final comments? have fun tonight to. [laughter] i will be hosting a party tonight. . .

>> what is the mission of the federal trade commission? >> thank you for having me. our birthday is the 26 actually. we are trying to prevent unfair acts of competition and doing that in a way that doesn't hurt business. we try to keep those two goals in mind as we do our work. >> host: we want to talk about the communication issues we often talk about. how do you fit that mission into potential regulation of net neutrality? >> guest: net neutrality has been a hot topic in washington

for several years. i was head of the office of policy planning and internet task force and we looked at the issue on the broadband connect policy we issued in 2007 and some of the things we looked at were the consumer protection laws can provide the values the net neutrality is trying to safe guard. making sure consumers get the type of broadband service they have been promised and that the market is competitive and there is no anti-competitive laws put in place. how is the best way to safeguard consumer interest is the question that continues to play out. one of the things i have been talking about is making sure innovation thrives and business

models have changed over time and changed since the internet started and going back to the aol approach. we look at how things evolve and we want to maintain flexibility of business models and safety interest. i am speak for myself but i think the antitrust and consumer protection laws have been well suited to protect those values. >> host: so you do see a role in net neutrality regulation? >> guest: one of the interesting things i have seen is the dc circuit upheld the transparency requirement. companies have to say how they are doing traffic management and managing these issues. if they make a promise saying that is what they are going to do and don't adhere that is a

disception issues. >> host: joining the conversation is brian fung who covered technology for the "washington post." >> thank you for having me. i want to return to a question peter brought up about the 100th anniversary of the ftc. in my understanding it was created to prevent monopoly and ward off antitrust behavior. how did it become so focused on consumer protection issue? >> guest: the ftc came in 1914 and opened doors in 1915. in the early cases you started seeing the commission was expanding the definition to

include false advertising but the problem arising from that was if you had a monopoly you could say it was hard to hurt competition because there were not competitors. so it was struck down to reach false advertising. in 1938 there were amendments that gave us the unfair acts right. >> is there a difference between the infrastructure level and surface level of the internet and should they be regulated differently? >> guest: we are more of an enforcement agency an regulator. i look at if there is an impact on competition?

is there a bottleneck that is causing something that is hurting consumers. in the antitrust laws we are not interested in harm to a com -- competitor ov competitor but the overall groups. if a consumer has been promised one level of service and they are not getting that that is i think an appropriate area for us to look at. but i don't approach it as saying is there a perfect regulato regulatory structure for the internet. we are looking at is something hurting competition? is something making interfering with the ability of the consumer to get the benefit of the

bargain they entered. >> what do you make of the potential for internet providers to use their gatekeeper power to harm consumers? is that a possibility? >> guest: it certainly is a possibility. it is something that sometimes hurts but sometimes is beneficial and on >> earlier this week, the deemployment of broadband was

weighed on in rural areas and under served areas and one thing that came up is if the fcc reclassifies it as a common carrier that could reduce the ftc's authority to regulate broadband providers given that common carriers are labelled as such. do you worry about this? >> guest: personal, i do. we have a common carrier exemption to our authority. we cannot bring actions against them. one of the things i found is the

ftc has been an active enforcer in the broadband space. it is almost 20 years later. we have been very active in that space. i talked about the ability under the transparency requirement of the open internet order for a broadband provider to be held to promises about the broadband service it is providing. if that broadband service is reclassified as a common carrier service under title ii i think it would call into question of the ftc to deal with those actions. my concern is more for the loss to consumers that they would lose out from having the active oversight in an area where we have been affective and brought cases and tried to safeguard consumer interest in broadband as so much of the consumer's life and interactions have moved

to the internet. >> host: is this something the five ftc commissioners have discussed on a regular bases? >> we have the sunshine act requirement. so we can only get together to discuss things under certain rules in place. it is something i try to talk about a lot and try to raise awareness about in the net neutrality debate. i think some of the colleagues, commissioner wright, testified regarding net neutrality as well. >> host: going back to the infrastructure question, do you see antitrust consumer protection problemwise the infrastructure of the internet? >> guest: that is a broad question. what i would say is i would be interested -- the question for me is if there are these problems and they are occurring now or they will arise is

antitrust the right tool to address them and can they address them. based on the vertical integration it be beneficial or can't be if it is anti-competitive. the right approach is on a case-by-case basis to see if there is a problem occurring and if that is anti-competitive and we can bring enforcement action under that. right now i have not seen a lot. i know there are disputes, right? some companies say we want it to look this way or fast lanes. one of the other interesting things i think is being discussed is what if consumers are asking for the service and wanting to get that priority service. i am a big gamer and i want that or i have a medical application and i want to be sure my medical information is transmitted at a

high priority. is that an antitrust problem? reflecting consumer's responses or desires? i have a little trouble stepping back and saying generally this is good or this is bad. i think we have to look at it on a case-by-case basis and that is the value of antitrust and consumer protection. >> some folks who have addressed this question take the position that antitrust analysis doesn't catchture all of the potential harm that could come about as a result of allowing isp's to abuse their gatekeeper position. tim yoo, the columbia law professor, testified before the house oversight committee saying

this as well. >> i think turning it around a little bit you could say are there types of veit variety services hat consumers want that will not get provided to them. instead of saying there could be a loss of this or that i think the question is what consumers demand or ask for that? doesn't that create an opportunity for a provider to say that is my specialty and value. that is how i am going to sever serve this audience. i think that is important to consider as well. and going back to what the consumers want for certain

services. are we denying them the ability to have this. >> a couple mergers are in the works. time warner/comcast. at&t is directv. do you have concerns about had issues? >> >> guest: those before another antitrust agency but i will say the ftc has reviewed mergers in the broadband cable space and we would look at them on a case-by-case basis and say is this going to hurt competition, what is the outcome on prices and quality. that is the type of things that goes into the antitrust

analysis. >> host: you wrote to submit comments on data breaches and privacy. what did you tell them? >> i talked about big data. it is the tool that can be used well and poorly. many benefits come from consumer benefits. great new insights in concern areas like health care and other kinds of research in reaching underserved populations in providing new insights in some of the more difficult to solve problems we face as a society. are there risks from big data? i think that is true. you can take pieces that are separate and assemble them into the a profile that may give sensitive insight to a con sue

>> guest: in the united states we don't have a privacy directive. we have regulations for health information, financial information, communication information and what doesn't fall into that bucket comes under the ftc's authority. we see are an active enforcer for privacy and data but there is more to be done. all of the data breaches have been in the news lately and the ftc has tried to make it clear to companies that if you have information about your customers that the release of which could cause harm to them, financial/medical, you need to take safeguards to protect that

data. we brought more than 50 cases pushing this to remind companies this is important and you need to do this to make sure you are not doing an unfair practice that hurts consumers. >> your agency is active in going after companies that collected data from consumers without permission or consent. that has come up recently in cases involving facebook and okcupid where they performed tests without telling them what was going on. do companies that perform those types of test have an obligation to obtain informed consent from the consumers? >> guest: taking the first part of the question, we have brought enforcement actions against companies that are collecting what we consider sensitive information about consumers.

there was a flash light app and consumers didn't know it was always collecting precise location information that was being shared. precise location information, financial information, health care information and child information is what companies should get permission before collecting. turning to your question about the testing we would have to approach that under unfairness. the question is did it cause harm to consumers that they could not avoid and that is not outweighed by benefits to competition or to consumers. so that is the type of analysis we would have to apply and see if there was substantiate harm and that is health and safety and things involving children.

but emotional harm wouldn't count under our test. >> there are, i believe, there is a complaint at the ftc related to the facebopsychologi facebook study. can you provide an update? >> guest: any investigation is non-public. so i cannot provide information. >> one of the things the ftc did go public with is the court decision about butterfly labs which was selling bitcoin computers and they alleged they were not providing them on a timely bases. can you tell me about that case?

>> guest: it is an interesting case because of the technology involved. what makes it interesting is the allegations they were not providing the machines to people who were ordering them. we looked at their shipping records. they took orders, money and needed to ship them out. that was the complaint. the company wasn't fulfilling the orders and providing consumers the benefit of the bargain where the consumer paid and expected to get it but wasn't. it was priding bitcoin mining but it was whether they were fulfilling the orders and if they worked. >> host: another case was the google case with children. $19 million. what is a genesis of the case like that? how does that develop? how do you find out about it?

>> guest: we had a number of cases like this. we settled with apple, have one with amazon and settled with google. there was a lot of attention paid to the issue because parents were starting to complain saying how do i have $300 worth of smurf berries on my account. there were many consumer complaints in this area. we looked into it and what we alleged was the companies failed to give consumers notice that there were in apt purchases in these children's game that would result in real money being charged to the account holder. what we require these companies to do in the settlements because one is still an active litigation was to give a one-time notice per device that

says when you enter your password it may open a 15-minute billing window letting all other charges going through without a password. it was unclear what was real money and play money in the children's game. so they had to make it more clear to consumers. the reason i supported the enforcement in those areas is i am excited about new technology, it is big movement toward mobile payments, which i think have terrific benefits to consumers and competition, but the basic consumer protections need to go with these new technologies and one of the basic preceptions is consumers need to know what they are being charged for. >> host: $19 million. does google write a cheek to the ftc? refund to parents?

>> guest: they refound to the consumer. we don't get the money. if some isn't ultimately refunded to consumers we figure out a way to benefit consumers. >> $19 million for google is probably a drop in the bucket. how is this any kind of deterant for future misbehavior? >> guest: i will answer in two ways. our role is the stop the harm to consumers and make them whole. so it has to be the re-address not a punishment. it has to be focused on making the consumers whole. so the amount is tied to what harm was done. but i don't think you can underestimate the impact of a well-known company of being sued. they care about their brand and reputation. a lawsuit against them that gets national and international coverage i think has a detering affect on top of the amount of

m money they have to pay and they are put under order with the ftc for a number of years so we monitor and make sure they are adhering to these requirements. >> should we think about how long they should last because the models change so fast? >> our orders are typically 20 years long and the question is is that too long. but you need to look at what the orders require. my approach and view is we are not designers and giving specifications to a company. this is more of a performance standard. we are saying are you giving

consumers appropriate notice before charging them? that is what an order would require. you decide how the notice should be given. a new technology may have a way of giving that. just the basics. are the consumers getting the information they need to make the decision. with privacy violations, they exhibit themselves because there was a flaw in the training and who had access and who is being shared with and if they the right protocols. so they will require a process. are you auditing our privacy and security protocols annually or every two years? that kind of thing >> host: maureen ohlhausen, we

have the department of justice, ntia, ftc and other agencies who all a foot in the management and regulation. are there turf wars? how do you coordinate this? >> guest: we think about if the aringilation or p-- regulation r the proposal is going to make the consumer better. we are general agency but our authority is to make sure consumer interest are protected. so i think the important way to do that is coordinate with other

agencies as much as possible. i wrote a paper about the importance of avoiding institutional conflict. there are times when the consum consum consumer viewpoint does need to play an important role. >> host: final question, brian fung. >> back to net neutrality where we began. many consumers expressed opinion they ought to apply strong net neutrality rules to make sure the isp's continue to behave well. how does the ftc interrupt its mandate? >> guest: going back, what sin place now is the transparency

issue. they can make sure the promise to consumers are fulfilled. i am concerned if the ftc is taken out of the picture the consumer balance will not taken in the consideration. >> host: maureen ohlhausen, and brian fung of the "washington post." thank you boat. &%c1