amy schatz of "the wall street journal" is joining us, joining in the questioning of mr. levin. we're about 50-odd days away from the national broadband plan being presented to congress, could you give us a status update on that report? >> guest: sure. we have been giving status updates all along. in september we laid out for the fcc kind of what we thought the state of broadband was in the united states. in november we laid out what are the most significant problems we need to deal with, a couple weeks ago we laid out how to think about how to address those problems. and right now we're in the situation where over the holidays we are busy trying to kind of write up our best view of what's in a very, very extensive record, literally tens of of thousands of pages have come in. we've had over 30 workshops where these issues have been debated, we've had a number of field hearings, we've had a number of what are called public notices where we ask people specific questions can, and we're now in the process of taking all that information in, and we'll be talking with the commissioner'

our questioner is amy schatz from the wall street journal. >> open access became an issue after the berkmanhich the f.c.c. asked for. you say there is no support on the hill but there was arguably not that much support on some parts of the hill for net neutrality either. >> i completely agree with you. i'm supportive of net neutrality. >> i think it depends on the party, but when you're talking about competition issues like this, it sounds like you're basically saying that from your perspective, open access is not an issue. unbundling is not an issue, that you think the entity should be going down and that's sort of off the table now. >> no, that's not what i said. we did ask for the berkman study and we gave them complete and total editorial freedom in doing it. we simply asked when we announced it publicly we would like a review of everything that has gone before. we thought that was an important foundation stone for having a data-driven analytic record. they did a lot of things that are very helpful to understanding what is going on, but fundamentally, it's backward looking. it's valuabl

our questioner is amy schatz from the wall street journal. >> open access became an issue after the berkman study which the f.c.c. asked for. you say there is no support on the hill but there was arguably not that much support on some parts of the hill for net neutrality either. >> i completely agree with you. i'm supportive of net neutrality. >> i think it depends on the party, but when you're talking about competition issues like this, it sounds like you're basically saying that from your perspective, open access is not an issue. unbundling is not an issue, that you think the entity should be going down and that's sort of off the table now. >> no, that's not what i said. we did ask for the berkman study and we gave them complete and total editorial freedom in doing it. we simply asked when we announced it publicly we would like a review of everything that has gone before. we thought that was an important foundation stone for having a data-driven analytic record. they did a lot of things that are very helpful to understanding what is going on, but fundamentally, it's backward looking. it's