another claim that i've seen is that isps are now going to be free to block websites, or throttle, or create fast lanes and slow lanes on the internet. again, title 2 is not the thin line between where we are, and that conduct taking place. if you look at the d.c. circuit decision that reviewed the fcc's 2015 decision, it expressly said that isps can block, they can throttle, they can do fast lanes, under title 2, provided that they disclose to consumers that they're engaging in that conduct. the court said there's no dispute that that's the case. so again, repealing tight tl 2 is not going to change the law. with respect to that sort of conduct. we've also claimed that the fcc's decision is going to be legally unsustainable, or is somehow unlawful. again, this is not the case. the supreme court in 2005, in fact the only time the supreme court has spoken to the regulatory classification of the internet, upheld the fcc's 2002 decision that found that broadband internet access service is a title i information service. so again, that claim doesn't withhold scrutiny. i also want to take a

could say comcast if you are offering a plan in california that cant be one that involves blocking or throttling, that's one way they could do it.120/ they could do it (dan flash)and while states can do that, the electronic frontier says instead of fighting a state by state battle, the better way is to have congress overturn the fcc's ruling so it's impact is nationwide. (steve) the repeal of fair and open access to the internet is expected to be met with widespread legal action. santa clara county... is among the first government entities to announce it's intentions to file suit. in san jose today ... government leaders annoucned that the county will be filing a lawsuit to stop the repeal

or not. universalast has content, they don't want verizon wireless throttling or blocking their content. at the same time, at&t does not want another company blocking their content. a formsps, it is almost of mutual assured destruction. thene starts throttling competition, it will start a war. killed, they get will kill big revenue screens -- streams. it is logical for them to not throttle or blockage of this content because of vertical integration. this does not get discussed in any of the new stories. there is more market pressure keeping markets open. not: what you are discussing is both the federal communications commission and the department of justice and this administration and the previous administration found that vertically integrated carriers have the incentive and ability to discriminate. so when charter bought time warner, when at&t bought directv , and now at&t is attempting to buy time warner entertainment, now being blocked by the justice department. all three times, the record has shown the government has been concerned there is the incentive and ability by these vertical

thatis why we need an fcc says, you cannot block to website or throttle an application or set up a prioritization scheme for some content. from 2009t the fcc to 2012.2009 >> the interesting thing is, back when i was at the fcc we were still coping with the bell monopoly. online providers were beginning to emerge at that time. and what we did, and i was actually part of working on the process, was classifying online dividers as information services so that they would be on regulated. ma bell and the telephone companies would be regulated. steve,s the environment, that we had, really from that .ime at least right up until 2015, ,hen the information providers the broadband companies were flipped and classified as telecommunications carriers and public utilities. and i think most people agree that all of those years that we have the light touch regulation of information service providers, the internet did flourish surely. we would all like fort the faster. we would like for to be cheaper. were overy is, there $1.5 trillion in investment to build broadband networks. switched overn we to a new regime w

trade practices meaning that if an internet service provider lies and says i'm not going to block or throttle or have fast lanes and goes ahead and does it, then it will go after the internet service provider. it's not going to do anything if let's say comcast decides to double its price one day. the fcc can do nothing about it. what if an isp blocks speech it doesn't like. the fcc and antitrust law can do nothing about it. now, even more importantly and this is something that really gets lost, there's a case right now pending in california in the ninth circuit court of appeals that would strip the fcc of all oversight of a broadband even if german pioneer fcc reclassified. i want to get into the weeds but this case is out there. was caught by at&t so even if german pie and his colleagues classify they would not have authority over broadband at&t wins this case and is still pending in the court. let me talk a little bit about competition. the german pie put out his own numbers about who has broadband internet access at the speeds that the fcc considers broadband internet access. his numbers l

or the net neutrality cases to justify a title ii? and mickey bin he admits with the at&t face time netflix was throttled both by comcast and verizon there are examples. there are not dozens because up until now the fcc chair has believed in the open internet. if there should be a policy statement or rule under title ii '04 one but the first time anybody says no rules or no policies or no authority whatsoever. so they are on their best behavior. i will tell you one thing next week is that six months comcast at&t and others will start charging online providers. and that will happen and the proposal to talk about the innovative new business model this is what he is talking about with the a two sided markets this is what the internet service providers have wanted to do this and i will not allow them to go over my pipes for free. but this is what they want to do should this go through. >> commissioner, as gigi sohn said earlier without strict rules we have i is peas who can be on line seven there are three strong federal statutes very strong government agencies with 50 states attorneys general general, lawyers all over the place so many lega

another thing is isps are not going to be free to block websites or throttle or create fast lanes and slowly from the internet. title ii is not a thin line between where we are in that conduct taken place. look at the d.c. circuit decision it expressly said that isps can block provided they disclose to consumers. there's no dispute that's the case. or repealing title ii not going to change the law. the sec's decision is going to be legally unsustainable or unlawful. the supreme court only time they've spoken to the classification upheld the 2002 decision that found them as a title i information service. so again that doesn't hold scrutiny. i want to emphasize or not experimenting with the newer radical approach that will give isps free reign to do what they want. the title and framework were trying to put in place includes robust protections one that i'll start with as market forces. when they observed that there is says there's a reason why they're not to. the d.c. circuit said it's fear of subscriber losses, there's many people that will market forces as a solution in the broadband

there have been no throttles or net neutrality cases that would justify title ii. >> guest: well, even rob admits that there have been, right? comcast blocked bit torn, at&t verizon blocked google wallet, netflix was being throttled both by comcast and verizon in 2014. i mean, there are examples. have there been dozens? no. and that's because until now fcc chairs have believed in an open internet. even though there was disagreement as to whether it should be a policy statement or rules or whether it should be under title i or title ii, this is the first time that anybody's said, you know, no rules, no policy, no authority whatsoever. so is the internet service providers were with on their best behavior. i will tell you one thing, if this thing goes through -- which i expect it to next week -- within six months or maybe whenever the litigation is over, comcast/at&t and others will start charging online providers for faster service, better quality of service, what i call fast lane. it will happen. you know, the proposal that chairman pai put out talks a lot about innovative new business

network and by doing that they can discriminate against websites they don't like they can block or throttle competing services and really take control over this very important communications medium away from internet users net neutrality guarantees that internet users actually have that choice and use what was an open network to extort new money making schemes that really don't benefit anyone except themselves so those who are most harmed are not just small businesses who may find that they have to pay more to compete with large companies but people who are organizing social justice movements may find it difficult to reach audiences via the the internet this has been very important for movements like the black flies matter movement in the united states which really wasn't getting a lot of attention to it the issues from traditional media and relied upon an open internet and all of these things all of this ability to.

want a service that you want to access that you feel like you deserve to access to be blocked or throttledthe point of not working right, steve >> i'm not sure the point you're making right now consumers have complete control over the power of their internet, right you can prioritize your own traffic on your own routers at home, and so the last i checked, that quality is not really been the issue, it's really when these media companies flex their muscles and effectively shut down competition when at&t blocks facetime and saying -- or you have to charge extra -- >> at&t's network, to be fair, wasn't really ready for facetime at the moment. we have the rise of the smartphone as a trend, the networks weren't ready you could barely make a phone call at the time and people wanted to facetime it would be nice, but you need to make sure the network is ready before you do that even under these rules against blocking and throttling, there are provisions for legitimate network management >>i would say saying at&t's lack of coverage, which affected phone calls competing with facetime is a little bit

blocking or throttling? that will never happen, you say? after today's vote, exactly who is the cop on the beat that can or will stop them? and just who will be impacted the most? consumers and small businesses, that's who. the internet continues to and has-- evolved become even more critical for every participant in our 21st century ecosystems. government services have migrated online, as have educational opportunities, job notices, and applications. but at the same time, broadband biters have continued to consolidate. they have become bigger. they own their own content. they own their own media companies. in they own or have interest other types of competing services. so why are millions of americans so alarmed? because they understand the risks this all poses. and even those who might not exactly know what it means when somebody says title ii authority, what they know is that they will be at risk without it. i have been asking myself repeatedly, why the majority is so single focused on overturning these wild -- wildly popular rules. is it

you watch videos on netflix, amazon or whatever you want, and it is there is no blocking or throttlings what we are used to, the internet like a utility. >> and if the changes proposed go through, how would we as consumers now potentially experience the internet? >> well, two ways. you might find that some of site you like are slowed down or possibly blocked altogether. and you might also over time find your bill gets higher or that they changed the services. a lower tier is only mclemore and the web and you need to pay more for video or things like that. >> how would this potentially change the entire internet, the intereconomy, and you have said democracy as a whole as well? >> first of all, this gives companies like comcast, verizon or at&t a -- seysorial powers that we normally associate with the chinese government. they can block anyone. a critic of at&t, verizon or comcast could find themselves blocked. it also i think will ultimately hurt the web economy, particularly the guy or girl in the garage will need to find a way to pay off cable or phone companies to get started, which

prohibit internet service providers from creating vast lanes with some content while blocking or throttlingothers. most immediately, the activity will move to the courts. where the advocacy group, free press and probably others, will challenge the fcc decision. the most likely arguments, the commissions decision violates federal laws barring agencies from crafting arbitrary and capricious regulations. read more@wired.com. john mckinnon writes the federal communications commission voted to go back far-reaching rules governing how internet service providers treat traffic on their networks. a move expected to empower cable and wireless providers and transform consumers online experience. you can watch our coverage of today's fcc hearing on c-span.org and on c-span. >> testifying on capitol hill today, for former us investors to middle east countries. talk about some of the challenges in the region. that hearing is next on c-span2. after that, us ambassador to the un, nikki haley, presents what she calls undeniable proof that iran is arming rebels in yemen. then, connecticut senators richard bl

they will not block throttle or disscrimmenate against lawful consent. bring in robert mcdowell, fcc commissioner from 2006 to 2013 serving both presidenting george w. bush and barack obama. also the chief public policy adviser for mobile future, association in technology and communications companies testified to congress about net neutrality last month. good to have you on the show. >> thank you for having me. >> the best argument i've heard in favor of net neutrality is that the internet as we know it today, the things most people consume. whether facebook, netflix, amazon, those kinds of companies, came about because small start jud-ups had access this fantastic internet. if we were to impose the ability to slow down some parts of the internet or speed it up for money, we may earned up freend the internet in time, they exist at big companies and never a competitor to facebook or google or amazon? >> right. there's a lot of hype and it's very confusing. get legal very quickly. what the fcc did in february 2015, put a 1934 law the communications law of

could say comcast if you are offering a plan in california that cant be one that involves blocking or throttling, that's one way they could do it.120/ they could do it (dan flash)and while states can do that, the electronic frontier says instead of fighting a state by state battle, the better way is to have congress overturn the fcc's ruling so it's impact is nationwide. (steve) the repeal of fair and open access to the internet is expected to be met with widespread legal action. santa clara county... is among the first government entities to announce it's intentions to file suit. in san jose today ... government leaders annoucned that the county will be filing a lawsuit to stop the repeal of obama-era net neutrality rules. the legal challenge is based on the argument that restricting acces to the internet...will have a negative impact on santa clara county's ability to provide services like public health and public safety. (sot) (steve) sara cody/public health officer"....this is something where we need to get critical information to the public...sometimes one day to the next or even one hour t

mixed, luchlts congressman black brunburn's proposed law is not allowing them to block content ore throttle does allow providers like comcast from charging extra for faster speeds, that will mean the content providers to refuse to pay extra could end up with comparative service. sow have the same result t. law prevents the fcc from regulating net neutrality and will block controversy of states who, press interest if their net neutrality laws. >> also, delta ceo is reportedly seeking compensation for the airline's lost revenue during a 12-hour atlanta blackout. how much money are they looking for and do you think is this a legitimate claim? >> well, the ceo o delta was speaking last night at an event, he says the number is between $25 million. they had to split tens of thousands of passengers up at hotels in atlanta. there will be a companytation he says with himself the powers that be at hartland jackson airport and the people oofk at georgia power. >> that controversial accommodation is one i'd love to be a fly on the wall to be honest with you. >> i'm sure that would be extremely interest

in addition, when you add the content blocking or throttling content, when we have.tle competition in the space, it is telling consumers are going to have a choice of going to another provider in very many places to say "well, i want to be sure you're not going to block my content." amy: you see whole cities getting short shrift? >> all over the country -- amy: especially poor areas. >> p poor areas are e already in trouble. they are still -- there is still a fundamental divide. in urban areas, 62 million people. a big part of that for urban areas is cost. for communities of color, what we're talking about is costs go up because you're saying essentially to providers, you can charge -- you're going to charge companies, but that means they're going to pass thohose .osts off to speed up we in the united states pay more for less. we pay a lot more for internet and get a lot more poor service. here,hen you have right eric schneiderman, new york attorney general, threatening to sue to block the repeal and a dozen states attorney general's investigating "fake comments?" >>

think, what, almost 15 years now, unless they can show a reason, a good reason for that blocking or throttlingybe someone is trying to do something that's causing a problem for others, we see that happen on occasion what should be the mechanism for carriers being able to make the argument that they should be able to block certain applications >> i think they can block things that are clearly illegal, you know, distributing child pornography or national security risks, those sort of things. otherwise, i actually trust the market to make the decision about what applications should succeed or fail, not the carriers i think when they've had too much control, too much control in the network actually stifles innovation, so i'd say let the best application win and get the carriers out of it >> what about the situation we saw on at&t's network when the iphone had first come out and nobody was really prepared, carrierwise, for the amount of data that was going to flood over wireless networks and they blocked facetime for a period of time and said we're not going to let you do video conferencing because

the fcc has had rules that prevented companies from throttling or blocking and they have paved the way to many great successes. we have in the united states fortune 500 companies in a tech responsible for 7% of our nation's gdp and 6.9 million jobs in the united states of america. why would you change the rules now? why would you leave making sure critical protections are in place and instead, replace them with the ability for certain companies cable specifically, to wreak havoc on this economy? 13% of washington state's economy depends on a healthy internete sector. the internet economy for our state supports 250,000 jobs and it is a time of, when the nation is looking to see that they haven't had enough wage growth and enough growth in the middle class earning more, those tech jobs have been a bedrock for the .iddle class. so chairman pai is clearly not focused on the 13,000 tech companies in the state of washington, the 250,000 jobs and the 13% of our state's economy. just this past weekend my colleague, congresswoman delbene and i, met with many of these small businesses and their

we wouldn't have known about ferguson, missouri, if the provider was able to block or throttle.let, they weren't covering ferguson. >> that's right. >> not until the hashtag started trending. we will be able to better tell our stories, promote our businesses, enhance our ability to find out what's going on in the world, but not if an internet service provider has the keys to our success, the keys to the internet that they will be able to block or slow down or inhibit free speech. that's what that says today. >> a lot of people don't know much about the fcc and they don't know how much you have been fighting for a very long time to bolster the voices and access of minority media businesses and of all-americans. that you from those of us who care about it. >> thank you very much. >>> republicans are one step closer to changing the tax code as we know it. that's next. my experience with usaa has been excellent. they always refer to me as master sergeant. they really appreciate the military family, and it really shows. we've got auto insurance, homeowners insurance. had an accident

balwart where we are today and some balcannized version of the internet where they are able to throttle or charge consumers more. that's simply not true. >> so how much more will consumers have to pay? we want to verify this. again, first, how much will this cost? will you ask. some groups say yes, some say no, but the door is now open for your internet company to charge you extra if you use a lot of data. now, what about content? companies can now block access or slow it way down for some sites. for example, your internet company could slow down access to netflix. if hulu pays it a little cash. but the major providers have promised they won't do that. so what comes next? make sure you read the fine print on your new internet contracts. this is on you now. providers are required to disclose it, they're going to limit access to certain sites, but you need to read that fine print. this all may not take effect right away. there is a lawsuit on the way to stop it and congress can also take action to overturn the f's decision. to learn -- ccc's decision. to learn more, download our app or go to

they have rules that prevented companies from throttling or blocking and paved the way to many successes. and gdp, 6.9 million jobs in the united states of america. why would you change the rules now? making sure critical protections are in place and instead replace them with the ability for certain companies to wreak havoc on this economy? 13% of washington state's economy depends on healthy internet sector. the internet economy for our state supports 250,000 jobs and when the nation is looking to see that they haven't had enough wage growth and the growth in the middle-class earning more, these tech jobs have been a backdrop to a bedrock for the middle class so the chairman is not focused on the 13,000 companies in the state of washington, 250,000 jobs and 13% of the state economy. just this past weekend my colleague and i met with many of these small businesses and their message was loud and clear, please stop chairman pie from ruining the internet by taking away key protections that make sure our business is run successful. he is abdicating his role, abandoning consumers, turning his

it prevents isps from entering agreements that unfairly block throttle or would create anti-competitiveaid prioritization. there will be rules and legal standards out there that are going to be able to police any of misconduct that people are talking about. emily: what about the fake comments in the public comment section. does that give you any pause? written, comments were potentially by a robot, to counter the vast majority of comments that were against this repeal? >> it does not give me pause. here's why. we have run an open and transparent process. the administrative procedure act is clear on how an agency like us runs our rulemaking. we have an open record. anyone who wants to file a comment can file a comment. we got over 24 million filings in our preceding. i think that shows the passion issue.ople have in this our decision is based on the substantial record evidence that we developed. emily: but the vast majority of this comment were against the repeal. >> there was a wide range of user express. we have to confront the threshold legal matter. intend the internet to be in one o

has -- had rules that prevented companies from throttling or blocking, and they have paved the way to many great successes. we have in the united states fortune 500 companies and a tech industry that is responsible for 7% of our nation's g.d.p. and 6.9 million jobs in the united states of america. why would you change the rules now? why would you leave making sure critical protections are in place and instead replace them with the ability for certain companies, cable specifically, to wreak havoc on this economy? 13% of washington state's economy depends on a healthy internet sector. the internet economy for our state supports 250,000 jobs and is a time when the nation is looking to see that they haven't had enough wage growth and enough growth in the middle class earning more, these tech jobs have been a bedrock for the middle class. chairman pie is not focused on the 13,000 tech companies in the state of washington, the 250,000 jobs, and the 13% of our state's economy. just this past weekend my colleague, congresswoman dell benny and i met with many of these small businesses and thei

federal antitrust law prevents isps from entering agreements that unfairly block, throttle or createnti-competitive pay prioritization. there will be rules out there that will be able to police any of this conduct that people are talking about. emily: what about the fake comments in the public comment section? does that give you positive? one million comments were written, potentially by a robot, to counter the vast majority of comments that were against this repeal? brendan: it doesn't, here is why. we have run an open and transparent progress -- process. it is clear how we run our rulemaking and record. we have an open record. anyone can file a comment. we don't require identification that would discourage robust conversation. we have filings, that shows the passion people have in the issue. emily: the vast majority of those comments were against this repeal. brendan: there was a wide range of views expressed and the question we have to confront is a threshold legal matter for the fcc. did congress, when they set up title two, did they intend the internet to be in one or the other?

intention of changing the way the market works or have the intention of doing the things that the rules prevented. if you're not planning on blocking, throttlinginternet works, what is the point in rolling them back in the first place? there's not a lot of competition. the checks and balances that typically exist in the market, you can normally go to another one. if you're not happy with what you're using on one website or app coming you can switch card with a service provider, 87% of americans in rural areas have no choice in who provides there broadband. we just flashed a screen of some of the companies in the internet association. they are the most powerful companies in the world right now. amazon, facebook, google, -- my point is that do we really need policies that in toward amazon? michael: if people don't want to use those sites, they can easily click a way. there is a lot of competition. the rules are not cut to protect our members, they are to protect individual consumers who want to have choice on the internet. michael, we heard from that theyey general are going to sue and fight this. confident that this overturn can be overturned?

federal antitrust law prevents isps from entering agreements that unfairly block, throttle or createnti-competitive pay prioritization. there will be rules out there that will be able to police any of this conduct that people are talking about. emily: what about the fake comments in the public comment section? doesn't that give you any pause? one million comments were written, potentially by a robot, to counter the vast majority of comments that were against this repeal? commissioner carr: it doesn't give me pause, and here is why. we have run an open and transparent process. it is clear how we run our rulemaking and record. we have an open record. anybody that wants to file a comment can file a comment. we don't require identification on the front and because that would discourage robust conversation. we had over 24 million filings in our proceedings. i think that shows the passion people have in the issue. our decision is based on the substantial record evidence that we developed. emily: the vast majority of those comments were against this repeal. commissioner carr: there was a wi

and the company will not block throttle or discriminate against lawful contempt. content.o joining us now is technology editor for ad week. and waegs column for the los angeles times. thanks for being with us. so i want to start with you. what do you make of all of this? the concern is that it will really stifle innovation and that the facebook's of the world, the next facebook's of the world creating a small company won't be able to stand a chance. >> exactly. so what the isp internet service providers are saying this will slow down innovation and keep them from building up five g which is the next wave of wireless internet we don't have yet anywhere. but on the flip side if they are doing this in the internet it will be tough for snapchat that doesn't have much chance to build that up like facebook did years ago. >> what do you think of this? >> people say too much regulation and causes them to think twice about what kinds of companies are going to have that access. that's one of the things against it i guess you can say. but the internet just is not changing as fast as

safety and public health, they could be severely jeopardized by any attempt to have blocking, throttling or pay prioritization. >> one santa clara -- once santa clara county files the lawsuit it will go directly to the court of appeals. >>> developing story. air based parkway is closed in both directions between dover and clay bank road in fairfield because of a haz-mat spill. the roadway expected to be closed for several more hours. now, according to authority, the spill happened after a driver took off from a traffic stop only to run into a truck carrying pool cleaning supplies. eight nearby homes have been evacuated. the driver that caused the accident taken into custody. people are being urged to stay away from the area. >>> the mexican national who was accused in the death of kate steinle sentenced for a gun possession charge on january 5th. jose garcia zarate shoot her in 2015. she was acquitted -- he was acquitted. they determined the shooting was accidental and the gun he found on the pier had misfired. now his attorneys are asking for a new trial to have that gun possession convict

rules were put in place last year, the track record of the distribution partners were not about throttling orcriminating against content. and i think all of those leaders have come out to say, look, our customers are important to us and if we want to keep customers on our networks watching and using our products, we need to make them widely available, so i think it allows everybody to compete on a level playing field and at the end of the day when the market decides, consumers win. >> small businesses, though, maggie, would disagree with that and say they are not getting a fair shake, and certainly now democrats and attorneys generalo the vote which now seems like it might have been the easy part. as a business leader in this area, what sort of certainty would you advise people that this is actually going to happen and within what time frame >> look it we've allowed a number of new entrants from the internet space into the field of distribution and content and what is happening they have become big behemoths and they are trying to protect their turf it's not unusual to see them go after the g

. >> reporter: but the nation's icps including comcast, insist they do not and will not block, throttle orerfere with internet traffic. tom costello, nbc news, washington. >> politically democrats are lobbying against repeal but republicans argue the less regulation the better. the guy on your screen right now, eric engelman, technology editor for politico pro to help us break this down. let's start with what the current fcc chairman told joe ling kent about this decision. listen. >> consumers benefit, entrepreneurs benefit, nerve the internet economy is better off with the market-based approach. >> but some small businesses have come out and told us that they're very concerned about what net neutrality and the lack of it will do to their small businesses. are they wrong? >> i think in their case their concerns are misplaced for a couple different reasons. before 2015 we had a free and open internet in which very small companies became global giants, facebook, amazon, netflix, google. >> eric, the chairman goes on to say the fears there are unfounded, basically, what does your reporting te

. >> but the nation's isps, including nbc owner comcast insists they do not and will not block, throttle or interfere with internet traffic. tom costello, nbc news, washington. >>> i want to bring in one of my faves, jeff jarvis, associate professor and director of interactive program at cuny school of journalism. i want to play for you what the fcc chairman said this week when asked specifically if a handful of companies will be able to control content on the internet. listen. >> no. i think what net neutrality repeal would mean is that we once again have a free and open internet. the government will not be regulating how internet service providers or anyone else manages their networks. >> do you think their repeal will mean that? >> no. and there's no ideological consistency with these folks. one is saying let's let the phone companies and cable companies control the internet and do whatever he want. then he went to tucker carlson 24 hours ago and said, well, facebook and google shouldn't be able to control conservative content so he wants to control them and restrict them because they're

they'll not block, throttle or discriminate against lawful content.ing in the founder of reputation.com. a venture capitalist. good to see you. i want to put my head down and let you talks but the amount of fury around this discussion is of epic proportions. the interesting thing is everybody makes the same argument. everybody, no matter whether you're for or against net neutrality, the argument is that my side protects a free and open internet. make it clear to me. what am i supposed to believe? >> epic fury, ali. you are exactly right. and it is justified epic fury. we do not know what will happen in the playout of those rules but it's possible that there's a lot of damage coming to the internet and a lot of damage coming to innovation in particular. when you go on an airplane, say southwest or some other airline, and you open up your phone or browser. you are usually allowed to have a certain limited amount of access to the internet for free. those things are subsidized by the airline or by their content partners. if you want the access to the whol

does not imply, as some of the headlines you've seen suggest, that somebody recklessly hit the throttle oromething like that. matter of fact, what it might suggest is that something interfered with a braking operation. but this is something for the experts on the scene to find out about. the most important thing is that we are having this conversation again after having had the conversations around the wreck of 188 outside of philadelphia, outside of incidents like the lakmagantic train wreck in quebec, canada, a few years ago. in each of these cases, where are fundamental structural and policy driven, risky decisions that we need to take up. >> such as positive train control and the fact that now just 24% of passenger railroads use this technology? >> ptc is a great tool and i can tell you as a high speed locomotive engineer that we appreciate any kind of tools that are given to us. but it is a big mistake to think of them as a panacea, a fix all, particularly in the context of a situation where you actually have policies that deskill the job where what you can have is a situation increas

absolutely more about the legality of things let's be clear here they are they're not able to throttle back the pirate days or the cody's or these types of things that are they're basically bashing into their their income so they're going after the of law in a way to actually throttle these things back and block them out let's be clear as well i cannot find our t.v. on a on a cable network across the united states our t. is not syndicated on the cable networks in the united states let's be clear here as well i can easily get our t.v. i know the guys i ski with these people out in denver helping out the u.s. disabled ski team so these are individuals that are absolutely blocking this type of access for r.t. and this will be another thing this is a freedom of speech issue for me because in the future if they don't want us to get our t. on the internet they can actually throttle that back as well and that's the only place i can get that so that's my biggest fear ok that's a fear of mine and i was actually to get there and everything go in we can go there right now who we want you know one of the i said my major

just isn't about for me it isn't just about whether or not the cable company or whoever i'm getting my internet from throttle and make certain things like oh these smaller blogs and sites i won't be able to get to or they'll to start banning certain things because you know they're whatever. subversive i want that's all i like a subversive stuff so then what's either going to end up happening is the upside to this is that smaller internet companies and smaller broadband companies will pop out of this to serve a part of the community that doesn't want to be that does want to protect that but does want to be on the be in that world also i think that you're going to see a lot more cities and municipalities and vesting and it you see a lot more actual talk a little bit about minnesota in the next in the second and the second half that show is that you know the deputy one of the things that the governor of minnesota has been a big proponent of has been rural broadband internet access and once you start giving people the ability to have that free act having that access not just free as in freed to pay but. free of