separate and apart from this connectivity is the question of interconnection between the consumer's network provider and the various networks that deliver to that isp. that is a different matter that is better addressed separately. today's proposal is all about what happens on the broadband provider's network and how the consumer's connection to the internet may not be interfered with or otherwise compromised. the situation in which the commission finds itself is inherited from the actions of commissions over the last decade. the d.c. circuit's ruling in january of this year upheld our determination that we need rules to protect internet openness, and upheld our authority under

sections of 706 to adopt such rules, even while it found the portions of the 2010 or net order were beyond the scope of our authority. in response, i promptly stated that we would reinstate rules that achieve the goals of the 2010 order using section 706-based roadmap laid out the court. that is what we are proposing to do today. section 706 is one of two principal methods proposed to accomplish the goals of an open internet. today we are seeking input on both sections 706 and title ii of the communications act. we are specifically asking for input as to the benefits of each and why one might be preferable to the other. we have established a lengthy

comment and reply period to allow everyone the opportunity for debate. >> mr. clyburn made an observation, a personal point. i would like to make a personal point as a former entrepreneur and venture capitalist. i know the importance of openness firsthand. as an entrepreneur, i have had products and services shut out of closed cable networks. as a vc, i have invested in companies that wouldn't have been able to innovate if the network weren't open. i have hands-on experience with the importance of network openness.

and i will not allow the national asset of an open internet to be compromised. i understand this issue in my bones. i've got scars from when my companies were denied access in the pre-internet days. the consideration we are beginning today is not about whether the internet must be open but about how and when we will have rules in place to assure an open internet. my preference has been to follow the roadmap laid out by the d.c.

circuit in belief that it was the fastest and best way to get protections in place. i have also indicated repeatedly that i am open to using title 2. this rulemaking begins the process by putting forth the proposal, asking important and specific questions, and opening the discussion to all americans. we look forward to the feedback on all of these approaches. and now we will proceed to a vote. all those in favor say aye. aye. opposed? the ayes have it. the order is adopted. the request for editorial privileges is granted. now, before we move on to our next item, i would like to note that the order will be slightly different for the next two items. we will first hear presentations

from the fcc staff for the next two items followed by statements from the bench on both items. after that, we will proceed to individual votes on the two items. madame secretary, will you please announce our next item, and to the bureau and all the general counsel staff who have worked so diligently on the id we just adopted, our hearty and heartfelt thank-you. >> more on the fcc's proposal regarding open internet rules. this discussion was hosted by the congressional internet caucus advisory committee. lives hell of the plan could eventually impact internet users. >> welcome. hello, everybody.

my name is tim lordan. i'm the executive director of the congressional internet caucus advisory committee. thanks for coming. this briefing today is called the fcc's grand internet of plans, the open internet, and massive mobile spectrum auctions. what do you need to know? the reason we did this is because yesterday the federal communications commission issued two plans dealing with net neutrality. along with a plan to roll out more spectrum so we have better broadband on our mobile devices. they are massively significant. they are important to the growth and vibrancy of internet. we wanted to increase consumers and members of congress' awareness. we will use the hashtag #fccnetneutrality. our next briefing will be next

friday. it will be on the efficacy of the surveillance land. that will be next friday. i will send out a notice. what we are going to do is we will bifurcate those into talking about the open internet plan for the first half-hour and then we will pivot to a couple of speakers. we will try to do some queue and a at the end of the session. feel free to ask any questions you like. if you need more chairs, there is a stack of them will stop quickly, let me introduce our speakers. it will be the open internet order. we have matthew breaux. he is formerly from the fcc. we have sarah morris.

she is with the new america foundation. she is the head of congressional relations is also named sarah morris. she is a different person. we also have a partner at steptoe and johnson. we also have an assistant professor at the university of nebraska. we have a diverse set of speakers. we will get going quickly. if anybody has not heard about net neutrality, i do not think we need to go into too much detail on what it means. it is the idea that on the internet, consumers should access content and everyone should have their applications and services treated equally. how that happens and legal authority for that has been a tortured conversation since 2005.

let me quickly say that the fcc had a vote on this. i will ask matt to tell us how we got here. we were here in january and it was after the d.c. circuit court struck down the previous plan for open internet. this is another crack at it. they are taking cues from the circuit court decision. the fcc chairman had a vote. two were in favor and one was concurring. we will ask gus to lay out what happens now. we will go into some discussion so, matt, if you could tell us

how we got here, but very quickly. >> just so everyone knows, i've been involved in these issues for a long time. i have been with the fcc for a long time. i worked on early proceedings that give rise to these discussions. i have been working in private practice and representing network owners who have a strong interest in this issue. i will try to get through the background quickly. it is helpful to understand where we got to today. back to 2002 the fcc confronted how to classify broadband services provided over cable networks. cable modem services. the big debate at the time was whether the services under the communications act, whether they should be considered telecommunications services or instead information services. they are generally regulated and referred to as title i services.

the distinction between those labels is important. they are mutually exclusive. telecommunication services consists of transmission. more advanced services can be telecom services when they are moving information. that is without any change in the content. in contrast, information services consist of transmissions and info processing. when you are retrieving stored information and acting on that information, that is considered an information service. the fcc said that broadband internet access when provided over the cable networks was an information service and only on information service. transmission was involved in providing this, transmission of information between remote servers and isps. s, transmission of information between remote servers and isps.

the fcc determines that the service when you viewed as a whole should be regulated as an information service. it should not be subject to title ii. traditional common carrier obligations to provide just and reasonable service and regulation of quality, none of that apply to broadband internet access. ruling, andof that it went to the supreme court and they upheld the decision, the fcc started to think about what sort of protections might accompany information service. the initial debate was not about rules for protecting consumers. they were known as open access debate. providers like earthlink wanted to make sure they had access to serve customers. the right one of debate over whether the fcc should compel providers to open up those

networks so that third parties would be able to step in and serve the customer. those mandates were never adopted. they were debated for years. was thelly emerged foundations of net neutrality. we had principles of first that consumer should have access to content. they should not be blocked by their isps. they should have access to services. the s cc codified some principles that were not binding, but were a statement of the expectations of the agency will stop it was an understanding that they would monitor developments in the industry stop there were allegations several years later that comcast had throttled traffic using bit torrent protocol. they brought action against comcast. that resulted in the first court case in the district circuit court of appeals.

struck down that order saying that the fcc did not have binding rules in place. they had not justified there in force in action to stop that case is pending and the fcc had proposed rules that resulted in the 2010 open internet order to stop that case went up to the d c circuit again i'll stop it was reversed in part in the verizon decision. in itsupheld transparency requirement for broadband providers to disclose important information. is regulation that prevented blocking of internet traffic. it was remanded to the agency. that has brought us to yesterday's proposal. i will hand it off. gus, thisi get to allows me to say some face. i forgot to talk about our process. the congressional caucus in

conjunction with the copies -- we have various congresspeople here. they cochaired the copies. the organization does not take any position. issue toeally great illustrate that will stop all we do is host balance discussions on these issues. pros and cons. the internet is important and needs to be preserved. thank the caucus and its cochairs. they have been supporting this program. that is our particular process. as far as it goes for the fcc -- >> in a similar vein, a little bit of an introduction.

i am the assistant professor of law at the university of nebraska. i teach telecommunications and regulation. there is a great program with a lot of graduates is. it is a quick plug. there is one of our graduates. i will talk about the process moving forward. i want to quickly start typing a pin in the comcast case. it is an interesting question of how the comcast case might have come out if the fcc had previously interpreted this section is applying to the internet stop they previously said it did not apply. we may want to come back to that question. the process moving forward. what happened on thursday? adopt assion voted to notice of rulemaking. the real beginning of

the process. it is a bit peculiar with the discussion we have been having. it was leaked prior to the commission meeting. all of the public import that has been happening and public discussion has been premature until today. commissions when the dumps this? i hope most of you in this room are familiar with the administrative procedure. this is governed by ordinary agency procedure will stop it applies to all agencies for the most part. adopted proposed rules and there is a public comment keyword that is open to stop the rulemaking process is referred to. the agency has given the public notice. they are waiting for comment.

over the next 60 days, between now and then, the agency will be accepting public,. following that, we will have another 60 days of the 120 day keyword -- period to respond to comment. the public can response to whatever has been submitted. it is too early to suffer from fcc fatigue. >> is never appropriate to suffer from that will stop >> there will be members who will be signing letters during the process and submitting comments. they will hold hearings. onre will be a hearing tuesday. >> one of the interesting things that the fcc has done given the public interest in the subject, they have been adopting some nonstandard mechanisms for the public to submit comments.

there is an e-mail address that will continue to be used throughout the public comment keyword -- period. they can e-mail comments. that is an interesting whatdural innovation stop happens after all of these comments are received? september 10, the comments will close. the commission will do one of three things. it will throw its hands up in the air and say, forget about it stop that is unlikely. the next alternative is the commission well take a look at all the comments that have been received and it will go back and delivery and start drafting a final rule. that will be issued sometime by the end of the year. the chairman wants to have this done by the end of the year. issuedal rule that is fromneed to be foreseeable

the proposed rules that were announced yesterday. ,hey either have to be the same notice, or a logical outgrowth of what is in the report. they cannot make up new rules will stop -- new rules. authorityalk about that was granted in 1996 and title to, which is a telephone service, there are openings for both of those. precise, itit more is currently -- they are proposing to use the weapons of comment on title 2 or other possible sources of authority.

it is for wireless and hybrid approaches such as those that were submitted to the agency. the fcc refers to them. their insert efforts from columbia university. most people know which professors those are. resulted in,, it would clearly be a logical outgrowth. >> they have both options? >> right. >> the third option they could do after the september 10 deadline is they could say, we need to think about this more will stop we will issue a further notice of rulemaking. that is another npr and. it will go through another comment cycle. machen happened many times. it probably will not happen in this days will stop the nprm

that was issued was very good. there are interesting things being done there. summarize, it looks like the nprm is a consumer choice of services. is like a bill of rights for consumers. what they can get an access. there is a no blocking rule, which is consistent with the last attempt. there are limits on privatization. that is a big question. there will be no internet fast lanes. speaking, iou stop sigh headline in the washington post that said internet fast lanes. we want to discuss that. then there is transparency. i think we laid out with the element was before. there will be some kind of business,- a start up

a consumer ombudsman. we can dispute these things and ask for permission to do certain things. >> usefully liked it much better than me. let me ask, how you feel this enhances or preserves nutty trolley? -- net neutrality? >> i'm sarah morris. i am the senior policy counsel for the open technology institute. we have been long-time advocates for open internet protection will stop i think those words will get misinterpreted and tossed around stop we, this with a strong concern that the internet is not just a platform for innovative business models. is a platform for innovation itself.

and for unfettered communication access among users. at the commissioners pointed out, this is not just about companies. this is about consumers and users and their ability to participate. to answer your question about what this means for the future of the open internet and our general reaction, this rulemaking is quite comprehensive. forredicates the framework the new net neutrality rules on a legally shaky ground. the framework itself is difficult to apply in real life. it will not afford the same

types of protections that we saw before. thinking pretty critically about what this means. there is a long way to go. >> thank you. as a communications lawyer, this nprm is a phenomenal document. it has everything you would ever want to tackle all stop it has raised intriguing questions. everyone believes in open internet. that was clear in the meeting. this is complicated and worth unpacking. what is in controversy and what

is not? i thought i would start with what is generally not in controversy. based on prior court cases we have seen, and with has been submitted. what is not controversy is two things. there is a certain -- a theory. contributes to broadband adoption. innovation by internet companies . the fcc goes through some examples of what has happened since 2010 that further shore up that theory. they were very clear on that point that the fcc had adequately lanes the reasoning. the second issue that is not controversy is that broadband havenet access providers the ability to limit openness.

supported andy explained their reasoning. then we get into what is really a controversy. is two in controversy things. whether and how to prevent privatization. the fcc wants to know whether there should be prioritization on the internet. how do they adopt that? >> is that the fast lane we've been hearing about? >> i hesitate to characterize it as a fast lane full i'm not sure how you would describe that. what they are proposing is a base level of service. it encourages individual organizations.

the second piece that is that controversy is what parts of the internet ecosystem that such broadband access should be subject to the rules? there is internet access that you pay for through cable or dsl. there is mobile internet access through your cell phone. folks that are interested in addressing where the cable companies and phone companies service attaches to the internet. those three categories will be the commission has said they will not change the scope in that regard. the rules will apply to wireless access with regard to mobile access. mobilee will prevent a provider from blocking website and applications that compete with mobile services. we will not get into

discrimination issues, which are not in play. -- the firstsue issue is the scope. the legal issue is framework for adoption of both worlds. that is whether the commission bases its authority on a provision in the statute that direct them to take necessary steps for broadband adoption. i would characterize it differently and say that the commission has strong legal ground to or. the question is, how far can they go? is, whether they anchor their roles in telephony that kids that impose, carrier obligations. the commission raises some questions about that post do

they anchor some of this in roles? lastly, there could be other theories of jurisdiction and whether it is based on cable statutes or some other statute that they could use to justify some part of the roles. there's a law in in the rules. onis important to refocus the controversy of the scope of the roles. that is why they propose rules -- there is a lot of controversy will stop that has beenwar said. i will not cite you how to respond to stop privatization, walking. feel free to comment. >> i agree with a lot of what markham has said. in terms of the things that are

not in controversy, i would not fully agree that everyone would say broadband providers have an incentive to cause harm. they are operating in a competitive environment. they want the best possible service for their customers. if they did something harmful, there will be a price to waive. -- pay. old examples that were trotted out as babies is for net neutrality would never happen. the old example is that with a provider denied access to amazon.com and shifted traffic to barnes & noble? they shifted your attempt to reach certain websites. there will would be a massive consumer backlash. -- such conduct would be condemned. it would not occur in the marketplace.

all agree thatd there is enough competition that providers would never engage in that behavior. there are fair debates about whether some of the priority arrangements that can be called or innovative business arrangements, whether those are good or bad and whether there are incentives to engage. a wad of the action in these proceedings will be about prioritization. the is that it is important to understand that there can be good prioritization or bad. it is easy to think of examples of both all stop charming wheeler says that he has priority access to the telephone network stop we should all retain that on the internet. serviceagine a remote where there is a heart surgeon and a city is consulting with a patient in a remote area of stop

let's imagine that application. it would seem logical to prioritize that traffic over other forms of traffic that are less sensitive. at the other end of the spectrum, we all agree that if a broadband provider had exclusive arrangements to prioritize traffic, that would be anti-competitive. the point and the takeaway is that prioritization itself is not inherently good or bad. it depends on the context. ii orr we are under title section 706, the commission has appropriately proposed to judge these things on a case-by-case basis. the choice of legal authority will not affect that all stop their proposing to make context specific case-by-case judgments

about the appropriateness of certain behaviors. that makes sense. the scope is missing. if we're worried about consumers having access to the content they are choosing, the threat to that openness does not come only from broadband. hearingerested in groups arguing for open internet. protection seldom talked about what is going on outside of this. we have real-world examples all the time. last year and this year, and retransmission disputes. content owners have withheld content from customers to essentially punish a cable provider. often consumers are damaged in that. they cannot get access in a retransmission dispute within cbs and time warner cable. withheld it from internet

access address is longing to time warner cable will stop some of those customers were not time warner customers. they might have been directv subscribers. the weird thing from my perspective is that those who support a role for government in promoting openness do not seem to be talking about those sorts of comments, which are not hypothetical. they are occurring. going to haveare this debate about the role of government and it will make judgments about what sorts of discrimination are good or bad, it is hard to have that debate without looking at other players will stop without looking at whether a content owner or other service providers are acting in a way that violates these principles. >> that is interesting. i was not expecting to hear retransmission issues. do you want to address the elephant in the room? >> i will address several

elements for -- elephants. i want to say that mr. brill is a wise and learned man. i also would have brought a retransmission fees as an example. saysetaphor is, google that they will not allow their --ver -- searchers to use time warner cannot use it. cox can. say, cut usx could a better deal or we will cut off netflix to you. your customers will be harmed. >> there is an interesting history here. the baseline to take away from this history is that the content has as much or more market power than the distribution side. we as a society, we like the content side of stop it is valuable to us.

we tend to side with the content side. there is fiber in the ground. why is that so much money? if you look at the 19th century and telegrams, there was major litigation. there were investigations. actinged like they were anti-competitively. they were harming the public. after substantial investigation, the government realized that this is the news agencies that are bad actors. the entire investigation shifted to focus on them. in many ways, this is the same dynamic. the content side and the distribution side, these are big corporate entities will stop frequently the consumer gets stuck in the middle. we turn our initial attention and blame because we like the content guides. we realize that it is the content guys who are exerting

market power. to get back to the original is then, it started as open internet a good thing right acting? i think it is a bad thing for a particular reason. no matter what the commission does, unless it goes for the option that i outlined before that it won't do saying no, we won't do anything, what will result is another 2-4 years of litigation. that will be followed by 2-4 years of bickering over the details of implementation. that will just be on jurisdiction issues. that will not have a sensitive -- substantive issue. the commission has authority to take action against a wide range of net neutrality violations. anything they could ultimately

take action against. section 706. my preference would be for the commission to say, we are not going to make rules here. we will wait for real problems to occur. ?> can you give me examples given theou name comcast decision and given what they did? what authority do they have? >> the comcast example is a great example. if the current understanding of section 706 as applied to the internet were to have been the extent interpretation, that case could have come out like differently. they dismissed it on certain grounds.

the fcc could not enforce the policy. there was discussion about the nature of a policy statement. >> i am confused. you are saying that the circuit court read in 2706? >> the fcc breathed new life into it. in 2010 with the open internet we arethe fcc said, revising our prior understanding of 706. with our new understanding, it does apply to the internet. under basic principles of administrative law, the agent can change their entire interpretation. there are two important cases here. they are both fcc cases. the first is fcc versus fox. a 2007 case where justice scalia said that agencies can change our prior interpretations .

a previous interpretation does not bar them from doing so. where the agency -- this was the continuation of the prior case. entities subject to a case-by-case adjudication have noticed that they might take action against them. they can take action against them. they can change the rules. there were a mind supreme court cases. >> will we get to the elephant in the room? glad this is the lightning round. of section 706. this is a knob adjusting. the burden of proof on the agency with the level of formality they need to go through to enforce the statute. is the unjuston

and unreasonable discrimination. --y say it does not prohibit it only prohibits unreasonable discrimination. under case law, that is express language that would need to begin in meaning. >> i have a ton of questions. >> can i respond? >> get your questions ready. we will come around with a boom mic. just speak into it. >> i want to talk about what is different in these rules, versus what was in the 2010 order. particularly in light of this dialogue that has started to unfold about the beauty pageant of whether we like content providers more. why the distinctions matter from an economic standpoint. i want to point out something that is interesting from a structure stand point of the

proposed rulemaking. the commission is trying to that held theets rules in the 2010 order. that was the no blocking rule and the nondiscrimination rule. , they talk about the transparency role. the no blocking rule as it is modified, and we can talk about specifics, but instead of going to the nondiscrimination rule, they go to codifying an enforceable rule. this is important because this represents a really critical distinction that the circuit pointed out. you can do the rules that you wanted to do in the 2010 order, that you cannot apply them to non-common carriers. this is why the fcc is bending over backwards to figure out how to protect against

discrimination and how to do so in a way that allows individualized bargaining. it is trying to do nondiscrimination through rules that protect against the opposite. that is important here. getting back to a point that was made at the beginning about how things are not controversial from a legal standpoint in terms said andye 2010 order d.c. circuit agreed with -- that is, there is a risk of discrimination by internet service providers that would interfere with the advancement of telecommunication services. i want to talk about why that is true. a broadbande subscription in your home, you only have one for residential home broadband.

not ascribe to comcast and another service provider. that is a terminating access monopoly for to reach each subscriber of a network, a content company has to negotiate or connect entrance met -- and transmit their content. terminating access monopoly is important. some of the other panelists may say that this is fiction gets people have cell phones and other tablets. i think we can all think about this as reasonable people. if i have a home broadband subscription, i will not use my four g service to watch netflix. my primary source of connectivity is my wired isp. i will use my phone to watch videos at night.

i do so, but not over my data plan. i do so over my wi-fi network at home. that is why we're concerned. we're are not concerned because we do not like i used. i have nothing against them. i do have concerns about the way that the internet is structured and the way we have seen historically that service providers take advantage of their status in the market. i want to clarify concerns and why they are specific to isps. >> we are in the lightning round. glad i will do this lightning version. i watch a lot of netflix over my verizon. i am a beneficiary of a grandfather data plan. not everyone can do that.

israelk of competition and important -- israel and him are. i think as we get competition and net neutrality concerns fall basicthe question is a title to debate. it is largely driven by two worldviews. competition is not possible. the other is that competition is possible, and we do not need title to. i want to response to an economic argument that has been made here. this goes back to the idea of the virtuous circle. it is absolutely correct. it can also go the other way. the virtuous circle describes a two-sided market will stop the economic literature very consistently holds the same result.

it can harm consumers. it can also benefit substantially. prioritization, we are foreclosing the possibility of certain business and that could benefit consumers. >> can ask you to clarify? there seems to be a lot in the press and i a lot of conversations about title ii. it has been around for 80 years. common carriage in telecommunications has had a lot of things attached to it. layers and layers of regulation. it is going back 80 years. what do they mean by that? why is that not a problem? >> the basic question of title ii is that we do not know. provisions lot of that would by virtue of

reclassification automatically applies to the internet ecosystem. there is a process of weaving most of them. there is a forbearance process. it is not clear. as companies develop new business plans, this is the important transition. it agencies want to develop new plans, they would have to go to the fcc and get frugal through forbearance. that could take 15 months. >> you innovate. innovation by permission. is that right? >> excuse me. one thing that is correct is that there is literature that says a two-sided market can be beneficial. that is right disagree with sarah. embracingheeler is paid prioritization. he is arguing that they are

proposing that it should not necessarily be the norm. there is a base level of service. debate, whether the scope of the rules has to be a predicate before we get into whether we want to be in a certain category. it is hard to say which theory i would jump to until you decide what vision for the internet you would like to have. >> the commission has proposed questions on whether they think paid prioritization is good or not good. nprm did not advocate paid prioritization. the first part of that will necessarily inform the answer to the second part. >> a couple points on title ii.

there are a lot of misconceptions. choice policy driven that the fcc has discretion to make. some advocates talk about if we , it will drive a certain result. they are classifying other lines. they will look closely at how these services are provided to the consumers. it will make a technical termination of how that fits. the supreme court affirmed it on that basis. factual particulars of the service are driving classification. the fcc cannot disregard facts and say they approve or a different outcome. they had a record showing. the functions are not what they were. that might justify a different result.

that is not the case. the technologies i've spoken to say that there is nothing fundamentally different about the way isps are structured. that is one important thing to keep in mind. there is an enormous amount of baggage with title ii. it has historically required terror thing of services and price regulation. it is an intensely regulatory framework. many people feel that it is ill suited to the ecosystem. the fcc has tried to address those concerns. they may be able to waive some of its provisions. experience, that would generate a ton of and certainty. they? would a court upholds it? a lot of that uncertainty is a concern. there is a huge spillover risk. if they look at transmission in internet access and say that

transmission would be viewed as a separate regulated service, guess what? everyone else is providing transmission too. networks andery other providers who have always been providing services on an egg regulated -- unregulated basis. they are all providing transmission together content from servers to isps. there would be on in honesty stabilizing risk. it will be regulated for the first time as a telecom service. many other forms of internet transmission might be regulated. from my standpoint, having watched the debate. debate, ifatched the they want to achieve certain concessions that

there are review procedures. they are meant to ensure appropriate arrangements. we can forge a consensus around that. title ii is something that will never lead to consensus. it will lead to uncertainty and fighting. >> matt has hit on an interesting point. it is one of the things that will be the undercurrent of the debate. where do you want to see uncertainty lie? at&t says that they think there is too much uncertainty with the reasonable standards. i think it would lead to litigation over deals. uncertainty over what kind of arrangements they can do. if isropose a rule that not affiliated, and it doesn't engage in an affiliated way, there should be some sort of

as long asill be ok there is a baseline of internet service. fast we havewe are had 10 years of litigation. it is a debate about where the uncertainty lies. it makes consumers nervous about access to content. providers are nervous that they will have to pay more. they may be forced into relationships when they have isps. they may be foreclosing potential revenue surfaces that services. whered argue that that is it is going to be impossible to get to a consensus about all that. it is the job of the regulator to figure how to bridge those gaps. forbearance, we were supposed to start this five minutes ago.

if i get to donovan and allison. two grams a few questions. does anyone have a question? they will bring a boom mic over to you. it is live. raise your hand. the netflix deal, i heard dealthe netflix to comcast does not touch the internet. it is a private line. it is from netflix network to the comcast network. in terms of paid prioritization, will people be able to do these side deals where they do direct lines bypassing the public internet? that is probably

89 or 90. when chairman wheeler was walking out, someone from the press asked about that question. he said it does not apply to the netflix deal. >> i agree with that. let me explain. these open internet rules are aimed at governing the connection between internet service providers and consumers. when we talk in that context about paid prioritization, what we're saying is that at&t should not be allowed to cut a deal with netflix. it will speed up the delivery of netflix traffic. that is compared to other services. we will have a debate over whether such an arrangement might be reasonable. the interconnection between networks and netflix directly comcast and between comcast with an intermediary is something that the sec has set it outside of these rules. it is a debate raised on

relationships that are scrutinized independent of open internet. there is a lot of activity around that. the chairman has said that it is not part of a net neutrality proceeding. >> i represent netflix. chairman has proposed that they do not extend the roles, it does ask whether it should do so. -- let'sent for that say you have rules that prevented arrangement where at&t is not able to extract a new charge. and there was a lot they could accomplish.

and whether the fcc will agree with that view or not and whether they think it should be a different proceeding. there'll be advocates that say it has to be addressed. >> i would add that the fact that the net lights comcast arrangement is coming up as a controversy in light of net neutrality is evidence that the rules work. network fromd the unreasonable discrimination. in fact, that discriminatory behavior and pressure points moved to a different point in a network. the worry here is that again, given the highest fee -- the interest, theyg have the ability to not just extract fees from content companies. they can extract fees that are not grounded in market-driven rates.

they could charge a toll. >> i want to respond quickly. i think that is fundamentally wrong to stop there is not one fight that netflix has available. what makes the deal possible is the marketplace where netflix and comcast have separate. there are backbone providers. their content delivery networks. historically, netflix is used all of those routes to transmit traffic. its own economic benefit as cutting out the middleman. it comes out with an economic arrangement. no one made netflix do that. they came up with the idea and they are saving money. i resist the idea that somehow net neutrality had anything to do with that. think about it in common sense.

this is an ideal position with merger proceedings ending. they wanted to use the regulatory process to avoid a they voluntarily went into a commercial arrangement. >> putting on my engineering hat full this is a nice demonstration of the technical architecture of the internet. technologists and engineers will tie you that the internet is not neutral. it is a concept that has a technological meaning. one of the reasons is the design of the network. there is a great deal of influence over how effectively different sources will be handled by the internet. i want to highlight that it is nothing new for netflix or anyone to use a private connection to bypass parts of the public network. that is what level three cost is

this model has been. they have a private network that the use to bypass congestion of the public internet. connect withctly the destination high-speed. but that is not from an engineering perspective. the think matt raises factual question, which will have to be addressed. if those roads are congested in a program is so popular that you have used up all the capacity and the isp says that you will have to pay us to open up another poor to gain the capacity, that is the first question. the second one is, is that rate subject to market or says? are they able to choose a number based on business models. that will be the question on the docket. >> in a nice twist on that, from an antitrust perspective, we

focus on the power to set prices. netflix is in a different position. they are in a position -- they represent such a significant portion of the traffic. >> this week we spoke with glenn greenwald on "washington journal." he talked about his new book, edward snowden and the u.s. surveillance state. you can watch the interview tomorrow at 2:00 eastern on c-span. wrote something one time and it stated that in the south, he was looked at as a hero. ,hen you have any time a crisis your people always looking -- are looking for someone they can

look up to. who devastatedn union commerce. people in the free world or other parts of the world, europe and stuff, you have got to understand, commerce back then was ships. stuff like this. overseas,they did he captured the imagination of england, france and everywhere. people were writing about him. if you were from up north, you hated him. just like anybody, you were going to label him if you hate him the lowest names you can think up i'm a which they did. -- which they did. he was an honorable man and he hated that his name was being used i nn a way that was not being honorable to he and his family. the united states government in all governments frowned upon this because you are disturbing their ability to fight a war.

you are also disturbing their commerce. and simms countered with that. he said, he was doing nothing that had not been done before, especially by the united states 1812, and war of especially during the american revolution. since the people government could not pay these people, they made them, if you will, privateer, private go out and who would stop commerce or disrupt the british fleet, and that is exactly what they did. >> learn about the rich history and literary life of mobile, alabama, on book tv and american history tv throughout the weekend on c-span two and sunday at 2:00 on c-span three. you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your

smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime, and there is a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want. our signaturerom programs, like "afterwards," "the communicators" and "q&a." onlined your free app for iphone, android, or blackberry. in his weekly address, president obama outlined his land to create more jobs to expand opportunities and boost economic growth. senator john mccain of arizona gave the republican address. he talked about veterans issues, including decent care for veterans. >> hi, everybody. at a time when our businesses have created 9.2 million new jobs in just over four years, and more companies are considering bringing jobs back from overseas, we have a choice to make. we can make it easier for businesses to invest in america

-- or we can make it harder. i want to work with congress to create jobs and opportunity for more americans. but where congress won't act, i will. and i want to talk about three things we're doing right now. first, we're helping more businesses bring jobs to america from overseas. three years ago, my administration created selectusa -- a team of people in embassies abroad and agencies here at home focused on insourcing instead of outsourcing. today, they're helping a belgian company create jobs in oklahoma. they're helping a canadian company create jobs in kansas. in my state of the union address, i asked more businesses to do their part. and this week, business leaders from across the country are coming here to the white house to discuss new investments that will create even more jobs. second, on thursday, i'll be heading to cooperstown, new york -- home of the baseball hall of fame -- to talk about tourism. because believe it or not, tourism is an export.

and if we make it easier for more foreign visitors to visit and spend money at america's attractions and unparalleled national parks, that helps local businesses and grows the economy for everyone. finally, we know that investing in first-class infrastructure attracts first-class jobs. and i want to spend a minute on this, because it's very important this year. we know business owners don't seek out crumbling roads and bridges and backed-up supply chains. they set up shop where the newest, fastest transportation and communications networks let them invent and sell goods made in america to the rest of the world as fast as possible. here's the problem -- if congress doesn't act by the end of this summer, federal funding for transportation projects will run out. states might have to put some of their projects on hold. in fact, some already are, because they're worried congress won't clear up its own gridlock. and if congress fails to act, nearly 700,000 jobs would be at risk over the next year.

that's why i put forward a plan to rebuild our transportation infrastructure in a more responsible way. it would support millions of jobs across the country. and we'd pay for it without adding to the deficit by closing wasteful tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas. now, the republicans in congress seem to have very different priorities. not only have they neglected to prevent this funding from running out, their proposal would actually cut by 80% a job-creating grant program that has funded high-priority transportation projects in all 50 states. and they can't say it's to save money, because at the very same time, they voted for trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, weighted towards those at the very top. think about that. instead of putting people to work on projects that would grow the economy for everyone, they voted to give a huge tax cut to households making more than $1 million a year. so while congress decides what

it's going to do, i'll keep doing what i can on my own. on wednesday, i was in new york where workers are building the area's first large new bridge in 50 years. and they're doing it ahead of schedule. three years ago, i took action without congress to fast-track the permitting process for major projects. normally, it would have taken three to five years to permit that bridge. we did it in a year and a half. and i announced a new plan to cut red tape and speed up the process for even more projects across the country. all these steps will make it easier for businesses to invest in america and create more good jobs. all of them can be done without congress. but we could do a lot more if congress was willing to help. in the meantime, i'll do whatever i can -- not just to make america a better place to do business, but to make sure hard work pays off, and opportunity is open to all. thanks, and have a great weekend. hi, i am senator john mccain.

next weekend we will observe another memorial day. americans will greet the holiday as the unofficial beginning of summer and a good day weather permitting for picnics and all manner of outdoor recreation. the mile, in cemeteries all over the country, a bugler will sound ps" to remind us of the sacrifices that day is intended to commemorate. since our nation's founding, americans have been fighting in faraway places to make this dangerous world safer for the rest of us. they have been brave, sacrificed and suffered. dave their wounds and more losses they will never complete and we can never fully compensate them for. but we can care for the injuries they suffered on our behalf and for their physical and emotional recovery in the battles they fought to protect us. decent care for our veterans is among the most solemn obligations and nation incurs.

we will be judged by god and history by how well we discharge hours. -- ours. that is why am deeply troubled by gross mismanagement, fraud, and neglect at a growing number of veterans administration medical centers across the country. it has been more than a month since allegations at some 40 veterans -- that 40 veterans died while waiting for care at the phoenix v.a. were made public. today, the administration has failed to respond in an effective manner. this has created in our veterans community a crisis of confidence toward the v.a., the very agency that was established to care for them. hosted inhall forum i phoenix last week, the families of four veterans who passed away in recent months there before a crowded room to tell the stories. with tears in their eyes, they described how their loved one suffered because they were not provided the care they needed and deserved.

they recalled countless unanswered phone calls and ignored messages, wait times, bureaucratic red tape while their loved ones suffered debilitating and ultimately fatal conditions. hundreds if not thousands of veterans have been made to suffer more or even passed away as a result of egregious mismanagement in scheduling delays at the v.a. no one should be treated this way in a country as great as ours. but treating those to whom we owe the most so callously, so i'm gratefully is unconscionable and we should all be ashamed. the allegations of veterans dying while waiting for care in tosecret waitlist" used conceal how long veterans are waiting for appointments were first made in arizona in recent months. since those initial reports, however, the scandal has gone nationwide. a similar allegation have come

to light involving clinics and hospitals across america. healthst week, a v.a. coordinator in wyoming was found to have orchestrated a scheme to hide delays in care, it meeting in an internal e-mail "it is gaming the system a bit." in georgia, three suicide thrilling to mismanagement of mental. hospital's health unit. altogether, reports of lengthy waiting lists and other issues have surfaced recently in at least 10 states. has secretary shinseki ordered an audit to look at the management practices of v.a. medical centers. several employees have been placed on administrative leave, and the v.a. office of inspector general is investigating the phoenix v.a. i respect the important role of the expected general --inspector general, but my federal veterans cannot wait. they need answers,

accountability, and leadership from this administration and congress now. the v.a. is suffering from a his systemic problem. what is needed is a total refocusing of the v.a. on its core mission of serving veterans, stretching from its top political leadership all the way through to its career civil servants who as recently reports suggest may have been too often motivated by all the wrong incentives and rewards. congress must also give v.a. administrators greater ability to hire and fire those charged with caring for our veterans. most importantly, we must give veterans greater flexibility in how they get quality care in a timely manner. veterans have earned the right to choose where and when they get their medical care, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they are afforded this option. our veterans gave us their best.

but it is obvious that too often they have gotten the worst of those charged with their care. our country does not depend on the here with some of every citizen. but we must be worthy of the sacrifices that were made on our behalf. who risked for those everything for us is the most important test of the nation's character. today, we are failing that test. we must do better tomorrow, much better. for the 9 million american veterans enrolled in the v.a. today, and for the families is tragic stories we heard last week in phoenix, who i know are still grieving the losses, it is time we lived up to abraham lincoln's injunction which serves as the v.a.'s motto. " to care for him who shall have borne the radel and for his widow and orphan." so that on some future memorial

day as we celebrate the beginning of summer and the comforts of life in a safe and successful country, we need not shame but onlyn in gratitude for the sacrifice made to keep it so. thank you. >> coming up next on c-span, "the communicators" with former representatives rick boucher and jack fields talking about their role in drafting the 1996 telecommunications act. and congressional efforts now to rewrite it. after that, a closer look at the islamic terrorist group responsible for abducting 200 schoolgirls in nigeria. this isp.m. eastern, unveiling of the national 9/11 memorial and museum in new york city. c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

host: it has been 18 years since a 1996 telecommunications act was signed by president clinton. today on "the communicators," we are going to discuss that act, its goals, and whether it should be rewritten. joining us are two of the authors of the 1996 telecommunications act, rick a democrat from virginia. i was very fortunate. i was the chairman of the subcommittee on telecommunications and finance. telecommunication policy had not been reform since 1934. so there was really a compelling need in 1995 to begin a process of massive telecommunication reform. at that time, you basically had