that we renew our resolve and redouble our efforts for prevention. one of our biggest challenges is the misperception that the epidemic has already been solved when nothing is further from the truth. we cannot somehow assume the battle has been won when our toughest challenges lay ahead. it is time to commit to ending once andco epidemic for all, and it should not take another 50 years. [applause] we have at our fingertips many tools to solve the epidemic. we know what works. in 2010 the u.s. department of

health and human services released its first land for tobacco control. this plan provides a framework to rejuvenate efforts to end the epidemic. now today's surgeon general's report underscores the essential commitment initially outlined in that plan, and include high impact pass media campaigns and increased efforts to prevent kids from being embargoed by images of smoking in the movies, fully funded, comprehensive's statewide tobacco control programs at cdc recommended levels, higher prices on cigarettes and other tobacco products that will drive down consumption, complete protection of the entire population, not just half the population, to a indoor policies.

effective implementation of fda tobacco product regulation authorities, full access to sufficient counseling and fda- approved medications were smokers, and this list is just a start. most important of all, we need committed leadership through every sector of society, leadership that will reject the andus quote as acceptable move our nation to a healthier future. it is time to reclaim the social norm as one that is tobacco free and bring health, not disease, to future generations. because we will be successful, if everyone commits to ending the suffering and making this epidemic a thing of the past. , with a renewed sense of urgency, starting today, that we can someday toegate the tobacco epidemic

the history books, just as we have done with smallpox. let's commit to ending this andemic once and for all give our kids a fighting chance for a healthy future. thank you very, very much. [applause] now it is my great pleasure to introduce my colleague, the acting surgeon general of the health service, dr. boris vishniak. >> good morning to everyone. being a young person in the chicago i had of no idea about that report 50 years ago. , i station in cincinnati

remember the pride of being a p's troops, as we recognize 25 years to reduce consequences of smoking. i would never have imagined then that i would be here now, as acting surgeon general and a career officer in the u.s. public health service where we live by the mission of advancing the health and safety of our nation. i am proud and humbled to be here. to release the 32nd surgeon smokings's report on and health. 50 years after the first ground raking report was released. today marks the new era in the --hting against tobacco related deaths and disease. under the room finalized -- the revitalized mantra that k enough, weough is toedicate ourselves

rededicated correction, a smoke- free generation in the generation. the 50th anniversary of the report is the result of over five years of hard work by 85 intruding authors and 120 expert reviewers. i would like to ask the report's editors to stand to be acknowledged for their outstanding contributions. that is dr. jonathan -- -- terry and leslie norman. also i would like to recognize ,y surgeon general colleagues

the 16th surgeon general, my colleague from the navy, two former acting surgeon general's of the u.s. public health service. in addition i would like to abolish the mini flag and general officers of our sister services and greetings to all those who serve our nation in uniform. in the first surgeon general's report on smoking and health came out in 1964, two people understood or anticipated the enormity of the effect it would have on the nation's health. on january 11, 1960 four, the ninth surgeon general issued a message which was really simple, but so definitive. it was unequivocal and unapologetic. what it said was cigarette smoking is a health hazard of

sufficient importance in the united states to warrant appropriate remedial action. on a path.t us off it set us off on a battle. since then, our knowledge of the health consequences of smoking and involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke has expanded medically. the conclusion from that report has evolved from few cultural relationships in 1964 to a evidencedy of documenting health consequences of exposure to secondhand smoking and active smoking across a range. over time with the number and strength of our conclusions on the impact of smoking have increased. this morning, i summarized for you the 10 major conclusions from the anniversary report entitled the health consequences of smoking, 50 years of

progress. one, since the first surgeon general's report in 1964, over 20 million premature deaths can be attributed to cigarette smoking. today the annual death toll from smoking is approaching 500,000 per year. enough is enough. the tobacco epidemic was initiated and has been sustained by the aggressive strategies of the tobacco industry, which deliberately misled the public under risks of smoking cigarettes. in the u.s. alone, the vacuum -- abacco companies spent nearly million dollars an hour 24/7 to market their products. enough is enough. report, secret64 smoking has been determined to cause diseases in nearly all organs of the body, and to harm a gripping fetus. the findings have revealed in

stark parity that, diseases such rheumatoid, arthritis are also caused by smoking. enough is enough. four, exposure to secondhand causes cancer, respiratory, and cardiovascular diseases and adversely affects the health of infants and children. enough is enough. fivfe, the disease risk of smoking arisen have risen sharply over the last 50 years, and women are as likely now to die from smoking as men. enough is enough. six, cigarette smoking reduces the body toss ability to fight infection and disease. enough is enough. seven, although cigarette smoking has declined significantly since 1964, very large disparities in tobacco use remains across groups find by race at, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status.

enough is enough. eight, comprehensive tobacco control programs and policies are effective. we need to use them across the nation if we are fully to benefit from their success. further gains can be made with the full force and sustained use of these measures. we must fund these programs at cdc-recommended levels. nine, the burden of death and disease from tobacco use is overwhelmingly caused by cigarettes and other combusted tobacco tax. rapid elimination of their use will dramatically reduce the burden. enough is enough. and, 10, the final 1 -- for 50 years, a half-century, the surgeon general's report on smoking and health has provided a critical scientific foundation for public health action, directed at reducing tobacco use and preventing tobacco-related disease and premature death. we pray that the 75th

anniversary report will have many zeros. 100 anniversary will be marked by grainy pictures from the past. enough is enough. [applause] i would like to spend a few minutes going to these newly identified health consulates as of smoking found it is astonishing so many years later we are still making these new findings. today we know that smoking is a cause of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and poor response to treatment of arthritis. lectal dysfunction, -- erictiv dysfunction, increase -- we are adding these cancers to a long list of cancers. stroke is of no consequence of secondhand smoke for you. one of the most disturbing findings is the risk by women

have risen sharply over the last 50 years. women are as likely to die from smoking as men. women smokers'risk of lung cancer is the same as men. more women die from chronic lung disease than men. the news from others -- from mothers and babies is smoking. smoking can reduce fertility. for the children of women, who smoke during pregnancy, smoking may becleft pallets, attributed behavioral disorders and smoking has can have lasting adverse consequences for brain development. other diseases caused by smoking include macular generation, a cause of blindness. smoking is now known to cause 13 different cancers. in 1964, we could only be sure about one cancer, lung cancer in men. today we no smokers have a greater risk of developing lung cancer than did smokers in 1964,

even though they smoke fewer cigarettes. changes in how cigarettes are made and the chemicals they contain have increased the risk of the most common form of lung cancer. and survivorss who smoke have a higher risk of dying from cancer and other diseases, including breast and prostate cancer, and patients who do not smoke. we are examining why this is the case, but the evidence suggests smoking results in poor response to treatment, increase risk of recurrence, and increased related of texas cities. of reduced best in need action is further emphasized by an fan -- findings by the economic burden. the annual cost of the nation is approaching $300 billion each year. these costs, plus smoking a treatable disease and death, will continue for decades unless prevalence of smoking is reduced or rapidly than the current

status quo projections. -- ofrden of productive tobacco is not shared equally. especially the midwest and south , our sexual orientation, these actors determine -- these factors determine whether we are harder hit i tobacco. the root cause is the tobacco industry's marketing of deadly and addictive products. the last century taught us public health leadership is he censuring the best is essential. we need to achieve more rapid the 45s in helping million plus smokers in this country, including 3 million of youth who smoke, too quick. for the smokers, the clock is ticking. they cannot wait for slow and steady progress to and the tobacco use epidemic. that is why we must resolve and undertake the strategies that the doctor discussed, and potentially introduce new strategies to more quickly and

combustible tobacco use. we cannot wait another 50 years. i summarize here are some of the key findings in today's report. it is a good read, although i 980 to acknowledge that at pages, the report is really geared to a scientific audience. but it is absolutely critical that all americans understand the report's findings. and the recommendations. if we are going to work to ofher achieve a society free tobacco-related disease, this must he understood. 10 today you will find in your packet and executive summary of a readable executive summary, of this report. i encourage you to read this, but if you do not have the time, read the truncated version. a consumer guide that translates the findings into plain english. the guide is also now available as of midnight last night on our website, surgeongeneral.gov.

the 50th anniversary should shrink it a result and the tobacco epidemic once and for all. we're also launching the public service announcement to remind us that the status quo is very unacceptable. i would like to play for you now -- [video clip] >> in the past 50 years we have made a lot of progress in smoking prevention. but if we do not do more, one out of every 13 children alive today will die early from smoking. million precious lives we can save. together, we can make the next generation tobacco free. [applause] >> it is all about prevention.

it is all about activism. it is all about having a head. it is all about getting more been.sive than we have as chair of the national prevention council, i am proud of the federal government's leadership to address tobacco use, the most common cause of preventable disease and death in the country. the national prevention council brings together but he agencies to provide leadership and coordination related to health prevention and wellness, and members of made a commitment to promoting cessation and expanding e-free in front. i would like to thank the many council members and advisory committee members who are attending today in person or on the webcast. earlier,entioned secretary sebelius, we have the pleasure to have dr. luther terry's family with us today. earlier i had the pleasure to present a member of his family who are with us today with the version -- with the surgeon

general's modality. in recognition of the night surgeon general, dr. luther terry, a pioneer in the 50-year battle against tobacco, 1964 to 2014. many people have played critical roles in this 50th anniversary surgeon general's report. i would like to thank that and my own staff and the office of the surgeon general for your commitment to the surgeon general. a shout out to a person who for several years as carried this -- has carried this torch for calls to action, in our own journal. she will soon be leaving office of the surgeon general and taking on new adventures. with admiration and gratitude to dr. luther terry and many other individuals who started us on this path of progress. today we call upon all americans

to continue to work to advance the bold and noble cause. as americans, we know we can achieve great things when we dedicate ourselves to a mission. assigned aar, we task to the nest ginger grated -- generation, represented here by ryan, stand up, right, by and by larissa, stephanie. and i ask this next generation to make a pledge, to make a pledge to be partners in making your generation tobacco free. you have been told goforth and prosper. [laughter] the mission to achieve -- you may be seated-- the mission to achieve a tobacco free society, to be able to force in the 21st century is

achievable. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness remained elusive. enough is enough. thank you. [applause] >> i would like to turn the mike over to a great friend, a fellow public health leader, a mentor of mine, a fellow alum, the head of the centers of disease control and prevention. [applause] >> it is a little humbling to give a talk after someone has just said enough is enough. [applause] but it is particularly humbling to get such a talk with some of the people in the world will work so hard, so creatively, in

such a dedicated way to stop the epidemic of suffering, disease, disability, and death caused by tobacco. i want to really thank all of you for the wonderful work you have done or so many years. we are all standing on the shoulders of luther terry and the people who worked on that report, and the people who have been working in tobacco control for decades, and we know that there have been tremendous projects -- progress. we also know there has been -- there have been far too many lives lost. i will say that the first big finding of this report is that we know that, amazingly, amazingly, 50 years in, we are still finding out new ways that tobacco names and kills people. it is not only figurative that this is larger than this, but we so much more about how tobacco is killing people. 20 million people killed, including 2.5 million people killed by secondhand smoke and

100,000 babies killed by exposure to tobacco smoke. i think the first big conclusion is that tobacco is worse than we knew it was. the second is that tobacco control works, when we implement programs that work, which many of you have been essential in trying, finding, and implementing, we can save millions of lives, at least 8 million lives saved in this country in this perid, and more to come. we know that about 1/3 of all the increase in life expectancy in this country was from cessation of tobacco use. out of theyears afteo 6.6 years as gained as a whole, lifespan/3 of increase, from this program of tobacco control. we also know that we are not doing nearly all that we should

and could do to help smokers quit and to prevent kids from starting and to protect people from secondhand smoke. as a physician, i can tell you that the most difficult thing we do is to tell someone that they have a terrible disease that may kill them, make them sick, cause pain and disability and disfigurement, and that it could have been prevented. so many patients will say to us as they have said to me i just wish i had known. i was -- i wish i had not smoked. part of what we are trying to do is collapse that time arise and so that we do not have that regret, so that we do not lose those cherished members of our community. but we also know as physician is how hard it is to quit smoking. we know how addictive tobacco is an and approve it -- and the

previous surgeon general's report documented that in great detail. most americans who have ever smoked have already quit. we know most americans who smoke today want to quit. we know most americans who smoke today try to quit each year. and we also know that in communities around the country where effective policies are in place, not only do they were, but they work astonishingly well , so that the rate of smoking in someds, for example, of the cities in the u.s., is less than half of the national average, down in the single digits, around 8%. we can stop this tragedy. for many years, cdc has had recommendations for what should be spent. you heard a lot of figures here. i want to give four at this point. the first is that the states and localities around the country

year in$80 billion a master settlement agreement and tobacco taxes. the tobacco is industry -- to tobacco industry spends $28 billion a year in marketing and production. we recommend at cdc the states spend at least -- i am sorry -- i have said those numbers wrong -- [laughter] sorry. let me get back. the tobacco industry spends 9 billion dollars a year. that comes to $80 per person per year. sorry, i'm getting it wrong again. let me start that again. for numbers. i will start it is right. the first is the amount that is collected in tobacco taxes, and that comes down to $80 per person per year around the country. fromer person per year both master summit agreement and tobacco tax is going to state governments. the second number is the amount

that the tobacco industry spends on marketing's come a sponsorship, promoting, and that number is $28 per person per year, every man woman and child in this country. the third number is what we at cdc recommend they spent on tobacco control. that is $12 per person per year, not a lot to ask to adjust what is the leading preventable cause of death in this country, and it is costing our country close to 300 billion dollars year. but the fourth number is the saddest. is what states actually spent on onecco and it is less than dollar 50% per year. we are not implementing the things that work. we know it is a terrible public, even worse than we knew. we know programs to stop it were, but sadly we worry about doing it to the extent that we would like to. one bright spot has been the tips from swore were -- from former smokers campaign and the work publicizing and sharing stories of individuals who have come forward and said we want

others not to say i wish i had not done this. we want others to be protected by what we have gone through. i have had the privilege to meet several of these individuals, and i think particularly terry hall. terry started smoking as a teenager, as most smokers do. she spoke for a long time. andsmoking caused thrift oral cancer. she did not shy away from sharing her story. she wanted to make sure that as as many people were aware of what smoking have done to her as possible for. ads attracted more than 2 million youtube views. people came up to her, crying, saying you saved my life. story is known to millions, and i had the great privilege of getting to know terry and work with her on some of the media outreach and some of the filming, some of the community of each year. sadly, last september, we lost

terry. the world lost terry, and her family lost terry. she died at the age of 53 from smoking. actuallyed, she insisted that we come to her bedside and film one more set of ads, so that she could help even more people not be killed by tobacco. nathan individual, moose, was a victim of smoking, but he never smoked. he was one of those people killed by tobacco even though he never spent. he worked in a casino that allowed smoking, and secondhand hise permanently damaged lungs. unfortunately, he also died last year at the age of 54. both of these individuals are displayed in the tips from former smokers campaign. that campaign has saved tens of thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of millions of dollars

in health care costs. quitting can be hard, but i will end with one message for everyone who smokes. quitting is hard, but it is the single most importance thing you can do to improve your health. post americans who have never smoked have already quit. most people who smoke today want to quit. you can't quit. get help if you need it. -- you can quit. get help if you needed. together we can put the and to the epidemic of disfigurement and death caused by tobacco. taking all very much. [applause] >> i want to ask the doctor to join us on stage, and we have some time for questions. the formal part of our

presentations. we hope you walk away with some information, some numbers that you did not walk away saying enough is enough, i am out of here. [laughter] in this case, we have several people in the room with their microphones. if you would like to ask a question, raise your hand. we will make sure we get a microphone to you. identify yourselves, if you so desire. >> good morning. [indiscernible] report seems outstanding. i was reading through the summary. as of the last report, there was a wealth of evidence suggesting to the initiation

of tobacco use by young people. it was still shy of recommending something. when you talk about the and ability end game, icd -- i see the ability of tobacco rail regulation. is menthol included? >> we have -- thank you for raising the issue, which is key, and we have a thorough process being overseen by the fda now. their scientific committee looked at the evidence and the science. it was chaired by the doctor. the report was put together and released. the fda did their own report as well. then last summer they put out advanced notice of proposed rulemaking to invite public comment about potential options for regulations. those options are being carefully reviewed by the fda. we want to thank them for their thoroughness and doing it on a scientific basis, and we

expected her outcomes in the near future. -- we expect to hear some outcomes in the near future. >> good morning. american lung association. thank you for your leadership today. enough is enough. the american lung association is very thankful for the efforts under the affordable care act to increase access to tobacco cessation for smokers. we have heard and seen confusion from states and insurance providers about what exactly is a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefits. make anyadministration efforts to define this critical provision of the affordable care act so everyone knows what a comprehensive benefit is and what is required in order to apply -- to comply with the affordable care act and give those smokers that help they need to quit? we are proud of the aca for many reasons, but one is the

prevention and public health, and it is a major thing that applies not just to tobacco, but other things.y your point is a good one in that there is a broad opportunity for millions of people to get preventive services without adding cost on private plans. exactly how that is being translated state to state has different until now. we're in the very early phases of the health reform chapter of our history. this is the first full year of implementation. we are working closely with many colleagues like yourselves to define that further, to drill down on it and get people to prevention benefits they need and deserve. tank you. -- thank you. we will continue to work with you on that. >> i with the voice of america. it is -- if enough enough is enough and that fda has the power and the ability to regulate tobacco products, is there any thought to becoming

even more aggressive and banning tobacco products among which would end the tobacco epidemic? >> the issue -- the fact is fact. cigarettes cause addiction, cigarettes cause disease, cigarettes cause death. is auestion of banning bigger societal issue. i think the emphasis at this point is we need to have that discussion. we really do. until we do have that discussion, the reality of the situation is we need to use the tobacco control tools that we currently have available, once already cited, and ramp-up, because if we are shooting for that tobacco-free generation, it attainable using tools we have. i think we need to have that discussion, without a doubt. >> we have time for one last question. american academy of peter ask. -- of pediatrics.

thank you for this excellent report and this new commitment. i think we are also extremely concerned about the marketing and addiction of youth, and are dedicated to eliminating tobacco secondhand smoke and nicotine addiction from all of our children, youth, and protecting non-smokers. and we are very concerned, and i think you have evidence in this .eport on the marketing very concerned that too many of our advocates against tobacco are entertaining to debate about what harm reduction could or could not do and whether evidence is needed to demonstrate whether you tobacco products are in fact reduced we havenot, when until regulated them adequately from a marketing perspective and a nicotine-addiction perspective, we are losing the next generation and we are losing the

public opportunity to act. and so i hope that all of us will recognize that unless we have regulated and controlled the marketing to young people that is going on among flavored products and new nicotine- delivery devices, that we ought not to be leading that discussion with whether they have a role in public health or not. [applause] i take that as a comment, not so much as a question. is there any feedback from the group here? [indiscernible] ok, great. den is eagerlyn grabbing for the microphone. >> i do think that one of the things that is so horrifying 5.6t this report is that million kids alive today will be

killed by tobacco unless we take urgent action. and the report rates that down by state. you can see state-by-state how many deaths there will be unless we act now. do two we need to things. the first thing is to fully implement the things that we know work. arized that.er there are clear things we know will make dramatic differences, and already in many cities and communities they have made differences that have made dramatic differences. we also need to think about what the future may hold. if we are talking about backup have asked, i will say they are guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. we need to know that they will not be harm to children. we need to know they were not keep people smoking rather than help them to quit. all these new products a have a positive role if appropriately

regulated, but not in the way they are being sold now with widespread marketing, over the internet with bubble gum and cotton candy flavors, with free samples, with nearly 2 million american kids having used these cigarettes. we clearly need to support the fda, and they are going to face and out of legal challenges -- legalndoubtedly challenges, as they always do. they will need to find a balance of regulation that is effective and regulation that will stand up in court, and at the same time we always have to be innovative. we always have to be willing to try new things. if people in this room have not tried new things, we would not know that smoke-free air acts are effective, how reduced tax kids.affect rates in essentialion is an

thing for us to continue as we implement our current strategies and as we find new ones to prevent those 5.6 million deaths. >> great. our time span for formal questions. several of us will be circulating amongst the audience, so if you follow up questions, or anything you want us to clarify, but i thank you first and foremost were being at this historic event. [applause] 50thp telling that the anniversary only happens every 50 years. so thank you so much. >> starting at 8:00, remarks from resident obama on proposed changes to government surveillance programs. on c-span two, it is state of the state addresses from colorado, ohio, or month, and indiana.

3, the recent surgeon general possible on smoking and health. securityow, national author james b amford. we will also take your phone calls, e-mails, and tweets on the issue. live atton journal" is 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. today, john kerry held a joint news conference with his canadian and mexican counterparts on the 20th anniversary of nafta. he discussed the situation in syria. here is more now. yesterday i addressed directly the revisionism of the syrian regime in its effort to try to diverge the purpose,

which will not be successful. are going30 nations to assemble, all of whom thus far -- and if there are more -- will be and must be condemned -- committed to the geneva i communique. yesterday foreign minister lough avrov said the purpose of theconference is fermentation of the geneva i communique. no one would have believed that assad would have given up his chemical weapons, but he did, but his reason was that his patrons came to understand that he had to. i believe as we begin to get into geneva and this process that it will become clear that there is no lyrical solution assad is not discussing a transition and if

he thinks he's going to be part of that future. it is not going to happen. the people who are the opponents of this regime will never ever stop. there will be a low-grade insurgency at least and worst potentially than a civil war if it continues, because they will not stop. we are not out of options with respect to what we can do to further change the calculation, and we have made that clear to the russian foreign minister and others, and nor are other players short of an ability to be able to have an impact here. you know, they can bluster, they can protest, they can put out distortions. the bottom line is we are going to geneva to implement geneva i. if assad does not do that, he will invite greater response in various ways from various people over a period of time.

i am not particularly surprised that he is trying to divert this. he has been trying to do this for months, trying to make him the protector of serious against extremists, when he has even been funding those extremists, even purposely ceding territory to them to make the argument that he is somehow the protector. nobody will be fooled. we will not be fooled by this process. foreign minister lavrov has stated they are supporting this communiqué and the government must negotiation around that communique. since russia is one of the primary benefactors of the assad regime, russians have a

high stake in making sure that assad understands what the parameters of this negotiation are. >> that was a portion from secretary kerry's comments from earlier today. you can see this anytime online at www.c-span.org. yes internet service providers are gatekeepers, and two-sidedare gatekeepers to my somebody on one side and somebody on the other side. the situation is similar to the credit card industry. the all have credit cards and then there's the credit card company, and on the other side of that there is the restaurant. it is very useful for restaurants at we all have credit cards and it is useful for us that all the restaurants will take them, but it is not so useful if the gatekeeper says i'm at now, some of these

restaurants, we are not going to allow them to participate in the system. then slating that to the present, if the internet service writer were to say not all the people putting the content on their computers, we do not want all of them to be able to have access to all of the users, that is a problem with the gatekeeper behaving that way. look at theend, a impact of the d c circuit ruling on internet regulations. gary young examines the speech, the story behind dr. martin luther keying junior ---- king jr.'s dream. emancipation, reconstruction, atlanta after the civil war, sunday morning at 11:00. earlier today, and discussion on the future of the internet following a court ruling this past week by the d c circuit

court of appeals on the fcc's net neutrality rules. this is an hour, 15 minutes. >> thank you for coming. this reading is titled -- this briefing is titled open internet rules. it is a loss. i want to thank everybody for coming. the tuesday decision came down, and we wanted to do a briefing as close to the decision as possible. we take no positions on legislation or regulation, but the proposition that internet is important and that we should try to assure sound decision making. we tried to do is any issue that affects the internet, we try to have a allen's perspective on the issues and have a debate on the tablet. in this one, net neutrality, it will lend itself to that debate. it is hosted in digestion with a

caucus and its cochairs. goodlatte. bob senator leahy, as well as senator thune. i applaud the cochairs for the kurds and confidence to host debates, that contain a variety of perspectives. i want to applaud them for that. #netneutrality. this is the start of the es,versation on the rul and i thank you for coming. ford works for the center technology, which is a first amendment organization, and david has agreed to try to in asate this impartial a way possible. >> thanks, and thanks to the internet education foundation for pulling this event get a.

it was just tuesday that the decision came out. it should be a great opportunity analysisome initial and reactions to what the case means. as tim mentioned, i will moderate. i will try to be impartial in that regard. my organization filed a brief in the case, and that is why tim engine that. left, we have a partner at steptoe and johnson and general counsel to the internet association. christopher, a professor of law communications and communications sciences at the university of pennsylvania law school. next, matt wood, and to his left is a partner at wilkinson here in dc. i would like to offer background rule andc's internet

decision, and i will turn it over to questions for the palace. there has been an active debate over what is often termed internet or net neutrality going on for quite a few years. it is a debate that centers on whether broadband providers, companies who provide internet internet connections that people use to get online, or did they should be required to carry all traffic in a fundamentally neutral manner, without any kind of interference or favoritism, or whether imposing those kinds of requirements would be unnecessary or would impose actually harmful consequences to the carriers'abilities run their businesses. in december of 2010, after a long set of proceedings, the fcc adopted a set of rules on the topic which it called the open internet rules. they had three main components. there was a nondiscrimination carmen, a no-locking

requirement, and a transparency requirement. the blocking room. the broadband providers from locking access to lawful on-time content services. the nondiscrimination rule prohibited rod bent providers from engaging in unreasonable discrimination among lawful online content and services, but that rule exempted mobile providers. that was for fixed internet access only. the transparency rule required public disclosure requiring network management practices. out the rules,ut verizon challenge them in courtroom and the company made a number of arguments including that the roles were arbitrary and capricious, that they were impermissible under the communications act, and that they were unconstitutional. this past tuesday we got a pc circuit decision that struck down the roles pertaining to --0 rules. rule inthe transparency

place. the court held the communications act does give the fcc some authority over broadband providers, but it concluded the anti--locking an anti-discrimination rules are inconsistent with previous decisions under the communications act. without getting into too much detail, the details of the statutory framework are important here, that the communications act establishes two broad categories of services, telecommunication services, sometimes referred to services, and information services. and the law has a provision that says survivors of information services, for writers in that category, shall not be treated as common carriers, which is a term that has a long history in common law. rulinge of the court's

was that the anti-blocking an rules amountnation of common carrier rules, and that means the fcc cannot impose anti-blocking and antidiscrimination on information services is is exactly what the fcc had previously said broadband service providers are. in effect, the level at which the court was saying that the fcc cannot have it both ways. it cannot decide by it -- broadband is an information service and impose the requirements that have characterized common carriage. with that background, i would like to turn the discussion to our panelists. i think where i would like to start with the question of where exactly this decision leaves the concept of net neutrality and nondiscrimination on the internet. fcchere any leeway for the to call for some form of nondiscrimination, or is that now basically totally out of bounds in the wake of this decision?

i will start with whoever would like to start out on that. >> i could start. full disclosure, i represent an intervener in the case, intervening on the side of the fcc, the open internet coalition. as a matter of law, the decision means that there are no rules currently that would preclude a broadband internet access provider from discriminating against content or even blocking content. the court did uphold the transparency rule, which means broadband providers still have to provide information about the internet access practices. procedurally, the decision can be appealed to the full d.c. days, if youn 30 are an intervener, 45 days for the government. it can later be appealed to the supreme court. there's nothing to stop the fcc its reanimating several of

dockets, which are currently pending around that neutrality. to do this, the court did uphold the fcc has authority under 706 to come up with the rules that will prevent a broadband provider from blocking content. but it gave the sec some instructions that there still has to be room to allow broadband internet access providers to differentiate it from types of content to avoid being classified as common carriers. it severely limited in that haved what advocates typically thought of as net neutrality rules, and that the fcc wanted to, it still has an open docket to pacify broadband services or some part of broadband internet service as entitled as common carrier service to adopt a nondiscrimination rule.

commonf doing a title to carrier classification, the fcc is precluded from adopting a nondiscrimination rule. the effect is that isp's could then charge internet providers new rents that have not been charged for four ensure that those providers can reach the isp's subscribers, so that when for different tiers of service, for video service, to havee that video providers ample bandwidth to be able to reach the subscribers, and theoretically, an isp could block content that the isp felt was not appropriate for their subscribers. i do think there will be some action, but what that action will be is still not clear. >> it is a fascinating set of questions.

i think the theme of this session is was it a win, a loss? the answer is yes. everybody found something to like and hate indecision. the fcc had no authority whatsoever. in that sense the d c circuit agreed with the sec, and yes, the fcc still will regulate the internet. the second part of it is has the affect cc action that has the fcc exercised its authority in the proper way? the old rules that apply to the telephone network, are they going to be applied to the internet? that decision says no. exercise the authority that the fcc has, you are allowed to expand these old rules developed from the 1934

act for different technological context to the internet. in that sense that is the part fcc verizon likes and the hates. it leaves very little room to bring in certain aspects of that regime. people are suggesting different ways, and we will so explore them. if i could offer addictions, one this is antions, appeal to the d.c. circuit. i knownt guess is nothing about the parties, but they probably are not going to get a different result. they will try to take it to the supreme court. the supreme court generally does not taking cases that do not have splits of authority with one accord on one side and want court on the other side. you might think because it is lyrically important, they might take it. in my experience, you would be surprised unless it is a mammoth thing, sometimes the political nature of the decision causes the court to stay away.

there's a good chance it will not happen. if that is the case, then frankly, it is the end of this ll we have had. politics receded and it all became law. in the next phase, now that the decision has come back, we will see the return of congress' role in overlooking what should happen next and the agency taking a much more active role. and as we turn back to the policymaking realm and that of waiting for a court to decide. >> i guess we will keep trooping down. inant to say one thing reaction to what chris said. theuld say it is not that fcc cannot apply the common carrier rules using the power it has. it chose to use here. that is because the sec could go back and say we were wrong, we

are changing our minds. the circumstances have changed. whatever they want to use as justification to say that broadband internet access services should indeed the title ii services or telecom services, common carrier service. there is a lot of jargon, but they mean the same thing. they could treat those services like the internet access that you and i have today, like a common carrier service them up by classifying it as such, and then we have a different conversation about authority. to put it out at the beginning, that is what we think the fcc should do. there is definitely a lot of political ramifications over that, and potentially fcc action and court action following up on that as well. it is never it is ready clear that the fcc

cannot reinstate them in any clean and useful way. is a loss for net neutrality. it is not a total loss for the fcc. they have been given some power and have some authority to regulate. stick to the words here. to regulate access. that is what we think net neutrality rules do. there have been some company saying this. -- that could indeed allow them to regulate the internet, period. broadband theless planet because of something else out there in the internet ecosystem. free press. every advocate that i have talked to is not in favor of regulating the internet.

we make sure access is open and clear. that the broadband provider cannot block you or disseminate against where you can go or how much it will cost for certain websites. you want facebook and twitter, that is only five dollars a month extra. that is what we're talking about . i think it is important to note that the fcc did not lose all power here. they lost the power to do this thing we want them to do in this proceeding. authority tove the do good things with section 706 authority. it is an open question. people say they want regulatory -- certainty. they have a open mandate to deploy brand-new day -- broadband. yout is bad, we will tell later. and enforce up

against you if we think it is bad. i don't know how we do that in a useful and helpful way. washe last time david sohn asking me questions was 15 years ago. he interviewed me for my first ever communications law job. i never knew what he felt because i got the job, and by the time i got there, he had left. contrasting evidence. thanks for having me back. with matt before i turn and disagree with him on a bunch of topics. i agree what the court did was strike down the thing that mattered the most two free p ress. that brings me to david's question. where does net neutrality stand? that is the question that everyone has been asking these past few days. i think it might be the wrong question. the right question is where does

the internet stand? where does the power of the fcc to regular the internet in an inappropriate way stand forward? net neutrality is a means to an end. it is not the end. net neutrality as it has been traditionally conceived, with strong antidiscrimination components, is unlawful under the statute. .- statute none of us has said this. i think that is an important part of the decision. there is little legal question about that proposition. i am wondering whether we should ive treated this as a title service rather than a title to service. want to treat it as a title i service, it is clear. i think that should be relatively uncontroversial. where does the rest of the decision leave the fcc's authority? i think that the rest of the

decision is victory for the fcc. the fcc can do a lot as long as it does not impose tricked obligations. obligations.ict figured could only -- reshape the internet. i wrote a brief for the national association of manufacturers. great weekend reading. in argued -- a rise against section seven of six power. the isps generally accept that this was a good ruling. there will be some fcc authority. i want to go to the suggestion that there are no rules preventing blocking or discrimination. it is true that there are no fcc rules.

there are other mechanisms. the things that consumers would is will myost about eyes be sabotaged entities that are trying to compete with it, principally with voice and video services. if they did, we have entities and mechanisms preventing anti-competitive behavior. the federal trade commission does that. that power is still existing. the principal power that will stop wonton locking in discrimination, the parade that we hear about, is the marketplace and consumers. the isp is a fundamental matter. just like any other business -- they want their product and services to be useful. customers.seful to the extent ofout competition, a big question in

this debate, but most americans between five or more isp's. they are different speeds and characteristics. there are some choice there. customers will play an important role going forward in preventing the kind of behavior that people are suggesting is a bad outcome here. >> thank you. let me ask -- put more on what the next fcc steps could be. is theng we have heard idea of reclassification. one question i have is, what would that involve question mark >> another thing they did before they had rules was back in 2005, they had something they called a policy statement. it expressed some general principles. users should be able to access the content of their choice. so first, reclassification.

what with that process look like? is there anything else like set of principles approach that could possibly be an option? have an openes docket. in the last administration, the last chair proposed to reclassify broad patent -- rod bent internet service as a common carrier servants -- service. the sec could reanimate that docket and refresh it. i think this does not get a lot of discussion but the orders that classified broadband internet services are limited to broadband internet service. there are things that they do that or not broadband internet service that could be clarified

and could get you some amount down the road in helping create a more even lane field with regard to content -- playing field with regard to content. i think that is a possibility. the fcc could move relatively quickly on that. if it does not, if it works under 706, and constitutes something like the internet policy statement, the policy statement would likely have to with eithers a rule some clarification that allows isp's to affirmatively engage in differentiated services so that they are not commentary services, or have a rule consistent with 706, a high- level rule, no blocking. and have that adjudicated on a bit -- case-by-case basis.

the chairman noted that an adjudication on a case-by-case basis would be appropriate. it would not necessarily involve prescriptive regulations. the fcc has a lot of tools at its disposable to move forward. if it wants to have no nondiscrimination rules, it has to do some clarification or reclassification of the broadband provider services. question.nteresting if they want to reclassify the internet as in the same category as telephone service, there are people that advocate it and think it is a possibility. i think there are a few obstacles. there is a supreme court decision that stand in the way. there are technical things we can say. it is not an absolute obstacle to them. recent law review

article analyzing this. matter, building your argument off the losing side of a supreme court case is a fickle strategy. they have some obstacles to overcome. the bigger question is whether -- fcc lyrical want us politically wants to put its energy here. the new chairman has come in. he has a little under three years until the end of the administration. the focus of his chairmanship what he calls ip transition. we have traditionally thought of the voice telephone network as the fundamental connecting technology bringing the country together. it is six percent of people who subscribe to a voice line and those numbers are plummeting. the main connecting technology is the internet, not telephones.

that raises a whole bunch of questions about how we handle certain things with the voice network -- emergency response. universal service. disaster response. this -- his ability access. there are a bunch of issues that are broader than network neutrality. it's possible that the chairman will decide that he will fold this into a broader discussion of how we should be thinking about the internet and make it part of a broader debate. someone told me that the how are you going to increase high-speed internet to the entire country? the second major initiative was network neutrality. he was counter to some people who have been through that. he was asked if he wanted to be known as the broadband planning chairman or network neutrality chairman? do you want to know as the ip transition chairman? forward who knows, but

there is a chance people will want to get past this and make this part of a broader debate. >> we should break out out of our pattern. where to begin. truth to whatof chris said about the political consequences. we can't really get anything like that neutrality back. we would say exactly the opposite. putting that aside, because that is the important thing in this neighborhood, and in the long- term discussion to come, i want --go back to brenda ask said, of course

rod band is a telecom service. the fcc read the law wrong. the majority opinion is justice thomas. he doesn't say and cannot say that the fcc made the right call. fcc's callis is the to make. they have discretion to choose whether they should be a telecom service or information service or cable service. it stands for the fact that the sec gets to make the call in the first place. unless you believe justice scalia, which i do. going back to david's point, what happens next, everything they said about the process is true. there are documents they have open. i imagine they will take comments again. they could try to move more

quickly that. -- then that. i don't think they will move super quickly. -- screwrd to super nation, it is hard to dispute that. it is unclear to me that the fcc can do anything like prevent 706oloration online under or anything short of reclassification. what that means, take for example a competitor to your existing intern at provider's for service. sunday like skype. -- something like skype. we were about ready to file complaint last year, and then to change its practices. they don't have to all right lock it to make your life more difficult and choices less available. they can say, you are welcome to use as much as you want. all you have to do first is pay

us for unlimited voice minutes. as long as you are paying for minutes you do not want to use, you can use as much of this as you want. that is why net neutrality really is based on preserving protections against discrimination. unreasonable discrimination, as the telecom larry's -- lawyers would say. this is not good enough to protect you against this kind of behavior. one lysed -- last thing i would like to point out. we can talk about how competitive the market is. moreireless industry is concentrated than autos, banking , airlines. how many -- no matter how many choices you have, we have admitted the -- admittedly at least for carriers.

if verizon wireless wants to block my calls to pizza hut he could they have a deal with dominoes, that is cool. i will just switch to att. there something that can indications networks are not supposed to do. what verizon said when they were if itg the case is weren't for these rules, we would be exploring these kinds of arrangements. that too outright block some of the but to get more money out of somebody. domino's, mom-and-pop in the garage. fcc was trying to prevent those people from having to pay into the system. that is what we have lost. >> i represent some wireless folks, i think customer satisfaction rates are high with jd power and others. i want to put that aside.

i want to get back to the reclassification question. i want to second what christopher yoo said about the political sit -- issue. there is a prioritization issue. there are limited staff resources as you get higher and higher into the decision-making levels. having the ip transition and the incentive spectrum options going on, these are big issues that take up a lot of time. neutrality fight would take a lot of energy. it would affect the chairman's agenda. that is a choice people have to make. on the legal issues associated with reclassification, i agree with what everyone has said. the reclassification question always puzzled me a little bit. it is, in the context of net neutrality, we should reclassify in order to adopt

nondiscrimination rules. me, that is the way we do law. fcc is it works is that a feature of congress, not the worst -- reverse. we will tell you what obligations apply to the different pools. the different buckets of services. their job is to make their bets call and say, this is an information service. under congress's rules, here is what applies. there is something outcome oriented about saying, we did not get the thing we want by giving our better shot. to get into the regulatory authority bucket, we will change our mind. that seems to be the exact kind of outcome oriented dishes and making that someone get

aggravated about if it were pursued in pursuit of some other and. -- end. i am reluctant to go along with something like this. skeptical there. beyond that, the other thing let'sas not been made -- say the fcc were to do this. we would need at least one more round of comment giving up the docket is a few years old. thes say the besse case is third or fourth quarter this year, at least in terms of brightness. -- quickness. that would lead to a lot of litigation, not only on the reclassification, but in terms of all the things that fcc would have to do to make it work. part of his proposal was to used what was called the fcc's forbearance authority.

those -- many of those would also be challenged by people who think those obligations do not apply. that leads to another year or two of litigation. orthree or more -- and three more years of uncertainty. that is not a great course. >> i guess i would like to --nge gears and ask, what where does this decision leave the market? policymakers say regulatory certainty is an important goal. where does this leave predatory certainty in terms of litigation? how do we see bulk and edge providers respond? fault. now we are going to go this way. that some of my

clients would have liked this decision to come out other ways. it has come out and it is the way it is. the besse course now is to see how things fall out. the fcc should think about its section 706 authority. they should think about chairman wheeler's approach of adjudicating cases as they come up just like common law has done with other products. it leaves the internet in a relatively good place. there are multiple cops on the beat. the fcc clearly has authority to do a lot of things. i know matt this agrees. -- disagrees. takenk this regime can care of a lot of things that people would worry about with regard to net neutrality. i don't know whether i buy the pizza store and knowledge he.

i think they can guard against that. there's a lot of power. not react much to isp decision, either on the side or edge providers site. we should wait and see how things go before jumping into another three-for your fight. -- your fight. -- year fight. i don't think us that litigation is a good way to govern one of the most important industries in the country. >> one way would be for everybody to stop suing. i will try to be brief. this does not actually create a lot of certainty for people. it does not tell them what the sec can or cannot prohibit or a clearly. it is saying, you can prevent some bad things from happening. we will not tell you what they are. part is not just

the tail end. you can't have a rule against blocking. you can have a rule against nondiscrimination. i don't think there is a lot of certainty. stocks have not jumped all over the place. there was a little bit of spite for some and a drop for others. the market is more of the authority than i am with regard to this. that then't know insurgency actually benefits anybody. we have had that kind of status quo. the broadband providers have promised not to take bad things. you can take comfort from that if you want. i don't do get is very comforting for the longer-term prospects of companies experimenting with new ways to try to monetize the network and take that money out of the pockets of consumers and innovators who are on the edges of the network.

i thought one of the really parts of the d.c. circuit's opinion of was they upheld the rationale, one of the rationales for developing the gulations. not that the regulations were needed because of the market power of any the stakeholders. it noted that some of the actors arehe edge of the internet pretty big players relative to some of the isp's. it's rational for the gatekeeper rule that the isp's have read whether there a thousand or million flowers blooming at the edge, every one of the edge providers to reachre all trying

me through one provider, verizon. they are dealing with a monopoly for every one of their customers that is trying to reach them. of thes a profound part d.c. circuit decision. not necessarily one was obvious. if we do now say that is the president and the fcc continues and that, it does lead one to think about how to enforce that. how to guard against that. ways are obviously other verizon and others have said we should regulate this. those can be enforced. for the fcc's universe, they have to do something with the rationale. whether that is to have a no blocking regime or do some sort of title to thing -- title two

thing, the fcc will have to deal with that. what impact will it have on the business environment? i think we have an interesting experiment going on right now. that is europe. they have adopted the rule that they are suggesting, they have added the internet the rules governing television networks. the 200 kilobyte per second level is their standard. that is: by modern standards. -- crawling by modern standards. in europe, they are in a panic about why they're behind the u.s. their investment is one half per capita of what is in the u.s. their coverage is half what it is in the u.s. the rural coverage is one quarter of what is in the u.s. is the google?

the facebook of europe? they are concerned on infrastructure side and the other side. i don't mean to suggest -- i'm doing a study on this because a room -- everyone wants to know what is going on. there are trying to the nelson other parts of the world and -- they are trying something else in other parts the world and they are not happy. it opens up an interesting discussion about possible futures going forward. >> would like to say on this point about europe. the one debate this -- facebook group and era when we had dsl and cable. they were classified as something but not clearly an information service. then we had this middle. all which to say they have grown

up in an environment you do not need permission from your broadband provider to innovate. there are questions about why don't we have as big a presence in the app economy from europe or other places. i don't think this is because it is more under the control broadband controllers. we have had it because of the actions for innovation online in that internet access ecosystem. >> i would like to change gears a little bit. we're sitting here in the halls of congress. and ask what this means not just for net neutrality but for our communications law. possible congress taking a look at updating the act.

how does this clarify or confuse what the authority and the role of the fcc is living forward? becoming a primary communications medium. the fcc is our communications regulator. and othercision decisions helping move us towards a more coherent picture of what their role is? a situation where congressional action is necessary. >> it did clarify a couple of things. some wanted this to suggest from the fcc to the ftc. that would have very few relations -- implications for the senate. on the house side, it would have from theurisdiction

energy and commerce committee to the judiciary committee. that would be a big change. as of now, that did not happen. the d.c. circuit (sec with jurisdiction. -- left the fcc with jurisdiction. guess, there are two possible outcomes. one is the traditional there at of you here outside the beltway, which is we have split government where there are different houses of congress controlled by different parties. is an election year. after about june, everything shifts to campaigns. this is a difficult time to get something done. the statements that take place in congress and other places will be more or less about -- not about getting things done but about positioning and imaging for voting constituencies. i brought a class to washington dc last week. we met with the majority and minority staff of the congress.

we said this is an area where there is rod a partisan consensus. consensus.partisan there is much more room for agreement here. my challenge, my invitation to all of you is to prove though statements right, and prove the skeptics wrong. the leadership has opened up abroad discourse. -- a broad discussion about what the future may hold. applying 1994 rules is probably a bad idea. the rules draw a distinction between cable and telephone services, whereas most people don't care where they're getting it through they just want the internet. there is an opportunity and reasons for hope that congress can take a few positive steps

towards reporting -- promoting meaningful reform. did not exist in 1994. >> i was curious, did the folks your students were talking to talking about net neutrality or medications law? >> they were speaking broadly about medications law. mmunications law. i remain hopeful. >> the reason i asked -- it has long been said that this issue is less partisan. lines tend to cross party . the 96 act was not broken down by party. net neutrality seems like a bond

in that room. i wonder about its effect in terms of broader cooperation. to say whatropose the hell will do. -- the hill will do. from aing at it normative perspective, there is isp'sconsensus that should not block or degrade content. there should be a minimal level of service that edge providers have the right to access. my sense is that there is broad consensus about that. further say that there is fairly broad consensus that there should not the arbitrary discrimination against similarly situated entities at the edge. if you have two entities that are providing the same sort of you service, and eyepiece should say, we should charge one ask

and another one why. y.one x and another thefcc said, verizon has authority to charge similarly situated at these different prices. that is true, as a matter of law they are able to do this. there is a more normative perspective that that probably should not be the case. >> i want to speak to blocking for second. we talked about charging one provider x and another letter a why. -- and another y. that is tantamount to blocking. everyone understands that. the question becomes can isp's block? i don't know. inan think of very few cases which isp's would want to block. they would be cases that most people would agree blocking is

appropriate, like child pornography. they generally do not want to block. they get revenue from customers their services. they recognize people have all kinds of different interests. they won't want to look at different things. beyond that, i think it is a it is worth remembering the transparency rules. goinglock a site, that is in its policy and will be known. we can be fairly sure that representatives are going to be hauling the isp's up and saying, what are you doing? -- what lot of doubt net neutrality really is about in these cases is not blocking. not degrading content. what might be about -- in the

has ayou saw that google new contact lens that can monitor glucose levels and send it to your doctor. maybe we want that kind of thing prioritized. room for people monitoring what my pacemaker is saying. so they know even before i do that there is an issue going on. that is the kind of issue, the kind of services, that the isp's want to provide. those are not degrading anybody's content. they will not degrade services indirectly by using up all the resources. we are not talking about the network we had in 2005. we are talking about networks where vast majority of people have access to 100 megabytes per second. is a different web. -- it is a different web.

i don't think this will lead to defect to blocking. imagine evil machinations. -- what is really about is the ability to get the services that customers want to them more quickly. >> on one quick thing, i'm going to turn to the audiences for the questions. i will give you an opportunity for that. you mentioned the transparency portion of the rule. -- i wondered if they have thoughts about the other portions of the rules. how useful they are. >> they have to tell you if they are blocking you are discriminating. it doesn't give me a lot of comfort. here is how you were messing with your service. we can talk about how many

choices people really have in their broadband provider. we count all the wireless ones. it is something. i will now know how they are trying to keep me from going certain places, or take a few more nickels out of my pocket for getting to them. -- managed services with the contact lenses, if we do have more capacity, i don't know i would have to purchase something like that. it would be a relatively low- level data usage. the sec did make allowances for other services. everything that you transmit , you can have a separate channel for things like that. that is something that the fcc rules already allowed even though it is not critical or how they would work. >> i think the transparency rules are important.

isp that hasitish the highest customer subsection ratings in all of britain. satisfaction ratings in all of britain. they appeal to a certain kind of customer. you can'ty nights, predict exactly what the traffic will be. but they view a good idea. they cater to -- they give it to online gamers. they are appealing to a very small set of the overall world. question wetriguing face. the old telephone world was a one-size-fits-all regulatory world. everyone gets it. you can't change or enhance it. even if people need different things. example is, we should see a full of ration of

a proliferation of business models like the amazon kindle. said, we want to pay that. we want to make it easy for you to receive the content. they have changed a number of times. my reaction is, they should be allowed to try that. maybe that is creating value for consumers. you get a different kind of product that way. one person gets a service that does not count against your minutes while someone else does not. in my world, the internet is going to many different directions, i would encourage that kind of experimentation. doesght thing transparency have an ability to be helpful. behavior, it has

a corrective ability with corporations. i think may -- it may not go far enough in terms of creating enough certainty for innovators to know what the rules of the road are. think the fcc throughout every administration has recognized that. there need to be some baseline rules. to beps realize that it some rules. how those are enforced is where the debate is. what where the norms -- there should be enough certainty so people on the edge can rely on something more than name and shame when picking about how to allocate the resources. >> can ask a question? provider a facilities-based provider? >> they are a facilities-based network. what is fascinating, and people e fax differently,

they were acquired by british telecom. they are trying to preserve that culture. they worry that if they fold them into the larger company, they will become just like bt. >> is not that amazon should not be allowed to pray the -- pay the freight. if you stay under your data cap, you will get a big refund check. that is the kind of experimentation that should be allowed in some cases. but in our current system just does not say people money. >> i would like to give members of the audience an opportunity to ask questions. is there microphone? >> i think i see a question over there.

>> am i on? theseles tells us that discrimination and blocking rules are like common carrier without being called common carrier. ande know more about where what is the edge of common carrier? or do we need to wait and find out? >> they pointed to with the sec relied on. a recent case that gets to the same question. that the isp's were allowed to engage in commercially reasonable, that was the standard, something that was commercially reasonable. they noted that they use the commentaries language of unreasonable discrimination.

theoretically, there is something -- it noted there is a gray area. somewhere that is not unreasonable discrimination. the court would say to the fcc, if you can move towards that, we will give you discretion on whether we call that commentary jorn not. egypt orhat commentary mon carriage of not. >> then you can potentially get out of common carriage. but if you had to take a, it is illegal under the rule. >> other questions? i see one over here. >> great conversation, thank you. -- now thatng about

content, legally block might they change their policies towards copyright violations? >> that is an interesting question for comcast, or nbc. they have movie properties and an isp network. could they? i think, sure. the 706 route leaves open for an argument to the fcc. pirated content on the internet is decreasing our willingness to put it out there. people don't get good content. they don't adopt broadband. is the kind of thing that verizon -- is as medically a long change of -- chain of arguments to make. you could go to the fcc and say they have to block piracy. -- the mischief

that you would not want to see out of a 706 regime. >> i can't speak to what isp's will or will not do, but i do not think as a legal matter it changes their ability. the rules in 2010 contained for unlawful content or the unlawful transmission of -- content.nt grade that was already a carveout from the rules. >> the law did not protect copyright infringing material. now there is this avenue for saying, the lock can do more to stop privacy. >> this is where i think i disagree. one could see, because i is peapod's will.i.am local isp's ors -- because

lie on local franchises, they ill be incentivized to -- think the order was very careful, even one he described blocking unlawful content or the ofnsition of -- transmission lawful content. i would not put copyright in that category. an isp does not know whether the transmission is unlawful or not. they don't know who the rights holder. child pornography is the only thing that comes to mind is something that is clearly unlawful. one could see things that are in certain communities are not acceptable being blocked or degraded. they mighted that

want to provide a service that would just go to just a family friendly isp service. this will just go to family- friendly sites. in that community, that might be ok. if you are in a community dohout a lot of competition, you have recourse under the rules? no. >> the issues have to do with business. isp's gain nothing directly to their bottom line by blocking the carriage of illegal content. there is a misalignment of interests. france, adone this in three strikes law. the content provider finds the person. evidence, empirical there is evidence it stops piracy. even if it works, the isp's do

not want to be cut in the middle between the content provider and the end-user. may be they could enter into a cooperative arrangement where maybe they make a contract with them to do it -- the only question i can see is does it make that kind of business arrangement easier by removing some of the overhanging walking rules? -- blocking rules? maybe, but that is not what this laws about. >> another question the back. on the copyright point, i think the most important thing is that the sec has no jurisdiction over copyright. isrything that markham said right about the regimes that do apply, and the sec was careful to dance around what is illegal

and legal. .the sec does not know i wanted to agree with russ on the point that if the fcc were ,o reclassify internet access the telecom portion of internet access as telecommunication, for the purpose of imposing a particular rule, that would be suspect. there's another possibility. that would be -- and i would be interested to see what the other panelists think -- a possibility that they might want to clarify their authority over internet access for a whole range of things. >> the question is that something that fcc may be interested in?

>> i think that is right. the we think they need to clarify their authority. it would clarify their role in the ip transition. i would stand with justice scalia and say they need to read the law correctly. the law is in fact technology -- not just from 1934 but 1996. the use of the network is to send information to you and mine back to me. is adopting or endorsing the idea of making a broader of t discourse. we see alignment coming from the

chairman's office in the house leadership. we have twisted the old rules and stretch them as far as we can. came in the 50's. we had been hot for 30 years. we need to create rules made for cable. we are seeing the same thing happening here. we are stretching and twisting it. time, it is time to sit down and think about not from the previous world but a clean slate rewrite. what should we do with the internet. i think this is a time for the fcc to have to think about 706 section of six -- authority means. to give you one example, a case that is a big case heading in the 10th circuit -- pending in the 10th circuit has to do with

carrier compensation. it says in some detail how to set up by a city system to make sure all americans have access to communication service. historically, that was telephone service. a -- they are aiming it at broadband services. that issue and the ways in which to do it has been pending before the 10th circuit. lots of open questions. decision may change the dynamics in that case. suddenly, it is not a case about what section 254 says about that fcc's authority and how much structure they have. they have less bounded authority under section seven 06. before the panel started, they -- thatetter to the

should influence your decision. there are a range of issues where we now have a new authority. we have to see how it will be used. i don't want to see it is -- state it is unlimited. i think there was a risk we will transgress what is known as the nondelegation doctrine in law. which says that congress cannot give a agency free reign without giving it standards. these are a host of questions we will have to address in the coming years. >> other questions question mark at we have time for one more or two more. question.a business you mentioned google and amazon. what do they do now? they can bargain with isp's

, oruse of their importance they can try to become isp's. are we looking at a scenario we have more consolidation in terms of content and isp activity among big layers? -- players? thef you thought that verizon and comcast of the world, the people that provided service to end- users, you might not want to vertically integrate. you are swept into that world of regulation. one of the things about the decision is that it potentially expands the reach to anything that affects the comcast and verizon's of the world. it is not just them but the things that influence what they do. it affects what they do.

so do braun -- act bone providers. -- so do backbone providers. we have a bunch of cases where we say, they have a jurisdiction over copyright but not devices. it is a contract between this company and that company. effect?enough of an of anthat have enough i impact to breathe it under the fcc's jurisdiction? the answer is potentially yes. does it make it more likely to consolidate? i think it makes it -- they were reluctant to consolidate before. now they are potentially related whether they consolidate or not. a bunch of players that did not

think they had to worry about with the sec was going to do now have to pay attention. a -- we are bit of worried about net neutrality not just for google and amazon, big and can are take care of themselves, but for the next start up. there are a lot of changes happening here. those big players can fend for themselves. they did not have to when they were getting out the ground. question is whether one decision means backb providers are subject to regulation in a way that they were not, i would first say that the clarification did not apply to them in the first place. it applies to consumer facing front that -- broadband services. apply toers do not

them to begin with. the fcc is free to classify many of the services as commentary services. that regulatory overhang exists anyway. clarification with 706 that potentially applies. i'm not sure that this does a lot to change that middle mile dynamic or long-haul dynamic. >> i think we have time for one more question if it is quick. anyone have one last question? -- didn't they agree to certain open and are not requirements until 2018? where does that leave the company like comcast are says the other providers? >> they are bound by the rules that were just struck down. they were willing to get that --

that speaks to some of the rules. saw a tta -- att coming out in supporting the cover my's in 2010. twohere is a case where cable companies -- and in the rules were struck dumb by the d c circuit. down by the d c circuit. that is entirely up to the fcc. technically, that is not a regulation. it wasn't even agency action. it is one of the problems of making law. technically, they are still bound until the fcc tells them that they are not. sure.hink they could for

debate thatlearly a will continue for some time. we will all be watching closely. in the meantime, please thank our panel. [applause] >> tonight on c-span, president obama's speech from earlier today on changing government surveillance programs. then we will go to the phone light and see what you think. we will have a conversation on twitter and facebook as well. and there is a former cia analyst. president'sshow the remark from earlier today. he talked about changing some of the surveillance programs and monitoring other world leaders and u.s. allies. [applause]