matter. we believe healthcare, employment and income security, retirement planning, affordable utilities, protection from financial abuse. broadband services, the technology itself, many of you in the room are specialists and experts, i can tell you at aarp, we see our broadband as a successful connector for the 50 plus population. we understand all people have a fundamental need to stay connected to one another or be part of a wider community, being connected is particularly important for the 50 plus population. older adults find out later in life many times that there are more potential opportunities after the age of 50 and before such as becoming an entrepreneur, starting new businesses, coming good with the dreams and goals they which they had thought of and proceeded with when they were 20 but after

a life full of work, they have opportunity to engage in that. the 50 plus population in this country is growing rapidly and projected to increase by 21% by 2020 and those over 65 growing by 33% by 2020 which is just a minute away. all the communities of this nation need to go to work can find ways to keep this large and vibrant growing 50 plus population not only engaged but also connected. we would like to talk about the technology infrastructure, broadband, implications and impact to this population. lifelong learning opportunities are very high on the list of the 50 plus population and they get an opportunity to study local institutions of higher education and intergenerational access to public schools and community

facilities. access to public services offered by federal, state and local governments, information on critical life-saving and like enhancing benefits are online now. and those populations, those adults who have no access or who have limited access really value broadband and the internet to getting to those benefits. and again i mentioned access for entrepreneurialism small-business start up opportunity very important. i want to talk quickly so we can move to questions and answers about how we see this rapid technological change happening in telecommunications. aarp for me believes as the technology evolves consumer protections cannot become obsolete. they must move and transition with the technology. there is no stopping point. there is no tipping point. they must move as the technology

evolves for the protection of consumers and in the nation's public interest as well. we know the classification issue is at the core, at the heart of a lot of the distress right now regarding the hearing next week and other telecommunications issues. we try to help our members understand the difference regarding the classification, telecommunications services, the fcc has so much more authority under that, under their classification as opposed to the information service so we try to help our members understand the difference. network neutrality, aarp supports an open internet. we support consumer's right to access information openly without discrimination of content or service so we are firmly supportive in that camp.

we believe policymakers should ensure consumers have the right to use their internet connection to access, use and receive or offer any lawful content or service that they choose over the internet and consumers should have the right to attach any device to the operator's broadband network as long as that device does not damage or degrade the subscriber's use of the network. aarp is very supportive of the fcc's role as a gatekeeper over this critical, vibrant, rapidly changing technology and its infrastructure. we believe the sec has a role landed must be maintained and protected. broadband is no longer the fledgling technology of the 80s and 90s, needing the nurturing

of a light touch or restrained touch of regulations. instead broadband technology and with the internet represents is all full grown robust technology and industry that is very critical to our nation and the public interest of our nation and very critical to our 50 plus population and quality of life issues as all of us age. we feel that the public for its patience, its encouragement and to a greater extent sedation -- subsidization of this broadband, deserves a federal communications commission whose role will be to protect, strengthen universal access, not normally connectivity but the content and services the internet will offer. >> thank you so much, marti.

i want to get sarah back in but let's finish with steven. marti talked about broadband as the basic communications platform, no longer something that is fledgling. what does it mean for communities to don't have access to that basic connectivity, what impact do we see when we don't have people on the open access and affordable access for every population, not just those few that can afford to buy it from verizon and they can get it if they want to. >> thank you for having me on this panel. it is an extreme honor to be on this panel with so many folks that i have the deepest amount of respect for and i am humbled to be here. i am here for the center for media justice but i should be truthful, i am here representing the 160 members of the immediate action grassroots network which is a national at work week award made with membership across the country and for us the open internet has an impacted three

areas. we know it is vital to the health and well-being of the communities represented to our networks which are communities of color, rural communities, low income, up for and working class communities, vital to their health and well-being, it is important in protecting the public interest and in particular the same vulnerable communities that without these protections can be priced out for vital infrastructure or sometimes relegated for the second class internet that impact their ability to communicate effectively and participate in this kind of global twenty-first century economy and lastly we see an impact being the open internet is vital in protecting a platform that has democratized our communications and really provided us an effective platform where we can voice our opposition and i will go into

each of those a little bit more. for us this case is about controlling ownership, vital infrastructure and these are preexisting tensions communities of color, rural communities, for and working class communities are all too familiar with. one of our network members, an organization in mississippi, they run this digital literacy program for children and elementary, middle school and high school because they know how critical these skills are too a quality education. and they are engaged in this work trying to connect education to digital literacy because it is so vital. around jobs broadband has been this engine behind economic development. and interesting study by the center for social inclusion in the mississippi naacp that took a little look at broadband and the mississippi data and analyze it codes and looked at how many broadband providers were in each

of those of the bands of goods that had 4 to 7 broadband providers, internet service providers, have 78 businesses. and they have zero or seven. it is no surprise that a lot of thosecodes dovetailed over with rural communities, or communities, communities of color, what we learn from the struggles, when we lack agency over these critical infrastructures our communities suffer. this case in the fight for an open internet is our fight and because it is directly tied to all of our other fight for community health and well-being, as other folks alluded to, corporations are often times trying to look for more ways to make more profit which is natural, they are corporations. when profitmaking conflict with the public interest, in a lot of cases profitmaking usually wins

out but it doesn't have to be this way. network neutrality is a principle that protect the public and when this year roads we face an internet ecosystem that preys on the public. we look after the fcc implemented its network neutrality rules, metro pc yes came out with the tiered data plan. you can pay $40 and get unlimited, what they call unlimited web browsing and you can get unlimited youtube for a little bit more, you can get additional websites and use that seeing this kind of tiered structure that is similar when we think about cable, metro p c s is the company that is now t mobile, metro pc as was the company back then specifically marketing towards communities of, think of the internet experience we are inviting people into when we don't have these vital protections. when corporations are in a position to pick winners and losers beat losers tend to be those most vulnerable

communities, communities of color, poor, working-class communities. without an open internet we are denied yet again one more platform and arguably for us in our day and age the biggest platform to express our opinions that reflect the best interests of our communities. this is relevant now more than ever as the president and congress debate what actions to take in syria. it is vitally important that we have access to media platforms that allow us to uphold military force, to call for peaceful intervention, that allow us to hear the stories of groups like the iraq veterans against the war and challenge the obvious and time muslim racism that we see that is so much part of the mainstream media. i think a lot about in this particular issue a lot of companies that are against network neutrality are the same companies that have provided massive amounts of data to the nsa, users all across the u.s.. and open internet was the

platform that allowed us to hear of the secret surveillance programs that come to life, the online communities that fought back against policies like so far, it is of vital platform that allows us to build power and challenge when it is necessary so in conclusion those that the three pieces we see as important, we need an open internet for our health and well-being, need an open internet for to protect the public interest and protect the most vulnerable and we need the open internet as a platform for defense. >> thank you, that was very compelling. i want to take a moment and broadened the scope of bit. i think a little bit about the worst case scenario susan described earlier where the court would issue a sweeping ruling that says the fcc has no authority to regulate broadband and other policies beyond neutrality and open internet

order that this lack of authority would affect and i could start off by flagging the universal service fund and probably marti and angie could add to this but what we're seeing at the sec, trying to broaden the scope of the funds, broaden the scope of things supported with the universal service funds to include broadband service in the context of lifeline program which provides a discount for low-cost telephone service. we have seen calls from groups across the country to expand this program, to allow it to support standalone broadband and this is the sort of inability, in ability to work and extend those regulations to include broadband within the lifeline. we have gotten there partially

but to actually support broadband as a stand-alone service in the lifeline fund. the scope of the regulatory authority over traditional telephone companies involves much more than nondiscrimination so i would like to dig into other related issues. >> the worst case scenario is worse than that, that there be no congressional authority to delegate power to the sec to act so you get a continuation of the status quo which is divided markets, take wired, i will take wireless, able to charge what you want for whatever services, it just becomes a private limousine service, some people get access and some people don't. so all the great things that happen for society because we have things like a postal system and federal highway system in

america, communications networks, the phone reach everybody at an equal level, that huge competitive advantage for the country is whittled away because few people, the more affluent will get access, still second class networks but better than their less well-off brethren will. new businesses won't be able to rely on our common interface so they will risk having the rug pulled out from under them when they want to attract new investment and get launched, equivalent access to health care for americans, education, every social policy goal we care about is undermined by not having universally available interconnected internet access. we won't get that without having some oversight because left to their own devices we will get what we have got which is the status quo, deeply profit driven

enterprise. >> and also would like to emphasize once again, it has been mentioned by a couple people on the panel already there are still pockets of populations in this country that have no access, a very limited access, rudimentary access to even phone service, great phone service not to mention broadband internet and so forth. soviet demise of the fcc as a gatekeeper and preserver of public interest in that respect would turn communities that are struggling to survive with no providers, to probably what i would like to say wasteland because economic development doesn't happen, populations who want to continue generation after generation, that is not going to happen but we still

have places in this country and it was in the fcc the gatekeeper of public interest role, those places may never get service and those places with limited service would have a difficult time in attracting the profit driven provider to come into those communities. just want to speak to those rural populations and other places that really don't have what we see in washington d.c. and other urban areas in this country. >> what we do know is congress had that concern already and devoted money towards building projects so more consumers could have access to high-speed internet service and we also know that the commission with a statute that hasn't been updated since 1996 looked at section 254 and its lifeline reform which occurred about a year-and-a-half ago, put together a pilot program for broadband internet access service for low income

consumers, relied upon the statute, relied upon the access case to do that, has a pilot project that is ongoing right now so that they can turn a lifeline program into not just voice subsidy program but also broadband subsidy program and as you indicated the commission already permits the subsidy for purposes of packages so that consumers buying both a voice and the broadband package could be subsidized but it is the same amount of money the subsidy is. it is not apparent there are a lot of companies currently offering that service to low income subscribers in the life line program. so even if it shuts down the first amendment case congress still has authority that it can delegate to the fcc. if they somehow limit the authority that the fcc has been delegated and we have to go back to congress, the commission has to go back to congress in order

to be able to ensure that low income consumers can be served and making get access to broadband internet access through subsidies, is going to take a while. that is a concern. if the court doesn't shut down the up whole thing at this point and uphold the commission's statutory up the already, the 706 a f orting, 706 b authority, language in various portions that have been tied back related to the service of video to surface of police and the 230 provision relied upon by the fcc. i would even go, stress even beyond susan stress, we really need to uphold the fcc at this time and the fcc has to go back and redo the amount of time that would take the fcc and the

political pressure they would feel from the public and from the company's. this is not a great use of government resources. this question has been asked and answered and the courts uphold it and there are many other things the fcc needs to work on including finishing up the pilot project and making sure low-income consumers to affordable broadband internet access for us. >> part of what i think about is i am in this interesting generation where i am old enough to have gone to school at times we didn't necessarily need access to the internet but i was the first person on my block when i was growing up in los angeles to get a computer and have a dialogue connection. and nowadays when i go back my cousin was with my mom, a cable

connection that she needed and goes to college, my cousin next door is in high school regularly on a daily basis utilizing a computer to finish her homework. for me the doomsday scenario, and the infrastructure is being utilized, configure taxes online, family members look for jobs on line, look for directions, and looking forward, this authority question, what is interesting is a critical question, it reminds me of the same old song, the same old song, every time the sec decides to do something, it seems like

the carriers don't like it they respond by saying the sec doesn't have the authority to do that. we have seen that recently, it was part of a campaign to lower the cost of phone calls from prison. and at the commission over a decade. and what are the carriers saying? they don't want to be regulated so they are saying the sec has no authority. when these arguments come up time and time again. >> without questioning the true statement this will tie the commission of in knots. and at the same old song we're referring to. if the sec does that, and they

get sued the matter what they do. and open order drafting, they get sued for the right thing. and you are going to get sued no matter what the bill in with your strongest theory. and based on a narrow remands and the open internet will and neutrality, and companies have to tie themselves to navigate the current system that we have. and connect to a verizon or comcast, a guaranteed to send traffic, and the type of facility, whether it is copper wire or cable wire providing the

same service, and companies have to deal with regulatory arbitrage and the games the incumbents play to make that as difficult as possible for their competitors. >> doesn't seem like it is the same old song. congress did provide provisions in title ii in the 1996 act to open local markets for competition, and as we see more companies transition to new technologies such as internet protocol, they're not arguing this is internet and the commission should regulate the same way it is regulated the traditional tv and service and they do not want to interconnect with competitive carriers and they want the commission to treat it as though the internet

peering, and opposition is this is not internet arrangements, these are voice products that manage services, over the carriers that work come advertise their voice of critical services, is not deemed, carried over the internet, and we continue to have that fight, so there is a lot of spillover, that we have seen the board, you see again proceeding after proceeding and the commission's lack of determination how to classify services and it does have to tie itself up in knots in order to enact consumer protection and occasionally we find out here is consumer protection interconnected voice that has been covered such as the recent case on slamming.

who knew that as it turned out of you are a consumer in your voice product gets switched over to an interconnected voice service without your permission, you file a slamming complaints that the fcc, they're going to dismiss it because they haven't said those rules apply to interconnected voice service even though in many other contexts they applied the same telephone consumer protections for interconnected voice service. yes, this is -- makes it difficult for our members and we are concerned about exactly what steps the commission will take, what authority it will be viewed as having by the courts to ensure there is a level competitive playing field. why is this all-important? consumers have choice, they have innovative services offered to them, usually edge that their prices, they will have alternatives if they don't like their service they can go to somebody else. this is a good thing, this is

what the 96 act intended and we want to see those provisions continue. >> you mentioned in your earlier statements you highlighted the widespread political and social roots support back in the days of the original drafting of the open internet order and given the sort of orbit triage, your stories exemplify, more and more companies are moving away from traditional telephone technologies and phone systems delivered over the internet, a shrinking of companies and entities that these rules are protecting and is we transition over, we are reaching the critical moment. so i am curious where are we now when it comes to this political and social support and have we

missed the moment? >> there is a lot of confusion. i don't want to put you on the spot but there is confusion in what you just said because the numbers actually show not much of the voice services over the internet right now. the use of internet protocol is the transmission technology. doesn't mean it goes over the internet and so through this confusion what has internet in the name is going over the internet, i have something to tell you all, that is not true. that is that misconception my association is spending a lot of time trying to correct. as it turns out, there are some folks that are choosing to have their voice product over the internet and that is great and we want to encourage that. that is really important but it is also true that there continue to be managed voice products for

consumers. is well over the up majority of residential consumers choosing and all business consumers do. and for business consumers they need to absolutely make sure they have good quality service. the internet is the best beverage network. it doesn't offer the same kind of guarantees that the telephone network has traditionally offered. it is important for so many consumers. i have to tell you is important to me as a residential consumer with two young kids in my house. i don't rely solely on my mobile service. i still continue to purchase the triple play that includes a voice product because i absolutely one to be sure i can stay in contact with my friends, family, love one's and if there's an emergency in my house. that manage product that i get from verizon is a manage product that does not travel over the internet. and in fact you can go on there website and they will tell you

that. ought wanted to be clear so folks understand and the commission, the lack of certainty and definition from the commission's perspective and it hasn't decided what interconnected voice is. it continues to be a problem and sometimes it isn't a problem they perceive such as the slamming situation. you have an enforcement bureau looking at slamming rules going weekend handle this complaint and one thing i should have mentioned most likely the state couldn't either because so many states have been regulated voice service so where is the consumer supposed to go? how is the consumer going to be protected from that? so it is important that the commission, that they address issues, the politics are hard. i have been there before and i have also been in the situation of begging but chairman's office

to make the hard decision and that is where is helpful to have the grass roots and consumers say we want these protections and it is so important for the commission to do its job and protect consumers and especially in light of the fact that 50% of states that have deregulated, the sec is the last agency that can protect consumers. >> i just want to thank angie for the clarification. of highlight the necessity in a dire situation, other consumer advocacy groups particularly with state legislatures and state utility commissions who don't have the best information, they may have the best lobbyists that the carrier can provide but they don't have the best information and they get a lot of conflicting information as to

where their authority begins and where it ends and where the fcc is able to step in and what its role will be in terms of being a stop gap. so i want to speak up for the consumer groups fighting at the state level to are dealing with legislators and utility commissions getting mixed messages about the fcc's role and that the state level saying don't worry, deregulate, the fcc will be there, in washington they're doing everything to make sure that the fcc will not be there. >> state regulators are confused, real people are confused and it goes back to something marti touched on, we can finish with some final thoughts before we start taking questions, one of the benefits of being in d.c. is we have as many experts in the audience if not more than you have in front of the supply interested to hear what questions we might get but there is this confusion and not like of concern or care about

these issues that simple disbelief that consumer protections don't apply. i can call anybody i want to, what do you mean i can't do that with an e-mail or web site? why would that be different just because the technology has improved or change? why would suddenly i not have the same rights economically speaking and from an internet freedom standpoint. why can't i go and find out what steven is talking about? the i s p as the right to choose who aiken talk to and that is where the confusion comes from and where the i s p has been so successful. >> it makes you smile because from the consumer's perspective these are general purpose transport networks, you're supposed to pick of the equivalent of modern day equivalence of the phone and do what you need to do and it should be world class, interconnected, we are all american and supposed to be number one and steadily at the state level, at local level, at the federal level all of that

structure is being removed and this case is central to that very well thought out campaign and the problem is it is enough of a shell game, maybe not over the internet but provided by the same guy, everything keeps moving around, read defined broadly and yet it shouldn't be that difficult. this is basic general transport communications network, substitute for the telephone and should be treated that way but without clear congressional authority clear sec authority and very strong rules of the state to the of the phone the sec can't pick of three hundred million phones and consumer protection complaints. there's an important role for the state to play. we got to get them back into that position. we have this opportunity the next couple years to move this ship around. and i am hopeful that whatever happens with the legal gymnastics on the open internet rule itself we will see a

wholesale move towards this as a very important social policy issue for the entire country. >> we have the state commissioners who are engage on these issues and we need to more of them. the organization that represents the state utility commissioners, the president put together a task force and they just released their white paper on cooperative federal events and state work that needs to happen with new networks and i encourage you all to go to their web site, look at the paper, we need to have more of that discussion and how we have this engagement at the state commissioners, state legislators and the fec all working together to ensure there's a level competitive playing field so we all have options as consumers whether we are residential consumers or business consumers and we all know the competition is one of the best way to protect consumers offering innovation and also their need

to be basic consumer protections in place that susan talked about and marti talked about that absolutely in short people get a guaranteed service they have always had that they rely on and don't have to understand the legal distinctions when using the internet versus when they are using their wireless phone versus a wired phone. >> what i would add quickly is part of what we tried to do with the media action grassroots network is bring that grassroots voice to a lot of these places, not just the fcc but the state level. a lot of member organizations were involved in california and the unsuccessful campaign, the deregulation bill. we need to be able to organize those stories, not be able to provide technical distinctions but share with the potential impact to their everyday lives. for folks on the inter web, feel free to hit us of the. magnet is where it is at.

>> i think we can open up to questions and speaking of the inter webs we have some folks monitoring the twitter feed with the hash tag so we will try to get one or two questions from the twitter feed as well. >> are you handling it? >> thank you. it seems to me now, a great job presenting some things here but i have to say there is an elephant in the room being overlooked and you can clarify a tremendous amount, the reality is you mentioned it has been since the 96 fact that this was done. the 96 act was written 60 years after the 34 act and congress did know about the internet. there was a lot done in the 80s and 90s on the internet so i maintain the statute does address the internet and it would be helpful for your listeners to understand in the

event you get past the first amendment argument or the sec goes down on 706 which they probably should the reality is the sec was given the tools by congress to address all of this and i would like you to maybe educate the listeners on the fact that in the event the court strikes down the rationale put forward by the sec all is not lost, you don't need a new statute, you could go back and address these things as they have been done before. everyone is to telling around a fact that the sec got itself into this box by defining what angie points out something over ip as somehow outside their grasp and they sort of scrambled around the edges looking for provisions to say we didn't give it all away, we just gave away the importance of some maybe you could talk a little more about how title 2, title 3 and title 6

might continue to apply in the event the sec went back and revisited the definitions. >> i did not intend to tiptoe around this but the commission reclassified the service as an information service. they did that for a cable modem service and they did that for d s l service and that is one option. the commission can look at those decisions and say we are going to classify the service as the title ii service and it clearly has all of the authority it needs and can price regulated it wanted to. it also could do other things. in stead of classifying broad had internet access it could classify the transmission under title 2 and make it available on a wholesale basis to competitors and create a more vibrant competitive market or broadband service so that other providers

could offer an open internet service to consumers so all of that will be very politically difficult inside the beltway, if that is what the commission would be left to do and it is hard to speculate what the court would say if they were striking down what it is the commission relied upon but there is a series of decisions that occurred, prior commission under prior administrations left in the position it was in an the fcc that i was part of made the decision not to go forward with the reclassification. it has been proceeding as part of that discussion and one reason is it is hard to do it, such an outcry that it shouldn't do that but go this particular route and see what the court says. >> i am glad you think i am so

grateful. i feel i stepped on a few times. the sec twisted themselves in knots. thank you for bringing it up again because it is important that people not think this case again is somehow the end of the road of the sec but just the end of this road of the regulatory twilight are talked about earlier where they tried to say we have jurisdiction over broadband internet access service but only in convoluted ways and maybe that holds the. may be the court will find that to be the case for these rules. isn't good enough in our view for all of the things and responsibilities the sec has under that act and all the roles they have to play to make sure we maintain this communications network and don't let it disappear because the technology has changed. >> our members have real concerns about the amount of time it would take for the commission to make the decision, what the end result can be. one of the things i would hear

constantly behind those lobbying me was we need urgency, just make a decision. this puts us all back into more uncertainty and there are other proceedings going on at the fcc that my members care about, special access reform, reforming, modernizing policies that the commission and instead we are going to rehash events and there are other responsibilities of the commission that may have deadlines, the incentive option. this is not our preference. our preference is for the court to make a decision to come out clearly that this is not a first amendment right that verizon has, and it should shut down claims that the commission overstepped the authority that it has. it is time to move on. we need to be addressing larger issues and it gets back to what else the commission already has,

what they have already done and how that might impact the high cost reform and the e rate reform that there are more specific provisions about services and that will be effective thank goodness but we need to be having a different discussion. it is time for this to be shut down and let's do it here and should this get to the supreme court lets hope the supreme court does it again. i would like to point out none of us talk about arlington and the commission won the city of arlington case to split the conservatives. i am really proud of that case. i was one of the primary authors of the underlying order at the sec as a staffer in the wireless bureau. i was thrilled the commission -- was up held for purposes, its jurisdiction and not the general statutory authority and i really hope that the d.c. circuit gets back, they are going to look at

all of the other provisions of the commission's sites, redefinition of what 706's reinterpretation of 706 is and that holds the fcc so we can get beyond this conversation and talk about other things, to ensure consumers have access to broadband. >> go ahead. >> i have a contribution to the discussion. i want to go back to the basic principle of how we're going to improve everything from the basic principles, for instance equal opportunity and equity, helping the poor and everything, all of our commodities are good, we have to base on the

principles so the internet, broadband, smart area or other areas, for instance we have a computer, a phone, landline phone and everything, stiff profit already, that have diverted this, up not your line at all and customer's. we don't resolve it, we have a big problem and the reason we have phoned rage and in prison, the problem is a bigger issue than that. they don't allow you to use the phone and for you to call the police, just in case patients

for inmates get sick you can call the police. but the line is not working. if we don't resolve it we have a big problem. these organizations, they don't, based on justice, people complain their own resolve that the fcc could go anywhere or some people's complaint, don't allow them to speak. we have a big issue. >> as a point of principal power organization and the network believes the right to communicate belongs to everyone. out there, you mentioned the availability of broadband what we're seeing is broadband becoming more and more available but when we look at adoption rates and the interesting survey that was recently published on the daily yonder took a look at adoption rates and urban communities versus rural, found

that they took a look at adoption rate from 2003 compared to 2010, found virtually the gap hadn't really changed. in some cases when you look at demographics it got wider. the digital divide in some places is growing even though the availability of broadband is there but it is either unaffordable or whatever mechanisms median place for people to allies this technology and communicate effectively in the twenty-first century digital ecology is not fair, the infrastructure is in there and the regulatory agencies play a very critical role in insuring people did develop the ability to communicate. >> i want to check with our on line monitors. do we have any questions? >> i have some online access thanks to the inter webs. i want to get this too but something that popped up time and again. if you want to jump in, the question is why can't the ftc

and do this? why is net neutrality anything more than a substitute for antitrust and i would start to answer that by saying the fcc is effective at doing what they're supposed to do today but we are talking about pro competitive policies that the fcc but it is more about universal service and deployment and adoption issues marti and stephen talked about, not just the we have options but competition is a great way if you can get it to improve services for people but not the only thing we should have in our toolbox and hasn't been enough in the current incumbent dominated space to result in lower prices for people, talk about the second rate networks we are often relegated to. >> not only does angie deal with many social balis attached to a communications network like internet access but inherently

looks backward and only protects competitors, it protects competitors. here we have a marketplace where these guys don't want to compete with each other and they have marketplace is all over the place and it would be looking backward and the ftc cannot say you have to enter a market in order to serve people who are radically and serve. only regulatory policy does that and could create the system of cross subsidies and everything that needs to happen in order for everybody in america tab world-class high speed internet access which is where we should be so the ftc has an interesting consumer protection will but when it comes to making prophylactic regulatory rules that will protect nation's industries, only the expert administrative agency in do that. >> also wouldn't prevent the

kind of curing stephen talked about. you can offer any service you want and call it basic communications service but it is something that is an unlimited subset. >> with facebook on the front page. >> the european institute. i want to get back to that elephant in the room. i am a little bit out of touch. a couple years ago the fcc lost its comcast case. some of the same issues the state gathered, the fcc argued the case should be repealed or are they going to -- is it going to be distinguished or how serious is this congressional authorization issue? >> it is very serious. some people say this second case is once more with feeling, let's do it again. other people saying we rewrote

the section or understand what section 706 of the communications act means and earl can talk to you about why that doesn't do it and we established statutory authority based on several sections of the act but that is the approach being taken by the fcc and the elephant in the room is why not rip-off the band-aid, called a telecommunications service under title 2 and then forebear from applying all kinds of things, you don't want to weigh down high-speed internet access but at least you have your basic statutory structure clear. it would be a very political argument, it is absolutely right so problem is not having enough representatives in congress who understand this issue or are willing to stand up against the lobbyists who will assault them and say we won't give you any more campaign contributions. deeply that is where the problem is, all about campaign finance. if the fcc tries to act aggressively there's a real risk

their budget would be cut in half at the appropriations committee because lobbyists would marshaled congress. if you want to talk about elephants in the room that is the elephant in the room, the problem of congressional ability to stand up to whatever happens. >> elephants and donkeys. >> the commission with several additional statutory provisions that were not in the original contact i should note. >> additional questions? >> the regional commission, let's keep talking about that elephant. doesn't the fcc have the authority to make the reclassification if it so chose and go from title i the title ii and follow upon that but at least should be able to make reclassification? isn't that the ability to do that right now? >> they do but they have to have

a reason for doing so. it will go to court again but it is clear that the commission has that authority to do that but it must be able to explain why it is doing that. >> back in 2005, not the fcc is correct in its determination on the merits but the fcc has discretion to do this. they can decide broadband internet access is not a telecom services and information service, whatever those things mean. justice the lea in 2005 didn't agree with that. he said the fcc got it wrong, they don't have the authority to read the law this way, they have to read it to say it telecommunications service, something that lets you and me send information to each other, that is what this internet enabled or whatever the term you put on it, that is what that platform is, still a telecommunications service even though there's a lot of in formation over top of it but

people who want to -- confirm the fcc on the merits of the classification decisions are not reading it the right way. >> okay. we have time for another question or two. i see earl has a follow-up. >> i was going to add in fairness, i wouldn't put all the burden on congress. the fcc could do this. that is what they are created to do and they have plenty of justification as the discussion of voice over the internet versus ip enabled service talks about. the real problem is if they are not willing to do it, the fact that the fcc left and classified for the last 15 years what is the status of a voice-over internet protocol service, gives you a pretty good clue where the problem lies, the agency is very reluctant to tackle that issue

for precisely the reason that they can't explain what is the difference between the transmission service and ip based service. there is no fundamental technical difference. with all deference to people who say the problem is congress cut the funding comes as somebody who's been ten years up there that is not as likely to happen if the fcc made a principal stand as some might think. >> let's be optimistic. d.c. circuit says something very clear, whatever that is, that will give everybody a road map what to do next and what principles need to be invoked. >> we have time for one more. in the corner, patrick. >> for those of us who are not superfamiliar with this incredibly nuances issue, we are wondering about the open internet and what kinds of

communications products are comic-book versions, you have to educate citizens about that and give them half way for actions. >> public. put up something good yesterday about net neutrality so look at publicknowledge.org. i wrote a book about this called captive audience, which explains how this all fits and do it in and approachable way but that is one of the problems, a steep learning curve, acronyms and shiny object and people get confused. >> a great resource at freepress.net, we have lots of information, people said that is an old issue ended is not. yesterday's news makes sense and do was vital as it was three years ago or 15 years ago or 40 or 50 years ago when they started with these issues but the appeal to common sense is the best we can do.

should your communications capabilities >> in because you can send an e-mail? is it that different from a phone call or do you have the ability and the right to send your information to whoever you want? it is hard to draw the internet even though we tried. it is easy for people to understand these are tools they need as much as ever and see them said people rely on these as basic necessities. that is a horizon that moves over time and we need more access to information to keep up in this economy to keep up with our families. >> i want to say hopefully very quickly, again i want to emphasize what i said to the commission themselves and what i said to other audiences. the sec, the commissioners have to begin to say very loudly so that state utility commissioners, legislators and everyday citizens can hear them

say that there are mixed messages out there and they exist for a purpose, the fcc does, that they are not the stopgap many in the industry are telling these policiesmakers and people will be harmed because of this information and the commission needs to be more vocal, to more diverse audiences in letting them know what their role is and why they were created in the first place and the statutes that they operate and there. >> i will offer in terms of our national network we post monthly conversations called digital dialogues which try to deconstructs them and connect them to the broader social justice issues or some of the issues people care about on a day-to-day. some members of the never developed interesting tools to breakdown the issue. one thing if it comes to mind, people's production house which is an organization in new york produced a video called the internet is serious business which if you look it up it is a

great video, kind of explains how the internet functions but also looks at this issue around network neutrality. they also in partnership with the media literacy project produce a thousand tool kit which takes a look at how mobile functions and mobile obviously being an issue in relation to net neutrality which is relevant since the lot of folks, the same protections don't exist necessarily for folks who are exclusively wireless users. and lastly, net neutrality was a big hot-button issue a few years ago, our network produced a remix of a song called regulate, specifically looking at trying to explain what the whole proceeding was about so you should look that up. >> i was going to say we are hitting of the stop now. the room is getting restless. so we will end it there. we will be around if anyone has

any additional questions. [applause] ..