 So, first, I have to certainly concur in the last statement that Commissioner Harold Furchkott-Roth has made. I also have to say that for him sitting on this diocese old hat, for me, I'm like, man, I love the view from here, particularly from the center seat. Probably the only time I will ever get this view. I could spend my 10 minute introductory remark responding to many of the points that the commissioners raised. I think that I will just limit myself to saying I agree that the problem has been that the agency all too often has pursued clever policy rather than followed the law. But I disagree with what the law actually says, which is perhaps not surprising. I believe that it was fairly obvious that broadband transmission meets the statutory definition of Title II. That was the law as we applied it until the cable modem decision came along. And the Supreme Court in Brandeck said the FCC had discretion to decide how to interpret that statutory provision. So, okay, the FCC had the discretion to change its mind and apply and decide that when you commingled the transmission and the information services that you could then treat that as a Title I information service. And we have ever since then been living with the consequences of those policy decisions. I would like to instead take the time to focus on why this is a consumer issue. We talk a lot about investment. Again, for every one of the points that is raised, there are mounds of contrary arguments. The things about this argument is a lot of this ground has been crossed over and there's a lot of the lines for much of this are pretty well marked. With regard to does it incent investment or doesn't it incent investment? What are the impacts on innovation and the edge? Let me focus on the consumers for a few minutes. First of all, what do consumers care about broadband for? And let me tell you, the answer to this question has changed a lot in the 15 years that I've been doing broadband policy. I first got this question back in 1999 when we were debating about the future of broadband policy when the question was asked to me, why does anyone care when we have 66 Kbps dial-up? Isn't that fast enough for everything? The first answer I gave there was I want you to take your old modem from a couple of years ago, the one that worked at a much slower speed and plug it in and see how much you could negotiate the fantastic web of 1999 with that. The usual answer was, well, things don't work very well at the slower speed. I was like, that's why we care about broadband from a consumer perspective because these things are going to evolve. We have evolved astronomically since the first time I was asked that question, why do consumers care? And we now see 15 years since I was asked that question that we care because broadband has become integral to our lives. It really has become the basic service. The utility in the sense that heat, power, transportation, and these things are utilities, not simply monopoly or natural monopoly, but things that are, whether they are competitive or not, considered too essential to leave entirely to the private market because consumers are wholly dependent upon them. The cost of exclusion rises increasingly so that now if you don't have broadband access, it is increasingly harder to access not simply Netflix or cat videos as some people disparagingly say, but basic educational service, basic employment opportunities, medical information, these things on which play a critical role in our lives. And that is reflected in the fact that so many people care so deeply about this issue. As we move voice service and basic telephone service over to the IP platform, whether your phone call will get through or not, whether your 911 call will get through or not, is implicated by such things as network neutrality and whether we treat this as a Title II platform or whether we roll the dice on information services because my problem of the casino is we have a lot of very well settled law around Title II and the how it works and even further back with what Chairman Wheeler rightly calls the network compact. And the framework that was adopted 5.0 by the Commission in January talking about fundamental values that we carry with our network and how these things work, we understand how those things are implemented in a Title II universe and they have done pretty well. This wireless device that everybody agrees to the extent that we have competitive services and communications that Americans can rely on, wireless is the apex. On this I at least have four national competitors. Whether that's competitive enough, whether that works we can argue about, but as compared to broadband where if I am lucky I have two wire line providers in most places or one in a lot of places or none in some places. And whether this is regulated as a Title II service that has not impeded investment and for consumers the reliability and dependability that comes from the Title II side remains critically important. By contrast I will point out what is the one service that consumers have the most intimate relationship that has never ever ever been regulated as Title II? Cable. This of course has made it the most innovative and the most beloved by consumers as you can tell from all of the consumer satisfaction surface. Yes, cable has never been Title II. This thing that consumers actually like, Title II. Cable, not Title II. So in terms of the real world experiments that we have seen with what remedies the consumers have, how does this work and sort of these other questions about innovation and investment, Title II seems to be stated up pretty well. Let me though switch to something else that is critically important which is diversity of voices. Something that unfortunately I think goes unremarked in this context and where net neutrality and Title II is critical. First of all, going all the way back seven years ago, I remarked that network neutrality is probably one of the most important campaign finance issues that we will have because if the end user, if the last mile network gets to decide who gets prioritized and can charge as we have seen in radio and television broadcasting, even if you have rules that establish some sort of basic access and basic rate so that you can't entirely shut people out, when you eliminate common carrier type regulation and you start that requires everybody to be treated equally at some level and you start to have an ability to charge, the cost of campaigning goes through the roof. But more importantly than that I believe is the fact that for the first time on the internet people are actually able to communicate and produce and it doesn't matter if it's only 50 people watching it or 100 people watching it or a thousand people watching it or videos that change the world. It is the ideal of diversity and self-expression that in all of the time that I did traditional media ownership regulation, traditional media policy, we could never dream of accomplishing. That's a hell of a lot more important than Netflix and cat videos. Let me take one example here to try to wrap this up. Many people are aware of T-Mobile's music freedom initiative where T-Mobile has said we are going to allow you to stream from the seven most popular music services to start with without that counting against your data cap. We are open to trying to make this more open and inclusive to video services. T-Mobile is trying to do this. They have said in their T-Mobile data roaming petition that the reason they don't do true open with no data cap is because they can't afford to because of the high price that AT&T charges them to roam on their network. They are willing to take a hit on this and use this music as a loss leader and give something to consumers without any financial pay off from the music services with no affiliations. This is the best case for differentiating among like services. What are the implications of it? Well, for starters, if you are not one of the most popular mass media music sites, you are disadvantaged. If you are representative of a traditionally marginalized community, if you are trying to broadcast on the internet in your native language to users of T-Mobile services, if you are like public knowledge doing podcasts that are policy in nature and are not music, you now stand at a disadvantage compared to the seven biggest most popular services. The natural consequences of this is we return to the era of scarcity that existed in the radio and television broadcasting era. We automatically reproduce this. We go back to when a handful of companies can choose by advantaging even with the best of intentions the most popular service which will inevitably gravitate to the mainstream and cut off those diverse voices, those challenging voices, those voices that cause us to question. If you can control content, how will people respond now when we have the conflict in Gaza? Do you think that people will not go to their broadband provider, whichever side they are on, and demand that those voices be silenced on either side because I as a subscriber regard them as hate speech? The most popular market-driven ones will win, not because that is what consumers select, but because the handful of companies will be conservative and will not want to piss their customers off, and if that means cutting off one or the other side in the debate, they will do that. Finally, I want to take a look at this thing, the T-Mobile petition I mentioned earlier on data roaming. It's a curious thing in another real-world live experiment. We did voice roaming as an order out of this commission in 2007 as a Title II service. You must voice roam. If you are this guy, you have to offer voice roaming. We did it under Title II, automatic. The regulations take up about a dozen lines. We have never had a problem implementing this. Since we adopted it in 2007, we have revisited it once to expand it, and it certainly has not deterred investment in the wireless community. Data roaming we adopted in 2011. Because we did this under Title I, Title III, we use a commercial reasonableness standard, which T-Mobile makes a pretty good case is worthless. So now, because we can't get too common carrier on it, we are going to do this sort of benchmarking thing to get to a less good, more complicated place than we did under Title II. Again, when we're looking at the real-world experiences of Title II versus other alternatives, Title II is looking pretty good. Let me conclude here with a little anecdote that I just picked up this morning. There's a book called World History in Six Classes by Tom Standage. I happened to be reading this morning the chapter called The Coffeehouse Internet, where he talks about how coffee houses in London were critical to the development of discourse. He brings an example of a particular coffee house that became very important for brokers and traders and how the most successful brokers cut an exclusive deal with the owner of the coffee house to allow them to control who had access to that particular coffee house and who didn't. Now, you could go to any other coffee house to get coffee. There were hundreds of coffee houses in London, but you excluded traders and other fine-enters from this particular coffee house. That devastating effect on their ability to conduct business. A trader who was excluded sued and won on the grounds that because coffee houses were common carriers, they needed to be open on an equal basis to the public, and therefore he could not be excluded from what had become a critically important venue for doing business despite the fact that there were other coffee houses that he could go to, and it was a competitive market in that sense. Some things don't change. Common carrier regulation, Title II, is a very flexible tool, and in this case, it is an absolutely critical tool if we want to continue the kinds of consumer benefits and free discourse that we have come to enjoy on the internet.