why always rely on forebearance to be the exception? why not codify these principles in the law and leave the internet as open as we can to let the consumer, let the innovator be the regulator as opposed to the government? because, quite frankly, whether it's the telecom companies have the f.c.c. or name your regulatory agency, overregulating which this could lead to -- i think tom wheeler is an honorable guy, but why open that door unnecessarily when you already have people working from both parties on a congressional solution that i think is more middle ground. >> you struck on an important word here, forebearance. which essentially -- i don't know how to make it sound simple. forebearance sort of gives the f.c.c. some leeway in terms of enforcing this rule. yes? >> it does give them some leeway but it also gives them the discretion. if you're going to trust there's discretion to forebear certain things, why wouldn't we trust there's discretion on the other side for like specialized services as an example? so if we're going to give di

the story of our history has many forebearances, however. first let me point out that prior to the loma prieta earthquake, sinbad's was one of the stars of the waterfront. it was alive, very successful and doing quite well. many things then came there afterwards causing much trouble to us. the sewer that was built for the street, on the street, the underground muni metro line came about, the earthquake brought down the freeway, the construction of it, these things really damaged and inhibited our operation, denied patronage to us in many different wais, automobiles, foot traffic and so on and so forth. yes, we've faced declining sales and it was difficult and very foreboding on us. we are asking you not to look at this history but look at the most current history of the last two years in which we lived up to the agreement in its fullness and in its honesty. we think that a little bit of time that we're asking for to find a new place, to keep staff on board, to keep these employees productive, off the welfare units, and even for myself as wel

it's one of the privileges we will not be forebearing from. that ensures that people in the deepest rural areas, in the poorest urban areas, get an opportunity to have broadband. now, let me tell you it hasn't solved the problem. its existence has not solved the problem. we just put out a study a couple weeks ago that showed that 53% of rural americans do not have access to what we are considering table stakes for broadband. 17% of all americans don't have access. so this is a major problem. and we can try to solve it through programs like universal service, both through the connect america fund which goes to rural areas, and we're also looking at whether lifeline, a subsidy for the poorest americans, whether that should be a broadband fund. we're also trying to promote competition. everybody is so excited and focused on net neutrality, that they've kind of ignored the other item on the docket in february, and that's what the chairman has recommended, again, there has to be a vote on february 26, but he's recommended the preelse preemption of

we decide to forebear from now from this provision. think at this time this provision isn't necessary. what we have seen are a lot of promises of regulatory restraint change based on not facts in the record. >> so just to summarize and be clear here what i'm hearing you say is they are not forebearing from the important parts but what they are they are promising not to use those in ways today. what are they giving up if anything? >> i would argue that they are promising to be a little more specific and promising not to use a specific provision here that they are forebearing from but will use 201 to do dirty work. >> what do you say to the chairman when he insists forebearance worked find for wireless voice. >> if one looks at the trajectory of spending by the wireless industry it was driven by explosion in mobile data use. because voice was classified as title ii it is -- >> that matters because mobile is not title ii. >> mobile voice. >> mobile data. >> secondly, i noted it is an irony as we know there is no such thing as mobile broad

paul though forebear landor in new york or new jersey. by and large under federal law we do not have a registry. >> host: in the book you coedited reducing gun violence in america you report there were 31,000 gun deaths each year how does that break down between suicide and homicide? >> roughly 11,000 are from homicide approximately 90,000 are suicide and the remainder is mostly accidental types. >> host: professor western -- webster is this an anti-gun book? >> not of all-purpose it was written with the purpose as the title indicates to inform policy. and to have a chapter on the second amendment wary are pretty clear the supreme court rulings that you may not ban or possess guns in the home in the policies that are discussed in this book we do not focus on a broad band of guns but a set of policies that our constitutional that do not disarm from people who could legally possess guns. >> host: what policy deal advocate? >> we went through a process to identify the experts around the world to bring the best evidence on key policy issues.

as you outlined, the chairman tended to forebear on the regulation regulations but broadband officials i talked to yesterday believed section two would contain that authority. so even if this fcc doesn't chose to use it have you made it easier for future fcc's to regulate this? >> guest: that is a scare tactic tactic. they are telling investors this is going to lead to rate regulation. the mobile industry is a good example of this. there is no rate regulations since cable regulations 22-23 years ago. i think the fear is unfounded. the chairman has said we will not rate regulation. and i don't think the next fcc chairman. he may try to throw out the whole regime and do something that is less regulatory. so i don't buy the next chairman argument because the rules are only as good as the guy or gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. so we have to do our best to set-up infrastructure that pro protects consumers. >> there has been a lot of talk about the net neutrality process and preserving the internet the way it is. but the way it is today a large amount of americans don't have access t

we'll forebear -- we won't impose all the nasty rules. in fact, we won't touch 700 or so that applied to railroads and ma bell, so don't fret. >> well the fcc said they were going to end lingering uncertainty over the future of the internet. of course the irony is that the fcc itself is what has given us uncertainty over the future of the internet. >> more uncertainty to -- >> yeah and the cost will be borne by the consumer. we'll have legal costs, we don't know what the pricing structure will be. >> they may slow down investment because of that uncertainty. dan, who wanted them. >> who won? >> no, who wanted this other than the president. why are we getting this if the internet has been working quite well? >> the democratic left wanted this. >> why? >> why? because they wanted to nationalize the internet and they don't want companies like verizon and time warner setting prices. what they're going to get just on the basis of our conversation, this is a lot of complexity and confusion. the fcc -- do you know who's going to answer all these

investment analyst and others are looking at the possible reclassification for fore forebearance and saying it will not have that much of an impact on the way the markets are functions. i am of that opinion as well. >> host: at the state department what did you work on? >> guest: i worked on the internet freedom. there is $15 million every year that the state department alone awards in grant to support free internet users with research digital training and other activities. usdi has a similar program as well and other divisions engage in such as well. i was part of the team that helped manage the grants. one way i can described it was there was an article saying the nsa is trying to break the ground while the state department is supporting it i was trying to support it. >> host: has the internet freedom initiative been successful? >> guest: i would say it is making progress. internet freedom is in jeopardy and being attacked on a number of fronts. you can look at stats of others doing mapping on this. internet freedom isn't in a great place. it is in a good place in the united states

. >> he's promising forebearance on the prices and -- >> that's what they all say. >> it's massive shiftpower. you're asking where is this coming from. it's an unholy alliance between progressive activists and silicon valley. >> progressive activists like the political control that mary mentioned. >> yeah. >> what about netflix amazon? google? what's in it for them? >> google had a change of heart here because the irony is the administration says, well, you know, we want to help the little guy but by increasing regulatory uncertainty, what are they going to do? they're going to help the big incumbents. verizon, comcast, all the people entrenched in the big lobby interests in washington and google is trying to compete with these people. and now, google is against this. >> well what is in it for to the companies like netflix? >> netflix and youtube together generate more than half of the internet traffic. what they don't want to is have to pay for that service that they're using at market rates. so i think now they realize this monster they have created will end up hurting them too. >> goo

>> the commission made a decision today saying we will forebear from these. it is quite similar to what the commission did in the mobile rules, section 332, of the act, in which the commission went in and full bore, i never know the right word to use forebear did not enforce multiple provisions of title two. and that's stayed that way for 22 years, through democratic chairman, through republican chairman, through changes in the nature of the -- i mean, you know. >> hi. brandon ross bloomberg. there has been talk that other end entities will seek the fcc to -- so will you grant similar petitions to -- for the fcc did today if -- >> we'll look at similar petitions. and we'll make a judgment based on the record in those. >> are there any other questions from this row? >> yes, sir. >> -- under the new rules can you address specifically how the commission might address the issue of zero rating especially free music services for mobile providers? >> again, we specifically did not go into that kind of detail but created a construct on which we could build a record w

there is severability clause in the order, and what that means is they could have an order that forebears against all these things that don't belong on the internet under title ii. what if the court says, you are ok going to title ii, but you did not do the proper process for the forbearances? which could very well be the case. now, all these things that are forbeared against are gone, they are now under full title ii regulation because the court says, you didn't do proper process to forbear, but you did proper process for title ii, separation, boom, full title ii regulation internet. that is this commission or a court, what i worry about is the open ended nature of the potential regulatory energy to regulate. and what do regulators get paid to do, regulate. and this commission, on its maiden voyage out, it may get out in the open sea and everything is feeling good, bad some point another commission could come along and say, i think we will go tougher. and you think about the pressure that will come from the trial bar, because you are opening up the internet and pricing to just unreasonab

that peru's food is unequivocally awesome, it seems proper we take a trip back in time to meet the forebear's legacy. the larco herrera museum in lima has a massive collection of pre-colombian artifacts. looking at them, you get an idea of what these ancient peoples were like, how they lived. >> wow! this is like the real stuff. >> i think so. right. i mean, it's the real deal, yeah. >> gold necklaces. you see where the spanish just freaked-out when they came here, turned into maniacal greed heads. but history does not have to be boring. it can be sexy. i don't know whether you knew this, but i am an aficionado of early erotica of pre-colombian and post-colombian eras, you know, pottery of people doing it. >> i should have known that. >> turns out things can get pretty interesting back in the day. oh, yeah. those guys can get crazy and get wild and apparently very kinky. >> the erotic gallery. there you go. that's a conversation starter. >> i take eric to the pre-colombian boning section, actually the erotic pottery section. slip of the tongue. >> amazing. >> which sounds about as much fun as

how exactly the fcc goes about forebearing is a big question, and there is tension in justifying the need or title two, apart from whether it is justified at all. there is tension between the forbearance findings and the change in classification to a telecommunications service. >> chris lewis, just about everyone agrees that it will not work. are you just about everyone? >> no, i definitely do not agree with that. what i think everyone can agree on is that neutrality protections are important. the question before the fcc is how you put those into action. we support chairman wheeler's decision to use title two, because in 2010, the fcc tried to enact net neutrality rules and have it struck down by the court. in that decision, the court basically said the rules were too close to title two type or commentary rules. by chairman wheeler putting out a proposal that uses title two, and make them more likely they will pass court muster. we think it is a historic decision and are very supportive of him moving forward. >> i get the idea that the fcc needs title two. they can't just make laws.

sometimes you have to show some forebearance and say, we'll address those questions later because of more urgent task at happened as relates to isis. i will say this i was with president elsisi before he became president. he had just begun his rise back in 2013. and i warned him at the time that there were folks in congress in both parties that were threatening at that time back in the early part of '13 to condition aid or withdraw aid. so they have to be aware that we have concerns but of course when it comes to isis i think we've got to make that the first priority. >> you mentioned the more urgent concern about isis. you seem to think that should trump those human rights concerns, i want a clear answer from you on that. should the security objectives trump what appears to be mass crackdowns and hundreds imprisoned without cause and at one point 1,000 people killed in a day, protesters gunned down? >> it's a question of timing. and what we don't want to do is inhibit their ability to be able to work with us against isis. that doesn't mean we can't have parallel tracks. but we shoul

the commission is promising people it will forebear.t is important to understand they are not eliminating provisions like rate regulation. they're only choosing not to apply them for the time-being. and they will continue to have the foundation to intervene if they choose in virtually any realm of internet activity. david: now they have said, tom wheeler, and others that are for this rule change, that they would not use the powers but can you think of anytime when a bureaucracy had powers to regulate they didn't use it? >> i think that's right. i'm not being disparages of tom wheeler's sincerity but i have been around regulation a long time. it is rare for a regulator to grant itself such sweeping power and then expect it is never going to utilize it. with time whenever there is issue or competitor doesn't like something happened, they go to the fcc forum, initiate a process and the fcc could intervene in what should be a free market business transaction. so, they can't control actions either of future commissions or future commissioner

the reclassification is upheld and the forebearance is overturned. >> well, on that note, it ends. thank you for coming. we'll see you at the version of this event. it's 317 pages. thank you. [ applause ] >>> the texas federal judge's order to block president obama's no deportation order. newsmakers at 10:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >>> the political landscape has changed with 114th congress. not only are there 43 new returns and 14 new democrats ins the house and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate. there's 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. >>> michael daniel talks about improveing information sharing. this 1:40 discussion is hosted by the atlantic council. >> in the atlantic council our brilliant director jay healy who you'll hear more about later. welcome to this event on breaking the cyber sharing log jam. you see the publication out there for your information. this will be a

for our forebearers, this meant everything from holding barn raisings to building bridges to settinghallenges the past. we have communities that face them today. with broadband. broadband broadband, after all, is more than a technology, it's a platform for opportunity. in urban areas, rural ñ areas and everything in between high speed service is now necessary to attract and sustain businesses expand civic services and secure a viable future. without it no community has a fair shot in i learned this firsthand last year when i visited lafayette louisiana, keep in the hard of arcadiana, where zeidico was born i got the chance to sit down with awfully good gumbo with lafayette parish president jerry dural. i learned aboutv bring high speedcjrÑ service to his community. it took time and tenacity. it was not easy. this was not for the faint of heart. eventually lafayette did it and brought lightning fast broadband service to town through its municipal utility. now, the story in lafayette is similar to the one that weÑ= r(t&háhp &hc% discuss here in chattanooga, tennessee and wilson county,

and you can say you're forebearing from some of the pricing regulations, but you can't protect that anally about price regulation doesn't at least introduce some risk of price regulation into the business. >> explain this. you think dish is worth $47. >> here's the problem with dish. dish's valuation isn't about its core business anymore. people will yawn when they see this morning's quarterly results. no one cares. dish is only about what's the spectrum it's worth that it owns. and the thing is you can use spectrum's comps from the block buster auction. but if you're going to use comps, you're assuming they can sell the spectrum. any other scenario where you use it or where you lease it or do something other than simply sell it and you have to replace the comps with the valuation of something -- >> wait a second. why wouldn't it be valued based on these new options regardless of what happens to it? you own an asset that is much more valuable than five years ago. >> tell that to wireless companies. t-mobile is valued at far less than the spectrum. as a going concern, argue they're wort

then another series of lawsuits whether they can or cannot forebear. >> what happened in the meantimern to a stand still? what happens in terms of how they operate? >> not clear. it will depend on whether the judge in that first case grants an injunction. or whether title two takes -- >> michael, i'm making you for just a moment you can become brian roberts if you'd like or run at&t. there are two major transactions on the table. >> right. >> you hear this news you as the ceo do what? >> well first of all, you worry about whether or not you're going to have a business where you're going to continue to make the kind of investments that you need to do. and so a lot of this is going to come down to do you believe that this is going to be about pricing? that it's going to in some way or another affect your ability to invest and pay for that investment by increasing your prices to consumers. >> but in terms of handicap you can handicap it if you'd like. comcast, time warner at&t directv what happens? >> i think that deal has a high probability of going through. there are some horizontal co

at the same time you'll probably get lawsuits saying that you can't forebear from price regulation underough the process. >> do you think they have a case because one of the republican commissioners yesterday was already saying that he thinks there's a lot of stuff in here, that they'll have a good leg to stand on in these lawsuits. >> the commissioner makes a good argument. ultimately, though i think the probability is that this will stand up in court. and remember the reason that they did this -- it's funny. you get all these bumper sticker arguments from the left saying this is about protecting free speech and against blocking. the right saying it's about price regulation. and the reality is somewhere in the middle. but the reason that they did what they did was not about net neutrality. the net neutrality issues were settled years ago. the issue is the legal framework that they chose in order to be -- no ensure enforceability. and that legal framework, title two, is -- goes back to 1934. it's very problematic. but ultimately what i think the courts will probably say is that the fcc h

now, they say that it will forebear.t all the ads for the wireless companies. there is not a problem from the consumer's perspective with price. it's an incredibly competitive dynamic business. we're not really going to regulate price even though we give ourselves the power to do it. also there's a lot of concern about what regulating terms means. right? so that's the second big piece. the third big piece and this is one which i think is existential for the industry. and there are a whole bunch of reasons that doesn't make sense. there were small pieces in the compromise where you would not block things but mass i have spending and infrastructure spectrum going into wireless right now is really being challenged by this. >> we're going to go to break, but you say you like me because we disagree. i never find anything we disagree on. which is why i'm trying to figure out what it is that pulls you from the private sector, free market oriented side of things. >> we'll talk about this when we come back with more from glenn in

mine goes back in the 19th century following a potato crop famine in ireland that caused my forebearers to emigrate to canada and then to the united states. everybody's got a story like that. but it's a sad important realization that the president through his executive action, is disrespecting the very individuals who have played by the rules and who we do celebrate as great patriotic americans. but apparently our friends in the minority don't even want to talk about it. so that's why they've stopped this bill, this funding bill, $40 billion to fund the department of homeland security, and refuse to even talk about it much less debate it. so they're going to come out here on the floor i trust and click through the days and say we only have three weeks until the department runs out of money. it's like the old story about the teenager who murders his own parents, and then he goes to court and he pleads for mercy because he says, judge i'm an orphan. that's what our friends in the minority have done. this is a crisis of their own making. in fact, we don't want a crisis. we want to eliminat