legal status is met favorable with the rest of the conference. but there are people that have deep distrust of the whitehouse and obama and they are concerned if they can trust the whitehouse to implement it fairly. the other is a question of timely and when you do an issue like this that could divide the midterm party. we are likey to see it happen before the primary elections. but there is a window when the house republicans can take it up. they have passed five but none have been considered on the committee. >> the senate is working on the final version of the farm bim. what are the main details and are you heard about plans to try to defeat it? >> i think the farm bill is in

safe territory. it has been a long and bumpy road after failing in the house. going through several interations but the major hurdle was passing the house last week. it seems fairly safe in the senate tomorrow. the stort of big changes is the ends the direct payments in which the government sent out $5 billion regardless of the weather or crop yield. it didn't prod farmers to plant any more of one kind of crop to get subsidies. but it wasn't politically poplar. they are beefing up the

insurance for natural disasters. the other part of the bill is the funding for food stamps. they will ultimately cut $8 million in food stamp funding which is small enough to get many democrats on board who balked at the other versions like one that had $40 million in cuts. so this was enough to get it through the house. >> christina peterson. follow her on twitter and her stories are online. >> coming up tonight,:

>> c-span created in 1979 and brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> host: this week on the "the communicators": a discussion of the net neutrality ruling by the court of appeals this morning. joining us is paul barbagallo, managing editor bloomberg bna . what. -- what the fcc trying to do right now? -- >> they have a number of options. the court essentially said the fcc's regulations wrongly apply

the same rules to broadband internet services that apply to common carriers, what we know as telephone companies. net neutrality is the concept that all traffic should be treated equally. since the agency in 2002, classified broadband as a non-common carrier information service rather than a common carrier telecommunication service. but the court handed the fcc a small but significant victory. it said section 704 of the 1996 telecommunications act does give authority to regulate broadband. the fcc is considering options and could appeal or petition for a new inbank hearing. bethey appeal the case they run the risk that the supreme court

would overturn the court's finding with respect to 706 and they certainly don't want that. so i believe fcc chairman tom wheeler is considering all options. he 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 telecommunication's policy about the appeal court's decision? >> they are mixed feedback. you are hearing from the isp's and the people close to them that this is good news. it gives the isp's clear authority now to manage their networks as they see fit. to throttle any high broadband

bandwith traffic that may crush the network. they are open too pay for priority rangements with content providers. so good news for the isp's and their interest. but for the public interest community and consumers they are quite concerned. in the aftermath of the ruling, any isp can now block, interfere with, slow or degrade traffic. there is concern there. >> what about silicone valley as a whole? >> they are concerned. from the beginning of the debate, google has been a staunch supporter of net neutrality. they are concerned about the effect of the net neutrality ruling and that essentially if

there is no net neutrality rules of the road then that start-up in the garage might not come to fruit. >> paul barbagallo, what the next step and when can we expect it? >> things are still in flux. the agency is reviewing the decision and its options. very interesting court ruling with respect to section 706 of the telecommunication act. it did say they have some authority to handling the broadband isp's traffic. some might say the agency could go ahead and root out bad actors on a case-by-case bases. as long as they don't constitute

common carrier notions they have a shot in the arm here with the ruling. we could see the agency look to reclassify broadband as a common carrier telecommunication service to bring it more into statute 30. things are in flux and we can expect this to be talked about in the months and maybe years ahead. >> host: do you see congress keeping an eye on this? >> certainly. we have seen congress speak to this issue already. fred upton, the chairman of the subcommittee, have launched action to rewrite the telecommunication act. and giving the fcc control of the broadbands or not will be part of this debate.

we could expect the issue of net neutrality to drive discussion on the hill about a communication rewrite. paul barbagallo, managing editor bloomberg bna thank you for your time. joining us now is brent skorup, research fellow mercatus center at george mason university and technology policy program and chancellar williams who is associate director free press and policy . tell us where what -- what you represent? >> market-based policy research is what we handle >> host: when you look at the court appeals ruling, what is your general concensus? >> the court struck down the fcc's one-size-fits-all net

neutrality rules. >> what is free press? >> that is a national non-profit that fights for consumers rights to communicate online. the net neutrality was a big thing for us and something we have been working on for a number of years. >> host: what is your assessment overall? >> the court vacated the portion of the fcc's open internet rules that stop internet service providers from blocking things online. so they can enter into special deals or block content and that is what the way the internet is supposed to work. we are supposed to be able to access content when we want to. >> host: what is the problem with special deals with at&t and

netflix joined up? >> we will miss out on the innovation of others. we are not concerned with the big players with the resources around the country that might not see the light of day because the new players won't have the resources to prioritize their websites. >> there is a myth out there that the internet is neutral and isp is doing deals with content company will upset that balance. the internet has never been neutral. there is a book written on this and the fixation about isp's and

content companies is misplaced. >> i think we know who has an internet service provider we do business with and we have one or two to chose from. that gives your provider a significant amount of power. what that means is if you are relying on them to get access they might have competing peer-to-peer applications or content they would rather prioritize what you can find in the internet. so their role and the market power they poses is a big concern. >> host: when you say it isn't neutral now, what do you mean by that? >> the internet covers the entire global. there are backbone providers

that exchange target all around the world. the relationships are unregulated and there are priority deals. and further there are large companies like google and netflix that have their own private networks and they distribute data around the world and country so it is closer for consumers. when you click play on a you tube video is it going just across to the google center. the internet isn't neutral and the fixation on what isp's are doing isn't going to solve that. >> but that consumer only cares when it is his or her home. is it neutral then? >> this idea that isp's don't

face enough competition. competition is a problem in some parts of america. but it is illsuited for solving problems. -- ilsuited -- we can talk about regulations at the state and local level and that is where we should be if we are concerned about the court's ruling >> host: do you see upside to the court's ruling? >> they didn't question the open internet order in place. they made the argument that without the open internet order isp's could abuse their monopoly power.

they offered guidance to the fcc as far as how they will classify broadband. so the best possible move forward is for the fcc to use that authority to reclassify as a title two communication service and put rules in place to protect the consumer. the new york city times and 700,000 internet users have taken action online already because of the concerns about this case. >> reclassification? >> very unlikely. that will be a major fight. the former chairman considered this and decided against this. 73 house democrats signed a letter arguing against it. there is going to be opposition

from isp's and republicans are almost unanimously against it. it was never intended to regulate this like congress and that is no place in the 1996 telecommunications act. >> host: tom wheeler and 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? >> it talks about the fcc doing things to encourage advanced telecommunications is what the phrase is, i think. at the time it was written it was talk about fiber telephone services. >> is that from the 1996 telecommunications act? >> yes, it is from the 1996 telecommunications act. the congress in 1996 didn't conceive of the internet we have today. they didn't know people would

have powerful computers in their pockets. the internet at the time of 1996 and much of the 1996 telecommunications act was written in the late '80s and early '90s. so they thought the fcc would have the authority to regulate the internet we know today. >> well, i think the first thing to be clear on is that what we have been talking about with net neutrality has nothing to do with regulating the internet. it is about the access and on-ramps to the internet. they have been treated as common carrier and there is room for innovation. the internet is an

outgrowth of the phone communication. and now there is world wide web and instant messaging and that open platform enabled it. it is technology neutral and creates the space for technology to eevolve. >> >> host: if the net neutrality rules or framework is thrown out, what do you foresee for individual consumers? >> i think it will be a slow process of people's online experience changing. i think the internet service providers will not do anything quickly. but verizon is arguing they would be looking at different plans that do involve discrimination and blocking.

that is something we have to look forward it. i think to toss out the idea of reclassification isn't possible. that is a washington point of view. it is the most elegant and thoughtful way to move forward and the simplest way to make sure consumers are protected >> host: what do you think about it? >> i agree. i don't think there is going to be too many changes. maybe sponsored data that at&t announced they are experimenting with. a company would pay at&t for their subscribers data. let's say espn wants sponsored data and when consumers use that, it doesn't go against their monthly data limits.

>> fred wilson from venture capitalist wrote about the fact that the appeals court decision could dry up vc money and could end the invasinovation of the internet. >> that is unlikely. there is an idea if you have priority agreements you cannot have innovation. but that is not true. look at the history of google. any keypoint of the developments is one of the largest and innovative companies. it was in 2002, after an a lot of internal debate among the company they agreed to pay aol a sum to be their default search engine. you can see innovation. this might change it but good ideas get funded and consumers

know good tech ideas >> net flix shot out they could raise prices if they don't get favorable treatment. >> i got the impression they were fairly unconcerned about what was happening. they said if an isp did attempt to degrade net flix traffic they could be upset and encourage consumers to be upset about that. customers are paying for that and to degrade the service makes them look bad. >> host: chance williams of free press? >> isp's do have an incentive

to degrade them. if they have a video service, why not encourage people to use that one instead of netflix? that is why the fcc has a number of options on the table but the best thing is for them to move forward with reclassification. >> host: is there any global affect to this? >> there was a tweet from a one of the regulators saying letting all of the innovateers know we are open for business here. small businesses will be looking at this and wondering what it means for them if the the isp's abuse their power

>> that is a competition problem. net neutrality is ill suited to attack competition problems. we have an ftc that studied broadband for years. no one is arguing for wild, wild west. the ftc is there and can enforce competiti competition. >> the beauty of the open internet is there is abundant competition. that is why there is so many options online: because of the open internet. >> host: what about the global issues? what is the global affect in your view or is there one? >> i don't think so. each country has their own version of dealing with the problem. and you backed away from the

fcc's one-size-fits-all net neutrality solution. there is going to be policing of deals to prevent competition problems. but the global affect for this decision, i don't see any major affect. >> host: who do you think are the biggest winners with this decision? and are their losers in your view? >> consumers will win in the end. isp's are available to bring new pricing business models to consumers. >> the isp's are the winner. the big corporates won out in this one. they have the influence in washington, d.c. to shape the policy to go in their direction. consumers are going to be the loseers -- to be the losers in

this deal -- >> host: would you be amenable of them using 706 to promote net neutrality? >> i think section 706 raises a lot of questions but certainly one of the things the court was clear about is the fcc cannot apply section 706 to do anything that is common carrier like so that means the non-blocking and non discrimination of the net neutrality rules, which is the heart of net neutrality, so it would be difficult to move forward with 706 on that score. >> host: brentt, is it fair to say broadband is like telephones, a necessity? >> the 1996 telecommunications

act governs how the internet is used but the internet wasn't around like it is now. i am pleased to hear them talk about updating the act. a lot has to do with how congress regulated in the 1996 telecommunications act. they are required to regulate telephone, satellite and cable and internet companies. all of the companies are competing against each other and this would bring them together. >> host: is it possible to reign in current technology in the sense of regulation around it? >> it is possible. i think chairman upton is talking more about a focus standard. >> host: what do you think about updating the 1996 act? >> i think the discussions have gone on for quite some time.

we welcome a conversation for an update, but it is important to note it took six years for the '96 act to get wrapped together. >> host: is there a history of isp's controlling or slowing traffic? >> comcast has blocked a peer to peer peer-to-peer applications. at&t was blocking face time for some users and public services intervened to stop it happening. verizon violated the c-block rules that were net neutrality rules that were played to a broadband of spectrum when they

blocked an peer-to-peer applications that allowed folks to use their phone for tethering. there is a history and verizon's clear statement that they have plans to do this when they were asked by the judge they made this very clear. >> host: were >> host: isp's action harmful to consumers? >> that is certainly not clear. it is remarkable given the rhetoric from net neutrality opponents how much this blocking and integeration happening. when the fcc compiled rules, they had three incidences of the behavior and this is covering over a decade of millions of people. it isn't a big problem, really.

>> host: what do you foresee happening next? >> i was at the conference that paul referenced where chairman wheeler talked about going forward. he had he saw the court's decision as an invitation for the fcc to act in a way to avoid competitive problems. and to me, that is me saying he accepted the court decision is final and all options on the table and they could appeal. he had they wanted to go forward on a case-by-case bases and that signals after rulemaking based on the 706 authority they will go on a case-by-case bases and look at the bad behavior isp's

engage in. >> host: where do you see it going next? >> it is hard to predict. they have been clear they are keeping the options on the table. chairman wheeler was at a town hall and he heard from hundreds of individuals who were raising their voice on a number of issues but the open internet was certainly a concern. that is the people that the chairman needs to be concerned with. i think too often in washington, d.c. the folks who have the access and are able to lobby at the federal communication on the hill seems to paint the picture of what is need forked the internet users -- needed for -- i think that is something the fcc needs to consider; making sure their rules are on