so the f.c.c. in an unprecedented ruling that had already gone to court multiple times and failed, grabbed the regulatory control from the f.t.c. and said we'll take the internet service providers and we'll manage them, and you keep the content folks. that's the fight that we're in right now. it's the funniest thing to me to be in a conversation about net neutrality because the implication is the internet will not be free if the government doesn't regulate it with this particular entity, the f.c.c. when i ask people would it be okay if the government regulated with the f.t.c., federal trade commission, most people say, well, that would be fine too. well, good, because that's the way it has been for 20 years. for 20 years there's been one set of rules on the super highway of the internet. the federal trade commission. here's what i'd like to say to people that are trying to listen and trying to figure this out. most of the arguments and the fights that have come about, costs increases and about pay

the f.c.c. are up to. special deals for special interests. more pore, significantly -- more power, significantly more power for those with deep pockets. what the people opposed to real net neutrality have cooked up is a scheme called paid prioritization, it's part of this, nor markey, i call -- senator markey, i call their effort to erect these toll booths online. what it means is that if you're among the fortunate few, you get faster download speeds, more content. and if you're a big established company, guess what? you can stifle the competition. you can squash the competition. and those opportunities aren't going to be available to an entrepreneur who's in their garage somewhere just starting out. and for a family that's barely staying afloat, what it sounds like they're interested in is giving them second-rate internet service. and i think senator markey and i remember it wasn't that long ago when big chunks of america had dial-up, and people just seemed to wait forever to get online. now, m

would handicap this f.c.c. or a future f.c.c.'s ability to revise the rules even if revisions were widely seen as necessary. there's a better way to proceed. it's called bipartisan legislation. senator thune has reached out to the democrats on the committee to draft an internet rules of the road for the 21st century, a set of rules that would safeguard consumers but still prevent regulators from stifling innovation at every turn. already, multiple democratic colleagues have drawn the same conclusions with regard to preemptive overcorrection by the f.c.c. the senior senator from florida and the junior senator from hawaii, for example, have both expressed a desire to collaborate on bipartisan legislation. but democrats have already made clear that the resolution today is about the elections in november. they know they won't ultimately be successful, but they want a campaign on their desire to add new regulations to the internet. this resolution takes us in the wrong direction, and we should reject it. now, one final matter. later to

the f.c.c. eliminated this guideline it removed protections against future times such as discriminatory behavior by internet service providers. so don't be fooled by the voices that say this is all doom and gloom and that the internet service providers would never let this happen. mark my words, without net neutrality, thaous -- these are not alarmists hypothetical harm. they are very real. and in a world without net neutrality, they very well may become the new normal. this is an historic moment. we are approaching the most important vote for the internet in the history of the senate. and should the senate resolution pass, it will be the first time in more than a decade a minority party sponsored congressional review act resolution overturns a majority party administration's rule. we can and should put president trump on notice. countless americans have called and e-mailed congress to express support for net neutrality and for my c.r.a. resolution. all you have to do is look at the internet tod

in addition, it would require the f.c.c. to provide monthly updates on the percentage of areas on the map that are being challenged and the number of challengers. and fourth, we would monitor the effectiveness of mobility fund phase two program by the agency offering annual updates on how mobile wireless service is being expanded. and if anyone in the senate, if anyone in the house, if anyone that could hear me today has a better idea, i'm open to adding that to the bill. but at the end of the day, rushing through this challenge process is not in the best interests of americans who are waiting for fast wireless coverage. it's not in the best interests frankly of the commission. they need to take the time to get it right, and we are out to help them doing that. there will be original cosponsors from both sides of the aisle today when i drop the bill. those who want to be part of the challenge process need time and resources to put forward sound information, information to help the f.c.c. develop a map that truly portrays broa

the f.c.c. found that the decision to regulate the internet under the 1934 telephone regulatory regime has, in fact, slowed investment, which has restricted the improvement of internet services for rural americans. like many that i represent in south dakota. in response to these problems, the f.c.c. recently decided to restore the light touch regulatory regime that the internet had thrived under. up until 2015 for two decades, the internet was regulated under the light touch. everybody agreed that was the best approach. let the internet grow, flourish, innovate, expand to give more people access to high-speed internet services. well, when the f.c.c. decided to change that, it created the opportunity for us to adopt net neutrality legislation to permanently address concerns about blocking, throttling, paid prioritization to deal with these concerns under a regulatory regime that is suitable for the 21st century internet. that's what the f.c.c. did when they went back to what we had for two decade

the f.c.c. case in twenty four it seemed said that they agreed with the absences finding that the highest piece had an economic incentive and the ability to you know do things. prioritization and sure into that right thing really can come up with any arguments and didn't really challenge that assertion ryan what really seems to animate those in favor of the existing net neutrality rules is fear that their speed is going to slow down and this isn't just about netflix and you tube there are economic consequences to businesses for slow loading internet content correct yeah there actually have been studies on this and just a second slower on your page loading time as a business trying to sell something online and compete in a fair marketplace with somebody like walmart or amazon those seconds are valuable and you're losing huge percentages of your customers if they have to wait because they're just going to go somewhere else where the site was faster abandoned shopping carts for an absolutely i gotc

that's right all the f.c.c. on this thing that's right manila chant thank you for being here your parish it. and now we go to miami where climate change and rising sea levels are reshaping one of the nation's largest housing markets here with more is r t correspondent nicholas o'donovan. miami is known worldwide for its speeches and beautiful weather millions of cheeriest come here to stay at seaside hotels wealthy locals invest in luxurious villas overlooking the bay and the up income in urban areas a home to a vibrant an international community of young professionals. so miami is growing at a fast pace cranes and construction sites have been part of the city's landscape for years and home prices have been growing steadily since the recession but real estate isn't the only thing rising here in south florida sea level rise and floods are already a reality here and they're starting to reshape one of the country's largest housing markets according to a new study published in the journal of environmental research l

officials at the f.c.c. is division of corporate finance to argue against a policy proposal to treat cryptocurrency is created by startups as securities that does. the nation as a security would bring extensive oversight to such tokens as i spoke about on the program last week with attorney gary de wall the case law surrounding the definition of what a security is is crystal clear that crypto is are in fact securities under what is called the how we test nestle the food and candy company is paying starbucks over seven billion dollars why to be able to sell starbucks brand coffee products the often controversial swiss space food giant hopes to boost its global coffee business through the deal while starbucks is also in to supporting a jolt to its business artie's alex my highlight bitch is following the story in toronto alex thanks for being with so what does this mean for nestle's and starbucks. well up for nestle's is a big deals the third biggest transaction in their one hundred fifty two year history so t

that's right all the f.c.c. on this that's right militant thank you for being here you're a shit. and now we go to miami where climate change and rising sea levels are reshaping one of the nation's largest housing markets here with more is r t correspondent nicholas o'donovan. miami is known worldwide for its speeches and beautiful weather millions of cheeriest come here to stay at seaside hotels wealthy locals invest in luxurious villas overlooking the bay and the up income in urban areas a home to a vibrant an international community of young professionals. so miami is growing at a fast pace cranes and construction sites have been part of the city's landscape for years and home prices have been growing steadily since the recession but real estate isn't the only thing rising here in south florida sea level rising floods are already a reality here and they're starting to reshape one of the country's largest housing markets according to a new study published in the journal of environmental research letters single family homes closer to the say are appreciating slower than those at

read these days never read these documents everything i state everything i loose a date comes from f.c.c. filings i don't trust newspaper articles i don't look at the internet for these stories ok why because if i found a story and i put it in my book somebody can debate it it is debatable if i use somebody else's second hand source it is not the beta well when it comes from google's files when it comes from these companies tesla berkshire's file yeah i know you do a great job of giving specific examples about specific stocks and how they prove your point really but a lot of people i guess specially you know kind of average investors would probably argue well i've made a lot of money on the stock market so if i'm making money what do you it is a ponzi scheme i'm doing fine i've you know made a fortune off the also stock market but i guess the right response to that is a lot of people make money from a ponzi scheme until it collapses yeah you're absolutely right first of all the money that they make way unless they're actually have cold hard cash it's not real money as in of a actually se

isn't the stock market illegal that's a very good question lee i have absolutely no idea as in the f.c.c. clearly defined that right not only are they not doing anything about this process of first all they actually encourage capital gains and which is odd because capital gains meets their definition of a ponzi scheme not only are they letting the normal process i'm talking about exchanging happened but there are also. allowing google for example to issue perhaps the purest of the purest of the worst policies made basically making a worse when people say oh yeah our stock represents value in a company's stock represents oh by the end the biggest misconception oh by the value of the stock is backed by the company no it's not they've never read these days never read these documents everything i state everything i lose to date comes from f.c.c. filings i don't trust newspaper articles i don't look at the internet for these stories ok why because i found a story and i put it in my book somebody can debate it it is debatable if i use somebody else's second hand source it is not the beta well

the stock market illegal that's a very good question lee i have absolutely no idea as in yeah the f.c.c. clearly defines it right not only are they not doing anything about this process of first off they actually encourage capital gains and which is odd because capital gains meets their definition of a ponzi scheme not only are they letting the normal process i'm talking about exchanging happened but there are also. allowing google for example to issue perhaps the purest of the purest of the worst policies made basically making a worse when people say oh yeah our stock represents value in a company stock represents oh by the end the biggest misconception oh by the value of the stock is backed by the company no it's not they've never read these days never read these documents everything i state everything i lose to date comes from f.c.c. filings i don't trust newspaper articles i don't look at the internet for these stories ok why because i found a story and i put it in my book somebody can debate it it is debatable if i use somebody else's second hand source it is not the beta well when

read these days never read these documents everything i state everything i lose to date comes from f.c.c. filings i don't trust newspaper articles i don't look at the internet for these stories ok why because i found a story and i put it in my book somebody can debate it it is debatable if i use somebody else's second hand source it is not the beta well when it comes from google's files when it comes from these companies tesla berkshire's file yeah i know you do a great job of giving specific examples about specific stocks and how they prove your point really but a lot of people i guess specially you know kind of average investors would probably argue well i've made a lot of money on the stock market so if i'm making money what do you it is a ponzi scheme i'm doing fine i've you know made a fortune off the also stock market but i guess the right response to that is a lot of people make money from a ponzi scheme until it collapses yeah you're absolutely right first of all the money that they make way unless they're actually have cold hard cash it's not real money as in of a actually see o

to ensure the internet stayed that way, the obama-era f.c.c. instituted net neutrality rules to prevent large internet service providers from segmenting the internet into fast and slow lanes. from selling faster service to folks who could pay, slower service to others. we didn't want that. from charging customers more for their favorite sites, from divvying the internet into packages like cable tv. why was this so important? because if large cable and internet companies were allowed to do this, the internet wouldn't operate on a level playing field. big corporations and folks who could pay would enjoy the benefits of fast internet and speedy delivery to their customers, while start-ups, small businesses, public schools, average folks, communities of color, rural americans could well be disadvantaged. net neutrality protected everyone and prevented large i.s.p.'s from discrimination against any customers. that era, the era of a free and open internet, unfortunately will soon come to an end. in december the republican-led f.c. votedo repeal the n

securities and exchange commission the f.c.c. from an acting a regulation that the firms say could hold back the development of a block chain technology that is the superstructure of most crypto currencies delegations from andresen horwitz union square ventures and the national venture capital association among other stakeholder holders reportedly met with f.c.c. officials at the ses division of corporate finance to argue against a policy proposal to treat crypto currency as created by start ups as securities that designation as a security would bring extensive. oversight to such tokens as i spoke about on the program last week with attorney gary de wall the case law surrounding the definition of what a security is is crystal clear that crypto is are in fact securities under what is called the how we test nestle the food and candy company is paying starbucks over seven billion dollars why to be able to sell starbucks brand coffee products the often controversial swiss space food giant hopes to boost its global coffee business thr

if the f.c.c. has its way, they're going to create internet fast lanes and slow lanes where winners and losers are no longerred determined by how good a business' product is but whether your small business can afford to pay in. that's wrong. it's not good for the economy. it's not good for our democracy. i've heard from thousands, hundreds of thousands of illinoisans who were concerned, and there's concern all across the country that cuts across party lines. we filed a discharge petition today to take up this issue of net neutrality on the floor of the senate. we have considered a lot of rules and regulations from the obama administration. now we're going to consider one from the trump administration. we're going to see if there is bipartisan support for net neutrality. already senator collins, republican of maine, has joined us. will there be more? are there a number of republican senators who want to stand up for net neutrality and for open access of america to the internet? or do they want to se

be worth in six months that's not an f.c.c. regulated think it's a well it was debated could have ended up being a good because the future but i keep going back to and i'm going to apologize to our boom busters out there watching because i go back to this thing called the how we test my policy is that it's a little arcane but you know how we test was a supreme court you know this but our. supreme court case and he's right and it goes back to forty six print court cases as you see verses out and it says one in this is the criteria for if it's cured so one is that an investment of money yeah i invest in bitcoin or if there is an expectation of a profit in my investment yeah i'm not doing it for fun three isn't an investment of money in a common enterprise you know we're all in it we're so three and then the fourth one and i guess this is the one with the it's the debate about part but does any profit come from the acts of a third party or a promoter and i've yet to see a crypto that doesn't have a promoter i mean if you google on

in december the republican-led f.c.c. voted to repeal the net neutrality rules, and on june 11 of this year that repeal will go into effect. it may not be a cataclysm on day one, but sure as rain, if internet service providers are given the ability to start charging more for preferred service, they'll find a way to do it. so the democratic position is very simple. let's treat the internet like the public good that it is. we don't let water companies or phone companies discriminate against customers. we don't restrict access to interstate highways saying you can ride on the highway, you can't. we shouldn't do that with the internet either. that's what the democratic net neutrality c.r.a. would ensure. now three republicans, we appreciate, joined cloture on our bill. we hope more will come with us. where do our republicans stand on this issue? why haven't we heard much from them on this issue when it's a typical issue that protects the middle class, working families, average americans from big special interests taking advan

it's a real bipartisan effort to right the f.c.c.'s wrong and protect the free and open internet. it's very crucial to the future of the country. house republicans don't have to choose the same path that the vast majority of republicans in the senate decided. speaker ryan should bring this up for a vote immediately. the american people have spoken, the senate has spoken. speaker ryan should listen and bring the net neutrality c.r.a. to the floor of the house. now, on another subject, the one-year anniversary of robert mueller. one year ago, former f.b.i. director robert mueller was appointed to lead the f.b.i.'s investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. of course the investigation began long before that. according to the "new york times," it began in the middle of 2016 as a result of information we received from the australian ambassador who told the f.b.i. that russian intelligence was working to share information with the trump campaign. at that time, we heard a lot about the f.b.i.'s investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails, but remarkably we heard nothing

plead guilty agree to outside oversight and pay a higher fine you might wonder if my old agency the c f.c.c. is also involved in the investigation the answer is a big yes i was involved we are there we actually started those live more investigations which impacted so many investors. and southwest airlines is being sued by a passenger on that ill fated flight on april seventeenth which took the life of another passenger jennifer reeled in the jet's engine blew apart damaging a window and causing ms reardon to be partially pulled out of the plane the lawsuit filed on behalf of passenger liliya schabas who was in a seat three rows behind ms reardon contends that ms job it continues to suffer severe personal injuries including p.t.s.d. post-traumatic stress disorder which includes anxiety emotional distress and depression she also received personal injuries to her body from the incident and here to bring us up to date now the speed of what's going on surrounding the matter is former director of the national transportation safety board jamie fitch jamie thank you for coming back we sure apprecia

when the republican f.c.c. voted to repeal net neutrality, they handed the internet providers all the cards many they said do what you will with the internet, charge consumers more for faster service if you like or segment the internet into packages, forcing the average family to purchase faster times for their favorite websites. let big corporations purchase faster internet service while startups and small businesses and consumers are left in the dust. public schools, rural americans, communities of color or anyone in a remote area or without substantial resources could be at a significant disadvantage if the i.s.p.'s start charging more for decent internet. you know, people say, well, let a private company do whatever it wants, let them charge whatever they want. but in certain goods which are essential we don't do that. utilities, highways. the same thing now applies to the internet of. it's a necessity and we have to have protections for average folks, for small businesses, for working families. that's why

did not seem like the best of ideas simply because of the regulators you spoke of it as well as the f.c.c. they were inclined at that point not to accept the deal of this magnitude to go through of course you know the thought of monopoly pop in your mind when you only have three massive providers so now the climate the according to both team obama and sprint seems to be a little bit better under the trumpet ministration they're going to gamble they might toss out the dice and hope for the best and see that if this deal can actually be pushed through under this administration look it's a twenty six billion dollars deal mostly stocks and the t. mobile is basically taking the sprint t. mobile as the bigger of the two companies worth about fifty five billion and then sprint would be absorbed into it to a new company and guess what they're going to be called t. mobile so we're seeing this thirty third entity coming to existence if that happens it will be a big three then obviously now both these companies together have about sixty billion dollars in debt so moving forward this would be a good

the republican-led f.c.c. has said that allowing z.t.e. into the united states would pose a national security threat, saying it would give state-backed chinese companies, quote, hidden back doors to our networks that would allow them to inject viruses and other malware, steal americans' private data, spy on u.s. businesses, and more. we all know that china is involved in stealing our intellectual property. there's no better way to do it than through z.t.e., and we're going to let them be here? slap them on the wrist with a fine. that's a dereliction of our duty here in the congress and the president's duty to protect us. the pentagon has banned z.t.e. phones, saying in a statement, quote, z.t.e. devices may pose an unacceptable risk to the department's personnel information and mission. if our defense department is banning these phones, why are we allowing them to come into the country and do industrial espionage and steal our intellectual property from our companies? here's what f.b.i. director chris wray, appointed by president trump, to

and in fact, the f.c.c. has since found that the decision to regulate the internet under the 1934 -- that's right, mr. president -- 1934 telephone regulatory regime has slowed investment, which has restricted the improvement of internet services for rural americans like those that i represent in south dakota. in response to these problems, the f.c.c. recently decided to restore the light touch regulatory regime that the internet thrived under and which had been in place -- prior to 2015, for twaog decades, light touch regime under the administrations of both political parties. that in turn created the opportunity for us to adopt net neutrality legislation to permanently address concerns about blocking, throttling and paid prioritization and to deal with these concerns under a regulatory regime suitable for the 21st century internet. and so that's why the f.c.c. went back to the light touch regulatory regime rather than the heavy-handed 1934 law that would treat the internet like a ma bell public utility. but

change commission like i mentioned earlier there are now seven other government offices aside from the f.c.c that has targeted grapplers so if we do survive this particular case we're still facing an activation case a libel case again like i said all unwarranted so we're fighting back with critical reporting with information speaking to t.v. shows like you or online shows like you and continuing our campaign for press freedom and we're hoping to increase awareness about this issue so that everyone can see sort of what's happening or the decline of press freedom here in the philippines. keeping that in mind we got this from stability search she says we need to think about not just the ban the potential ban on rappler itself but what further consequences it might have in the future and i think this applies globally in truth this person says what are you planning. that's exactly why we this is not just about the rappler and the government it's actually about the government and press and again there could be a chilling effect we're already seeing this any sort of words that come out from the pre

stating much and so it's turned out there that they're counting practices are being investigated by the f.c.c. which which is trouble that signals trouble and because they're not really disclosing a lot of information about it i think it's worrisome for investors and the stock really is not a buy and we don't know what's going to happen or how long the investigation is going to take but supposedly they've been being investigated since april of this year you know those little blower things in the past you see some real seriously and you know that could take a long time so we could be in the doldrums for a while as you as you suggest let's move on to another interesting company kraft. the maker of the famous. and the oscar meyer wieners the hot dogs and the philadelphia cream cheese and april banks were saying the stock would be a buy in the mid seventy's but then warren buffett said he was going to get off the board he wasn't taking any of the money the berkshire hathaway owns twenty seven percent but now they're down to fifty four bucks fifty two week high was ninety four dollars so they real

regulatory framework or opposed to be our currency framework we're entering a new era we don't need the f.c.c. that c.f.d. see any of these regulators guys were taken this thing to another level is based on a whole different valuation model and just to give you some context of you know my history in all this and how i got into it was back in one nine hundred ninety five one nine hundred ninety six i started the company in los angeles called the hollywood stock exchange and we were trading virtual assets with a virtual currency on a virtual exchange and to build that technology which was pretty new at the time i had to invent a technology so i invented a technology called the virtual specialist technology is that has a u.s. patent i think it's five nine five zero one seven six is the patent number and so we were having to do prices covering virtual assets this benchley was sold to cantor fitzgerald in two thousand and one and they moved the entire thing to their office in new york the top floor of the world trade center. a few months before nine eleven so there was. an inability for them to re

to go ahead and try to push the f.c.c. to approve this deal that that has any merit it has some merit if there's some substance behind it if there's not any substance. and it it won't it won't carry the day right now what we've heard from t. mobile and sprint is that they're doing just fine right there they've been doing great and in terms of being able to roll out for five g. so what is you know what's real what's not here you know do you need this merger or don't you. know a lot from a borrower mozart thank you for joining us indeed sure for shit. while the advancement of technology has certainly taken a hit on old school movie theater business that doesn't mean that the business is done for across the nation some theaters are changing their model in order to get more people in their seats to give us a look at how these theaters are stepping up their game we hand it over to trinity job as. well some people like to netflix and chill there are some theaters that are actually worth leaving your couch for some have. an fancy

to eliminate two and in my lane in the media we have talked about this on a previous show where the f.c.c. is tossing the rules the technology has obsoleted but we wonder is there more to it than that has for instance chairman paved the way for this soon clear tribune merger by specific deregulation and that's the hint that i got off this action here when they've added something about attorney general jeff sessions tough on crime policy and the things they've deleted you know that you talk about yeah so. is this simply streamlining or is there an agenda behind that too yeah that's the big question and to me it smells a lot like political posturing that we've seen over and over again where they'll let kind of you know you see congress do it all the time we're going to pass this totally meaningless law just so we can say we passed this meeting was right on the campaign trail this is a lot like that but the real you know the question is you know if you do you really think the government is kind of going after through these changes are they are they going after the quote unquote out of contro

four set up right next to news one and guess what news one didn't have to pay for that f.c.c. license sooner than they have to mortgage it they're all doing the same story but one of them just has a smaller not so technology digital technology and self publishing it all has enabled a lot of start up sure on a lists what gets lost in all this cost cutting is editing right because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true ever since i saw forrest gump shake hands with president kennedy i don't want to believe i don't think it's a boy but that's going to have. i don't know it's true and you know it raises questions of you know other possible ways to kind of fix that the controller yeah i mean there's this idea of government intervention which i'm not if i'm never a fan of government intervention in trying to fix this idea of journalism with a problem that is because i don't like dirty government hands on my well of the fairness doctrine fell during the term and gave rise to talk radio which is predominantly one sided but it turned radio into two way radio right the president th