d be about making your priorities the government's priorities. that's what our budget will do. it will be a blueprint, not only for how government spends our money each year but for a brighter future, better jobs, higher wages, and greater opportunity for everyone. thank you for listening. and may god continue to bless our great country. >> here on c-span, the communicators is next with f.c.c. special counsel gigi sohn. she talks about the commission's net neutrality proposal, which is said to be voted on later this month. then the foreign minister of qatar discusses threats posed by isolatesisis and other challenges in the middle east. and later, ruth ginsburg talks about her life and career. >> c-span, created by cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public

service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> f.c.c. chairman tom wheeler has presented his net neutrality proposal to the other commissioners. the vote in the federal communications commission is due on february 26. joining us on the communicators this week to talk about that is f.c.c. special counsel gigi sohn. gigi sohn, about a month or so ago, chairman wheeler talked about a different proposal that did not include title 2 regulation. whatever happened to that? why didn't that get presented to the commissioners? >> i think you're referring to a couple months ago there was a discussion of a hybrid proposal but that included title 2. and in fact, there were several different proposals. all of which included title 2. so the chairman really had been considering title 2 as part of a

net neutrality solution. now i'd say, for about four or five months now. >> well, our guest reporter had a front-page story this week in the wall street journal on the process of developing that. what i wanted to ask was, some of the companies involved with the white house, according to our guest are pretty successful companies. etsy et cetera. why do they need further protection as it were, net neutrality protection, when they've been successful up to this point? >> the reason those groups -- and by the way, chairman wheeler met with those groups in brooklyn, new york last june, groups like etsy and tumbler and kickstarter. they became successful because the internet was open. they got to choose who they got to sell their goods to. you know, they got to choose how they wanted to run their business without an internet

service provider in the middle telling them what to do or whether they had to pay for priority service or better equality of service. so that's why they're successful. what they were asking for was for us to preserve those rules. as you know, the rules that were in place in 2010 got struck down by the d.c. circuit here in town in january of 2014. so the chairman needed to reinstate rules in order to ensure that those companies could continue to thrive. >> but has anything changed in the way the net operates since 2010? >> well, under the 2010 rules the internet service providers broadband internet access providers, like verizon, like comcast, they knew that if they prioritized their own content or other content for pay that somebody could come to the f.c.c. and say they're acting illegally. so -- and for the most part

they behaved. what's really important about those rules was it gave public interest groups and others, and companies, a tool by which they could go to an internet service provide, if they felt they were engaging in discriminatory behavior, and say, hey, look, you're violating the rules here. i think those rules kept the companies that doing the wrong thing. similarly, even though the rules were struck down in 2014, the chairman said right away, in february i'm going to reinstate these rules. i'm going to figure out the best way to reinstate these rules. the internet service providers also were on their best behavior, because they knew if they even ran afoul of the 2010 rules that had been struck down, they'd be asking for trouble. >> gigi, when the chairman gave that statement you just referred to, he indicated he believed it was possible to preserve net neutrality without changing how broadband was classified. subsequently, we have seen him evolve, as he has said, to a

position where now he's going to be classified both mobile and fixed broadband as common carriers for the purpose of implementing these rules. why is that necessary? >> so let me just talk a little bit about the chairman's evolution, because, you know, your article was very interesting. but i do think that it missed one fundamental point. your article said that the president by his announcement, calling for title 2, forced the chairman's hand. but the fact of the matter is that he was evolving long before that. let me give you a couple of data points. in june the chairman announced he was going to do an investigation. the f.c.c. was going to do an investigation into interconnection practices between netflix and comcast and verizon. so he started to see the importance of that market. in august, he sent a letter to verizon's c.e.o., because they were throttling, quote unquote

unlimited customers. in response, verizon stopped doing that. at that time, he started to kind of look at the laws governing mobile broadband and found that in fact mobile broadband -- excuse me -- mobile voice had been regulated under title 2 of the communications act for 20 years in a light-touch way and had led to almost $300 billion worth of investment. in fact, he met with the wireless industries in september and basically told them in almost no uncertain terms -- really wasn't any mystery -- that he was going to level the playing field between mobile broadband and fixed broadband when it came to net neutrality rules which was something that was not in the 2010 rules. then by october, as we started talking about this hybrid that had title 2 in it. so there really was an evolution here. i find the fascination with the chairman's evolution kind of interesting, because nobody talks about how the president

evolved on gay marriage anymore right? it's not important where he was. it's important where he is now. and where he is now is that title 2 is the securitiest legal authority. we've been to court twice. some people will argue whether we've lost twice or whether we sort of won the last one, because the court said we had authority under 706. the fact of the matter is, there are no net neutrality rules now. he wants to be the last chairman to go to court and he wants that court to say you are on firm legal ground. >> it sounds like -- >> let me say two things. i think it's important to remind people four million americans weighed in here. okay? the president did as well. i think what the president's statement did was, rather than force the chairman's hand, was give him cover to do something that he already was thinking

about doing. but as a lot of people know, i've been doing this kind of work for a really long time. for four million people to weigh in to an f.c.c. proceeding is humongous. the vast majority of them were asking for a stronger legal authority. they were asking for title 2. it shocked me, right? i expected people to say we want strong net neutrality rules. but for them to specifically ask for this, long before the president did, is really quite amazing. >> gigi, so what's the advantage to a comcast, an at&t, a verizon in your view if this proposal goes through? >> certainty. these companies, particularly verizon, at&t, they lived under a title 2 regime when they had dsl service. so prior to 2005 -- so in 2002 the f.c.c. decided that cable modem service was an information

service. but dsl service which is what at&t, verizon operated under was a title 2 service until 2005 when then-chairman martin, after the case had gone all the way to the supreme court and decided that dsl would be similarly deregulated. so it's not like they don't know how to live under this regime. in fact, this regime has a lighter touch. it's only going to apply a handful of provisions of title 2, a lighter touch than what they lived with 12 years ago. comcast, similarly, they know the rules. so this gives them the certainty that we haven't had now for over 10 years. frankly, even longer than that. it's really been about 15 years now that people have been advocating -- first it was called open access. then it was called net neutrality. to put this thing to bed finally after 15 years, i think the companies will actually find

that easier. >> in 2001, was net neutrality one of your key goals? >> it was. >> title 2 net neutrality? >> no. i think that wasn't -- because remember, in 2001, the f.c.c. hadn't classified cable modem service yet as an information service. that didn't happen until 2002. if you remember, in 2001, in the late 90's, everybody was worried about a.o.l. and the walled garden. they wanted a.o.l. to open up its network to other voices. and it wasn't until the classification of cable modem service and then the reclassification of dsl in 2005 that people started to say, why did we do this? i think there's an important point out. the brand x decision was a decision in 2005 where the supreme court said -- the supreme court looked at the

f.c.c.'s cable modem decision, the decision to classify it as a service, they said this isn't the greatest decision but it's not arbitrary and capricious. it's not in plain english, totally wacky. and i think people misconstrue that brand x case. all the supreme court did is say the f.c.c. has the discretion to interpret the communications act. even though it's not the best interpretation, as long as it's not wacky, we have to uphold it. and i think that's what's going to happen here. okay? well, i think it's going to be better here. we reclassify. we'll inevitably be taken to court. and the court will say whether or not they agree with our reclassification, that is not wacky, not arbitrary capricious. an independent agency has the abilities and the legal right to determine what its authority is and determine what the classification of its services are. so i feel good about the legal

authority that we've chosen here. >> the broadband industry officials, of course have -- many of them have a different opinion, i think it's fair to say, about the legal authority you've chosen. they say they are okay with net neutrality but that classifying them as a common carrier is a step too far. as you outlined, the chairman signaled that he intended to forebear for much of the title 2 regulations -- i speak yesterday to broadband industry officials who believe that section 201 of title 2 would actually contain that rate regulation authority. so even if this f.c.c. does not choose to use it, have you made it easier for a future f.c.c., if they should so choose, to regulate broadband pricing? >> that's a scare tactic. i know folks that work for the isp's are up in wall street telling investors and others, oh, my god, this is going to lead to rate regulation. i think a perfect example is the

mobile industry. there hasn't been rate regulation. there's been no rate regulation of a retail service since cable regulation, 22 23 years ago. so i think the fear is unfounded. the chairman has said we are not going to rate regulate. and hey, i don't know who the next f.c.c. chairman is. the next f.c.c. chairman may try to throw out this whole regime and do something more free market oriented or less regulatory. i don't really buy the "next chairman" argument because the rules are only as good as the guy or the gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. so we've got to do our best to set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers, that will preserve on open internet which has been the greatest driver of economic development free speech, innovation this world has ever known. >> there's been a lot of talk about preserving the internet the way it is. but the way the internet is today, a large percentage of

americans, depending on your definition of broadband, don't have access to broadband at home. that is where the question of rate regulation comes in. isn't there a case for some sort of subsidized program in order to make broadband available to a greater percentage of american households? >> well, there is a program but it's called universal service. it's not rate regulation. it's one of the privileges we will not be forebearing from. that ensures that people in the deepest rural areas, in the poorest urban areas, get an opportunity to have broadband. now, let me tell you it hasn't solved the problem. its existence has not solved the problem. we just put out a study a couple weeks ago that showed that 53% of rural americans do not have access to what we are considering table stakes for broadband. 17% of all americans don't have

access. so this is a major problem. and we can try to solve it through programs like universal service, both through the connect america fund which goes to rural areas, and we're also looking at whether lifeline, a subsidy for the poorest americans, whether that should be a broadband fund. we're also trying to promote competition. everybody is so excited and focused on net neutrality, that they've kind of ignored the other item on the docket in february, and that's what the chairman has recommended, again, there has to be a vote on february 26, but he's recommended the preelse preemption of two state laws that prohibit local community broadband providers from expanding their current footprints. so there are in our calculation, 21 states that have restrictions on communities building their own broadband service, whether it's the city themselves, whether it's a public-private partnership whether it's coops. there are 21 states that

restrict it. we believe if those bounds were freed, then there would be more competition. competition drives down prices, results in better service results in more service. so we are going to find other ways to promote competition to fill the rule and the urban -- the rural and the urban gap. >> gigi sohn, what was the rational behind treating wireless the same as wired broadband? and is this unprecedented in a sense? >> it is unprecedented because the 2010 rules did not have a level playing field with regard to open internet rules. they were applied very weakly. there were one or two provisions that applied to wireless, but for the most part, it didn't apply to wireless. 55% of all internet traffic is now mobile wireless. this is the future. everybody has -- not everybody but most people have a

smartphone or a tablet or, you know another device that connects to the wireless internet. it's everywhere. a lot of households have multiple devices. it just didn't seem to make sense to the chairman anymore, in 2014, now 2015, to leave wireless unprotected when it is more than half of the internet traffic. >> speaking of wireless, we do see some more innovative or newer business models already emerged in wireless, especially in the low cost and prepaid arena, things called zero ratings. your proposal indicates that you guys will handle those programs on a case-by-case basis. can you tell us, what is the criteria for something like a zero rated facebook program would be permitted under the net neutrality rules? >> so we talked about the legal authority in some detail. let me talk about the actual rules themselves. there are three bright line rules. okay? you cannot have an internet

service provider cannot block lawful applications and services. they cannot throttle. that means they can't impair or degrade lawful content applications and services. and they cannot engage in paid prioritization, that is, either favor their own affiliated content or another content through consideration. then there's what i call a safety net or catch-all rule. that basically says that any internet service provider practice that harms user choice or edge providers' ability to make their content applications and services available to users will be looked at for whether it's discriminatory or not. okay? so the zero rating, we do not take a position on zero rating. but if somebody were to bring a complaint and then have to do that, it would be viewed under that safety net lens. >> and let's talk about the other aspect of this order, which is that it will, for the

first time, give the f.c.c. authority over interconnection, where the back end of the broadband network connects to big traffic carriers like level 3 or content companies like netflix. can you explain why there are going to be some paid arrangements allowed there, and again, what the criteria is when the f.c.c. is evaluating them? >> i don't want to judge whether paid arrangements will be allowed. what we have done by extending title 2 to interconnection or traffic exchange is, for the very first time, giving companies like netflix google, level 3, amazon, the ability, if they believe they're being charged unreasonable rates or they're being discriminated against, if an internet service provider is favoring their own traffic over theirs, to come in and file a complaint and say they are discriminating against us they are charging unjust and unreasonable rates under section 201, 202 and 208 of the communications act.

this is a very big thing, because we've never taken -- and this is where it goes further than the president's position, which is a point i wanted to make before. there are two places where our proposal is actually stronger than president obama's proposal. one is in that he didn't actually call for us to exert authority over interconnection and second is we're not only using title 2 as a source of authority, we're using section 706 of the telecommunications acts of 1996 and title 3, which covers mobile of the communications act. so we've actually gone further than the president's proposal. >> gigi sohn, does anyone have this proposal besides chairman wheeler, jessica michael o'reilly? >> well, staff do. outside of the agency, no. >> and when will it become public so that it can be reported on or so that the public can read it? >> it will become public after february 26. >> what happens on february 26.

>> february 26, we will take a vote and we need two other commissioners to vote for this proposal. >> and do you think that clieburn and jessica will vote for it? >> i can't speak for them. >> what about the fact that the house of representatives and the senate have each held hearings already on net neutrality and that mr. theun and mr. upton are looking at developing bills that would essentially make this proposal inconsequential? >> so the f.c.c. as you know is a creature of congress. they write our laws. they wrote the telecommunications act of 1996 and the communications act of 1934. it is their prerogative to legislate. and that is what they do. but we have to do what we do as well, as an independent agency. we need to move forward. it's been over a year now where we've been without rules that protect an open internet. so we're going to move forward and congress will move forward. and we'll see what happens.

>> last time he was on this program, he suggested that the vote be delayed. >> the chairman obviously disagrees. again, it's been over a year. the internet has nothing protecting it to ensure that it's open, to ensure that users are protected from gate-keeping functions, so ensure that edge providers are protected from gatekeepers. we need to move forward and we need to lock this down and be done with this debate that we've been having for 15 years. >> gigi sohn, if you put on your public knowledge hat one more time -- >> oh, god. >> knowing what you know about this proposal, how would you feel about it as the president and founder of public knowledge? >> well, i think it's a victory for the american people. okay? i no longer work for public knowledge so i'm not going to put that hat on. i have a wonderful successor, a guy named name gene. i think the public interest groups are celebrating. and i think the four million people have weighed in, and

frankly more than that. i am doing a twitter town hall later today and i watch that feed, that net neutrality feed, and people are overjoyed. i've heard people say that the biggest cynics among journalists and the public is wow, i actually believe in government. so people feel like they really made a difference, that democracy worked. so i'll never put that public knowledge hat on again. but i know my former colleagues are very slighted, as -- delighted, as are the american people and the other frowps groups that have worked tirelessly for not a lot of money for a long time. >> as you indicated, i think early on in the process especially when his original proposal was announced last spring, your boss was vilified by many people. as you indicated today the public seems very happy about what he has come out with. what has it been like at the f.c.c. to be part of that roller coaster over the last year? >> it's been wild. look, i love my job. i was a public interest advocate, as you know, for over 20 years.

i went to government, never having been in government before. and, you know, to see the evolution -- want to talk about evolution? to see the evolution about how this issue has changed, i have to pinch myself sometimes. it's been crazy but wonderful at the same time. >> and is this fight over? i mean, we hear about legislation. we hear about court battlings. and, of course the next f.c.c. as you indicated could view it differently. so how permanent is this win for advocates of net neutrality? >> look, advocates of net neutrality are going to have to keep fighting on every stage, whether it be on the hill, whether it be in the courts whether it be in the court of public opinion. and we'll have to do -- you know, tb, if this item gets voted out on the 26th, which i certainly hope it will, we're going to have to keep fighting, because preserving an open internet is perhaps the most important thing this agency can be doing. i was delighted to see the new york city times this morning give a hat tip to chairman wheeler, saying he was exercising courage and good

sense by putting forth a light touch title 2 system. so it's going to be a long battle but it's going to be one that i'm sure you guys will continue to cover and cover well. >> gigi sohn, can the chairman's mark be amended in the february 26 meeting? >> so let me explain a little bit about how the process works. so as i said, last evening, our mark was circulated. and the different offices basically put their edits, what they call "on the chain" so basically on the, you know, in e-mail, in the document itself. and we decided whether we want to accept them we decide whether we want to reject some. we decide whether we want to negotiate some. so, you know, it's going to be a process over the next couple weeks. also, in the next two weeks people can come in, interested parties, and people should know that, right? so the door is not closed to the public. this has been a very open and

transparent system. and docket. and we want to keep it that way. so people are still encouraged to come, in the next two weeks because one week before the meeting -- it's called the sunshine period, where we go in and put the the finishing touches on the items. but for the next two weeks people can come in, try to make changes. obviously they don't have to know everything in if the document, but they'll try to add things, subtract things and we'll see what we come up with. i'm hoping, since i have seen the document, that it substantially stays the same, because it's really a terrific and very long order. >> so it cannot -- it's an up or down vote at the february 26 meeting? correct? >> well -- >> or could a republican commissioner say, let's change the language here to that? >> yeah. look you can concur in part and

dissent in part. in a lot of ways, the f.c.c. is like a court in that way, which is one of the reasons why we don't, you know, make this, you know, whole item public. so yes, there's a give and take. and even, you know -- sometimes even those that dissent get some gives anyway. it would help if they would concur but yeah, it's a give and take, much like a court. >> gigi, assuming that the f.c.c. does vote in favor of the proposal on february 26, when will the rules take effect and how will the public know they are working? >> so once we vote on the rules they go to something called the federal register, which is where all the rules are published. 30 days after that the rules become effective. and it will be the time where people will start to file lawsuits and so on and so forth. i think the way people will know that the rules are working is when they don't see many or any complaints filed at the f.c.c.

and they get full farrow bust broadband -- fair, robust broadband, without any blocking, without any pay prioritization. people are used to the control that the internet gives them. it really is amazing, when you see these little startups. in a pre-internet era, they wouldn't have had a chance. you see activists around the world using the internet to, you know gather people together, to do protests, to do actions. in ferguson, missouri, the perfect example. that wouldn't have been possible before the internet. so people know the internet that they love and they know how it works. they know how they want it to work, and they know how they don't want it to work. so i think the best thing that can happen is nothing happens. and people have the internet that they've come to depend on every cay. >> and finally gigi, there's been a story line in the media about this before the most

polarized f.c.c., more 3-2 votes than any other f.c.c. in history. how do you respond to that? >> so i've been doing f.c.c. work in some way or another since 1988. this story keeps coming up, you know, every single time, every new administration. there are always battles. have these issues become more partisan in the past 10 years? probably so. but there's always been, you know inter-party battles. there's been battles between people in the same party at the f.c.c. i just don't think there's anything new here. it's like growg groundhog day. i don't find that it's a whole lot different now. >> closing question? >> so every article about >> every article about your boss refers to him as this. how should be -- he be

remembered now? >> i think he will be remembered as a person for whom the american people was his biggest and most important client. i really wish people could see him in some of our staff meetings or when he is out of the spotlight. that is what he cares about. he cares about doing the right thing. it was not an accident he asked me to calm work for him. he really has progressive values, cares about serving the american public. the thing that upsets me the most is that people do not see his entire body of work, what he has done for public safety, the community broadband, to promote over the top video service. he has had a huge body of work only in about 15