commission, and the state level. to gather we're smarter, together we're stronger, together will continue to seek out those who look to profit at the expense of the hard-working men and women of the united states of america. thank you. >> and you can watch this news conference with attorney general holder on investment fraud in its entirety on our website, c-span.org. also tonight on our companion network, c-span at 10:45 p.m. eastern. in a few moments on "the communicators," reactions to the fcc draft proposal on so-called net neutrality. ..

who this week on "the communicators," reaction to a draft proposal on matt neutrality from fcc chairman julius genachowski and proposal said to be voted on in december. >> 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 will explore the chairman's proposal as well as the reactions this week on "the communicators." first here is a portion of the federal communications commission chairman julius genachowski from earlier this week. >> first, consumers and in elevators have a right to know basic information about broadband surface like how networks are being managed to read the proposed framework of their four starts the meaningful transparency obligation or how

to develop the next act. 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 local internet traffic. to go where they want and say what they want online and use the devices of their choice, thus the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of local content, at services and connection of non-harmful devices that work. 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 marketplace of ideas. and so the proposed framework includes a bar on unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful network traffic.

>> representative marsha blackburn is a republican from tennessee and member of the house communications subcommittee. congresswoman blackburn, what's your reaction to julius genachowski's regulating the internet? >> i think what we are 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. 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 and the process and you know, peter, i think we have to look at the fact that you have had over 300 members of congress signed 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 the gifted this government takeover of the internet, or as i like to call it the fairness doctrine for the internet, you had a congressman markey's met neutrality bill, only had 27 co-sponsors, but you had 300 members on a bipartisan basis sign letters opposing the fcc interfering with the internet, and what we are going to have to do is stop big government power

grabs, and this is just another one that we are seeing, the obama administration to carry out. >> representative blackburn, what can congress do? >> why 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 sec keeps its hands off the internet. i have had -- i will refile my legislation, h.r. 3924, which is a bill like passed 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 look at the way the fcc is trying to

approach this. we are going to see the industry come to congress and say with a minute. with 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 creative community and look at some of what are now the core services on the internet, things like the voice, video conferencing, the use of skype, telemedicine in all of our health i.t. proposals and provisions that are out there house last next generations of those innovations. we want to make certain that those innovators can move those services onto the internet and 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. >> 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 google and ebay. >> yeah, and i think you hit the key word which is tech support because what they were told is look, you know, let's keep the internet under title i, and as you are well aware and your watchers and a few words are well aware there has been a big debate whether to move the internet, leave it in title i or move to title ii, and what we know is this committee did not win under title ii. no one does. so you are going to say we do give you some short-term certainty on this and leave it at title i and leave lawyer less

unabated and allow some pilot projects pricing, then we will go along with this. but i think that what we are hearing from more people is there are several concerns if the half. one is the legality and you can come back to the contest decision on this. doubts were raised about the fcc's authority to impose network management through either title i or title ii, and because the fcc action we are 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 the work the fcc ought to do. and i've got to tell you, and think when you look at the legality and also that falls right to the industry predicted devotee that is needed, i think the commissioner mcdowell from the fcc had it about right when he gave the statement that

pushing a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a choice between a bad option, which is the title i 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 and the predictability wish you the industry is saying we are wanting a little bit of help. on the open access issue, i think that neutrality sounds simple, it sounds like you force the phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information very same way, but we know that modern networks in broadband are incredibly complex. there are millions of lines of code in every router that it is

constantly evolving, and if we want to see that innovation continues to place in those next generation uses to place, we need to turn to the fcc and say you need to back away. the isp 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 isp is doing a good job. that is why i listen to chairman genachowski, and i think it's more -- it's a type of problem. no one has said the internet is broken. no one has said it doesn't work. no one has said that it means government interference. what we need to do is have government say look, this is an area where the market is

working. much of the job growth we have seen in the past decade has taken place because what has happened in our interactive technologies and you know, peter, go back and look at what transpired if we have the spectrum auctions and the hearings and the work that was done. spectrum is something that we now look at as a commodity that provides a platform for this innovation to take place, and what we see happening is the fcc is beginning to say we've conducted that option. you came in and bought the spectrum, you have launched broadband. that has been successful. you have launched a lot of these voice and video and data technologies and we have seen convergence of this, we have seen the cost to access come down. you are doing a great job on that so much we want to step in and regulate so that we can tax it so we can take our share.

and we know that when that happens you begin to see the government come and say look, you all, private sector, have built networks that cost billions of dollars to build and maintain it, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, and private investment is going to drive up and then government is going to step in and they are going to help to divest yourself of control of these and then you are going to have a government owned and operated internet. we do not need the fcc to to this. it is a hypothetical problem. the need to step out of the way. the need to get back to tending to business they should be tending to and the need to leave the internet alone. >> congress, marsha blackburn is a member of the house connections of committee. she joins us via phone from tennessee. thank you, representative

blackburn. we appreciate it. >> to be with you. >> markham erickson is the director of the open internet question which we referred to earlier, it represents companies such as bull and ebay and netflix. you issued a press release in support of chairman genachowski's proposal. was i fair to use the word ted it? >> well we think it's a very strong proposal. it's a very good first step in the critical step to ensure the internet remains a platform for innovation, free-speech, for the development, for the continued development of the most revolutionary communications platform ever invented. we've got three weeks where the commissioners will work among themselves to fine-tune this rule. we want to support the commissioners as the work to fine-tune this rule. certainly it needs further work. but this is a strong will and a very good first step to ensure 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 are going to go and what applications we want to use. >> mr. erickson, you called it a first step. would you like to see as the second and third step? >> the next step is the commission meeting on december 21st where they will vote of the proposed order. in the meantime, the commissioners will work among themselves to review the order from chairman genachowski and fine-tune it, to tweak it to make in incremental changes that we expect will happen to improve upon the chairman's very good proposal. >> now you heard marcia blackburn say that the isp is doing a very good job. do you agree? >> i think they are doing a very good job. but i think is a shame is that this debate sometimes gets into the washington rhetoric. 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 spent numerous years now receiving comments, expert testimony from economic technical reports from as many stakeholders as there are in but ecosystem which is coleman needed in this proposal. i think it's one you see the biggest on esops in the country giving their support for this proposal and some of the biggest innovators say that this is a good proposal as well. this is close. over the next few weeks and will be tweaked to get to liking the place it needs to be to insure the internet remains likely regulated, not overly regulated, but protected to ensure that innovators and consumers can use the internet the way was designed to be used. >> are you supportive of the chairman's support of the metered internet usage? >> i think it's a rational way

forward. the idea behind that -- >> but it goes away from net neutrality, is that fair to say? >> i don't think it does. net neutrality -- we just want to ensure we don't see unreasonable discrimination against certain application were certain piece of content. the commodores woman was incorrect to say that there's never been a problem. one of the things that field of this debate is when a major audience he was blocking the distribution of the king james bible. people fought the was wrong. this tool will prevent future conduct like that. it doesn't regulate things, it provides basic rules of the road. so the meter 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 are 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 he would charge a grandmother who only uses the internet to occasionally skype her

grandchildren or engage in 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 to replete isps want to do that and i think we are fine with that. >> the lead republican on the fcc, robert mcdowell, had this to say about chairman genachowski's proposal. central rules would offend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation. >> commissioner mcdonough was a smart commissioner and gove lawyer. he knows better than that there have been rules that have applied to the commercial and they are similar to the schools but most of the commercial internet existence. again, that's why we think this is a light touch common sense proposal that has a lot of support from different industry actors. again it needs to be improved and tweaked. i think everybody thinks that and some of those weeks are important but i think we are going to get there.

>> can you basically tell us how the chairman's proposal would benefit google or ebay? >> it's basically saying let's let the marketplace determine who succeeds on the internet. if consumers want to go to ebay the ought to be able to go to ebay. if consumers want to go to bing they ought to be able to go to bing. if they want to go to google this should be able to go to google. we shouldn't let the pipes that provide the connection to the sites like the conditions about where consumers get to go. that's what makes the internet work. it's much different than the cable tv platform where the cable provider decides what channels to provide you. in your cable plug on humans get espn but not the golf channel. the internet works much differently and that is all we're saying. we want to preserve the openness that allows consumers and users to make the choice, not where they want to go. >> markham erickson, your congressman blackburn as well say 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? >> i think the fcc is going to take some steps to put in a proposed rule and the congressman will look at that and they should look at that. the have the duty to oversee the fcc and we will work with congress on that and to the extent they want to revamp the laws, and take a look at the rules and suggest amendments to the telecommunications act, there are elected representatives and we will work with them on that. >> so is the next couple of your weeks of life and to be lived at the fcc? >> it won't be lifted the fcc, thank god, but we will be with customers. >> markham erickson, the director of the open internet question. thank you for being on "the communicators." here is a little bit more from julius genachowski earlier this week on regulating the internet. >> to this end, broad and providers me meaningful flexibility to manage networks, for example to deal with traffic that is harmful to the network or unwanted by users to address

the effect of congestion. reasonable mid-court 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 is 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. >> and now joining us from pittsburgh is matthew polka, who is with the american cable association. in fact, he is the president and ceo. how strong is the support of the aca for what term and genachowski is proposed when it comes to regulating the internet? >> we are quite in support of the chairman's proposal. i fink the chairman has done a great job this week of balancing

consumer centric interest with interest of industry for further data element and innovation of broadband. so we are very supportive of the efforts. >> now in the past your group, aca come and other cable operators and isps have been pretty much against net neutrality principles. what makes you support this proposal? >> i think it's the balance that has been struck. our concern that the american cable association has always been the disproportionate impact of regulations of smaller businesses. our association members we have 1,000 of our smaller independent businesses rather than large businesses, and the effect of regulation is much more disproportionate on their business, and we have been very concerned particularly as the debate was moving towards title ii classification that overregulation would have a dramatic chilling effect on the 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. >> okay. two things, number one the chairman spoke about flexibility in the network management practices. what does that mean to you? >> a couple things. one, it recognizes for broadband to be further deployed across the country, the market forces have to work that allow businesses to seek financial investment from the financial community to help further deploy broadbent. secondly, what that means is recognizing the fact that we have to recognize the fact not all broadband usage is the same. some people use it for e-mail, some people use it to download movies for heavy gaming and the pricing packages should be permissible to address each one

of those curious usages. previous iterations of regulations didn't take into account specifically those differences, and now this solution is compromised does recognize that. >> so when you see yourself or would you see your member companies moving into different tiers of pricing right away? >> i'm not sure if i would say right away but it is definitely something we will see and there is good reason for it. let's face it, if you have one price for all products and access, that prevents some of the work customers that are unfortunately lower-income from accessing professor and. unlike 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 will have the opportunity to deploy this is going to get the chance, our members the

chance to provide for packages of service that can make broadband deployed to customers today that don't take it and we think that is a very, very positive development. >> why do you think the time warner experiment in the usage based pricing failed? >> you know it may have just been timing, and i am even thinking back to this now it may have just been timing and the new concept, but as this debate regarding mick neutrality regulations and how best to craft the solution has proceeded as well as the chairman's notice of inquiry it became clear that in terms of balancing consumer interest with the interest of business for further deployment of broadband that usage based billing was going to be something i think was going to be necessary in order to achieve that compromise as well as take into account the interest of both consumers and businesses. and so life and what time, with the notice of inquiry with the

public process this preceded here it's been determined that this is actually a good result as part of a compromise. >> 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, and she talked about a dearth of support for the network neutrality or 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? >> we certainly will be more than happy and we will be spending a significant amount of time to help them understand of our position as a small-business is. as we looked at this issue regarding net neutrality, the one thing we were very concerned about the most was the imposition very heavy-handed regulations under title ii which from our perspective of small business would have been a very

serious blow to our ability to provide broadband services and smaller markets areas. we've looked at this proceeding at the fcc the notice of inquiry as well as the discussion that takes place 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 the consumer. so from our perspective, it makes great sense to reach this compromise which takes title ii regulation of the table while at the same time ensuring open as for the consumers which was not a problem for our members in terms of nondiscrimination and things of that nature. so we see it as a positive the foot of mud and compromise. >> finally mr. polka, who does the american cable association represent? >> we have a thousand member companies, smaller cable companies that provide broadbent, phone and video service in virtually every one

of our states. our largest member has about a 1.5 million subscribers. our smallest have less than 1,000, and frankly 800 fallin members have less than 5,000 subscribers, so we are truly small independent companies providing broadband and smaller markets, rural areas across the country. >> 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, this is the director of the media access project interest group, interested in telecommunications policy. mr. if you'd tell us about your group and what your reaction is to the chairman's marker. >> sure, we are a nonprofit law firm and represent groups outside of washington, d.c. who want to have the voice of the fcc and on the hill occasionally we were on these issues for calling it an allies here in washington and across the country. and it's nice to see people interested in these issues

because they do affect everyday americans in terms of ability to access internet and have the openness this come to expect that as far as this proposal goes, i guess i would basically agree with markham erickson and matthew polka my organization probably the there are more than a few weeks to make it strong enough but we do think this is a good first step in the plot the chairman bringing this proceeding to something approaching a conclusion that will preserve the openness we come to expect and need to win for what for freedom of expression and innovation online. >> but now when you send out your first press release it said you were disappointed in the chairman -- >> in some of the reports come and obviously nobody has seen the text of the proposal -- it's set to be based on the legislative framework developed over the summer. we felt at the time that framework was, again, a good start but needed i would say more than a few tweaks to make it stronger. we are concerned about the reports of things that are not in this proposed rule making such as protection for wireless internet users, the possibility

of discrimination, and again this isn't about to your pricing as markham erickson was singing to the that is a concern for people's pocketbooks but it's not a concern to the net neutrality, but what we are concerned but as cable operators and telephone companies picking and choosing among the tips of content you can receive and pressing those different we saying if you want to go to facebook that will cost more than if you want to go to netflix that will cost you more. we are concerned about content based this commission and the pricing talked about is not a net neutrality concern in my opinion. >> is it an issue in your group is concerned about, however, the metered usage? >> it is and that is more transparency. if it is a market-based pricing model and based on the charges the customer can understand, if you are paying basically the right amount of market based amount for this be targeting and actually getting this bg been promised then that's fine. we have some concern about the life to look at those arrangements, not to the can be determining them, so they're regulating internet but some consumers are aware of what they're buying from their isps.

>> michael copps, a democratic commissioner on the fcc, had this to say about chairman genachowski's proposal. over the next three weeks i will work tirelessly with stakeholders including of course consumers and internet innovators seeking to ensure real network majority that protect the online freedom of all americans. i think the key word there is real. >> we would agree. we've heard how smart commissioner mcdonough lands and commissioner copps owls well. those the extent of laid out in the grips and grabs isn't smart to take a strong initiative because the disparity between protection for the wireline broadband over your telephone or cable line and wireless and also because the potential loopholes and exemptions and the definition of other places that are a bit too detailed to get into but we feel that there may be too many loopholes and exemptions to make this a real protection for the openness americans deserve online. >> matthew what is the difference between the wire list

and the lawyer? >> good question. the wireless protections are not as strong as the one for the wireline broadband access. there is no nondiscrimination requirement so verizon wireless has potentially can pick and choose and say we