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

rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communic

a ruling for the district of columbia struck down federal communications commission rules protecting the openness of the internet. it's the latest twist in the battle over net neutrality. >> i remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the internet as it should be: open and free. >> in 2010, the fcc put rules in place prohibiting broadband providers like verizon and at&t from blocking lawfully content. the rules also prohibited these providers from discriminating against any traffic on the system, meaning all content on the interest net would be treated equally, whether it's movies you stream, the online games you play, or the websites you browse. verizon sued the fcc arguing it did not have the authority from congress to make these rules. while the d.c. court upheld the fcc's authority over broadband services, the court tossed the fcc's rules, saying they were built using a flawed legal argument. at the heart of this debate is what's called "common carrier regulations," a notion borne out of other parts of our daily lives like public transportation. common carriage law

there are two agencies, the federal communications commission and the federal trade commission. however, it is only the f.c.c., the federal communications commission that can actually protect consumers by enforcing the protection. the f.t.c. does not have that authority. and so what happens today if these privacy protections are ripped away from the american people? well, all the information that you give to your internet rvice provider, whether it's comcast, cable providers, charter, at&t, the one that you pay a pretty big bill to, they can take all of the information that they have, my account, your account, your account, your account, and use that information to sell it to the highest bidder to make money off of it. now there's an additional charge in this thing, alleged charge, and that is, well, what about google and netflix and facebook, what about them? why aren't they subject to what the f.c.c. did? well, they are edge providers. they are edge providers. you don't have to go to google. you don't have to go to facebook. you don't have to go to netflix in order to get your

. >>> the federal communications commission federal communications commission is cracking -- the federalmmunications commission is cracking down on cramming. the fcc as many as 15 to 20 million americans are paying $20 more on their bill. the rules would focus on transparency and full disclosure. >>> all right. sure, apple is great for keeping up with the latest technology, but forñr one kid it's his own personal stage eye walk in the store and act totally like a regular person and bust out and start dancing. >> how this 12-year-old dances his way to youtube. >>> decision around oat heat could go sky high. that's if one developer gets his plan. we'll fill you in whenñr we come back. americans are fed up with the airlines. it found that airlines are considered the worst among nearly 50 strips. of course southwest came out on top, but delta, thanks to higher fare prices and baggage fees came in dead last. >>> imagine getting two secrets by flying high above ocean city. it could become a reality. a developer is proposing an aerial tram would glide 50 to 85 neat above the boardwalk. sky line

rise today in support of the resolution and want to address an issue created by the federal communications commission's misguided privacy rule in a recent ninth circuit case. for decades, the federal trade commission has been the privacy cop on the beat for most industries, including the technology sector, protecting consumers from unfair or deceptive acts or practices. the federal trade commission brought over 500 privacy and data security cases to protect consumers. these include cases against internet service providers in some -- and some of the largest providers. the federal communications commission is a regulatory body regulating communication by radio, television, satellite and cable. the federal trade commission has been long been held up as a model by both parties praising the agency for strong enforcement without overly burdensome regulations. during negotiations with the european union to finalize the u.s.-european privacy shield, the obama administration held up the federal trade commission as the premiere privacy enforcement agency. unfortunately, in a midnight action, the federal communic

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 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

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

even if this current federal communications commission chooses not to regulate the rates charged, the commission's net neutrality rules permit future f.c.c. commissioners from doing exactly that. these rules from the federal communication commission have the potential to cost well north of 43,000 jobs according to a recent study commissioned by the united states telecom association. the bill before us this week will take a step toward protecting inter-- the internet industry from those job losses. i urge my colleagues to support today's rule and support the underlying legislation to protect consumers from an out of control federal bureaucracy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the 30 minutes, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. polis: we have just days before the legally mandated budget deadline and yet instead of debate yurg budget, mr. speaker, my budget, mr. speaker, anybody's bu

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

you name the federal communications commission. texas congressman lyndon b.nson intervened with has speaker sam rayburn to support the commission and quash the budget cuts. what is the rest of the story? [laughter] tom: this is one of those, you know, interesting tidbits you get from this political history of spectrum allocation. it turns out that there is a very powerful georgia southern democrat eugene cox in the early 1940's. powerful within the house. he, at the same time he was a congressman, was actually doing business as a lawyer, which he was. with radio stations getting renewals. license renewals. he was close to the line on what wasf is gopal -- on what ethical. the fcc at the time was headed by a man who in history has become rather well known. james fly. he later became head of the american civil liberties union. he stood up for civil liberties and wiretapping. while he was fcc chair. he is very renowned in any contemporary versions. he is the best fcc chairman in history for what he stood up and did. one of the things he stood up to was this powe

of attack on open and free dialogue by the radio commission that in 1984 became the federal communications commission. the -- in 19 34 became that in 1934 became the federal communications commission. there was further progress in this direction to keep the opinions quiet during the new deal, when, in fact, newspaper publishers, which were thought to be right wing and anti-new deal, they were told they would face restrictions on owning radio stations. that was within the roosevelt administration to keep voices silent. they have rules that came out. roles that discouraged the radio stations from editorializing. that is just around after world war ii and in the late 90 40's, out comesand explosive policy that will be mandated to carry issues of controversy, of ventures to the community in which they broadcast and to do so from a balanced perspective. ok now, the question of what is a balanced perspective, what is a controversial issue that needs to be covered. i think the chapter title, "orwell's revenge." i mean, fairness doctrine, doesn't that that wouldsomething be political to define? fast-forward

they do not have to ask the government, the federal communications commission, can i do a new radio? can i use radio waves? they compete with each other to , new systemsvices and new applications. the example used in the book is in the mid-2000, a very animated company -- innovative company is coming up with what they think is a better cell phone. that thes has a vision mobile devices we are using our they don't dousy, anything, and he comes up with something that costs a lot more, but it is beautiful. it is weak, efficient -- sleek, efficient, and does a million things that the old phones do not do, because he put a phone together that literally has today, over one million apps in the app store. he gets competitors from google heading off the apple version of this, and this all comes into the market. you can see it in the tech sector today, the great ecosystems that are developed for all of these new products, whether the mobile phones are the applications that right over them, -- ride over them, it comes because there is not a central authority, but because it is a mother may i of

you name the federal communications commission. texas congressman lyndon b. johnson intervened with has speaker sam rayburn to support the commission and quash the budget cuts. what is the rest of the story? tom: this is one of those, you know, interesting tidbits you get from this political history of spectrum allocation. it turns out that there is a very powerful georgia southern democrat eugene cox in the early 1940's. extremely powerful within the house. he, at the same time he was a congressman, was actually doing business as a lawyer, which he was. with radio stations getting renewals. icense renewals. he was close to the line on what was ethical. the fcc at the time was headed by a man who in history has become rather well known. james fly. he later became head of the american civil liberties union. he stood up for civil iberties and wiretapping. while he was fcc chair. he is very renowned in any contemporary versions. he is the best fcc chairman in history for what he stood up and did. one of the things he stood up to was this powerbroker in the house

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

markey: our bill returns america to the same rules which barack obama's federal communications commission put on the books in 2016 and donald trump's federal communications commission took off the books in december of 2017. we go back to the obama era. we go back to nondiscrimination. you can't just take people upside down. you can't create fast lanes and slow lanes, make people pay extra, all of that was protected against during the obama era and all my bill does is return us to that era and i'm doing it with chuck schumer and nancy pelosi and mike doyle and many other great people. i think we have a great chance to build momentum this year featuring those protections. host: it probably has a better chance in the house and the senate, correct? sen. markey: i think there is a high probability it will move through the house, but last year, i brought a congressional review act to overturn that which the trump federal communications commission had done, which is take the obama rules off the books and i won 52-47 on the senate floor with republicans voting with me. i am not ruling out once th

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

wheeler of the federal communications commission. he talks about issues facing the fcc. including that neutrality. regulation of the internet and privacy. the spectrum incentive auction that is just beginning. how he views the future of telecom and the internet. he is joined by the technology reporter for the washington post. wheeler: i was able to be involved as they were bringing great change to the american economy and the way people live their lives. and that is what we're dealing with it the fcc. -- middlethe bidding of one of the great revolutions of all time. had we deal with the problems all around us in the communications industry. this year c-span is touring cities across the country exploring american history. next a look at our recent visit to long beach california. you are watching american history tv. >> we're at the port of long beach. sitting in the middle of the port complex. approximately 3200 acres in size. seaporthe most modern in the united states. we are a department of the city of long beach. we consider ourselves part of the community. economiche

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

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

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

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.

i've served as chief economist the federal communications commission. and i've written and researched how we allocate radio spectrum, the airwaves that go into wireless communications, now.bout 30 years >> do we do it efficiently? >> great question. how much time do we have. we're getting some things a lot more right than we used to. the basic framework of the system, which comes from the the radio act, which was brainchild of herbert hoover, before he was president. he was secretary of commerce, the first regulator of radio. he wanted a lot more discretion licensinge government process over what got out in the radio world. and he wasn't really that concerned about being a traffic cop, which had already been in ad more or less, reasonable way, but he wanted more government discretion over to broadcast and what they said. interestingly enough, the radio industry at the time, the major commercial stations, they actually wanted a similar system. the basicrote language, the public interest standard, that goes into the radio act. and for decades, lots of new

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

welcome to the july 2009 meeting of the federal communications commission. this is the first commission meeting that i have been 2 cents 1997. i am very happy about that. -- that i have been two since 1997. i am very happy about that. i look forward to becoming more acquainted with colleagues and meeting new ones. before beginning the meeting, i have the distinct honor and privilege to swear in commissioner robert mcdowell. his first term ended yesterday, the day before. i have lost track. the day before. i am very pleased to do this. mr. mcdowell's wife jennifer is here, and you're beautiful children who i will let you introduce. -- and your beautiful children who i will let you introduce. if you will indulgence for a minute, joining us at the front. this is the swearing in of commissioner mcdowell. pal>> excellent. if you would raise your right hand and repeat after me. i, robert mcdowell, do solemnly swear -- >> bayh, robert dole do solemnly swear -- >> that i will support, defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domest

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

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

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

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

but does the federal communications commission have the authority to go back and to rewrite that? they do. they made that clear in their decision. so i'm very pleased with the decision. i think it's an important one for the american people. i don't think that the congress especially the makeup of th the--especially the house of representatives will like that, but the fcc does have the authority to address blocking and anti-discriminatory action. i think they will. >> so in your view the fcc can go back and retake some of the power it gave away by exempting the internet from common carrier requirements? >> well, i think that the fcc, the court actually, the way they wrote the decision, explained why they rejected that those two parts. it was because they enjoined them both blocking and anti-discrimination, they joined them under common carrier rules. and the court said we don't think you can enjoy both of those under that rule. they've given them a road map of how to go forward and do it. why is this important? it's important because of the magnificent introduction that you gave. t

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

he went to the federal communications commission, mother may i? the first thing sec did was check with her experts, most of whom worked for rca. they were told by the experts that it didn't really work. that took a while to get over but he was finally given allocation for the system and some experimental licenses in the later years of the 1930's, but by 1940, 1941, there were about 400,000 users of f.m. radio and the united states. people who had gone out and bought those big fm radio consoles. 400,000. now the war comes, the colonel goes to do radio and production stops. when the war is ending, the federal communications commission comes back and takes another look at this band they have allocated for f.m. by the way, the service got rave reviews and was really anticipated to take off off after world war ii as a civilian technology that was a very popular with high fidelity broadcasting. the fcc decided no. we're going to move this band over the vociferous objection of edwin armstrong. the sec ripped the existing allocation, 42 to 50 megahertz ou

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.

peter: this week on "the communicators," a discussion of economic policy and the federal communications commission. our guest is hal singer. he is an economist and a senior fellow at the george washington university institute of public policy. dr. singer, in a recent paper that you co-authored, "the curious absence of economic analysis at the federal communications commission, an agency in search of a mission," is the title, you write that the fcc is often an economics free zone. what do you mean by that? dr. singer: what i mean is that they are not taking economics

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 --