hacking was consisted of an ad hoc networks of individuals largely motivated by ego and they wanted to show off to their friends. they wanted to have a resume boost, they we wanted to prove to themselves and their friends that they can do this kind of a thing. this is the age of the lone-wolf hacker. as time went on and more digital natives and technological savvy individuals entered the world, as more connected computing components got connected, more people recognized the opportunity that there was by hacking for financial profit specially criminal enterprises recognizes the low risk and potential of high reward by getting into the cyber crime. echo to making money and financial gain.

>> and that's tonight at 8:00 eastern. coming up next technology and behavioral experts talk about increase use of digital technology and multitasking affects obesity, sleep, social bonding, effective communication and education and whether technology is addictive. the panel discussed by ucla. [applause] >> thank you for having me here, thank you all for coming out tonight. i'm looking forward to an interesting discussion, hopefully learning along side of you from the great panel of experts here. ly introduce them now to my left we we have patricia, author of mind and media, the effect of televisions and computers. book was translated into nine

languages and republished last year as a 30th anniversary edition. her research on technology effect on young people discover the full range of radio, video games, teen chatrooms, facebook and instagram. thank you for being here. [applause] >> i also have gene block. a bio-behavioral scientist. his car -- current research focuses on biological timing in humans. he took the reigns at ucla in 2007, prior to becoming he was a cavalier serving as provost at the university of virginia. he's also the inventor of several devices including a noncontact monitor of sudden infant death syndrome and he's

also a collector of radios. and he joined us from the basketball game in connecticut. he gets the most frequent flyers . we also have anu chatterjee. coauthor of the book called aging. so please give the experts a round of applause. [applause]

a few introductions of disclosure, everything i know about snapchat comes from my 13-year-old daughter. [laughter] >> if you do feel a need to be addicted to something online feel free to be addicted to any of my stories. [laughter] >> that is certainly the experts can endorse that, everything else will be a problem for you. digital age has brought up a lot of wonders. i think we know that from our smartphones, computers, laptops, we can connect with somebody across the globe, a grandparent on skype, we can order everything imaginable with one click, we can have apps that help manage our diabetes. we have seen all the wonders and all of us have seen is there a dark side either on our health, social interaction, things like

that, constant stream time, sleep, eyesight and other ills that we might be doing to ourselves. we are going to explore these things, the explosion that we have seen in our hands, is it doing more harm than good. i think i'm going to throw it to our experts here just to a general opening statement, many of you are experts, have been doing research and have data, tell us a little about the general thoughts on that topic and maybe what you're working on right now. >> one thing people really haven't considered the social costs and our current research identifies some of these, so we found, for example, in a study where sixth graders went to a nature camp where they had very intense social interaction with other campers but all in person face-to-face they improved their

ability to read emotions from nonverbal cues compared with a group of sixth graders who -- this was just in a week. five days, they improved more relative to another group of sixth graders, a matched group who had their usual media diet which was over four hours a day. so i think that's an example of the cost. another study looked at the sense of bonding in friends. these were -- those were sixth graders, these were ucla students, undergraduates, a participant came with a chosen friend, preexisting friend. we had them to have two minute or so or five-minute conversations, each one communicated with a friend face to face, video chat by audio which was assimilation of telephone and by text and then

we asked them after each chat, each conversation how bonded did you feel and we also video taped them to look at their bonding cues which have been identified in prior research not relating to media. they felt more bond -- they felt the most bond that you probably can guess which one, face-to-face. they felt the least bonded with text, yeah. but look at this, and the objective behavioral cues were the same, they went in the same order, the most bonding cues nonverbal bonding cues face to face with text but what are kids use to go communicate the most, it's text. >> dr. block, where do you come to this? >> technology is changing our

lives in positive ways, travel is easy and affordable and aides -- easy and people travel around the world and it's wonderful, you can receive your advice your computer on somebody who is actually in india who is in a different time zone. we stay at night looking at i pads, computers, bright screen tvs, all great positives but they are having impacts on people. probably the most dramatic is reduction in amount of people that people are experiencing, 50 years ago the average was eight and a half hours a night and that's been reduced to less than seven hours a night. so the lack of sleep for some people is becoming extremely problematic and there's also and perhaps we will get into this later, a finely tuned timing system, every organ, tissue in your body has felt molecular and

now we are forcing it to make rapid changes, for example, through rotating shift work and through travel across time zones or even just by having excessive amount of light at night. so i think positive aspects of technology are clear but we are begin to go -- beginning aspectses of technology, some of them are unavoidable but an area that i have been interested is sleep and wake cycle. >> i could use more sleep myself. >> we all could. >> dr. chatterjee, go ahead. >> thank you for having me and thank you for having me on this panel. there are so many positive things about having technology and i don't wanting to about that but maybe i will look at

the data evidence which finds more towards the negative side of using technological -- using too much of digital technology and that includes using computers, i pads, ipods, you know, other smartphones and all these things and as an economist humans are using technology in such a way that is actually affecting their health. people are making the choice to be so obsessed with technology. there was a recent study and they found that waking up among all the american smartphone use ers -- users, two out of three

wake up checking and consumers have checked 25 times daily. some of them are so upset, it looks not that much but has been increasing, actually check their smartphones 200 times per day. so we are very obsessed with digital technology. what is happening that is leading to more lifestyle. so we have this workplace which is growing and sitting in computers for hours and come home and use all the gadgets we have at home and spend time with that. while we are spending time with

that we are doing other things which is snacking, increase the amount of snacking while watching tv or whatever, using computers. what happens to that? i'm not -- i don't have a medical background but i can understand that just increases our risk line. a few years back we looked at 27 countries which include the united states and some of the countries have highest obesity rates in the world and some of them might not that much and we look for data for 20 years and try to see how knowledge, moving towards knowledge-base economy is affecting obesity and how we measure that is to adaptation of information, communications

technology in this country or itt investment as capital formation and when we took other factors into account we found that for these countries, for every person increase in the share of itt investment, obesity rates go up by 1.4%. 1% is directly relate today just sitting there, lifestyle which i was trying to say and .4 comes from the snacking, that's 1.4%. if you're thinking about a country where there are 300 million people one out of three are obese, 100 million are obese, then, you know, when we are talking about 1.4% that's in millions and that's huge actually.

so we could find that data relationship, data evidence, we understand. if we are doing these things we are getting more obese and obese is a risk factor for so many chronic diseases and disability but we could actually prove that with data around the the world. so i will stop here right now and we can continue later. >> you picked up at one thing as the father of two teenage girls, i think that i want to thank that my teenagers are more obsessed with their devices and technology and staring at the screen all of the time. looking at research that's not necessarily the case maybe as adults we are worse than the kids. if i can get a quick take on the panelists on that. >> my collaborator pointed out something very important and as

parents are always on their cell phones and other devices, then what are the children going to do? if they're doing that, they're not paying attention to the children. >> i'm supposed to pay attention to them? [laughter] >> well, that's another conversation. but they're also a role model for them and a very important one. >> trust me, i hear about it. the rule is no phones on the table and when dad checks emails, i hear about it. >> yeah, one important thing that's in developmental psychology, it's not what you say but what you do. it's very interesting because a lot of parents who want to do something about technology, what they try to do is reduce the child's technology and if you're telling them not to use as much and then you're using it all of the time, that is not going to be effective.

>> dr. block. >> interesting comment, there's really good evidence now that light at night and specially a light that's bright reduces melatonin levels but also has impact and reduces the level of leptin and increases the level of hormone that makes you hungry. first it affects sleep, so you sleep less and if you sleep changes begin to occur and people gain weight. there's concerns that some of the weight gain in children is not so related to being couch potatoes but excessive amount of light associated with less sleep. it's complicated because light at night has evenings but leads largely to less sleep and it's more critical thing we have to

worry about children not sleeping enough. those that are sleeping with iphones and getting up in the middle of the night, light that's pretty effective and impacting your sleep, so i think there's something about weight gain that may be beyond additional snacking. it may be metabolic changes. >> what about adults and kids, have you seen research on that? >> one thing is clear that as i mentioned that if you're using too much of digital technology, of course,tist going to affect obesity but there are other things, it can affect your eyes, it can actually have effects which are muscular skeletal diseases. we have seen overall, the burden

of skeletal disease where its treatment is -- you go through other things and how it's affecting the economics can be to the tune of $45 billion and as we see our children are more just looking at the screen all of the time -- and i heard the ucla professors mention that had the muscles keep on eating muscles and our spine starts growing like this. that's awkward to me that that is not really good and if we are not careful about the minor things right now the future when this generation grow up it's going to be immense, much, much bigger than what is happening now to the healthcare costs. >> we talked a little about -- you talked about the bonding in terms of people. i walk past the busy restaurants, two people are on a date. [laughter] >> i just find it sad, you know,

and trust me i am not the best listener, my wife would attest to that but i try to look at her in the face and actually have a genuine conversation. things like that pains me that that's the society that we have become and i'm not trying to judge anybody, talk about -- you were talking about the bonding and picking up on verbal cues, those are just important life skills. >> they are. being able to understand the feelings of other people is extremely important to society as a whole. and i can see -- i think we can all see a reduction in that and there has been surveys that have been compared from the 1960's or 70's to the present have shown a reduction in empathy in the united states, large-scale national surveys. >> yes, the communication of something in an e-mail versus

telling somebody. we've all had that experience where it does not go over too well in an e-mail, either good, bad, a joke that didn't go too well. >> you can't see the person's immediate reaction and you might go and on and the reaction is getting worse and you're not seeing. if you were in the conversation you might see the reaction maybe not so great and then you do something about it so -- >> before you dig your grave more. >> yeah, yeah. >> dr. block, did you have any thoughts about that? >> one thing that i'm intrigued is the timesharing between digital devices and verbal communication. people are spending enormous amount of time doing two things at one time. i'm wondering whether you really can do that. i know there's intentional bottleneck in the sensory system where you can sort of do one thing at a time. it's very hard to process two things at a time. i wonder if people aren't

getting valuable, meaningful conversation because they are trying to be answering e-mail while having a conversation. we see that in meetings, everybody is working on digital device, can you really pay attention. i think that's a concern, i think that's a challenge. >> we did an experiment about that but it was about comprehension of written material and the ability to write and of all of the conditions, we found was about paper versus screens. we found that it didn't really matter if you read something on paper, you read it on the screen but what did matter what reduced the comprehension was if they had an opportunity to multitask by having the computer that they were working on hooked up with the working internet connection. >> i read this book while flying on the plane.

seven lessons in physics and discussed ion -- einstein's relative, could we be losing the ability to have the focus concentration by multitasking. >> the thing about this discussion, that was one of my fears, i just know my own life, to be able to quiet the mind and focus on something, that's what it takes to get something done more of more value. multitasking, things coming from 86 directions, all the places that i can go for refuge, a place, a car, vacation have taken over technology. define a place where i don't have wi-fi connection or check e-mail. to get away to those places is

where i hopefully will have my best thoughts and get some of the best work done. >> definitely multitasking might be creating lots of problems of psychologically. i know nobody is going to send me an e-mail now and i'm talking to my son, and he's replying back in the same language because he's looking at his ipad. [laughter] >> that's our future. that's how we will communicate. that's scary and i think if we are thinking about the next generation, they will lose that power to talk and the social an site -- anxiety might rise even more. those are some of the concerns and definitely i think right now we have to start thinking

whether it's a parent, as an individual or as a society, community, organization, policy makers, whoever we are, that we can do technology will be there and technology is growing and that's a good thing. i mean, our children are actually taking all the tests and everything through technology and that's good but in that it comes with a baggage and how we can really stop starting today so we can minimize the negative effect of this baggage. so that's something we need to start the conversation and move forward. >> well, let's launch into that. what are some things we can do in our own lives and there are other things technology companies or governments or other policy makers should be doing because i think we all have seen the problem and we live through it every day in different segments. >> sort of going back to what we were talking about before, i think our educational system is

adapting in a not very positive way. we put, for example, multiple-choice tests, they kind of privileged these individual facts and nos putting things together and i had this experience with my daughter where she would try to do her homework watching tv, back in the day and i didn't want her to and she said she could do it perfectly well and she was in a french school where, okay, here she had multiple choice tests, she had work books with very short answers and this type of thing. she could do it. we went to paris and they made her write essays, she had to turn the tv off. she could not do it, so i think that that illustrates that for extended work, you really need to, you know, not have the stimulation of media. >> so maybe just need to turn it off, unplug?

>> well, you know, it's interesting. i mentioned we did this camp studies, all the camps because we were looking for a controlled group for, say, a camp that lets kids bring media apart from computer camps, they don't exist. they all want the kids to unplug and i think people are seeing the value of unplugging. >> yeah. >> dr. block. >> you know, i think this is all related. i think that we have to refocus on sleep hygiene. you always read stories about people bragging about how little sleep they can get by. so the examples of our children that sleeps completely less. you get three hours one night and you catch up on the weekend which is not true. damage is done with chronic sleep loss. part of it is maybe making bedroom spaces where there's no electronic devices. we move away from having

computers and things and tvs in bedrooms an enforcing the idea that you people need 7 to 9 hours a sleep. almost no one can get by less than 7. really stop this steady decrease in the sleep time, it's quite dramatic how much has changed in 50 years. >> how are you doing on your sleep? [laughter] >> pretty sensitive. i'm all wired up. i have a job that i own and i kind of watch it because actually you use these activity monitors to try to get you 10,000 steps a day, i think you have to set a goal for sleep as well and you have to say somehow i'm going to get seven hours of sleep if that's what you feel you need and figure out strategies to do that. we have to start with children thinking it's something that's important. >> give me a number.

[laughter] >> the younger you are, in young children it can be up to 9-10 hours and as they get older 8 hours or 9 hours. in adults is usually the 7 to 8 hours of leap. >> i meant your sleep. [laughter] >> i sleep seven hours and i work hard on sleeping seven hours. i think it's worth it. i try to do it when i can. >> definitely setting up a goal at the individual level is very important and being parent is necessary m right now we live in new york and when -- and during winter if i tell my son, okay, stop using computer and just go and play, do something else, he says, where will i go, it's so cold outside? [laughter] >> i tell him to unplug so i understand there's certain times, yes, you use that.

the other thing is when we are talking about what he will do, this is where the cities, community leaders, policy makers should start thinking about providing infrastructure where the kids can go and play so when the parents say don't do this, they have alternative. so another thing about when we are talking about making this cities or communities, all of these issues safety comes up. there can be different parts and all of these recreational facilities but if it's not safe i'm not going to send my children over there. so there's a big issue there, how leaders or community organizations, they can work together to provide these things, outdoor and indoor for those who are living in the east coast, you to think about that and all these areas where the kids can go and play and so that the parents don't feel that

don't do this but what's the alternative, right? so we have that. the other thing which is very important is that many consumers actually don't know the effects. that's where we feel we need to bring more of awareness, providing this sort of data that if you are using smartphones for ten hours a day it's going to affect you this way, so those types of numbers can have an effect, whether it's in schools. consumer awareness is important and we feel that we know everything. we don't know that. we need to be more educated,

aware ability that. businesses organizations need to come up healthy more healthy. we talk about sitting in front of computers and there are many companies that are started encouraging their employees to have a standing desk that's good and you should not be standing for eight hours. you should know how much sitting, eight hours or something like that and then you feel i'm okay, nothing is going to happen to me because after eight hours i'm going to go to the gym and i'm going to work out for 15 to 30 minutes. the problem is when you're sitting for such a long time, your body starts to behave, starts thinking that you should be in that position and suddenly if you start going there on the treadmill, your body cannot take it well, so the solution might

be that in your eight hours every hour you just get up, walk around whether it's office that you with walk around, look at others what they're doing and watching and it just reminds me of the movie office space but people are going to think you're weird but that's helping you so that's very important. >> go ahead. >> one issue is the workplace, the demand for instant communication are so great. it used to be that if you answered a letter in two weeks you were fine, now if you don't answer within a couple of hours people think you're not responsive. >> specially when he sends you an e-mail? [laughter] >> we will talk about -- [laughter] >> so, you know, to the point

where you can't concentrate because the expectations are so great. i think we could do something in the workplace by realizing the cost of that. i mean, sometimes i don't answer my e-mail for a day and i'm writing an article but if i were doing what my colleagues want i would be answering all of the time and i think that being more aware of those expectations and moderating them would be a big help in terms of being able to concentrate and not be interrupted all of the time. >> it was so refreshing going to my child's open house in middle school, i think it was english teacher and this is my name, this is what we are going to talk about and here is my e-mail. be advised i do not answer my emails once the bell rings at 3:00 o'clock until the next morning. all the parents are like what. [laughter] >> you actually shut off and don't look at your work e-mail

or respond or is this kind of a strange response. we are setting boundaries and expectations and look, i'm off the clock, it can wait. >> that's something we need to do in our own lives? >> right, you think about your office now. a big monitor system in front of your desk, your computer and you spend the day largely interacting with the computer. 25 years ago that whatever device you had was usually to the typewriter and your desk was cleared and you were sitting there thinking. i think you're exactly right too, people expect you to respond quickly and you're rude if you don't respond quickly to an e-mail and that really does prevent deep thinking and i think we have to become more disciplined and how can you expect our children to be more disciplined if we are living that same life. i don't know how this is going to change. i think it's something that we

are going to have to find. >> if there was institutional response at the top i think that would -- [laughter] >> you don't want a policy. >> he's not going to respond right away. [laughter] >> and i think -- i don't know if any of you have done researches, me checking my e-mail is appearance of being productive. i kind of feel responsible, kind of makes me feel better, you know, like even if i'm not responding, i'm kind of in my own brain thinking, hey, i'm working hard, is that kind of what we are doing? kind feeling productive even if we really aren't, even if i'm wasting my time? >> you know, i think what's happened -- it's very interesting when you had snail mail, you had assistants that

were reading the mail, they could prioritize and it wasn't quite -- the problem now is there's no prioritization of e-mail. e-mail comes in parallel, every message requires for you to look at it to determine what it is so it's a very complex and sort of frustrating methodology for communicating because there's no one ahead of you sort of sorting through all of this and you couldn't do that. you could have it all preselected. the culture is the e-mail reaches you directly and there's no prefilterring going on. >> in fairness, we dumped a lot on technology, why don't with go around, are there positive things that we have gained from technology with all the health apps, tracking our steps, maybe somebody with diabetes being able to track that now we can go do televisits with the doctors.

we don't have to wait two days to meet with the doctors. >> we have so many immigrant, back in the day if you immigrated here you would completely lose contact with the family left behind, the friends you left behind, your country, now with skype and so forth people can keep those contacts and i think that's very, very positive. >> and i think the thing you mentioned about potential for personal monitoring where you take more responsibility for your health because you have more information could be extraordinarily important in helping to ensure healthcare costs because they become more directly involved in their own health care in a very productive way, i think there's something extremely positive about that. >> you can help your doctor keep up to date because you go on the internet about your condition and you can discuss it with your doctor and i found doctors have become more receptive to working with you in this way and they can't keep up with everything just like we can't up with everything in our field.

>> in the medical group nowadays you get all the test results, everything electronically and that's very helpful because previously i'm talking to the doctor he or she said something and understood, i thought i ubd but by the time i came back home i didn't understand. so now it's there and where ever i feel home what's my glucose level and you can order online your drugs, so, of course, there are technologies that are helping monitoring your daily heart beats, everything. they are good things and we did a study two years back and actually organization for medical devices, response and

one example actually using insulin pump. if you're mostly types diabetes and regularly monitor what's going on, then that really helps a lot. it can reduce where you can land in emergency room centers. >> i want to talk about the social costs in medicine. i was recently in the hospital, the doctors spending all of their time in front of the computers, they barely talk to you because they can get all of their test results on the computer, they don't, you know, they don't ask you about the -- they don't come into your room to find out and everybody knows

that, the human touch is very important to recovery and i would say that's almost gone from hospitals. it used to be -- i won't name names but it used to be very, very humanitarian so i think an event the nurses are spending a lot of time at the computer instead of, you know, with you face to face talking to you, so i think we have to also consider those social costs and try to address those at the same time as we are making use of these wonderful advances. >> yeah, i have seen patients and that's a frequent complain because they are clicking away looking here at the screen the whole time the -- and the patient is over there. that's what they've been tasked to be doing, digital health records but you're right that interaction is missing. >> the interaction is gone a little more because of technology. i'm not against any doctors,

there's lots of pressure from the insurance companies in what they need to file. they're writing it down or typing it. if they can't type faster, probably they can save some time to do interaction face to face but there are pressures on them so we might have to think about those sort of issues too. >> let's just -- we are going to open it up for questions in raw minute. you have final thoughts. have we all determined that we need a surgeon general warning? is that where we are heading? >> what i wanted to talk about in sort of closing, i did some of the research on the change in value that is are connected to media, so we did one study, again, we looked at five decades of the most popular preteen

television and assessed the values that were being expressed, okay. so back in the 60's and up through the 90's the most important value that was being expressed was community feeling and the 2000's the most important value expressed was fame. i think we can see it in the current election, the importance of fame, subsequent and television fame and subsequent research connected for children in a big survey, it connected the aspiration to be famous to watching a lot of television and being very active on social network sites. at the same time in going back to the study of the values that were being portrayed to unpopular shows, materialism was also going in a way and what we

are ending up with a society that values materialism and values wealth, question see that in -- we can see that in the current election and there's been decline in the value of community feelings. we found that the big change was in that decade where technology became so important and why it spread. >> yeah, in the brady bunch. ..

so we can maintain what is a primitive process but necessary which is the time we are immobile and somewhat unconscious. >> acid mentioned earlier there should be conscious effort at every level, multisectoral, you know, agents whether it's a business, communities, consumers. everybody should come together to start thinking seriously what can be done. a different reason that can be done which we have discussed earlier. and this is an important factor and i think the conversation should be carried on on how we can actually tackle the issue. if we are giving technology and

ends up her kids we are sank you have to take your test using ipads, then we also need to know that, how we can counterbalance the. so those are things we cannot just give answer right away that we need to start thinking seriously about that. >> i think we will open up to questions now. >> we have lots of time to to questions of all of you. please raise your hand if you have a question, we will pick you out. this is being recorded. it will be up on our website first thing tomorrow morning. you can share with those who cannot make it out but this will also be on c-span. c-span is recording. it will be broadcast nationally at a later date so please a first and last thing before your question. >> thank you so much for what you talked about. i'm a scientist and also a mother of three children. i'm actually concerned about is technology.

i have a 13 year old daughter as well, she doesn't have a cell phone. she's probably the only one. my concern as well is about the radiofrequency radiation that is emitted from wireless technology. do you have anything to say about this? there's so much research that's showing health effects come anywhere from cancer all the way to neurological effects. i see universities like ucla pouring money into this technology and at the same time so much research by ucla showing the harm. there's so much contradiction. what do you have to say about that? >> i'm not an expert in this area but my understanding is it's pretty equivocal, the data, a number of studies have looked at radiation from the level of a cell phone. there some recommendations to lower the energy levels which i think they have done over time,

and i think the data is equivocal. it was you know studies that suggest otherwise, i think there's not been a convincing group of studies to show health risk. >> i want to reply to that on a difficult level. i mean, i hear that you are proud that your 13 year old doesn't have a phone, but one thing you have to realize, this is come out in our research again and again, at this point teenagers socialize is on the phone. if a teenager doesn't have a phone they will be excluded from social life. you have to really consider the social cost of approaching it in a very black and white way, no phone. you have to consider -- [inaudible]

>> we have another question. >> my name is robin, and i was wondering if -- i can't. all right. i was wondering if we can look at this. i see parallels with the cigarette industry who knew that cigarettes were active and dangerous, and they didn't have anybody. it was part of their marketing. they knew they would have a great market because, it seems to me this will put issues like a sanctioned addiction that our society just has a denial about. first of all there's lots of studies that show that it is addictive, the baylor study that showed that young women in school were on a cell phone for nine to 10 hours socially, social media. that was undergraduates.

i want to know what you think about the edict of quality and responsibility of the cell phone companies who are giving smart phones to entire families for great prices to get the children if they could. they don't need to necessarily have a smart phone with all of that social media access all the time. >> does anybody want to take up addiction? [laughter] >> my one thought would be, addiction is a strong word medically, and also it makes me think people can be addicted to any number of things. the technologists can become doesn't make that much easier with pornography, with online gambling. to meet addiction can mean many different things with the technology but certainly you can be addicted to the device. >> went on what my book in 1984,

i thought the idea of addiction which before talk about what kind of crazy. i thought nobody would see addiction to video games. nobody says if a child wants to finish a book, nobody says much of his addicted to reading. so if the kid wanted finished a video game i thought that was a reasonable. why should you say they are addicted? however in the years since, the data have changed in using this american psychiatric association's diagnostic manual from using the criteria for addiction, it is the same criteria that is used to call on drugs if you apply those to video games. there is such a thing as addiction. i think that we could find no such a thing as cell phones in the future, because who would have thought? videogame addiction can be

actually extremely serious, too. now research has started to be done where they do use the same criteria and it is a real thing. >> i want to add something. in south korea, and asian countries this is much bigger than you. in south korea, there has been an addiction start of treatment option that has been set up for children. it has started, maybe not in u.s. but other countries, and that's without mentioning, that if you stop consumer advantage it will take two years but people will start thinking about that. whether they have addiction treatment or whether you call the addiction of whatever name you give, but what you thinking about getting treatment or help for that, it will -- >> it's interesting because the current new diagnostic manuals of the american psychiatric association has videogame

addiction as a candidate for the next addiction. what's really interesting is what's come out of it, what's been removed. narcissistic personality disorder has been removed from it las. [laughter] so narcissism is now the new normal. [laughter] >> next question. >> my name is albert lea. as when asked about addiction but that question was already asked. i'm wondering how do we navigate this? technology has always had an impact on humanity. tv it seems like it is turned up a notch so how do you recommend we navigate all of this because it's coming at us so fast. >> we are just becoming aware. i think at the beginning everyone was so enamored with all the pluses, and we are just getting to be aware of the minuses. our socialization process these, we don't know anything about how

do you bring up the children with technology because it's all so new and we don't even know, how do we behave as parents with technology or adults with technology. this is also new. i think we have to develop ideas about this in the same way we have had ideas about etiquette. it wasn't technology etiquette. we need to develop some concept of etiquette with technology, for example. my grandson will not, he rarely responds to my text, forget phone. he's getting better but it's definitely, he is getting a lot better but it's definitely a learning process and a teaching process. we didn't realize that we would have to teach about this. >> just related to what albert said earlier.

i think as you know -- coming up later, the ps2 is coming out with its virtual reality take. what you think the next step in virtual reality is going to have with respect to our emotional, physical health? [laughter] >> turning the notch three more? fully immersed in something with your goggles on? [laughter] >> i think that was yes. [laughter] next question on your left. >> you touched a little bit on empathy, on sleep by jean and melatonin response and things, but our brain level, potential brain level changes and i was really struck two weeks ago in the "new york times" with an

article that talked about how to they use, it wasn't really about gps. it was about the loss, the relationship of the loss at the brain level, neurodevelopment, of wayfinding. they did relate it to also the constant use of gps. suddenly somebody seeing a brain level difference, and they wondered if you had any, what research is going on at that level of brain development? >> well, everything we do affects the brain. different parts of the brain. reading affects the brain. it just so happens that we have gotten kicked out at the same time we have gotten f. mri, mri and all that. we can do that but every single

activity affects the brain. certain connections are enhanced and other connections become weaker. so i would say yes. this is not a value judgment but with your example, yes, believes that the connections, under a connections we use are getting weaker but other parts of the brain having to do with technology that are getting stronger. >> i would agree. it's interesting a lot of ways to find him some of his practice and concentration. if you have a shorthand way of doing this with gps, you don't practice the skills. you just end up losing the skills, losing that circuitry. not surprising. [inaudible] protecting the children from things that can be long, you know, a lifetime of disability.

>> one thing that's going by the wayside our manual skills, the children. tying your shoelaces. things like that. and, but look at the l.a. unified, they wanted to give every child in ipad. what is that going to do? it's going to just move things for the. there was nothing about the possible social cost or manipulative cost, loss of manual skills. it was all considered positive. i think we need to consider what we want children to learn and if we want them to of manual skills, we need to give them those opportunities. if we want to give them exercise we need to give them those opportunities. jim has gone. -- jim has gone from most schools, et cetera. >> my name is stacy and i was wondering if you could speak a little bit on what the effects are on your eyes.

you mentioned it, and if there are any studies that have come out that possibly could give us some feedback on that. >> anyone want to take a stab at eyesight? are we all going blind? >> i'm fine. [laughter] spent we haven't any data. it takes a few years. the main thing is when we try to come up with a new relationship and try to show evidence, there is a big issue. another thing if you really want the numbers, or you need evidence, there should be places that should start gathering data. i'm not aware if there's any study right now showing exactly the relationship. >> one problem with studies about the cost is the government doesn't want to fund them for

about the last five to 10 years. all of our research which is focus on social cause has been unfunded. but certain kinds of caused such as eyesight to take money, but the federal government is so enamored with technology that they really want to fund studies that show enhanced learning, this kind of thing. nothing about the cost of technology. i think that needs to stop. we need more balanced view of technology in high places that control money. >> some would say you've ruined your eyes but we cannot with this new product that will fix your eyes las. [laughter] we got you both ways. >> allow me to come back to the electromagnetic radiation. the world health organization --

the city of berkeley actually has passed an ordinance saying at the point-of-sale for cell phone it has to be disclosed that there's potential health risks. from a data point of view, we are living today unprecedented exposure, overexposure of all our devices, from our alarms, cell phones and everything. what can be done from a regulatory point of view with the research to i guess do something about it? >> again, the data, i will preface this by saying i'm not expert in this area, but the question is what's the risk, how high is the risk and benefit versus the risk trade-offs? there's a lot of electromagnetic waves out there from lots of devices. you mentioned the world health organization, and begins i don't

know what the data looks like. this is a highly significant risk or a very small risk. have to balance that. we hope people looking at that considering whether this is something that requires special legislation. i know one time it was recommended old days blackberries that you carried them in a carrier rather than put it in your pocket, keep it at a distance from your body. i think, i don't know if those recommendations have been made because no people tend to carry cell phones much closer to the bodies. >> blackberries, i miss my blackberry keyboard. [laughter] >> that's what to conclude our program. we want to start off i think ucla for co-presenting this program with us tonight. [applause] >> i would like to thank all of

our speakers and as well for giving us the time and for c-span for being here and recording this program. thank you so much. we will see upstairs in our reception. thanks again. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> the house and senate return to legislative work on tuesday september 6, and agenda items include must pass federal spending, zika virus research and prevention programs and pentagon programs. also thousands expected consider impeaching iris commissioner john koskinen. live coverage of the house on c-span. the senate of course helices thank you. the house is add this to its fall agenda as reported in the hill. republicans and house judiciary committee i plan to press officials from the fbi for hearing scheduled for next month on allegations that hillary clinton committed perjury.

judiciary chair opposite lot and oversight committee chair jason chaffetz wrote to the attorney in washington with detailed allegations about hillary clinton appeared to have misspoke about key details of her e-mail set up before the house benghazi committee last october. the fbi told the lawmakers earlier that he was reviewing the recommendations and will take appropriate action as necessary. that from the field today. up next, discussion of open internet roles in broadband access both the d.c. circuit court of appeals decision to uphold the fcc's open internet order. the rules include request on broadband providers as commentaries gives the fcc more authority to regulate them. technology of all special debated the claims of legal authority, the chances of supreme court will rule and what all this means for consumers. >> so let's get things started. for those of you who are watching this live stream or if

you want to tweet from here, we ask that you use the hashtag title ii, ii. as we are having this conversation to i will be checking twitter and to get some interesting questions i will put out to the group as well. let's see. and so first i want to thank our sponsors, techfreedom, open technology institute and the george washington institute of public policy are putting this on. this will be a great discussion. we've got some interesting penniless got some interesting penniless and i will each introduce themselves and then we will launch right into some questions. let's start here on my right. >> my name is kevin russell, i'm probably the least experts person on this bill with net neutrality i am a lawyer and was hired by some of the entertainers including some of their to my left organizations to help defend net neutrality rules in the d.c. circuit. >> before we go on, why are you

here? you've answered that, you were just, but sarah, as we go on, what's your dog in this fight? >> pretty big dog in this fight. i am sarah morris, open technology institute. net neutrality has been an issue that has been a long-standing imports to my organization and me personally. why is it important? net neutrality ensures all users can access the lawful content of the choosing of internet remains an open platform for innovation to flourish for people to organize, to communicate, to access resources such as education materials, job applications and net neutrality allows them to do so without any fear of interferes on the part of internet service provider. >> all right, hal? >> i'm hal singer, a principal, economists incorporated, a senior fellow at george

washington's institute of public policy and an adjunct professor at georgetown's mcdonald's school of business. i will answer the next question, why am i here. good question. i think i'm the token economist on the panel, although i don't have a lot agreed and i don't play a lawyer on tv. i've been around the courtroom a few times in front of the d.c. circuit. i have a few opinions on what went down. i think my big message today is that as an economist i would like to see the fcc take seriously the application of economics and live up to the same cost benefit standard that other agency both independent and executive branch agencies live up to and issuing orders. i think that cannot do so is to take the risk with a very, very important, vital segment of the economy. the fcc oversees the tech sector. this is one of the most important, just put a number to

it, isps and test tens of billions of dollars a year in infrastructure. those investments sustained over 1 million jobs per year. the notion we would take that casually i think is a very, very dangerous. >> since we are going around the horn, i didn't introduce myself. i am maggie reardon, senior writer at cnet and i have been covering this net neutrality battle for a decade. it's what's kept the employed, so that's why i am here. >> i've got to news for you, maggie. job security is there for you. i am gus hurwitz, a law professor at the university of nebraska college of law. you could say either because of sour grapes. i was cited by name for comments that i submitted in this proceeding and also a brief i cowrote was cited by a dissenting opinion in this case, is a good reason to reject the

open internet order. why am i here? and this is because i am an administrative law nerd and i think the issues in this case are beyond the fcc or net neutrality. there are fundamental questions that this case raises about how the courts go about reviewing agency action and the love of discretion we afford agencies in coming up with decisions. so in a sense this is hal's point but a broader. i will be the boring guy on the panel who talks about administrative law. >> boring? this panel will not be going at all. >> so i'm berin szoka. i run a think tank and to handle a range of issues. at work with our friends at no recommendation. sometimes we're on opposite sides. it depend on the issue but in this case this issue is not about net neutrality. that's been a red herring. there isn't anybody who wants to block content online.

we are not in danger having our communications throttled we could deal with all those things, have a narrow ledges of solutions to the fcc authority just in case we weren't about someone doing that but this case is about the fcc's claim of sweeping power to regulate the internet as the basis for the so-called net neutrality rules. is why my organization techfreedom has gotten involved but also what a number of silicon valley onto printers and investors got involved. the children would have you believe, this is just about the big dogs meaning big cable and telephone companies try to stop the fcc from protecting consumers. this is about lots of people including tech entrepreneurs who are concerned the fcc's overreach could have a chilling implications for the entire internet and we don't know what the next chairman might do with the powers claimed by the fcc. >> so it sounds like sarah, you might be the lone wolf in sort

of supporting these rules, but -- we got things split up pretty much on the table. >> i wouldn't be here if i wasn't alone will. >> i first question, take us through what this board is considered how we got here. >> sure. this order is the third attempt of fcc to enact sound completely sound net neutrality rules. this came in the wake of a 2010 decision, verizon versus -- were the fcc had premised its 2010 rules under section of authority in the king occasions act called section 706. long story short, the court said these rules, you demonstrated a basis for these rules, justified them however what you're doing in this incident is a plan will be called common carriage regulations to non-common

carriers. data provided a roadmap to the fcc to try before their time at this unsuccessfully. the fcc took what the d.c. circuit said and verizon v. fcc to heart. after exploring different options for a path forward with different legal bases for the rules, the fcc ultimately decided to properly reclassify broadband internet access service as a title ii service which provided the legal groundwork for several portions of the fcc's rules. there were three bright line rules come prohibition against blocking, a prioritization of throttling your it also acted what we call locally called the general conduct rule which gives the fcc the ability to look at new harmed as they evolve and in the ecosystem and evaluate them on a case-by-case basis. using a series of prescribed

doctrine. >> the real question most people disagreed upon, and bernd, maybe you can jump in, is really this whole reclassification at the fcc said basically the course from what i understood said these rules are okay. we think you reason to do it. we don't like the authority you used in crafting the 2010 roles. go back, if it's going to be common carrier, you've got to classify the traffic as common carrier or you can't apply those kinds of rules. really the fight we're having a is about this reclassification. >> that's accurate. i would say, you said you been covering this issue for a decade. i was in tim woo's internet law class.

to set the stage, the fcc issued a policy statement, and open internet policy statement backing 2005. then it was after that that republican chairman at the time started to use that enforcement actions to inform merger conditions. there were no binding rules. and sarah alluded to district that was the first attempt by the fcc to write it without formally regulations. that led to the comcast bid toward case. that was the fork in the road. many policy debates, you can look back and find some point with a was a better way to resolve the issues. to me that was the first one. what could have, should have in that case, the comcast was accused of throttling bit torrent traffic on its network. bit torrent was being used overwhelmingly for peer-to-peer

file sharing and those by merely being used for infringing copyrights. what could've happened was the federal trade commission could have brought very straightforward action against comcast for deceiving its customers and could have resolved the matter. as far as i can tell the only reason that didn't happen is because the republican chairman of the agency at the time decided that he'd like president bush was going to be the decider and who's going to address this and fcc was going to do it. we went down one fork in the road of having the federal communications commission do everything with unclear authority. in fact, no regulations at all. instead of having the federal trade commission do what it now does which is protect consumers from deception, under practices and anti-competitive behavior. if we had gone down the other road i think we could've could e addressed the concerns center and others have raised. >> there was a slap on the wrist by the court and then the democrats come into control. obama sort of, the remaining issues he ran on but from my

recollection this was one of issues he said yes, i believe in strong net neutrality, he didn't use the word strong. they crafted these rules and in 2010, then verizon said which i'm sure a lot of people who are really met at verizon right now. that's how we got here. >> i just want to emphasize, the recent verizon sued was because it was not the regulations themselves. verizon made clear it was not challenging the transparency rule, and the now blocking world. it had a policy difference on the margins about what throttling me. its primary conflict was about authority. the same thing we're talking about today, the claim ended up as a religion and it ended up being the case at the court in that case said the fcc could do anything it wanted over any form of communication under section

706 of the 1996 telecom act as long as the agency came up with some story about why that would promote broadband. that was the first sweeping claim of authority. as you said when the court decided that case, the verizon decision came down, the agency could use that for to issue new net neutrality rules. instead they use that form of authority close referring to title ii, the provision of the 1934 act that wishes to regulate the old ma bell telephone monopoly. >> there's a little bit more to the story than that. the other thing that happened in verizon was the court said you could not enact anti-blocking rules. you could not enact the anti-throttling type world without reclassify. it wasn't the case the commission of the opportunity, could simply connect the rules of want to enact under section 76. in order t to do what they wantd to do the heavy reclassify. >> this is what informed. the court, much of what you said

is accurate, but the part -- that's a lawyer's perspective. >> did they -- >> the point you keep giving us to is, was this necessary? did the fcc have to invoke title ii or could ask them at august the fcc simply habeas section 76? kevin is correct, with the court said is if what you do go so far as to amount to common carriage you cannot do it under section 76 because the one thing you can't do -- >> they said anything beyond a multifactor test essentially. common carriage would be any -- >> let me break this down for our viewers. remember there were three girls and 2010. the transparency rule was not being challenged by verizon. and, indeed, the disincentive of the basis on which the rule could upheld. the issues were the now blocking rule and the throttling rule on the now blocking rule this is where kevin slightly allies to

detail. with the court actress it was the fcc had not adequately briefed by the court could upheld a now blocking rule under sector 706 i say this because i think it's clear if you read the decision that the court was inviting the fcc to try to get under sector 706 and was hinting strongly the now blocking rule would've been upheld. the issue was the fcc didn't dedicate that case well and it was an anything can happen between the time the briefs were filed by the time the court decided the case that really ended up being the thing in which everything was decided at the fcc simply failed to ask to file their briefs so the weight of the to defend the now blocking rule. >> one quick point and i will move us on. >> i don't think we are told the full story get on verizon. critically what the fcc did in the 2010 order was really, really different than what it's done in the 2015 order to with

respect to a priority which is what judge williams said is the whole ball of wax. in 2010 the fcc decided to treat page priority under a case-by-case regime. we are going to them as we see them. but they create a perception any such deal would be in violation of its rules. in contrast in the 2015 order the fcc embraced a blanket ban on page priority. this is an important distinction. with due respect, when sarah said the court offered a blueprint, she mischaracterized it. the blueprint they offered and, in fact, that chairman used the word lupine. he said we will follow the blueprint of the court and fall of the sector 706 path under the decision. that is to treat page priority under case-by-case regime and flipped the presumption around. >> but the court in this case and in the you want to get on but i think taking us back to the context of what we are and where we're at in the process, the court has ruled, and with

acknowledgment of the petitions for rehearing that have been filed, the majority in this case agreed that the judge who also decide this case with the majority in this case alongside the judge, they acknowledged the fcc had, in fact, done with the decision laid out and were proper in their order that they put forward in a way that enacted the rules. >> the crux of it though, i want to stop, the crux is there's a lot of disagreement about how the fcc interpreted the verizon decision in terms of how they should go forward. i think the fcc clearly interpreted the way sarah and kevin are talking about, that they felt that they had, that they had to go through with title ii, whereas i think the other side feels it was still

some authority under this other section of the communications act. we have so much to cover the don't want to keep arguing the same point because everybody keeps saying sector 706, title ii. it's like what the heck are they talking about speak with could i quickly add another point that needs be on the table? >> all right. >> i got bad news. moving forward this is what the courts are going to care about. the courts are going to care about, we have the d.c. circuit panel opinion. there are a bunch of petitions that have been filed asking the entire d.c. circuit to review that opinion. no matter what happens, they tend to be conditioned for the supreme court to review what the d.c. circuit's opinion. the question has nothing to do with what the fcc did. it has to do what the panel of the d.c. circuit did. whether on not a sufficiently reviewed the fcc's action we have another layer on top of this. the focus has been, did what the

fcc do, did with the fcc did, did they do it right? is also a question from the court do what they were supposed to be right? >> let's talk about who's on what side. kevin, you've got one side that our isps, cuba, comcast, at&t, verizon. who's on the other side? who is supporting this order? >> sure. there's diversity on both sides. there are public interest the above site. i think on balance there are more edge providers, netflix for example, tumblr, kickstarter are among the folks supporting the fcc's rule because they view net neutrality as essential to their being able to reach their customers with their services. on the other side, another group on our side of, the backbone providers, cogent.

and the other side there's the telecommunications companies, principally. >> so what would -- >> i just want to thank you for very graciously acknowledging that there are people on both sides. i think it's the first of i ever heard anybody on this site acknowledge that so i really, i sincerely appreciate that. i just want to emphasize that again for us this is not about net neutrality. it's about the fcc's underlying claims of legal authority. the reason that our silicon valley on twitterers and investors have gotten involved, people who were pioneers like jeff over the back and 2004 got the fcc after years of lobbying to draw a clear line between the old title ii regulation and the internet so that his services, voip, free world dial-up, vonage which he go back, those be protected from title ii.

the reason they're getting involved in this case is the word the fcc has erased that line and whatever the agency is doing now for one policy could be used for other ends in the future. >> okay. let's talk about what does this mean, what does it mean for the average consumer, why does anybody clear? i hai have answered that all the time when writing stories for my publication. what does it mean for the consumer? >> the fcc's order was historic in several respects and aboard for consumers in several respects. for the first time the fcc applied its rules, extended its rule fully to include mobile broadband and this was an issue that organization and my colleague worked extensively on with the fcc. what this means for consumers, when you on your mobile device, which many of you are in this room, some of you are on the wi-fi network in this room, some

of you are on a 4g for 3g network, cellular network. that matter which network you are protected, afforded the same protections that fcc has a starkly extended to fixed and now fully extended to mobile. it avoids, if you were to walk out of the building after being on the wireless that you suddenly not be subject to the open internet ruled by virtue of just being on a different type of network. that was important. this also means, sorry, i think it was barren the sort of noted that when the actual harms, i'm paraphrasing, the from is a lot of work. actually we suggest that's not true at all, that as result of disputes between interconnection, interconnecting parties, that there was extensive harm for millions of americans throughout the country. >> i that, you mean like a netflix interconnecting?

>> yes. >> to be clear that isn't the thrust of the majority of this order, right? that's examined on a case-by-case basis. >> they did bring interconnection and. >> the first time the fcc asserted the authority or interconnection claims which we are still continuing to do research to assess whether the segregation for certain consumer is still ongoing but we are hopeful that the assertion of authority will have a chilling effect on the type of egregious behavior that we saw. >> it's interesting and this is part of the challenge in one of the petitions i read, that the chairman had announced around chairman had announced around the time of the nose of proposed rulemaking in the 2014 interconnection was off the table. one of the challenges is that the parties were not given proper notice that interconnection would be. to answer your last question, well, i like it. i like that part. to answer your question, how are

consumers going to feel, i wanted to bring back to judge williams dissent. the net he was very upset with how the fcc ignored economic generally but in particular failed to cite a single article on economics the two-sided markets. you whayou would think that woue critical to understanding how isps interact with content on one side. no citation to had they bothered they would find a this principle called the seesaw principle, and that is, any contributions that an isp could get off of the content providers would put downward pricing pressure on the other side of the market. that is, consumers would face lower prices to the extent the isp could raise some money off the backs of the content providers. that is not going to happen if this rule stands. in two ways, one, paid for arrangements have been banned. and number two, interconnection agreements are now subject to what are called a just and

reasonable standards which effectively means that isps can't really charge anything. had to charge based on incremental cost but the cost is effectively zero and if there's any doubt as to what chairman wheeler once, i suggest people go to the charter order in which they explicitly said any connection would be set at this year. what we have from consumers perspective is the big content behemoth, talking about netflix and youtube, will never have to make a contribution to the open of infrastructure, the isp. the question is, a zero from an economic perspective, you will not find a single economist is zero the right price and the content provider should have to contribute to the overhead? >> two quick points in response. i think the millions of americans who experienced systematic and severe degradation for a period of at least nine months would be happy that the fcc, are happy to fcc has asserted its authority over interconnection disputes and now

can be a cop on the beat as those disputes played out. i want to be clear where we are at in the proceedings and you may be getting to that down the road in which i will be very brief at this point. we are at a point of well-settled long with the exception of a couple of narrow and extraordinary path forward for reversal of this decision. as hal may want to quibble about the economics or the lack thereof in the fcc's order, the court has upheld ever want to be clear for anyone watching that we are in a period of time with the court has made its peace and the next step of a specific and cover a certain procedure path forward. >> let me bring this down because of feel like we're talking way into the weeds. i think we need to understand what this means. from what i understand net

neutrality has meant that my isp can't monkey with my traffic, right? it can't block where i'm going. it can't limit, you know, my access to netflix or some other site, right? on the other side, what you are saying is, but we're leaving out, because there is no page priority, these isps can't make money at it that way and then lower rates for consumers. well, we've got zero ratings. that's happening. how is that not a violation against the net neutrality? it seems like the industry is able to move forward with some sort of new business model. by the way i might mention that the isps i've spoken to, i mean, nobody did page priority is nobody really thinks that there's any money in it. i don't know if there is really a market for netflix to be paying, you know?

so whatever. >> a couple of things and i will try and keep this both brief and at an appropriate level. first on the zoo rating question. this is an active discussion. folks think is a rating is a violation of net neutrality principle to a lot of folks thinks it is in the some folks point to as an example of why the principles are problematic. >> but it was explicitly in the order saying that the fcc would decide on a case-by-case basis. so allowing the wireless companies to have some freedom, at least a little bit him to explore different business models. >> alone this one dimension. this is really in a sense my court asked to grind on this issue. as hal was think about this literature on two-sided markets. basically it was an entire economic literature into 2000

that was developed to study the effects of net neutrality. the results of that literature showed it could be good, could be bad, it could be harmful, beneficial to consumers. it depends on a lot of things. i submitted comments that it is a lot of this evidence. when the order came out saying no, this is what we're doing. i said okay, i want to see the explanation for this. they could not conceivably come up with an explanation that i want to know what was. there wasn't anything. they just ignored the entire body of economic literature that developed to answer this one question. that's not cool. to sarah's point, sarah is exactly right, that this is by and large now a settled point of law within, with respect to the fcc. it frankly is unlikely that the d.c. circuit will grant on blog reader and it is unlikely that will get you this -- get to the supreme court. the point i want to make is yes,

with respect to the fcc, this question is settled by the broader question that central to the d.c. circuit decided this case is very active at the supreme court. >> let's move on. what exactly did the court decide? >> before we move on from this interconnection thinking i'm not sure people are clear what we are talking about. just real briefly. the traditional net neutrality concerns i mentioned them, and spiritually, blocking content and then throttling traffic on the network. interconnection is a different thing. it's about how the comcast network interfaces with say netflix. i think what sarah is talking about when she talks but this nine-month period was that there were allegations that netflix made that it was being, its traffic was being degraded because broadband providers were holding it hostage. that was used as an argument for the fcc to add on another rule to the new open internet order regarding interconnection.

i just want to say speech it was a rule in that for the first in the fcc would look at these disputes on a case-by-case basis. it did not apply the rule -- >> right. >> to the situations. >> but the important thing to note is that is a very active debate about what actually happened. yarthe award once i considered i would encourage those watching to read dan rayburn, independent streaming, media expert who comments on this and to devote all of netflix claims and point out what they were doing was they were playing hardball with broadband providers because, in fact, while most people assume it's broadband by two of the market power, it turns out the compass a netflix really have market power because they have content and they of things like house of cards that they can withhold that they withheld that from time order cable customers or to exert leverage within. the point is that ended up,

netflix ended up getting a better deal through all of this pi.instead of having to pay thid party providers, they got a better deal that would seem from comcast, they saved money but they were not happy to try to go to the fcc and get that same thing for free which essentially means that the broadband provider has to bring that cost which means it gets passed on to all of the broadband providers subscribes which means non-netflix users into paying for a cost of netflix users. this is the kind of thing when hal talks economics, that's what we're talking about. the fcc is being used as a pond in these battles between companies that are just trying to save a buck but it's too on both sides. >> i want to be very clear about what our research showed which was regardless of who was at fault in the disputes, not just netflix and isps. it was hal providers that were tearing content of different edge companies.

that was as kevin noted why their workers providers who are engaging in the litigation of the of the fcc. what the research found that when anyone dispute the actual finding that the research was based on our measurement lab project, and that is regardless of who's at fault, for nine months customers throughout the united states access content that was not just netflix. is anything latency or bandwidth sensitive. they were getting less than even the fcc's old definition of broadband. for us it's important there is no a cop on the beat regardless of who is at fault in any individual dispute to assess the problem and to ensure consumers are getting a broadband they paid for speed at which the federal trade commission could've done. it is a cop on the beat. >> okay, okay. let's move on and talk about what was the decision?

how did this come down? the main argument was about this title ii issue. does the fcc has the authority to reclassify traffic to enable this rule to even exist? how did it come down? >> cabin, perhaps -- >> so any 2-when the decision to madrid for the panel said the reclassification was proper. they rejected a variety of objections to it but the principle thing they decided was look, this is can we have a talk about compass a statute that says telecommunication service has to be treated as title ii common carriage. the initial thing is to look at the language or the statutory definition instead it's not absolute clear. it's ambiguous. under settled at mr. locke principles in the case the agency gets to choose between permissible interpretation of the language as long as they do so reasonably.

at the beginning of the decisions of lookup is not our job to second-guess the agency about what's the best policy. it's just to please the outer limits of reasonableness spent and it also upheld this interconnection. spirit it was rejected. >> it was a home run for the fcc. they were popping champagne. still popping champagne. they are totally psyched. >> they are still drunk. >> we can disagree on that part. drunk with power. >> now where are we in this process? slamdunk for the fcc. one of the appeals about? >> should we talk about the subsequent abuse or you want to start with what was the process? how about the boring part? >> let's talk about the process and where we are going. >> i guess i'm talking so i will keep talking. that's what professors do.

so after the d.c. circuit's opinion, there was a period that expired this past friday during which parties could file what's known as a petition for on blog review period -- en banc. it was decided by three judges on blog review says hey, entire d.c. circuit, that panel of three judges made a mistake for some reason. >> how many people are just as we have? >> i believe it is 11 active judges. in order to get the entire court to review the panel decision, you need a majority of the active judges. there are also a number of senior judges but they don't get to vote on whether or not to hear the on blog review. we should start, we should say en banc review is rarely granted it's only granted in extraordinary cases.

there is i think a better chance than usual that en banc review will be granted, in particular because there's some really cool administrative law david about some details issues in this case that show that are hard questions courts need to look at. it could take some the judges interest. it's also a really important question. that said, it's unlikely the petition for en banc review will be granted. >> also the dissent was pretty long. everybody keeps talking about it. hal keeps talking about it, like it's got some really smart stuff into. does that help the chances that maybe the fourth circuit we take it? >> a strong dissent can help and it cues up a number of issues. it's important to know that the author of it, the dissent, judge williams as a judge on senior status. he doesn't actually get to vote on whether not the court is going to take a grip en banc

review. >> let me provide some overall historical gloss. the d.c. circuit is often called the second most important court in the country because it is the administrative law court. what of the things the obama administration will be remembered for in a century is that this court shifted from right to left. this was a bastion of reagan appointees, people who were sort of approach the constitution as administrative law. the president got to make for appointments and some of the republican judges went to senior status. the balance of the court has shifted. there are 11 judges in active status one of them the chief garland is waiting his nomination hearings. so he is recuse. you essentially have 10 active judges, and we would need a majority of those to go to rehear -- >> you would get to that would probably vote for it spent would vote against rehearing.

i'm just time to lay out that there are seven democrats and democratic appointees on active status and four republicans on active status. that gives you a first approximation of how this might work itself out. it may be a reasonable one on this case but i want to flag as a startling about the bigger issues and the supreme court taking this case, the real issue is really about how much deference due course give administrative agencies. ..

no way to right a statute that isn't going to have some ambiguity but eventually the court came up with standard and said we're going to look at the statute, ask if it's ambiguous, and if it is then we'll defer to the agency on an ambiguous interpretation. the basic idea is that would allow politically accountable, supposedly more democratic institutions to resolve this matters matters matters and if congress didn't like it, congress could rewrite the statute. that the basic idea of chevron. chevronning interesting because there's not a partisan split on this. the justices -- i'll let kevin speak for justice breyer, his old boss -- sometimes the democrats have said maybe we shouldn't be so quick to jump into chevron deference, maybe we

should at step zero ask whether this is the kind of thing that is appropriate for us to assume that congress would have intended for the agency to resolve an ambiguity. so, to me, this court case really resolves around that question if it makes its way to at the supreme court -- i think it will -- you'll even an interesting split. it's going to be about where is it appropriate to grant deference, and the court recently has come out and said sometimes it's not, when its an issue of major economic importance, it's not -- or where we think the agency itself has done something to indicate that even the agency doesn't think this is what congress intended. this cases the court should look at the statute anew. sometimes the government wins. the obamacare case was they

should look at this anew and upset about it. he did something that was a victory for those worrying about the state. >> so, let's say that the full circuit does not take this case. when will we know that? >> well -- >> there is deadline they have to decide -- >> i'm not an appellate expert but i'll an -- >> we have an expert on the panel. >> there's no deadline. >> but if the answer is no, probably relatively quick decision. unless there's a dissent. there are dissents could take as long as this case. if we get some dissents to elias said hard------ -- elucidate

hard issues and the court understands that deference is at stake. >> let's say they do take it. then we go through a rehearing again. everything is -- we have breaths re-submitted, that kind of thing? >> not -- the d.c. circuit has discretion how to proceed. they would require new briefs and new argument and probably take about just as long as it did this time. >> so let say they don't hear it. they don't take the case. then the petitions with likely go to the supreme court. is at that time what i'm hearing. >> some said they will. wouldn't be surprising if they did. >> i think the person to me lift would be chomping at the bit to submit a petition. >> it's right across the street from us but i never know -- the cafeteria is not very good. wouldn't recommend it. >> so what are the chances that the supremes would take this? >> i'll just start talking and someone can interrupt me to say

something more interesting. the simple answer is, always will. it's always a crap shoot to get a case before the supreme court. that said, this is one of i think four cases that are currently percolating up through the circuit courts of appeals that get to some really interesting questions about deference and in particular how thoroughly courts nod to review agency decisionmaking before granting deference, and i personally think this is the most compelling of the cases and there's a lot of talk the court is interesting in clarifying some issues. i think there's a much better chance than ordinary that this case will be of interest to the justices and it's of interest to the justices -- >> if you were in vegas, what are your odds. >> i don't go to vegas. def con is going on in defense. >> there's disagreement about the odds as well.

>> okay. >> take what i'm about to say as grain of salt. i'm against grant can -- the supreme court doesn't take cases because their interesting. it takes three-quarters of the case inside order to resolve circuit conflicts of the meaning of law. could be a statute or administrative law. have not seen any circuit conflict of any relevance. that the petitioners have an incentive -- it's also a reason to grant rehearing and didn't. bit supreme court decides cases because they're important inch those contexts, what the petitionerred ins to do, that it is important and wrongly decided but that will be a tough row to hoe. there's'm -- this is a terrible case for the court to take up for those who want to change the

law because this is at the core of what the justices, including justice thomas, who the petitioners would have to count on being on their side -- think chevron deference ought to apply which is a technical area. we have not talked about the case brand x where the supreme court has heard this issue before -- >> a while ago. >> they already herd the issue and said in an opinion written by justice thomas, the statue is alibiing guisse and we'll -- ambiguous and we'll defer to the agency. nip wants to change chevron will have more success in a case where the debates not technical. it's doing what a court could do. >> if you're a betting man? >> look, the ordinary odds for petition in the supreme court, setting aside the pro se

defendants is five percent. >> i'd say 15%. to push back at bit. when i said this case presents issues that i think justices will find interesting, i mean they'll find it to present compelling and important issues, particularly relating to questions -- three points i want to make. first, i believe that both the fcc and the d.c. circuits' interpretation of the -- of brand x was wrong, and i believe the three justices currently on the court are likely to say, no, that not what we meant. what are you thinking? and the will view this as an opportunity to correct the understanding. there is also a series of cases over the last roughly decade dealing with how do agencies review agency -- how do courts review agency action when the

agency is changing its prior policy. and there's some really cool empirical evidence that shows if courts grant -- i should give a shoutout to the author of the work, chris walker, professor at ohio state university -- >> everybody is going to rush to google that. >> this work shows that in cases where an agency is changing its prior policy, if courts grant deference they're more likely than not to affirm the agency's holding. if they do not grant deference they're more likely than not to find the agency's decision problematic. this is an incredible discontinuity, and that could be fascinating to the court. >> to take us out of the weeds and get back to the question about likelihood, it's important for those in room and those watching to remember that the threshold -- two thresholds have to be met here. you have to convince the d.c.

circuit to rehear, but if you're talking about the supreme court, you have to convince the supreme court to hear your case, which is a very rare occurrence -- >> 15%? kevin thinks five%. what about you. >> i won't quibble over percentages but much, much less likely -- unlikely, highly unlikely that it gets heard. if it gets heard, it still has to be decided favorably for the petitioners in order for my other penallists to the left of me to get the outcome they want. so, -- >> the other question. timing-wise, when would be expect the court, if they were going to take it to take it? would it happen, like, this year? >> 2024. >> remember, there's two courts we're talking about elm third thing is the d.c. circuit rehearing, and that could take a year. if there are dissents being

written. if i have to pick a percentage number, think the odds are 100% we get dissents. if the decision is not to rehear the case, 100% we get at least one strong dissent, if not several, further elaborating on our concerns -- >> one thing i'm thinking right now we have a supreme court with eight justices. it's unlikely if the case got to the supreme court, that we would have nine justices by then hopefully. >> well, depends how long this drag us out. if i'm right -- let's say everybody on the panel agrees that rehearing just in general is unlikely, and maybe the rehearing doesn't happen because these are the kinds of issues that at a level of complexity where the court might say, these are things the supreme court needs to resolve. so for whatever reason, let's say the detectives circuit denies rehearing but dissents are written. the whole thing may not be

resolved until into the next administration ask could be by the time the issue goes up to the supreme court -- because 45 days beyond when the d.c. circuit anoise they'll grant rehearing. if they a no we have 45 days to file our petition at the supreme court. >> 90 total. >> already been 45, so i -- >> starts again. >> i'm not an appellate lawyer. that why they pay kevin the big bucks. so another 90 days from then. so it's three months. and then the supreme court doesn't have a particular shot clock. i don't know what happens. seems like a black box to me. the point is you can very well see a ninth justice put on the court by this time. if someone is elected who wants to make the fcc great again, the whole thing could be mooted because the fcc might give up or not. who know is. hard to predict. the point is that this is

actually likely to take a long time to be resolved, and when it does get up to the court, think we'll have dissents that will make this seem like a much more important case than it normally would. so the odds are higher than 15%. don't know where to put them. >> okay. let's just assume that maybe it doesn't get to the supreme court. what are -- what happens then? we have a presidential election coming up. we've got congress, before people were saying they were going to do something. do we -- is this issue is over, i lose my job and have to find a different issue to be an expert on? i don't want to have to do that -- just kidding. >> if you can judge by the language in the republican party platform, they use the phrase

"common carrier" and that suggests to me a republican president would likely unman tell -- dismantle the common carrier regime. so white ail -- while it's true so long as we stay with democratic presidents and don't get this reheard by the supreme court -- that's different from lasting protection. it's going to be vulnerable. these net true central protection -- neutrality protections are vulnerable. so i hope we'll get a chance to talk about the prospect of giving the fcc, and proponents of the net neutrality, lasting protection through legislative compromise. >> i don't see the fcc as so quick to reverse itself on something that took a decade to finally land on -- >> re verse themselves in one month when president obama intervened. >> that's not true. >> it is true. read the -- look at chairman wheeler's comments.

they said they were going one way and then reversed in a month. >> my point being, unrelated to any -- i don't know if thesing accusations of bad intent on the fcc -- >> yes -- this has been an issue that has been carefully considered and it rated upon for over a decade, and the fcc has -- to revert itself would have to do at least as much -- just even if it were inclined to do so, would have to do at least as much as it did to get to us this point -- what i want to reiterate for the audience, what we thought would play out over the course of 2013, 2014, 2015, was actually an important political process that worked. congress writes a statute. the agency interprets the statute. sometimes the decisioners are overturned by a court and

sometimes they're upheld. here we have seen a long proceeding with multiple parties engaged in very important back and forth debates, and a commission that hearing all of that input, and very -- under careful consideration of all of the things in front of it, issued a comprehensive order which was carefully tailored to the issue at hand and the d.c. circuit upheld that. we're at a point that this is -- with the exception of any of these narrow, extraordinary paths forwards we have debated, this is settled law and i think that -- >> sarah, would you say that -- let's say nobody takes this case democrats say, we won. that's it. we're done. >> -- in favor of net neutrality. >> right. do you think -- you're right. there are problem some

republicans who support net neutrality. >> four american americans i assume some of them are republicans. >> right. but in congress, do you think that democrats in congress would not be open to -- because my thinking is that because the republicans in congress might want to take the issue up. seems like they have a lot of other issues. >> i think there are lot of important debates happening at the congressional level, and i think that this one has played out and we have seen where we have landed, and i think the time now is to move forward and to accept the rules as the law of the land. >> you think the rules would just be accepted. you don't think we could see -- >> i don't -- >> i want to say i really, really hope that sarah is right, and the reason that i'm concerned about this entire issue is because i believe she is wrong. under the approach to reviewing agency changes of policy that the fcc has put forward and the

d.c. circuit has impraised a new fcc could easily reverse course, and i think we cannot have policy continuing to pick penguin dub ping-pong back and fort and the courts have to hold agencies to a higher standard and i believe that's what the supreme court wants and i believe that's an important reason that there's this likely to get to the supreme court, because the approaches of the d.c. circuit has taken allows agencies to change policy preferences. >> likelihood to jump above 50%? >> this is my -- when i say very likely i'm talking compared to the five percent baseline. so i'm at 300% of the baseline. >> okay. >> i want to just jump in here because this is really, really important. so, again, you may think that net neutrality is great or may not care you should be concerned