GROWTH IN

WAYS THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND

WE SHOULD SEEK TO CREATE PUBLIC

POLICIES TO GROW.

ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS HERE

THAT ARE KIND OF ALL RELATED TO

THE FAKE NEWS CONVERSATION.

SO DOES THE FCC HAVE ANY ROLE IN

REGULATING ACCURACY AND TRUTH ON

THE INTERNET?

NO.

CHECK THAT ONE OFF.

NO.

IN THE WAKE OF THE NET

NEUTRALITY DISCUSSION, WHY

SHOULDN'T INTERNET SERVICE

PROVIDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO

BLOCK CONCERNING OR OFFENSIVE

CONTENT OR FAKE NEWS AND KIND OF

THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, WHAT ARE

THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT HAVING

NET NEUTRALITY IF THEY DO CHOOSE

TO EXERCISE THAT POWER ON

FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EQUAL

ACCESS INFORMATION?

THE FIRST QUESTION IS EASY.

THE SECOND ONE IS SOPHISTICATED.

YOU KNOW, SO MUCH OF OUR TOWN

SQUARE RIGHT NOW TAKES PLACE

DIGITALLY.

WE HAVE OFFERED A LOT OF CONTROL

AND AUTHORITY TO ONLINE

PLATFORMS.

AND I THINK IT WOULD COMPOUND

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE BY

OFFERING THEM THAT SAME

AUTHORITY TO OUR BROADBAND

PROVIDERS TO CHOOSE WHERE WE CAN

GO AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T

SEE.

EVEN IF OUR AUTHORITY IS

EXERCISED WITH THE BEST OF

INTENTIONS, WE'LL GET RID OF

DISINFORMATION.

WE'LL GET RID OF FAKE NEWS.

I DON'T HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE

THAT THEY CAN EXERCISE THAT

APPROPRIATELY UNDER ALL

CIRCUMSTANCES.

I WORRY ABOUT PROVIDING THEM

WITH THAT AUTHORITY.

AND IT WOULD BE THAT IT

CONSTRAINS ALL OF OUR ABILITY TO

GO OUT AND GET THE INFORMATION

THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

THIS IS WHY WE TEACH CRITICAL

THINKING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF

MICHIGAN.

SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHEN YOU

NEED MORE INFORMATION.

MAYBE IF WE CAN PROLIFERATE A

LITTLE MORE OF THAT, IT WILL BE

PRODUCTIVE FOR SOCIETY.

SOUNDS GOOD.

THIS NEXT QUESTION COMES TO

US FROM TWITTER.

THIS QUESTION CONCERNS CORPORATE

MERGERS SUCH AS AT&T AND

TIME-WARNER, WHERE INTERNET

SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE ALSO

BECOMING CONTENT AND

DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTION

COMPANIES AS WELL.

HOW DOES NET NEUTRALITY CHANGE

THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE KINDS

OF MERGER?

OKAY.

GOOD QUESTION.

I SHOULD SAY AT THE OUTSET, IT

WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

THAT REVIEWED THAT TRANSACTION,

SO I DIDN'T HAVE A ROLE.

WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE

COMBINATION OF DISTRIBUTION AND

COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTENT.

SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WITH

NET NEUTRALITY, THEY COULDN'T

CREATE WAYS IN WAY THAT

DISTRIBUTION WAS BIASED TOWARDS

THEIR OWN CONTENT, BECAUSE THAT

WOULD BE TREATING CONTENT IN A

DISCRIMINATORY WAY.

WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY POLICIES

IN PLACE, THERE IS A LOT OF

CORPORATE INCENTIVE TO MAKE SURE

YOUR NETWORK IS BIASED TOWARDS

THE CONTENT THAT YOUR COMPANY

OWNS.

DOWNLOADS FASTER.

EXEMPT FROM DATA CAPS.

IS OFFERED TO YOU FREE OF

CHARGE.

AND SO YOUR VIEWERSHIP OF IT

MIGHT INCREASE.

AND YOUR VIEWERSHIP OF OTHER

VOICES, OTHER CONTENT MIGHT

DECREASE.

SO I DO THINK THERE IS A NET

NEUTRALITY CONVERSATION TO BE

HAD THERE AND THAT THE

COMBINATION OF CONTENT AND

DISTRIBUTION HAS CONSEQUENCES,

ESPECIALLY IN A WORLD WITHOUT

NET NEUTRALITY IN PLACE.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS KIND OF

PLAYING OFF OF CALIFORNIA'S NET

NEUTRALITY.

BUT ASKING IF THIS WAS FROM THE

INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, DO

YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE AND IS

IT POSSIBLE FUNCTIONALLY AND

LEGALLY FOR AN INTERNET SERVICE

PROVIDER TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO

PROVIDE NET NEUTRALITY TO

CERTAIN CONSUMERS FOR A FEE

BASED ON SOME SORT OF BIAS?

SO THIS WOULD BE A WORLD IN

WHICH NET NEUTRALITY WAS

AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US BUT FOR A

FEE.

I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE

THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, SINCE THE

FCC CHANGED ITS POLICIES.

CALIFORNIA LAW YOU DESCRIBED

WOULD MAKE THAT COMPLEX IN

CALIFORNIA.

I'M PRETTY SURE A COURT IS GOING

TO SORT ALL OF THAT OUT.

NOT ME RIGHT HERE.

BUT YES.

SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF

QUESTIONS ABOUT ENCOURAGING

BROADBAND COMPETITION.

IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT ARE SOME WAYS

THAT BROADBAND COMPETITION COULD

BE ENCOURAGED FROM THE

PERSPECTIVE OF THE FCC, BUT I

THINK MORE IN GENERAL.

WE NEED TO BE IDENTIFYING

EVERY WAY WE CAN ENCOURAGE

COMPETITION.

AND SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY

MUNDANE, BUT.

WHEN YOU RIP UP THE ROADS, YOU

SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE

KNOWS SO THEY CAN LAY DOWN FIBER

FACILITIES AT ONE TIME.

IT ONLY ADDS ONE PERCENT OF THE

COST TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.

BY VIRTUE OF MAKING IT KNOWN TO

EVERYONE THAT THEY CAN LAY FIBER

FACILITIES DOWN, WE CAN

RADICALLY INCREASE THE

LIKELIHOOD.

TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ONGOING ROAD

CONSTRUCTION.

WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO OUR ACCESS

TO TELEPHONE POLES.

AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT THE SEXIEST

ISSUES.

BUT FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE

SURE OTHER PROVIDERS CAN GET

ACCESS TO THEM.

AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN DO

IT WITH A MINIMUM OF

BUREAUCRACY, WILL INCREASE

OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION.

BUT I THINK THE BIGGEST COMES

WITH TECHNOLOGY CHANGE.

BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS BEHIND

NETWORK DEPLOYMENT RIGHT NOW ARE

PRETTY HARD.

IF YOU'VE GOT MILLIONS AND

MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN A SQUARE

MILE, PRETTY CONVINCED THAT THE

COST PER SERVING EVERY ONE OF

THOSE CUSTOMERS IS MANAGEABLE.

YOU MOVE TO A RURAL LOCATION, IT

BECOMES HARDER AND HARDER TO

SERVE ALL OF THOSE CUSTOMERS.

FCC TRIES TO HELP THOSE

PROVIDERS, TO MAKE IT MORE

FINANCIALLY VIABLE.

OVER THE LONG HAUL, WE'RE GOING

TO NEED NEW TECHNOLOGIES.

I DO THINK THAT FIFTH GENERATION

WIRELESS IS PROBABLY GOING TO

HAVE MANY TIMES MORE THE

CAPACITY THAT OUR CURRENT

WIRELESS HAS RIGHT NOW AND WILL

BE COMING MORE VIABLE

COMPETITION TO TRADITIONAL MORE

HOME BROADBAND.

I THINK THAT'S THE MOST EXCITING

THING ON THE LANDSCAPE FOR

BROADBAND COMPETITION.

BUT IT'S NOT SATISFYING.

BECAUSE IT'S STILL FAR OFF.

SO OUR NEXT QUESTION ASKS

ABOUT HOW CLOSELY THE FCC

COMMISSION WORKS WITH NETWORK

ENGINEERS WHEN YOU ARE

DETERMINING YOUR POLICY.

WE DO HAVE A PRETTY BIG

OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND

TECHNOLOGY.

BUT I BELIEVE IT'S NOT BIG

ENOUGH.

I ACTUALLY ADVOCATED FOR SEVERAL

YEARS IN FRONT OF AN

ORGANIZATION THAT THE AGENCY

NEEDS TO START AN ENGINEERING

HONORS PROGRAM.

WHICH IS LIKE GO TO SCHOOLS LIKE

THIS ONE AND SAY CAN WE ENTICE

YOU TO COME FOR A TWO-YEAR TOUR

OF DUTY IN WASHINGTON AS AN

ENGINEER?

AND BRING IN YOUNG ENGINEERS AND

CYCLE THEM THROUGH.

AND MAYBE THEY'LL GO OFF AND DO

OTHER EXCITING THINGS IN

INDUSTRY OVER TIME.

OR THEY'LL CONTINUE IN PUBLIC

SERVICE.

BUT WE'VE GOT TO FIND MORE

ON-RAMPS TO BRING ENGINEERS INTO

GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE BOARD.

WE NEED MORE DIGITAL NATIVES

SERVING IN GOVERNMENT.

WE NEED MORE PEOPLE WHO SEE

OPPORTUNITIES WITH DIGITAL

TECHNOLOGY, AND NOT BUREAUCRATIC

HEADACHES FOR NEW SYSTEMS.

WE NEED MORE.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK THIS WILL BE OUR LAST

QUESTION FOR THE EVENING.

IN YOUR OPINION, COULD INTERNET

ACCESS BE CONSIDERED A HUMAN

RIGHT?

IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE

ARGUMENT FOR THAT?

YEAH.

THIS IS A QUESTION I FEEL LIKE I

GET ASKED FROM TIME TO TIME.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT

SURE HOW YOU CLASSIFY IT.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A FAIR SHOT AT

PROSPERITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE

INTERNET.

I THINK IF WE CAN AGREE ON THAT

PROPOSITION, THAT IS THE MOST

IMPORTANT THING.

SO FIGURING OUT HOW WE GET MORE

PEOPLE CONNECTED IN MORE PLACES

AT HIGHER SPEEDS.

IN WAYS THAT ARE OPEN.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE

TICKET TO OUR CIVIC AND

COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IN THE

FUTURE.

AND IT NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS OF

OUR NATIONAL POLICY MAKERS

ACROSS THE BOARD.

WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'VE BEEN INDULGENT WITH YOUR

TIME AND CONVERSATION.

SUCH GOOD QUESTIONS.

WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT.

THANK YOU.

AND PLEASE JOIN ME IN

THANKING OUR WONDERFUL PANEL.

[APPLAUSE]

WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM HERE

TO A RECEPTION OUTSIDE.

HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE

COMMISSIONER MORE INFORMALLY.

JUST OUTSIDE.

AND HOPE YOU ENJOY IT.

THANK YOU.