[applause] >> coming up, the communicators features gigi sohn. and then we talk about the visit to iran and nuclear negotiation negotiations. and then john scott from south carolina talks. >> c-span created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: fcc chairman tom

wheeler has presented a net neutrality proposal to the commissioners and the vote is in the federal communication commission is due on february 26th. joining us to talk about that is fcc special council gigi sohn and gautham nagesh is our guest reporter. gigi sohn, about a month ago, chairman wheeler talked about a different proposal without title ii regulations. what happened to that? why wasn't that presented to the commissioners? >> guest: i think you are talking about the discussion of a hybrid proposal but it included title ii. there were several proposals but all included title ii. the chairman was considering net neutrality as part of the solution for about four or five months.

>> host: our guest reporter had a front page journal article on developing that. some of the companies involved with the whitehouse are pretty successful companies. etsy etc, why do they need further net neutrality protection withyy they have been successful up to this point? >> the reason why and chairman wheeler met with tumbler and kickstarter last month and they became successful because the internet was open. they got to chose who to sell goods to they got to chose how to run their business without an internet service provider in the middle telling them what to do or if they had to pay for better

quality of service. what they were asking for is us to preserve those rules. the rules in place in 2010 got struck down by the d.c. circuit here in town. so the chairman needed to reinstate rules to ensure the companies continued to thrive. >> has anything changed in the way the net operates since 2010? >> guest: under the 2010 rules, the internet service providers, broadband providers like verizon and comcast, they knew if they prioritized their own content other other content for pay that somebody could come to the fcc and say they are acting illegally so for the most part they behaves. but the rules gave public interests and others a tool

where they could dwigo to an internet service provider and say you are violating the rules and i think the rules kept the companies from doing the wrong thing. and similarly, even though the rules were struck down in 2014. the chairman said in february i will figure out the best way to reinstate the rules because the internet service providers were on their best behavior. they knew they would be asking for trouble. >> host: gautham nagesh? >> when that statement was given, he said he believed it is possible to change net neutrality without changing the classifying. and now he is classifying mobile and fixed broadband as common carriers for the purpose of

implementing the rules. why is that? >> guest: i think your article was interested but missed one final point. your argument said the president by calling for the announcement of title ii boxed in the chairman and forced his hand. but the fact of the matter is he was evolving long before that. let me give you a couple data points. in june the chairman announced the fcc was going to do an investigation into comcast, verizon, and netflix on intercommunication. he set a letter to verizon because they were throddling customers. he started looking at the rules

of mobile voice and found it had been regulated under title ii of the communication act for 20 years and led to almost $300 billion in investment. he met with the wireless industries and told them in no certain terms he was going to level the playing field between mobile broadband and fixed broadband when it came to net neutrality rules which was something that was not in the prior rules of 2010. and then by the same token he started talking about the hybrid and that had title ii in it. there is an evolution here and i find the fascination with the chairman's evolution interesting because no body talks about how the president evolved on gay marriage. it isn't important where he was. it is important where he is now. and where he is now is that title ii is the securest legal

authority. we have been to court twice and some people argue if we lost twice or won the last one because the court said he had authority in 706. he wants to be the last chairman to go to court and wants the court to say you are on legal grabbed ground. >> so it sounds like you are saying the present statement didn't have impact on where it landed. >> guest: let me tell you two things. four million americans weighed in here that is important. the president did as well. i think what the president did rather than force his hand but give him cover to do something he was already thinking about doing. as a lot of people know i have been doing this work for a long time. four million people to weigh in

on fcc proceedings is amazing. and the chairman listened and the vast majority were asking for title ii. it shocked me. i expected people to say strong net neutrality but for them to ask this long before the president is amazing. >> host: gigi sohn what the benefit to comcast, at&t and verizon? >> guest: certainty. prior to 2005 -- in 2002 the fcc decided that cable modem service was an information service. but dsl service, which verizon and at&t operated under was a title ii service until 2005

which then chairman martin after the case went to the supreme court, decided dsl would be deregulated. it isn't like they don't know how to live under this regime and this is a lighter touch actually. it is lighter than what they lived with 12 years ago. comcast knows the rules. this gives them the certainty that we have not had for every ten years. and frankly, even longer than that. it has been about 15 years people have been advocating for this. to put this thing to bed finally after 15 years i think, the companies will find that actually more solitary than they are acting. >> host: when you funded public knowledge in 2001 was net neutrality one of your key

goals? >> guest: i think that was -- remember in 2001 the fcc had not classified cable modem as an information service. in 2001 and the late-90s everyone was worried about aol and they wanted them to open up thethet net network to other voices. it wasn't until the classification and the reclassification of dsl in 2005 did people start saying why did we do this. the supreme court looked at the fcc's cable modem decision; the decision to classify as an information service. it said this isn't a great

decision, but it isn't arbitrary and cuprecious. all of the supreme court did was say the fcc has a discretion to read the communication act and even though it accept the best one one long as it isn't whacky we have to uphold it. i think that is what is going to happen. we will reclassify, it will go to court and the court will say whether or not they agree, this isn't whacky or arbitrary caprice and i feel good about the legal authority that we have chosen here. >> host: gautham nagesh? >> the broadband officials have a different opinion, many of them, i think it is fair to say about the legal authority

chosen. they say they are okay with net neutrality but classifying them as a common carrier is a step too far. as you outlined, the chairman tended to forebear on the regulation regulations but broadband officials i talked to yesterday believed section two would contain that authority. so even if this fcc doesn't chose to use it have you made it easier for future fcc's to regulate this? >> guest: that is a scare tactic tactic. they are telling investors this is going to lead to rate regulation. the mobile industry is a good example of this. there is no rate regulations since cable regulations 22-23

years ago. i think the fear is unfounded. the chairman has said we will not rate regulation. and i don't think the next fcc chairman. he may try to throw out the whole regime and do something that is less regulatory. so i don't buy the next chairman argument because the rules are only as good as the guy or gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. so we have to do our best to set-up infrastructure that pro protects consumers. >> there has been a lot of talk about the net neutrality process and preserving the internet the way it is. but the way it is today a large amount of americans don't have access to high speed broadband ad home. that is the question of rate

regulations. isn't there a case of a program in order to make broadband available to a greater reer percentage of homes >> guest: there is a program like this that is not rate regulation. it ensures people in the deepest rural areas and poorest urban areas get an opportunity to get broadband. it hasn't solved the problem. the existence isn't solving the problem. we put out a study a couple weeks ago showing 53% of rural americans don't have access to what we are considering 25 mega bits per 2nd down 3 up. so this is a major problem and we can try to solve it through programs like universal service through the connect america fund that goes to rural areas and we

are looking at whether lifeline should be a broadband fund. and we are trying to promote competition. everybody is so excited and focused on net neutrality they ignored the other items on the docket in february. and that is what the chairman has recommended again. it has to be a vote on february 26th but he recommended two state laws that prohibit local community broadband providers from expanding their current footprints. there are 21 sates are restrictions on communities building their own broadband service. whether it is a city public-private partnership, or co-op, 21 states restrict it. we believe if those bounds were open there would be more

composition which drives down prices and results in better service. we will find other ways to promote competition to fill the rural and urban gap. >> host: gigi sohn what is the rational behind tweeting wireless the same as broadband? is this unprecedented in a sense? >> guest: it is because the 2012 rules were not an even playing field. they applied strongly to fixed and weakly to wireless. it didn't apply to wireless for the most part. 55% of all internet traffic is now mobile wireless. it is the future. everybody, not everybody, but most people have a smart phone or a tablet or another device that connects to the wireless internet. it is everywhere and a lot of

households have multiple can vices. it didn't make sense for the chairman in 2014 now 2015, to leave wireless unprotected when it is more than half of the internet traffic. >> speaking of wireless we see innovative and new business models emerging. your proposal shows you will handle them on case-by-case bases. what is the criteria for one of these? >> guest: there are three rules. an internet service provider can cannot block con contepiditynt or

repair or degrade content, plowings applications and services. they cannot use other content through consideration. this is the safety net or catch-all rule in here. and that says that any internet service provider practice that harms user choice or edge providers availability to make content available to users will be looked at for whether it is discram discriminate discriminateing or not. the zero rating, and we don't take a position on this, but if someone brings a complaint, it would be viewed under the safety net lens. >> let's talk about the other aspect which is it will give the fcc authority over interconnection with they connect level three like

netflix. can you explain why there is going to be raid arrangements there? and what the criteria is going to be. >> guest: i don't know want to judge if these paid plans will be allowed. but for the first time giving companies like netflix google and amazon the availability that if they believe they are being charged unreasonable rates or being discriminated against to come in and file a complaint and say they are discrippleminating against us under the communication act. this is a very big thing. this is where it goes further than the president's position which is a point i wanted to make before. there are two places where our

proposal is stronger than president obama's proposal. one is in that he didn't call for us to exurt authority over interconnections and we are not only using title ii but section 706 and title iii of the communication act. we have gone further than the president's proposal >> host: does anyone have the proposal beside those in the agency? >> guest: outside of the agency? no. >> host: when will it become public so we can read it? >> guest: that will be after february 26th. >> host: what happens on february 26th? >> guest: we will take a vote

and we need two people to vote. >> host: do you think you will get that? >> guest: i cannot speak were them. >> host: what about the fact hearings have been held on this and bills are being looked at the to make this inconsequential inconsequential. >> it is their prerogative to legislate. but we need to move forward. it has been a year now without rules that protect the open internet. we will move forward and congress will move forward and we will see what happened. >> host: it was suggested the

vote be delayed. >> guest: disagree. it has been over a year that the netnet is open and edge providers are not protected from gatekeepers. we need to lock it down and be done with this debate. >> host: if you put on yourpub public knowledge at one more time, how would you feel about this proposal as the president and founder of public knowledge?

guest i think it is a victory for the american people. i no longer work for public knowledge so i will not putgggknowledge so i will not put that hat on. yyyy yyyypeople feel like they made a difference and democracy worked. i will never put that public knowledge hat on again, but i know my former colleagues are deelected and the american people that have worked for not a lot of money but tirelessly in this space. >> as you indicated, your boss is vilified by many people like the hbo comedian john oliver. but now you see the pub look liking what he is coming out with. how has the ride been? >> it has been wild. i love my job. i went to government never being in government before. seeing the evolution -- want to talk about evolution, see the evolution of this moving and

changing. i have to pinch myself sometimes. it has been crazy but wonderful at the same time. >> is this fight over? we hear about legislation, court battles and the next fcc as you indicated could be differently. how important is this win for advocates of net neutrality? >> advocates of net neutrality are going to have to keep fighting on the hill in the courts or court of public opinion. we will have to -- if this item gets voted out on the 26th which i hope it will we will have to keep fighting. preserving an open intermet is perhaps the most important thing this agency can do. i was delighted to see "the new york times" say chairman was exercising good sense by putting forward a light title ii system.

it will be a long battle but i am sure you will cover it well. >> host: can the chairman's mark be amended in the february 26th meeting? >> guest: let me explain how the process works. as i said last evening, our mark was circulate circulated. it is what they call on the chain. and in an e-mail or document itself and we decide if we want to accept some reject some we decide if we want to negotiation some, so you know it is going to be a process over the next couple weeks. in the next two weeks interested parties can come in and people should know that. the door isn't closed to the public. this is an open and transparent system and docket and we want to keep it that way. people are encouraged to come

only in the next two weeks because one week before the vote we go into a huddle and put the finishing touches on the item. people can come in and try it make changes. they will not know everything in the document but they can add and subtract things and we will see what we come up with. i am hoping since i have seen you know, the document that it stays the same because it is really a terrific very long order. >> host: so it is an up or down vote at the february 26th meeting? or could a republican commissioner say let's change the language to that. >> guest: the fcc is like a court in that way which is one of the reason we don't make the whole item public.

so yes, there is a give a take. and sometimes even that decent gives it away. it would help if they could conquer and they might be willing to give more but it is give and take. >> gigi assuming they do vote in favor on the 26th when do the rulings take affect? >> guest: they go to a place where all of the rules are published and 30 days after that they become affective and it is the time when people start filing law suits. i think people will know the laws are working when there is no complaints filled with the fcc and they get good broadband

without blocking or pay priorization. people are used to the control the internet gives them. when you see start ups, in a pre-internet area they would not have a chance. you see activist around the world using the internet to gather people. in ferguson, missouri that is a perfect example. that would not have been possible before the internet. >> there has been a story line in the media about this being the most polarized vote than any other fcc in history.

how do you respond to that? >> guest: i have been doing fcc work in some way or another since 1988. this story comes up every new administration there are always battles, have they become more partisan in the past ten years? probably so. but the has been inter-party battles and battles within the same party at the fcc. i don't think there is anything new here. it is like groundhog's day. i don't find it is different now. >> host: closing question? >> every article about your boss tom wheeler, refers to him as a former cable lobbyest. how should we be remembered? >> i think chairman wheeler will be remembered as a person who

the american people was his biggest and most important climate. i wish people could see him out of the meetings and the spotlight. it isn't an accident i went to work for him or he asked me to work for him. he has progressive values and cares about serving the american public. the thing that upsets me the most is people don't understand his body of work and what he did for disability acts or public safety or on the community broadband. what he has done to promote over the top video service. he has had a huge body of work in only about 14-15 months and it is all in the public interest. so i wish people would look more broadly. i know he does leave office gautham nagesh,will do that story about how tom wheeler, former wireless and cable