that a federal communications commission had the tools to protect the open internet. and the reality was that then the federal communications commission -- and a gentleman named mr. tom wheeler who had background in the industry -- used his experience in how the companies operated and how they treated consumers to make sure that we had constructive, real, concrete consumer protections. the reason i feel so strongly about this pai nomination is mrs comments about taking a weed whacker to anything enforceable, he's going to roll back the rules, and then he's going to claim to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. the reality is we've got strong net neutrality protections in place right now. you vote for mr. pai, make no mistake about it, you are voting to roll back consumer protection. you're voting to take a big step backward for the internet. you're going to hurt the people, the small business people, the start-ups who are dreaming in their garage of the chance to be big and who are going to have a lot more problem if there is a telecommunications policy that doesn't

now chairman pai claims the federal trade commission, not the federal communications commission, the commission of expertise, the federal trade commission somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the isps and that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies, letting bullies develop their own playground rules. if the isp ones to block websites, slow down competitors websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs, they will be free to do so. that is because the federal trade commission, a broadband provider violates the net neutrality policies, the policy created by the broadband itself. and internet fast lanes something the federal trade commission can do about it. it is wrong. allowing broadband industry to assess their own net neutrality protections is like letting the fox guard the hen house. the federal trade commission oversight will not work. chairman pai claims he has another solution called transparency. he argues if isps are transparent about net neutrality practices consumers

i served as chief economist of the federal communications commission and i have written and researched how we allocate radio spectrum, you know, the airwaves that go into wireless communications for 30 years now. >> host: do we do it efficiently? >> guest: that's a great question. how much time do we have? we are getting a lot more right than we used to. the basic framework comes from the 1927 radio act which was the brainchild of herbert hoover appeared before he was president he was secretary of commerce. he was the first regulator of radio and wanted a lot more discretion through the process over what caught out in the radio world and he wasn't really that concerned about being a traffic cop, which had already been solved more or less any reason away. he wanted more discretion over who got to broadcast and what they said. interestingly enough, the radio industry at the time, major commercial station wanted a similar system and they wrote the basic language, the public interest because into the 1927 radio act. for decades, lots of new technology tries to get in the market and has a h

not long ago the communications commission adopted a strong legal framework that would make sure that the federal communication commission had a tool to protect the open internet and of the reality was the critical communications genl commission who had a background in the industry used his experience in how the companiess are treated and how they treated the consumers to make sure that we had constructive in a real concrete consumer protections. the reason i feel so strongly about this nomination is he made it clear with his comment about taking a weed wacker to anything he is going to roll them back and then claim to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. the reality is we have strong protections in place right now. make no mistake about it you arg voting to rollback consumer protections. you are voting to take a big step backwards. you are going to hurt the people, the small-business people, the startups who are draining of the chance to be vague and who are going to have a lot more problems if there isi a telecommunications policy that doesn't give them a fair shake. everybody indicated this

. >> tom wheeler, outgoing commissioner of federal communications commission. >> thank you. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> that was outgoing fcc chair tom wheeler joining us on the communicators. president trump has chosen republican commissioner Ãto be the new head of the federal communications commission. he tweeted out quote this afternoon i was informed that president donald trump designated me the 34th chairman of the fcc. it is a deeply humbling honor.

now, chairman pai claims that the federal trade commission, not the federal communications commission, the commission of expertise over telecommunications but the federal trade commission, somehow provides a sufficient backstop to bad behavior by the isps. but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. that is like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. and if the isp wants to block websites, slown down competitors websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. and that's because the federal trade commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policy, that is the policy created by the broadband company itself f a service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes there is nothing the federal trade commission can do about it. that is ridiculous and it is wrong.lo allowing the broadband industry to set their own net neutrality protections is like letting the

and then add the federal communications commission, the federal trade commission to implement those safeguardsand i'm very hopeful, especially for children, that we'll be able to put a privacy bill of rights on the books. >> host: what's your reaction to some of the revelations about facebook and their use of data and lack of privacy? >> guest: well, it just proves once again that there's a dickenswith -- dickensian quality. it can enable and ennoble, but it can also degrade and debase. we're clearly seeing the more sinister side of cyberspace, and it's time for the congress to take action in order to insure that we put the protections on the books that guarantee that we don't see a repetition of what we've all learned in the past few years about what facebook and others have allowed to happen to the american public on behalf of their own profit-making at a corporate level. >> host: is it important that congress acts and states have acted on their own on net neutrality and privacy now? >> guest: well, europe has acted on privacy, california has acted on privacy, and now corporate america is co

under the trump administration's federal communications commission commission. for internet providers they can discriminate against specific content on the internet and be free to do so in the name of competition. for consumers, it means less service, higher costs, and for entrepreneurs and small businesses there's also a risk. i had a meeting this morning with the realtors of illinois. there were about 20 of them. there was a committee meeting. they said the first item on the agenda is net neutrality. i said realtors, net neutrality. i said, explain. well, people now are looking at homes on the internet. perspective homes do video tours of these homes. we want our customers to have access to the internet so they can go shopping for their next home. we think it's good for american business. so do i, but not the federal communications commission. the internet has given the businesses not only abscess to customers but a global reach and ability to compete with companies large and small. success isn't determined on how rich your business is. it's how good your pro

now chairman pai claims that the federal trade commission -- not the federal communications commission -- the commission of expertise over telecommunications, but the federal trade commission somehow provides a sufficient back stop to bad behavior by the i.s.p.'s. but that is simply not true. under the federal trade commission, the big broadband barons would establish their own net neutrality policies. that's like letting the bullies develop their own playground rules. and if the i.s.p. wants to block websites, slow down competitors' websites, charge innovators and entrepreneurs to reach their customers, they will be free to do so. and that's because the federal trade commission can only step in if a broadband provider violates its own net neutrality policies. that is a policy created by the broadband company itself. but if an internet service provider has a written policy that charges websites for internet fast lanes, there's nothing the federal trade commission can do about it. that is ridiculous, and it is wrong. allowing the broadband industry to set their own net neutrality protec

that a federal communications commission had the tools to protect the open internet. and the reality was that then the federal communications commission -- and a gentleman named mr. tom wheeler who had background in the industry -- used his experience in how the companies operated and how they treated consumers to make sure that we had constructive, real, concrete consumer protections. the reason i feel so strongly about this pai nomination is mrs comments about taking a weed whacker to anything enforceable, he's going to roll back the rules, and then he's going to claim to be fixing a proble that doesn't exist. the reality is we've got strg net neutrality protections in place right now. you vote for mr. pai, make no mistake about it, you are voting to roll back consumer protection. you're voting to take a big step backward for the internet. you're going to hurt the people, the small business people, the start-ups who are dreaming in their garage of the chance to be big and who are going to have a lot more problem if there is a telecommunications policy that doesn't gi

f.e.c. -- at the federal communications commission who will have consumers pay more. so the first slice of this pie, killing net neutrality goes to the big corporations and the loser, the consumers. so let's go to the next slice of the f.c.c. pie. let's see where that goes as these decisions are being made. the next issue is, in fact, broadband privacy. chairman pai has actively supported efforts to allow broadband providers to use, share -- use and share your information without consumer consent. in 2016 chairman pai voted against commonsense broadband privacy protections that gave consumers meaningful control over their sensitive information many when he assumed the f.c.c. chairmanship, ajit pai stopped data security protections which would have ensured broadband providers better protect the information they collect about their users. can you imagine that? chairman pai stopped protections that would improve data security. so i have 143 million reasons why that was a bad idea. just this month equifax was subject to a cyber attack that gave out information about 143 m

federal communications want to turn the lights out. you go when you want, where you will, that's what we have today without what we're doing here. chairman pi in the federal communications commission can change that and take money away from typical americans to line the pockets of their friends over the communications monopoly. if republicans in congress allow this administration to get away with repealing net neutrality, americans can certainly be expected to be charged more for netflix, for music services on spotter five, for videogame downloads, for example playstation. this is not some academic policy question that will show appears from now. and certainly there are matters that we talked about this is where the trump federal communications commission could handpick cable companies more power and take more money out of the pockets of the american people next month. . . >> and both of us said literally more than one decade ago we need a communications policy that is rooted in the principle of nondiscrimination with openness and freedom for all and we are and passing the revolution of what my colleague sponsor and i partnered with them now everybody understands you have to pay a

i served as chief economist for the federal communications commission and i have written and researched how we allocate radio spectrum and the airwaves are going to wireless communication for about 30 years now. that's a great question. now much time do we have? we are getting something a lot more right than we used to. the basic framework of the system which comes from the 19th 27 radio act the brainchild of herbert hoover before he was president. he was secretary of commerce. he was the first regulator of radio. you wanted a lot more discretion through the government licensing prospect over what got out the radio world. wasn't that concerned about being a traffic cop which had already been solved more or less in a reasonable way but he wanted more discretion over who got the broadcast and what they said. interestingly enough the radio industry at the time they actually wanted a similar system and they wrote the basic language the public interest standard goes into the 1927 radio act. for decades lots of technology tries to get in the market it has a hard time. we went through a lot of

more than 22 million americans have written to the federal communications commission in the past several months sending a clear message of support for net new tralty -- net neutrality. hear that again. 22 million americans sent a message to the federal communications commission that they do not want to see a change in the net neutrality rules for our country. and yet ajit pai will not listen. his plan will allow broadband providers to stifle innovation, stifle entrepreneurship. his plan will allow big broadband barons to crush competition, reduce choice, and then make consumers pay more. we cannot allow this to happen. that is why this vote we are about to take is so important. that's why i urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and to vote no on ajit pai's nomination to be the chairman of the federal communications commission. mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time. andm connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i think all of us felt a familiar knot in our stomach early this morning when we received news of what may be the deadliest mass shooti

when the federal communications commission decision takes effect on june 11, big telecom will have new tools to inflate profits. but americans and small businesses who use the internet to do their jobs, communicate with each other, participate in civic life will be left defenseless. and don't be fooled by the army of lobbyists marching the halls of congress on behalf of the big internet service providers. they say that we don't need these rules because the internet service providers will self-regulate blocking, throttling, paid prioritization. these harms are alarmist and hypothetical, they say. well, that simply is not the case. these practices are very real. and in a world without net neutrality, they may become the new normal. but just don't take my word for it. let's look at the facts. in 2007, an associated press investigation found that comcast was blocking or severely slowing down bit torrent, a website that allowed consumers to share video, music, and video game files. from 2007 to 2009, at&t forced apple to block skype and other competing services from using at&t's wireless ne

we need anna gomez on the federal communications commission. she has the knowledge, the values, the judgment that the commission needs. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting her nomination. i yield back, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call. the clerk: ms. baldwin. the clerk: mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mr. braun. mrs. britt. the clerk: mr. brown. the clerk: mr. brown. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cardin. mr. casey. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. le mr. coons. -- mr. coons. the clerk: mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mrs. feinstein. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven.

he was promoted over time to become the deputy general counsel of the federal communications commission. in 2012, the senate confirmed by a voice vote his service to the commission, and he's continued to embody the integrity, honesty and dedication in this role, something we'd expect from a kansan. as only the second kansan to ever be nominated to serve on the federal communications commission, the first being bob wells of garden city kansas who served from 1969 to 1971, ajit pai has proven himself to be a capable and talented leader and one of the smartest ones i've met when it comes to public policy. i've worked with him, traveled with him throughout our home state, and getting to know him on a personal level has really been a delight, something that has been a highlight of my time as, in serving in the united states senate. he's a native of parsons, kansas, a small town in the southeast corner of our state. and he brings with him an understanding of the challenges that face rural america. he understands the importance of access to high-speed broadband and wireless connectivity, and i

got to do is pass the markey resolution and ensure there's a real position that the federal communications commission -- at the federal communications commission that has some teeth. and the fact of the matter is, since he came to town -- since he came to this position, mr. pai has basically tried to water this whole effort at net neutrality down again and again. we don't need title 2 protections, we don't need any of the basics that have been part of this effort that we have made for well over a decade to ensure that net neutrality has real teeth. my friend and colleague mentioned that he introduced the first one in the house, i introduced the first one in the senate, but the point is, we have been working for this for well over a decade in both chambers. and one of the reasons that we sought to take this action now is not only is mr. pai moving ahead to offer this ominous, dangerous definition of net neutrality, is we believe that there is going to be a grassroots juggernaut all across the country saying that now is the time to be in touch with your members of congress and let them know how strongl

been with the media access project since 1978 represent citizen interest before the federal communications commission and congress. to andy the left is steve waldman. you senior adviser to the chairman of the federal communications commission, directing that agencies study of the state of media. he was cofounder, ceo and editor-in-chief of belief net, a leading website on religion and spirituality. and before that he was national editor of u.s. news & world report, national correspondent for newsweek. and, finally, right here is barbara wall, vice president and senior associate general counsel of in that country. where she advises and as newspapers, television stations and websites on issues including intellectual property, rights, ethics, privacy and libel. she has been with gannett since 1985, and previous it was in private practice. please welcome a panel. [applause] >> and i make it by my count of three journalists versus three attorneys. so this should be interesting. we will save some time later on for two questions, but first i'd like to begin by asking susan and steve to tell us what they hav

yes, the federal communications commission put a new rule on the books. yes, the federal communications commission says that if they want to gather this information about your children, they have to get your permission in order to sell that information to somebody else. that's the rule right now. they gather information about your children, they've got it. they want to sell it, they've got to get your permission. you've got to check a box. yes, take all the information on my child's computer and sell it, sell it to people out there who want to know about my child. that's the rule today. what they are saying as we vote tomorrow at noontime, no more permission from the parents, none, zero, zilch. you're on your own, kids. sorry, parents. the republican senate decided you don't keep those protections. why? because it's a light touch, light touch. people really don't care about privacy in the modern era. privacy, get over it. you don't have any. get over it. get over it, say the republicans. you don't have any privacy. now, we're going to hear them shedding cr

this is where the trump federal communications commission could hand big cable companies more power and take more money out of the pockets of the american people next month. mr. president, i'm very appreciative of my colleague, ed markey, for the extraordinary leadership role he has taken. he and i have enjoyed teaming up since the days when we began in public service. senator markey was then congressman markey, and he introduced the first net neutrality bill in the house, and i had the honor of partnering with him when i introduced the first net neutrality bill in the senate. and both of us said literally more than a decade ago, we needed communications policies that were rooted in the principle of nondiscrimination, transparency, openness, and freedom for all online. and here we are, back in this fight once again, and passing the markey resolution, which in effect ensures that what my colleague's sponsor today sought to do a decade ago and i partnered with him on actually gets done. now everybody understands that you have to pay a fee to get access to the net. the question at the hear

the idea is the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission will be able to look at those disclosures, and if they hurt consumers or competition, the ftc is supposed to act and stop those. the thinking is they may hurt good service along with that this would come of the regulator won't go after the bad services. but there are questions about how effective the ftc will be able to police broadband providers under think that's what commissioner clyburn was getting at. the idea that in order for the ftc to act there has to be some kind of harm. i think former chairman tom wheeler pointed out it's not just the horse out of the barn, it's the barn burning down before the ftc gets involved. that's one major issue with this. >> guest: you look at how the ftc is set up, commissioner clyburn made the point that agencies like the federal communications commission is thoughtful with telecom experts, whereas even though the federal trade commission has a lot of talented technologists, it's not necessarily as well-equipped as the sec to police what ultimately potentially very c

today is a day of reckoning where the trump federal communications commission is going to have their act judged by the united states senate. my hope is before the end of senate will vote to overturn the trump fcc and restore net neutrality, restore principles of nondiscrimination restore the principle of equality to restore the principle of internet startups who are given the same protections that the biggest companies in our country are provided. today is the day net neutrality will determine whether orar note are going to give those protections to every american. mr. president at this point i yield back. >> that is one of the jobs of being old is passing the torch, taking what you know or have accomplished and passing it on. fbi director christopher wray was asked about the chinese telecom for an eight and concerns that technology could spy on the u.s.. director wray talks about the 2019 budget request. senator karen moran chaired the subcommittee hearing.

what a contrast between the two chairs for the federal communications commission. both from industry, both of them did well in industry, and we consider that a good thing in america that you have a prospering private economy. tom wheeler used it and that expertise to help the public. that's not what we're seeing today. now, mr. president, there is a need to fix what isn't broken. their strong net neutrality protections in place right now. since the 2015 rules went into place, our economy has grown up around thisua leading principlef equal access to information and customer. the day before thanksgiving chairman pai released his proposal to strike down the 2015 rules that ensure real net neutrality and would also prevent states from introducing their own approach to net neutrality. rather than listening to the millions of voices who spoke up on behalf of real net neutrality and against this proposal to allow pay for play by what i really call, senator franken, trickle-downun telecommunicatios policy. just let the big guys make as much money as it want and may be some

second, the federal communications commission must require callers to block unverified calls, fake calls, something the commission has yet to do. and third, we need to increase from one year to three years the time for the federal communications commission to pursue penalties for robocallers that intentionally violate the rules. that is the recipe for success. and that is what the traced act does. this bill we will vote on today has enormous support across the country. 54 state and territory attorneys general, all of the commissioners at the federal communications commission, and at the federal trade commission, major industry associations, and leading consumer groups endorse the legislation and agree that the traced act is an essential weapon in combating the rise of illegal fraudulent robocalls. senator thune and i are joined by over 80 of our colleagues in support of this bill. this is not a liberal or a conservative issue. it is in -- it is an a everyone issue. it affects the elderly, the young, the small business owner and the student, our grandparents, our naishes, our teachers --

when al gore recommended reed hundt be made the chair of the federal communications commission, that was a great appointment. because he understood what the spirit of this law was, what was required to create a real revolution in our country. and he did it. and right up to today, the very last rulemaking in the bill was voted out last week by the federal communications commission, the last one from 20 years ago. and it's on opening up the set-top box that people use on top of their cable tv set, right? and right now everyone in america, 99% of americans are renting that from the company. renting it. like they used to have to rent the black rotary dial phone that we did away with, that rental. and so the fcc is now going to open it up, and that is going to save consumers $6-$15 billion a year because they can just go down to a best buy and buy a different set-top box that they will own. they won't have to rent these. but it's also going to open up young technologists all across the country, the ability to reinvent how that set-top box works even while preserving the the copyrights of

. >> this week on "the communicators," an update on efforts by the federal communications commission to develop a plan to expand broadband in the united states. our guest is blair levin who's leading up the initiative at the fcc. >> host: well, blair levin is back at the federal communications commission, this time as the omnibus broadband initiative executive directer, and he is our guest this week on "the communicators." amy schatz of "the wall street journal" is joining us, joining in the questioning of mr. levin. we're about 50-odd days away from the national broadband plan being presented to congress, could you give us a status update on that report? >> guest: sure. we have been giving status updates all along. in september we laid out for the fcc kind of what we thought the state of broadband was in the united states. in november we laid out what are the most significant problems we need to deal with, a couple weeks ago we laid out how to think about how to address those problems. and right now we're in the situation where over the holidays we are busy trying to kind of write up

a discussion with michael copps democratic member of the federal communications commission. >> host: we are pleased to welcome back to "the communicators," fcc commissioner michael copps. commissioner thank you for being with us. he also joining us is amy schatz of "the wall street journal." commissioner if i could start with the att, t-mobile usa acquisition. what do you see is the biggest impediment to that happening and how long do you see the process taking? >> guest: well, last part first i really don't know how long the process will take. there's some speculation it could be a better part of a year. i don't know that it should take that long but we will just have to wait and see with the expectations of the commission are. are. this is a huge chance action. it is a paradigm altering transaction insofar is the world of wireless goes. you will remember in the comcast merger that i said at the outset that it was a very -- and would have been a very steep climb for me. ended up voting against it. this is maybe even a steeper climb from the standpoint of a lot of power and a lot of

the chairman of the federal communications commission ajit pai is taking his big to relax. he is so proud of what has nowen happened at net neutrality is taken off the books despite 22 million americans saying they wanted them to stay on people. consumers don't trust them to do the right thing unless strict rules are in place. when you take a democratized platform with the most opportunity for communication, u.k. innovation. youu get democracy online and that's what this fight is all about. it is far from over. we are going to intensify and ensure that there is going to be a vote on the floor of the house of representatives. conventional wisdom was all over last december. it was over. they didn't in any way anticipate the vote here on the senate floor to reinstitute them they are underestimating dramatically the response of americans all across our country, defending on the house of representatives, onon the congress that has yet to vote on these issues. we will see millions of teachers, small business owners, act today's mobilized to protect the internet. they demonstrated

and this is the federal trade commission as well as the federal communications commission. the federal trade commission actually took this to a vote. it was a 5-0 unanimous, bipartisan vote that strongly said there was no indication of systemic market failure that would necessitate net neutrality rules. net neutrality has been up until this proceeding at the fcc sort of what i call a rorschach term, it was undefined. but now we do have proposed rules that gives us a framework for debate, which i think is a good thing. the first thing we need to the address i would like for potential commenters is to, please, give us hard evidence of systemic market failure that, in other words, the concern is for the proponents of net neutrality regulation is that network owners and operators, phone companies, cable companies, wireless companies might somehow discriminate against content applications in an anticompetitive way to favor their own wiz interests -- business interests. thus far there has not been proof of systemic market failure. there have been three, four, five maybe examples o

president, i rise today in opposition to the president's nomination of ajit pai to head the federal communications commission. my view is that, in particular, mr. pai will do an enormous amount of damage to one of the foundational principles of the internet -- net neutrality -- and i am going to outline why that would be a horrendous mistake for our country. mr. president, after we came to use the internet and see what an extraordinary asset it could be to our country, really beginning late in the 1990's, we laid out what i still consider to be the legal foundation for the internet.

. >> now last may, the federal communication commission concluded in an annual wireless report that the wireless sector is not effectively competitor. that was the first time in 14 years that they drew that conclusion. >> i think what they did, they didn't reach any conclusion where previously they had said the market was competitor. >> right. >> when they issued that report, i believe it was commissioner cause was very concerned about the overall increase in concentration that's taken place over the last five or ten years. you know, he sort of telegraphed that the commission needs to be careful about allowing additional concentration in the wireless markets. and, you know, i think that statement alone was one the reason that is you've seen a lot of people say that this could have a very difficult time at the federal communications commission. >> just to follow up, do you think the fccs determination about competition, the wireless market will impact the agencies review of this transaction? >> i think it will. i think again it will make the fcc at least start from a presumption that thi

. >> the chair of the federal communications commission talks about 5g spectrum and what it could mean for national security. she highlights the united states and infrastructure investments. good afternoon. welcome to csis. people don't realize the nature of national security has changed in the last couple of decades. it's not as imperative as it was. the u.s. in some ways is a little bit behind other countries when it comes to how we think about the spectrum and how we think about 5g. 5g is the core of economic growth in the future and how we need the spectrum needs. let me say that we are grateful for jessica rosen morsel chart of the federal communications commission has agreed to command a speak on the topic today. she brings over two decades of communications experience, policy experience and service to the fcc. prior to joining, she was the senior communications counsel for the senate committee on science and transportation. under the leadership of john d rockefeller many admired and senator daniel in a way. before entering public service, she practiced communications on washingt

[applause] a look at the federal communications commission as the two commissioners prepared to join the agency that regulates communications by radio, television, phones, satellite and cable and overseas aspects of the internet. >> for the first time in nearly a year the federal communications commission will have a full complement of commissioners they were finally confirmed by the senate this week. the nomination hearing was held last november. the chairman of the senate commerce committee, senator jay rockefeller had this to say. >> these are huge nominations come and they have a fast effect on the future of the country for better or for worse. i think it's hard to overstate the importance of this federal communications commission and its reach. >> here to discuss the nominations and the confirmations of the two fcc commissioners are two very well-known technology reporters, cecilia come amy shots with the "wall street journal." amy schatz, senator rockefeller seemed to hit this part of this was important and these nominations were important. what was his goal with that? >> welco

i don't want to destroy the federal communications commission and create something else. that having been said, i think we need to think about, you know, what is the right role for the federal communications commission, and, you know, what authority should it be operating under? >> what about international regulation given the worldwideness of the net? >> well, i mean, we don't do a particularly great job of international regulation of anything, you know, from international slave, you know the trafficking of humans and all that sort of stuff. i don't think most people are comfortable, for example, like the u.n. regulating the internet. i think a lot of people sort of old internet hands are happy with the sort of nongovernmental organizations that have done this in the past, but i think there are real questions about whether or not they scale, and all of the current sort of, you know, if you said k okay, what's international agency would do this, the itu? all you have to do is say that in an industry forum among people who understand working what the tiu is like, and there'

haven't had net deutsch of the rules until quite recently and they were applied by the federal communications commission in december of 2010 and they haven't got it into a fact yet curious of for the argument that we are seizing the open internet by applying the new regime is a non-sequitur that is to say that we've developed great dynamism and protection of the consumer interest and tremendous innovation in terms of content application by having a world in which archival companies with a be transferred or application providers can try out innovative business models and come up with business deals to try to see what works and what is most efficient and that's what we've had and if you want to predict that you ought to expand in the future rather than giving different regimes. >> what about the commissioner cop's point that we are turning over a lot of the control to the large corporations which is, test? >> they are not turning over control. the extent that the gatekeepers as they are called pejoratively have the ability to squelched consumer interest that's the system we've got it's not that we are tur

"the communicators," a discussion of network management, network neutrality and the federal communications commission and what it's proposed to do with that issue. joining us are mark hamm ericson and scott cleland with net competition.org, ann veigle of communications daily is also joining in the questioning. gentlemen, if you would, just start -- give us a basic 101 on your organization, why it was formed and who are the members of it? mr. erickson? >> guest: sure. well, i'm a washington lawyer who has been asked to assemble a coalition of leading technology companies, internet companies like amazon, google, other stakeholders of consumer groups, civil rights organizations, people that use the internet, small businesses to help advocate before the federal communications commission and other policymakers policies that preserve an open internet. >> guest: yes. and net competition.org was formed about three and a half years ago. it is a pro-competition, more free market-oriented approach, and it is, it represents broadband interests, literally the entire broadband sector, so that would include all the

. >> now, i'd like to introduce you to our opening speaker, federal communications commission acting chairwoman, jessica rosenworcel. fcc chairman rosenworcel works to promote greater opportunity, accessibility and affordability in our communications services in order to ensure that all americans get a fair shot at 21st century success. from fighting to protect net neutrality, to ensuring access to the internet for students caught in the homework gap, she has been a consistent champion for connecting all. she is a leader in spectrum policy and is responsible for developing policies to help expand the reach of broadband to schools, libraries, hospitals, and households across the country. as acting chairwoman. she has continued to be a fierce advocate on consumer protection issues, most notably taking swift action to improve the agency's ability to combat unwanted robo calls. acting chairwoman rosenworcel bring the communications and public service to the sec. prior to joining the agency. she served as senior communications counsel for the united states senate, committee on commerce, s

unanimously decided that the federal communications commission does not have the authority to regulate high-speed internet. on this edition of "the communicators," we'll talk with several parties involved in the net neutrality debate and potential implications of the court's decision. we'll start, first, with representative joe barton, a republican from texas, and the ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee which holds jurisdiction over telecommunications matters. first of all, representative barton, were you surprised by this decision? >> guest: no, i was not surprised. i'm very pleased by it, but i think the court did exactly what the law says in that the fcc does not have the authority under current law to regulate the internet. >> host: so does that move the issue of net neutrality back to congress? >> guest: well, if it needs to be moved. i would, i would hope that chairman waxman and subcommittee chairman boucher and former subcommittee chairman markey in the house would, you know, let a sleeping dog lie and not, not go forward. the court ruling was 3-0. experts

pai has served as a commissioner at the federal communications commission since 2012 when he was first confirmed by a voice vote in the senate. mr. pai was designated by president trump to be the 34th chairman of the federal communications commission in january of this yeand renominated to a second term in march. in july, the commerce committee which i am privileged to chair held a hearing on the nomination of mr. pai and the committee reported out his nomination favorably on august 2. before becoming a commissioner, mr. pai worked in the public and private sectors, notably serving here in the senate as a staffer on the judiciary committee as well as in the general counsel's office at the f.c.c. it is my belief that mr. pai's stellar career and communications policy, his integrity, and his tireless work ethic all serve him well as he continues to serve the f.c.c. and guide the agency back to being a more collaborative and productive institution. in just nine months since becoming chairman, mr. pai has made much-needed reforms to improve transparency at the f.c.c. and to improve the age

>> guest: peter, was the golden age of the federal communications commission. we moved all of the length of the communications highways from analog to digital. so that was cable, broadcast, satellite. the satellites have been launched but with the service d not yet begun. we came up with the digital television standards which is radio standard. my first commission meeting we did band plan. it was an extraordinary time. and we were just given auction authority so we began the first auction at which point they actually used the hand placards to bid. so it was an exciting time to be there, plus on top of all that we implemented the 1996 telecom act which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local both telepathy and video. and also dramatically changed the landscape for broadcast, widening the ability to consolidate broadcast propertie properties. >> host: looking back 20 years later, did you get it right? did the groundwork laid correctly? >> guest: some of the wicked. keep in mind -- the other thing we did which is important, and c-span

and, in fact, there's very strong evidence that in the past when the federal communications commission had what are called open access regulations on telecommunications providers that provide dsl, digital subscriber line services, which is competing with cable modems for the high-speed internet action services in the residential market, that these dsl services that were regulated under open access actually did have stunt in growth. and then when the fcc lifted those rules in 2003, 2005 and a couple of very important deregulatory moves, in fact, dsl deployment in the united states significantly shot up relative to cable modem growth and adjusted for other factors. so there really is strong evidence that these kinds of regulatory interventions can be very, very negative. i also point out that fiber to the home which is the most advanced high-speed sort of service is now available in little more than 20 million households by the latest data. fiber to the home could not be built in the united states, essentially, until there was a very explicit deregulation. that is to say there would be n

more than 22 million americans have written to the federal communications commission in the past several months sending a clear message of support for net neutrality. hear that again. 22 million americans sends a t message to the federal communications commission that they do not want to see a change in the net neutrality rules for our country. yes, mr. pai will not listen. his plan will allow broadband stifle entrepreneurial ship and his plan will allow big braunor barons to reduce choice and then make consumers pay more. we cannot allow this to happen. that is why this vote we are about to take is so important. and that is why i urge my colleagues to stand up for consumers and to vote no on mr. pai's nomination to be the b chairman of the federal communications commission. >> mr. president, i think all of us felt a familiar knot in her stomach when he received news of what may be the deadliest mass shooting in american history. the numbers are hard to comprehend though they certainly aren't final. fifty-eight people are dead and perhaps over 500 have been wounded, either by the gunshot

issued its decision in the net neutrality case striking down di the rules ordered by the federal communications commission. orded by the federal communications commission. i, for one, was pleased to see the court remove the government from the business of making management judgments and give providers the freedom to make decisions that are pro-competitive and pro-consumer. while this decision benefits consumers and providers alike by keepings internet free from government interference, the rationale highlights the ongoing confusion regarding regulation of different services. this is yet another example of why it's vital that we take a hard look at the laws in this space and reconcile them with the realities of technology. the answer is not to subject new technology to outdated regulations, but rather to craft laws appropriate to innovative services and platforms. as we embark on this effort it should come as no surprise that i'm focused on ensuring that we engage in a transparent and collaborative process, our colleagues here in the congress but also with the many stake holders outside in these halls. wha

that is what the job of chair of the federal communications commission is all about.it's standing up for all of those core principles that our country believes in. she has made it very clear that she does believe that title 2 of the communications act is something that can be and must be used in order to ensure that we give full protections to broadband users in our -- in our country now more than ever we need strong leadership at the federal communications commission. as senator cantwell was just speaking, we have 12 million to 17 million children in the united states who did not have the internet during the first year of the covid crisis and we were able to build in huge funding that has reduced dramatically the number of children who have, who do not have the internet at home but more work must be done. and the best way to do it is to add even more money into the build back better bill. and if we do that, we will see that we are dealing with the fact that especially black and brown and immigrant children in our country have access to the tools which they are going