[00:00.000 --> 00:05.740] So let me, first of all, welcome you virtually to the DEF CON Ethics Village [00:06.970 --> 00:15.020] and introduce you briefly to those who will be watching. This is FCC Commissioner Jeffrey [00:15.020 --> 00:24.470] Starks. Commissioner Starks was sworn in as an FCC Commissioner on January 30th of 2019. [00:24.870 --> 00:32.090] He had previous experience at the FCC, helping to lead efforts in the FCC's Enforcement Bureau [00:32.090 --> 00:37.370] by, among other things, handling a number of complex investigations. [00:37.370 --> 00:43.950] He also has prior Department of Justice experience as a Senior Advisor to the Deputy [00:43.950 --> 00:50.030] Attorney General on a variety of domestic and international matters. And this was all during [00:50.030 --> 00:57.130] the Obama Administration. And before Commissioner Starks entered federal public service, [00:57.130 --> 01:02.230] he practiced law at Williams and Connolly, clerked on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, [01:02.230 --> 01:08.550] and also served as a legislative staffer in the Illinois State Senate and worked as a financial [01:08.550 --> 01:15.010] analyst. So thank you again for your time, Commissioner Starks. Let me just briefly say [01:15.010 --> 01:20.330] my name is Stephanie Pell. I'm a professor at West Point. And because I work at West Point, [01:20.330 --> 01:26.430] I'm always required to say whenever I open my mouth in public that even though this is about [01:26.430 --> 01:31.330] you, we're going to be talking about your views, anything that should come out of my mouth [01:31.330 --> 01:38.670] are my views and do not represent the views of West Point, the Army, or certainly the United [01:38.670 --> 01:46.090] States government. So let me just start with an opening question, Commissioner Starks. [01:46.090 --> 01:53.370] For those who may not be terribly familiar with the FCC, could you give us some brief [01:53.370 --> 01:59.990] background about its structure and mandate, specifically in reference to the issues we [01:59.990 --> 02:06.970] will discuss today? Yes. Well, as always, great to be in dialogue with you, Stephanie. Glad to [02:07.550 --> 02:13.790] be joining DEF CON 2020, obviously virtually here this year in the ethics village in particular. [02:14.450 --> 02:19.230] And so for viewers who might not be familiar with the FCC, it's an independent federal agency [02:19.970 --> 02:24.970] established back in 1934 under the Communications Act, and we're charged with, [02:24.970 --> 02:30.030] you know, regulating interstate and foreign communications by radio, television, wire, [02:30.030 --> 02:37.790] satellite, and cable. And so to the structure of the commission, it's directed by five commissioners, [02:37.790 --> 02:43.710] including myself. Each commissioner is appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. [02:44.010 --> 02:49.090] And because we're an independent agency, only three commissioners can be of the same political [02:49.090 --> 02:56.270] party, the president obviously designating one commissioner as the chairperson. You know, [02:56.270 --> 03:02.170] and to the breadth that we serve, we have seven bureaus, 10 offices of career civil servants for [03:02.170 --> 03:07.390] the most part, senior engineers, economists, obviously a lot of this is wrapped up in their [03:07.390 --> 03:14.550] expertise and experience with communications. And so Congress has given us significant and [03:14.550 --> 03:20.270] specific responsibilities, but broadly we are regulating the nation's communication networks. [03:20.270 --> 03:25.250] And so that includes, you know, promoting deployment of advanced communication services [03:25.250 --> 03:31.930] like broadband, like we're going to talk about, ensuring best and highest use of wireless spectrum, [03:31.930 --> 03:38.210] administering the universal service fund, which is a fund that ensures access to modern [03:38.210 --> 03:45.230] communications for the low income, for rural folks, for schools, libraries, regulating foreign access [03:45.230 --> 03:50.170] to U.S. communications marketplace. We may get into some of that a little bit later. [03:50.820 --> 03:56.750] And then finally, you know, what folks would think of regulating radio and broadcast television. So [03:56.750 --> 04:02.330] the last thing I'd kind of focus on rounding this out is, you know, because communications is such a [04:03.230 --> 04:09.490] broad term, you know, some folks may think that we have certain authority that really isn't us. [04:09.490 --> 04:14.110] And so when people think about who regulates Facebook, that is a lot of other people, [04:14.110 --> 04:22.130] Department of Justice, the FTC. And so, you know, there are a lot of things that we do. [04:22.130 --> 04:28.230] And then we obviously, you know, there are things that we have jurisdiction over, [04:28.230 --> 04:33.730] but other folks have other points. And then if you have followed the issue of network neutrality, [04:33.730 --> 04:39.250] you know, there is obviously, you know, some fluidity between administrations on what is [04:39.250 --> 04:46.510] the extent of the FCC's authority and what's within our jurisdiction. I think we do have [04:46.510 --> 04:52.410] authority to enforce network neutrality rules, but some of my, in particular, Republican majority [04:52.410 --> 04:58.170] of the FCC disagrees with me. So that's kind of a little bit of the lay of the land, as it were. [04:58.810 --> 05:06.530] Thanks. So as you acknowledged, in more normal times, we would be, you know, meeting in person, [05:06.530 --> 05:14.270] having this discussion live in Vegas. So we're not doing that now. We've all had to adapt in [05:14.570 --> 05:22.530] a number of ways, moving significant portions of our lives online, including work for those who [05:22.530 --> 05:30.850] have college or school age children. You know, a good portion, if not all of their education, [05:30.850 --> 05:39.410] has suddenly become virtual. So I'm wondering, how has your focus at the FCC and your work [05:40.350 --> 05:47.310] changed since the beginning of COVID? Yeah, it's a great question. You know, in some ways, [05:47.910 --> 05:53.010] through a certain lens, you know, the Commission has continued its work. We have all been working [05:53.010 --> 05:59.630] remotely since March. And we have had, as we're required by statute, we've had monthly open [05:59.630 --> 06:06.890] meetings, and we're voting items, and we are proceeding with our work apace. You know, but [06:06.890 --> 06:14.630] in a lot of other ways, in particular, the issue of digital divide, and who has broadband access [06:14.630 --> 06:21.490] and who doesn't, has been my top priority. But that really has been amplified in a lot of ways. [06:21.490 --> 06:26.930] The last few months have laid bare the already cruel reality of the digital divide, that [06:26.930 --> 06:33.150] millions and millions, tens of millions of Americans don't access, cannot afford broadband [06:33.150 --> 06:38.870] connections that they need to telework, to access telemedicine now, to help young people learn, [06:38.870 --> 06:45.250] as you mentioned. And addressing this long-running crisis has never been more urgent. When public [06:45.250 --> 06:50.850] health requires social distancing, even quarantining, as many of us have been doing, [06:50.850 --> 06:55.850] closing the digital divide has become central to our safety, and certainly it's powering our [06:55.850 --> 07:01.390] economy. And so, you know, a number of weeks into the crisis, in early March, I published [07:01.990 --> 07:07.550] an op-ed in the New York Times calling for a connectivity stimulus. We obviously have a lot [07:07.550 --> 07:14.570] of ways where we're talking about stimulus for public health, for our economy. I think we need [07:14.730 --> 07:20.510] a connectivity stimulus, because regulators, industry, we have to, and need to even now more [07:20.510 --> 07:26.750] so than ever, dramatically expand access for broadband during this emergency. Some of those [07:26.750 --> 07:34.570] ideas that I laid out initially in March have been implemented. We are leaning into the flexible use [07:34.570 --> 07:39.810] of wireless spectrum that's underutilized. Broadband providers have joined the fight, [07:40.430 --> 07:45.230] waiving some data caps, the Keep America Connected pledge, opening Wi-Fi networks. [07:45.230 --> 07:51.590] But really, truth be told, Stephanie, it hasn't been enough. And I have called for us to do more. [07:51.930 --> 07:57.950] We are... And speaking, if I can just, speaking of doing more, I want to [07:59.510 --> 08:05.950] specifically reference a recent, an additional op-ed, a recent one that you co-authored with [08:06.270 --> 08:10.970] a number of prominent civil rights leaders, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Venita Gupta, [08:10.970 --> 08:17.990] Morial, and Morita Coley. And the op-ed, for those who haven't seen it, is entitled, [08:17.990 --> 08:25.170] Broadband Access is a Civil Right We Can't Afford to Lose, But Many Can't Afford to Have. [08:25.630 --> 08:34.270] In that piece, you and your co-authors speak directly to how COVID-19 has exposed this digital [08:34.270 --> 08:42.250] divide. And could you talk more about the scope of that digital divide problem? [08:42.250 --> 08:49.230] Yeah, happy to. And like I said, the digital divide was present even before COVID-19, [08:49.230 --> 08:57.990] but it has really been exacerbated. And I wanted to emphasize that. The fact of the matter is that [08:59.030 --> 09:06.330] the late John Lewis, one of my heroes, said that internet access is the civil rights issue [09:06.330 --> 09:17.710] of the 21st century. And I agree. The Communication Act instructs us to make communication service [09:17.710 --> 09:23.310] available to all Americans without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, [09:23.310 --> 09:32.170] national origin, or sex. And so civil rights leaders have long held government accountable [09:32.170 --> 09:37.870] where we have unfulfilled promises. And so closing this digital divide, I was honored, [09:37.870 --> 09:42.370] deeply honored, to join some of those civil rights leaders talking about how, in particular, [09:42.370 --> 09:49.690] with communities of color, we need to close the digital divide. As we outlined in the op-ed, [09:49.690 --> 09:59.590] 34% of African Americans, 39% of Latino adults, 47% of tribal groups all lack access to broadband [09:59.590 --> 10:05.100] connection, significantly, disproportionately less so than their white counterparts. [10:05.550 --> 10:12.610] And so when you're talking about civil rights issues, we have to have it access ubiquitous [10:12.610 --> 10:19.130] for all. And it has to be right now. There needs to be a fierce urgency of now that we solve [10:19.930 --> 10:26.790] these digital divide issues. And for communities of color, that means reliable and convenient access [10:26.790 --> 10:32.270] to educational resources, to workplace materials, telemedicine, like I said. [10:32.270 --> 10:38.910] You know, the fact of the matter is that we have... this is a rural issue in some ways, [10:38.910 --> 10:45.850] making sure that folks get access everywhere. But the fact of the matter is that we've seen this [10:45.850 --> 10:51.930] as well throughout the pandemic, that in densely, highly populated urban areas, there are nearly [10:51.930 --> 10:57.770] three times as many households that remain unconnected. And that is frequently communities [10:57.770 --> 11:05.050] of color. Over 18 million households lack broadband simply, solely, research estimates, [11:05.050 --> 11:09.650] because it's too expensive. And so one of the things that I've called for, and have worked [11:09.650 --> 11:15.830] with Congress on, is that for both the emergency and for the longer term, we need to have a more [11:15.850 --> 11:21.350] affordable connection for millions of Americans to the internet. We know 50 million-plus Americans [11:21.350 --> 11:26.330] have filed for unemployment assistance. And so making sure there is an affordable way that they [11:26.330 --> 11:31.010] can connect to high-quality broadband is going to be important. Something else that I would talk on [11:31.010 --> 11:35.710] really quickly here is the Lifeline program. It's the federal program specifically designed [11:36.950 --> 11:43.430] to provide free or discounted telecom service to low-income Americans. We know that this program [11:43.430 --> 11:49.570] is grossly underutilized. About seven and a half million Americans are on Lifeline right now, [11:49.570 --> 11:55.630] despite over 38 million being eligible. And so we have got to make sure, for example, [11:55.630 --> 12:01.390] we know that more Americans are on food assistance, on SNAP, right now than ever. [12:01.390 --> 12:07.410] And if you have food insecurity issues, you probably also have digital insecurity issues. [12:07.410 --> 12:13.870] So I've called for us to better coordinate with USDA that runs SNAP. If you are knocking on the [12:13.870 --> 12:18.150] door for help there, we should also make sure that you get connected to the Lifeline program. [12:18.150 --> 12:22.270] And so there's a lot of ways that we need to make sure that our government is not working [12:22.270 --> 12:28.350] in silos right now. And I think that's really important. Sure. So these are... you've just [12:28.350 --> 12:34.610] listed some very specific prescriptions that you and others in the civil rights community [12:34.610 --> 12:41.510] have called for. How supportive, in your view, is Congress being? What can they do? [12:42.030 --> 12:49.890] Yeah, you know, I think in particular, obviously, we are seeing that there is a new COVID... [12:50.630 --> 12:55.490] I think it's the fifth part of the package that's being negotiated right now. [12:55.570 --> 13:01.430] Broadband has still, to date, not been included in some of those congressional packages. And so [13:01.430 --> 13:07.470] providing more money for E-Rate, another program that we have to provide money to schools. And the [13:07.470 --> 13:13.050] fact of the matter is that how is education and schooling being performed right now? It's in [13:13.050 --> 13:17.930] people's homes. So again, making sure that there's more money for E-Rate so that we can digitally [13:17.930 --> 13:24.310] connect with our youngest learners, including post-secondary. Lifeline and focusing on the low [13:24.310 --> 13:28.550] income has got to be an additional part of this dialogue. And then the third thing that I have [13:28.550 --> 13:35.390] really focused on with folks in Congress is making sure that there is some type of an affordable [13:35.390 --> 13:42.450] option that we are starting to think through as well in making sure that we have all houses [13:42.450 --> 13:47.950] connected. It's past time for us to connect all Americans. And Congress is going to have to help [13:47.950 --> 13:59.670] us out. Sure. So you started explaining the digital divide problem and then the prescriptions [13:59.670 --> 14:09.590] for solution by referencing the civil rights icon, John Lewis. And I will just note that [14:09.590 --> 14:16.070] that wonderful quote, access to the internet, is the civil rights issue of the 21st century, [14:16.070 --> 14:23.750] which you said is in fact, and it's timely and a little chilling the way that you all ended your op-ed. [14:23.750 --> 14:32.090] Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And when, you know, like I said, when John Lewis speaks, [14:32.710 --> 14:39.130] thank God so many people listen. And so that quote from John Lewis many, many years ago is what [14:39.130 --> 14:45.890] really kind of framed for me the ubiquity of broadband access being a civil right. [14:46.010 --> 14:52.590] And so, like I said, was proud to partner with so many leaders on focusing on how we actually [14:52.590 --> 14:58.130] make this thing start to happen. And in particular, like so many things that are going on right now, [14:58.130 --> 15:04.470] both in the pandemic and also in the racial justice, not only the moment, but the movement [15:04.470 --> 15:10.670] that we're seeing going on right now, and making sure that communities of color and the inequities [15:10.670 --> 15:18.410] that we see with regard to broadband are part of that focus. Sure. So if I may, I'd like to switch [15:18.410 --> 15:27.470] gears a bit and just reference the fact that there has been an ongoing debate about the extent to [15:27.470 --> 15:35.270] which the FCC has jurisdiction over cyber security, or at least some aspects of cyber [15:35.270 --> 15:41.930] security. There's different views on this. Can you sort of frame the contours of the debate [15:41.930 --> 15:50.890] for us? And let us in on what side of the debate or where along its continuum you fall? [15:51.070 --> 15:56.690] Sure, sure. Thank you. Great question. And so, you know, as you referenced in recent years, [15:57.470 --> 16:02.230] various commissioners have expressed different views about how involved the FCC should be [16:02.230 --> 16:07.250] in cyber security issues. During the Obama administration, I'd note, the FCC sought an [16:07.250 --> 16:13.970] active role in cyber security. And the current chairman, of course, I would note, has been [16:13.970 --> 16:20.490] much less involved. And so some of the differences fall on where people interpret our statutory [16:20.490 --> 16:27.610] authority. Some of my colleagues, Republican colleagues, feel strongly that we should very [16:27.610 --> 16:35.870] narrowly construe our instructions from Congress and, you know, only in a very limited scalpel-like [16:35.870 --> 16:41.970] way regulate cyber security when Congress expressly tells us to. I think that is too [16:41.970 --> 16:49.490] narrow a view. The Communication Act, in setting up the FCC's authority even long ago in 1934, [16:50.490 --> 16:56.410] said that it was creating the FCC. We were imbued in part for, you know, I quote, [16:56.410 --> 17:02.270] the purpose of the national defense, purpose of promoting safety and life and property, [17:02.270 --> 17:09.170] you know, close quote, if I'm memorizing it from memory. You know, and so I think we have a [17:09.170 --> 17:15.250] responsibility for modern networks to raise these kinds of concerns. And the FCC should have [17:15.250 --> 17:20.470] an active role. Some of the debate is practical moving on from some of the statutory, [17:20.470 --> 17:26.690] has been anointed with leadership, a leadership role here. And so again, some of my colleagues [17:26.690 --> 17:36.290] would shift all of that to DHS. And I think the FCC has valuable, essential, relevant expertise [17:36.290 --> 17:42.930] and experience that should come to bear here. And so pushing it all to somebody else, [17:42.930 --> 17:48.610] I think does us a disservice. And so, you know, I would also kind of briefly tick through what's [17:48.610 --> 17:54.450] going in my mind is, you know, a couple of the ways where we do have a role here. We evaluate [17:54.450 --> 18:00.770] license applications from foreign ownership. And this includes a national security review from team [18:00.770 --> 18:07.030] telecom. For some of your viewers who may know, cybersecurity is also part of the process of [18:07.030 --> 18:14.030] reviewing submarine cables. And this is a critical part of how we connect data and it's transmitted [18:14.030 --> 18:19.150] across the world. So there are cybersecurity elements there. And then something that I've [18:19.150 --> 18:24.130] really focused on, and that is removing untrustworthy equipment from our networks. [18:24.550 --> 18:30.350] And, you know, we at the FCC, you know, in large part, because I kind of called and beat the drum [18:30.350 --> 18:37.830] here, is focusing on removing this untrustworthy equipment where universal service fund, again, [18:37.830 --> 18:43.490] this is the fund that we administer at the FCC, making sure it's not used to purchase insecure [18:43.490 --> 18:49.490] equipment, Chinese equipment for Huawei ZTE, you know, I think are really important. And then the [18:49.490 --> 18:54.070] kind of the last thing that I would mention is, you know, we have the Communications Assistance [18:54.070 --> 19:00.110] for Law Enforcement at CALEA. I know you have a DOJ background as well, Stephanie. And so CALEA, [19:00.110 --> 19:08.210] and this is also coming, you know, how we establish policies and procedures to prevent [19:08.770 --> 19:13.010] unauthorized surveillance is something that continues to kind of flare up. And I think [19:13.010 --> 19:19.190] it's something that we need to continue to have a voice in. And I do think that issue is not going [19:19.190 --> 19:30.590] away anytime soon. So let's say for the sake of argument that it's January 21st, 2021. And I don't [19:30.590 --> 19:36.950] have a crystal ball in front of me. But for the sake of argument, let's say there are now three, [19:36.950 --> 19:45.310] instead of two Democratic FCC commissioners, let's say there are three like minded Democratic FCC [19:45.310 --> 19:56.150] commissioners. And let's say you're incredibly influential among the three. So if you have that [19:56.150 --> 20:03.930] kind of clout and influence, what kind of cybersecurity focused initiatives or actions [20:03.930 --> 20:11.950] would you wish the commission to take? Well, I like the question. And I will say as well, [20:11.950 --> 20:19.450] I'm not in the prognostication business. And so I'll focus on what some of my priorities [20:20.070 --> 20:27.350] that I'm going to continue to be talking about, regardless of future administration. And so, [20:27.350 --> 20:32.750] you know, the first thing I would focus on is, like I said, I was the commissioner who has met [20:32.750 --> 20:38.670] the most with the small carriers who have insecure Huawei and ZTE equipment in their [20:38.670 --> 20:43.970] infrastructure. I came out with find it, fix it, fund it. That was we need to find insecure [20:43.970 --> 20:49.690] equipment, we need to fix it and remediate it, and then make sure we fund it. And so the last [20:49.690 --> 20:53.910] part of that is something that we still need to work with Congress on. And so that would be [20:53.910 --> 20:59.930] something that I would focus on. We have not appropriated funding for the repair and replacement [20:59.930 --> 21:06.070] part of that. As a result, you know, we do have some, you know, recipients who are lacking the [21:06.070 --> 21:11.630] funds to maintain their networks, even though we have already prohibited them from using Huawei [21:11.630 --> 21:19.370] ZTE. And so, you know, I would focus in, you know, in the future in January, on making sure [21:20.070 --> 21:26.970] we open up those lines of communication and have that better funding as well. You know, [21:26.970 --> 21:33.330] I think that has to be priority number one on a network security and cybersecurity kind of front. [21:33.330 --> 21:38.550] The second thing I would really focus on is, you know, kind of a vision board piece that I have [21:38.550 --> 21:44.270] been focusing on for a while now. And that is, you know, promoting network security as part of our [21:44.270 --> 21:51.210] communication network and development, and not proposing bandaid remedies, but really kind of [21:51.210 --> 21:57.590] being forward-looking. And where I really see this coming about is in our 5G future, [21:57.590 --> 22:05.330] and in particular, the Open Radio Access Network, or O-RAN, solutions, and making sure that we have, [22:05.330 --> 22:13.370] going forward, a real American role in the distribution and single system of interoperable [22:13.370 --> 22:19.010] hardware that emphasizes software, defined functions, open interfaces, cloud hierarchy. [22:19.010 --> 22:24.390] All of these are going to start to come together. And so from a networking standpoint, increasing [22:24.390 --> 22:31.070] efficiency, cost-effectiveness, you know, O-RAN is also going to provide the capability for [22:31.070 --> 22:38.330] scale and design improvements, updates at lower costs, faster timetable. And so we've got to [22:38.330 --> 22:43.670] continue to focus on this aspect of network security. And something that I've called for [22:43.670 --> 22:49.410] even most recently, just even as last month, is that especially when we're talking about [22:50.170 --> 22:57.030] in a rip-and-replace world, where we are, the American taxpayers are going to be rebuilding [22:57.030 --> 23:04.190] these networks for a lot of carriers. I think it is, I think it is time for us to make sure that [23:04.190 --> 23:10.770] some of those carriers hear from an O-RAN option. And so I think that's going to help promote it as [23:10.870 --> 23:16.650] a business case, as a product, and making sure that O-RAN really goes from what some in this [23:16.650 --> 23:22.010] administration have called pie in the sky, and really making sure that that O-RAN becomes part [23:22.010 --> 23:26.770] of our real world. I think it's going to be a part of American security going forward. [23:26.970 --> 23:33.990] The last thing that I would kind of be on my vision board is focusing on end-user device [23:33.990 --> 23:41.990] security. As I mentioned in particular with the digital divide, lifeline phones and providers [23:41.990 --> 23:48.710] often have low-cost devices. And so two common manufacturers of these low-cost devices are Huawei [23:48.710 --> 23:56.270] and ZTE. And so when you're talking about those devices, it's been revealed that sometimes they [23:56.270 --> 24:01.670] are embedded with malware, can be encrypted multiple times. And so some of the phone's [24:01.670 --> 24:07.630] settings and applications make it virtually impossible to uninstall. And so that's an issue [24:07.630 --> 24:14.490] that I have focused on. I think we need to make sure that the prices that people have around [24:14.490 --> 24:19.650] using to pay for a phone that's affordable is not compromised on some of these security and privacy [24:19.650 --> 24:24.550] issues. I think that's unacceptable. And because the commission has control over the lifeline [24:24.550 --> 24:29.430] program, I think we need to use that authority. We're obligated to make sure that the basic [24:29.430 --> 24:35.250] functionality here does keep our Americans secure. The last, last thing that I would mention that [24:35.250 --> 24:41.390] I've called for a number of times is internal changes at the FCC. We need to create a national [24:41.390 --> 24:47.250] security task force. The fact of the matter is that these network and national security issues [24:47.250 --> 24:54.290] and the cross-section that they have with our network issues have continued to come up. And [24:54.290 --> 25:02.610] we need to have a better, more collaborative way that we approach these issues rather than [25:02.610 --> 25:08.430] it being kind of whack-a-mole even at the FCC. Internal coordination has got to increase. [25:08.550 --> 25:13.470] We cannot have inconsistent treatment on these vital issues of national security. [25:13.530 --> 25:16.810] And again, these issues just aren't going to diminish. Quite the opposite. I think the [25:16.810 --> 25:21.190] complexity of these issues are going to only mean that we're going to have to step up more [25:21.190 --> 25:27.450] and deal with these with a cross-collaborative mindset. [25:28.110 --> 25:42.050] So, sort of to close out, it seems that you are very much focused not just on national security [25:42.050 --> 25:52.350] and privacy, but how the practices that we implement, those values, those outcomes, [25:52.350 --> 26:00.160] do not have disparate impacts on various communities. In other words, this needs to be [26:00.970 --> 26:06.970] a holistic approach. And frankly, you are an advocate, it sounds like, for the FCC playing [26:06.970 --> 26:13.950] an important role at addressing these issues in a holistic way and specifically in a way [26:13.950 --> 26:18.250] that does not have a disparate impact on communities of color. [26:18.250 --> 26:24.170] I could not agree more. And the fact of the matter is that so many of these issues, [26:24.170 --> 26:29.130] when you're talking about network issues and cybersecurity issues and privacy issues, [26:29.130 --> 26:35.450] so many of these are intertwined and commingled in ways that I think the FCC [26:36.290 --> 26:41.450] has a real role and a real voice to play. When I look at some of the surveillance issues, [26:41.450 --> 26:46.370] when I look at some of the AI issues, some of the algorithmic bias issues, [26:46.630 --> 26:52.130] a lot of these are having a disproportionate impact on communities of color, [26:52.130 --> 26:57.870] on the marginalized, on the most vulnerable. And so, I'm going to continue to use my voice [26:57.870 --> 27:06.030] and use my platform to make sure that these are issues that have a spotlight shine, [27:06.030 --> 27:11.630] and we're working through them with policy, and we're making sure that there is equity and [27:11.630 --> 27:20.390] digital equity that is brought to bear on a lot of these issues. So, could not agree more on that [27:20.390 --> 27:27.850] proposition. Well, Commissioner Starks, again, I promised your staff that I would keep [27:27.850 --> 27:37.930] time on this and not make you late for your next Zoom or call, if you will. Yes. Thank you. Thank [27:37.930 --> 27:45.990] you so much for your time. You know, hopefully, we'll be in a very different situation as a nation [27:45.990 --> 27:53.050] and as a world next year, and we can continue the conversation in person in Vegas. I'll look [27:53.050 --> 27:56.330] forward to it. Always good to talk to you, Stephanie. Thank you so much. Be well. [27:57.390 --> 27:58.810] Thank you. Bye-bye.