bill, over concerns that it would restrict authority. if it were to remove, i guess the question would be, we support a watered-down bill that strips out the provisions of title ii, other things? >> it is a negotiating process. sometimes you have to swallow what they put at the table sometimes you have to come to the table and say what they have to change. it should happen. i think that there is plenty of room, to negotiate the specifics of details, some people just need partners willing to set the table and do that and that has not happened yet. so that is a number one. number two, when i testified in the house recently, i said it

that my industry would not object to the prohibition -- being removed, i find that interpretation relatively expansive. i do not necessarily agree with it. but i do think it is a bridge too far. we have argued all year if he could adopt that new trolley under that provision, now we don't want it. a lot of republican legislators have thought that maybe the tech community wants certain things. but nobody in this day has -- for there is no reason why the commission could not reach the conduct of web companies. there is no reason why you cannot reach google, facebook, amazon, ebay. or other companies, and that is the worry some interpretation

and statute that a lot of people on the hill thought possibly reversing that would be something that would attract tech companies. if they do not show in interest i do not see the purpose. quite -- >> let's talk about the impending court case about the draft rules. what is the litigation risk, if the whole thing gets thrown out, just a part? >> we can't fully assess that yet. we have not seen the order. every one of those words matter. it could result in legal air -- error. any one of those things could be a legal analysis that does not pass the standards set by the court. i will say this, it is a massively complex set of legal terms that will be embodied in

this order. they will completely throw out 20 years of definitions, and they will explain how the internet is different than it was in 2000 when it was classified differently, i am not sure that we believe it has changed as much as they believe it has, but they will preemptively move legislator -- legislature, and they want to do the first untested global exercise, on a record that is on the adoption of the rules. there are lots of grounds in there for challenge. the prospects of any one of them winning, we do not know yet. i am pretty confident that there are going to be really serious arguments against what they have done. the interesting thing is, it is

a janke -- jenga game were all pieces are dependent on each other, except there are rules that are not related to net neutrality, and other things, a whole bunch of stuff that is not related. this commission, are they prepared to reclassify of they cannot do forbearance? i mean, this is why this will be a litigation circus and why it will go on, for many years. >> could you see your group being party to litigation? >> i think it is highly likely that we would.

the shift is so dramatic, we have been investing, trillions of dollars on the assumption that that investment is going into a network that is regulated in a light touch environment. that puts of those investments at risk. it changes the nature of how you run a business. i think it is too dramatic, too serious of a change. particularly when so much of this rests on whether they have the authority to do it in the first place. it is really tragic to see people dismiss legislative offices -- processes. the problem is fcc authority. if the authority is unclear, then --

it can all be fixed with a sentence if congress wants to. it will save us a headache and time and the uncertainty it has become so highly political that people are profiting from the controversy. it has clouded our judgment and not allowed us to seek sane solutions. the do not believe that the fcc should make such a monumental decisional change without the input of the congress. if they are in independent agency, there will has derived from congress. do not think -- i do not think that it is constitutionally appropriate. all of that can be cleaned up and fixed. if people sit down and find -- >> should the fcc released its

drafts to the public? >> i will say that nothing is preventing them from doing so. other agencies do it and have done it. i will say that this is probably the most serious regulatory decision in the commission in over 25 years. it is highly controversial, and has enormous public interest and i am frustrated listening to dueling interpretations of what is in it and not in it. wall street is trying to guess guessing the meaning. all of that can improve if you let the world know what is happening. i would welcome it if they were willing to release it. the chairman is correct in saying that, past practices have been not to do so, but it is equally true that nothing prevents them from doing it. maybe something this

controversial, with enormous interest, maybe we should. maybe we should look at what we are fighting about because -- before it becomes a law. >> when you release the draft and can you think of any examples from your work or you may have considered doing so? >> i think i probably would do it. i would seriously consider doing it. why, because i think that it would help them as well. i think, what you are getting is an anonymous amount of people and their positions around it does it affect regulation, others say it does, why do you not let people see it? maybe it would harm the internal -- of the commission. i think that is fair to think about, but to be candy con and

-- candid, i do not much have a deliberation. if you choose your words, there is risk of -- really nothing going on there. i speak of the democrats. it is perceived that they are with the chairman on this. we will lock that down. >> do see -- did you see the press conference and the other day and what did you think about that? >> it is unusual. i think it is legitimate. every commissioner has a right to be heard. every commissioner has the right to hold a press conference and go through the order. i think that he is trying to abide by the rules. he said that he could not release it. but, i think that he is a very

smart person. he is a very confident and skilled lawyer. i think that he works hard. he is probably one of the handful that genuinely does go through the order. you may not agree with his approaches, but you have to recognize his work. when you look at the press release that he put out, the arguments he made, i think that they were subject to criticism. if everyone wants to be in the debate, what is wrong with that? people like diversity of races until it -- until someone is someone they don't like. the smear campaign, it is despicable. why don't you take on the ideas, why do you have to try and disenfranchise a person, i do not have any respect for anyone

who is doing that. >> so the internet is under title ii, what about companies like comcast and others, again details matter, a couple of things -- >> a couple of things, it is changes how you run a business. you sit down and your team brings you a new network, and i want to emphasize that people think that networks are railroad tracks, no, they get rebuilt and if there is a science and engineering that. it is not just software. it is not just the new ios, when the industry does this it has to reengineer modems and it is a lot and it serious engineering goes into it. so, people get together and they

talk about what it will cost here is the change, here is the marketing plan, whether you like it or not every decision gets colored and has to be filtered. it be filtered through a regulatory screen that yesterday they did not. tom rutledge or pat -- could make those decisions based solely on what they think the market wanted the cost of infrastructure, engineering, and because the regulatory costs are low, they can spend more money on regulatory -- network things. rate for example, i respect the chairman talking about not regulated rates, but value rates are subject to reasonable review, whether you like it or not. you can be sued in court in a class action case over your rates. so when your team brings you a price you have a duty to ask yourself, is this price going to be legal?

right now we have no idea because the commission has not said yet. you have to decide, what you're going to put in a market or not. it is the day today. i am frustrated with, people who talk about, companies will not invest, they are not going to stop of course not. all business decisions -- and the historical truth -- proof, exceeds the proof that it doesn't. we can argue about investment depression under title ii and i would have examples. it has not been a history of a regime that promotes expenditure of capital, or risk-taking, or anything, -- in the valley like to talk about permission being

critical but if they have to innovate with permission, you can expect the velocity of their change to slow down, just as it would in the software world. >> so you are talking about silicon valley and this app universe versus the networks and the network operators. the app universe is much closer to the consumers. you see companies like netflix amazon, and google who are high regarded by consumers, where as it is safe to say that many consumers do not mind your industry as popular. in that way, is there a connection between the popularity of an industry and its success, lobbying, or success deriving from policy and

victories and washington? >> i would say the only thing that affects consumer popularity is how you treat a customer and whether you're are providing services that they value. it has, i do not think any neighbor of mine cares about the policy that is going on or how this is fairing or not faring, it is the products and services they consume. but i will dispute the suggestion that the apps are closer to the consumer, i think quite the contrary. cable companies and walk right into your house, nothing more intimate than that. they send you the bill. they are the ones that when you call -- the ones you call when you have a problem. you may have a router that was made in silicon valley, but you will call comcast when it is not working. and i think part of the tougher

relationship with them is about that intimacy. it -- they are in your house they send you the bill. google has never sent me and bill. i download their apt -- at, but have you ever called google, or called facebook? they are very distant from people, other than their products. i think that the genius of their service and the product that they are providing -- i think that is the genius of their service and product. if i unplug your cable, you are not going to use google or facebook. it may that network as much is that network needs them. what is really depressing about this debate it has driven a wedge between two sides of the system that depend on each other to thrive. it has been an historical

commitment, and they have a ways want a their business. that has now been breached and the wedge has been german saying that this side will live under net neutrality. stay tuned, it will not be long until someone comes after them. this will come to haunt them as well. so, they are very popular and distanced -- distance works to their advantage. but some part of that dollar from the consumer goes to them. they need each other. >> last question can you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the cable industry and what is its future? >> start with weakness, customer

service right now is completely unacceptable. in the industry, we need to make a 10 year commitment to the recovery of that relationship. i think that -- i don't think it is because they are bad people it is a consequence of growth and networks that essentially have been built for a different era. there are glitches getting it to broadband, getting it to faster broadband. there are growing points around that and i think the customer service has suffered. there could be more investment -- there has been more investment, and has moved from box structure to software, and that will allow more media rich entertainment packages. those are interfaces that the consumer will appreciate. and lastly, look, we are a

middle-class industry. it we depend on selling services to americans, we cannot survive selling to delete -- the elite. we have to have 85% penetration. so affordability is a critical issue. it has to be priced at a level that the normal americans can afford. you have to make a value judgment. i think it is more for then given credit for. add up the $20 split this, add the broadband, by netflix and hulu, i guarantee that they start to be the same price as entry-level cable packages. there is a lot of value, that is why consumers, despite complain -- complaining about it, by cable intros -- in droves. if we can solve these problems

and innovate so that a new generation can find the product compelling, that is it the challenge. if we live up to it -- they will live up to it and thrive or.. >> michael powell, president and ceo of the internet -- gentlemen, thank you. >> and his weekly address, the president talks about his priorities in advancing education policy. we have the republican response, appealing to the president to not veto the keystone bill

recently passed by congress. >> hi everybody, in my state of the union address i laid out ideas to help working families feel more secure and acquire those skills to feel more advanced in the world of change. the economy is built on education, the core of this is how we prepare our children for the future. for decades, we threw money at education without making sure that the schools were improving. or giving teachers the tools they needed. or if the taxpayer dollars were being used effectively. the kids paid the price. over the past years, we have seen signs that elementary and secondary school students are doing better. last year, are younger students are to the highest math and reading scores on record. last week, we learned that high school graduation rate hit a new

all-time high. this is progress. but, in the 21st century, our kids will only do better than we did if we educate them better than we were educated. we have to do more to make sure that they graduate from school fully prepared for college and a career. this year, i want to work with both parties in congress to replace no child left behind with a smarter law that addresses the overuse of standardized test, makes a real investment in preschool and gives every kid a fair shot at the new economy -- in the new economy. it is common sense that an education bill should actually improve education, but as we speak, there is a republican bill in congress that would do the opposite. at a time when we should invest in our kids, they want to cuts -- make cuts to schools for the rest of the decade. we would end up investing less and our kids in 2021, then we did in 2012.

at the time will we should give resources, their plan would let states and cities put education dollars into sports stadiums. at a time when we have to give every child, everywhere a fair shot, the congress wants to allow states to make deeper cuts in school districts that need the most support, send more money to the wealthiest school districts in america and turn back the clock to a time when too many students were left behind. denying a quality education for the children of working families is as wrong as denying health care and child care to working families. we are better than this. i have a different vision. in today's world, we have to equip all of our children with an education that prepares them, regardless of what they look like or how much their parents make or the zip code that they live in.

that means trying new things investing and what is working. that means cutting testing down to make sure that parents and teachers know how are did -- kids are doing from year-to-year. that means giving teachers and principals the resources they need to spend less time teaching to a test and more time teaching our children the skills that they need. some of those changes are hard. they will require all of us to demand more of our schools and of our children. making sure that they put down video games and iphones and pick up books. they will require us to demand that washington tree education reform as the dedicated progress of decades, something a town with a short attention span does not do very well. but i am confident. and it comes to education, we are not collection of states competing against one another

we are a nation competing against the world. nothing will determine our success as a nation more than how well we educate our children. we should not accept anything less than the best. thank you, and before i go, happy valentine's day michelle. have a great weekend everybody. >> good morning. i'm the governor of oklahoma and today i am urging president obama to improve -- approve the keystone pipeline. with this project we have the opportunity to support at least 42,000 jobs in our country. that is according to the president's state department. and we can secure a cost efficient way to transport these resources. and we can build our energy future and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. keystone has been through six years of scrutiny, far more than any project of its kind.

it has passed every test. still, the president dragged his feet. the good news, members of both parties in congress have come together to pass the bill, giving it the green light. today, i would like to share with you a story to help illustrate why president obama should sign it. in oklahoma, we have a pipeline has already been approved. it is the golf coast portion that moves into texas. this one portion of the pipeline is on track to generate over $15 million annually in tax revenue for oklahoma. that is a big boost for our state. 85% of that money will go to public schools. if the whole project is approved the flow through oklahoma would increase by 75%. that is a huge amount of revenue for the future. the construction of the pipeline has helped fuel are economic comeback.

the project had two main construction bases one --, and one in kotoko. these are small towns. having about 1000 workers at these camps was a good source of economic developed for these communities. and at its peak about 4000 workers were part of the construction of the gulf coast pipeline, that is 12 million man-hours of labor. even now, the pipeline continues to bring jobs and opportunities into oklahoma. since 2010, oklahoma has seen a 44% jump in pipeline transportation and construction jobs. remember, this is all from one state and one pipeline. just think what we could achieve if the whole project was allowed to go forward. now, i know that these are a lot of numbers. especially for saturday morning. but behind each one is a story.

a worker who now has a job insurance, who can put food on the table, plan and hope for the future. that is what keystone is about. not politics, not the cap -- democrat and republican, it is about jobs, energy, infrastructure. it is about hope. president obama was once about that too. that is why i am appealing to him to sign the bill and let us finally build the pipeline, get our people working. thank you for listening and of course, happy valentine's day.

>> this film was based on the work of debra lewis, her groundbreaking book about black photographers. it is also aware that there is a another narrative going on, in which black people were constructed, post-slavery and even at the end of slavery as something other than human. it was part of the marketing for the photographs and memorabilia. now they would be considered declasse but in some ways they are haunting us in terms of the way that we might see ourselves,

in terms that we want to see others. >> sunday night, it :00 eastern -- 8:00 eastern. >> louisiana governor bobby jindal talked about education policy and took questions on foreign affairs and his own political aspirations. this is an hour. >> good morning. thank you for coming. he was our guest most recently in 2004. i'm glad he's come back. he graduated from brown university at age 20 with degrees in biology and technology and studied as a rhodes scholar and turned dow