i will mention a meeting we had with bob quinn, who is in charge of regulatory affairs for at&t. he said there are numerous examples of where the industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. he is saying the onus is on the companies and consumers. you think that is enough? is there may be not a need for more regulation from the fcc when it comes to net neutrality and rates and these types of issues? >> the reason why regulatory entities are here in the first place -- they are here as a protective tool to the public. they are here because in terms of companies, as much as they want to serve and provide services to the public, sometimes the principle of making money, making profits, does not necessarily work in favor of the public. say you have regulatory agencies who were there as a protection to the public. i am not the type of regulator who is looking behind every door to regulate every single practice. that is not why i signed up for the job. i am here to protect the public when the markets are imperfect. i am here as sort of a substitute for competi

i'll mention a meeting we had with bob quinn who is in the charge of regulatory fairness for at&t, and he said there are numerous examples of where the industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. not to say that consumers, the onus is on consumers, but he's saying, though, and this is sort of on the companies and the consumers. so do you think that that's enough and that there's maybe not a need for more regulation from the fcc when it comes to consumer protections like net neutrality and rates and etfs and these types of issues? >> guest: one of the things when i hear that that i go back to is and i can't quote it chapter and verse, is the reason why regulatory entities are here in the first place. they're here as a protective tool for the public. they're here because in terms of companies as much as they want to serve, as much as they want to provide services to the public that sometimes the principle of making money, of profit doesn't necessarily work in favor of the public. so you've got regulatory agencies who are there as a protection to the public. i

i will mention a meet we had with bob quinn, the, who is in charge of regulatory affairs for at&t. and he said that there are numerous examples where the industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. and not to say that consumers, onus is on consumers, but i mean he is saying, this is sort of on the companies and the consumers. so do you think that's enough maybe not a need for more regulation from the fcc when it comes to consumer protection and net neutrality and rates and those sorts of issues? >> guest: one of the things hear and go back to, i can't quote it chapter and first verse, reason why regulatory entities are here in the place. they're here as protective tool to the public in terms of companies, as much as they want to serve as much as they want to provide services to the public, that sometimes, the principle of making making profits doesn't necessarily work in favor the public. you have got regulatory agencies there as protection for to the public. i'm not type of regulator who is looking, behind every door to regulate every single practice.