storms. >> watch this on saturday on cspan2 and on sunday on c-span 3. the "the communicators" features greg walden chair of the subcommittee on communication and technology. and then former maryland governor, bob erlich holds a town hall meeting. and then an interview with the senior advisor to president obama. >> c-span rated by america's cable companies 340 years ago and brought to you -- 35 -- as a local service from your cable or satellite provider. >> host: and greg walden is republican of maryland and chair of the subcommittee on communication and technology.

congressman, walden give us your take on what the fcc did. >> guest: disappointing. a big win for the communication bar because this will be litigated for years to come. unnecessary, i think for a lot of reasons. i think they went way too far. the fcc used to have more independence than it has today. it is really i don't think helpful for the internet. there was a much better way that would have given protection for consumers and legal certainty for investors and it is called legislating. >> host: what kinds of protections do consumers meadneed? >> you want it make sure they are not advantageing themselves and engaging in things that are

concerning to consumers. there have been examples of individual problems over the last decade that have been generally worked out and the system continued on. but we have legislation that would take the 2010 open internet order that gives consumers the protections that many seek and we could make that all legal, lawful and do it tomorrow. >> host: joining the conversation with the chairman on net neutrality is lynn stanton senior of tell communication reports >> you said you thought once it was passed there might be more opportunity or room for democrats to work with you on the legislation you mentioned that you introduced. i know it is early but have you introduced it? >> guest: not yet. we could have jammed the bill in and marked it up but we didn't.

i started in early january with a discussion draft and met privately with democrats and there was interest but it was shutdown. we have to wait until the order is published to the federal register for all to see. only the commissioner and their staff have read it. then i think you have to give time for people to understand the consequences, good and bad and then hopefully there is a way to legislate in a bipartisan way hopefully. in 2010 it was ten months before it was published and litigated for three and half years. if you want certainty and protection and don't want to create an uncertain place you should do it lawfully. >> there are suggestions and rumors that there was actual direct pressure from the whitehouse and from the fcc to

rush the number. >> guest: we have heard that. and i think in one press report a named democratic staffer confirmed that. >> you have not actually yourself -- you had discussions you said with interest but no body -- >> guest: you know, it is like you said. you hear things here and there and it is all secondary. no one likes to admit to that. we know from the e-mail traffic from the whitehouse to the fcc there was -- i don't know pressure -- maybe it was collaboration or direction from the whitehouse. and in printed reports since then this was cooked up over there and the fcc certainly changed their view at least tom wheeler did on where he was headed once the president sort of tripped him up. so, you know it is just not a good way to do public policy. >> you don't give any credence

to chairman wheeler's explanation of thinking about this last summer and they could not reach the protections they wanted basing them on title ii. >> guest: i am having trouble believing that pause of conversations i had with the chairman this fall -- because -- where he was still in touch. and then i read he had a sweat gripped epiphany in july and august. >> host: do you trust the fcc to forbear? >> guest: i think they will try to forbear. i think the question is and you know there is a severability cause in the order and they could have an order that

forbears against things that don't belong on the internet under title ii. what if the court says you are okay for title ii but didn't do the proper process for the forbearances? now all of the things forbeared against are gone and under full title ii regulations because the court says you didn't do proper process to forbear, you did the process for title ii separation and you have full title ii internet and that is this commission or a court. i worry about the open ended nature of the washington energy to regulate. what do regulators get paid to do? regulate. and this commission on its maiden voyage out on a titanic regulation may get out into the open sea is everything is good. but could come along and say i

think we are going to go tougher and you think about the pressure from the trial bar because you are opening up the internet and pricing to just unreasonable standards and class-action lawsuits lawsuits. enough plaintiffs can get together post-facto and say i think you are were charging too much three years ago. and we have the class-action lawsuit. what they do is after the fact open the door for plaintiffs to come in and say we think you were charging too much. it wasn't just or reasonable. so that is opening up something we have never had on the internet. there are issues i think that negative negatively harm consumers i

think that can. there are new things that let you stream music with no data and there are some that think it may affect the consumer choice plan and put it under regulationismregulation regulation. >> host: if this goes through and it is law of the land and title ii is the governing body of the internet would you for foresee tash taxing internet usage? >> host: commissioner pai in his statement does. there are unique circumstances like here in washington, d.c. out in the state of washington where there is gross taxes applied to utilities. they thought that meant an

immediate 11% increase in your internet bill here in washington on a gross receipt tax. we are all trying to figure out what it means. and then there is an open question about funding universal service fund and if those fees are attached. that could be 9 billion of the 11. we would have a discussion about the whole universal service fund and how do you provide universal service across america with changing technology? it appears this order may begin to open that process and leave it open ended. >> criticism is if they take money to fund the usf others will reduce. >> guest:. true but we don't know if you will play less on the cellphone, land line and users paying for the first time and what shift

goes into the enterprise world and business community. i think it is big issue the country need to address in a more transparent issue which is why we are planning to take up the issue of usf in the car mack update. >> host: what is the status update on that? >> guest: we had a few things coming up in between like net neutrality. we issued six white papers and have had wonderful response from the public interest workgroups and think tanks and we are beginning the process of moving forward on the different elements. we have not scheduled hearings yet but i want to make sure committee members and public have time to read through the white papers. as much as the business radio owner in me wants to move along and get it done i know this is a

big undertaking and we will be thought full and give ourselves time. >> so the existing white papers cover that and you are not planning on doing anymore? >> guest: i am not closing the door to doing others at this point because i think it is a useful way to get information. >> host: do you look at marking up legislation in the congress? >> guest: i would like to. let me elaborate. that may not be a new combat. it may be pieces of this. yes on legislation, though. >> how soon do you anticipate bringing in democrats while you draft it? >> we have had a lot of good discussion at the staff level and the new ranking member now staffing up. but the white papers have been available and the responses have

been available to both sides. and i would like to think i started something that has been good and productive and that is these joint workgroups that led to the effort on freeing up some of the federal spectrum that ended up in aws-3 and the auction. we setup workgroups in the past that brought members together jointly managed. com stuff shouldn't be partisan but it is complicated and we have had productive outcomes. >> dproupz workgroups are drafting policy? >> probably. >> host: you are in washington and oregon and oregon has high tech. when you meet with google or small startups what net neutrality what have you told them? >> guest: you know that is more

silicone valley. we have small internet providers. one spoke up today on one of the media sources today who realized, and he is probably internet provider as opposed to startups, and he said i am going to have to lawyer up now because of these new regulations i have not had to worry about in the past. i know what that is like being in small broadcaster. whatever the fcc did in washington hit oregon and i didn't have attorneys or corporate anything. it was us. so you say how do i do this? i think this is one of the consequences no one writes or broadcast about because you don't know what didn't happen. that is the hard part from our side; trying to explain this has a downward empath on investment and new technology i believe in some sectors. i think you can point to the european union and the

investments in the speeds there. i think it was commissioner pi that pointed it out they invested $32 billion and we are 82% penetration and they are at 54% and our penetration and velocity far exceeds europe. you will always have puts and takes here. and that is where i think the issues of not wanting blocking or throttling and i said okay we can do that. you don't need the title ii and everything with it. there are a thousand different provisions in the cfr's because of title ii.

and then the fcc is going to decide which one they will forbear against or not which is a complicated process that may take a lot of time and leave a lot of uncertainty. if you are a small startup what is the rule i'm going to follow today and are you going to change it? i waited ten years, ten years, for this fcc to approve tiny translator applications for my radio station. ten years. if they are bogged down on fm translateor application for ten years. when they issued them they gave me 30 days to perfect them. that is what you will see creep in as they take on the internet as their own and think they will be in charge and begin micromanaging it. what if you get a dysfunctional commission? i just think it wasn't needed to go down this path. >> host: i am sure you saw

johnathan wiseman's piece about the republicans have decided to punt on the issue. >> guest: we have not decided that. one of the issues was are we going to use the administrateive review act. we might do that. it is as a tool in the tool chest but it requires president obama to sign it. so what do you think the odds are he is going to sign a repeal of what he just forced down the throats of the fcc. that is why my preferred approach is to work with my colleagues to figure out a way to get the protection consumers demand and we will not get litigated. they will get litigated. tom wheeler will tell you they are going to get litigated. >> do you see this as leverage that the fcc will be

challenged -- the leverage of people who want to -- will the legislation decrease if you deny the stay during the review. >> guest: i cannot read the politics of why the democrats tonight -- don't -- want to work with us on this. i understand politics. but i hope had order is out and once they look at it they will say we may need help fixing things. this really won't work. and then there is that story today i saw in "forbes" on google and the argument of how they block and throttle and own ads. if we get into the blocking and prior

prior prior priortiization this is about how i reach you and we communicate. if one entity is pushing it through where is the one saying i am going to move this through and i will move this and you will never see this and i am in control here. i don't know if that is in our jurisdiction but it is in the public's mind there is more to the internet than the carriage. >> host: you mentioned politics. you are chair of the national republican congressional committee. if you want it fund raise in silicone valley given the position of the republicans now what do you tell them? >> i would tell them i am for an open and free internet as well. and you know i get support from people in the silicone valley because they have a lot of other issues. the irony about the campaign

contributions there is a lot of evidence we put to parliamenteople that contribute to us. if you want a free and open internet we can give that to you in a legal way. i raised this under the president's health care law when it came to apps because there is an issue of the device tax and fda approved of medical device and there was lack of clarity for a year and half for what a medical device was. i wanted the silicone valley innovators to understand you have been able to create apps without going to the government first and say may i do this will you approve this and i worry if we go too far down the path of pre-approval on every app out there we will not have innovation and they will move to other sectors and health care will be left behind. do i want to make sure an app beating my heart is certified?

yes, of course. but there was talk on if your i-phone was a device. we brought the fda in and they had to say that is and that isn't and i worry about as the federal government gets involved and says what is just and injust that needs to be a limited place in the government where markets don't work. i think they need to boot market failure before they take control. if there is a monopoly i am all for getting the government in there. but there is a violent marketplace and we have to tread carefully or we will destroy what has been built. >> host: if you could design the legislative bill would kind of protection would you have in it?

>> guest: i have the bill here. it says you may not block lawful content or prohibit use of non-harmful devices, you shall publically disclose accurate information, plain language regarding network management practice and here and the enforce enforcement language for the fcc to go and enforce. you want to protect against abuse. we go farther on paid privatee privateization than the fcc was going. the order from the fcc is 317 pages we are told it will be a couple years in court and we will not even know what we have and some fcc down the road can change out whatever these folks did. >> host: does your bill say by the way the internet isn't a

public utility? >> guest: we don't use title ii. correct. it doesn't say it like that but we limit it down the road as well. we think theories are the issues and we don't want to leave the door open -- these -- to the next fcc coming through the same door and using the expanding definition of 706. it talks about the authority to do anything they think would expand access the internet world. it is very wide open language. it is unlimited authority. we are trying to limit that authority so you don't have a bureaucracy. >> you say they cannot adopt rules to -- it is just to enforce what is on the face of

the bill. and critics expressed concern that is coming handcuffed in changing the technology world when we don't know what the next business model is it handcuffs the fcc to address new problems coming down the road. >> come talk to us. they are an independent agencies and if there is a problem we will help them. but i think when they say they will enforce public complaints and on and on with a formal complaint process for the public and full authority for the commission they can do their job. they are now, i believe, exceeding their authority under section 332 on the mobile piece. there are two court cases. that is information and not a public utility. and when they go down the path they take the federal trade commission out of the picture.

so they cannot do their antitrust piece. you want to talk about taking a big dog out of the fight. you just took the justice department and its full authority and experts on abuse of prey practices off the table. so it all goes to the fcc. >> there is long, long standing call for eliminating the common carrier exemption that prohibits the federal trade commission from enforcing anything that is considered a common carrier under practices and consumer protection rules. is that something you would be interested in considering? >> guest: i think that is an issue for a contact update discussion. there are pros and cons as you know to doing that. and i think it is something we have to look at very carefully

so i am not prepared today to say which way i would go but i know what the existing law says and it says the federal communication act by reclassifying the internet as a title ii carrier just took the federal trade commission out of the picture. >> host: congressman walden have you talk today the republican conference about this? >> guest: i have addressed individual members but there is a lot of interest across the country and conference on it but no presentation to the conference yet. >> yesterday the fcc talked about the need for broadband state laws that restrict muew municipalities and impose things the cities have to do before they can expand. there is a bill that was

introduces by the vice chairman of the full committee who basically took that away from the fcc and will not allow it to grant these kinds of state laws. do you see that moving through the committee? >> guest: it may. but i think there are court cases that specifically say the fcc does not have that authority. and because municipalities are an outgrowth of a state government there is even a constitutional tenth amendment question as to whether or not congress has the authority to do this. congress deals with the issue saying you want our money then you cannot do this right? on transportation funding and all of that. i think that order will get struck struck down by the court. in my own state of oregon it is open. you can have municipalities and in parts of the state we would probably not have the broadband levels we have today if local

governments were not involved. i would rather leave this up to the state it is their rate payer and taxpayers that pay the bill and i am more of a state's right person on these matters. it is not necessarily that i disagree with what the fcc is doing. 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. congressman, the fcc acted this week what changed legally? anything? >> guest: well having given you all of those court cases, i am not a lawyer. i don't know what has legally change saidd changed. it doesn't take affect until it is posted in the court orders. and we don't know when that will be. the timelines -- the long short of it is washington now is having the biggest role it has

ever had in the internet and the question is how it will play out. >> speaking of publication of the order you asked the chairman to publish the order before it was voted on. it is in his authority to do so but not required. you think it should be required? >> i think it should be regular and required so the public can see. four million americans are concerned about open internet. and i think we all benefit on seeing what they will vote on before they vote on it. our draft bill is right here. we have been available. we had a hearing on it. people gave us good feedback and i think the process is better served when the these documents with public. and you know i have been a big fight for process reform at the fcc and will continue to work on process reform. the chairman is going to be more

open and transparent and do reform. we will have the whole commission before the committee on march 19th. they are going to -- i think they and the staff will be spending a lot of time on capital hill in the months ahead. we have a lot of important tell communication issues budget issues and it is time to do your due diligence on offeration. >> greg walden is chair of the technology subcommittee. and senior editor of telecommunication report lynn stanton. 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. >> on our next washington journal we will get a preview of the israeli's prime minister

address to congress. we will talk to south carolina congressman joe wilson. and an update on the security spending bill with brian higgins. washington journal is live and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu speaks before a joint meeting of congress on tuesday. he will not meet with president obama on this visit and several democratic members of congress have announced they will not attend the speech. we will have live coverage of his remarks starting at 11 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> keep track of the republican-led congress and follow its members through the first sessi