deserved retirement. will you please announce the next date for the next agenda meeting? >> the next meeting is thursday, may 23, 2024. >> until then, we stand adjourned. well done. good job. >> big deal.

. >> good afternoon, everyone. if folks can please take their conversations to the lobby, we would greatly appreciate it. we're about to get started with an open meeting press conference. we have a pretty lively and lengthy meeting. i would like to give the chairmen as much time as possible to answer questions from the reporters in the room. >> thank you. good afternoon. all right. let's start. why don't we start with david? >> i wanted to ask specifically

about the order's effect on the chinese carriers. >> could you please turn on your microphone? >> the red button. >> can you speak to the current state of broadbrand services being promoted by chinese carriers? >> first things first under section 214 to have communications act, the f.c.c. authorizes the provision of communications in the united states. we also have the authority to take away the authorization for providing service. as you know during the last several years, we took away that authorization from several chinese carriers. during that term, however, as a result of the past f.c.c.'s decision making, this agency had no authority over broadbrand under title 2 to have communications act. as a result when we took away

the authority from those chinese companies, they were not taking away their authority to have broadbrand in this country. we have evidence that they are doing so, including indication on their website where is they offer service and we will take those matters and make sure that we investigate them going forward. >> hi, madam chairwoman. i just wanted to ask about the entente service issue. i'm wondering what your confidence is that is going to happen in the climate that congress is in? >> as you know, in the decision bhead today, we forebeared from certain provisions in the law including provisions involving universal services assessment. the identical approach in to the

2016 decision. congress is having a big and bipartisan discussion about the future of universal service and commend senator luhan for leading that discussion in the senate. i know there are comparable discussion going on in the house as someone who has been doing this for quite sometime, i think are more expansive than i have seen before. i am optimistic they are going to reach some solution. >> thank you, chair. when you announced the vote, you -- on today's net neutrality rules, you signaled thrblgd be further privacy measures. you mentioned location at the again today. can you talk about your plans about this? and how to regulate that? >> i think you know that there are outstanding enforcement actions involving our nation's wireless carriers, taking location data from their consumers and selling it to third parties. we're looking to

resolve those outstanding enforcement actions. that is the first and next step. >> thank you. following up on the cyber security section of the order, which -- the chinese carriers, but also other elements of the order that cover more authority to do with network outage reporting, things like that, does the -- with the adoption of the order, does it have the authority to fill those gaps immediately or does it require further rule makings or other items that might take time to address those issues? >> we are bound by the procedures act and will have to engage in some additional rule make. i think it is important there is some oversight of broadbrand, to determine what outages have

occurred, where they have occurred and how we fix them. >> thanks. could you -- 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 next generation video games, counting as non-bia. let's be clear about what broadbrand international services bias is. that is a product designed for consumers but allows the consumer to reach substantially all points on the internet, which is a technocratic way of saying that is your home basic broadbrand that we all rely on every day. it is vitally important to us that service available without fast lanes and slow lanes and you can go where you want without your provider making decisions for you. we recognize there are new

technologies out there like network slicing. we know that carriers can explore them. there are a lot of different business opportunities to provide specific services in the future and i think in the enterprise market there will be a lot of opportunity to continue to explore them. those are not bias services. >> so i have two questions about this. the first on the net neutrality order. the first is how concerned if, at all, are you about anticipated challenges in the courts to this order? what is your thought process going into those potential challenges and also a follow-up on contribution reform. i know some groups have asked the commission and staff in meetings leading up to today's vote to issue a further notice to proposed rule making and inquiry to comment on what potential reform would look eck like. i'm wondering why that wasn't included in today's item and if

thats something you're considering separately. >> the rules adopted today are court tested and court approved. they are very consistent with the rules that were adopted in 2015 that were upheld by the d.c. circuit in 2016. i'm confident these rules will also be upheld. we will look at universal reform issues going forward. the steps we took are identical to the ones we took in 2015 and going forward it is vitally important to me that our service system does not put the burden of support on the average consumer household. >> thank you much for taking questions. on the 988 item, you talked about the need for balancing of privacy as a consideration. does that mean from a policy standpoint you don't see the f.c.c. pursuing aye location? where do you see geo location fitting in as a 988 requirement?

>> our work in this area is governed by the relationships that we have built with the department of health and human services and experts on mental health who point out to that our best practices associated with mental health and locating with someone in crisis and also a variety of state laws that may restrict our ability to do so. what we're doing now with the consensus of the mental health community is putting forward a proposal for aye routing which would lead to information about that wireless cell tower being used. i think we're going to continue to be guided by the mental health experts. that's what got us to this point today. mic?

>> do you have any suggestions or -- to see the industry in the transition to help the household who has been getting service to the program and are going to face significantly higher bills out of those programs? >> i'm very proud of the work this agency did. we have 23 million households nationwide that rely on the program. it is the largest broadbrand affordability effort in our nation's history. we have broad based and bipartisan support for the effort to continue to fund it. n congress and across the country. and i'm continuing to make clear to congress that we have got to continue to fund this program. it is absolutely vital and i know that conversations are ongoing with some of the major providers about what'll happen if this program falls short in and congress does not don't fund it, but i think the most important thing is to continue to press on congress how important this program is so they continue to fund it.

all right. byron allen. did you? >> i shared this tbielg the office of general council. >> thank you. so we'll take questions on the media items adopted today. do you guys have any questions on the 98geo location item? >> thanks for taking the question. any notable changes from the

draft item, any notable questions, anything significant from the draft to the item approved today? >> nothing significant. we incorporated new data for the statistics that was a little structure from where we circulated. seeing a letter from the -- received a letter from the community that we made reference to and nothing material that changed. >> anything else on this item? ok. any questions on net neutrality? >> 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 you know, national security, that part of draft? >> ok. there were -- as manage, there is a record. a lot of changes in the draft are clarifications and responses

to to the partners that came in the underlying policy cuts are all the i will same with the exception there was an additional forebearance that is put in at commissioner gomez's suggestion. with respect to what was the first example? ok. so there is clarification around the nine biased data services when the item comes in. anything on national security, any clarifications in there? no. we're going to try get that item out as quickly as we can. it is a big item. there are statements that we're going to have to independent grate grate from the commissioners. those are very long the sames. we'll get that out as soon as we can. >> is there any enforcement exemptions in the finalized item for small providers? how is that addressed? >> the enforcement -- remains

the same. >> no changes from the draft? ok. thank you. >> could you talk about commissioner starks' mentioned something about changes regarding the throttling rule? could you talk a little bit about that? >> sure. there in response to some of the activity and the starks office, we made additional clarification with respect to throttling, the changed language to make it clear that speeding up indiscriminately would be in violation of the no throttling. >> to follow up on what you just said about -- is that -- a difference from the 2015 language about speeding up also ls being in 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 in relation to 2015. the language of the throttling rule remains the same. the guidance that we provide an item is probably worded a little bit differently. but i don't really want to read into the intent of the 2015 item vs. our item but our item is explicit in saying that speaking up of content would be analyzed under the throttling rule. >> does that -- does that ban 5g or is that something different? >> so the 5g fast lane discussion in the record has come up in the record around network slicing and it remains the same from when it was released publicly in the sense that the rules, we will continue to monitor network slicing and

the evolution of that technology. our rules do not prohibit the lewis of network slicing, if internet service providers are using slicing to provide a biased service then our rules will apply to that. if they are using bias to apply to an enterprise type service or unbiased data service, our rules will not apply to that unless it is clear they are attempting to evade our rules by characterizing the service differently. >> to make sure i understand, the general consumer internet south lanes are not allowed but for specialized enterprise services outside fast lanes? >> could you repeat the question? >> so for the general consumer entering fast lanes are not -- whether it is a mobile or cyber optic connection? >> so, i mean, the con soacht a

fast lane is not necessarily a commission endorsed term. with respect to throttling, we do make clear the speeding up of that content in the mass market service as the chairmanman was referring to it is not permitted. if that is done within a 5 disbrch network slice, we would have to evaluate the service to determine whap the underlying service in that slice looks like. >> so i asked the chairwoman about contribution reform as part of this proceeding. i would like to pose the question to you as well. many have meetings out the f.c.c. and folks have asked for some kind of preceding, npr and to look at contribution reform with the inclusion of bias. could you talk about the

decision to not include that and n this particular item today and kind of what the thinking is down the line at least in the bureau about looking at this issue smp >> r sure, i don't want to talk about the decisions that we made to put things into this item or take things off this item. but what i will say is contributions reform is something that has been on the burner in this industry for a long time. it is a very complicated and challenging undertaking for us. and to simply throw it into this item and further notice with a couple of weeks, just isn't feasible. we know there is a lot of work going on in congress right now, as you heard the chairwoman talk about. there is bipartisan, bi cam really a groups talking about it. we owe them some space on that. we will continue to run our

universal service programs to the best way that we can. >> so this item, section 254 forebearance to providers. has the f.c.c. ever reversed a forebearance before? so if they were going to be included this the contribution base you would have to reverse that forebearance. >> it has been done before with respect to broadbrand data service, business services. a number of years ago. i would have to come back to you and let you know when that is. >> i do have one last question on this item. preemption on a case by baste case basis. when you think about states and local governments that have their own net neutrality frameworks that might go further than what the f.c.c. has in this item. is this considered a floor, not a ceiling? is sph the state of local government wants to go further than the protections laid out in the item? what is the f.c.c.'s approach to addressing that?

>> the item does not use floor, ceiling type language. that was how the record was characterized. it really does adhere to the case by case evaluation consistent with what we did in 2015. if that enables parties who are concerned about a particular law to come to us and seek a preemption decision but we're not prejudging any particular state or local regime. >> arely the any questions on the enforcement items today? no? thank you? with that, i will hand it off to commissioner carr. thanks very much.

>> thanks, good to see you. at the outset, i want to reexpress my appreciation, thanks to congress and to the president for signing the law, the ban that definitively addresses tiktok's national security threats by requiring it to divest, to break its ties with the ccp. this has been an important issue over the last couple of years in particular. it shows that the u.s. government can in fact come together and solve something that is the technology space that presents a real national security threat. i think the cpc made a bet the united states would not address this issue. i'm pleased to see that one gets across the finish line. i said a lot already. happy to quickly move into your questions other than to say i think the major question doctrine here is clear. it is fundamentally different from administrative law perspective in term turnovers review that the court will bring

to this -- terms of the review that the court will bring to this. i'm ultimately confident the courts are going to turn this aside. >> thank you for taking the time. you indicated in your statement that you expected this would be overturned at the judicial level. do you have any thoughts, any knowledge as to who is going to be plaintiff on this and do you have any sense ass to how soon something might be filed, talking -- you're expecting something as soon as next week? longer? what is your skinny on that? >> who might be taking an appeal from that perspective. i think the bureau team indicated there will be some time to get the actual document out. they are going to move quickly. publication to register. i expect getting into the court sometime in the next couple of months and then the actual substantive review could be some

period of time after that. >> hi. i want to ask you about contribution reform as part of this net neutrality forum. some kind of note us seeking comment, part of contribution base and looking at other reform avenues. assuming this item holds 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 like under a net neutrality framework? >> for my part, i strongly oppose the idea that we should take the existing system which is a 30% assessment on existing, the existing title to telecom bills and shift that over to the broadbrand data portion of the bill whether it is as it is today or in the future. i think that would effectively

result in rate shock where eum consumers' price paid on those monthly bills would especially crease. at a particular point in time rg, when there is a lot of focus on affordability, i think it would be a mistake to do that we should look at bringing in large technology companies that benefit from these expenditures and ask them to kick in a fair share. there is a limited -- for the f.c.c. to do that. looping large technology companies in. there are discussions in congress that are wrestling with some of these very same issues. i would oppose any effort by the f.c.c. to shift the contribution over to broadbrand and frankly, if you look at the commission the last couple of years, there hasn't been an expression of huge appetite towards that. you look at the report that we issued to congress, i believe it

was in august of last year or the year before that, either of 22 or 23 that we should report to congress on the future and that document you saw a lot of comments from at least the document that was a full bear hug of this idea that broadbrand should be cricket and picking up entirely for usf. >> thanks, commissioner. so you have been very clear that you're opposed to the f.c.c. having this title 2 regulation over broadbrand. i'm curious what you think is appropriate regulation should look like for the sector as broadbrand providers are blocking websites or discriminating against certain websites, what sort of recourse should consumers have? >> this goes back to a false picture that's been painted. look at this item in particular. i think it is the second

paragraph. since 2017, there has been no federal oversight of broadbrand. it leaves people the impression, i think it is reflected a little bit in your question, if something goes wrong in the internet ecosystem there is no cop on the beat to step in. the answer is that is not the reality of the legal landscape right now. right now broadbrand fighters are fully regulated by the fcc under their authorities and that addresses all sorts of unjust indiscriminatory practices. in fact there are many actors in the ecosystem that are subject to those regulation and the vast majority that engage in discriminatory conduct, including big tech, are not going to be subject to title 2 regulations. the idea that there is no cop on the beat and by putting title 2 in place there will be a cop on the beat does not accurately

portray it. there is a cop on the beat. in fact there are two cops on the beat. last year we adopted an additional equity order that gives the f.c.c. the authority to act on how the internetworks. whether it is the ftc or the f.c.c. itself which flies title one broadbrand there are multiple cops on the beat to address the types of concerns if they arise. but then again at a macro level, the merritts of the net when they started in 2005, i think you compare the market power today and the level of competition today to when it started, it is a little different. even if we were in a situation without a cop on the beat, which we're not, but if we were, there is a tremendous act amount of market influencing factors that could be brought to bear. that is not what i'm talking about for my argument.

>> why would it be better for ftc to be the cop on the beat? >> because a couple of reasons. when you apply title 2 to the internet, itle kos with a host of -- comes with a host of additional heavy handed regulations that have nothing to do with net neutrality and similar rules that you articulated. second and most fundamentally, it is a question of do with e have the power to do it? it is better for it to remain with the ftc because i don't believe the f.c.c. has the power to apply title 2 regulations. there is no gap today in the authority of my view is clear with the ftc. ftc regulates some of the most complicated markets and subsections of markets in connectivity. there is no gap today.

i don't think there is a gap in expertise either. more importantly if you believe all of those things, that would take you back to congress, not what i view as a power grab. thanks. no speeding up the questions here. one at a time. >> thanks, commissioner. >> any thoughts on that holding up in court and if divestment is not realistic within the timeframes that congress has passed, what needs to be done this then? what is the f.c.c.'s role in this, if any directly? >> i am really pleased with where things landed on the tiktok debate. obviously i don't spare my fair share of criticism of the biden

administration, but this is one where they showed actually a lot of important leadership. this is one where there are some people that criticize and said look, you can't ban tiktok. there are polls that show particularly people that use tic toik overindexed in terms of being democrat-based. there were some that wondered whether the biden administration would push this akrses the finish line and they did. tiktok is sure to go to court. there is at least 270 days before the actual divestiture deadline kicks in. i guess the question is do they go to court immediately or eke into the 270-day clock before they do go to court? either way, they will. the larger argument, one of the things they will ark is the first amendment. this is one i have spent a lot of time with. my view here which is very

straightforward. the supreme court draws a distinction between regulations based on conduct. the nefarious data flows they didn't discuss. i think this is a pretty easy case under the first amendment. then they argued bill attainder as well. there too the law is clear. a lot people look at bill attainder and if you name it bill attainder that is not bill attainder at all. look at it, it is a backward looking -- is it a punishment for backward-looking conduct like you would do in a judicial proceeding. that may be a bill tainder. here this is a forward looking prophylacticmeasure. we point the the montana case which involved the first meament

vel as well. the court there didn't believe the state had a legit interest in regulating tiktok because tiktok involved a matter of national security and foreign policy which congress has authority. that montana case is not analogous here because what was missing in the case was -- we have that here. congress that is power and the constitution to pass a law like this. so to go to court, i believe the u.s. is going the win that case. ultimately it comes to a decision point for in my view, the f.c.c. which allowed the day vestment to go forward. do they take their toys and go home? allow the customers to keep their algorithm? i think all of that is yet to be played out. >> thank you, commissioner. do you agree with the chair's --

necessary for the commission to reassert or assert authority tore chinese telecom's ability to offer services in the u.s. and secondly do, you think beyond today's order that gives them 60 days from the time of this effective date to stop the use of services, are there any other actions the commissioner should take to prevent chinese telecom texas to involved in the carrying of u.s. internet traffic either through p.o.p. or other ways traffic is routed? >> i am always happy to move here at the f.c.c. to do whatever we can to address the threats posed by eptities beholden by the ccp. really quickly, to help shed light on the situation. we revoked the 224 of china mobile and they were effectively behold on to the ccp.

they continued since then to do various lines of business in the u.s. without the need for a title 2 authorization including cloud services, data center service, apparently private services. what i said over a year ago was that we at the f.c.c. should look at the entities that do have title 2 authorization before today and keeping them from intersecting with entities, whether it is a 214, a cable landing license or some point at which that traffic is going to be hitting a licensed network i said a long time ago, we should explore doing that. the government that is has not explored doing that. what we're doing now is applying title 2 tobias and giving everyone a title 2 authority and we are revoking it.

but the f.c.c. now is a database of all entities that are providing bias and that data does not list any of those chinese entities. why is that? my understanding is the reason why is because they are offering cloud services and data center services and private services that don't qualify as bias. if they have been doing something that constitutes bias then we should have taken enforcement action against them a while ago for failing to identify themselves in our bdc data collection. based on that evidence, it seems to me reclassifying the internet's title 2 in saying that we're giving them title 2 licenses and asking them to turn any of nose that they have. i think we should do what i said we should do a while ago. step back even further than

f.c.c., congress has existing authorities today that would allow them to go after any entity based on being behold on to the ccp. if the federal government believes and i actually do believe they shouldn't be doing business here, we can and should without title 2, for reasons laid out, it is certainly not the case that title 2 is necessary to justify on the basis of going after those entities. >> entity listings that you were talking about through b.i.s.? >> the congress department, supply chain rules. yeah. anything else? i'll follow up if i can. >> completely unrelated to net neutrality. can you comment about allegations that byron allen --

put influence on the chair and lawmakers such as nancy pelosi? >> i got a headline of this report, press clippings before the meeting. i haven't clicked through it. i disagree with the process that the f.c.c. laid out there. i should it should have been handled differently. full statements laid out. without having a click through beyond the headline, nothing more to add at this point ok. thanks all. appreciate it. ♪ >> c cit hill producer announced tom cole is addressing guidelines earmarks

regarding spending bills. earmarks refer to federal spending for a specific project in the congressional district. locality or state. congress banned the use of earmarks in 20211 but they were reinstatessed in in response,a deloro releasedtement deeming nonprofits ineligible for communit project funding is a seismic shift as nearly half of all of the 2024 health funded e.d.i. projects were directed to nonprofit recipnt she said in order to accommote the extreme republican rule, they are tinto rule out anything for the lgbtq plus community.

>> c-span's "washington journal" discussing the latest issues with government, public policy and washington across the country. coming up friday morning, the president of judicial watch discusses former president trump's legal issues, election-related lawsuits and their impact on the 2024 election. and then daniel weiner talks about campaign fundraising so far this election cycle and the broader role of money in american politics. c-span's washington journal. guideline the conversation live at 7:00 eastern friday morning on c-span. c-span now, our freeing mobile app. online at c-span.org. >> friday a conversation on fostering global relationships and the possibility of gnaw cold war with china hosted by georgetown university's global

dialogues. watch live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> they said i'm over the hill. don lemon would say that is a man in his prime. >> watch c-span's coverage of the annual white house corners dinner live saturday with colin jost as the featured entertainer as well as president biden who is expected to give remarks. our coverage begins at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.org and c-span now. as journalists and sleppities walk the red carpet into the event. sights and sounds from signed the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch the white house earn correspondents dinner on the c-span networks. look tv. every sunday on c-span 2

features leading thoroughs discussing -- authors discussing their latest non-fiction books. arguing modern parenting is producing children record rates of anxiety and then at 10:00 p.m. eastern, susan paige recounts the life and career of barbara walters in her book, the rule breaker. she is joined by ann compton. watch book tv every sunday on c-span 2 and find a full schedule in your programgame guide. or watch online any time at booktv.org. >> former esident trump met with voters and supporters in manhattan including the union group before the start of day seven in his criminal hush m