or fcc-centric internet. you will go from a privately-run internet to a more government-run internet. you're going to run from a, leave a voluntary bottoms-up internet, and it'll become more of an fcc governmental top-down, and you'll go to the inefficiency of government, of bureaucrats and their processes. so this is a horrible precedent, and it also sends a horrible precedent around the world. can you imagine, you know, we say we're just preserving the internet to preserve free speech. and chinese, the cubans, the iranians say, whoa, we can have an open season on our people as long as we use the code word, open internet or net neutrality, we can block and degrade and cut off whatever free speech we have. >> host: just very quickly, mr. cleland, what would be the disadvantages to a verizon, say, if this passed? >> guest: well, verizon would go from being able to innovate and provide quality services to their consumers to basically having to go to the fcc to ask for permission for new managed services or new

and you will switch from a user- driven internet to the fcc- driven or fcc-centered internet. he will go from a privately run internet to a more government- run internet, you're going to run from a voluntary bottom of the internet like we have today, and it will become more of a governmental coerced top down, and you will run from the efficiency we have on the internet today to the inefficiency of government bureaucrats and their systems. so this is a horrible precedent, and it also is a horrible precedent around the world. can you imagine, we say that we're to preserving the internet to preserve free speech, and the cubans, the chinese, the iranians say, we can have an open season on our people as long as we use the code word open internet or net the neutrality. we can

i know the fcc is due to do a review by luck. what is your philosophy? >> guest: people are extremely passionate about media ownership and the rules there. obviously the quadrennial review which is every four years is going to start in 2010. i think we have a changed marketplace and we need to look at that. i am particularly concerned when i see some of the small and mid-sized media markets having financial problems and as hard economic times. i am a courage began that it seems we are really putting ourselves on course to develop rules that are actually going to be sustainable in court. as you probably know the head of the media bureau has started with workshops to discuss how we should go about formulating these rules so i am encouraged with the effort that we are going to make. >> guest: do you have any particular concerns with some of the consolidation going on with the proposed compact-- comcast mps the merger that will probably get a lot of scrutiny? >> guest: were charged to let the public interest in look at competition, localism and diversity. i

in a recent speech, you called for a fact-based dialogue with the fcc when it comes to potential regulation of the wireless industry. why did you emphasize fact-based, and what issues were you referring to specifically? >> guest: well, actually i think chairman genachowski said when he was going to conduct his study it was going to be fact had had based, and i think that's absolutely the way to approach it. so when the chairman and his staff visited with us at ctia in san diego, we kind of put forth what i think are very compelling facts about the state of the wireless industry in this country, and importantly how it compares to the rest of the world. for example, when you look at the wireless industry today in the u.s., the points that i made it's the most vibrant and most competitive marketplace in the entire country. not only the country, i should say, but the world. we made our point using facts that the u.s. by any measure that you look at whether it's the a concentration index like hhi that's used by the department of justice or just by the number of competitors that we have in this c

the fcc will contain, will have a regulatory oversight role. there are, i've talked to all sorts of groups from the handicapped to the senior citizen groups to small families groups that said, god, what a great thing it is for us. and we'll work through some of the issues that you have just raised, but that shouldn't be stopping consumers from getting all these great new options that are out there. and if that were the case, we'd never offer anything new to people because the status quo would always prevail. >> host: one of those newer options is the blu-ray high-definition format which your industry is putting a lot of faith to to recoup some of the losses, but players are expensive right now, they're not built in hardware platforms like pcs, and the prices themselves are still higher right now. they offer consumers better quality and this upcoming digital the copy option on some titles to be able to play them on a personal player. is this the right decision right now for the film industry to basically raise the cost of getting this packaged c

and the court decision definitely tied the hands of the fcc in moving forward. we have, you know, there's always a choice when you do a plan like this about whether you want to be kind of, what you want to say, how you want to approach it, and we want to approach it simultaneously visionary and practically. and, you know, the notion, you know, you can say there's not that much support for the hill on net neutrality, i definitely disagree, and you could look at the committee chairman and subcommittee chairman and a number of -- admittedly, there seems to be a partisan divide about it -- but i haven't heard anybody on the hill say the structural separation is where we ought to be heading. >> host: so then if the competition -- >> guest: and by the way, just to be clear, i'm not sure that's a good idea either. but that's not the only measure of things. there's certain things that are very different about america. in a lot of the countries that the burkman center covered, the -- bergman center covered, here in the united states we have both a cable company and a tel

leadership from this committee and the fcc in in power in parents across the country -- fcc in empowering. the technology and information exists. leadership from this committee and the fcc will do a ton in that regard. it is out there and it is to be used. that little red button can be made available to every family in this country soon. the third element of this framework is to protect. you mentioned that. i agree that is critical. the protection element comes from people like nickelodeon and also from the committee and the fcc. i very much believe we can frame protective efforts by this committee and government to balance first amendment freedoms with the best interests of our children and families. whether it is violence or inappropriate sexual messages during baseball games i am trying to watch with my kids, there are a lot of images in our content. kids are consuming this. that protected landscape can be created and overseen by this committee and be consistent with first amendment principles that i teach every year to my students at stanford. at the end of the day, this is that very

it is getting increased attention at the fcc as well.riers and regional carriers want them modified. can you give us a sense why you don't think they should be modified? >> we are not opposed to roaming. we would gladly do roaming deals with carriers, but what we do not want to do is permit a carrier to use our network instead of building up their own. it is clearly not an issue of wanting to do it. i think most carriers want to use roaming for their customers when they leave our region, as opposed to on a resale basis. if we are not careful, it could lead to a disincentive for companies to invest on spectrum that they hold. it is a fine balance of making sure that we do have roaming so that the rates are such that they do notÑi encourage certain companies should not build out, not invest, not improve their networks and just used very low rates to the detriment of others. if we have a fair and a balanced approach to running, i am very supportive of running. we have many roaming agreements with our partners throughout the country. >> when

our guest is blair levin, leading up the initiative at the fcc. could you give us a status update on the report? >> sure. we have been doing status updates all along. 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 the most significant problems. a couple of weeks ago, we laid out how to address those problems. now we are in a situation where we are busy trying to ride up our best view. we have had 30 workshops, a number of public notices were we ask orrin questions, and we are now in the process of taking that information income -- in, trying to make recommendations, putting our country in the right path towards a healthy broadbent ecosystem over the next 10 years. >> what is the most important thing in developing this broadband the plan? >> a number of things. first, we have to make sure we connect all americans. second, we have to make sure there is a plan for having broadband be affordable. we have to have a plan to make sure that broadband is used to solve publ

fcc? anybody?can tell you is the spectrum that we have available to this industry today is used more efficiently than any other country of the world. >> yeah. i'm going to take that as a no. and i thank you for that. now do all ctia carriers operate at full capacity on their allotted spectrum today? >> no, sir. >> has fcc conducted any use age studies which examine whether the spectrum either by your members or anybody else is being properly and adequately used with regard to that spectrum which is assigned to them? >> i'm not aware of any. >> okay. so the argument seems to be here, i think, that you have enough spectrum for now, but we'll need it 10 years or some future time? is that correct? >> we have enough now. we'll need it before ten years. >> i agree with you. our problem is to see how we're going to get the spectrum efficiently allocated. if you remember from that time, we had a serious problem to the fact that the spectrum was just thrown out by the fcc and by the government to be sold by

>> fcc is talking about perhaps reallocating broadcast spectrum. dod and other military spectrum will be looked at some point either by the fcc or other agencies. can you give us a sense for politically to broadcasters have enough friends in congress to prevent that and how difficult politically willoughby to get dod spectrum? >> guest: i think anytime you try to reallocates beckstrom it is very controversial. i think given where we artist once hickson leadership on the part of the sec and the current adminstration to make the wisest decision. we are going to give them the input but i think they have to balance their various constituencies to be able to give us what we think will be in the best and also the quickest path to some additional spectrum. >> guest: on another topic that has got a lot of attention lately and that is distracted driving. cdi says there neutral on rules banning talking while driving and a favor bans on manual texting. that is a change in position on the talking while driving. i wanted to get your input. has that changed the

do you know the status of that and win the fcc -- and when the fcc will complete that?programming that may be called educational or informational does not have real value. >> it is a concern that i have heard and share. i do not have a timetable for when the commission will address the. i do think it is in everyone's interests for broadcasters to have to comply with the act to understand the rules so that there are no surprises. >> thanks you. carrying on the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee dozen incredible amount of good work around here -- carrying on for the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee that does an incredible amount of good work around here -- my wife works for a washington public television station. you get the whole routine of children's television programming. i have been around my grandchildren. i watch what they watch. they are all over the place. the oldest one is quite true. the second oldest one is 1.5 years. they have mastered all of them carried it is amazing. -- the oldest one is four. the second oldest one is 1.5 years old. they

our guest is blair levin, leading up the initiative at the fcc.ld you give us a status update on the report? >> sure. we have been doing status updates all along. 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 the most significant problems. a couple of weeks ago, we laid out how to address those problems. now we are in a situation where we are busy trying to ride up our best view. we have had 30 workshops, a number of public notices were we ask orrin questions, and we are now in the process of taking that information income -- in, trying to make recommendations, putting our country in the right path towards a healthy broadbent ecosystem over the next 10 years. >> what is the most important thing in developing this broadband the plan? >> a number of things. first, we have to make sure we connect all americans. second, we have to make sure there is a plan for having broadband be affordable. we have to have a plan to make sure that broadband is used to solve public p

the fcc will contain a regulatory oversight role. there are -- i've talked to all sorts of groups from the handicap to the senior citizen group to small families groups, and said what a great thing it is for us. and we'll work through some of the issues that you have just raised. but that shouldn't be stopping consumers from getting all of the great new option that is are out there. if that were the case, we'd never offer anything new. because the status quo. >> one the options is the blue ray which your industry is putting a lot of faith into to recoop some of the losses from the falloff and dvd sales. blue ray players are expensive. they are not built into other hardware platforms like pc. the price themselves are still higher. they offer consumer better quality and the upcoming digital copy option on some titles to be able to play them on a personal player. is this the right decision right now? to raise the cost of getting the package content? >> ultimately, my answer would be the marketplace will make those judgments. we're in a

an update from the fcc's broadband initiative director on the communicators on c-span 2. >> this week, we're going to show you bbc's "the record review," a look back at major events of 2009. this program discusses military operations in afghanistan, and the state opening of parliament. >> hello, and welcome.

regarding the fcc's notice, i am very concerned about what i am reading.arding professor benjamin's comments and his paper, he is now a top adviser to the sec, and i hope we will look at some of the things he had to say, reducing the attractiveness of the broadcaster as a business model, for regulation intended to entrench limits on the spectrum, and not freeing up spectrum should be avoided. in other words, he is calling in the death of open air broadcasting, and i think that is a real abomination. >> thank you very much, mr. walden. the chair recognizes the gentleman from 70, mr. bill, for two minutes. >> -- from pennsylvania, mr. balildoyle. we will add two minutes to your question time. >> the gentleman from washington state is recognized for to the bill minutes. >> thank you for holding this hearing. we know how important this is. s we have hundreds if not thousands of constituents, and this is important to a lot of my neighbors who might represent. it is important the country as a whole was job creation possibilities. president obama has recognized i

i think the fcc is consistent. it has just never come up before in this dramatic a way. >> any time you get beyond the specifics of the law, you're taking a chance. it is a very risky path. let me just ask, if both of you could address the issue, paying taxes on money you never received. but the legislation that is proposed would carry these losses forward and back and that would reduce some of the bite. i think we should be very sympathetic in that context. >> there are two things that i would like we are not seeking a total bailout. all we are seeking is that the scc comply with the law. we are seeking five under thousand dollars in insurance that we were promised. i am not asking for coverage for indirect investors because i do not think the statute contemplates that. but the statute clearly contemplates that a customer the deposits money with a broker for the purchase of -- for the purpose of purchasing securities is entitled to $500,000 in insurance. that is what the statute says. that is what the fcc has said

that is not practical, and the court decision definitely tied hands of the fcc. there's always a choice about whether you want to approach it, and we're trying to approach it in a way that is both visionary and practical. and the notion -- structure separation is where we have got to be heading. at a lot of countries that the center covered, the telescope is really the major provider. here at the cable company and providing broadband. there are advantages and disadvantages to that. but that is where we are, and we plan on building a plant based on americans strengths and compensating for weaknesses. building where we are. >> basically is cable and phone companies moving forward, driving the next generation of broadbent, whether they may be doing to increase their speed, wherever we are going. tax credits or other things? >> i disagree with the promise, because when you look at the broadband universe, you're just talking about networks. there is a function where there is competition. but what we see happening with the broader broadband system is a lot of innovatio

what surprised you in your few months that the fcc? >> guest: the fcc, having come from ntia which is a wonderful government agency but it is smaller and you were part of a larger team at ntia. this fun because you were part of the trade trips and part of the economic agenda. but you are kind of always answering as the team, not necessarily what you think. when you go to the expert agency of the fcc it is almost three times as large part of the death of the expertise there is incredible and the fact you are independent and it is communications all the time is really delightful. my second or third day of work i met this woman and she was lovely, and she said i have been working on the universal service high-cost funds for the last 18 years, so it is terrific to be able to have the expertise to really understand these issues in as much depth as we needed to be able to make the decisions for the communications for the next generation. >> host: you have gone from the presidential administration to a minority position on the fcc. >> guest:

the fcc reiterated that u.s. customers are seeing low prices, new technology, improved service quality and choice among providers from all competition in the wireless marketplace. using the most recent information available, the fcc found that the avenue revenue per minute fell 67% in the last few years while usage has increased many times. american consumers fare far better than wireless customers across the globe. a recent study found that the average price for the u.s. is lower than most countries and we have the highest usage per month and we have the most competitive market and those 26 countries. i propose that americans pay more for wireless usage only in the sense that they have more to buy. all of this has been increased -- has come with increased customer service. we have received the highest rating among all of the service providers. the rate for complaints for our customers has been about eight out of every 1 million customers. at the same time, the entire industry is doing better. the american consum

this was a problem because the fcc and the trust division were not only opposed, but they filed briefson the opposite side of the case in the second circuit. it that can happen when an independent agency has independent litigating authority. that was a case where we were able to get the fcc and the justice department antitrust apartment on the same brief. there are cases where it is really an intractable this agreement. the most enjoyable part of the job is arguing cases in front of the supreme court. it is a high honor for any litigant to get to argue a case, here. to get to do it for the united states of america is really something. i was solicitor general recently announced that it there was something that i could have changed i should have done it. >> been the doctor no of an administration, when there are serious issues coming to the supreme court, i have found that due process goes a long way. agency heads will come to make their case. if they are heard out, and they get the sense that they are getting a serious look at what they want to do, even though the answer is no, they fee

the question the specifics of how the fcc should address spectrum allocation. this is not a problem that is right in front of our face. you have to start the process now. those questions should be addressed when you know what the market conditions are and how much spectrum your getting back. >> will we see a plan for public safety issues in spectrum? >> yes. >> when might we get more details about this plan? >> the public safety plan? >> the plan in general. >> even our critics have admitted this is the most open and transparent process the fcc has ever done. every month we have given benchmarks of where we are. it is the first-ever of stating where we are, stating what the problems are. i suspect that over the course of the month of january, people will hear a more granular version of ways for thinking about solving the problems. that is where we have to leave it for now. i suspect in january there will be a lot of discussion about it. in february, we will release it. >> is february 17 still a firm date? >> yes. >> i hope you'll come back after february 17 and

of how you think this bill should come together in terms of jurisdiction with the fcc in the federal the ftc could be the regulator, but i would be curious if each of you would take a few moments, mr. chairman. >> i think this is closer to an ftc issue. i think it is fundamentally a consumer protection issue. >> both for regulatory and enforcement? >> yes. >> ok. >> i would agree with mr. felten. we of work for very long time with the federal trade commission on issues of consumer privacy online. we believe that they are well versed to address this issue. >> ms. wong. >> i feel little bit out of my depth in understanding the jurisdiction between federal agencies, but like anne we have worked for quite a while with the ftc. my experience in watching them of the last 10 years is that they brought very import -- very effective enforcement actions. >> i would say as well that we worked extensively with the ftc so far along this and i have a great deal of expertise in the competition area, which is one of the things that is driving better technology throughout the industry in providing mo

an update from the fcc's broadband initiative director on the communicators on c-span 2. >> this week, we're going to show you bbc's "the record review," a look back at major events of 2009. this program discusses military operations in afghanistan, and the state opening of parliament. >> hello, and welcome. coming up, it is the economy, as britain's debt go up and up. they use public money to declare everything, trying to put the expenses role behind them. and members of the youth parliament show us how it is done. >> now is a time to be hurt, and it's time to hear others. >> one suspect has dominated everything in recent months.

we purposefully bid on a section of the spectrum that didn't have those requirements so i think the fcc in its wisdom at the time set up the block that had the open access requirements as a test to see how the industry would deal with open access requirements. we actually bid a higher price because of the the uncertainty about what those requirements would mean and we want to make sure we could run our business as we had been accustomed to doing. subsequent to that option, and even before the spectrum is put into place, there appears to be a change in the rules. isaiah pier because we have not seen the final rules, and so i am being conscious to say it appears to be but a thin that we have to bye-bye rules that we purposely try to avoid and in that big a higher price, to me that throws into question how we can guarantee a few were option that po reinvest money in spectrum. .. that was spending a night auction can be guaranteed that the outsource, the rules under which which the worlds were held will retain that in the future. >> host: this is c-span communicators program our guest is ra

being able to innovate and provide quality services to their consumers to basically having to go to the fcc to ask permission for new managed services or new ways to deal with network congested or security threats that have not been foreseen before. . for two years, and in fact, during that two year period, at&t invested more in their network more than any other network operator. it's not true that these are radically new concepts that will hurt network operators. in terms what the rules will do to companies like google, like twitter, like facebook, it preserves an innovation without permission ecosystem that allows for new start-ups with very few barriers to entry, with just a few dollars and garage and a computer to come up with a product, plug into the internet and see whether consumers like that product or not, rather than have them go to at&t, comcast or verizon and say, can we have your permission to introduce this product to your users? >> scott, question for you. a lot of people distrust large companies and they look at their phone bills and say, why am i being charged all these thi

next the days headlines and your the fcc director and the judiciary hearing on the backlog for dna evidenceected for uninvolved rape cases. coming up an about 45 minutes. clark kent irving of the department of

next the days headlines and your the fcc director and the judiciary hearing on the backlog for dna evidenceected for uninvolved rape cases. coming up an about 45 minutes. clark kent irving of the department of homeland security during the bush

the fcc in terms of open net and all those other things. i think what you miss, with the hubris mrs. in this case is that democrats tend to be pro-regulation. the moreso after what happened on wall street in the sense that it was the lack of administration the lettuce to some of the wall street and banking accesses. there's the same concern that you need more government intervention to prevent things. b, we have already heard the head of the justice department antitrust division, christine varney, she is going to look closely at companies like google and their market power and market concentration issues and i think you delude yourself that you think you were not in for some tough years ahead because of your friend in the white house and made wonderful presentation here in 2007, and i think that would be coming you would be blind if you don't realize that. not to mention all the other government barriers that threaten you all over the world including totalitarian governments. >> so, we are all interested in learning from experience and sinc

the fcc investigators were after madoff again and again on '92. they always missed it. why was that? their defense is they were inexperienced and incompetent. i know if that's satisfying. >> well, as head of the investigative unit, when's the first time you heard? >> the night he was arrested. i was sitting in new york next to my colleague. we had just finished reporting on rob the governor of illinois. we got an e-mail from fbi, bernard madoff arrested, $50 billion scam. i was thinking, i don't know that's got to be a typo. that's huge. i soon found out. >> what kind of resources did you turn over? >> we had the entire investigative unit launch into action. much of it for broadcast. there were so many great details and facts that would not get into the world news or nightline. so we ended up doing this book. it is the first book that i've written. >> it is your first book. i'm a rookie. i enjoyed it. it's usually a minute and a half. a good day minute 45. here i had as much as i wanted. >> how did you fit writing the book into your workday? >> 4:30 in the morning was a

. >> let me ask you about another fcc matter which is network neutrality which with is heating up on the midst of the rulemaking and ensuring that the networks cannot discriminate against the content. the npaa has been opposed to these kind of nondiscrimination rules as they are known. do you find any room on the common ground? you seem to be locked in the content companies like google and skype that are worried about them losing the access that they with the consumer and having to go through the toll lane? >> i think it's wrong to say we are permanently opposed to these folks. that's not true. second of all, we've been working very closely with the chairman and other commissioners and finding common ground to work on these issues. and i think we can get that.name. i would say that our biggest concern has to do with unlawful material online. how we separate lawful and unlawful and how we can make the ability to properly manage these networks on which people's information and content and entertainment go up and doe down to make sure that we can remove the unlawful material. and it cou

this was a problem because the fcc and the trust division were not only opposed, but they filed briefson the opposite side of the case in the second circuit. it that can happen when an independent agency has independent litigating authority. that was a case where we were able to get the fcc and the justice department antitrust apartment on the same brief. there are cases where it is really an intractable this agreement. the most enjoyable part of the job is arguing cases in front of the supreme court. it is a high honor for any litigant to get to argue a case, here. to get to do it for the united states of america is really something. i was solicitor general recently announced that it there was something that i could have changed i should have done it. >> been the doctor no of an administration, when there are serious issues coming to the supreme court, i have found that due process goes a long way. agency heads will come to make their case. if they are heard out, and they get the sense that they are getting a serious look at what they want to do, even though the answer is no, they fee

they're licensed by the fcc to serve the public interest. and i know for myself i can put on a cable station that i agree with more than another, but i don't like what i see because i don't want to be, i don't want to be brainwashed. i don't want to be propagandized. i want the facts straight up, and we don't have that today. so c-span's one of the few examples where you do have it. i'm not patronizing you, that's a fact. but the other cable stations need to be more attentive to reporting the news and not trying to sway public opinion with their own opinions. >> host: next up is laverne, minnesota, david. good morning, democratic caller. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for having me on. one thing i'd like to know is we spent $223 billion so far in afghanistan. we've spent, we've got 779 dead as of october 1st this year over there. why are we keeping the war going? what is the real reason that we can't get out of there? and secondly, how do we do away with this two-party system that we've got here? it's not working, it's gridloc

just to give you a specific example it is innocent front of the supreme court yet but the new fcc says we will not let comcast send some packets of information faster than others. we will require them to treat everybody the same. but you don't have the power to do that. you just don't have the authority to do that. that is a classic example, i think, of a case where the limits of federal power will be tested in a liberal conservative way. and i think as the obama administration proceeds, we will see more of that. whether the conservative majority, really wants to challenge the obama administration on important issues, i think that is a big issue. >> so the voting rights case was the key moment last year. on the other hand very much concerned with the reputation and the reputation of the court. trying to figure out the right way to the institutional resources and to get as much accomplished over time as he can but not at the expense of creating problems for the court in the short-term. i don't know anything in particular will happen in the short-term. and in other cases too, there is st

. >> the fcc does two things. there is no other way within that storm. looking forward, we do not want to have a situation -- we do not want investors in the future to live with the expectation the government will aid them. that is where reform is so necessary. expectation. that is the challenge by financial reform is so necessary. now, chairman, nothing would have made me happier in that context to have a different set of choices, but until all of the land the authority we have for the tragedy of the country we had no other choice. it's been a kid did have a choice before you moved in and that is it could pay 90 cents on the dollar, 85 cents on the dollar -- >> i don't know why this is so complicated -- >> it is complicated. >> but it's come down to the nature of choices. you either prevent default because the fault would be cataclysmic or you don't. when you provide -- when you prevent default, you are doing so so they can meet their obligations to everyone the of contractual obligations to. if you select redefault on any it will come crashing down. th

just to give you a specific example it is innocent front of the supreme court yet but the new fcc says we will not let comcast send some packets of information faster than others. we will require them to treat everybody the same. but you don't have the power to do that. you just don't have the authority to do that. that is a classic example, i think, of a case where the limits of federal power will be tested in a liberal conservative way. and i think as the obama administration proceeds, we will see more of that. whether the conservative majority, really wants to challenge the obama administration on important issues, i think that is a big issue. >> so the voting rights case was the key moment last year. on the other hand very much concerned with the reputation and the reputation of the court. trying to figure out the right way to the institutional resources and to get as much accomplished over time as he can but not at the expense of creating problems for the court in the short-term. i don't know anything in particular will happen in the short-term. and in other cases too, there is st

fcc ladies and gentleman is not very often that the entire world concentrates its diplomatic and negotiating assets on one issue. it is not very often that leaders from countries as diverse as cuba in the pacific, ghana and africa, brazil, and the united states of america come together to fight and succeeded a common cause. it is not often that they come to a table to speak with you to seek a collective solution to a common challenge. today, ladies and gentleman, represents one of these unique occurrences. the entire world, including my own tiny island, grenada, and the rest of the nation's come together to find solutions to a common climate problem. we must do so in a cooperative and it is of the tory manner, chipping away toward a solution that we need -- and up anticipatory -- participatory manner, chipping away toward a solution that we on it. we must act because there are millions of people depending on us to provide them with the assurances that their homes, their livelihoods, their communities, and their countries will not be swept away in the coming wave -- the coming wave of climate

markopolos tipped the fcc off almost a decade ago -- to to the sec off almost a that it ago that mr. madoff was tried to pull off a ponzi scheme, they ignored him, and he was allowed to do it and allowed to do it and allowed to do it. i don't think it is ever realistic to expect that we can ever have loaws that can make sure people will not become criminals. the deterrent to that is swift and sure punishment. despite the numerous inquiries, the testimony, the investigations, i don't know that anyone at the sec -- i don't know if there has been a verbal reprimand, i do not know if they have been fired. we just don't know how they have addressed it. the only way to deter criminal activity -- you police it the best that you can, and when you find it, you must have swift and sure punishment, even if the government is in on it. you must have swift and sure punishment if you want to deter bad activity. you have already made it illegal to perform back to the pre we have plenty of law -- to perform a bad activity. we have plenty of laws out there that an violated. the damage was done. it cou

what'll happen on the hill, you know, you did have 72 democrats in the house basically write to the fcc and say, whoa, this is changing, this isn't what we wanted to do. but to go back to -- well, i'll conclude at that. >> host: final word. >> guest: well, we're going to have an interesting process, and i think we're at a key moment here in washington on whether policymakers will preserve the kind of internet that has been, that has enabled it to be the most successful tool for innovation and dem on craty cyst ever invented or whether we're going to turn the internet into something that looks more like cable television. >> host: markham erickson, scott cleland, ann veigle. >> you've been watching "the communicators," c-span's weekly look at the people and issues impacting telecommunications in the digital age. if you missed any of today's program over net neutrality rules, you can see "the communicators" again tonight in its regular prime time slot, 8 eastern, here on c-span2. >> over the weekend a rally was held in manhattan to protest the obama administration's decision to hold civili

in addition, fcc uses enforcement authority under the f.c.c. act to bring actions against companies that ma misleading claims about procedures or who have security measures in circumstances causing substantial injury. however, there is no comprehensive federal law that requires all companies that hold consumers' personal information to implement reasonable measures to protect their ideas. also it doesn't make them provide notice to consumers whose personal information was compromised. those entities will determine that they have no reasonable risk of identity theft, flawed or other -- with the exemption providing nationwide notice to persons under h.r. 2221. that data -- the data act establishes a presumption in the law that methodologies adequately meeting a determination standard in section 3, subsection f, 2-a. more narrow exemptions and providing for personal information holders notice, quote, serious providers, end quote, in addition to information handling protection data but only for the limited purpose it's of preventing fraud -- purpos

i had one case when i was solicitor general that was a particularly acute problem because the fcc and the antitrust division not only were opposed, but they had actually filed briefs on the opposite side of the case in the second circuit, something that can happen when an independent agency has independent litigating authority in the lower courts. and that was a case where we actually at the end of the day were able to get both the sec and the justice department's antitrust division on the same brief. but there are cases where it is just really an intractable disagreement. and those, i think, are the hardest cases. the most enjoyable part of the job in some respects is arguing cases in front of the supreme court. it's a high honor for any litigant to get to argue a case here. but to get to do it for the united states of america is really something special. and i don't know that there's anything, i mean, you know, i was solicitor general recently enough if there was anything i wanted to change, i should have done can it. laugh and i didn't, and i missed my chance. [laughter] >> drew? >