>> it is for everyone. it is a glorious service for the country. the call comes to every citizen it is the unending struggle to keep government representative. >> bob was probably the most important political figure in wisconsin history and one of the most important is the history of the 20th century of the united states. he was a reforming governor governor, he defined what progressivism is and was the first to use that to solve identify. he was the united states senator recognized by his peers in the 1950's as one of the five greatest

senators in american history per great proponent of world war i and stood his ground advocating for free speech. he was about the people. and after the civil war america changed radically from a nation of small farmers and small producers and manufacturers by the leaked 18 seventies, eighties and nineties we had concentrations of wealth wealth, inequality and concern about the influence of money and government. so giving speeches all over wisconsin in the 1890's. if you want the speaker for your club and bob was the man he went to the county fair's or every event you could imagine. and built a reputation for himself. by 1900, he was ready to run

for governor advocating on behalf of the people. he had to issues. the direct primary no more selecting candidates that convention. number two, stop the interest and specifically the railroad. >> the 2015 .

u.s. ambassador to united nations in samantha power recently discussed in the un peacekeeping missions around the globe in the u.s. role in performing those operations speaking at the american enterprise institute this is just under one hour. >> good afternoon. i do apologize we're running late. ambassador power has a legitimate excuse she was in a cabinet meeting. we never had such a of a good excuse. i am thus senior vice president here for studies at a.e.i. it is a pleasure to well, ambassador power and a member of the president's cabinet. this is your first time your? all the more welcome to day ambassadorpower will talk about peacekeeping with united nations and ideas for

reform. there are 120,000 men and women serving peacekeeping roles around the world and increasingly there under threat from kidnappings end increasingly there is no peace to keep. the united states spends more than any other nation to support peacekeeping operations in the american people wonder if they have a value for their money and she will give a short talk then we will sit down to continue a short conversation then open into the audience. [applause] >> hello. i have come here today to talk about un peacekeeping. there is a lot going on in the world right now.

and quite recently as was shared with me the following thoughts, as the wings madness are blowing and i know that is how it feels. but the urgent critical issues on our plate should not divert us from the important fact which is united states has a vital interest in a critical role to play to strengthen peacekeeping to meet demands that the peacekeepers are currently struggling to meet around the world. sticking with the basic premise conflict from faraway places matters in various ways to the united states because we recognize islands with any particular country can quickly cause national and regional instability to spill over into neighboring countries. to undo the hard earned

progress they've made to this and building democracy from civil society to allow criminals to thrive. also because the instability created increasingly attracts extremists groups who can use the vacuum of authority to do terrorizes to plan and launch attacks. the suffering caused by these could be a powerful recruitment tool even complex not fuel that the outset by elements can foster them because the state authority breaks down it can be comfortable places for the extremist to hand -- hang out whether this central african republic or mali we ignore them at our peril not only with violent

conflict make us safer it is consistent with what our hearts tell us is right. a number of public opinion polls that show they support action for the mass atrocities from occurring in other parts of the world. we do not want to live in a world where more than 9,000 kids are recruited and less than a year to become child soldiers. whenever again one to live-in decades are harmonies. but to learn to haiti and fear to demonize one another. but neither do america's foreign policy leaders. next year at the senate foreign relations committee for senator mccain have

been strong advocates to provide -- prevent such tragedies such as senators benin does. with our security in values to prevent us to ignore the problem that question is what should america do to stop them? the united states has a lot on our plate. the troops are fighting isil, deployed to west africa to beat back ebola and continue to serve in afghanistan all this because we face substantial budget cuts. crisis from the eastern ukraine to gaza continue to cascade as the president said america must always lead on the world stage but not alone. even if the united states has an interest to see a conflict of eight or civilians protected that does not mean u.s. forces

should do all the protecting we shouldn't we should say we could not and should not send u.s. military into all of the places where civilians are hurting the or extremists are lurking just because we have the most capable military in the world does not mean we should assume risks are burdens that should be shared by the broader international community. this is where peacekeeping comes then. as it requires boots on the ground peacekeeping is often in the best thing we have. peacekeeping operations in church that other countries -- ensure that other countries' help shoulder the cost of operations. providing that they deliver on their mandates peacekeeping also brings up a degree of legitimacy in

the eyes of the local population in. because they are made up from troops of multiple countries the spoilers and militants have a hard time to grant them to have the imperialists design. even where the united states has decided we have benefited to handoff to the united nations to allow the peacekeeping operation to have long term support for security and political transition. a multilateral nature helps to address the problem we see today of so many matters of international security from the spread of ebola to the rise of isil and recruitment of foreign terrorist fighters to those countries that rely on the united states to do the lion's share of the work. peacekeeping gets other countries to stand up rather than stand by. so we start from the promise

in the world of a vested interest to see suffering prevented america needs peacekeeping but precisely at this moment to recognize this crucial role to shore up the interest the demands are outstripping capabilities we're asking peacekeepers to do more in more places than at any time in history. there are 16 u.n. peacekeeping missions worldwide with 130,000 personnel and at least 100,000 are u.s. compared to the 75,000 total one decade ago. not to mention the more than 20,000 peacekeepers fighting in the african commission in somalia. this is by far more than its ever been active but the

numbers only tell a small part of the story. the strain on the system is challenging enough if we ask to the peacekeepers to do what they used to do to monitor a ceasefire between the consenting states but we're giving them broad and increasing responsibilities in the inhospitable domain. and to contain violent groups like the callas rebel groups in the democratic republic of congo and to ensure safe delivery of humanitarian assistance by escorting emergency shipments of food and medicine as peace cut -- peaky -- peacekeepers have done in the sudan. as those carried out in the republic and we're asking them to help provide stability in countries emerging from brutal civil

wars in virtually all these missions we ask them to carry out the duties in countries where governments are extremely weak and often unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens. today, two-thirds of u.n. peacekeepers are at the highest percentage ever. peacekeepers deployed to areas where rebel groups and militias have made clear they intend to keep fighting in the modern conflict exclude extremist groups to terrorize civilians to treat them as legitimate targets. but precisely at this moment when we ask for more than ever before for the role that it can play we see the promise and the pitfalls and we see lifesaving impacts

when they're able and willing to fulfill the mandate and the devastating consequences when they are not. in the south sudan were a new civil war has displaced more than 10,000 since last december the peacekeeping mission has played a critical role to prevent even more bloodshed. on december 15 said they that they sent the country spiraling into horrific violence government soldiers went house-to-house executing men in the streets and in one incident day crammed between men into a small building that opened fire through the windows killing nearly all of them rebel forces repeatedly targeted the homes executing the unarmed inhabitants of cows and other possessions in response to the onset of

violence the u.n. opened the gates to civilians fleeing violence taking more than 100,000 displaced persons on a trip to south sudan i visited a base for more than 17,000 people were taking shelter purposes as rough as the conditions were around the base, many living in 1 foot deep water they had access to food and clean drinking water and protection from their past that is more that could be said for the sudanese outside the gates. two decades earlier when they sought refuge under the u.n. flag peacekeepers made a different choice and in april 1994 rwanda was it to seek refuge in the school that u.n. peacekeepers reusing anza based militia

surrendered the school drinking banana beer and brandishing machetes and chanting the one orders came to evacuate they followed orders and had to shoot over the heads to get out so resisted we're the people to the team van gogh and not long after militia members walk did butchering everyone inside. that was then now we have the mission in south sudan with the people at a time of great meet at the same time south sudan today demonstrates the challenge of rapidly deploying peacekeepers and the equipment that they need. at the outset of this conflict the council swiftly authorized an emergency search of 520-0500 troops on the ground but one year

later initiative in today's more than 2,000 troops short severely restricting the ability to provide security for those outside the camp. also a chronic shortage of helicopters and he made no shortfall of more than 30 helicopters consistently restricting the ability and effectiveness often in life or death situations. in the democratic republic of condo, there is similar good news/bad news after years of stagnant see the mission has played an important role in the last year to defeat powerful rebel groups alongside forces is led by a special mission known as the information brigade and absolutely critical to the

heightened emphasis of preventing atrocities told the peacekeeping commanders recently at a meeting to change their mind set to stop reporting just what happened in yesterday bestir reporting what we did yesterday so that accountability is for what we did in the face of what is happening and of brigade under crews put his head into action including those that had unspeakable atrocities against civilians. general cruz has said to the example to put himself on the front lines of this aggressive effort to participate in controls with his troops and traveling personally to the headquarters of one rabil group to tell the leaders to lay down arms where face a frontal assaults this is not your mother or grandmothers peacekeeping but yet even with this singular leadership we see them in the condo failing to protect

civilians on the evening of june 6 many people called the base year by that is only 5 miles away and were begging for help in some is to use -- instances using the free phones peacekeepers provided for such an emergency if they sat at the base later claiming they thought the military commanders would intervene but more than 30 people were massacred more than eight of them were kids one was a four year-old boy with mental and physical disabilities that were burned to death and these are the stakes of what is done right and what is done wrong. we are not done in this case with this unfortunately is not an isolated case even though protection has moved to the heart of the contemporary mission in

mandates the report in march found 507 attacks against civilians 2010 through 2013 peacekeepers virtually never used force to protect under attack thousands may have lost their lives as a result in this is unacceptable. during the nine months in 2012 or 2013 that extremist groups controlled the north a teenage girl was whipped 60 times in the street to talk to boys' music was period and libraries burned. today peacekeepers play a critical role alongside the french to help root out the extremists. un peacekeepers help to provide security and insurance needed to reduce the internally displaced persons by more than 60% in the presence prevents

retaking key cities and towns where the city is reconstituting the power in rebuilding the holy sites at the same time the nation faces serious challenges to project force over the vast territory north of the niger river that is struggle to establish base camps with the unusable roads and the missions have to spend millions of dollars to transport water to the troops and worst of all they're facing unprecedented attacks by extremist. for a few examples august 16 suicide bomber drove a pickup truck with explosives into the heart of the u.s. and camp and detonated the load to peacekeepers were killed and seven others wounded on september 18

peacekeepers were killed when the truck drove over the idd and october 3rd men armed with our pc's on motor bikes hit a logistics convoy to resupply killing nine peacekeepers from niger. monday when created peacekeeping six decades ago it did not have suicide bombers or a the ied in mind with the most complex times to deploy a alone number of troops proportional to the task they are assigned some problems would be evident even if the world's most advanced military was the one wearing the blue helmet. regardless the problems i have described limited mobility and the challenge to keep unit said and hydrated and the failure to confront the aggressors to protect civilians are problems in the u.s. interest to see addressed

per car with like to share for ways the united states and our partners can strengthen peacekeeping to better meet the demand of the 21st century conflict. first the pool of countries that deploy troops and police and military enablers has to expand peacekeeping is funded by developed countries in me and by developing countries it is unsustainable and unfair and will not produce the peacekeeping forces that today's conflicts to me and and perpetuates the divisions between the two camps when in reality we have a shared interest d.c. peacekeeping succeed that is why president by been convened at the general assembly for a peacekeeping summit to press for more commitments and to do demonstrate the common cause with those who are performing this dangerous task very encouraging

european militaries many of which drawdown from afghanistan to return with a plate in active role in the 1990's and urging latin-american military to deployed outside the western hemisphere and east asian military to contribute more substantially more for the first time not only bringing more troops to operations but also potentially the capabilities such as the surveillance and reconnaissance capability that the dutch and nordic troops are bringing to the un mission in mali which should help prevent deadly attacks i and peacekeepers and civilians like the one that took more the lives of peacekeepers over the last year and at the september summit many partners hansard the u.s. and the un called columbia announced it will deploy its high of the

capable troops that have benefited from training in japan announced it will change its domestic legislation to permit greater participation. indonesia will more than double the deployment of troops to create a standby force for rapid deployment. more than two dozen other countries made commitments in we will continue to urge new contributions over the year and world leaders will reconvene in september 2015 to make new pledges and as for our own military for the efforts in afghanistan against isil in ebola it contributes 1400 trips to the multinational peacekeeping force in sinai and the nato mission in bosnia but as vice president bided announced in the senate there are gaps united states is uniquely positioned to fill by

including critical air lives to build base camp says we're currently doing for the mission in the central african republic. also were to share the unique knowledge to confront that asymmetric threats like those are confronted in somalia those that we learned from a decade of war in afghanistan redoing maurer to make better use of advanced technology that can improve the ability to project force and save lives. the second goal is to ensure that countries with the will to perform 21st century peacekeeping has the capacity they need to do so because african leaders see firsthand and checked complex several are at the forefront with a new approach seeking to aggressively execute the task assigned to peacekeepers and in

particular the responsibility to protect civilians. so with rapid response capability leading a coalition of international partners for support president obama announced an initiative at the leaders' summit. the african n. peacekeeping rapid response partnership the united states will invest $110 million each year for the next three to five years to build a capacity of a core group of ethiopia gonna synagogue rwanda and tanzania and uganda and we're hopeful that our nato's -- allies elsewhere will join the partnership to deepen the capabilities we want to have the track record to deploy a peace-keeping operations to make the commitment to protect civilians from violence one example that

rwanda's trips were the first boots on the ground when conflt erupted in central africa and republican in understand the importance of getting peacekeeping right having experienced the catastrophic consequences going wrong 20 years ago and because they will enforce the mandate where they serve troops for other countries that serve alongside them see what robust peacekeeping looks like and aggressors who would attack civilians hear them. the united states has trained hundreds of thousands in the past decade to the initiative launched under president bush. this is an important supplement to that effort the military experts will work alongside those of rwanda's to rapidly deploy troops to supply and sustain forces in hospitable

environments and in exchange for the support the countries have committed to maintain forces and equipment necessary to undertake rapid deployment. third, we need to build a global consensus in support of the mandates peacekeepers are asked to undertake. their task with a responsibility to protect civilians in sierra leone in 1999. in the face of that brutal civil war in their country. today, a 10 missions constituting almost 90 percent of un troops across the world are charged with protecting civilians. . .

has steadily evolved and we must question how relevant they remained to places like south sudan where the peacekeepers are called. as ethiopia minister argued we cannot ask extremist groups for their consent remain impartial between legitimate government in kabul a -- brutal militia.

if peacekeeping is to be effective we have to close the gap between the mandates and the willingness to successfully execute those mandates. if we don't get not only puts the lives of civilians and peacekeepers at risk but undermines the legitimacy of peacekeeping everywhere. recently some of the largest and longest serving contributors demonstrated a willingness to tackle this issue head-on. in the internal review to craft a new peacekeeping strategy aimed at adapting to the demand of contemporary peacekeeping has recognized the evolution and pledged to make the protection of civilians for the troops training. meanwhile earlier this year pakistan removed a sector commander who failed to deploy to protect civilians under attack and they sent a message to pakistan 8,000 peacekeepers worldwide with such an action

not condoned. last week pakistan declared its commitment, that was committed to robust peacekeeping to protect civilians. translating the shifts and posture into the unity of purpose will take time these are promising steps and we will work with our partners to encourage more like them. we must take seriously and seek to remedy the troop contributing countries understandable frustration that they lack opportunity to share with the council the experience of their troops on the ground to take on complex robust mandates that put in harms way their men and women in uniform. fourth we need to press the un to make institutional reforms. it's easy to criticize for all the problems we see on the ground but at the same time we create much-needed accountability for failure and

abuse we should take note of some profound changes the secretary has made to peacekeeping since the catastrophic failures in rwanda. from changes to recognize the new responsibilities to better systems for the recruitment into the deployment of and the deployment of a number of military police and civilian personnel and to improve logistics and procurement that has made some advances. last year we spearheaded the reforms including longer troop rotations to preserve institutional memory, financial penalties for troops that show up at the necessary equipment to perform the duties and financial premiums for the troops willing to accept high risk. incentives and disincentives have to be better leveraged in the ames. the secretary general ban ki moon lost the first in 15 years.

we don't expect to remedy the capabilities and shortages in the political will the review should address those shortcomings in peacekeeping for the un secretariat is distinct from the member states has the ability of celtics. in adequate planning, slow troop deployment, i'm even even mentioned checked and enforced standards for troop performance, inadequate measures to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse for insufficient accountability for failure to protect civilians and an efficient division of labor between peacekeeping operations and other un agencies. most of the issues i described the un secretary can take a strong leadership role. member states then have to step up and have both for the reforms that are needed to kick in and make a difference. these are critical to that

better addresses in the 21st century challenges and to demonstrate the need for leadership and to exercise the leadership the united states must pay the dues in full. i understand the frustration that many americans feel and what that rising over the past decade due to the formula that the united states negotiated back in the year 2000 that a lot of the regular contribution share to be cast. we agreed the formula should be changed to reflect the reality of today's world. we must insist on paying our dues at this critical moment and if we do not, we will dramatically undercut the power to achieve the reform needed and undermine the leadership and underfunded the missions such as the one in the republic.

on the contrary as taxpayer funds over the last six years we pressed hard to approve the cost efficiency of peacekeeping to prevent significant new cuts. we cut by 16% to one sixth of the cost produced through deficiencies and streamlining. we've also bought the increasing saving hundreds of millions of dollars per year by prevailing other countries for the modest increase in the reimbursement rates for the un peacekeepers and pressed to streamline missions where it is warranted by changing the additions on the ground. we cut the number of mandated troops in half from 10,000 to 5,000 we produced a number of troops from nearly 9,000 after the 2010 earthquake to just over 2,000 today and we were on course to do the same in liberia

prior to the operating. these ensure that governments do not use peacekeepers as an excuse not to take responsibility for their own citizens security and streamlining missions in this manner frees up troops and resources needed elsewhere. without undermining its coordination in congress and as we reconvene to consider a spending bill i plan to continue working with the bipartisan group to find a path forward on this critically important issue. before closing let me touch briefly on a trip president obama asked me to take stock on the international response of the outbreak in west africa. long before ebola hit, the brutal civil war dead and both nations posted un peacekeeping missions. the mission in liberia is

ongoing. when the peacekeepers arrived in 1999 the cease-fire between the parties with shaky. more than 50,000 had been killed and rebel groups groups amputated limbs of 20,000 people. over the next six years the mission was performing a lot like the contemporary missions and decipher some failures and setbacks including the outrageous pattern of sexual abuse by troops and less than a year after the mission deployed rebels kidnapped hundreds of peacekeepers and renounced the cease-fire with the government. but they would recall as well the mission that had an outside impact in helping sierra leone rebuild after the devastating conflict. peacekeepers hope to disarm the fighters including child soldiers who they helped

integrate into the families and communities once again. they decommissioned the weapons and helped half a million displaced people return to their communities and after providing security for the country's first ever democratic presidential election in 2005 peacekeeping mission was drawn down. one of the questions that kept running through my mind was what if they have never come to sierra leone, what if the country had been at war when the outbreak struck how much faster with the virus had spread how would the doctors and nurses have been able to flood the country to support the week posted some right now, how did the military have been able to help build ebola treatment units or run the operations as they are now doing the rarely ask these questions. we see them many ways the peacekeepers come up short for

failure to protect civilians, the abuse, the list goes on. we cannot see and what is impossible to see if the counterfactual. what would any of the more than a dozen countries where the un peacekeepers are deployed today look like without a peacekeeping presence and when the missions do their jobs as a peacekeeping mission did in many ways they make themselves obsolete. a drawdown and the troops come home home and asked for it instead of having risked their lives for people in the nations that are not their own they come become home to anonymity. yet if that's what this question we must ask ourselves with every mission what would have happened in south sudan if no peacekeepers had been present when they began going door to door and killing people on the basis of their ethnicity or if the un had and opened its gates to the 100,000 people fleeing the violence what would the republic look like today if no

african union or european union peacekeepers had come to try to prevent the attacks by the militia? the answer is simple without peacekeeping the violence and the suffering would likely have been worse. but what if question doesn't let anybody off the hook not peacekeepers, not the countries that fund and lift and support peacekeeping and authorize the missions as we had the privilege of doing in the security council, not the contributors themselves or the secretary, nobody gets off the hook but it does remind us why this effort so worthwhile and by american leadership is critical. just because the places like sierra leone are better off than they would have been without the peacekeeping does not mean that the institution is where it needs to be. nor does it mean that we are satisfied that they are pursuing

part is that not all of the mandates or the peacekeepers are standing up to protect civilians some of the time rather than all of the time. we are not. when the stakes are as high as they are doing these conflicts with the shortfall can result in atrocities committed in the communities of rooted in the entire society being split along ethnic and religious lines getting it right some of the time certainly isn't good enough. peacekeeping must be consistently performing and meeting our expectations and we will keep working with our partners to bring about the kind of reform upon which the security of millions of people around the world may depend. thank you. [applause]

>> that was a very substantial talk and i know we don't have a lot of time and we want to make sure that we get at least a little bit of time. we want to talk about how difficult your job is.

and who was there when we legislate it. of the chinese surpassed the united states and the largest economy in the largest economy how much are they can to get into peacekeeping. >> it has doubled. it's up around 5% now. you want us to go to old numbers. >> we shared now the 24% which means that 72.6%, 71.6% is by others that we are paying a large share.

>> that's going to be a hard case to make in the congress. >> there's a lot of bipartisan support for the very particular missions that are being performed whether it's syria and israel which is active but have to be relied on where we've seen al qaeda established a loophole where we have to strengthen the united states so i think it's true that we raised the issue of peacekeeping in the abstract and people latch on little but if you can to segregate and boil it down to the mission. the muslims as well on the other side of the line. i think that we have a lot of support. >> you make some very specific cases. let's talk about a couple of the ones you just mentioned that part of the peacekeepers be put

into the mission that i think you rightly outlines they've always assumed they would be occupying the base and keeping peace not delivering peace. but it is between the peacekeepers that wants to go on and it's not a peacekeeping operation that but you mentioned the multinational observers we've got al qaeda. how do we manage the situations where they are basically should they be taken out of? >> again i think that is refreshing this conversation where it's so important because the truth is we do spend a lot of time drawing attention to the ways in which they are failing from imagining what it would be like operating in that environment with no anti-ied

equipment so there isn't any obvious candidate to take their place if we cannot actually have reinforced the efforts they are making because on the list of options allowing the vacuums to persist or allowing the civilians to be broad or wholesale we are in the situation now where we are trying to change the training and the capabilities into the mindset of that there is a line between the missions of the kind that you described and i described and the traditional mindset that many -- we have been in this evolution from the 1990s back then people said wait and now as i said it is a huge percentage of conflict and un peacekeeping that is being performed now the conflict areas.

the exception is when there is a peace to keep. but again if it were door number two i think that we would all walk through it but what we have already used in perfect coalitions willing to put themselves on the line in the service and we can't afford to wish them well and hope that the tensions resolve. >> will they have been notion that if we trained them with the counter ied they can be in this conflict zone? the question if you are asking is one of them in part by also saying we almost need a new compact book on the role of the engagement that they need to embrace if for no other reason

than what they are operating in and the way of the security council engaging with them also as it is structured to give one example as i mentioned they want more robust engagement and they are coming to us with a list of capabilities they need so they recognize if you do not deal with the crisis in the neighborhood coming again to the community near you you have a lot of political will or a shortage of well and some capable forces or a huge amount of oil and issues missing quickly having equipment and being able to see themselves so we have to close the gaps. >> let's open it up. could you identify yourself just wait for the microphone which is coming.

>> thank you for the discussion. i saw my first mission in the congo. i wanted to ask there are so many peacekeeping missions how much of that debate? >> a country like the congo the answer would not only be nothing but it would be also they look to the community who are operating now side-by-side.

there are exceptions in the peacekeeping that's a different situation where you have the developed where they do contribute a very substantial share of the peacekeeping mission to the larger point though i use the phrase stack and about the years of the missions that produced no dividends at least maybe they were safer here or there but when you look at the kind of net crisis it looked like it was more of the same from year to year. they have three armies that are willing to be part of that who are rearing to go. they are also using the uav to

see whether they are coming across and whether actors in the region are getting involved. i think there is something different that has brought about meaningful changes over the last year and a half and it is unfortunate that when we look at the life of the mission is harder to see that. >> i study it in the recent years i noticed the tendency for the countries to want to consolidate and want to find larger units both domestic in nature. one of the more recent evidences who had this overarching

protocol in the security governments but we have also seen them come into conflict resolution role so i'm just wondering what your idea is where you see the strength in that piece. >> i would distinguish that group and that effort from what i've been talking about which is the security elements into the reform putting it together for what i should have said at the beginning is i hope it as i hope it goes without saying that the political proxy and the national reconciliation is the first order of the international effort the best you are going to

do is hold them at bay and protect civilians but unless you have that parallel peace at work that your trying to deal with what gives rise of the first place you are going to be playing walkable so without getting into the kind of technical aspects of what the regional effort is seeking to achieve i think what we have seen and heard a lot of these improvements and in this more aggressive attitude on the part of the peacekeepers is more ownership of what's actually happening inside of the involvement that's an interesting development dave stepped up not only in that region but also they've now come forward and they are one of the countries that is stepping up to provide peacekeepers that hasn't come up before under the umbrella swivels of expanded the pool of the resources into the

training capabilities they need. so it's probably not worth going deep into the specifics where the effort is right now beyond saying there will be no solution to congo. it's going to come through a political process and when there is enough well on the state oil on the state waters of the region but also where they have to surrender their weapons or face something on the security side and the political track where the constituents can find a home you basically have to walk and chew gum at the same time. >> i apologize to the audience. thank you for coming.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] following the midterm elections congress returns to business today and the house gavel zenith to eastern and on the agenda are ten bills that we will be debating including updating the presidential records act of the house republican conference will hold elections also tomorrow. democrats reportedly scheduled for november 18. in the senate procedural vote expected on the district court nominations at 510 to 30 5:30 and off the floor tomorrow the senate republicans and democrats will hold leadership elections and elect a minority leaders.

the homes to be head of the department are testifying on the that response to protect americans from ebola. mitch mcconnell held a meeting with other senators elect of the congressional orientation continues today before they gather the lawmakers posed for a group photo as you can see they took questions from reporters.

[inaudible] let me just say this is a happier occasion then the 2006 election. the president and secretary of treasurer fox for her. we are excited about having and we hope that they will join shortly. we are here to begin to make progress for the american people. >> the problem is the president continues to send signals that he has no intention of moving

towards the middle. i was distressed about the deal but apparently he's briefed them on this and it requires them to do nothing at all about the regulations. i would welcome the president moving to the middle on the trade and tax reform. how do you expect to deal with the issue? >> in the next few days before we get ready to take over the majority. >> thank you.

[inaudible conversations] thank you very much. let's go!. thank you everybody, you did a great job! [laughter] we are joined by congresswoman candice miller who chairs the congressional committee charged with overseeing the freshman orientation this week and next. the chairwoman of first a question on who actually gets invited to the orientation because there are a handful of races that are yet to be called. >> that's true although they are

quickly being called but there's still a handful that are outstanding so every of course every one that has been elected as a member of congress has extended the invitation and then we also sent an invitation to both parties, both candidates and those races have not been concluded yet so there are a couple of those situations and it's just pretty much this is my first time going through that i know every cycle there's always one or two that are outstanding and they want to make sure whoever is successful is up to steam and we invite both of them. >> in what happens in the orientation, roll call newspaper on capitol hill i can do to the college orientation and they talked about getting to know you

fellow freshman attending the panels about the institution and opposing for a class photograph. what do you make of the analogy to the college orientation >> guest: i can run under it's often been characterized taking a drink of water out of a firehose. we have tried it this time to improve on what was already a good orientation to try to understand what we can do to present all of this information in an easily understood way and is something that is the kind of thing they need to know. keep in mind we are not talking about any kind of politics or policy this is just about the mechanics of being a member of congress and it is totally bipartisan and it just is talking to the new members about the idea that we have on how they should approach setting up

their new office certainly in dc but how do they set up their district office some of them only have one district office and some of them could have a handful of district offices so how do they said their offices up and what is their budget that they are looking at? we did a study to get an idea of what the average range is although there is wild wild fluctuations of fluctuation that this would've range of salaries for deputy chief of staff and the press person scheduler for the legislative people into district director and all these kind of things because that is the basic thing people want to know is how much will the budget of the end and when they are looking at the staffing up coming out, how do they approach the? >> what is the budget for the new member and how much do they

get to set up everything they need to do to be a freshman number of congress? >> everybody gets about the same amount of money i want to say that it is 1.1 i think it's generally what it is. there is a little bit of variation because when the committee is putting together the budget to take into consideration if you have to run a district office in downtown manhattan, the rental rates will be different than they would be in north dakota. so we do try to make some accommodations to make sure the people are accommodated in that way but that's pretty much the same. and everything comes out of that so as a new member, you are essentially looking at almost like setting up a small business and you have to do it rapidfire because you are trying to get it setup set up so that when you are going to be sworn in after the first of the year you are ready to go and you don't have

to have each one done but you have to be as far along as you can so that you can have the most success and impact for your constituents so we are trying to help with that because we happens is you inherit whatever type of equipment your predecessor had. if your predecessor had antiquated equipment may be your predecessor wasn't really in the technology into technology you're probably going to make an investment on that. i remember when i got there i had that situation and i did not hire one particular staff position and instead i spent the money on equipment. on the other hand you might be able to walk into an office that has everything up to date. so, we help them with those kind of positions this kind of positions with kind of a committee might want to be purchasing in-house contract and then of course we help them with

talking to for instance all of the house officers with the clerk of the house you're not in the floor of the house so when you get your card dot top this goes and you'll be hearing you will be hearing from the parliamentarians who will tell them what is germane and what is not in how you ask for unanimous consent when it's appropriate to give a special order. they have the same ideas in the drafting into the piece of legislation you can then drop. >> in the highlights of the week tomorrow the session on how to set up your office is on monday's session on the congressional ethics and then of course a lot of members looking

forward to choosing their own office that happens next wednesday. what is the question you get most asked from the member of congress? >> guest: how do i get from my office to the capitol building will just be i was trying to figure out where everything is located as we try to help with all of that but really it's what kind of budget and my looking at because they know everything is coming out of the budget and there is going to be advice that happens not very often but occasionally if a member runs over at their budget they have to pay for it personally. you can't pay for it out of campaign funds it has to come out of your pocketbook. >> host: congresswoman miller the chairman and of the committee of the house administration. we appreciate your time this morning. >> the house in the senate gavel

into "-begin-double-quote after two eastern as always watch live coverage on c-span and the senate on c-span2. protecting americans from the ebola will be the item discussed during a forum hosted by the senate appropriations committee and the secretary burwell, homeland security secretary johnson among those testifying and i will that i will be live at two eastern on c-span. this weekend we partnered with charter communications for a visit to madison wisconsin. >> the beauty is large. it's a glorious service. the call comes to every citizen. it is an unending struggle to keep their representatives.

>> he is probably the most important figure in wisconsin history and one of the most important in the 20th century of the united states. he was a reforming governor and the findwhat progressivism is and was one of the first to use the term of two self identified. he was a united states senator who was recognized by his peers in the 1950s as one of the greatest senators in history, he was an opponent of world war i and stood his ground advocating for free speech. after the civil war, america changed radically from a nation of small farmers and small producers and small manufacturers and by the 1870s 1880s or 1890s, we had

concentrations, growing inequality and concern about the influence of the money and the government so we spent a part of the 1890s giving speeches all over wisconsin. if you wanted a speaker for your club or group he would give a speech. he went to county fairs and every kind of events that you could imagine and builds a reputation for himself. by 1900, he was ready to run for governor advocating on behalf of the people. again, two issues. the direct primary. no more selecting candidates in the convention. number two, stop the interest. specifically the railroad.

by the legislative or the judicial branch in the government has affected you or your community. this 200 cash prizes for students in interest on $100,000. for the list of schools go to student cam.org. >> president obama called on the fcc to ban the so-called fast lane on the internet and regulate service providers by public utilities. the federal communications commission is considering a plan that would allow them to regulate how the traffic flows between content providers and internet service providers in the final rule is expected by the end of the year. at issue is the concept of open internet or net atrocity that

was to be give equal access to all content. columbia university professor is credited with inventing the term net neutrality and he took part in a discussion on the subject of florida university -- spinnaker i welcome jacob who's been involved in the internet is for the rest of us knew what it was since 1996 and he is been a pioneer and when we thought about taking on the topic and how we could translate it for an audience including those experts and people that see the net neutrality we got the perfect person to do that in the translation and pull together this panel was jacob. over to you. >> thank you into the national security for sponsoring this event. it's way better.

we are going to aim for an active interesting and urgent issue. briefly introducing the panel i'm going to give them a chance to make an opening statement and then i'm going to start with my old friend i knew him when he was a writer for the nation but more recently he went in organization called the personal democracy forum and he is the author of a new book that i'm eager to read from disconnect why the intranet hasn't transformed politics yet. i agree with that premise. on my left is tim you may recognize him from his recent unsuccessful but quietly successful campaign why don't we successful campaign for the lieutenant governor with 40% of the vote from a standing start

and no background in politics. the slate writers tend to underperform. he is the author of a terrific book called the master switch and he claimed the term net neutrality and no discussion is without his perspective and last next to him is jeffrey who until recently was a professor at lewis and clarke and he now runs the organization that he founded at the international set of economics in portland oregon and for the first round i would like each of you to be as neutral and descriptive in the diagnostic and explanatory as possible. before we get into the weeds of the issue is important to try to have a perspective of that the

historical perspective and i want to start with you explaining where this whole issue of net neutrality comes from. >> thanks for having us here as you mentioned an issue of importance and concern and i want to try to discuss why that is and give some historical background. i went the other day where the chairman was announcing there was a crowd of protesters. there were people beating the drums and camping and i have to tell you that when i started working on this issue we would be lucky to have ten people show up. it was an obscure issue but i think there's a lot of reasons that it has become an important

issue and i want to describe some of the issues that raises some factors that raises questions about the power and the monopoly power and exercise thereof. i think that there is a discussion whether the power has gone too far. it puts into question the issue of free speech of an incredible engine of speech and some people feel maybe that will be a threat in the sense that there may be a fast or slow lane created by the neutrality it puts into place some of the issues of equal that he or inequality. the idea that people like public infrastructure might work better for some speakers than others i

think both raise the questions of free speech but also the sense of the quality we don't have sidewalks or we don't usually have sidewalks and so i think that is the time. if you go back into the history of this issue i would date back to even the beginning of the nationstate and the idea of public infrastructure one of the things that countries have always done is provide an amount of what you can call infrastructure that is basic roads, bridges, ferries and so forth but everyone relies on all business at all citizens. for a very long part of the human history those were always provided by government into

effect the degree to which they built the infrastructure was kind of it. that began to change particularly in england and the united states with a model where we would have private actors guild what might have otherwise been considered public infrastructure. so private innkeepers or private bridge builders or private operators and then have some of them operate under the regulation or the regulation of rules that gave them the public duty so this is the origin of the idea of the public calling with a common carrier and in some level since the last 500 years we have been struggling with what exactly the rule should be for these kinds of businesses which are somehow vested with the public function.

it's not a loan to say the infrastructure but everyone thinks they seem to be different and more in public what we have is funded by the government in the initial stages but largely taken over by private companies and dominated by the private sector entities the same rule should these private operators which might be described as public facilities have special duties of the delivery of special pricing rules should we make sure we have it we are asking what are the essentials in the 21st century the way that

we are asking is the broadband internet to save electricity in the 20th century or the thing that water was so that is the basic introduction and in some ways it is defining the citizenship and i think i will leave it there. >> i know that you are going to want to respond. can you bring us up to speed on where we are in layman's terms? they have the ruling that's interesting seeming to express the opinion in public as the fcc he has appointed as though they might not know what it was. strongly in favor of net neutrality. where are we on this issue right now? >> briefly sort of picking up where tim left off beginning in the nationstate and then fast-forward to the early 2000's, yada yada and everything

in between. then we have the internet, broadband, telephone, telecommunications services have already been regulated by the fcc for many years am a since 1934. and then a long time as this new thing called broadband, and over broadband, as broadband commands you although of course, we do a lot more than just talk to each other. there is no longer a single communications network. it's capable of doing everything. what ultimately came to be characterized as an information service. this is important and i won't go into these annoying legal details but it's important to note under the clinton administration the chairman made this determination that we would all be better served if broadband were classified as an information service which is causing for the purpose because it is far less regulated than the traditional telecommunications service.

after that decision was made came some potential challenges where they continued to assert that it was the subject to the title i regulation. as the debate started some people suggested we needed more regulation for the internet. when michael, the chairman of the federal communications commission decided that was accurate and that indeed some of the arguments suggested there was a need to treat it a little bit differently recognizing the ideas there was the internet freedom. this is a set of goals that suggested things like content

should be treated the same and everyone should have access and that worked until it didn't. i will be contentious it's only clear that it was asserted not to be working and we needed more concrete rules. we can elaborate on those later but there were some court decisions and they continued to throw out the effort to impose stronger roles in 2010 at the most was promulgated into the court recently as you probably know in january of this year throughout those rules exceeding the authority and now where we are today those rules have a new chairman who tried to grapple with how to continue a form of regulation beyond these internet freedoms but consistent with the

limitations that the court has proposed and they couldn't reimpose if they tried in 2010 so commissioner, the chairman proposed something called the npr with another set of rules. interestingly enough they were met immediately with a massive outcry opposition to what extent has like that have never been seen in the protesters came was talking about but this was opposition from the left and this wasn't the same kind of opposition to regulation of the internet that we have seen before. you have to do something you have have to input these title ii common carrier regulations and to treat the internet like it is a water utility, like it's an electric utility to suggest. now we are kind of waiting to see what happens. the chairman proposed a set of rules that did not go that far.

they asked a number of questions and suggesting it would be open to the possibility of the regulation and we had millions of pages of debate in the record about this and millions of hours and millions of words assessing this question whether we should treat the internet like a common carrier and maybe this could be a good statement for you. whether it is anything ranging from the internet freedoms up to the treatment like the common carrier are kind of what we want to talk about it rather than degrading the merit of the very arcane rules i think we can do that despite the fact of where we are right now is asking the question whether we are good to be regulating the title ii or something less.

>> before we go back into that i just want to ask you about the political stakes. this is often an issue of open internet and closed intranet and issue of expression and political expression. the week before last i was in turkey the president recently got a law passed saying essentially he could take down anything from the internet as well and immediately began to do so. now they're the political stake said the internet isvhere we art differential bandwidth speed isn't this rhetoric of little inflated to frame it that way?

>> is it on now? to say on that example for a second it is worth noting that when those protests broke down about a year ago over the government proposal that would've a shopping mall and to do so it gets the wishes of the local community the state media and the private broadcast media didn't cover this at all and it was only because people in turkey only had access to services like twitter that they were able to get the news out there was going on with people protesting in the street so that the freedom to connect through the relatively open services like twitter is absolutely vital to any hope for an open society.

here in the united states it is worth trying to catch your mind back to maybe 20 plus years ago before we had the internet at all before. the social networking and before we had had e-mailed me just as mainstream media and it was a fairly much more closed system if you wanted to be heard by the larger society you had to get through the gatekeeper and convince an editor at the journal of opinion that what you had to say was valuable and those gatekeepers were not a particularly diverse group and we had a much more constrained national result so what we have now is absolutely a much better situation with more open media systems thanks to the open internet. but with that said i think this

argument about net neutrality is part of a larger argument over the merits of open versus closed systems and i think i can illustrate this with a recent example because the fact of the matter is that there are services on the internet that are more open and more services are closed and that this philosophical issue of whether anybody has equal access to reach everyone else and their message is playing out real-time not just to this question of whether the owners of the pipes have to not discriminate in terms of the content they carry and what they charge. so you may remember about two months ago when it was in the middle of the summer and mike brown was murdered in ferguson, and they were protesting in the streets almost from the beginning.

.. spoke as a different algorithm for deciding what to put in your news feeds and twitter. facebook is putting things into a news feeds that it thinks you are going to like to see and also behind it, facebook has a commercial interests in not

upsetting its users. they want to keep their users there and happy and in the mood to pay attention to face book's advertisers. twitter and its of the rhythm is more direct by what use the user choose to follow. you may choose your friends on facebook but that doesn't mean you see all the information you share. facebook because it can, throttles the news feet and will charge you to reach all your friends. the point is the issue of neutrality of the services that we rely upon is absolutely vital to whether or not we have an open and robust conversation or one that is in all kinds of ways heavily shaped and throttled and limited by private interests. >> not sure i totally agree with two but we don't need to get into that further. i want to go back to this

question about the internet as public utility or not. so you use the metaphor of sidewalks, water, electricity and other issues with a band would like electricity. if you pay the more you pay, it doesn't work that way but in the process, this is mainly relief from the point of view of the carriers, commercial issue about whether you can charge more for the people who use the most of it? why not? >> i don't think that is the issue. that is how it is framed in order to rhetorically suggest a simple issue that the government should stay away from but it is much more complicated than that. anything can be expressed as simply payments but that hides the complexity of the issue. my position in the advocacy side is i do think in our era of the

internet has become one of the essentials and should be regarded as a public utility. there was a different story 15 years ago when we were trying to incentivize broadband rollout. it has come to the point where you go to a new apartment or new business, you want electricity, you want water and you want broadband and what you want for the broadband carrier is to be reliable, as cheap as possible, and 40 service to give you what you want and not to its self imposed its own strange little speed up or slow downs or whatever else. with the carriers have long wanted and i can understand the economic reasons for this is the ability to differently tax different speakers on the internet so for those who have more to pay would like to charge them more and create a fast lane and slow lane. there is some economic justification for those but the

public interests augers against it and it comes to the idea that there are some businesses which are in the nature of public infrastructure. i will give you an example if you and imagine the brooklyn bridge, i could say the george washington bridge that that is more politically loaded. imagine the brooklyn or george washington bridge were to be privately owned and favored one pizza delivery company or another, i think you can immediately see how that begins to distort competition. we favor uber, they get over the bridge at the end guys don't, immediately puts competition in favor of them. in a way, that hurts the internet. because it derails fair competition. i also said that when we talk about speech the idea that rich speakers get better access to

people is to some degree inevitable but i don't think we should try to facilitate it. one thing that has been exciting and interesting about the internet is it has achieved a rough parity. not perfect parity. you still have to be good but it is possible for a really well informed thoughtful blocker to compete with the opinion page of the new york times or to compete with fox news or whatever it is and that is a function of being able to reach people at the same speed, in a world of great inequality we already have enough inequality as it is. we don't need more expressed on the internet and have it be the only people who get hurt are the people who have money because you have enough of that already. >> the question of public utility, whether someone has that natural monopoly. electricity and water pretty clear the are. there are a lot of places where you have more than one way of accessing broadband internet.

they may be a temporary condition that it functions like a monopoly for consumers in new york. certainly does for me. eileen no one way to get broadband where i live. >> only one way of getting cable broadband but you can access through at&t or verizon or whatever. >> it may not be available but in five years it might and we are looking forward to that. speak to this question of whether tim is right, that this is a public utility and should be treated like a public utility. >> to answer your immediate question, to the extent that the issue may be an economic one or a problem of monopoly, if that is the basis for the regulation here, the fears that there might be anti-competitive conduct by a monopoly that doesn't pay sufficient competition we actually have laws that deal with that and deal with it pretty well called antitrust laws and consumer protection laws so it begs the question in part, i am not saying there's an answer to this but it begs the

question in part, whether we need to build an enormous new apparatus to achieve this thing that route is a problem of perhaps if it is a problem, of not sufficient or insufficient competition when we have laws that deal specifically with that. some of the issues tim was talking about was the implications of that, whether it is true or not, i'd definitely take issue with the characterization of much of this and in particular the characterization of what the effects would be of allowing prioritization and what the effects would be for mandated neutrality. one thing to recognize is we have nothing approaching neutrality right now, nothing at all. there is nothing neutral about the internet. what is most interesting is that are from that constraining blog from being able to access any what it wants to access in the

world the parties that are advocating for more regulation, common carrier treatment, are enormously rich. netflix, google, facebook, companies like that are advocating net neutrality and that should give you pause. you should wonder whether there's any reason to think that they are advocating for the bill guy, the pizza company will allegedly be harmed if he doesn't have access to the fast lane on the brooklyn bridge or whether there might be something else going on. one of the things we should consider is going on here is prioritization is really useful and important precisely for the startups, for the unknown companies that need some way of trying to distinguish itself from the incumbent. the incumbent has a massive consumer base, easy access to financing, name recognition, all kinds of things and along comes this new little start up who is constantly looking for ways to

distinguish itself and make sure the incumbent's customers can find this new guy. unfortunately, like it or not especially in the world where we have so much information out there isn't enough just to be better. we have to find a way to make sure your potential customers know you are better. one potential way of doing that is actually getting some form of prioritization. call it advertising or promotion, effectively the same thing and i can tell you one thing that is a likely consequence if we foreclose any ability for the startup or anyone else to access this form of prioritization it can only mean they will be spending more money on other forms of promotion and prioritization which in the first instance probably means buying more ads on google. dimension google was in favor of net neutrality? there's a possible explanation for why. i would add 100 additional points but one in particular, i

happen to have a great quote from tim that is useful to bring out. consider when you get in a new york taxi, the driver must take you where you want to go, that is common carriage and that is right. title 2, reading the internet, is like outlined uber. the problem with common carriage and overregulating the internets, it locks the internet into a kind of status quo. as on matter of requirements if you're going to impose regulations it will be imposed in ways that outlaw certain conduct we can achieve and allow other conduct we can conceive of and most of the conduct we can conceive of is happening right now. it will enshrines those forms of conduct and impede innovation, new business models, new ways of structuring not just the internet but the very edge providers, content providers who are allegedly the beneficiaries

of this net neutrality regime. we have to be really careful before we impose essentials mandate the business models on the internet of yesterday. we'd better be sure we are not outlying the business models of tomorrow by doing that. >> there is a real common ground between the two of them. you both think it has worked, internet has worked pretty well so far. but you think it is because -- partly because companies haven't been able to differentiate. they haven't been able to commercially regulate the market. jeffrey, you think the risk is government regulating the internet. both of you like it pretty well away it works now. what the definition of

unregulated internet without unhealthy regulation. and government, the unhealthy regulation is what carriers would do without government. >> unlike the carrier without regulation, the government actually has an obligation before imposes regulations, the carriers and to what they want like it or not unless and until they run afoul of the law as part of the antitrust law but the government has to defend its imposition of regulations and one of the big issues here at least to me is there is really as we were just discussing no evidence that anything that had never happen. a couple of tiny, a couple of little tiny things we can debate the significance of the three examples you can come up with but generally speaking as tim just agreed the internet works pretty well right now and the real question is even if there are things that might have gone wrong is there enough evidence

to defend the shift, really a paradigm shift in regulation, or actually is there not enough and while there might be some problems down the road perhaps the only valid course right now is restrained and humility and we should wait until the problems actually materialize because we don't have enough evidence to justify imposing stringent regulations now. >> and want to object to this consensus that the internet works pretty well right now. most of us are being overcharged for service that we should be embarrassed by. we are paying first world prices for third world service. a kid in south korea can get to the library of congress website 100 times faster than a kid in the south bronx. if that kid in the south bronx can even 04 to buy broadband service from one of the monopolists who may not even be

choosing to put fast service into their neighborhood. it cheri picks the rich neighborhoods to put fast service into. there were a lot of promises that got thrown pass as a there. the idea that jacob, we might in five years see more competition or faster services being provided when verizon has already said they are not going to build fires out any farther than it has already done. for most people unless you want to pay exorbitant prices or move to one of the few cities the leader google or a municipality is putting this new gigabyte level of internet service we are never going to catch up to what large chunks of the rest of the industrialized world take for granted at prices a fraction of what we pay so let's not blithely say the internet works well and from the consumer point of view it doesn't work well at all. >> to be clear i think what i

meant was we agree it works well in terms of fostering innovation and allowing -- to encouraging free expression. >> it is important, net neutrality is part of a broader debate as to how to fill the private power in telecom and i would side with the views that the antitrust laws haven't been adequate in this area and we have serious problems that we should open the door as time goes by thinking of things, if you have continued trend toward more consolidation, toward just a few companies being in charge and over a pretty important public facility, i think that naturally by any economist's description monopoly, a company with a monopolies that shows no sign of disappearing at all or two companies charging monopoly prices, at some point you have

got to say that is it, enough monopoly extraction, here is the phrase you're going to charge, no question the reregulation, the strong case and also as saying you need to provide access to more people in exchange for monopoly is strong and that is what we did with the telephone service and cable and i am not saying at this moment it is necessary but i don't want to totally close the door when we have an constrained monopoly power. the government should never say we are going to let a monopolist charge in excess of the price its costs are at for an unlimited duration because the internet is special. no recent have that kind of rule. the government needs to supervise a monopoly and keep prices, one thing i am concerned about, this is an inequality issue in this country, the sense that while middle-class salaries are flat, the essentialss keep getting more and more expensive, internet service being one example, cellphones service being another. the prices keep going up so that

creates a diminishment and real incomes of these issues are not just -- they are important issues of basically what it means to be middle-class. i don't think we should take those issues off the table. >> this is an important predictive question and relevant debate which is whether the carriers are going to become more like monopolies or less like monopolies. and experience them now, i certainly do. and real competition and markets that don't have much of it. >> net neutrality policy on the basis, that people hate comcast. >> contest is a monopoly and will stay a monopoly. >> it is not clear comcast is a monopoly. there is obviously one other competitor in just about

everywhere, talking about broadband. it is actually threw from cable. and there is at&t and verizon pretty much everywhere in the country. there are other options as well, century link and other companies investing enormously in the net works. one thing that is hard to figure out is why these rapacious monopolists invested trillions, literally trillions of dollars and demonstrated every improving speeds relative to the costs of content and various -- especially rapid increases in prices that have generally gone up. >> that is not true. the price has gone up faster is an inflation. and talking about cable video. >> the point is we are not

experiencing -- i understand people hate comcast, their customer service is terrible. would you rather pay less than we pay for what we want? all of these things are true but we have to be careful about translating that kind of conflict into, i want to bring this back to net neutrality into specific counterproductive rules here. this was a burst of honesty on your hard. to those who nationalized the infrastructure. essentially by the government or the very minimum regulated so heavily by the government that essentially in distinguishable from what is offering a. and whether i don't agree with

the promises here but most importantly, there's a problem going from those premises is imposition of title ii common carrier status for the benefit of the suppose that problem, and in the net neutrality debate. >> the amount of regulation, i have been involved in telecom sector for 15 years now. i have been waiting and waiting for the suppose said market entry of four five, this becomes a rigorous competitive market. for developing cable and internet service. i am happy the rise in build to some high expensive neighborhoods. happy that google has wired two cities and the state of competition is for. it is nothing like what was promised. and as opposed to sitting there

and saying one day competition will come and one day competition might be coming, we need to act and restrain, we are saying we shouldn't do this because we hate comcast, comcast is acting like an unrestrained monopoly. you don't like the word monopoly -- >> continually, every year, increased speeds -- when you take account of the government subsidies and tax subsidies offered in these countries that offer much better service. the service isn't necessarily much better and costs more. it is easy to again criticize what we have but it is actually not all clear the we have is worse than what others have, no more expensive and again relevant to -- more relevant to the net neutrality debate is what are the costs we're bearing of this and give it is the case our services and as good, south

korea's and one of the two countries where it is true, what are we losing for that and how much are we willing, how much cost and burden are we willing to bear in order to correct this potentially very small actual costs. >> to the heart of net neutrality net neutrality, the internet has been an economic golden goose that laid some very valuable -- 20 or 30 years ago, people were asking if the united states had finished as a technological power, japan and other countries, there is very little question when we look at the top ten companies, being the home of the internet of an open internet, neutral internet has nothing to do with that. and start ups would do better on a pay to play internet where they can pay for it. it is just a methodology.

we don't want to start our business negotiating with comcast or verizon for an extra payment when we have no money compared to our direct competitor who would be someone like google. and and people who file comments, in favor of net neutrality. and knows that they would be destroyed if the -- comcast's -- >> how is it -- >> let me -- i pursue exactly this spot which is a question of what the absence of net neutrality would likely look like. and broadband access, the

wireless carriers, verizon for example. is offering certain content with no data charges attached to it. that comes in the form of not and watching certain ings. cert the dystopian version, what is the kind of realistic version of what happens if the fcc doesn't mandate net neutrality. >> there are people who are very critical. it is -- >> our media looks more and more like television again. television is free, and paid for

by advertisers. and handed his facebook zero. what facebook is doing with mobile phone providers africa and asia, everybody wants facebook, we will let you bundle facebook with your phone and if people open the phone to get onto facebook there won't be any data charges. from the point of view of the user i am getting facebook for free, what they don't realize is they're not getting onto the internet at all. >> they may actually knows that. is the height of first world to versace grew you, i know you want facebook but you can't have it because i can imagine something that would be better for you. you don't know how bad it is. >> there's a lot of value difference which is an open system is better than a closed

system. >> the closed system, >> i don't think -- i don't think the walls would fall down if it were to function -- i think it would be a considerably different world for people who are thinking of starting new things. or the range of online magazines starting right now. you have an idea and put it out there and see whether it works. that is how they start and they take off or they don't. >> with anyone -- >> you start with a position you need to negotiate a deal where it will be a huge disadvantage if you don't have a deal with verizon or contrast, it sets becoming a permission driven

system. the internet becomes something about who got the better deal as opposed to -- it starts to look more like cable television. the internet follows the path of cable which was born about the same time as the internet. they have been different and it becomes much more commercial. the final thing is it will infringe first generation of internet companies. facebook is quiet on net neutrality and google is quiet too, because the non neutral world they have the money to pay to get access over their competitors, they could destroy or advantage themselves over any potential serious competitors of the blocks in the current incumbent, facebook, google, those kind of names, not thrown and stick around for much longer. >> impose common carrier rules or not neutrality at all.

in private compensation imposed to pay prioritization as well. they are opposed to saddam 2, common carrier sort of rules, there's no reason to think those rules net net apply to them as well. is another danger here of the imposition of this massive regulatory apparatus, be careful what you wish for because in a piece hamstringing the very parts of the ecosystem these content providers, you are supposed to be benefiting by this. i think your vision of what the world is going to look like is too pessimistic. i don't think there is anything to suggest that is likely to be the case because we don't have any rules prohibiting paid prioritization right now and that is not what it looks like today. if you work through the economics of it. that is not beneficial to the

internet service providers either. we may disagree on how they would fall, and they are not at odds with each other. and there is that synergy exist. they are offering content. >> or they could just offer green service which they don't. >> we can see margins in which the internet service provider might deter or impede some

content for providers but in general they have a strong interest in people getting access to what they want because that is what people are willing to pay for broadband. >> this vision is a small startup, and comcast doesn't care about them. comcast can care less whether a small startup is clogging its pipes. doesn't clawed its pipes at all. and and it was difficult engineering problems. and until they are the side of netflix, comcast doesn't know they exist. there is a world in which someone says i hate these people end it