jazeera america. i'm morgan radford live in new york city. to stay up to date head over to aljazeera.com. "the stream", is up next. >> hi, i'm lisa fletcher, and you're in "the stream" . you pay for internet access. but are you getting your money's worth. is your net experience being controlled by big media? >> our producer a.m. waj i wajai bringing you live feedback to the show. you name t we're on it every single day.

but there is a growing concern that the way with you use it and access to it could change. >> yes, this is a huge change. this is a geek tech-savvy show, but we need it. rob said the internet is not a luxury today. cheap internet is necessary for participation in the workforce. brian said internet should be free to everyone. high speeds. no trotteling. the public and business would benefit from it. and then the internet is my only access to information from the outside world. i have no cable nor antenna, nor working radio. we are working dinosaurs from the 80's and 90s. >> by the year twenty20 analysts believe the average household will have 50 devices that connect to the web. billions have been invested in infrastructure to keep us connected.

but with progress comes problems. internet service providers say the added demand is stressing the system's capacity resulting in prioritizing internet traffic. meaning that certain sites load faster than others and. puts smaller sites at a disadvantage. >> the fight for net neutrality is making sure that corporations are not allowed to put tollbooths on the information super hay. this fight is about making sure that the internet stays just the way it is. free, open, equal. available to everyone regardless of how much they can pay to get their content. >> january a federal court struck down the attempt by the federal communications commission to regulate how service providesser operate saying the fcc overstepped it's bounds. now they're drafting new regulations that they hope will

stand up in court. but critics argue that that will end with fewer options for viewers. how does the internet create a level playing field for everyone. tonight with us, our guests, welcome to the stream. we use the internet for everything, at home, at work, on the go. but people are concerned that the cost of it, the way we access it, and our experience with it could change. why is that? >> well, i think that they've been deceived, frankly, by activists over the last few years who perpetrated this myth that the internet is about to change and evil companies are going to shut it off. that's not true. private companies built the internet. they built the internet that we love and made it possible to watch video online.

it took $300 million from the cable industry. i'm all in favor of competition. we could talk about how to get more competition for broadband, but it's not a net neutrality problem, it's a net capacity trouble. netflix has always had to pay to build on their own or contract with parties in the background. this latest deal that comcast struck with netflix is comcast offering a cheaper option to netflix to make sure that comcast customers can get good quality streaming from netflix . >> can days said we don't have a problem here. it's a made up issue from the other side of this net neutrality argument. what do you say? >> well, it would be great if that were true. i just don't buy it. we've been greatly concerned about this issue of net neutrality and protecting the internet users online for years now. and you know, the situation

we're in now, net neutrality is really gone. we don't have the protections that we need from the companies that we write these massive checks to every month to get online to prevent them from blocking website that we want to visits or slowing down those websites or prioritizing certain traffic over other traffic. >> there was a court ruling in january that struck a blow to the fcc now that the fcc is recrafting its regulations. talk a little bit about what led up to that, and the implications of it. >> sure, for the last ten years the debate of net neutrality has gone on. in 2005 the fcc put out a policy statement on that net neutrality. they lost the dc circuit. they tried to write rules in 2010, and for the most part those rules were struck down. most people say that that was a

is now powerless. that's not true. the court said those rules go a little too far. they oppose common carriage which is something that the fcc can't do without changing our it classifies broadband. it's a obscure regulatory distinctions. but that was a great win for the fcc because the court interpreted for the first time an obscure provision of the telecom act. the fcc could regulate any net neutrality with some limitations. but also they can regulate really any other part of the internet, which is disturbing to me, but at a minimum it should allay concerns that there is a cop on the beat. there is. >> edward tweets in internet service providers have the opportunity to pick their price,

keeping some off of th out of te marketplace and furthering the digital di divide. and then leave it to the providers with national requirements to ensure consistency. and allow competition having competition ensures the infrastructure is always viable. non-neutrality equals 1% power to the people. take a glitch to say that the newt gingrich led congress telecommunications act is likely dubious. to say that they intended to allow the fcc to impose network neutrality which would not be invented for another seven years is more so. as demonstrated by the dc circuit court not once but twice throwing out the fcc's effort to oppose neutral.

>> i is it better for the fcc to impose tighter regulations or do we leave it up to the telecom giants and set up their own limits. >> i don't trust companies like comcast and verizon. comcast, who has actually been caught--or violating the net neutrality rules, and verizon stated in court that it was fully their intention to move forward in a non-net neutral world. i think the big thing that we have to keep in mind here is when the court decision was handed down, it was not a court case about whether or not net neutrality was a good or bad thing. it had to do with the fcc had the authorities based on how they constructed the rule to put the rule out in the first place, and they totally had the opportunity to fix this problem by are classifying broadband. >> what she said is just not true. the fcc doesn't have to reclassify broadband because the

decision actually said the fcc has broad authority. see ton, fo ton, for example. >> what does it mean to reclassify broadband. >> title one, likely regulated information. that's the internet, and then title two, that's common carriers, things like the telephone network. the issue here is that the clinton administration very wisely after the 1996 telecom racket started a hands-off policy. we're not going to regulate it like the traditional telephone network we're going to invest it. and that investment that sat on the sidelines that was not going in to broadband. >> $300 billion. >> o since 1996. >> whose money? >> broadband providers, cable companies, verizon and google are investing that money into broadband networks. the point is about reclassification as a legal

matter it's just not true that the fcc has to change that classification to regulate that new falltneutrality. the court said it could do this through-- >> this is where i have to jump in and disagree with you. there are shreds of remaining authority that the fcc has, but basically what has happened over the last decade or so, the fcc built its policy essentially out of a house of cards and it's been one decision after another that they've constructed to hold the whole thing together. what happened in january, the whole house of cards--i know that's funny considering the netflix--but the whole house of cards blew over. >> now what we have, we have to reclassify because the section that he's talking about, section 706 is not going-- >> reclassifying and section 706 doesn't mean to anybody. so tell me what's best for consumers and why, why does

someone sitting at home care. >> we need massive investment. what has made that happened in the past has been a light touch to regulation. the problem with reclassification, the problem with title two is that it includes everything from price control to every aspect of public model. groups say don't worry about it. the fcc can choose not to apply those particular things. just trust the fcc. that doesn't work when you're trying to raise the hundreds of millions of dollars that it takes to build up the internet. i have to tell you that clarissa is just wrong. i'm a telecom lawyer. the difference at the end of the day is small. what it means is that the fcc can require for example all deals be reasonable and non-discriminatory, but they can't ban any sort of deals on the back end. >> our community is saying the reason why they should care is

because citizens are caught in the middle. and charlotte said to be fair, like any innovation it will be the citizens who have to foot the bill. and then net neutrality is important. consumers will end up paying more. >> what happens when you can't get internet service in your neighborhood, you can build your own. we'll meet a guy who actually did that. keep hitting us on twitter to tell us what you think. >> tv is no longer one way with "the stream" second screen app. disagree with one of our guests? tell us. get exclusive app content. and interact with other app users in realtime. you can be our third co-host. vote, tweet, record video comments and we'll feature them on air. use the app and drive our community discussions on life tv.

this literally puts you in the control room. download it now and use it with every live stream show.

>> every sunday night, al jazeera america brings you conversations you won't find anywhere else... >> your'e listening because you wanna see what happen... >> get your damn education... >> talk to al jazeera only on al jazeera america >> oh my...

>> welcome back. we're discussing internet access in the u.s. and what we need to do to ensure that it remains an innovation that benefits all. we have rashad with an organization that exists to strengthen black-american voice. and welcome to the stream, guys. rashad. what impact does the internet have on giving voice to minorities and marc marginalized groups. >> eight years ago in the aftermath of america hurricane katrina, a homemade website was built. people who wanted to get involved and hold the government accountable. that e-mail was sent to more and more people.

and it turned into a blog at the time. today that organization has turned into my organization color of change.org , which works to strength black american political voice. we're a million members strong with offices in two cities in this country. we work to empower folks around-- >> i get it, rashad. i just want you to get to this issue. are marginalized groups will be to go negatively di disenfranchised. >> my point is that couldn't have happened. our website would have been slowed down and people could have found fox news much quicker. without net neutrality. without the folks to be able to share information quickly, without things traveling at the same speed the idea that folks who are activists and sharing information are able to move content does not--not necessarily move at the same

speed. organizations like color of change can be borne out of disaster and give voice to every day people would not exist, would not happen without the ability--without net neutrality, without people being able to find our information, access our website just as quickly as major corporations. >> without net neutrality, are groups like rashad's going to cease to exist? >> a total red herring. people think they are websites are going to be slowed. this idea that fox news will load five times faster than daily coast. daily coast loads several times faster than fox news. this idea that websites are going to be blocked or discriminated against just is not true. it has always been about video platforms. the capacity it takes to deliver high speed video.

the reality is my organization, his organization, we all use youtube platforms. let me talk about the digital divide because there is a real problem in our country. we do to a lot more to deploy broadband to minorities. one of the sad things about this debate of net neutrality the fcc chairman came out with a broadband plan ordered by congress specifically focused on rolling out broadband and wireless services to low income and minority community. what did the fcc do? nothing because they sent several years working on net neutrality. they did not open up more spectrum. they didn't focus on making it easierier to build broadband networks. those are all things we could be doing. we could talk about that today. if they decide on that reclassification, we can't do any that have. >> we can't simply have the talking points of comcast and time warner and verizon.

the fact of the matter is that, you know, what we're hearing now is that it's just going to be video content, and that these corporations won't continue to overreach. but what we consistently see from verizon-- >> what is corporate overreach, rashad, explain what that means in the worst-case scenario. >> the worst case video, in a clear video, the netflix deal illustrates-- >> most people know what netflix deal is. i'm trying to get to you back this up and make it very obvious to folks. >> absolutely. so netflix and comcast, the deal that everyone is saying that great, that netflix is paying extra money basically to comcast so netflix will load much quicker on comcast. the reason why netflix has to do this is because comcast and the other providers were threatening to slow down netflix. because they can go to netflix

and say, loading up you're loading a lot of video. we don't want to you move as quickly. we're going to start charging you extra money. or we're going to slow one content down and make it easier for competitors. netflix, because they have a lot of money, because they have a lot of money can pay comcast more money. >> hang on rashad. i want to get a quick response, then we have t go to-- >> none of that is true. they have spent a lot of money to build their own delivery network and cut deals with peering services and trending services like cogent. comcast is offering netflix a better deal a more cost effective way to do that. this deal shows that the market could work. what would be troubling is if comcast refused to cut a deal. if netflix would not have been able to cut an arrangement for

them, that might have been a problem. but if you look at streaming media-- >> can i actually-- >> let me get some community in here real quick and then i want to get josh in. but the community is worried about the consequences especially to those who are low income or don't have the money or can't have access and the former commissioner of the fcc lisa said this is a civil rights issue. tom said no, internet is not a civil right but it should be left as intended, a free exchange of ideas. mark said devil's advocate. we have this tweet that said every city should use the chattanooga as a role model. chattanooga did something fascinating. for $70 a month, chattanooga residents get a fiber cable that

is 50 times faster than any access most americans have. do you think this could be replicated in other cities? >> the net neutrality as we look at overall picture of what's going on and going back to netflix and comcast, the net neutrality issue is a radical idea that everyone should have equal access to the internet and the pipes that are coming into our communities. the issue with the netflix deal that they're discussing is that it's becoming just like cable television. what happened with netflix and comcast held netflix's feet to the fire and say your content will suffer unless you pay us. it's a precursor for the types of fight that go on cable providers all the time when an entire city loses access to cbs, nbc or remember there was a big dish network. >> josh, i'm going to stop you there because we're starting to run out of the time on the show.

you created your own isp for your community. tell us how and why you did that. >> sure, here in lawrence we had one of the most converged markets in the united states. the cable company owned all the newspapers and the we looked at that and said that is a substantial problem. we started a non-profit internet service provider using resources from the community. we received no government funding, and started building an internet service provider to provide service to our neighbors. over time that grew. we morphed and became a for-profit company, and now we're providing the same level of service that google is providing in kansas city. we provide that here in lawrence. >> we got to hit a break. i want to find out if he believes that is sustainable. additionally, how can we guarantee fair internet access to everyone?

the answer might be out of this world. >> no doubt about it, innovation changes our lives. opening doors ... opening possibilities. taking the impossible from lab ... to life. on techknow, our scientists bring you a sneak-peak of the future, and take you behind the scenes at our evolving world. techknow - ideas, invention, life. on al jazeera america

>> i'm a writer. i'm a blogger, and i'm in "the stream" . >> welcome back. we're discussing the impact of americans growing use of the internet and how to make the ever increasing demand. check this out. a group in new york is hoping to launch many satellites into space that would send free wi-fi back down to earth. candace, if that doesn't happen or happen in the near future what steps could be taken to make sure that consumers are getting fair access? >> i think the only way that we can insure that everyone is getting fair access is to push the fcc to do the thing that we've been talking about, which

is reclassifying broadband. that's the only way we're going to get real net neutrality protection, and the only thing that will prevent comcast and slowing down website. >> the truth, net neutrality is a regulatory agenda intended to favor google and other corporations. how about a co-op internet action. let communities pitch in, we have co-op plea trical services. robust net neutrality good lines. overcoming the digital divide. the question is political will. andrea shad, where is the solution and middle ground? >> i think the middle ground is really going to be a mix of both corporations finding real solutions that don't involve overreach.

we had a system that worked for years. we had a a system where people had been able to use this tool to create voices for democracy. it really should be focused on keeping the internet as it is and allowing every day people make their voices heard. >> isps argue that they are a private business. they provide service, and they should have control. it sound like capitalism. >> no, capitalist i capitalism is not regulation. when we have businesses that provide different services in our communities, they are regulating, they are expected to follow laws just like individuals. the idea that corporations should be able to our flow of

information outoversight is not how we experience our every day business engagement. at the end of the day, as a person who works for a civil rights organization who sees the power of the internet to ensure that the voices of those who are heard just as loudly as those with a lot of money. i don't think the internet should be changed. >> is there some solution that best satisfies everyone? >> nobody is saying that there is no role for government. there clearly is a role to make sure that companies don't engage in anti-competitive behavior. that's why we have antitrust laws and the fcc has broader power than that. how do we get more capacity. how do we make it more competitive. the way to do that ultimately is to unleash private companies. google fiber has been building out across the country. they would do it more if local governments would get out of the way. >> thanks to all of our guest force a great conversation. until next time we'll see you online.

>> any violation of ukraine's sovereignty of territorial integrity would be deeply destabilising. >> president obama issues a warning to moscow as armed men patrol the streets of crimea. >> hello, this is it al jazeera, live from doha. also - protesters on the streets of venezuela. opposition leader henriques capriles tells al jazeera that the government won't last. in thailand the prime minister has no plans to step down. thousands of her supporters set to rally.