hundt, mr. wiley or three or four other wise people at the fcc to know what's best for me in the telecommunications policy. i think if we set the ground rules -- i agree you have to have a traffic cop. but i don't agree that you've got to be so prescriptive that the market just flat gets strangled before it even has a chance to get under way. so my question -- and i'll throw it open to the panel -- is there still a need for a title i? i mean for title ii, for common carrier? in the telecommunication marketplace today, could we deregulate the telephone companies in totality because, you know, there really is no such thing as a natural monopoly anymore? >> if we can find a way to assure that some of the qualities that people fought for long and hard in terms of privacy and public safety and consumer protection do not accompany the new tools of broadband and the internet as they accompanied telephone, then i think we're in trouble. i like the market approach, too. and it was decided long ago that the tel

mr. wiley? mr. wiley? >> i didn't hear that. i didn't hear it. i'm sorry. >> privacy data security, leave it to the ftc and the fcc focus on its core mission or what is your thought on that? >> i think so. >> you think so? >> i would agree with that. >> okay. mr. powell, coming back to you, 706. we're hearing a lot about that today. and you may have others who think that, you know, the fcc -- that this is an invitation, 706 is an invitation to come in and regulate internet services. as you look at 706, do you agree that the provision was intended to give the fcc the ability to forebear from regulations that would stifle broadband investment and innovation? >> i agree that the decision certainly gives them the power to forebear and for many years many people interpreted 706 as principally deregulatory. it speaks of removing barriers and obstacles, less so about introducing them. i certainly was serving at a time where the commissions have held that was not a separate basis of authority. and in fairness to the fact, every commission had so held unt

hundt, mr. wiley or three or four other wise people at the fcc to know what's best for me in the telecommunications policy. i think if we set the ground rules -- i agree you have to have a traffic cop. but i don't agree that you've got to be so prescriptive that the market just flat gets strangled before it even has a chance to get under way. so my question -- and i'll throw it open to the panel -- is there still a need for a title i? i mean for title ii, for common carrier? in the telecommunication marketplace today, could we deregulate the telephone companies in totality because, you know, there really is no such thing as a natural monopoly anymore? >> if we can find a way to assure that some of the qualities that people fought for long and hard in terms of privacy and public safety and consumer protection do not accompany the new tools of broadband and the internet as they accompanied telephone, then i think we're in trouble. i like the market approach, too. and it was decided long ago that the tel

i've served with three of the four former chairman, mr. wiley preceded me. we've had some agreements, we've had some disagreements. so it's good to have all four of you gentlemen here today. when i was chairman of the full committee, back in 1996, my commutety introduced a bill we call the coke bill, the communication opportunity promotion enhancement act of 2006. it dealt with national franchising, net neutrality, public educational and governmental access, e-911 and what we now call void. it passed the house 321-101, but it didn't come up for a vote in the senate. i voted for the telecommunications act of '96, and the cable act of '92, and i hope this year to get to vote for another major bill that comes from the leadership of mr. upton, mr. walden, mr. waxman and miss eshoo. this is a good thing to be doing and we're going to get some good information from your gentlemen and we appreciate you being here. >> gentleman's time's expired. we'll now go to the former chairman of the committee, mr. waxman, for opening comments. >> thank you very much, mr. chairm

i've served with three of the four former chairman, mr. wiley preceded me. we've had some agreements, we've had some disagreements. so it's good to have all four of you gentlemen here today. when i was chairman of the full committee, back in 1996, my commutety introduced a bill we call the coke bill, the communication opportunity promotion enhancement act of 2006. it dealt with national franchising, net neutrality, public educational and governmental access, e-911 and what we now call void. it passed the house 321-101, but it didn't come up for a vote in the senate. i voted for the telecommunications act of '96, and the cable act of '92, and i hope this year to get to vote for another major bill that comes from the leadership of mr. upton, mr. walden, mr. waxman and miss eshoo. this is a good thing to be doing and we're going to get some good information from your gentlemen and we appreciate you being here. >> gentleman's time's expired. we'll now go to the former chairman of the committee, mr. waxman, for opening comments. >> thank you very much, mr. chairm