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 organi moreover, it empowers organizations like ofza remind to identify areas of high demand facilitating targeted resource allocation and enhancing service delivery. since the launch of 90 days in 2022, the demand for mental health services has surged dramatically.

annual calls increased 50% in the first year. an additional 30% in the second year. tech support request to our hotline have risen by 500% in the same period. with a significant portion originating from young people under the age of 20 for highlighting the urgent need for acceptable mental health services. despite this escalating demand, awareness of 90 days remains low. pulling conducted by the pew charitable trust revealed only 13% of people are aware 90 days exists. this lack of awareness coupled with ineffective routing systems, layers of complexity and service provision. as one of maryland's nine crisis call centers to the 90 day suicide and crisis lifeline, every mind is at the forefront of providing vital support to those in need.

our unwavering commitment to mental health advocacy compels us to wholeheartedly endorse implementation of geo routing within the 90 day infrastructure. in conclusion i urge the commission to approve this proposal to ensure equitable access to timely, local mental health support and crisis services, to ensure every caller receives the same high-quality, effective, 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, and for your words today and setting the stage, very important what we are about to embark on, really appreciate you being here. with that, our chief of the wireline competition bureau, let's proceed.

>> good morning madam chairwoman and commissioners, and thank you for the inspirational message and reminding us what we are working toward. the wireline competition bureau is pleased to present a second further notice of rulemaking that if adopted would take an important step towards improving access to lifesaving services provided by the 988 suicide, i would like to think the bureau team for their hard work and colleague in public safety and homeland security bureau, the wireless to the communications bureau, office of communications and office of

economic and analytics and general counsel for their crucial reviewing. i would like to thank our federal partners at the us to permit of health and human services, substance abuse and mental health services. seated at the table with me from the bureau are heather hendrixon, deputy division chief fresh in from chicago this morning, mary, merry wulff who will present the items. >> thank you. the united states continues to face a suicide and mental health crisis. according to the centers for disease control and prevention suicide was the leading cause of death in the united states in 2021 resulting in 48,000 deaths. 982 crisis lifeline provides

critical lifesaving services to people in suicidal crisis or emotional distress and it is a vital component of the nationwide response to this ongoing mental health crisis. over the last several years the commission facilitates access to the 980 lifeline's vital services by designating 988 as the number for callers to reach the lifeline and by requiring providers to route texans to the 298 lifeline. since the nationwide transition in july 2022, the lifeline has received and routed over 9.6 million calls, texts and tests. based on the original design of the lifeline system callers may not receive support from local crisis centers. approximately 80% of calls to the 980 lifeline are made from wireless phones and the system currently routes the phone call to crisis centers based on a caller's area code and exchange, which presents challenges because many callers

have wireless phones that don't match their physical location. these discrepancies may be more prevalent in groups like college students and servicemembers. mental health and crisis counselors have opined that connecting callers to local crisis centers is essential to ensure 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 in the need to improve wireless cost of the 988 lifeline, callers connected to crisis centers based on the caller's location through a process known as geo routing. geo routing refers to technical solutions for directing calls based on geographic location for the origin of the call without transmitting information about the caller's precise location. the second further notice of

proposed rulemaking, if adopted, would continue to commission work to provide meaningful access to the 988 lifeline and build on the progress made by stakeholders by proposing to adopt rules require wireless carriers, implementing geo routing solution for calls to 988 lifeline, the second further notice would seek comments to obtain information necessary to thoroughly and transparently consider geo routing solutions that fall within the scope of that mandate and identify remaining work to implement a geo routing solution. next, if adopted, second further notice would seek, donna 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 system changes are upgraded, testing requirements and timelines. the second further notice if adopted would also see comment

on routing challenges on potential or needed geo routing solutions for texts to the 988 lifeline. lastly, a second further notice if adopted is to comment on the commission's authority to adopt rules require wireless carriers to present one or more geo routing inclusion for 988 lifeline, the bureau recommends adoption of the second further notice of proposed rules about making and requests that they stay with it. thank you. >> we will not here comments starting with commissioner carr. >> a year ago, in sioux falls, i had the chance to visit the helpline center which organizes mental and behavioral health services and answers over one hundred thousand calls to 988 the year. that is why i had a chance to meet janet, one of the helpline counselors, someone that makes a difference in people's lives every single day she goes to

work. the story she told me were very similar to the ones we heard about communications between maddie and ellie. the point janet and her colleagues conveyed to me was 90 day makes a real difference because she noted it is easy to remember number has resulted in people reaching out for help earlier in the lifecycle of a crisis, that has resulted in their counselors being able to be more effective in the help they provide. they estimate since 980 - 988 was ruled out they seem to hundred% increase in the number of calls and texts coming into the center but they also thought there was more they could do to help improve the system in particular they flagged call routing with mobile phones and affordability as we heard, people don't always call 988 from the same

geographic area associated with their area code, someone reaching out in south dakota, helpline located somewhere else, as we heard with the call between aaron and reina. there has to be a way to route these calls to local helpline's while continuing to protect the privacy of callers and making sure they are not discouraged from reaching out for help. that's exactly the idea the chair has put forward today. i want to thank chairwoman jessica rosenworcel, i want to recognize senators barrasso and lou hann for their leadership in efforts to advance the bipartisan 980 lifeline location improvement act. this is legislation to ensure we have strong footing necessary to make sure this

vital resource continues to be successful. i think the staff for their work on this important issue. >> thank you for that. commissioner stark. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i want to thank you for your testimony, your powerful advocacy, what you have been doing for folks having mental health issues. that's a startling statistic that tech service needs 500%. that is something that is, we should all take note of. more than anything, i am proud that we have been able to move so quickly to deliver critical results for the american people, all the pieces in many ways of lined up for the 3 digit code we are talking about, 988. since the nationwide transition in july of 2,022, the lifeline has, as we heard received and

routed 9. 6 million calls, texts and chats which i would call that success but as we've heard quite clearly, there is more room for us to do better, to continue to grow. our primary responsibility at the fcc is to ensure meaningful access to the lifeline, we've done this by setting forth reliability, resiliency, outage reporting requirements and today we continue on that theme following the council of mental health advocates proposing to require geo routing solutions for 988. currently, as we heard one a caller dials 988, the call is routed to a crisis center but where those majority of calls are made from a wireless phone you do have that opportunity to make it even closer, even better so that it performs, mental health and crisis counseling experts, unanimously

advise connecting callers in crisis to local crisis centers is vitally important. substance abuse and mental health services administration, lifeline administrator, industry partners, we've all completed that successful proof of concept trial of the solution we are talking at for geo routing and this will continue to require cooperation between those carriers originating the calls, lifeline administrator the controls and there's more need for us to get the word out as we've heard from folks that are experiencing this very critical issue, thank you to the chairwoman for your leadership, thank you to the hard work of the team here. it really deserves our full pride and full support. >> thank you for that. commissioner simonton. >> thank you. when i reflect on area codes in my own family, there is a 302 number, a 267 number of the 585 number, this is my immediate

family under my roof. for those of you, then this 306 number. if you are defining the quadrilateral, it would be northern virginia, rochester, new york, chicago, and south florida. personally i would appreciate being geo located when there is any 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 you for your hard work on this. >> thank you for drying that quadrilateral. commissioner gomez. >> my first site as a commissioner was to join jessica rosenworcel to meet the amazing team, thank you for hosting us. i walked away that day with a

fuller appreciation for the importance of making the 980 lifeline available to the public and gratitude for the hundreds of volunteer centers and staff that provide support to callers across the country. the 988 lifeline has become available, we've learned about ways to improve for callers and today we take steps toward such an improvement, doing everything we can to ensure individuals experiencing a crisis can receive the support they need, save lives and have good policy. i look forward to seeing the records developed with solutions and ideas about how we can implement these steps. thank you for your valuable work on this. >> thank you. as you heard, not far from us at the federal communications commission in a nondescript building in montgomery county,

maryland, an organization called everymind, one of 200 call centers across the country that respond when people dial 988, the suicide and crisis lifeline. we know 988 well, we help set up this easy to remember three digit number nationwide. we made it possible for anyone anywhere to reach out for help through call, chat, or text. those are the technical details. this agency, we don't really know what it is like to be on the receiving end of those calls. people at everymind do. along with commissioner gomez i visited everyminds to learn more about what responding to 988 looks like on the ground and 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. secondly, they could face challenges because connecting those who reach out to 988 can be complicated. today we know that 80% of% of the calls to 988 originate from a wireless phone. right now those calls are based on the area code associated with that device but as we have heard, for many people the area code on our phones no longer matches the place where we live. that means a phone number from maryland but you move to california and you dial 988 you would be routed to a call center in maryland like everymind. 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 to assistance in their own backyard than they do

across the country in california. i think it's time to change this. if we do i think we can save more lives by getting more people connected to resources near but by. that's why we proposed introduce geo routing. when geo routing is used wireless calls to 988 are routed call centers based on the nearby towers wireless callers 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. on this front i want to point out we are already on the right track. last year i wrote to the nationwide wireless providers urging them to begin work on geo routing so i really want to thank them for the headway they've made with development, testing and trial. i also want to make clear that

for geo routing the work with 988 across the country, the department of health and human services and its administrator of the 988 suicide and crisis lifeline is going to have to incorporate the solutions into its process. this is vital. we stand ready to assist because if we develop these technical solutions we benefit from having mental health work with us every step of the way. i want to thank senator padilla, secretary becerra for joining the last month when i first publicly introduce the idea of requiring geo routing for 988 and i think the counselors at everymind for the gracious way they open their doors to us and the services they provide the people in the community. they are heroes in our own backyard. in addition i want to thank the staff responsible for this rulemaking including heather hendrickson, jodi mae, ortiz,

and mary -- merry wulff. rachel from the public safety and homeland security bureau, hanley, eli johnson, roger noel, john lockwood from the wireless selleck medications bureau, erica olson, she knew from the office of general counsel. stacy jordan and eric route from the office of economic and analytics and joslyn james, and shawna wilkerson from the office of communication and business opportunity. we are going to get this done. let's proceed to a vote on the item. [roll call vote] >> the item is adopted as requested. madam secretary, will you announce the next item on

today's agenda? >> item 2 on the agenda is titled safeguarding the open internet and will be presented by the wireline competition bureau, the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> thank you, madam secretary. welcome back. when you are ready, please proceed. >> good morning commissioners. the wireline competition bureau is pleased to present for your consideration declares were ruling for points of order on reconsideration that would reestablish the commission's authority over broadband internet service. i would like to thank the entire wireline bureau team for their dedicated work on this item. as well as our colleagues across the agency who contributed including those in consumer and governmental affairs, enforcement, media, safety, homeland security, space and wireless selleck communications bureaus but also would like to thank the officers of communications, business opportunities to the office of economics and

analytics, international affairs and the office of the general counsel. seated at the table with me from the bureau are jodi mae, division chief, deputy chief mason will now begin. >> good morning, madam chair and commissioners. high-speed internet connections are indispensable to every aspect of our daily lives from work, education and healthcare 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 broadband internet access, consumer broadband service we use and rely on every day as a tele-communication service under title 2 of the communications act of 1934 is amended. and reestablish the commission's authority to

protect consumers and safeguard fair and open internet which protects free expression, encourages competition and innovation and is critical to public safety. first, the declaratory ruling the classified broadband internet access service as a telecommunications service, classified mobile broadband internet access as a commercial mobile service. it would reclassify would provide the commission with additional authority to safeguard national security, advance public safety, protect consumers and facilitate broadband deployment. the classification of broadband internet access as a telecommunications service represents the best reading of the text of the act in light of marketplace reality of how broadband internet access service is offered and received it today as well as the factual and technical reality of how broadband internet access service functions and such reclassification affords the

commission precedent and is fully justified under the commission's long-standing authority to classify services such as jurisdiction. it would make clear the commission will exercise its preemption authority on a case-by-case basis to preempt state or local measures that interfere or are incompatible with federal or territory open internet framework. seconds, the order would establish broad, tailored forbearance including no rate regulation, no tariffing, no cost are counted rules and the commission's application of title 2 to broadband providers to ensure the real story environment protects consumers and achieves other important interest respond to billy's while not unnecessarily stifling investment and innovation. consistent with the commission's approaching 2015 the order would not forbear from portions of title 2 that protect consumers from

competition, preserve enforcement tools, protect consumer privacy, provide access to infrastructure, support disability access and promote universal -- in order to account for changing national security landscape the commission would also retain its authority with respect to broadband providers in section 214, 218, 219, and 220. third, the order would reinstate straightforward rules that prohibit blocking, throttling or engaging in paid or affiliated prioritization arrangements and certain enhancements to the transparency rules to require broadband providers to disclose performance characteristics for the benefit of consumers in the broad range of participants. it would reinstate standards that prohibit unreasonable interference or disadvantage to

consumers or edge providers and exception for reasonable network advantage. it would make clear the commission will employ a case-by-case review under sections 201, and 202, to ensure that internet traffic exchange practices do not harm the open internet. it would establish a multifaceted enforcement framework comprised of advisory, enforcement advisors, commission initiated investigations and informal and formal complaints. finally, the order on reconsideration would partially grant an otherwise business move for petitions for reconsideration filed in response to the 2020 restoring internet freedom quarter. the bureau recommends adoption of this item and requests editorial privileges, thank you. >> thank you. we will now here comments from the bench. >> the internet in america has

thrived in the absence of 1930s command and control regulation by the government. bipartisan consensus emerged early on that the government should not regulate the internet like ma bell's copper line telephone monopolies. the telecom act of 1996, a republican congress and democrat president came together and agreed to preserve for the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the internet unfettered by federal or state regulation. one year later congress trip to 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 to telecommunications service. the sec chair at the time by a democrat and president clinton a pointy did so in the 1998 stevens report. stevens report determined internet access is a title i information service under the statute. for decades, that bipartisan position. it held with the remainder of the clinton administration. all 8 years of the bush administration, and held the first we 6 years and the obama administration.

every sec chair across 20 years, republican or democrat alike, repeatedly affirmed broadband, a title i information service. the sec did so 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 2, the fcc never wavered. not once. classifying the internet as a title 2 service remains 1/3 rail of communications policy. both unlawful and misguided. all of that change in a flash.

years of bipartisan consensus vanished over the course of just 117 seconds. november 10, 2014, president obama published a youtube video calling on the fcc to label broadband a title 2 telecom service for the first time and to oppose sweeping new government control on the internet in the name of net neutrality. president obama's one minute and 57 second video was the culmination of an unprecedented and coordinated campaign by the executive branch to pressure independent agency into grabbing power that the legislative branch never said that it delegated.

the very same morning, president obama released his video calling for title 2, activists showed up at the home of the fcc chairman and used their bodies to blockade his driveway. demanding that he classify the internet as a title 2 service. they returned to his home again that very same night. chairman wheeler would later testify and write an email suggesting he believed those activists who showed up at his home did not act independently from the white house. the pressure campaign continued to mount. weeks later title 2 activists

rushed the day us during the fcc monthly commission meeting, obstructing in official proceedings a reclassify now banner behind the head of fcc commissioners before security intervened. that's also why we now have security on both ends of the day us. just days before president obama released his title 2 video, president biden's chief of staff who was serving then as president obama's director of the national economic council took the unprecedented step of visiting the fcc chairman, on the fcc office so that he could deliver a message

to the chairman about president obama's upcoming announcement on title 2. why the flurry of pressure from the white house in november 2014? not just people coming off of a midterm election loss. as a see e-mails show the sec chairman was days away from circulating a draft decision to the commission that would have adopted net neutrality rules but stopped short of going full title 2. the white house decided it had to stop this fcc plan before the chairman took public. so it acted to derail the compromise past that the chair had in the chart.

the wall street journal ran a deeply reported story on all of this on oliver's title net neutrality, how the white house awarded the fcc chief, it describes, quote, an unusual, secretive effort inside the white house led by two aids acting like a parallel version of the fcc itself. subsequently, internal fcc communications later obtained by congress only confirmed additional concerning details to that reporting. the legislative branch caught wind of the executive branch's power-play. they did not sit idly by, the chief of staff to to the then majority leader of the senate, harry reid wrote to the fcc

chair, said he spoke to the white house again and, quote, told them to back off title 2, went through once again the problems it creates for us end quote. majority leader's chief of staff followed up adding my main point to the white house is how can you declare that regulations written in the 1930s will work fine for 2014 technology. a good question. let tom do his job and this will be fine. except the white house did not let the fcc chair do his job. the president intervened. he flipped them. reflecting on the white house

campaign while testifying before congress chairman wheeler was asked about president obama's november 10th announcement and whether it had an impact on the title 2 debate at the fcc. he testified of course it did. when jeff science came to me, said this is what the president is going to do, that was substantial significance. the testimony is true. emails confirm the fcc stopped the presses on its compromise or hybrid approach, delayed the vote, quickly went to work drafting a decision that went full title 2, just as the president had demanded. chairman wheeler would later write an email where he

described this episode at his damascus road experience. ever since president obama flipped chairman wheeler, there has been no turning back. title 2 is now just a matter of civic religion for activists on the left. they demand the fcc go full title 2 whenever democrat is president. everybody knows what is expected and resident biden made restoring title 2 a campaign promise, jeff science is back in the white house so yes, millions of people commenting on title 2 and net neutrality over the years but none of them mattered. none of them persuaded the fcc to go full title 2.

only the president mattered. this also explains why the fcc has never been able to come up with a credible policy rationale for title 2. it is all just shifting sands. that's because the agency is doing what it has been told to do by the executive branch, cobbling together rationalizations as it goes along. you may wonder why i am starting this statement recounting this bit of fcc history. for starters i think it tells an important part of the story of title 2. the position on title 2 didn't simply evolve over time. the window on title 2 did not just naturally shift. president obama forced the fcc's hand.

i understand there's many people who would like to sweep that entire episode under the rug, forget about it. i am not one of them. i'm also starting my statement for more fundamental reason. it's not surprising the executive branch tried to pressure another component of the federal government into doing something the president thought would be in his benefit politically. in many ways that's a story as old as the republic itself, but what is surprising is that it succeeded. the the courts sanctioned this power grab. the framers understood the nature of those in power and set up a series of checks and

balances to avoid government overreach. chief among them is the constitution's separation of powers. in article 1, the people vested all federal legislative powers in congress. as chief justice marshall put it, this means the important subjects must be entirely regulated by the legislature itself. even if congress may leave, the executive branch had to fill up the details. that didn't happen here. congress never passed a law saying the internet should be heavily regulated like the utility. nor did it pass one giving the sec 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 argue much of the fault 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 the type of pressure campaigns that we witnessed with title to. that's because chevron as applied by some courts has allowed agency to seize big new powers without an express grant of authority from congress. an agency could go ahead and regulate. in cases of vast economics or

political significance, chevron not only creates an environment where agencies push the bounds of their authority but creates an incentive for the executive branch or other political actors to pressure them into doing so. that's 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, administrative agencies must point to far more than an ambiguous statute to persuade reviewing court that congress authorized the agency to act. after all, as a constitutional matter, congress doesn't operate like a sieve just inadvertently spilling authority.

after west virginia congress's delegation of authority can no longer be implicit. it must be explicit. properly applied west virginia will stop the flip-floping. and eliminate the incentives for the executive branch to engage in the type of pressure campaigns we've seen with title 2. it will improve administrative agency decision-making too by ensuring we are driven by facts, by the law and by the record. it will allow the natural course of compromise to work their will on legislature, legislating, rather than winner take all partyline votes at agencies. it will ensure the legislative power will remain with congress unless and until the legislature decides to delegate them.

if that weren't 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 2, the order indiscriminately applies to that authority to fundamentally rewrite the 1996 act by line item vetoing more than a dozen provisions central to title 2's legislative design. as multiple supreme court decisions confirm unrestrained application of forbearance is illegitimate, last year the supreme court struck down the biden administration's use of analogous waiver authority after the education department tried to use it to wipe away student debt.

as a matter of statutory construction, and implied delegation, the fcc is not presumed it to have sweeping power to refashion title 2 into an entirely new legislative scheme by picking and choosing which parts to apply. the fcc's flip-floping also informs how seriously one should take the orders policy arguments. they tried to dress up its latest power grab in a 400 plus page order that offers a laundry list of bogus justifications, few of them rely on actual evidence, virtually none point to a real problem, all fall apart under casual scrutiny, it is clear to me the fcc believes the reasons it offers today for title 2. today, is not about net

neutrality, we abandon title to in 2017, proponents of greater government control flooded the zone with apocalyptic rhetoric, media outlets and politicians alike mindlessly parroted their claims, we 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 and regulatory history nor is today's order about preventing gatekeepers from squashing innovation and free expression. check the receipts. after 2017, it wasn't isps that abused their positions in the internet ecosystem. not the isps that blocked links

to the new york post's hunter biden laptop story, twitter did that. wasn't the isps that just one day after lobbying this fcc on this order blocked all posts from a newspaper and removed links to the outlet after it published a critical article, facebook did that. it wasn't isps that earlier this month blocked links to a california-based news organization from showing up in search results, to protest a state law. google did that. . it was in the isps that blocked deeper many and apps that enables interoperability between ios and android messaging. apple did that. since 2017 we've learned that the real abusers of gatekeeper

power were not isps operating in statistical layers 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. that is what the data show. internet fees are up 430% since 2017 on the broadband side, up

647% on the mobile side, the prices for internet services have dropped in real terms by about 9%. if you look on the mobile broadband side alone, real prices have dropped by roughly 18% since 2017 and for those popular broadband speeds, prices are down 54% and for the fastest broadband speed tiers, they are down 55% over the last 8 years. the sec realizes the old justifications for title 2 will no longer cut it. so as if nothing ever happened, as if we just shaken etch-a-sketch, the old predictions were not just disproven, they've been abandoned. the agency invents entirely new justifications. the fcc throws whatever it can think up against the wall to see if anything sticks.

title 2 is necessary for national security, for public safety, for law enforcement, robo call mitigation, whole attachments, accessibility, privacy and cybersecurity, the list goes on and on and on. but the latest set of claims fares no better than those they trotted out in 2015. there is simply new pretext to justify an old power grab. take national security. the fcc has identified no gaps in national security the title 2 would fill. rather, the record makes clear that congress has already empowered agencies with national security expertise including department of homeland security, department of justice, commerce, and treasury, to address these issues in the communication sector.

the biden administration's involvement in this proceedings confirms national security agencies are ready have, quote, exercise, substantial authority with respect to the information and communication sectors which in particular the biden administration already has the authority to prohibit entities controlled by the ccp from operating in the us today. commerce department codified one such set of authorities in 2021 so title 2 is not necessary to fill any gap in authority. that's the specific ccp aligned company mentioned in the sec's order. the sec's own database of isps shows that they are not offering anything that would qualify as broadband service today subject to title 2 even after reclassification. or take consumer privacy.

the fcc regulates isps and privacy practices. at this moment broadband consumers benefit from the same set of federal privacy rules that protect consumers across the economy. those federal rules go away with respect to broadband when the fcc votes here for title 2. that is because by law the fcc loses 100% of its authority over any service regulated by the fcc under title 2. in turn the title 2 decision would leave consumers with no federal privacy rules to protect them because congress prohibited the fcc from applying its own privacy rules or similar ones to isps in 2017. the fcc claims there would

still be residual section 222 statutory privacy protections that could apply to isps, i think that assertion is dubious at best given the 2017 law. far from filling a gap in consumer privacy rules, and fcc decision applied title 2 to broadband would create one. take cybersecurity. once again the agency makes no serious attempt to argue the title 2 is necessary to promote cybersecurity. congress and executive branch agencies have already formulated comprehensive cybersecurity regime solidly grounded in existing law. that effort is led not by the fcc but by the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency. nothing in title 2 gives the fcc any additional authority when it comes to participating in the federal government process. for another title 2 doesn't

authorize the fcc to adopt national security standards. even under the fcc's greeting, title 2 doesn't apply to the range of cyberproducts like how tech platforms further undermine any claim title 2 is necessary for cybersecurity. or take network resiliency reporting. the fcc makes no coherent case for advancing title 2. for one, the fcc collects reports, operational status and frustration information from providers that offer broadband. for another america's broadband networks are more robust and resilient than those in countries with more heavy-handed title 2 like regulatory regimes. with respect to 911 in particular the fcc already has specific rules in place today that address outages 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 2 or net neutrality and that 2018 incident a a fire department purchased a data limited plan and experienced speed reductions after exceeding the limit. there was an exception and listed the reduction. although the fcc constantly invokes this event, if you notice the agency studiously avoids actually stating that this is the type of issue that would be prevented by title 2. it would remain lawful for multiple reasons. misleading people about what we are doing is one thing, the order also leaves them worse off. everything we love about the internet comes from investment.

broadband networks are built on private capital and those investment decisions in turn depend on a company's best guess of the long-term financial horizon. will isps invest as intensely when the rules of the road are opaque? when business choices can be second-guessed without notice, when regulators reserve the right to dictate rate of return when upgrades and innovations require more paperwork and approvals? uncertainty riddles every aspect of this order. will consumers pay new broadband taxes? not today, maybe tomorrow. can isps offer customized plans for consumers with unique data speed or cost needs? possibly. it depends. what about intelligent networks to prevent congestion? sure. but only in a handful of

indeterminate factors are met. the sec intends to issue new regulations? definitely. we have to wait and see what the agency does. biology case and, things will get worse before they get better. i guess that's the good news. the biden administration is on a spree of unchecked regulatory excess. at president biden's urging they adopted a digital equity order last year that hand the administrative state veto power over every decision about the provision of internet service in the country. elsewhere the fcc's laser focused on nullifying private contracts, micromanaging advertising, dictating rates among blind siding companies, enforcing legal expectations, and by federal agencies. and doesn't care. how this volatile, punitive

climate regulation will deter investment in that. that's not just economic theory. let's go to the tape. broadband investments slowed down after the sec impost title 2 in 2015. it picked back up again after we restored title i in 2017. look at europe where regulators long applied utility style regulations to their 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 owns broader policy objectives fall apart. the administration wants isps to opt into federal support programs like these. 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 but who will invest when it is for functionalities virtualization and network slicing might violate any more rule against comparing or degrading traffic? while misrepresenting benefits of your takes an ostrich like approach to its documented harms. it's a textbook example of arbitrary and capricious agency action to reach a predetermined outcome. in the end, thankfully i'm coming to the end here, although

you have to wait, there's a barnburner of multiple additional in the written to follow, i remain optimistic. i'm confident that we will right the ship, and of certain that the courts will overturn this unlawful power grab. for now though i dissent and my full written statement will follow. thanks. >> thank you so much, commissioner starks. >> they give madam chairwoman. we take the important and the search steps to get control of the internet back to those who deserve it. that is mainly 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 description of their

choosing. it is about empowering consumers to control how they experience the internet while ensuring that the provider isn't 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'll say it again.it 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 focus on extreme examples and worst-case scenarios. and so if we zoom in that way, we really overlook the individuals that our decisions are designed to impact. but not me. not today. today, think about people like ron, a senior at a veteran who

uses his broadband connection to contact the vac to set up appointment, check the status of his medications. he volunteers at the american legion, and he shares his experience with post-traumatic stress disorder with his fellow veterans. broadband gives him the opportunity to share his story with others near and far to give him the power to choose how to connect and with whom. considered the leader of the baffle -- graciously welcomed me in 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 comes you do in a boat for a plan yes, indeed. as we ate, she told me about the exciting vision that she has shared with her community. new fiber to plymouth that would enable the community of 6000, residents of even smaller villages along the river to

secure the necessities of modern life. whether it having to leave the place that 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. where i talked to paul who said 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's a powerful connection. it's inherent in our shared humanity, the need to connect. and the ability to facilitate the connections is one of the reasons i'm proud, proud today of all, to serve as a federal communications commission are but more importantly i firmly believe it guides our actions

you today, empowering consumers, setting the proper guardrails for providers, recognizing that network security is national security, and securing our network so that they can meet the moment when public safety requires. i'll briefly highlight the issue of national security in our homes and offices powering our devices support our infrastructure and its security is essential. and today's effort clarifies our authority to up make sure that our broadband networks are safe in light of 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 ourig federal government. ntia's filing of a command you in particular in the recordd recognizes and supports the unique role the commission place in entering our national

security as broadband within the whole of government approach, asserting that, quote, reclassifying bis is necessary to ensure that the commission has the authority it needs to advance national security objectives, close quote. and that the reclassification will, quote, protect our networks from malicious actors by leveraging theng appropriate tools at its disposal, including development title ii ii provisions, close quote. simply put, many of the safeguards necessarye 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 protecter americans against the onslaught and daily attacks against the networks, as i repeatedly emphasized. we rightfully andnd unanimously revoked the international section 214

section 214 authorizations of certain chinese providers following recommendations from the executive branch. however, because of the repeal of the 2015 open internet rules come thosese revocations only prohibited those specific chinese providers from offering commentary or service. our national security action did not touch their bis offerings, meaning that providers already identified as posing an unacceptable national security risk and in law enforcement risk could still operate bis networks in the united states.er as i predicted, even after we revoked china telecoms international section 214 authority, they continued to operate in the united states their own website currently shows that the company operates 26 points of presence in the united states, offers co-location broadband ip transit and data center services. they are interconnecting with

others networks and have access to important points of presence and data centers. as i 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, with my office, to improve this item, three points in particular that i will quickly go through. i will have a longer statement for the record. i cut that out earlier than you did, commissioner carr. [laughing] first, the order makes clear that 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 connectivity 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 i would be remiss if i did not take 20 seconds to say that this is the time, now is a moment for us to find a permanent funding mechanism for acp. i continue to push for the zip extension act but remain open to other solutions to create a permanent funding mechanism for the 48 million households that struggle to subscribe to broadband due to the issue of affordability. the second point i want to highlight. i'm gladhi that i do now clarifs

that our efforts to properly target nefarious actors within our domestic broadband networks will not have negative unintended consequences for global data flows and international interconnection agreements. last, i appreciate working with the chairwoman stefanik wasas to clarify our throttling will to ensure we avoid loopholes -- chairwoman smith office -- now, 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 open containing to cling to the 2017 orders view that virtually any service that connects users information amounts to a title i service. this utterly capacious interpretation would read the intelligent medications right

out of the definition of an information service taken to its logical conclusion. it would lead to the deregulation basically every communication service, including traditional boys telephoning and then doing congresses will in enacting title ii. in case you missed it, the supreme court has otherwise cautioned agencies against adopting expensive unbounded definitions that would in effect lead to a regulatory seachange from the status quo. and i would also note that ironically title ii opponent believe congress could not have acted with the clarity required under the major questions doctrine, because of the term telecommunications service t is ambiguous under brand x. this just does not hold up. whether or not that term is ambiguous, our authority to apply it to service a like broadband is clear as day, and

that is what i believe matters here. more important, before even a corporate reach the issue it would need to conclude that this is, in fact, a major questions case. but those cases are reserved for only extraordinary cases, and this i believe does not come close to that. there is nono unheralded power that we are purporting just now to discover in the annals of ans old dusty statute. we have been classifying communications for decades, and the 1996 act expressly codified our ability to continue the e.practice. and with respect to the classification of the service in particular years of litigation,, up to and including suprememe court review, has resulted in multiple court decisions, recognizing clearly our authority. and so with respect to an open internet requirement in particular network neutrality,

became the fcc policyt almost 20 years ago, including under a republican administration. in the exact framework we adopted it has already been protested on appeal. so no matter how you try to look at this, it's just not an agency pushing the limits. i'm thankful that today broadband is no longer without oversight. consumers will benefit in the end. this proceeding has been, , no doubt, aa monumental undertaki. thank you to the chair. thank you to the very hard work by the team, the bureau. i strongly approve. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner simington. >> thank you. i dissent and i will publish my statement. thanks. >> appreciate that. [laughing] commissioner gomez. >> thank you.

i might go a little longer. [laughing] as of today, april 25, 2024, i've four, i've any commission for six months, and in the past seven months, for seven months, sorry, i misspoke. m in the past seven months i've had the privilege of meetingh with stakeholders, industries, civil rights and public interest groups and members of the public. i've met with advocates who support today's item, and that met with advocates who don't. i've met with people across the country who emphasize just how necessary the broadband internet connection is to their everyday lives. 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 o >> thank you. we will now hear any comments from the bench. commissioner carr? >> thank yous much for all your diligent work on this. i really appreciate it. it's an important set of i issus and it takeses a lot of work behind the scenes to get where

we are right now so thanks soou much. >> commissioner starks. >> yes, thank you. you know the enforcement bureau is my favorite. but for those of you keeping track at home, these are enforcement items. we've done new york, miami, philadelphia, and now boston. so keep up the great work and, i think i said before, if you're in the pirate radio business, the enforcement bureau is going to put you out of business, so thank you. >> commissioner simington. >> thank you. miami, new york, philadelphia, boston. really appreciate the extensive fieldwork that it took to perform these investigations and congrats. >> the geometry continues. commissioner gomez. >> thank you. the fcc has a responsibility to safeguard our nation's airwaves, during their use for the public's benefit their pirate raider stations pose a threat to this objective.

i'm please of the commission to hold private radio operators accountable for their actions. so want to thank the enforcement bureau staff for your hard work. >> thank you, commissioner. for nine decades the fcc has been our nation's n it comes to the use of the public airwaves and we take this responsibility seriously. it means this resource is broadly available for all kinds of radio and wider activities, provided those the use our airways comply with our rules. when users fail to do so in cause harmful interference to others, we take action. that is exactly what we do today with these fines proposed against unauthorized radio operators in massachusetts. i want to think the agents in the field, regional management folks, both in our new york and boston field office for the work of this effort under the pirate act. these agents are unsung heroes who help uss manage our airwaves and for the security were not going to mention who they are here today what we really want

them to know we are grateful for the service. i will mention however those who took up the charge that they sent our way in washington, so thank you. from the force of pure and william deborah and dave from the office of general counsel. and with that, with any of my colleagues like to make any announcements at this time? commissioner carr. >> commissioner starks? >> yes, i do. thank you, madam chair. i would like to announce some staff changes in the starks office. many of you know that my legal advisor for wireless space and international issues, wrapped up his time at the commission last week. he has moved on to join ntia in serves as the spectrum advisor and director director l spectrum strategy. so let me break that up. he is truly a superb lawyer and

somebody who is a consummate legal advisor, a deep thinker, a creativeep thinker, threw himsef into the work for me, for the office. but also somebody who i traveled to do by with as many wireless advisor do.o. they get the sign the international travel. he traveled with me to sweden and other places, i just truly a joy to be with him. i wish him and his family all of the best. i am glad he's continuing to bring his immense talents to public service and the american people will continue to benefit from him as a as a spectrur for the american public in many ways now. but that has given me the opportunity to welcome net shape gentles berger, who many of you know everybody knows, to my team

is acting legal advisor for wireless space international issues. she is joining from the office of international affairs where she is theth deputy chief. but truly, she is well known for her deep and fast and wide service here at the fcc. in addition to being a legal advisor to commissioner clyburn, senior deputy chief of wireless, and i have already benefited from her deep and extensive knowledge. so please welcome her to my team.i' thanks. oh, , i'm sorry, i'm sorry. i also my interns to thank really quickly. the data go on here, i think. in my current class of interns, as folks know, i really do value deeply value interns. i think it's part of what i love as a commissioner, which is helping to train and see the next class as they bring the

immense skills. so that is roy, jasmine fernandez, kerry half filled, jesse frankel. i am thankful for each of you and for your hard work over the semester and always rooting you on for what comes next for each of you. thank you. >> all right. commissioner simington. >> thanknk you. i also do have one personal announcement. my long time wireline and security advisor marco has left my team as of monday in order to join commissioner ferguson at the fcc. i was worried there might be potential sec and ftc minke but he assured me it wouldn't be a problem. [laughing] so thanks very much. >> well done. commissioner gomez. all right. thank you commissioners. before we adjourn at two quick announcements a both involving retirement. darrell cooper retired last month after 27 years of federal service, 27. now before, before joining the

sec daryll clark of u.s. court of appeals for the 11th circuit and also director of excited tone and practiced law in washington, wash. and after he joined the agency he served inn the cable services bureau, the wireline competition go, the public safety, security, and the enforcement bureau for the last ten years he made his home in the consumer and governmental affairs bureau specifically the disabilities rightsling office. during this time he worked on the requirements of the 21st-century communications and the accessibility act and help coordinate the biennial reports to congress thatt are required under the law. he's also serve as a subject matter expert for hearing aid compatibility issues and has coordinated with so many other bureaus on issues of disability rights and assistance. so we want to thank darrell for his years of service and his work to increase the accessibility of communications are all people in this country. we are also announcing the retirement of kamala smith who is a veteran litigator in the office of general counsel and she is nearly 30 years of

service. 28 of them with the fcc. she joined the office of general and council 1996 from the department department of justice which work in environmental and natural resources division after she had an earlier stint in private practice. during her time at the agency she has seen it all and just brought her legendary attention to detail to bear in the whole wide range of commission orders on the courts of appeals, things involving spectrum auctions, telephone numbering and regulatory fee cases total bunch of radio and television licensing matters. this is most fun fact i did know. pam is married to bradberry recently finished leading the team the work on the commission's digital discrimination order. that's a powerhouse couple am just so you know. we are grateful for her 30 years of dedicated public service and wishes pam the very best in your well-deserved retirement. and with that, madam secretary, we please announce thell next dy for the next agenda meeting?

>> the next agenda meeting is thursday may 23, 2024. >> until then we stand u adjourned. well done. good job. >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> today on c-span, theouse is back at tinian eastern for general speeches followed by legislative business at noon. members will consider a bill that condemns biden administration's decion to posit recent weapons transferred israel and pray that the use of funds to propose military a to israeln future. on c-span2 the senate returns a 10 a.m. to consider