walden of oregon. is our guest on the communicate as. then in about 30 minutes will live remarks from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. speaking to the american israel public affairs committee at their annual policy conference in washington. and ftp in eastern descent gavels in to continue work on homeland security spending through the end of the fiscal year. >> c-span, crib at america's cable companies 35 years ago approach is a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: greg walden is republican of oregon also chair of the subcommittee on communications and technology. congressman walden, give us your take on what the fcc does? >> guest: unfortunate, disappointing a big win for the

communications bar because this thing will be litigated for years to come. and unnecessary i think for a lot of reasons. i think they went way too far. it's unfortunate the fcc used to have much more independence than it clearly has today. is what i don't think helpful for the internet. i think there's a much better way that would've would have given protection for consumers, legal certainty for investors and it's called legislating which is our job and we should do it. >> host: what kind of protections to consumers need? >> guest: i think first of all you want to make sure those were providing the service are not advantage and themselves over a competitor, but they're not blocking or throttling or engaging paid approach is a sure some of these other things that are of concern, advisor to consumers. nobody has proved a market failure. there have been examples over the last decade of individual problems. they have been worked out and the systems continued on.

but we have legislation that would basically take the 2010 open internet order that gives consumers the protections that many seek and we can make that all legal, lawful endured more. >> host: joined our conversation with the chairman on net neutrality is lynn stancu senior editor of telecommunications reports. >> you have said you thought once it passed there might be some more opportunity room for democrats to work with you on the legislation that you just mentioned that is introduced. i know it's a little early but have you -- to think that will happen? >> guest: the doors opened i want to make a clear. we could've gone ahead and jammed a bill through, marked it up. we didn't. we got it out there to start in early january with discussion draft. that prides -- met privately with the number of democrats are committed to do with some interest and that all got shut

down. what we have to do now is wait until the order is published in the federal register for all to see. it's not available none of us have read. only the commissioners and their staff as far as we know. didn't think you have to give time for people understand the consequences of it good in bed. that the baby will be an opportunity to hopefully legislate in a bipartisan way. because again i think if history is any gauge when we did the 2010 order it was 10 months before is it is published to the federal register and then litigated or three years. if you want certainty, protection, if you don't want to great a huge uncertain marketplace, then you should lawfully and through legislation. >> there have been suggestions there was rumors there was pressure on the white house and from the fcc congressional democratic member. >> guest: we've heard that as well and i think in one of the press reports there was an unnamed democrat.

>> but you didn't yourself determine -- in terms of people who showed interest, nobody -- >> guest: you know it's just like you said, you hear things here and there. it's all secondary. novell extend it to the. but we do know from some of the e-mail traffic from the white house to the fcc there was i don't know if it is pressure maybe collaboration. maybe it was direction. from the white house and then and printed reports since then that this was cooked up over there in the fcc certainly changed their view at least on where he was headed, once the president sort of tripped him up. it's just not a good way to do public policy. >> you don't give any credence to chairman wheeler's expedition that action was thinking about this last summer and this is an outcome of deciding that they really couldn't reach the kind of protections they wanted

without having to base them on title ii? >> guest: i'm having trouble believing that because of conversations i have with the chairman this fall when he was still in light touch. and then i read that he had this sweat dripped epiphany on the eastern shore i don't know, july or august and that's not what i was led to believe where he was headed in november when i met with him. in december. so that you don't i don't know what happened there. >> host: do you trust the fcc to forbear? >> guest: i think they will try to forbear. i think the question is as you know there's severability clause apparently in the order. and what the need is a government order that forbears against all these things don't belong on the internet under title ii. what if the court says you are okay going to title ii but you didn't get the proper process for the forbearance is lax which

could very well be the case. now all these things that are forbears against oregon. they are now under full title ii recognition because the court says you didn't do proper process to forbear. you did proper process for title ii, negev full title ii regulate of unit. this commission or a court, what i worry about is the open ended nature of the potential washington regulatory energy to regulate the its well-regulated get paid to do. this commission on its maiden voyage out on this titanic of the regulation make it out in the open sea and everything is feeling good but some point another commission could come along and say, i think we will go tougher. and you think about the pressures that will come from the trial bar because now you're opening up the internet and pricing to just and legal

standards, and class action lawsuits. so now a collection can come together with enough plaintiffs post factor, come in and say i think you are charging way too much three years ago and so now we have a class action lawsuit over pricing. they don't come in ahead of time and say this is a just and reasonable price, go ahead. it's not that would be full regulation. what did he is after the fact open the door for plan is to come in and say, we think you are charging too much it was a just and it wasn't reasonable. that opens up something we've never had on the internet. there are these issues that affect negatively affect consumers, or could. there are these new consumer choice plans like music freedom i think that allows you to stream music at no charge against your data plan. there's an open question simply this order may adversely affect that consumer choice plans and

put it under regulation. there will be a lot of uncertainty. we will know when we get the order. >> host: if this goes through and becomes law of the land and title ii is the governing lobby for the internet we do foresee a temptation to tax internet usage? >> guest: i think this is the open question is this does it open the door for that by treating it as a public utility? and, indeed commissioner pai in his statement believe it does. there's a unique circumstances like here in washington, d.c. everything in the state of washington whether or gross taxes apply to public utilities sort of business occupation tax or however they do that. commissioner pai indicated that would be an immediate 11% increase in your internet bill here in washington on a gross receipts tax of some sort. were alternately got exactly what that means. and then there's this open question about funding u.s.

without a cap, are those attached? that could be 9 billion of the 11. we're going to have a discussion about the whole universal service fund, how do you provide universal service across america with changing technologies, but it appears this order may begin to open the process and leave it open ended. >> the criticism is if they take money from -- to the others will reduce -- >> guest: true but it will be a shift. we don't know yet are you going to be less on your cell phone, less on a landline. now internet users will pay for the first time, and what shift goes into the enterprise world and the business community? we don't know. >> you would think it would be more reason to decide -- >> guest: i think that meets

the address any more transparent process which is why were printed up the issue of u.s. have in our update. >> host: what is the best that? >> guest: we have a few things come up in between called net neutrality which we figured would happen. we've issued six white papers over the course of the last year. we had a wonderful response from the public and interest group in think tanks and all kinds of books. we are now beginning that process of moving forward on the different outlets. we haven't scheduled hearings yet but we want to make sure our committee members, the public have an opportunity to read through the white papers because they are pretty voluminous and very helpful as we can go each of these issues. as much as a former small business radio order wants us to move along and get things done i also know this is a very big undertaking. so we will be thoughtful about and give ourselves time. >> the existing white papers, they cover the field for you and i are not doing anymore?

>> guest: i'm not closing the door of doing others at this point because i think it's been a very useful way of getting information. >> host: do you look at marking up legislation in this congress to? >> guest: i would like to, yes yes. >> how soon in the process -- >> guest: let me elaborate. that may not be a complete new compact. and maybe pieces of this but yes of legislation. >> houston in the process didn't is by bringing in democrats? when you draft a piece of legislation and then bring them in? >> guest: we got a lot of good discussions at the staff level and, of course, with the new ranking member on the full committee, mr. pallone, now stepping up. but the white papers have been available, the responses of an appeal to both sides. i would like to think i started something that's been good and productive, and that is these joint workgroups. that frankly led to the effort

on freeing up some of the federal spectrum that ended up in the auction and all that. we have set up multiple workgroups in the past that have brought members together to jointly manage. i'm trying to break down some of that and be partisan but it is complicated. we've had some really productive outcomes as a result. >> so you anticipate the drafting process? >> guest: bob lee. >> host: chairman walden, you are in oregon were a lot of high tech is california under the high-tech state of oregon has its own high-tech. when you met with google representatives or small startup representatives about the net neutrality issue, what have you told them? >> guest: you know, that's more silicon valley. we have some small internet providers. there's one that you spoke up today on one of the media sources who has realized, and he

is probably an internet provider as opposed to start, we said i'm going to have to lawyer up now because of these new regulations. i haven't had we but in the past. i know what that's like having been in small market broadcast to whatever the fcc did could affect oregon but i didn't have attorneys for corporate anything but it was those. how do i do this? this will be one of those consequences that nobody will ever write about or broadcast about because you just will not know what happen. that's the hard part of this argument from our side, frankly is trying to find people this will have a downward negative impact on investment and and a new technology i believe in some sectors. i think you can point to the european union. just look at investments and the speeds there. i think it was commissioner pai who pointed out that we invest

132 billion over two years and they invested or 137 billion when they invest 132 billion we are like 82% penetration with 25 megabits per second speed and they're at 54% and our penetration and velocity on mobile broadband far exceeds western europe. so what we've been doing has worked and even under the more regulatory regime. you're always going to have some puts and takes. that's what the issues i've heard about what we don't want blocking, we don't want throttling, we don't want these things. okay, we can do that. you don't have to have mother may i bureaucracy great in washington with all the title ii and everything that comes with the. are a thousand different provisions within the cfr's as a result of title ii. the sec will decide, each fcc which one they will forbear against or not which is a potential the tedious and complicated process that may take a lot of time and leave

uncertainty. if you're a small start, what's the role of going to fall today? i waited 10 years, 10 years for this fcc to approve some tiny little translator application for my radio station. 10 years. and if they are bogged down on a little fm translator 200-watt transfer application for 10 10 years, when the issue did they they give me 30 days to perfect them. you know that's what you're going to see begin to creep in as they take on the internet as their own and think they're going to be in charge and begin micromanaging it. what if you get a very dysfunctional commission? what did he get -- i just don't think it was need to go down this path. >> host: i'm sure you saw "the new york times" this week's and the republicans have decided essentially to punt on this issue tracker i'm sorry you're so in i could about the because we are not decided upon on this

issue whatsoever. one the issues was are we going to use the administrative review act where with a privilege motion in the senate. okay great so he we could do that. it's the tool in the tool just but if the request president obama decided to do what you think the odds are he's going to sign a repeal of what which is forced down the throat of the sec? that's why my preferred approach is to work with my colleagues and figure out a way to give the protections consumers deserve come demand and do it in a legal, thoughtful, predictable way that we won't get litigated. they will get litigated. everybody is lawyering up. >> do you see it as a leverage that the fcc will be challenged there's a leverage of people who want to the border legislation decreased if the court denies an

interim stay during the substantive review traffic i don't know. i can't quite read the politics on why the democrats don't want to work with us on this. i know it's a huge part of the base and are expected. i understand politics. i hope hope once the order is not not in all these groups began to look at it, that they may say you know, we may need some help fixing. is really will not work. then there's that story today i saw in "forbes" magazine on google and this argument about have a blog and throttle the various platforms on ads. if we're going to get into blocking and throttling and prioritization in the information age, do we need to rethink that it is more than just a piece of fiber pair to copper? it is about how i reach you and the three of us communicate. if one of the entities in there whether it's the one pushing the

data through a wire or a piece of fiber, or is it the one that says by the way, on the way through i'm going to move this year and i'm going to run this up and you will never see this and i'm in control and i control all three platforms. i don't know if that's in our jurisdiction i think it's in the public's mind there's a lot more to the internet than just the carriage. >> host: you mentioned politics bigger also check the national republican congressional committee. if you want to go fund-raising silicon valley now, given the position of the republicans, what do you tell them? >> guest: i would tell the eye for an open and free internet as well. i get support from people in the silicon valley because they have a lot of other issues. the irony of all this debate about campaign contributions is there's a lot of evidence would vote against people that contribute to us, too. that doesn't get preference usually. but the point is if you want a free and open internet we can

give it to you in a legal and certainly. i raised this on a different context under the pressures health care law. when it came to apps. because remember there was this issue of the medical device tax lack of clarity for over a year and have as to what a medical device was. i wanted the silicon valley innovators who are incredibly smart to understand you've been able to create apps without ever having to go to the government first and say may i do this will you approved the? and i worry if we go too far down a path of the preapproval on every app that is out there we won't have innovation anymore. they will move to different sectors and health care will be left behind. did want to make sure if it's an app and let the beat of my heart it is certified? of course. it was lack of certainty as to whether you ipad was in medical app or your computer. we brought the fda in and when we make them answer this question and had to go okay that is that

isn't. i worry about the more the government gets involved in washington decided what is, what can be, what's just, what's unjust. that needs to be a limited place for the government where markets don't work. i really think they need to prove market failure before they take control. if there's a monopoly i am all for getting the government in their in breaking things out or making it work. but whether such a vibrant marketplace now we have to tread very carefully or we will destroy what's been extraordinary in our lifetime. >> host: if you could design a bill right now legislative bill, what kind of protection would you include, if any, and -- >> guest: i have one right here. a piece of legislation ready. it goes right through it and it says, here's what you may not block lawful content review may not harmful devices, you may not throttle lawful traffic you may

not engage in paid prioritization. you shall public discourse actor and reliable information, plain language garden network management practices. and here's the enforcement like which for the fcc that clearly has the authority five statutes plus other authorities that we don't even touch where you can go in force. so you want to protect against abuse. these are the abuses. we even go farther on paid prioritization. the fcc was going through some criticism by some of our witnesses out here. full enforcement of authority, it is six pages. the order from the fcc is 317 pages were told to go be a couple of years in court and we won't even know what we have. some fcc down the road will have to change whatever these folks do. >> host: does your bill say the internet is not a public utility country that is the difference craig. it doesn't say that. we limit, we do. we limit their sevens 06

authority down the road. we don't want to just leave the door open to the next fcc or this one coming right through them and using this expanded definition of 706. 706 come when you read it talks about their authority to do anything basically they think would expand access to the internet world. it is very wide open language. it is unlimited authority. we are trying to limit that authorities they don't have a bureaucracy in washington that decides the fate of the internet in a bad way. >> in terms of the authority you've been given implicit authority but you said it can't adopt rules basically just enforcement on the face of the bill. there some concern that kind of handcuffs come into changing technology were by we don't know what the neck -- next technology

model will be that handcuffs the fcc in terms of being able to address new problems that come down the road. >> guest: come talk to us. there are an independent agency and if there's a problem of address. when you said the commission shall enforce through adjudication, the public and issued complaints and just on and on, there's a whole formal complaint process for the public, their sole authority for the commission. they can do their job. they are now i believe acceding to authority under section 332 on the mobile peace. there are two court cases that say that's information that is not a public utility. by the way the other thing when they go down this path they take the federal trade commission out of the equation. so no longer can federal trade commission do an antitrust these because of now public utility, ftc does not have authority. you want to talk about taking a

big dog out of the fight, you just took the justice department and its full authority and its experts on abusive trade practices off the table. so it all goes to the fcc. >> it's been a long, long standing call for limiting the commentary which i believe is what you just referred to which britain would be ftc federal trade commission, from insisting against any individual consider a common carrier. is that something that you would be interested considering taking off the table or eliminating? >> guest: i think that's an issue for our contact update discussion but it is one, there are pros and cons you know in doing that. it's something i think we have to look at very carefully. so i'm not prepared today to say which way i would go without but i do know it existing law says the federal commissions act by reclassifying the internet as a

title ii carrier has just taken the federal trade commission out of the picture. >> host: congressman walden, have you spoken to the republican congress about this issue and is there a consensus tragedy i have not. i've addressed individual members. there's a lot of interest across the country and in a conference on it but i have not made a presentation to the conference yet. >> yesterday in addition to the internet a da capo press, the fcc also, on the broadband state laws that restrict municipal electric utilities, a network provider, all kinds of destruction, geographic or they might impose all kinds of things that this is tentative before they can expand. there was a bill introduced by your colleague marsha blackburn, the vice chairman of the full committee, who basically took that away from fcc cannot allow

it. is that something that you see moving through the committee? >> guest: me. the interesting thing is there are court cases that specifically said the fcc does not have that authority. and because municipalities are sort of an outgrowth of state governments, there's even a constitutional tenth amendment question as to whether or not congress has the authority to do this. generally the way congress deals with this issue is to say come if you want on my comp and you can't do this, on transportation funding and all that. i think that order will get struck down by the court. in my own state of oregon it's open. you can have municipalities do broadband and in parts of state we probably wouldn't have the broadband levels we have today is local governments were not involved. i would rather leave this up to the states to decide. it is their ratepayers and taxpayers that pay the bill.

and i am more of a states' rights person on these sorts of matters. so was not necessarily that i disagree with what the fcc is doing to i think they don't have the authority to do it and i think the court will side in that direction. >> host: time for one more question from each of us. the fcc acted this week. which changed legally anything? >> guest: i, now having getting all these court cases, i'm not a lawyer so i don't know what's legally changed. it will take effect until 60 days after the order is published in the federal register. we don't know when that will be 2010 orders 10 months after the passage a litigator for three and half years and whether or not there's an injunction. these timelines will all be, the long and short of it is, washington now having the biggest role it's ever had in the internet and the question is, how that's going to play out. >> speak in a publication of the order, you asked chairman

wheeler to publish the order before it was actually voted on, which is not typical practice. .. this has played out. we'll have the whole commission before our committee on march 19th. i think they and their staff will be spending a lot of time up on capitol hill in the months

ahead. we have a lot of important telecommunications issues. budgetary issues. the agency has not been rethorrized since 1990. time to do due diligence on operations. >> host: greg walden energy and commerce subcommittee. lynn assistant ton. telecommunications reports. >> thank you. >> 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. c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. every weekend, booktv now for is a years the only television network devoted to non-fiction books and authors. c-span2, created by cable tv industry and brow to you as a

public service by the local cable, satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. we're live now in the washington convention center here in washington, d.c. for the annual aipac conference. the american israel public affairs committee is described as america's pro-israel lobby. speaks this morning is israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, czech republic president and former spanish prime minister jose maria oznar.