she has something like $25, $30 a month in food stamps. can you survive on $30 over a months time? >> it would be great if they have something available for kids that they didn't have to fill out the forms, they didn't have to be very soon they could get something for lunch if they needed. >> you can watch the entire documentary and all the other winning entries at student cam.org.

back this week on the communicator session at unseating u.s. can the tom totzke vice president of verizon. >> host: thomas tauke in a recent network you compare telecommunications law and telecommunications regulation to the winchester mistry house, how's that grew up over years and those hallways that go nowhere and doorways that don't open. how do you date telecommunications law and such a dynamic and ever-changi field? >> guest: it is true that our telecommunications law needs updating and part of it is because it's grown up over time. lots of amendments here and additions there that have told

the structure that is now the framework that governs our industry. but it wasn't really change to reflect the new world of communications. so this law was essentially a constructed at a time when you had monopolies in the cable industry in the telephone industry and essentially broadcast monopolies in the local community. and it was constructed as a side sidenote set of industries. and of course, all of that is changed. the internet and technology have changed this so that now you have everybody and everybody else is as minnesota's pete. you can't address these industries and silos anymore and the whole nature of the development of content with users actually developing the content rather than just being receivers of content you have history so significantly that it's time to take a look at the

statue. postcode do you think the 1996 telecom is even out of date the 90's to be updated as well five >> guest: when you think about it, the driving force behind the 1986 act was allowing local telephone companies to get into the long-distance business. we don't even and 34. and it's anytime, anywhere, anyplace that is the differentiating between a local call and in-state calls, a long-distance call, that's been blown away. so if you talk about that to a 15-year-old or an 18-year-old, they look at you strangely. you've got to be my age to remember what it was like when you had all these different call instructions. postcode who takes the lead flight is calm be to develop the framework class >> guest: at the conference needs to take the lead. the federal communications commission really is facing a tough task. the chairman of the sec and chairman genachowski has been

charged by his boss, the president, and the administration was trying to implement new policies. it just came out with the national guard and planned trying to look at all loads the challenges that we face as an nation and how broadband can address some of those challenges are they see this as a vital infrastructure, which is right. they're trying to encourage investment. they want innovation in the space while this is good but they're trying to work with the statute that is a structure for this area. and i tank when we look at this world of the internet, we know we don't want it to be a wild wild west. we want to be governed by the rule of law. empress really have to determine what other principles for the rule of law and who has the power to enforce and oversee quake >> host: we're talking with tom tauke come to executive vice president for verizon. when he messes jim hart was a technology reporter and also

writes the silicon valley pattern. >> or you tom? last week in your speech you talk a lot about how everyone is kind of plane in each other's inboxes this week heard computer companies are selling for network providers other stores. and he stressed a lot about the need for the government to ensure that no players house advantage over another and that you want really technology agnostic kind of policy going forward. what do you think is the best way to approach that since you just said that you do think that some updates are needed to the law. are there specific updates that you see needed to make sure that you're keeping up with all these changes? >> guest: first of all, we haven't come up with all the answers ourselves and certainly there are going to be many people who have different ideas. part of the effort here was to get a conversation going to really encourage people to come forward with their ideas and discuss how legislation might be put together.

and i want to say i'm a former member of congress, not current, so it's not much up to do this, but i do think that there are many capable people on the hill are going to have good ideas about how to address some of these issues. so with that said, let me just say i think that nsn, we need to do is to approach this from the perspective of the consumer. so one of the examples i used was behavioral advertising, for example. and behavioral advertising for those who may not know i think was very well described by senator byron dorgan when he said if i go into a store in the clerk is keeping track of what i thought you might store, i feel fine with that. but if i go to a mall and somebody started following me around from store to store to see what i was buying in order to keep track of and is that you feel bad about it. and that's what happens on the internet is is to keep track of

you as you go on the internet and compile that information and direct advertising to you. our perspective is that generally consumers should not be tracked on the internet unless they get their affirmative permission to be tracked. and that should apply to anybody who would track. it should apply to the internet service provider. it would apply to the search engine. it would've to anybody who would be attracting her behavior on the internet. and i think it's a little bit like if you walk into a country so today. you can get permission for them to keep track of what you buy and you join the club and you get a discount or you can deny that permission. and that's the same thing we should have on the internet, the same kind of role. but it should apply to everybody so that consumers have no it don't want to retracted that applies to other players, not to want. and he should have a situation where you have to do this method to get this player not to try again another player not to track.

so i think looking at it from a consumer perspective you want to make sure that it's easy for the consumer, that the consumer feel secure and safe and that the same rules apply for all the people who might be doing or participating in some way in the consumer experience on the internet. >> and you see a lot of players in the industry especially in the advertising world has really kind of advocated for a self-regulatory -- >> guest: i would argue in a self-regulatory process because it's such a fast-moving world that generally government doesn't move that fast. the a government isn't designed to move quickly. and so to the extent you cannot industry of self-governance that can work very well, the advertising industry is a good example of that. the advertising industry is in large part a self-governing industry, but it has the federal trade commission over cnet and the federal trade commission stepping in where the industry isn't able to handle an issue

themselves. and so i think that is not a bad model, at least for a lot of things that might go on on the internet, at least in this time in our history when things are moving quickly and with a lot of inner experiences and new technology being put out there. >> mr. tauke, the broadband plan released by the fcc recently, there seem seemed to be general across-the-board support. is verizon a full supporter of the department? >> guest: there's so much in the broadband plan but to say a full supporter probably would get me some trouble with somebody. but i think generally there are a lot of really good things on the broadband plant and i want to single out the very good work that the team that put that plan together did in a limited amount of time and they came up with a very credible document based on a lot of research. we think that their things in their wake a call to begin work on for enough spectrum in order to meet future mobile communications needs right on target. some of the efforts to try to

restructure the high cost funded universal service to ensure that it's going to bring broadband, generally very much on target i think. the efforts to focus on adoption, the efforts to get the federal government to play a role as a purchase services and driving broadband as an option in its broadband network to do two is situated you know, you think all these things are very good. there is some aspects of it that causes a little bit of pause, but that happens whenever 360 page document. >> host: such as? a >> guest: i would say some of this isn't some of the questions raised with regulation. we wrote adopted as it is essentially followed since then, which is that the government gives the really light regulatory touch to the internet

and has a spouse that policy around the world, that that is the right policy. and while this plan doesn't recommend a change from that, it raises the question about whether or not there should be a change from that policy. and then there are other specific issues. i'll just pick one, copper retirement which is close to us and we've been. when you replace the copper with fiber, you want to pull the copper out at some point because you don't want to run two networks. you want to run one. that's part of the business case for putting in the fiber. if you would be required to maintain the copper, then durability to deploy fiber is diminished because you can't afford to maintain two networks. so i think that when that kind of issue is race, which had not been on the table from our perspective before, then that causes us some concern about where this might be headed. so in any comprehensive review of issues, there is some you like and their son that you have

concerns about that would be the case here, but overall i think that the fcc deserves a commendation for its work. >> verizon ceo and google ceo wrote an op-ed talking about some of the points of agreement that both companies see within the broadband plan. can you talk a little bit about the points that you guys are i to ion, then maybe get into some of the things that you are so i to ion. >> guest: there's a little bit of history here that i might just recount. we have been trying for about two years to try to cringe some of the gaps between is in my own if is as good as you will profit will be. and to the extent we can come to two of the policy process appropriately for this internet ecosystem.

i think it's fair to say that one of the areas of policy dispute has been a neutrality and verizon on what sites do we really don't neutrality vista by some of the proposals of the fcc to be a good thing. google has been a strong advocate of this policy. and is as good as it is as good as as as as as as as as as as, which in those the elements of areas of agreement and now this op-ed is another attempt to continue to protest. i think enough inside they do what we generally agree on is that the policy of the light regulatory touch if you will is probably the right policy going forward for the government. i think we also agree however that you need a structure here,

a policy structure that works because we both consider our companies to be good actors in the space and are doing a lot of good days. we also know that that that yours can make -- can show consumer behavior in the space and that would be good for anybody. so you do what government sites to ensure is as good as her how to do that type is you to to to to be a reached a think a common understanding on. what is the test for government intervention? the government should step in what is worth this type of activity. so if somebody's doing something that harms a are anticompetitive recent is good the other thing we have focused a lot on his process and we have been working

on a process for self-governance in the industry to the stuff that's feasible, but also a mechanism for rent disputes go to government, government entity like the fcc or the ftc that there's a workable process that gives you a quick answer. and so we're looking at instead of having a system that said worthy of the period we think it's very hard to actually several years in the end. so was not better off to a system or when an issue comes for the fcc has that issue brought to it you do makes a quick decision based on the facts of that case and in the course of mickey mouse should just fleshing out the the policy for the space. so i think we're looking at both the test in the process as key to coming to some common understanding of something that would work for her district. >> you mentioned the fcc in last

week in your speech he said you wanted a more flexible at that developer site of this industry that is changing so quickly every day. some have said that that's kind of advocating to some of the fcc's teeth away, kind of taken a little bit of the rulemaking power enforcement power that you kind of see it taking more of an ftc like rall having kind of enforcement power but not as much rulemaking power. how do you -- >> guest: i don't think it's taking the teeth away. but clearly isn't the intent. they think it's using the power of government in a smarter way as possible while attempting to achieve the objective of having innovation, quick innovation in the space, the development of lots of new products and services and having a quick moving markets. so if you have those things come you can't have a cumbersome tottori process. you need an agile regulatory process. and so i think what we're seeing is the fcc should set up guidelines or maybe the congress

should instead you, but somewhere we need is both laid out, the guidelines laid out, test for government intervention as i alluded to and then start moving on the things quickly. i would say to you that if you have a process where it takes years to get an answer fogs down in the courts, which is what is right in our industry right now, that's not a good answer or anybody and it doesn't make the agency affect it in the marketplace. will want to whatever the agency is that as his jurisdiction, whether the fcc were ftc that they move promptly, that they are able to make decisions quickly and in that way shape the marketplace rather than having everything coming up in the courts. >> host: tom tauke, if you could reconcile a few things. and your speech and in a lot of verizon blogs via lance, you're always talking about the investment that's been made, the number of people have access to the internet.

95% of americans, et cetera, things like this. and many talk about a light regulatory touch. at the same time, there was discussion here in the op-ed by eric schmitt and i have two sites even burg saying that you need private investment and partnership between government for private companies and that in your recent teacher talked about perhaps subsidies for broadband all of food stamps. could you reconcile those? >> guest: sure. there was a lot of questions. let's start by saying that the investment in this space is huge. i mean our company alone has been investing at the rate of $17 billion a year over the last several years. and when you look at that in contrast to all other american companies, it's much greater than any other american company that at&t a few years we been had in a few years they have put our company and the rest of the industry are investing huge amounts of money and

infrastructure. this the fcc in its broadband plant invested an investment of up to $350 billion over the next several years to confirm for structure to improve to match the services and the demands that will come from the marketplace. so you have to have a climate which encourages and provides that investment. and part of creating the climate is having a government policy that makes sense. so you want a policy that ensures the consumers feel comfortable in the space because that's part of encouraging investment. you also want to policy however that moves with the marketplace in the technology, which is what i was trying to describe earlier. i think there are other things government can do. there are little things like when the state of virginia put its drivers license process on the line, this was a great game. he didn't have to go to the dmv to standard line anymore.

you can worry spent most of my time working in new jersey and new york. you can go online and feel of your property tax things for your car and home and all the saints and that's terrific. it just makes doing business with the government so much easier. governments in a sense can encourage adoption by doing those things, by using the tools that are available. the broadband plan focuses on that. using broadband and education, using broadband to conserve energy companies and broadband to make our transportation system smarter, using broadband in order to improve the delivery of health care services. so governments role in encouraging the use of this technology and encrypt any government is a terrific thing. the other place i think our government has a role to play with the private sector with all its investment is not reaching some citizens. there is a rule for government to play to try to make sure that

those citizens aren't reached. i don't think anybody suggest it's wise to keep them out of the system, you know, or offline so to speak. we don't want a digital divide as some have suggested. and traditionally we've done that in communication spirit revived universal service service funds to support universal telephony. and i think this is the same kind of thing. so i've government's role is to create the climate for investment to ensure that everybody has engage, to promote the use of the technology as much as possible so that people adopt the technology and their lies are easier. >> along the model of using a different model for maybe subsidies for technology like a scooter feels that model. can you see how you might see that happening. that's an idea that hasn't been talked about a lot. >> guest: i think one of the things that i suppose this is like an example of what government should not do. government to create in the right climate should not be

picking winners and losers. so if you look at the fuel industry for home heating or food stamps, you don't have the government in the home heating industry saying the companies, whether you collect money and then will distribute money to the companies and they will provide the services to the consumers. instead, the government collects money from the general tech space, gives money to those consumers who needed to purchase deal and then the consumer decide that they're going to buy natural gas, home heating oil, you know, electricity or whatever. the government doesn't get into the business of directing money to companies and then telling the companies how they're going to deliver the service. ended the day, it would mess up, i suspect, the delivery of heating to the people who need it. similarly with food stamps. you don't have governments coming in and sending money to the grocery store, the food manufacturer to then provide

food to consumers. instead you have the government sending money to the consumer so they can go to the grocery store and buy food like everybody else. my belief is that if the government tried to send the money to the grocery store, the feud manufacture would mess up the food distribution system. so when it comes to broadband, while the point is this: we have had a world where there was one telephone company in an area, so you send the money to the telephone company in the company would then provide the service to the consumer. that's not the model for the industry we have today. instead, we have many companies that are providing broadband services to consumers in the consumers who need the assistance should receive the funds and purchase it on the company they choose. a satellite company, cable company, telephone company, whatever. but don't have the government picking the winners and losers in the marketplace or control in the marketplace to the distribution of subsidies.

the subsidy is to consumers, not to companies. >> host: tom tauke is the executive producer of verizon. kmart is a reporter at the hill. >> guest: i wanted to talk a little bit about title i versus title ii. this is something that is always quite explicit these days. >> guest: now were getting down to the weeds. >> guest: were already not a contest court ruling. the author author is a problem if and information service. comcast has challenge their authority to regulate back service under that classification, which is wise of course. and depending on what the court comes back with, the fcc has indicated it is open to considering reclassifying broadband altogether as a communication service under title ii. you indicated in your speech last week that you don't think that that is a wise idea, but because the sec doesn't necessarily have jurisdiction to do that and also because the

current broadband plan industry doesn't fit into the title ii framework tiered can you tell us a little bit more about your thinking on what would have been if the fcc does go forward with that thought >> guest: i'll probably be sandbagging it's an unwise idea that title ii would be an understatement. you know, but title ii low with a great love for the industry that existed in 1934. the telephone industry was the monopoly industry. but it includes excruciating regulation of the industry from the kinds of patches that the workers were on their uniforms to how many times the phone rings before it's answered. i mean, it is just a very extensive regulation on the industry. and it is i think horribly ill suited for the industry that we have today, the communications sector that we have today. and i think that if the fcc would try to an offense shoehorn

this industry into the title ii section of the law and apply that to the industry, that we would end up with years of court battles and this is in part that wouldn't be good for anybody. so that's on par with think it's time for congress to step in. i mean, the fcc. i don't want to speak for the sec, but i'd say they'd only be doing this out of desperation because the court would be telling them, you have classified broadband as title i. now that doesn't work, so they play well let's try title ii because there isn't any other title which really fits. so they're doing it because they don't have anyplace else to turn. this is when congress is supposed to act. we don't have a segment of the communication statute that really applies or really works for this segment of the industry. congress really needs to update the law. >> host: with classifying it as title ii would it cover companies like google?

>> guest: well, no. it would only cover a segment of players in the industry, those essentially who have networks and certain kinds of networks. google has an extensive nationwide network that connects all of its servers and all of its storage capability. but it doesn't have the kind of network that would be regulated under title ii. so it does. it creates a thing from the consumer perspective it would not work. and from a legal perspective it would result in a lot of dispute. and so it wouldn't be a good hang anything for the growth of the industry or the achievement of the objectives from a national broadband. >> host: so we cover the comcast. just go it's interesting, contrasting surrender title vi which is for cable companies. wireless is under title iii. verizon when at the actin of the telephone companies under title ii. theoretically as comcast would

be put under title ii, which would really be interesting to watch that happen. i mean, this is all kind of inside baseball and down in the weeds, so to speak here but it does profound impact on the consumer experience. going back to the consumer, if the consumer should have some kind of sense of certainty in the space, not have to worry about which company at the moment is doing which thing, but just what is my experience into a have a good experience on the space. i don't think this would work very well for the consumer. >> host: as a long-time washington hand do you see any movement in congress or d.c. the fcc leaning towards considering all these companies to be equal partners in a sense? >> guest: i think the fcc is constrained, some might even say hamstrung, but a statute under which they operate. they assert an under flexibility but what is happening potentially what the court decisions is that their flexibility is being

constrained. that's an partly i think is important for congress to act. there a lot of members of congress who believe they ought to have congressman boucher who is chair of the telecoms committee. i don't want to speak for him by the say when he took comprehensive look at the law. several other members of congress said similar things and i think there is a general recognition that from time to time when you industry is dynamic and is changing as this industry. i mean 96, we never thought of a search engine. what was google? this is a whole different world today. wireless downloading video on your wireless phone. i mean, most people didn't have anything wireless. so to think that what was written in 96 would apply to today's industry i think most who would say you probably need to update the law. >> views also set along the flanks of power shifting to the cloud. how do you see the rise in