>> to find out more about robert rife and his book, visit robert like.org. robert reich.org. >> you've been watching booktv. join us again next weekend for 48 hours of programs about nonfiction books. all weekend, every weekend. beginning saturday morning at 8 eastern here on c-span2.

>> this weekend the senate voted not to advance two democratic amendments to extend the bush era tax cuts. no official floor action is scheduled this week, but negotiations continue as senator reid has called the legislation a top priority. the senate gavels in today at 2 p.m. eastern for general speeches with no votes expected. later this week they'll take up impeachment proceedings against federal district court judge thomas porteous. also votes on the dream act, to give student illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, and a measure giving seniors receiving social security payments a cost of living adjustment. live senate coverage here on c-span2. >> this week on "the communicators," reaction to a draft proposal on net neutrality from fcc chair. juliet: jus genachowski. -- julius genachowski. that proposal is set to be voted on in december.

>> host: well, fcc chairman genachowski's announcement this week on regulating the internet has garnered strong reaction from lawmakers and other groups interested in telecommunications policy. we'll explore the chairman's proposal as well as the reactions this week on "the communicators." first, here's a portion of federal communications commission chairman julius genachowski from earlier this week. >> first, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service like how networks are being managed. the proposed framework, therefore, starts with a meaningful transparency obligation so that consumers and innovators have the information they need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using a broadband network or how to develop the next killer app. sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of issues that even come to the fcc.

second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful internet traffic. to go where they want and say what they want online and to use the devices of their choice. thus, the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network. third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. no central authority public or private should have the power to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the internet. that's the role of the market, and the marketplace of ideas. and so the proposed framework includes a bar on unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic. >> host: representative marsha blackburn is a republican from tennessee and a member of the house communications subcommittee. congresswoman blackburn, what's your reaction to julius genachowski's announcement on regulating the internet?

>> guest: i think that what we're seeing come from the fcc chairman is, basically, a hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. and we know that the fcc is not going to be stopped by common sense, by the judicial system, by public opinion and by the debate that has taken place in the polling booths november 2nd. and i think what we have to look at first and foremost is the process by which the fcc went about making the decision is insulting. we have had years of bipartisan talks on what congress was going to do and how they were going to approach the internet. and so as we have a new congress taking over, the fcc has decided to jam this short-sighted policy down the throat of the american people and to bypass congress in the process. and, you know, peter, i think that we have to look at the fact that you have had over 300

members of congress sign a letter to the fcc expressing concern over the fcc's power grab. and when there was a net neutrality bill which is the warm, fuzzy name they give to this government takeover of the internet or as i like to call it the fairness doctrine for the internet, you had congressman markey's net neutrality bill only had 27 co-sponsors. but you had 300 members on a bipartisan basis sign letters opposing the fcc interfering with the, with the internet. and what we're going to have to do is stop big government power grabs, and this is just another one that we are seeing the obama administration try to carry out. >> host: well, representative blackburn, what can congress do? >> guest: well, what you're going to see happen is this: if

the fcc does move forward in this rulemaking authority on december 21st, then come january you're going to see some aggressive work on making certain that the fcc keeps its hands off the internet. i have had, i will refile my legislation, h.r. 3924, which is a bill that i've had to prohibit the fcc from enacting net neutrality regulations. and this is a debate that should be held in congress. it should not be held at the fcc. and we are going to see this come back, i think, even as we look at hearings and we look at the way the fcc is trying to approach this, we're going to see the industry come to congress and say, wait a minute. what the fcc is doing by putting this stranglehold is prohibiting all of our innovators from

bringing those next generation technologies on to the internet and being able to do so with some predictability. when you look at our innovative and our creative community and you look at some of what are now core services on the internet, things like voip, video conferencing, the use of skype, telemedicine in all of our health i.t. proposals and provisions that are out there as well as next generations of of those innovations. we want to make certain that those innovators can move those services on to the internet and can on to that pipeline with predictability, with a certain amount of certainty. and if those innovators are going to get caught up with regulatory interference by the fcc, we may be capping the innovation that has taken place for the internet. >> host: now, congresswoman, a couple of the large business groups have offered their tepid support including the cable

operators and the open internet coalition which represents the googles and the ebays. >> guest: yeah. and, you know, you -- i think you hit the keyword there which is tepid support. because what they were told was, look, you know, let's keep the internet under title i. and as you are well aware and your listeners and your watchers, viewers are well aware, there's been the big debate about whether to move the internet, leave it in title i or move it to title ii. and what we know is this, they did not want it under title ii. no one does. so they said, okay, if you're going to say we'll give you some short-term certainty on this and leave it at title i and you're going to leave wireless unabated, and you're going to allow some pilot projects in tier pricing, then we'll go along with this. but i think the point we are

hearing from more people is there are several concerns that they have. one is the legality. and you can go back to the comcast decision on this. doubts were raised then about the fcc's authority to impose network management through either title i or title ii. and because of the fcc's action, we're going to face more expensive and protracted legal challenges that are going to detract from the real work that could be done with the internet and also from the work that the fcc ought to do. and i've got to tell you, i think that when you look at the legality and, also, that falls right to industry predictability that is needed, i think commissioner mcdowell from the fcc had it about right. when he gave the statement that pushing a small group of hand-of picked industry players toward a choice between a bad option which is the title i internet regulation or a worse option which is regulating it like a monopoly phone company under

title ii, that it is more of coercion than consensus or compromise. so i think that's why you see that tepid support. you can go back and look at that legality issue, you can look at the predictability issue that the industry is saying, well, we're wanting some -- a little bit of help there. on the open access issue, i think net neutrality, it sounds simple, it sounds like you force the phone and the cable companies to treat every bit of information very same way. but we know that modern networks in the broadband are incredibly complex. there are million of lines of code in every router, that it is constantly evolving. and if we want to see that innovation continue to take place in -- and those next

generation uses take place, we need to turn to the fcc and say, you need to back away. the isps are doing a very good job managing these networks and making certain that there is open access on these networks. fcc, you need to get out of the way. you don't need to be the cop on the beat on this. the isps are doing a good job. that's why i listened to chairman genachowski, and i think it's more -- it's a hypothetical problem. no one has said the internet is broken. no one has said it doesn't work. no one has said that it needs government interference. what we need to do is have government say, hey, look, this is an area where the market is working. much of the jobs growth we have seen in the past decade has taken place because of what has happened in our interactive of technologies. and you know, peter, go back and look at what transpired as we

had the spectrum options and the hearings and the work that was done there. spectrum is something that we now look at as a commodity that provides the platform for this innovation to take place. and what we see happening is the fcc is beginning to say, hmm, we conducted that auction. you all came in, you bid, you bought the spectrum. you have launched a broadband. that has been successful. you have launched a lot of these voice, video and data technologies, and we've seen convergence of of this. we've seen the cost to access come down. you're doing a great job on that, so much so that we want to step in, and we want to regulate it so that we can tax it, so that we can take our share. and we know that when that happens, you begin to see the government come in and say, look, you all -- private

sector -- have built networks that cost billions of dollars to build and to maintain it. and if there is uncertainty about getting a return on that investment, then private investment is going to drive up, and then government is going to step in, and they're going to help you divest yourself of control of these, and then you're going to have a government-owned and operated internet. we do not need the fcc to do this. it is a hypothetical problem. they need to step out of the way. they need to get back to tending to business that they should be tending to, and they need to leave the internet alone. >> host: congresswoman marsha ma blackburn is a member of the house communications subcommittee. she joins us via phone from tennessee. thank you, representative blackburn, we appreciate it. >> doctor good to be with you. >> host: well, markham erickson is the directer of the open internet coalition, represents companies such as google and e pay and netflix.

you issued a press release in support of chairman genachowski's proposal. was i fair to use the word tepid? >> guest: well, we think there's a very strong proposal. it's a very good first step. it's a critical step to insure that the internet remains a flat form for inknow -- platform for innovation, free speech, for the continued development of the most revolutionary communications platform ever invented. we've got three weeks now where the commissioners will work among themselves to fine tune this rule. we want to support the commissioners as they work to fine tune this rule. certainly it needs a little bit of further work. but this is a strong rule, and it's a very good first step to insure that the internet doesn't turn into something that looks more like cable tv, but remains a platform where users determine, consumers, you and i determine where we're going to go and what applications we want to use.

>> host: now, mr. erickson, you called it a first step. what would you like to see as a second and third step? >> guest: well, the next step is the commission meeting on december 21st where they'll vote the proposed order. in the meantime, the commissioners will work among themselves to review the proposed order from chairman genachowski and to fine tune it, to tweak it, to make incremental changes that we expect will happen, to improve upon the chairman's very good proposal. >> host: now, you heard marsha blackburn say that the isps are doing a very good job. do you agree? >> guest: i think they are doing a good job. what i think is a shame is that this debate sometimes gets into the washington rhetoric game. congress set up the federal communications commission to be an independent expert agency immune from politics. this is what they were designed to do. they've spent numerous years, now, receiving comments, expert testimony, economic reports,

technical reports from as many stakeholders as there are in the internet ecosystem which has culminated in this proposal. i think it's why you see some of the biggest ipss in the country giving their support for this proposal, and you see some of the biggest innovators saying that this is a good proposal as well. this is close. over the next few weeks, it'll be tweaked to get to, i think, the place it needs to be to insure that the internet remains lightly regulated, not overly regulated, but protected. just basic rules of the road to insure that innovators and consumers can use the internet the way it was designed to be used. >> host: are you supportive of of the chairman's support of the metered internet usage? >> guest: well, i think it's a rational way forward. the idea behind that -- >> host: but it goes away from net neutrality, is that fair to say? >> guest: i don't think it does. net neutrality, really we just want to insure we don't see unreasonable discrimination against a certain application or

certain piece of content. the congresswoman was incorrect to say that there's never been a problem. one of the things that fueled this debate was when a major isp was blocking the distribution of the king james bible. people thought that was wrong. this rule will prevent future conduct like that. it doesn't regulate things, it provides basic rules of the road. so the metered pricing is essentially saying, let's let the isps make their business decisions about how to recoup their money, how to charge customers, and we're generally okay if they decide that people should pay for how much content and data they use. there is a difference probably one would think between what you would charge a grandmother who only uses the internet to caseally skype her grandchild or to engage an e-mail versus a 20-something-year-old person who is using the internet for, you know, 24-hour online gaming experiences. and they probably ought to be charged differently.

i think isps want to do that, and i think we're fine with that. >> host: the lee lead republican on the -- lead republican on the fcc, robert mcdowell, had this to say about the proposal. such rules would upsend three decades of international consensus: >>ing with, commissioner mcdowell's a very smart commissioner, he's a very good lawyer, but he knows better than that. there are rules that have been applied to the commercial internet that are very similar to these. this is why we think this is a common sense, light-touch proposal that has a lot of support from industry actors. again, it needs to be tweaked, and some of those tweaks are important, but i think we're going to get there. >> host: can you, basically, tell us how the chairman's proposal would benefit a google or an ebay? >> guest: it's basically saying let's let the marketplace determine who succeeds on the internet. if consumers want to go to

ebay, they ought to be able to go to ebay. consumers want to go to bing, they ought to be able to go to bing. if they want to go to google, they ought to be able to go to google. we shouldn't let the pipes make the decisions about where consumers get to go. that's what makes the internet work. it's much different from the cable tv platform. you may get in your cable platform espn but not the golf channel. the internet be works much differently, and that's all we're saying. we want to preserve that openness that allows consumers and users to make the choice about where they want to go. >> host: you heard congresswoman blackburn say as well that the new republican house will be taking up this issue, in her view. would you like to see it stay in the fcc, or what is your strategy if it does go to the congress? >> guest: i think the fcc's going to take some steps to put in a proposed rule, and i think congress will rook at that, and they should look at that. they have the duty to oversee

the fcc. and we'll work with congress on that. to the extent they want to revamp the law and take a look at the rules and suggest amendments to the telecommunications act, there are elected representatives -- they're our elected representatives, and we'll work with them. >> host: so is the next couple weeks of your life going to be lived at the fcc? >> guest: well, we will be engaging with the commissioners. >> host: markham erickson is the directer of the open internet coalition. thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thanks, peter. >> host: here's a little bit more from chairman genachowski on regulating the internet. >> broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to manage their networks. for example, to deal with traffic that's harmful or unwanted and to address the effects of congestion. reasonable network management is an important part of the proposal. recognizing that what is reasonable will take account of the network technology and

architecture involved. our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing. >> host: and now joining us from pittsburgh is matthew polka who is with the american cable association. in fact, he's the president and ceo. mr. polka, how strong is the support of the aca for what chairman genachowski has proposed when it comes to regulating the internet? >> guest: we are quite in support of the chairman's proposal. i think the chairman has done a great job this week of balancing consumer-centric interests with the interests of industry for further development and innovation of broadband. so we are very supportive of the chairman's efforts. >> host: now, in the past your group, aca, and other cable

operators and is ps have been pretty much against net neutrality principles. what makes you support this, this proposal? >> guest: well, i think it's the balance that has been struck. our concern at the american cable association has always been the disproportionate impact of regulations on smaller businesses. our association members, we have a thousand that are smaller, independent businesses rather than large businesses, and the effect of regulations is much more disproportionate on their business. and we have been concerned particularly as the debate was moving towards title ii reclassification that that overregulation would have a dramatic chilling effect on further broadband deployment. this solution, which is much more limited, focuses on the needs of consumers for openness and nondiscrimination while at the same time balancing the interests of business to allow things such as reasonable network management and usage-based billing.

>> host: okay. two things. number one, the chairman spoke about flexibility in network management practices. what does that mean to you? >> couple of things. one, it recognizes that for broadband to be further deployed across the country market forces have to work that allow businesses to seek financial investment from the financial community to help further deploy broadband. secondly, what that means is it recognizes the fact that we have to recognize the fact that not all broadband usage is the same. some people use it for e-mail, some people use it to download movies and for heavy gaming. and that pricing packages should be permissible to address, to address each one of those various usages. previous iterations of regulations didn't take into account specifically those differences, and now this solution is, this compromise

does recognize that. >> host: so would you see yourself, would you see your member companies moving in to different tiers of pricing right away? >> guest: well, i'm not sure if i would say right away, but i think it is definitely something that we'll see. and there's good reason for it. let's face it, if you had one price for all broadband access, that prevents some of our customers that are, unfortunately, lower income from accessing broadband. i like what the chairman said the other day in his speech where he said, basically, you know, it's hard -- this is his quote -- it's hard to imagine life today without the internet any more than we can imagine life without running water or electricity. with the usage-based pricing that we'll have the opportunity to deploy, this is going to give us a chance, our members a chance to provide lower packages of services that can actually make broadband deployed to customers today that don't take it. and we think that's a very, very positive development. >> host: why do you think the

time/warner experiment in usage-based pricing failed? >> guest: you know, it just may have been timing. i'm even thinking back to this now, it just may have been timing and newness of the concept. but as this debate regarding net neutrality regulations and how best to craft a solution has proceeded as well as the chairman's notice of inquiry, you know, it became clear that in terms of balancing consumer interests with the interests of business for further deployment of broadband that usage-based billing was going to be something that i think was going to be necessary in order to achievement and that compromise -- achieve that compromise as well as take into account the interests of both consumers and businesses. and so i think with time, with the notice of inquiry, with the public process that has proceeded here it's been determined that this is actually a good result as part of the compromise. >> host: now, mr. polka, we spoke with congresswoman marsha

blackburn earlier in the program, and she's a member of the house communications subcommittee as you know. >> guest: yep. >> host: she talked about a dearth of support for net neutrality or net management practices in the congress and especially with the house going republican. do you have a strategy for working with the congress on this issue? >> guest: we certainly will be more than happy, and we'll be spending a significant amount of time to help them to understand our position as smaller businesses. as we looked at this issue regarding net neutrality, the one thing that we were very concerned about the most was the imposition of a very heavy-handed regulation under title ii which from our perspective as small businesses would have been a very serious blow to our ability to provide broadband services in smaller markets, rural areas. we've looked at this, this this proceeding at the fcc, the notice of inquiry as a positive

development to strike what is a very sound balance of appropriate regulation while at the same time allowing market forces to work for the benefit of consumers. so from our per spect bive it -- perspective it makes great sense to reach this compromise which takes title ii regulation off the table while at the same time insuring openness for consumers which was not a problem for our members in terms of nonscrippation and things of that nature. and is so we see it as a positive development and compromise. >> host: and finally, mr. polka, who does the american cable association represent? this. >> guest: we have a thousand member companies, smaller cable companies that provide broadband, phone and video service in virtually every one of our states. our largest member has about a million and a half members, subscribers. our smallest members have less than a thousand and, frankly, 800 of our members have less than 5,000 subscribers.

so we are truly small, independent companies that are providing broadband in smaller markets, rural areas all across the country. >> host: matthew polka is president and ceo of the american cable association. thank you. we are now joined by another matthew, and this is matthew wood who's the associate directer of the media access project. an interest group interested in telecommunications policy. mr. wood, if you would tell us, first of all, about your group and what your reaction is to the chairman's marker. >> guest: sure. we are a nonprofit law firm as we structure ourselves, and we represent groups outside of washington, d.c. who want to have a voice at the fcc and on the hill occasionally. we work on these issues for clients and allies here in washington and also across the country. and it's nice to see people interested in these issues because, obviously, they do effect everyday americans in terms of their ability to access the internet and have the openness they've come to expect on it. as far as this proposal goes, i guess i would basically agree with markham and matt polka that

this is a good first step. my organization thinks there are more than a few tweaks needed, but we applaud the chairman finally bringing this proceeding to something approaching a conclusion that will preserve the openness that we've come to expect and that we need going forward for freedom of expression and innovation online. >> host: but, now, when you sent out your first press release, it said you were very disappointed in the chairman's -- >> guest: right. we were disappointed in some of the reports. obviously, nobody has seen the text of the proposal. it's said to be based on the legislative framework developed over the summer. we felt at the time it was a good start but it needed i would say probably more than just a few tweaks to make it stronger. we're concerned about some of the reports of things that are not in this proposed rulemaking such as a protection for wireless internet users, the possibility of discrimination. this isn't really about tier pricing as markham was saying. that's a concern for people's wallets and for people's pocket