>> you have been watching booktv, 48 hours of book programming beginning saturday morning at eight eastern through monday morning at eight eastern. nonfiction books all weekend every weekend right here on c-span2.

>> both the house and senate are in session today. house members return at noon ian for general speeches before turning to legislative business at 2:00. two suspension bills will be considered requiring colleges to give veterans in-state tuition regardless of their place of residence. other legislation includes a bill that eases federal restrictions on hunters and fishermen including the use of firearms and ammunition. meanwhile, the senate gavels in at 2:00 eastern when members will resume consideration of the farm bill. that vote -- if that vote meets the 60-vote requirement, a vote on final passage could occur tomorrow. live gavel to gavel coverage of the house on c-span, the senate here on c-span2. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by

your television provider. >> host: well, this week on "the communicators," a discussion of the impact of the net neutrality ruling by the court of appeals earlier this month. joining us on the phone, paul barbagallo who is the managing director of bloomberg bna. mr. barbagallo, overall, what's been the fallout from this court of appeals ruling on net neutrality? >> guest: well, the fcc right now is trying to figure out its next steps. the fcc has a number of options. the fcc could petition for a rehearing with the d.c. circuit court, or agency could appeal the decision to the supreme court. the court essentially said this, the fcc's regulations wrongly applied the same rules to broadband internet service that apply to common carriers. what we know as telephone companies. in essence, net knew centrality,

the concept that all traffic should be treated equally, is, quote-unquote, common carriage in the court's view. since the agency in 2002 had classified broadband as a non-common carrier information service rather than a common carrier telecommunications service, the rules themselves were null and void. but the site striking -- despite striking down the rule, the court handed the fcc a small but significant victory. it said that section 706 of the telecommunications act of '96 does give the commission some authority to regulate broadband. so the fcc is considering its options. as i noted, the fcc could petition for an en banc rehearing, but if the fcc does appeal the case, it runs the risk that the supreme court could overturn the d.c. circuit court's findings with respect to 706, and certainly, the agency does not want that. so i believe fcc chairman tom

wheeler is considering all options right now, and he has suggested this week that the agency may take a case-by-case approach in the aftermath of the decision. >> host: what are you hearing from businesses and interest groups who are involved in telecommunications policy about the appeals court's decision? >> guest: well, certainly there are some mixed, mixed feedback. you're hearing, you're hearing from the isps, people close to the isps that, you know, this is certainly good news. it gives the isps clear authority now to manage their networks as they see fit, to, you know, to throttle any high bandwidth traffic that may crash the network. they also are now open to entering into pay for priority arrangements with content providers. so certainly good news for the

isps and their interests, but, you know, for the public interest community, for consumers they are quite concerned because in the aftermath of the ruling, any isp can now block, interfere with, slow, degrade web traffic. and there are some, there are some concerns this. >> host: what about silicon valley as a whole? >> guest: silicon valley, certainly they are concerned. from the beginning of the net neutrality debate, silicon valley, google inc., one of the companies, one of the larger companies, has been a, has been a staunch supporter of net neutrality. they are concerned about the entrepreneurial effect of the net neutrality ruling that, essentially, if there is no net neutrality rules of the road, then that start-up in the garage might not ever come to fruition.

>> host: paul bash call the low -- barbagallo, what's the next step, and when can we can't it? >> guest: well, things are very much still in flux. the agency, i believe, is still reviewing the decision, reviewing its, its options. very interesting court ruling as i noted with respect to section 706 of the telecommunications act. the court did say that section 706 does give the agency some authority to regulate broadband isps' handling of web traffic. so some might say that the agency could go ahead and root out bad actors on a case-by-case basis. as long as what the agency does does not constitute common carrier regulation, the fcc does have a shot in the arm here with the court's ruling. however, we could see, we could see the agency look to

reclassify broadband as a common carrier telecommunications service to bring it more squarely within its statutory authority. so things are very much still in flux, and we can expect to see this issue. we talked about in the months and maybe years ahead. >> host: do you see congress keeping an eye on? entering certainly. >> guest: certainly. and we've already seen congress speak to this issue. it's worth noting that greg walden and fred upton, the chairmen of the house energy and commerce and communications and technology subcommittee, have launched efforts to rewrite the communications act. and, certainly, giving the fcc potentially clearer authority over broadband isps or not will be part of this debate. and we could expect the issue of net neutrality to drive discussions on the hill about a communications rewrite. >> host: paul barbagallo is managing editor at bloomberg

bna. thank you for your time. joining our conversation now at our c-span studio is chance williams, the associate policy director for free press and brent skorup who is with george hayson university's -- mason university's her cay da center. first of all, what is the mercada center? >> guest: it's a leading provider of market-based policy research. >> host: so when you look at what the appeals court did, what's your, what's your general sense of the imact of that rule? -- impact of that rule? >> guest: it's a partial win for consumers because for the second time the fcc has struck down the -- the court has struck down the fcc's one size fits all net neutrality rules. and it frees isps to engage in deals with content companies and lower prices for consumers. >> host: chance williams, first of all, what is free press? >> guest: free press is a national, nonprofit organization

that fights for consumers' rights to connect and communicate online ask in other places -- and in other places. so the net neutrality decision was a big, wig thing for us and something we've been working on for a number of years. >> host: overall, what's your assessment? >> guest: i think the court's decision strikes a major blow to consumers. the court vacated the portion of the fcc's open internet rules that stop internet service providers there blocking or discriminating against content online. so that means that the isps can enter into these special deals or block content, and that's not the way the internet has ever worked, nor is it the way it's supposed to work. we're supposed to be able to access the content that we want to when we want to online. >> host: but what's the problem with sponsorships or special deals if netflix and at&t teamed up, for example? >> guest: well, i think it might not be a problem for either one of them, but what we all miss out on is all of the innovation that could come from others who

maybe don't have the resources of a netflix to enter into a special deal. so we're not so much concerned with those big players in the internet space that have a lot of resources, but all of the innovation around the edge that hasn't even -- the ideas that are being thought up this garages, in dorm rooms all over the country right now that may not see the light of day because those new players won't have the resources to prioritize upsides. >> host: mr. skorup. >> guest: there's this myth that the internet is mutual and that isps will upset that balance. the internet has never been neutral from the beginning. chris yu, a professor at the university of pennsylvania, has written a book on this subject, that the internet is not neutral, and this for example sayings on what happens between isps and content companies is really misplaced. >> guest: well, i think we all know who have been an internet service provider that we do

business that in most cases we have one, many some cases two that we have to choose from. that gives your internet service provider a significant amount of power. and what that means is if you are relying on them to get access to the internet, they might have competing applications or content that they would rather prioritize over what you can find in the, you know, the vast expansion of the internet. so their role and the market power that they possess is a big concern for consumers. >> host: brent skorup, when you say it's not neutral now, what do you mean by that? >> guest: so the internet is, of course, a global network of networks and covers the entire globe, and there are these, they're called backbone providers, these fiber providers that exchange traffic all around the world. and in the u.s. there are many of these, and their relationships are almost completely unregulated. there are priority deals, and further, there are large

companies like google and netflix. they have their own private networks, and they distribute data centers and cdns all around the world and around the country so that it's close for consumers. so when you click play on a youtube video, it's going a few miles away to google's data center and not going across the world or across the country to google's headquarters. so the internet is not neutral, and it's, and this, again, this fixation on what isps are doing is not going to solve that rob. >> host: but for an individual consumer, that consumer only cares when it comes into his or her home. >> guest: yeah. and a big -- >> host: is it neutral at that point? >> guest: a big motivation for net neutrality proponents is this idea that isps don't face enough competition. competition is a problem in some parts of america, but net neutrality's ill-suited, very ill-suited for solving competition problems.

a supporter of net neutrality, a piece in the atlantic, if what we are talking about is competition, we can do that directly, and a lot of this has to do with regulations at the state and local level, and that's where we should begin. >> host: chance williams, do you see any upside to the court's ruling? >> guest: well, i think the real upside is that the court actually didn't question the fcc's reasoning in putting the open internet order in place. the fcc definitely made the argument that without the open internet order innovation would be harmed, isps could abuse their monopoly power, and so that's a bright spot there. but also the court actually offered some really clear guidance to the fcc as far as how they need to classify broadband in order to make sure that they can enforce these types of rules. so in our opinion, the best possible move forward is for the

fcc to use that authority to reclassify broadband as a title ii communications service and put in lace these rules that will protect consumers. it's actually a pretty mainstream idea. the "usa today" has said it's something that the fcc should do, as has the new york times, as have over 700,000 internet users or who have taken action online already because of concerns about the outcome of this case. >> host: reclassification. >> guest: very unlikely. that would be a major fight that, well, genachowski when he was the chairman of the fcc, when he was writing his rules in 2010, he considered this and decided against it. and part of it is 73 democrats, house democrats, signed a letter arguing against that. and so there would be substantial political opposition not to mention opposition from isps. republicans are almost unanimously against that. and it would be a large overreach to regulate isps like we do telephone networks

was never intended by congress, and that's no place in the 1996 telecom act. >> host: tom wheeler hinted this week and paul barbagallo, our guest earlier, mentioned section 706. what is section 706, and how could the fcc use that to regulate the internet, and what do you think of that? >> guest: section 706 talks about the fcc can do things to encourage deployment of advanced telecommunications. i think the phrase is. and at the time it was written, that was talking about fiber telephone networks. that's been interpreted by the fcc that -- >> host: is it from the '96 telecommunications act? >> guest: yes. section 706 is from the 1996 telecommunications act. the congress in 1996 did not conceive of the internet that we have today. they didn't know people would have powerful computers in their pockets, and certainly didn't intend for the fcc to have the authority to regulate wireless carriers and internet companies

which didn't even exist. i mean, the internet at the time of '96 and much of the '96 telecom act was written in the early '80s or late '80s and early '90s. so it's strains credulity that they thought the fcc would have the authority to regularring late the internet that we -- regulate the internet that we know today. >> guest: well, i think the first thing to be clear on is that what we've been talking about with net neutrality has nothing to do with regulating the internet, it's about the access to the internet, it's about the onramps. and for many, many years our communications networks have always been treated as common carriers. and what that means is that there's room for innovation, and you don't have to ask permission to innovate. the internet as we know it is an outgrowth of our open communications networks of the phone system where a bunch of smart people got together and networked some computers and at no time have to ask permission -- didn't have to ask permission, and there are all these things like the worldwide web and instant messaging that

that sort of open platform and common carriage principles enabled. it's technology-neutral. it actually creates the says for technology to evolve and innovation to take place. >> host: chance williams, if the the appeals court decision stands and the net neutrality rules or framework is thrown out, what do you foresee for individual consumers? >> guest: well, i think it'll, it will be a slow process of people's online experience changing. i think the internet service providers probably aren't going to do anything really quickly, but we certainly did hear verizon's counsel arguing in the court that but for these rules, they would be looking at different arrangements that do involve discrimination and blocking. so that's something that we all have to look forward to. i think that to toss out the idea of reclassification as something that's not possible is actually with a washington -- is

actually a washington point of view. it's actually most elegant ask thoughtful way to move forward. it's the simplest way to be sure that consumers are protected and that the rules are in place. >> host: brent skorup, if the rules stand, what do you see for spring consumers? -- individual consumers? >> guest: i agree there probably won't be many changes for consumers in the foreseeable future. if we do see changes, it might be something along the lines of sponsored data which at&t wireless announced they're experimenting with and it's this idea that a content company could pay at&t, essentially, for their subscribers' data when they use, let's say, espn wants to do sponsored data. they could pay at&t, and for when consumers use espn, that data does not go against their monthly data limits. >> host: now, fred wilson, a venture capitalist, wrote this past week about the fact that the appeals court decision could

dry up vc money and could end the innovation of the internet. >> guest: that's unlikely. i mean, that's overstating what's going to happen. there's this idea that if you have priority agreements, that you can't have innovation, and that's not true. if you look at google, any history of google, and they'll point to a key point in that company is development to the present day as one of the largest ask most innovative companies. it was in 2002 when they reached, they -- after a lot of internal debate among the company, they agreed to pay aol a substantial sum to be aol's default search engine. and so you can see innovation. business models might change a little bit, but good ideas get funded. consumers though good tech ideas when they see them, and i believe good ideas will continue to be funded this the future. >> host: netflix is already shot out that it could raise prices if they don't get favorable

treatment. >> guest: i didn't see netflix -- i mean, netflix released an announcement reacting to the decision, and i got the impression they were fairly unconcerned about what's going to happen. they said if an isp did attempt to degrade netflix traffic, they would be upset about it, they would encourage consumers to be upset about it, and an isp, it's not in their interest to degrade their customers' service. customers are paying them for that. and to degrade their own service, makes their service less valuable to consumers. and netflix, yeah, it was relatively unconcerned with the decision. >> host: chance williams of free press. >> guest: well, i mean, isps definitely do have an incentive to degrade service depending on what that service is. if it's an isp that does offer video service, why not encourage people to use your service versus netflix? so i think what all of this points to is the tremendous amount of uncertainty that now

exists because of this court decision. that's why, again, the fcc actually has a number of options on the table. but the best thing to do to end the uncertainty quickly is for the fcc to move forward with reclassification. >> host: is there a global effect to this decision? >> guest: oh, sure. when the decision was announced, there was of a tweet from one of the regulators in europe who said just letting all of the innovators in the united states know that we're open for business here. so it's much of what you're talking about where the folks vc money, innovators, small businesses are really going to be looking at this and wondering what it means for them if the isps are able to abuse their power in this way. >> host: brent skorup, same question. >> guest: chance brought up that isps might have a competitive incentive to block netflix or other competitors. that's a competition rob. again, net neutrality is ill suited to attack competition problems. we have an fcc that's very capable, and they've studied

broadband and isps for years, so if there's a competition problem, no one's arguing for the wild, wild west. the fcc is there and enforce the competition laws of the country. finish. >> guest: well, i mean, there's certainly not competition when it comes to getting access to the internet. the beauty of an open internet is that there is abundant competition because the isp can't play any role in blocking or discriminating against content. that's why we have so many options online, because of an open internet. >> host: what about the global issue, brent skorup? is there a global effect, in your view, to this decision? >> guest: i don't think so. i mean, each country has their own version of preventing these competition problems, and it's telling that the e.u. actually backed away from the fcc's one size fits all net neutrality solution. and so you will see there will be policing of deals, specifically prevent competition problems, but the global effect

for this decision, i don't see any major effect. >> host: who do you think is the biggest winner, are the biggest winners with this decision? and are there losers, in your view? >> guest: consumers will win in the end in that it allows isps to continue to innovate, continue to invest billions in their networks and bring in new services and new pricing business models to consumers. so consumers will be the main beneficiary. >> guest: the isps are the winners on this one, no doubt. the big corporations won out in this decision. they're the ones with the tremendous amount of market power, a tremendous amount of influence in washington, d.c. to try to shape policy to go their direction. consumers really are going to be the losers in this deal, and i think that's why so many of them are speaking up ask asking the fcc to move forward with a really clear path to protect them. >> host: would you be amenable to the fcc using section 706 to

promote net neutrality? >> guest: i think section 706 raises a lot of questions, but certainly one of the things that the court was very, very clear about was the fcc cannot apply section 706 to do anything that is common carrier like. so that means the no blocking and the nondiscrimination portions of the net neutrality rules, which are really the heart of network neutrality, so it would be difficult for the fcc to move forward with 706 on that score. >> host: brent skorup, isn't -- is it fair to say, though, that broadband has become like telephones, a necessity? >> guest: the 1996 telecom act governs how the fcc regular hates x the internet -- regulates, and the internet was not contemplated there, and can that's why i'm encouraged to hear that chairman walden and chairman upton are talking about updating the telecom act. a lot of this has to do with how

congress regulated the '96 telecom act. so you have the fcc's required to regulate cell phone companies different than telephone companies, different than satellite and tint than cable, and an update would bring some coherence to all this, because now all these companies are competing against each oh other in one way or another. >> host: is it possible to rein in current technology in the sense of putting legislation around it? >> guest: it's possible. i mean, i think upton, chairman upton, chairman walden are talking more about a technology-neutral way and a more competition-focused standard for the fcc to enforce. >> host: what do you think about updating the '96 act? >> guest: um, i think those discussions have gone on for quite some time. it comes up very often. we certainly welcome a conversation about updating the '96 act. it's important to note, though, that it took five years or more from the time of discussion

starting for the east 96 -- for the '96 act to be put in place. so that conversation is cold comfort to consumers that are looking for an answer right now given the court's decision in this case. >> host: chance williams, has there really been a history, though, of isps slow or -- slowing or controlling traffic? >> guest: oh, certainly. there was a situation where comcast blocked a peer-to-peer application. just this past year at&t was blocking facetime for some users and a public interest group intervened with the basis to have open internet rules to stop that from happening. verizon itself, actually, violated the c block rules which were net neutrality rules that were applied to a band of spectrum when they were caught blocking an application that allowed folks to use their cell phones for tethering. so these are things that do happen, and frankly, there's that history, but then there's also verizon's very clear

statement in the courtroom that they have plans, and they have plans to do this when they were asked by the judge, they made that very clear. >> host: were those isp actions, did those -- are those harmful to consumers? >> guest: that's certainly not clear. and it's remarkable given the rhetoric from net neutrality proponents how rare it is to encounter these sort of blocking and degradation issues. when the fcc compiled its rules in 2010, they cited three or four instances of allegedly nonneutral behavior, and this is covering over a decade of broadband use by hundreds of millions of people. so it's really not a big problem. and the problems that do exist can be involved by the federal trade commission and competition law. >> host: brent skorup is with george mason university in fairfax, virginia. mr. skorup, what do you foresee happening next?

>> guest: i was actually at the conference that i think paul referenced where chairman wheeler spoke about where he sees going forward, and he said two things that were interesting. the first is that he saw the court decision as an invitation for the fcc to act in a way that prevents competitive problems. and to me, that's a signal that he's accepted the court decision as final. i mean, i'm just reading the tea leaves here. no one's certain. and he said all options on the table, they could appeal. and the second thing he said was that he wanted to go forward on a case-by-case basis which signals that maybe after a rulemaking based on the 706 authority that they have, that they'll go on a case-by-case basis looking at any bad behavior that isps engage in. >> host: chance williams of free press, where do you see it going? what happens next? >> guest: well, i think it's very hard to predict. i think the one thing that the fcc has been clearest about is that they're keeping all options on the table. chairman wheeler was just out in oakland earlier this month at a

town hall that i had the pleasure of attending, and he heard from hundreds of individuals who were raising their voices on a number of issues, but certainly the open internet was a concern that they raised. and that is, actually, the people -- those are the people that the chairman needs to be concerned with in this debate. i think too often in washington, d.c. the folks who have the access, who are able to lobby at the federal communications commission and on the hill seem to paint the picture of what is actually needed for internet users. this is hundreds of thousands of folks out there who have raised their voice on this issue already, and so i think that's something that the fcc needs to to consider, that those folks do want to make sure that the fcc's open internet rules are on solid legal footing. and the only way to do that is for the fcc to reclassify. so i think even though that's a difficult push, there's going to be a lot of energy from outside of the beltway where people really seem to have a common sense approach to how to solve

this problem to get the fcc to move in that direction. >> host: gentlemen, thank you for being on "the communicators" to talk about the impact of net neutrality. >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> coming up next, oral argument from the d.c. circuit court of appeals on the constitutionality of the senate's 60-vote filibuster rule. then live coverage with treasury secretary jack lew on the need for congress to raise the debt ceiling. and later, more live coverage from the center for the national interest on u.s./russia relations and how the sochi winter olympics have spotlighted issues, including russia's counterterrorism cooperation and human rights practices. and at 2:00 eastern, or the senate returns for debate and a procedural vote on the farm bill.