 The gentleman yields back. I now recognize the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I wanted to go to Ms. Sleiman, if I could. Tell us in practice what would be required of the big companies like Amazon and Google and Facebook to make their dominant products and services interoperable, in other words, to deal with the anti-competitive effects of there being both a gatekeeper and a participant in the particular market traffic that they govern. Thank you, congressman. So I think the simplest example is the Facebook. So we'll start there. We're asking that they provide interoperability to competitors to the network. So that could be through an application programming interface, an API. Basically, they need to change some code in their system to make it available to competitors. And when they make updates to important features, they need to give some notice of those changes so that the competitors have a chance to make sure that their products will continue to interoperate even after the changes. So it's a lot simpler than, historically, the types of interoperability that we needed with the telephone network, where they had to invent new jacks and deal with physical networks. So this is a software problem. And they need to change that software to make it available to competitors. OK, so you're telling us that relatively simple technical fixes at Facebook, at Google, at Amazon could actually dramatically promote new commercial dynamics that would allow smaller businesses to be in the field and to prevent these anti-competitive effects. Is that right? Yes, that's right. It will also be important to have strong law enforcement capabilities on the side of the government to make sure that the interoperability is actually functioning properly. But yes, that's what we need from the company. OK, and none of this would destroy Facebook or Amazon or Google, the big companies, right? No, it would certainly not destroy the companies. I do think it would have a real strong competitive impact. They would suddenly face competitive threats from places they haven't before. And I hope that would change the way that they're operating their businesses. But certainly it would not destroy the companies. That's not our goal. Go back to the analogy that you guys were using about telephones. Interoperability means that somebody who's got AT&T, as their provider, can call somebody who's got Sprint. And was that as a result of public regulation? Yes, that's right. OK, and that didn't cost very much to guarantee interoperability. And we all now take it for granted as part of using the telephone. So you're saying we can institute features like that in order to promote entrepreneurship and real commercial entry for businesses right now that are suffering because some of their competitors are also the gatekeepers to their ability to compete effectively. Is that right? That's absolutely right. Well, what's keeping us from doing this? That's a good question, Congressman. There are important details that I think need to be worked out. And that's where I think an agency regulator comes in. I want to defend the paper pushers who were criticized earlier. I think there is a really important role for regulators here to figure out, especially in such a technical space, exactly which features need to be interoperable. There are already great written works about this. Some of the data that we know is really important to be interoperable is the friends list or the social graph, tools like cross-posting. So there is a lot that is already known and that we can know now that agency regulators can really make those decisions most of the time.