Thatatory light touch chairman pai talks about . That thes both, in s. E. C. Just decided to roll back rules that were implemented, as in 2015, and in doing the f. C. C. Will return to a theyatory structure that argue served the internet well decades and represents a light touch on industry. That same approach will potentially allow internet providers to speed up some websites, slow down others. And even if they decide not to do that right away, its conceivable that in the future, the industry could decide to take actions that, under the old rules, would have been considered violations. Host are there safeguards against such behavior . Guest the f. C. C. Says its transferred some authority to the f. T. C. , the federal trade commission, the consumer and thatn watchdog, agency will be responsible for fielding Net Neutrality complaints as well as going are allegedies that to have acted in unfair or deceptive ways. However,g question, whether or not the f. T. C. Will have enough authority or enough will take enough action against i. S. P. s alleged be misbehaving. Host Margaret Harding mcgill of politico, you write that an eventualsee fracturing of the internet. What do you mean . Advocateshink some are concerned about scenarios where Internet Service providers in wayse new powers that would take control of how consumers access the internet. There are a couple of different of that, that Net Neutrality advocates, people who supported the 2015 rules, fear. One is this idea, this cablization of the internet, of instead of having unfettered access to all the websites you want to go to, instead, your Internet Service provider will say you can buy of service with certain tiers of websites can you go to. Thats one fear. One that companies will services moreng money to get to consumers faster. Prioritization fear. And advocates think that will disproportionately affect smaller websites and they would load more slowly. Some of the scenarios that people who support the 2015 rules are worried about. Those socalled fast lanes exist today . Guest no. Form . In any shape or guest no. Thats one argument that Internet Service provider say, hey, were not doing this right and its not been a problem before. Oft lets look at a bit chairman ajit pais opening statement. Chairman pai what is the f. C. C. Today . Quite simply, we are restoring the light touch framework that has governed the internet for most of its existence. We are moving from title 2 to it cannot be. Er it is difficult to match that to the reality apocalyptic rhetoric weve heard from title 2 supporters. The debates gone on, their claims have gotten more and more outlandish. Be clear, returning to the Legal Framework that governed the internet from president clintons pronouncement in 1996 until 2015 theot going to destroy internet. It is not going to end the internet as we know it. It is not going to kill democracy. Is not going to stifle Free Expression online. Propositionsese alone doesnt demonstrate their absurdity, our internet 2015 and ourfore internet experience tomorrow, once this order passes, will so. E them simply put, by returning to the framework, title one we are helping consumers and promoting competition. Haveband providers will stronger incentives to build networks, especially in unserved toas and to upgrade networks gigabit speeds and 5g. This means there will be more broadbandn among providers. It also means more ways for tortups and tech giants deliver applications and content to more users. Moreort, it is a freer and open internet. Host Margaret Harding mcgill, what did you hear . Guest i heard chairman pais justification for why he wants rules and also i think hes trying to explain this wont be the end of the internet as we know it. When he undertook this process, i think one big argument for it, from him, was that the treating Service Providers like utilities is hurting investment, its stopping them from network. Their and he believes that getting rid that regulatory overhang will foster more investment, meaning accessnsumers will have to broadband. Host brian fung, he referenced in Clinton Administration that statement. Guest yes, the f. C. C. Has undered the argument that the old regulatory regime, the flourishwas allowed to under, again, the lighttouch regulatory environment, and that by rolling back these rules, were simply returning to that time. I think whats interesting to note here is just sort of how evolved overhas time and you did also hear in yesterday, that from aernet has gone world where email was the killer world where highspeed and highdefinition streaming video is now the killer app. That evolution over time simply reflects the way that different reallyes have come to dominate the space. Companies like netflix, google, facebook and uber. The question here is whether or put in rules that were place in 2015 are really new kind offor this era and in some ways, by rolling back, whether were actually going to see whether not the new rules that were going to be living under are actually appropriate for the were living in. Host for both of you, why such a strong reaction to this from google, amazon, facebook, netflix . Guest i think Tech Companies are concerned about having to consumers. H thats a pretty big fear, especially not so much the bigger guys who have the money and could pay, but some of the too. Er websites, etsy, reddit, theyve been because they say if we have to pay a toll to reach consumers, thats going to hurt us. We candy cant afford to do that. Question is what happens to a world where the wikipedias ofor the world have to pay, will that be passed on to consumers . Ranking democrat, heard herburn, you opening statement, it was rather strong. From this legally lightweight, consumer harming, enabling, destroying Internet Freedom order. Am among theause i millions outraged, outraged the f. C. C. Pulls its own abdicating responsibility to protect the nations broadband consumers. Some may ask why are we witnessing such unprecedented of public support for keeping the 2015 Net Neutrality protections in place . Because the public can plainly toothless soontobe f. C. C. Is handing the keys to the internet, the internet, one the most remarkable, empowering, enabling inventions lifetime, over to a handful of multibillion dollar corporations, and if past is prologue, those very same Internet Service providers that the majority says by should trust to do right you, will put profit and above whats returns is best for you. Of us raised our hands when we were sworn in as f. C. C. Commissioners. Took an oath and promised to uphold our duties and responsibilities to i, liberal sote here, make available far as possible to all the people of the united states, rapid, discrimination, a efficient, nationwide and radioide wire and Communication Service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges. Today, the f. C. C. Majority is officially abandon that pledge and millions of watching and taking note. I do not believe that there are any f. C. C. Or congressional offices immune to the deluge of consumer outcry. Even hearing about state and local offices fielding what is newsworthy that at last count and i think the number is rising, five republican members of Congress Went on the record in calling to todays vote. Why such a bipartisan outcry . A large majority of ofricans are in favor keeping strong Net Neutrality rules in place. But the saddest part, to me, all of this, and its painful for me to say this is that this is the new norm at the f. C. C. , a norm where the majority ignores the will of the thele, a norm where majority stands oddly by while the people they are committed to theyve taken an loseto serve, are about to so much. Host brian fung, pretty strong statement. Was a lot to unpack there. The first thing that stood out wase at the end there commissioner clyburns remarks about the process that led us to ais point, which has become major point of contention in this proceeding. Theres been a lot of questions about whether comments in the making in the policy process, were falsified or robots,nt or written by in ways that could have tampered with the Decision Making process to seehink youll expect these issues being raised in litigation thats almost inevitably going to occur as a result of this decision. Guest definitely. Just jumping off on that, you byeady have investigations the new York State Attorney general, eric schneiderman, for anmple, has launched investigation into stolen identities used to file these people filede dead comments their names were used. And people who didnt submit used,ts, their names were as well. So theres an investigation going on and i think theres two million false identities so i think that will continue to be a Major Network this debate. The Public Comments on Something Like this matter . Tos the f. C. C. Pay attention that . Guest yes, i think they do pay attention. Comment thats a one sentence that says i support title 2 or yes, get rid of these rules. Think that factors into much. Theyve always said this is not the quantity of comments but the quality of comments and has said they looked at substantive comments informing our opinions so i do the amount plays a role but i dont think onesentence sway things. Really guest in general, the f. C. C. Comment process is something to allow anyone, by definition, to participate in the process and to make and economicegal arguments. The f. C. C. Has said, you know, on, asainly focusing margaret said, the quality of the comments, indicating that theyre primarily interested in comments that make substantive legal and economic arguments. But i think that the democratic opposition has raised questions thet even the quality of comments, that the f. C. C. Is saying were focusing on the quality. From democrats is, well, your focus on the quality should also include about these fake accounts or fake comments, as well. Host brian fung, to pick up on something you said and something that commissioner clyburn referenced, she calls this a legally lightweight decision. Think thats an indication that folks who oppose decision are likely to take this to court. Elsewhere in her remarks, suggest thereid will undoubtedly be a Court Challenge and i believe in the after the vote, chairman pai also said he was shocked that there was going to a threat of litigation in this proceeding. So i think everyone pretty much expects that this is going to head for be headed for a showdown. Its just a question of how fast its going to be and what direction it takes. Host Margaret Haring mcgill, now that the vote is passed, next . Appens guest these rules will go into effect. They have to go through a review process. But, yes, then youre going to see, i think, for sure, lawsuits filed. I believe state attorneys general have already said they want to challenge these rules. Are some Public Interest groups that have said they want to file so the fight is not over. Going to continue. Its going to move from the f. C. C. To the court. Guest and beyond litigation, are two other avenues here that opponents of the f. C. C. Will explore. One is congressional legislation to try to overturn the f. C. C. s and then another is potentially state legislation at state legislatures, states of california and washington have expressed interest in writing new state laws that could try and supersede the f. C. C. s proposal here, but at the same time the f. C. C. Has explicitly addressed the possibility of states trying to circumvent regulations or new toes and said it would try preempt any states that try to do so. Guest that was a big win from some of the Internet Service provider that lobbied, saying, hey, we dont want to have to fight this in each state. They will be engaged in that, as well. Host the federal trade commission came up quite a bit meeting yesterday at the f. C. C. And both ajit pai and Mignon Clyburn spoke about the the f. T. C. Chairman pai two years ago, the title 2 order stripped the f. T. C. Of jurisdiction over broadband providers but today we nations premier Consumer Protection cop back on the beat. Again havewill once the authority to take action against Internet Service anyider that engage in competitive, unfair or deceptive acts. Chairman maureen ohausen recently said, the to protectility consumers and promote competition in the broadband is not new. We have a long established role in preserving the values consumers care about online. Or as president obamas first f. T. C. Chairman put it restorey, the plan to f. T. C. Jurisdiction is good for consumers, the sky isnt falling, consumers will remain protected, and the internet will continue to thrive. So lets be clear. Following todays vote, americans will still be able to access the websites they want to visit. Theyll still be able to enjoy services they want to enjoy. There will still be cops on the beat guarding a free and open internet. This is the way things were prior to 2015. This is the way they will be once again. Claims arer clyburn only about ensuring that broadband Internet Service have and maintain the keys to the internet, assertions tot this is merely a return quo anteinary status status cannot hide the fact that this very first time that the federal Communications Commission has disavowed fortantial protections consumers online. Current 2015 Net Neutrality rules are laid to note, we may be left with Single Authority with the power consumers. Now this order loudly crows about handing over authority of the federal trade commission. But what is absent from the in a and glossed over haphazardly issued afterthought memorandum of understanding is that the f. T. C. Is an agency no none nada expertise in telecommunications. The f. T. C. Is an agency that may may not even have authority over broadband providers in the first instance. Agency that, if you can even reach a very high proving unfair or deceptive practices and that substantial consumer injury, it may take years upon bers for any remedy to levied, and most companies dont years and years to wait for an answer. So dont just take my word for it. Even one of the f. T. C. s own commissioners have articulated very concerns and if youre wondering why the f. C. C. Preempting state consumer this item laws in without notice, let me help you jingle that you can easily commit to memory that all of this. Re if it benefits industry, preemption is is good. It benefits consumers, preemption is bad. Reclassification of broadband would do more than wreak havoc over Net Neutrality. Undermine our universal service construct for come, something with the order implicitly it will undermine the lifeline program, it will weaken our ability to support broadband infrastructure deployment, and what we will soon find out is what a broadband market unencumbered by robust Consumer Protections will look like. I suspect that it will not be very pretty. There are many questions on the minds of americans right now, including repeal of Net Neutrality will mean for them. To help understand or to answer or address outstanding plan to host a town hall through twitter next week 2 00 p. M. Eastern standard time. But what saddens me the most today is that the agency that is isposed to protect you actually abandoning you. But what i am pleased to be able today is that the fight to save Net Neutrality does not end today. The agency does not have the final word. Host Margaret Harding mcgill, hop on the beat or disavowal of responsibility . Guest theres big disagreement on whether or not the federal trade commission will be able to step in here. Important thing to understand first is how the f. C. C. Is setting this up. They want broadband providers to disclose their blocking or slowing paying fasts or lanes. We want them to say this is what paid prioritization, heres the companies we work with. The federal is, Communications Commission and the federal trade commission will be able to look at those disclosures and if they hurt or hurt competition, the f. T. C. Is supposed to act and stop those. Thinking here is, that hurt Good Services along with that. This way, the regulator will only go after the bad services. Are questions about how effective the f. T. C. Will be police broadband providers and i think thats what commissioner clyburn was getting at, the idea that in f. T. C. To act, there already has to be some kind of harm. Former chairman tom wheeler pointed out that its out of thee horse on barn but the barn burning down before the f. T. C. Gets involved. One major issue with this. Guest you look at how the up, commissioner clyburn made the point that agencies like the federal Communications Commission is with Telecom Experts whereas, even though the federal trade commission has a talented technol gists, its not necessarily as well equipped as the f. C. C. To police what are ultimately potentially very complicated business and legal arrangements that are being made between companies. About the case when comcastwas asked to pay or verizon for better and faster consumers before the 2015 rules were put into place. Well, those socalled arerconnection agreements often very complex and figuring out exactly whos paying whom or who the detailed terms of those agreements are may often take a lot of expertise. Host doesnt the exponential growth in wireless and oncoming 5g negate this whole argument . Guest its an interesting argument, certainly. It brings up the possibility of moreess services competing heavily against the fixed wired home Residential Broadband services and youre seeing efforts by comcast and others to set up Wireless Services to try compete with more traditional providers of like tmobiles and others in response to the mobiley americans to devices and to online video, the industry is under a lot of pressure right now to shift away from the traditional cable bunged bundle and theyre looking at other ways of making up wirelesstting services is another way of doing that so i think we are seeing compete with traditional providers of fixed internet but a lot of those nascent stillry and it will take time for that to play out. Host were going to show one more video. Was produced by the daily pai. R, its ajit chairman pai hi, im ajit pai, chairman of the f. C. C. Recently theres been quite a bit of conversation about my plan to restore Internet Freedom. Here are just a few of the things youll still be able to do on the internet after obama are repealed. S food. N still cram your of can still post photos cute animals, like puppies. You can still shop for all your online. S presents yes those eclipse glasses are so cheap youran still binge watch favorite shows. Save part of your fave fandom. Can still drive me right into the ground. And Everything Else you ever did internet, like everything, all of it, all of it. Host brian fung, that was a very provocative video and it highlights how chairman pai has often thought to use some of internets best cultural aspects to try and push his forward. Enda chairman pais speeches are pop culturee with references and hes known for reeses cuprmous mug at f. C. C. Meetings and so that he decided to make this video and in an to persuade Internet Users that this policy is actually good for them. Host what was your reaction, Margaret Harding mcgill, that the first time . Guest hes not afraid to poke fun of himself. Did this a few months ago where he read mean tweets about so hes willing to joke around but i think the purpose of this really is to counter what theyve seen as some of the dire scenarios that are out there. I think really he wanted to get on the internet where people are that, hey, no, we think everything is going to be ok. Host proponents of net take it very seriously. Guest yes. And i think this is something that came up, actually rosenworcels speech yesterday where she talked about feeling like the Chairmans Office was diminishing or downplaying some of the concerns from these. Roponents host brian fung, again, what happens next, now that the vote has taken place . Whats the next step . Guest opponents of the f. C. C. Have said they will likely sue the agency to get the decision overturned. Were also likely to see efforts legislation, whether in the states or in congress, but the future of that legislation looks pretty uncertain. Finally, well have to see what businesses come up with new arrangements with each other and with consumers. Providers have said this will allow them to unleash the power of innovation so well see whether or not that holds true. Writingll you both are about this for months to come . Guest i dont think ive written my last Net Neutrality story. Its going to be a topic were covering for a while. Guest if you mean years instead months, yes. Host brian fung of the washington post, Margaret Mcgill of politico, thank you for cspans washington journal , live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up sunday morning, we will discuss the upcoming vote on the final republican tax reform bill with americans for tax reforms grober grover norquist. To theh jones on threats u. S. Homeland over the holiday season. Cspans washington journal, live every day at 7 00 a. M. Join the discussion. On the agenda next week for lawmakers on capitol hill, ending the government passed next friday, december 22. Thursday,se floor senators representatives mccarthy and hoyer discussed what is on the agenda for next week. On monday, the house will meet at noon, and 2 00 p. M. For legislative business. On tuesday and the balance of the week, the house will meet as early as 10 00 a. M. For legislative business. Mr. Speaker, the house will consider a number of suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be available at the end of business tomorrow. This list will include several bills from the Science Committee that is part of the house innovation initiative. These hills support americans science,careers in technology, engineering, and