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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. >> now, the chair of the federal communications commission talks about 5g spectrum and what it could mean for national security. she highlight the united states role in the sector, challenges posed by china's advancement in the field and infrastructure investments. >> good afternoon. people don't realize that the nature of national security has changed in the last couple decades. it's not as apparent as it was. the u.s. is, in some ways, a little bit behind other countries when it comes to how we think about the spectrum, how we think about 5g. 5g is the core of economic growth in the future. paying attention to how the spectrum uses 5g is crucial. we have a great discussion today. i'm going to introduce our two primary speakers and they will be followed by a panel. let me say that we are grateful that the chair of the federal communications commission as agreed to come and speak on the topic today. 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

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

. >> 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

pai is chairman of the federal communications commission. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] budget by is chairman of the federal communications commission. it's been about two years since we've seen you. have been active in closing the digital divide and a number of priorities as well, advancing public safety. i'd like to think it's been a very active commission. >> what is on the docket? executingill continue on closing the digital divide. that includes a number of different components. that includes we get more broadband to all parts of the country. funds will devote $1.5 billion to connect 713,000 homes and businesses. we will substantially increase the amount of rural broadband out there. 5g is something we are looking to extend american leadership on. we will be doing additional options in 2019. infrastructure of the future will be a big factor in 2019. we look forward to following up. doing a lot on the public safety front, hurricane season, as well as wildfires. we have been taking a look at some of the framework

just under two hours and 45 minutes. >> welcome to today's hearing on oversight of the federal communications commissionversight hearing last march, i expressed my amazement that an agency as important as the federal communications commission has not been reauthorized by congress in 25 years, making it the oldest expired authorization within the commerce committee's expansive jurisdiction. reversing 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

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

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

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'

just under two hours and 45 minutes. >> welcome to today's hearing on oversight of the federal communications commissionversight hearing last march, i expressed my amazement that an agency as important as the federal communications commission has not been

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

federal communications commission f.c.c. has decided to do away with net neutrality rules the landmark decision was put in place and twenty fifteen under former president barack obama it barred providers from blocking or slowing access to content or charging consumers more that's about to change the f.c.c. is moving as part of u.s. president donald trump's push to scale back regulation in many economic sectors. next neutrality rules banned internet providers from giving preferential treatment to certain websites after the f.c.c. vote that seems to be a thing of the past. the ending of net neutrality has been met with fury by millions of internet uses both online through social media. and offline at this protest outside the f.c.c. headquarters they say consumers will be forced to stump up the costs of say paying for faster access to their favorite sites or even paying to access certain websites that all. say it will saddle content platforms with costs that they will be forced to pass on to their consumers the chairman of the

i was very disappointed with what the federal communications commission did subsequent to the passage of the act. much of the intent was lost. beencouragement is going to that those that do the rewrite be as prescriptive as they can so there is a small chance that the federal communication commission will add their own intent. host: what is an example of the intense they lost? guest: we came up with a checklist of what the telephone companies had to do to be able to enter long distance and open the same day to long-distance companies to offer local telephone service. in my opinion, that interpretation what far too long. i think it went outside of what was originally intended. toagain, when it comes writing the bill this time, i think legislators need to be as prescriptive as possible homage to direct to the federal communications commission and anyone else who has to review the act, the justice department, so it is narrow so that we preserve what lawmakers intended when they passed the bill. host: because congress has not enacted another comprehensive telecommunications act in the las

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

i did not grow up a dreamy that i would be the head of a federal communications commission. i'm good, all right. and -- but i did come to washington and spend some time working on a communications policy in the private sector. and then in the trenches at the federal communications commission. and then i took a job up on capitol hill. where i worked on the spectrum policy and repurposing airways for first responders. and then it was offered the opportunity by president obama to join the fcc which i was able to take. and i spent some time there during the obama administration. also during the trump administration in a minority. and president biden elevated me to become the first permanent chairwoman of the fcc. only took 87 years for mentoring the agency so. the way i see it, i'm gonna make up for lost time. >> are we on? okay? good to go. on that note, 87 years. definitely a long time. but who's counting. a lot of things are changing for us. the company that i lead -- we have a workforce for the u.s. as 40% women. which are very proud of. i think that's a little bit of an outl

then went on the federal communications commission. >> susan ness, thank you for sharing some of your expertise background, and current work. just a reminder, this communicators program and all others are available as podcasts. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from the presidential primaries through the impeachment process. now the federal response to the coronavirus. you can watch all of c-span's public affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the national conversation through c-span's the leak washington journal program, or through our social media feed. c-span, created by america's cable television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. >> next, briefings on the virus -- violence following the african-americans during an arre

the federal communications commission is facing a tough task. the chairman of the fcc, german genachowski -- german -- chairman genachowski just came out with the national broadband plan to try and look at all of the challenges that we face as a nation and how broadband can address some of those challenges. they see this as a vital infrastructure. they want innovation in the space. this is good, but they are trying to work with a statute that is not structured for this area. when we look at this world of the internet, which bill that we do not want it to be a wild, wild west. we wanted to be governed by bloc and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law -- by a rule of law and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law. >> we're talking with tom paul kirk -- thomas tauke and kim hart. >> you talk about how everyone is playing in each other's sandboxes. computer companies are selling cell phones and network providers have their own app stores. you stressed the need for the government to ensure that no player

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

and this was the federal trade commission as well as the federal communications commission. federal trade commission to us to a vote in there is a five bipartisan vote that is very strong. there was no indication of systemic rocket failure that would necessitate net neutrality rules. net neutrality has been, up until this proceeding at the fcc, sort of what i call a workshop term. but now we do have a debate, framework for debate which is unique. the first thing we need to address i would like for potential commenters who might be watching right now 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 others, phone companies, wireless companies on a might somehow discriminate against content or applications in an anticompetitive way to favor their own business interests. that's far, there has not been proof of systemic market failure. there've been three or four, five maybe examples of some sort of nefarious behavior, but they've all been isolated in one sp

. >> host: and what is the interface with the federal communications commission? >> guest: there is some overlap. one of the areas we have overlapped on has to do with enforcement of the no-call rule in the area of telemarketing so there has been a great deal of collaboration in that area. in issues that relate to private data security that is another overlap particularly in light of the federal communication commission to reclassify broad broadband. we work well with them as we do with a number of other federal agencies. we share information with the department of justice and because of the broad jurisdiction that the federal trade commission has where we intersect with federal agencies. >> host: we will talk about some of those issues >> i would like to start by asking what is the commission's role in protecting american consumer's privacy? >> guest: we have a vital role. the way we go about protecting consum consumers is we insure companies don't engage in unfair or deceptive practices. we have developed important jurisprudence in that area. today, and over man

>> it was the golden age of the federal communications commission. moved all of the lanes of the communication highway, from analog to digital. that was cable broadcasts, satellite had been launched but the service had not yet begun. we came up with the digital television standards, which are radio standards. my first commission meeting we did band plans for pcf. and we began the first auction, at which point they actually used the hand placard to bid. it was an exciting time to be there. we also implemented the 1996 telecom act, which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local telephony and video. and also radically changed the landscape for broadcasts. widening the ability to consolidate broadcast properties. >> looking back 20 years later, did you get it right? susan: some of it we did. the other thing we did, and which is so important, and c-span can appreciate this greatly, is children's television programming. we instituted the requirement three hour for children's television on broadcast. some of it we got very righ

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

>> 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

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

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

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

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

it was one of the events leading towards the formation of the federal communications commission. and the 2000s we did a report on patent law and innovation. so it's not something totally new that we are doing here. but it certainly is the case that when we look to see the situation in the news media, we see a lot of financial difficulties. and there are trends there that have significance, not just for the economy, but also to whether we're going to have a future that includes the well-informed citizenry that we need for a well functioning democracy. so, what has the ftc done with is project so far? we have had two workshops, both of them two days. anti-semitism has a nine, we had a workshop that was basically gathering the facts about the economics of the news industry industry these days. and we found at least three critical facts. the first is that there are certain ways of financial difficulties that have been caused by overleveraged purchases of newspapers, and times when it was thought that margins of 20 or 30% would continue for a long time, and they obviously haven't. and

he was the first african- american commission of the federal communications commission. he is credit with taking the civil rights movement from dr. king's dream to reality. >> there lived a man who had so much fire in his belly for social justice in our nation and always challenged young people that once you are successful in life, remember to give back to your community. that was so important to him. >> dr. hooks was 85 years old. his funeral will begin today at noon and more details later in the day. >>> a 3-year-old boy reported missing on monday north of daytona beach florida has turned up in new york city. police are saying that he is unharmed and it a note in his pocket giving his name and other information. he was dropped off by a couple. the boy's mother is facing charges. she has handed the boy to the couple. she said that she handed him to the couple. she was arrested and they are suspected in counter fitting operations. >>> 6 protesters handcuffed themselves to the northern gate of the white house. they want the military's done ask don't tell policy repealed f

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

>> my hope is that the process laid out by the federal communications commission, the expert agency, will help us to balance these important principles, that we have sufficient capability to modernize and improve upon the pipes, if you will, the network management capability while preserving the openness of the internet. while these are described as a political fight with one side or the other, i tend to look for opportunities for common ground and confident that the federal communications commission's process will lead us to a positive answer. >> behind all this, it's the clash of the titans, though. >> indeed, the clash of the titans, and i think what's really at stake is as the internet is providing opportunities for more democratic participation and collaboration and engagement between members of congress and other elected officials, the concern is anything that disturbs that openness of the internet is something to be considered very seriously. >> what then does the future hold with all this information that's running around out there with respect to hackers, bad information, mi