so the f.c.c. in an unprecedented ruling that had already gone to court multiple times and failed, grabbed the regulatory control from the f.t.c. and said we'll take the internet service providers and we'll manage them, and you keep the content folks. that's the fight that we're in right now. it's the funniest thing to me to be in a conversation about net neutrality because the implication is the internet will not be free if the government doesn't regulate it with this particular entity, the f.c.c. when i ask people would it be okay if the government regulated with the f.t.c., federal trade commission, most people say, well, that would be fine too. well, good, because that's the way it has been for 20 years. for 20 years there's been one set of rules on the super highway of the internet. the federal trade commission. here's what i'd like to say to people that are trying to listen and trying to figure this out. most of the arguments and the fights that have come about, costs increases and about pay p

the f.c.c. are up to. special deals for special interests. more pore, significantly -- more power, significantly more power for those with deep pockets. what the people opposed to real net neutrality have cooked up is a scheme called paid prioritization, it's part of this, nor markey, i call -- senator markey, i call their effort to erect these toll booths online. what it means is that if you're among the fortunate few, you get faster download speeds, more content. and if you're a big established company, guess what? you can stifle the competition. you can squash the competition. and those opportunities aren't going to be available to an entrepreneur who's in their garage somewhere just starting out. and for a family that's barely staying afloat, what it sounds like they're interested in is giving them second-rate internet service. and i think senator markey and i remember it wasn't that long ago when big chunks of america had dial-up, and people just seemed to wait forever to get online. now, mr

the f.c.c. eliminated this guideline it removed protections against future times such as discriminatory behavior by internet service providers. so don't be fooled by the voices that say this is all doom and gloom and that the internet service providers would never let this happen. mark my words, without net neutrality, thaous -- these are not alarmists hypothetical harm. they are very real. and in a world without net neutrality, they very well may become the new normal. this is an historic moment. we are approaching the most important vote for the internet in the history of the senate. and should the senate resolution pass, it will be the first time in more than a decade a minority party sponsored congressional review act resolution overturns a majority party administration's rule. we can and should put president trump on notice. countless americans have called and e-mailed congress to express support for net neutrality and for my c.r.a. resolution. all you have to do is look at the internet toda

the f.c.c. can protect consumers and innovators and they can make sure that internet traffic does not violate an open internet. but as i said, the trump-era f.c.c. is trying to throw out these strong rules and cable companies are already -- already -- starting to raise prices for higher speed. in vancouver, washington, comcast recently aens nod that higher-speed tiers will be available but only to consumers who purchase expensive paid tv bundles. that's why we're here. because while it sounds like why do we want to give cable companies the opportunity to throttle or block or create paid prioritization, we also have to realize that today the internet economy is so much bigger than it has ever been, that it is a job creator and an innovator. in my state, it's 13% of our economy and thousands of jobs that continue to grow every day as new applications for the internet are created. it's so important that businesses who are even using these apps to help run their businesses more efficiently continue t

no one thinks my state is an exception to the f.c.c. map. i have yet to hear from my colleague in this united states senate who thinks this national map accurately reflects the coverage back in our state. so i propose we continue to work together with legislation to direct the f.c.c. to get this right. let's harness the best data for closing the digital divide. let's make sure decisions are informed by the most accurate maps possible. now, what's at stake here? $4.53 billion is what's at stake here. and the way we're headed now with this program and with this inaccurate map is that phase two of the mobility fund is about to go forward with funds being distributed based on a map that is absolutely wrong. so my bill would do four things that i think would help. my bill would give challengers more time to voice their concerns and submit better data. it would require the f.c.c. to extend the challenge process by 90 days. my bill would also require the f.c.c. to disclose which phones should be getting 4-g l.t.e. service so consumers can know wheth

while the f.c.c. vote to repeal net neutrality rules is over, we're still here in the senate fighting. in fact, we are closer than ever to reinstating the rules of the road that will keep the internet free, open, and competitive. 50 senators, including the entire democratic caucus, have signed a petition that will force a vote on legislation that would reinstate these crucial protections. with 51 votes, we could overturn the f.c.c.'s original repeal and move one step closer to restoring fairness. students, artists, advocates, entrepreneurs, and other visionaries who could be inventing the future and creating the next big thing could once again be on an equal playing field with multinational corporations when it comes to using the internet. we need net neutrality to keep our economy dynamic, growing, and innovative. we need net neutrality to keep our start-ups and small businesses competitive. five months ago i stood here in this chamber urging the f.c.c. to abandon their dangerous vote, and now i stand

the c.r.a. would handicap this f.c.c. or a future f.c.c.'s ability to revise the rules even if revisions were widely seen as necessary. there's a better way to proceed. it's called bipartisan legislation. senator thune has reached out to the democrats on the committee to draft an internet rules of the road for the 21st century, a set of rules that would safeguard consumers but still prevent regulators from stifling innovation at every turn. already, multiple democratic colleagues have drawn the same conclusions with regard to preemptive overcorrection by the f.c.c. the senior senator from florida and the junior senator from hawaii, for example, have both expressed a desire to collaborate on bipartisan legislation. but democrats have already made clear that the resolution today is about the elections in november. they know they won't ultimately be successful, but they want a campaign on their desire to add new regulations to the internet. this resolution takes us in the wrong direction, and we should reject it. now, one final matter. later to

the f.c.c. case in twenty four it seemed said that they agreed with the absences finding that the highest piece had an economic incentive and the ability to you know do things. prioritization and sure into that right thing really can come up with any arguments and didn't really challenge that assertion ryan what really seems to animate those in favor of the existing net neutrality rules is fear that their speed is going to slow down and this isn't just about netflix and you tube there are economic consequences to businesses for slow loading internet content correct yeah there actually have been studies on this and just a second slower on your page loading time as a business trying to sell something online and compete in a fair marketplace with somebody like walmart or amazon those seconds are valuable and you're losing huge percentages of your customers if they have to wait because they're just going to go somewhere else where the site was faster abandoned shopping carts for an absolutely i gotch

that's right all the f.c.c. on this that's right militant thank you for being here you're a shit. and now we go to miami where climate change and rising sea levels are reshaping one of the nation's largest housing markets here with more is r t correspondent nicholas o'donovan. miami is known worldwide for its speeches and beautiful weather millions of cheeriest come here to stay at seaside hotels wealthy locals invest in luxurious villas overlooking the bay and the up income in urban areas a home to a vibrant an international community of young professionals. so miami is growing at a fast pace cranes and construction sites have been part of the city's landscape for years and home prices have been growing steadily since the recession but real estate isn't the only thing rising here in south florida sea level rising floods are already a reality here and they're starting to reshape one of the country's largest housing markets according to a new study published in the journal of environmental research letters single family homes closer to the say are appreciating slower than those at h

that's right all the f.c.c. on this that's right militant thank you for being here you're a shit. and now we go to miami where climate change and rising sea levels are reshaping one of the nation's largest housing markets here with more is r t correspondent nicholas o'donovan. miami is known worldwide for its speeches and beautiful weather millions of cheeriest come here to stay at seaside hotels wealthy locals invest in luxurious villas overlooking the bay and the up income in urban areas a home to a vibrant an international community of young professionals. so miami is growing at a fast pace cranes and construction sites have been part of the city's landscape for years and home prices have been growing steadily since the recession but real estate isn't the only thing rising here in south florida sea level rising floods are already a reality here and they're starting to reshape one of the country's largest housing markets according to a new study published in the journal of environmental research letters single family homes closer to the say are appreciating slower than those at h

securities and exchange commission the f.c.c. from an acting a regulation that the firms say could hold back the development of a block chain technology that is the superstructure of most crypto currencies delegations from andresen horwitz union square ventures and the national venture capital association among other stakeholder holders reportedly met with f.c.c. officials at the f.c.c. is division of corporate finance to argue against a policy proposal to treat cryptocurrency is created by startups as securities that does. the nation as a security would bring extensive oversight to such tokens as i spoke about on the program last week with attorney gary de wall the case law surrounding the definition of what a security is is crystal clear that crypto is are in fact securities under what is called the how we test nestle the food and candy company is paying starbucks over seven billion dollars why to be able to sell starbucks brand coffee products the often controversial swiss space food giant hopes to boost its global coffee busin

ponzi i don't make up the definition it's not my opinion that it's a ponzi scheme ok by definition the f.c.c. defines it there's three aspects of it one is an investment scenario two the investment profits come from investors ok three the investors think the profits come from somewhere else all right and what we can clearly observe every single day every single moment the sox are trading is an event where the stock seller an investor sells it to another investor taking some capital gains profit if he's lucky ok so we have an investment scenario we have profits that come from other investors and those investors who are selling it according to see m.d.c. according jim cramer they think the money's come from somewhere else like the growth of the underlying company so we have an event that we can witness every single day and we have a definition of a policy in the event matches a definition write it or it is ponzi scheme and a ponzi scheme in the traditional sense is illegal and you know for the biggest example we've seen recently is already made off went to jail private the rest of his life for

led by chairman pai, the f.c.c. voted for a radical plan in december to dismantle net neutrality rules and threaten the existence of a free and open internet as we know it today. this new plan will allow large internet providers the power to freely block, throttle or manipulate a consumer's access to the internet in ways that profit the provider. think about your access to apps and the internet today. compare it to your access to cable channels. if you want more channels, you put in more money. today the internet is open to us, and we have access to it, but the trump administration through the federal communications commission wants to change that. if you want fast internet service, you pay more money. if you want access to certain apps, you pay more money. well, that really changes the nature of the internet as we have known it. it's a dramatic change in the way we communicate and gather information. it's just another bill. many people now are facing the prospect of cable tv shows and other things that they have to

ponzi i don't make up the definition it's not my opinion that it's a ponzi scheme ok by definition the f.c.c. defines it there's three aspects of it one is an investment scenario two the investment profits come from investors ok three the investors think the profits come from somewhere else all right and what we can clearly observe every single day every single moment the sox are trading is an event where the stock seller an investor sells it to another investor taking some capital gains profit if he's lucky ok so we have an investment scenario we have profits that come from other investors and those investors who are selling it according to the n.b.c. according jim cramer they think the money's come from somewhere else like the growth of the underlying company so we have an event that we can witness every single day and we have a definition of a ponzi scheme do you bent matches a definition right it or does ponzi scheme and a ponzi scheme in the traditional sense is illegal and you know for the biggest example we've seen recently is already made off went to jail private the rest of his life

it's a real bipartisan effort to right the f.c.c.'s wrong and protect the free and open internet. it's very crucial to the future of the country. house republicans don't have to choose the same path that the vast majority of republicans in the senate decided. speaker ryan should bring this up for a vote immediately. the american people have spoken, the senate has spoken. speaker ryan should listen and bring the net neutrality c.r.a. to the floor of the house. now, on another subject, the one-year anniversary of robert mueller. one year ago, former f.b.i. director robert mueller was appointed to lead the f.b.i.'s investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. of course the investigation began long before that. according to the "new york times," it began in the middle of 2016 as a result of information we received from the australian ambassador who told the f.b.i. that russian intelligence was working to share information with the trump campaign. at that time, we heard a lot about the f.b.i.'s investigation of hillary clinton's e-mails, but remarkably we heard nothing

ponzi i don't make up the definition it's not my opinion that it's a ponzi scheme ok by definition the f.c.c. defines it there's three aspects of it one is an investment scenario two the investment profits come from investors ok three the investors think the profits come from somewhere else all right and what we can clearly observe every single day every single moment the sox are trading is an event where the stock seller an investor sells it to another investor taking some capital gains profit if he's lucky ok so we have an investment scenario we have profits that come from other investors and those investors who are selling it according to see him b.c. according to him claim they think the money's come from somewhere else like the growth of the underlying company so we have an event that we can witness every single day and we have a definition of a ponzi scheme the event matches a definition write it or it is ponzi scheme and a positive in the traditional sense is illegal and you know for the biggest example we've seen recently is already made off went to jail private the rest of his life

did not seem like the best of ideas simply because of the regulators you spoke of it as well as the f.c.c. they were inclined at that point not to accept the deal of this magnitude to go through of course you know the thought of monopoly pop in your mind when you only have three massive providers so now the climate the according to both team obama and sprint seems to be a little bit better under the trumpet ministration they're going to gamble they might toss out the dice and hope for the best and see that if this deal can actually be pushed through under this administration look it's a twenty six billion dollars deal mostly stocks and the t. mobile is basically taking the sprint t. mobile as the bigger of the two companies worth about fifty five billion and then sprint would be absorbed into it to a new company and guess what they're going to be called t. mobile so we're seeing this thirty third entity coming to existence if that happens it will be a big three then obviously now both these companies together have about sixty billion dollars in debt so moving forward this would be a good

and in fact, the f.c.c. has since found that the decision to regulate the internet under the 1934 -- that's right, mr. president -- 1934 telephone regulatory regime has slowed investment, which has restricted the improvement of internet services for rural americans like those that i represent in south dakota. in response to these problems, the f.c.c. recently decided to restore the light touch regulatory regime that the internet thrived under and which had been in place -- prior to 2015, for twaog decades, light touch regime under the administrations of both political parties. that in turn created the opportunity for us to adopt net neutrality legislation to permanently address concerns about blocking, throttling and paid prioritization and to deal with these concerns under a regulatory regime suitable for the 21st century internet. and so that's why the f.c.c. went back to the light touch regulatory regime rather than the heavy-handed 1934 law that would treat the internet like a ma bell public utility. but

plead guilty agree to outside oversight and pay a higher fine you might wonder if my old agency the c f.c.c. is also involved in the investigation the answer is a big yes i was involved we are there we actually started those live more investigations which impacted so many investors. and southwest airlines is being sued by a passenger on that ill fated flight on april seventeenth which took the life of another passenger jennifer reeled in the jet's engine blew apart damaging a window and causing ms reardon to be partially pulled out of the plane the lawsuit filed on behalf of passenger liliya schabas who was in a seat three rows behind ms reardon contends that ms job it continues to suffer severe personal injuries including p.t.s.d. post-traumatic stress disorder which includes anxiety emotional distress and depression she also received personal injuries to her body from the incident and here to bring us up to date now the speed of what's going on surrounding the matter is former director of the national transportation safety board jamie fitch jamie thank you for coming back we sure apprecia

other people necessarily to make the product profitable for them that's very very different what the f.c.c. in the sea of the sea and i understand is going to be meeting next week in fact for them to sort of discuss this topic will be deciding is what is it what's important to recognize where is it the s.e.c. in the c. of c. are used to products that change quality over time ok you remember there are things called broad based docking the axis and sometimes these things become now a base because of the weighting of the component stocks well yes he's seen the see if he had different jurisdiction depending on which part of the pendulum it falls that they're used to looking at these things that was going to happen here you have made when you said that it made me think of you have security products and then all of sudden you had security future is product what will i.b.m. be worth in six months that's not an f.c.c. regulated think it's a well it was debated could have ended up being a good because the future but i keep going back to and i'm going to apologize to our boom busters out there watch

to eliminate two and in my lane in the media we have talked about this on a previous show where the f.c.c. is tossing the rules the technology has obsoleted but we wonder is there more to it than that has for instance chairman paved the way for this soon clear tribune merger by specific deregulation and that's the hint that i got off this action here when they've added something about attorney general jeff sessions tough on crime policy and the things they've deleted you know that you talk about yeah so. is this simply streamlining or is there an agenda behind that too yeah that's the big question and to me it smells a lot like political posturing that we've seen over and over again where they'll let kind of you know you see congress do it all the time we're going to pass this totally meaningless law just so we can say we passed this meeting was right on the campaign trail this is a lot like that but the real you know the question is you know if you do you really think the government is kind of going after through these changes are they are they going after the quote unquote out of contro

change commission like i mentioned earlier there are now seven other government offices aside from the f.c.c that has targeted grapplers so if we do survive this particular case we're still facing an activation case a libel case again like i said all unwarranted so we're fighting back with critical reporting with information speaking to t.v. shows like you or online shows like you and continuing our campaign for press freedom and we're hoping to increase awareness about this issue so that everyone can see sort of what's happening or the decline of press freedom here in the philippines. keeping that in mind we got this from stability search she says we need to think about not just the ban the potential ban on rappler itself but what further consequences it might have in the future and i think this applies globally in truth this person says what are you planning. that's exactly why we this is not just about the rappler and the government it's actually about the government and press and again there could be a chilling effect we're already seeing this any sort of words that come out from the pre

to ensure the internet stayed that way, the obama-era f.c.c. instituted net neutrality rules to prevent large internet service providers from segmenting the internet into fast and slow lanes. from selling faster service to folks who could pay, slower service to others. we didn't want that. from charging customers more for their favorite sites, from divvying the internet into packages like cable tv. why was this so important? because if large cable and internet companies were allowed to do this, the internet wouldn't operate on a level playing field. big corporations and folks who could pay would enjoy the benefits of fast internet and speedy delivery to their customers, while start-ups, small businesses, public schools, average folks, communities of color, rural americans could well be disadvantaged. net neutrality protected everyone and prevented large i.s.p.'s from discrimination against any customers. that era, the era of a free and open internet, unfortunately will soon come to an end. in december the republican-led f.c. votedo repeal the ne

stating much and so it's turned out there that they're counting practices are being investigated by the f.c.c. which which is trouble that signals trouble and because they're not really disclosing a lot of information about it i think it's worrisome for investors and the stock really is not a buy and we don't know what's going to happen or how long the investigation is going to take but supposedly they've been being investigated since april of this year you know those little blower things in the past you see some real seriously and you know that could take a long time so we could be in the doldrums for a while as you as you suggest let's move on to another interesting company kraft. the maker of the famous. and the oscar meyer wieners the hot dogs and the philadelphia cream cheese and april banks were saying the stock would be a buy in the mid seventy's but then warren buffett said he was going to get off the board he wasn't taking any of the money the berkshire hathaway owns twenty seven percent but now they're down to fifty four bucks fifty two week high was ninety four dollars so they real

when the republican f.c.c. voted to repeal net neutrality, they handed the internet providers all the cards many they said do what you will with the internet, charge consumers more for faster service if you like or segment the internet into packages, forcing the average family to purchase faster times for their favorite websites. let big corporations purchase faster internet service while startups and small businesses and consumers are left in the dust. public schools, rural americans, communities of color or anyone in a remote area or without substantial resources could be at a significant disadvantage if the i.s.p.'s start charging more for decent internet. you know, people say, well, let a private company do whatever it wants, let them charge whatever they want. but in certain goods which are essential we don't do that. utilities, highways. the same thing now applies to the internet of. it's a necessity and we have to have protections for average folks, for small businesses, for working families. that's why d

to go ahead and try to push the f.c.c. to approve this deal that that has any merit it has some merit if there's some substance behind it if there's not any substance. and it it won't it won't carry the day right now what we've heard from t. mobile and sprint is that they're doing just fine right there they've been doing great and in terms of being able to roll out for five g. so what is you know what's real what's not here you know do you need this merger or don't you. know a lot from a borrower mozart thank you for joining us indeed sure for shit. while the advancement of technology has certainly taken a hit on old school movie theater business that doesn't mean that the business is done for across the nation some theaters are changing their model in order to get more people in their seats to give us a look at how these theaters are stepping up their game we hand it over to trinity job as. well some people like to netflix and chill there are some theaters that are actually worth leaving your couch for some have. an fancy

regulatory framework or opposed to be our currency framework we're entering a new era we don't need the f.c.c. that c.f.d. see any of these regulators guys were taken this thing to another level is based on a whole different valuation model and just to give you some context of you know my history in all this and how i got into it was back in one nine hundred ninety five one nine hundred ninety six i started the company in los angeles called the hollywood stock exchange and we were trading virtual assets with a virtual currency on a virtual exchange and to build that technology which was pretty new at the time i had to invent a technology so i invented a technology called the virtual specialist technology is that has a u.s. patent i think it's five nine five zero one seven six is the patent number and so we were having to do prices covering virtual assets this benchley was sold to cantor fitzgerald in two thousand and one and they moved the entire thing to their office in new york the top floor of the world trade center. a few months before nine eleven so there was. an inability for them to re

merger did not seem like the best of ideas simply because of the regulators you spoke of as well as the f.c.c. they were inclined at that point not to accept a deal of this magnitude to go through of course you know the thought of monopoly pop in your mind when you only have three massive providers so now the climate the cording to both team obama and sprint seems to be a little bit better under the trumpet ministration they're going to gamble they might toss out the dice and hope for the best and see that if this deal can actually be pushed through under this administration look it's a twenty six billion dollars deal mostly stocks and the t. mobile is basically taking the sprint t. mobile as the bigger of the two companies worth about fifty five billion and then sprint would be absorbed into it to a new company and guess what they're going to be called t. mobile so we're seeing this thirty third entity coming to existence if that happens it will be a big three then obviously now both these companies together have about sixty billion dollars in debt so moving forward this would be a good merg