she's seen it all and she's brought her legendary attention tod detail to a wide range to a whole bunch of radio and television licensing matters. this is the most fun fact. i didn't know it. she's married to brad berry who finished but worked on the commission's digital discrimination order. that is a powerhouse couple. we are grateful for her 30 years of dedicated public service and we wish pam the very best in a very well-deserved retirement and with that will you please announce the next date for the meeting. >> the next meeting of the federal communications commission is thursday, may 203rd, 2024. >> until then, we stand

adjourned. following the open meeting of the federal communications commission held a news conference from its headquarters in washington, d.c. this press conference with fcc chair jessica rosenworcel and brendan carr runs just under 40 minutes. good afternoon, everyone. if folks could take their

conversations to the lobby, we greatlyre appreciate it. weto are about to get started wh the post conference and as you know we had a pretty lively and lengthy meeting so i would like to give the chair as much time as possible to answer questions for the reporters. with that i welcome the chair. good afternoon. all right. why don't we start with david. i wanted to ask about the effect [inaudible] >> could you please turn on your microphone. >> can you speak to the current

state [inaudible] >> under section 214 of the communications act, the fcc authorizes the provision of communications in the united states. we also have the authority to take away the authorization for providing service, and as youri know in the last several years we took away that authorization from severalrr carriers. during that term however as a result of the past decision making, this agency had no authority over broadband under title ii of the communications act. as a result when we took away the authority from the chinese companies, we were not taking away their authority to bribe broadband in this country. we had evidence of them doing so, including indication on their websites, where they offer service, and we will take those matters and make sure that we investigate them going forward.

>> hi, madame chairwoman. i want to ask about the universal service contribution issue in the draft order it talks about legislative developments possibly taking place and i wonder what your confidence is that that is going to happen in the claimant that congressha is in. >> as you know in the story we made today, we forbear from certain provisions in the law includingin provisions involving universal service assessment. that's the identical approach to the one we've taken in the 2015 decision. we recognize congress is having a big and bipartisan discussion and commend to senator lujan and a senator thune for leading the discussion. i know there are comfortable discussions going on in the house. someone who's beenas doing this for quite some time i think any discussions are more detailed

and expensive than anything i've seen before so i'm optimistic they are going to reach a resolution. >> thank you, chair. when you announce to the vote, you on today's rule signaled that there could be further privacy measures potentially that location data and you mentioned location data again today. can you talk about your plans on that and how to regulate that? >> i think you know that there are outstanding enforcement actions involving the nation's wireless carriers taking location data from their consumers into selling it to third parties. we are looking to resolve those outstanding enforcement actions and that is the first and next step. >> thank you. following up on the cybersecurity section of the order which affects the chinese carriers and also other elements of theme order that cover more

authority to deal with network outage reporting and things like that, with of the adoption of the order when it goes to the federal register does the commission have the authority to fill those gaps o immediately or willau it require further rulemaking's or other processes that might take more time to address these issues? >> we are generally done by the administrative procedures act and have to engage in some additional rulemaking but i think it isso important that the is basic oversight of broadband for things as you mentioned being able to o determine what outages havete occurred, where they've occurred and to help fix them. >> thanks, madame chairwoman. can you help clarify where the thinking is now about what kind of data services are going to be considered exempt from net neutrality especially for 5g it sounds like operators are

especially interested in the next generation video games, counting. >> let's be clear about what broadband internet access services are. that is a product designed for consumers that allows the consumer to reach substantially all points on the internet which is a technocratic way of saying that is the basic broadband that we rely on every day. it's vitally important the service is available. without fast lanes into slow lanes and w you can go where you want and do what you want without your broadband provider makingng decisions for you. we recognize there are new technologies other hand for nonbiased services we know that carriers can explore them. there's a lot of different business opportunities to provide specific services in the future and the enterprise

market. >> how concerned are you at all about anticipated challenges and what is your thought process and a bottle up on the reform i know someon groups have asked the commission if staff in meetings leading up to theo vote to issue any further notice of proposed rulemaking orru a noticed inquiy to seek comment on what the potential reform would look like. i wonder why that wasn't included in today's iodine and if that is something you are considering separately. >> the rules adopted today are court tested and approved. they are very consistent with of thee rules adopted in 2015 uphed by the dc circuit in 2016. i'm confident that these rules will also be upheld and we will look at the universal service reform issues going forward but

again the steps we took today are identical to the ones we took in 2015 and it is vitally important to me that the universal service system does not disproportionately put the burden of support on the average consumer household. >> thank you for taking questions. on the 988 item you talked about the need for privacy is a doconsideration. does that mean from a policy standpoint you don't see the geolocation is that a step too far? where did you see it fitting in at all? >> our work in this area is governed by the relationships that we've built with the department of health and human services and experts on mental health who played out to us the best practices associated with mental health and locating someone in crisis and also state laws that may restrict our ability to do so.

so what we are doing right now, the consensus of the mental health community is putting forward a proposal for geo-routing that would lead to information about the wireless cell tower being used which is different than someone's precise location, and i think that going forward we are going to continue to be guided by the mental health experts who understand the laws and best practices better than we do and that is what got us to this point today to help the 23 million households have been getting services in the program and are now potentially going to face significantly higher bills in those programs. >> i'm very proud of the work the agency did. we have 23 million households

that rely on the connectivity program.og the largest broadband affordability effort in the nation's history. we have broad-based and bipartisan support for the effort to continue to fund it in congress and across the country and i am continuing to make it clear to congress that we have got to continue to fund this program. it's absolutely vitally albino conversations are ongoing with major providers about what will happen if this program falls short if congress doesn't continue to fund it but i think the most important is to continue to press how important this is so they continue to fund it. thank you. claiming that you blocked the deal on the direction or advice of byron allen, did you?

>> with the office of the general counsel. >> thank you. >> thank you madam chair and with that we will be leading the conference. the podium is yours. we will take questions on the items adopted today. if you have any questions on the geolocation item. any notable changes, anything significant from the draft to the item approved today? >> nothing significant. we incorporated new data from the statistics that was a little pressure from when we circulated the letter from the community that we also made reference to

and then there's also the typical book nothing material had changed. >> any questions? >> i have several questions for you so i will start with first if you could talk about any changes to the draft including parts on nonbiased services and national security. >> so, there were as you could imagine a lot of the changes in the draft our clarifications and responses to the ex parte aids that came in but the underlined policy cuts are all the same with the exception of an additional forbearance that was put in at the commissioners suggestion with respect to what was the first example?

okay so there was a clarification around the data services when the item comes out. anything on national security any clarifications? we are going to try to get that item out as quickly as we can. it is a big item. if w there are statements we wil have to integrate from the commissioners and they've committed to saying that those are long statements so we will get those out as soon we can. >> is there an enforcement exemption for small providers and how is that addressed? >> the enforcement, no changes from the draft. >> could you talk about the commissioner mentioned something commissioner mentioned something about changes regarding the throttling rule. could you talk a little bit about that?

>> in response, we made an additional clarification with respect to the changed language to making it clear that speeding up indiscriminately of content would also b be in violation. >> to follow up on what you just said, is that a difference from the 2015 language about speeding up being also a violation or is it the same as it was in 2015? >> i don't know if i really want to characterize it one way or another with relation to 2015. the language of the throttling rule remains the same. the guidance that we provide you iodine is probably worded a little bit differently, but i don't really want to read into the intent of the item versus

our item, but our item is explicit in saying that speeding up s of content would be analyzd under. >> and does that ban the fast lane span or is that something different? >> so, the 5g fast lane discussion comes up around of the network licensing and we will continue to monitor. the rules do not prohibit the use if the internet service providers are using slices to provide a bias than our rules will applyly to that.

the rules wouldn't apply to that unless it is clear that they are attemptingng to evade our rulesy characterizing the service differently. to make sure i understand for the general consumer fast lanes are not allowed for specialized enterprise services? >> could you repeat the question? for the general consumer internet fast lanes are not allowed whether it's a mobile fiber-optic connection. >> with respect to throttling we make clear speeding upin the content of a consumer facing mass-market service is the

general was referring to it is not permitted. if that is done within a 5g network, we would have to evaluate the service to determine what the underlining service and that would look like. >> i asked the chairwoman rosenworcel about the proceeding so i would like to pose the question to you as well. i know many groups of both outside meetings with fcc and meetings folks have asked for some kind of proceeding to look at the contribution reform with an inclusion of bias so can you talk a little bit about the decision to not include that in this particular item today it kind of what the thinking is down the line looking at this issue? >> i don't want to talk about the decisions that we made to put things in the item or take things out of the item, but what i will say his contributions iss

reform is something that has beenen on the burner in this industry for a long time. it's a very complicated and challenging undertaking for us, and to simply throw it into this item in a further notice within a couple of weeks just isn't feasible. we know that there's a lot of work going on in congress right now as you heard of the chairwoman talk about there's a bipartisan bicameral groups actively talking about overall universal service reform. we owe them some space on that and west will continue the beste can have they ever reversed a

forbearance what is that process like it has it been done? >> it has been done with respect to broadband data services. >> i would have to come back to you and k let you know when that is. >> preemption on a case-by-case basis when you think about states, local governments that have their own net neutrality frameworks that might go further than with the fcc has in this item is this considered a lower level ceiling, do they want to go further than the protections laid out in this item and what is the approach to addressing that? >> of the item doesn't use the floor and ceiling type language. we knew the record was characterized. it really does adhere to the case-by-case evaluation consistent with what we did in 2015 so if that enables parties who are concerned about a

particular law to come to us and to seek the preemption decision, we are not adjudging any particular state or local regime. >> are there any questions on the enforcement items? with that i will hand it over to the commissioner. just wanted to express my appreciation thanks to congress and the president for signing the law to band that definitively addresses the national b security threats by requiring it to divest to break its ties with of the ccp as it's

been an important issue the last couple of years in particular. this shows the government can come together and solve something that is in the technology space that presents a national security threat in my view i think they made a bet that america would not have the result for the capacity to address this issue so i'm really glad to see that one get across the finish line. for today's order, i've said a lot already, so to quickly move to the questions other than to say the major questions doctrine here is clear it is fundamentally different from the perspective in terms of the review that the court will bring toil this than any other prior iteration of the debate and i'm very confident ultimately the courts are going to turn this aside but happy to start out. >> thank you for taking the time. you indicated in your statement that you expected this would be overturned. >> and again just now. >> do you have any knowledge as

to who is going to be plaintiff on this and do you have any sense as to how soon something might be filed? are you expecting something as soon as next week? >> no inside knowledge of the strategy from that perspective i think it is the bureau team that indicated there will be some time to get the doctor and out. they are going to move quickly they say and then there's also the publication of the federal register and the steps before and it could be sometime after that.. >> i want to also ask about contribution reform as a part of this proceeding as you are probably well aware some groups throughout the last couple of weeks asked to the fcc to issue some kind of a notice seeking comment on how biased providers

could be potentially part of the contribution base looking at other avenues. so, assuming that this item does hold up in court and calls for contribution reform to continue, what do you want that to look like or how do you envision this looking under the net neutrality framework?ew >> for my part i strongly oppose the idea that we should take the existing contribution system, which is a 30% assessment on the existing title to the telecom portion of the belly of a shift that under the broadband data portion whether it is today or in the future. i think that would effectively result in great shock where prices would increase. i put out my own idea two or three years ago at this point we should look at bringing in large technology companies that

benefit from these expenditurese and ask them to take in a fair share. there is no limit to do that. they certainly don't have the authority to do the policy matter in terms of the large technology companies but you probably know there are discussions in congress rustling with some of these very same issues so i would oppose any effort by the fcc to shift the contribution over to broadband and frankly i think if you look at the commissioner the last couple of years there hasn't been a huge expression of appetite towards that. if youpp look at the report we issued to congress in august of last year or the year before that 22 or 23 we should report on the future of usf and in that document i think there were a lot of comments from at least the document that wasn't a sort of full bearhug idea that broadband should be contributing

and picking up entirely for usf. >> thanks, commissioner so you've been very clear that you are opposed to the fcc having this title regulation. i'm curious what you think appropriate regulation should look like for the sector of broadband providers are blocking websites were discriminating against certain websites and what sort of recourse should consumers have. >> part of this goes back to a false picture that's been painted. look at this item in particular. i think it is the second paragraph that since 2017 there's been no federal oversight above broadband that makes people with the impression reflectedle in the question if something goes wrong and the internet ecosystem there's no cop on the beat to step in and of the answer is that it's not

the reality of the landscape right now so right now providers are fully regulated by b the ftc under their authorities and that addresses all sorts of unjust practices in fact there are many actors in that ecosystem that arest subject to those regulatis and the vast majority of the actors in that ecosystem that can engage in discriminatory conduct or not going to be subject to the title two regulation so the idea that there's no cop on the beat and by putting the title two been placed there will be a cop on the beta doesn't accurately portray it. there are two cops on the beat just last year wet. adopted a digital equity that gives almost unbounded authority to regulate nearly every aspect of how the internet works so the ftc today or fcc itself under the order that applies to title i

broadband but the market power is important here. of the merits when they started in 2005 i think if you compare the market power today and the level of competition today to when it started, it's quite a bit different so if we were in a situation without a cop on the beat, if we were there is a tremendous amount of sort of market influencing factors that could also be brought to bear but that doesn't my argument. it's the positive law. >> why would it be better to be the cop on the beat? >> a couple of reasons. when you apply title ii to the internet, it comes with a host of additional heavy-handed regulations that have nothing to do with net neutrality and

similar rules that you articulated. a second and most fundamentally a question of do we have the power to do it and that is laid out in the i offset of my decisn it's better to remain with the ftc because in fact i don't believe the fcc has the power to apply to the regulations so there's no gap today into the authority is clear and again think about the ftc. they regulate some of the most complex complicated markets in themp sub segments of markets ad technology and connectivity and the nation's premier agency so there's nono gap today. i don't think there's a gap in expertise either but more importantly if you believe all those things that would take you back to congress, not what i view as a power grab.

>> one at a time. >> didn't go over very well. [laughter] are there any thoughts on that holding up in court and if divestment is notis realistic in the timeframe congress has passed, what then needs to be done and what is the fcc's role in this? if any directly. >> i'm really pleased with where we landed on the debate and obviously i don't despair my fair share of criticism of the biden administration, but this is one whereis they show a lot f important leadership and one where there are some that criticize that and sayiz you cat ban. people thatt use tiktok are part of a democratic base and they

wonder if the administration should push hard to get this across the finish line and i think they deserve credit for standingan strong. it's indicated to go to court and there's 270 days before the actual sort of divestiture deadline kicks in so the first question does it go to court immediately or do they have the clock a little bit before they go to court but either way they well. then the arguments i think they will raise a coupleil i imagine one of the first things they will argue was the first amendment. this is whenen i've spent a lotf time with the end of the answer here is very straightforward which is the supreme court's first amendment law draws the distinction between regulations based on conduct on the one hand and content on the other. it's based on the various data flows that they didn't discuss based on the surveillance. so i think that this is a pretty easy case under the first amendment. they may argue that there are a

lot of people walk into say if you name a company by name punishment for backward looking conduct you would do in a traditional proceeding but this is a forward-looking measure. they didn't have a legitimate interest because it involved a matter of national security and foreign policy which congress has authority, not the state so

that is not analogous here because what is missing was valid exercise of power so the u.s. is going to win that case and then allow the divestment to go forward. i think all of that is yet to be played out. do you agree with of the chair that it's necessary for the commission to reassert authority over the ability to offer the services in the u.s. and second, do you think that we give 60 days from the time to stop the

use of services and other any other actions the commission should take to prevent from being involved in the carrying of traffic either through po p or other ways of traffic? >> i'm always happy to move whatever we can to address the threats posed by those behold and by the ccp. let me walk through quickly the factual scenario so it sheds light on the situation. when you revoked the china mobile based on the buy-in that they were put into. they've continued since then to do various lines of business in the u.s. without the need for a title ii authorization including cloud services, data center services, private services. what i said over the years ago was that we at the fcc should

look atth the entities that do have the title to authorizations before today and prohibit them from interconnecting with those that are still doing business without authorization whether it is a 214, cable landing license or some point which the traffic is going to be hitting a licensed network. and i said a long time ago we that. explore doing the government hasn't explored doing that. what we are doing now is applying title ii to the bias and we are giving everyone the authority and revoking it but right now there is a database of all the entities that are providing bias and at the data does not list any of those chinese entities. why is that? my understanding is the reason why they are offering cloud services and data center services and private services qthat don't qualify as bias.

if we have been doing something that constitutes bias, we should have taken enforcement actions a while ago for failing to identify themselves in the data collection where we list every broadband in the country so based on that evidence it seems to me that reclassifying and saying that we are giving the licenses and asking them to turn any of those it doesn't look to me like they had them. that's why we should do what i said a while ago, look at that connection but stepped back even further the department has existing authorities that would allow them to rome regardless of the exact regulatory classification based on became holdings of the federal government believes these entities shouldn't bee doing business c here. we can and should do that withoutr title ii.

and it's certainly not c the cae that it's necessary but can be justified on a basis of going after those entities. the commerce department. anything else? unrelated to netel neutrality cn you comment on the allegations that they sunk the dealal by putting influence on the chair and lawmakers? >> i saw a headline of this report before the meetings. i think i voiced clear that the fcc laid out there and should have been handled differently

but without having for the headline, nothing at this point. ♪♪ ♪♪

twenty years as editor of the american scholar in 30 years teaching in the english department at northwestern