a lot of what the fcc did. let me talk a little bit about -- >> guest: the point that gigi made, and i do think this is important because as you can probably tell from our discussion, the big issue here is going to be the states, right? we'll see what happens in terms of whether either side appeals the classification, the major holding in the case, but where the true ambiguity lies is what the decision truly means for state authority going forward. and i think it's important to note that the one thing that perhaps both the 2015 title ii order and the restoring internet freedom order both agreed on was that states were preempted. so when gigi says that most of broadband internet access is intrastate because it's the last mile, let me tell you what the title ii order said about that. it said we reaffirm the commission's long job standing -- longstanding conclusion that the internet's inherently global open architecture enables edge providers to distribute content to a multitude of jurisdictional points, extremely

so speedy what about the fcc? >> that's a pretty big agency. >> but they are still limited to at the competitive which is speedy know, or -- >> they have rulemaking authority. they can only act after the fact. >> but that's what we are debating, is complaints. >> provider was engaging in anticompetitive privatization or throttling they would have to be transparent about that and then there is sufficient, and the court did find the commission wholly justified there was sufficient competition and the broadband marketplace right now to be able to support the transparency and then if provider is engage in those practices and not been transferred about it, then that's when the ftc would step in. i would like everyone, like your broadband provider does not have an incentive to throttle you. their intent is to be able to make sure that there is traffic on our networks, that they can be able to deliver the services and the product. when we are looking at the competition so the court did uphold that part of the argot for t

had across republican fcc chairs and democratic fcc chairs sent the 2005 open internet principles. >> let me agree and disagree. yes, there has always been a commitment to these principles. the debate is how you enforced. what is the role of government? when i was in the fcc under chairman michael powell, he gave a speech and articulated for the first time what net neutrality protection should look like. in chairman powell's mind, these were market-based principles providers would adhere to, and it ended up enshrined in the policy statement but was not a binding set of rules and more importantly was not title ii. bound was not held to be as legitimate authority by the d.c. circuit judge matthew: despite that, -- d.c. circuit judge hea. if isps has not repeatedly suit to fight every stage of fcc attempts to impose net neutrality protections, we would not be here today. we would have had the 2010. we had the 2010 rules. isps sued. we had the 2015 rules. isps sued. matthew: one isps sued. [laughter] most of the history of the internet, which isn't that old, the vast majority of it, titl

in the fcc. >> in the case law is very clear when an agency d regulates, federal law needs to be given the facts. it actually imposed a disclosure obligation on section 257 of the act which petitioners challenged and is invalid in the court upheld it as well i forgot to mention that. when the debate was, between the mcwilliams the majority was timing. can you preempt all state laws regardless of their details and events. clearly says you cannot. the majority was quick to say, the commission can explain how it state practice actually undermines a 2018 order, then it can invoke preemption. he goes on to say the preemptive effect of the regulatory choice of the that the commission makes, within its authority his do have preemptive effects of what we're going to see in individual cases, california and vermont. duke ending cases i'm involved in. we had authority to rely on transparency and fcc backstops and a truck backstop, affirmative regulatory choices. an estate contradicted those choices. this of

had republicano across fcc chairs and democratic fcc chairs since the 2005 open internet principal. matthew: let me agree and disagree. there has always been a commitment to these principles but the debate is how do you enforce it? what is the role of government doing so? when i was at the fcc under chairman michael powell, he made a speech known as the powell for freedom. he articulated for the first time what net neutrality protections should look like. in chairman powell's mind, these were market face principles that providers would adhere to and it was important that it ended up enshrined in the politics and that was not a binding set of rules. more importantly, it was not title ii. sarah: and was not held to be grounded in a sort of legitimate. the internet works really well. the point is we are all agreeing that it has flourished and has been this engine of civil discourse and investment and enter payment and engagement. sarah: if isps had not repeatedly sued to fight every stage of the fcc's attempts to impose net neutrality protections, then we would not be here today. matth

lot of what the fcc did.et me talk a little bit about -- sure. go ahead. >> as you can probably tell from our tell from our discussion, the big issue here is going to be the states. right? we will see what happens in terms of either side appealing classification, the major central holding in the case. but where the true ambiguity lies is what it means for state authority going forward. and i think it's important to note that the one thing that 2015 title twoe order and the restoring internet freedom order both agree on is that states were preempted. she says most of broadband internet access is intrastate. let me tell you what the title two order said about that. we reaffirm the long-standing conclusion that broadband is a jurisdictional interstate service, making jurisdictional analysis extremely difficult if not impossible when services involve the internet. therefore, the 2015 title ii authorityannounce our the regulatory scheme. the one place where restoring internet freedom agreed is that when the govern

is whether the fcc will be able to oversee the broadband market. it's interesting one of the places where the court told fcc you barely, were barely not arbitrary capricious for its arguments that antitrust law in the ftc can protect consumers. what the court said was you kind of laid it out that those tools are available but you didn't talk specifically about how they would protect consumers from blocking, throttling, so on and so forth. i don't believe antitrust laws or the ftc are adequate. you need to have an expert agency and that's where the fight is going to be in a federal bill. the fight is going to be the fcc get to oversee the market, or are they left out of it? if they are left out it will not get any other consumer goods that i work with supporting and do not did any democrats supporting. they may not get some republicans. >> host: is there any evidence of throttling? >> guest: so, no. i mean, this continues to be a hypothetical concern that when the restoring internet freedom order was first proposed and then adopted, we heard this is

back to the fcc for further review. the court said, you did not address the concerns of public safety. and the re-class occasion. in other words, what do regular in broadband once again what do to public safety. and not just the connections between far departments and police departments, but also between part of pardons and police to province and their customers. -- fire departments and police departments and their customers, the citizens they protect. number two, you do not really cash out the problem -- hash out the problem of direct elation on access to paul attachment. totwo hole attachment -- pole attachment. two states ability to regulate it. you gave the back of the hand to the argument that sups that the program would harm subsidies for poor people, the program called lifeline. they sent those three things back to the fcc to look at again. they could've easily in my opinion vacated the order based on those things but they did not. let me get to the states because i need to respond to a patrick said. the court wa

john is the former chief operating officer of the fcc and was a former fcc r wireless bureau chief. and he has a lot of expertise in these issues. he's going to take questions. the floor is is yours. >> thank you. we could take the rest of the time giving the backgrounds of the panels so we're going to do the opposite and go quickly and get into the questions. i'm going to go down and start on the front of the table and work back. just quick introduchovnies. so ductions. ross is the vice president of government affairs for aca connects and you heard about aca connect's mission from matt a second ago. coming back towards me, tim donovan is the senior vice president of ledge affair frs cca. next to -- i'll let colleen say a couple of words in case yu don't know him. >> first of all, vice president of affairs after at chatter and i wanted to start by thanking you for being here. within chart rer, i focus on wireless and spectrum issues and i'd like everything from charter here acknowledge how much everybody's excited about spectrum who's coming here but charter is a cable company we se

peter: do you think that the fcc, the majority on the fcc, will challenge that?ommissioner o'rielly: it has to. it absolutely has to. otherwise you get the lowest common denominator, whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwards looking from a net neutrality perspective will become whatever he has to follow. it's not something you just offer in one particular area, it is a network of networks. providers are trying to offer service nationwide, not every instance, but most instances you are offering service nationwide or in many states. a boundary of a state which may have been decided hundreds of years ago, based on geography or some military conflict, i think that's where one decision goes this way and one goes that way and it's just artificial. gopal: i want to talk a little bit more about the 5g aspect of your work and the commission. there's been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about auctioning the spectrum, and some of your colleagues on the commission have also said it has been focused too much

this was about, against the fcc that the fcc did not adequately considered the effect of its sweeping media ownership world changes, but that will have on ownership, broadcast media by women and racial minorities. >> guest: i disagree with the analysis. this is something the third circuit has sent back to the fcc four times. there is is no amount of evidence, no amount of data we can give them. multiple administrations have not been able to get past the threshold that the third circuit has established. i can figure out a path forward. i so we should change this in another form with the end on blanc situation about is the supreme court which alterman will have to do because this, there's a pathway can get to what you're asking for. i disagree with her fundamental premise. i disagree with activity because it is lacking in the status quo which is not reflective of the current media marketplace today. the marketplace where today is not the same unwin wrote the original provision in 1995 which became the '96 act. the world has changed considerably. the marketplace is much more dynamic for

. >> host: do you think that the fcc, the majority on the fcc will challenge that this. >> guest: i think it has to. otherwise, you get the lowest common denominator. whatever state wants to be the most active, aggressive, backwards-hooking net neutrality perspective, most every provider will have to follow. it's not something you offer in just one particular area. it's a network of networks x providers are trying to offer service neigh -- nationwide or at least in many different states. a particular boundary of a state which may have been sited hundreds of years ago based on geography or military conflict and, it's just artificial, in my opinion. >> i want to talk a little bit more into the 5g aspect of your work expect commission. there's been a lot of criticism in the last several months of how the commission has gone about, you know, a augustses the spectrum. auctioning the spectrum. some of your colleagues are also said it's been focused on the high end of the spectrum and not enough of the mid-band spectrum. is that a valid criticism? how would you respond to that? >> guest: i disag

this was against the fcc.id not adequately consider the effect of its sweeping media ownership changes and the effect that will have on broadcast media, women and racial minorities." commissioner o'rielly: i disagree with it. this is something the third circuit sent back to the fcc four times. there is no amount of evidence or data we can give them. multiple administrations, republican and democrat, all administrations have not and able to get past the threshold the third circuit has set. we should challenge it in another forum, or gourd of the supreme court which i ultimately think we will have to do -- or go to the supreme court, which i ultimately think we will have to do. i disagree with their premise because it is locking in the status quote, which is not reflective of the media marketplace today. the marketplace today is not the same one when we wrote the original provision in 19 95th -- in 1995. the marketplace is much more dynamic and we need to reflect that. that is what we are trying to do. they have

cracks at that time not a lot want to work at the fcc. but that fits into what i was talking about and one thing leads to another and then i'm hired into the general counsel's office and pretty quickly that chairman of the time so i worked for chairman of the fcc for three years in the late nineties was an interesting time and that space with the telecommunications act of 1986 the first time digital came out working with terrific people and then i had to figure out what to do next i decided i wanted to move into the business world and get away from washington and try something different i looked for it anyway but to be general counsel of something of a company so i got lucky and got an offer to do that who at that point was starting a company previously known of many things like movie of the week miniseries now he was starting a new company but i took a bet on that because he offered the job that i wanted so i was counsel of head of tv operations. i had a great time setting up tv stations and after a couple of years with a number of acqui

in a long way and the fcc rooms with commercial spectrum and i'm pleased to share as far as the fcc to look for ways to expand the sharing techniques with its ears broadband service. when it comes to securing those networks and foreign adversaries, our thank walden and mrs. doris matsui and she is with the network act. they will prohibit the spending a federal dollars and the communications equipment and services that undermine national security. they will establish the billion dollar reimbursement to help small carriers to have equipment and replace it with secure alternatives. as we've heard, much of the global supply chain with flows through china at one point or another. the industrial policies allows state run manufacturers like huawei to have suspect equipment to providers cheaper than everyone else. many of the beer carriers avoided these threats with smaller and more rural carriers of using suspect clips the. networks are interconnected and one week link among the system. and they were move the good of the entire comes three which wins this. with them and issues will share supp

on twitter, one of the great fcc chairmans in that regard meantime dow has been within a range.n you say the drag from boeing, a little bit to a lesser extent today obviously a mixed picture overall. proctor and utx with nice earnings prints but mcdonald's and hasbro has been disappointments and let's get to the judge. >> carl, thanks. i'm scott wapner front and center the dow download, four components reporting, two other making stock moving news. it's 12:00 noon. this is the "halftime report." >>> big beats, big misses. how to play the latest round of earnings from p&g, mcdonald's and more united tech not only beating but raising its outlook. the number one industrials analyst tells us why this is the stock to own in the group. >>> under armour names a new ceo. the stock down 25% since its last earnings conference call two and a half months ago. should

>> the fcc can't require federal entities to do testing. that's what number one. number two, if no one else, sec is an independent agency, has no authority over the executive agencies, like second of august don't have that capability in the executive agencies, in what you have is what we've had for the last several decades, which is federal governments continue to use old legacy systems and they don't have a modern wireless communications capability that we have in the commercial sector. that's bad in and of itself. the second thing that leads to is when we want to have sharing, it becomes extremely difficult because the commercial sector has state-of-the-art technology whereas the federal government has older legacy systems and were never designed for sharing. >> mr. feld, any thoughts? >> yes. i completely agree with everything mr. brenner said. i also want to stress that the enormous opportunity here for the federal government to leverage its vast economies of scale requires that there be this focused, simple testing. somebody has to be responsible for making i

i went to go work for the fcc where we overlapped. i was continuing to work on it and it finally occurred to me it is the kind of thing somebody would do if they were going to write a book. i went to borders downtown and checked out a book like how to write and sell your nonfiction book proposal and started following the directions. and so i was finishing up law and i had it reached the where i point thought i would rather fail as a writer than succeed as a lawyer. i don't know what i would do in law. if i ever am going to take my shot, this is the time. if i ever am going to take b, i don't think i will risk it again. i will be deep into a path. i won't want to step off and do something like write a book. my husband and i were moving back to new york. he was leaving law as well. he took financial accounting at night. we were in new york and the day came where we got notices from the new york state bar association. time to pay the bar fees. i looked at my husband and said are we going to pay them? he said, are you kidding, of course n

that created the fcc. so that was a paradox. i can give you a conclusion. because i spent a lot of time researching and thinking and writing. the three points to remember about glass. i want to give them at the beginning to make it easy. number one he generally opposed any federal action. number two, he made an exception with the action would occur wall street. three, he did not believe a way to address wall street was through regulation. it was like brandeis and others with regulation never works. always failed so instead, he believed in breaking up concentrations of financial and political power. this of the three main points i thank you know about glass. i'll give you a summary of the book. he was born 1958 just before the civil war. in virginia, a very southern city. his family was white dog by the civil war and reconstruction. he had quit school at age 14. so is largely self educated. he read shakespeare, the english poet in ancient greece, lincoln, he was very self educated and very well educated. at age 14, he started selling newspapers in the corner

. >>> tonight on "the communicators," former senior advisor to fcc chair tom wheeler and patrick halliek about the recent d.c. appeals court decision on net neutrality. >> what the court said was that the fcc's decision to regulate broadband internet access as an information service as it largely has been outside of the last 20 years was permissible. >> when the fcc deregulated broadband, reclassified broadband internet access as an information service rather than telecommunication service and also said that another part of the telecommunications act section 706 does not provide authority for regulation, it washed its hands, it abdicated its ability to oversee the broadband market. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >>> coming up, our

. >> host: commissioner wilson, how closely does the ftc work with the fcc? >> guest: we work very closely with them, particularly, within the context of robo calls and other issues that span the jurisdiction of both agencies. >> host: what is the status of robo calls and potential punitive damages or making them stop? >> guest: we are all a little frustrated with continuing robo calls. the ftc has obtained $1.5 billion in judgments against 500 companies and 400 individuals in the robo call space and so we did have strong enforcement and also to collaborate closely, both at the fcc and with industry and with ag's to provide data analytics and to help companies backtrack to figure out where the calls are coming from because frequently they work across networks of multiple providers and we also engage in consumer negation. for example, we encourage people not to use stored value or gift cards in response to robo call requests for money and that is a frequent scam they in gauge in. that's pernicious and not the unwanted intrusion, not just the unwanted intrusion

they do comply with the fcc's regulations. that is about the extent that i know of it. >> there's a couple of things that are not in the readings. one is you have indicated that planning staff has reviewed this based on the historical guidelines. that is one of the criteria. i see no summary of that analysis other than the fact that you indicated it in your brief. secondly the letter of approval is usually included by, excuse me by the permit holder. i didn't see that either. lastly in the last page of their submission they show various sites that they attempted to look out, i presume, but they provide very little information there. the code says something about good faith efforts. when so many puts on the table that there was no interest. i have no idea whether that is a good faith effort, or not. i need to see these things before i make a final decision. >> i would be happy to respond. my understanding, the first item you brought up was our compliance with the design guidelines and preservation review. did i understand that

the reason, the fcc has flip-flopped. over 20 years, they have flip flopped on how or whether to regulate the internet. each time, the court has gone to the supreme court at least twice. each time, the supreme court has referred to the agency's determination. how many times will the court do that after all of these flip-flops, to where they say hey, maybe this needs to be looked at. if you do not know about the case, watch for it. if that is the case, i would welcome any general comments on chevron p -- chevron deference. >> we have been watching that case with some interest. my colleague argued a piece in that case. it was a long-delayed case. i am very interested to see what tom johnson at the fcc and the chairman want to do on the latter piece. i do not know what they should do on the preemption piece, but the court has been looking at chevron. they had a couple of cases last term that signaled a willingness to push again, the typical deference that agencies get. i do not know this would be the right case to find the c

we and the fcc and diligently working to try to eradicate the problem. do have a question about, when you talked about the rivacy, potential privacy legislation, you also mentioned trying to make sure that preserved and supported. -- i think today legislation was require d that would social media companies to make their services both interoperable and allow remove their personal data from one platform to another. i'm curious what you think of do you islation and think something like that will actually enhance competition among the platforms? obviously not had a childrens to take a look at the legislation, and i look forward it.eviewing i know that a number of companies in this base are their own rking on intraoperability mechanism that data, allow portability of and if you're give an choice between characterizing something facility and l mandating that rivals have access to the platform, or data that would allow consumers to vote with their feet, i would be in favor of i'm not ability but sure it's that black and white a choice. >> and finally commission

in the first instance, the fcc is actually done an excellent job. i think we all should look forward to it's work. we should be patient because this is such a delicate balance. having an expert agency do with us in the first and since before congress goes and legislates again is probably a good idea. >> thank you let's use those questions to thrown open to the panel. we got the constructive knowledge question, the reach of coppa, and the unintended consequences of collecting more information with coppa 2.0. >> i will start by saying these are all good questions that jim is asking. i am not going to get up here and say that our bill is perfect in that we have all of the answers. this is part of the legislative process and this is the same way that it is part of a rulemaking process at a federal agency. rulemaking process, you have some comment. the legislative process you have lots of number members that will offer amendments and go through marketing through a committee and then go to the floor and then left reconcile with the house. that's how it sh

the fcc has approved it. now the states are still suing.was interesting, brendan, is one of your democratic colleagues on the fcc is basically applauding the states pushing them on to try to block the merger. she wrote an op-ed i think in the atlantic today laying out the sort of opposite view from you that this will lead to higher prices, this is going to lead to less competition, that dish being involved this as the fourth carrier created turn justice department's consent decree is a fig leaf. we have really gone from four carriers now to three and that's bad for consumers. what do you say about that? >> i think this transaction puts up two very fundamentally different approaches to technology and regulation. i think on the one hand, we have seen some take a very back wards looking approach, that fails to see where the -- >> so far we have seen strong competition from verizon and at at&t, but seeing very little competitive pressure from sprint and t-mobile. my colleague talked about sprint having 5g plans, but they are limited to a handfu

when you look at the transaction or our review with the fcc or as you point out the democratic ag, itup two fundamentally different approaches to technology one i think is very backwards looking that operates to preserve the status quo. i think that fails the gretzky test when you look at where the hockey puck is today and where it's going on 5g, i think we should embrace this disruptive new competition, seeking to preserve what we have today is one of my colleagues at the fchlfcc, we've already seen the golden age of wireless i think has it backwards. i think that's like living in the era of 4g and flip phones and real phones. and putting this deal puts us on a clear path to getting there. >> give us an update where we stand, the u.s., when it comes to 5g, are we in the competitive position that we need to be, what need foss happen over the next 12 to 18 months >> 5g is a great job story and a great economic opportunity and the trump administration and those of us at the fcc has positioned ourselves to lead the world with leapfrog competitors for the year that's one lens that i view

i went to go work for the fcc where we overlapped. i was continuing to work on it and it occurred to me it is the kind of thing somebody would do if they were going to write a book. i went to borders downtown and check out a book like how to write and sell your nonfiction book proposal and started following the directions. law that hadng up reached the point where i thought i would rather fail as a writer than succeed as a lawyer. i don't know what i would do in law. if i am going to take my shot, this is the time. i don't think it will risk it again. i will be deep into a path. i won't want to step off and do something like write a book. my husband and i were moving back to new york. he was leaving law as well. he took financial accounting at night. we were in new york and the day came where we got notices from the new york state bar association. time to pay the bar fees. i looked at my husband and said are we going to pay them? he said of course not. i was like, this is really happening. i got an agent and started writing books and

s or the fcc will feel any impact. eric, we have seen this play out, although it has been a while, with tech companies like microsoft. i am curious, what do you think this does from a distraction standpoint for a lot of these big tech companies? is there anything they can do to make sure they are not totally derailed by something like this? eric: you know, it just seems like they need to get their message right. i mean, certainly in sort of the media ecosystem, they just keep getting hit, you know one thing , after another, whether it is sort of apple's handling of its app store, you know, there are just new stories one after another of where these companies have antitrust vulnerabilities. and so i think getting to a place where you have sort of a more positive message, if that's possible, would be the hope. and so this is a moment where they can sort of collect themselves. but you know i totally agree , that the actual investigation is happening, and that the fact that they got in this situation where they are such a

he said what do you want to do, i work at the fcc, i think i should have done that. he said, okay. [laughter] >> so that worked out and i became chairman of the federal communications commission in first term, it was a wonderful experience which we could move to, helped a lot, i'd been at the fcc, been at the private sector and had time in congress, those 3 years were filled with net neutrality wireless decision, cybersecurity, you know, on and on and then i planned to retire again after that and realized that it was too early to retire and went to -- took a job at partner where is where i am now, i'm an investing partner investigating, buying in companies in u.s. and around the world and continuing in the same space that i decided to be at my tech media telecom, that world has evolved and it's been great fun along the way. i had a chance after the fcc to serve on the president's intelligence advisory board where technology was also not -- and i served on some boards out of carlyle, i'm sure i will think about retiring and starting another career and i will conclude trying to answe

the funniest thing was facebook responded to this by tweeting sayinginst warren and the fcc does notoadcasters to discriminate on candidates' ads, so we don't want to either. warren clapped back and said you are making my point. you are not regulated. taylor: we have the tweet showing the fcc, basically what elizabeth warren is saying, you are making my point. is up to you whether you take the money to promote lies. again, sort of making her point, if you will. sarah: absolutely. what i think what this shows us is the election is going to be about facebook -- the discussion about the election as much easier to run against facebook than the opposing candidate because facebook does hold a lot of control, subtle or direct controls over what voters will see. taylor: eric, if you take a look at the intersection of tech and now politics, what does this fight showed you from the political angle about how much tension there is between big tech and some of these democratic candidates? eric: i agree with sarah. they are working the left right now. there is a push among conservatives to really

companies disclose their reports to the fcc. we will have that on c-span. later at 6:00 p.m., senator elizabeth warren campaigning in norfolk, virginia. a house judiciary subcommittee considers online data privacy issues. announcer: the consumer financial protection bureau's castling chronic talks about payday learning practices and rules before the senate banking committee. this is one hour and 30 minutes. >> this meeting will come to orer. issued its cfpb report which outlines the bureau's work between september 201 an march 2019 including rule makings and supervisor activities. mr. c:

former fcc commissioner will join us to explain the new law from his op-ed back in two minutes. take control of your online reputation. get your free reputation report card at reputationdefender.com. find out your online reputation today and let the experts help you repair it. woman: they were able to restore my good name. vo: visit reputationdefender.com or call 1-877-866-8555. >>> sure, stocks like disney and netflix dominate the headlines, but the media sector in 2019, it is actually the old school names out performing class is in session. dom. >> we look at communications services sets up it encompasses new media and old media. many faang names facebook, amazon and google. take a look at the sector overall. so far over the course of the year to date period, communications services in the white line out performing the broader standard & poor's 500. if you look at media take a look at how we as consumers consume television or media. no longer the traditional cable companies, but disney and netflix. other streaming companies. would it surprise you to learn if you look at the br

s or the fcc will feel any impact.ric, we have seen this play out, although it has been a while with big tech companies like microsoft, is there anything they can do to make sure they are not totally derailed by something like this? eric: you know, it just seems like they need to get their message right. certainly, in the media ecosystem, they just keep getting hit, one thing after another, whether it is apple's handling of its app store, you know, there are new stories one after another of where these companies have antitrust vulnerabilities. and so i think getting to a place where you have a more positive message, if that's possible, would be the hope. and so this is the moment they of collectcan sort themselves. but i totally agree that the investigation is happening in the fact that they got in a situation where they are such a target, now it is somewhat out of their hands. kurt: eric, you mentioned the app store. we were talking before the break about advertising opportunities that facebook and google have. i am w

the trump fcc shot down those protections. today state attorney general javier react to say in california will continue to fight for free and fair internet. >>the number of vaping-related deaths is now 16 virginia and new jersey health officials announced today each had vaping related deaths, virginia health officials say. there'd has happened on september 26th. the new jersey ed back in august. the specific cause of the nationwide outbreak is unknown. but health officials are zeroing in on potential clues, including bates containing thc products, new jersey's health department has there been no serious lung illnesses associate with products sold in dispenser ease that are permitted by the new jersey medical marijuana program. next on kron 4 a father passes out after vaping for what he says was 2 seconds right in front of his 3 year-old shot daughter we're going to hear part of the 911 call. >>and if you are streaming us on kron on the news continues during the commercial break go during the commercial break go to at at&t we b

the goal would also require the fcc to report to congress on the feasibility of using existing sharing technologies on several important spectrum fans. as we look toward the future, it is necessary for every licensee to use spectrum more efficiently, the federal government being chief among them. modernizend ways to the government uses and shares spectrum among agencies and departments as well as with the commercial sector. the cprs band is a great example of accommodating a wide range of users and uses. just yesterday, the fcc voted on an order to sell licenses in the cbrs band, and it launched commercial operations. this will come by and licensed, unlicensed, and federal incumbent users in one band and protect incumbent rights and make sure spectrum is always available for use. my hope is the share act cannot as a bridge for future innovation scenarios like we see in the same brs band. -- cbrs band. next, the information security sharing act. this legislation would establish an information sharing program and the department of homeland security to share this -- the security risk info

free >> tonight on "the communicators," former senior to fcc chair tom wheeler viceatrick howling, senior president at u.s. telecom talk about the recent d.c. appeals net decision on neutrality. >> what the court said was the cc's decision to regulate broadband internet access as an information service, as it largely has been for the last 20 outside of a two-year period, was permissible. fcc deregulated broadband, reclassified roadband internet access as an information service rather than telecommunications service, and also, said that another part of communications act, section 706, does not provide authority regulation, it washed its ands, it an indicated its authority, it's ability to oversee the broadband market. >> today at 50 eastern on c-span 2. > joining us this morning from charleston, south carolina, presidential candidate sanford, former governor and former congressman state.is good morning to you. congressman the most recent polls. the president along with the national republican party has raised 125 alien dollars or are you having second thoughts about running for president?

last visited when i was finishing work on the [inaudible] act which was the reauthorization of the fcc which is not been done since 1990 and then of course the mobile bill and the precision agriculture bill and some of those components that really are foundational items and in our internet ecosystem so getting those provisions finished was important and then bringing that knowledge and expertise to the senate where we are dealing with the privacy and data security of data issues not only commerce but judiciary committee. one thing i have found so interesting about being in the senate is how you take one issue and work across platform on it. i'm also on armed services committee and the veterans committee and at veterans we are working to get everybody's records in the cloud. we are doing the same thing at armed services so that we can have someone in list for the rest of their life the records are cloud -based and then as they need medical care or if they want to track what exposures they may have had, such as hazardous toxins and things of that nature they, the veteran, own those recor

fcc guidelines. like -- looks like broadcast stations across the country aired this ad a thousand times as required by law fcc doesn't want them censoring speech. we. >> 'gree. it's better to let voters not companies decide. are they right on the fcc law? >> well, media experts told me it's interesting to see facebook sort of cite broadcast media law here and while it's true that, you know, companies and media companies who are engaged in tv broadcasting have to carry all of these political ads without a view to the accuracy or truthfulness, and those rules don't apply to cable networks like cnn or to websites like facebook so it's interesting to see facebook refer to really heavily regulated industry to try to defend an action that it's taking. >> what also i think makes that more interesting, brian, is that in so many ways facebook does not want to be considered a media platform. right? they don't want -- you know, section 230, right, lays out they're not responsible for what's on their platform di

. >> watch our interview with fcc commissioner christine wilson tonight at 8 pm eastern on the communicators on cspan2. >> today the commerce science and transportation committee examining the boeing 737 max following two international accidents last year testified before the committee is boeing's president and ceo dennis mullen bird and vice president and chief engineer john hamilton . watch live today at 10 am eastern on c-span3, online at c-span.org or listen live wherever you are with the free c-span radio app. >> thinking on participating in c-span's student cam competition but you've never made a documentary film before us and mark no problem. we have resources on our website to help you get started. check out our getting started and download pages on studentcam.org for producing information and video links of footage in the c-span library. teachers will find resources on the teacher's material page to help youintroduce student cam to your students . >> find a topic that you are passionate about and pursue it as much as we can. >> are asking middle and high school students tocreate a s

overturned thely decision on fcc's preemption of states efforts. to put in net neutrality legislation or rules. there is a good chance this is going to go up. i have not read it. you may not have read it either. i've already heard some talk from colleagues that it may go up, and the court may use this case as a vehicle to address chevron deference. the fcc has flip-flopped over 20 times on how to regulate the internet. each time, the court has gone to the supreme court twice. most famously in the brand x case. have referred to the agency's determination. how many times will the court do that after all of these flip-flops where they say, may be needs to be looked at? if you do not know about the case, watch for it. if that is the case, i would welcome any general comments on chevron deference and if that is going to be coming up? >> are practices mostly in the telecom space. my former college is in the audience. he argued a piece of it. it was long delay. i am curious to see what tom johnson of the fcc and the chairman want to do in the latter piece

appeals court decision on net neutrality. >> the court said the fcc's decision to regulate broadband internet access as an information service as it largely has been outside the title to order was permissible. >> when the fcc be regulated broadband, reclassifies broadband internet as an information service rather than a telecommunications service and also said another part of the communications act, section 706, does not provide authority for regulation, it washed its hands, it abdicated its authority and ability to oversee the broadband market. >> monday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> artist harvey pratt shares his vision for the national native american veterans memorial in a conversation with kevin gover, the director of the national museum of the american indian. mr. pratt discussed his background as an artist, as well as his own experience as a former u.s. marine in vietnam. this event was hosted by the smithsonian national museum of the american indian. kevin: all right. good afternoon. it's good to see you all here. my name is kevin gover. i am the director of the nati

there story from yesterday noting that despite the cost, the fcc does not require campaign committees to pay states or cities back for rally related expenses. they can reimburse security nott -- costs but they are required to do so. they interviewed a professor at the university of minnesota saying that candidates pay for venue rentals but city and local taxpayers are shelling out for agencies can expect over time when it comes to these types of rallies. they went back to the rally in june of last year in duluth. that cost $69,000. the trump campaign had trade dutch had paid $112,000 -- had paid $112,000. the city was left on the hook for another $93,000. this played out over twitter over the course of this week. this was president trump pushing back on jacob pry -- fry's demands. the president saying that the radical left mayor of minneapolis is doing everything possible to stifle free speech despite a record sellout crowd. president clinton and obama paid almost nothing. the minneapolis police have been incredible is what he tweeted. yesterday from jacob fry as this conflict can for