break down beefier many people have. what goes on in a women's studies classroom? women's studies professor bonnie morris will take your questions in depth live for three hours starting at noon eastern. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> this week, the discussion of the impact of the net neutrality ruling by the court of appeals earlier this month. joining us is the managing director of bloomberg bna. has been the fallout from this court of appeal ruling? the ftc is trying to figure

out its nesxt step. they could position for a rebate coulding or the agency repeal it to the supreme court. the court essentially said this. the regulations wrongly applied the same rules to services that apply to common carriers. what we know as telephone companies. says that all traffic should be treated equally and is "common carriage." in 2002 hadency classified broadband as a noncommon carrier information service rather than a common carrier telecommunications services, rules themselves were no and void. -- no one void. they handed them a significant victory. it said that section 706 of the

telecommunications act of 96 does give the commission some authority to regulate broadband. the fcc is considering its options. for ac could petition hearing and could repeal the decision to the supreme court. if the sec does repeal the case, it runs the risk that the supreme court could oversee that overturned the findings with respect to 706. i believe tom wheeler is considering all options right now. he said this week they may take a case-by-case approach in the aftermath of the decision. >> what are you hearing from businesses and interest groups who are involved in telecommunication policy about the appeals court decision? >> certainly, there are some mixed feedback. isp'se hearing from the

that this is certainly good news. it gives the isp's clear authority now to manage their networks as they see fit. bandwidthle any high- traffic that may crash the network. they are now open to entering into pay for priority arrangements with content providers. certainly good news for the isp's and their interests. for the public interest communities and for consumers, they are quite concerned. in the aftermath of the ruling, any isp can now block, interfere with, slow, degraded web traffic. there is some concern. >> what about silicon valley as a whole? >> they are concerned.

from the beginning of the debate, silicon valley, google inc. one of the larger a staunch has been supporter of net neutrality. they are concerned about the entrepreneurial effect of the net neutrality ruling. there is no net neutrality rules of the road, then that startup in the garage might not ever come to fruition. >> what is the next step? when can we expect it? still very much still in flux. the agency i believe is still reviewing the decision, reviewing its options. ruling asesting court i noted with respect to section 706 of the telecommunications act. sectiont did say that 706 does give the agency some

authority to regulate broadband isp's handling of web traffic. some might say that the agency could go ahead and root out bad actors on a case-by-case basis. as long as what the agency does does not constitute common carrier regulation. thefcc does have a shot in arm here with the court's ruling. however, we could see the agency ask to reclassify broadband a common carrier telecommunications service to bring more squarely within its statutory authority. things are in flux. we can expect to see the issue to be talked about in the months and may be years ahead. quite do you see congress keeping an eye on this? >> certainly. we have rdc in congress be to this issue. it is worth noting that -- already seen congress speak to

this issue. it is worth noting that the subcommittee has launched efforts to rewrite the communications act. certainly giving the fcc potentially clear authority over broadband isp's or not will be part of this debate. we could expect the issue of net neutrality to drive discussions on the hill about communications rewrite. >> paul barbagallo, thank you for your time. during the conversation now is chance williams, the associated policy director for a group called free west and brent skorup with george mason university. what is the mercada center? >> it is affiliated with george mason university and a leading provider of our conveys policy research. at whatyou look

the appeals court did, what is your general sense of the impact? >> it is a partial win for secures --consumers. the court has struck down the fcc's one-size-fits-all net neutrality rules. it frees isp's to deal with content companies and lower prices for consumers. >> first of all, what is free press? >> a national non-profit permission that fights for consumers right to connect and communicate online and in other places. the net neutrality decision was a big thing for us and something we have been working on for a number of years. >> overall, what is your assessment? court's decision strikes a major blow to consumers. they vacated the open internet roles that stop internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against content online. can means that the isp's

enter into the special deals or block content. that is not the way the internet has ever worked on nor is it the weight it is supposed to work. -- nor it is the way it is supposed to work. what is the problem with sponsorship if netflix and at&t teamed up for example? >> it might not be a problem for one of them but we miss out on the innovation that could come from others who may be do not have the resources of netflix to enter into a special deal. withe not so much concern the big players in the internet space that have a lot of resources but all the innovation --the the edge that has ideas being thought up in garages and dorm rooms all over the country that may not see the light of day. the new players will not have the resources to prioritize their websites. >> there is this myth out there that the internet is neutral and

p's doing deals will upset that. the internet has never been neutral. the professor has written a book on the subject. the internet is not neutral. the fixation on what happens between isp's and content companies is misplaced. havethink we all know who an internet service provider that we do business with that in two weses we have one or have to choose from. that gets her internet service provider a significant amount of power. that means if you are relying on them to get access to the internet, they might have competing applications or content that they would rather prioritize over what you can find in the vast expanse of the internet. there are role in the market power they possess is a big

concern for consumers. >> when you say it is not neutral now, what do you mean by that? >> the internet is a global network of networks. it covers the entire globe. these fiber providers that exchange traffic all around the world. in the u.s., there are many of these. arer relationships completely unregulated. there are priority deals. further, there are large companies like google and netflix that have their own private networks. they distribute data centers all around the world and around the country so that it is closer to consumers. when you clicked play on a goes a fewdeo, it miles away him and not to google headquarters. the internet is not neutral. away and not to

google headquarters. the internet is not neutral. >> for individual consumer, and the consumer only cares when it comes into his or her home. that point. >> a big component is this idea do not face enough competition. competition is in some parts of america. net neutrality is very ill- suited for competition. one had a piece in the atlantic that what we're talking about this competition. we can do that directly. a lot has to do with regulations that are at the state and local level. that is where we should be. >> do you see any upside to the court ruling? >> i think the real upside is thecourt did not question reason i'm putting the open

order and place. the fcc made the argument that without the open internet order, innovation would be harmed. abuse their monopoly power. that is a bright spot there. the court actually offers some really clear guidance. how they need to classify broadband in order to make sure they can enforce these kinds of rules. in our opinion, the best possible move forward is for the to reclassifyt broadband as a title to communication service and put in place these roles that will protect and seamers -- consumers. it is a mainstream idea. usa today has said it is something the fcc should do. takenw york times have action online already because of the concerns of the outcome of this case. >> reclassification? >> very unlikely.

consider this. he decided against it. 73 democrats signed a letter arguing against that. there would be substantial local opposition come not to mention from isp's. republicans are against that. it would be a large overr each. neverulate isp's was intended by congress. >> tom wheeler hinted this week about section 706. what is section 706? to could the fcc use that regulate the internet? what do you think of that? can doalks about the fcc things to enhance advanced

communication. it was talking about five or telephone networks -- fiber telephone networks. >> from the 96 telecommunications act? >> yes. not conceive of the internet we have today. they do not know people would have powerful computers in their pockets. they certainly didn't intend for the fcc to have the authority to regulate internet companies that do not even exist. the internet in 1996 was written .n the early 80s it is strange they thought the fcc would have the authority to wrigley the internet we have today. >> i think the first thing to be clear on is that what we have been talking about with net neutrality has nothing to do is relating the internet. it is about access to the

internet. it is about the on ramps. for many years, our communications networks have always been treated as common carriers. what that means is there is room for innovation. you do not have to ask permission to innovate. the internet as we know it is an outgrowth of our open communications network for phone systems were a bunch of parts system -- onto smart people got together, networked computers, and to not have to ask her mission. now there's things like insert platform that the open enabled. it is technology neutral. it creates the space for technology to evolve and innovation to take place. if the appeals court decision stands and net neutrality rules is thrown out, what do you foresee for individual consumers? a slowink it will be

process of people's online experience changing. i think the internet service providers probably are not going to do anything really quickly. verizoninly did here arguing in the court that they would be looking at different arrangement that do involve discrimination of blocking. that is something that we all have to look forward to. that to talk out the idea of reclassification is something that is not a. is not possible. it is a washington view. it is the most thoughtful way to move forward. it is the simplest way to make sure that consumers are protected and that the rules are in place. do youhey stand, what see for individual consumers? >> i agree with most of what chance said. there will probably not be many changes for consumers in the foreseeable future spirit if we do, it might be something along the lines of sponsor data which at&t announces they are experimenting with.

this idea that a content company could pay at&t for essentially there subscribers data when they use it. espn could pay at&t and when consumers use espn amah that data does not go down to their monthly data limits. >> fred wilson wrote this past the about the fact that appeals court decision could dry up d.c. money and could and the innovation of the internet. >> that is unlikely. that is overstating what is going to happen. youe is this idea that if have priority agreements that you cannot have innovation. that is not true. if you look at google, they will point to a key point in that development as one of the largest and most innovative company. internalafter lots of

debate among the company, they agree to pay aol a substantial 'sm to be a wells -- aol default search engine. you can see the innovation. good ideas get funded. consumers new good tech ideas when they see them. i believe good ideas will continue to be funded. outetflix has already shot that they could raise prices if they do not get favorable treatment. netflix release announcement reacting. i got the impression they were fairly unconcerned about what is going to happen. they said if an isp did attempt to degrade the traffic, they would be upset about it and encourage consumers to be upset about it. interest toe isp's degrade the service. customers are paid for that. that makes their service less

valuable to consumers. netflix was relatively unconcerned with the decision. isp's definitely do have an incentive to degrade service depending on what it is. if it is an isp that does offer video service, why not encourage people to use your service versus netflix? i think what all of this points to is the tremendous amount of uncertainty that now exist because of this court decision. actually has a number of options on the table. the best thing to do to end the uncertainty quickly as for the fcc to move forward. >> is there any global effect of this decision? >> sure. when it was announced, there was a tweet from one of the regulators in europe that said just letting all the innovators in the united states know that we are open for business here.

it is much of what you're talking about where small businesses are really going to be looking at this and wondering what it means for them if the isp's are able to abuse their power. >> chance brought up that isp's may have competitive incentives to block other competitors. that is a competition problem. ill suited to is attack competition programs. we have an fcc that is very capable. if there is a competition program, known as argue for the wild wild west. the fcc can enforce the competition laws. >> they're certainly not competition when it comes to getting access to the internet. the beauty of an open internet is that there is abundant competition. the isp cannot play any role in blocking or discriminating against content. that is why we have so many options online. >> what about the global issue?

is there a global effect in your view to this decision? >> i do not think so. each country has their own version of preventing these competition problems. 'su backed away from the fcc one-size-fits-all neutrality. you will see, the there will be policing of deals to specifically prevent him edition problems. competitionffect -- problems. the global us that, i do not see any major effect. >> who do you think is the biggest winner? are there losers? >> consumers will win in the end. they allow isp's to continue to innovate and bring new services and new pricing business models to consumers. consumers will be the main beneficiary. are the winner on

this no doubt. the courts one out. they have a tremendous amount of market power. a tremendous amount of influence to try to shape all at sea to go there direction. theumers really going to be losers in this deal. i think that is why so many of them are speaking up and asking the fcc to move forward with a really clear path to protect them. >> would you be amenable to the fcc using section 706? i think section 706 raises a lot of questions, it's one of the things the court was very clear about is the fcc cannot apply 706 to do anything that is common carrier like. that means no blocking and nondiscrimination portion of the net neutrality rules which are really the heart of network neutrality. it would be difficult for the

fcc to move forward with 706 on that score. >> is it fair to say that broadband has become like telephones, a necessity? telecom act, the internet was not contemplated them. i am encouraged to hear that the chairman are talking about updating the telecom act. a lot to this has to do with how congress regulated the 1996 telecom act. is required to regulate telephone companies different from satellite or cable or internet. the update would bring some coherence. now all these companies are competing against each other in one way or another. >> is it possible to rein in current technology in the sense of touching legislation around it? uptonthink chairman of

is talking about a neutral way. >> what do you think about updating the 96 act? those discussions have gone on for quite some time. it comes up very often. we certainly welcome a conversation about dating a 96 act. it is important to note, though, it took five years or more from the time of discussion starting for the 96 act to be put in place. coldconversation is comfort to consumers that are looking for an answer right now, given the court's decision in this case. >> has a really been a history of isp's slowing or controlling traffic? >> certainly. there was a situation where comcast actually walked a peer- to-peer application -- blocked a peer-to-peer application.

at&t was blocking face time for some users. verizon itself violated the c block rules which were net neutrality rules apply to a band of spectrum when they were caught blocking an application that allow folks to use their cell phones for tethering. these are things that do happen. there is that history. then there is also verizon's very clear statement that they have plans to do this. they made that very clear. actions, aresp those harmful to consumers? >> that is not clear. it is remarkable given the rhetoric from net neutrality components -- opponent how rare it is to encounter these sort of blocking and degradation issues. when the fcc compiled the rules

in 2010, they said three or four instances of this behavior. this covering over a decade abroad been used by hundreds of millions of people. it is not a big problem. the problems that do exist can be solved by, titian law. brent skorup, what do you see happening next? >> i was at the conference that i think paul friends were chairman wheeler spoke about where he sees it going forward. he said two things that were interesting. he saw the court decision as an invitation for the ftc to act in a way that prevents competitive problems. that is a signal he has seen [indiscernible] the second thing he said was that he wanted to go forward on

a case-by-case basis which signals that maybe after 706making based on the authorities that they will go on a case-by-case basis looking at any bad behavior that isp's engage in. chance williams of free press, where do you see it going? >> i think it is very hard to predict. the one thing the fcc has been clearest about as they are keeping all options on the table. chairman wheeler wishes out in oakland earlier this month at a town hall that i had the out ine of -- was just oakland earlier this month at a town hall i had the pleasure of attending. the open internet was a concern they raised. those are the people that the chairman need to be concerned with in this debate. too often in washington, d.c. the folks who have the access and are able to lobby at the commission and on the hill seem to paint the picture of what is users.y needed for injured

there are a number of voices already. that is something the fcc needs to consider. they need to make sure the open the goal roles are on solid footing. foronly way to do that is them to reclassify. even though that is a difficult push, there will be a lot of energy from outside of the beltway where people really seem to have a commonsense approach to how to solve this problem, to get the fcc to move in that direction. >> thank you for being on "the communicators" to talk about the impact of net neutrality. by america'seated cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. on the next washington

journal, the debate over executive powers will be the topic of discussion with simon lazarus with the constitution accountability center. they will talk about how president obama and past presidents have used the powers and how they factor into current policy debate. after that, a look at what young voters thought about muslim obama recent state of the union address in issues they consider most important in 2014. we will also look for your calls and take your comments by e- mail, twitter, and facebook are getting live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> next, our first lady series continues with a look at the life and career of hillary clinton. i'll abide this year's south carolina tea party convention with candidates for office. then a debate over a u.s. government policy called guns in america, one year after sandy hook, hosted by stanford

university. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] hello. this is hillary clinton. i want to thank you for speaking about an issue that is critical to our fight to restore the nation's economy, solving our nation's health care crisis. is no prescription or role model or cookbook for being first lady. the future is created every day. the feature is not something out there waiting to happen to us. the future is something that we make. believe thatnd i there is a good possibility that some time in the next 20 years we will have a woman president. >> hillary clinton logged many