make smart choices about striving to or using a broadband network or how to develop to the next generation. sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of issues that even come to the fcc. second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful internet traffic, to go where they want and say where they want online, and to use the devices of their choice. the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content after the injection of nine harmful devices to the network -- connection of non- harmful devices to the network. no company, public or private, should have a right to determine who is allowed on the internet. the proposal put a bar on unreasonable discrimination in allowing traffic on the

internet. >> our guest is republican from tennessee and a member of the house communications subcommittee. what is your reaction to this announcement on regulating the internet? >> what we are seeing come from the fcc chairman is a hysterical reaction to a hypothetical problem. we know the fcc is not going to be stopped by common sense, by the judicial system, by the public, or by the debate that was a voted on on november 2nd. "we have to look at is the process by which the -- what we have to look at is the process by which the fcc went about making this decision. we have had years of bipartisan talks about what congress was going to do and how we were going to approach the internet. we have a new congress taking over so the fcc has decided to

jam this is shortsighted policy down the throats of the american people and to bypass congress in the process. you know, i think we have to look at the fact that you have had over 300 members of congress signed a letter to the fcc expressing concern over the sec power grab. when there was a net neutrality -- fcc power grab. when there was a net neutrality bill, a fairness doctrine for the bill only had 27 co-sponsors. but you had 300 members, on a bipartisan basis, letters opposing the fcc is interfering with the internet. what we are going to have to do is stop big government power

grabs. this is just another one we are seeing the obama administration tried to carry out. >> what can congress do? >> what we are going to see happen is this. if the fcc does move forward in this rulemaking authority on the december 21st, then come january, you are going to see some aggressive worke on making certain that the fcc keeps its hands off the internet. legislation h.r.-2934 is a bill i had to prohibit fcc interference with net neutrality negotiations. this is something that should happen in congress, not at the fcc. we are going to see the fcc come back, i think, even as we look at hearings and we look at the

way the fcc is trying to approach this, we are going to see that what the fcc is doing by putting this stranglehold is putting all of our innovators from banging does next generation technologies to the internet -- from bringing those next generation technologies to dthe internet. look at what are now court services on the internet -- core services on the internet. voip, skype, tele-medical, and the next generations of those services. we want to make sure users can move onto the internet with predictability, with a certain amount of certainty, and innovators are going to get

caught up with the fcc. we may be capping the innovation that has taken place on the internet. >> some people have offered their tepid support, including cable operators and the open internet coalition which represents ebay. >> i think you have hit the key word there, which is tepid support. they want to keep the internet under title i, and as you know, there has been a big debate as to whether to leave the internet in title i or move it to title ii. no one wants to leave under title i, so they said we need some short-term certainty on this. you're going to leave wireless

unabated. you are going to allow some things in pricing. we are going to go along wicketh it, but there are several concerns that they have. one is the legality. that is what i meant about the fcc's authority to impose management. because of their action, we are going to face more expensive and protracted legal challenges that will detract from the real work that could be done with the internet and also from the work that the fcc ought to do, and i have got to tell you. when you look at what is needed, i think commissioner mcdowell from the fcc had it about right. he made a statement that pushing

us small group of industry players toward a choice between a bad option or a worse option, which is regulating it like a monopoly telephone company, is more coercion then consensus or compromise. i think that is why you see tepid support. you can go back and look at the legality issue. you can look at the visibility issue that the industry is saying, well, we are going to need a little bit of help there. on the open access issue, i think net neutrality sounds simple. it sounds like you force the telephone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way, but we know that modern networks and broadband are incredibly complex. there are millions of lines of

code in every route. it is constantly evolving and if we want to see innovation continued to take place in at the next generation, we need to turn to the fcc and say you need to back away. doing a veryre good job managing these networks and making certain that there is open access on these networks. fcc, you need to get out of the way. that is why when listening to the chairman -- it is a hypothetical problem. no one has said the internet is broken. no one has said it does not work. no one has said it does not need -- no one has said it needs

government interference. much of what is taking place is because of what has happened in our internet interactive technology. look at the spectrum hearings and the work that was done there. spectrum is now something we look at as a commodity that provides a platform for this innovation to take place. what you see happening is the fcc is beginning to say, you all came in, you get, you bought spectrum, you launched broadband, that has been successful. you have launched a lot of the voice, video and data technologies, and we have seen conversions of this. we have seen the cost of access come down. you are doing a great job on that, so much so that we want to step in and regulate it so that we can tax it so that we can

take our share. we know that when that happens you begin to see the government come in and say you, private industry, you have built networks where private investment is going to step up and then government is going to step in. you are going to have a government owned and operated internet. we do not need the fcc to do this. it is a hypothetical problem. they need to step out of the way. they need to get back to tending to the business they should be attending to. >> marsha blackburn joined us via telephone from tennessee. thank you representatives of

blackburn. the executive director of the open internet coalition is with us. he represents companies such as a google, ebay and netflix. you issued a press release in support of this proposal. was there to use the word tepid? >> we think it is a very strong proposal. it is a good first step. it is a critical step to ensure that the internet remains a platform for innovation, free speech, the continued development of the most revolutionary communication platforms ever invented. we have three weeks now where the commissioners will work among themselves to fine tune this. we want to support the commissioners as a fine tune this. it certainly needs a little bit of further work, but this is a very good first step to ensure that the internet does not turn

into something that looks more like cable television, but remains a platform where users, consumers determine where we are going to go and what applications we want to use. >> you called it a first step. what would you like to see as the second and third step? >> the next step is the commission meeting on december 21st. in the meantime, we will work to review the proposal and to fine tune it, make incremental changes to improve upon the very good proposal. >> you heard marcia blackburn say that the i s p's are doing a very good job. do you agree? >> i think they are doing a good job. what i think is a shame is that this sometimes gets into washington rhetoric.

the federal communications commission is an independent agency immune from policy. that is what they were designed to do. they have spent numerous years now receiving comments, expert testimony, economic reports, and other reports from as many stakeholders as there are aspects of the ecosystem. innovators and say this is a good proposal as well. over the next few weeks it will be tweaked to get to, i think, the place it needs to be. the internet will be not overly regulated but protected to ensure that the rules of the road allow users to use the internet the way it was designed to be used. i think it is a rational way

forward. >> does it go away from net neutrality? >> i do not think it does. it ensures that we do not see unreasonable discrimination against a certain application or certain content. it is incorrect to say there has never been a problem. one thing that fueled this debate was when a major site was blocking the distribution of the king james bible. people felt that was wrong. this is essentially saying, isp's decide how to run their businesses, how to charge people. should there be a difference in what you charge and a

grandmother who only uses the internet for e-mail and a person who uses it for 24-hour online gaming experiences? we are fine with that. >> the leading republican on the fcc had this to say about the proposal. >> he is a smart commissioner and a good lawyer, but he knows better than that. there are rules similar to these for most of the commercial internet sites that exist. this is a light touch proposal. as a lot of important industry actors. again, it needs to be improved. it needs to be tweaked. everybody thinks that is an

important but that we are going to get there. >> public is benefit the google or ebay? >> -- how would this benefit google or ebay? >> if people want to go to ebay, they should be able to go to ebay. if they want to go to being -- they should be able to go to bing. that is what is different about the internet and cable. the cable providers decide what channels to provide you. the internet is different. we want to preserve that openness allows consumers and users to make a choice of where they want to go. >> yard congresswomen blackburn say that the new republican house will be -- you heard congresswoman blackburn say that the new republican house will be

taking up this issue. what is your strategy if it goes to congress? >> i think congress will look at the proposed rule. they should look at that. they have the duty to overse the fcc. to the extent that they want to revamp the loss, take a look at the rules and suggest amendments, they are elected representatives and we will work with them on that. >> will the next few weeks of your life be spent at the fcc? >> we will not be there, it but we will be engaging with commissioners. >> here is a little bit more from the commissioner earlier this week on regulating the internet. >> to this end, broadbent providers been meaningful flexibility -- broadband providers need meaningful flexibility to address the

effects of digestion. this is an important part of the proposal, recognizing that what is reasonable will take into account network technology and architecture. our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote investment and efficient use, including measures to match price, and usage based pricing. >> now joining us is a representative of the american cable association. in fact, he is the president and ceo. how strong is the support from the american cable association for what the chairman is proposing? >> we are quite in support of his proposal. i think the chairman has done a great job this week of balancing

consumer-centric interests with the interest of industry. we are very supportive of his efforts. >> in the past, your group and other cable operators have been pretty much against net neutrality principles. what makes you support this proposal? >> i think it is a balance that has been struck. our concern at the american cable association has always been the disproportionate impact of regulations on smaller businesses. our association members -- we have thousands that are smaller, independent businesses rather than large businesses, and regulation is much more disproportionate on their businesses. we were concerned that the debate was moving toward title ii reclassification. that would have a chilling effect on further broadbent deployment. this resolution, which is much

more limited, focuses on the need for openness and nondiscrimination, while at the same time allowing things like usage based billing. >> the chairman spoke about flexibility. what does that mean to you? >> won, it recognizes that for broadband to be further deployed across the country, markets have to work to allow businesses to seek financial investment from the financial community to help further deploy broadband. secondly, what that means is that it recognizes the fact that -- we have to recognize the fact that not all broadbent usage is the same. some people use it for e-mail. some people use it to download movies and for heavy gaming. pricing packages should be

permissible to address each one of those various usages. previous generations of regulation did not take into account specifically those differences, and the solution, this compromise does recognize that. >> so would you see your company moving into the frontiers of pricing right away? >> i am not sure i would say it right away, but there is a good reason for it. if you have one price for all broadband access, that prevents some of our lower in come up customers from accessing broadband. i liked what the chairman said the other day in his speech where he said basically, it is hard to imagine life today without the internet any more than we could imagine life without running water or electricity. this will give us a chance, our

members a chance to provide lower packages of services that could actually make broadband deployed to customers today that do not take it. we think that is a very positive development. >> why do you think the time warner experiment in usage based pricing failed? timingust may have been and the newness of the concept. but as this debate in the net neutrality and how to best craft a solution has proceeded, in terms of balancing consumer interest with the interest of business for the further deployment of broadbent, usage based billing is something that i think was -- a broad band -- of broadband, usage based

billing is something that i think was going to have to be considered. it has been determined that this is actually a good result as part of the compromise. >> we spoke with congresswoman marsha blackburn a little earlier in the program. she is a member of the house communications subcommittee. she talked about a dearth of support for net neutrality practices in congress, especially with republicans. do you have a strategy for working with the congress on this issue? >> we certainly will be more than happy, and we will be spending a significant amount of time to help them understand our position as small businesses. as we look at the issue regarding net neutrality, the one thing we were concerned about the most was the imposition of very heavy handed regulations under title ii which, for small businesses,

would have been a very serious blow to our ability to provide broadband services in smaller market areas. we have looked at this proceeding at the fcc, the motive in cory, as well as the discussion that has taken place as a positive -- the mode of inquiry, as well as the discussion has taken place as a positive development. it works for the benefit of consumers. it makes great sense to reach this compromise which takes title ii regulation off the table while at the same time ensuring openness for consumers, which was not a problem for our members in terms of nondiscrimination and things of that nature. we see it as a positive development and compromise. >> could does the american cable association represent? >> -- who does the american cable association represent? >> we have 1000 different companies.

our largest member has about a million and a half members, subscribers. our smallest members have less than 1000. frankly, 800 of our members have less than 5000 subscribers. we represent truly small, independent companies that are providing broadband in small, rural areas all across the country. >> thank you. we are now joined by matthew this is the director of the media access project. -- the associated director of the media access project. could you tell us your reaction to this proposal? >> we are a nonprofit outside of washington that would like to have a voice at the fcc. we have allies here in washington and across the country. it is nice to see a debate on

this issue, because it does affect everyday americans and the openness they have come to expect on the internet. this is a good first step. my organization thinks there are more than a few tweaks needed to make it strong enough, but we do believe it is a good person to step to approaching something like the conclusion we have come to expect that we need going forward for freedom of expression and innovation online. >> at first, you said you were very disappointed. >> obviously, no one has seen the actual text of the proposal. we thought the legislative framework was a concern and that it might have needed more than just a few tweaks to make it stronger. we were concerned about having

less of a protection for wireless internet users. it is really about discrimination. it is a concern for people's wallets and pocketbooks. we're concerned about telephone operators or cable companies picking and choosing among the content you can receive and pricing accordingly. if you want to go to facebook, it will cost you more. if you want to go to netflix, it will cost you more. we are concerned about content discrimination. >> is your group concerned about a meter usage? >> is more about transparency. if it is a fair pricing model and based on charges the customer can understand, if you are paying for the speed you're getting and getting the speed you have been promised, we're fine with that. some of that is difficult to determine.

>> a democratic commissioner on the fcc had this to say about the proposal. over the next three weeks, i will work tirelessly with stakeholders -- including, of course, consumers and internet innovators -- seeking to ensure real network neutrality that protect the online freedom of all americans. >> we would agree. this has been laid out for us interest -- in drips and drabs, but so far it does not appear to be quite strong enough. there are perhaps too many loopholes to make this a real protection for the openness that americans deserve online. >> what is the difference between the wireless and wired?

>> the wireless protections proposed not quite as strong. there is an nondiscrimination requirement, so wireless providers could potentially pick and choose and say that they like bing better than google. therefore, if you get bing on your wireless device, it will be faster, and potentially cheaper. they could block an application with which they do not compete. things do not fit into any bucket in which those carriers are already providing service. congress can provide oversight hearings, but we would say that rattling the saber and saying the fcc cannot do