. >> net neutrality, promulgated 2015, sec in -- fcc in officially came to an end. our guest is tom wheeler. he was the chairman. netis it important neutrality be included? wheeler: we looked at a number of different alternatives. it became clear the only way you could have a standard that had been tested by time, everybody knew what it was, was to have a just and reasonable standard. the only way you could get to that was with title ii. common carriers. my thought was going back to the the when i was the ceo of association. i was lobbying. asked too congress and be made common carriers. because of the certainty that came with that. i was hearing arguments saying, you cannot possibly do it. when i was representing the industry, they said, we want to be common carriers. there were like $300 billion in investment made in wireless. i said, that is the kind of approach we have to bring this new technology of the internet and that is what we did. were you on board with a common to common carrier idea from the start? i was always on board there had to be some regulatory m

. >> net neutrality, promulgated 2015, sec in -- fcc in officially came to an end.

in the public interest --tements filed with the sec fcc, you said the merger would create jobs. the statement said you would employees thane the two standalone companies. the communication workers of america said in a statement this morning, to the contrary, job losses will be in the thousands. you claim job creation is actually conservative. but, they were focused in the prepaid, not the postpaid market . so the analogy seems strained. given that each company has plans to create its own 5g network. i would like to know how you can know that these new jobs are merger specific. jobisn't it true that your numbers are based on assumptions a very robust company growth. >> thank you. just one clarification, t-mobile at approximately 27,000 jobs last year. the predominant jobs were in the retail expansion. our track record on metro pcs is it hashree-time jobs been equal across. my statement holds. new t-mobile but at thousands of 11,000 60g out to jobs in 2024. those are full-time equivalents. if you look at full and part-time, we live close to 10,000 what the police failed to -- we w

people rose up throughout all the last six months and 22 million of them contacting the fcc, chama pai of the sec ignored those 22 million peoplend a by a three-to vote on the federal on they took net neutrality off the books. in other words, they officially strapped consumers of the projections that have allowed economy in our democracy to flourish. now americans will have to blindly trust their cable companies and their broadband companies and theirer internet providers to protect them againstai discrimination. it is a big cable strea dream ce true. they have already won at the fcc and now the c counterrevolutions underway. here in the senate it is already happened. what we need to do now is to have the same level of energy. those millions of americans targeting the house of representatives and telling them that they want net neutrality and they want nondiscrimination principles and they want equalhe protection for the smallest of voicndt companies to be the law of the land. net neutrality. we need entrepreneurs and job creators and small businesses which are the lifeblood of the american econo

was bipartisan, worked through and got unanimous support, so again thank you and would encourage fcc-- secto continue to work on that. i sent a letter last week to you raising concerns with the rule 4210 and enjoyed i'm concerned the permits will push small to medium-sized dealers out of trading coverage security for the competitive advantages to commercial banks and similar intermediaries. this is something we correspondent about last year as well and i appreciate you providing a delay in the compliance dates in the spring of 2019. i continue to hear serious concerns about the on level playing field that this would create and i wanted to ask in general do you believe they have the authority to read you a credit? seems to be what's happening with the new requirements that certain mortgage transaction cover under 4210, and also will the commission considernges to the rule or working more costs-- closely with the fed to address a level playing fields? >> so, the last part of your question is the part i can give a direct answer to, which is yes if there is an asymmetry in the cost of providin

>> i think the longer the fcc waits the worse it is -- sec waits, the worse it is.thing.oes not do doing subpoenas, that creates more of certainty and maybe they will -- more uncertainty and they may never make a final rule and we will keep going on in this uncertain path and that's bad for cryptocurrencies. i think what's bad also is a misinterpretation of what the hacks involved. -- people that tend to be vulnerable, not the underlying assets. maint it goes after the driver, the main investment thesis, the main uses a bitcoin is that you don't need a third-party, when someone ask her credit card, the bank makes you whole. bitcoin was that you don't need that because there is no security problem, but clearly there is. that money is not coming back. vonnie: our thanks to stephen bringing us up to speed on all things bitcoin. still ahead, a big week for central banks as investors await decisions from the fed and ecb. the bloomberg global market specialist at jpmorgan this is bloomberg. ♪ is bloomberg. ♪ vonnie: live from new york, i'm vonnie quinn. caroline: live fro

. >> former sec official recently wrote about the broadband deployment advisory committee and the fccework in which industry gives all the benefits with no obligations in the minutes of penalties will be forced to bear all cost and receive no generation, no guaranteed benefit. >> i disagree with the analysis but it's actually somewhat irrelevant. the broadband advisory committee that he speaks of is a recommendation. they are not setting the structure for us to adopt. they will provide us recommendations we can do, the commissioners have the right to modify, change or do what we want. that's something the commission will have to decide how bestie wants to take from those things and move forward. some of them may not make the cut. i think it's premature in terms of analysis. wait until you see what the commission develops and then the critique can go forward. >> former commissioner has been upset because they feel there's not enough representation for them red they feel it's overly dominated by industry. i'm curious if you wanted to respond to that. >> i don't have difficulty with the

company's operation, i assume that that's -- that sort of information would be available to the fcc and so if the sec obtained it, they would have to treat it as proprietary information. >> i'm not sure that is the way that congress intended about it, what is significant is not the label but what actually underlines what it created. >> in one sense, it's proprietary to the customer, it has all those attributes that i mentioned. >> that's precisely my point. congress wanted to show some respect for privacy interests are people interact with telik -- with telecommunication companies, it provided certain nondisclosure rules, what with the government said to -- >> could the government say you cannot use this kind of information, you can't keep it. >> i am sure that in regulating telephone companies -- >> what is the difference between that and say, if you want to create this information, you're taking this information from customers and it is the customer's information? you can't disclose it without the customer saying yay or nay? isn't that what congress did? >> no. because congress provided that it sha

do you intend, do you think the sec and ftc will work closely together to try to figure out if a company is transparent with you guys and therefore compliant with the fcc but the ftc may have concerns about what that means for consumers? you guys work together? ajit pai: not only will we, but we are. we have a memorandum of understanding that the agencies have signed. going to workre and in glove to make sure consumers are protected. kim hart: you talked with -- about the importance of investment. when we are talking about these large providers and making sure that less regulation will help incentivize them to put more money back into the networks, are you concerned about some of these companies focusing more on the already served areas, and help making sure they can accommodate increasing traffic there rather than putting their money into expanding their infrastructure into the hard-to-reach areas? ajit pai: to me, this is the central problem with internet policy in the united states, there is simply not a business case to serve many parts of the country which are rural. there are not many people per square mile. you get less return on investment in t

do you intend, do you think the sec and ftc will work closely together to try to figure out if the company is transparent with you guys and therefore compliant with the fcc but the ftc may have considered -- have concerns what that means for consumers and competition landscape. you will work together on that? ajit pai: not only will we, but we are. we have a memorandum of understanding with sign that i spoken to chairman simons about the need to share information on a real-time basis. going forward we will work hand in glove to make sure that consumers are protected, we had a competitive marketplace. kim hart: you talked with the importance of investment and infrastructure make sure we get more people on the right side of the digital divide. when we are talking about these large providers and making sure that less regulation will help incentivize them to put more money back into the networks, are you concerned about some of these companies focusing more on the already urban areas, helping make sure they can accommodate increasing traffic there rather than putting their money into expanding their infrastructure into the hard-to-reach areas? ajit pai: to m

for instance, in 2013, the fcc charged a couple with stealing funds from foreign investors and diverting them to other businesses for personal use. in 2014, the sec brought charges against a los angeles-based immigration attorney, his wife and law firm partner for conducting an investment scheme to defraud eb-5 investors. the couple fraudulently raised $11.45 million, purportedly for an ethanol plant in kansas. instead, they misappropriated $7.2 million for other projects. in fact, according to the complaint, "the ethanol plant was never built. no jobs were created. defendants misappropriated and misused most of the $11.5 million raised." in july 2015, fcc brought charges against individuals accused of a $68 million ponzi like scheme. according to the complaint, some money was spent on personal use, misspent on junkets and co-mingled with other funds. in november, 2015, fcc filed a federal complat rida, alleging the fraudulent raising of $8.5 million from at least 17 investors. the complaint states that instead of construction projects, substantial funds were used for such things as a $2.5 million home for a defendant to reside in on a part-time

concern is that it is the sec weighing this proposal to ban the use of federal subsidies in buying this sort of gear. many trade groups argue it's not within the legal authority of fcc this decision and it should be left up to the experts to make that decision. in addition to that, there are business concerns. it's not really in the benefit of at&t and verizon to not be able to access that type of gear since they may want to use it for some of their future projects like becoming the which in 5g and huawei, has reacted negatively to this, saying that this is blacklisting a handful of suppliers, calling it both improper and imprudent, unverifiedrelies on allegations. regards to the talks, the trade talks, over the weekend, what if any progress was made with regard to the key zte?egards tozte we still have chinese officials really wanting the u.s. to soften the blow. trump has said he wants the company to continue operations as long as it pays the fine and shakes up its management fee structure, but the problem here is that trump will face huge domestic opposition if he does soften the blow. the argument among u.s. lawmakers is trump should not be using a national secu