and tariffing and rates. when putin tries to shut down pussy riot on facebook when turkey tries to shut down access to twitter chinatwitter. those are absolute violations of what we're talking about here. because no party whether government or private sector should act as a gate keeper. to who gets on the internet. that is what this rule does. >> as you said at the outset of your statement you are applying, you are saying this is more regulation that be the first amendment. the problem is putin doesn't have a first amendment. and neither does china. and i understand your meelg and talking with that europeans but the ones we're concerned about the china and russia and others. and who do not understand this notion of the free speech. so when you make the argument to them that for example as you have made now that we're not regulating content this is -- for them it is literally a if foreign concept. they don't have a first amendment or a societal or governmental commitment to the notion of free speech. what they

so rate regulation, tariffing, unbundling those sections are all foreborn. i never knew what the past tense is on forebearance. we are not using them out of title ii. the point that senator thune was just making 1993 created section 332 of the communications act in the house which was sought by the wireless industry when they asked to be treated as title ii common carriers and to have forebearance from parts of the act that are no longer appropriate in a nonmonopoly situation. that included specifically as a decision by congress section 201. so the kind of example that was just raised about section 201-b being some kind of back door into rate regulation has existed for 22 years in the wireless industry and the commission has not been confronted and has not acted in this kind of way that suggested some kind of back door regulation. in fact, what has happened is that with the absence of consumer rate regulation that industry has been incredibly successful. the wireless voice industry has had $300 billion in investment since then. it was that model that is actu

it is the names, routers this kind of activity tariffing and rating. when putin tries to shut down groups on facebook when china tries to shut down access on google. turkey tries to shut down access to twitter that is violations of what we're talking about here because no party, government or private sector should act as a gate keeper to who gets on the internet. >> as you just said, you're implying this is no more regulation than the first amendment. the problem is putin doesn't have a first amendment. we're concerned about china, russia and others who already control the internet because they're not con trained by a first amendment. and so when you make the argument to them that, are for example as you made now, when we're not regulating content, for them it is literally a foreign concept. they don't have a first amendment or societal or governmental commitment to the notion of free speech. they see a government of the united states involved in setting terms for how the internet can be provided and i think it gives them an excuse to say if your gover

and tariffing and rates. when putin tries to shut down pussy riot on facebook, when turkey tries to shut down access to twitter, china tries to shut down google, those are absolute violations of what we are talking about here because no party, whether government or private sector, should act as a gatekeeper to who gets on the internet. that's what this rule does. >> as you said at the outset of your statement you are applying, you are saying this is more regulation that be the first amendment. the problem is putin doesn't have a first amendment. and neither does china. and i understand your meelg and talking with that europeans but the ones we're concerned about the china and russia and others. and who do not understand this notion of the free speech. so when you make the argument to them that for example as you have made now that we're not regulating content this is -- for them it is literally a if foreign concept. they don't have a first amendment or a societal or governmental commitment to the notion of fr

so rate regulation, tariffing, unbundling, those sections are all foreborn.never knew what the past tense is on forebearance. we are not using them out of title ii. the point that senator thune was just making, 1993 created section 332 of the communications act in the house which was sought by the wireless industry when they asked to be treated as title ii common carriers and to have forebearance from parts of the act that are no longer appropriate in a nonmonopoly situation. that included specifically as a decision by congress section 201. so the kind of example that was just raised about section 201-b being some kind of back door into rate regulation has existed for 22 years in the wireless industry and the commission has not been confronted and has not acted in this kind of way that suggested some kind of back door regulation. in fact, what has happened is that with the absence of consumer rate regulation that industry has been incredibly successful. the wireless voice industry has had $300 billion in investment since then. it was that model that is actual

that would continue to come as a result of the fact that there is no reregulation, no terracing -- tariffing monopoly legislation that you heard so much about. people say if i understand it better -- it significant. sprint has come out and said they supported, t-mobile says they will continue investing under this. google fiber has said even though we are now entitled to common carriers, we will continue to investigate the small wireless carriers. i bet this is something we can live with. on and on and on, there has been a list of people who said the more we get past the rhetoric the more we get to what is really going on here, then perhaps it is something -- >> will the road ahead be that easy? should we expect litigation similar to what we saw with the 2010 rules? >> the big dogs promised they're going to litigate. everyone talks about this three unit 17 page order. -- 317 page order. the rules take up a pages, the other 309 pages are the explanation -- 8 pages, the other 309 pages are the explanation, talking to the court, because we know the big dogs are going to take it to court. >> i'm

investment that would continue to come as a result of the fact that there is no rate regulation, no tariffing, and those tra degreesal kinds of monopoly regulation that you've heard so much about during the debate. so the feeling that i'm getting here is they're saying, as i understand it better and it's significant. sprint has come out and say they support it, t-mobile has said they'll continue investing under this. google fiber has said even though we are now a title 2 common carrier we will continue to investigate the small wireless carriers have said this is something we can live with. on and on. there has been a list of people who have said well, the more we guest past the rhetoric and the more we get toward really what's going on here, then perhaps this is something we can take. >> will the road ahead be that easy? should we expect litigation similar to what we saw in 2010? >> the big dogs have promised that they're going to litigate. one of the funny things is everybody talks about the 317 page order. the rules actually take up 8 pages. and the other 309 pages are the explanation which

sure that there was adequate investment that would continue to come by the fact there is no rate tariffing or the kinds of monopoly regulation you heard during the debate. the feeling i'm getting here in talking to people is well, as i understand it better, and it's significant. sprint has come out and said they support it t-mobile has said they'll continue investing under this google fiber said even though we're now entitled to a common carrier, we'll continue to investigate the small wireless characters and they've said hey, this is something we can live with. you know, on and on and on there's been a list of people who have said the more we get past the rhetoric and the more we get to really what's going on here, then perhaps this is something we can make work. >> that said, will the road ahead be that easy? should we expect some litigation similar to what we saw with the 2010 proposal? the big dogs promised they'll litigate and one of the things they talk about is this 317-page quarter. the rules take up eight pages. and the other 309 pages of the explanation which in many case is talk

that means no rate regulation, no tariffing, and no forced unbundling. today's action ensures isps continue to have the economic incentive to build fast and competitive broadband networks. it is in the interest of consumers, innovators, and investors that nothing in today's order alters the economic model of that has continued expansion thus far. that's why hundreds of smaller phone company isps have said they're comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. and a word about process. last year most fcc rules to protect consumers and innovators online were struck down. we acted immediately to begin a process to restore open internet protections. over the past year we received input from nearly 4 million americans in one of the most transparent proceedings that this commission has ever run. there was 130 day or so public comment period. we held six round table discussions with experts on legal, technical and market issues. we heard from and responded to over 140 members of congress. our team had dozens of meetings with congressional staff.

rate regulation, terror tariffing and forced unbundling have been superseded by a modernized regulatory approach that has already been demonstrated to work in an encouraging investment in wireless voice networks. it is important for consumers as well as companies that nothing in today's order alters the economic model for continued network expansion. the isp's revenue stream will be the same tomorrow as it was yesterday. before today, that revenue enabled companies to build ever faster networks. nothing in what we do today changes the equation for consumer revenues to isp's for tomorrow. i believe that is why sprint t-mobile, frontier communications, and google fiber, along with hundreds of smaller phone company isp's have said they are comfortable with the commission's modern regulatory approach. and, bulletin, according to this morning's "wall street journal," which quotes cablevision as saying, "we do not see at least what the chairman has been discussing as having any real impact on our business." today's order is more powerful and more expansive than any previous considered or sugg