tv FCC Meeting on Cable Set- Top Box Purchases CSPAN February 22, 2016 2:58am-4:48am EST
i think, also, we are just not. -- just not there yet. the midwest, as a region, is not there yet with regards to chinese investment. leslie: i would have to say from the tennessee perspective, we have a long-term relationship culturally with china with tray back in the 1980's that took a whole group over to investigate how to share cultures. we have had consultants working with the state off and on over the years. we noticed recently -- took a large group over for a business focused mission. we established a foreign direct investment office in shanghai. we have had those ongoing relationships over the years. we are looking for a new foreign investment office in china. that is an active search right
now. most recently, what we have had is that entertainment piece. we have posted at the national film festival starting last year from china with ministry support. we brought over six producers. they are bringing another group this march the national film festival. in turn, we are looking at going over there. we had a great asset in tennessee with our music and film industry. abigail has been working with china bringing music to tennessee and taking our focus is it going there. we are engaging in some of these activities going on unofficially and kind of crystallizing them and same these are true opportunities for cross-cultural relationships developing business between the two.
john: i am mindful of time and i am afraid we have to wrap things up. thank you so much for this rich discussion. we heard a lot about talent and development. we also heard about process. you need to align up all of the players internally to make sure you attract properly. we also heard about long-term partnership on both sides and something you go invest too. -- growing clusters and ultimately creating more jobs. i would like to thank the nga mark brady and i would like to jim, donovan, and
leslie for being such a great panel this morning. thank you all very much for your time. [applause] today the national governors association meeting concludes. a panel oflowed by former governors who also served in the united states senate. that includes senator mark senator warner of west virginia. at 8:30 a.m.row eastern on c-span two. on thursday, the federal communications commission held a about television set-top boxes. rule to allowa consumers to use newer, less expensive devices in place of traditional cable set-top boxes. this is just under two hours
will >> we are going to do that. >> the most important person of the moment has arrived. good morning, madame secretary. and when we say good morning we really mean good morning to you this morning. welcome everybody to the february meeting of the federal communications commission. madame secretary, will you please introduce the agenda.
for today's meeting you will hear three items for consideration. anst you will consider increase that seeks comment on the current state of program diversity and the principal obstacle independent programmers face. acond, you will consider notice of proposed rulemaking it that seeks comment on a framework for providing innovators divisions manufacturers -- innovators, device manufacturers to access video content. third, you will consider a second report and order that allocates responsibilities for the deliveries of closed captions on video programming and the handling of captioning complaints. a consentlso consider
agenda as listed in the commission february 2016 sunshine notice. this is your agenda for today. and titledtem promoting the availability of diverse and independent sources of video programming will be presented. you, madam secretary. you can now catch her breath. mr. like. mr. lake: good morning. today, we present a notice of inquiry that presents comment on challenges independent video theirmmers face with content. inquiry furthers the commission's ongoing efforts to enhance the diversity of programming available to consumers. independent video programmers
have repeatedly expressed concern that certain practices of cable operators and other stifleayy -- m distribution. we want to foster a diverse, robust, competitive marketplace. as the agency church by statute with implementing this objective, we seek to begin a fact-finding enterprise on the current state of diversity and consider possible actions the commission might take to address the concerns that have been raised and thereby foster independent sources of programming. joining me at the table and andha heller, raymond, collision of the policy division. calisha.
presente pleased to this format to present concern diversity,tate of competition, and innovation. over the last quarter century we have seen significant changes that have fundamentally altered the way americans access and consume video programming. consumers today can access video programming of her multiple competing plot arms and the dominance of cable operators and pay tv distributors has eroded. retain anperators important position in the programming marketplace. growthtill vital for the of emerging programming's. we invite comments generally on the state of independent programming marketplace and the
challenging that new and emerging programmers face in attempting to launch a program. we also see comments on several beenfic comments that have identified in other preceding's. first, we see comment on contractual provisions. including alternative distribution. independent programmers have asserted both types of provisions often hinder their ability to obtain distribution of their content. we also see comment on issues over-the-top providers. including the cost of traditional cable and satellite carriage that want to pursue ott carriage. next, we will discuss bundling affect on independent programmers. offeringsple program
including vertically integrated programmers are able to force to provide -- carry less-desirable programming. assert such bundling limited choices and raise cost to consumers by forcing acceptance of less desirable content. seek comments to the negotiation practices of m.v.p. deese and whether happening.ion is finally, we see comment on legal authority in this area and on what role, if any, we should obstaclesdressing the that hinder providers of independent and diapers programming. the media bureau recommends the commission adopt the inquiry and address privileges. thank you.
commissioner cliburn: most maintain his significant influence in the ever-expanding video programming marketplace. since my arrival in the summer of 2009, i have met with and spoken with dozens of independent programmers from extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. politics aside, they find agreement on three or four issues. each side says they are facing insurmountable challenges when it comes to acquiring program challenges and it is difficult fair or to receive reasonable contract terms and the growth in on time -- online programming is inhibited because
programming is restricted to the contract. directv-at&tcent merger, these issues were rage by many parties including and small cable operators who repeatedly requested relief. while we found that the issues raised were perhaps not as tanned old in the context of that merger, the level of concern i felt merited a separate proceeding where we a betterlore and gain understanding of the programming marketplace and whether certain practices i operators as claimed are limiting the ability for them to reach their viewers. while i remain unsure the commission is the best place to answer or resolve the issues raised in today's notice of inquiry, we are enabling discussions about what roles, if any, the commission should play in addressing obstacles that may
be preventing greater access by consumers to independent and diapers programming. this is a concern because fostering diversity of programming is an important goal of our work. section 257 of the communications act tasks the commission with caring out the national policy of seeking to promote the purposes of favoring diversity of media voices, vigorous economic competition, technological advancement, and promotion of the public interest, convenience, and necessity. does this provision give the agency the authority to act in this area or are the same issues that independent programmers bring forth best resolved by other agencies or by industry-driven solutions? the goal of this notice of aquiry is to launch fact-finding exercise that will start a conversation on how best
to promote the availability of diverse and independent sources is of video programming including educational and government programming. any issue, mr. chairman, that brings together a content provider who campaigned very for my ouster and another who sing my praises merits a robust discussion. i would like to thank melissa myers and --. thank you. >> you're the point where everything comes together. >> they call that conversion, but it feels like a storm sometime. have a dizzying array of channels available to consumers. we expect programming to be andlable anytime, anywhere,
on any screen. novel platforms for content are cropping up p or, there, and everywhere. the future of watching will not look like the past and that is exciting. but despite all of this change, old problems linger. time and time again, we hear that independent programmers face a daunting challenge securing real estate on cable and satellite systems. dominatems it still our video experiences and securing carrier which can be a prerequisite to building viewership that in turn supports viewership and more diverse content. askstackles the issues and hard questions about new voices, new viewpoints, and the state of the market for independent programming. this is important because what we see on the screen says so much about who we are as
individuals, communities, and as a nation. season of oscars so white and female directors so few, starting a conversation about programming diversity and independent voices might be hard but it is the right thing to do. kudos to my colleague commissioner cliburn for encouraging us to get this started. >> thank you mr. chairman. growing up, i did not see many people on the screen who looked like me. ie of the few such characters remember was on the cartoon jonny quest which was occasionally rerun in the late 1970's. featured harshly, johnny's sidekick, who was deaf on the streets of calcutta and had mystic powers. the only real life indian character i can recall was one of a classroom full of gifted
headnts on the abc sitcom of the class. and in 1990, there was the famed quickie mart owner on the simpsons voiced by that noted indian-american, hank as area. now netflix carries "master of the," the show focuses on american-born son of american immigrants living in new york city and tells stories i've never before seen on american television. as an american-born of indian itrican immigrants myself, examines the we lay should who came to this country in the 1960's and 70's and their children. friends are asest chinese-american in den african-american lesbian. needless to say, the show is a far cry from "leave it to
beaver." theway things were and stark difference between the way experience forms my of this. over-the-top video in particular has been a game changer. it has given diverse voices a new way to be heard and has thingsmericans a look at they may not have seen before. the youtube video, the misadventures of an awkward black girl. when asked why she created it, the creator said, i felt my voice was missing. and others i want to see are missing. the first part of her series, which she filmed with friends, quickly got attention on youtube . thanks to its successful kick start a campaign she was able to raise almost $65,000 through two thousand--
contributions. today she has subscribers on her youtube channel and has amassed over 20 million views, including my on. lester, she published a collection of short stories and late last year, it hbo picked up her new series, "insecure." are responding to the wide variety of content available through the over-the-top service. as one put it, multicultural ofwers are more likely to made over-the-top and integral part of their viewing lifestyle. of african-american viewers, 46% of asian american viewers, and 56% of hispanic viewers report spending more of their ott as opposed to wait viewers. there may still be challenges in this brave new world.
for instance, some have expressed concern that certain carriage practices of cable operators and multi-channel distributors may limit their ability to reach viewers. heard these concerns firsthand in my own meetings with programmers. therefore, i am pleased the commission is giving everyone a chance to provide feedback. are currently living in the golden age of television. one of the reasons is the amazing range of diverse content available today with the push of a button, the click of a cursor, or the connection. it is important to remember that programs like master of none and the misadventures of awkward black girl are not the product of government regulation but they are thriving because of the technological infant -- recognized andg
rewarded. we should be careful not to hold back this video revolution. indian-american kids today can now see themselves on the screen in roles far more varied than the role of snake charmer and the quickie mart manager. that is a good thing. >> commissioner o'reilly. commissioner o'reilly: in reading this item is originally circulated, there were number of thought necessary. one was a slight more concrete language. the avowed goal to begin a conversation as some of my colleagues have mentioned on the state of independent diverse programming. to be changed to seeking information which is a more appropriate goal or inquiry of a federal regulatory agency. it seemy post edits, like that was the easiest to list. this request was denied more than once.
it leads me to wonder why the commission majority was so deeply reticent to allow this innocuous phrase to begin the conversation. the more i thought of it, the more became clear that beginning eight conversation it is not exactly inaccurate description. with saying it is somehow a novel topic no one has had the ability to weigh in yet. however, the debate around program carriage or lack thereof is as close as it gets to a constant fixture for almost as long as there have been cable and satellite systems, programmers have been arguing they need more carriage. we should all be able to agree this conversation began long ago. at least in 1989 when the hadissioners cable program complaints that rising concentration, cable system ownership has led to their inability to gain access to large cable systems.
programmers have found many sympathetic ears in congress and at the commission. from the least access system established by the 1984 cable act in the program carriage act 2011e 1992 act to the carriage rules to the further carriage requirements of mergers, there have been numerous legislative and regulatory temps to address the challenges faced by independent programmers for many different angles. the technology has changed since the debate began but the arguments have not changed substantially. we are not living in an age of 1000 channel lineups and many seeking a different structure are rapidly developing over-the-top programming of linear and other programming. degreesing modified to
on devices. the world has brought us explosive growth in terms of the sheer number of potential platforms for content. it is interesting that access to the old network is still considered a major issue. the that debate, it seems more things change the more they stay the same. serve this item is not the beginning, what is? one of you have interest and have not been able to read the document yet. it should not come as a spoiler to say we are beginning with a more accurate description of the latest regulator push. rolling out the question to give a platform or dialogue. slanted inraph was the direction of that push. i appreciate the many edits that the commissioner and i submitted that were adopted so i appreciate the work of the majority in adopting our changes. it allows me to concur with this item. ultimately, i hope these edits
will give a start into looking at the territory. >> thank you, commissioner. i have a statement for the record. let us begin by thanking commissioner clyburn for being the advocate that is the reason why it is on the agenda today for all of your leadership. a simple issue of how do we expand diversity of choice and opportunity that goes hand-in-hand with the next item we will be discussing, set-type -- set-top boxes. those in favor say aye. have it. the privilege is granted with objection noted. thank you very much to the bureau for all of your efforts
these roles are intended to meet the commission's obligations under section 629 of the communications act. joining me or martha heller, linda murray, and lyle elder of the policy division and the chief technologist of the division. brendan will present. brendan: we are pleased to present this note is that is keep theto availability of competitive sources of equipment used to access programming as the commission was direct it to do by section 620 nine. directs the commission to adopt regulations to ensure commercial markets for devices and apps that can access
theproposal gives mvpd's freedom so they can assure all programming is protected and only those who subscribe to the service can access it, providing they each report at least one content on unreason -- reasonable, nondiscriminatory terms. this approach is intended to balance rights to choose content and protect programming with manufactures building devices that can access from a variety of mvpd's. -- the mpr md proposes parity roles that would to also offervpd the three information flows to unaffiliated flows without the need for mvpd-specific equipment.
with an eye to consumer protection, we seek to ensure children's advertising limits, emergency alerts, and regardless uses ther the consumer set-top box or an alternative. sure consumerske understand exactly how much they will pay each month and what the economic trade-off is between and theice -- device alternative. it also asks a series of questions about how to implement section 629. information on the best way to seek protection .f copyright finally, the item includes a excludesm which
language as provided under section 106. thank you. much, brendan.ry thank you everyone for your hard work. >> in 1996, as was mentioned, congress added section 629 to the communications act which agency to take steps to ensure a competitive device market existed for access to programming. while prior commission attempts less than successful, standardization and technological advancement have made it easier to introduce competition and innovation to the set-top market. while these developments have resulted in some competition, consumers deserve more. give's proposal seeks to
consumers more control and how they access the video services they prescribed to. presentattempts to innovation in the display in short: choice. it would allow the development of more user-friendly systems and platforms not strictly under the purview and management of a single distributor. today, 99% of the pay-tv customers went to a set-top box from an mvpd at a cost that exceeds $200 per year. while the cost of other technologies have fallen as competition increases, because of the setup walks rented at more than three times the rate of inflation for american pay-tv subscribers over that same time. item proposes to provide a
technology-neutral means for consumers to interact with a multi-channel video programming services they pay for. if the consumer wishes to purchase a device or application thiscess programming, proposal will empower that choice. if a consumer to -- chooses to continue to rent they have the also. to do that this item does not propose a specific technical standard like the proposal the commission considered in 2010. instead, a standard-setting body in consultation with those affect did would lay out those specifications, and enabling manufacturers, retailers, and companies including the cable or satellite provider to build and design navigation devices. there has been much discussion lately about how this proposal will affect content diversity
with some expressing concern that it could lead to decreases in the level of diverse programming choices. sadly, we are only speaking about a paltry number of diverse channels that can be currently found over the systems today but for the handful of those who have had success in being noried by an mvpd, i see legitimate business or economic reason why this item should make their programming or the relationship with the distributor any more vulnerable than their counterparts. what i hope will occur is that creators of content to have been unable to getbeen mvpd carriage may soon have a means to reach consumers directly. the way that internet searches provide consumers with information from various sources , a competitive solution with improved search functionality to allow consumers to find
programming that is available over the top. something you cannot do with today's set-type -- set-top box. this should result in consumers having a wider range of options so i thank the media bureau for their hard work on this item, especially the efforts of brendan murray and lyle elder. thank you very much. commissioner rosenworcel: here's an experiment you can do at home. sit in your favorite chaired front of the television and in in oneer hand -- and hand hold the set-top box control and in the other hand told your mobile phone. of the twof which devices has changed substantially over the past two decades. extraordinary innovations and which has benefited from competition? the answers are obvious.
the balky, graceless mobile phones from two decades ago have been replaced by sleek new models. justt is a lot more than aesthetics because what we can do at these devices now is incredible. smartphones have changed our lives and are changing our world. clunky set-top box and many-but and remote have not evolved at the same pace. faced the same level of competition. the numbers make this very clear. 99% of consumers still purchase -- still rent their set-type -- top boxes from their television provider. the typical household spends $231 per year on those set-top locks rental fees. costs are high. innovation is slow, and competition is limited. congress did not want it to be
this way. two decades ago in the telecommunications act of 1996, this agency was charged with maintaining the navigability of devices. when legislative directives are not clear. this is not one of them. i think we can do better so i support today's rule-making. what i also think we have a lot of work to do. beentant questions have raised about copyrights, privacy, diversity, and a whole host of other issues in a marketplace that has been tough for competitors to crack. we will need to explore them. let me raise one other question, this is complicated. three information streams for navigation devices, work that needs to be done by standard bodies, a medley of
security systems and a trio of parity requirements. the most successful regulatory efforts are simple ones. more work needs to be done to streamline this proposal because in the end, consumers will benefit and enjoy the bounty of what we have proposed. all.tion is what we have here may or may not be the precise way forward, but something has got to give. i support the efforts to get the itceedings started because is past time to live up to our statutory obligations and give consumers the competition they deserve. >> thank you, commissioner. your observations are well taken in as you point out, the reason we have meetings like this so we can get that built. >> as someone with three set-top
boxes, i share the frustration of millions in this country. the boxes are clunky, expensive. i feel the pain the each and every month when i have to pay my video bill. as an fcc commissioner, i know the current set-top box is a product of an inch truce if regulatory -- is the product of an intrusive regulatory regime. what should be our aim when it comes to this marketplace? what would be the best for consumers? my goal is simple. our goal should not be to unlock the box, it should be to eliminate the box. if you were a cable customer, and you do not want to have a set-top box, you should not be required to have one. this is technically feasible and reflects most preferences, including my own. notice, the fcc takes a different tack. it doubles down on the necessity of having a box.
regimeng one regulatory for another. it would introduce an entirely new set of boxes into consumer homes. proposal moves is further away from the objective of dropping the box and takes a 20th century approach to a 21st century problem, i respectfully cannot support this. let us start with one indisputable fact. when it comes to navigation devices, the fcc has not embraced free-market policy. embraced a form of centralized plan by introducing the cable card regime and integration plan. is widespread agreement the commission regulatory massivetion has been a failure. it repeatedly admits the rules failed to achieve their objectives. the fcc's regulation have raised the price of set-top boxes,
costing billions of dollars to americans and increased fees. it has increased cable company energy consumption by 500 million kilowatts a year, enough to power every home in washington, d.c., for three months. increased robust competition and less than 2% of customers have purchased their set-top box at retail. the failure of the fcc is what brings us here today. as we trade one complex regulatory scheme for another, we should posit and ask ourselves a simple question. will it be any different this time around? will the sequel be better than the original? in my judgment the answers no for several reasons. first, this proposal is likely to produce a stalemate. not a newly competitive market. the cornerstone of the notices the heavy reliance on open
standards bodies operating consensus. according to the commission's proposals, mvpd's will be required to supply certain information and format that set.rms to specification the open standard bodies would consist of members representing all stakeholders and would develop standards by consensus. what would the consensus ever really happen? defininge characteristic has been vigorous disagreement with video distributors and content creators on one side and the consumer electronics industry on the other. you saw this in the downloadable security advisory committee. we have seen this in the run-up to today's vote and i am sure we will see it in the comments submitted in response to this notice. should we have confidence that a higher -- that a highly heterodox standards commission would change? when it is time to
get down to the technical nitty-gritty of integrating the this, i believe it will be harder to reach consensus. sure markam zuckerberg will agree to kanye $50 million.t for this will not have impact for years. mvpd's would not have to implement these regulations for two years after the adoption. so even if all goes according to plan, in die think reasonable minds could doubt it will, consumers probably would not feel the effects for another three years. think about with three years means and the dynamic video marketplace. three years ago, there was no such thing as the google chrome cast or the amazon fired tv stick. what is no telling innovation will occur over the next three years, but we know it will happen and we know what will happen fast. electronicshe
industry and content creators spend years trying to implement the rules and technology could render it all obsolete by the time it is ready to roll out. that would be a waste of time, energy, and money for all involved. third, the standards envisioned ifthe commission proposal results, the consumers would have to deal with two boxes instead of one. the controversy has centered around whether it would require an additional box to be deployed individual's home. be noticed as not say that tod's would be required provide consumers with another box, but unfortunately it will outcome.be the why. in order to carry out the standards in the notice, mvpd's would have one of two options. first, they could make substantial changes to their network architecture, or second,
they can provide each consumer with an additional box. ring my discussions with the mvpd's leading up to this meeting, each told me it would be less expensive to deploy additional boxes to the consumer homes. american people will probably and up paying for more boxes, not fewer. could hurt content creators. this proposal would allow set-top box manufacturers to profit without paying. nothing in the proposal would prevent a set-top box sellingurers from commercials sold by that manufacture or adding commercials to a program. this notice could easily address content creators who are concerned without compromising the core of the puzzle. but they did not.
minority programmers are most at risk. a wide variety of civil rights organizations, including the rainbow push coalition, the league of united latin american citizens, multicultural media telecom and the lgbt technology partnership among others have expressed opposition to this proposal. that is why minority programmers are posted as well. this morning, victor cerda is with us. victor, are you here? head of the first national spanish-language network in the united states to partner with public television. he brings high-quality entertainment to latino families ofng with representatives other latino organizations, he signed a letter opposing the commission's proposal. he said it could, in his words,
lead to a new round of tv redlining in which set-top box developers dropped latino programming from the channel lineup or search results. nothing in this proposal addresses that concern. taking a step back, this notice promises a lot but it probably will not liver much. most of what it will deliver is likely to be bad for american consumers and content creators. none of this has to be. right now we're on route two in the need for set-top box altogether. or you turn your phone a box?nic device into this proposal would do the opposite. it would divert from app development to the long-term slog of applying the regulatory
scheme for unwanted hardware. it goes further. it poses regulations that would discourage deployment of apps. that is not what the american people want. i am confident most consumers would rather eliminated altogether. it would require them to have yet another box in their home and will not take effect for at least three years. idea or say most consumers would urge the fcc to have a version of nero's conversation in the matrix. try to bend the set-top box marketplace. that is impossible. instead, only try to realize the truth. what truth? there is no set-top box. there is no set-top box? then you will see it is not the set-top box at bends, it is only yourself. all of this might explain the
deep concern on capitol hill about the fcc approach to the set-top box relation. senator bill nelson, ranking member on science, comers, science, and transportation has said to avoid taking any action compromise the market. a diverse group of 25 representatives led by tony cardenas has counseled restraint, saying it is important for the government to not be overly prescriptive in regulation. they have warned it could upset the delicate system that and.ates the copyright representative doug collins and others have expressed their concerns over the proposals effect ony adverse
minority and religious content creators. i wish they had listened to these instead of plodding ahead. >> thank you. riley. mr. o'reilly: over the years, i have spent considerable time on policy issues involving set-top boxes. the current landscape has led me to conclude set-top boxes are a relic of the past. waye already well on their to the video rental store. so why, in 2016, with the commission be doing a set-top box item, maintaining its puttingry control by legislation on this. in recent weeks, a steady stream about unlocking the box. has aommission propaganda hard time staying on message.
this particular catchphrase papers over the destructive commissionthe proceeds to adopt the rules presented today. this proposal would be harmful to some extent to consumers as well as every type of business involved in producing and distributing video content in many ways. not the least the unpredictable and unpredicted effects. networks ton serious bone or ability, exposing them to potential network damage and theft. it could strip content distributors to the right to distribute and control their content. subject oh's two regimes we will discuss later.
the ultimate free rider problem. mvpd's, broadcasters, independent programmers alike, will all lose some incentive to keep doing what they do. someone opt for the sidelines. to commission's response most of these concerns boils down to, trust us it will be ok. rather, trust nonexistent entities like an organization not associated with mvpd's to come up with a security item. trust marketplace forces to keep presentation forces and advertising in tact. is resigned to merely seeking comment on such basic comment as whether licensing can
rights information and adequate content protection. can it even be done? we do not know. yet somehow, despite "is about who, how, where, when, the majority has so much faith in uninformed entity to save the day. they have even tentatively concluded there should be a two-year deadline. this is regulation by speculation. this fantasy rests on a statutory item that is far-fetched. a testament to the level of absurdity that can be achieved in four short paragraphs went to defenseless statutes fall down a rabbit hole into a land where words have no meaning. enhance cupempt to titian in the set-top box market, the item shoots miles beyond that frame on the first page, redefining statutory terms
claiming references to hardware andnavigation devices interactive communication equipment and other equipment to mean hardware or software including apps. i do not know how much more clear the terms device or equipment could be and their intent to represent physical, tangible hardware. if those words do not work to constrict the commission, what could? i do not think anyone could -- if the members the fccn it would allow to force mvpd's to stream all of their content for free to any app developer willing to jump through a few hoops. why this proposal? the rationale stated as to achieve parity among competing interfaces. anyone can see the exact opposite would result. the one-way street from mvpd's
.wo ott's in order for it to ever be integrated with video, ott's would be to be bound by the same rules. sending all their content for free and to each other for free. in fact, one of the staff meetings brought this idea up deleted asquickly out of the realm of stellar and the fcc's of authority. as with three-d movies, you need to look through both red and blue side of the glass to see the hope church and make any sense of this item. it must be viewed together with the other half. -- if both are followed to the logical
conclusion, an entire class of innovators who bear no similarity to mvpd except they also offer video, will be redefined as mvpd's and assumed into title vi. meanwhile, all mvpd's will be forced to provide all of their content to each other under an fcc-mandated scheme in providing the three flows to all commerce would be only the beginning of a new regulatory board in on ott captured by title vi. who wins? the fcc, of course. this whole item is about trying to superimpose a 1990 concept on the current technology, the basic idea itself is no longer relevant to the innovators now available. or navigation devices, effectively have been taken over by oh -- odd. are providingers
this through numerous ways, internet apps. isn't not telling that consumers can already watch video from multiple sources on all of their devices without an fcc-mandated regime? they can even stream when they are watching between devices. the video marketplace seems to be doing just fine and somehow, when it comes to an mvpd subscription service, we need to step in and regulate. nonsense. i argue we should embrace the future not the past. the application economy is weakening the mvpd package before our eyes. it is no longer about channels at all. if any consumers are watching programming by the individual programming, even shorter segments. the entire video industry is moving away from a box mentality and as such we should reconsider the need for regulation to a competitive set-top
box marketplace. change is a real challenge when the goal is to maintain control for the future using the paradigm of the past. as we have seen, the pursuit of this goal can lead to policy proposals leading to orwellian works. given the choice, no one should have any doubt which side i am on. thank you, mr. chairman. >> you know, this issue is not complex. congress has explicitly instructed us to assure there are competitive navigation or an app.it a box no software, hardware, the functionality is the same.
the issue is whether you are forced to rent that talks month after month after month or whether you are forced to rent that at every month after month after month congress is clear. they said there should be competition. technology has advanced to a point where this is possible without changing the auctioning of the pay-tv system and its copyright protections and its security. whether an app or box. fact, what we are beginning to discuss today is something the is very similar to what cable industry itself once promoted.
but let's dig down on each of those sections. first of all, section 629 of the communications act here on the screen minces no words and leaves no doubt as to our statutory responsibility. no, they did not print in red in the statute. but it is clear. the commission shall. we've heard from some folks who always keep talking about how their strict constructionalist about what the congress told us to do or not to do. suddenly reaching out to all kinds of wild expansive suppositions. but it's pretty clear. congress said the commission shall. now, there have been lots of
wild assertions about this proposal before anybody saw it. or let's stop mber for a second. there's been a lot of talk. let's stop and let's look at how a set top box works. again, on the screen. let's be clear that there is nothing that is different in the functionality between a hardware box and a software app. number one, the cable system sends a message to the box that says what's on. number two, the cable system tells the box what it is
entitled to. what the subscriber -- what kind of rights the subscriber has. number three, the subcriber tells the box what they want. number four, the box relays that choice back to the cable system. and number five, the cable system delivers the programming. now lets look at what that structure would look like under this proposal. that's a new slide that just got put up except for the fact that it looks identical to the revious slide. there is identical service delivery, there is identical entitlementment authorization. there is identical relaying of choice back to the cable system. and there is identical delivery f programming.
so what's the difference? these are two systems that work the same. the difference is one's closed and there's one is open. the consumers have no cloice today. the congress mandated that onsumers should have choice. so if the competitive box or like the ns exactly ox or app, the cable system, forces you to rent today, then the protections for copyright and security are the same. but let's be specific about some of the red herrings that we've heard raised. nothing in this item requires a
second box in the home. say it as many times as you want. try and spin it every way you want. nothing this this item requires a second box in the home. nothing in this item likewise requires consumers to stop using the system they have right now. it only creates the opportunity for them to have choice. here is no multibillion dollar reengineering of cable systems, as we've heard, that is required. there's nothing in here that allows third parties to disaggregate cable content, sell advertising around it. there's a misrepresentation that's been made today with the assertion that this item does allow that.
assertion that it creates all kinds of opportunities for free riders. it takes the same product that goes through the cable system and the cable box today with the same structures and moves it through a different box requiring the same structures. as a result, existing copy riggetse and programming agreements are unaffected. consumer privacy is protected. emergency allerts are passed through. and child protection laws are unaffected. and nothing in this proposal slows down or stops cable innovation. in fact, we all know that history has been clear that innovation is a result of
competition. not a result of a forced, you must rent this box from me month after month after month. and nothing changes minority programmer relationships with the cable companies. t it sure does create more opportunities for minority program irs to reach consumers through the internet. finally, this is not a new topic for this agency. in 2010, the cable industry , cross and i quote industry approaches to develop a fully competitive and innovative retail video device marketplace.
so people who have said this is the end of the world actually supported a competitive video device and made seven recommendations which are consistent with today's proposal. let me just highlight a couple of them. they're here on this letter you will see on the screen. but the option to purchase video devices, other than those supplied by the cable company. that's the cable industry saying that they support that. the option to access video content on the internet, the option to search for content across multiple sources including the internet. this is what the cable industry proposed and the list goes on to the next slide where there are others that i won't read you all. but as i say, this is not inconsistent with what we're opening the discussion on and
proposing today. so let's go back to where we started. this is not complex. the law mandates it. technology allows it. the industry at one time proposed something similar to it. and consumers deserve a break and a choice. so we will call for the vote on the item. all those in favor say aye. aye. opposed. no. the ayes have it the item is adopted the request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. thank you very much to the bureau. madam secretary. >> mr. chairman and commissioners, third on your agenda today, the item will be presented by the consumer and
governmental affairs bureau entitled closed captioning of video programming, communication force the deaf and hard of hearing. >> thank you very much. look at this. cjb has decided to change the color of the name signs. oved left. all things are relative here. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. nearly 20 years ago the commission adopt the first set of rules governing the provision of closed captioning on television enabling viewers who are deaf and hard of hearing to access programming
along with the rest of the general public. the commission stated that it expected to revisit these rules as changes and technology and industry practices made it possible to improve both the availability and quality of captioning. the experiences of viewers over the past several years have confirpped the need to update these rules to achieve congress' goal for all americans to have equal access to video programs, particularly as these programs also become available on the internet pursuant to the 21 century communications and video accessibility act. today the bureau presents you a report and order that would assinal some of the responsibilities for the delivery of high quality captions to entities that have direct control over the production of such captions on video programming. this item also addresses certifications by video programming entities and the handling of captions complaints. the item provides for flexibility on ways to achieve
compliance and balances the benefits that fully accessible programming can achieve for people who are deaf and hard of hearing. joining me at the table today are karen pope trouts deputy chief of c scombrnch b and elliott green woled of the disability rights office. karen will give us context and the history and elliott will present the item. in addition, i would like tho thank greg, chief of the disability rights office. susie, michelle, mary beth murphy, maria, diana, and effery sharon and tracy, and maryland marilyn and susan for their work to support this item. >> thank you. good morning mr. chairman and commissioners. we have often heard it said that if all the improvements
for people who are deaf and hard of hearing closed captioning was the most significant. as was true for the last item presented the obligations for closed captions came from the 1996 amendments to the communications act celebrated now by its 20th anverse rifment but until february 2014, problems with the quality of captions had gradually been making television viewing with closed captioning increasingly difficult. in the years leading up to this order consumers reported inconsistencies in the way that captions were being provided with many people reporting that captions were often inaccurate, incomplete, and delayed behind the program's audio track. two years ago the commission took lark steps to -- landmark steps to ensure high quality caption that is accurately reflect the dialogue and other sounds and music in the audio track are synch nuss with the program's audio, are complete from the beginning to end to the fullest extent possible and
do not block other important information or content in the program on the screen such as character's faces text or graphics needed to understand the program's content. however, that february 2014 order left open who would be responsible for achieving compliance with the new caption and quality rules. back in 1997, when the commission first adopted rules governing tv captioning the commission placed sole responsibility for the provision of captions on video programming distributors. but not distributors are the ones that exercise the most control over captioning quality. they are the ones that work with the captioning agencies that both develop and assert programs. for this reason in a notice that accompanied the 2014 order the commission sought comment on whether it was appropriate to divide the captioning responsibilities and to place some of the responsibilities addressing captioning quality and the provision of captions
on video programmers. the item before you continues to place primary responsibility on the profor the provision of closed captions on the distributors but recognizes that many problems dealing with caption quality originate during the production phase which is under the control of video programmers. for this reason the item allocates responsibility for caption quality to both distributors and programmers, making each entity responsible for the captioning issues that are primarily within each's control. we believe that this allocation of responsibilityless bring about better compliance and make enforcement of the new captioning quality rules easier and more effective. elliott will now provide you with greater details about this item. thank you. >> good morning and commission ers. we are pleased to present the second report in order in the closed captioning quality proceeding. this item extends some of the
responsibilities for the quality and provision of closed captioning to other entities involved in the production and delivery of video programming, revises procedures for the handling of complaints, revises video programmers certification requirements, and makes other procedural modifications. specifically, this second report and order assigns responsibility for the quality f closed cappinging to video programming making each entity responsible for closed captioning issues that are primarily within its control. video programmers are responsible for closed captioning problems that stem from production of the captions as well as transmission of the captions up to the point where they are handed off to video programming distributors. video programming distributors in turn are responsible for the quality problems as a result of
the distributors' faulty equipment or their failure to pass through the closed captioning data intact. the item also maintains current rules that place primary responsibility for the provision of closed captioning on video programming distributors but also holds video programmers responsible for a lack of captions where they fail to provide captions on nonexempt programs. in addition, it requires each video programmer to file with the commission a certification that the video programmer is in compliance with the rules requiring the inclusion of closed captions and either is in compliance with the captioning quality standards or has adopt and is following best practices, or is exempt from the captioning obligations. if exempt, the video programmer must include its -- in its
certification the specific exemptions claimed. under current procedures, video programming distributors are required to make best efforts to obtain widely available certifications from video programmers. the second report and order would remove video programming distributors from this certification process and instead obligate video programmers to file their certifications directly with the commission. this will result in having all certifications located in one place, making it easier for video programming distributors and commission staff to locate the certifications. the item also revises the procedures for receiving serving and addressing television closed captioning complaints in accordance with a burden shifting compliance model. this model requires video programming distributors to
initially address complaints, allows the video programming distributor to shift the responsibility for responding to a complaint if the video programming distributor after conducting an investigation determines that the problem was not within its control. the second report and order also establishes a compliance a ladder for the commission's television closed captioning quality requirements. the compliance letter provides video programming distributors and video programmers with opportunities to take informal and prompt corrective actions to reduce the need for enforcement action by the commission. finally, the item requires each video programmer to register with the commission its contact information for the receipt and handling of written closed captioning complaints. we believe that the actions taken in the second report and
order by clearly defining the responsibilities for the quality and provision of closed captioning and adopting other procedural reforms will help ensure compliance with the commission's closed captioning rules. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges. >> thank you very much to all of you and everyone in the bureau for their efforts. commissioner. >> just over 19 years ago the commission adopted its first set of closed captioning rules. this decision marked a major first step in granting full access to video programming for deaf and hard of hearing or hearing impaired citizens. much has changed since 1997 and today it is most fitting for us to update these rules to reflect the insights gained from the experience business industry advocates and the f.c.c. first, this item will place
responsibility for closed captioning quality on video programming distributors as well as video programmers. each will be held accountable both for the provisioning and the quality of closed captioning issues that are primarily within their control of common-sense update to be sure. video programming distributors will continue to be responsible for the provisioning of closed captioning but now video programmers will be held responsible for the absence of those captions if they fail to provide them. this item also enhances the transparency of compliance certifications and updates compliance procedures whether those complaints are received by the commission or the video programming distributor. it is my hope that these updates will not only help in compliance with our closed captioning rules but will assist in stream lining the resolution of closed captions
complaints or problems going forward. many thanks are due for this item. and as the bureau chief mentioned, those names i want to thank them. but i also as always would like to acknowledge and include thanks to karen and elliott for such an excellent item. thank you. >> thank you. >> earlier this month we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the telecommunications act or 1996. those it's been said before a lot has changed in the past two decades. including the evolution of television sets away from those that were big with fake wood paneling around them to what we have today. raiser thin screens and of course they're not the only game in town. we live in a world where those screens surround us and opportunities for viewing continue to multiply. all this change is terrific but we have got to make sure that
we continue to honor the values that we had 20 years ago or 19 years ago when we first put in place our new closed captioning policies. and it's important because there are an estimated 36 million americans who are deaf or have hearing loss. and there are 40 million more who he age of 65 experience varying degrees of hearing loss at some point in their lives. they all rely on accurate synchronized complete and well-placed captions to enjoy video programming. now, two years ago we took significant steps to update our closed captioning policies. and today, we close an enforcement gap so the f.c.c. can step in when need be. and we also recognize that video programming distributors and programmers alike work hard to provide high quality closed captions. we implement strict time lines for consumers' complaints to be
addressed. and this is important. we implement a compliance ladder so improvements can be made without immediate threat of enforcement. so thank you to the consumer and governmental affairs bureau not just for the excellent work here today but for your absolutely unyielding commitment to improving the quality of closed captioning. >> thank you. video programmers and distributors each play an important role with respect to the provision and quality of closed captions. in today's order at its core embraces a common-sense approach for complying with the commission's closed captioning quality rules. a distributor will be responsible for those aspects of closed captions quality over which it has primary control. and a programmer will be responsible for those aspects of closed captioning quality over which it has primary control. of course, the devil is in the details. for example, this order establishes a compliance ladder
for our closed captioning quality rules which is designed to remedy problems without involving the agency's enforcement bureau. i had concerns about language originally in the order that would have degree gated vast discretion to avoid the compliance ladder and refer matters to the enforcement bureau which would have defeated the entire purpose of a compliance ladder. through tough negotiations we limit the possibility of evading the ladder. the compromised language may not be ideal but it is good enough to merit my concurrence. accordingly, i am voting to improve in part and concur in part. >> mr. chairman. our main focus of this item is to shift the burden involving the quality of closed cammingses from the distributors to the programmers themmings. while i can jenly agree i expect it will be much messier and therefore punitive. i also worry that the item doesn't make a similar shift for the burd ton provide closed
captions. the same logical argument should apply to the provisions. i will support these provisions not withstanding. disappointingly, the item seems into two troubling areas. first, the item creates an exceptionally convoluted mechanism by which the consumer closed captioning quality complaints would be forwarded to the programmer and then back again. under this structure the personal consumer information will be redacted before forwarding could occur. but during conversation last month it was alleged too difficult to redact personal information so the chairman graciously agreed to move a separate item to eliminate the correspondance file in its entirety. how can it be that redacting personal information and the creation of a unique identifier is easy for video distributors but not for broadcasters? does anyone not check these it's ms for consistency? second, the item creates a
three tiered compliance item and then subsequently rejects it by establishing a special rule allowing to refer captioning quality rule violation directly to the enforcement bureau or for enforcement to pursue an enforcement action on its own without first going through the compliance ladder for certainly violations. thanks to the commissioner we now have a tighter standard of intentional and deliberate. does anyone want to guess how that's going to be applied? why wouldn't the compliance letter capture such a violation? no justification is given. instead, the item creates a fake compliance letter that the bureau or both will climb over any time they want. in essence this creates an illusion of a thoughtful and judicious regulator but it preserves the right to throw out the window without any questions asked whenever the bureaus feel like it.
no, thank you. > i have a statement for the record. in summary this is basically about responsibility. it's the responsibility to those who hear with their eyes and it's the responsibility of those who provide closed captioning whether you create it or distribute it. so i think the bureau has done a great job on this and i look forward to supporting it. so let's call for the votes. all in favor say aye. opposed. the ayes have it. the item is adopted. the request for editorial privileges is granted. thank you very much. madam chair will you please announce the -- you got a promotion. there are days you can have the chair.
madam secretary would you please announce the consent agenda. >> as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting today you will consider a consent agenda composed of the items listened under consent agenda. for your convenience during this vote, commissioners are provided each of you with the copy of the sunshine notice. >> thank you. madam secretary we will now go to a vote on this. for the consent agenda items listed on the sunshine notice, we have received no objection from any commissioner. accordingly i will shortly call the vote on this consent agenda. if you are voting to adopt all of the consent agenda items, please indicate by voting in favor. if you oppose the adoption of any of these items on the consent agenda please vote to oppose. and i will call on you in turn to identify the item you are opposing by the number assigned to it on the sunshine agenda.
so with that i will call for the vote. l in favor please ind kay by saying aye. opposed. >> yes, sir. >> can i have numbers one, two, and three? i would like to be recorded as concur in part and can dissent in part. >> thank you, sir. >> all right. the items are adopted. the consent agenda is adopted nd it is so ordered. in a moment i want to go to the commissioners and their opportunity to make other observations. before i turn to my colleagues, l of us lost a good friend , a great mind, a big heart
and a good laugh when dan brener was tragically killed on monday in a pedestrian rundown accident in los angeles. dan was a former member of the team here at the f.c.c., a senior adviser to both commissioners fairish and fowler. he served for 17 years as the chief regulatory counsel at ncta. and in 2012 governor jerry brown of california appointed him to the los angeles superior court where he has sat since then in a robe. something that those of us who knew dan always thought was an interesting attire for a guy who was so quick-minded and so funny. he was a mentor to many in the
policy community. he was a friend to us all. he was a leader in the lgbt community. and something that a lot of folks didn't know about him. he spent a lot of time teaching math in the underprivileged community. he's truly going to be missed. he was a great person. good man. and i'm sure my colleagues share this and would want to express themselves. let me just say that we will go down the bench. and then at the end let's just ask for a moment of silence to remember our good friend, dan. >> mr. chairman, i did not know dan well. he came in less than a handful of times to see me representing his clients. of course, with cable interests. but what i remember was a tall,
lean, dapper individual with a good sense of humor and just deep knowledge of media policy. he will of course be missed by the bar, by those of us in the f.c.c. family. our hearts are heavy. our condolences go to his family and many, many many friends. it's tough when a life like that is dimmed. but he will never be forgotten. .is wit and his depth again will be replicated by -- if we are smart, will be replicated and remembered by us all. thank you. >> commissioner. >> i didn't know dan. condolences to his family and friends. and in addition to the many
things that he is known for in these parts and elsewhere, he was a terrific stand up comic. which makes me think that it must have been a blast to be in his courtroom. i will count it among my regrets that i never got the opportunity to see that. but again, condolences to his family and friends. >> i would agree with everything that has been said. dan was a great lawyer, a good man, and a very funny man. the first and only case i had to argue in the d.c. circuit was actually against dan, very arcane inside wiring case. i told him that afterwards even though we were likely to win, nonetheless if he had challenged the regulation adoption many years ago i thought you had a pretty decent chance of winning. he said well, now you tell me. five years later. you just had to be there. sort of the joy deveeve that he brought to everything that he did was something so remarkable especially in this field which tends to be obscure to say the
least. but we thank him for the public service to the people of california and the members of the f.c.c. and we will remember him for the years to come. >> i will just say god bless dan and provide comfort to his family at this time. thank you. >> let's just take a moment to each think about our own special relationship with dan nd remember him. as everybody said, he will be greatly missed. mr. clyburn do you have anything you want to add? >> i was going to join you. i don't know what sequence you wanted to do. we've got a couple of departures. so i don't know.
>> far be it from me to try to preempt you from doing anything, commissioner. so go for it. >> to the american public, this is very unusual for him to yield like this. but i really wanted to say that when it was announced that roger sherman was going to be the next bureau chief, i was thrilled. the democratic chief counsel to the house committee on energy and commerce where he provided my staff with incredible support. there are a number of wireless highlights and achievements roger's be credited to wise counsel and leadership. the aws 3 option, the pro competitive spectrum reserve rules to implement this -- that we will implement. the reform of the part 1 competitive bidding rules. people are putting them to
sleep -- this is putting them to sleep but it is enabling incredible opportunities that we probably take for granted. but these are important. but one of the things i respect the most about roger is when we wanted to ensure that more members of the wireless bureau staff received the proper credit for the contributions they made to various policy decisions, he did so so for that and so much more roger i ave no idea where you are. great. typical. in the back. we thank you so much for your service. >> anything else? >> yes. also thank you. i am not thinking today. i also want to acknowledge. >> so shook up over the thought of roger leaving. >> and speaking of -- i want to acknowledge. not will try to keep this
as interesting as it would normally be off camera to jonathan chambers. jonathan is here somewhere. you see him towering over me. who has been incredible to our office. and always has looked out for consumers in a creative and innovative ways. he is instrumental in the video relay service reform adopted during the transition just before the chairman got here. and i just saw with him a demonstration of the interoperable platform which could unleash significant benefits while reducing the costs. so many of these things go under the radar but they are extremely important and innovative. my goodness, we thank you so much for this. his thoughtful advice on everything from again the brs to connect america to e rate. he is an out of the box
thinker. who challenges normal expectations and policies. and whenever i ask for how can we view this, how can we do this again if i was not in synch with that, he always managed and always attempted to come up with alternatives. a nick name for him, for those who know him, is mr. happy. if you know him, you know why that is a joke. but i am not so happy -- i am not so happy today, my friend, to see you leave this place. but i am grateful to you for all of the u.s. that you've lent to this office and given to this agency. so the best to you always. and thank you. >> first of all, i want to call out wireless bureau chief roger sherman who is sitting in the back row today like the former congressional staffer he is.
dutefully trying to avoid the lime light. but the truth is roger was never very successful of that. he was always a go to person here. and every role i've had in policy dialogues around this town because he is so second halfy, so smart, and so knowledgeable. and rather than bid him well i'm going to stay in denial that he is departing. it just seems easier. best wishes. finally, circle of life. i'm going to bring someone in. ok. and i want to introduce mark paul. mark paul is joining my office taking on the role of media legal advisor. mark is an old hand. he has been at law firms lucas nace and also at step to and johnson. he also did some time on capitol hill early on serving for his home state senator then senator joe biden. and more recently and where i t to know him he served as
senior counsel to former senator the deceased senator frank lautenberg from new jersey. so mark is a terrific political mind. he is a first rate lawyer and a friend. and i'm thrilled to have him join my office and the agency. >> welcome. >> just two sad notes and two bitter suite notes. first, i wanted to note that diane douglas recently passed away. joined the bureau as a clerk typist. in 1986 she moved to omd where she spent the next 18 years in the finance department. in 2004, she went to cgb first in the reference information center as a technician and then to the consumer inquiries and complaints division. according to her supervisor, she always told me that she wanted to make sure that she had work to do. she didn't want to be sitting around with nothing to do.
that was the mark she left for over three decades at this agency and all of us are grateful for her work both as a coworker and american citizen. secondly, i wanted to note the passing of supreme court judge scalia. a giant in the history of the supreme court. his opinions and constitutional cases are well known but he also had a substantial impact on this agency. he authored the 1999 opinion in att versus iowa utility board in which the is the cases in which the f.c.c. blessed the act. then verizon versus trinchingo which didn't necessarily state an anti-trust claim which was a hot issue back then. recently he authored the opinion of city of arlington versus f.c.c. critical for those of us who think about the nuances whether agencies should
decide whether they have jurisdiction. for me personally, my affinty for him came in law scule and i think most law students would agree with this. he was a delight to read. if we were reading tons obvious cases and some are sexeppingsly boring, to read a scalia opinion was something that made you think. for me one of the reasons why i became an anti-trust lawyer and started my career at the honors program
he was funny, smart, and had a chance to tell him about that dissent in kodak. without missing a beat he launched into recapping the dissent and it was incredible. i also asked him how it was possible for a yankees fan to be married to a red sox fan. well. ged that divide as next i want to echo what everyone has said about roger and john. roger has been a terrific chief. the chance to meet him first on the hill and as chief here he really was at the center of so many of the critical issues we handle. it's hard to think of anything we've done that you haven't contributed to. i appreciate his work on the aftermath one area where it was exceedingly difficult but i appreciate roger's good faith
efforts to reach out to our office. john chambers. what a distinguished career in public service you've had. going all the way back to the years you spent with senator dan forts that unless citrus member of the senate from missouri all the way to here where you've been a leader in some of the more difficult and challenging issues. i want to echo what commissioner said with respect to your work on the video relay proposal. this has langwirned for years. the fact that you took the initiative to put it on solid footing and hopefully to get costs under control for the benefit of consumers and taxpayers is something that deserves everybody. nd you certainly have mine. i think it's see personly conconvenient you are an affinty for kansas city sports teams. with that i am done. >> first to roger i want to thank you for representing your
bosses over the years very well. i didn't always agree with policy outcomes or advice but i did respect it and i do respect it. i enjoyed my time working with you on capitol hill and i have enjoyed working with you at the commission. i wish you best in the future. to jonathan i want to thank you for the spirited debates that we've had on a number of issues in my office. i enjoyed that hour we would have every month to kind of talk through different policy issues. and i thank you for your president rests in saving consumers and the commission money and the offering of disability and technology. and i want to join my colleague in acknowledging the work of justice scalia. i only had the opportunity to meet him once. but i wish him -- i just extend my best and say god bless. thank you. >> thank you. let's pile on roger here. i agree entirely with commissioners, so typical you're hiding back there in the
back. going i found out i was to get this job i began looking around and knowing that we were going to raid the wireless bureau chief ruth and make her chief of staff here, who could fill those rather large shoes? she will be offend bid that because she has petite feet but large shoes. and i started casting around. roger and i had lunch one day and we talked about some opportunities that might exist at the commission. said yes mber when he he was interested. and i'm going wow. this is great 23450us. -- news. so when roger came in it was a
wonderful day for this agency. we've already heard recounting of the kind of things that he was involved in. how we deal with this innovative approach to 3.5 stating the competitive bidding rules how you worry about sell you lar service licensing and changing those rules, how you worry about making sure the infrastructure is out there for this wireless wond tore exist on. but the thing that always impressed me and that we will miss the most about you, roger, is that you were incredibly selfless. you are incredibly focused. and you, my friend, are a great leader who will be missed. o thank you very, very much.
to john chambers who i will challenge anybody up here for who has known john the longest. i think it's probably approaching 30 years that we've known each other. and he has been the head of osp since 2013. as everybody said he helped modernizing of usf. his leadership on the issues for the disability community have been legion, have been repeated up here. and make a difference, which is about all anybody canr ask for. john will always be grateful to you for your service. and we look forward to the next mountain that you're going to climb. now, having talked about all these downer things. ome good news. fortunately, john wilkins our current managing director has
agreed to step in to roger's shoes and become the new chief of the wireless bureau. are you here, john? or is he -- ok. so we all know what a great job he has done as managing director. he led the charge on e rate. he has been playing a similar role in the life line reform which we will take up shortly. when there was some early issues with regard to software and some of the fuveragesnalt of the incentive auction john stepped in bringing his mckenzie experience and expertise to address some of those issues. he is just simply a superb manager. and creative individual. so the abilityo