Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 August 18, 2017 Via email at foia@americanoversight.org Austin R. Evers Executive Director American Oversight 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite B255 Washington, DC 20005 Re: FOIA 2017-618 Dear Mr. Evers: This is in response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed on April 27, 2017, seeking: “(1) All communications between employees in the offices of Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly and employees at the White House, the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration relating to net neutrality. (2) All calendar entries, visitor logs, or meeting minutes referring or relating to any and all meetings between employees in the offices of Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly and employees at the White House, the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or other members of the Executive Branch relating to net neutrality. (3) Any and all documents in the offices of Chairman Ajit Pai and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly discussing, referring, or relating to the views, preferences, recommendations, or advice of the personnel working at the White House, the National Economic Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration or other Executive Branch agencies on net neutrality. (4) All documents and communications in the offices of Chairman Ajit Pait and Commissioner Michael O’Rielly relating to the recommendations or views of FCC personnel about net neutrality, including all draft or final versions of orders, memoranda, or written views concerning the approach the FCC should take with respect to net neutrality.”1 1 Id. Letter from Austin R. Evers, American Oversight to Managing Director, FCC (filed via FOIA Online May 12, 2017) (FOIA Request 2017-618). FOIA Request 2017-618 further specifies: “Your search should encompass other ways of referring to the concept known as ‘net neutrality,’ including but not limited to discussions of open internet, Title II regulations, common carrier rules, and the proper regulatory classification of internet service providers.” Austin R. Evers Page 2 You request records created during the time period of January 14, 2014 through March 12, 2015.2 You also request records describing the processing of your request.3 Your request was assigned to the Office of General Counsel for response. On July 17, 2017, you agreed to OGC addressing your request by searching three previous FOIA requests broadly concerning net neutrality during overlapping time periods—FOIA 2014-400, FOIA 2014433, and FOIA 2015-120--for responsive documents, from which you would determine whether to seek any additional documents that may still exist in the Commission’s files.4 In response to your request, we provide you with 360 pages of records that were previously disclosed in response to the three FOIAs indicated above and that are within the scope of your request.5 From the total material disclosed, we redact email exchanges between staff at the FCC pursuant to the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5. FOIA Exemption 5 applies to “inter-agency and intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”6 Exemption 5 encompasses the deliberative process privilege, which is intended to “prevent injury to the quality of agency decisions.”7 To fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege encompassed by Exemption 5, records must be both pre-decisional, i.e., “generated before the adoption of an agency policy [i.e., a decision],” and deliberative, i.e., “[reflecting] the give-and-take of the consultative process.”8 The responsive email exchanges here are predecisional because they pertain to decisions on policy matters that the agency would subsequently reach in pending proceedings and other agency business; and they are deliberative because they reflect staff discussions and evaluations as to content. We redact press articles available by subscription pursuant to FOIA Exemption 4, which protects from disclosure “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.”9 We also redact personal telephone numbers, personal email addresses, and personal appointments and events, pursuant to FOIA Exemption 6, which protects from disclosure information that “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”10 Consistent with the requirements of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, we have determined that it is reasonably foreseeable that disclosure would harm the commercial and privacy interests involved, which these exemptions are intended to protect.11 2 Id. Id. 4 Email to Elizabeth Lyle, Assistant General Counsel, FCC from Sara Creighton, Counsel, American Oversight 5 Because on the face of any given document, it may be difficult to determine whether it “relat[es] to the views, preferences, recommendations, or advice” of the Executive Branch staff on net neutrality as described in part 3 of your request, or whether it “relat[es] to the recommendations or views” of FCC staff about net neutrality as described in part 4, we included for disclosure all documents generally regarding net neutrality and that otherwise are within the scope of your request. 6 See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). 7 NLRB v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132, 151 (1975). 8 Id. 9 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(4). 10 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (Exemption 6); see also Moore v. Bush, 601 F. Supp. 2d 6, 14 (D.D.C. 2009) and Electronic Frontier Foundation, 26 FCC Rcd 13812, 13816, n.13 (2011) (personal email addresses and telephone numbers redacted pursuant to Exemption 6)). 11 See FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, Pub. L. 114-185 § 2(1)(D); 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A); see also U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Information Policy, FOIA Post, President Obama's FOIA Memorandum 3 Austin R. Evers Page 3 You are considered a representative of the news media for purpose of calculating fees for processing your FOIA request.12 Therefore, you are not charged for search and review time, and only charged for copying more than 100 pages of records.13 Because we are providing you with records in electronic form, no fees will be assessed for processing your request. If you consider this to be a denial of your FOIA request, you may seek review by filing an application for review with the Office of General Counsel. An application for review must be received by the Commission within 90 calendar days of the date of this letter.14 You may file an application for review by mailing the application to Federal Communications Commission, Office of General Counsel, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC 20554, or you may file your application for review electronically by e-mailing it to FOIA-Appeal@fcc.gov. Please caption the envelope (or subject line, if via e-mail) and the application itself as “Review of Freedom of Information Action.” If you would like to discuss this response before filing an application for review to attempt to resolve your dispute without going through the appeals process, you may contact the Commission’s FOIA Public Liaison for assistance at: FOIA Public Liaison Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Managing Director, Performance Evaluation and Records Management 445 12th St., SW, Washington, DC 20554 FOIA-Public-Liaison@fcc.gov If you are unable to resolve your FOIA dispute through the Commission’s FOIA Public Liaison, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), the Federal FOIA Ombudsman’s office, offers mediation services to help resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal agencies. The contact information for OGIS is: Office of Government Information Services National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road–OGIS College Park, MD 20740-6001 202-741-5770 877-684-6448 and Attorney General Holder's FOIA Guidelines Creating a “New Era of Open Government,” (2009), available at < https://www.justice.gov/oip/blog/foia-post-2009-creating-new-era-open-government> (recognizing that records protected by the exemptions covering national security, commercial and financial information, personal privacy, and information protected by statute, are generally not subject to discretionary releases). 12 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.466(a)(7). 13 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.470(a)(2). 14 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.461(j), 1.115; 47 C.F.R. § 1.7 (documents are considered filed with the Commission upon their receipt at the location designated by the Commission). Austin R. Evers Page 4 ogis@nara.gov ogis.archives.gov Sincerely, 056661? Elizabeth Lyle Assistant General Counsel Of?ce of General Counsel Enclosures cc: FOIA Of?cer Stephens, Karen From: Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:02 AM To: Jonathan Sallet; Daniel Alvarez; Nicholas Degani,? Amy Bender; Rebekah Goodheart; Priscilla Argeris Subject: Open Internet Ex Parte Attachments: 5-14?14 Ex Parte Letter Confirmationpdf Good Morning All: Attached please find Ex Parte Letter filed this morning with the FCC regarding Open Internet. if you have questions, please contact Robert Quinn at 202?457?3851.Thanksi Glenis McKoy Executive Assistant Office of the Senior Vice President? Federal Regulatory and Chief Privacy Officer Services, Inc. 1120 20th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phonea202-457-2080 Fax?202-457?2020 This e?mail and any files transmitted with it are property, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressedthe named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Robert W. Quinn, Jr. Services, Inc. Senior Vice President 1120 20'h St. NW, Suite 1000 Federal Regulatory and . Washington, DC. 20036 Chief Privacy Of?cer Phone 202 457.3351 Fax 202 457-2020 May 14, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 .12th Street s.w. Washington, DC. 20554 Re: Opera Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 Dear Ms. Dortch: Last Friday, ?led an ex parte identifying some of the many issues raised by, and risks and harms that could result ?om, reclassi?cation of broadband Internet access services as a. Title II telecommunications services.1 We further pointed out the folly of running these risks insofar as reclassi?cation would not prevent paid prioritization arrangements, which reclassi?cation proponents have seized upon to generate hysteria and support for their cause. Instead of engaging on the substance of these concerns, Free Press and others attempt to brush them under the carpet with the facile?claim that forbearance can ?x everything. 2 But as noted, the prospect of countless, reversible forbearance determinations not to mention litigation over these decisions and over reclassi?cation itself would create massive ongoing uncertainty that in the face of the Administration?s goal of promoting broadband investment. And in all events, forbearance would not address the many serious implications of reclassi?cation. For example, if the FCC found that broadband Internet access'contains a- separate telecommunications service component, what would be the logical or legal basis on which the Commission could distinguish that information service from other information services provided in the Internet ecosystem or otherwise? If broadband Internet access providers offer Letter of Robert w. Quinn, Jr., to Marlene H. Donch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14?23 (?led May 9, 2014) (May Ex Parts). 2 on claims common carrier rules would ruin the whole Internet, A13 Technica (May 9, 2014) usual, positions are laughable at best?though disingenuous is more like it,? Matt Wood, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, told Ars. ?Nothing in Title II says that every last provision has to apply to any Title II service. That?s the whole point of forbearance. The fact that broadband providers could be entitled to something doesn?t mean they actually are "entitled to it, or that cost-causation story is true?), available at" ht: olic (last checked May 13, 2014). Id ("Public Knowledge Senior VP Harold Feld agreed. ?To a large extent, this is just scary mambo?jumbo to make Title II loop big and complicated,? Feld told Ara?). telecommunications services to consumers, why don?t other entities that combine transmission with information processing or storage likevvise provide telecommunications services? This is no idle concern. The Commission itself, in its seminal Stevens Report, noted this very issue: we interpreted the statute as breaking down the distinction between information services and telecommunications services, so that some information services were classed as telecommunications services, it would be dif?cult to devise a sustainable rationale under which all, or essentially all, information services did not fall into the telecommunications service category.?3 Thus a broad array of entities that provide transmission over the Intemet as a component of what is today considered only an information service might find themselves subject to Title II to the same extent as providers of mass market broadband Internet access services. This includes entities that provide Internet connectivity to application and content providers, content delivery networks, transit providers, providers of services over connected devices, like Amazon, General Motors and others, search engines connecting an advertising network to a search request, and email providers and social networks that enable chat or messaging sessions.? Anyone concerned with ?saving the Internet? should be alarmed by that sobering possibility. Although this particular consequence alone should stop consideration of reclassi?cation in its tracks, it is by no means the only issue of concern raised by the possibility of reclassi?cation. May Ex Parts attempted to identify some of the other issues to point out that reclassifying broadband Internet access as a Title 11 service would open a regulatory Pandora?s box. But, this was not even a de?nitive list of issues; there are many others that warrant consideration. For example, as the Commission noted in the Stevens Report, classi?cation of information service providers as telecommunications carriers could - encourage states to impose common?carrier regulation on such providers. Although section 10(e)_ of the Act precludes a state from applying or enforcing provisions of federal law where the Commission has determined to forbear, it does not preclude a state from imposing requirements derived from state law.?5 Moreover, as the Commission further noted, ?while it has authority to forbear from unnecessary regulation, foreign regulators may not have comparable deregulatory authority to avoid imposing the full range of telecommunications regulation on information . services.? There are also issues as to how forbearance could be implemented. For example," can the Commission forbear from substantially all of Title II on a blanket basis, or would the Commission have to separately identify each and every statutory provision and regulation under 3 Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13.FCC 11501, 11529, para. 57 (1998) (Stevens Report). 4 It would be no answer to claim that some of these entities do not provide telecommunications ?for a fee.? In interpreting the phrase ?for a fee" in the de?nition of ?telecommunications service," the Commission has concluded that the plain language of the statute means services rendered in exchange for something of value or a monetary payment. Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, First Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 8776, 9177, para. 784 (1997). Every commercial entity offering services or content over the Internet does so for something of value, whether it?s a cash payment or the ability to obtain and monetize data about its customer or their usage of the Internet. 5 Stevens Report at para. 48. 5 Id. Title II and separately apply the three?part forbearance test to each. We note, in this regard, that the Commission requires precisely that level of disaggregation in forbearance petitions. To the extent the Commission is not closing the door to Title II reclassi?cation in its NPRM, the Commission must ask questions and obtain a record regarding these and other implications of reclassi?cation and what all this means for the future of the Internet and the goal of promoting broadband investment and deployment. The Commission also should seek comment on how Title 11 reclassi?cation could possibly even prevent paid prioritization. As we noted in our May 9 Ex Parts, even dominant carriers have long been permitted to provide paid prioritization under Title II, and is awareof no theory under which section 202 could be stretched to provide a basis for a blanket ban ori paid prioritization. Even Free Press appears to concede that, although Free Press claims that section 201 could accomplish through the back door what section 202 cannot. That argument, however, is frivolous: section 202 speci?cally addresses what types of discriminationare permitted and what types are not by a telecommunications serviceprovider. Wholly apart from the fact that it would be impossible to show that paid prioritization arrangements are inherently (or even generally) unreasonable, a general prohibition on unreasonable practices in section 201 cannot trump the more speci?c language in section 202. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of those raised by Title II reclassi?cation. It is imperative that the Commission fully explore all of these issues if it is to give any further consideration to reclassi?cation proposals. Proponents of reclassi?cation have been effective in stirring up mass hysteria with misleading pronouncements, and dismissing skeptics with derisive comments and loose rhetoric. But the issues presented are too important to be trumped by politics and protesters banging pots and pans in front of the FCC. Real engagement on real issues is necessary, and if this issue is to be revived, the NPRM must set that process in motion. Respectfully Submitted, Robert W. Quinn, Jr. cc: Jonathan Sallet Daniel Alvarez Priscilla Delgado Argeris Nick Degani Amy en-der Rebekah Goodheart Page 1 of 1 Con?rmation Page Your submission has been accepted Con?rmation number: . 2014514562017 We Name Subject Protecting and Promoting the Open 14?28 - Internet Contact Info 5 Name Of Filer: Services. lnc. Email Address: shandee.r.parran att.com AttorneylAuu'ior Name: Robert W, Quinn, Jr. I Address i Address For: Filer Address Line 1: 1120 20th Street. NW Address Line 2: Suite 1000 City: Washington State: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Zip: 20036 I Details i exparte: YES Type of ?ling: NOTICE OF n??i gm nt- UIE (S) File Name Custom Description Size 5-14-14 Ex Pane Letter.pdl? 26 KB Disclaimer 3 This con?rmation veri?es that ECFS has received and accepted your filing. However, your ?ling will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining, read- only formatting, a virus, or automated links to other documents. Filings are generally processed and made available for online viewing within one business day of receipt. You may use the link below to check on the status of your ?ling: con?rmation=2014514562017 For any problems please contact the Help Desk at 202? 418-0193. 5/14/2014 From: Zachem, Kathy Sent: Monday, May 12, 2-014 10:13 AM Priscilla Argeris,? Amy Bender; Nicholas Deganl; Rebekah Goodheart; Diane Cornell; To: Matthew DelNero; Ruth Jonathan Sailet; Gigi Sohn; Philip Verveer; Stephanie Weiner Subject: Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14?28 Attachments: 5 12 14 Open Internet FCC Ltr.pdf FYI. Please call if you have any questions. Kathy A. Zachem Senior Vice President, Regulatory State Legislative Affairs Comcast Corporat?on 300 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-379-7134 Fax: 202-379-7149 Kathy Zachem@Corncast.com Assistant: Donna Crichlow - 202-379-7118 - Donna Crichiow?EDComcastcom C1 . . .1 eaenem Contenst Corporation A 300 New Jersey Avenue, NW Suite ?Washington. DC 2000?! 202.3?9.?1 34 May 12, 2014 Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street .W. Washington, DC. 20554 Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. I 4-28 Dear Ms. Dortch: Comcast has been a strong proponent of Internet openness, and, indeed, is the only broadband provider subject to a legally binding obligation to refrain from blocking consumers? access to lawful web content and services or from engaging in unreasonably discriminatory conduct. 1 While Comcast continues to be a steadfast supporter of openness and remains con?dent that the Commission can appropriately balance consumer protection with the need to allow network operators to manage their networks reasonably, we believe that any proposal by the FCC to reclassify broadband Internet access as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act would be a destabilizing and counterproductive means of pursuing those important objectives. Starting with the Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling in 2002, the Commission has consistently ruled that broadband Internet access services inextricably combine transmission and information processing, such that they are properly characterized as information services without any severable telecommunications service component.2 In the wake of those decisions, and in express reliance on the Commission?s determination that common carrier regulation does not (and should not) apply, cable operators and other Internet service providers have invested hundreds of billions of dollars to deploy increasingly robust broadband networks, laying the groundwork for an explosion of innoVation in the 1 Applications of Comcast Corporation, General Electric Company, and NBC Universal, Inc. for Consent to Assign Licenses and Transfer Control of Licensees, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 26 FCC Red 4238, 11 94 (2011). 2 Inquiry Concerning High-Speed A ccess to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Red 4798 (2002); see also, e. Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Red 14853 (2005) (classifying wireline broadband services as information services); Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband A ccess to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC Red 5901 (2007) (classifying wireless broadband services as information services). - Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 12, 2014 Page 2 Internet ecosystem. This is the foundation on which the extraordinary Internet economy that is the envy of the world emerged and thrived. Any effort to Upend that settled legal framework?which has been supported by Commissions and Administrations led by both parties?would be enormously disruptive: It would deter the many billions in additional investment required to connect all Americans and to continue increasing speeds, while subjecting the industry and the Commission to years of debilitating litigation and resulting uncertainty. I ust ten years ago, the Commission and the Department of Justice expressly recognized these risks and went to considerable to avoid the imposition of common carrier regulation precisely because ?[t]he effect of the increased regulatory burdens? likely would have been to prompt ISPs to ?postpone or forego plans to deploy new broadband infrastructure, particularly in rural or other underserved areas.?3 The last thing the Commission should do at this stage is to break from the long bipartisan approach that has borne such fruit to date and radically shift to an approach that would curtail broadband investment and impede adoption.4 Fortunately, risking such harms is entirely unnecessary. The DC. Circuit has now confirmed the Commission?s power to prohibit blocking and to ensure commercially reasonable business arrangements between access providers and edge providers pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 996, ending a sustained period of uncertainty regarding the Commission?s authority to adopt rules to enforce Internet openness. 5 While the Commission understandably had contemplated reclassi?cation theories before the court upheld its~authority to regulate information services, it would make no sense to pursue sUch a high?risk path now that the DC. Circuit has validated the Commission?s analysis of potential threats to Internet openness and held that the Commission has ample power to prohibit anticompetitive conduct and prevent harm to Moreover, even apart from the substantial legal impediments to abandoning classification decisions grounded in factual findings on which the industry has relied for more than a decade, the . purported benefits of invoking Title II as compared to relying on Section 706 are illusory. There is no way to predict how a court would rule on a challenge to imposing Title II, and, in any event, Title II would not necessarily support greater constraints on Internet practices. Common carriers are prohibited only from engaging in unreasonable discrimination,6 and the relevant precedent makes clear that this standard entails substantial ?exibility to differentiate among customers for legitimate 3 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US. Dept. of Justice and FCC, FCC v. Brand Internet Servs, No. 04?277, at 25? 26 (Aug. 27, 2004). The Department of Justice and the Commission further recognized that the Commission?s ?forbearance authority is not in this context an effective means of remov[ing] regulatory uncertainty that in itself may discourage investment and innovation?). Id. at 28 (internal quotation marks omitted). See, Progressive Policy Institute, America ?5 Digital Policy Pioneers, video recording at (including former Chairman Kennard?s endorsement of bipartisan commitment to avoiding heavy-?handed regulation of broadband Internet access services). 5 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (DC. Cir. 2014). ?6 47 use. 202(a). Ms. Marlene I-I. Dortch May 12, 2014 Page 3 business reasons. 7 Thus, to the extent that fears about ?paid prioritization? arrangements are driving calls for Title II reclassi?cation, such arrangements would have to be assessed on a case?byucase basis (likely subject to general standards promulgated by the Commission) under Title II, just as under Section 706. At the same time, reclassifying broadband Internet access services under Title II would risk a host of unintended consequences that proponents of such regulation have scarcely contemplated. For example, as others have pointed out, reclassi?Cation could subject a broad range of currently unregulated parties to burdensome obligations designed for monopoly telephone companies, import the dysfunctional access charge regime'to the exchange ofInternet traf?c, and halt the sharing of information necessary to many. edge providers? business models, among various other problems.B As Chairman Wheeler has recognized, the Verizon decision offers the Commission an ideal opportunity to devise judicially sustainable, consensus-?driven Open Internet rules pursuant to Section 706. In stark contrast, any effort to reclassify broadband Internet acCess (in whole or in part) under Title II would spark massive instability, create investor and marketplace uncertainty, derail planned investments, and slow broadband adoption. It is hard to imagine a more perilous recipe for pursuing the critical national objectives set forth in the National Broadband Plan. The Commission should not put at risk a rare bright spot in the American economy that has been a key engine of economic and jobs growth. Comcast urges the Commission to propose rules that will safeguard the Open Internet pursuant to the authority upheld by the DC. Circuit, rather than pursuing an approach that would only undermine the public interest objectives at stake. - Sincerely, A. Zachem A. Zachem Senior Vice President, Regulatory and State Legislative Affairs Comcast Corporation 7 See, Orlo??v. FCC, 352 F.3d 415 (DC. Cir. 2003) (upholding carriers? ability to offer differential discounts to retail customers); Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 19 F.3d 1475, 1481 (DC. Cir. 1994) (upholding carriers? ability to enter into individualized contracts); Ameritech Operating Cos. Revisions to arijj? CC N0. 2, Order, DA 94~1121 (CCB 1994) (upholding reasonableness of rate differentials based on cost considerations). 9 See, e. Letter of Robert W. Quinn, Senior Vice President, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14-28, at 4~5 (May 9, 2014). Ms. Marlene H. Dortch May 12, 2014 Page 4 cc: Priscilla Argeris Amy Bender Nicholas Degani Rebekah Goodheart Diane Cornell Matthew DelNero Ruth Milkman Jonathan Sallet Gigi Sohn Philip Verveer Stephanie Weiner From: Matthew.Murchison@lw.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:46 PM To: Nicholas Degani; Amy Bender; Rebekah Goodheart; Daniel Alvarez; Matthew DelNero Cc: Matthew.Brill@lw.com; RChessen@NCTA.com Subject: NCTA ex parte notification, GN Docket No. 14-23 Attachments: NCTA NN ex parte 5~14n14.pdf All: In addition to the letter just circulated, the National Cable 3t TeleCommunications Association also has submitted the attached ex pa'rte notification in GN Docket No. 14-23 regarding our meetings with you all on Monday. Matt Matthew T. Murchison LATHAM WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street. NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC. 20004-1304 Direct Dial: +1.202.637.2136 Fax: +1.202.637.2201 Email: To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you. to avoid any penalties imposed underthe Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This email may contain material that is con?dential. privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please contact the sender and delete all copies. Latham ti. Watkins LLP Matthew A. Brill 555 Eleventh Street. N.W., Suite Direct Diai: +1.202.637.1095 Washington, DC. 20004-1304 matthew.brill@lw.com Tel: +1.202.637.2200 Fax: +1.202.637.2201 mvw.lw.com FIRM AFFILIATE OFFICES SLLP AbuDhabi Milan Barcelona Moscow Munich Boston New Jersey Brussels New York Chicago Orange County Doha Paris Dubai Riyadh D?ssefdorl Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco May 14, 2014 Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley London Singapore - Los Angeles Tokyo Marlene Dortch Madrid Washington, DC. Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Noti?cation of Ex Parte Presentations of the National Cable Telecommunications Association, GN Docket No. 14-28 Dear Ms. Dortch: On May 12, 2014, Rick Chessen of the National Cable Telecommunications Association along with the undersigned and Matthew Murchison, both of Latham Watkins LLP, met with the following people in connection with the above-referenced proceeding: Nicholas Degani and Daniel Graulich from Commissioner Pai?s of?ce; Amy Bender from Commissioner O?Rielly?s of?ce; Rebekah Goodheart from Commissioner Clyburn?s of?ce; and Daniel Alvarez from Chairman Wheeler?s of?ce together with Matthew DelNero of the Wireline Competition Bureau. At these meetings, we reitelated that the Commission?s consideiation of further Open Internet rules in light of the Verizon decision should be guided by the basic principles set forth in comments in this proceeding.2 In particular, we urged the Commission to 1eject proposals seeking to reclassify any component of broadband Internet access under Title II, especially now that the Verizon court has clari?ed the Commission?s authority under Section 706. We explained, consistent with opening comments and its ex parte letter submitted Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 623 (DC. Cir. 2014), a?irming in part, vacating and remanding in part, Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, Report and Order, 25 FCC Red 7905 (2010) See Comments of the National Cable Telecommunications Association, GN Docket No. 14-28 (?led Mar. 26, 2014) (calling, among other things, for a balanced examination of the broadband ecosystem that avoids an exclusive focus 011 wireline ISPs). 1Q May 14, 2014 Page 2 earlier today,3 that a Title II reclassi?cation theory would be immensely destabilizing and would undermine the ongoing network investment necessary to fuel the ?virtuous cycle? of deployment, innovation, and adoption that the Commission has long sought to promote. We also noted that such an approach would be wholly unnecessary to achieve the Commission?s regulatory objectives, and that, as a legal matter, it is far from clear that the Commission could simply abandon its prior classi?cation determinations. Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions regarding these issues. Sincerely, /s/Marthew A. Brill Matthew A. Brill Counsel for the National Cable Telecommunications Association 3 See id. at 20?22; Letter of Rick Chessen, National Cable Telecommunications Commission, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, GN Docket No. 14?28 (?led May 14, 2014). From: Matthew.Murchison@lw.com Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:42 PM To: Nicholas Degani; Amy Bender; Rebekah Goodheart; Daniel Alvarez; Priscilla Argeris; Matthew DelNero; Stephanie Weiner, Carol Simpson; Kristine Fargotstein; Claude Aiken Cc: RChessen?NCTA.com Subject: NCTA letter, Docket No. 14-23 Attachments: NCTA Title 11 letter All: Please find the attached letter submitted earlier today by the National Cable a Telecommunications Association in GN Docket No. 14-28. Matthew T. Murchison LATHAM a WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC. 200044304 Direct Dial: +1.202.637.2136 Fax: +1.202.637.2201 Email: matthewmugchisgnfolwcom ht lw.com - To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. This email may contain material that is confidential. privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review. reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Latham 8r Watkins LLP Mellon-l Cable I Telecommunlutlom Mdt?lm Rick Chen-n. 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Sulte 100 Senior Vice President Washington. DC 20001-1431 Law and Regulatory Pulley [201) 222-2300 i202) 222-2445 {202} 2224-4-48 Fax rchessen?nctacont May 1 4, 20! 4 Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S.W. Washington, DC. 20554 Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 Dear Ms. Dortch: On behalf of the National Cable Telecommunications Association I write to underscore our deep concerns regarding recent proposals to reclassify broadband Internet access services (or some component thereof) as telecommunications services subject to Title ll of the Communications Act. As explained in NCTA's prior comments in this docket,l the existing transparency mles provide a strong foundation for promoting Open lntemet principles, and, to the extent the Commission determines that additional safeguards are necessary, the Verizon decision provides ample leeway to adopt such measures pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act.2 In light of that recently con?rmed antherity, it is wholly unnecessary to pursue a Title reclassification theory. It also would be immensely destabilizing. Indeed. any effort to subject broadband Internet access services to common carrier regulation would do far more harm than good, as such a heavy-handed framework would discourage network investment necessary to fuel the ?virtuous cycle" of deployment, innovation, and adoption that the Commission has long sought to promote under Section 706. As the Commission and numerous stakeholders have recognized, cable operators and telecommunications companies have made massive private investments in broadband networks. unleashing innovation and dramatically increased consumer welfare.3 The Commission's 2002 determination and subsequent reaf?rmations that broadband Internet access is an integrated information service without any severable telecommunications service component were a critical facto: in creating the stable regulatory climate that attracted investment and enabled the Internet Comments of the National Cable cit Telecommunications Association, GN Docket No. 14-28 (?led Mar. 26, 2014). 1 Verizon v. FCC, 740 F.3d 523 (no. Cir. 2014). Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The Natiorml Broadband Plan, at XI (2010). Ms. Marlene Dortch May 14, 2014 Page 2 to become a key driver of our economy and a central aspect of our lives.4 In fact, the Commission and the Department of Justice sought Supreme Court review in the Brand case to prevent the imposition of common carrier regulation on broadband services based in large part on the concern that such regulation would entail signi?cant burdens that could prevent or delay the deployment of ?new broadband infrastructure, particularly in rural or other underserved areas.?5 The Court upheld the Commission?s information~service classification based on the ?factual particulars of how Internet technology works and how it is provided.?6 As a threshold matter, it is far from clear that the Commission could simply abandon the fact-based classi?cation it adopted and repeatedly con?rmed over the past 12 years. The classi?cation of broadband Internet access ?turns on the nature of the functions that the end user is offered,?7 and those functions have not materially changed since the Commission analyzed them in its previous orders. Notably, cable operators have never provided broadband transmission as common carriers. Moreover, where, as here, such a classi?cation has engendered ?serious reliance interests,? and any effort to reclassify broadband Internet access would contradict ?factual ?ndings which underlay [the prior policy," the Commission would need to ?provide a more detailed justi?cation than what would suf?ce for a new policy created on a blank slate.?8 At a minimum, pursuing Title II reclassi?cation would plunge the broadband industry into a period of uncertainty while a new round of appellate proceedings ran its course?ma process that can be easily avoided by relying on the roadmap provided by the Verizon court. But even assuming the Commission could lawfully reclassify broadband services, it would be profoundly counterproductive to do so. The burdens and uncertainty associated with Title II regulation (or even the threat of such regulation) would deter broadband providers from making the substantial additional investments required to deploy new and upgraded broadband infrastructure. As noted, the Commission and DOJ emphasized that very risk in their petition in Inquiry Concerning High-Speed Access to the Internet Over Cable and Other Facilities, Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC 4798 (2002) (?Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling?); see also, e. Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC 14853 (2005) (classifying wireline broadband services as information services); Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireless Networks, Declaratory Ruling, 22 FCC 5901 (2007) (classifying wireless broadband services as information services). 5 Petition for Writ of Certiorari, US. Dept. of Justice and FCC, FCC v. Brand Internet Servs., No. 04-277, at 2526 (Aug. 27, 2004) (?Brand Cert Petition?). 6 Nat?l Cable Telecomms. Ass ?11 v. Brand Internet Servs, 545 US. 967, 991 (2005). 7 Cable Modem Declaratory Ruling 38. 3 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 US. 502, 515 (2009). From: GLENIS I . Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:02 AM To: Jonathan Sallet; Daniel Alvarez; Nlcholas Deg-ant; Amy Bender; Rebekah Goodheart; Priscilla Argeris Subject: Open Internet Ex Parte Good Morning All: Attached please find Ex Parte Letter filed this morning with the FCC regarding Open Internet. If you have questions, please contact Robert Quinn at 202-457-3351. Thanks! Glenis McKoy Executive Assistant Office of the Senior Vice President- Fccleral Regulatory and Chief Privacy Of?cer ATSLT Services, Inc. I 120 20th Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036 Phone-202?457?2080 Fax?2024512020 This email and any ?les transmitted with it are ATELT property,lare confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this email is addressedthe named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Robert W. Quinn, Jr. Services, Inc. Senior Vice President 1120 20'? SL NW, Suite 1000 Federal Regulatory and Washington, DC, 20036 Chief Privacy Of?cer Phone 202 457-3 851 Fax 202 457-2020 May 14, 2014 VIA ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12?11 Street s.w. Washington, DC. 20554 Re: Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 Dear Ms. Dortch: Last Friday, ?led an ex parte identifying some of the many issues raised by, and risks and harms that could result from, reclassi?cation of broadband Internet access services as a Title II telecommunications services.1 We further pointed out the folly of running these risks insofar as reclassi?cation would not prevent paid prioritization arrangements, which reclassi?cation proponents have seized upon to generate hysteria and support for their cause. Instead of engaging on the substance of these concerns, Free Press and others attempt to brush them under the carpet with the facile claim that forbearance can ?x everything. 2 But as noted, the prospect of countless, reversible forbearance determinations not to mention litigation over these decisions and over reclassi?cation itself would create massive ongoing uncertainty that would fly in the face of the Administration?s goal of promoting broadband investment. And in all events, forbearance would not address the many serious implications of reclassi?cation. For example, if the FCC found that broadband Internet access contains a separate telecommunications service component, what would be the logical or legal basis on which the Commission could distinguish that information service from other information services provided in the Internet ecosystem or otherwise? If broadband Internet access providers offer Letter of Robert W. Quinn, Ir., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 14?28 (?led May 9, 2014) (May Ex Parte). 2 on Brodkin, claims common carrier rules would ruin the whole Intemet, Ars Technica (May 9, 2014) usual, positions are laughable at best-wthough disingenuous is more like it,? Matt Wood, policy director of consumer advocacy group Free Press, told Ars. ?Nothing in Title 11 says that every last provision has to apply to any Title 11 service. That?s the whole point of forbearance. The fact that broadband providers could be entitled to something doesn?t mean they actually are entitled to it, or that cost~causation story is available at hit ://arstechnica.com/tech- olic (last checked May 13, 2014). Id. (?Public Knowledge Senior VP Harold Feld agreed. ?To a large extent, this is just scary mumboejumbo to make Title 1] loop big and complicated: Feld told . telecommunications services to consumers, why don?t other entities that combine transmission with information processing or storage likewise provide telecommunicationsservices? This is no idle concern. The Commission itself, in its seminal Stevens Report, noted this very issue: we interpreted the statute as breaking down the distinction between information services and telecommunications services, so that some information services were classed as telecommunications services, it would be dif?cult to devise a sustainable rationale under which all, or essentially all, information services did not fall into the telecommunications service category.?3 Thus a broad array of entities that provide transmission over the Internet as a component of what is today considered only an information service might ?nd themselves subject to Title II to the same extent as providers of mass market broadband Internet access services. This includes entities that provide Internet connectivity to application and content providers, content delivery networks, transit providers, providers of services over connected devices, like Amazon, General Motors and others, search engines connecting an advertising network to a search request, and email providers and social networks that enable chat or messaging sessions.4 Anyone concerned with ?saving the Internet? should be alarmed by that sobering possibility. Although this particular consequence alone should stop consideration of reclassi?cation in its tracks, it is by no means the only issue of concern raised by the possibility of reclassi?cation. May Ex Parte attempted to identify some of theother issues to point out that reclassifying broadband Internet access as a Title II service would open a regulatory Pandora?s box. But, this was not even a de?nitive list of issues; there are many others that warrant consideration. For example, as the Commission noted in the Stevens Report, ?[t]he classi?cation of information service providers as telecommunications carriers . .. could encourage states to impose common-carrier regulation on such providers. Although section 10(e) of the Act precludes a state from applying or enforcing provisions of federal law where the Commission has determined to forbear, it does not preclude a state from imposing requirements derived from state law.?5 Moreover, as the Commission further noted, ?while it has authority to forbear from unnecessary regulation, foreign regulators may not have comparable deregulatory authority to avoid imposing the full range of telecommunications regulation on information services.?6 There are also issues as to how forbearance could be implemented. For example, can the Commission forbear from substantially all of Title II on a blanket basis, or would the Commission have to separately identify each and every statutory provision and regulation under 3 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report to Congress, 13 FCC 11501, 11529, para. 57 (1993) (Stevens Report). 4 It wouid be no answer to claim that some of these entities do not provide telecommunications ?for a fee.? In interpreting the phrase ?for a fee" in the de?nition of ?telecommunications service,? the Commission has concluded that the plain language of the statute means services rendered in exchange for something of value or a monetary payment. Federal-State Joint Beard on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, First Report and Order, 12 FCC 8776, 9177, para. 734 (1997). Every commercial entity offering services or content over the Internet does so for something of value, whether it?s a cash payment or the ability to obtain and monetize data about its customer or their usage of the Internet. 5 Stevens Report at para. 48. 6 Id. Title II and separately apply the three~part forbearance test to each. We note, in this regard, that the Commission requires precisely that level of disaggregation in forbearance petitions. To the extent the Commission is not closing the door to Title II reclassi?cation in its NPRM, the Commission must ask questions and obtain a record regarding these and other implications of reclassi?cation and what all this means for the future of the Internet and the goal of promoting broadband investment and deployment. The Commission also should seek comment on how Title II reclassi?cation could possibly even prevent paid prioritization. As we noted in our May 9 Ex Part3, even dominant carriers have long been permitted to provide paid prioritization under Title II, and is aware of no theory under which section 202 could be stretched to provide a basis for a blanket ban on paid prioritization. Even Free Press appears to concede that, although Free Press claims that section 201 could accomplish through the back door what section 202 cannot. That argument, however, is frivolous: section 202 speci?cally addresses what types of discrimination are permitted and what types are not by a telecommunications service provider. Wholly apart from the fact that it would be impossible to show that paid prioritization arrangements are inherently (or even generally) unreasonable, a general prohibition on unreasonable practices in section 201 cannot trump the more speci?c language in section 202. These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of those raised by Title reclassi?cation. It is imperative that the Commission fully explore all of these issues if it is to give any further consideration to reclassi?cation proposals. Proponents of reclassi?cation have been effective in stirring up mass hysteria with misleading pronouncements, and dismissing skeptics with derisive comments and loose rhetoric. But the issues presented are too important to be trumped by politics and protestors banging pots and pans in front of the FCC. Real engagement on real issues is necessary, and if this issue is to be revived, the NPRM must set that process in motion. Respectfully Submitted, Robert W. Quinn, Jr. cc: Jonathan Sallet Daniel Alvarez Priscilla Delgado Argeris Nick Degani Amy Bender Rebekah Goodheart Con?rmation Page Page 1 of 1 Your submission has been accepted Confirmation number: 2014514562017 I Na I I 3" la Name Subject Protecting and Promoting the Open 14-28 Internet I Contact Info Name of Fiier: Services, inc. Email Address= shandee.r.parran@att.com Attorney/Author Name: Robert W. Quinn, Jr. I Address i Address For: Filer Address Line 1: 1120 20th Street, Nw' Address Line 2: Suite 1000 City: Washington State: DISTRECT OF COLUMBIA Zip: 20036 I Details 5 exparte: YES Type 0? Filing: NOTECE OF EXPARTE ?ncl um sni- I ?Ill\ollh (S) . File Name Custom Description Size 5-14-14 Ex Parte Letter.pdf 26 KB i Disciaimer i This con?rmation veri?es that ECFS has received and accepted your ?ling. However, your ?ling will be rejected by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining, read? only formatting, a virus, or automated links to other documents. Filings are generally processed and made avaiiable for online viewing within one business day of receipt. You may use the link below to check on the status of your ?ling: con?rmatioanO14514562017 For any problems please contact the Help Desk at 202- 418?0193. 5/14/2014 Subject: Briefing re: Open Internet NPRM Location: Commissioner Pai's office Start: Mon 4/28/2014 10:00 AM End: Mon 4/28/2014 10:30 AM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Ajit Pai Required Attendees: Julie Veach; Jonathan Sallet; Matthew DelNero; Stephanie Weiner,? Matthew Berry (Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov) Andrea Kearney Subject: WCB briefing on Open Internet NPRM Start: Fri 4/25/2014 4:00 PM End: Fri 4/25/2014 4:30 PM Show Time As: Tentative Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Not yet responded Organizer: Mike ORielly Required Attendees: Amy Bender Julie Veach; Matthew DelNero; Jonathan Sallet; Stephanie Weiner; Jamie Susskind From: Jamie Susskind Sent: Monday, Aprii 21, 2014 5:32 PM To: Amy Bender; Susan Fisenne Cc: Michael Jacobs Subject: Setting up meeting w/Commissioner O'Rielly re Open Internet Hi Amy and Susan, We would like to set up a 30-minute meeting with Commissioner O?Rielly, preferably sometime next week, to brief the Commissioner on the forthcoming Open Enternet NPRM. Would the Commissioner be amenable to having this meeting, and, if so, would any ofthe foilowing times work for his schedule? Monday, 4/28: 103m, 1pm, 2:30pm, 4pm Tuesday, 4/29: 12pm, 12:30pm, 3pm, 3:30pm Wednesday, 4/30: 2:30pm, 3pm, 3:30pm, 4pm Thursday, 5/1: 2pm Friday, 5/2: 10am, 10:30am, 1:30pm, 2:30pm Thanks Jamie Jamie N. Susskind Legal Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Direct Diai: (202) 418-1525 iamie.susskind@fcc.gov Andrea Kearney From: Michael Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:45 PM To: Daniel Alvarez; Rebekah Goodheart; Amy Bender; Priscilla Argeris; Nicholas Degani; Maria Kirby Cc: Randy Clarke; Vickie Robinson; Rodger Woock; Kalpak Gude; Carol Simpson; Stephanie Weiner; Eric Bash; Brad Currier Subject: RE: Today's WAM Then we will address the Open Internet NPRM. Mike Jacobs x2859 Non-Public: For Internal Use Only From: Michael Jacobs Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 12:17 PM To: Daniel Alvarez; Rebekah Goodheart; Amy Bender; Priscilla Argeris; Nicholas Degani Cc: Randy Clarke; Vickie Robinson; Rodger Woock; Kalpak Gude; Carol Simpson; Stephanie Weiner Subject: Today's WAM Advisors, lace from 1:30-2:30 in Conference Room 1. We will address the forthcoming Today?s Wireline Advisors Meetin- will take Open internet NPRM. Mike Jacobs WC x2859 Non-Public: For Internal Use Only .w From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Manday, May 19, 2014 7:10 PM To: Mike ORielty; Amy Bender Subject; FW: Questions Attachments: CC Cost~BenefEt Anatysis Responsepdf EYE From: McLean, Sean . Sent: Monday, May 19 2014 6: 32 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Questions Thanks Courtney; went ahead and provided the questEons to tag affairs so there aren?t any surp?ses tomorrow Attached (5 Chairman Whee?er?s response to our cogtwbene?t anatys?s request. From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Friday, May? 16, 2.014 3:25 PM To: McLean; Sean Subject: RE: Ques?ons {3001"} Here are ((01115: additioz?m?t 31511215 {131? (1:11? (3011.110 and youLi' (1(155?5 (Laurette: a A (11101 (3112161115121 (Gmaehowski) matte (L to this Subcum11ittoo (33.1211 (213,- would (391111113? with {536611612132 Drdar 135163 ?hnprorfog pt'twissions (111 (101151.16:th (toot '[1onofit Lumiyaos WEE you make that: game? L13 new" Note (E it may be. ho??uii (1 provide this quostmu Sara Morris advance $011131 can be {gt-(11151 (1d 515} I know what (her; as hm: Load ((21115 got [121(1th 3(111 It. 21330 (fume fat: ope-(aim that W213 Nero 2: {And 3156-11 would be 'Exolp'fuk (he comn'Litmom EL: on page 5 from (2112111111311 Genachow?ki: The Na NEW (5151? you ("mouth (1.11?wa (1061 not Ltppoziz Contain L1 you Loo-(1111111 oompieto such ((11 analyw bof?om d?Cidiil? ?Vi home: to adopt/.2111} From: McLean,- Sean Sent: Friday, May'16, 201.4 11:27 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Questions Hi Courtney, Great speaking earlierL Here are a few angies that'Jot Carpenter m?ntioned that might be good fornext week. interested to see-what you thinks?ince you are Eiteraily in the trenches at the FCC and have better insight than. we do. 1 Best, Sean The budget proposal states that the agency protects and empowers consumers by ?ensuring that FCC policy, rulemaking, and enforcement documents clearly explain the basis for decisions to affected parties, Congress, key constituencies, and the public.? 23). Yet, nowhere is a cost?bene?t analysis mentioned. So my question is how can the agency protect consumers, who ultimately bear the costs associated with regulations, without knowing anything about the costs or the benefits of proposed rules? Chairman Wheeler, as you know, the Commission?s funding is derived from fees paid by those the FCC regulates. However, those regulated by the FCC are not the only entities that impose on the Commission. In the ?net neutrality? context, for example, companies like Google, Facebook and Netflix want the FCC to act on their behalf and often petition or?visit the agency in support of those efforts, yet they ?free ride? because they do not bear the burden of paying regulatory fees. As they seem ready and willing to rely on regulation to help their businesses, how would you recommend that these entities share in the cost of funding the agency? Fram: Mike ORi-eily Sent: Tuesday, May 13. 2914 2:29 RM To: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender Subject: RE: fyi E?ackbum ietier. ie??zer ta aha-{man From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday; May 13, 2014 2:1=1 PM To: Maize ORieily; Amy Bender Subject: RE: From: Mike ORiefly Sent: Tuesday; May 2014 2:13 PM To: Courtney Reirzhard; Amy Bender Subject: fyi Marsha :Biackimm 5m: conduct a cost benefit ana?lysis for #}?CC?L??Neutralitv? him-W131ackibm?mh?msc, mcni?i mm?iti377P4< i 2 .. Amy Bender From: - Mike ORiel?y Sent: Tuesday, May 13; 2014 1:46 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Qubject: FW: BFA "Letter Submission. Attachments: FINAL CEO, Letter to FCC - fr; 5mm: Alix. Anfang. ?es.com 7, Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014; 1:44 PM To: Ruth Milkman; Tom Wheeier; Mignon Ciyburn; Jessica Rosenworcei; Ajit Pai; Mike ORieiEy Subject: Letter Submission To the Federal Commurrications Commission On behalf of Broadband for America (BFA), the attached Setter is meant for Subm535ion to the Fe'derai Communications Commission Regards; Alix Anfang "On behaif of Broadband for America g?ul May 13, 2014 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington DC. 20554 Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clybum, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O?Rielly: For more than a decade, America?s broadband companies (including companies that depend on the broadband ecosystem) have worked to ensure that their customers can enjoy access to world? class broadband services consistent with the Commission?s clearly articulated core Internet freedoms. An Open Internet is central to how America?s broadband providers operate their networks, and the undersigned broadband providers remain fully committed to openness going forward. We are equally committed to working with the Commission to find a sustainable path to a lawful regulatory framework for protecting the open Internet during the course of the rulemaking you are launching this week. That framework must promote investment and opportunity across the Internet economy, from network providers to app developers, for the bene?t of American consumers. In recent days, we have witnessed a concerted publicity campaign by some advocacy groups seeking sweeping government regulation that conflates the need for an open Internet with the purported need to reclassify broadband Internet access services as Title II telecommunications services subject to common carrier regulation. As demonstrated repeatedly, the future of the open Internet has nothing to do with Title II regulation, and Title II has nothing to do with the Open Internet. As it did in 2010, the Commission should categorically reject efforts to equate the two once and for all. The high stakes of this debate have already been demonstrated. Today?s regulatory framework helps support nearly 1] millionjobs annually in the US. and has unleashed over $1.2 trillion dollars of investment in advanced wired and wireless broadband networks, as well as an entirely new apps economy. We see an average of over $60 billion poured into cable, ?ber, ?xed and mobile wireless, phone, and satellite broadband networks each and every year. And broadband gets better every year: the average broadband speeds jumped 25 percent in 2013 alone, highlighting there are no ?slow lanes? in today?s Internet. Yet even the potential threat of Title had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately ten percent of some market cap in the days immediately surrounding the Title II announcement in 2009/10. Today, Title II backers fail to explain where the next hundreds of billions of dollars of risk capital will come from to improve and expand today?s I networks under a Title II regime. They too soon forget that a decade ago we saw billions newly invested in the latest broadband networks and advancements once the Commission af?rmed that Title II does not apply to broadband networks. Reclassi?cation of broadband Internet access offerings as Title II ?telecommunications services? would impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy. It is a vision under which the FCC has plenary authority to regulate rates, terms and conditions, mandate wholesale access to broadband networks and intrude into the business of content delivery networks, transit providers, and connected devices. Indeed, groups pushing the Title II approach fail to acknowledge that their path forward is in fact a slippery slope that would provide the Commission sweeping authority to regulate all Internet- based companies and offerings. In defending their approach, Title II proponents now argue that reclassi?cation is necessary to prohibit ?paid prioritization,? even though Title 11 does not discourage?let alone outlaw??- paid prioritization models. Dominant carriers Operating under Title have fOr generations been permitted to offer different pricing and different service quality to customers. Not only is it questionable that the Commission could defensibly reclassify broadband service under Title II, but also such an action would greatly distort the future deve10pment of, and investment in, tomorrow?s broadband networks and services. America?s economic future, as envisioned by President Obama and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, critically depends on continued investment and innovation in our broadband infrastructure and app economy to drive improvements in health care, education and energy. Under Title 11, new service offerings, options, and features would be delayed or altogether foregone. Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet. An era of differentiation, innovation, and experimentation would be replaced with a series of ?Government may requests from American entrepreneurs. That cannot be, and must not become, the US. Internet of tomorrow. We should seek out a path forward together. All affected stakeholders need and want certainty and an end to a decade of legal and political Wrangling. All parts of the Internet community should be focused on working together to deve10p next?generation networks, applications, and services that will be critical to our global competitiveness and enhance Opportunities for all Americans. Yet, those demanding the Title common carrier approach are effectively compelling yearsmif not decades?of endless litigation and debate. The issues at stake would include not simply regulating the Internet under Title II, but also which specific provisions of the monopoly-era statute apply to modern broadband networks. Collectively, we would face years more of uncertainty and, as a result, an economy deprived of the stable regulatory framework needed to promote future investment, innovation and consumer choice. As it begins its rulemaking process, the Commission should reaf?rm its commitment to the light- touch approach that has ensured America?s leadership throughout the Internet ecosystem, from networks to services, from applications to devices. The US experience was not a foregone conclusion. It was the result of courageous and bipartisan leadership that rejected old regulatory mandates in favor of a new, nimble paradigm of government oversight. We urge you to continue down that path at this critical juncture. Sincerely, if; Thomas R. Stanton Chairman CEO ADTRAN 47% Amy Tykeson CEO BendBroadband g/L, Glen Post President CEO CenturyLink 8M [gay Robert Currey Chairman CEO Consolidated Communications 52% Gary Shorman President CEO Eagle Communication Ulla Anand Vadapalli President CEO Alaska Communications at: Steve Miron Chairman CEO Bright House Networks 414% Tom Rutledge President CEO Charter Communications (mam. Patrick J. Esser President Cox Communications Paul H. Sunu CEO FairPoint ?Mm Randall L. Stephenson Chairman CEO M47 Brian Sweeney President Cablevision RM Brian L. Roberts Chairman CEO Comcast git/7M Steve Largent President CEO CTIA The Wireless Association Maggie Wilderotter Chairman CEO Frontier Qua,? Ronald Duncan President CEO GCI QM 77% Patrick McAdaragh President CEO Midcontinent Communications CLM AMA Chris French President CEO ShenTel Communications ?zdf 2. Grant Seiffert President Telecommunications Industry Association Walter B. McCormick, Jr. President CEO USTelecom Eric Yeaman President CEO Hawaiian Telcom John Evans Chairman CEO Nelson County Cable and Evans Telecommunications Co. Richard J. oberg President CEO Sjoberg's Cable Robert D. Marcus Chairman CEO Time Warner Cable WW Lowell C. McAdam Chairman CEO Verizon Rocco Commisso Chairman CEO Mediacom Communications Michael Powell President CEO National Cable Telecommunications Association (QMJ cam Jerald L. Kent Chairman CEO Suddenhnk From: Mike O?Rie?y Sent: Tuesday; January 14, 2014 M319 PM To: Erin. Mc-Grath; Amy Bender. Subject: Fw: Verizon statement on DE. Cirtu'it decision Attachments: Finai ?12 NR Verizen Reaction ?to DC Circuit on Open Internet Ruies 1 l4 l4,pdf Fyi From:- G?riila, Kathfeen Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:35 PM To: Mike O'Rieuy; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Verizon statement on C?rcuit? decision Please see the attached statement from Randy Mifch wj'ust released. Kathleen M. Griile Senior? Vice President Federai Reguia-iory Affairs Verizon 1300 5 Street, NW Suite 400W- Washingten, DC 20005 (202) 5154533 . Pram: Mike O?Rieiiy Sent: yUESday; January 14% .2014 6:23 PM: To: Su-bjett: hamh?ifei? @harei?fei? 34m Dear #Cogmn now good time ask to regulala peering? #?f??wisi?ist Egg. and From: Amy Bender Sam: Tharaday; January 30; 2.014 11:32 AM To; 'Caurtney Reinhard Subj?ct: FW: Six ?ew net neu?a?ty print?pies? From: Amy" Bender Sent: Wednesday, January 29, mm 12:12 PM To: Mike O?Rieny; Courtney Reinhard; "Er-En McGrath Sub?ect: new net neutraii' "?nd tea? From: Schwattz, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 23:14-11:57 AM To: Amy Bender Subject: Six new net. neutraiity principles? Hi Amy, I was making What the Said at an MMTC a ma?a week}; agm and 1 ma?a: Clyharn said ?11m she: "support: the chairman as In: Iays (31311316: next Steps ran what I b?iittve is a 01? six principies that 36:; (:iear s?gnals mm. cansumcrs-and Cibmpan?ieS.? Di) yin; what .331}: principiag she?s Laikin 211mm? is ii {mm Wheaiar?g af?rm? Has; a been making the rounds? .1 appreciate yaurlu?p, Man: 232*2504523 Matthew :Cmnmunicatirmg 1321i Wire?ne Ediubr @?Fcz?iiMS3 From: C?urtnay 43442444413444 Sent: 4444345444154; FEbruary 20 2014 2: 04 PM T9: Mike 0444944 Amy 3441:4444 E44 44 4444:64th Subject: F44: Open Thier'net 4444. Fram: R4441 8341484 [444341 to: 44444 barker Sent: Thursday, February 20 2014 0.1: 53 To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Open Internet Dear 5445, Your efforts to counter the initiatives envisaged by Wheefer 3434 4a afthough misp?abuncec! effart's The focus 4241? your efforts ought to be 411423 debunkmg 45.4 the "4nr10vatirm Have you ev?r heard of, or perhaps even read the Apologeticae :04 the Enqursi?tian? if 50 44441.4 wauld Harm 4413444142 juridical. argumentatimn present-ed 441 the decision ofthose judges 443 434.4441 the witches are hammered tn be 504414: 434 these e?oquen?t and ioginai 04? the However, they 3.44 suffer from a major ?aw, wnmen-fiy'ing 4.441343 brnamsticks is contrary 1:44 the. 44444 Of [34441544254433 Anise 43 the 10443.4: 04441434 f?JEU'tTa?tv} You 434131331344; are far 404:4 Wangl' 4' have Seen your phctas} 44:. have 441 the i'ntemet from the very 4 .have The intamet .45 arwthing ?34.44. 3:244:44:g which 43 the underiy?ng assumptian 4.34 the NN f0! 1445. it has; evolved from a. peer to peer; protect}. /4:0 41nect?aniccnterrt TP address neutral bi ~34 rectienai packet switched 54341141444444 icatians 44542414404 ogy emulating the 4ra 441244314431 4944434104144 concept uf device A contacting device 8 or vice Versa in reai time with "no 'ntermediating? service inter-4544044 Other than packet routing to what today: is bas?caiiy a uhidirec?tian'a? mutant and preterm! aWHre architecture This has 43544444543441 a cumbersome patchwork; designed speci?c'a?i 44 4:44 address inherent de?ciencies arismg from the mtraduction of ciassi 655 4240411344: 4444444413; the tack of 4PM addreSs Space and the omrssion ofany sort of security in the orE'gmaH 4? design. Cement distribution services based 41m HTTP Protocoig NATTED 4134.44 {mar makeshift security 441 the and 4434444. 314044426, to dbmirzate the usage p-aratiigrn and have 6.444442444242454 bbcked or ehcumbered 4:43- the 4.4014414 of economic irrelevance any other 4P based semce The addictian to HTTPITLS remmds one of "a junk? 443 on 4124434444; and Net Neatraii 441,4 is but 3 44124443446414: 44462444418444: 4342-444 The day and age of server 4442444 W584 quick? 44 com; ng ta 3 424.052 and. 4444 44 be skippianted by an. MS ?ara'digm evidence by the recent petition of to the FCC 443 m4 grate legacy CS 4.649434443444440 4M5.- 44 4s exactly them deficits that 4134.454 engendered 44141 42444144444041 and den/240434144441: of 443445 Next Generation Network architecture and the 344424.44; 12! 4114441355.: differanmai servzce graham. Newerthe?ess, the proponents 5243411 In assume that 3413,; measure 40 encourage campetit?oj 41: to WEB based. mutant distributian 444444 discourage 44141041344? 4044. A pecuiiar de?n 444044 4:44 44144444344041: For 48144.44 546444444: 4411414344344 041? as yet another bandwidth hogging advertm?nanced dient~server WEB servite Exhibi 44mg 344 Of the we it knew mu?ng sewn ty and address? 441g And 44 45 the responsib??y of Ihe carri'e ris cantinua IN to 4444;854:441 .444frastru?u re ta. 'accOmmedate ever: mare of these innovatia rag "and God forbzd net suggest Ih-atscmeof?e has 44.: pay? May 4 saggest Ihat 4s poppy-crack and bunkums? Dr.ratherzan?41QUis4t49n 403,442 1335254 apologetica? The next evolutionally step is mobility. Hence the real focus ought to be on the impact for the mobile future. For those whose affinity to the physics of radio high frequency tends to approach null, it might come as an unpleasant surprise to learn that the HTTP protocol is the WORST possible transmission protocol for a radio frequency based mobile environment. HTTP based content distribution over a mobile network is extremely bandwidth and energy inefficient, especially in the 2.5/36 environment. The physics of HF signal attenuation play havoc with the TCP van Jacobsen algorithm which results in significantly higher OPEX cost for the radio bearer Operator dropped packet retransmission are destroying the spectrum budget) but the NN folks demand that those responsibie for this air clutter pay nothing for their largess This 20 ipso ought to convince even the most ardent supporter of MN to reconsider. The notion of"yet another bright idea(WEB of course being born in the proverbial garage? is rather disingenuous. NN proponents obviously are unaware of or conveniently ignore the fact that down-link and up-link bandwidths are already handled differently principal reason why mobile cloud is an oxymoron), that there is a distinction between peering and transit, that addressing is highly restrictive and that their archetype garage table-top innovator is at the mercy of a hosting agency to service his/her next WEB service. However, it seems that these are virtues for the proponents of MN. The questions to the NN proponents: Ought not up/down link be handied equaily; ought not the access to global addressing be equal as well? Hence we see that NN not only offers a poor path to competition, it actually inhibits such. And, to make matters worse, you wish force me to pay for all of the bandWidth hogging advertising garbage in this mobile environment after all, the available spectrum is iimited, unlike cable. Why are you denying me the consumer to choose between varying classes of services, one with and one without ad-financed connectivity if i am willing to pay for it? Why are you denying or inhibiting the deveIOpment of non-server based. Host~2~host application, mission critical emergency response services requiring traffic management and possibly throttling of Face-Book or traffic of similar iik? Of course, at the center ofthe discussion is how do we address the competition issue? What is needed is the awareness that the attributes protocol, bandwidth, latency and host addressing are the most relevant) of one particular application genera ought not dominate or dictate the rules for development and deployment of other applications having differing band~with, latency and addressing requirement. As the network evolves toward a mobile lP managed architecture, we need to re-focus the discussion on assuring "application neutraiity". This term loosely envisages establishing rules that address the specific requirements of individual applications. Mission critical applications must behandled differently from sociai networks, lP Vo LTE telephony must be as at least as reliable and secure as legacy circuit switched. This alone renders the entire NN position untenable, since the prospect of reai-time, host-Z?host and dynamic bandwidth allocation based on application needs will engender a wave of innovation hitherto unimaginable. NN effectively discourages this form of innovation. As if this were insufficient, there remains as ratio ultimo regis, the fact that there is a reasonable case to be made for considering NN as adverse to national security. i leave that to you and your staff to consider. i hope that these comments are well taken? Regards Ron Barker Pram: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday; February 19;, 2914 12:69 To: Mike QRieiiyg Amy Bencier Cc: Erin ?MCGrath Subject: FW: Statement Cammissinnier O?REe?Ey--nn FCC Chairman Wheeleris ?Open Intern at" Announcement Attachments: NN News: Reiease 2 19 1.4.dot EYE From: Ajit Pa? Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:57 AM To: Cnurtney Refnhard Subjeat: PW: Statement of FCC Commissioner DERieiiy on FCC Chairman Wheeiar?s ?Open Internet? Announcement Pram: Matthew Berry Sent: Wednesday, February 19; 201?? 11:55 AM To: Ajit Pai; Nichoias :Degaraf; Beffrey Neumann Subject: PW:Sta.temer1t Of FCC Commissicner O?Rieny an Wheeier?s ?Open Internet? Announcement Frnm: Con?ney Reinhard stint:- Wednesday,- February 19, 21314 11:19 AM To: Matthew Bern! Subject: FW: Statement 0f FCC Commissinner O?Rie?y an FCC Chairman Wheeier?s ?Open Internet? Announcement FIXES Pram: Susan Flsenna Sent: Wednesday; February 19, 2:314- 11:19 AM Ta: Susan Fisen'ne Cc: Susan Fisenne; Caurtney Reinhard Subject: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?Rieily on FCC Chairman WheeEerEs ?Open Internet? Announcement FY: Susan Sugar-n Fisenne Cunf?rienria} Arsg?smn? nan?nm?sgi?ma? DC 2:73534 ?202: From: Caurtney Reinhard sent: 1 T?ues?ay! January 14; 2314 11:12. AM TO: Mike Berzderg Bin McGratb Subject: FW: ?13an Internet decisicm Attachments-z WE Pram: Jami) Law II I Sent: Tuesday; January 14, .2014 11:93 AM To: Philip-Verveer; Ruth Mitkmzarn; Gigi Sohn; Daniel Aivarez; Adonis Hoffman; A?san Nepiokh; Matthew Sew; Cmurtney Reinhard cc; Jonathan Sailet; Stephanie; Weiner; Richard Weich; James Carr; Jutjie Veac?h; Roger'sherman subject?:- Open Internet decision 'y-wk Am; Bender From; Amy Bender Sent: Friday, Apri? 2S, 2014 4:49 PM To: Mike GREeily? Subject; FW: My blog post. on the Chairman?s proposed network. neutraiityroles {ex pane) Attachments: van" 'Schewick 2014 FCC ex parte 20140425.pdf; Frbm: Barbara van Schewick Sent; Friday, 211312125, 2.0144222 PM To: Cc; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: My biog poSt'on the Chairman?s proposed network neutrality rules (ex parte) Door Commissioner O?Rioliy, Today: I published 21 biog post titled ?The FCC clingod course 0211152211102?k owlroliga ?are is 1221131232011 should care" that. discusses the Chairman?s proposoo noiwork neutrality 1111351 The post reacts 10th:: confusion that W215 Created. by the disconnect, between the press reports, 111.2 reactions: claimi 271g that network noutra?iityis 1313216 and. thaChairmaifs statement ?that {he now mics do not constitute a chungoin FCC policy. The post makes four poi no; 11 Allowing access fees- a signi?cant roversal from the collie: pelicios as set forth in the Open Internet Orchar- 3, Section, 706 of the Act requiros the FCC to allow access foes. 3 Allowing access fees is ?bad policy 4-. If the FCC is serious; about protecting the; Open linemen it. needs to Stan asking real questions about reclassification in its "upcomin g; Notice- of .Prop?osod Rulomaking, The pogt argues that. {he proposed rules which ri 01121): oaused'alnnm among supporters of 2111 Upon 1112211121 are: the iogical outcome; of the Chairman?n decision to use Section 706 of 1113 Telecommunications Act to achieve the goal that we. share?- ~proteot1ng tho Open Internet. "Fortunately, the, FCC has another- option: The FCC Can reclassify Intomet sorvice as a ioiocommunications and adopt net-Work neutrality" 111135 under Title II of tho Tolecommunioations Act - rules that are unencumbered by the restrictions imposedby Section 706-, To ensure that inolassi?oation does not result in onerous regulation, the FCC shoulo. fol-bear from applying "those? Titio IlTptifovis-ions that are not neceasury to protect consumers. According to the wan Street Journal, ?who commission has decided'for now againstreciassify?ing broadband? as. 21 public 1221on I. -. .3, However, the commission. has left the roolassifibatiou option. on the table; at. present.?- As the blog post Explaiun Section 706 seriously limits the ability to adopt meaningful network, neuo'ali'ty rules so ?leaving the reclassification option on the table? is not enough If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Int'omot it needs to do its due diligence and seriously explore all available options and that requilos asking real Questions about reclassi?cation in the upcoming Notice. of Proposed Rulemakmsz Ijus; submittedthe-post as an ex pa?e. The cover letter and the blog post are attached to this e-mail. The post is available online here; whvwowe?hm?due-are. Best; Barbara Van ScheWick Barbara van Schewic?k Professor of Law anti (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Croeker Faculty Scholar Director, Center for Internet and Society Stanford. Law Sehoel Author of "Internet Architecture and Innevatien,? MIT Press 26.10 Crewn Quadrangle 5159 Nathan Abbett Way Stanford: CA94305-8610 Phone: 650~723 8340 E-Mail: Schewiek@SiianfardedLI Amy Bender From?: Amy Bender Sent: Friday, 13er 25; 2014 51:38 AM. To: MEk'e QRie?y Subject: RE: BLDG POST: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN RULES Emm: Mike Sent: Thursday, Aprii 24, 2014 11:24 AM To: Amy Bender Subject: FCC BLDG POST: SETTING THE STRAIGHT ON INTERNET RULES (5) From: Neil Grace {mai?mmeit?-mcei?a?ccao? Sent: Thursday, Apri? .24! 2013;11:13 AM To: press Subject: FCG BLOG POST SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT 0N FCCS OPEN INTERNET RULES P?ease ?nd 13'2wa a biog post. from FCC Ci?wirman Ton1.Wheeier-- it wili be posted on Feagov. Thanks - Nei? N23 Derek Grace Samar Cam'm unfca?ms- Fe?eral Cdmmunica?iions"Commissio? (G) neiigrace? fccgav Setting the Record Straight an the Open Internet Ruies By Tom Wheeier, FCC Chairman half There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Gpen lnternetNotice of Proposed. Roiemakin?g thatnge will today circulate to the" commission. The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open lnternet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the TIC. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by. the 2010 .Ruie,.The Notice- does foilow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open l'ntern?et and-asks ferfurther comments on the approach it is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end ofthe year, To be very direct-the proposal would establish. that behavior harmfui to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the lnternet w?lli not be permitted. incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies? of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here: The :Co'urt of Appeais made it clearthat the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it Were. found to not be ?commerciaily reasonable.? Attihg within the Constraints of the Court?s detision, the Notice. 'will propose rules that establish a high bar fer what is ?commercially r'easonabie.? in ?addition, the Notice wili seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important geal consistent with the Cou rt?s decision. ThyehloticvewdlalSt} observethat th?-CdmmiSsio?h?believes Stiles-the.authority Under sapre'mefieurt prect?d?htto illegal, 2. it should be noted?that even Title ii regulation {which many have sought and which remains-e. ciear' alternative) only bans ?unjust and unreasonable discrimination.? The. allegation that it will re'sultjin antircompetitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded-That is exactly what the ?commercially unreasonable? test will protect against: harm-to competition and consumers stemming from-abusive market activity. To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose: 1, That all must transparently disciose to their" subscribers and users'ali relevant: information as to the policies that govern their network; 2. That no legal content may be blocked; and 3. That may not act in. a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the internet, inclodi-ng favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. You have received this-release from the FCC OffiCe of media Relatiens, To all of the latest FCC headlines go to the. . If you wishto stop" receiving releaSes send a blank; email 85 f'Sec ?1 7093'cct7c82b l1} Midwest Video 440 usc at 700.5 n.16. Verizon, 749 Md at 555. {BEthta Roaming Order, 26 FCC Rcd. at 5433, para. 45. .See generaiiy'Amendment of the Commissianfs Rules Refs-ted I?D-Retransmission Consent, MB Docket No. and Further Notice of FCC 140.9 (reL Mali .31, 2014). 551 See Adam dark Estes, WSJ: The New Net Neutrality Rules WISE OK Pay?t?o~Pia?y, Gi-zmodo.com (Apr: 23, 2014), From: Amy Bender Sent: Thursday, .Aprii 24-: 2014 8:38 AM To; Mike ORieiEy; Courtney Reiahard .Suhject: From: Mike QRie?y Sent: Thursday, Ap'rii 24, 2014 08:28 AM To: Court?ey Reinhard; AmyBender Subject: - 1 - citciliakamz 2:23 FCC Chair: repertS we?m gutting net neu??ality out wrng,? but 1163 gm hats 53f explaining in (1Q hitm?lwagm: 551;? ?1 {sax-m Kai?s? Eac?mm #1368 gammbles to clarify its rulas ?a?week UPDATE 'hi'tix?ww :mws?ech23-91239?! ?i 153?: 33 Courtney Reinhard From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:27 PM To: Mike ORielly; Amy Bender Subject: Fw: NN Letter from EBLC Attachments: 20140513 Fyi From: Redl, David Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 07:25 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: NN Letterfrom Staff I forgot to send a copy earlier. Sorry all. i hope by now you?ve actually gotten to see the items the bosses are expected to vote. I may have even more ammo from the Hill on this issue stay tuned. David Courtney Reinhard From: Cou rtn-ey. Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:58 PM To: Mike ORieBy; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath Subject: RE: exactiy 3. Pram: Mike ORieiiy Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 6:57 PM To; Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender; Erin McGratth Subject: exactty 3. Matthew S. Schwartz Eh Net nau?ality protest had but? 3 people at noon. There were more protesters ?at Potbelly?s" around corner, I was told Ex and 0 . Retweet . Favorite Courtney Reinhard From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:09 PM To: Mike ORleily Subject: FW: net neutrality From: Brendan Sasso Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:08 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: net neu?Uality Hi Courtney, I'm hearing that the Republican of?ces just got the latest net neutrality draft. Can you tell me what's in it? I'm at (202) 266-7685. Thanks! Brendan Sasso Technology Reporter National Journal (202) 266?76 85 Courtney Reinhard From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday; May 13, 2014 11:44 AM To: Mike ORie?y Subject: RE: cooi Fro-m: Mike ORieliy Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2814 11:43 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: coo: Am? Schatz @Amv Schatz 47m Repubiican FCC members still haven?t seen #thNeutralitv draft, ?gitl?aiFCC?s of?ce says. Calls. on to ?Skip blocking? them. ceciliakang @ceciliakang? 23m As of Republican FCC members hadn?t seen new #n ctncut?raiitv proposal, according to Pai office. Dams are. on "fast lane" they complain. Courtney Reinhard From; Mike ORie?y Sent: Thursday, Apr? 24, 2014 8:29 AM To: Courtne Reinhard; Am Bender ceciliakang @ceciliakang 125 FCC Chair: reports we?re gutting net neutrality ?flat out wrong," but he?s got lets of explaining to do 111,3me 3W Bachman @Kawgu?ze?ili scrambles to clarify its #11 ctneutralitv .ru [es @adweck UPDATE 13 . . Courtney Reinhard From: Mike OREeiiy Sen-t: Thumdayi April 24, 2014 5:39 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject; FW: you suck Seems strong.? ~-~~Original Message?m Fromm-mm Sent: Thursday, Apr?! 24, 2014 5:31 PM T0: M?ke ORiefiy Subject: you suck die The Eik Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORieiiy Sent: Monday, Apr?f 28; 20-14 2:19 PM To: Courtney Reinhard SubjECt: Fw: new no regs (5) From: Mody, Arjun?(lRPIC) HmaiitozArfaJn Mod osenate, 0v?! Sent: Monday, April 28, 2.014 01:43 PM To: Mike ORie?y Subject: new no regs Hey Mike .. Hope 330 u?re well. i?m going to have my boss mention your May 15 meeting and proposed ruiemaking at poficy iunch tomorrow. if?there was one key thing he should mention what would be most helpful for that room? Thanks! Arjuo C?unney Rois: hard From: Mike ORieiiy Sent: Monday, Aprif 28, 2014 2:55 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: new no regs Frothody, Arjon (RFC) Ima?iitozAriun Mody?rposenateoov3 Sent: Monday, Apri! 28, 2014 1:43 PM To: Mike Subject: new nn regs Hey Mike .. Hope you?re weft. i?m going to haw: my boss mention your May 15 meeting and proposed ru?emaking at poiicy lunch tomorrow. if there was one key thing he shoutd mention - what wouid be most helpfui for that room? Thanks? Arjun Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORieHy Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:15 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: fyi Aiit Pai @AiitPaiFCC Hm I have grave concerns with Chairman's proposal on #NetNeutrali? and side with @JRosenworcel against a May vote. http://gousagov/Bqu Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORieEly Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 8:56 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: pots and pans? Join the Rally to Save the Internet When: Thurs, May 15, 9?10:30 am. Where: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St. SW, Washington, DC. Bring: Pots, pans or whatever else you can bang on so the FCC hears our message loud and clear The nationwide drumbeat in support of Net Neutrality has gotten louder and louder and on May 15th we?ll bring the noise to the doorstep. Thousands of activists, organizations and companies will participate in a day of action online and off to oppose the plan to kill rather than protect the Open Internet. and allow rampant discrimination online. Together we?ll dance, drum and shout that the agency must throw out its destructive plan and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is the only way to restore real Net Neutrality. The plan would allow companies like Comcast and Verizon to create a two?tiered Internet, with a fast lane for those who can afford it and a dirt road for the rest of us. Sign up on the right to RSVP for the Rally to Save the Internet. P.S. A generous donor will match all funds if we reach our goal of raising $5 0,000 to save the Internet. Help us get there. Thank you! Whey Remnad . From: Mike ORieEty Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:38 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: press query re Repubiican Commiss?oner? access to revised draft NPRM From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:37 PM To: Mike ORieiiy Subject: Re: press query re Repubtican Commissioners? access to revised draft (5) From: Mike ORieHy Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 01:01 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: press query re Republican Commissioners? access to revised draft NPRM Fro-m: Stanton, Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:36 PM To: Mike ORieHy Subject: press query re Repubtican Commissioners access to revised draft NPRM Commissioner Pai today seteased a statement regarding iack of access for Repub?can Commissioners to the revised open internet NPRM be?ng circutated for this wee k?s meeting. i was wondering if you had any comment on that issue? Stanton Senior Editor} Telecommunications Reports T'RDaily Wolters Kluwer Law Business 101515th St. NW, 10th Ftoor Washington, DC 20005 202-842~8921 lstanton?tr. corn Courtney Reinhard From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:41 PM To: Mike ORieiiy Cc: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Subject: RE: Moziila petition And here?s the Reed Hastings biog post: From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:25 PM To: Mike ORieiiy Cc: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Subject: Mozilla petition Can be found here: ://biog mozilia Petition (since it is not yet availabie through ECFS) Coutyrne Reinhard Fro-m: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 12, 2814 3:01 PM To: Mike ORie?y; Courtney Reinhard Cc: Erin McGrath Subject: RE: Net Neutraiity Statement From:- Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:30 PM To: Mike ORieiiy; Courtney Reinhard Cc: Erin McGrath Subject: Net Neutrality Statement Here?s the draft NN statement. Mike ORielly From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 7:10 PM To: Mike ORieily; Amy Bender Subject: FW: Questions Attachments: FCC Cost?Benefit Analysis Responsepdf FYI From: McLean, Sean Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 6:32 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Questions Thanks Courtneyl i went ahead and provided the questions to leg affairs so there aren?t any surprises tomorrow. Attached is Chairman Wheeler?s response to our cost-benefit anaiysis request. From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:25 PM To: McLean, Sean Subject: RE: Questions Good here. Here are some adciit?onai ideas per our convo and your boss?s interests: 9 A prior FCC Chairman (Genachowski) made a commitment to this Subcommittee that the FCC would comply with Executive Order 135 63 ?Improving Regularion and Regularory Review,? including the provisions on conducting cost-bene?t analyses. Will you make that same commitment to us now? 0 Note 1: it may be helpful to provide this question to Sara Morris in advance so they can be prepared to respond rather than say, ?i don?t know what that is, i?ll have to read it and get back to you.? it?s also more fair to operate that way. 0 Note 2: (And in case it would be helpful, the commitment is on page 3 ofthe testimony from Chairman Genachowski: The Net Neutrality NPRM that you recentiy released doe-s not appear to contain a substantive cost?benefit analysis. Wiil you commit to complete such an analysis before deciding whether to adopt any rules? From: McLean, Sean Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:27 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Questions Hi Courtney, Great speaking earlier. Here are a few angles that Jot Carpenter mentioned that might be good for next week. interested to see what you think since you are literaily in the trenches at the FCC and have better insight than we do. 1 Best, Sean The budget proposal states that the agency protects and empowers consumers by ?ensuring that FCC policy, rulemaking, and enforcement documents clearly explain the basis for decisions to affected parties, Congress, key constituencies, and the public.? 23); Yet, nowhere is a cost?bene?t analysis mentioned. So my question is how can the agency protect consumers, who ultimately bear the costs associated with regulations, without knowing anything about the costs or the bene?ts of proposed rules? Chairman Wheeler, as you know, the Commission?s funding is derived from fees paid by those the FCC regulates. However, those regulated by the FCC are not the only entities that impose on the Commission. In the ?net neutrality? context, for example, companies like Google, Facebook and Net?ix want the FCC to act on their behalf and often petition or Visit the agency in support of those efforts, yet they ?free ride? because they do not bear the burden of paying regulatory fees. As they seem ready and willing to rely on regulation to help their businesses, how would you recommend that these entities share in the cost of funding the agency? Mike ORielly From: Mike ORle?ly Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:53 PM To: Courtney Re?nhard? Subject: RE: Interview: The Laura Ingraham Show From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:53 PM To; Mike ORieiiy Subject: Fw: Interview The Laura Ingraham Show (?3115) From: Susan Flsenne Sent: Menday, May 19, 2014 01:33 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: Interview: The Laura Ingraham Show Pram: James Beattie [ma?t Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 1:32 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: Re: Interview: The Laura Ingraham Show Hello Susan, I hope all is well. Laura would love to have Commissioner O?Rielly on the Show this? Wednesday; May 21 at 10:30 AM EDT to discuss allowing headband service providers to sell internet "fast lanes.? Laura would love to have him on the Show! Please respond as soon as possible; as this is time sensitive, Thank you for your help. {Bests James 011 Tue, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:48 AM, ames Beattielbl (5) wrote: No problem, I undar?md completely. We will try another time. Bast, James 011 Tuesday, March 18, 2014: Susan Fisenne wrote: 4 Hi james, Pie-age accept my sincere apoiogies as i discovered your email beiow oniy minutes ago. W?th yesterday?s ciosure, I was so focused on notifying people and rescheduiing meetings that? missed seeing your emaii. am very sorry. Sincerely, Susan From: James Beatt?ie maiito: Sent: Sunday; March 16, 2014 8:37 PM To: Susan Subject: Interview: The Laura Ingraham Show Hell-0 Ms. Fis 611116, I am a producer with The Laura .I'ngrah?am Show. Laura would love to have Commissioner O?Rielly on the Show tomorrow; March 17 at 10:30 AM EDT for a brief 15 minute interview. Please respond as soon as passiblez as this is time sensitive. Best, ames James Beattie Producer, The Laura Ingraham Show 901 North Nelson Street Apt. 1514 Arlington, VA 22203 Cell: 201.314.6219 James Beattie Producer, The Laura Ingraham Show 901 North Nelson Street Apt. 1514 Arlington, VA 22203 Cell: 201.314.6219 James Beattie Producer, The Laura Ingraham Show 901 North Nelson Street Apt. 1514 Arlington, VA 22203 Cell: 201.314.6219 Mike ORieHy From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Thursday, May 155 2014 2:56 PM To: Mike O'Rie?y; Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: Commissioner O'Rieiiy?s Open Mee?ng Statements From: jerr'y' wa?n mailto . Sent: Thursday, May 1.5, 2014 2:42 PM To: Susan Fisenne cum Subje aemens Thanks, Susam And, piease pas-s aiong to the Com missionerthat he was terri?caily weii-researched and articutate as he spoke in the huge proceedings taday. Best, Jerry On- May 15, 2014, at 1:47 PM, Susan Fisenne wrote: FYL..attached are Commissioner O?Rie?y?s statements from tod ay?s open meeting. Susan Fisenne Con?dentim Assists: nt Office Of Cummissioneg? Mike -O?Riet?y Federal Communicatic ns DC 20554 (202) (138-?23-01 FCC stories: NI FCC To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at +l~202~624?l909 or tshields3@bloombergnet To contact the editors responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at +1?202?654?7361 or bkohn2@bloomberg.net Elizabeth Wasserman, Romaine Bostick 56 Mike ORielly From: Mike ORi?e?y Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:18 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Thursday .23 5 . Thank you?bu?} From: Cdurtney Reinhard Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 05:14 PM To: Mike ORie?iy Subject: RE: Thursday From: Mike ORieIiy Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:50 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Thursday From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 02:50 PM To: Mike ORieliy Subject: RE: Thursday From: Mike ORfeiiy Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subjed: Fw: Thursday (5) - 60 From: Nagesh, Gautham Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 09:52 AM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Thursday Good morning, I?m really sorry to disturb you on the weekend, but these are extraordinary times for us, as you're well aware. I was really hoping you can chat today about the vote on Thursday and thought it might be best to just reach out directiy, in case you don't want anyone to know. I want to make sure I'm clear on where everyone stands and I have already spoken to most of the folks involved. I know this is all very sensitive, so I can assure you that nothing will come back to you if you don't want it to. I'm available on my cell phone at any time, day or night: 517-414-8151. I'll follow up later if I don't hear from you. Hoping to file by lunchtime tomorrow (Sunday) for Monday's paper. Thanks and I look forward to speaking with you. Best, Gautham Nagesh The Wall Street Journal 202?862~9229 @gnagesh 61 Mike ORielly From: Mike OREelly Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:59 AM To: MC Subject: FYI my first 'op?ed Attachments: TH EHILL_050614_oreiHy.pdf Just an FYI so you aren't surprised. The attached op-ed ran in The Hill today. mm: A33: Pa; Sent: Thesday, May 063- 2014 12:27 PM To: Mike ORi'eZiy Subject: RE: FYI -- my first oped Pram; ORiejiiy Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 201% 9:00 AM To: 'Ajit Pa? Subject: FYI my first. oped; The attached vaed ran in The HHE today. . i . Mike ORieHy From: Mike Sent: Wednesday, Apr/3 23, 2014 3:55 PM To: Courtney Reinhard RE: Commissioner O?Rieiiy 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Subject: From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, Aprii 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: Mike ORieiEy Subject: RE: Commissioner O?Rie?y 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements #rom: Mike ORiel?y Sent: Wednesday, Aorit 23, 2014 3 :43 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O?Rie?ty 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, Aprit 23, 2014' 3:42 PM To: Mike ORie/ly Subject: FW: Commissioner O?Rieily 4/ 23/ 14 Open Meeting Statements - From: Barnes, Peter Sent: Wednesday, Apri? 23, 2014 3:35 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O?Rieny 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Susan, Who handfes media requests for the Commissioner? 145 Looking interview with us on the Chairman?s new "net neutrality? rumsm Thanks PeterB. Peter Barnes Senior Washington Correspondent Fox Business Network (202) 684-4008 office (202) 769-7937 cell (202) 684?4000 generai bureau From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:50 PM To: SUsan Fisenne Cc: Susan Fisenne; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Commissioner O?Rieliy 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Susan Susan Fisenne Confidential Assistant Office of Commissioner Mike O?Rielly Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 (202) 418~2301 146 Mike ORielIy From: Mike ORieEy Sent: Tuesday, Aprif 22, 2014 5:03 PM To: Courtneyr Reinhard Subject: FW: Draft opred Attachments: Draft Edge Provider Op~Ed v2,d,docx (53' From: Haroid Sent: Tuesday, Aprii 22, 2014 4:09 PM To: Mike ORieiiv Subject: Re: Draft op~ed Commissioner, Great column. make just a coupie of tiny suggestions in the attached rediine. This 35 an tssue that has not gotten enough attention, and i like the way you framed it as a threat to the edge providers. Best, Haroid Harem Furch-tgottaRoth Economic 71203 New Hampshire Avenue, NW. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (282} 7762032 ce?: (301} 2196904 From: Mike ORieHy Date: Tuesday, Apr?! 22, 2014 3:48 PM To: Haroid Subject: Draft op~ed Haroid, Per our previous conversation at the end of the wain breakfast, I wonder whether you wouid took at the attached draft document I worked on and share any of your thoughts and. expertise. Any you can provide this week woutd be appreciated. Ito worries if you are busy on other things. my best, me. 150 Mike OREelly From: Mike Sent: Wednesday, Aprii 23, m; Robert M: McDoweii (M Subject: As me?tioned Attachments; Draft Edge Provider Op~Ed v2.docx Wouid be interested. in your rhoughts on this draft. KeEp it c?ose as it is a work in progress. Your expertise wouid be most appreciated as soon as possibie given the timing. And 2 do want to foliow up on the other part ofthe catf whenmer works for you. 151 A Maj or Warning to Internet Edge Providers by FCC Commissioner Michael O?Rielly Internet application and content companies, what some refer to as ?edge providers,? are increasingly concerned by the newfound ability to regulate the Internet, and rightfully so. For years, edge providersv?Pandora, Google, WhatsApp, Uber, to name just a few?have ?ourished from the govemment?s hands-off approach to the Internet. Both Republicans and Democrats championed a structure that allowed the ?application layer? of Internet architecture to be free ?om government intervention, apart ?om occasional Federal Trade Commission activity. That is now subject to change. A very real threat IS that edge providers could fall within th, each of the newly discovered authority under section 706 of the Telecommunicatio of 1996 to regulate the Internet. Congress never gave the FCC that authon'ty (I know this ?rst-ha fEcause I was in the room when that deal was made) and for years, the FCC didn?t claim otherw? 010, when the attempt to used it as a new legal basis to impose net neutrality r: of those restrictions, but also sanctioned section 70 Silberman summarized 1n his dissent: ?Presto, (we have powers to regulate the Internet.? FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler hi that will ?meet the court?s test? He has m, providers should not be lulled into complac d? can be a comp and sound policy (albeit, in most instances, we should :Egtti?g, :mg section 706 to impose a non- -discrimination rule on Google, or service would encourage broadband deployment. To further illustrat, consider the contractual ?ght over retransmission consent between CBS and Time Warner last ,Ijuring the disagreement, in addition to pulling its signal off of the cable system, CBS blocked Time Warner Internet customers from accessing web-based content, even outside the territory of diSpute. In this instance, it wasn?t the broadband provider involved but the OWner of the content: CBS and its edge provider unit. This controversy was eventually resolved, but not before it prompted some calls for the Commission to investigate supposed net neutrality ?violations.? As consumer demand for popular content increases, this will likely become a recurring issue. What happens under a net neutrality regime if Net?ix, YouTube, or Amazon withholds its valuable content from end users to extract a price from broadband providers? The only logical conclusion for supporters of net neutrality is to extend the burden to everyone: broadband providers and edge providers. Beyond the issue of net neutrality, we are already seeing the FCC use section 706 as legal justi?cation for other actions. In January, for example, the FCC moved forward to establish IP trials to examine issues related to migration to all-IP networks, and that item cited section 706 as a source of authority. It begs the question, what else could the FCC do in the name of advancing broadband deployment? The possibilities are endless and could easily reach edge providers. A more concrete and near?term possibility that I am very concerned ab out is regulating cybersecurity. It would be a very deep stretch to suggest that the Communications Act gives the FCC jurisdiction over this subject matter. And yet, the FCC is interested in becoming a relevant player on the issue The only way to achieve that seems to be some type of interpretation of section 706. With countless edge providers that build and maintain applications or websites that are vulnerable to Internet security threats, these could readily come under the purview of th igunder this line of thinking. I v1ew edge providers as a signi?cant highlight 1n our economy. They are tirelessly on Congress to provide the FCC with direction on services of the digital age. Mike ORi-eliy From: M?ke ORielly Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:52 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Edge. Wovlder Op~ed DRAFT Attachments: Edge Provider Op-Ed v?.docx From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:42 PM To: Mike ORieliy Subject: Fw: Edge Provider Op~ed - (bl . From: Berin Szoka Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 06:46 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Edge Provider Oped 4- Basic structure and argument is great. I know it looks like really just tried to ?nesse, clarify, etc. I think it?s critical to explain the difference between the regulation the FCC could issue now and the way the Intomot is policed today which is. ?regulation? of a very different sort -- and not what most people think of when they use that term. On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Courtney Reinhard wrote: Hi Randy, I have the COmmissioner and his staff arriving at the Press Club around 12:15 pm on Tuesday, and he and Courtney wilt join you at the head table for lunch. i?ve reminded our staff to register, but here?s the list just in case: Mike O?Rielly Courtney Reinhard Erin McGrath Amy Bender Also, may i please get a copy ofthe RSVP Eist? Thanks and hope you have a great weekend! Susan From: Randoiph May Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:20 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Invitation to speak at FSF's major annual conference Susan Yes, the session with Commissioner O?Reilly will begin around 1 PM, right after the attendees get far enough along in their lunch so we can begin. There is always a bit of ?exibility built into the schedule that I just can?t control precisely, eSpecially around lunch, so it is possible he could come on 15 minutes earlier or 15 minutes later, but we?ll aim for 1 PM. Once, we begin the session will last 45 minutes. If possible, I hope he and Courtney will join me at the head table for lunch around 12:30. It will be entirely a ?Conversation? with me, and this is the way it has been billed in all our announcements. I will ask questions and the Commissioner will answer, and, of course, he will have a chance to expand or not. So no Opening remarks at all just a conversation. We?ll save time for a few questions from the audience at the end. I?ve done this same thing with Commissioners McDowell, Clybum, and Pai. I?m c0pying in Courtney because she will remember the session last year with Commissioner Pai. As Courtney will recall, I will just start by asking some biographical questions and about prior work eXperiences and such before we move to the ?heavier" topics, such as net neutrality, spectrum auctions, IP transition, and so forth. About a week prior to the event, I?ll be able to provide you with an outline of questions if you?d like. They won?t be intended to be set in stone, but they will give the Commissioner some sense of what we?re going to be talking about. Again, this will be very much like what Courtney witnessed last year and just like what I?ve done in the previous sessions with the Commissioners. I h0pe this is helpful. I am very much looking forward to Commissioner O?Rielly?s participation. Thanks, Randy Randolph May President The Free State Foundation PO. Box 60680 Potomac, MD 20859 Tel: 301?984?8253 Fax: 301?299?5007 Cell: 202-285-9926 E-Mail: Web: FSF Blog: My law review articles are on SSRN: On Feb 19, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Susan Fisenne wrote: Hi Randy, Hope you are well! We?re starting to think about March, and if there?s a draft Agenda, do you mind sharing with us? is the Commissioner still slated for 1 o?clock? How did the armchair format work in the past with Commissioners McDowell and Clyburn? Did they give a few minutes of remarks followed by Maybe 1/3 remarks followed by 2/3 Thanks so much, Randy. Susan From: Randolph May Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 2:51 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: Re: Invitation to speak at FSF's major annual conference Susan - Great news! Please give Commissioner O?Rielly my thanks. Yes, the conversation format works well and he will enjoy it. I think I will slot it at the 1:00 hour, but if you can give me just a couple of weeks to develop the agenda further that would be helpful. Is that okay? Randy Randolph May President The Free State Foundation PO. Box 60680 Potomac, MD 20859 Tel: 301-984-8253 Fax: 3 01-299?5007 Cell: 202-285-9926 E?Mail: Web: FSF Blog: My law review articles are on SSRN: On Dec 30, 2013, at 2:21 PM, Susan Fisenne wrote: Hi Randy, Hope you had a wonderful holiday. Commissioner O?Rieily and Ejust met regarding his scheduie for early 2014, and he will participate in the FSF annual conference on March Rather than do an address, he likes your suggestion of a ?Conversation with Commissioner O?Rielly.? Where does this type of format fit better? the 9:00 am slot or the 12:45-1:00 pm slot? Thanks and look forward to working with you, Susan From: Randolph May Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 10:13 AM To: Mike 0*Rieliy Cc: Michael O'Rielly Subject: Re: Invitation to speak at FSF's major annual conference Mike - Can you give me an indication concerning your time?frame for deciding about this? While I want you to participate in one form or another in any event, and most likely I could work you in some way in a panel or whatever much later in the planning process, I only have two prime stand-alone keynote spots, which I need to focus on ?lling ?rst with committed keynoters. These slots are to open the conference (around 9) or in the lunch hour (sometime around 12:45 or 1 PM or so). My thought is we could do a ?Conversation with Commissioner O?Rielly? like I?ve done in the past with McDowell, Clyburn, Blair Levin, etc., or, if you really prefer, you could just do an address. Because I am trying to focus on ?lling these keynote slots, if you can let me know when you are going to be able to make a decision it will be helpful to me in deciding how to proceed. Thanks much, Randy PS - I don?t have Susan?s contact info, or I would have copied her in too if she?s the right person. Randolph May President The Free State Foundation PO. Box 60680 Potomac, MD 20859 Tel: 301-984-8253 Fax: 3 01?299?5007 Cell: 202-285?9926 E?Mail: nnav@freestatefoundationorg Web: FSF Blog: My law review articles are on SSRN: On Dec 9, 2013, at 8:33 AM, Mike O'Rielly wrote: Yes, i received this email. forward it to my assistant Susan, who is CC?ed here also. Let?s try to make this happen. m.o. From: Randolph May Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2013 2:25 PM To: Michael O'Rieiiy Cc: Mike O'Rieiiy Subject: Fwd: Invitation to speak at FSF's major annual conference Mike See below. Can you just let me know you have this invitation. I?ve had a hard time ?nding any contact . info, staff info, etc. from the FCC website. Whenl called the switchboard, they wouldn?t even give out your FCC of?ce number! Randy Randolph May President The Free State Foundation PO. Box 60680 Potomac, MD 20859 Tel: 301?984-8253 Fax: 3 01-299-5 007 Cell: 202?285-9926 E-Mail: nnay@freestatefoundationcrg Web: FSF Blo g: My law review articles are on SSRN: Begin forwarded message: From: Randoiph May Subject: Invitation to speak at FSF's major annual conference Date: December 4, 2013 at 9:37:19 AM EST To: "Mike (Cornyn) O?Rieiiy? wrote; Commissioner O?Rie?y has a c?ciock so we wiH need to ho?d the meeting. here in his office: We are at 445 12th Street, Washington, Our of?ries are cm the firm?? Piease ar?ve approximateiy 15' minutes early bacause you need to pass through security. You need a photo Thanks. so much and we Eook forward to seeing yam on Tuesday afternoon at 4:30 pm, Sincereiyg Susan Susan Fisenne? Con?dentiai Assistant Of?ce 01? Commissioner Mike O?Rie?y Federa? Communications Comm?ssion Washington;- DC 2.0554 {202'} 413~230i $113111: Gerry Smith Sent; Thursday, May 22', 2014 11:59 AM To: 31.15311 Fisenne Sc: Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard Subject. Re: coffee to discuss Goen Internet propose! That works. 1:3 ?there a convenient place "to meet nearyyour offices? OnThm May 22, 2131.14 at 11:37 AM, Susan Fisenne wrote: Hi: Gerry, Commissioner O'Rieiiy ?5 ava?abfe on Tuesday afternoon, May eat-4:30 pm Does-this work on your end? Thanks. and 3001: foimrard to hearing from: you? Susan From: Gerry Smith Sent: Thursday,- May 22, 2014 11:09 AM To: Susan Fisen?ne; Amy Bender; Courtney. Reinhard. ?uhject: coffee- to discuss Gpen Internet proposai Hi there; I?m a report-er at The Huf?ngton Post and I?m going to be covering the isms: ofne?t neutrality more; 1:103er we; the coming 1110211115. I?m going to he in DC next week (Tuesday and Wednesday) and. wanted to see if O?Kielly? or any ofhis Staff would like to meet; mefor coffee and. discuss their hopes and-concerns- going forward with the _propo?$ed Open Internet rules. I?m {tying to write about this topic'in a fair and accurate: We}? and Would. appreciate advice and insight from someone who is directly involved in the issue. Basil. Gerry Smith. Techoology Reporter The Huf?ngton Post ?9171 $144.10 (mobile) Twitter: Garry Smith Technology Reporter The Past 1917) 6714419 (mobile) ?ii?witt'ar: Gerry? 'Smi'ih Technology Repm?ter The Huf?ngton Post. (91 7) 671.3418 (Mobile) Twitter: Susan Fismms .. Emmi Serv?iss; Jonathan E: Sent Wednesday; May 1% 2101.4 12:28 PM T91. Cour?me'y? R?inha'rd Cc: Susan Amy 'Eender Subject: interviewing Commissioner G?Rie GEE CBS News Radi 1:1 E. A- expia in net neturai Sty E30013 morning Courtney, Amy 31 Susan, I?m writing from CBS News Eadie L105 I apoEogE as far sandE Eng tE1Es emaE} 11:: Cf Emu but I 111nm quite sure who handies Dress requests for C) and wanted to be sure I the Eight perstm We Wauid be hc?oi ed to talk with him on cur Thursday morEfEEng newscast: (tomorrow mot-11mg for a; real quE sEmpE e, Ewe pha?e Enterview on the upcoming vote on net n'egtraEEty' miss. Rather than quiz Commissicgner D?Rfiejw E311 he might were Ear-even get into the pQEEtEcs surrounding the ?ow of informatitn, data and cummerce 13:1 the MIC-met, we Wantea? t0 ask the Camrnissi'aher about why this matters It: the guy user~-iwhy someane with a basic: broadband Internet connection In their home shmuEd care abauti net" n?eutraiity Tnis wculd be a .sh?rt segment just a 3~mEnute interview WEth the CommEs?sEoner aver the p?me, and E: maid happ?n somewhere the Sam ET hour or perhaps 9:203:11 ET we have some ??sxi DEE Ety with the exact tEmE Eng We wCEuEd be very gratefu'E E-ta present the Commiss?uner 5 Views directEy to. sauthem fernEa audEence Let me know what?s possEbEE and than'ksim much for yam heipi Best, Janathan .Junathan Semis-:5 Praiiucar, maniirtg d?ve? ?aws-5:35! 653$, Ram?s: L135 ?ngei?es N?wgrq?m: can: maman.?rvisg? brsradiomamr Swazi ?sem?ze From: Saschuk?, Bryce 3311?: Tuesday, May 13, 2914-156 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: Media Request Hi Susan, checking ta see ?f the commissioner has received a caps! of the ?hairman?s revised Net Neutrality propasai? Also checking town?rm if the commissioner pans to dissent on any of the Siems before the commissm?n on May 15. Bryce Baschuk Telecom Reporter Daffy Report far Executives: Bleamherg EMA "703w341w5786 bbaschuk@bna,com Susan Fisenne From: Keyla Hernandez~Uiloa Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 9:52 AM To: CGB-CAOD Subject: FYI on Net Neutrality Demonstrations Attachments: 20140512082233.pdf Good morning. Attached is a flyer that was being distributed near the FCC this morning on net neutrality. We may be seeing more groups expressing their views prior Open Meeting. Keyla 202-418-0965 Susa? Fisen?e Franz": Baschuk, .Bry'ce Sent:- Thuysday, May 08, 20.14 3:05 PM To: Susan Ffsenne Subject: Med?a R?qaeSt HE Susan, checking to see ?fths: commissioner agrees with 93% and ?asenwamei ?cha?i the May 15 net nesutra?fty proposa? shou?id be deiayed. Bryce Baschuk TelecOm Rapo?er [35in Report for EXecutiLres Bioamberg BRA bbaschuk@bna.com Susan FE?sEnne Pram: Keyia Hernandez~U??oa Sent: Tuesday, Ami? .2014 42:4"? PM Tc: Cc: Roger Goidbia?; Susan McLeaa; Sherry Dawwn Subject: camaaggnmapr??Ist?c-emaiigtutm mediumssemai? ?rom {ourtney Reinhard Sent Tuesday,- Apr?ii 29,. 2014 3:118 PM Te: Susan Fisenne; Amy Sender Su?-eat: Re: Net Neutraiity Emmi HI: Emm: Susan Pigeane Sam: Tuesday, Apr? 29, 23114 12:38 FM. ?fa: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender RE: Net Neatrai?ty Ra?h? 11L 9 Thanks- so Mucm mums/I i?mmt Caurtney Reinhard Sam: Tuesday; ?prf? 29;? 22314? 3:38 Pm Ya: Susan F?slenne; ?my Bandar gamma Re: Net '?eutm?t?cy Round (5.) Susan F'Esen?a af?rm; Tuesday, Apr?f 2?3, 201%?- .{3425'9 AM Ya: Courtney Rehihard Subject: FW: Nat ?eutm?ty Emma .1111; 5mm; Amy Bender Semi Monday, April 28, 283.4 1:21 PM E173: Susan Fisenne Sat?e?: RE: Net tie?'i?raiiw Round ?Hi. yram: Susan $3556,an gent: Monday,- Apr?! ZQM 1:92 PM. ?512:: Amy Bender gw?ec?: FW: Met Neutra?iiy- Raund- 11L ?am: ?Satan Motley Semi: Monday, April 28, .2014 12:55 PM Susan- Flsenne Subjact: Re: Net Neutrality Round Hola. Anything you care 'ta- share? Seton Matiey President Less Government Twitter: - @?SefonMo?tie-g Facebook; htmz/fonjbme/WRTXes From;5usan Flsenne wrote: Sure, Brooks, happy to reschedu-ie far you. It?s a little crazy for the next two weeks so piease give me a calf this morning. and W833 find a time that works. From: B'moks Boliek Sent: Wednesday, Aprii 23, 2014 8:31 PM To: Susan Ffsenne Subject: hate to ask, but can we reeked my?QSzA- with the Commish? They?re. having a. N?twork Neutrality at the same time. Some-thing they sheulrfve done fig-day before ii 'ail hit the fall, 1313 BroOksBaliek 1 Technoio'gy repOrter 240~281-4901 bbo?ak j_ -@technocowboy Baiiek' l, mm?m Technoiogy reporter 24.0?28 1-4901 bbo?eki??goiitico?com @technocowboy Slasan Fisem?le From: Erin McGrath Sent: Wednesday, Atari? 23! 2014 3:062? Ta: Amy Bender; Susan Fisenne usubje?ctf Re: Meeting'of in?uentia? VC Bra? Burnh'am? arid C?mmissirjner Thursday? ('93 (5) {)?ginaf Message Pram: Amy Ben der. Sent: Wednesday,? Aprii 23? .2014 {33:62 PM Eastern Standard. Time To: Susan Fisje?n neg E'n?n' McGra't?h Subject: Meeting of influeritEa?S VC Brad BUrnham and Cnmmissicner OiR-ieilv this Thurs?ay? From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, Apr?i 23?, 2014 3:02 PM To: Amy Bender; Erin McGra'th- Subject: FW: Meeting of in?uentiai VC Brad, Burnham and Commissioner D?Rieiivthis Tharsday? mm?ri'ginal .Messfagaww From: Barbara Sent: Wednesday, Apr?if 2.3; 2014 10:50 AM To; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath Cc: SuSan Fisenne .Su'bj-ECtz'Re: Meeting gffn?uen?ai VC Brad ?Burnha?m and Commissioner ffRieiiy this? Thursday? iaear ijust wanted to fq?ow up on ?this? Would yau or the {commissioner be interested in meeting with Brad (an Thursday? Again, i reaiize. haw buxy you are and am Sorry'thi?s isfatsuch a short not?ce, but Ethought yau ?ght-Sta? appreciate the chance? to consider it; Best, Barbara, Barbara va Schewick meessor ofLaw'ajnd {by Cau??'sy) Eiecfricaf Engineering HESER L. Fatuity Schniaf Director; Cemerfur Internet and} So?ciety-Stanfmd Law Schooi ??uthar of ntem etf Architecture and Innovation,? MET Pres: 2010 Crawn' Quadrangfe 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, Phone: 650?723 8340 E-Mail: .schewick@stanford.edu Originai MeSsage From; ?Barbara van Schewick? To: ?Array Bender" <3rnmbender?fcc?ovg ?Erin McGrath? Sent: Tuesday, Abrit 22, 2014 7:48:26 AM Subject: Meettng of'in?uentiai VCfB'rad Burnham and Commissioner O?Rieliy this Thursday? Dear Eon;F dear Amy, Thanks again for meeting with me last week; When we met; Commissioner O?Rieliy mentIOnEd that he wOuid be interested in hearing from stairt~ups and investors directfy. I?m Writing to recommend that the Commissioner meet w?th Brad Burnham, an in?uentia! Venture. capitalist Who J's-in DC this Thursday Brad Burnhar?n is co-founder of and partner at venture capital fund Unidn Square Ventures. He and. Fred Witso?n, h?'s coafo'u'nder and partner at USV,.were early investors in Twitter, Tumblr, Kicksta rter, Zy?nga, Foursquare; 30er and other intern?t househotd names. Brad-and Fred are heroes in the entrepreneurship community, and their word carries enormouswe?ght The pressreguiarfy caiis them >"3egenda ry? or "rock star? investors {see g, and . r0ck5tar~investor~ma or?donation? brook? n? achesseteamerticiel 1535336 Brad and Fred have been very vocal supporters of network neutraiity You can read some of th?i Ir writing on the topic here: magnost it: and Brad and his pa rtner?s are very concerned about the current pian?s 5 regarding network heutraiity. Ithink Commissioner O?Riei'?y wouid "find his p'erspeCtive very usefm. I) if you and the C-bmmissioner would be interested in meeting with Brad this Thursday, iwouid be happyto connect you with him. Best, Barbara van Schewtck 3-. do- Barbara Van Schewick Professor ofLaw and (by C0urtesy) Electrica} Engineering Helen L. crocker Facuity Stho?iar Director, Center for in?ternet and Society Stanford Law Schooi Susan Fisenne . II From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Eiaine Adoifo Thursday, Apr'iE 10,- 2014 2:08 PM Susan Fisenne Barbara van Schewick; Amy Bender Re; Meeting with Commissioner O'Rieliy next week? Wonderful. We are con?nned on this side fm? Friday April 18 at 113111; Thanks for the detaiis 81152111.. 011 Thu, Apr 10-5. 201431 11:05 AM, Susan Fisenne wrote: Hi Elaine, if ProfeSs?or van Schewick?s meeting with pommissioner RoseeworCe-l is at 2:00 pm. next Friday,.there will {we-plenty of time. We schedule 30 minute meetings and Commissioner Rosenworcel's office is directly next to ours, so thereis no travel time-whatsoeVBr! The meeting with Commissioner O?Rielly WEB be held here at the FCC, on the 8?Ch ?oor; in our suite. AftEr exiting the elevator, ProfessOr van Schewiok should stop at the security desk- The security officer will notify us that she is waiting. Thanks so much and we look. forward to seeing her on F?day, "Apr-i1 pm. Sincereiy, Susan Susan Fisenne Confide?nti-ai As'sistant. Office of: Comm'Essione-r Mike O?Ri??y. eederai' Communica?ons Commission washiogton, oc 20554 52021 41-8?2301 From: Elaine Adolfo [ma?to:eadolfleawstanfordedu Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 1:56 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Barbara van Schewick; Amy Bender Subject: Re: Meeting with Commissioner O'Rie?y next week? Susan, for the update. 1pmrcould work. Just wondering any chance we can start at 12:3 01:112-425' Ind Barbara with CommissionerRosenworcel at 2pm that same day and I want to give enoug?ray?x - 2' atween meetings 111 case they go into Overtime. From: Waiker, Robin Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 10:09 AM To: Susan Fi isenne Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissioner 0 Rie?ly Foliow Up Flag: FoEEow up Flag Status: Fiagged sorry, She just sent this fist this morning. From: Susan Fisenne ma?to: Susan Fisenne fcc.? 0v Sent: Friday, March ?14, 2014 9: AM TO: Walker, Robin Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissioner O?Rie3??y Wow- Hope 3 can find a conference room? From: Walker, Robin Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 ?9:46 AM TorSusan Fisenne Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissioner O?R?ieiiy Good Morning Susan, Here 5 an updaied 3351: of meeting at"; endees for the meeting wiih Commksioner (3 Rietiv today. Seencer Ku Jonathan Chaplin Michaei (Sting Geratd Kochanski, Jr Mike 3321 Aiexander Liloi'a Vivek? Steiam Micheellhu Kex?n Swansen Ryan Vineyard Matthew Reischt Thanks, Robin From; Waiker, Robin Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:23 AM To: f-S-usan Fisenne' Subject: RE: Meeting Request ?Jr Commissioner O?Rie?ly 1 Right-now: the attendeesare: Jen-ether]. Chep?n, Spencer Mumg Mike Jinz Jerry Kochanski, and Mime-at Cting, If 1- find nut any more; {ii send them te you. Thanks, RebEn From: Susan F'isenne ma?iteis-USen?Fisennet?tfcc, 'nv] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:18 AM To: Walker, Robin Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissiener O?Rieiiy Great. Please eme? to me the names of those who w?li be attending once the ?st is ?neiized. Thanks Susan From: Waiker, Robin Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:09 AM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: RE: Meeting Request fer COmmiSSioner O?Rieily HE Susan, Yes, this works perfectiy. Pfeese schednie. Then ks, Rabin From: Susan Fisenn'e Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 10:58 AM To: Waiker, Robin Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissioner O?Rieliy Hi Robin, Commiseinner Q?R?eily is aveiiebie to meeten FrEdev, March 14?" at 1:30 pent? P?ease confirm that this time std? werks en your end; Thank you, Susan From: Waiker, Robin fmaiito:ma?ker?wi?evre?nmn? Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 2:37 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject-RE: Meeting Request for CommiSsioner? O?Rieliy Susan, joet found out that the cttent has a meett?g with Gigi Sam at 1:60 em, and Cemmisetoner EGO pm it would. be ideaf if Commisetoner O?Rieiiy were avel?able at. 1:313 gem Ctr-2:39 look-female to heating foam you. Thanks, Robin From: Susan Fisenne [mat -. Sent: Tuesday, March 11 2014 2:32 PM To: Walker Robin Subject: Meeting Request for Commissioner D'Riell'y Retain, Then}; you fer your voite message, Char staff is ethe'duted. te meet temerrow morning and we?it review meeting reqttests et'that time-t l?li be in touch- some time before noon. Susan- From: Walker Robin ma?i?to: twaiker male rein com} Sent: Monday, March 10 2014 12: 32 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: RE: Meeting Request for Commissidner D?Rie?liy Hi Susan, We have been asked by a ciient, New Street Research, to try to arrange a meeting with this Friday (March 14) afternoon. Attending the meeting wouid be Jonathan Chaplin,- and'Spenc?er Kum of New Street Research, and a handfui of the ?rm 5 c?ients Topics of discussion would ?nciude potential Entiustry consolidation, Spectrum auctions and net neutrality, and the wireless telecom industry an generat Please let me know at your convenience Commissioner Oz?RieEiy?s meetlng availability. Thank; Robin Robin 8 WalkEr Legai Secretary 3 Wiiey Rem 3 1775 KStr?eet NW Washi?g?unnf DC 20006 1 {Fax} 202,719,17049'1 rwaikerf?ijwiieereie.?cem NOTICE This message (111311111111 13:, may attachments) from Wiley Rein, LLP may constitute an attemey?chent commumeatmn and may contain that 111 PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/?01 ATTORNEY WORK FRODUCT If you are 1101 an intended ree1pie11't 310111116: hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly p1 oh1b1tecl If you have received 1311's message in error. piease (:10 1101112311, copy or forward this message Please permanentiy deEete all copies and any attachments and notify the Sender immediately by sending an 3.111111 10' As- part (If our envircmme?tal 111101153, the firm. is WILEY, GREENITMK Please eenSider the envirenmen't before printing Ibis emeiL Susan Eisenhe a From: Courtney Reinhard Sent; "Wednesday, "March 12, 2014 11:58 AM 35o: -. Susan Flseh?ne Subject: RE: Personal Attention to Commissioner 0 Rie :elly: California Black, Latino and Asian Ameritan Church Business and Corr'rmuni :ry Leaders ReQu?st to Meet with You During "the Week of April 7th. Followup Flag: Foiiow up Flag Stems; Fiagged Perfect ?e t?hanksii From: Susan Fiser'me Sent: wednesday, March 1.2, 2014 11:56 AM To: Courtney Reinhard SubjeCt: RE: PerSonal Attention to Commissioner O?Rieiiy: California Biack, Latino and Asian Ame?ricanChurch, Business and Community 'Leatlers'Request'to Meet with YOU During the Week. of Aprii' 7th it?s aiready on ihe sche?ule for the Commissioner 33?: Amy at 10:60 am From: Churtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, March 12,. 20:4 11:30 AM To: Susan Fis'enne Subject: FW: Personai Attentirjn to Commissioner 0 Firefly: California Biack Latino and Asian American Church Business and Community Leaders Request to Meet with You During the Week of April 7th did? we already dispose of this request? 3 have it ?agged for foiiow up: From: Mia Martinez imal. to: mmertineztcimeecoalition oral- Sent: Thesday, February 25, 2014 5:10 PM To: Churtney Reinhard; Susan Fisenne Cc: Ruriko Koko Sato Subject: Personal Attention to Commissioner Q'Rielly: Caiifornia Black Latino and Asian American Church Business and Community Leaders Reiquest to Meet. with You During the Week. of April 7th Dear Commissioner O?Rielly, We will he in Washington DC during the week Of Munday April 7th to Thursday April 10th to discuss with key regulators coheressionel leaders and ?the White Hoose the digital diviecle the groWing concentration unfair preotiCes and Invasions of privacy that adversely affect the minority community of 130 million; and (of) net neutrality In part this will be In the context of the 50th anniversary of the Civ.ilR1ghts Act "of 1964 the 50th. anniversary of the War on Forerty fi fry years since Dr King?s I have a Dream? speech and the neCessity? for the minority Coinmunity to have full and equal access to all new technologies No federal gm erumentleader except perhaps for the President will have mow influence than you regarding the also?: subject. matters If possible we wheld greatly appreciate the opportunity to "meet. with you for one hour to dismiss key issues where the FCC could play a major role under year leadership that. wOuld stimulate 1 the economy, craatejobsi create small businas?s Opportunities and. anddiscrimination, The in this reqUesi inclinde theNaticma} Asiem American "Coalitian, ,Ecuznenicai Center Church Studies? COR AME Church of Irvin: Jesse Miranda Center for Higpanic Leadership: Les Angdes' Latina Chamber of Cemmeme, King?havez Charter Schm?s and Chinese American Li?mtit?te fer Empowerment? WE will aim "bejoinecl by the format gene-mi amass] for: the {Steaming Institute, Robert Gnaizdad W?g Will can-3?0?? Of?ce- Within the. week to confirm a convenient ?rm: for a meeting inVWashfiugtom M0151- Sincerelyg Faith Fragment and mi 01121} Asian American Coali't'ian Mark W11 .itl-oczk Swim .Min?isten COR AME Chm?ch of Irving Executive Director, Ecumnical Center for Black Church Studies heresa, Martinez CEO, L053 AngeJ'es Latina Chamber of Commerce Cam}! Zhang Executi V6 Dii?ezcztor; Chin 656 American Institute for, Empowerment (30113143110 Mamiquex Principal, mng~Chavez Charter Schools Robert Gnaizda Genera]. COUIISC-L Abmemenationed Greupg Mia Martinez Chief Deputy, National Asian American Coalition 170.1 Avenug Suite. 300' Wm?hington, DC 200.06 Mobile 3:202 ASE) 9855 Fax .232- 204 5843-: From: B?ttany Games Sent: Wedn?sday,. Math 12! 20141056 AM. Tc: Susan Fisenna Subject; RE: Meeting Reguwt Fallaw 13p Flag: Faiiow up FiagStatus: Ragged 'Wtzw; Sizes; From: Susan. Fisenne Sent; Wednesday, March-12, 201-4 10:55 .AM To: Brittany Games Subject: FW: Meeting-Request. From:'Saivatore Sent: Monday, March 2014 5:36 PM T0: Susa? 'Fisenne Benjamin- Dickens Subject: Meeting Reguest Dear" MS, Fisenn'fe: i am writingto request a meeting with Cammissioner O?Rieiiy on. behaif of Lou Fiona, Chairman 0f- the A'iiarm industry Communications Committee and designated representative cf the-aiar?m industry tat: the FCC, ainng- with myself and possibiy one ather staff person. We Woufd. iike to dismiss the. iPitrans?it'ion, net neutraiity, and reiated issues as they affent the, aiarm industm As Mr. Fio?ra Wili be 3n the. District cm March 31,- Aprif 1; and April-23,31 "meeting (in: me of thmedays-w?ouid work best Piea'se Eat us knew if there is a time suitabie to the Cammissiurzer during that window Thank you in advance for your assisiance on this matter. SEhc?reiy, Ben Dickens Bioosto?n, Mordkofsky,_ Dickens, Duffy 8: Prendergast, 2120 Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 (202) 828-5562 direct iine (202) 828?5568 fax This message and any attached documents contain information which may be confidential, subject to privilege or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. These materials are intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, you are hereby notified that any distribution, disclosure, printing, c0pying, storage, modification or the taking of any action in reliance upon this transmission is strictly prohibited. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipient shall not compromise or waive such confidentiality, priviiege or exemption from disciosure as to this communication. If you have received this communication in error, piease immediately notify the sender and delete the message from your system. a From: Randolph May Sent: Friday; Ma't?th 011291434359 PM To: Mike Rieliy I Cc: Courtney Reinhard; Susan Fisenne Subject: Questions for our Conversation Attachments: Conversation with Commissioner O?Rieliyoocx; Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Ragged Mike [have attached a Set of questions for our. Conversation. of March '18 conference. You?ll- see we get to IheSeo. 706/net neutrality discussihn 11;) front, and further along towards. the end, .I, want to get to your'eoviee and views on the, CommuniCat?ions Act update process. We probably won?t get. to all. of these, but I hope-to cover a. lot of ground, just as i have with all the other commissioners who have done the some. conversation; Obviously: when I ask ithequestions, the words won?t- ne?eessarily some out exactly as I have drafted these. So, this is intended just give you a general idea of the way the conversation should go. Within the context of adioouSsion infectious; and important isS'ues, I want the session to be an interesting, relaxed ha.ck~and~forth. Humor. welcome! I look. forward to seeing you ooh/larch 18. 1.310113: you - and any of your staff that. wish to will join us for hutch, which should begin arOund 12:30. I hope to begin our Session close to '1 PAL if not 5-?10' mlnutesrbefore, and go for about 45 minutes. For all of Our sessions, I try and reserve. time'for about 34 questions from the audience, so I hope you will take a few questions. There should ?be good press coverage. If you have any questtions, please don?t hesitate to let me know. Thanks, Randy Randolph May President The Free- State Foundatioo Box. 60680 Potolnac, MD 2085-9 T513 301334-8253 Fax: 301?299-5007 Call: ZOE-2859925 .E-?Mail: rmav@freestatefouoclatiomore Web: FSF Blog: My 'lawreview articles are. 'httozl/Ssmoomfeuthorm296093 1 Susan Fisaenne Pram: Mia Marti?ez Sam:- Tu esday?, March 0.4, 2014 2:00 PM 7 To: Susan Ebenn-e Cc: Ruriko dea Sate Subject: Re: Personal Attention to Commissioner O?Rielly: C?aiifc'mia Black; Latino and Asian American Church; Business ahd Community Leaders Request to. Meet withi?Yo'u During the Week; of" ApriE 72h Follow Up Hag;- Fioliow up Hag Status: Ragged Thankyou, Susan We have 16:00 am 0nApri1 10th on oumal'endars. We. will pmviide you the names and. af?liations of the attendees, including a propaged agenda by Hem. week. L1 the meantime-g. phase let us Know if there is anything 6136 that we could. prbvide in pi?spa?mti?n for the mea?ng, Thank you again and with 2111.611? very best, Mia 0111116? Mar 4, 2014 at 1:28 PM SusanFisennc {wrmez i?m may} Mia} but he has a mn?ict'at 9:38 am on Apr-ii i wii? add this: me??ng in: his caiendar fer 10:0(1 seam. Thanks? Susan From: Mia Martinez Sent: Tuesday, ?MarCh 0-4, 2014 1:15 PM To: 31152111 Pigenne Cc: Rurik'o Knko Sato- Snbject: Re: Personal: Attenticj?n?to Commissioner O?Rially: Califtimia Black; Latino and Asian American Church, Basin-ass and Community Leaders Request to?: Meet. Wi?l Duringthe. Week of Aijr?il "J?th Hello, Susan, good mumi'ng. Is there- a possibility "for the tQ- meet at; 9:30 am on April 10th? Otherwise, we would like to confifnn the meeting fer ?1:00 am. 5 Thank you again. 5011111011 and 111311101: forward to themeeting. With 1111 (1111 very hast, Mia On Tue, Mar 41 2014-2119110 AM, Susan Fisenn'e wrote: Goad morr?ng, Mia. Cammissiorier 0"Rie11y1s availabie 111 meet at 10:01] 2.1111 cm 1113111 110?". He 11111 he 1:111 FCC trave? from #111111 ?7 9111 so, unfortunateiy, earfier 111 the week. wit? not werk for him "f'hahk. 11911;. Susan From: Mia Martinez [ma111:0:mmartinez?naacoai??on 1:11:11 sent: Manday, March 03 2014 4:16 PM In: Susan Fisenne CC: Ruriko KOko Sate Subject: Re; Personal Attention to Commissioner 0?R1e11y:Ca?fomia Biack Latina and Asian American Church, Business. and Community Lead?rs Request to Meet with YOU During the Week of Aprii 71:11 Dear Susan, 1110116: 11115 131111111 ?nds yen wall Would it be at 2111 possible. 111 reschedule. 3111? 1 1 :30 am meating {111 April 1ch with the Commissioner to either 21111161 Or earlier time this day (11:10 when he: is available 131111161 during the week Dprril.7t11? Thank you and: we 100k forward to hearing from. you]. With all our Very best, Mia On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 4:48 PM, Mia Martinez. Mote: Dear Susan.g Thank you, we would like to confirm April 10th at 1 1:30 am. Will there be anything you might need from our group in addition to the attendee names and af?liatimsg and agenda-topics? Thank, you again very much and we look forwarci to the meeting. With all our very best, Mia Mia Martinez Sem via iPhUne On 28 Feb 2014, at 08:57,; Susan Fisen'ne wrote: Geo-Ci morning, We, Commissiener Q?R?ielly and Amy Slender are available ?he meet w?h we en ?Thersday! April 10* at 11:30 am. Please Eel: me knew if ih?s will werk on your end as: wail. Thank yeul Susan Susan Etienne Contitittmiui Ausislunt Qii??'ee of{Ternntissiooitt Mike (D?Rieiiy .Fet?ietai Ctihimunieatious; Commission Washingtom QIESSEE {23234} 84230] From: Mia Martinez Sent: Tuesday, February 25,2014 5:10 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; susan Fisenne Cc: Ruriko KOko Sate Subject: Persona! AttentEon to CommissEone-r O?Rietly Caiffornia Black Latino and Asian American Church Business and Community Leaders Request to Meet with You During the Week of ApriI 7th Dear Connmiseioner O?Rieliji, . ?We wilt he in DC doting the week of Monday, ApiiI 7th to Thursday, 10th to discuss With key Ieaders and the White House the digitai divide; the growing concentration unfair practices and invasions of privacy that; aduetsdy effectt the minority community of I30 and not neu-fttaiity, In partE this Wili be in the context of? the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of I964 the 250th ennwersai of the War. oh Poverty, fifty yeats since D1 King? 5 have a Dream? speech, and the necessity for the minority Community to have full and equal access to ?all new technologies. No federal gouernme'nt leader eitcept perhaps for the Brenden: will have more influence than you regarding the above subject mattezs If possible we would gteatIy? appreciate? the opportunity? to meet ?with you for one hour to discuss key issues where the FCC- Could ?play a major role unde1 your? leadership that? would Stimulate the economy create jobs. create smith business opportunities and end The? groups joining in?, thisrequest. include the ation American Coalition, Ecumenicai ?t Centerfm Black? Church Studies, CDR. AME Church of Irvine, JESSE Miranda Cent?r f0;- Hi5panic Le;miersi??q;i L05 Angela?s; Latino Chamber of Commercm .King?havez Charter .Schouls and Chinese: American Institum We will also be jainad lay-the former gamma} amuse] for the Gremling Institute, .Ro'belt Gnaizda. We Will Mcall'yomj office Within this: Wm}: t9 rcawnfinin a conveniant time: far a meeting in Washingmn, Mills: ss-irlrxemly.g Faith 'B'au-tista Presid?nt' and CEO, National Asian American Coaiition Mark WhltIOCk Seniar Ministen COR AME Chjumh of Irvine; Executive Dimmer, Ecumenical Centerfbr Black Church Studies. Theresa Martinez. CEG, L03 Anggiies Latino Chamber of Commerce, Cathy Zh-ang Executive Directmg Chinese American Institu?ta for-Empowerment CCnSu?elo Mauriquez Principal, King?hawz Charter Schools Robe?i 'G?naizda Gelmfal Counsei, Abmamentioned Groups Mia Martinez Chief Deputy, National Asian, American Coalition 1701 Pen?aclva?ia AvanuegNW; Washington, DC 20006 Mobilr: (110234509855 Fax 202 20458613. Mia Martins; 170:1 Panns?m?lia Nahum NW Suite 300 washing-30m mamas MQb?-c (22:02 53509853 Fax; $2012 264% 53%3 Mia Martinez: T701 Pe-nnSyIvania Avenue, YW, Suite 3-00 Wilmington, DC: 2.0006 Mobile (130(6) Fax ?202?: 234 53,43, Mia: Martinez 170E Avenue. NW, Suite. 300' W?asl?ngmn, DC, 20036 MObi-ie ?202) 450 95555 Fax. (202) 204 5343 Susan ,Fisenn'e From: Amy Bandy sent: Tharsday; -February 217, 2914 5:2? PM ?In: Fisenne- Cc: Brittany Go mes Subject:- FW: Time to meet tomormW? Follava Hag:- up ?ag Status: Ragged Susan ijust received a request for a mea?ngmmormw for me and fha Commissibner with-Stanfard meessnr-Barbara van Schewick regarding Net Neutra?tv. (f3) wworigi?nai Mesmgeww From: Barbara van Schewick Sent-Thursday; February 201:1 5:14 PM "Te: Amy" Bender Cc: E-IaiTne Adoif?o Subjac?t: Time ta meet tamerrow? Dear Amy, Pm 3 33? 01:35-50? Of Law EIectrica? Eng?ineer?ag at Stanf?rd and an expert on ?atwark neutra?ty. During the fCC?s Open internei Proceeding, ii testified at severai FCC Workshops and worked ticsseiy with the Cmnmission on the substan?? of the 0:32;; Enternet Order; The Qpen Entemet Grder reiied hea?ui?y an my wark. You can find more infurmation abaut me here: 9m in'DC today and iomormw and am ?meeting with Comm?isgianer Commissioner C?y?bum; {cmm?ssmner Pai} and gathers at ?che Commission to taik abaut the DC CErcuit?s decision in Verizon v. FCC, the Commission'snext steps regarding netwark. neutrafity, and Camcast?s recent agreement with Natf?x. I woufd ?ne-interested inmaeting with you and, if he is ravaii?abie; Commi?SSi'oner O?Rie?y as WEB. rea?ze This? Es'at very short-notice, but 1. wanted to at Eeasr try? if you don"t have time for a meeting,- maid. aisostop by brie?y tomorrow and introduce myse?f; I Tomorrow, Wouid be abie to meet from 10519;303m) 11:303m ?12:30pm and. then-again capy, Elaine Adam; who is in charge of my" Best, Barbara Barbara Van Schewick? ?ssaciate Professor 91? Law and {by Courtesy} Electricai Enginee?ng. Heien L, Crecker'acuity Schoiar'?jrec?tm, Center far Internetiand Society Law Scheoi Aufhcr of "internet Architecture and innovatiunf? MET Press 2010 Cr'mm Quadrangie 559 Nathan Abbott Way- Emacs?73610 Phone: 650323 8340. EME-EE: schewick?fsta nfordieciu Susan Fisenne Emmi - Courtney Re?nhard 52:11:. Thursday, February 4:17 PM To: M?ke Smelly; Erin McGrathg-Amy Bender Cc: Susaa Fisenna Subject: RE: Ramind er: AEI @reviewg FCC 0pm Meeting Foliaw Up Hag: ?313?an up Flag Status: Ragged From: Mike-GRieHy Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2034 3:13 Tu: Caurtney Reinhard; {firm Amy Bender Cc: Susan Fisenne Subject: FW: R?'minder: AEI Preview FCC Open Meeting Th?s is: mere 3an an {hat Emil-:6: we ?iscmsaci Frum: Jim Gi'aSSman February 31-014 3:03 PM To: Mike, DRit?i-?y Subject: Reminder: Previews FEE Open Meeting Greetings? This isa reminder to came to the inauguralWCC Pm? breakfasig an i?nvi?ationwanfy eveni of AEVS Gamer faring-43mg Gammuma'a?msw and Teshmmav Pmiiw (GET). You wi?i be joining} a-sma? gram of experts-to preview the the upccming FCC open, meeting on Fat}, 2-9.. We now'rknow thatthe meeting agenda inciudes?cicsed captioning an? E913 :facatitan accuracy. We wili be discussing other issues as minding net neutraiity, and issues the groupcaresice raise? Pi'easejoin use?) NEXT WEDNESEAK February-12?, fmm.8:30 to 10:00 am. atAE??s Cuff-ice an @150 17th St NW, Washington, Di; A fuii breakfast wiit be served, Te RSVP or request further information; piease contact (1&2st reseazch assistant, Gum Ekr-ann? atawaekramgaamrg. Sincereiy, ?Jim Vis?i?ng ZS choiar American: Enterprise En'si?rtute Susan Fise?nne I From: GUcfwin@aoLcom Sent: Wednesday; February 05. 2014 "1:56 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Subject: Re: Next Tuesday's Breakfast Follow Up Flag: Potiow up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks, Susan, to you and the Cotnrn?ssioner for being so conscientious! know fotks will be interested in the spectrum auctions, Net Neutraiity, 3? transition, consotidetion', FCC ~proo?ess reform. Back, to you seen with the attendees its! so far,? Jeny in a message dated PM. Eastern Standard Time, Susen?sennet??feenev writes: Greet, thanks; Jerm Again, he just Wentste be sure its cever teeics that are of interest to those attending; From: Gwain??ieotxom Sent: "Wednesday; February 05, 2014' 1:45 PM To: Susan Eisenne Cc: gjucfwing?aeixom . Subject: NeXt Tue-sdey?s Breakfast Hi, Susan. Large turnout, and continuing to grow, Wit! get fist to you within the hour?. No podium; the-.. Cemm?ssioner simpiy wiif speak, siting down, intormalfy, ter- a few minutes on whatever subjects are of greatest interest to him; foitows. Ail o??"the?reoOrd. Back to you shortE'y with the Retest Best; Jerry Susan Fisenne From: COurtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday; ianuary 29, 2014 9:19 AM To: Susan 'Fi'senne- Subject: FW: $ederaiist Society- Fbliaw Flag: Foi?czw u-p Fiag Status: Campleted A Pram: Dean Rauterimaifto?eameuter mfecfmsacm Sent: Wednesday, January ?29, 2014 8:51 AM To: Lee Carosi Chum; Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Federa?st Society ?i?hankz-zi Law and ?ai?a ?gurtas?y; as; guggegtg, i: waui? has tezfi?c if wea wag: get the. ?gmmigs?mer mm cur Teiafamm awferenma caifa We dc: Emma {Silmi?u?tfg ?52335 with a audience-a haw gamed wig-w 13113? ?ack im?im?m Eanguaga which degcr?bag am $2333, {a giva $32: at?: ?dea ?sts: {01%ng Aim? @mni?g remarkg by the Cammgg?im?r, we?d am ibis; balance a? ?the time Swag-2:3 iist maknaw ?f 22:13 we gar} {ii?wg? gat?ng mmg??mg ?ag: aaiemiary {Biwimaiy? aim $133331; msgwer any QUQSEEGHE 32m; mig??i?i haw; East; {Ma-n- Re Liter 2&2?m322w3338 wmuid E?ze ta?) inv?ie 31:31.1 par?c?gtsate in 0:15;: Tim Fe?erai?gt Saci'ezygg new pragrammingformais.., ihe ?E?eiefamm Tgiefarum is assaat?ia?iy a teiephune conference ca?wi?h a giwa au?ience that gene-r3315: attracts: {jetweea 40 and 8% ma?a. Spaakars and audience memberg ca? his: a gamma: Humbert Each participating paneiisi makes-br?ef apening {emark? {543. ?ames}? a?er which we have genera; discus-SEW am'mag the partiaipa with t?hE mma?ndey of the zime left f5? questiang fma?: 1:179 audience. Tha ca?? is schadi?ed far .1. mar mad 315' minui?s {15 mamas with the spa-wen; gag-"rig faliaww by i hour :33} with th? a?dience} 3nd can he time 13mm your of?ce or name ?ieiegmcma We ge ne-raiiy ream T'e?g?fotum @233 and 5303?: Ethan"; on mu: Sizi?? BS Wham may are? dawnfe'a?a? gay?rai hundred 5:32" posted magmas! p?easa 3933?? we: F?dara?igt Sad-93%; we-ba??ta a: i wag; hoping wt: afvai'?a?ie fer -s;i.sc;h: a grogram 0r: ?ne-.2 mp?z 231? a We'have aimed? can??rm?d to parii?c?gaie? We wouid schedui? the tail a: aha mme?iemce of the germ-imam Wease Eat the Emu! if 3295.3 has: 23:23: uestions. i isms: ?zrward it; your rea?v, . z? w? From: Lee Carosi Dunn Sent: Wednesday, January 29?, 2014 38:10 AM To: Courtney Anderson Reinhard; Dean Renter Subject: Federaiist Society? Cm?ney?, I wanted to introduce. you to Dean Renter of the Federalist Society. Iknow Cemmissioner Pai panicipa?ted in a Fe? Sec telefoum and Dean was interested in seeing if Commissioner O?Reilly might be interested in doing so as well possibly to talk. about the recent net neutrality- danision and the Commissioner?s recent comments on Seetion 706? have copied Dean here and will leave you two to discuss this. opportunity Thanksi Lee Lee Camsi Dunn Gm?gle Sanity?: Gaun?? Google Voice: {262} 346-1228 Android Mobile: (2.02} 384x315? Susan Fiseme From: Courtney. Reinhard Sent Wednesday, JanUary 22.. 201% 9:57 PM Ta; Mike O?Rieiiy Cc; Sagan Fisenne Subject: Re: Interview for Mexican aewspaper Folkow Up Play: Faiiow Lip Ffag Status; Flagged From: Mike O?Rie?y Sent: Wednesciay; January 22, 201.4 07.210 PM To: Comma}? Reinhard Cc: Susan .Fisenn'e Subject: Fw: Interview for Mexican newspaper From: Ciaudia Ocaranza Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014- 7:09 PM To: Mike .Q?Rieiiy Subject: Interview for Mexican. newspaper He?o *L'J?Fie?eyg 'am' Ciaudia Oca?ranza, tech reparter far a Mexican newspaper named. Ex$e3sim iam workiag on a story about-the Net Neutraiity and. {he Iast ?acisi?an 0f the 33.6. Circuit. i've?alreagdy read what Mr. Wheeler wrote on his biog about the iopicg but There are some questions i hays. woufd you be interested in having an interview with me?? it can be by phone or by await This is the ?nk Df'ihe website of the newspaper; write for the print. edition. Thank you very much. Beat, C?audia, Nan-responsive Sent: Wednesday, Banuary 15, 2014 11:1? AM To: Cc; Sharon Hurd; Courtney "Reinhard Subject: RE: Doc 10 325-120 Q?Rie?y?s items? on Net Neutraiity. Thanks: Gem! mmn?ng, .. 411115.? 3111112111 @111: {111 111.11 11111111311111; jr1121111111121111: ?.111 the 11113131111111 11111111: 91:! 9:111:21? "11131111 11:21-11 50-111uc11 3111.1 1111111111 51113112111 11:: the-1:111:11? 1311.13.11 amespansive Susan?senne . . .5 Fran}: Erin McGE?ai?h Sang: Wednesday/i Januaryli 2014. 11:13 34M To: Mike Q?Rieiiy; Amy Bender; Coug?tne?y Reinhard: Susan Fis?nne Suhject: RE: Run. of Show and Samp'? Questicsns for 2314 FCC Chmmigss?oners BreagfaSt Phi-10w UP flag; Fofiow Up Hag Status; Ragged From: Mike G?Rie?iy Sent-3: Wednesday, January 15; 2014 10:59 AM TB: Amy :Beader; Courtney Reinhard; Susan Fisemze Subject:- Re: Run of Shaw and Sampie Quastions fur .3853; 2014- Cnmmissiouem Breakfast Franz; Mike Q?Ri?iiy Sent: Wednesday/g January 15 2014 10: 41 AM To: Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Susan Fis?enne Subject: Run of. Show and Sampie Questions for MMTC's 3853 20m FCC. Cammi?ssion?ers Breakfast me: Maurita Cute}! ma? . Sent: Wednesday, Janua?w 1:5 25:14 10: 38 AM To: Erin McGrath; Lari Aiex?ou; Comm?ssioner Debarah Tayior Tate; Jonathan Adelstein: Caitii Tm House; Drama 3ohnson Cc: Vaiery? Gaiass?; Aji?t Pai; Mike -0'R?e?iy; Mignon Ciybum; David Honig? Subject: Re: Run ofSho'w and. SampIe-QuEStions for 2014 FCC Cammissioners Breakfast Elgar Please :1th this attached updated mm shew for yimr pants] manning from 8 am it; 9: 1521111 We icmk ferwar'ci t0 seeing you 3:13 deW hmur5. In the net neutrality dacisim yehmday Wt: ask that Em: Speakers be pxcparcd. far the fell?zwing additinna] questions: 15 What? is yazg5'imggr'agg'?an Wf 4315 CC Cimuit?g {1262253032 fW-ii?rizmm .MCC Wm Mtge ?g?s?m ngaci ?wgi? Cf??i?f 55:: mde?rgizry?? 2., sz-T Act? MMTC Annual. Bmadhand. &'Sociai Justice Summit 2. Bridging {he Gap: Infrastructure: Educatian, Equity in ?m Digital Ecunnmy FCC: C?mmissinners? Breakfast Roundtable Thumdayg annual-y?- 16, 2014 8:00 mm. 9:15 aJn. Washington Bali-mom Westin Georgemw?, Beta}, 2350 Street: NW, Washingmn, ELC. Prnducer; Icycelyn James; Seniar Counsel and Cathy Engines 13613.ng ?iames?i?mmi?twniine?m Derrissa Griffin, . Description: FCC Cammissimzers discusg broadband Eld?pl?imlg foreign investment and 0111621? posgible selutions. fer bridging. the w?aiih gap and champimning Amaricais way back :0 econmnic recavaw and glubal mmpe?titivenegs, I?residing Of?cers Hm. Bahmmh Taylar Tam, Format FCC Cammissimmr Han- Adelsiein. Former Camsinissimer, President? PCIA ?zm??g i?"?i?im E?s-giggmm {Ziggni?zmiggimiiu Fifi: Hum Ajii? Ra? Ham Mi?haai {?limiig ii?immfzixaimm Fifi? Run: of Show: 3:00 Presiding Of?cers" Opening Remarks? and Illumination. 0f Spaakars 8:10 Panel. Owning Remarks 8:123 Pane} 9200' Ailments-t: ?Questims 9:10 {31:15ng Remarks; (3n Wed2 Jim 3, 201.4 311 6:33 PM .Maurim Evita-y wlmg; Erin and Lari; Attached am sample questims that Hon. Deborah Ta?or?ata, Former FCC Commissianer, has prepared for consideration by Commigsionar Fed and D?Rie?y at maxi weak?S FCC C?mmissioncrs Breakfagt at 2 B'madbaad and Sociai Justice. Summit. Farmer FCC Cammissionar J'a-nathan Aii?alsiein will. alas: jain. "the fun as in. what we know wi? Isa anathcr {lira signature meat at our mnfarancas; Please In arrive: 231111.:th primr- a) the start of the: hmakfasa if'passibla. Alsa ante: that the time has Changed (Sam :0 9:15am instead. If 9:30am}. I am copying Valery, in case Cammissionar Rage-mammal can snap by If yau. have; quastians, or cameras, pleasa (It) not hasitata It: giva mi: ar 10-ycaiyn Iam?s, Caunci] and Cathy Hughes Fellawf call Maura-:1 Cole cell Iaycalyn Law} Cali Darrissa Grif?an deli Thursday, January 16,, 2014 FCC C0mm?$5?0119f55 Breakfast Rnumgitabia washingtun Ba?mom' Cesgr?iptian: FCC Cmad?sand adapt?an fazaigh capital? and athar passibie soiutians for bridging the wea?ith gap, ach?av'? at; Econtrmit resavem and? impmw :39 U. giabai competitiv?ess CG Preai?ing Off: mars: Han Deharah "E?ayi ar ?fate Fa mar FCC Commas: inner Han, Jonathan ?a'leiatemr Former Commiss?cner; President,- PCIA Speakers;- Han AjitF?a? Camrnissionar, FCC Hon; Michaei .G?Rieliy, C?mm?issioaar, FCC 5% CHEESE 5555?; I555 255% C5555 5.5T MMTC Braadhand and Sacia-l Justice Summit January 15?16,- 2614 Wes?tin Georgemwn HateI Washington, 5. Maurita lippin Vice: President and Chief Operating Officer Minarity Madia a?d Telecommunicatians Council. cit: 1919 AVenaaNW Suit: 800 Washington DC 20006 Email:- mczalav'iC Direct: Fax: 2023734499 Visit: and From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Curtis Neeley Jr Robert Bukowski Neeley v 5 FCC Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447) Wednesday, December 03, 2014 4:59:23 PM Robert-bukowski FCC-note-12-3-2014.pdf   Mr Bukowski,     Curtis J. Neeley Jr. has “used” the Federal Communications Commission's ECFS EXPRESS system to cause the same LIVE link-rich filing to being entered in over sixteen proceedings or EVERY proceeding listed in the PUBLIC NOTICE regarding the Federal Communications Commission's e-RATE proceeding. (14-28,13-86, 13-186, 96-45, 02-6, 02-60, 03-122, 10-90, 11-42, 14-58, 14-93, 12-353, 09-191, 09-51, 07-52, 09-158, 10-207)       1. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989255 2. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989257 3. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989258 4. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989259 5. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989260 6. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989261 7. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989262 8. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989263 9. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989264 10. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989265 11. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989266 12. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989267 13. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989268 14. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989269 15. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989270 16. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989271 17. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989272 18. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989141 19. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000989068 20. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000988624 21. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000988625 22. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60000988626       There were a significant number of filings that were rejected after being submitted to the FCC in Word 95 and Word 2000 formats. All of the FCC PDF documents above have live LINKS though underlining is not included.       The default result for Adobe, OpenOffice, and most other software that will create PDF files as output is any ASCII string beginning with http://anything becomes a live PDF link without changing format whether “anything” is a valid URL or is not. The second “:” character causes errors with whatever software the FCC uses.   I would appreciate you telling Commissioner O'Rielly that recognizing “online” as common carrier wire communications per 47 U.S.C. §156 ¶(59) leaves no room for any type “section 760 hybrid” declaration. I asked this fact be declared as a matter of law. I will include this in a notice to the Eighth Circuit and prevent this from being ex parte communications. Sincerely, Curtis J. Neeley Jr. (b) (6) t (b) (6)   -f               ===============  PRIOR MESSAGE  =========================   Thank you so much for your time and research sir. You can see " online" from 1-100 and 101-117 ECFS filings, I am EXTREMELY familiar with ECFS.   Comparing these to the 3,141 filed during the same period by Verizon Inc, It becomes easy to see how insignificant my serial filings are compared to corporations trying,with complete success, to keep the FCC asleep at the wheel.   Most respectfully, I believe Honorable Commissioner O'Reilly appears somehow invested in maintaining the status-quo of the U.S. where "online" is called by many, if not most, an " optional [porn] provision " delivered by a few corporate providers disguised as some imaginary " holy new medium" instead of the “ rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service [online has ALWAYS been with the FCC ensuring]  adequate facilities at reasonable charges for the purpose of the national defense [and] promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications by centralizing authority [within the FCC]”.       : Hi Curtis,   Thanks for your email.   Were you able to locate the confirmation number when you uploaded your document?? OR… do you have the original docket number you filed under? I will need to provide one of the two in order to research this further.   Thank you Robert   From: Curtis Neeley Jr [mailto:c(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 10:37 PM To: newsroom@warren-news.com; Robert Bukowski Subject: Neeley v 5 FCC Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv-05135)(14-3447)      Newsroom editors,  Mr Bukowski       Most of the United States citizen commenters on broadcast indecency revision, 13-86, wanted less indecency.   (See a list of the 659/600,000+ "porn-supporters"  HERE. I read more than anyone at the FCC could have and many of these as well as most of the commenters in 14-26 want the [sic] "internet" to be " reclassified " as the Title II common carrier IT WAS DEFINED AS AROUND 1934.       Wire communication* The term “wire communication” or “communication by wire” means the transmission of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds by aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the points of origin and reception of such transmission, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission. ·          (59)            1.  ABC(48), CBS(36), FOX(44), NBC(46) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts. (15 page) Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply. LIVE LINKS   2. “Professor” Lili Levi(15).  (12 page)  Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply. LIVE LINKS   3. (1,000,000+) Brief Comments supporting or opposing porn broadcasts (19 page)   Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply to “Brief” comments entered.   Links throughout along with LIVE LINKS to 22 short comments specifically requesting regulation of [sic] "Internet".   4.   "NAB" Natnl. Assoc. of Broadcasters(42) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts. (28 page)  Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply.   Link to indecency remains on p 10/28 in ¶#6, and p11/28¶#1 as follow before the conclusion below also.       ·         6. Adolescent ownership of smartphones is on the rise: sixty percent of Americans aged 12-17 own smartphones, up from 54 percent in 2012. Adolescents and children are also becoming avid tablet users, with an estimated 23 percent of Americans aged 12-17 owning tablets. Indecency is often only a (click ) away.   ·         1. Although the Supreme Court has not yet resolved questions of all broadcast media indecency regulation under the First Amendment, the courts have expressed strong doubts about the continuing validity of limiting Pacifica. The underlying rationale is insufficient in light of technological developments and shifts in media broadcasting with respect to pervasiveness. The Second Circuit concluded that “[c]able television is almost as pervasive as [RF] broadcast,” and “[t]he [sic] "internet"[] has become omnipresent, offering access to everything from viral videos to feature films and broadcast television programs”86 and broadcasts of naked female breasts.   ·         IV. CONCLUSION The changes discussed above would make the Commission’s indecency policy more closely follow the Communications Act in light of Pacifica and the subsequent cases and be less susceptible to broadcasters’ and content creators’ misjudgments. The First Amendment, after all, protects only the qualified right to freedom of expression that must be exercised in a manner not causing per se danger to those receiving the speech as required only common-sense but was missed for almost half-a-century       5. Christopher M. Fairman(57) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts. (27 page) Reply to Christopher M. Fairman’s or ... “Professor F_ck’s” comments entered. LIVE LINK TO OBSCENITY ON P20   6. ACLU(10) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts. (3 page)Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply.   7. Electronic Freedom Foundation(3) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts.  (5 page) Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply. LIVE LINKS   8. PTS & PBS(13) seeking allowance of porn broadcasts. (9 page) Curtis J Neeley Jr Reply.   ==========================================   Robert Bukowski, Assistant to Michael O'Reilly. (Wholly wrong commissioner) Thanks for speaking with me today while I was substituting at West Fork Middle School in their computer lab using common carrier telecommunications disguised cleverly as something else by a 77 year-old geezer in 1997.   See if you can find anyone to advise me about why PDF links to searches do not remain like intended? These are allowed in United States Courts via PACER? Why are these left other times like above?   I entered an appearance in Neeley v 5 Federal Communications Commissioners, et al, (5:14-cv05135)(14-3447) and the online PDF file has live links to criminal GOOG and MSFT searches similar to footnotes. These can be seen from Eighth Circuit via PACER, via ECFS, or a free MIRROR at following URLs.   PACER - https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/docs1/00802545987 ECFS - http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view? id=60000978879 MIRROR - http://theendofpornbywire.org/14-3447/PDFmirror/CJNJr8thCirAppearance.pdf You will see at both the free mirror and at ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov; The PDF files have live links to the searches GOOG and MSFT communicate illegal material for per 18 U.S.C. §§ (1462, 1464), and 18 U.S.C. §2511. The Brief supporting the pending IFP appeal will link to these PDFs “as modified” by Defendant/Appellee FCC. Can I request that these links not be removed? This request was made before but will be included to each commissioner AGAIN and will also be included “online” for the public to view if notified of the following URL. http://theendofpornbywire.org/... 14-3447/FCC_11-11-2014_query.html   I appreciate the request that I enter non-linked URLs as an experiment.       http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view? id=60000978879     -  Sincerely, Curtis Neeley Jr (b) (6) t-sms   (b) (6)   f From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: FCC OLA Brendan Carr FCC OLA NEWS: This Week @ The FCC: November 14, 2014 Friday, November 14, 2014 5 56 57 PM image001.emz image003.emz image004.emz HEADLINES November 14, 2014: FCC To Hold Open Commission Meeting, Friday, November 21, 2014 November 13, 2014: FCC Names David Waterman Chief Economist November 13, 2014: Commission Affirms Commitment to Combat Rural Call Completion Problems - Appendix A - Appendix B - Wheeler Statement - Clyburn Statement - Rosenworcel Statement - Pai Statement - O'Rielly Statement November 12, 2014: FCC Denies ACA Application for Review of CAF Phase II Cost Model - O'Rielly Statement November 12, 2014: Rural Broadband Experiments Draw Interest From Nearly 200 Applicants November 10, 2014: Chairman Wheeler's Statement on President Obama's Statement on Open Internet November 10, 2014: Commission Takes Steps to Modernize the Cellular Service November 10, 2014: Commission denies AFRs and Stays and amends merger protective orders - Pai Statement - O'Rielly Statement   FCC BLOG Taking Broadcaster Outreach on the Road The Broadband Health Imperative Introducing FCC Distinguished Health IT Scholar, Dr. Chris Gibbons   CALENDAR/EVENTS November 7, 2014: Accessible Wireless Emergency Communications Forum November, 21, 2014: Open Commission Meeting December 2, 2014: State and Local Government Webinar December 4, 2014: Technological Advisory Council Meeting From: To: Subject: Date: Brendan Carr "Gross, David" RE: Open letter to President Obama Friday, November 14, 2014 1:18:41 PM Thanks! -- Brendan  (202) 418-1733 -----Original Message----From: Gross, David [mailto:DGross@wileyrein.com] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 9:31 AM To: Ajit Pai Cc: Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: Open letter to President Obama Dear Commissioner Pai: Attached is a copy of a letter from the GSM Association to the President.  The GSMA asked me to make sure that you received a copy.  Copies are also being submitted into the formal FCC record as well as to A/S Strickling, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and to all of the other FCC Commissioners.  I look forward to seeing you soon. Best wishes, David Amb. David A. Gross Wiley Rein, LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, D.C.  20006 +1-202-719-7414 dgross@wileyrein.com NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an attorneyclient communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com.  As part of our environmental efforts, the firm is WILEY GREEN(TM).  Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Ajit Pai Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Fw: Open letter to President Obama Friday, November 14, 2014 9:42:35 AM GSMA Open Letter to President Obama on Net Neutrality.pdf Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network.   Original Message From: Gross, David Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 9:32 AM To: Ajit Pai Cc: Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: Open letter to President Obama Dear Commissioner Pai: Attached is a copy of a letter from the GSM Association to the President.  The GSMA asked me to make sure that you received a copy.  Copies are also being submitted into the formal FCC record as well as to A/S Strickling, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and to all of the other FCC Commissioners. I look forward to seeing you soon. Best wishes, David Amb. David A. Gross Wiley Rein, LLP 1776 K Street, NW Washington, D.C.  20006 +1-202-719-7414 dgross@wileyrein.com NOTICE: This message (including any attachments) from Wiley Rein LLP may constitute an attorneyclient communication and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL and/or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please do not read, copy or forward this message. Please permanently delete all copies and any attachments and notify the sender immediately by sending an e-mail to Information@wileyrein.com.  As part of our environmental efforts, the firm is WILEY GREEN(TM).  Please consider the environment before printing this email. GSM Association 2nd Floor, The Walbrook Building 25 Walbrook London EC4N 8AF United Kingdom Tel: + 44 (0) 20 7356 0600 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7356 0601 Web: www.gsma.com 13 November 2014 An open letter The President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President, We, the network operators, remain strong advocates of an open Internet. In recent years, we have made enormous investments to build the infrastructure that serves as the foundation of the Internet. In doing so, network operators have transformed the way people communicate, do business, access information and are entertained. At the same time, the Internet revolution has created untold economic opportunities for individuals as well as American companies, large and small. All of this, to-date, has been done in an environment of the light-touch regulation that has fostered investment and innovation. And that is why we are deeply concerned about the impact that your endorsement of re-classification of the Internet as a Title II utility-like telecom service will have on the future of the Internet. Heavy-handed regulation, in place of the light-touch approach that has enabled Internet proliferation, will stifle the very innovation and investment that has long been the hallmark of the United States’ leadership in the technology sector, and that serve as an important contributor to the nation’s economy. This is particularly true of mobile broadband services. In 2010, the FCC rightly recognized that mobile broadband is different from wireline broadband services and warranted a lighter touch regulatory approach. This conclusion is as relevant today as it was in 2010. Yet, calls to make wireline utility rules fully applicable to mobile broadband, even if recognising the unique technical challenges of managing wireless networks, repudiates the FCC’s own earlier conclusions and will harm investment and innovation in a critical infrastructure and the consumers that rely upon it. The FCC has the authority, under Section 706, to establish and tailor appropriate rules to protect consumers and competition in today’s broadband world. This power is substantive and full, and thus renders re-classification under Title II unnecessary. We urge you to reconsider your plan to regulate the Internet, which threatens its very future. Most Respectfully, Anne Bouverot Director General, GSMA From: To: Subject: Date: Amy Gentile Tom Wheeler; Mignon Clyburn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly FCC and Net Neutrality Wednesday, November 12, 2014 12:03:58 PM Dear Members of the FCC: As a citizen who has been concerned about the issue of Net Neutrality for a few years, I wanted to urge you to fight to protect "Net Neutrality." Not because President Obama mentioned it in a speech. Quite the opposite, it seems to me that Pres. Obama's statement, while I agree with it in principle, seems to be an attempt to capitalize on what many citizens already think (and have voiced) about Net Neutrality. I've tried to be an informed citizen on this matter. I've had discussions with friends of opposing views, I've looked at the rules you set out in 2010, and the subsequent legal cases brought by Comcast and Verizon against you. I've looked into the money spent by these companies (and even those on the proNet Neutrality side, such as Google), I've tried to think through the implications. I'm continuing that process and discussing it with friends, colleagues, and my own students. I believe that the government does have a responsibility in an economy like ours to protect consumers, average citizens. I do fear the immense power and privilege that cable companies wield and the fact that in so many areas (including my own), there is sometimes NOT a choice in provider--no real competition exists and companies are not fighting to bring the best services to the consumer, but instead are finding ways to further line their pockets. I am a teacher, making approximately $30K a year--I teach because I love it, and care deeply about education. I have the smallest cable package possible by Charter, the only company in my area, and Internet--since I work at an online school and it's necessary for my job. I only get the basic news channels and not much more. Charter has raised the price several times over the past few years without providing better service. They've required an upgrade to equipment that will be free at first, but will eventually cost almost 20% of my current bill to maintain. My internet is of mediocre quality. They have constantly found ways to raise prices without proving better service, but I am stuck with them. I shudder to think about what they will do when given a carte blanche with the Internet. They have reason to restrict the flow of sites like Netflix and Amazon Prime, who give them competition--I, like many people, use these services instead of paying an exorbitant amount for cable channel packages where I would not use 80% of the channels. I worry about having slower internet speeds than I already do and having to pay more money to access things at a reasonable rate--I work hard for a living, but have a tight budget. I worry more about how they will restrict information and services, making it harder to reach websites they do not approve of or squeezing out smaller startup companies and websites who can't afford to pay them money to be accessible on certain streams. Charter and other cable companies have already proven to me their interest in money and profits above all else. There is nothing wrong with being profitable, but there are ethical issues with choosing profitability over and above serving your customers, or choosing to wield power to squeeze out money from other companies. Cable companies have already done this, they WILL continue to do this as long as it serves their interests and they are able to do so. I am wary of government overreach, I think it's responsible to be aware of that. But I also believe that this is a key area where the government has an opportunity to work well. I think the solutions you proposed in 2010 seemed reasonable and fair, designed in the interest of protecting consumers. I firmly believe keeping the Internet free and open--not subject to the whim of huge cable companies, not tiered to give some sites or customers who can pay priority over others--is essential for the well-being of all citizens and smaller companies. Please act to serve the people, not the President or the cable companies. Please don't forget that regardless of what the President or any other politician says. It's not about their interests, it's about protecting the interests of the "little people", who don't have the capital or political power to fight against these larger entities on our own. Thank you, Amy L. Gentile From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Matthew Berry Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Fw: Evercore ISI views on FCC/Obama comments Tuesday, November 11, 2014 4:31:38 PM 111114 Media FCC net neut.pdf Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. From: Terry Haines Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:54 PM To: Matthew Berry Subject: Evercore ISI views on FCC/Obama comments Matthew   I hope all is well –   The Commissioner and I had a very good talk recently.   Based on that, I thought he would be interested to see our comments on the President’s and Chairman Wheeler’s comments yesterday.  I know he was on with CNBC earlier and will need to catch up on that – I was up to my ears with a client conference call on the topic (which is available for replay using the numbers on the document).    As ever, if there’s anything I can do, please let me know.   Best regards TH   Terry Haines Managing Director and Head of Political Analysis Evercore ISI 1130 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 625 Washington, DC  20036 (202) 872 5261   Disclaimer: http://www.evercore.com/researchdisclaimer From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Alethea Lewis Adonis Hoffman; Ajit Pai; Amy Bender; Andrew Woelfling; Aurelle Porter; Bartees Cox; Brendan Carr; Chris Moore; Clint Odom; Connie Chapman; Courtney Reinhard; Daniel Alvarez; David Goldman; David Toomey; Deborah Ridley; DeeAnn Smith; Diane Cornell; Erin McGrath; Gigi Sohn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Jill Pender; Jim Balaguer; Joy Medley; Kevin Holmes; Kim Hart; Lori Alexiou; Lori Maarbjerg; Louis Peraertz; Maria Kirby; Mark Wigfield; Matthew Berry; Mike ORielly; Neil Grace; Nicholas Degani; Philip Verveer; Priscilla Argeris; Rebekah Goodheart; Renee Gregory; Ruth Milkman; Sagar Doshi; Sara Morris; Shannon Gilson; Stevan Jechura; Timothy Strachan; Valery Galasso Incoming Congressional Correspondence for 11/10/14 Monday, November 10, 2014 3:26:18 PM Sanders1179.pdf Sen. Bernard Sanders -  Innovation – Open Internet – (WCB) (b) (5)     Alethea Lewis Office of Legislative Affairs (202) 418-0103   BERNARD SANDERS 332 Sun IE: UJFIFLSEN OFFICE BUILDING VI-RMUNI DC 20510 [202122443141 IIOMMII than: CHURCH STREET, 2ND FLOOR BLILIGE I Bumnusron, VT 05401 Emma-v two Namam RESOURCES 1?r'ittd %Knatt I . I RON JEN AN PUP: JHKS WASHINGTON. DC 20510-4504 HEALIH, Emu/mom. Lanna. AND PENSIONS CHAIRMAN November 10, 2014 Jorm ECONOMIC The Honorable Thomas Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12?" Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 Dear Chairman Wheeler: As you know, President Barack Obama has made a strong statement on net neutrality and the importance of preserving a free and open Internet. I strongly agree with him and so do the American people. You may recall that my of?ce shared with the Commission more than 40,000 comments submitted to us opposing your proposal to allow for-pay fast lanes on the Internet. Many of those comments were extremely thought?il and made clear that ending net neutrality would be a disaster for our country, for small businesses and for the free ?ow of ideas. It is time now for you to stand with the American people and for net neutrality. It is time for you to stand up to the army of Comcast and Verizon lobbyists and institute strong rules to ensure net neutrality. Sincerely, Bernard Sanders United States Senator From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Farrell, Sean (Commerce) Nicholas Degani FW: Senator Blunt’s Statement On President’s Plan To Regulate The Internet Monday, November 10, 2014 2:12:47 PM image003.png image004.png image005.png FYI   From: Senator Blunt Press Office Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:57 PM To: Senator Blunt Press Office Subject: Senator Blunt’s Statement On President’s Plan To Regulate The Internet   Please Click Here To View This Press Release Online For Immediate Release November 10, 2014 Contact: Press Office, (202) 224-1403 Senator Blunt’s Statement On President’s Plan To Regulate The Internet   WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) issued the following statement today regarding President Barack Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet by calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 to craft additional net neutrality regulations: “The rapid expansion and evolution of broadband networks have been continuous drivers of growth and have added to the efficiencies and competitiveness of every sector of our nation’s economy. Today, unfortunately, President Obama chose to ignore the record of a successful bipartisan policy enacted by Congress and signed into law by former President Clinton. “The president’s call for Internet regulation hurts innovation, hampers job growth, and is bad for consumers. Instead of circumventing Congress in favor of action by the executive branch, the president should listen to the American people who just spoke on November 4th and demanded that the Administration work with Congress to enact policies that will get our country back on track. It’s time for the president to call on Members of Congress to work together to ensure we have a 21st century telecommunications policy – not unelected bureaucrats at the FCC who will hold America back with policies that belong in the 19th century.” Background: In 1996, Congress intentionally separated information services, which include broadband, from heavily regulated services in order to spur private sector investment. Since then, this industry has invested roughly $1.3 trillion to expand broadband availability. Today, President Obama has called on the Federal Communications Commission – an independent agency that answers to Congress and not the White House – to reclassify broadband as a public utility. The FCC previously tried this approach, and it was rejected by the Courts. In May 2014, Blunt joined his fellow Senate Republican Leaders and sent a letter to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler saying, “Rather than attempting further legal contortions to encumber modern communications networks with last century’s rules, the Commission should work with the Congress to develop clear statutory authority and direction for the agency so that it can be a productive regulator for the 21st century marketplace.”   ### Mike ORiellz From: Brett Dill Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:08 PM To: Tom Wheeler, Mignon Clyburn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly Subject: Writing In Support of President Obama; enact Title 11 Hello Commissioners, Thank you for reading. This is about the intemet. Thanks to its creation, a guy who inspects circuit boards for less than what that expertise was worth 10 years ago can talk to ?ve FCC commissioners. The intemet is also the last example of free market capitalism. Some of you may believe that this will not be true if we enact Title II. Well, I'm not talking access, I'm talking about the place itself, I'm talking about the market. The place where the crony capitalists are outwitted daily. Where a small company can win by providing a better product and out-competing established businesses, just as they should in a truly free market. I'm talking about the place where people who want real news can break free of the media conglomerate stranglehold by ?nding smaller networks who don't pedal sensationalism, propaganda, fear, and nonsense for a buck. I'm talking about the place where consumers have a say in prices, as we should in a real capitalist system. We all know what the big ISPs want. They're losing and they want to use their in?uence to rig the game. They want to poison the substrate where competitors for their own services (and others') have grown, all so that they don't have to shell out the cash and slow pro?t growth just to provide consumers with a better product. They don't WANT to compete. They don't WANT capitalism. They want to keep their aging infrastructure and terrible customer service intact, because hey, they're scoring big. Well, they're ?nding out that people don't want 700 channels just to gain access to the two or three premium networks they really wanted. They're ?nding out that innovation and human achievement can exist outside of their pro?t margins (and happen more quickly to boot), and they don't like it, so they?re trying to ?nd the kill switch. I was willing to give you a chance to install some real language to protect this market, but unfortunately it appears that crony capitalism is going to win the day, so I'm writing in support of President I did not vote for in 2012, by the way. The ISPs can still make their money providing access, but don't you dare give them the power to control content by controlling the cost of access. We hear a lot about what would destroy the economy these days, all of that fear mongering. Well, here's the truth. If you let the ISPs stagnate the greatest and most innovative engine IN our economy to make their own greedy little ?ngers happy, we really will have problems. I want REAL net neutrality. I want Title II. I want a protected free market. Sincerely, i? Hill Mike ORiellz From: Amy Bender Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:28 PM To: Mike ORielly; Erin McGrath Subject: FW: O'Rielly: Title 11 net neutrality will increase consumer Internet bills From: QUINN JR., ROBERT Wm] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 2:26 PM To: Amy Bender Subject: Fwd: O'Rielly: Title II net neutrality will increase consumer Internet bills And does not include state and local taxes that automatically apply to telecom Sent from my Black Rotary Dial Title 2 Regulated Telephone Begin forwarded message: From: CLAUDIA Date: November 14, 2014 at 11:18:02 AM PST To: JAMES JR., ROBERT Date: November 11, 2014, 4:06:23 PM EST To: "Cohen, David? , "Scalzo, Lisa" ?Panarese, Kate" , "Wertz, Meredith? "Siegel, Kirsten" "Henderson. Liesl" MW -- Comcast\\NBCU DC Team]" "Charlje?lawmediam'" "'saiLmackinnoancahlmam'" "Casserly, James" , "Fennell, . "McDonald, Christopher (Colorado)" "Gage, Tim (Atl)" "Waz, Joe" "Jenckes, Marcien" , "Strauss, Matthew" Subject: Comcast Bloc: Surprise! We Agree with the President's Principles on Net Neutrality Nov 11, 2014 Surprise! We Agree with the President?s Principles on Net Neutrality: Reiterating Our Strong Support for the Open Internet By W, Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Of?cer in Qzenjntemet Yesterday, the WM his plan for a free and open Internet. There has been no shortage of discussion and debate on the topic of net neutrality. A clear consensus has emerged for the to adopt new rules that will strengthen the open Internet and ensure that the Internet remains a vital engine for innovation, economic growth, and free expression. And while some have been led to believe something else, wesunmnnetneutralitx. And we?ve been consistent in expressing our strong support for an open Internet in statements, speeches, Marianas, ?lim and advertising. What is remarkable is ?iat if you compare the President?s articulation of his vision for net neutrality as set forth in the White House talking points released yesterday afternoon, we are on the record as agreeing with every point: Free and open Internet. We agree - and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree?and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree - and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree - and that is our practice. We have nu_b_licl su unperted the CC adopting_ new, strong Open Internet rules. We have stated on numerous occasions that we believe legally enforceable rules should continue to include strong transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination provisions. We lutemettra?icn?mmnaidias?anes, and have no plans to do so. We applaud the President for laying out these principles and framing the broad areas of agreement that we have with him. There is one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: Doing so would harm future innovation and investment in broadband and IS not necessary to put in place strong and enforceable Open Internet protections. We continue to believe that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act provides more than ample authority to impose those rules, asthell??rcuiLmadeclean The policy the White House laid out yesterday would jeopardize this engine for job creation and investment as well as the innovation cycle that the Internet has generated. In fact, the White released last year that a light touch approach to regulation has fostered innovation and investment. In 2013, the top four combined??ibillion 1n the U. S. economy- with Comcast investing 6 billion 1n infrastructure in America, up from $5.7 billion 1n 2012. This investment has been made possible through the sound application of light touch regulation and it is simply indiSputable that Title II would put these signi?cant investments in jeopardy and diminish innovation and job creation as a direct result. Furthermore, reclassifying services that have been regulated as information services would reverse over a decade of bipartisan precedent, including ?ndings by the Supreme This is not game playing or sophistry on our part. We believe in having strong and enforceable Open Internet rules. We just believe that the courts have laid out a clear legal path to accomplishing that result under Section 706 which will enable the country to avoid the adverse investment and innovation impacts of Title 11. Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent. People can be for net neutrality and against Title that simply represents agreement on the why, but not the how. In sum, we unequivocally support rules that put in place the necessary protections of transparency, no blocking, non-discrimination rules, and no "fast lanes" but there is no upside gained by imposing Title II reclassi?cation as a way to put these protections in place, only substantial risk of harm. Amy Bender From: Amy Bender Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 10:51 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Fw: Comcast Blog: Surprise! We Agree with the President's Principles on Net Neutrality From: Zachem, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:45 PM To: Amy Bender Subject: Fwd: Comcast Blog: Surprise! We Agree with the President's Principles on Net Neutrality Amy, FYI - wanted to keep you all on the loop. Hope you are well, Kathy Begin forwarded message: From: "Fitzmaurice, Sena" Date: November 11, 2014, 4:06:23 PM EST To: "Cohen, David" ?Rudnay, D'Arcy" . "Schwartz, Sam" ?Emma "Banse, Amy" , "Khoury, Jennifer" ?Demming, John" "Restivo, Steven" "Bacha, Beth" . "Farley, Brian" "Oravez, Kate" "Douglas, Charlie (coapr' ?an. "Palau, Joshua" "Scalzo, Lisa" "Panarese, Kate" "Shadle, Joel" , ?Wertz, Meredith" "Siegel. Kirsten" "Henderson, Liesl" -- Comcast\\NBCU DC Team]" "'Eitan Bencuya "'Brian Dietz 'Joy Sims? "'Bailmackinnon?tmahlem?" "Fenne" KlaYton ?Gibbs, John" "Brady, Michael" , "Reilly, Mark "McDonald, Christopher (Colorado)? "Gage, Tim (Atl)" "Waz, Joe" deem?mmcastm, "Jenckes, Marcien" "Strauss, Matthew" Subject: Comcast Blog: Surprise! We Agree with the President's Principles on Net Neutrality Nov 11, 2014 Surprise! We Agree with the President?s Principles on Net Neutrality: Reiterating Our Strong Support for the Open Internet By QM, Executive Vice President and Chief Diversity Of?cer in lentemet Yesterday, the his plan for a free and open Internet. There has been no shortage of discussion and debate on the topic of net neutrality. A clear consensus has emerged for the Egg to adopt new rules that will strengthen the open Internet and ensure that the Internet remains a vital engine for innovation, economic growth, and ?ee expression. And while some have been led to believe something else, WW. And we?ve been consistent in expressing our strong support for an open Internet in statements, speeches, ?lings. and advertising. What is remarkable is that if you compare the President?s articulation of his vision for net neutrality as set forth in the White House talking points released yesterday aftemoon, we are on the record as agreeing with every point: Free and open Internet. We agree - and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree?and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree - and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree - and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree - and that is our practice. We have WW, strong Open Internet rules. We have stated on numerous occasions that we believe legally enforceable rules should continue to include strong transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination provisions. We lntemthta?ianhaxe?md?sLlanes, and have no plans to do so. We applaud the President for laying out these pnnciples and framing the broad areas of agreement that we have with him. There IS one important technical legal difference of opinion between the President and Comcast: Titlc LL Doing so would harm future innovation and investment in broadband and is not necessary to put in place strong and enforceable Open Internet protections. We continue to believe that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act provides more than ample authority to impose those rules, Wear. The policy the White House laid out yesterday would jeopardize this engine for job creation and investment as well as the innovation cycle that the Internet has generated. In fact, the Whit__e released last year that a light touch approach to regulation has fostered innovation and investment. In 2013, the top four combined._4.6_hilhnn 1n the U. S. economy- with Comcast investing 6 billion in infrastructure in America, up from $5.7 billion 2012. This investment has been made possible through the sound application of light touch regulation and it is simply indisputable that Title 11 would put these signi?cant investments in jeopardy and diminish innovation and job creation as a direct result. Furthermore, reclassifying services that have been regulated as information services would reverse over a decade of bipartisan precedent, including ?ndings by the Sum This is not game playing or sophistry on our part. We believe in having strong and enforceable Open Internet rules. We just believe that the courts have laid out a clear legal path to accomplishing that result under Section 706 which will enable the country to avoid the adverse investment and innovation impacts of Title II. Being for net neutrality and against Title II is completely consistent. People can be for net neutrality and against Title II that simply represents agreement on the why, but not the how. In sum, we unequivocally support rules that put in place the necessary protections of transparency, no blocking, non-discrimination rules, and no "fast lanes" but there is no upside gained by imposing Title II reclassi?cation as a way to put these protections in place, only substantial risk of harm. Erin McGrath From: Mike ORielly Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:21 PM To: Susan Fisenne; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: Re: edit page inquiry on net neut Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 46 LTE network. From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:18 PM To: Mike ORielly; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: FW: edit page inquiry on net neut From: Freeman, James [mailtonames.Freeman@wsi.com] Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:18 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: edit page inquiry on net neut Hi Susan Working on an editorial for tonight. Has Mike put out a statement on Obama?s remarks? If he?s working on something but hasn?t distributed it yet, any chance we could have it exclusively for tomorrow?s paper? Thanks much, James Freeman Assistant editor, Editorial Page The Wall Street Journal 212-416-4885 Erin McGrath From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:32 PM To: 'Freeman, James' Subject: RE: edit page inquiry on net neut Hi James, Thanks for your email. Commissioner O?Rielly hasn?t put anything out on the President?s NN remarks, and he may not do so. However, if he does, you may have it exclusively. Susan From: Freeman, James Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 2:18 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: edit page inquiry on net neut Hi Susan Working on an editorial for tonight. Has Mike put out a statement on Obama?s remarks? If he?s working on something but hasn?t distributed it yet, any chance we could have it exclusively for tomorrow?s paper? Thanks much, James Freeman Assistant editor. Editorial Page The Wall Street Journal 212-4164885 Susan Fisenne From: Puzzanghera, Jim Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 12:43 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: LA Times request on Obama?s net neutrality statement Susan, Does the commissioner have any comment on President Obama's net neutrality statement? Thanks, Jim Puzzanghera National business writer Los Angeles Times Tribune Washington Bureau 1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC, 20005 Office 202-824-8345 Cell 202-309-2421 Email WW Twitter @Jim Puzzanghera Web: From: Jamie 51555ng To: Peraertz; Carol ri il Ar ris; David Goldman: Nicholas Deoani: Jeffrey We; mm; Cc: Diane Cornell; Renee Grenorv: Julie Veach; Rooer Sherman; Nese Guendelsberger; Jonathan Sang;- Stephanie Ming Subject: RE: Open Internet Remand Public Notice Date: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:14:39 AM Attachments: DA-14-211A1 Open Internet Remand PN.pdf Ali, i wanted to follow up and let you know that the PN was released at 11am. I have attached a copy here for your reference. Thanks Jamie Non?Public: For Internal Use Only From: Louis Peraertz Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:00 PM To: Carol Simpson; Rebekah Goodheart; Priscilla Argeris; David Goldman; Nicholas Degani; Jeffrey Neumann; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath; Adonis Hoffman Cc: Diane Cornell; Renee Gregory; Julie Veach; Jamie Susskind; Roger Sherman; Nese Guendelsberger; Jonathan Sallet; Stephanie Weiner Subject: Re: Open Internet Remand Public Notice I'm adding Adonis Hoffman, our Chief of Staff and Media Advisor, to the Chain. Louis Peraertz *8 Sent from my Blackberry From: Carol Simpson Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 04:02 PM To: Rebekah Goodheart; Louis Peraertz; Priscilla Argeris; David Goldman; Nicholas Degani; Jeffrey Neumann; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath Cc: Diane Cornell; Renee Gregory; Julie Veach; Jamie Susskind; Roger Sherman; Nese Guendelsberger; Jonathan Sallet; Stephanie Weiner Subject: Open Internet Remand Public Notice Advisors: Thanks, Caro? Carol Simpson Deputy Chief, Competition Policy Division Wireiine Competition Bureau 202/418?2391 NonmPubiic: For ?nterna Use Only Amy Bender From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 7:10 PM To: Mike ORielly; Amy Bender Subject: FW: Questions Attachments: FCC Cost-Benefit Analysis Responsepdf FYI From: McLean, Sean Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 6:32 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Questions Thanks Courtney! i went ahead and provided the questions to leg affairs so there aren?t any surprises tomorrow. Attached is Chairman Wheeler?s response to our cost?benefit analysis request. From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 3:25 PM To: McLean, Sean Subject: RE: Questions Good here. Here are some additional ideas per our convo and your boss?s interests: 0 A prior FCC Chairman (Genachowski) made a commitment to this Subcommittee that the FCC would comply with Executive Order [3563 ?haprrn'irre Regulation and Regulatory including the provisions on conducting cost?benefit analyses. Will you make that same commitment to us new"? 0 Note I: it may be helpful to provide this question to Sara Morris in advance so they can he prepared to respond rather than say, don?t know what that is. II have to read it and get hack to you." it?s also more fair to operate that way. 0 Note 2: [And in case it would be helpful, the commitment is on page 3 of the testimony from Chairman Genachowski: The Net Neutrality NPRM that you recently released does not appear to contain :1 substantive cost-benefit analysis. Will you commit to complete such an analysis before deciding whether to adopt any rules? From: McLean, Sean Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 11:22 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Questions Hi Courtney, Great speaking earlier. Here are a few angles that lot Carpenter mentioned that might be good for next week. Interested to see what you think since you are literally in the trenches at the FCC and have better insight than we do. 1 Best, Sean The budget proposal states that the agency protects and empowers consumers by ?ensuring that FCC policy, rulemaking, and enforcement documents clearly explain the basis for decisions to affected parties, Congress, key constituencies, and the public.? 23). Yet, nowhere is a cost?benefit analysis mentioned. So my question is how can the agency protect consumers, who ultimately bear the costs associated with regulations, without knowing anything about the costs or the benefits of proposed rules? Chairman Wheeler, as you know, the Commission?s funding is derived from fees paid by those the FCC regulates. However, those regulated by the FCC are not the only entities that impose on the Commission. In the ?net neutrality? context, for example, companies like Google, Facebook and Net?ix want the FCC to act on their behalf and often petition or visit the agency in support of those efforts, yet they ?free ride? because they do not bear the burden of paying regulatory fees. As they seem ready and willing to rely on regulation to help their businesses, how would you recommend that these entities share in the cost of funding the agency? Amz Bender From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:29 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender Subject: RE: fyi Blackburn letter. letter to chairman wheeler.pdf From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:14 PM To: Mike Amy Bender Subject: RE: fyi (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 2:13 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender Subject: fyi Marsha Blackburn @MarshaBlackburn lm Will @TomWheelerFCC conduct a cost benefit analysis for #FCCNetNeutrality? 2 Am! Bender From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:36 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: FW: BFA Letter Submission Attachments: FINAL CEO Letter to FCC fyi From: Alix Anfang Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:44 PM To: Ruth Milkmen; Tom Wheeler; Mignon Clyburn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly Subject: BFA Letter Submission To the Federal Communications Commission: On behalf of Broadband for America the attached letter is meant for submission to the Federal Communications CommissiOn. Regards, Alix Anfang On behalf of Broadband for America May 13,2014 Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington DC. 20554 Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O?Rielly: For more than a decade, America?s broadband companies (including companies that depend on the broadband ecosystem) have worked to ensure that their customers can enjoy access to world class broadband services consistent with the Commission?s clearly articulated core Internet freedoms. An Open Internet is central to how America?s broadband providers operate their networks, and the undersigned broadband providers remain fully committed to Openness going forward. We are equally committed to working with the Commission to find a sustainable path to a lawful regulatory framework for protecting the open Internet during the course of the rulemaking you are launching this week. That framework must promote investment and opportunity across the Internet economy, from network providers to app developers, for the bene?t of American consumers. In recent days, we have witnessed a concerted publicity campaign by some advocacy groups seeking sweeping government regulation that conflates the need for an Open Internet with the purported need to reclassify broadband Internet access services as Title II telecommunications services subject to common carrier regulation. As demonstrated repeatedly, the future of the open Internet has nothing to do with Title II regulation, and Title II has nothing to do with the open Internet. As it did in 2010, the Commission should categorically reject efforts to equate the two once and for all. The high stakes of this debate have already been demonstrated. Today?s regulatory framework helps support nearly 11 millionjobs annually in the U.S. and has unleashed over $1.2 trillion dollars of investment in advanced wired and wireless broadband networks, as well as an entirely new apps economy. We see an average of over $60 billion poured into cable, ?ber, ?xed and mobile wireless, phone, and satellite broadband networks each and every year. And broadband gets better every year: the average broadband speeds jumped 25 percent in 2013 alone, highlighting there are no ?slow lanes? in today?s Internet. Yet even the potential threat of Title II had an investment-chilling effect by erasing approximately ten percent of some market cap in the days immediately surrounding the Title II announcement in 2009/10. Today, Title II backers fail to explain where the next hundreds of billions of dollars of risk capital will come from to improve and expand today?s networks under a Title II regime. They too soon forget that a decade ago we saw billions newly invested in the latest broadband networks and advancements once the Commission af?rmed that Title 11 does not apply to broadband networks. Reclassi?cation of broadband Internet access offerings as Title II ?telecommunications services? would impose great costs, allowing unprecedented government micromanagement of all aspects of the Internet economy. It is a vision under which the FCC has plenary authority to regulate rates, terms and conditions, mandate wholesale access to broadband networks and intrude into the business of content delivery networks, transit providers, and connected devices. Indeed, groups pushing the Title 11 approach fail to acknowledge that their path forward is in fact a slippery slope that would provide the Commission sweeping authority to regulate all Internet? based companies and offerings. In defending their approach, Title II proponents now argue that reclassi?cation is necessary to prohibit ?paid prioritization,? even though Title II does not discourage-wlet alone outlawmm paid prioritization models. Dominant carriers operating under Title II have for generations been permitted to offer different pricing and different service quality to customers. Not only is it questionable that the Commission could defensibly reclassify broadband service under Title II, but also such an action would greatly distort the future development of, and investment in, tomorrow?s broadband networks and services. America?s economic future, as envisioned by President Obama and congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle, critically depends on continued investment and innovation in our broadband infrastructure and app economy to drive improvements in health care, education and energy. Under Title H, new service offerings, options, and features would be delayed or altogether foregone. Consumers would face less choice, and a less adaptive and responsive Internet. An era of differentiation, innovation, and experimentation would be replaced with a series of ?Government may requests from American entrepreneurs. That cannot be, and must not become, the US. Internet of tomorrow. We should seek out a path forward together. All affected stakeholders need and want certainty and an end to a decade of legal and political wrangling. All parts of the Internet community should be focused on working together to develop next?generation networks, applications, and services that will be critical to our global competitiveness and enhance opportunities for all Americans. Yet, those demanding the Title 11 common carrier approach are effectively compelling years?if not decades?of endless litigation and debate. The issues at stake would include not simply regulating the Internet under Title II, but also which specific provisions of the monopoly-era statute apply to modern broadband networks. Collectively, we would face years more of uncertainty and, as a result, an economy deprived of the stable regulatory framework needed to promote future investment, innovation and consumer choice. As it begins its rulemaking process, the Commission should reaf?rm its commitment to the light- touch approach that has ensured America?s leadership throughout the Internet ecosystem, from networks to services, from applications to devices. The US. experience was not a foregone conclusion. It was the result of courageous and bipartisan leadership that rejected old regulatory mandates in favor of a new, nimble paradigm of government oversight. We urge you to continue down that path at this critical juncture. Sincerely, Thomas R. tanton Chairman CEO ADTRAN tig?y@?k_ Amy Tykeson CEO BendBroadband XL Glen Post President CEO CenturyLink [ii/film]! Robert Currey Chairman CEO Consolidated Communications Gary Shorman President CEO Eagle Communication Uta] Anand Vadapalli President CEO Alaska Communications {my ,5 hf. (M Steve Miron Chairman CEO Bright House Networks 4% w" it" Tom Rutledge President CEO Charter Communications Patrick J. Esser President Cox Communications Paul H. Sunu CEO FairPoint Randall L. Stephenson Chairman CEO 2? Brian Sweeney President Cablevision RM Brian L. Roberts Chairman CEO Comcast 5/71 Steve Largent President CEO CTIA The Wireless Association Maggie Wilderotter Chairman CEO Frontier Qua.? Ronald Duncan President CEO GCI 8M WW Patrick McAdaragh President CEO Midcontinent Communications Chris French President CEO ShenTel Communications Z. Grant Seiffert President Telecommunications Industry Association 525% (2 Walter B. McCormick, Jr. President CEO USTelecom Eric Yeaman President CEO Hawaiian Telcom John Evans Chairman CEO Nelson County Cable and Evans Telecommunications Co. Richard J. Sjoberg President CEO Sjoberg's Cable 1 Robert D. Marcus Chairman CEO Time Warner Cable .MWWM mm- mm Lowell C. McAdam Chairman CEO Verizon Rocco Commisso Chairman CEO Mediacom Communications Michael Powell President CEO National Cable Telecommunications Association (3m Jerald L. Kent Chairman CEO Suddenhnk Amy Bender I From: Mike O'Rielly Sent: Tuesday, Jannary 14, 2014 ?:09 PM To: Erin McGrath,? Amy Bender Subject: Fw: Verizon statement on DC. Circuit decision Attachments: Final VZ NR Verizon Reaction to DC Circuit on Open Internet Rules 1 l4 l4.pdf Fyi From: Grillo, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:35 PM To: Mike O'Rielly; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Verizon statement on D.C. Circuit decision Please see the attached statement from Ra Milch ?just released. Kathleen M. Grillo Senior Vice President Federal Regulatory Affairs Verizon 1300 Street, NW Suite 400W Washington, DC 20005 (202) 515-2533 Amz Bender From: Mike O'Rielly Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 6:23 PM To: Subject: haroldfeld @haroldfeld 14m Dear #Cogent, now good time [0 ask CC to regulate peering. #706wishlist Expand Amy Bender From: Amy Bender Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:02 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Fw: Six new net neutrality principles? From: Amy Bender Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 12:12 PM To: Mike O'Rielly; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Sub?ect: FW: Six new net neutrali rinci les? From: Schwartz, Matthew Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:57 AM To: Amy Bender Subject: Six new net neutrality principles? HI Amy. I was looking through what the commissioners said at an MMTC cyent a couple weeks ago. and I notice Clyhurn said that she will "support the chairman us he lays out the next steps on ?hat I believe is a high?level sci ol?six principles that set clear signals both to consumers and companies." Do you know what six princmles she's talking about" ls ll something from Wheeler's ol'l'ice'.? Has a document been making the rounds? I appreciate your help. Matt 202350-4523 Matthew S. Schwartz Communications Dail) Wireline Editor Amy Bender From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 2:04 PM To: Mike ORielly; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath Subject: Fw: Open Internet Fyi b? 6' From: Ron Barker [mailtozron.barker sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 01:53 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Open Internet Dear Sirs, Your efforts to counter the initiatives envisaged by Wheeler at alia, although commendable, represent misplabunced efforts. The focus of your efforts ought to be the debunking of the "innovation" myth. Have you ever heard of, or perhaps even read the Apalogeticae of the Holy Inquisition? If so you would know that the juridical argumentation presented in the decision of those judges to burn the witches are considered to be some of these eloquent and logical of the arsjurisprudens. However, they all suffer from a major flaw, women flying atop broomsticks is contrary to the laws of physics-? And..so is the logic of Net Neutrality. You probably are far too young( have seen your photos) to have participated in the internet from the very beginning. have. The internet is anything but static, which is the underlying assumption of the NN folks. it has evolved from a peer to peer, protocol /connection/content -iP address neutral, bi-directional packet switched communications technology emulating the traditional telephony concept of device A contacting device or vice versa in real time with no intermediating service interaction other than packet routing to what today is basically a unidirectional, content and protocol aware architecture. This has resulted in a cumbersome patchwork designed specifically to address inherent de?ciencies arising from the introduction of classless domain routing, the lack of address space, and the omission of any sort of security in the original IP design. Content distribution services based on HTTP Protocol, NATTED va4, poor makeshift security in the form of and have evolved to dominate the usage paradigm and have effectively blocked or encumbered to the point of economic irrelevance any other IP based service. The addiction to reminds one of a junkie on heroin, and Net Neutrality is but a methadone treatment plan. The day and age of server client WEB is quickly coming to a close and will be supplanted by an MS paradigm, evidence by the recent petition of to the FCC to migrate legacy CS telephony to It is exactly these deficits that have engendered the evolution and development of va6 Next Generation Network architecture and the ability to manage differential service genera. Nevertheless, the proponents of NN seem to assume that any measure to encourage competition to WEB based content distribution will discourage innovation. A peculiar definition of innovation. For they define ?innovation" as yet another bandwidth hogging advert-financed client~server WEB service exhibiting all of the well know routing security and addressing problems. And, it is the responsibility of the carriers continually to invest in infrastructure to accommodate even more of these ?innovations" and God-forbid, not suggest that someone has to pay! May I suggest that is poppy-cock and bunkums? Or rather an Inquisition-logic based apologetica? The next evolutionally step is mobility. Hence the real focus ought to be on the impact for the mobile future. For those whose affinity to the physics of radio high frequency tends to approach null, it might come as an unpleasant surprise to learn that the HTTP protocol is the WORST possible transmission protocol for a radio frequency based mobile environment. HTTP based content distribution over a mobile network is extremely bandwidth and energy inefficient, especially in the 25/36 environment. The physics of HF signal attenuation play havoc with the TCP van Jacobsen algorithm which results in significantly higher OPEX cost for the radio bearer operator dropped packet retransmission are destroying the spectrum budget) but the NN folks demand that those responsible for this air clutter pay nothing for their largess This eo ipso ought to convince even the most ardent supporter of MN to reconsider. The notion of ?yet another bright idea(WEB of course being born in the proverbial garage? is rather disingenuous. NN proponents obviously are unaware of or conveniently ignore the fact that down-link and up?link bandwidths are already handled differently principal reason why mobile cloud is an oxymoron), that there is a distinction between peering and transit, that addressing is highly restrictive and that their archetype garage table?top innovator is at the mercy of a hosting agency to service his/her next WEB service. However, it seems that these are virtues for the proponents of NN. The questions to the NN proponents: Ought not up/down link be handled equally; ought not the access to global addressing be equal as well? Hence we see that NN not only offers a poor path to competition, it actually inhibits such. And, to make matters worse, you wish force me to pay for all of the bandwidth hogging advertising garbage in this mobile environment after all, the available spectrum is limited, unlike cable. Why are you denying me the consumer to choose between varying classes of services, one with and one without ad-financed connectivity if I am willing to pay for it? Why are you denying or inhibiting the development of non-server based. Host-Z?host application, mission critical emergency response services requiring traffic management and possibly throttling of Face-Book or traffic of similar ilk? Of course, at the center ofthe discussion is how do we address the competition issue? What is needed is the awareness that the attributes protocol, bandwidth, latency and host addressing are the most relevant of one particular application genera ought not dominate or dictate the rules for development and deployment of other applications having differing band?with, latency and addressing requirement. As the network evolves toward a mobile iP managed architecture, we need to re?focus the discussion on assuring "application neutrality". This term loosely envisages establishing rules that address the specific requirements of individual applications. Mission critical applications must be handled differently from social networks, lP telephony must be as at least as reliable and secure as legacy circuit switched. This alone renders the entire NN position untenable, since the prospect of real?time, host-Z?host and dynamic bandwidth allocation based on application needs will engender a wave of innovation hitherto unimaginable. NN effectively discourages this form of innovation. As if this were insufficient, there remains as ratio ultimo regis, the fact that there is a reasonable case to be made for considering NN as adverse to national security. i leave that to you and your staff to consider. I hope that these comments are well taken? Regards Ron Barker Amy Bender From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:09 PM To: Mike ORielIy; Amy Bender Cc: Erin McGrath Subject: FW: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?Rielly on FCC Chairman Wheeler's "Open Internet" Announcement Attachments: NN News Release 2 19 14.dot FYI From: Ajit Pai Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:57 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?Rielly on FCC Chairman Wheeler?s ?Open Internet? Announcement (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:55 AM To: Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Jeffrey Neumann Subject: FW: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?Rielly on FCC Chairman Wheeler?s ?Open Internet? Announcement From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:19 AM To: Matthew Berry Subject: FW: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?Rlelly on FCC Chairman Wheeler?s ?Open Internet? Announcement FYI From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:19 AM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Susan Fisenne; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Statement of FCC Commissioner O?RieIly on FCC Chairman Wheeler?s ?Open Internet? Announcement FYI Susan Susan Assixlzini (.H'Iicc Mikc (I'Riclly Fulcrul Communications Commission Washington. DC. 30554 Amy Bender From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:12 AM To: Mike O'Rielly; Amy Bender; Erin McGrath Subject: FW: Open Internet decision Attachments: O].pdf FVI From: Jacob Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:03 AM To: Philip Verveer; Ruth Milkman; Gigi Sohn; Daniel Alvarez; Adonis Hoffman; Alison Neplokh; Matthew Berry; Courtney Reinhard Cc: Jonathan Sailet; Stephanie Weiner; Richard Welch; James Carr; Julie Veach; Roger Sherman Subject: Open Internet decision (5) Amy Bender I From: Amy Bender Sent: Friday. April 25, 2014 4:49 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: FW: My blog post on the Chairman's proposed network neutrality rules (ex parte] Attachments: van Schewick 2014 FCC ex parte 20140425.pdf; From: Barbara van Schewick Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:22 PM To: Cc: Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: My blog post on the Chairman's proposed network neutrality rules (ex parte) Dear Commissioner O?Rielly, Today, I published a blog post titled "The FCC changer! Course on network neutrality. Here is why you should care? that discusses the Chairman?s proposed network neutrality rules. The post reacts to the confusion that was created by the disconnect between the press reports, the reactions claiming that network neutrality is dead and the Chairman?s statement that the new rules do not constitute a change in FCC policy. The post makes four points: I. Allowing access fees is a significant reversal from the earlier policies as set forth in the Open Internet Order. 2. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to allow access fees. 3. Allowing access fees is bad policy. 4. If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Internet, it needs to start asking real questions about reclassification in its upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The post argues that the proposed rules, which caused alarm among supporters of an Open Internet, are the logical outcome of the Chairman?s decision to use Section 7'06 of the Telecommunications Act to achieve the goal that we all share protecting the Open Internet. Fortunately, the FCC has another option: The FCC can reclassify Internet service as a telecommunications service and adopt network neutrality rules under Title of the Telecommunications Act - rules that are unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by Section 706. To ensure that reclassi?cation does not result in onerous regulation, the FCC should immediately forbear from applying those Title II provisions that are not necessary to protect consumers. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[t]he commission has decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility However, the commission has left the reclassification option on the table at present." As the blog post explains, Section 706 seriously limits the FCC's ability to adopt meaningful network neutrality rules. so "leaving the reclassification option on the table" is not enough. If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Internet, it needs to do its due diligence and seriously explore all available options, and that requires asking real questions about reclassification in the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I just submitted the post as an ex parte. The cover letter and the blog post are attached to this e-mail. The post is available online here: whv~vou~should?care. Best, Barbara van Schewick Barbara van Schewick Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar Director, Center fer Internet and Society Stanford Law School Author of "Internet Architecture and Innovation,? MIT Press 2010 Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA94305-8610 Phone: 650-723 8340 E-Mail: schewick?stanfordedu Amy Bender From: Amy Bender Sent: Friday, April 2'3, 2014 918 AM To: Mike ORielly Subject: RE: FCC BLOG POST: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:24 AM To: Amy Bender Subject: FW: FCC BLOG POST: SEWING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES (5) From: Neil Grace Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:15 AM To: press Subject: FCC BLOG POST: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES Please find below a blog post from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler it will be posted on fcc.gov. Thanks Neil Neil Derek Grace Seuior Communications AdVisor Federal Communications Commission (0) 202-418-0506 202-413-4959 neil.grace@fcc.gov Setting the Record Straight on the FCC's Open Internet Rules By Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission. The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the DC. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals oftransparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice dogfollow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach. It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end ofthe year. To be very direct, the proposal would estabiish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the internet will not be permitted. Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here: 1. The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be ?commercially reasonable.? Acting within the constraints of the Court?s decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is ?commercially reasonable.? in addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court?s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal. 2. it should be noted that even Title II regulation [which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative) only bans "unjust and unreasonable discrimination.? The allegation that it will result in anti-competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the "commercially unreasonable" test will protect against: ha rm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity. To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose: 1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users ali relevant information as to the policies that govern their network; 2. That no legal content may be blocked; and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. You have received this release from the FCC Office of Media Relations. To all of the latest FCC headlines go to the . If you wish to stop receiving releases send a blank email to leave-536M4- Midwest Video u, 440 us. at roos n.1s ?1 Verlzon, no F.3d at 656, Doro Roaming Order, 25 FCC Rod. at 5433, para. 45. See generally Amendment of the Commission?s Rules Related to Retransmission Consent, MB Docket No. 10-71, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14?29 (rel. Mar. 31, 2014). See Adam Clark Estes, WSJ: The FCC's New Net Neutrality Rules Will 0K Pay?to?Play, Gizmodo.l:om (Apr. 23, 2014}, Amy Bender From: Amy Bender Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:43 AM To: Mike ORieIly Subject: Re: FCC BLOG POST: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES No, but I'm looking into it. From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:24 AM To: Amy Bender Subject: FW: FCC BLOG POST: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON HIS OPEN INTERNET RULES Any idea what is highlighted piece? From: Neil Grace Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 11:15 AM To: press Subject: FCC BLOG POST: SEITING THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON OPEN INTERNET RULES Please find below a blog post from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler- it will be posted on fccgoy. Thanks - Neil Neil Derek Grace Senior Communications Adviser Federal Communications Commission {oi 202?418-0506 (mi 202-413-4959 neil.grace@fcc.gov Setting the Record Straight on the Open Internet Rules By Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman There has been a great deal of misinformation that has recently surfaced regarding the draft Open Internet Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that we will today circulate to the Commission. The Notice proposes the reinstatement of the Open Internet concepts adopted by the Commission in 2010 and subsequently remanded by the D.C. Circuit. The Notice does not change the underlying goals of transparency, no biocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination among users established by the 2010 Rule. The Notice follow the roadmap established by the Court as to how to enforce rules of the road that protect an Open Internet and asks for further comments on the approach. it is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year. To be very direct, the proposal would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted. Incorrect accounts have reported that the earlier policies of the Commission have been abandoned. Two points are relevant here: The Court of Appeals made it clear that the FCC could stop harmful conduct if it were found to not be ?commercially reasonable." Acting within the constraints of the Court's decision, the Notice will propose rules that establish a high bar for what is ?commercially reasonable.? In addition, the Notice will seek ideas on other approaches to achieve this important goal consistent with the Court?s decision. The Notice will also observe that the Commission believes it has the authority under Supreme Court precedent to identify behavior that is flatly illegal. It should be noted that even Title II regulation {which many have sought and which remains a clear alternative} only bans "unjust and unreasonable discrimination.? The allegation that it will result in anti~competitive price increases for consumers is also unfounded. That is exactly what the "commercially unreasonable? test will protect against: harm to competition and consumers stemming from abusive market activity. To be clear, this is what the Notice?ll propose: 1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network; That no legal content may be blocked; and That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity. You have received this release from the FCC Of?ce of Media Relations. To view all of the latest FCC headlines go to the . If you wish to stop receiving releases send a blank email to leave?536704? 85 l42.94fe8faee325648f5ecl 7093ccf7c82b@ info.fcc.eov Amy Bender From: Amy Bender Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 8:38 AM To: Mike ORielly; Courtney Reinhard Subject: (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 08:28 AM To: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender Subject: (5) ceciliakang I Is FCC Chair: reports we're gutting net neutrality "flat out wrong," but he's got lots ofexplaining to do http://wumst/ . . Katy Bachman @katvontheliill scrambles to clarify its #netneutralitv rules @adweek UPDATE 33 Courtney Reinhard It I From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:17 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: FW: Commissioner Statement on Delaying Internet Regulation Vote Attachments: Statement on Internet Regulation 5-8-14.pdf Here we go From: Buskirk, Howard Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:49 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: Commissioner Statement on Delaying Internet Regulation Vote Courtney, Are you going to put out anything? We've more or less heard from eveiyone else. From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 1:46 PM To: Undisclosed recipients Subject: Commissioner Pai Statement on Delaying Internet Regulation Vote Attached is Commissioner Pai?s Statement. Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce of Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202?418-2001 This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Securitycloud service. For more information please Visit Courtney Reinhard I I From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:27 PM To: Mike ORieliy; Amy Bender Subject: Fw: NN Letter from E8LC Attachments: 20140513 Fyi From: Redl, David Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 07:25 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Subject: NN Letter from Staff I forgot to send a copy earlier. Sorry alE. i hope by now you?ve actually gotten to see the items the bosses are expected to vote. I may have even more ammo from the Hill on this issue stay tuned. David Courtney Reinhard From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:44 AM To: Mike ORielIy Subject: RE: cool (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 11:43 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: cool (5) Amv Schatz @Amv Schutz 47m Republican FCC members still haven?t seen #NetNeutralitv draft, A iitI?aiFCC?s of?ce says. Calls on @Tom to "stop blocking? them. ceciliakang @ceciliakang 23m As of Republican FCC members hadn't seen new proposal, according to Pai of?ce. Dems are on "fast lane" they complain. Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORielly Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:19 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Fw: new nn regs (5) From: Mody, Arjun (RPC) lmailto:Ariun Modv@rpc.senate.cml Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 01:43 PM To: Mike ORielIy Subject: new nn regs Hey Mike Hope yo u?re well. I?m going to have my boss mention your May 15 meeting and proposed rule making at policy lunch tomorrow. If there was one key thing he should mention what would be most helpful for that room? Thanks! Adun Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORielly Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 2:55 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: new nn regs From: Mody, Arjun (RPC) lmailtozAriun Mody@rpc.senate.qovl Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:43 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: new nn regs Hey Mike Hope you're well. I?m going to have my boss mention your May 15 meeting and proposed rulemaking at policy lunch tomorrow. If there was one key thing he should mention what would be most helpful for that room? Thanks! AUun Courtney Reinhard From: Mike Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:15 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: fyi Aiit Pai @AiitPaiFCC 11m I have grave concerns with Chairman's proposal on #NetNeutralitv and side with enworcel against a May vote. Courtney Reinhard From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:38 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: press query re Republican Commissioners' access to revised draft NPRM (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 1:37 PM To: Mike Subject: Re: press query re Republican Commissioners' access to revised draft NPRM (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 01:01 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: press query re Republican Commissioners' access to revised draft NPRM From: Stanton, Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 12:36 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: press query re Republican Commissioners' access to revised draft NPRM Commissioner Pai today released a statement regarding lack ofaccess for Republican Commissioners to the revised open Internet NPRM being circulated for this week?s meeting. I was wondering if you had any comment on that issue? Stanton Senior Editor, Telecommunications Reports TRDaily Wolters Kluwer Law Business 1015 15th St. NW, 10th Floor Washington, DC 20005 202-842-8921 lstanton@tr.com lynn.stanton@wolterskluwer.com Courtney Reinhard From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:41 PM To: Mike OREeiiy Cc: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Subject: RE: Moziila petition And here?s the Reed Hastings blog post: From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 4:25 PM To: Mike ORielly Cc: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Subject: petition Can befound here: (since it is not yet available through ECFS) Courtney Reinhard From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:01 PM To: Mike ORielIy; Courtney Reinhard Cc: Erin McGrath Subject: RE: Net Neutrality Statement From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:30 PM To: Mike ORielly; Courtney Reinhard Cc: Erin McGrath Subject: Net Neutrality Statement Here?s the draft NN statement. Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:35 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Amy Bender Subject: RE: ICYMI: JOINT RELEASE: Senate Republican Leaders to FCC: Leave Internet Open and Free (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:33 PM To: Mike ORielly; Amy Bender . I: JOINT RELEASE: Senate Republican Leaders to FCC: Leave Internet Open and Free From: Quinalty, David (Commerce) [mailto:David Quinalty?commerce.senate.qov] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 03:26 PM To: Quinalty, David (Commerce) Subject: ICYMI: JOINT RELEASE: Senate Republican Leaders to FCC: Leave Internet Open and Free In case you missed it, Please find below a joint release issued by Senate Republican leaders regarding a letter they sent to the FCC today about regulation of the Internet. From: Strong, AshLee (Republican-Cont) Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:24 PM Subject: JOINT RELEASE: Senate Republican Leaders to FCC: Leave Internet Open and Free @Hntteh ?tatea $211312 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 'I?hune: AshLee Strong 202?228-5940 May 13, 2014 McConnell: Michael Brumas 202-224?2979 Cornyn: Megan Mitchell 202?224-0704 Ban?asso: Emily Schillinger 224?6441 Blunt: Amber Marchand 202-224-1403 Moran: Garrette Silverman 202-224-6521 Senate Republican Leaders to FCC: Leave Internet Open and Free WASHINGTON, Senate Republican leaders, including Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), Whip John Comyn (R-Texas), Conference Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee John Thune (R-South Dakota), Policy Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), 44 Conference Vice Chairman Roy Blunt (R-Missouri), and National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Jerry Moran (R?Kansas), today sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler urging the Commission to abandon any efforts to impose so?called ?net neutrality? regulations on the Internet. In their letter, the senators underscore the ?politically corrosive? nature of the contemplated regulations, and urge the FCC to reject calls to impose Title II regulations on ?the nation?s competitive and dynamic broadband economy.? The letter highlights the danger to the Internet of treating it as a government?regulated utility. The Senate leaders say, ?Rather than attempting further legal contortions to encumber modern communications networks with last century?s rules, the Commission should work with the Congress to develop clear statutory authority and direction for the agency so that it can be a productive regulator for the 21 st century marketplace.? The full leadership letter is included below. May 13, 2014 The Honorable Thomas Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW. Washington, DC. 20554 Dear Chairman Wheeler: We write to reiterate our strong concerns with any proposal that would have the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) apply monopoly-era Title II regulations to our nation?s competitive and dynamic broadband economy. The growth of the Internet and the rapid adoption of mobile technology have been great American success stories, made possible by a light regulatory touch for the entire online ecosystem. This approach has freed Internet innovators and users at the edge, the core, and the last mile to offer services, to build networks, and to buy and sell products based on market demand; no government permission has been necessary. Imposing common carrier-style regulation upon any part of the Internet would be a dangerous rejection of this successful policy course, potentially impeding the development and adoption of new Internet technologies and services, and threatening future investment in next-generation broadband infrastructure. The courts have twice struck down ill?advised and unauthorized attempts by the FCC to regulate the Internet. Unfortunately, you have chosen to have the FCC again undeitake a politically corrosive rulemaking, relying upon new and untested court?de?ned powers rather than upon clear Congressional intent and statutory authority. Of even greater concern would be using Title II of the Communications Act to regulate broadband, which some voices have called for in recent days. So?called ?net neutrality? restrictions are unnecessary, but using Title II reclassification to impose them would create tremendous legal and marketplace uncertainty and would undermine your ability to effectively lead the FCC. Rather than attempting fuither legal contortions to encumber modern communications networks with last century?s rules, the Commission should work with the Congress to develop clear statutory authority and 45 direction for the agency so that it can be a productive regulator for the 2lst century marketplace. If the Commission will not do that, we urge it to reject new ?net neutrality? regulations, particularly any which rely upon Title II. 46 Mike ORi?ly I From: Mike ORielly Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:27 PM To: Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: (BN) Web Fast?Lane Backlash Gets FCC's Wheeler to Offer Tougher 255?- ceciliakang @ceciliakang 6111 Update (2) F1ustration lS "bipartisan? according to one of?cial at a commissioner's of?ce. #Nethutrality ceciliakang @ceciliakang 14m Update: CC of?cial: no new #netncutrality plan seen yet, "Considerable frustration" 72hrs to vote members getting updates from press From: Amy Bender Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:25 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Mike ORielly Subject: RE: (BN) Web Fast-Lane Backlash Gets Wheeler to Offer Tougher (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:07 PM To: Mike Cc: Amy Bender Subject: FW: (BN) Web Fast?Lane Backlash Gets FCC's Wheeler to Offer Tougher From: Todd Shields Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 2:58 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: (BN) Web Fast-Lane Backlash Gets Wheeler to Offer Tougher Courtney,coming your way soon if not already there (the proposal that is). best-ts 202 624-1909 Todd Shields Bloomberg News media, tech, telecom reporter - Washington (202) 624-1909 (office) FCC TECH (202) 624?1909 Wheeler Raises Possibility of Web Price Rules in New Plan 2014?05?12 18:21:27.9 GMT By Todd Shields May 12 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler will raise the possibility his agency could set prices for Internet service as he seeks the votes of colleagues who resisted his ?rst plan, an agency of?cial said. Wheeler?s new plan discusses placing Internet providers under regulations that give the FCC more leeway to set rules, which carriers say may lead to price regulation. It doesn?t change Wheeler?s stance for a case?by?case approach that would grant the agency less power over Web services, said the of?cial who spoke on condition of not being named because the proposal hasn?t been made public. The new wording lets the FCC consider a tougher approach urged by advocacy groups, who say the agency needs to protect ?net neutrality,? the concept that all Web traf?c is treated equally. Cable providers and telephone companies such as Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. say such an approach would deter investment. Wheeler?s revised open?Internet plan offers more checks on Web fast lanes than what he proposed earlier, which had sparked a backlash with companies such as Google Inc. saying the idea poses a ?grave threat? to an open Internet. He set a preliminary vote for May 15. Wheeler is responding to a court?s rejection in January of rules the FCC passed in 2010 and to objections from two Democratic colleagues who join him in the majority. Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel last week said she was concerned with his proposal and called for delaying the vote for a month. Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said she has been opposed to payment for faster service. FCC Votes The agency?s two Republicans have criticized open?Internet rules, saying they represent unnecessary regulation. In 2010, rules passed with only Democratic votes at the agency. Wheeler?s revised plan asks whether companies should be forbidden from allowing fast-lane service for their af?liates, said the FCC of?cial. Some media companies that offer Internet service also offer Web content, including Comcast Corp.?s NBC and on?demand movies. The revised proposal asks more questions about adopting rules that would apply a section of law written last century for 55 telephone networks. Advocacy groups such as Washington-based Public Knowledge are asking the FCC to take a stronger approach. ?We are encouraged,? Michael Weinberg, vice president at Public Knowledge, said in an e-mail. ?The FCC must take public concerns about a fast lane and slow lane online seriously, and the first step to doing so is asking real questions that explore all of its options.? Robert Quinn, senior vice president for federal regulatory issues, in a ?ling posted today on the FCC website said adopting the more stringent path would pose ?risks and harms? such as deterring investment and ?all but scuttle the administration?s ambitious broadband agenda.? President Barack Obama has made it a priority to expand access to high-speed Internet service, or broadband. When the FCC considered applying the more*stringent rules in 2010, said in a filing the approach could include price regulation of retail Internet service offerings. For Related News and Information: Web Companies See ?Grave Threat? in FCC Internet Fast?Lane Plan NSN N58ATW6JIJUY Internet Fast?Lane Far From Done Deal as Debate Begins NSN N4K1006K5 OXX Comcast Bid for Time Warner Cable Dogged by Access Gripes NSN N59PNH6K50Y7 Top Stories:TOP FCC stories: NI FCC To contact the reporter on this story: Todd Shields in Washington at or tshields3@bloombergnet To contact the editors responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at +1?202-654?7361 or bkohn2@bloomberg.net Elizabeth Wasserman, Romaine Bostick 56 Mike ORielly From: Mike Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:18 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Thursday (5) Thank you! (6) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 05:14 PM To: Mike ORieily Subject: RE: Thursday (5) From: Mike ORielIy Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 4:50 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Thursday (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 02:50 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: RE: Thursday (5) From: Mike Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Fw: Thursday (5) From: Nagesh, Gautham Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2014 09:52 AM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Thursday Good morning, I?m really sorry to disturb you on the weekend, but these are extraordinary times for us, as you?re well aware. I was really hoping you can chat today about the vote on Thursday and thought it might be best to just reach out directly, in case you don't want anyone to know. I want to make sure I'm clear on where everyone stands and I have already spoken to most of the folks involved. I know this is all very sensitive, so I can assure you that nothing will come back to you if you don't want it to. I'm available on my cell phone at any time, day or night: 517u414~8151. I'll follow up later ifI don't hear from you. Hoping to file by lunchtime tomorrow (Sunday) for Monday's paper. Thanks and I look forward to speaking with you. Best, Gautham Nagesh The Wall Street Journal 202?862-9229 @gnagesh 61 Mike ORielly From: Jessica Rosenworcel on behalf of JR Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:09 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: RE: FYI my first op?ed Thanks! From: Mike Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 8:59 AM To: Jessica Rosenworcel; JR Subject: FYI -- my first op-ed Just an so you aren?t surprised. The attached op?ed ran in The HiEi today. Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:34 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath Subject: FW: Do You Wear Sponsor Logos Like Nascar (5) Original (6) From: Rob Blevins [mailtoz Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:34 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Do You Wear Sponsor Logos Like Nascar To: Chairman Wheeler and the rest of the Federal Communications Commission, You, sir, are bought and sold like a cheap prostitute. Well, maybe it wasn?t cheap, but you're still a whore for hire. We want action for democratic media, not platitudes as smokescreens for corporate domination of the Internet. We want net neutrality! Your mother would be so proud! Rob Blevins US 137 Mike ORielIy From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 10:49 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) . From: Mike ORieIly Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:01 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Mike ORieIly Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:42 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: FW: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Barnes, Peter Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:35 PM To: Susan Fisenne 140 Cc: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O?Rieliy 4/23/ 14 Open Meeting Statements Susan, Who handles media requests for the Commissioner? Looking interview with us on the Chairman?s new ?net neutrality? Thanks Peter B. PeterBarnes Senior Washington Correspondent Fox Business Network (202) 684?4008 office (202) 769-7937 cell (202) 684-4000 generai bureau From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:50 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Susan Fisenne; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Commissioner O'Rieliy 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Susan Susan Fisenne Confidential Assistant Office of Commissioner Mike O?Rieiiy Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 (202) 418?2301 141 Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:55 PM To: Courtney Reinhard RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Subject: From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:43 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:42 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: FW: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements (5) From: Barnes, Peter Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:35 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Commissioner O'Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Susan, Who handles media requests for the Commissioner? 145 Looking interview with us on the Chairman?s new ?net neutrality? Thanks. Peter B. Peter Barnes Senior Washington Correspondent Fox Business Network (202) 684?4008 office (202) 769?7937 ceil (202) 684?4000 general bureau From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:50 PM To: SUsan Fisenne Cc: Susan Fisenne; Courtney Reinhard Subject: Commissioner O?Rielly 4/23/14 Open Meeting Statements Susan Susan Fisenne Confidential Assistant Office of Commissioner Mike O'Rielly Federal Communications Commission Washington, DC 20554 (202) 418?2301 146 Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 5:03 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: FW: Draft op?ed Attachments: Draft Edge Provider Op-Ed v2.rl.docx (5) From: Harold Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 4:09 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Re: Draft op?ed Commissioner, Great column. I make just a couple of tiny suggestions in the attached redline. This is an issue that has not gotten enough attention, and I like the way you framed it as a threat to the edge providers. Best, Harold Harold Economic Enterprises 1200 New Hampshire Avenue, NW. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 776-2032 cell: (301) 219-3904 From: Mike ORieIly Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:48 PM To: Harold Subject: Draft op-ed Harold, Per our previous conversation at the end of the wain breakfast, I wonder whether you would look at the attached draft document I worked on and share any of your thoughts and expertise. Any insight you can provide this week would be appreciated. No worries if you are busy on other things. All my best, mp. 150 Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Wednesday, April 23, Subject: As mentioned Attachments: Draft Edge Provider Op-Ed v2.docx Would be interested in your thoughts on this draft. Keep it close as it is a work in progress. Your expertise would be most appreciated as soon as possible given the timing. And I do want to follow up on the other part of the call whenever works for you. 151 A Maj or Warning to Internet Edge Providers by FCC Commissioner Michael O?Rielly Internet application and content companies, what some refer to as ?edge providers,? are increasingly concerned by the newfound ability to regulate the Internet, and rightfully so. For years, edge providers?Pandora, Google, WhatsApp, Uber, to name just a few?have ?ourished from the government?s hands?off approach to the Internet. Both Republicans and Democrats championed a structure that allowed the ?application layer? of Internet architecture to be free from government intervention, apart from occasional Federal Trade Commission activity. That is now subject to change. A very real threat 1s that edge providers could fall within the each of the FCC newly derStandable that we will hear calls for? ?regulatory parity.? The lations then stick it to everyone, equally. We have ?ll the record With arguments that 11 mg section 706 to impose a nondiscrimination rule on Google, Microsoft or Yahoo algoriihm or service would encourage broadband deployment. To further thlSi 3 int, consider the contractual ?ght over retransmission consent between CBS and Time Warner last :During the disagreement, in addition to pulling its signal off of the cable system, CBS blocked Time wamer Internet customers from accessing web-?based content, even outside the territory of dispute. In this instance, it wasn?t the broadband provider involved but the owner of the content: CBS and its edge provider unit. This controversy was eventually resolved, but not before it prompted some calls for the Commission to investigate supposed net neutrality ?violations.? As consumer demand for popular content increases, this will likely become a recurring issue. What happens under a net neutrality regime if Net?ix, YouTube, or Amazon withholds its valuable content from end users to extract a price from broadband providers? The only logical conclusion for supporters of net neutrality is to extend the burden to everyone: broadband providers and edge providers. Beyond the issue of net neutrality, we are already seeing the FCC use section 706 as legal justi?cation for other actions. In January, for example, the FCC moved forward to establish IP trials to examine issues related to migration to all-IP networks, and that item cited section 706 as a source of authority. It begs the question, what else could the FCC do in the name of advancing broadband deployment? The possibilities are endless and could easily reach edge providers. A more concrete and near?term possibility that I am very concerned about is regulating cybersecurity. It would be a very deep stretch to suggest that the Communications Act gives the FCC jurisdiction over this subject matter. And yet, the FCC is interested in becoming a relevant player on the issue The only way to achieve that seems to be some type of interpretation of section 706 With countless edge providers that build and maintain applications or webs?es that are vulnerable to Internet security threats, these could readily come under the purview of the under this line of thinking I view edge providers as a signi?cant highlight in our economy They are tirelessly innovating, growing, and meetingwoften exceeding?consu er expectations So I worry that the FCC 1s about to go down a slippery slope that will create regulatory uncertainty for broadband providers and edge providers alike This will chill the needed investment and/??eX1b111ty that is fueling this innovation and job growth. Edge providers should demand that the" FCC return section 706 ?66 1:8 original intent and wait on Congress to provide the FCC with direction onih' we should regulate, if at all 11he networks and services of the digital age. Mike ORielly From: Mike ORielly Sent: Monday, April 28,2014 11:52 AM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Edge Provider Op-ed - DRAFT Attachments: Edge Provider Op-Ed v7.docx (5) From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 9:42 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Fw: Edge Provider Op-ed - DRAFT From: Berin Szoka Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 06:46 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Edge Provider Op-ed - DRAFT Basic structure and argument is great. I know it looks like really just tried to ?nesse, clarify, etc. I think it's critical to explain the difference between the regulation the FCC could issue now and the way the internet is policed today which is "regulation" of a very different sort and not what most people think of when they use that term. On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Courtney Reinhard wrote: Perfect thank youll From: Berin Szoka Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 02:42 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Subject: Re: Edge Provider Op-ed - DRAFT FY: I'm working on this. Should have it back to you Sunday. On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Courtney Reinhard Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM To: Seton Motley Subject: RE: Net Neutrality Round Ill, Hi Seton, Our staff is getting together tomorrow morning. bring this up at that time and let you know! Take care, Susan From: Seton Motley Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:13 PM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: Net Neutrality Round Greetings, Miss. May i please ask a TOTALLY off the record favor? if you all are willing and able - will you or someone else in your glorious office please give me some idea of what the looming proposed Net Neutrality rules once you receive and digest them? i would be most sincerely appreciative. Mucho danke schon. Seton Seton Motley President Less Government Twitter: @SetonMotleg Fa ce book: Susan Fisenne From: Amy Bender Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:29 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: Brittany Gomes Subject: FW: Time to meet tomorrow? Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Susan I just received a request for a meeting tomorrow for me and the Commissioner with Stanford Professor Barbara van Schewick regarding Net Neutrality. lb) (5) (5) Original From: Barbara van Schewick Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 5:14 PM To: Amy Bender Cc: Elaine Adolfo Subject: Time to meet tomorrow? Dear Amy, I?m a Professor of Law and (by courtesy) Electrical Engineering at Stanford and an expert on network neutrality. During the Open Internet Proceeding, I testified at several FCC Workshops and worked closely with the Commission on the substance of the Open Internet Order. The Open Internet Order relied heavily on my work. You can find more information about me here: I'm in DC today and tomorrow and am meeting with Commissioner Rosenworcel, Commissioner Clyburn, Commissioner Pai, and others at the Commission to talk about the DC Circuit's decision in Verizon v. FCC, the Commission's next steps regarding network neutrality, and Comcast's recent agreement with Netflix. I would be interested in meeting with you and, if he is available, Commissioner O'Rielly as well. I realize this is at very short notice, but I wanted to at least try. if you don't have time for a meeting, I could also stop by briefly tomorrow and introduce myself. Tomorrow, i would be able to meet from 10-10:30am, 11:30am -12:30pm and then again from 2:30pm-3pm. I copy Elaine Adolfo who is in charge of my schedule. Best, Barbara Barbara van Schewick Associate Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar Director, Center for internet and Society Stanford Law School Author of "lnternet Architecture and Innovation," MIT Press 2010 Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA94305-8610 Phone: 650-723 8340 E-Mail: schewick@stanford.edu Susan Fisenne From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 4:17 PM To: Mike ORielly; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Cc: Susan Fisenne Subject: RE: Reminder: AEI Previews FCC Open Meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged (5) From: Mike ORielly Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:13 PM To: Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Amy Bender Cc: Susan Fisenne Subject: FW: Reminder: AEI Previews FCC Open Meeting This 15 more info on that invite we discussed, From: Jim Glassman Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:03 PM To: Mike ORielly Subject: Reminder: AEI Previews FCC Open Meeting Greetings, This is a reminder to come to the inaugural Pre" breakfast, an invitation-only event of AEl?s Center for Internet. Communications, and Technology Policy (CICT). You will be joining a small group of experts to preview the the upcoming FCC open meeting on Feb. 20. We now know that the meeting agenda includes closed captioning and E911 location accuracy. We will be discussing other issues as well. including net neutrality, and issues the group cares to raise. Pleasejoin us on NEXT WEDNESDAY. February 12. from 8:30 to 10:00 am. at AEl?s office on 1150 17th St NW, Washington, DC. A full breakfast will be served. To RSVP or request further information, please contact research assistant. Guro Ekrann, at quro.ekrann@ael.orq. Sincerely, Jim Glassman Visiting Scholar American Enterprise Institute Susan Fisenne From: Gwain@sol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:56 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: gudwin@aol.com Subject: Re: Next Tuesday?s Breakfast Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged Thanks, Susan, to you and the Commissioner for being so conscientious! I know lolks will be interested in the spectrum auctions, Net Neutrality, IP transition, intra?industry consolidation, FCC -process reform. Back to you soon with the attendees list so Jerry In a message dated 252014 1:50:45 PM. Eastern Standard Time, Susan.Fisenne@fcc.oov writes: Great, thanks, Jerry! Again, he just wants to be sure to cover topics that are of interest to those attending. From: Gwain@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 1:45 PM To: Susan Fisenne Cc: gudwin@aol.com Subject: Next Tuesday's Breakfast Hi, Susan. Large turnout, and continuing to grow. Will get list to you within the hour. No podium; the Commissioner simply will speak, siting down, informally, for a few minutes on whatever subjects are of greatest interest to him; follows. All off-the-record. Back to you shortly with the latest Best, Jerry Susan Fisenne From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:19 AM To: Susan Fisenne Subject: FW: Federalist Society Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed lb) (5) From: Dean Reuter Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:51 AM To: Lee Carosi Dunn; Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Federalist Society Thanks, Lee, and Hello Courtney. As Lee suggests, it would be terrific if we could get the Commissioner on one of our Teleforum conference calls. We do these 60-minute calls weekday afternoons with a live audience. I have pasted below our stock invitation language, which describes the calls, to give you an idea of the format. After opening remarks by the Commissioner, we?d use the balance of the time for Please let me know if there is interest, and we can discuss getting something on the calendar. Obviously, l'm also happy to answer any questions you might have. Best, Dean Reutei 202?822-8138 I would like to invite you to participate in one the Federalist Society?s new programming formats, the Teleforum A Teleforum is essentially a telephone conference call with a live audience that generally attracts between 40 and 80 people. Speakers and audience members call into a common toll-free number. Each participating panelist makes brief opening remarks (5-8 minutes), after which we have general discussion among the participants, with the remainder of the time left for questions from the audience. The call is scheduled for 1 hour and 15 minutes (15 minutes with the speakers only followed by 1 hour call with the audience) and can be done from your office or home telephone. We generally record Teleforum calls and post them on our site as podcasts, where they are downloaded several hundred times. For recently posted podcasts, please visit the Federalist Society website at ??i?l?g??il?rgj?g?tl?dgtj?. was hoping you might be available for such a program on the topic of . We have already confirmed to participate We would schedule the call at the convenience of the participants. Please let me know If you have any questions. I look forward to your reply. From: Lee Carosi Dunn Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:10 AM To: Courtney Anderson Reinhard; Dean Renter Subject: Federalist Society Courtney, I wanted to introduce you to Dean Renter of the Federalist Society. I know Commissioner Pai participated in a Fed Soc telefoum and Dean was interested in seeing if Commissioner O?Reilly might be interested in doing so as well possibly to talk about the recent net neutrality decision and the Commissioner's recent comments on Section 706. Ihave copied Dean here and will leave you two to discuss this opportunity. Thanks! Lee Lee Carosi Dunn Go+ rgle Senior Counsel lcedun11@google.com Google Voice: (202} 346-1228 Android Mobile: (202] 384-2157 Susan Fisenne From: Courtney Reinhard Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:57 PM To: Mike O'Rielly Cc: Susan Fisenne Subject: Re: Interview for Mexican newspaper Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged (5) From: Mike O'Rieiiy Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 07:10 PM To: Courtney Reinhard Cc: Susan Fisenne Subject: FW: Interview for Mexican newspaper From: Claudia Ocaranza Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 7:09 PM To: Mike O?Rielly Subject: Interview for Mexican newspaper Hello O?Reiley. am Claudia Ocaranza. tech reporter for a Mexican newspaper named Excelsior. i am working on a story about the Net Neutrality and the last decision of the DC. Circuit. I've already read what Mr. Wheeler wrote on his biog about the topic. but there are some questions I have. would you be interested in having an interview with me? It can be by phone or by e-mail. This is the link of the website of the newspaper: i write ior the print edition. Thank you very much. Best, Claudia. Non-responsive From: Susan Fisenne Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 11:17 AM To: EDOCSHELP Cc: Sharon Hurd; Courtney Reinhard Subject: RE: Doc ID 325120 O'Rielly's item on Net Neutrality. Thanks. Goodrnormng, Theie replace his net neutrality statement. on the. web with the attached ccrrected version? Thank. you so much and thanks Sharon for the catch! Susan Non-responsive Susan Fisenne From: Erin McGrath Sent: Wednesday, January 15. 2014 11:13 AM To: Mike O'Rielly; Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard; Susan Fisenne Subject: RE: Run of Show and Sample Questions for MMTC's 2014 FCC Commissioners Breakfast Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Mike O'Rielly Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:59 AM To: Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Susan Fisenne Subject: Re: Run of Show and Sample Questions for MMTC's BBSJ 2014 FCC Commissioners Breakfast From: Mike O'Rielly Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:41 AM To: Amy Bender; Courtney Reinhard; Erin McGrath; Susan Fisenne Subject: FW: Run of Show and Sample Questions for MMTC's 885) 2014 FCC Commissioners Breakfast From: Maurita Coley [mailtozmcoley?mmtconline.orq] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 10:38 AM To: Erin McGrath; Lori Alexiou; Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate; Jonathan Adelstein; Caitlin Coiligan; Tim House; Drema Johnson Cc: Valery Galasso; Ajit Pai; Mike O'Rielly; Mignon Clyburn; David Honig Subject: Re: Run of Show and Sample Questions for MMTC's 8881 2014 FCC Commissioners Breakfast Dear Commissioners Please note the attached updated run of show for your pane] tomorrow morning from 8 am to 9:15am. We look forward to seeing you in a few hours. In view of the net neutrality decision yesterdaywe ask that the speakers be prepared for the following additional questions: 1 What rs your lleE?SSIOi?i of the C. Circurt's decisior in Verizon v. FCC and how will ire derision impart people of color and other underserver?. 2 Do we need a new Tole/Lorrirrmnications Act? MMTC 5th Annual Broadband Social Justice Summit Bridging the Gap: Infrastructure, Education, Equity in the Digital Economy FCC Commissioners? Breakfast Roundtable Thursday, January 16, 2014 8:00 a.m. 9:15 a.m. Washington Ballroom Westin Georgetown Hotel, 2350 Street NW, Washington, D.C. Producer: Joycelyn James, Senior Counsel and Cathy Hughes Fellow. ijames@mmtconline.org, (5) - [I?or Dorrissa Grif?n, d2riffin@mmtconlinc.org, (6) Description: FCC Commissioners discuss broadband adoption, foreign investment and other possible solutions for bridging the wealth gap and championing America?s way back to economic recovery and global competitiveness. Presiding Officers Hon. Deborah Taylor Tate, Former FCC Commissioner Hon. Jonathan Adelstein. Former Commissioner. FCC: President. PCIA Panelists llUll. Mignon ('thum. NSC lion Ajil FCC Hon Michael (TRielly, (?unmiissmner. FCC Run of Show: 8:00 Presiding Officers? Opening Remarks and introduction of Speakers 8:10 Panel Opening Remarks 8:25 Panel 9:00 Audience Questions 9: 10 Closing Remarks On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:33 PM. Maurita Coley wrote; Erin and Lori: Attached are sample questions that Hon. Deborah Taylor-Tate, Former FCC Commissioner, has prepared for consideration by Commissioner Pai and O'Rielly at next week's FCC Commissioners Breakfast at 2 MMTC's Broadband and Social Justice Summit. Former FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein will also join the fun as in what we know will be another fun, signature event at our conferences. Please try to arrive 20 minutes prior to the start of the breakfast, if possible. Also note that the time has changed (8am to 9:15am instead of9230am). I am copying Valery, in case Commissioner Rosenworcel can stop by. If you have questions, suggestions/recommendations or concerns, please do not hesitate to give me or Joycelyn James, MMTC's Senior Council and Cathy Hughes Fellow, call cell cell cell Thursday, January 16, 2014 - FCC Commissioners? Breakfast Roundtabie Washington Ballroom Description: FCC Commissioners discuss broadband adoption, foreign capital and other possible solutions for bridging the wealth gap, achievmg U.S. economic recovery, and improving U.S. global competitiveness. Co-Presming Officers: Hon. Deborah Taylor Tate, Former FCC Commissuoner Hon. Jonathan Adelstein, Former FCC CommISSIoner; Presudent, PCIA Speakers: Hon. Ajit Pal, Commissioner, FCC Hon. Michael O'Rieliy, Commissioner, FCC ONLINE REGISTRATION FOR 885] 2014 CLOSES AT 6PM MMTC Broadband and Social Justice Summit January 15-16, 2014 Westin Georgetown Hotel, Washington, D.C. Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Of?cer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council c/o I919 Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington. DC 20006 Email: mcolev@ mmtconlineorg Direct: 202422.44] Fax: 202?973-4499 Visit: and Ajit Pai From: Barbara van Schewick Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:25 PM To: Ajit Pai Cc: Nicholas Degani; Matthew Berry Subject: My blog post on the Chairman's proposed network neutrality rules (ex parte) Attachments: van Schewick 2014 FCC ex parte 20140425.pdf; Dear Commissioner Pai, Today, I published a blog post titled "The FCC changed course on network neutrality. Here is why you Should care? that discusses the Chairman?s pr0posed network neutrality rules. The post reacts to the confusion that was created by the disconnect between the press reports, the reactions claiming that network neutrality is dead and the Chairman?s statement that the new rules do not constitute a change in FCC policy. The post makes four points: 1. Allowing access fees is a signi?cant reversal from the earlier policies as set forth in the Open Internet Order. 2. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to allow access fees. 3. Allowing access fees is bad policy. 4. If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Internet, it needs to start asking real questions about reclassi?cation in its upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The post argues that the proposed rules, which caused alarm among supporters of an Open Internet, are the logical outcome of the Chairman?s decision to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to achieve the goal that we all share - protecting the Open Internet. Fortunately, the FCC has another option: The FCC can reclassify Internet service as a telecommunications service and adopt network neutrality rules under Title II of the Telecommunications Act rules that are unencumbered by the restrictions imposed by Section 706. To ensure that reclassi?cation does not result in onerous regulation, the FCC should immediately forbear from applying those Title II provisions that are not necessary to protect consumers. According to the Wall Street Journal, "[t]he commission has decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility . However, the commission has left the reclassi?cation option on the table at present." As the blog post explains, Section 706 seriously limits the FCC's ability to adopt meaningful network neutrality rules, so ?leaving the reclassi?cation option on the table" is not enough. If the FCC is serious about protecting the Open Internet, it needs to do its due diligence and seriously explore all available options, and that requires asking real questions about reclassi?cation in the upcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. I just submitted the post as an eX parte. The cover letter and the blog post are attached to this e?mail. The post is available online here: why?vou?should?care. Best, Barbara van Schewick Barbara van Schewick Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar Director, Center for Internet and Society Stanford Law School Author of "Internet Architecture and Innovation," MIT Press 2010 Crown Quadrangle 5 5 9 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA943 05-8610 Phone: 650?723 8340 E~Mail: schewickEDstanfordedu Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:45 PM To: ew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr; Daniel Graulich Subject: lity-rules/91 16157/ Pai recommended that the agency seek out economic studies of the proposed rules but looked at the positive in that the vote resulted in a "bipartisan agreement on net neutrality." Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 6:50 AM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Fw: You Fuvking Bought For, Robber Baron Ass Wipes (5) From: (6) mailto(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 02:55 AM To: Tom Wheeler; Mignon Clyburn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly Subject: You Fuvking Bought For, Robber Baron Ass Wipes So, you overlords vetoed net neutrality, huh? Rot in hell, every last one of you pieces of shit. And take your bloodlines with you. I detest each and every one of you. Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:06 AM To: Matthew Berry (Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov) Subject: FW: Comments to the Commissioner Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:42 AM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Comments to the Commissioner (5) rites: I recently came across an article about the FCC's plans to create "fast lanes" within the internet that would force companies and consumers to pay extra to receive additional speed. While you might assume that it will not be "forced", I can assure you that people will have to pay extra just to receive adequate speeds for daily activities. From a businessman's perspective, it would only make sense. This is a gateway to destroying the freedom of the internet. You are stifling innovation and allowing large companies to take control of the free market. You are corrupting the system. I know that you used to work as a lobbyist for cable companies, I know that you are likely being well paid, and I know that your current stance on net neutrality is one of selfishness and greed. By placing your personal interests ahead of the public's, you are doing irrevocable harm to our nation. Your name will be tarnished. The people will NOT stand for this. It is inconceivable that you believe that ending net neutrality would be a positive change for anyone besides major corporations. In fact, I know you don't believe that, Ajit. You are selling out the fate of our country only to line your pockets. You are impeding the growth of our nation. Once net neutrality is ended, it will be nearly impossible to revisit the issue. Your actions will have hugely negative repercussions for years to come. Don't make yourself a target, Ajit. You know what is right. Server protocol: Remote host: 192.168.199.16 Remote IP address: 192.168.199.16 Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:15 PM To: Kris Monteith; Ruth Milkman; Frederick Bucher Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: RE: You suck Thanks to all of you! I?m grateful for all you do, not least in distasteful situations like this. From: Kris Monteith Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:14 PM To: Ruth Milkman; Ajit Pal; Frederick Bucher Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: RE: You suck Ditto. We also let Fred know about this type of thing when the CAMS get horrible calls and emails. He takes care of us! Kris From: Ruth Milkman Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:12 PM To: Ajit Pai; Kris Monteith; Frederick Bucher Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: RE: You suck Yuck. Thanks for letting us know. Ruth From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:11 PM To: Ruth Milkman; Kris Monteith; Frederick Bucher Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: FW: You suck Greetings all, I?ve gotten a stream of vitriolic emails on the topic of Net neutrality and usually brush them off without a second thought, but I?ve been getting a few like this one of late and wanted to bring the phenomenon to your attention. An unfortunate byproduct of a public email address, I suppose! Best, Ajit From: Brandon mailto Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:25 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: You suck Your name is impossible to pronounce and I fucking hate what you want to do to the internet. Boogie2988 sent me and together we will fucking kill your cause. I hate you and your corporate buddies. BURN IN Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, May 13r 2014 11:36 AM To: Matthew Berry Cc: Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Brilliant Line! From: Bruce Mehlman Sent: Tuesday, May 13,. 2014 11:35 AM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Brilliant Line! Game ball to Berry! 5/131'14 10:23 AM EDT FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has kept the commission's Republicans in the dark about his revised net neutrality proposal, according to a top aide to Commissioner Ajit Pai. ?When it comes to the Chairman's latest net neutrality proposal, the Democratic are in the fast lane and the Republican Commissioners apparently are being throttled," Matthew Berry, Pai's chief of staff, said in a statement. ?The Chairman's Of?ce should end this discrimination and stop blocking the Republican Commissioners from seeing the Chairman's latest plan." Wheeler made revisions to his net neutrality plan on Monday, ahead of a scheduled FCC vote on the proposal on Thursday. The chairman's initial plan sparked outrage from public interest groups, major tech companies and Senate Democrats for allowing Internet-service providers like and Verizon to charge companies like Google and Facebook for a fast lane to deliver content. Tony Romm Bruce Mehlman Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti, inc. 1341 Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington. DC 20005 202-585-0251 Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:50 PM To: ?Freeman, James' Subject: RE: Following up You?re very welcome! Incidentally, as if on cue, the head of the Wyoming wireless ISP I mentioned to you made the following tweet in response to my posting of today's dissent. Rather tidiiy illustrates the point I was trying to make. From: Freeman, James Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:30 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: RE: Following up A pleasure for me as well, Ajit. Thanks much! From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 4:28 PM To: Freeman, James Subject: Following up HelIoJames, A pleasure to chat with you a few minutes ago! I appreciate your taking the time. As promised, here is a link to my dissent from the Net neutrality proposal. Please don?t hesitate to get in touch if you would like to discuss further. Best, Ajit Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursda Ma 15 2014 5:53 PM To: Subject: Re: Comments to the Commissioner Hello Ethan. Thank you very much! I really appreciate your support. Best, Ajit Original Messag-(b) (6) Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 05:51 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Comments to the Commissioner Ethan Kinneylb) (5) writes: Hello, Commissioner Pai. I wanted to express my deep gratitude for your dissention to the decision to take matters of net neutrality into its own hands. You are one of many heroes keeping the Internet free and honest. Server protocol: Remote host: 192.168.199.16 Remote IP address: 192.168.199.16 Ajit Pai I From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:54 AM To: 'marvin@amrnorigroup.com' Subject: Re: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) Hey Marvin, I believe Lori has gotten or will get in touch, butjust wanted to say that I look forward to catching up, and couldn't agree more with your Hope all's well. Cheers, Ajit From: Marvin Ammori Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 09:46 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry Subject: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) Hi Ajit and Matthew, I am requesting a meeting on behalf of: Kickstarter Meetup Tumhlr We will be available Friday afternoon from 2:30 to 4 and from 4:30 to 5. I would love for them to meet you directly and explain why the issue matters to them and why they are concerned. Thank you. PS Really looking forward to seeing you guys more. Principal Ammori Group Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 4:04 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani Subject: Re: from NPR reporter/ open Internet rules (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 03:06 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Matthew Berry Subject: FW: from NPR reporter open Internet rules FYI Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant ()l?lice nl?(?ommissi0ner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12'? Street. sw Washington. DC 2055-1 202-418-2001 From: Joel Rose [mailto2JRose@npr.orq] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:33 PM To: Lori Alexiou Subject: from NPR reporter open Internet rules Hi Lori. Just checking to see if Commissioner Pai will have any statement on the Chairman's proposed open Internet rules. if so, please send it our way. Thanks! Best, Joel NPR Joel Rose Reporter irose@npr.org I 212.830.3441 Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 6:39 PM To: Matthew Berry: Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori AlexiOL Subject: Re: Setting up meeting w/Commissioner Pai re Open Internet (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 05:47 PM To: Nicholas Degani; Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: RE: Setting up meeting w/Commissioner Pai re Open Internet (5) From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:28 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: FW: Setting up meeting w/Commissioner Pai re Open Internet lwon?t overlap with Ajit any of these days (5) From: Jamie Susskind Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 5:27 PM To: Nicholas Degani; Lori Alexiou Cc: Michael Jacobs Subject: Setting up meeting w/Commissioner Pai re Open Internet Hi Nick and Lori, We would like to set up a 30-minute meeting with Commissioner Pai, preferably sometime next week, to brief the Commissioner on the forthcoming Open lntemet NPRM. Would the Commissioner be amenable to having this meeting, and, if so, would any of the following times work for his schedule? Monday, 4/28: loam, 1pm, 2:30pm, 4pm Tuesday, 4/29: 12pm, 12:30pm, 3pm, 3:30pm Wednesday, 4/30: 2:30pm, 3pm, 3:30pm, 4pm Thursday, 5/1: 2pm Friday, 5/2: 10am,10:30am, 1:30pm, 2:30pm Thanks, Jamie Jamie N. Susskind Legal Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Direct Dial: {202] 418-1525 Non-Public: For Internal Use Only (5) Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:37 AM To: Nicholas Degani; Matthew Berry: Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:13 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 From: Zachem, Kathy [mailtozKatiw Zachemc?Comcastcom] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 10:13 AM To: Priscilla Argeris; Amy Bender; Nicholas Degani; Rebekah Goodheart; Diane Cornell; Matthew DelNero; Ruth Milkman; Jonathan Sallet; Gigi Sohn; Philip Verveer; Stephanie Weiner Subject: Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 FYI. Please call if you have any questions. Kathy A. Zachern Senior Vice President, Regulatory 8 Stale Legislative Affairs Comcasl Corporation 300 New Jersey Avenue NW. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202-379-7134 Fax: 2023797149 Kathy Zachem?Comcasl com Assistant: Donna Crichlow - 202-379-71 18 - Donna CirichlomG-DComzasi.com ?it Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:39 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Call with David Honig From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:39 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Call with David Honig Importance: High (5) Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant ()l?l?ice Ajit Pm Federal Commiinimtinns Commission 44s Sti'cct. SW Washington, DC 20554 8-2001 From: Maurita Coley Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:36 PM To: Lori Alexiou Cc: Dorrissa Griffin Subject: Call with David Honig Importance: High Hi Lori: l'm trying to coordinate calls with David and each of the FCC Commissioners concerningthe Open Internet issue (given the extension of Sunshine until Wednesday). He only needs 5 or 10 minutes at the most to say his piece, and we will of course file an ex parte after the call. Here are his availability windows today is preferred if at all possible: Today, Monday May 12th ?3:15pm until Tomorrow, Tuesday, May 13th 8am to 11am Wednesday, May 14th, 1pm to 6pm Do you have any time for us for the Commissioner or key staff to talk to David on this issue? Maurita 202.422.4411 MMTC Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference Save the Date: July 28?29, 2014 Embassy Suites/Convention Center Hotel, Washington, DC. Maurita; Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council do 1919 Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Email: mcolev?mmtconline.org Email 2: mauritacoley@qmail.com Direct: 202.422.4411 Fax: 202-9?3-4499 Visit: and Ajit Pai - From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 5:14 PM To: 'Maurita Coley' Subject: RE: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Parte Ha! No kidding and that?s why l?rn trying to stay out of the kitchen! From: Maurita Coley Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 4:06 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Re: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Parte We are doing great hope you are too! It's hot hot hot, and notjust the weather From: Ajit Pai Subject: RE: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Pa rte Thank you, Maurita! Hope you, David, Joycelyn, Nicole, and the whole MMTC team are doing well. Cheers, Ajit From: Maurita Coley Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:43 PM To: Maurita Coley Subject: FW: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Parte Attached is a courtesy copy of Ex Parte letter filed in the Open Internet docket today. MMTC Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference Save the Date: July 28-29, 2014 Embassy Suitestonvention Center Hotel, Washington, D.C. Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council 010 1919 Avenue NW. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Email: mcolev?mmtconlineorq Email 2: mauritacoley@omail.com Direct: 202.422.4411 Fax: 202-973-4499 Visit: and A'Iit Pai From: Piecyk, Walter Sent: Friday, May 16. 2014 12:22 PM Subject: Media: Dear Internet Freedom Fighters: If You Believe Fast Lanes Will Destroy The Internet Please Answer This Question This is an important topic and thought you might want to read this blog written by my colleagues. Apologies if this is a duplicate. Richard Greenfield TMT Analyst 646?450-8680 rgreenfieldetigcom Brandon Ross TMT Analyst I Elsi-5213532 brossintig.c0m Click Here for the Full Blog Post: Dear Internet Freedom Fi hters: If You Believe Fast Lanes Will Destroy The Internet Please Answer This Question Up until a few years ago, most cable companies were providing Internet to their broadband customers using two 6 channels. Why should you care and how does this relate to the Net Neutrality or as many call it the ?Save the Internet" debate? Note: we are focusing on the cabl'e industry as an example, but this concept applies to other broadband providers as well The hybrid fiber coax that cable companies use to provide service to your home is traditionally 750 albeit many have increased the capacity oftheir pipes to 875 or 1 Lets stick with 750 to keep this simple. As you can see in the diagram to below right, traditionally 50 was used for the Upstream, encompassing everything from channel changes to to upstream Internet bandwidth. The remaining yoo was devoted to services broken up into 116 six- slots. Going back to the start of this blogl jus 2" of those 116 slots were devoted to Internet access or 2% of capacity with the overwhelming majority of cable?s HFC plant devoted to the Click Here for the Full Blog Post: Dear Internet Freedom Fighters: If You Believe Fast Lanes Will Destroy The Internet Please Answer This Question BTIG Research Home Page: BTIG Home Page: Unsubscribe Disclaimer: Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Wednesday. May 07, 2014 6:56 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Fw: Support Jessica! From: Individual mailto Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 06:33 PM To: Tom Wheeler; Mignon Clyburn; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly Subject: Support Jessica! Please support Commissioner Jessica in her call for a delay, and support her concemsl She is right to be concerned! Internet fast lanes are a BAD idea, and should no longer be considered at all! They only bene?t large companies, and even then, only the rich people in those companies! [ntemet fast lanes do not help the normal public! Reclassify the internet as a public service, because that is the best idea anyway. 1 read about Jessica in this article: bv?amazon-ebat?ioohtml Please support her, and realize that she is brave and correct in her feelings on intemet equality. Thanks for your time. Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 12:51 PM To: ebeeby@t3wireless.net Subject: RE: Comments to the Commissioner Hello Eric, Thanks so much for the kind words! I really appreciate the thought it's not easy defending a true free market, but I?m privileged to have a position where I can at least try, as imperfectly as I can, to make the case. Glad to hear it's resonating with some folks out there espec:ally a fellow Kansan! Best, Ajit -?--Original Message From: Eric Beeby Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 1:08 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Comments to the Commissioner Eric Beeby (ebeeby@t3wrreless.net) writes: Dear Commissioner Pai - I?m with a little System Integrator based in Council Grove Kansas (not *that" far from Parsons). I just saw a replay of yourJanuary 15 CNN discussion on Net Neutrality. I would like to commend you sir for your obvious devotion to true free market principles (as distinct from corporatism) in addressing many of the "problems" faced by the FCC including this one. (.5) I hope you will accept my sincere gratitude for your work there within "The Beltway" - you sir, give me hope! Kind regards, Eric Beeby t3 Wireless Dallas, Texas Server protocol: Remote host: 192.168.199.16 Remote IP address: 192.168.199.16 Brendan Carr From: Ajit Pai Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:51 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Re: Thanks for creating a new lower class (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 04:32 PM To: Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Re: Thanks for creating a new lower class (5) From: Ajit Pai Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 01:49 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Fw: Thanks for creating a new lower class (5) From: DivineWinds mailtozlb) (5) Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:37 AM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Thanks for creating a new lower class Dear Mr. Pai, I know you are on the right side of net neutrality but I wanted you to see the letter I sent to the others. Keep up the good fight! Dear (Wheeler, Clyburn. Rosenworcel) You are on the verge of further creating yet another class system where the richer you are the more rights you have. Information is power?and the fast and slow lanes you propose will add to the divide that already exists in this country. You have two or three voices pouring money into this and the whole nation on the other side. Democracy?? Information is power and you will allow the rich to profit from that and will relegate the poor to another substandard service which until now has been neutral. Where would the Arab Spring have gone if all the protesters were in the lane? So will you and all the other Federal Bureaucracies be in the SLOW lane?? NO. You will be in the fast lane after creating your caste system where the serfs will have to contribute their nickels and dimes to pay for YOU 1 to have what they cannot afford?just like good health care, and pensions and all the other perks the Congressional aristocracy have voted themselves. This is also JUST the tip of the iceberg. Once you set this precedent there WILL be ramifications further on you had not anticipated like in deregulating banking (we know how well that went). You are enriching the few at the expense of the many--~just like the banking laws. Have you ever thought about just stepping back and doing the right thing just once? Thank god for Mr Pai and Mr. O?Rielly who have some conscience as well as foresight into how horribly wrong governmental regulation at the bequest of the rich can go. So take your money and go vote. I know how it will turn out. Stephen Schulte DVM, retiree, and sick and tired of your injustice Brendan Carr From: Ajit Pai Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 1:09 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Comments to the Commissioner (5) From: Melissa Fortunatti Sent: Friday, May 16, 2014 12:52 PM To: Ajit Pai Subject: Comments to the Commissioner Melissa Fortunatti (melissa@troma.com) writes: I am the assistant to Lloyd Kaufman, President of Troma Entertainment and the creator of the ?Toxic Avenger" and I am commenting on his behalf. Mr. Kaufman believes ISPs should be classi?ed as common carriers. Net Neutrality should be preserved to protect innovation and the public good. I'm attaching Lloyd's article on net neutrality for you to read. Thank you. neutralityz Server protocol: Remote host: 192.168.199.16 Remote IP address: 192.168.199.16 Lori Alexiou From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:11 AM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry Cc: Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Net Neutrality Oral Statement Attachments: Pai Net Neutrality Oral Statementdocx Sorry, Lori. Please use this version of the NN statement. From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:08 AM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani Cc: Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Net Neutrality Oral Statement I?m printing them double spaced 24 font for you. Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce ofCommissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12?? Street. sw Washington, DC 20554 202?418?2001 From: Matthew Berry Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:07 AM To: Nicholas Degani; Lori Alexiou Cc: Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Net Neutrality Oral Statement (5) From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 10:05 AM To: Lori Alexiou Cc: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: Net Neutrality Oral Statement Lori, I?ve attached a copy ofthe NN oral statement. Best, -Nick D. Lori Alexiou From: Matthew Berry Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:52 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Subject: Re: LA Times request on net neutrality (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:31 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: LA Times request on net neutrality FYI Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce ofCommissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12'? Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202-418-200 I From: Puzzanghera, Jim Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:19 PM To: Lori Alexiou Subject: LA Times request on net neutrality Lori, Have you guys had a chance to review the NPRM yet. And if so, does the commissioner have any views on it? Thanks Jim Jim Puzzanghera National business writer Los Angeles Times Tribune Washington Bureau 1090 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC, 20005 Office 202-824?8345 Cell 202-309-2421 Email iim.puzzanghera@latimes.com Twitter @Jim Puzzanghera Blog Money 8: Co. Lori Alexiou From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 2:03 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Commissioner Pai's Remarks at the Mobile Future Forum (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:12 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Commissioner Pai's Remarks at the Mobile Future Forum (5) Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce of Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12'? Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202?418-200 I From: Seton Motley Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 1:10 PM To: Lori Alexiou Subject: Re: Commissioner Pai's Remarks at the Mobile Future Forum Oh and may I ask a TOTALLY off the record favor? Will you or someone else in your glorious office please give me some idea of what the looming proposed Net Neutrality rules once you receive and digest them? I would be most sincerely appreciative. Mucho danke schon. Seton Motley President Less Government Twitter: @SetonMotley Facebook: From: Seton Motley Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 12:55 PM To: Lori Alexiou Subject: Re: Commissioner Pai's Remarks at the Mobile Future Forum Just watched. Very nice. Seton Motley President Less Government Twitter: @SetonMotiey Facebook: From: Lori Alexiou Date: Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 12:48 PM Subject: Commissioner Pai?s Remarks at the Mobile Future Forum Attached are Commissioner Pai?s remarks. Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce of Commissioner Aj it Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202-418-2001 Lori Alexiou I From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 11:38 AM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: Re: Julie meeting with Commissioner Pai (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:58 AM To: Nicholas Degani; Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori Alexiou with Commissioner Pai From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:58 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Brendan Carr Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: FW: Julie meeting with Commissioner Pai (5) From: Jamie Susskind Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:55 AM To: Nicholas Degani Cc: Michael Jacobs Subject: Julie meeting with Commissioner Pai Hi Nick, Julie is scheduled to have her recurring meeting with Commissioner Pai on Thursday at llam. Is there a particular topic that the Commissioner would like to discuss during this time? Thanks, Jamie Jamie N. Susskind Legal Advisor, Wireline Competition Bureau Federal Communications Commission Direct Dial: (202) 418?1525 iamie.susskind@fcc.gov Non-Public: For Internal Use Only Lori Alexiou I From: Ajit Pai Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:04 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry Subject: RE: interviewing Commissioner Pai on CBS News Radio LA. to explain net neturality (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 12:04 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry Subject: FW: interviewing Commissioner Pai on CBS News Radio LA. to explain net neturality FYI Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce ofCommissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12?? Street. SW Washington, DC 20554 202?418-2001 From: Serviss, Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 11:59 AM To: Matthew Berry Cc: Lori Alexiou; Deanne Erwin Subject: interviewing Commissioner Pai on CBS News Radio LA. to explain net neturality Good morning Matthew, Lori and Deanne, I'm writing from CBS News Radio Los Angeles, I apologize for sending this email to all of you but I'm not quite sure who handles press requests for Commissioner Pai and wanted to be sure I found the right person. We would be honored to talk with him on our Thursday morning newscast (tomorrow morning) for a really quick, simple, live phone interview on the upcoming vote on net neutrality rules. Rather than quiz Commissioner Pai on how he might vote or even get into the politics surrounding the ?ow of information, data and commerce on the internet, we wanted to ask the Commissioner about why this matters to the little guy user--why someone with a basic broadband internet connection in their home should care about net neutrality rules. This would be a short segment, just a 3-minute interview with the Commissioner done over the phone, and it could happen somewhere in the Sam 51' hour or perhaps 9:20am Er, we have some ?exibility with the exact timing. We would be very grateful to present the Commissioner's views directly to our Southern California audience. Let me know what's possible and thanks so much for your help. Best, Jonathan Jonathan Serviss Producer, morning drive newscast KNX 1070 - CBS Radio Los Angeles Newsroom: 323-900-2070 Cell: 415-497-2131 Lori Alexiou From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:08 AM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Re: Call with David Honig (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 09:01 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Fw: Call with David Honig Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld From: Maurita Coley Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 05:55 PM To: Lori Alexiou Cc: Dorrissa Grif?n Subject: Re: Call with David Honig Lori as a result of David's calls today with Ruth Milkman's office, we no longer need to have a call re Open Internet. He will file an ex parte and will copy your office ?thanks so much for accommodating us. (And please take us off the schedule for tomorrow at 10:4Sam) Maurita 202.422.4411 MMTC Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference Save the Date: July 28-29, 2014 Embassy Suites/Convention Center Hotel, Washington, DC. Mam/(tax Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council c/o 1919 Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Email: mcolev@mmtconline.orq Email 2: mauritacolev@qmail.com Direct: 202.422.4411 Fax: 202-973-4499 Visit: and From: Lori Alexiou Date: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:44 PM To: Maurita Coley Cc: Dorrissa Griffin Subject: RE: Cail with David Honig Maurita, Commissioner Pai would be available for a call at 10:45 tomorrow. Please let me know ifyou would like to take that time. Should we call 202.422.4411? Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce of Commissioner Aj it Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12?h Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202-418-2001 From: Maurita Coley Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 1:36 PM To: Lori Alexiou Cc: Dorrissa Grif?n Subject: Call with David Honig Importance: High Hi Lori: I?m trying to coordinate calls with David and each of the FCC Commissioners concerning the Open internet issue (given the extensiOn of Sunshine until Wednesday). He only needs 5 or 10 minutes at the most to say his piece, and we will of course file an ex parte after the call. Here are his availability windows today is preferred if at all possible: Today, Monday May 12th - 3:15pm until Tomorrow, Tuesday, May 13th Sam to 11am Wednesday, May 14th, 1pm to 6pm Do you have any time for us for the Commissioner or key staff to talk to David on this issue? Maurita 202.422.4411 MMTC Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference Save the Date: Juiy 28?29, 2014 Embassy Suites/Convention Center Hotel, Washington, D.C. Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council 0/0 1919 Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Email: Email 2: mauritacoley@qmail.com Direct: 202.422.4411 Fax: 202-973-4499 Visit: and Lori Alexiou From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:18 PM To: Matthew Berry; Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Comment Check (5) I- From: Matthew Berry Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:17 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Re: Comment Check (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 11:04 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Comment Check FYI. From: Baschuk, Bryce Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:01 PM To: Lori Alexiou Subject: Comment Check The Chairman?s new proposal: Bryce Baschuk Telecom Reporter Daily Report for Executives Bloomberg BNA 202?308?7496 bbaschuk@bna.com Lori Alexiou From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:03 PM To: Matthew Berry Subject: RE: Looking for Pai statement on net neutrality Attachments: Statement on Internet Regulation Here it is Alina. Thank you. Lori Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12Eh Street, sw Washington, DC 20554 202?418?2001 From: Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 2:00 PM To: Matthew Berry Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: Looking for Pai statement on net neutrality Hi, folks at other outlets are saying Commissioner Pai has issued a statement on net neutrality.. i don?t seem to have received. Can you please share with me as well? Thanks, Alina Alina Selyukh Tech Policy Correspondent Reuters News Phone: +1 202 354 5843 Mobile: +1 202 629 7913 Twitter: @Al?naSelyukh Lori Alexiou From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:43 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Pa rte Attachments: MMTC Open Internet Ex Parte 051314.pdf In case you want to see ex parte. Lori Alexiou Con?dential Assistant Of?ce. of Commissioner Ajit Pal Federal Communications Commission 445 12?? Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 202418?200] From: Maurita Coley Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 3:41 PM To: Gigi Sohn; Maria Kirby; sharine.smith@fcc.qov: Daniel Alvarez; Valery Galasso; Drema Johnson; Erin McGrath; Lori Alexiou; Ruth Milkman; Priscilla Argeris; Marquita Boozer; Kim Mattos Cc: David Honig; Nicol Turner?Lee, Joycelyn James; Jacqueline Clary; DeVan Hankerson; Marcella Gadson; Dorrissa Grif?n Subject: MMTC's Open Internet Ex Parte Attached is a courtesy copy of Ex Pa rte letter filed in the Open internet docket today. MMTC Access to Capital and Telecom Policy Conference Save the Date: July 23?29, 2014 Embassy Suites/Convention Center Hotel, Washington, D.C. Maurita Coley Flippin Vice President and Chief Operating Officer Minority Media and Telecommunications Council c/o 1919 Avenue NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20006 Email: mcolev@mmtconline.orq Email 2: mauritacoley@qmail.com Direct: 202.422.4411 Fax: 202?973-4499 Visit: and Lori Alexiou From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:17 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Meeting with influential VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? (5) Lori Alexiou Confidential Assistant Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 202-418-2001 Original Message--?-- From: Ajit Pai Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:16 PM To: Matthew Berry; Lori Alexiou; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Meeting with influential VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? b) (5) Original From: Matthew Berry Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:35 PM To: Lori Alexiou; Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Meeting with influential VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? b) (5) Original From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 1:34 PM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Meeting with influential VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? (5) Lori Alexiou Confidential Assistant Office of Commissioner Ajit Pai Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 202-418-2001 Originai From: Barbara van Schewick Sent: Wednesday, Aprii 23, 2014 10:51 AM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani Cc: Lori Alexiou Subject: Re: Meeting with influentiai VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? Dear ali, ljust wanted to follow up on this. Would you or the Commissioner be interested in meeting with Brad Burnham on Thursday? Again, I realize how busy you are and am sorry this is at such a short notice, but i thought you might still appreciate the opportunity to consider it. Best Barbara Barbara van Schewick Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Crocker Faculty Schoiar Director, Center for internet and Society Stanford Law School Author of "Enternet Architecture and innovation,? Press 2010 Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, Phone: 650?723 8340 E?Mail: schewick@stanford.edu Original Message From: "Barbara van Schewick" To: "Matthew Berry" ?Nicholas Delgani" Cc: "Lori Alexiou" Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:55:08 AM Subject: Meeting with infiuentiai VC Brad Burnham and Commissioner Pai this Thursday? Dear Matthew, dear Nichoias, Thanks again for meeting with me when i was in DC. When we met, Commissioner Pai mentioned that he would be interested in hearing from start?ups and investors directly. I'm writing to recommend that the Commissioner meet with Brad Burnham, an influential venture capitalist who is in DC this Thursday Brad Burnham is co?founder of and partner at venture capital fund Union Square Ventures. He and Fred Wilson, his co-founder and partner at USV, were early investors in Twitter, Tumblr, Kickstarter, Zynga, Foursquare, Boxee and other internet househoid names. Brad and Fred are heroes in the entrepreneurship community, and their 2 word carries enormous weight. The press regulariy cails them "legendary? or ?rock star? investors (see, and Brad and Fred have been very vocal supporters of network neutrality. You can read some of their writing on the topic here: ic and Brad and his partners are very concerned about the current plans regarding network neutrality. i think Commissioner Pai would find his perspective very useful. l?m very sorry for the short notice. I only heard that Brad is going to be in DC last night. if you and the Commissioner are interested in meeting with Brad this Thursday, I would be happy to connect you with him. Best, Barbara van Schewick Barbara van Schewick Professor of Law and (by Courtesy) Electrical Engineering Helen L. Crocker Faculty Scholar Director, Center for Internet and Society Stanford Law School Author of "Internet Architecture and Innovation,? MET Press 2010 Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA94305-8610 Phone: 650?723 8340 E-Mail: schewick@sta nford.edu Lori Alexiou From: Nicholas Degani Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 3:06 PM To: Matthew Berry; Ajit Pai; Brendan Carr Subject: RE: Net neutrality statement - clarification? (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 3:05 PM To: Ajit Pai; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: FW: Net neutrality statement - clari?cation? From: Schwartz, Matthew Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 3:02 PM To: Matthew Berry Subject: Net neutrality statement - clari?cation? Hi Matt, Can you clarify what Pai meant when he said he has "grave concerns" about Wheeler's proposal on Internet regulation? Do his concerns go further than simply trying to get this through at the same time as the spectrum stuff and everything else up for the May 15 meeting? Does he think the net neutrality NPRM goes too far in terms of government oversight? Does he have problems with the proposed commercial reasonableness standard? The presumption against ISP deals with affiliates? I know you're busy thanks for clarifying. You can email me here or call 202-872-9202 x248. My deadline is Matt Matthew S. Schwartz, Esq. Tech MSS Office: (202) 872-9202 x248 Communications Daily Mobile: (202) 505-4LEX 2115 Ward Court N.w. Fax: (292) 318-8984 Washington, DC 29937 Lori Alexiou From: Ajit Pai Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:14 AM To: Lori Alexiou; Matthew Berry Subject: Re: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) (5) From: Lori Alexiou Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:11 AM To: Matthew Berry; Ajit Pai Subject: RE: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) (5) From: Matthew Berry Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM To: Lori Alexiou; Ajit Pai Subject: Fw: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) From: Marvin Ammori Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 09:46 AM To: Ajit Pai; Matthew Berry Subject: Open Internet Meeting Request (Friday) Hi Ajit and Matthew, I am requesting a meeting on behalf of: Kickstarter Meetup 'I?umblr We will be available Friday afternoon from 2:30 to 4 and from 4:30 to 5. I would love for them to meet you directly and explain why the issue matters to them and why they are concerned. Thank you. PS Really looking forward to seeing you guys more. Principal Ammori Group Lori Alexiou From: Ajit Pai Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:52 PM To: Matthew Berry; Nicholas Degani; Brendan Carr Subject: Fw: Stop Pay-for-priority (5) From: Michael Powell [mailto: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 12:45 PM To: Tom Wheeler; Mignon Clyburn; Jessica Rosenworcel; Ajit Pai; Mike ORielly Subject: Stop Pay-for-priority Dear all at the FCC, Please scrap any and all plans for rules that would empower ISPs to create tiered access to subscribers on a fee basis. All of the major American ISPs are huge companies sitting on legacy monopoly infrastructure on which they hope to seek ever-growing rents. Many customers have at best one viable option for high-speed internet, and these companies seek to exploit that position by anti-competitively holding these customers hostage to extract payments from video services those customers pay to access while simultaneously pushing their own inferior VOD offerings as a substitute. Comcast's recent peerage brinksmanship against Net?ix is proof positive that American ISPs cannot be trusted to justly administer the most important communication resource in the world. The only way to protect Free Speech and guarantee that the intemet remains a viable free market of services and ideas is to embrace Net Neutrality, either by classifying the intemet as a telecommunications service or by simply refusing to cooperate when monopoly companies seek permission to tighten their grip. The future of the intemet is at stake. Thank you, Michael Powell, Foggen, Stickman, et a1. "Knowledge is power, France is bacon. Ajit Pai From: Ajit Pai Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 10:34 AM To: Jeffrey Eisenach Cc: Lori Alexiou (Lori.Alexiou@fcc.gov) Subject: RE: NN Hey Jeff, Great to see you late last week! Look forward to following up with you soon (and cc?ing Lori). FYI, we?re leaving for the Cable Show tomorrow morning, and l?ll be physicaily out of the office until next Monday. Happy to chat on the phone instead, if that makes it easier (and t?melier). Cheers, Ajit From: Jeffrey Eisenach Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 4:51 AM To: Ajit Pai Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: NN Ajlt We (AEI folks) have been talking with Sallet about the NN NPRM. From what we can tell it's a lot better than we have feared but we don't want to lose track of the fact that it's a long way from the antitrust~based standard we would prefer. And, we have read little about scope how far into the ecosystem does 706 now extend? Anyway, if it would be helpful to share thoughts with you and your team and/or offer you a venue or an outlet, we would be happy to do so. We are fully engaged with media, etc. on the NN issue. Hope all is well I will see you Friday. Best, Jeff Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Visiting Schoiar Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy @JeftEisenach 202?448?9029 From: Ajlt Pal [Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:23 PM To: Jeffrey Eisenach Subject: RE: Guest Blog? Hello Jeff, Many thanks for your messagel i appreciate your kind offer to post on AEldeas and I would normally jump at the chance to put some commentary on the communications-related part ofthe SOTU online, but with 1 the upcoming Commission meeting, we are scrambling like the proverbial headless chickens over here. I suppose it wouidn?t be as timeiy, but could we raincheck for a litt?e while? Either way, do think it would be great to revisit some ofthe E-Rate issues we explored last summer at I?d love to grab iunch or coffee sometime. Are you around in early February? In the meantime, hope all?s well and talk soon! Cheers, Ajit From: Jeffrey Eisenach Sent: Monday, January 27, 2014 5:16 PM To: Ajit Cc: Matthew Berry Subject: Guest Blog? Ajit I heard something on one of the Sunday shows suggesting the President may hit the ?connect America? idea in the SOTU. If so, or even if not, do you have any interest in doing a guest blog for AEI/TechPolicyDaiiy.com Wednesday morning? We would place it on both AEIdeas (the AEI blog) and TechPolicyDaily.com, and work to maximize exposure. More broadly, I hope all's well. If you have time one of these days for lunch or a cup of coffee, it would be fun to get together. Best, Jeff Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Visiting Scholar Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policv @JeffEisenach 202?448-9029