nutrality. what does it mean for you? we'll ask our experts. plus, inside the old building turned sea gate factory and the entrepreneur behind gun buybacks. our reporters this week on "press here." good morning everyone. i'm scott mcgrew. recently a circuit court told the fcc it could not enforce it's so-called open internet rules, the concept that all data should be treated the same online. in a case brought by

telecommunications giant the federal circuit court in washington ruled wednesday the fcc did not have the legal authority to enforce the rules online. the decision may open the door to the possibility your internet provider could treat data differently. for instance netflix accounts for 2/3. should internet providers be able to provide for that? or should internet providers keep the nose out of their data. larry downs is a professor for law, research fellow and author. he testified on the question of net neutrality. does the fcc have the authority to be regulating the internet and then the second issue is should the internet be

regulated? let's start with whichever one. >> the first one is easy. the court said congress is not given the authority to regulate the internet. without the fcc it is done quite well. the court did say they had some authority, far less than what they tried to execute. >> and then there was paperwork issues. if you change your definitions about certain things it doesn't prohibit the fcc from coming back and trying to re-regulate. >> it can't be as extensive as they were in the initial set of rules. >> there is a point where people understand net neutrality to be something they think they are for but maybe don't understand. let's get to the second part of that. should the government be regulating the internet? >> the short answer is no. we know every time the

government tries to regulate the internet on other issues we know other people are jumping up and down about the ruling saying keep the government out on copyright or patents. the problem here is that we don't need the government. in fact, we don't need slow moving governments to get involved with regulation, as well. we have a couple dozen law professors with overactive imaginations screaming this is the end of the internet. the kinds of relationships ics have with internet companies have been in place for years. it is notable that not a single internet company made a peep about the ruling since it came out. >> let's say this comes out and netflix has to pass on these -- they have to pay fees and pass the fees to consumers, what about the startups innerterring the streaming business? they can't necessarily afford to deal with extra data caps.

what does that do for the ecosystem there? >> it is a question, they have the authority to charge more before the rules went into effect. they have the authority to do it now. they said they are not going to do it. they made a pledge. in case of some of them through merger agreements they have to abide by the rules anyway. the truth is that nobody really has that kind of competitive edge anymore. if you started to tell your content companies i'm going to charge you more or discriminate against your traffic your customers are going to know about this. if you tell them you can't get netflix or certain content. >> that has happened with cable. you read about it or hear about it or happened in the market where the espn or something doesn't want to pay. there is a dispute over pay and then it goes black.

>> there are these contract break downs. that happens. >> i realize that is apples and oranges. content providers and the people. >> part of the reason is contract disputes happen because there is a set of rules against transmission and must carry that ge gets in the way of the negotiations. it is true that the shifting leverage in the negotiations has been a big part of it. netflix has the advantage because they have the original content and streaming two-thirds of the traffic. that is what people want. it is not anymore that isps say you do what we say. netflix say you take our content or equipment or else we are not going to give it to you. >> you think the isps can be trusted not to have any type of charges like this sth.

>> it doesn't matter if you can trust them because the market is disciplining them to be as competitive with each other and with other forms of communication and with content companies. it is not about trust or laws or fcc tinkering with equipment. the market is working and has been working beautifully. that is what will keep the internet open. >> market didn't work well in the financial crisis. >> financial crisis much more complicated. this is a story about technology changing rapidly and growing and expanding. not quite the wild west but we have a tremendous amount of innovation happening. that is what keeps markets dynamic. >> what do you think the vision for the future whether it will be a lot more high end video going through the internet. do you think there will be a way for the extra bonus? >> it happens already. it has been happening for years. a lot of the large content

providers liking google, youtube and netflix are colocating equipment at the hubs of the major isps to make sure their traffic can get where it needs to go quickly. those kinds of arrangements, content delivery networks have been in place for years. we will see more of that. >> larry, can i paraphrase what you were arguing earlier about the market won't tolerate the lack of neutrality because we are watching house of cards we won't put up with not watching house of cards. people were so upset about it. because we love the internet so much we could regulate net neutrality. i think we are regulating net neutrality. the fcc rules were in place they

didn't enforce them. >> what about the border? are we saying the market will regulate it because i want to watch "house of cards" when maybe a nigerian farmer [ inaudible ]. >> so it is true. we are talking about it from a u.s. centric perspective. in the rest of the world it is a different story. the internet society and other nonprofits have been working to put the same technology, content delivery networks into developing nations largely to get around phone companies. >> i know there are at least a half a dozen guests who disagree with you. none of them have written books. you have a killer app and then big bang disruption. >> this is our new book co-kautherred.

we are looking at the changing nature of innovation especially over the last ten years because technology keeps improving. what we found is the way new products and service entered the market has changed. they are starting to come in better and cheaper than products they compete with. when you get a new competition and disruptive technology the time to respond is almost infinitely small. >> insurance, energy, health care for obvious reasons, pharmaceuticals and regulated industries that have been keeping competitors out for a long time as these technologies start to show up in the industries they fall apart quickly. >> thank you for being with us and explaining your side. "press here" will be back in just a minute.

welcome back to "press here." i'm scott mcgrew. we were discussing disruption a few moments ago. larry downs mentioned insurance may be the next industry to face disruption. when you stop and think about the cloud has changed how data storage is handled and the storage has changed from traditional disk drives. it strikes me the cloud, how much did that change yoir business? because instead of selling a terabyte of drive you are selling it to a big enterprise. >> i think the impression of the

general public is the world's made this massive transition to the cloud and we are really in the early stages of a transition. you know, the driving forces in storage are the cloud, mobility, the social application explosion and big data anl lalyticnalytic there is also another attribute called the lighting of dark data. all of these forces are creating a future growth phenomenon for data and therefore storage. we are pretty excited. the cloud is just one of those elements. i think, again, the cloud's in the early stages. we still see the evolution of the confidence and the dependability that the consumer and enterprise has. you know, we see things like the nsa issues and the snowden issues and some of the things that one of your guests, larry,

mentioned. these things have to be taken into consideration as to how dramatic is the evolution to just pure cloud. internationally when you look at people's behaviors, et cetera, there is less confidence in the cloud internationally than the u.s. which is an interesting phenomenon. the cloud is an important element but personal storage is a big important part of the fabric. >> what do you think about the companies moving to the cloud and how they evaluate that? >> i think the enterprise is very cautious about the sensitive data, the personal data that gets exposed into the public cloud so they have their private cloudst that maintain perhaps financial details of their customers or personal attributes and facts about the

customers. and then they put more of the commercial marketing or the less sensitive, security sensitive elements of data into the public cloud so you access it through some of the public cloud providers like amazons and microsofts and yahoos. >> you went with some of the companies -- give me a sense if you are selling maybe millions of storage devices for one of the data centers versus like an individual company, the prices of those a lot lower? >> the value of storage in the cloud is because the drives are much more sophisticated. usually the value proposition is better for storage providers like ourselves than at the consumer level. the consumer devices -- >> i want to make sure i understood your answer. are you saying to his question

that the device we are selling to amazon is more expensive, a better device and therefore we are keeping profit margin there that we wouldn't get off of the consumer? >> more appreciative than a consumer. >> amazon would save a much of money when they say i want to buy -- they get a deal on that. you are holding a profit margin because of the quality of the product. >> those products are very sophisticated and take advantage of the on board logic and sophistication. the disk drive is a computinging device. the way it is used limits the broad based capability. someone like amazon, google, yahoo, apple who understand how the data center works and how the devices, what capability the devices have will work with us to put features in that optimize

the way the data centers perform. that is very valuable to them because they can optimize environmental issues, total cost of ownership and things that matter. >> are they getting into your business? some reports of google designing tips. does amazon design their own disk storage? >> it is interesting because the disk drive industry has been around for many decades. ibm probably gets credit for the creation of the disk drive. >> this is true. and today there is only 2.2 providers of disk drives in the world. there is a lot of deep technology and patents built over several decades that makes it a pretty high barrier to entry to launch into the disk

drive industry or the storage industry. hopefully our relationships with customers we work very closely. i would think that those are pretty remote. >> what do you see is the biggest disrupter to your industry? >> people probably talk about solid state memory. solid state memory we have our own solid state memory offerings and also platform. we call our hybrid drive which is optimizing the performance but providing the reliability and cost benefits a traditional hard drive offers. we are in the businesses, as well. when we look over the next decade actually from now until roughly 2020 or 2021 we will

create more data than man kind has created since the recording of data in whatever form that is. and actually we see what we call a digital crisis deep into this decade and entering into 2020 and beyond where the demand for data created by this social application and mobility environment and cloud environment is going to create structure of data that will exceed the supply capability of solid state storage as well as traditional rotating storage. >> which means job security. >> thank you for being with us. the entrepreneur who bought a huge pile of guns when "press here" continues.

a homeowner in florida bought a pistol similar to this one. he kept it for ten years and then sold it legally to another fellow here in northern california where it was safely kept for another ten years. so we are up to 1992 when it was stolen and got into the hands of a 16-year-old boy who drunkenly tried to rob a man here on a business trip. he shot the man before he could pull out his wallet. that man was ian johnston's fatherer. ian was 10 when his dad was killed. he is now an entrepreneur. a crowd funded system to get guns like the one that killed his father off the street. thank you for being with us. let me say how sorry i am for

your loss. >> thank you for having me. >> delighted. i think this is a clever idea because there are so many things i like to protest and get angry about that i can't do anything. i can't do anything about the nsa or this social issue over here. i can give you $20 and get like a fifth of a gun off the street, right? >> exactly, yeah. the political process on the issue of guns in particular has been broken. last year in response to the shooting at sandy hook there was a modest bill put forth in congress, something universal background checks on handgun purchases. 90% of americans approved of it. most people thought it was the law. and that failed to gain traction. and i think a lot of people are frustrated about the state of gun violence in america and they want to do something. what we are doing is using crowd funding technology to

essentially by pass the political broken process and give people a way to make a tangible impact on the issue right away. >> you have collected a number of guns. what percentage of the guns that you have collected were legally registered versus illegally? >> we don't know that exactly. i think the point is that they are all dangerous and pose a threat to society. the gun used in my father's case was stolen from a home two weeks before it ended up in the shooting. whether or not it's a legal gun or not, if an individual is not up to the responsibility of owning the gun and storing it safely, if they have any doubt in their mind about whether or not they should be having it that is a gun we want off the street because it poses a threat to the community. >> what do you do with the guns? >> they get destroyed. the police department -- all the gun buybacks are conducted by

the police department. they handle the weapons and destroy them. >> that is something you have seen. i know there have been reports of the guns going back on the street again -- not in your case but in general we have read reports of they are resold for a profit and et cetera. >> i haven't heard that, exactly. >> you have seen them destroyed and that must be a satisfying moment. >> yeah. >> have you expanded this to other cities? i know you have done it in san francisco and oakland. >> we started in san francisco back a few months ago and ran a campaign. that went well. we had a bunch of people writing in from other cities. we decided to do it again. both campaigns were really successful. now we are thinking this year we are going to expand it nationally and bring it to cities all across the u.s. >> and from a crowd funding

perspective maybe explain how that technique works specifically for the gun. >> so we used crowd tilt as our funding platform. basically what we have seen is it is using more and more for an outlet for democracy. it is a way that people can demonstrate their values and commitment to something and establish this community of people that care about it and share these same values. you know, there is a lot of cases happening, a guy who ran for mayor in oakland. he is working to fund his race. that is sort of what we are leveraging, the trend that i think we are a part of. >> one of the clever things about it is where you are on the gun spectrum, whether a member of the nra or a gun owner, both sides don't want that gun

floating around unsupervised, unsafe, out on the street or in a home in which the person is throwing it in a bottom of a closet. gun buybacks, i would think, would be supported by both sides of the political spectrum. >> i think you are absolutely right. i have friends that are responsible gun owners and they really understand how much responsibility it requires to own a firearm. and i think they really appreciate this. they will be the first ones to say that if somebody is not up to it they should not have the gun. >> did you mean to approach it from that perspective? maybe you are deeply involved in the gun debate. we are not going to debate guns but get guns that nobody wants that shouldn't be in the hands of children off of the street. did you approach it from that? >> what we want to do is by pass the whole political systemt that is just fraught with these

obstacles that can't be overcome. this question of the second amendment and gun rights i think with our approach we want to just by pass all of that and create a way to do something about it. >> you are an entrepreneur in your own rite beyond this project. i'm interested beyond crowd funding for your particular project what do you think of it as a medium for raising equity for a business? >> i think it's powerful -- it is democratizing. it is something you used to have to find like one person or one source to fund an entire project. now you can open it up. not only can you get the same capital but a way of sort of getting support and validation of your idea or concept. >> we are running up against our next television show.

your website gunbuygun.org. we thank you for being here this morning. >> thank you for having me. >> "press here" will be back in a minute.

that's our show for this week. my thanks to our guests. i'm scott mcgrew. thank you for making us a part of your sunday morning.

february 6, the one event with the greatest athletes on snow and ice. the sochi olympic winter games begins february 6 on nbc. chicago, known for its occasionally heavy snow, five inches yesterday. also known for championship hockey. the blackhawks' patrick kane, play-off mvp last spring, two stanley cups in four years. in less than four weeks, a u.s. olympian opening against slovakia and zdeno chara, captain and flag bearer for slovakia. he faces