but, all along, the fcc has been there in the background. the fcc never said, we're never going to have anything to do with internet interconnection. what they said was, we belief traditionally this is competitive market we don't need to get involved in. that was a factual determination. the world is changing. >> okay. hal? >> thanks. i look at this from a economic perspective, simply, what are the benefits from imposing mandatory interconnection, what are the costs and i tried to lay those out in a short policy brief that was left with you and very quickly on the benefit side of the ledger, if you force these networks to interconnect you might be able to minimize the amount of disruptions. certainly disruptions of anyone's service impose as serious cost but in my review of the episodes looking back in history of the internet, we don't see a lot of disputes. he mentioned a few but in fact what struck me with how few there were relatively could have occurred. i counted to six major disputes and only half led to service outage for consumers an

and in very few instances did the issue of fcc jurisdiction or fcc authority ever come up. it was something we were looking at department of homeland security, department of defense and a number of other federal agencies that i won't mention right now that work on the issue aggressively and attentively. the fcc's role is very limited n my opinion. it could provide some, its analysis of telecommunications networks and oversees those situations and provide advice to other federal agencies. where i worry about is where i think the chairman has talked about, and i wait to see what he actually puts forward. but he's talked about getting very aggressive on the issue of cybersecurity and what that may lead to. and, you know, the question is, does it lead to regulation? the only place i can see you get regulation authority is from section 706 in interpreting the court's decision from earlier this year. >> host: michael o'rielly has mentioned that he worked on the hill. he began his hill career as a legislative assistant to tom bliley who served as energy and commerce chair. he also

jurisdiction or fcc authority ever come up. that was something we were looking at in the homeland security department or defense or a number of other that we will mention right now the work on the issue aggressively. the fcc's rule is very limited in my opinion in terms of the could provide its analysis of communications networks and oversees those situations in writing of other federal agents. what i worry about is where the the chairman is talked about and i wait to see what he actually puts forward that he's talked about getting very aggressive on the issue of of cybersecurity in without me lead to an the question is the lead to regulation? the only place i can see you get regulation authorities from section 706 and interpreting the court's decision. >> host: michael o'rielly mention he worked on a hill and he had his hill career as a legislative assistant to tom bliley who served as energy and commerce chair. he also worked for senator john sununu and for a long time for senator john cornyn republican of texas. what's it li

we have lobbyist who are now running the fcc and former fcc chairman who is now a lobbyist. and we are asking this organization to police the telecom industry. how can we trust any regulation that comes out of this organization to be impartial or to be beneficial for consumers, rather than the industry? there's a long history in the united states of large companies collaborating with politicians in government to write regulations that favor large companies, and hold back smaller companies. net neutrality is legislation might hold back and might restrict these larger companies and control them in a way, but ultimately, it will hurt smaller providers more. smaller providers are less able to deal with these regulations, so it prevents copetitioner. when you prevent competition, you don't get the increases in price and quality. that is another fear i have about the impact of not just net neutrality, but other legislation that might follow. >> joshua steimle, are you concerned that in fact what will happen is less competition if these large companies are able to offer this faster

we can all shut down the fcc and go home.is the nature started at the beginning of the day, the nature of any network industry that there are these potential for these flashpoints. >> hal, last thought? >> i'm actually worried that we're learning about the interconnection debate through the prism of the netflix, really the netflix wars. whether it's netflix/comcast, netflix/whomever. and netflix may not be all that average representative of your content provider. so i'm concerned that regulation is going to be spawned through a prism that might be a false one. i also want to point out that netflix has certain counterstrategies in its pocket. if it wanted to, you know, for example if an isp gave it a hard time, they could impose an isp surcharge for customers of that isp to discoarnlg people to switch to a rival isp. they're in the driver's seat, and that's just another reason why we should take, i think, a go-slow approach to adding on another layer of regulation. >> i'm going to give anna maria the last word. >> just to answ

the fcc has a lot on its plate. commission is considering rules on the broadcast incentive option, aws 3 option, usf and eray and two very significant mergers. i'm confident the fcc will be able to demonstrate it can walk and chew gum at the same time. this subcommittee should also do its part. for one, i join a calling for the chairman to hold oversight hearings on the two proposed mergers between comcast and time warner and on at&t and directv. both are some of the largest mergers in our nation's telecommunications history. americans including many in my district of sacramento are seeing the trends towards consolidation, content and pairing deals and how they hear phrases like paid privatization and wondering what is going on. what does all this mean for them for competition and for the economy? it has been encouraging that so many americans are speaking up in support of protecting an open internet. i was one who thought the fcc should have taken more time to deliberate in what neutrality rules the commission shou

it depends on what the fcc does. if the fcc were to reclassify broadband as a title 2 telik mediation service, i think it is inevitable that that will end up in court, but i do not know that they will necessarily regardless of what the fcc does. i think this is an issue that has generated a lot more heat and light over the number of years it has been debated. a number of people in the industry are ready to move on in this issue. far more there are important policy issues in washington we should be talking about. the question is, can the fcc that continues to encourage investment in the ecosystem, that everyone can say, this works well enough, we can move on to other things. we think a carefully crafted final rule -- without a carefully crafted final rule, that is a possibility. >> the fcc had an item earlier this year. they will -- companies will be doing trials to try to see, in an all-ip world, but we have to look for? the chairman has talked about making sure things that protect the public to not go away just what

the fcc has a lot on its plate. commission is considering rules on the broadcast incentive option, aws 3 option, usf and eray and two very significant mergers. i'm confident the fcc will be able to demonstrate it can walk and chew gum at the same time. this subcommittee should also do its part. for one, i join a calling for the chairman to hold oversight hearings on the two proposed mergers between comcast and time warner and on at&t and directv. both are some of the largest mergers in our nation's telecommunications history. americans including many in my district of sacramento are seeing the trends towards consolidation, content and pairing deals and how they hear phrases like paid privatization and wondering what is going on. what does all this mean for them for competition and for the economy? it has been encouraging that so many americans are speaking up in support of protecting an open internet. i was one who thought the fcc should have taken more time to deliberate in what neutrality rules the commission shou

did congress give the fcc authority to act? jeremy wheeler has highlighted a provision known as section seven. it has brought forward part of the court case. is ins that the authority this space. i worked on that provision. i have different views on whether it is allowable. i have to get past that hurdle. a good experience and complying. they are seeing will meet the best needs of their consumers. i do not want to regulate what may happen to stop the concern is there. this and what it can be used for any future. you can take broad language and do a number of things. you can get back to the providers. google and a number of different players. we could use that to regulate those players. i worry about that. i worry because there is an implication for when you impose new rules and regulations and there is an impact on what they are willing to invest. what they are willing to bring forward. that is an impact on consumers and the area is going to work. -- experience going forward. this is something that should be addressed by congre

they are both fcc cases. the first is fcc versus fox. a 2007 case where justice scalia said that agencies can change our prior interpretations . a previous interpretation does not bar them from doing so. where the agency -- this was the continuation of the prior case. entities subject to a case-by-case adjudication have noticed that they might take action against them. they can take action against them. they can change the rules. there were a mind supreme court cases. >> will we get to the elephant in the room? glad this is the lightning round. of section 706. this is a knob adjusting. the burden of proof on the agency with the level of formality they need to go through to enforce the statute. is the unjuston and unreasonable discrimination. --y say it does not prohibit it only prohibits unreasonable discrimination. under case law, that is express language that would need to begin in meaning. >> i have a ton of questions. >> can i respond? >> get your questions ready. we will come around with a boom mic. just speak into it. >> i want to

they are both fcc cases. the first is fcc versus fox. a 2007 case where justice scalia said that agencies can change our prior interpretations . a previous interpretation does not bar them from doing so. where the agency -- this was the continuation of the prior case. entities subject to a case-by-case adjudication have noticed that they might take action against them. they can take action against them. they can change the rules. there were a mind supreme court cases. >> will we get to the elephant in the room? glad this is the lightning round. of section 706. this is a knob adjusting. the burden of proof on the agency with the level of formality they need to go through to enforce the statute. is the unjuston and unreasonable discrimination. --y say it does not prohibit it only prohibits unreasonable discrimination. under case law, that is express language that would need to begin in meaning. >> i have a ton of questions. >> can i respond? >> get your questions ready. we will come around with a boom mic. just speak into it. >> i want to

last may, president obama named tom wheeler to be fcc chairman. mr. wheeler had been one of obama's top bundlers of campaign cash, both in 2008 and again in 2012, when he raised at least half a million dollars for the president's re-election. like his proposed rules for the web, that put him at the front of the line. what's more, wheeler had been top gun for both the cable and wireless industries. and however we might try to imagine that he could quickly abandon old habits of service to his employers, that's simply not how washington works. business and government are so intertwined there that public officials and corporate retainers are interchangeable parts of what chief justice john roberts might call the gratitude machine. round and round they go, and where they stop. actually they never stop. they just flash their ez pass as they keep shuttling through that revolving door. consider daniel alvarez was a long-time member of a law firm that has advised comcast. he once wrote to the fcc on behalf of comcast arguing against net neutrality rules. he's

what has the fcc said to you? >> we are doing is following the well tested process that has been in place for these sorts of things. if you are discontinuing a service, you file what is called a 214 to get permission to discontinue the service. in lower manhattan we had to file 214's for telegraph service. we were no longer able to provide telegraph over the fiber or metallic services. plain old telephone service is still provided over the fiber without any change. if we want to retire the copper, in lower manhattan that was done for us by nature. going forward, there is a process in place that basically requires us to notify anybody who might be affected that we plan to retire the copper. and then there is a process for making that happen. >> did you misspeak or did you have to tell the fcc you are not going to provide telegraph service anymore? >> that is not a joke. [laughter] >> my telegraphs are no longer going to go through? >> you can no longer get telegraph service in lower manhattan. >> what does that say

has the fcc undertaken regulation? didink because the 1996 act not focus on broadband or internet protocol, the fcc has been left to its own devices in that area. in my judgment, it has done a good job. i think chairman wheeler and his colleagues are on the right track. up demonstration projects, finding out what happens when you transition people to broadband and making sure that core consumer values are protected as that process goes forward. and that is a very substantial step, which i think the fcc has handled quite well. caller: host: host: should there be a reclassification of broadband services? guest: that is a good question. i want to get back to what rick said. tom wheeler is doing an excellent job. and certainly his background here in washington gives him a very unique position in which ot fashion the fcc and make decisions. but i still believe that when withlators come up comprehensive reform, they need to be as direct and as plain as possible so that legislative intent is preserved. that is going to be my

decisions by the supreme court and the fcc itself. given those, the fcc can change its mind.the court was deferring to what the agency decided. the statue.is the statute says you are subject to traditional telephone regulation if you are a telecommunication service. which is defined in cultural terms -- which is defined in colloquial terms. if a company provides pure transport from and point to the end-user's choosing without processing storage. the supreme court focused on the words processing and storage. a lot of these systems do not just send traffic intend to end. what has flown under the radar is an point of the user's choosing. when you put a web address in, www.google.com. try that in japan or germany. name system.he domain matches the word to the numbers. there is a distribution network that maintain tens of thousands of servers and determines which is posted to your. it is a pure statutory basis. probably takes the internet outside. there are articles in the harvard law review. that is one side. should we do it? the interesting question is people look at the traditi

it's also not ready to hear the fcc.we have lots of room still have a sense assert practices and they are in part to get the data. we need to know more. the data doesn't just appear. the data appears that there's a machine i say the data has to be made available in some way. one of them as formally decided issues is to stay for dr. chalabi. this is about what happens to the edge of the access providers that were. it is not what happens on the network of a comcast or at&t when the traffic goes all the way. that is that the net is how the site is about. in many ways it the same issue. the question is what they would have been in a dispute that comcast netflix is that comcast the access provider was deliberately degrading netflix traffic in order to extort netflix states have anti-competitive fee. i don't think that is what happened. by all indications i read the same unreliable sources john does. it seems that this was resolved in amicable or reasonable commercial negotiations. but let's say that is that happening. an imme

meredith baker, and fcc commissioner who helped approve the deal, she left the fcc to go work for comcastr chief lobbyist. she is one of 107 lobbyists trying to use comcast's power and influence to encourage washington to accept this deal. >> that revolving door continues. we mentioned that meredith baker left the fcc to go to comcast. now she's leaving comcast and going to lobby for the wireless industry. >> it does sound a little like "house of cards." >> it is the same characters. they all work together and they are all thinking of their next employer. >> there is money changing hands. maybe some veiled threats. >> it is worth knowing who the players are. >> the house judiciary committee heard arguments over the deal today. congress does not have any control over the merger. the fcc and the justice department will make the final decision, answering the big question, does the merger violate antitrust allstate. that policy. with us is the founder of game changer. he's the ports the merger. he says it is good for competition. why? >> cable companies are getting screwed by the content prov

but in my experience having been at the fcc and having been an advocate before the fcc, that would generate a ton of uncertainty about whether that forbearance is going to work, whether it will stick, whether a court will uphold it, so a lot of the uncertainty is a concern. and, finally, there is a huge spillover risk. if the fcc looks at transmission in internet access to try to pull it out, that will be viewed henceforth as a separate regulated common carriage telecom service. everybody else in the internet ecosystem is providing transmission, so content delivery networks, backbone providers, cogent level three that have always been providing services on an uncredited basis outside of title ii, and even edge providers large ones with their own networks like google and facebook and many others all our providing transmission to get the content from servers -- civility and enormous destabilizing risk if you're going to say one peace within and it will be regulated for the first time as a telecom service, the many other forms of internet transmissions likewise might be regulated as telecom se

she is serving second stint asf fcc wireless telecom bureau. between these stints she was special counsel to the chairman of innovation and government. between 1986 and 1998 she served as deputy chief of international and common carrier bureau and senior legal advice tore chairman reed hunt. shee is founding partner of lawler, and served as a law clerk to j harvey wilkinson of u.s. court of appeals of fourth circuit. we're very fortunate in the midst of all controversies swirling around then fcc she is able to takee time out and give us the benefit and experience and deep expertise on these subjects. without further adieu, ruth, please take the stage. [applause] >> thank you for, will, for that nice introduction and hal singer inviting me here and orangean noising such a -- organizing great group of speakers on this very important topic. i've been a communications lawyer for more years than i would care to admit but before i became hooked on telecom policy i was an english major and one of the great novels of the 20th century in english literat

i think there's a lot of money in the fcc. and because this automatic dialing freezes up lines and it's a public safety concern. i hope we would work together to try to -- >> i would look forward to that. let me get back. >> myself and the ranking member are better involved as you have in the early days also. the last thing i want to -- from rural america is there seems to be a de facto freeze on this shared service agreement. and this is in the broadcast local. when you represent a third of the state of illinois as i do now, 33 counties, the shared agreements are now helping to provide. we've got real cases, better local service to the local folks than less. i guess the basic question in my last minute is what's your plan ensuring the fcc action is predictable, consistent, fair, and timely? >> so thank you. what we have done is to put out a public notice on how we look at transfers. and i consider this to be a procedural reform. because the way it used to be was broadcasters would come together in some kind of a merger situat

the fcc and the justice department. i cannot only will the merger drive the new comcast -- >> not only will the merger drive the new comcast, but also its competitors. consumers will clearly be the beneficiaries. >> but former justice department alan groom painted a much different teacher. >> this merger is very likely illegal. the parties know it, and that is why they are here talking about how they plan to fix it. but i'm here to tell you what it is illegaly and why the fix doesn't cut it. >> joining us now on capitol hill is bloomberg's yang yang. what stood out to you today? plex high, emily. -- >> high, emily. -- hi, emily. judiciaryan of the committee actually interrupted the panel early on to explain they were having air conditioning issues, to explain to viewers like us that if we notice any sweat it was not because they were on comfortable or stressing, but in fact, because it was hot. that was a clarification he felt was important to make and they all had a good laugh about it, but the laughter ended there. no

at some point will the fcc, congress consider wireless to be common carrier? >> guest: well, wireless to the extent that it provides voice service is a common carrier today. we're treated differently in the broadband space, but that's consistent with the way that the wire line broadband offerings are treated. you raise an interesting question though, at what point do we become a replacement for the wire line network. i think consumers are voting every day, and there is a significant tranche of the population that has said i don't have real need to have a wire line device. i think if you look at the population under 30, many of them never have a relationship with their local wire line company. they see the wireless device as all they need. and that may be true in the broadband space as well. you see a number of folks who use the wireless device as their onramp to the internet. they don't have a pc or wire line broadband connection in the home. and you see them on cord cutters, an increasing number of people watching video on their mobile device as well. it may

the administration has tried to keep an arms length from the fcc in that the fcc is an nip agency.certainly are monitoring the action right now at the fcc and plans moving forward. they stress that it is an independent agency. but the chairman at the fcc is president obama's pick. and he is/who came in, the chairman of the fcc tom wheeler with the promise to carry out president obama's ambition to create net neutrality rules, so there is this kerx a soft connection, if you will, between the administration and the federal communications commission. but definitely the devil is in the details. everybody says they are for an open internet who would say they're not against that. but really what that means in terms of what consumers will pay, what sites are going have the best access to consumer, whether start-ups will have a harder time competing with the big giants in silicon valley because they can't afford to pay internet service providers in a way that maybe safe but netflix and google k those are the real questions that will be kd at the fcc in the next several months and that is r

we can all shut down the fcc and go home.is the nature started at the beginning of the day, the nature of any network industry that there are these potential for these flashpoints. >> hal, last thought? >> i'm actually worried that we're learning about the interconnection debate through the prism of the netflix, really the netflix wars. whether it's netflix/comcast, netflix/whomever. and netflix may not be all that average representative of your content provider. so i'm concerned that regulation is going to be spawned through a prism that might be a false one. i also want to point out that netflix has certain counterstrategies in its pocket. if it wanted to, you know, for example if an isp gave it a hard time, they could impose an isp surcharge for customers of that isp to discoarnlg people to switch to a rival isp. they're in the driver's seat, and that's just another reason why we should take, i think, a go-slow approach to adding on another layer of regulation. >> i'm going to give anna maria the last word. >> just to answ

we applaud what the fcc did. the five gigahertz broadband isn't hospitalable but they are undealed for unlicensed. so it is helpful to have it. you want two people fighting and sit back and watch. people want to stir the pot about license and unlicensed but it is both. we want to provide services below 3 gigahertz. above 3, you might be looking at licenses. we want access to both. going back to the broadband planned and 300 for service and licensed. we are happy to have both. >> with the new wi-fi standards online and the airwaves holding tremendous options, is there a fear that wi-fi can pose a threat to licensed companies? comcast is launching a wi-fi wireless service that would compete against the at&t and verizon. is this viable? >> guest: we will see. if someone has a new idea they want to bring to market, come in. the more the merrier. let's see how it goes. >> -- >> host: jot carpenter is our guest here and he is vice president of government affairs. >> i got involved in telecom after i got to washington.

this portion of the fcc meeting is an hour. >> the process has been going on in the fcc -- lack legitimacy of our democracy, and we want to make sure that the people understand the context of this is that we have a ill legitimate democracy. it brings us -- [inaudible] >> without any kind of discrimination. you want to see the fcc regulate for the people, not to regulate it for the corporations. comcast and -- [applause] >> my name is margaret flowers. i'm at resistance.org. in 21st century the internet is free speech but in this country we're losing our right to free speech. the internet was created with public dollars and was never to -- this is our -- [applause] >> keep the internet free. >> four or five years ago. constitution, including the first amendment. destroying the right to free speech and free press. i'm totally against it. >> that's okay. >> of the people. 58,000 of my soldiers died for -- >> may 2014 meeting of the federal communications commission. let me begin with a couple of housekeeping items. first of all, we have a particularly full agenda today, and so for the benefit

the fcc is one of three agencies that license commercial activities in space. the other two being the faa for launch and re-entry at today's and noaa. consistent with long-established radiofrequency management processes the fcc is the licensing authority for frequency use. however the fcc has recognized the faa's statutory role under the commercial space launch act and it recently reiterated it would not apply to debris mitigation rules to commercial space transportation activities subject to faa regulation. and noaa's statutory role of remote licenses. although the licensing process is independent the fcc consults with agencies as needed. consultation is often related to status of cases in the progress of licensing activities. the fcc's regulations and licensing mail make use of scientific and technical work done by nasa. like much of the commercial satellite industry the fcc main sources of tracking data are dod j. spock as well as the satellite operating themselves derive from the radio links with satellites. the efforts to improve space awareness of the ope

can only work with the tools the fcc has available to it by law. we've mentioned, i mentioned section 251, section 252. that deals with interconnection now on the switched telephone network. interesting enough, if that was sort of within the toolset that the fcc was going to use to get more involved here, that would also kind of ask an interesting question about the role of state regulated in the process. process. i want to ask all of you or any of you have an opinion about this, leave the legal aside for a moment, should there be an appropriate role for state regulators in managing or regulating interconnection? and if so, what should that will be assisting from the federal? who wants to take that on? gerry kelly has a very short answer. [laughter] >> good god. [laughter] let me mention one thing, however because we haven't talked about this at all, but generally if we have problems with terminating access to monopolists as kevin mentioned, if we have some problem in what is otherwise looks like a competitive industry where we might get into some

in 1973 the fcc licensed the first private u.s. communications satellite and the first satellite began operation in the orbit in 1974 slightly more than 40 years ago. under the communications act the fcc is charged with licensing communications and recognized radio transmissions do not stop at the national boundaries and as a result of the activist crafted with an understanding of regulation needed to stand outside of the territorial boundaries of the united states. at the same time, the fcc licensing does not extend to u.s. federal government transmitters which are authorized by n. t. i a end of the congress department. fcc licensing and regulation are governed by the principle of the communications act issuing a license requires a finding that the public interest must be served. in that vein, the fcc in 2004 recognizing the work done by other agencies adopted the debris mitigation regulations for the satellite services and licenses. the fcc concluded that the debris mitigation would help preserve the united states, continue to be

you have the whole ear of the fcc. the eyes of the world are on all of us. use your voice and this platform to continue to be heard. i will do all that i can independently and with the chairman to identify ways to encourage more interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, town halls, workshops, social media, because i know with a robust record this commission will be able to move quickly and get to the finish line with the adoption of permanent rules that are clear and enforceable. so, mom, i hope that answers most of your questions. and i sincerely hope you will not be compelled to ask me any more significant policy questions for another 16 years. in all seriousness, i want to thank the dedicated staff from the office of general counsel, including jonathan and stephanie, as well as the wireline competition and telecommunications bureau for their work on this significant item, and i want to thank my wireline legal advisor rebecca for her expert work on this item, and, rebecca, yes, you may take tomorrow off. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissione

that's why the fcc is in the pickle it's in right now. don't want the old rules to apply, but congress hasn't made much of an effort to pass new rules to give them authority. they don't really have a thot of authority to police internet lines right now. >> cable companies like comcast and at&t freaked out and spent a lot of time and money sort of convincing lawmakers and regulators that was a really bad idea, and so the fcc basically dropped the entire proposal really quickly. i think the key now is, you know, are they going to do that again? are they actually going to sort of stand up to the phone and cable companies that are going to fight completely all out hands to the floor to try to kind of kill this whole idea? >> now, there have been some activism from on-line really bloggers, people who run smaller web sites, that fear that without net neutrality, without this open internet, you could theoretically have these multiple tiers also apply to the granular point of certain web sites based on their size, based on the traffic they're ser

that cannot be handled by the fcc or congress. what congress could do is restrict those who provide content, like comcast, or time warner, from hitting isps because there is an inherent conflict of interest. they want their services to be sold, but other companies like netflix, they have interest in restricting them in addition to that. they can restrict how you use your internet connection, they om runningou fr personal servers. some big issues with how we do internet in this country, and we really need to separate out those with a vested interest in selling us content from providing us the internet pipes. not i merrily my point. primarily my point. where letting the foxes guard the hen house. good point,ised a that gets lost in this debate over the title ii works in sectionseven -- versus seven. he is right that those who have video or cable service could possibly view netflix as a competitor, although if you go to the cable industry events you hear them talk about themselves a rock band providers. providers.d that is where the

joining us is former fcc commissioner robert mcdowell.mportant distinction, whether the internet is a public utility? of title ii in the business of classifying the internet as a monopoly. the communications act of 1934 -- we can all agree that things have changed since 1934. the technology, for starters. as well as the market. what that did. phone wasrotary dial a staple because you had a regulated monopoly. now we do not have monopolies. i dispute the foundation of the argument that there is an internet monopoly. you do not want to squelch innovation. the mother may i, permission seeking from government if you are an entrepreneur. >> you have got your deerfield academy tie on. >> you are so good, i were that just for you. deerfield, a mile in massachusetts, that is an old d ndian trail. willy trusts the big boys keep the fees low. can you guarantee we will not see our rates go up on that last mile? they may go up as people consume more. people need to understand that the fastest-growing segment of the broadband market is wireless broadb

then after fcc did what they wanted, verizon sued the

he is formerly from the fcc. we have sarah morris. she is with the new america she is the head of head ofional -- the congressional relations is also named sarah morris. she is a different person. we also have a partner at steptoe and johnson. we also have an assistant professor at the university of nebraska. we have a diverse set of speakers. we will get going quickly. if anybody has not heard about net neutrality, i do not think we need to go into too much detail on what it means. it is the idea that on the shouldt, consumers access content and everyone should have their applications and services treated equally. how that happens and legal authority for that has been a tortured conversation since 2005. me quickly say that the sec had a vote on this. i will ask matt to tell us how we got here. we were here in january and it was after the d c circuit court struck down the previous plan for open internet. this is another crack at it. they are taking cues from the circuit court decision will stop the fcc chairman had a vote. two were in

and the internet, yesterday the fcc voted in favor of a proposal allowing internet service providers to charge websites for faster video streaming. we have that live again starting at 12:30 eastern. the secretary of state hillary

the fcc could say, that is a great product. but since netflix can feed into dvr and come through that pipe and be entitled to a no premium cost equal access to what you're delivering, the case could be made that all video content, large and small, would be delivered exactly the same from this dvr/pay-per-view. itther up -- whether i buy and netflix delivers it to the x one, or a record the equipment up there, when i ask for it, it would be delivered the same. 10 logically, that is correct. theoretically, the fcc could open up our networks and user interface. the fcc has said you have to give equal access and you cannot charge a premium. that is a given. is delivering a title vi cable service. the fcc could say that if we put thatn on our x1 platform, once we do that, we have to open it up -- >> mummy close. -- let me close. what i see here today and i think the committee needs to do is we need to have a broad discussion about existing antitrust laws. versus how the fcc, which does not fall under a jurisdiction, is creating or n

lynn stanton, what did the fcc vote on yesterday? for howroposed rules should they address with the appeals court date in january. the appeals court and sec had some authority on broadband access providers under the section of federal law that says that the fcc should try to encourage and advance advance communication capability. but they have to do it in a way that is proper. create common carrier toulations, by forcing them offer service to anyone who wanted it under the exact same terms and conditions. the court was saying that they have to allow them to be more flexible than that. did uphold one of the three rules of the commission in 2010 which is a transparency requirements that they have to tell their customers what they are doing by a network of management. overturned the other two rules. the proposal that they adopted yesterday, they are not rules yet, they are saying if anyone opinion wants to weigh in, we read the exact same language, but would do with a different justification. relying on some language in the court order

and then fcc chairman tom wheeler. and the vice president talks about the entertainment industry and chuck hagel on the military alliance. tomorrow night is the annual white house correspondents' association dinner and joel mckale of the nbc show "community" will be the entertainer. we talked to him about how he is preparing. >> you were on david letterman and he was asked to >> hoshost it. >> i have to assume it happens a lot. >> did he have any advice? >> he hasn't done it. i asked if he would join me. >> what did he say? >> no. i said i would pay him. i don't think i have come up with the right number. >> you mentioned you talk today other host? any good feedback? >> they tried to screw me. no kidding. i called many of the guy and thankfully i know them kind of. they were gracious to give me pointers on what the evening is like. and all of them kind of without speaking -- all separately they said it is the strangest most wonderful evening. it is like no other gig. it is bizarre but you are with the president and sit

fcc's do not trust the ability to do this. they could do something very simple, they could categorize the internet as a telecommunications service, would give it the authority to enforce net neutrality and that would be as simple as that. they could just do that. there was a lot of pushback over the last several weeks is when it was first leaked, they talked about a fast lane. i do not see how you can do a fast lane and not undermine the whole concept of net neutrality. i do not see it. there will be a comment period now, so maybe we will learn more about what he means. , didcontent, by the way seem to travel very slowly. senator franken, michael ,owell is now head of the ncta the cable industry's largest lobbying group. he is targeting net neutrality. tom wheeler, who was president obama's nominee, was the head of this cable lobby. was expected, do you think president obama should now fire tom wheeler? he is the one who appointed him. i believe the president made a pledge before he became president to keep it in place. i thin

we will have more from the fcc in just a moment.rom we are expecting more the sec over -- fcc over net neutrality, scheduled at onn p.m. -- at noon eastern c-span. also, secretary -- former secretary of state hillary clinton. from ericso hear schmidt, the chairman of google. that is coming up live at 11:30 a.m. eastern this morning. and at 12:20 p.m. eastern, the legal fund is marking the 60th anniversary of the landmark decision of the supreme court in brown versus board of education striking down school aggregate -- segregation. live coverage starts at about 12:20 p.m. eastern here on c-span. we will return now to the fcc, following yesterday's meeting. the commissioner -- commission chair tom wheeler spoke with reporters about net neutrality along with the decision to limit spectrum that carriers can buy next year. it would allow room for smaller carriers to compete in the low-frequency market. this news conference is just under 30 minutes. >> good morning, everyone. we will start with some housekeeping. are you asking questions

liz: peter barnes is outside of the fcc in washington.to clarify this, what happened today, 3-2, and as well what the actual proposal is. >> well, liz, among other things the fcc proposal asks the public for comment on whether it should ban deals for fast lanes on internet but the fcc also is asking for comment on whether content providers like netflix, amazon and google should be allowed to pay internet service providers like at&t, comcast and verizon for, for this priority, faster routing service as long as they, as long as these deals are quote, commercially-reasonable. and some content providers already have these kind of deals. now the proposal is highly controversial. protesters disrupted today's meeting three times and had to be escorted from the meeting. critics say this proposal would jeopardize network neutrality. would jeopardize the open internet, open to all users and content providers, rich and poor, jeopardizing internet that doesn't discriminate against anyone because if there is a fast lane, there must be a slow lane. wel

and in my mind the fcc has done a good job. i will cite just one example. chairman tom wheeler chaired a task force inside the fcc before he was chairman. it's their technical advisory task force and in that role he produced a report that recommended that by the end of this decade the old circuit switched telephone network sunset and there were important reasons for that to happen. that network today is wearing out. it's so so old and fact that people have moved on beyond that to such a great extent that the telecommunications equipment manufacturers in many cases are not even making replacement parts for that old network. the result is that the cost of maintaining it are just soaring. under current law telephone companies must maintain the old network as if it was the core communications medium used by everyone. but in point it's only used exclusively by 5% of the public and its use by another 29% in combination with a wireless service so in total about 33% of the public is using that old network and two-thirds have abandoned it altogether. but under curre