suicide prevention hotline. this is just under two hours. ♪

>> good morning and welcome to the april 2024 open meeting of the federal communications commission. madam secretary, will you please introduce our judges for today? >> good morning to you, and good morning, commissioners. for today's meeting, you will be presented with two items and five enforcement actions for your consideration. first, you will consider a second further noticed of proposal making that would propose to require the implementation of one or more geo routing solutions for wireless calls to the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline, to make sure calls are routed a geographic location rather than the area code and exchange associated with a wireless phone. second, you will consider a declaratory ruling, order, and

order on reconsideration that would reestablish the commission's authority to protect consumers and safeguard the fair and open internet by classifying broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service, and classifying mobile broadband internet access is a commercial mobile service, exercising brought and tailored forbearance, and reinstating strict forward -- and straightforward rules to ensure internet openness. third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, you will consider separate enforcement actions. this is your agenda for today. today's first item is titled "implementation of the national suicide hotline act of 2018," and will be presented by the water line commission bureau. >> thank you so much, madam secretary. before we turn to the bureau for their presentation, we have a very special guest.

i would like to introduce the chief executive officer of every mind. they are a nonprofit organization with a mission to strengthen communities and empower individuals to raise optimal mental wellness. the execute the organization's strategic plans. she ensures every mind has the infrastructure and financial resources to meet its ambitious goals, maintain an extensive network of partners and funders as she advances local and regional agendas for mental health advocacy. she is also a crucial steward of the culture and values. the most important thing you should know is that she is here today because she has spearheaded the expansion of mental health programs in montgomery county, maryland, which is in our own backyard, and she has been providing direct mental health support

education to over 50,000 children, youth, adults, older adults, veterans, and their families. i would like her to start off our discussion of 988 today and tell us what she knows from her role leading every mind and heard many years experience with mental health wellness and suicide prevention. so, take it away. >> thank you. good morning, madam chairwoman. esteemed commissioners. i extend my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to address you this morning. representing every mind, an organization deeply committed to enhancing mental health and wellness, i speak with conviction on the importance of implementing geo riding within the 988 infrastructure. our work spans diverse democratic fix, focusing on underserved communities, stigma reduction, and improving access to mental health services.

for over 50 years, our 24-seven hotline has been a cornerstone of support, offering free and confidential assistance to individuals in crisis. as one of the original centers in the national suicide prevention lifeline network, we have continuously evolved, pioneering tech services in maryland over a decade ago. our dedicated team of 50 frontline crisis counselors anticipates providing supportive listening and suicide intervention on over 50,000 calls and texts this year. despite our efforts, challenges persist, especially in routing calls and texts from transient areas such as montgomery county and the national capital region. allow me to illustrate the significance of geo-routing with two poignant examples from our hotline. maddie, a crisis counselor on our team, received a text through 98 from8 eli, a

16-year-old, who bravely confided his mother was contemplating suicide. eli texted 988 looking for help. while providing eli with much needed support and guidance for how to approach the situation with his mom, maddy reached out to the montgomery county crisis center, guiding them through the situation with vital information to assess the need for a mobile crisis team response. once it was realized that the situation was dire, with compassion and astute questioning, maddie was swiftly able to coordinate with the local crisis services. maddie's guidance led to the dispatch of the mobile crisis team, highlighting the profound impact of leveraging local resources in moments of crisis. conversely, imagine receiving texts from a maryland number, but the person in need is actually across the country. crisis counselors like ours across the nation faced immediate hurdles. they rely on the visitor to

share specific location details, which can be uncomfortable. for example, one of our crisis hotline counselors, erin, answered a call from reina, a woman experience in a panic attack after a devastating breast cancer diagnosis. despite the maryland area code, she is now living in utah and was calling from a parking lot, unable to afford her medical bills. erin, unfamiliar with utah services, focused on validating reina's feelings and ensuring her safety for the rest of the afternoon. our counselor erin knows the services to help connect people facing trauma, isolation, and a need of social and emotional support in maryland, but not in utah. erin's options to provide support to reina become more limited and more uncertain. the absence of geo-routing limited her ability to provide

tailored support, underscoring the urgent need for a more effective system. how many people have a different area code from where they reside? i do. nowhere is this more evident than in washington, d.c. area, where the pure research center estimates that 50% of residents with a cell phone have a number from outside the district. according to the census bureau, approximately 36 million americans move residents every year, but they rarely change their cell phone number. geo-routing offers a viable solution to these pressing challenges by directing calls and texts to the nearest crisis center while safeguarding confidentiality, geo-routing ensuring swift access to support in moments of crisis. moreover, it empowers organizations to identify areas of haida mind -- haida mind --

high demand. the demand for mental health services has surged dramatically. an additional 30% increase in the second year. tech support requests has risen by 500% in the same period, with a significant portion originating from young people under the age of 24, highlighting the urgent need for accessible mental health services. despite this escalating demand, awareness of 988 remains low. polling conducted last year reveals that only 13% of people are aware of 988's existence. this lack of awareness coupled with ineffective routing systems creates layers of complexity in service provision.

of one of maryland's nine crisis call centers to the 988 lifeline, every mind is at the forefront of providing support to those in need. our unwavering commitment to mental health advocacy causes us to wholeheartedly support the implementation of geo-routing. i urge the commission to approve this proposal on geo-routing to ensure equitable access to timely, local mental health support and crisis services, to ensure that every color and texter can receive the same high-quality, effective, and lifesaving services that eli and his mother did. together, we can save countless lives. thank you for your attention and dedication to this critical issue. thank you. >> thank you so much for your words today, and setting the stage, describing how important

what we are about to embark on really is. we really appreciate you being here. with that, our chief of the wireline competition bureau and staff, let's proceed. >> good morning, madam chairwoman, and commissioners. thanks to ms. mazur for that inspiring message and reminding us what we are working towards. this morning, the bureau is proud to present for your consideration a second further notice of rule making that if adopted would take an important step towards improving access to lifesaving services provided by the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline.

i would like to thank the bureau team for their hard work, as well as our colic from the public safety at homeland security bureau, the wireless telecommunications bureau, the office of communications business opportunities, the office of analytics, and at the office of general counsel for their crucial review and input. i would also like to thank our federal partners at the department of health and human services. seated at the table from the bureau is the associate bureau chief from our front office, the deputy division chief fresh in from chicago this morning, and mary wolf. mary will present the item. >> thank you. the united states continues to face a suicide and mental health crisis. according to the centers for d's -- disease control and

prevention, suicide was the leading cause of death in the u.s. in 2021, resulting in 38,000 deaths. the 988 crisis line provides lifesaving services for people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress and is a vital component of the nationwide response to this ongoing mental health crisis. over the last several years, the committee has designated 988 as the three digit dialing number for callers to reach that line, and rerouting calls to the lifeline. since the transition in july 2022, the lifeline has received and routed over 9.6 million calls, texts, and chats. based on the original design of the system, callers may not receive support from local crisis centers.

approximately 80% of the calls are made from wireless calls, and the system reroutes those to local collars based on -- local centers based on area code. many callers have wireless numbers with area codes that do not match their physical location. the discrepancy is also prevalent among groups like college students in service members. mental health and crisis counselors have opined that connecting callers to local crisis centers is essential to ensuring they have access to local public resources and public safety resources. moreover, local crisis counselors may be more knowledgeable about unique community stressors and other regional, cultural, and economic factors impacting callers in distress. this is highlighted a need to improve the routing of calls to the 988 lifeline, based on the caller's location through a process known as geo-routing. geo-routing refers to technical

solutions for directing calls based on a geographic location for the origin of the call without transmitting information about the callers' precise location. this would continue the commission's work to provide meaningful access to the 988 lifeline and build on the progress made by all stakeholders to date by proposing to adopt rules requiring wireless carriers to implement a geo-routing solution -- for calls to the 988 lifeline. next, if adopted, the second further notice would seek comment on a variety of aspects related to implementing the geo-routing solution for the 988 lifeline, including technical specifications and limitations, required routing data and

transmission methods, necessary infrastructure and changes, testing requirements, and timelines for deployment. the second further notice would seek comment on routing challenges in any potential or needed geo-routing solutions for non-wireless calls and texts to the 988 lifeline. lastly, the second further notice, if adopted, would be comment on the authority to require wireless carriers to implement one or more geo-routing solutions to calls to the 988 lifeline. the bureau recommends adoption of the second further notice of proposed rulemaking and request editorial privileges. >> thank you. we will hear comments. we will start with commissioner carr. >> thanks to the bureau for your presentation on this. a year ago, when i was in sioux falls, south dakota, i had the chance to visit the helpline center, an organization that provides mental and behavioral health services, and it answers

over 100,000 calls to 988 a year. that is when i had the chance to meet janet, one of the counselors. she is someone who makes a difference in people's lives every single day that she goes to work. the story she told me at work, very similar to the ones we heard ann relay about the communication between maddie and eli. what she conveyed to me is that 988 is making a real difference. she knows that this easy to remember number has resulted in people reaching out for help earlier in a lifecycle of a crisis and that resulted in their counselors being able to be more effective in the help that they provide. in fact, they estimate that since 988 has been rolled out, they have seen a 200% increase in the number of calls and texts

coming into the center. but they also thought there was more the sec can continue -- fcc can continue to do. in particular, they flags call routing with mobile phones and portability. people don't always call 988 from the same geographic area associated with the area code on their phone. that means somebody reaching out for help in south dakota has their call routed to a helpline located somewhere else. as we heard erin, the call between --as we heard, in the call between erin and reina. there has to be a way to reroute the calls and continue to protect the privacy of colors and make sure they are not discouraged from calling out for help. that is exactly the idea the chair has put forward today. i want to thank the chairwoman for her leadership and work on this issue, for saying how we can further improve the system. i want to recognize the centers for their leadership in efforts

to advance the bipartisan 988 lifeline location improvement act. this is legislation that would ensure we have a strong footing necessary to make sure this vital resource continues to be accessible. finally, i want to thank the staff of the wire land bureau. the item has my support. >> thank you for that. commissioner stark. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. first, i would like to think ms. -- thank ms. mazur for your advocacy, what you're doing for people who have mental health issues. that was a startling statistic you said. chat and text service needs up by over 500%. that is something that is -- that we should all take note of. more than anything, i am proud that we have been able to move so quickly here to deliver critical results for the

american people. all the pieces, in many ways, have lined up. since the nationwide transition in july 2022, the lifeline has received and routed 9.6 million calls, texts, and chats. i would call that success, but as we have heard quite clearly, there is more room for us to do better, to continue to grow. our primary responsibility is to ensure that meaningful access to the lifeline, and we have done this by setting reliability, outage requirements, and we continue on that great theme following the council of mental health advocates proposing to require geo-routing solutions for 988. currently, when a caller calls 988, they are routed to a crisis center. but where the majority of calls

are made from a wireless phone, we have the opportunity to make it even closer, even better, so that it performs. experts have virtually unanimously advised that connecting callers in crisis to local crisis centers is vitally important. the substance abuse admin to administration, the lifeline administrator, industry partners, we have all completed that successful proof of concept trial. of the solution we are talking about for geo-routing, and this will continue to require cooperation between those carriers originating the call, the lifeline administrator that controls. obviously, there is more need for us to get our word out for folks experiencing this very critical issue. thank you to the chairwoman for her leadership. thank you to the hard work of the team here. it really deserves our full support. >> when i am reflecting on area

codes in my own family, there is a 305, 302, 267, and 505. in my -- under my own roof. and the 306 for my family back home. but if you are defining the quadrilateral that draws, the corners would be northern virginia, rochester, new york, chicago, and south florida. personally, i would appreciate being geo-located whenever there is any sort of need for services like this. obviously we are in a different era in terms of what it really means to provide services to people where they are. i want to thank the team for their hard work bringing this into the modern era. >> thank you for drawing that quadrilateral. [laughter] commissioner gomez? >> thank you. my first ever site visit as a

commissioner was to join chairwoman rosenworcel in maryland, and thank you for hosting us. i walked away that day with a fuller appreciation for the importance of making the 988 lifeline available to the public, and gratitude for the hundreds of volunteer centers and staff that provide support to callers across the country. as the 988 has become available -- lifeline has become available, we have learned how to improve support for callers, and today we take steps toward such an improvement. doing everything we can to ensure individuals experiencing crisis can receive the support they need, save lives, and it is simply good policy. i look forward to seeing the record developed with solutions and ideas with how we can implement the next step. thank you to the staff of the wireline bureau for your valuable work on this item. >> thank you, commissioners.

as you have heard, not far from us here at the federal communications commission, in a nondescript, low-slung building in maryland, is an organization called everymind. they are one of 200 call centers across the country that respond when people dial 988, the suicide and crisis hotline. we know 988 well. we helped set up this easy to remember three digit number nationwide. we made it possible for anyone anywhere to reach out for help with this number to call, chat, or text. but those are the technical details, because at this agency, we don't really know what it is like to be on the receiving end of those calls. the people at everymind do. and along with commissioner gomez, i visited everymind to learn more about what responding to 988 looks like on the ground.

after spending some time with everymind, two things were really clear. first, the people answering these calls are extraordinary. they listen and respond thoughtfully and carefully to everyone who reaches out in crisis. the work they do save lives. second, the people answering these calls face challenges because connecting those who reach out to 988 to nearby health can be complicated. today, we know that 80% of the calls to 988 originate from a wireless phone. and right now, those calls are based on the error code associated with that device -- the area code associated with that device. but as we have heard, the area code on our phones no longer matches the place where we live. that means if you have a phone number for maryland but you move to california and you dial 988, you would still be routed to a call center in maryland, like everymind.

and i know from my visit that the people at everymind will do everything they can to assist you. but it goes without saying that they know more about how to get you assistance in their own backyard than they do across the country in california. i think it is time to change this. and if we do, i think we can save more lives by getting more people connected to resources nearby. that is why today we propose to introduce geo-routing. when geo-routing is used, wireless calls to 988 are routed to call centers based on the nearby towers that wireless calls used to connect. this provides a more accurate picture of a caller's true location while still protecting their privacy. more importantly, geo-routing means those responding to 988 inquiries have a lot more knowledge of local resources and are better equipped to assist the caller with getting the help they need. i want to point out that we are already on the right track.

last year, i wrote to the nationwide wireless providers, urging them to begin work on geo-routing. i want to thank them for the headway they have made on development, testing, and trial. i also want to make clear that for geo-routing, the work for 988 across the country, the department of health and human services and its administrator is going to have to incorporate the solutions we are proposing here directly into its process. this is vital. as we develop these technical solutions, we benefit from having experts in mental health work with us every step of the way. i also want to thank secretary becerra for joining us when i introduced the idea of requiring geo-routing for 988. i also want to thank the counselors of everymind and ann mazur for being here today, for the gracious way they opened their doors to us, and the

services they provide to people in the community. they are heroes in our own backyard. i want to thank the staff responsible. the public safety and homeland security bureau. the wireless telecommunications bureau. the office of general counsel. the office of economics analytics. and the office of communications business opportunities. we are going to get this done. now, let's proceed to a vote on the item. commissioner carr? >> approved. >> approved.

>> approved. >> the item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. madam secretary, will you please announce the next item on today's agenda? >> item two is entitled "safeguarding and securing the open internet" and will be also presented by the wireline competition bureau. the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. please proceed. >> good morning again. the wireline competition bureau is pleased to present for your consideration a declaratory ruling, an order on reconsideration that would establish the commission's authority over broadband internet service. i would like to thank the entire bureau team for their dedicated work on this item. as well as our colleagues across the industry who contributed,

including in the telecommunications bureau's. i would also like to thank the offices of communications businesses opportunities, the office of economics and analytics, the office of international affairs, and at the office of general counsel. seated at the table with me are adam copeland, deputy bureau chief, and jody mae, division chief, and mason sheffa. mason will present the item. >> good morning, madame chairwoman, and commissioners. high-speed internet connections are indispensable to every aspect of our daily lives. for more, education, and health care, to commerce, community, communication, and free expression. since 2017, there has been no federal oversight over this vital service. the item before you would reclassify a broadband internet access service, the consumer

broadband service that we use and rely on everyday, as a telecommunications service under title ii of the comedic asians act of 1934 as amended. it would reestablish the -- this fair and open internet. encourages competition and innovation, and is critical to public safety. first, the declaratory ruling that classifies broadband access as a tele-communications service. it would find that reclassification would provide the commission with additional authority to safeguard national security, advance public safety, protect consumers, and facilitate broadband deployment. it would tie in broadband service as a communications service. it represents the best reading of the act in light of the marketplace reality of

how service is perceived today, as well as the technical and factual realities of how broadband internet access service functions, and that such reclassification is fully justified under the commission's long-standing authority to classify services subject to its jurisdiction. it would make clear that the commission will exercise its authority on a case-by-case basis to preempt state or local measures that interfere or are incompatible with the federal regulatory open internet framework. second, the order would establish forbearance, including no rate regulation, no tariffing, and no cost to county rules. to ensure the regulatory environment protects consumers and achieves other important public interest responsibilities

while not stifling investment and innovation. consistent with the commission's approach in 2015, the order would not forbear portions of title ii that protects consumers and competition, preserve enforcement tools, protect consumer privacy, provide access to infrastructure, support disability access, and promote universal service. in order to account for the changing national security landscape, the commission would also retain its authority with respect to broadband providers under sections 214, 218, 219, and 220. third, the report in order would reinforce straightforward, clear rules that prohibit locking, throttling, or engaging in paid or affiliated prioritization arrangements, and require providers to expose --

the broad range of the internet ecosystem. it would reinstate a general standard that prohibits unreasonable interference or advantage to consumers or.providers .it would provide an exception for reasonable network management. it would make clear that the commission will employ a case-by-case review under sections 201 and 202 to ensure internet traffic exchange practices do not harm the open internet. it would establish a multifaceted enforcement framework comprised of advisory opinions and enforcement advisories, commission initiated investigations, and an informal and formal complaint. finally, the order on reconsideration would partially grant and otherwise -- and otherwise dismiss as mute for petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the 20 restoring internet freedom order.

the bureau recommends adoption of this item and request editorial privileges. thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear comments from the bench. commissioner carr? >> the internet in america has thrived in the absence of 1930's command and control regulation by the government. indeed, bipartisan consensus emerged early on, that the government should not regulate the internet like copper line telephone monopolies. in the telecom act of 1996, a republican congress and a democrat president came together and agreed to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet unfettered by federal or state regulation.

one year later, congress directed the fcc to issue a report definitively reviewing the terms congress added to the communications act of 1934 in that 1996 enactment, including the distinction congress had drawn between a lightly regulated title i information service and a heavily regulated title ii telecommunications service. the fcc, chaired at the time by a democrat and president clinton appointee, did so in the 1998 sivan's report -- stevens report. the report determined that internet access is a title i information service under the statute. for decades, that bipartisan position held. it held through the remainder of the clinton administration. it held through all eight years

of the bush administration. and it held through the first six years of the obama administration. every fcc chairman across those nearly 20 years, republican and democrat alike, repeatedly affirmed that broadband remained a title i information service. the fcc did so again and again and again and again. while activists on the political fringe lobbied for years to persuade the fcc to change course and regulate the internet as a public utility under title ii, the fcc never wavered. not once. classifying the internet as a title ii service remains a third

rail of communications policy, both unlawful and misguided. all of that changed in a flash. in fact, it years of bipartisan consensus vanished over the course of just 117 seconds. on november 10, 2014, president obama published a youtube video calling on the fcc to label broadband a title ii telecom service for the first time, and to oppose sweeping new government controls on the internet in the name of net neutrality. president obama's 1:57 video was the culmination of an unprecedented and coordinated campaign by the executive branch

to pressure an independent agency into grabbing power that the legislative branch never said it had delegated. indeed, on that very same morning that president obama released his video calling for title ii, activists showed up at the home of the fcc chairman and used their bodies to blockade his driveway. demanding he classify the internet as a title ii service. they returned to his home again that very same night. chairman wheeler would later testify and write an email suggesting he had believed that those activists who showed up at his home did not act independently from the white house.

the pressure campaign just continued to mount. just weeks later, title ii activists rushed the dais during the fcc monthly commission meeting, obstructing an official proceeding, and unfurled a "reclassified now" banner behind the heads of fcc commissioner's before security intervened. it is also why, as you know, we now have security sitting on both ends of the dais. it was that event. and days before president obama released his title ii video, someone who serves today as president biden's chief of staff but was serving then as president obama's director of the national economic council, took the unprecedented step of

visiting the fcc chairman in his fcc office so that he could deliver a message to the fcc chairman about president obama's upcoming announcement on title ii. why this flurry of pressure from the white house in november of 2014? it is not just because people were coming off of a midterm election loss. as fcc emails show, the fcc chairman was just days away from circulating a draft decision to the commission that would have adopted net neutrality rules, but stopped short of going full title ii. the white house decided it had to stop this fcc plan before the

fcc chairman took it public. so, it acted to derail the compromise path the fcc chair had tried to chart. the wall street journal reported a story on all of this titled "net neutrality: how the white house thwarted the fcc chief." it describes an "unusual, secretive effort inside the white house led by two aides, acting like a parallel version of the fcc itself." subsequently, internal fcc communications that were later obtained by congress only confirmed and added additional concerning details to that reporting. the legislative branch, they caught wind of the executive

branch's power-play. it did not sit idly by. the chief of staff to that then majority leader of the senate, harry reid, wrote to the fcc chairman. he said he had spoken to the white house again and "told them to back off title ii." went through once again the problems it creates for us. majority leader reid's chief of staff followed up, "my main point to the white house is how can you declare that regulations written in the 1930's will work fine for 2014 technology?" that is a good question. "let tom do his job and everything will be fine," he ended.

except that the white house did not let the fcc chaired do his job. -- chair do his job. the president intervened. reflecting on the white house campaign while testifying before congress, fcc chairman wheeler was asked about president obama's november 10 announcement and whether it had an impact on the title ii debate at the fcc. he testified, "of course it did." continuing, he said, "when jeff came to me and said, this is what the president is going to do, that was substantial significance." the testimony is true. emails confirmed that the fcc stopped the presses on its compromise or hybrid approach, delayed the vote, and quickly went to work drafting a decision

that full -- that went full title ii, just as the president demanded. chairman wheeler would later write an email where he described this episode as his damascus road experience. ever since president obama flipped chairman wheeler, there has been no turning back. title ii is now just a matter of civic religion for activists on the left. they demand that the fcc go full title ii whenever a democrat is president. everybody knows what is expected. president biden made restoring title ii a campaign promise. and now jeff size is back in the white house. so, yes, millions of people have

filed comments on net neutrality over the years, but none of them matter. none of them persuaded the fcc to go full title ii. only the president mattered. this also explains why the fcc has never been able to come up with a credible reason or policy rationale for title ii. it is all just shifting sam's. -- shifting sands. the agency is doing what it is told to do by the executive branch and just cobbling together rationalizations as it goes along. you may wonder, why am i starting out this statement recounting this bit of fcc history? for starters, i think it has held an important part of the story of title ii. the fcc's position on title ii did not simply evolve over time.

the overton window on title ii did not just naturally shift. president obama forced the fcc's hand to. some would like to sweep it under the rug and forget about it but i am not one of them. i am also starting out with a more fundamental reason. after all, it is not surprising that the executive branch tried to pressure another component of the federal government into doing something that the president thought would be a benefit politically. in many ways, that is a story as old as the republic itself. but what is surprising is that it succeeded. that the course sanctioned this

power grab. -- that the court sanctioned this power grab. the framers understood the nature of those in our and they placed a series of checks and balances to avoid government overreach. chief among them is the constitution's separation of powers. in article one, the people that had all federal legislative powers in congress. as chief justice marshall put it, this means that the important subjects must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself even if congress may leave the executive branch to fill out the details. that did not happen here. congress never passed a law saying the internet should be heavily regulated like a utility

. nor did it pass one giving the fcc the authority to make that determination. the executive branch pressured the agency into claiming a power that remained and remains with the legislative branch. fundamentally, i would argue much of the fall lies with the judiciary's application of chevron, the supreme court's decision in chevron created a situation where the executive branch could engage in that type of pressure campaign that we witnessed with title ii. because chevron at least as applied by some courts have allowed agency to see big, new powers without an expressed

grant of authority from congress. if the statute was ambiguous, the agency could go ahead and regulate. in cases of vast economic or political significance at least, chevron not only creates an environment in which agencies push the bounds of their authority, it creates an incentive for the executive branch or other political actors to pressure them into doing so. that is why the supreme court's recent decision in west virginia versus epa is so important. it makes clear that on matters of enormous significance like the one before us today, the administrative agencies must point to far more than an ambiguous statute to persuade a reviewing court that congress

authorized the agency to act. after all, as a constitutional matter, congress does not operate like a sieve, inadvertently spilling grants of massive authority. after west virginia, congress' delegation of authority in these types of cases can no longer be implicit, it must be explicit. properly applied west virginia will stop the flip-flopping and eliminate the incentives for the executive branch to engage in a type of pressure campaign we have seen in title to read it will help improve administrative agency decision-making by ensuring that we are driven by the facts, the law and by the record. it will allow the natural forces of compromise to work their will on legislating rather than winner take all, partyline's at

agencies. it will ensure that the legislative power will remain with congress unless and until the legislature decides to delegate them. if that were not enough, today's order independently violates the supreme court's command in west virginia through its unrestrained use of forbearance. although the fcc may forbear from parts of title ii, the word indiscriminately applies to that authority to fundamentally rewrite the 1996 pat half by line item vetoing more than a dozen provision central to title ii's legislative design. as multiple supreme court decisions confirm that unrestrained application of forbearance is illegitimate.

and just last year the supreme court struck down the biden administration's use of analogous waiver authority at the education department and how it tried to wipe away student debt. as a matter of construction it implied delegation the fcc is not presumed to have the sweeping power to refashion title ii into an entirely new legislative scheme by picking and choosing which parts to apply. the fcc's flip-flopping also informs how seriously one should take the orders'policy arguments. fcc the -- the fcc tried to dress-up its power grab with a list of bogus justifications. if you rely on actual evidence and virtually none point to a

real problem and all fall apart under casual scrutiny. the fcc believes the reasons it offers today for title ii. it is not about net neutrality. we abandoned title ii in 2017. proponents of greater government control flooded the zone with up prophetic rhetoric. mindlessly parroted their claims . they predicted the end of the internet as we know it and that you will get the internet one word at a time. consumers have to pay for each website they wanted to reach. none of that happened. americans were subjected to one of the greatest hoaxes in regulatory history. nor is today's order about preventing internet gatekeepers from squashing innovation and free expression.

again, check the receipts. after 2017, it was not the isp that abused their positions in the internet ecosystem. if it was up to the isps that blocked -- it was not the isps that blocked -- twitter did that. it was not the isps that one day , after lobbying this fcc on this order, blocked all posts from a newspaper and removed lings to the outlet after it published a critical article. facebook did that. it was not the isps that earlier this month blocked links to a california-based news orgazation from showing up in search results to protest the state law. google did that. it was not the isps that blocked beeper many and --

apple did that. since 2017 we have learned that the real abusers of gatekeeper power, were not isps operating at the physical layer but big tech companies at the applications layer. perversely, today's order makes big tech behemoths even stronger than before. and today's order is not about correcting a market failure. broadband access is more vibrant and competitive than ever. no matter how you slice the reams of data. americans benefited from lower prices, faster speeds, broader coverage, increased competition and accelerated internet bills. back to the data show.

internet speeds are up 430% since 2017 on the fixed broadband side to. up 647% on the mobile side. the prices for internet services have dropped in real terms by about 9%. if you look just on the mobile broadband side alone, real prices have dropped by roughly 18% since 2017. and for the popular broadband speed users, prices are down 54% and for the fastest tears they are down 55% over the last eight years. the fcc realizes that the old justifications for title ii will no longer cut it. so is it like nothing has ever happened, shake and etch-a-sketch? the old -- were not just

disproven by the bandage. the agency has invented entirely new justifications. the fcc throws whatever it can think of against the wall to see if anything sticks. to work out that title ii is necessary for national security, public safety, for accessibility, her privacy, the list goes on and on. but the fcc latest set of claims fares no better than those they trotted out in 2015. there is simply a new pretext to justify an old power grab. take national security -- the fcc has identified no gap in axonal security that title ii would fill. rather the record makes clear that congress has already empowered agencies with national security expertise including the

department of homeland security, the department, commerce, and treasury to address these issues in the communications sector. indeed, the biden administration's own filing in this proceeding confirms national's already have "exercise" substantial authorities with respect to the information and communication sectors. in particular, the biden administration already has the authority to prohibit entities' controlled by the ccp from operating in the u.s. today. indeed the commerce department codified one such set of authorities in 2021. so title ii is not necessary to fill any gaps in authority. indeed, the specific ccp all lined companies mentioned in the fcc's order, the fcc's own

database of isps show they are not offering anything that would qualify as broadband service today subject to title ii even after classification. or take consumer privacy -- the fcc already regulates isps and their privacy practices. indeed, this very moment broadband consumers benefit from the same set of federal privacy rules that protect consumers across the economy. but those federal rules go away with respect to broadband when the fcc votes here for title ii. that is because by law the fcc loses 100% of its authority of any service regulated under title ii. . in turn, the decision would leap -- to protect them. congress prohibited the fcc from

applying its own privacy rules or a similar one to isps in 2017. the fcc claims there would be some residual section 2022 statutory privacy -- that could applied isps. i think that assertion is dubious at best given the 2017 law. as far as fulfilling a gap in consumer privacy rules, -- would create one. or take cybersecurity, once again the agency makes no serious attempt to argue that title ii is necessary to promote siebel -- cybersecurity. for one, congress and executive branch agencies have already formulated comprehensive cybersecurity raising that is solidly grounded in existing law. that effort is led not by the fcc but by the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. nothing in title ii gives the

fcc any additional authorities when it comes to participating in the federal governments system led process. for another, title ii does not authorize the avenue cc to adopt not -- cybersecurity standards. even under the sec's reading, title ii does not apply to the vast range of cyber targets like cloud providers and tech platforms further undermining any claim that title ii is necessary for cybersecurity. take network resiliency. the fcc makes no coherent case for advancing title ii. for one, the fcc already collects reports, operational status and restoration information from providers that offer broadband. for another, america's broadband networks are more robust and resilient than those in countries with far more heavy-handed or title ii like regulatory regimes.

and with respect to 911 in particular, the fcc already has specific rules in place today that address outage that impact public safety services. or take public safety, the fcc rests this claim on a single event that turns out has nothing to do with title ii or net neutrality. in that 2018 incident a fire department purchased a data limited plan and experienced speed reductions after hitting the limits. the isp made an exception and listed the reduction -- and lifted the reduction though the fcc constantly invokes this event, if you notice, if you notice, the agency studiously avoids actually stating this is the type of issue that would be prevented by title ii. by today's order, it would remain lawful for multiple reasons.

now misleading the people about what we are doing is one thing, but the order also leaves them worse off. everything we love about the internet comes from investment. our broadband networks are built on private capital. and those investment decisions in turn depend on the company's best guess of the long-term financial horizon. will isps invest intentionally when the rules of the road are opaque and when business choices can be second-guessed without notice, when regulators reserve the right to dictate the rate of return or when upgrades and innovations require more and more paperwork and approvals. uncertainty riddles every aspect of this order. will consumers pay new broadband taxes? not today, but maybe tomorrow. can isps offer customized plans for consumers with unique data speed or cost needs?

possibly. but it depends. what about intelligent networks to prevent congestion? sure. only a handful of indeterminate factors are met. does the fcc intend new regulations? definitely but you will have to wait and see what the agency does. by all indications, things will get worse before they get better. if that is the good news. apart from this order the biden administration is on a spree of unchecked regulatory access your dad president biden is urging the aft -- the fcc to adopt -- that hands the administrative state veto power over a century every decision about the provision of internet service in the country. elsewhere, the of cc is laser focused on nullifying private contracts, micromanaging advertising, dictating rates, blindsided companies by enforcing legal expectations not on the books and stepping into

the swim lanes traditionally occupied by other federal agencies. the fcc either does not understand or does not care how this volatile, imputed of -- deterring investment in broadband networks. this is not just economic theory. let's go to the tape. broadband investments slow down after the fcc imposed title ii in 2015. it picked back up again after it restored title i in 2017. or look at europe where roy -- where regulators have long applied -- to their continence intern at infrastructure while america's economy, digital economy is the envy of the world, sluggish european network suffer from chronic underinvestment. without greater investment, the

biden administration's own broader policy objectives fall apart. the administration wants isps to opt into federal support programs so it can bring broadband to underserved communities but who will take that financial risk when the isps returns can be wiped away with the stroke of a bureaucratic pen. the administration has pushed isps to deploy technologies to offer additional competitive options beyond dominant chinese vendors. but who will invest in it when it's core functionalities, virtualization and network slicing might violate an amorphous rule against impairing or degrading traffic? while misrepresenting titles to -- title ii's benefit, -- it is

a textbook example of arbitrary and capricious agency action to reach a predetermined outcome. in the end, and thankfully i'm coming to the end, there is a barnburner of multiple additional pages in the written dissent to follow, i remain optimistic. i am confident that we will write the ship and i'm certain the courts will overturn this unlawful power grab for now though i dissent and my full written statement will follow. thank you. >> thank you so much. commissioner starks. >> today we take the important and necessary step to give control of the internet back to those who deserve it. that is namely consumers. that is what today's item is really about and some no doubt

will claim that this is all a scheme for the government to control the internet. but let's be real. it is about ensuring that each and every american can use their broadband subscription for access to legal content of their choosing. it is about empowering consumers to control how they experience the internet while ensuring their provider is not impeding, blocking, favoring or prioritizing certain content. it is about ensuring that broadband, the foundation for so many of our interactions each and every day, has real oversight. i will say it again, today's item puts consumers in the driver seat. not isps. not middlemen who can throw money around. consumers. too often the rhetoric around controversial proceedings is focused on extreme examples and worst-case scenarios. if we zoom in that way, we

really overlook the individuals that our decisions are designed to impact. but not me, not today. today i think about people like ron, senior and a veteran who uses his broadband connection to contact the v.a. to set up appointments, check the status of his medications. he volunteers at the american legion and he shares his experience with posttraumatic stress disorder with his fellow veterans. the broadband gives him the opportunity to share his story with others near and far and gives him the power to choose how to connect and with whom. or consider ms. anna, the leader of the bethel native corporation and she graciously welcomed me into her home in alaska with a bowl of moose chili last year. there are no major roads in bethel. if you want to leave town, you do it in a boat or a plane. yes, indeed.

as we age, ms. anna told me about the exciting vision she has shared with her community. new fiber deployments that would enable the community of 6000, residents of even smaller villages along the river to secure the necessities of modern life without having to leave the place they call home. employment through remote work. health care with telehealth visits. better education for their kids. the benefits of a free and open internet. or i talked with paul who says broadband access for him is like air. he uses his broadband connection to stay in contact with long separated relatives in greece and he told me that they cry each time they connect online. that is a powerful connection. it is inherent in our shared humanity the need to connect.

and the ability to facilitate those connections is one of the reasons why i am proud, proud today of all to serve as a federal commissioner but i firmly believe a guides our actions here today empowering consumers, setting the proper guide rails for providers, recognizing that network security is national security and securing our networks so they can meet the moment when public safety requires. i will briefly highlight the issue of national security in -- and this -- and security is essential. and today's effort clarifies our authority to help make sure that our broadband networks are safe in a constant attacks against them. and more importantly that there is oversight here. the threats against our networks are real. the fcc has authority and

investigatory tools that are unique among our federal government. and ta's filing i would commend to you recognizes and supports the unique role the commission plays and ensuring our national security as it relates to broadband within the whole of government approach asserting that "reclassifying the is necessary to ensure that the commission has the authority it needs to advance national security objections." and that the reclassification will "protect our networks from malicious actors by leveraging the appropriate tools at its disposal including the relevant title ii provisions." simply put, many of the safeguards necessary to protect the networks of our future will be out of reach without today's action. across the nation, numerous isps

and network operators are working hard to protect americans against the onslaught and daily attacks against our network as i have repeatedly emphasized. we rightfully and unanimously revoked the authorizations of certain chinese providers following recommendations from the executive branch. however, because of the repeal, the 2015 roles, the revocations only prohibited those specific chinese providers from offering common carrier service. our national security action did not touch their offerings meaning that providers already identified as posing an unacceptable national security risk and a law enforcement risk could still operate networks in the united states. as i predicted, even after we revoked china telecoms international section 214 authority, they continued to

operate in the united states their own website. it currently shows the company operates 26 points of presence in the u.s. and offers co-location transit and data center services. they are interconnecting with other networks and have access to important points of presence at data centers. as i have pointed out before, this is part of a larger problem and warrants a closer look with reclassification we can truly secure our networks from entities that pose very real threats. a few additional highlights. i want to thank the chairwoman for working with me, my office to improve this item. three points in particular i will quickly take through. i will have a longer statement for the record. i got that out earlier then you did, commissioner carr. >> [laughter] >> first, the order makes clear

this item is not, not an effort to regulate rates. let me repeat. i do not support rate regulation. some have gone so far as to argue that any program or effort to ensure that isps provide an affordable broadband option constitutes rate regulation. i strongly and fundamentally disagree. the affordable program is not a rate regulation program, full stop nor are similar efforts to ensure that broadband is within the reach of low income households. that leads me to say that i would be remiss if i did not take 20 seconds to say that this is the time and now is the moment for us to find a permanent funding mechanism for acp. i continue to push for the acp extension act but remain open to

other solutions to create a permanent funding mechanism for the 48 million households struggled to subscribe to broadband due to the issue of affordability. the second point i want to highlight, the item now clarifies our efforts to target nefarious actors within our domestic broadband network and that will not have negative unintended consequences for global data flows and international interconnection agreements. last, i appreciate working with the chairwoman's office to clarify our throttling rule to ensure we avoid loopholes in our net neutrality network. i previously committed to taking a close look at the record in light of developments in administrative law. doing so has left me even more convinced that congress empowered us to proceed. title ii opponents continued to

cling to the 2017's orders view that virtually any service that connects users to information amounts to a title i service. this utterly capacious entry -- interpretation would read via telecoms -- taken to its logical conclusion it would lead to the deregulation of basically every communication service including traditional voice telephoning and undoing congress' will in enacting title ii. in case you missed it, the supreme court has otherwise cautioned agencies against adopting expansive unbounded definitions that would and effect lead to a regulatory seachange from the status quo. and i would also note that ironically, title ii opponents believe congress could not have acted with the clarity required under the major questions

doctrine because the term telecommunication service is ambiguous under brand x. this does not hold up. whether or not the term is ambiguous our authority to apply to terms such as broadband is clear as day and that is what i believe matters more here. and before the court could reach that issue it would need to conclude that this is a major questions case. but, those cases are as our for only extraordinary cases and this, i believe, does not come close to that. there is no unheralded power that we are purporting just now to discover in the annals of an old dusty statute. we have been classifying communications for decades. and the 1996 act expressly codified our ability to continue that practice. and with respect to the classification of this service

and particular, years of litigation up to and including supreme court review has resulted in multiple court decisions recognizing clearly our authority. and so, with respect to an open internet requirement in particular net neutrality, it became the fcc's policy on most 20 years ago including under republican administration in the exact framework that we adopted today has already been road tested on appeal. so no matter how you try to look at this, it just is not an agency pushing the limits. i am thankful that today broadband is no longer without oversight. consumers will benefit in the end. this proceeding has been no doubt a monumental undertaking. thank you to the chair, thank you to the very hard work by the team, by the bureau. i strongly approve. thank you. >> thank you.

i just sent and will publish my statement. -- i dissent and will publish my statement. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you, i might go a little longer. [laughter] as of today i have been a commissioner for six months. and in the past seven months -- seven months, i misspoke, in the last seven months i've had the privilege of meeting with stakeholders, industries, civil rights and public interest groups and members of the public. i have met with advocates that support today's item and i've met with advocates that don't. i've met with people across the country who emphasized just how necessary their broadband internet connection is to their everyday lives. i have heard from veterans and care providers that 80% of medical treatment for recovery requires a broadband connection.

i've heard from parents, students, and teachers that a broadband connection is necessary to complete much of the homework assigned to students. i've heard from consumers the organs of a broadband connection to keeping in touch with friends and family particularly to those that live abroad. i receive messages from parents were concerned about losing their broadband connection and what that will do to their family and children's economic opportunity. i've heard from first responders that having a reliable broadband connection especially in times of emergency can save lives and speed up recovery efforts. so i will start with the thing that we all agree on, broadband access to the internet is a critical conduit essential to modern life. we all agree. and as a nation we have recognized the importance of conductivity and have made a historic investment in broadband for all. despite this unanimous agreement of the importance and value of

this critical infrastructure, and how it plays in our modern society, since 2017, there has not been a federal framework in place to protect and secure the integrity of the networks. we have had a past work of rules that have upheld the foundation yet there is no expert agency ensuring at a national level that the internet is open and fair. protecting this critical infrastructure is essential to the safety, economy, health, education and well-being of this country and is good public policy. the value is so great that we cannot wait for the flood to arrive before we start to build the levy. that would leave us woefully behind in an increasingly digital world where there are critical -- where this critical resource is constantly at play. that is why what we're doing here is so important. today we reinstate appropriate guardrails to ensure this critical conduit remains

accessible and secure for all. the rules we adopt today ensure that access to the internet remains open so all viewpoints, including ones with which i disagree, are hard without discrimination. more so, these principles protect consumers will also maintaining a healthy, competitive broadband internet ecosystem because we know competition is required for access to a healthy, open internet accessible for all. most importantly, i support today's item because it prioritizes consumers and gives the commission more tools to close the digital divide. it ensures that consumers are in charge of what they do on my and that they can be confident that when they send information over their broadband connection, it will not be blocked or altered by their provider. these protections are essential for all consumers but especially for those communities that historically have been left on the wrong side of the digital divide.

thank you to the many advocates, stakeholders, and members of the public who provided feedback and participated in this proceeding. my staff and i met with over 45 parties and appreciated hearing all of your feedback. the item that we adopt today is stronger because of these meetings. and thank you to the staff throughout the agency for their work on this item and to the competition bureau for leading this effort. i will now share my report -- my remarks in spanish. [speaking in spanish]

madam chairwoman, i see the remainder of my 33 minutes. >> [laughter] >> thank you and thank you, commissioners. four years ago the pandemic changed life as we know it to. we were told to stay home, hunker down and live online.

so much of work, school, health care migrated to the internet. if we wanted to engage in the world, we needed to do it all through a broadband connection. it became clear that no matter who you are or where you live, you need broadband i have a fair shot at digital age success. it went from nice to have two need to have for everyone, everywhere. broadband is now an essential service. essential services, the ones we count on in every aspect of modern life, have some basic oversight. let's be clear about what we are doing today. this agency, the nation's leading communications authority , believes every consumer deserves internet access that is vast, open, and fair. that is why we determined that the federal communications commission should be able to assist consumers and take action

when it comes to the most important communications of our time. and that is broadband. this is common sense. but in a world went up is down and down is outcome of the last fcc threw away this authority to determine broadband needed no supervision. as a result, it tossed out net neutrality -- -- in choices for you. they may clear your broadband provider should not have the right to block websites, slow services or censor online content. these policies were court tested and approved. they were wildly popular. in fact, studies showed that 80% of the public supports the sec's

net neutrality policies and opposed their repeal. now for a plot twist. after the last fcc took away these policies, despite this broad public outcry, curious thing happened. when washington stepped out, california road in with its own open internet regime and other states as well. all in all, nearly a dozen put net neutrality rules into play. so in effect we have net neutrality policies that providers are abiding by right now this country. they're just coming from sacramento and places like it. i think in a modern digital economy we should have a national net neutrality policy and may clear the nations expert on communications has the ability to act when it comes to broadband. this is good for consumers. it is good for public safety and good for national security. and that is why we are taking this action under title ii of

the communications act today. so let's start with consumers. they spoke out in droves when this agency repealed net neutrality they jammed our inboxes and overwhelmed our online systems. they clambered to get net neutrality back. in the intervening years, they have not stopped. thousands of consumers right month after month seeking to have this agency help them navigate issues with their broadband service. yet as a result of the last fcc throwing these policies out and backing away from broadband, we can only take action when they have issues with their long distance service. there is nothing modern about that. consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals with fast plans for a some services and slow lanes for others. they don't want their providers engaging and blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization and if they have problems, well, they expect the

nations expert authority on communications to be able to respond because we put net neutrality rules, national >>, we fix that today. let's talk about public safety. when there is a network outage, all eyes turn to the fcc. but because the last cc backed away from basic broadband oversight, the agency has only been able to gather outage data when long distance voice service fails but it cannot do the same for broadband. in a modern digital economy, it is crazy that we cannot collect mandatory data about broadband outages. it makes it harder to identify patterns of internet failure, fix them when they occur and put into place policies to make sure our networks are more resilient across the board. the importance of public safety was driven home to me this month when i visited the santa clara county fire department. dressed in uniform, the

firefighters told me how when they were responding to an emergency, they respond -- they discovered that there internet connection to one of their command vehicles was being throttled compromising their ability to stay connected and fight fires. they want net neutrality rules back and they could not fathom that the last sisi gave out the ability to investigate what happened let alone help them or any other consumer having problems with their broadband connection. they are right and we fix it today. let's talk about national security. while this agency has taken a series of actions to reduce our dependence on insecure telecommunications equipment to keep potentially hostile actors from connecting to our networks, it is not enough to keep our adversaries at bay. there are vulnerabilities in our networks and our ability to do something about them was sidelined by the last fcc withdrawing from the arena. take service authorization.

under title ii of the communications act the of sisi grants care -- carriers the right to provide communication within the u.s. it also has the power to take away that right. we did this over the last few years when we stripped data affiliated companies from china of their authority to operate in this country. but it is important understand that our actions did not extend to broadband tends to the work of the last fcc. in essence we took away the right of ccp affiliated providers to offer long distance voice service in the united states but broadband, we lacked the authority to stop that. this is not a modern approach to national security and service authorization. we need to fix it. take cybersecurity. our national security authority is on record -- others have explored -- exploited insecure routing protocols to hijack internet traffic. when we were asked to do something about it thanks to the

last sisi stepping out of the broadband fright, the best we could offer was a forum here at the commission meeting room. i don't think that deters our adversaries. we need to fix this. take security issues with data centers. on the fcc chose to leave broadband outside of its purview, it left interconnection rights without any basic oversight. that means the agency has nothing to say about broadband providers in the united states interconnecting with data centers controlled by ccp affiliated companies. again, this needs effects. finally, let me say a few words about what we don't do today. this is not about rate regulation, know-how, no way and we will not undermine incentives to invest in the network. broadband investment was higher when net neutrality rules were in place then after they were repealed. how about that? the action we take your is good for consumers, public safety, national security, and network

investment. it is also good for privacy because title ii of the munication's act does not let your voice provider sell your location data among other sensitive information. your broadband provider should not be able to do this either to anyone or any new intelligence model looking for a payday from your data without your permission. in our post-pandemic world, we know broadband is a necessity and not a luxury. we know it is an essential service. and when a consumer has a problem with it, they should be able to reach out to the nations expert on communications and get the help they need. they should be able to count on a national net neutrality policy grounded in the law and history of the united states. that is why we take this action today, to help ensure that broadband is fast, open, and fair for all of us. and in a proceeding this

important and complex requires a big team so let me thank hannah, eric, michelle, david, emily, and adam, cj, jesse, travis, trent, heather, melissa, greg, chris gimenez, chris locklin, jodi may, jamie, keira, nick page, jordan, zach ross, randall, simon. mary and david from the wireline competition bureau. and the consumer and governmental affairs bureau. jeffrey brown, jolene, hunter, anthony, kate, pamela, alice,

helen, ronald, patrick mcgrath, adam from the enforcement bureau. brendan murray and rae lynn from the media bureau. johan, paul often pain, jamie from the office of economics and analytics. joslyn james from the office of communications business opportunities. denise, kate, francis, tom sullivan from the office of international affairs. michelle ellison, michael janssen, doug klein, jake lois, scott novak, eric olson, joe, jeffrey steinberg, from the office of general counsel. ken, rebecca and debra jordan,

mickey, jim, and james wiley from the public safety and homeland security bureau and stephanie, garnet, suzanne, paul, roger noel, jessica quentin lee, peter, linda ray, nadia, and matthew warner from the wireless telecommunications bureau. they are broadband champions, all of them. and with that, we will take a vote on the item. the item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. madam secretary, can you mention the next item for today's agenda? [applause] >> madame chairwoman and commissioners, items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and eight on your agenda are

enforcement actions and will be presented by the enforcement bureau. the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> alright, enforcement bureau, you have to follow that. >> because these items are enforcement actions, we are going to switch the order as a commission has done in the past. as with all open meeting items, the bureau circulated these to every office three weeks ago but there is a long-standing practice at the agency that we do not publicly disclose parties of enforcement matters unless and until the commission decides to take action. for these items it means the agency formally votes on the item and then here's a brief presentation from the bureau before proceeding to any statements any commissioners might have. this process ensures that sensitive matters will not be publicly disclosed until the fcc takes action. we will now proceed to a vote on

these enforcement actions. we start with item three. the item is adopted with editorial privileges if requested. on item four. the item is adopted with editorial privileges as requested. on item five. the item is adopted with editorial privileges if requested. on item six. the item is adopted with editorial privileges ever requested. on item seven. the item is adopted with

editorial privileges. if requested. last one, on item eight. the item is adopted with editorial privileges if requested. please proceed. >> thank you, madame chairwoman. we appreciate the opportunity to present consensus for the commission. good afternoon here thank you for your consideration and your votes today on these six enforcement items. notices of apparent liability for forfeiture against john murray's, ronald david, robert belanger, giovanni p.r. and mario turner and shane kelly for engaging in part -- pirate radio broadcasting and a in violation of section 511 of the communication act.

the 2020 preventing illegal radio abuse through enforcement act or pirate act codified as section 511 of the communications act requires the commission to perform yearly pirate sweeps. the six nal's for your consideration today stem from the first pirate sweep in the boston market. they underscore the commission's continuing commitment for curtailing pirate broadcasting. looking at the table -- with me at the table is the deputy bureau chief, the chief counsel in the office of the field director and the field counsel in the office of the field director. andrew will now present these items. >> thank you. good, madame chairwoman and commissioners. unlike radio stations, pirate stations operate illegally undermining the -- impose -- and

pose a danger to the public by interfering with licensed stations that inform their listeners of important public safety messages including emergency alert system transmission providing vital information regarding weather events and other public issues. accordingly, commission enforcement action in this area is essential. the first item involves the operator of the pirate radio station radio tele planet compass in randolph and -- massachusetts. he is a longtime pirate radio operator issuing debt who was issued a forfeiture that remains unpaid. he was also issue two notices of unlicensed operation notifying him that his actions violated the communications act and were to be immediately halted. as part of the boston pirate radio sweep, agents located his station operating without

authorization and in appearance of the -- and in apparent violation of the pirate act. there were two separate frequencies. on one of the dates he operated from two different locations on two separate frequencies. given this widespread pirate radio operation as well as his history of pirate radio operations, his disregard for commission authority and unpaid forfeiture and repeated unheeded warnings by the commission, the nal proposed a penalty of -- against him. ha the second item involves reynold david, operator of a pirate radio station in brockton, massachusetts. during the boston pirate radio sweep, agents documented the station operating in the area without authorization four times

between june and december 2020 three and found information on the stations of media pages linking david to the station. in july, 20 23, david admitted to agents that he owned and operated this station and agree to immediately halt broadcasting. during follow-up investigations, however, agents twice found that the station was still operating from the same location without authorization. given david's disregard for commission authority and his continued operation of a pirate station months after agreeing to halt broadcasting, the nal proposes a penalty of 120,000 against david. the third item involves joelle, the operator of a pirate station in brockton, massachusetts. agents located the station operating without authorization onto occasions in june and july

2023. he admitted to agents that he was the operator and he is listed as the director on the station's website. the nal proposes a penalty of $40,000 against him. the fourth item involves robert belanger, operator of a pirate radio station in code-2 it, massachusetts. agents located this -- the station operating on two occasions that he was the station operator. social media postings support that admission. the n.a.l. proposes a poarchlt $40,000 against robert bellinger. the fifth item involves giovani pierre and mario turner. joint operators of the pirate radio station knowned a radio telebrockton in brockton, massachusetts.

agents located the station operating on two occasions in june and july of 2023. information found on the station's social media pages linked both pierre and turner to the pirate operations. the n.a.l. proposes a joint and several penalties of $40,000 against giovani pierre and mario turner. the sixth and final item involves shane kelly. operator of the pirate radio station the test, 87.9 first of all in hyannis, massachusetts. agented located the station in june 2023. kelly admitted that he was the station's operator. the n.a.l. proposes a penalty of $20,000 against shane kelly.

the enforcement bureau requests the grant of editorial privileges. >> thank you for all of your diligent work on this. i appreciate it. it is an important set of issues. it like a lot of work behind the scenes to get where we are. thank you very much. >> you know the enforcement bureau is my faith. for those of you keeping track at home, these are enforcement items. we have done new york, miami, philadelphia and now boston. keep up the great work. if you're the in the pirate radio business, the enforcement bureau is going to putout of business. thank you. >> miami, new york, philadelphia, boston. i really appreciate the work that it took to perform these investigations and bring these cases and congrats.

>> the geometry continues. commissioner gomez? >> thank you f.c.c. has to show that ter use thed for the public's benefit. i'm pleased the commission continues to hold private radio operators accountable for their actions. i want to thank the enforcement bureau's staff for your hard work. >> thank you, commissioners. for nine decades, the f.c.c. has on our -- when it comes to use of the public airwaves and we take this responsibility seriously. it means that the resource is broadly available for all kinds of radioand wire activities provided those who use our airwaves comply with our rules. when users fail to do so, we take action. that is what we did today with thighs fines proposed against unauthorized rateio operators in massachusetts. i want to thank agents and the field regional management folks

both in our new york and boston field office for their work on this pirate act. these agents are unsung heros who hecht us manage our air ways. what we really want them to know we're grateful for their service i will mention those who took up the charge they suspect our way in washington. thank you to jeremy, matthew, david, robert, andrew and reggie from the enforcement bureau and william from the office of general council. with that, would any of my colleagues like to make any announcements that the time? commissioner carr? commissioner starks? >> yes, i do i would like to announce some staff changes in the starks office. many of you know shiva wrawpped

his time at the commission last week. he has moved on to join ntia as the director for spectrum strategy. let me break that up. he is truly a superb lawyer and somebody who is a consummate legal adviser. a deep thinker and threw himself into the work and for me for the office and also somebody that i travel to dubai with as many wireless advisers do, they get assigned to international travel. he traveled with me to sweden and other places. just truly a joy to be with him and i wish him and his family all of the best. i am glad that he is continuing to bring his immense talent to public service and the american people will continue to benefit from him as a spectrum adviser

for american public in many ways now. but that has given me the opportunity to welcome neshe. many of you know. to my team as active legal adviser. she is joining from the office of international affairs where she is the deputy chief. truly she is well known for her deep and vast and wide service here at the f.c.c. in addition to being a legal adviser to commissioner clyburn, senior deputy chief of wireless and i have already benefited from her deep and extensive knowledge. please welcome neshe to my team. thanks, neshe. i'm sorry. i'm sorry. i also have my interns to thank. really quickly. the day to go on here, i think.

in my current class of interns, as folks know, i really do deeply value interns. i think it is part of what i love as a commissioner which is helping to train and see the next class as they bring their immense skills. that is roy, jasmine, carrie, jesse. i am thankful to each of you for your hard work over the semester. always rooting you on for what comes next for each of you. thank you. >> commissioner simington? >> thank you. i have one personnel announcement my long time security adviser marco has left my team as of monday in order to join commissioner ferguson's staff at the f.c.c. thanks very much. >> well done.

commissioner gomez? all right, thank you commissioners. before we adjourn, i just have two quick announcements. they are both about retirements. darrell cooper retired last month after 27 years of federal service. 27! he was in the u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit. he was also a director of excite home and practiced law in washington, d.c. after he joined the agency h was in the public safety of homeland security and the enforcement bureau. the disabilities rights office. during this time darrell worked on the requirements of the 21st century communications at the new york accessibility act and helped coordinate the reports under that law. he served as a subject matter for hearing aid compatibility issues and so many other issues

on on issues of disability rights and assistance. we want to thank darrell for his years of service and work to increase accessibility to communications for all people in this country. we are also announcing the retirement of pamela smith, who is a litigator in the office of general council. she has nearly 30 years of service. 28 of them with the f.c.c. she joined the office in 1996 from the department of justice where she worked on the environmental and natural resources division after she had an earlier stint in previous practice. during her time as the agency, pam has seen it all and brought her legendary attention to detail to bear in a whole wide range of commission orders on the courtses of appeal, and a whole bunch of radio and television licenses matters. this is the most fun fact. i didn't know it. pam is married to brad barry who recently finished leading the team that worked on the digital discrimination order.

that is a powerhouse couple, just so you know. we are grateful for her 30 years in public service. we wish pam the very best. in a well 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. >> the house will be in order. >> this year, c-span celebrates

45 years of co