tv U.S. Senate CSPAN July 31, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
are the threat to global house. congress can and in some cases must play an important role for all americans through in -- innovative technology. patients must know it's secure. collar if i if i -- it will even chully end up in a cloud and congress should be pushing to weaken encryption. finally, they are reimbursed. currently cms from reimbursed
because of absurd geographic conditions. successful with technology trust and means to pay for it all come together. i ask the congress to ensure that it happens now rather than see a family member moving out of a family home that we love. i look forward to your questions. >> in that note, i have questions. mr. shapiro, you're not an engineer you're a long recovering lawyer, but i'll ask you these questions because your industry is well affair of the answer. as we sit here, what percentage more or less --
>> what per -- per >> the a.m. what per >> actually uses less than 1%. >> if we are trying to create the ability for almost an unlimited amount of communications between large and small devices, is it one of our greatest it is task to reck -- recognize we have allocated all -- >> now i realize you gave me a softball. >> you can follow up with devices that can recognize and take advantage of them. >> thank you. all spectrum is pretty much the same.
we through the laws categorize it differently. license means that someone has bought it or gotten for free a broadcast license. unlicense very valuable. there's about $72 billion created by unlicensed. we are increasing the unlicensed spectrum. it allows to do really cool things and provide benefits. there's a lot of spectrum that the government uses. figure out what could be available for commercial purposes, that alone would not only take some of the pressure off but would also create a huge economic activity, and if sold it would make a tremendous amount of money to the treasury.
there is technology being developed which allows to be split finer and finer in use. i know that's some of the issues involving going forward. we are passionate about cars and benefits and the great things that are there. there's an opportunity to look and test some of that spectrum for that area and split it up a little bit and share it. >> follow up with mitch. it's going to be a lot of questions about obviously automobiles communicating with the internet are safe or not. would it be fair to say that whether or not you share whether it's going to be hacked on your encrypted segments? that's a softball. >> well, maybe. i'm also not an engineer.
i think i'd say a few questions one as it relates to spectrum, we heard the message from congress and the notion of sharing if we can make that work, is something that we really want to do. it is going to happen. the notion to satisfy spectrum but al -- also meet safety, we're prepared to try to test. we're committed to that notion. it could mitigate or eliminate up to 80% of all crashes on the road. and so the promise of -- is overwhelming. i think the predicate for moving forward has to be harm.
share but do no harm. >> the history of data in the automobile has been one of the manufactures having data, keeping them close not publishing. as a representative is that going to be different -- and it's a self-asking question, answering question n the vehicle -to-vehicle world one vehicle talks to others: is that true? >> in a world dangerous world where you have malicious hackers system integ -- matters a ton. >> working on legislation that makes penalties specific high
against those who try to maliciously hack automobiles is an area where our jud -- jurisdiction is not appropriate. >> we have a condition that fully integrate privacy and security and can do that with contacts as well. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. shapiro, you argue addressing privacy concerns raised by the internet things. we hope the companies will act responsibly and punish bad actors. isn't it clear that put rules of what is and what is not perms i --
permsable. >> there's something between the two. we've heard many people talk about the importance of trust for companies and their brand and reputation relies totally on trust. everyone wants privacy. sometimes there's different types of information. there's been a research that's been lost, records which have not transferred easily because of h ip pa. you're training opportunities for new services. i think companies have an obligation to proside -- provide and consumers can make what they're willing to give up in terms of sharing some of the privacy. having the discussion is really important and i think this should be a national consensus
about what should be protected and what should not and consumer give allow freely and make the choice. in terms of giving up -- if you're sharing something i think there should be notice. i think our companies -- >> so you think they should mandate notice? >> there's a lot of lawyers who will be more than happy to sue those that don't give sufficient notice. if the law is unclear -- >> the law is clear enough, the fcc should require notice and leave that for the time being? >> i don't think there's a need yet. >> that's what i'm getting at. the fcc can handle it and is handling so far?
>> i think the case-by-case is a good approach. >> ok. lets assume that congress choses to disagree with what you just said and enact privacy and security measures. are there any ways that we should treat products differently from other companies that collect data or connect to the internet? >> well, i would like to think of that answer and provide in writing. there's -- there is clearly sometimes when it's appropriate. it allows them monitor conversations, it provides opportunity to have video and
see if there's bad people that the fbi wants to identification, not only factual but voice. to me what's most important is we let it play out. i don't have that right. it would be very specific and now address the real problem. >> thank you in your testimony you address principles by manufactures. can you briefly describe in some detail? >> transparency, contacts, and clearly the notion of express consent for marketing. we provide heightened protection for things like driving behavior and -- and geo location.
and i think i build on gary's point. this privacy applies to everything else as we enter an area of massive innovation. >> we should be careful. >> i'm sorry? i think the fundamental challenge that i've got that's a fundamental, we are seeing it in the area of distraction. and i'll give you a specific example. >> i have other questions. do you think that the principles protection principles should apply to all parts of internet or uniquely relevant to automobile -- >> i think that my my -- i'm testifying on behalf of --
>> ie time is running out. >> i'll be brief. what are the privacy or security that we would have for a windshield wiper versus a watch that's monitoring you. we shouldn't assume that this is the wild wild west. the fcc has been engaged and is actually taking action. >> i know you're out of time but if the chairman will -- i want to point out something very important. i think you are about to see some significant industry that rise up, ultimately is we aren't seeing the kind of growth. a study came out 15% of doctors are talking yet 50% of doctors they they will benefit from
those. >> why the difference? >> the question they have about privacy and the aging population that's concerned about how the information is going to be used. they hate the late-night calls. we are working with folks that give some more bright license. we believe the fcc would be mechanism. that's what we are today. >> thank you very much. i have today that -- to do that in a second. >> i'm assuming you stink. that's going to cost me. with that we go to the general men of pennsylvania. >> thank you chairman. mr. garfield it's estimated that the average home has 11
wi-fi devices. in my house it's tripled that. i'll give you an example. my children have a different taste in music than i do. this happened last week. i'm in the study listening to music, the next thing i hear is this does not compute. my son found a way to connect into my system and switch the music that i was playing compared to what he wants to play and tell me that hi -- he didn't like the music. it's fascinating what the kids can do. this would require more wireless spectrum beyond at this point.
can you expand on the implications as to how this might impact the connection for con con con >> consumers. your household sounds like mine. i agree with what my colleagues have said about the need for more spectrum, whether it's on line wireless is particularly important. given the lack in use of spectrum today there's a significant opportunity both in the iot and economically as well to use spectrum and make it available. and so i think there's a huge opportunity there. the reality is that it is absolutely necessary.
the growth that we've experienced in the use will explode. it's something that we need to plan for and take action to deal with. >> thank you we realize that i can raise my garage door up and down from two thousand miles away and turn my lights on. what is to prevent the hacker the state of the art thief from checking in on my software, on my computer system in my house? for example, when i go on vacation i will turn the heat down. so they can hack into my thermostat, read when the heat is reduced come to the conclusion that no one is there.
and this is open to anyone. what is the industry doing from protecting us from that? >> first of all thank you for your questions and thank you for your work, congressmen. first off, welcome to encryption yes, there is technological things you can do, man in the middle. but you know what, it takes enormous amount of power to break it. so one of the questions that the consumer as well as cloud consumer of the world how do i put encryption in my device so no one can mess with your lights, so first off, we need to make sure the government doesn't weaken encryption. second of all we need to continue to see the growth in
the kind of research around encryption, that is some cases supported by the government. >> anyone else? >> going back to the garage door opener. similar with cordless telephones. you can listen to phone conversations. after it gotten more sophisticated, there's solutions and we don't hear about those problems anymore. so it has not been an issue. >> the reality is that significant investment is being made in innovating about privacy and consumers are demanding it. if you just let me know when you have a device where i can block my son from changing my music.
>> i can help you with that. >> thank you yield back. [laughs] >> wow that's -- >> did you get to your question of your -- the launching of your trade secrets built today? no you didn't. ok. hopefully you'll get to talk on that next. i'm sorry did i mention that there would be announcement on trade secrets today? did anyone not hear that? thank you. we now go to the gentle lady from california. >> i recently read an article first taking control of the system and are able to slow down the car to stop on a busy
highway. hackers could actually manipulate the devices for evil. what practices does it have in place so that this doesn't come out and prevent this from coming and what role do you see the federal government in this scenario? >> great questions and a week or two ago received national attention. i'm stuck here about the need to take the threat very seriously and we do, but also not to get caught up in the sensation alism that the companies a story like this. both things are true. our companies are design today -- designed to meet security
risks. that's point one. working with third parties the hack risk we need to address and take seriously. this began more than a year ago. it's a mechanism for the industry to share risks and how to address those risks. there's a mechanism that's in formation for specifically this challenge. the risk here from a governmental side is the one that we touched on before, and that's what's the touch how heavy a touch there would be. how do you make it work so that it's not rigged? that's a challenge. what you've done thus far is facilitate sharing.
>> mr. garfield, you stated that connectivity and communications between vehicles must be secure and reliable. that's something that congress, the department of transportation, the federal trade commission and other government stakeholders should take to protect consumers. you are referring to physical safety. you urge the federal government to essentially take away and see approach. i'm asking that if we should always step in. so what in your mind is the difference between these two kinds of safety? >> i guess two points. our suggestion is not that the government do nothing. our suggestion is that the government exercise restraint in the approach that has been taken today on privacy that is driven, that includes monitoring by the
fcc is working. in the first instance there's a significant failure that is not being met. i guess the third and final point is the point that we've all made about innovation that's taking place in this space around ensuring that we are driving privacy and security by design at the very beginning is actually making significant headway and we worry about consequences of legislation at this stage. >> mr. shapiro, youage -- you acknowledged concerns, but how do we rely on the industry to self-govern and avoid the
problems. and i ask the question in the context of one concern you raised. isn't it to claim ownership over the data? >> it is true that a lot is going on. we have a company group that's focusing on creating rules that everyone can live by, in part because it's the right thing to do and in part because it's congress or a government agency will do if they don't. there's already free-market solutions. financial, in -- for example, in the automobile, so the insurance companies are monitoring how fast they drive because the consumer feel it's valuable to give the information.
it's a free-market decision, etc. if they want to give the kids the keys to the car, they have the ability to monitor their children. my point was that this is not a -- it is not a -- there's different directions it can be going. even in the distracted driving area where the federal government has stepped and said to industry, you should do anything you can from ban a driver while using any product in the driver's seat. basically cuts down through monitoring, head falling asleep or even technology produced
lockically which monitoring your cell phone and trigger if you are not paying attention to the road. >> can the gentle lady yield for a question quickly? >> certainly. >> wouldn't you agree that, in fact, data that comes from individual government does have a role in defining what rights they have to retain, protect or retrieve their own personal identifiable data? i think that's your data. >> that's true. >> i would say that in terms -- obviously consumer should have some light in the data. this goes into a will the of areas of the internet, not just the internet of things. what is the trade-off that's
involve? transparency as to who is using the data, who actually ounce and -- owns it and retains it. i think whether or not you're using your wieshed wipers is a type of data that can be collected. that's fine. you should, of course, own and determine what happens with your data. >> that will start a dialogue that will continue. the gentleman from texas. >> thank you for being here. i'm going to break this down and kind of keep it very simple. the issue is privacy. the time of the dick tracy watch is here. i don't even wear a watch.
that will help you in the answers i hope. >> what time is? >> i can't even see the clock. anyway the data that is stored is stored by a provider and it's information about an individual. the privacy of that individual is paramount to me and i think the law the right of privacy. it has to be protected by congress. congress needs to set the expectation of privacy for individuals that have shared their information with different entities. and i'm concerned about the privacy of the individual in two ways. one, the provider, the service
>> is like a yes or no answer on the. >> the reason i was coming in because i want to say amen. the reality is yes credit for reform is essential. 289 cosponsors, something the committee has to do. we absolutely need these kinds of legislation to move forward so we know what we can tell our customers. what i will protect them how to protect it and when i would be forced to share it. spent the person may not be a customer for this very reason. i like all this stuff is wonderful but i don't want the government getting it. you say well maybe they can have it, maybe they can't. >> what about the rest of you? >> yes. >> yes. >> we support ecpa reform.
strongly support ecpa reform. >> i think you're totally right to distinguish between what government has a right to and what private parties can exchange with each other. the government says we've been burned as an industry precisely to the tens of billions of dollars of sales in europe and other countries are using the fact our government, a total competitive disadvantage now. they are not secure, government can take information and it's been harmful to the u.s. technology industry and has been used against us. under the fourth amendment yes, it is about as clear and prosecution didn't get that government must have only, will not unreasonable searches and seizures and ecpa needs an update. i agree. a. result expectation of privacy is set by the supreme court is almost like the definition of obscenity. it changes with time, changes with technology.
i think a result expectation and privacy in some data figure out in public about using windshield wipers is not the same as the rest of the data and that's a much -- >> the privacy area, goes into whether it's voluntary and the volunteer to give information to another person. i'm interested about the government the federal government. state, local which all right now concedes that if michigan declined without a warrant and the person involved doesn't have noticed about it. >> i would note as gary indicated and this is on the nongovernmental side that bad business or to provide services that consumers won't. whether it's insurance example where you the plug-in, i'm one of those consumers. i know exactly how my kids drive becausebecause i get a report of the month from insurance company that tells me how fast the driving, when they're driving. that's a useful thing and it's a disincentive for them to drive
poorly. that's a good thing i would want to get in the way of services like that that are pro-consumer. >> i yield back. >> we not go to the gentlelady from washington first district, is dealt in a spirit thanks to all of you for being here. i want to follow up on electronic communication privacy act conversation here myself and congressman poe and lofgren have sponsored legislation that would create a warrant standard for geolocation information as well as electronic communications. wendy kopp with issues making sure there's a legal framework to protect information so that consumers feel like interest in what's happening with their information and law enforcement is clear on how they would access information, what do you think about expanded that to include geolocation and international issues that we face in terms of access to information? anyone. i guess i will start with mr. reed. >> first of all thank you for
your support of the lead actor thank you for your introduction to its infallible thing to figure out how we move forward. i know we're all americans to this, we are in america one of the things to realize for my members are developing the application is just how much opportunities are overseas. with issues that you raise about u.s. government access to that data start harming our sales it hurts jobs in the united states. i think you're precisely right. this is an issue that congress passes to innovate they can't be done to industry best practices or standard for geolocation is something we'll have to work both with you on enforcement because law enforcement does have a duty to work and protect the specific the problem comes when i tell the customer i don't know about the energy to the question of whether have to hand over the information. the difference between the sixth circuit and the ninth circuit and this idea that have become a customer i don't know is enormous. i think the other element that should be raised on this is the
other countries look at what's happening to if the united states government says with access to any club in adding to a new person in which we darn well please regardless of whether data is stored or who it is on, we expect that russia will want the same privileges from our company. that china will want the same privileges from our companies. legislation like which are proposing is what we need because we need to have a strong stance that we can look at those countries and say no i won't hand over the information without some better legal authority. so thank you very much. >> mr. garfield? >> your question also gives us an opportunity to be something that congress can do in this end which is legal redress. a lack of legal redress rights in the united states is something that creates great challenges internationally and this committee and congress has the opportunity to do something. that's another step that can be taken that would help internationally. >> folks, also you were talking about encryption and we've been
having a conversation recently about whether there should be a back door for law enforcement access to encrypted data and whether that should be mandated. it's such a policy would mandated by the federal government what would the impact be specifically on user data and what they think the impact would be for your customers? >> i think the impact would be quite negative of your and internationally for a host of reasons. it's important to keep in mind that secured as a part of advancing privacy. if you create any kind of door it won't only be used by those who your intended to be used by. and so i think in many respects you create a pandora's box of challenges that would be highly problematic for both private and sacred interest and is something that should actually not be done. mr. bainwol and i both worked in the recording industry years
ago, and one of the things we realized was rather than fighting technology, the best solution is to point the use of technology. i would suggest for the federal agencies in this context those answers may hold some merit in this context as. >> we learned hard lessons. i feel like we're a little bit of déjà vu with lipper chip redux that we are facing. the reality is over 40 of the leading sig. experts have come out and said the idea of the government mandating or creating a front door into our devices address system is -- we want to create by telling our customers and our users that we have secure systems. we've done this dance before. it was already figured out to be a mistake. on display were having to revisit it again when we know the answer. and that is end-to-end encryption with as few openings as possible is the best solution we can provide.
>> as you may know we have a piece of legislation to prevent there from being a backdoor as well. mr. shapiro, did you want to add something? >> i think we're all americans and we sympathize with law enforcement of what they're going to be. it's a difficult question. it's not black and white. history has shown having given them a backdoor is not the best approach as technologies evolve quickly. on the other hand, as americans when is a super crisis, i think you'll see companies step up and try to help cover. i think we saw it in boston in the bombing where technology companies work very closely to try to find out who it was that did this dastardly act. i think went to recognize there's flexibility and doesn't require an act of congress to say there must be a backdoor. if there is, after we must have it not only technology it should uncomfortable but our consumers uncomfortable. >> thank you. i yield back.
>> i thank her for important questions. we go to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman to thank you for hosting this very important hearing. mr. garfield, your testimony mentioned the desire of the industry to be free from new regulation without becoming a wild west of privacy. earlier this year the federal trade commission reinforced this message and the staff were on the internet of things were recommended among other things that companies build privacy and security into the designs of their enacted devices. last congress by introduced the apps act, a common sense approach to an urgent problem that would protect consumers without disrupting functionality or innovation through a safe harbor and other mechanisms to promote trust through self-regulation. i viewed this legislation as
reinforced reinforcing of the staff recommendations on privacy and security for connected devices and i plan to reintroduce the apps act congress. privacy is an issue that should unite us, not drive us apart. in an always on ecosystem where over 25 billion connected devices store and transmit information about consumers it's time to have some rules of the road. what steps will private industry take to keep congress informed and address legislative concerns regarding security and privacy of these emerging technologies? >> thank you for your question, congressman johnson. the point you made at the beginning about the recommendations, particularly around privacy and security by design i think are, in fact, is the greater the industry is
spending billions to invest and innovate around privacy and security, in part because it's the right thing to do but also because consumers are demanding it. as well we are advancing as mr. bainwol pointed out sector specific principles around privacy and security as well. there is much action happening right now in this space and we are committed to making sure that congress is fully aware of the steps that the private sector is making to advance those issues. it is in our business interest to be aligned with both you and consumer interests around these issues. >> thank you. mr. bainwol, i want to focus on the portion of adjustment regarding advanced driver assistance systems. i understand the benefits that you're explaining about the systems, the centers sensors to provide
braking assist and adaptive cruise control. i understand it will go far beyond just those actions. my concern revolves around the encryption of this technology. if these systems are being operated on a broad range of wireless communication technologies between vehicles, how are these frequencies being protected? >> i will give you an answer and i will come back to you with a vetted engineers answer. so they need it is based on a technology that was built for the purposes of communications between people. -- v2v i will come back again with the specifics of the security that is embedded in that. we are not at a point of full diploma. this is being tested. there's been an expensive test out of ann arbor over the last several years. it's been tested abroad.
and the fundamental point i would make is that the benefit of stranger, if you do a cost-benefit analysis, it's absolutely enormous. yes, we've got to address the cyber risks, security risks, and are being dealt with from the design phase on up. but in terms of the security and vetted in it, i will come back to you. >> if end to end encryption is being utilized, hubble law enforcement access the information stored within a vehicle? you have an answer to that question? >> we would require a warrant of some sort. this is again this is the point that mr. bell was making earlier. >> i'm sorry, go ahead. >> so we are very careful and our principles are very specific informationthat information will not be shared with entities unless there's a compelling specific
reason. >> but it will be an ability to counter the encryption? >> of -- >> kind of a backdoor, if you will, for lack of a better -- >> i'm not an engineer and this is a zone that i'm not going to be obligated a great specific evidence i will come back and writing shortly. >> all right. thank you. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i've had two of you gentlemen to me about how you're not engineers but i want to talk about something for a moment that's a little complex and then make it simple. in the aviation space, collusion -- collision avoidance of all sorts has been around for a long time to get started with the large commercial scheduled aircraft and then little by little has come down to one of those technologies is in fact
mandated now in just a few years for all aircraft. it's a today. i said a friend but no have to say it's automatic dependent surveillance broadcast. that technology in short says here's where i am and it sends it out to everybody. the faa regulates it the other aircraft waterston at what they are receive where you are, makes for a very exact gps-based within a few feet of doing exactly where you are and of course, which way you're going how fast. making a collision almost an impossible thing to do if you are simply monitoring the product which has alerts. the question and i want to make sure i ask mr. bainwol and others, when the faa have a jurisdiction over this, they made a decision that only those
who send out a signal can, in fact receive a signal. so today systems that cost anywhere from six at the very low in plus installation, to hundred of thousands of dollars equipping aircraft they communicate by sending out in receiving information what others are. mobile devices, devices that can be bought for a matter of a few hundred dollars that only receive are blocked from receiving that information. meaning that as you roll out a new technology, and mr. brain wall, click these technologies are what big auto is look at rolling out -- mr. bainwol. countless of millions of automobiles will not be equipped with those systems for decades to come. to 65 mustang or any other classic cars that congressman ron barga says will not ever be equipped with them. can you comment on the need to make sure that any standard
allows for aftermarket retrofitting a product that is the greatest extent possible enjoy the benefits of new technology brought to market a new automobile? [inaudible] >> happy to comment. there is a challenge in the auto space with three penetration to the average age of the car is 11. would introduce a new technology it takes a long time to wind its way through the entire fleet -- >> not with mr. shapiro's after market products. >> it took 30 years to go from introduction to 95% penetration to your point about penetration is about one. indicates that these technologies that offers such value to society i think you raise a legitimate point went to find a way to fill the gap. the truth of the matter is in part that cat is filled with this phone that gary petals so
brilliantly. just to give an example of -- >> unmeasured wants to be called a peddler but he appreciates -- >> so ways is a wonderful app and his crowdsourced based and provides many of the benefits that dvd provides but not with the same absolute standard of certain. we've got to find a way -- v2v -- to fill the market place. i think the apple world does a good job of bridging the. ultimately i think your point is a valid and would got to find a way to make it work. >> gary, mr. shapiro, the question more was asked new innovative items come out of the oem market and new fleet and there is an ability to get perhaps some but not all of those benefits government at least in the case of aviation has blocked the ability of
thousands of small pilots pilots with a piper cub made before you and i were born in which a mobile device to be put on board today are blocked from doing that there's a fast mover heading towards the because the faa has sought to block and ushers in a signal. that's really the question of enabling as much benefit from potentially low-cost handheld devices. >> mr. chairman, as a member of the flying public i have never quite understood that decision and i'm glad that this is being rectified. albeit after dozens of years. >> it is being rectified all aircraft and amount of a few years we'll have a bs -- i'm sorry, a dds out. however, today somebody can carry a few hundred dollars product before allowed to receive the signal, they would be part of knowing where a fast number is and avoided even if they're not putting up that
signal. >> i am thrilled to hear you're focused because i thought almost every other day but -- [talking over each other] >> the reason i've been excited for use by drivers cars the love of death caused by cars is huge. it can be avoided. we are in the verge of this technology and several car companies and google have proved. it would be a tragedy if it was delayed in any way because an aftermarket was not allowed to develop to the blogger i think you are correct in indicating we'll get there in two different ways. won the car manufacturers would faa began to get this technology into public hands but along the way as we sing almost every other automotive technology, the aftermarket is quick and get get greater penetration and provide competition. my consensus on the private discussions in what comes to manners of losing a limb and losing her life, which is what we are talking about with collisions in cars, it's less
important of privacy than it is in some other areas. a private discussion is important. i don't want to denigrate it but when it comes time to own physical safety it takes a back seat. >> i just want to jump -- >> just when the two of you to take a picture early stand at each other smiling. >> this is not to contradict gary but just to clarify him. gary used the words about fatalities in cars as the cars are killing people. i just want to clarify. 95%, maybe 98 99% of the towns on the road are a result of environmental challenges. the cars itself worked rather beautifully. the critical point that we would both raise -- >> i think mr. shapiro was talking about antilock brakes traction control, all the items that have come out that have reduced the death rate in all
too flawed drivers. >> we are very proud of those technology. we want to see the move in the fleet as rapidly as possible are those of the answer to human error which is a huge problem. >> thank you. >> mr. reed, century given credit for the development of those apps -- since you were given a -- who remembers wanting to develop apps dependent either an open standard or in the alternative being able to, if you will hack in order to create interfaces is otherwise you are locked out of interface with the automobile and other products, isn't that true? >> open standard can be significant part of -- >> or published standards, either one. >> you also end up with published standards, also with what i wouldn't be the interface were i won't have to hack it. there's a connotation to hack which is little odd.
apis will be published by the car manufactures that will allow me to type into the existing system or other do it through the phone and the phone manufacturer will have done a deal with the auto dealer and i will have a secure, safe api platform that i can build the apps on. i'm quite hopeful about the connected car. i think is a place where you see an explosion of apps to be helpful and beneficial. especially those of us with kids in the backseat. >> i mentioned in the opening statement that we do not have at this committee the jurisdiction over the bandwidth necessary for many other products. we do have a mandated seat at the table in consultation with the ways and means committee and with the administration in trade. under trade promotion authority for both the european trade and the tpp and the pacific i want anything to comment on the importance of global standards of getting the internet of
things to, in fact, be embraced in a white around the world that allows either for a ton of scale or consistency of service, and i will go right down the line on that. mr. shapiro. >> global standards are nice but not essential but we sing in technology that political anne veigle often played as to whose countries standards. there's several -- >> that wasn't necessarily talk about standards. i was talking about the access that trade promotion is intended to have. acceptance without care for barrier of american products spirit that standard is one issue but the fact is trade promotion is good. i.t. a is great if we are excited with the direction things are taking the last month. is positive to the extent of these devices get out there and improving peoples lives and saving lives, it's an important thing. if there's an international
approach has always preferred one which is country by country hike air of. >> mr. garfield? >> i think the opportunity that highlighted to trade agreements provide for driving global consensus-based standards that help to advanced scalability and interoperability are a net positive. our strong support for trade promotion authority and that trade deals that will emanate as a result. >> sometimes trade gets tricky for me but i would say -- >> some of your members all for it and some are against and you are with your members spent is more competent than that. the notion is about one. we did building different standards all around the globe and that ends up upping the cost of products for consumers all over. a new car is safer than the old cars we can reduce the cost. we getting more people into new cars and that's good for
everybody. >> two quick points that every single one of your members of this committee has a company and theanda district that is selling an apt overseas guaranteed. we see 20% of all the apps in china are actually from u.s. companies which is huge if you pay attention to the china market. it's hard which brings me to the second part. one concert about standards is where funded some countries are dipping to two in the idea of creating domestic open standards that are slightly tweaked from the united states and these are strictly barriers are putting up to protect domestic app developers. we've seen in the wi-fi space around the globe. we are seeing tweets to standards strictly to perfect domestic production. we would support your perspective on improving trade and to prevent the standards so they are available to all. >> thank you. and on that note with no further questions, this will conclude
today sitting. i want to thank all our witnesses. without objection members while five legislative days to submit additional written questions. for the witnesses an additional mentors for the record. but also please our witnesses five days if you could please provide additional material including that which some of you promised to give to our members. and with that we stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> lastly, security secretary jeh johnson spoke at the aspen security forum on security issue. like the ongoing threat of isis. here are some of his remarks. >> we are facing the prospect of smaller scale attacks, given how this whole thing is evolving, but we face the prospect of the day-to-day in a lot of places in
this country. as i think jim pointed out abdulaziz was not on our radar and i would not have considered chattanooga, tennessee, be a high risk area. and so we are facing smaller scale attacks that are harder to detect day to day today. the alarming longer-term phenomenon we have to be concerned about with isil is anytime a terrorist organization with a level of resources in excess of 30,000 fighters with foreign fighters pouring into syria, and that level establishing territory an attempt to salvage a caliphate in iraq and syria so that this very large dangers terrorist organization has a place to base, train, sent operatives. that is a huge homeland security
concern to a number of nations. and so that is the longer-term phenomenon that we see and we're very concerned about which is why we are taking the fight to them in addition to the basic homeland security concerns that we see day-to-day. >> homeland security secretary jeh johnson at the aspen security forum in colorado. you can watch his remarks in their entirety tonight at 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> this weekend politics, books in american history.
>> the house of representatives has begun its summer recess while plans of a brief pro forma session every few days into legislative work resumes on tuesday september 8th. the house is live on c-span. ascended still intent of returning life monday at 2 p.m. eastern for work on a bill that would defund plant that had come a procedural vote is expected at 5:30 p.m. monday with 60 votes needed to advance. ascended to begin debate on a cybersecurity measure that encourages companies and the federal government to share information about cyber threats and data breaches. you can call the senate live on c-span2 when members return monday at 2:00 eastern. >> the republican presidential candidates are in manchester, new hampshire, or the voters first presidential forum on monday at 7 p.m. eastern.
and we should very good way to chairman wheeler and commissioner pai. delighted to have you back again issue that we appreciate the work you are doing at the fcc and look forward to your testimony and our opportunities to pursue some issues. at the risk of sounding a bit like a broken record however, i continue to be concerned with the commission failed to adhere to sound regulatory process. for the nearly five years i've had the opportunity to chair the subcommittee as you are not consistently pushed to make fcc a better, more transparent agency and yet it seems like the chasm between commissioners deepen over time. withwhen the committee considered process reform legislation a few months ago i hoped we'd reached the bottom of that well but the commission would begin to fight its way back to the collegiality and on this post debates and compromises that have characterized it since 1934. unfortunately that appears not to be the case. if commissioner pai's test what
is an indication, things might actually beginning worse at the commission. that's disappointing to say the least. with all is going on at the commission and in the world of communications where much ground to cover in today's hearing which likely will necessitate a second round of questioning. to get things started let me highlight five areas of policy concern that i and other members of this committee have. first the auction. for successful auction we know the sellers and buyers need to fully understand and support the rules. when it comes to the band plan, questions and uncertainty still about the layered on top is growing concern regarding how do we pack will work including agile relates to the future of low-power television stations and translated. it was never our intent that these diverse voices in the marketplace would get fully silence regarding issues of potential interference which have come up which as we all know when mishandled can do an auction as has occurred in the past the second, the fcc's
action on the designated entity has raised concerns while the fcc majority claims changes will strengthen the integrity of the program, sadly i'm afraid we simply replace one set of rules that were gained with a new set yet to begin. commissions able to move the obligation to provide facility space service and permit leasing of 100% of the spectrum purchase. that sets the stage for sophisticated spectrum arbitrageurs financed by taxpayer dollars to persisting in the next spectrum auction bringing nothing to the competitive market. mr. chairman's advocacy is puzzling given the assurances that the changes would protect the program from slick lawyers taking advantage of loopholes in the program to unjustly enrich their sophisticated clientele. third, telephone consumer protection act. my colleague from new mexico and i've had serious bipartisan discussions about approach the fcc is taken as a relates to the
fundamental nature of democracy in america and practical communications in the wireless age. members are just beginning to hear from adversely affected users about the disruption this new ruling will have on a variety of companies and consumers they tried to serve. forthcoming expansion of the lifeline program. all one has to do is read today's story regarding the problems over at the department of agriculture's rural utility service understand why it's so essential before any agency moves to spend money. unfortunately, for ratepayers in a partyline vote in the fcc decided to rush forward to expand the lifeline program into broadband with little reform and no limit on the spending. fifth, amid the swirl of controversy that continues to shred the actions the commission takes, let us not lose sight of what is not getting done. the am revitalization proceeding has been described by some as grinding to a halt despite the chairman's assurances to the
subcommittee. the quadrennial review of the limitations on ownership of broadcast properties continue to languish in open violation let me close with this. each member is very bright talented and passionate. we hear similar complaints from stakeholders if you've ignored or shut out altogether. this is neither necessary nor helpful as the commission of all of us in congress try to work through the complicated issues in today's rapidly evolving communications world. on a final note the good news side of things, at least decide i am pleased to note at&t today announced they have reached an agreement to allow fm chips in cell phones.
butwithout ideas up my time. >> turn one, good morning chairman wheeler, commissioner pai. welcome back to the committee. were happy to see you and as i said we welcome you back. today's hearing marks the chairman's third appearance before our subcommittee in just over four months. in fact the congressional research service tells me that the chairman's eight appearances before congress this year marks a new record, so congratulations mr. chairman. put that one up on your wall. in the past 14 years, no fcc chair has testified more times before congress in a single calendar year and, of course were only in the seventh month of 2015. it is our subcommittee's
responsibility to conduct robust oversight, and in so doing we should hear regularly from chairman and his fellow commissioners. responsible oversights include recognition that the fcc and i think we should be doing this. the are many things to raise that are legitimate, lives in the minds of those that raised them, but we should include recognition that the fcc has undertaken unprecedented series of steps to promote competition, enhance public safety and ensure that consumers are protected against deceptive or misleading billing practices. are a few highlights the commission's work over the past year. modernize the ebay program to increase the presence of wi-fi in classrooms and bolster high-capacity internet connections to the anchor institutions in our communities across the country. our schools, libraries.
raised a record 44.9 billion with a b., dollars. repeal the outdated and anti-consumer blackout rules which for four decades 40 years presented answer watching games on television when they were not sold out. i think there are a lot of people in the country that are really thrilled about that. launched a new consumer health center to streamline the complaint process and approve that consumers interact with the fcc. at this point i'd like to ask unanimous consent to place into the record a really terrific article from forbes entitled how the fcc saved me $1800. if you haven't read it everyone should so i ask -- >> without objection. >> thank you. freed up 150 megahertz of spectrum in the 3.5 gigahertz band for mobile broadband. established indoor location
accuracy rules for wireless calls made to 911. that could be a life-saving step right there. adopted a bright line rules that prevent broadband providers from engaging and blocking throttling and paid by her physician, levied $100 million on against a major telecommunications provider or misleading consumers about their unlimited data plans. reuped state laws in tennessee and north carolina that prevented local communities from deploying broadband, which they want to do across the country. all of this and more in just one year and there's much more ahead as the fcc progress undertake the world first voluntary incentive auction and a technology transition to an all-ip world that preserves the core values of competition safety and consumer protection. so i think both the chairman and the commissioner for your
continuing commitment to a modern telecommunications marketplace and the yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from vermont mr. welch. >> welcome, chairman wheeler and commissioner pai. really appreciate the work you're doing. just a couple of points. i'm encouraged by this transition process that you've been making. that is going to be helpful. it will be helpful to consumers. i hope you don't stop there. one of my main concern i know concern many of us would have competition as much as possible industry. the dvd that leads to innovation innovation. and better prices for the consumer. and then find i like to just remind you of the bipartisan rural working group that we have set out because they're so many of us even those of us who
represent urban areas that have wrote districts that are not a big market comes we want to continue to work with the entire commission to try to make certain that they rural service is there and will be there and will be the highest quality. thank you very much and i yield back about us of my time. >> gentlelady yield specter chair recognizes ms. blackburn. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ever want to welcome you both. we appreciate that you were here. i will say disagree with my colleague from california as she talked about tennessee. we saw that as stepping on states' rights, mr. chairman and you know that you and i disagree on that. i am pleased you all argue. i know you all saw the report last week and i'm sure you have read the op-ed in today's paper by each of her predecessors
mr. genachowski and mr. mcdowell, giving specter into the marketplace is where we need to our focus. and rather than get it off into all these tangential issues, your focus should be the core of your mission which is dealing with spectrum, deployment, and usage. when you look at the expected increase in the wireless arena it draws more attention to this. i was thinking as i was preparing for this hearing when you go back and look at the industrial revolutions that we've had in this country, looking at the agricultural and industrial mechanization revolution, when you look at technology information, we're almost at the point of being able to say there is this wireless revolution that is going on because business transactions health care, so
many things are going to depend on this spectrum. we want to make certain that you are focused on this. so we welcome you. we know that we have to be diligent in this. we look at what south korea is already talking about doing. south korea and japan and the 5g recapturing the momentum that at one point ahead. we don't want them to be the world would we want to be the world leader and we've got to have you work with us on this. at this time i yield the balance of my time to mr. latta spent thank you very much and i think the gentlelady for yielding, and i want to thank chairman wheeler and commissioner pai for being with us again. it's great to see you both and look forward to your statement that also to our questions today. the communications and technology industry is a very productive and dynamic sector of our economy.
in part because this industry is a lightly regulated with the ability to grow and evolve to the demand of the consumers. we cannot afford to overlook the significance of these policies at the fcc's decision impacts the industry's success. is what i'm concerned with many of the actions of post urging the fcc and the general lack of conspiracy, a candidate at the agency. i hope today's it will provide us with an opportunity to discuss in more detail the commission's policy, decisions and processes and i thank the gentleman for yielding i yield back. >> yield back my time. >> the gentleman from new jersey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to chairman wheeler and commissioner pai for coming back here today. i know it's been a busy few months since you last testified and i appreciate your willingness to come and give us an update. i particularly grateful for this opportunity to from chairman
wheeler about how he is addressing the priorities of the democratic members of the subcommittee, many of which are shared our republican colleagues the members are champions from improving universal access to broadband and the medley tested many underserved areas in the country. they been tireless advocates for the rights of residents of our vast tribal lands and too often those living on tribal lands are not on the wrong side of the divider i hope to hear how the fcc can help our efforts to improve deployment to these areas by the economics alone are not enough. members have been devoted to improving public safety communications. this is meaningful for those of us conditions were impacted by disasters like hurricanes and he who believes everyone should be able to call for help in an emergency and health care more about what the commission is going to make our vision into a reality. members which are chairman wheeler's commitment to competition. that's why would lead the charge of all the fcc's designated entity program. added the new rules that the fcc
adopted the program encourages robust participation from bona fide small businesses while allowing innovative business models more in line with today's dynamic wireless market. we stood with our ranking member and her battle to free up more spectrum for unlicensed use. airways can lower barriers to entry and allow for more vigorous competition. and, finally, hope to learn more about what the commission due to support our work to protect consumers. for instance, i know several members of the subcommittee had been focused on the fcc's recent action to address robocall. we agree more needs to be done to crack down on unwanted commercial calls and a healthier what the commission can do to address the issues our members have raised. i would like to yield one minute each of the time -- i guess a minute and have a mr. doyle an admin and have two ms. matsui. >> thank you very much, for yielding. thank you, mr. chairman for holding this hearing, and
commissioner, thank you for being you. i'd like to recognize the accomplishments of the commission and of his chairman. since tom wheeler took over as chairman the fcc has done much to advance our nation's telecommunications agenda from establishing the fcc's open internet order to keeping the incentive action on track updating the lifeline program for the internet age and defines -- i want to commend chairman for dancing april competitive agenda both in wireline and wireless service. the commission's upcoming vote on tech transitioned from its action on access and the establishment of the spectrum reserve indians in the auction are all important steps toward preserving and promoting competition. mr. chairman, keep up the good work. thank you and i will yield to our colleague, ms. matsui. >> to give a much for yielding to me.
welcome back chairman wheeler and commissioner pai. it's great to see you again. i know you have a busy agenda i want to highlight two priorities i know we're all interested in. the first is making more spectrum available. spectrum is our nation's invisible infrastructure of the 21st century. it's critical to keep our wildest economy growing. we need to talk about how to get more spectrum into the pipelines we can continue to meet demand. congressman goss and i have a bipartisan bill to create new incentives for federal users. we need to continue to explore these solutions. the second is making broadband access more affordable. millions of americans are still on the wrong side of the digital divide. the lifeline program can't and should help these americans get and stay connected. i know the fcc fcc has started work on very important reforms but we need to finish the job. i look forward to working with the whole commission as a talk about these matters and hopefully make progress on this and i yield back balance of my
time. thank you. >> gentlelady yield die. the gentleman yields back. i think all time is not expire. now we will go to to distinguish witnesses, chairman mr. wheeler we love to have you back. apparently we are told because we have a lot and that's a good thing. we welcome you and commissioner pai but mr. wheeler, why don't you go ahead and legal? >> -- and lead off. spent modern technology things. >> national champ in appearances before but i wouldn't want -- >> we could arrange that. >> i would want to go down that route. but in the 10 weeks in all seriousness in the 10 weeks since i was last before this committee there's been a lot happening and i look forward to discussing it with you today. we've made significant progress to begin the incentive auction
on march 29 8 months from tomorrow. so there's a lot of pressure on here. we've continued to grapple with the tech transitioned issues that were raised by the movement from analog to ip networks. we have approved one merger with conditions, another was withdrawn and anyone was added and, of course, on top of that the appeals court stayed or denied the request for a stay for the open internet rules. but one issue which frankly caught me by surprise was that which was raised by a letter signed by every member of the subcommittee having to do with local number portability. and i wanted to report directly to you on data. our rules require that it be ubiquitous but it looks as though the man in which the
industry is set up the system does not fulfill the requirement to i appreciate this committee bringing this to our attention. implementation of the rule apparently requires that a mobile carrier have a presence in the home market of the ported phone number before the transition can occur. and this is not possible for smaller regional carriers to so the effect of this is if i were to move from washington to pay market served by a carrier not in washington and its use of that carrier in a competitive choice process i couldn't port my number. that's contrary to our rules and asked that it be fixed. yesterday i wrote the four major carriers as well as their trade associations asking that they identify a solution and report back within 60 days. i believe that carriers are in
the best position to fix this. i look forward to their response. but i do want to say to this committee, after raising this issue in unanimity, that if this approach doesn't fix it, we will have to find other approaches that do. i really appreciate the way that this committee called that to our attention because we have not seen that. on another matter raised i'm pleased to report the fcc has completed an exchange of letters with the telecommunications agency of mexico, to harmonize tv and wireless spectrum on both sides of the border. mexico is in the midst of its transition and we are heading into an incentive auction and relocation of broadcast and mobile licenses. we are on the spectrum mexico places its licenses could therefore affect us empower you
its licenses. and where we place our licenses could affect them. but thanks to the hard work of the international bureau and the spectrum auction task force and they could save negotiations at the mexican this major hurdle has been halted and i want to thank my counterpart in mexico and his commissioners for their leadership on this matter. to the north, we have been making productive progress with our friends, the canadian spirit i believe that once we have a decision next week on incentive auction procedures and we'll be able to conclude that coordination as well. and, finally, we've had frequent discussions with this committee about the open internet rule. now that the d.c. circuit has put it on an expedited track for judicial review, we are only six months or so away from that ruling. which i know we all have been waiting for.
so thank you mr. chairman ranking member, i look forward to discussing these and any other issue. >> appreciate the update. will not go to commissioner pai. we are delighted to have you before the subcommittee thinking. please go ahead. >> , and. chairman, ranking member eshoo thank you for inviting me to testify. this hearing comes at a critical to the fcc is making judgments that was shaped the communications landscape for years to come. i will start with incentive auction. the fcc is a part of conduct of this because of your bipartisan effort to therefore disappointing is proceeding has been run in a partisan manner the time and again commissioner, and i have offered commonsense ideas for improving rules and procedures. often we receive no response at all. when we do receive a response it's almost always know. fortunately, it isn't too late to change course.
broadcasters, wireless carriers and unlicensed advocates agree that the commission's current band playing this is a flaw. i standard to work with these stakeholders and my fellow commissioners to do what congress did with passed the landmark incentive auction legislation. compromised to find a consensus solution. here is what we should focus on. the proposed ban plan allows for too much variability and would put to many broadcast stations in the wild portion of the 600 megahertz band. it will be sold in fort auction and cause interference between broadcast and wireless services. in my view, the commission should try to minimize variability. if broadcast stations must be placed in the wireless portion of the band they should go in the uplink spectrum not the downlink with a cap in order to reach a compromise we need to make more information public. right now stakeholders and commissioners alike are essential been asked to take on space analyst we adopt every
aspect of the commission's proposal the incentive auction will end in an apocalyptic family. i prefer the reagan approach, trust but verify. next i'd like to discuss the fcc's designated entity which has been plagued with abuse. even as the program is supposed to small businesses, large corporations routinely try to game the system. .. at the time we were told that opening loopholes was a quote
attack on economic inequality. lets be clear. those who will profit from the new loopholes case in point under the new rules donald trump would be able to own and get funded discount and release all the spectrum. during commission's thrib rations -- deliberations to prevent this use. unfortunately the majority rejected this and other common sense reforms. when it comes to broadband too many rural areas are being left
behind. rules governing carries only two companies that offer telephone services, not stand alone service. my plan is based on principles set forth. this group urge the fcc to adopt a targeted solution to stand-alone broadband problem. i humbly submit that's exactly what my plan does. existing universal regulations to solve the stand-alone broadband problem. they would give carriers the
assurance they need. members of the committee, thank you once again for inviting me to testify. i look forward working with you and your staff. >> we appreciate your testimony as well. lp tv answer translators play an important role in providing information to con -- con con con >> repacking on lp tv and translators making sure programming continues to reach viewers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we share your interest in making sure this voice continues. as you know, the spectrum legislation does not create a repacking role, a role in repacking for translators.
the question becomes, what do you do about it. here is what we're going to do. there are chance, we -- channels. we are going to help them. one of the reality of the option is you don't know when it's going to happen. step two is that we're going to begin a rule making that will allow for channel sharing. and that kind of technology should provide a similar kind. it's con instructed in such a way that they don't have to vacate until the wireless carrier is, in fact, able to
turn out service. we believe that as we help find new channels that that would mitigate the kind problem that you're concerned about. >> i'll get back to you. >> i'll get back to you. so there is -- we're laying out a whole process that will help them through this process in findings those kind of new channels. >> all right, thank you. i want to talk about some of the financial issues because you've spoken about them before the appropriations committee and publicly. i know you addressed field agents during the meeting
regarding the issue of closing the field offices and you seem to take special point that your budget comes from congress, which is true and i want to ask, commissioner pai is it true that the management staff has more than doubled size since 2008? >> that's my understanding. >> is that true, mr. wheeler? >> it's not. 20% smaller than it was under chairman martin, and since i have come into office we have reduced the front office staff by 14%. >> ok. we'll -- we're going to follow up because there's obviously a disagreement among you two. is it also a fact that it has
more vehicles than field agents? >> yes sir. i'll tell you, i went to anchorage, i went to visit the offices. we have a policy that says you have to have two employees in each vehicle and because there's one that's driving and one working equipment. it's like texting and driving. and we have two people in the anchorage office and we have two vehicles. across -- >> this is one of the problem that is we inherited when we walked in the door. what we're trying to do now is reposition those vehicles so they would be available for the teams when they come in. >> what about we hear stories that you have cars and drivers;
is that true? >> actually -- i don't know about you all, i don't have a car and driver. is that true? >> i do try to walk whenever i can. >> yeah. my time is running. >> thank you. i want to start with chairman wheeler. i have one for commissioner pai. you say that -- you said in your opening statement that the upcoming incentive office has more moving parts and i agree. one example is the reserve trigger which i think is very important. it's critical that we get it right because we want to ensure that providers have real access to spectrum. can you commit to addressing the
concern to the competitive carriers prior to the start of the auction? that's my first question. my second question, some of the medical community has suggested that the fcc delay implementation or consideration of the tactical rules for the use of channel 37 by unlicensed tv wide-space devices. delay is concerning. this is one of the three channels that tech companies say that are at a minimum needed to sustain investment and enhance wi-fi. do you think it protects patients and harmful interference to hospital sns i -- i think that those two are really important and -- and
also there have been blackouts involving more than 30 u.s. cities. can you tell us when the fcc will complete review of the good-faith rules and when do we expect the new rules to be in place to protect consumers? a quick one to commissioner pai. he's not here, but something that commissioner said and it's a quote of his but it does deal with fcc's governing principles. he stated that one of the fcc's governing principles should be that the internet is not a necessity in the everyday lives of americans, and i know that you know, he brought up that's it's not even close to being human rights -- i don't think
that's the jurisdiction of this committee, human rights. it's disturb to go me that we would move away from that. i wanted to know if you agree or disagree if you want to add or subtract from it. i go to commissioner wheeler first and then to commissioner pai. >> let me see if i can hit those one, two three. >> trigger channel 37. >> is a concern. what we have tried to do is to make sure that there's reserve spectrum available. as mr. welch have pointed out is an important component to delivering services to rural areas. after you do that, do you want to create rules that allow people to withdraw early and not
have to pay as much as if an auction -- that's what's being requested. that is not what is currently in our proposal that we don't think that there should be a quickout. i have what i want and stop the bidding right now for the reserve spectrum. secondly in so far as channel 37 and medical devices, we change in our upcoming -- we had changed from 180 meters, 380 meters the distance that would be allowed. and that number was arrived as a result of some studies that were done by the medical folks and
so that's how that number -- why that number was increased. as you know all unlicensed spectrum has to go through a coordination process that involves database where you get permission to use it if nobody is there. if that 380 meters is insufficient in a particular area because of some rare equipment they've got or whatever that database can be adjusted to say new york city, -- no, we can't do it here. one to expand the absolute blackout area and two, then to have in there a flexible system that will reflect what reality is and shutdown if there's a situation that would cause interference. in regard to your third
question, tv blackouts, we intend to have mprm out by september the fourth as this committee told us to do on that topic and to be discussing exactly what are the full set of issues that should be involved in good faith. >> i thank you congressmen for the question. i embrace the fcc's charge given by congress. the first charge which is to make available so far as possible to all the people in the united states communication services. as you know means broadband. i've seen it as a commissioner across the country. i was in nebraska, population 297. a husband and wife, a meat processing plant which was a
two-person operation they export at retail to every state in the country. >> you say you disagree with -- >> what i'm saying i embrace a different policy -- make sure it is wide and deep as possible. i'm focused on our job. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chairman. >> chair recognizes the gentle lady from tennessee. >> thank you mr. chairman. commissioner wheeler, i want to thank you for the letter dealing with spectrum auction. we got it yesterday. i appreciate your responses. all right. i think we can all agree that we are for a successful spectrum auction. everybody agrees with that? i'm so happy we're all on the
same page. [laughs] >> make your day right? you were laying out some of the steps that were necessary. when you look at the report that came out -- and mr. chairman, i want to submit that for the record if no one has put that into the record. >> without objection. >> ok. i think that a successful action into the steps that you just articulated is to know how much spectrum that you have, and we know federal agencies are squatting on a lot of and are sitting on it to think they might do something with it.
when you look at 13 years between action and deployment, that's a lot of time. if you look at the increase usage that we're expecting, i think that it is a dangerous to first of all not inventory and know exactly what you've got. mr. chairman, to you, have you inventor and what you can recoup? >> first off, i would like to identify with exactly what you're talking about. >> ok. >> we share the same goals. >> i'm so excited. this is a good day. >> i happened to be the guy that negotiated the first deal with the government to repurpose the spectrum. this is what i found in answer
to your question about squatting, the core engineers said they were fully utilizing spectrum because ones of month it took a reading. >> right. >> the question that we have work through is how do you encourage federal agencies and all users to -- to think in terms of what is full application. the answer is -- we know who uses what spectrum. the specific use inside the specific trum -- spectrum is something for licensees control. >> i don't want to run out of time. if you know who has that much spectrum -- commissioner pai can you quantify a number?
>> i do -- >> how much they have? >> it would be helpful to have. >> i think it would be too. what i would ask you to do is quantify that. you and i know, all of us know the way you can repack this and tightening up, you can better utilize the spectrum. yes, i have to tell you. we've just done on ig report on wasteful spending and not following what it has been asked to do. if you don't force the issue they are not going to take the action. spectrum is a very valuable commodity right now. we cannot allow federal agencies through lack of creativity to squat on the spectrum. so before we get too far afield
with the 350 megahertz and further, i would like for you to come back to us and say, this is what each of these different departments has and this is what their utilization is. we can pull that back and redeploy into the marketplace and auction it. if we need a federal overwrite with something come back and do something like that but don't let them squat on this spectrum. mr. pai -- my time has run out. i will come back for the second round. >> time has expired. we will go to the gentleman of new jersey. >> three questions in three different areas. i'm going to ask you to respond fairly quickly if you can.
this deals with communications and emergencies. i wanted to thank you for the commitment. he promised they would install new rules. we are approaching the heart of hurricane season and third anniversary of sandi what is the status of fcc? >> we are working in the industry on that mr. pallone. we have to address the backup power issue. if you -- if the power is standing and no juice to it, there's no use -- i would be happy to do a more detail response on that if you would like. >> ok. if you do have something you could update us with now, i would like to maybe have a
written response if you could without objection. second question in my opening statement i sported the decision to modify and since the rules have passed however i heard criticism, how do you respond to that question of these decisions? >> we have tightened up the rules substantially and will be happy to discuss with the specific ways in which we have done that. the key things, if you take a look and i have to be real careful of how i talk about this. the record with regard to des and their relationship with
dish we use the totality test that has never been applied before to say we don't think that that's a good idea at a staff level. that's coming from the commission. i have to rule on that. the fact of the matter put it into the de rules. and so i think that we have shown there's a total that we have to look at and whatever it takes to step up blow the whistle and say that's not right. >> ok. with regard to incentive auction an consumer outreach, i've become concerned whether consumers will prepare for transition.
it will be even more difficult than digital transition because we don't have funding for consumer outreach this time and we'll have to deal with flash cut. i can say that they committed to working with us to start planning on how best to reach out to consumers. my question is can you commit to working to divide comprehensive plan so consumers know what they need to do? >> yes. >> ok. i actually -- >> well done. >> chairman, gentleman from texas. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you the ranking member for this hearing, thank you commissioner pai for being here. i'm one of the advocates for
low-power television. they don't have any real standing on the packaging of the spectrum if the main broadcasters give it back. they have provided valuable service to the country and i'd like to see them helped in some way if at all possible, so my question to both of you lets start with the chairman and then commissioner pai what can be done to ensure that we have low power television? >> thank you mr. chairman. ii would like to associate myself with the position that you've taken. i set up a special meeting with pawer operators to make sure
that i was hearing from them and making sure we were talking about it. there are multiple thing that is we can do inside that you referenced. one is we will help them find new channels after the moving. first, we don't know which one is going to be affected. we don't know what's going to be available. we don't know what's going to happen. we have to watch for that. even beyond that, we are going to begin a rule making in which we will allow translators to share a channel just like we're allowing licensees full power pow licensees to share a channel. that would create, take advantage of the benefits of digital and create another path. >> you see that they'll be power television? >> yes sir.
>> your assessment provides valuable service and that's why i flag the importance of three years to make sure the fcc does what it can specially in markets where we don't meet the spectrum and help them stay in business. vacant channel proceeding is one of that. there's a vacant channel or two available afterthe incentive option, we will reserve those for licensees. translators, stations don't have a place to go, this seems to me do what we should do to prioritize. >> thank you both of you. i yield back. >> recognizes the gentle lady
from california. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm just going by the list. >> i give my two minutes. [laughs] >> i had 1:55. >> i don't want to get in the middle of this. [laughs] >> i'm going to yield. >> go ahead. >> i'm just going by their list. >> thank you very much. thank you very much too. after next year's incentive auction, they would have implemented the last auction. demand for services that rely on spectrum continues to explode we know it takes a long time for -- to plan for any spectrum auction. mr. chairman, do you agree that we need to create a spectrum
pipeline for the next decade? >> yes ma'am. >> ok. now what do you think policymakers to consider? >> i think that you and mr. guthrie have pointed by providing congressional oversight and encouragement in the process. as ms. blackburn indicated where are the current allocations. it goes to the executive branch to determine the allocation within agencies and answer those questions. i would look forward to working with them and we have working relationship with ntia and to try and address the issues. sms -- this is something can work together on. i have to be candid and say that
the kind of leadership that you and mr. guthrie are showing in keeping the spotlight and keeping the pressure on is essential to paying attention. >> well, we intend to keep the spotlight on, so thank you. congress has the fcc balancing many prior priorities for licensed mobile broadband including opportunities. if done right the fcc can assure that incentive options beach front spectrum needed to fill while protecting over-the-air broadcast. i know a lot of concerns have been raised and the fcc is scheduled to make key decisions at your meeting. what is the fcc doing