the. [applause] the results indiana has become a national leader in

job growth. last year hoosier created 47,500 new private-sector jobs and maintain our aaa credit rating one of the few states in the union to do that. [applause] in november, '01 out of eight jobs created in the united states of america was created by business is right here in indiana. that is an extraordinary accomplishment for our people. [applause] unemployment was 8.6 percent unemployment when i stood here last year. at 7.3 percent today unemployment is at a five-year low. since 2009, indiana has the fifth best is private sector job growth in the united states of america.

indiana is on the move because of the people of indiana. [applause] lenny's say most encouraging , indiana's fourth 38th graders the second best improvement in america in math and reading -- reading scores and reading proficiency is at an all-time high. that is an accomplishment we can all be proud of. [applause] we have made progress in jobs and schools. but there are still too many hoosiers out of work with our state lagging behind of her capita income and health and to many kids an underperforming schools. i believe we must remain relentless, bold, ambitious to keep our state moving forward. that is my last month i travelled throughout the state from fort wayne to

outline my agenda in 2014 in the time we have remaining i want to share a few highlights. first. we all recognize low taxes are essentials to attracting the kind of investment to create good paying jobs. even with our progress i believe one significant impediment to business investment remains called the business personal property tax. this is especially damaging because it is harder for hoosiers businesses to grow because it directly taxes investment they make with equipment. i will say emphatically taxing equipment and technology in estate that leads the nation to create and make things does not make sense. looks like our neighboring states have figured that out. ohio and illinois don't have a business person property-tax initiative and

lawmakers just voted to phase there's out. to make india a more competitive i want to urge all members of both chambers let's work together to find a responsible way to phase out the business personal property tax. poillon board of caution. as we work through this process, let's do it in a way to protect local government and does not shift the burden of this business tax on to the back of hard-working hoosiers. [applause] i appreciate both the house and the senate leadership are looking at the business personal property taxes and other ways to win sure indiana has the best tax climate possible. the phasing out the business. property-tax i believe will spur new investment with businesses large and small.

this is advanced manufacturing in anderson in indiana launched by a marine veteran who supports our troops. or troops. of blind started in 1964 to manufacturer's technical training systems for colleges. today it employs 143 hoosiers and was named indian the outstanding business of the year in 2010. these are two of the kind of success stories we could see more of an indiana with the right kind of tax reform. join me to welcome those two great indiana business stories. nate richardson am paul perkins who are with us tonight in the people's house. thank you for making indiana a state that works at. [applause]

we have to do more than just improve our tax code to get the economy moving again. we need to release $400 million for the next heir and highway expansion in to put the hoosiers back to work to keep us at the crossroads of america. [applause] because indiana is agriculture, we need a permanent fix to this soil productivity factor because our cities are vital to our state's economic development we need to encourage public and private investment to improve the quality of life in our cities. that is the indian a way to a growing future in the city and on the form. that also means to stand up to washington d.c. from time to time. most hoosiers did not like

washington intruding on their health care before it became a reality now we know why we were right to stand up to the federal government on the affordable care act. there has been a lot of talk about medicaid. the sad truth is traditional medicaid is broken. research shows the program actually does not lead to better health outcomes ian believe better not it hurts the very people it is supposed to help. one analysis found two-thirds of children on medicaid to needed to see a specialist actually could not on the program. traditional medicaid is not a system we need to expand expand, it is a system we need to change. [applause] i believe helping india is a great place to start.

the indiana plant is consumer driven health care plan that moves people from emergency rooms to primary care in encourages lower in calm hoosiers to take more ownership of their health care decisions but let me be clear on this point. we will continue to work in good faith with federal officials to expand access to the healthy indiana plan in our state. but i will oppose any expansion of our health insurance system that condemns vulnerable hoosiers to substandard health care or threatens the fiscal health of our state. [applause] of course, the most important aspect for achieving indiana long term success is all about our kids, our schools. if we cannot succeed in the classroom we will not succeed in the marketplace. the good news is for all those gathered here for

those looking on, indiana schools are succeeding. more than 500 public schools improve the full letter grade with the scholarships in use indiana has the fastest growing school choice program in the country with strong bipartisan support from both chambers last year we were busy to make a vocational education a priority in every high school in indiana again. we've made great progress in working together we have accomplished a lot. with career education we are expanding curriculum to develop new partnerships with local businesses to support regional career education. anyone who wants to go to college regardless of where they start ought to be encouraged to go we know

there is good jobs that don't require a college degree these partnerships will make sure our schools work for all kids regardless where they start or were they want to start. to make sure we succeed we're proposing legislation our career technical education dollars are spent in to also make sure that adults who have a high-school degree of the schools they need by repurchasing dollars for the high demand jobs and are available today. [applause] >> the hoosiers have higher expectations when it comes to risk pools such as white indiana decided to take a timeout on national standards. when determining standards

for our schools, let me be clear indian is standards will be uncommonly high in britain by hoosiers, for hoosiers in be among the best in the nation. [applause] that progress that i just described earlier as a testament to our kids, our parents, our teachers, administrators come a and a testament to the indiana state board of education. join me to think every member of the indiana state board of education and superintendent who are here with us tonight. we appreciate your service for the people of indiana.

[applause] i have always said nothing ale's education that can be fixed by giving parents more choices in in teachers more freedom to cheats. to give parents more choices i believe we can start in the early childhood development area because every child deserves to start school ready to learn. i believe the time has come for a voluntary pre-care program to help indiana is disadvantaged kids. [applause] i always believe the best free k program is providing

in richmond in the hope that every child needs or deserves what the reality is that is not the case for too many indian children. it is important this program is voluntary and available in the form of a voucher as well. i want parents to choose to send their child to a church based program, a private program, or public pre-k programs they think best meets their needs. but i urge all of you in the general session, let's come together to work across party lines on behalf of four children and their future, let's open the doors of opportunity to low income families for quality pre-k education in indiana this year. [applause] another way to give parents more choices is to expand

the availability of public charter schools. even though they are charter schools they operate with several disadvantages we need to level the playing field to allow them to manage there budget with the same flexibility as the public school for the interest of greater choices we should make sure underutilized public school buildings could be put to use by charters or other schools that need them. choice matters. at the end of the day of free hoosier knows a good teacher makes all the difference is. [applause] we can all think of a teacher who changed our lives. someone who was on our mind right now. they saw more in us then we see ourselves.

sister rachel in mrs. fisher and others to touch my life. we don't allow them to leave as a reformer. they have dedicated their lives to education after '03 should do more to unleash their creativity and expertise. that is why we need a teacher innovation fund for those who are willing to try new ways like steve perkins a latin teacher from north-central high-school whose enthusiasm has ignited a passion for classical education in he was named the 2014 teacher of the year. mr. perkins ian his family are here with us tonight. [applause] with all the talk of

parental choice i believe teachers deserve more choices. any public school teacher who feels called to serve a low performing schools should have some compensation protected if there a link to protect -- make that move. let them follow their hearts were they feel they can make the most difference. on the subject of marriage i know we're in the midst of a debate whether indiana should join 30 other states that have enshrined the definition of marriage to the state constitution. reach several perspective on this matter. for my part, i believe in traditional marriage and i have long held the view that the people rather than unelected judges should decide matters of such consequence in our society. reasonable people can differ in their good people of both sides of this debate. money saved from my heart, no one, and no one on either side of this debate

deserves to be disparaged or maligned because of who they are or what they believed. [applause] let's have a debate where the of our people of civility in respect to protect the rights of hoosier employers to provide them with the benefits they deserve and then resolve the issues this year once and for all. [applause] after that is over let's come together to support every hoosier family so that we can help working families with their budget. did you know, our tax detect -- deductions for dependents have not increased since 1970 --

1978? it is time deindex to inflation into end of the hidden tax on working families in indiana to five let's also remember people come together many different ways like a family of care in she is a single mom who felt called to become a parent by adoption. she adopted her two kids when they were 11 and 12 years old after they spent many years in foster care. she says people always tell her she is changing those kids' lives she's quick to say they are changing wind. would you join me to welcome a great indiana family to the people's house tonight. karen and the kids you are in inspiration. [applause]

adoption is a beautiful way for kids to come together we can better support families by proving adoption in indiana and in the way replace children from state care in to adoptive homes and support every parent who was willingly loving adopting a child into their home we should make get nothing less than to make indiana the most pro adoption state in the united states of america. [applause] indiana is strong and growing stronger every day. we still have work to do if we only achieve our potential like hoosiers to win it matters most.

on a warm summer day last july, two boys walking on the dunes along lake michigan and suddenly one of the boys just disappeared. sexual nathan and simply finished into this and. his dad ran to the scene marshaling help while frantically digging for his son. michigan city police and fire raced to the dunes in the beachgoers are using there hands and shovels to dig. businesses showed up to clear away the sand even reporters were seen using their own notepads to dig for the boy. for nearly three hours. not one of those people gave up. 140 people and tell a firefighter felt a hand beneath the sea and and pulled anything to safety.

they call it the miracle on mount baldy when i called the since dash at the hospital to see how he was, i told him they were calling it that. and he told me governor governor, this was not our miracle. this was everyone's miracle. period he was right. and that was the indiana way. we are a strong and good people that we were never stronger than when we work together. let me say as i close, as i said one year ago at this very podium, together we will build a more prosperous future. together we will open doors of educational opportunity for all of our kids and

together, only together, we will approach the third century with confidence with faith in him who has ever died it the 19th star with faith in all who go by the name hoosier, i know the best is yet to come. thank you. god bless you. and god bless the great state of indiana. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause]

[applause]

>> yesterday i did addressed directly the revisionism of the syrian regime and its effort to try to divert the purpose which will not be successful. more than 30 nations will assemble, all of whom this for, if there are more common must be committed to the geneva communique. you were with the end paris with the foreign minister reiterated the purpose of this conference is the

implementation of the geneva i communique. nobody would have believed our side would have given up this chemical weapons but he did. the reason is he came to understand he had to. and i believe as we begin to get into this process it will become clear there is no political solution whatsoever if our side is not discussing a transition and if he thinks he will be a part of that future. it will not have been. the opponents of this regime will never ever stop. a low-grade insurgencies at worst and a civil war if it continues because they will not stop. we also are not out of options as respect to what

we can do to increase pressure in further change the calculation of. we have made that clear to the russian foreign minister and others. and short of the ability to have an impact. they cannot bluster, protest , plucked out distortions, the bottom line is we're going to geneva to employment geneva i. if our side does not do that it it will invite greater response in various ways from greater people over a period of time. i am not particularly surprised that he is trying to divert this. he is trying to make yourself a protector of syria against extremists even when they have been funding some of those purposely having terrorism to make them more of a

problem so they can make the argument that they are somehow the protector. nobody will be fooled. we will not be fooled by this process. the foreign minister has stated they are supporting the geneva i communique and the government has to come and negotiate around that communique. since russia is one of the primary benefactors of the assad regime we believe they have a high state to help make sure that aside understand exactly the parameters of this negotiation are. continues. "washington joul

host: the federal appeals court struck down >> host: a federal appeals court struck down the fcc opened interknit rules net neutrality rules. for the next hour we will talk about those with two former commissioners of the fcc who served on the commission while they were established. robert mcdowell republican senior republican in michael copps a democrat was in the majority he commission for a while. , what exactlyopps is net neutrality? what are we talking about here? guest: i think net neutrality is

the effort to keep the internet free and open. terms,ted into practical it means consumers have a right to access the lawful content of their choice, to attach whatever devices they want to attach to run applications that they want to run and have the benefits of transparency, openness, and nondiscrimination. to makeally an effort sure that consumers rather than companies are in charge of their internet experience. host: when we talk about net neutrality in this view, if somebody is downloading a netflix movie or sending an e-mail, they get equal treatment? guest: that's right here at host: do you support what the appeals court did? guest: no, i don't support what the appeals court did nor do i support what the fcc did on the way to the appeals court. court credit, the appeals did emphasize that the fcc has

authority to conduct some oversight, to keep the internet open. the so-called net neutrality. which, incidentally, i think is a god awful term because it is such an anodyne and non-mobilizing thing. i would rather talk about the open internet or internet freedom, because that is really what we are talking about here. and a lot of the discussion we will have today will probably get in the weeds. but people need to understand what is at stake here, what we are talking about. the future of the internet. and that is the place where increasingly our civic dialogue takes place. that is increasingly where television and radio and news are going. and that is central to our democracy. that is central to our ability to conduct civil dialogue, giving people the news and information, openness without gatekeeping and all of that, so they can make intelligent decisions for the future of the country. goodness knows we've got so many problems in the country.

i am one of those people who happens to believe that journalism is hemorrhaging. we don't have the type of investigative journalism we used to have. and the open internet is very much a part of whether we will have that in the future or not. host: you said you did not like what the fcc did on the way that you supported at the time. guest: i voted for it because it was that or nothing. but basically you get into the weeds are really quick here. but what the federal communications decided several years ago, the beginning of 2002 and then in 2004 was broadband was not really a telecommunications service him it was an information service. , you information service cannot conduct oversight or regulate it to the degree you can if it is a communication -- telecommunications service. things like consumer protections and privacy and public safety

and things like that. but the fcc said, no, it's not that, it is an information service over here. what the court said was, if you are going to call it information service then you have to regulate it like information service, or in this case, not regulate it at all. but if you go back and classify it as a telecommunications service, then you are probably on sound ground. it would be contentious but it would not the all that complex. you would have the commission go back and say, we kind of made a 2004.e back in 2002 and of course, this stuff is telecommunications. at telephone call is a telephone call, whether a land line service or an internet call. functionally it is the same sort of thing. why wouldn't a consumer be callled on that internet to the same kind of protections that advocates fought for or consumers for years and years

west among all these things we are talking about? mcdowell,issioner same question. how would you define net neutrality? what did you -- do you think about the court did? the folks me say for watching, michael copps and i come from different philosophical approaches on many issues but we are the best of friends and we had a terrific colleagues inas the fcc. this is a rarity in washington. sometimes we would arrive at the same destination but through different paths completely. and there are things that this -- divide is. it is not republican versus democrat and not necessarily net neutrality, but he is unc chapel ill and i went to duke -- so am wearing my duke tie and cufflinks just to throw him off his game. i have to resort to such tactics. can i emphasize what he said? when i was acting chairman we went through the dtv transition,

a consultative thing, and i cannot not have had a more cooperative attitude -- traveling to dance around the country explaining to folks. of looking at how this plays runs, and it turns out while there are less optical differences and differences of opinion in these issues, over 90% of what the place does is by consensus and it is not divided by politics of the left or right. it is a license or spectrum dispute or something like that. but when we were talking about net neutrality this was a partisan issue. guest: thank you, sir. appreciate that. guest: net neutrality is what i called for years a workshop term , what different people see into it. the concept of open and freedom enhancing internet i think is important to everybody. we all agree on that. let's look at the internet before december 21, 2010, the date of the net neutrality vote.

it was open and freedom enhancing then. you had start up companies. google was a start up once upon a time. facebook was a start up, so was twitter and a lot of other companies. they blossomed beautifully. the internet has been the fastest penetrating technology in the history of mankind. all across the globe. and i think it is precisely because that space was unfettered. and keeping it deregulated and not regulating it like a monopoly phone company, which we will call titleii for folks folks, the for shorthand. that was bipartisan consensus. whatoing back actually to we call computer inquiries, starting in 1970 at the fcc, and again, another big bill -- big order in 1980 and another in 1988. during the clinton administration, then the chairman of the fcc, bill kennard, i'm a big fan, talking

about how we should not regulate the internet or broadband as a phone service. reasons.iety of it just operates differently. if you talk to an engineer, packet switching operates differently -- that is the internet -- from analog circuit switch voice. there are a lot of differences. so we treated computer-two-computer medications differently for a variety of good public policy reasons. consumers have been a net beneficiary. guest: commissioner mcdowell, what you think of the decision -- host: commissioner mcdowell, what do you think of the decision by the appeals court, to clinton employee -- appointees and a reagan appointee? guest: commissioner baker at the time and i wrote a very long , and the --dissents scaredited our dissents i was very happy with the bulk of what it said.

that the commission exceeded its statutory authority and that congress never gave the fcc the authority to do what it tried to do. i note that it did leave in the fcc's roll on transparency so internet service providers still have to be transparent and disclose to the public what their practices will be. this has been underrated in the mainstream press. it is not really been picked up. the significance of that is big. the other thing that is big is while the court reinforced the fence around the fcc's jurisdiction, or wall off the jurisdiction saying the fcc cannot legislate and only congress can legislate, there is a hole in the fence under what is called section 706, the cornerstone of the fcc's argument that december 21, 2010. as they looked at the section to give it authority. the court says there is

authority to do something -- section 706, at hole in the fence in the jurisdiction. we don't know how big the whole lives. this is a prelude to a sequel, to be continued. then the court went on to say it can't look like any regulation -- any regulation, not a fcc cannot look like the old-style phone regulation. it can't look like that. the judge, who also fashioned a case also known as of data roaming case about 18 months ago or so i think was looking for a looser net revelatory structure. that is my cute -- theory of the case. whether or not a new panel of the d c circuit will uphold that, you have a panel of judge kavanaugh or williams or other in the majority -- i don't think they will agree that the commercial arrangement of the loosely knit -- i don't think

they would agree that it will hold up in court. host: what is going to be the effect? what is going to be the us that on the consumer of this decision? guest: absolutely nothing. weremmediate press results that consumer costs were going to go up. actually, i think the opposite will happen. if there are web destination for applications that consume content, there is now the freedom to have those companies subsidize consumer bandwidth consumption. i would use my 14-year-old son griffin as an example. he uses his mobile device to look at espn a lot. we will try to get him to look at c-span more often. anyway, that consumes a lot of our data plan. withpn has an arrangement the isp, the wireless company, in this case -- and by the way,

the commission exempted wireless from the neutrality rule -- his grades -- rates may be able to stay low. it punishr is doesn't or dis-incentivize startups? the answer is, no. there is a whole panoply of laws already on the books. antitrust laws, consumer protection laws, common law, interference of contract, the federal trade commission, the u.s. apartment of justice antitrust division, state attorneys general, consumer advocates, a whole host of state and federal law where the government can come down on internet service to writers like a hammer if consumer harm starts to arise due to deals being cut that produce consumer harm. consumers are safe. maybe next year their rates are not going to go what. in fact, they may have a more robust experience. let's wait and see how the marketplace develops before we as a government try to guess. host: michael copps? guest: i think the cost to consumers will be high cost and

potentially horrendous if this decision is left unaddressed. i look at what is happening here really as a slow, sometimes not so slow cable ovation -- cableization of the internet. if those watching the show are happy with the cable providers and don't mind all of the fight to the cable and content get into onto whether they will carry a football game or the nfl has to pay more for the game or your favorite dramatic series, fine, don't be worried about this debate we are talking about right now. but if you want to consign this open internet technology, perhaps the most innovating -- will in history to the gatekeeper control and potential discrimination with the provider can favorite on products or favor those who can pay them the most fees, then you ought to really be concerned about this. this is not what broadband was supposed to be. it has the potential to be the most opportunity creating

technology than the printing press. you see it go the way of cable or the way of any other communications system -- radio, tv, or cable -- that we have had, i think would be a tragedy of almost historical dimensions. on theur discussion is open internet rules that the fcc developed in 2010 and the federal appeals court denied this past week. 202 is the area code -- guests are two former members of the federal communications commission and you can begin dialing in. we will begin taking the calls in just a minute. you mention what could occur, what the fcc commission could do. the new fcc chairman tom wheeler book about what the fcc may do, yesterday. [video clip] the court invited the

commission to act. and i intended to accept that invitation. -- intend to accept that invitation. using our authority we will readjust the concept of the open internet order, as the court invited, to encourage growth in innovation and enforce against the abuse. we noted with great interest the expressions from many internet service providers to the effect that they will continue to honor the open internet orders concepts even though they may have been remanded to the commission. is the right and responsible thing to do, and we take them up on their commitment. , we accept thee court's invitation to revisit the structure of the rules that

it vacated. host: robert mcdowell, what is your reaction? isst: i think tom wheeler the type of leader who is going to do what he says he is going to do. i have known tom a long time. he is saying there is that hole in the fence, and he will look at other ounces. whether it is under the legal authority the cap -- court granted him under section 706, i think he will explore that. i think you will explore all his options. ,t may be full court of appeals or an appeal to the supreme court and it could be an attempt to try to reclassify broadband under title ii, phone service. i think that would be a huge mistake for the economy. but he could do that. there is a docket that has been sitting there since may of 2010. he has a number of options in front of him. and, by the way, the transparency option. let me talk about that very quickly. that was left standing.

service provider, needs to, as a matter of law, disclosed to the public, disclosed to the world, what plans are. act in anns are to anti-competitive way, it has to say so. if it acts in an anti-competitive way and has not said so before hand, then the fcc can come down like a hammer on that internet service provider. but in the meantime, i would hope chairman wheeler would meet with the leadership of the federal trade commission, state attorneys general, consumer advocates at the state and federal level, as well as even trial lawyers to lay out all of their weapons whether statutory or common law, put them on the table, meet with internet service providers and say we have all of these weapons at our disclosed -- disposal. if you start harming consumers, we will come after you. that is and will be in as a huge deterrent. host: commissioner copps used ization acable-

broadband. "wall street journal" has a ofumn beware of cableization the internet and he talks about some of the new business models. i want to get your view of whether it will be good, bad, you are indifferent to them. "the regulatory details are complex but the critics and proponents agree that the new rules could alter internet and basic business model" --

guest: right, these are actually old arguments. i disagree respectfully. first screen the computer -- for consumers increasingly is mobile. i look at my three kids, my focus group, and their first screen is the mobile screen. more often than not, that is spectrum,licensedvia which i have been a proponent of that the commission. that mixes up the competitive equation quite a bit. so there's a lot of competition. so, if a cable company literally that is offering broadband that is at thing in an anti-competitive way or somehow frustrating consumer demand, there are alternatives for the consumer. there is also the fact that the fastest-growing segment of the broadband market is the wireless segment. that mixes up everything and

waters down the cableization argument. but the premise of that argument is that there is market power and an abuse of that market power. if that is the case, you can look to section 5 of the federal trade commission act, you can look at the department of justice antitrust division, and there would be investigations right away, if not lawsuits filed by the government and consumer activists and plaintiffs attorneys. that acts as a determinant for the so-called cableization. the cable industry is under threat by unlicensed wireless. commissioner cox, what is wrong with netflix and at&t teaming up saying, hey, we will give you a discount and you can access netflix or whatever service provider if you join at&t. what is wrong with that?

guest: big-money joining hands with big money and discouraging the garage entrepreneurs, the small website operator, the small content producer. i want to go back for just a second to your playing of chairman wheeler's remarks, because they are good remarks. wise toink we are realize how difficult really this is to do. it is easier said than done. i had been in this town for 40-some years right now, and during all of that time i have seen the power of the special interests and the power of big-money proliferate. so, the folks on the other side who are against this kind of open internet have armies of fullists and wheelbarrows of money to deploy in this crusade. so, this is not something that will be politically easy for am counting on the

fact for the commission to be as immune as possible. are allransparency, we for transparency, but if there's no rules about what will be transparent and then i think we've got a problem. if we are going to count on companies, because they say we are going to be in the mode of good behavior, well, that is taking a leap. because the dynamic of capitalism and free enterprise is to try to get market control and to try to get the gatekeeper control. there is nothing wrong with that. youif you let it go and have no public oversight and you can't say stop at some period before it becomes a doo-wop and monopoly.ly host: we have gone too long -- i apologize to the viewers.

statel, i don't know what you are calling from but you are calling on the republican line. go ahead, michael. pennsylvania. i'll echo -- bestr: thank you tuesday's to c-span. the fcc is integral to a free and open society. i agree with both. i particularly like what mr. cox is saying-- copps about the openness of the internet and the freedoms allowed because of this new entity, so-called new entity. but i had a question for both gentlemen. it may not be completely related to the internet. showve a local radio talk that recently has been taken off of the year, and i think it was very popular. and i think it was taken off for political reasons. fcc, this newe rule that the senate, without

the 60 votes, you can improve -- with thesimple simple majority. i think you don't have the mainstream american political thought now than you used to have because of this ruling. and i think you can pack the fcc with radical viewpoints. i think that is one of the things that is detrimental to our free society. i was wondering your take on some of these appointments. host: robert mcdowell? any word for that viewer especially when it comes to the radio issue? guest: i am not familiar with the facts of that particular matter of a show i guess being taken off the air, a radio station in pennsylvania. and you think it was for political reasons. i don't know how to respond directly to that. is if you are saying there some fcc action involved, i would love to know more about that. that would be probably patently unconstitutional.

there is something called the fairness doctrine which came up in the late 1940's, which was the government effort to balance political speech over the airways. it was a pale -- upheld but barely in a sip record case in 1969. but i think today would be viewed as unconstitutional under the first amendment. we think of other platforms -- let's say, a newspaper, the government would have no rights under the first amendment to try to balance political speech there, and this and not on the air and should not try to do so on the internet, either, and does not need to a cause of the very low barriers to entry. regarding whether or not the commission can be hacked -- packed. they are appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate that you mention the nuclear option, that no longer it takes 60 votes to get nominees through. we will see. that is going to be invoked from time to time. i agree with senator mcconnell,

i think the majority in the senate will regret that someday when the tide turns. but it is entirely possible. but right now i think you have five highly intelligent committed public servant serving on the fcc. it is one of the most qualified ever. i disagree philosophically with there, but folks some very intelligent people and i think the american people should take some comfort. -- i may regret the statement later if they do something egregious. now otherpacked right than the white house's party tends to get the majority. host: michael copps, a viewer tweets in -- guest: well, i think you can make the case probably and

government by and large, in agencies, not just the fcc, that there has been something of a which is power and trends in power. entrenching power. they try to put in some curbs on that. i do not think it has worked 100%. but the fcc mission in life is to preserve the public interest. it is a consumer protection .ublic interest agency that is its job. host: new chairman tom wheeler served as as the head of served -- some interest groups -- corporate interest groups, etc. is that a mistake to put him as chair of the fcc after that? performancenk the test will count. tom is a tremendously capable man who understand how the town

works. i think he is looking for another job anywhere in his career right now. i think he is going to be dedicated to public interest. i certainly hope so. but that being said, i still think as a general matter, given the amount of money and given uninhibited campaign expenditures, we ought to . . starting with you, commissioner mcdowell, should communication and wireless communications between the same? they are currently not, correct? guest: let me throw out a #for commactupdate. i do think we need a rewrite of our communications laws. the last time they were fundamentally written was really 1934. we had an amendment to that in 1996. but the foundation are still rooted in 1934.

and if you dig deeper it goes railroad9th century monopoly law. what it does is it regulates different technologies based on the history. again, if you look at the average american consumer, they don't really care what conduits their content came over or if they are generating their own applications. we right now now have a statutory construct where is -- if it is over the air one way, broadcast, it is to do differently, and another way, unlicensed mobile wireless, treated another way, and licensed wireless is treated another way. coaxial cable, treated another way. fiber is treated another way. twisted wires, another way. what is actually happening with everything you are doing on your computer right now and what i might do on my phone later, as the communications traversed, they are going through a number

of technologies but with a different regulatory treatment. that creates distortions in the marketplace. i think we need to look at all of this through the lens of competition law and with the goal being consumer protection. what harms are there being put forth to consumers? so, i would hope that the fcc would actually do a market study of the broadband market, a bona fide, peer-reviewed market study before it acts. and also before congress asked to rewrite the law. my hat off to chairman fred upton of the energy and commerce committee and the subcommittee chairman for launching last month a dialogue which will take years, but a dialogue to examine how can we modernize, bring up to date our communications laws. they are out of date and they are creating a lot of distortion. guest: i don't think wireless and wireline have to be regulated exactly the same, but certainly when you get to fundamentals like consumer

protection and you say, well, one can't discriminate but the other can, that is a dissimilarity that i do not think is appropriate for this day and age. and i don't think we have years to ponder all of this. because every year that goes by seized the power of these big companies grow and more and more consolidation, more and more mergers pending, more and more and gatekeeping. so generally the protections it should be the same -- protections should be the same. you get into the weeds and -- it harkensate back to a previous error, so is the constitution and the declaration of independence. host: stephen is calling from new york. canandaigua.

caller: one of the beautiful finger lakes. is copps is correct everything he has said and mr. mcfaul likes to focus on the consumer experience -- mr. mcdowell likes of focus on the consumer experience but small businesses like ours are being locked out by big internet players. let me give you some detail. we are a small business in upstate new york whose largest customer is the federal government. we were pioneers of the internet and we have been sending personal and business e-mail from our own servers since 1995. ever,not, nor have we been a source of spam. last year, without explanation, yeah. delivering our mail to its yahoo! e-mail customers, including my own brother-in-law. verizonhe same time, aopped answering our server's connection request. so i can't even send e-mail to

my sister-in-law, either. nor verizon were responsive to requests to resume delivering e-mail. messages refer me to a nonexistent yahoo! website and verizon simply ignores all communication. host: we will bring this to a close. if you could put a conclusion on that. caller: it has no authority in this matter. host: you are saying the fcc has no authority? caller: i went to the fcc about this and it replied it has no authority in this matter. host: you guys are hearing just a little bit of a story here. i think these are details that fill in the argument that i have been trying to make any more eloquent fashion and more fact-based fashion van i was able to do. these companies have tremendous power to run over small providers and small websites.

that is what we are talking about. guest: i don't know the specifics of your case, and i would obviously love to talk more about that. but if indeed that is the case, under the net neutrality rules that stood, one could make the argument that you could have filed a complaint with the fcc. i don't know if you filed a complaint during that window of time or not. but if it is a matter of traffic congestion, then the fcc might come back and say it is reasonable traffic management. i don't know the specifics of what you are saying, but if there is a market power concerned that is harming you maybe you have -- maybe deceptive trade practices claim or maybe antitrust claim. there are a lot of other legal tools for you to look at. i would write to the federal trade commission and the state attorney general if you think you are being unfairly treated. again, i don't know your specific facts. robert mcdowell, a viewer tweets in --

guest: so, a network engineer would actually say, no. and here's why. ,f you are downloading a video you want that experience to be seamless. you don't want fragmentation and pixelization of the video. the video bits have the be given priority over the e-mail bits, let's say, or other bits like voice over ip. ,o, when you are using skype voice over ip, you want that to be a good experience so those bits have to be given priority. that is not treating all bits of the same. some would say, of course, that is reasonable traffic management, network management. there is a lot of engineering that goes on here. we have to be careful of bumper stickers saying treated all the same. that is how the mainstream press likes to oversimplify it.

it is much more complicated than that. day, ishe end of the the consumer experience being frustrated, and why? is it an application that is clogging the pipes for the some otheris it nefarious purpose like being anti-competitive? so, treating this all the same sounds good if you say it fast, but it is not the way an engineer would look at how best to run things. host: michael copps, from "the wall street journal" this sprint -- talking about taking t-mobile in a merger. if you were sitting on the fcc right now, just generally, how do you think he would vote on that? guest: first of all, i would like to see the background and listen to the arguments on both sides. historically, as you know, i have been an opponent of all of this consolidation that we have had. some have argued it is better to have the third big competitors, so you have verizon and at&t and

then this combined entity, but i don't think it represents the kind of competition the wireless industry really needs to have. and you can't unwind the clock. thousandsgo back to and thousands of wireless providers but you can do better than we are doing now through spectrum auctions and screens to encourage some kind of competition. skeptical.k at it as i would have an open mind if somebody comes up with some facts i have not thought of. but it has not been a good friend and i have not favored the trend. marietta, georgia. you are on with former fcc commissioners mcdowell and michael copps. caller: good morning. first, i want to say off the top , mr. copps is my hero. i watched him some time back

when william powell, colin powell's son was sitting on the tord pretty much trying throw the fcc under the bus, as far as i was concerned. that observing all of this, me as a consumer, customer, i go to places like abc, link tv which i contribute to in order to get news -- bbc, link tv that i contribute to or al jazeera. i do this because i cannot get content that is informative in this country because it is owned by big business. here is mr. mcdowell tried to calmly thatt -- these companies have the right to come into the internet, which taxpayer subsidized, even though the military comes out with it, and they basically want to privatize this. control thel

content now. another place to go to for news, of course, in the internet. now when i go to the internet i will have to be concern i would access tonal have independent content because these would have to be noted as not-competitive -- i would have access to independent content. who is going to prove it? how many lawyers will it take to disprove it? it is just ridiculous. host: i think that appointment let's get a response from robert mcdowell. sharon, tould point, paris december 21, 2010, internet, the date the net neutrality order was voted on. robust, buries the entry low, it was blossoming -- barriers to entry were low. more news on internet than any other time in history. consumers have more in tune -- information on the fingertips within just minutes that people

did in their entire lifetimes. if you want to go back to the days of three broadcast networks and maybe one or two newspapers per city and have lots of government oversight and regulation of that, i would not take those days again. i think we are in the best possible situation here. we are just not entering the golden age of public his course and access to information, and that is why there are a lot of authoritarian regimes throughout the world wanting more steak and involvement. the internet has blossomed beautifully precisely because it has been unfettered. the concern i have is with more and more state intrusion, whether the nsa incidents or international attempts to try to have more government involvement with the net, that is the wrong direction to go in. enjoying, sharon, more information and opinion at your fingertips than any other time in your life, and that happened precisely because the internet space was deregulated. i think you put your finger on one of the

central problems facing us today. what you are talking about is largely the result of all of the consolidation the media industry has gone through over the last generation. it is a documented fact that when these companies merge, then they are looking to pay for the mergers and to finance the transaction and the first place where a lot of them look to fire people and to make these so-called economies is the newsroom. i have seen various figures but since the turn-of-the-century we have lost maybe 40% or 50% of our investigative journalists in the united states. that is no way to hold the powerful accountable. last time i looked there were 26 states that don't even have a reporter accredited on capitol hill. how can you hold the powerful accountable? passing laws on voter suppression and deregulation and all -- the coverage of those state capitals is almost nonexistent. problem inen the traditional media, but now it is the problem in new media, too.

much more difficult to start right now than five years ago. we don't have a model of investigative journalism in the internet and unless we face off -- face up to the problem we will dumb down civic dialogue to the extent we will make even worse position for the future of the united states of america. -- i think it is much easier to start a blog than 10 or 15 years ago. you can do that on your wireless device right now. just start blogging away. certainly something we did not have in the day that the printing press or a.m. radio or three tv networks. now it's really the golden age for information for consumers. they are much more empowered than any other time in human history. in --virginia weighs

guest: i am a virginian and my dad is a texan -- hopefully not a relative of mine. mentioned caller michael powell, the former chair of the fcc and is now head of the national cable and association. he has an op-ed piece in "usa today" and he writes about this. ask, is the internet so heavyhat you need injection of rules and regulations to fix it? answer is no. guest: we are going down the path on the internet that we radio, cable,nd television, more consolidation, controlled by a few and gatekeeping. this ought to be a golden age of media. it ought to be a golden age of reporting and journalism. exactlyeaded and just

the opposite way. we've got the tools but we will not use the tools but i think my friend michael is wrong on that. host: michael copps served in robert 2001-2011 and mcdowell served 2006 until just this year, 2013. and both have appeared on c-span's "communicators" program on a regular basis. this weekend, current fcc .ommissioner senior republican here's what he had to say about the decision on the open internet rules. [video clip] >> to be sure, there are some who argue there should be invested back to the future solution to internet regulation. that and looking at this innovative dynamic, broadband industry, we should apply the outdated, in my opinion, 19th-century railroad style regulation. but i think the key for us if we really want to incentivize broadband deployment and greater

investment in broadband infrastructure is to have an approach that leaves behind a heavy-handed economic regulations of the pass and recognizes the marketplace for what it is today, which is one of intra-modal competition, telephone companies, cable, satellite, wireless and other companies competing to provide the same service. if we do that, i am confident it will take care of the problem without the need a prophylactic regulations from the fcc. host: that to your calls. rory calling from virginia. go ahead. going to have to move on. it reminded to viewers, when you get through, turned on the volume on your tv. there is a delay. we are able to hear you through the phone and you can hear the program through the fun as well. huntington, west virginia, democrat. taking myink you for call. i am scared to death of this internet, especially in the school system.

-- 90% of theunty students cannot even afford the public lunch. that's why you have 100% free public lunch is. internet, they go home and they have zero access. [indiscernible] thank you. to talk abouts school? guest: i will. it is so important our schools do have the kind of high-speed technology that enables students to be able to keep but with their competitors in the urban areas of foreign countries. thank goodness to west virginia senator rockefeller, there is a program that enables a school to access this kind of technology and in many cases use it as an

anchor institution in the community. but if you are a student in you arest virginia, competing against everybody else. not just in your country but around the globe, for johnson opportunity. you are trying to do your homework or research on low speed or no speed tools while the kid in the urban area or a student overseas has access to really high-speed technology. you are trying to start a business in rural west virginia and you don't have any bandwidth, you don't have any markets, you don't have any opportunity. though you are absolutely right. thathis is not something the marketplace by itself can resolve. we have never built infrastructure in this country that way. it has always been to a public-private partnership with a national vision, goals set by the government, incentives provided by the government to get infrastructure built. whether it is roads, highways, interstate highways, electricity, you name it. going back to the founding of the country.

why should we expect business to go into an area where there is no business plan for it to go? it has to have some incentives and it has to have encouragement from the government. au put your finger on just tremendous problem for this country, if we are denying our kids access to the kind of tools they need. we are denying the future of the country. it's good jay rockefeller is currently chairman of the commerce committee in the senate. here -- host: jay rockefeller is currently the chairman of the commerce committee in the senate and this is what he said about net neutrality -- host: robert mcdowell, a viewer who tweeted earlier i wanted to follow-up. she is asking --

guest: the one i talked about the engineer giving your video get priority over the e-mailed it to make the experience better for you, that is because of consumer demand. just to make an assumption -- is there some sort of anticompetitive conduct going on? the answer is, no. early not in any systematic way. and there was not before the net neutrality roles. what is interesting the fcc never did conduct an economic study, market study of the broadband market. that happened was the federal trade commission in 2007, and it have a unanimous -- had a unanimous bipartisan vote that found that actually the broadband market was robust and competitive. and it warned in a bipartisan way of the unintended consequences of regulation, that actually costs go up especially for low end consumers who just

sip bandwidth may be subsidizing higher and consumers who guzzle it. something also want to point out. you want to go into the title ii direction, the phone monopoly style regulation of the internet, it actually allows for tiering and a two-sided market that all of these things that proponents of title ii do not like. it allows for that, but just in a regulated way. it would stifle competition. it would stifle investment. i think it would be bad for america. is the oldr that black rotary dial phone that was there for 60 years because of this type of regulation, rather than focusing on competition. but just people of that you mind. --t: would have been would've you been doing since you left the commission? visiting fellow at the hudson institute. a wonderful think tank here in washington, for their center on

economics and the internet. speaking and writing and spending more time with my family as well pit until this week. until this court decision came out, then i have been doing media interviews. host: michael copps, since you left? g come i thought i was retiring -- guest: i thought i was retiring but ended up spending time at common cause and a reform and democracy initiative, really to study civic dialogue in the country about the future of our media and the internet. i have had wonderful experience as a fellow at the harvard university center this past semester. i am keeping busy. but also finding a little more time for the kids and grandkids. host: what is your biggest concern when it comes to telecommunications today? createshat it opportunity and serves democracy. and these are not questions about terminology and semantics. these are questions about the future of where this country is going. all of the communication

things are going to translate to the internet, that internet becomes hugely invested with the public interest, and as a country would have to face up to that if we want a free and open internet, if we want people to have access to all of these communications tools and if we want a civil dialogue that is forms rather than diminishes the state of the nation. guest: my concern is there would be some public policy adopted that would have perhaps the best of intentions but unintended consequences that will actually harm innovation, investment, and the consumer experience. market.us look at the i think the fcc should wait and see. it should do a market study. again, peer-reviewed bona fide economic analysis -- what it has not done. i think it had done, it would find that the competitive, dynamic, robust and consumers a much better off because the internet was unfettered. the concerned about

unintended consequences and sometimes intended consequences of government action. host: rich in marion, ohio. go ahead with your question for two former fcc commissioners. caller: what a fantastic discussion. available topes get information in and out quickly. or someone downloading a movie, is it important for them to get it done and half a second or two minutes, or can they get a discount for taking mother to get it so we don't jam up the highway with things that people don't really care about having right away? other types of common occasion should go the speed of light and should have the right-of-way. the other thing, we build bigger pipes -- how long would it take to download library of congress? who will it be sent to? sent to our students are sent out to china within a half an hour? important questions. business, they are loading up a lot of junk -- "mob

wives" and stuff like that you can step out of your bill, but there are a lot of great things coming through. host: we will start with you, commissioner mcdowell? up a lot ofring issues. but under the net neutrality roles there is a disincentive to try to foster pricing freedom. if you wanted to download a movie and you wanted it done quickly and you didn't want to -- big,a 24 by seven fat, expensive broadband hype to your home, if you could for $.50, let's say, download that movie with an extra burst of speed so you get a very quickly, that is good for you. , ifare actually paying less speed is important. paying less than if you had a full-time big fat high-speed pipe to your house. it gives the movie to you quicker.

you are happy. there is an economic efficiency for both the supplier and the buyer. is the time for experimentation. if that becomes anti-competitive , then let's look at it and stop it, obviously. but i think this is a wonderful time to try to experiment with pricing freedom because we don't know. the private sector there are billions of ideas and decisions made. some succeed and some fail of their own merits. we want them to continue to succeed or fail on their own merits. but this is one possibility that offers a great deal of benefit to consumers going forward. i think there is an expectation on the part of consumers for really fast downloading. one reason why it is more and more difficult to establish i think we ought to see this

discussion in a different perspective. we're talking about rationing scarcity. companies are saying we need data caps. big companies saying, were not going to build that much fiber anymore to the country. they're prospering on the current scarcity they have a broadband capacity. if we had a national mission to every cranny of this land, we would have fewer discussions because we would have capacity to facilitate quick transmission of hosthing. unfortunately, we are out of time. thank you for being on the "washington journal." we do have to close with one more tweet.

on the next "washington journal." more on the so-called net neutrality rules. it was hosted by the committee. it's an hour fifteen minutes.[i [inaudible conversations] welcome. thank you for coming. today's briefing hosted by the . congressional internet caucus ti committee.circuit urt dec is iist a win or loss? i want to thank you for coming today.

it's hosted by the committee. we take no positions on legislation or regulation but we're committed to the proposition that the center is extremely important and that we should try to assure a sound decision making. what we fry to do in the briefings is any issue that affects the internet we try to have a balance perspective. a lot of different perspectives on the issue. ..al issue on the topic. the so-called net neutrality rules lend itself to that type of debate. hosted in conjunction with the congressional internet caucus and its co-chairs, congressman bob goodlatte, congresswoman eshoo and senator leahy has less senator thune. i applaud the caucus for hosting the dates that pose a variety of perspectives on important issues with which they themselves may not agree so i want to applaud them for that. hash tag for today is #netneutrality and this is just the start of the conversation on

the fcc open internet rules. the moderator today is david stone, general counsel for democracy and technology. david works for the center of technology, which is a civil liberties first amendment organization. and david has agreed to try to moderate this as impartial and in as fair manner as possible. so i will hand it over to david stone. thank you. >> neutral, you might even say, tim. thanks to the internet education foundation for pulling this together as promptly. as tim said it was to stay the court decision came out, so it should be a great opportunity to get some initial analysis and initial reactions to the case means. as tim mentioned, i'm going to moderate. i will try to be impartial. we filed a brief in the case and that is why he mentioned that. to introduce the panelists to my left we have marked who is a

partner at johnson and general counsel to the internet association, then we have got christer >> then we have christopher who is a professor of law communications and computer information at the university of pennsylvania law school. to his left is matt wood, who is a policy director and then we have a partner at wilkinson and barker here in washington dc. hen internet rules and on a recent court decision, then i will turn it over to questions for the panelists. so in terms of background, there's been an active policy debate over what is ftermd in terms of background there has been net neutrality going on for quite years. as most of a few years a debate that centers on whether broadband providers of internet access, the internet connections that people use to get online, with the should be required to carry all traffic in a fundamentally neutral manner, without any kind of interference

or favoritism. or on the other hand, they're imposing this kind of requirements would be unnecessary, or would impose actually harmful consequences for the carrier's ability to run their networks and run their businesses. back in december of 2010, after a long set of proceedings and multiple rounds of public comments, the fcc adopted a set of rules on the topic which it called the open internet rules, and those devotee main components. there was a nondiscrimination requirement, there was in no walking requirement and there was a transparency requirement. now, the blocking rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking access to the lawful online content service. the nondiscrimination rule prohibited broadband providers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination among the online content and services. but interestingly, that rural exempted the mobile providers. so that was for internet access only. and then the transparency world

require them to provide public disclosure regarding their network management practices. now, after the fcc put out rules, verizon challenged them in court and they made a number of arguments including that the rules or arbitrary and capricious, said they were impermissible under the communications act and even that they were unconstitutional. this past tuesday we finally got a d.c. circuit decision that struck down the rules pertaining to the blocking and discrimination. it didn't lead to transparency rules in place. the court held that the act does give the fcc some authority over broadband providers. but it concluded that the antiblocking and anti-discrimination rules are inconsistent with the fcc previous decision to treat broadband providers as information services under the communications act. without getting into too much detail on that point, i think the details of the statutory framework are important here

that the communications act establishes two broad categories of services. telecommunications services, which he will sometimes hear referred to as title ii services because they are regulated under the information act, and information services. and the law also has a provision that says that providers of information service and providers in that category shall not be treated as a common carrier, which is a term that has a long history in the common law. and the core of the court's ruling on tuesday was that the antiblocking and the anti-discrimination rules amount to the common carrier for rules. and that means that the fcc cannot impose the inside looking and anti-discrimination on information services, which is exactly what the fcc had previously said broadband service providers are. so, in fact, there is a level at which the court was saying that the fcc cannot have it both ways. they can't decide that prague and is information service and then turn around and impose the

kind of nondiscrimination requirements that have characterized the common carriage. with that background, i would like to turn the discussion over to the panelists. i think i would like to start with just the question of where exactly this decision leaves the concept of net neutrality and nondiscrimination on the internet. is there any leeway for the fcc to call for some form of nondiscrimination or is that now basically totally out of bounds in the wake of this decision, i will start with whoever would like to start off on that. >> and full disclosure i do represent an intervenor in the case, intervening on the side of the fcc, the ( coalition. so, you know, as a matter of law, the decision means that there are no rules currently that would preclude bup internet broadband access provider from discriminating against the content or even blocking

content. the court did uphold the transparency rule which means the broadband internet access still has information about the broadband internet access practices. procedurally, the decision can be appealed to the full d.c. circuit. within 30 days if you are an intervenor for the government, it can later be appealed to the supreme court. and there is nothing of course to stop the fcc from animating several of the pockets that are currently pending around the net neutrality to do this. the court did uphold that the fcc has broad authority to come up with rules that would prevent them from blocking content, but there still has to be room to

allow broadband internet providers to differentiate different content and to avoid being classified as common carriers. as a comedy severely limited in that regard what the advocates have typically thought of as net neutrality rules. and if the fcc wanted to, it still has an open dhaka to classified abroad and internet services or some internet access service as a title to common carrier service in order to adopt nondiscrimination rule. so they do the title to classification. the fcc is precluded from the rule and the classical affect is that they can then charge providers new grant that hasn't been charged before to ensure that those providers can reach the subscribers for different

tiers of service and video service to ensure that a video provider has ample bandwidth to be able to reach the subscribers and if theoretically, they could certainly block the content that the isp felt was not appropriate for their subscriber to it so i think there will be some action, but what that action will be is not clear. >> it is a fascinating set of questions. i think that the theme of for this session is was it a win over a loss and i think the answer is yes. everyone found something to like in the decision and everything to hate in the decision. i think the fcc worst nightmare was on the goal to say that they had no authority whatsoever. and in that sense, the d.c. circuit agreed, and yes, the fcc still will regulate the internet. the second part of it is has the

fcc exercised its authority in the proper way? and when we see words like common carriage and a title ii -- at the risk of oversimplifying, and anytime you boil things down, it's the old rules that apply to the telephone network going to be applied. and what the d.c. circuit decision says is no. when you exercise the authority, you are not allowed to send these old rules developed from the 1934 act for a different type of context to the internet. and in that sense, that is the part that they have. and what they say is that it leaves very little room to bring in the service aspects of that regime. they will still explore them. and to offer predictions, one of the questions is in the appeal to the d.c. circuit. this consisted of two democrats and republican.

currently my guess is this is i know nothing about the parties, they are probably not going to get a different result. they don't like taking cases that don't have the authority on one side or the other side you might think because it's politically important and taking a lot of attention, they might take it in my experience, you would be surprised. sometimes the political nature causes the court to stay away from it, so there is a pretty good chance it won't happen. and if that is the case, then frankly, it is at the end of this long road that we have had where we are all waiting for the court to decide and the politics proceeded and it all became law. we are going to see the return of the congress'' rules and overlooking what should come next and the agency has a much more active role not going to happen. and if we turn it back to the policy-making relevance of

waiting for the court to decide. >> i guess we will keep trooping down. thanks so much for having me here. i want to go back to one thing that chris said and two points that are sort of in the name of the panel in the way that david said this at the outset. a little technical here but i would say that it's not that the fcc can't apply the common carrier rules using the power it has. it can't apply common rules using the power it chose to use here. and that is because as mark mengin, the fcc could go back and say you know, we are wrong. we are changing our mind. circumstances have changed, what everyone to use for justification and say that broadband internet access services should indeed be title ii services or common carrier services. there's a lot of jargon here but they are all basically the same thing. they could treat those services like the internet access that you and i have today like a common carrier service by classifying it as such, and then we would have a very different conversation about authority. and just to put it out there

what we in the free press think the fcc should do there is a lot of debate about that. to agree with what chris said, there is a lot of political to come over that and the fcc action and the court action following up on that as well. so, never over until it's over and even then, it's not over. the fcc that's one thing i heard one time. back quickly to the question as david raised and the panel put it, it is a win for the fcc. kress said yes, they win a lot. i would say that it is not neutrality. the rules are vacated and i think it is pretty clear that the fcc cannot reinstate them in any queen and understandably and frankly useful way for protecting internet users using the authority that they've been left. it is all for the net neutrality but it's not a total loss for the fcc to have some power and to have some authority to regulate broadband internet access. released to the word though to regulate access. that's what we think the nec neutrality rules do is to protect your access to the

internet. as chris said, there's been some companies saying this, too. the 706 route protect the at the court stands up and the fcc has authority. that could allow them to regulate the internet, period. meaning on some to say while we are seeing less broadband deployment because of something else out there in the internet ecosystem or some kind of more fuzzy term like that. the free press, and i think it is fair to say every net neutrality advocate or everyone i've talked to is not in favor of regulating the internet. we want to make sure your access to the internet is open and clear and broadband providers cannot block or discriminate against where you go and tell you what you can look at or how much it costs for certain website. you want facebook and plater? but on the social media platform and that is an extra $5 a month. that kind of thing when mark talks about the providers. so again, lots of the data and disagreement whether we need those kind of roles and it's important to note the fcc didn't lose all power here they just lost the power to do the thing we want them to do in this proceeding.

and they might have the ability to do good things with the section 706 authority and the ability to trade at things as well. it's more of an open question. people say they want regulatory certainty, and i think it is anything but that because the fcc has sort of an open mandate in ways to provide a broadband kind of like taking the fcc has a doctorate taking it to the internet. we know it when we see it. it will tell you later and you might not know beforehand if it is a bad idea, but we will come back and report something. i just don't know how they do that in a very useful and helpful way for the doctrine we care so much about. >> so, the last sohn was asking questions about 15 years ago when he was interviewing me for my first-ever communications blog. and i never really knew what he felt because i got the job and by the time i got there, he had left. [laughter] so, you know, contrasting evidence. so thanks for having me back.

i want to sort of agree with that before i turn and disagree with him and probably a bunch of topics ultimately. and i agree with the court did is struck down. the thing that mattered to the free press the most, but resuscitated or at least they'd found a great deal of fcc authority to do other things. so, that brings me to david's initial opening question, which was where does net neutrality stand? and that's the question that everyone's been asking the past few days, but i think it might be the wrong question. the right question is where do the internet stand, where does the power of the fcc to regulate the internet and an inappropriate way going forward stand? net neutrality is a particular means to an end. it's not the end. so, foley agreement neutrality as it has been traditionally perceived as a strong anti-discrimination component is unlawful under the statute under section 15351 of the statute, which says you cannot free them on common carrier service as common carrier.

that i think is a very straightforward piece of the decision here. and there is very little question about that proposition. some question whether we should have treated rather than the title to service but once you treat it as a title one service, that provision is pretty clear and that section of the ruling i think should be relatively uncontroversial. but where does the rest of the decision leaves the fcc authority and consumers? i think the rest of the decision is really a victory for the fcc in many ways. the fcc can do a lot as long as it doesn't pose strict common carriage obligations, and i -- many people have been contemplating what that means. and i think that it is wholly reshaping the field of the internet. and the amicus in the case wrote a brief to the national association of manufacturers to copy and e-mail me i like to think of this 50 shades of net

neutrality. a great weekend reading. about my clients generally, fries and obviously argued against the section 706 power, but the isp generally accepted this is the court ruling that there would be some fcc authority. so, then i want to go to mark's suggestion that there are no rules now on preventing discrimination. it's true there are no fcc rules now. there are other mechanisms though. i think the things consumers worry about with respect to nec neutrality is will my isp sabotage and indeed they are trying to compete with it principally in the voice service and video service, the things the isp tend to do otherwise. if they do, we have the entities right now of preventing it at the competitive theater, the federal trade commission does that. section five of the act gives the fc see the power to take action against the deceptive trade practices.

that is what will exist. but the principal power that is going to stop discrimination that we sometimes hear about is the marketplace and consumers. it is a fundamental matter just like any other business want their service of their product to be useful to their customers. the services in this case are useful to customers when they can use them to do the things that they want. we can talk about the competition which is a big question in the debate but most americans have a choice the vast majority have a choice between five or more but there is a choice and the customers are going to play an important role in preventing the kind of behavior that people said just as the worst possible. let me push more on what steps could potentially be.

one thing that we have heard a couple of times in your comment is the idea of the reclassifications a one question i have is where would that fall, with the procedure to do that look like? another thing that they had done previously for the rule was back and 2005 it had something called a policy statement that expressed the rule that users should be able to access the content of the choice. is there any evidence for the fcc to take for the reclassification. is their anything like another set of principles approach like it did before that could possibly be an option. >> there is an open dhaka -- docket. they proposed to the internet broadband service as a common carrier service and there was a

substantial violence in the dhaka said that the fcc could reanimate that and refresh it. this also doesn't get a lot of discussion, but the borders the classified the internet access service and information services are limited to the really broadband internet access service. and there are things that broadband providers do that are not broadband internet access service that could be clarified to be the common carrier service that could get you some amount on the road in helping to create a more even playing field with regard to content that is transmitted by the providers so that is a possibility. and they could move relatively quickly on that. if it works under 706 and it

constitutes something like the internet policy statement, it likely would have to be adopted as a rule with some clarification that allows them to affirmatively engage and differentiated services. so that they are not common care services or have a rule consistent with 706 high level rule, no walking and how that at adjudicated on the case by case basis. and chairman, we noticed on the case by case basis it would be appropriate, and that would not necessarily involved. so the fcc has a lot of tools at its disposal to move forward, but if it wants to have no discrimination rules it really needs to do some sort of a clarification or classification of the broadband service

providers. >> it is an interesting question. if they want to reclassify the internet in the categories of the telephone service, there are people that advocate that and people think it is a possibility. i actually think that they have a couple -- there is a supreme court decision to stand in a way that is called red neck and there are technical things we could say that it's not an absolute obstacle for them, but in fact i wrote a recent law review on this and when the fcc proposed it they relied entirely on the supreme court opinion, and just in the general matter building the argument on the supreme court case is rarely successful strategy, so it is not impossible, but i would say it's overcome. the bigger question to me is whether the fcc politically wants to put the energy into it because right now the chairman has come in and he has a little

under three years at which point she has made the focus of his chairmanship. we traditionally thought of the network as the fundamental connecting technology that runs the country together. in many places 6% of people reside and that is transitioning. the main connecting technology that is the internet and that raises a whole bunch of questions about how we handle certain things in the past such as emergency response, 911 coming universal service, disaster response, disability access. and there are a whole bunch of issues that are more broad than the network neutrality. and it is quite possible that the chairman may decide that he will listen to a broad discussion how we should be thinking about the internet and make it part of a broader debate. someone told me that when the

chairman genachowski and then he brought up the second major initiative in the network neutrality. it you want it to be known as a national broadband plan and i actually think the chairman takes this. do not be known as the chairman or do you want to be the energized and pull yourself back there is a chance that people want to get past this and make it part of the debate that we are talking about. >> we should break out of the pattern of just marching down the table each time. so, where to begin. there are a lot of trends about the choice before the chairman of the political consequence. i think it both ways you can't get anything like the neutrality

backend does he want to be the chairman that says the internet is now the discrimination, so where you can be discriminated against by your carrier for the purpose of being innovative and saving money or whatever and it is exactly the opposite. but putting aside the political question because that is the important thing especially appear in this neighborhood and in the long term. want to go back for a second. justice scalia should be noted wasn't some kind of a raving liberal met neutrality or anything like that he said of course broadband is a telecom service. the fcc red bull all wrong. how can they possibly say this. but justice thomas doesn't say and can't say that the fcc made the right call. they have the discretion to choose the telecom service and how they might not able to live without cable operators.

it stems from the fact that he has to make that call in the first place and justice scalia says that they don't have discretion here and the fact that it's of indigenous, the broadband is clearly a telecom service. going back to david's point what happens next everything about the process for the classification is the dockets that the fcc has opened and i would imagine they would take the comment again rather than just say we have a full record on 2010 and they could try to work with them on that i don't think they will move super quick based on what we have heard this far. not being able to get that back it's hard to dispute that no matter what we might think about the legal position is very unclear that they could do anything like prevent discrimination on line under 706 or anything short of the classification. and what this means take for

example a competitor to the existing internet providers service for some kind of a chat applications. we saw this last year and we were just about ready to file a complaint to happily change the practices. they don't have to block that to make your life more difficult as a consumer to make the choices less available. they could just say you know you are welcome to use as much as you want, all you have to do first is i think is of contract will at all what happens. all you have to do is paid for the unlimited. the house long as you're paying for the voice minutes, you are free to use as much of the application as an alternative as you want me that is why the net neutrality really is based on the projections on the unreasonable discrimination as the telecom lawyers would say. but the simple no blocking world that they may or may not be able to is not really good enough to protect you against that kind of

behavior. one other thing when it comes to the competition and market it's not by most people's stretches because you have the wireless industry that is more complicated than although where the people are really happy with their customer service. but any case no matter how many choices you have with a cell phone provider, for example, we have admittedly for national carriers and some other local carriers as well. very few people in the voice world would say, you know what it's okay if verizon wireless wants to block my calls to pizza hut because they have a deal with domino's, that's cool i will just switch. i will switch to sprint. there's something in the communication network and what verizon said when they were giving the rules that we would be exploring this kind of arrangement. not to write a we block somebody but to find a way to get more money out of the particular edge provider to fix favorites,

facebook, google, pizza hut, domino's who want to launch two kids in the garage and the fcc was trying to prevent those people from having to pay into the system. the customer satisfaction rates are high. we have a very high majority saying they're very satisfied with a surface but i want to put that aside. i want to second with what you said about the political oxygen in the room. having worked at the commission it is the case that the prioritization is relatively limited staff resources and as you get higher and higher on the decision making levels and having the intent of the spectrum auction going on, these are big issues that take up a

lot of time. review the connect natural the classification would take a lot of energy and in very real way is what effect the chairman's agenda and that is the point that people have to make. on the legal issues as the seat with classification i agree with what everyone said the process of the open dhaka at. it always puzzles me a little bit because it is in the context of net neutrality framed and the words used to adopt the nondiscrimination rules and reclassify so that we can act and for me that is the way we look at the statutes on its head. it is not the reverse. the congress set up definitions and said to the fcc to figure out how to get the definitions to fit, and then we will tell you in the other law what obligations apply to the different rules and the differentse