It hearts Internet Access. They can set their own rules in different states. Next a discussion on what that means for Internet Users, and possible next steps by congress. The Congressional Internet Caucus Academy hosted this if it. Last about an hour. [background sounds] going to go ahead and get started. Welcome to the sludge panel titled circuit court, what now. It is hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy in conjunction with another. One of the cochairs of the caucus, so long with representative collins, and others. The internet caucus was created 20 years ago. To help inform the debate in the discussion about key internet policy questions and of course Net Neutrality is at the top of that list. Even though, all of us and all of our buses may not agree, this case is important for all of us. Im glad we get a chance to hear from various stakeholders and their views on how we should be thinking about this. This is been a top issue for my boss for monday years. This case in particular is important for us. Signed by hundred members of congress, the lead plaintiff is in our district and we are always proud of. Associated county, also party to the case. And this year we did a couple of town halls with commissioner with the fcc. We are focused on neutrality. I am looking forward to hearing what all of you have to say and others are due. On behalf of the carcass, one think that was in the moderator for spending type with us and helping inform this debate. And i want to thank tim and the economy for host hosting and organizing. It will now turn it over to caitlin. We used to be at the academy. Thank you. Hello everybody and thank you for attending our panel today. Thank you to the congressional caucus and the Congressional Internet Caucus Academy for cohosting this battle. My name is caitlin and am looking forward to discussing the circuit regarding the fcc 2018 for storing freedom order. Im especially looking forward to discussing this case with our four panels. So starting my far right we have frosting, internet policy manager. Matt built to his Partner Global chair of the medications practice, sara morris who is the director of the open Technology Institute at new america, and Christine Ackman who was Vice President of policy and advocacy at u. S. Telecom. Our cows are going to talk about the dc Circuit Decision in the villa versus fcc. This case might be for congress. The states and the parties involved. First im going to briefly explain the background of the case. So in a nutshell, what is neutrality and how did we get to where we are today. Off of there isnt one universal definition of neutrality, we can generally say that it neutrality is defensible that internet providers, which are also known as isps, our broadband providers should manage all internet traffic in the same way. And not speed up or slow down websites or applications and also not charge consumers or website based networks. The federal Communications Commissions has adopted three separate Net Neutrality orders of the past decade. First 2010, than in 2015, and finally in 2018. In 2010, sec on approve the agency his first internet orders. Specifically prohibiting broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against internet traffic. However the 2020 skews me 2010, the dc circuit said the fcc did not have the Statutory Authority to impose the anti blocking in a tight discrimination rules and for the reason for this was because broadband provided classified Information Services at the type. So what is his name. The 1934 Communications Act and created a distinction between title i services such as website and telecommunication services. Such as landline telephones. Because the fcc had initially classified as title one services, the court said that the fcc did not have the authority to impose regulations on them. The dc circuit issued this ruling in 2014, in just juan pierre later, the fcc led by chairman in. The 2015 did two things. They really reestablished roles in internet traffic and discrimination in the site for both fixed and Broadband Internet and re reclassified from title i to title to services. This classification of broadband is significant because unlike title i classification, title ii could also potentially enable the fcc to regulate processes that could be unrelated to Net Neutrality such as broadband pricing and the rate of privacy. Off of they could also potentially change powers. In 2016, the circuit ruled again but this type of the legality of the 2015. The case called telecom and classification of Broadband Service as title ii talent communication services. Staying that Congress Date specified in statute have class type rock bands in the fcc has a reasonable leeway to choose. 2018, the sec this type on past the 2018 Internet Freedom orders which repeal the 2015 order and change classification from title ii Services Back to title i. Which brings us here today. About two months after the 2018 order came into effect, it was challenged in court. In this case, the dc circuit mostly upheld the fccs 2018 order that went out issue the case specific provision. With that i would like to turn it over to her panels. First i would just like to me for the course position a little bit further. We can start with matt, when did the court decide last tuesday and what did they say. Thank you caitlin. And thank you for the caucus for having me here today. My background, i served at the fcc from 2001 to 2005 it is really an emerging issue, nondiscrimination disclosure were emerging at the type. In private practice in these proceedings before the fcc and the dc circuit, i represented dth which is the cable as industry associated. A brief summary of the decision. It is a hundred and 86 pages long. A lot of detail. Im only going to talk about every other page. [laughter] to begin with, kala mentioned the classification of broadband. Thats really at the heart of the proceedings. Its been a longstanding battle really, over how best to classify Broadband Services. The reason for that is a very different starting points. Title i Information Service classifications really starts from of their regulation. From the fcc arguably can layer on top additional discrete rules or issues including the neutrality. Title ii in contrast is from the 1934 telecom act designed for originally monopoly Telephone Services and has an incredibly broad array of regulations that go by the fcc being able to cancel out some of those regulations through a process if deems in possible. Very different starting points. In the fcc in the 2018 order, concluded back to its original determination that Broadband Internet should be treated as an Information Service. For function and a lifetouch framework that the fcc determined with best work in advancing his policy objectives. Circuit, upheld that classification in the court relied on some of the Technical Analysis that the fcc did involving two particularly important functions. Known as css and cassian. The domain name systems, and an Internet Service provider for third parties is the essentially the translated, a url, like you type in espn. Com into a numerical ip address. Like ten. 90 night. Two. Thats a critical function of Internet Service. The fcc had found historically that the dns is an Information Processing function distinct from the transmission that occurs in broadband the dns process it in together with catching integrated with broadband data to make the entire service and information. In the dc circuit upheld that conclusion essentially holding the brand x decision in this Supreme Court controls the dc circuit his prior decision in the u. S. Telecom case upholding a Telecom Service ossification and essentially means the fcc here can choose either label. If you make broadband Telecom Service or Information Service but in the view of the dc circuit, that classification is committed to the agency. As long as it can explain his decision in a way that can guess of the statute and its administration on the administered her procedure. Turning to the apa, the court went through a long series of objections that the petitioners had lodged against the fccs analysis. And by and large it upheld the fccs order against those or case with the exception of straight issues that i will get to. In upholding the order in the name, the court concluded the fcc analysis of the effects of a classification decision on investment and innovation with officially well reasoned and explained to comply with the administrator to procedure act. It also held that the fcc Analysis Competitive Landscape and that the commission appropriately explained his backstop relying on generally Consumer Protection anti trust laws. Contrast to those issues, with the court upheld the commissions, the court found three discrete issues when the fcc had not adequately explained his decision. Importantly, those calls lead the court to conclude the further explanation by the agency with necessary information. The court did not vacate the order. In other words they didnt think these errors were serious enough to undermine the order and to set it aside. It just required the fcc to further explain these three issues. In the three issues were first the importance of Public Safety. Some officials including santa clara, argue that the fcc hadnt considered the applications of either Information Service classification or his decision to get rid of certain commentary and mandates against blocking darling and it didnt consider how it could affect Public Safety. So the fcc will have to consider those issues further and explain why is decision its not going to hundred threatened safety issues. The commission argued that implicit analysis that getting rid of the fire rules, within the Public Interest generally is necessarily meant it was Public Safety but the court said that it wasnt. The second issue remanded aspect. Your rights on the statute are granted on section 224 to cable providers and telecom providers. But there is no expensive provision that whole attachment rights for standalone broadband providers as Information Service providers. So the court directed the two consider both of the loss of the rights or rate protections were standalone broadband providers was an issue that warrants further information. And lastly, the Lifeline Program which is the low income universal Service Program administered by the fcc, the statute provides supports as in most of the information of the universal Service Program directly for take. Telecommunications services. This was the case before the 2015 order as well. The fcc historically to be eligible for lifeline support you have to provide a voice service. It later concluded on title ii, the standalone broadband could be eligible for broadband discounts and Lifeline Program because broadband is Telecom Services in statutory language. Now that broadband is an information the fcc has to explain what that means. For Lifeline Program. For Immediate Impact of the program, he again this something the fcc never needs to better explain or consider. So after those decisions regarding the classification and the elimination of what the fcc calls conduct rules, the court had an extended discussion about redemption of state law and im sure we will talk about this more as a man was on it is one of the more interesting and i think more hotly debated assets of this order. There are two types of preemption issues. Very brief background. It exists where congress or the agency in advance re include the application of state laws. Theres certain provisions that do that directly and may be a statement does not regulate wireless rates for example. In section 332 of the Communications Act. There are other fcc has been given sufficient authority over an issue that course and found that the fcc on its own can express here. The analysis by the panel, and this was divided decision to just wool and defense was that the commission did not identify a sufficiently his explicit regulatory to justify preempting state laws in advance categorically. Generally the best way to understand this is the fcc concluded the because broadband is in the title see service, and it doesnt have sepsis and Regulatory Authority on title ii, doesnt follow one of the major substantive mission acts. Title iii of title vi. The Commission Also said that section 706 of the 1996 act which has been involved previously in the 2010 and 2015 orders as a potential basis for authority. The fcc now says that isnt a basis for imposing regulations. And only got the exercise of deregulatory functions and other existing powers. So in essence the fcc says we dont really have positive Regulatory Authority in the courts and if thats the case, you have to ask the authority to preempt the state law categorically in advance. And partly though the court then said on the other kind of preemption. It is premature to determine both of state law is or isnt preemptive. So depends upon the specifics of any given state law. It would come with arrives on the constitution. The privacy because old separate federal law is the law with a conflict. In the way the courts can apply that doctrine are two ways you can have a conflict. One is where federal law and state laws literally impossible. State law requires you to do something and general law approves you can do something but its impossible to comply with those in the state audit log must yield. For example. The other type is where state law creates its obstacles to achieving federal policy and is something call obstacle option. Thats going to be the principal kind of preemption debated here. So state law for example is that broadband should be treated as a Telecom Service and subject to rules to be subject to blocking the throttling of organization another mandate and federal offices the opposite of those things. And we can talk about this further but its going to be a strong case for argument and some they do not coexist. He thought there was authority for express. He got the majority had an might indicate disability the fcc his ability to this. So that said, pretty detailed summary. Ill stop there. Im sure well get a lot of attitude. Thank you. It sounds like preemption is one of the bigger issues here. Especially since a lot of states have already introduced legislation and even pass a law in california. The court says that the 2018 order cannot categorically preempt state laws in advance. But for this against the states to ask their own legislation. I can wait or japan. If i could back up just a little bit to qualify as a couple of perspectives. I have on the order that i can directly put anything or slightly different perspective on how one might, so im sara director of the Technology Institute. The big party to the case with the fcc, we were also intervened with the report of the fcc 2015 open internet rules. Longstanding advocates in the Net Neutrality space. We are very active in both interline proceedings of the 2016 roles of the fcc as well as the proceedings to overturn those rules for Internet Freedom. I think its helpful to maybe sort of, think about what this decision means in a more practical sense. And essentially putting two layman his terms that the court said was this is the separate, the daca and the guidance of how much in agencies and has in this specific classic chevron difference case the court said yes commission. You know within what was up generally afforded to you. The court went to the deal that this was just barely the case. I also want to. Out that there this is significant here, this wasnt remanded on sort of three narrow cathedral things. It was remanded because the fcc court told the fcc that it failed to uphold the Public Safety and lifeline and attachments. What is that mean. The fcc failed to consider the impact of his 2017th appeal on First Responders and firefighters and it failed to consider the impact of that order on the one federal program that is capable of providing subsidies to overcome the most commonly identified barrier to broadband barrier costs. In a bills failed to provides competitive opportunity for all. So the fcc failed to consider Public Safety, ems First Responders, broadband affordability and broadband filled out in excess in its repeal. I just want to understate the magnitude or the significance really what the fcc has to do in concerning the appropriate investigation consideration or whatever it does with that remanded. Its likely to happen. Going back to preemption. I think its really important to recognize that we had boats of states passing laws in the absence of sec. Engagement on the neutrality and complete application by the fcc, responsibility. I have heard us say that now the issue has been added in those states. I would argue that theyve been quite active for the last two years. In establishing the track record of statebystate engagement. Culminating is most notably in the california Net Neutrality regime would argue Even Stronger than the 2015. I think this does open up a lot of opportunities in those states and does provide for more clarity and confidence for states who may have been worried about coming in or the legitimacy of the sec assertive preemption. We are at the open Technology Institute are excited to engage in lawmakers to figure out and help them understand the issue and to be god with the best next step is. Im Christine Ackman with u. S. Telecom. Think of so much for the opportunity to be here today. Going back to the preemption part. The thing with your Broadband Internet service. It is in an earlier state service. It is national. We do think about your broadband that you, you are not thinking about broadband the something that you have exclusively in california. Or in vermont which is another state that has passed Net Neutrality laws. You want to broadband connection to be able to work across the country. He wanted to be able to know that you have a reliable broadband connection in california and if you are traveling in vermont, so i think the challenge that we are going to see is if the states to see this is an invitation to go in and start legislating, is that we are meant then pointed up with a patchwork of different Net Neutrality laws is going to make it very difficult for consumers. As you wont know what to expect from your broadband connection depending on where you might travel. And then in one of the examples with you here about is that you have an amtrak here in washington dc, and you stream a movie on netflix going up to new york and have a states to go through is the different broadband regulation the you have to the providers have to comply with in each of those different states. Makes it very difficult. We do look at the preemption we have to take that in mind that the patchwork will be very difficult and will not have any expectations for consumers to clearly rely on. And i also want to bring up the other. That matt made, what the court did here was just a note to blanket preemption. The commission cant go in there at the outset and just slightly preempt any state laws ideal that brought deal with robin. The court did make a distinction between the interstate and intrastate broadband. Not exactly sure what an intra same Broadband Service might be. For disclosure i am a lawyer mounted technologist. So i might be out of correctly there. I think we really need to look at the conflict preemption. The court did indicate that if there was a specific law that did conflict with the federal policy of the live touch, Information Service regulation that that could be held to be in conflict and then struck down on supremacy clause. A couple of things with noting. With regard to the patchwork, i would. Out that this is the patchwork that the Internet Service provider is invited by pushing for the repeal of 2015 internet orders. This is the product the fccs deregulation in the state certainly seen the Consumer Protection laws work statebystate at the state loophole. So the compliance issue, i think is being fairly overstated. I do think the certainly there will be boats of fights that will be happening at the state loophole and the fact that we will create a lot of work to be done over the next few years as states consider how they might take up the issue of Net Neutrality in the absence of fcc regulation. Im not convinced that we will see sort of totally on workable patchwork. Take me back to the step from where we ended up right now. Basic idea in terms of the decision is this concept that federal agency cannot regulate an air where it does not have authority. Cannot take away from the appeal and arguments that they try to push forward the concept of the fccs does not believe it has authority to regulate the specific field. So there you be here is that because it has the ability to regulate, they dont have the ability to preempt. We have that kind of talk a little bit about what that means. Matt explained this right. The court found the agency did not fight the Property Authority to grant the field. Its a specific conflict, which is where at this. , the court did not it is done on a casebycase basis. Not necessarily that they are waiting, that the actual formula itself in determining preemption, is done on a casebycase. I think we talked a little bit about what this means. For consumers longterm, is not only that we will get Net Neutrality protection on a state loophole but people will actually move further and integrate. They will fill the void and protect consumers or monopoly leverage that we have in this field. That could mean some of the things in terms of weight regulation and measures like that. I think a lot with the title list that actually means in terms of utility based regulations. All of this i think is going to be in court moving forward but i think the real thing for consumers its not merely that we will get Net Neutrality protection from the state loophole but states actually might move further but they need in terms of her relationship with her science. I think that nobody disagrees broadband is an interstate service. The fcc said so in the in the 2017, the 2015 and the 2018 water. This one constant here. Preemption here its not like the traditional thing that we had with Telephone Service where there was a distinct telephone local service and a distinct longdistance service. The state has a clear role in regulating local service to those regulations sometimes conflict with the federal policy and if they do, they have a deal. Here there is no rule for states to play in regulatory service. It is congress his job to decide what is the framework for an interstate service. And i think that the best evidence of this is the 2016 or the title to order in paragraph 433 said that we can continue only have federal law when it comes to deciding display work. The importance of that, the contents of the federal law. It is still a federal debate. It needs to be resolved by congress. As to the notion that the fcc somehow advocated all authority here, thats just with case here. The just ruled last week is the fcc did have authority to spot the broadband is an Information Service. Deregulatory portion. Outside of the jurisdiction partly in the fcc. In the case law is very clear when an agency d regulates, federal law needs to be given the facts. It actually imposed a disclosure obligation on section 257 of the act which petitioners challenged and is invalid in the court upheld it as well i forgot to mention that. When the debate was, between the mcwilliams the majority was timing. Can you preempt all state laws regardless of their details and events. Clearly says you cannot. The majority was quick to say, the commission can explain how it state practice actually undermines a 2018 order, then it can invoke preemption. He goes on to say the preemptive effect of the regulatory choice of the that the commission makes, within its authority his do have preemptive effects of what were going to see in individual cases, california and vermont. Duke ending cases im involved in. We had authority to rely on transparency and fcc backstops and a truck backstop, affirmative regulatory choices. An estate contradicted those choices. This of the 2015 order that they said they cannot print contradict the choices. Jeanette thank you is just going to say nobody really describes that consumer should not be able to access the content and services and applications of their choices. Our members broadband providers want consumers to be able to predictably and reliably able to access the online content they want. Where a lot of this debate is is the classification status. The title i in 2018 order should restore or the title tail which is in place for only about two years. Prior to that, the internet really grow and flourish in the title i framework going back to rednecks and even before that. With some of the policy statements coming out of the commissions. So i think as we think about the dive boat debate here, its not really no protections or heavy heavyhanded protections, its about the cost obligation. And be able to sure as we make sure consumers can reliably and predictably access the services that they want that they have the protection were also allowing the internet to continue to be fast and allowing network to continue to innovate and to be all of those great innovations unit that we have in 2019 is very different than the internet we had an 2005. When this kind of debate start started. If you think about how much that growth has or havent on the late frame work. This related piece that that most of debate is centered around. Im sure theres boats more and for monday of you all here, if we take Internet Service providers at their word, that they have no intention on interfering with your ability as Internet Users to access the content of their choosing than the amtrak example fails. If you are on amtrak and everybody is committed to allowing you access all of the content they want, it shouldnt matter if the laws vary slightly during virginia forces in pennsylvania, that this is the central obligation will remain the same and the internet will continue to process. As we expect and as historically, it is true that there has been different approaches to the classification the broadband throughout the history of Net Neutrality but the reality is up until 2017, 2018 when i went into effect, there were clear and enforceable Net Neutrality on foot. The fcc simply wrestling with the best authority the best way to justify this regulations on the underlying authorities. Sometimes this title i sometimes it was titled to but what really changed 27 was not simply a shift in classifications but rather a shift in the overall regime of how Internet Users are protected when the are trying to access. All internet providers are committed to not block or funnel traffic. Not to engage another things. Sorta we worried about. Let me tell you. The 2015 title to rules usually openended standard we call the internet contact center. Something is illegal of the fcc declares it to be illegal. Not going to tell you in advance what that is. It is extremely frustrating to advise isas, about how they are going to comply with the satellite when this quote fcc 2015 order is alleged to be inconsistent with the principles they were trying to essentially. A common debate with a wireless providers can provide certain content like videos netflix, that went out danny gets a data gap. So if you have 20 bits a month, in the give you free dinner. Some said that would undermine the principles when the fcc was post this question, the senator not will decide later. This incredibly uncertain guidance like that, you cant invest or rule out a new plan. In the amtrak example is move you can do it in delaware could not pennsylvania. The reason these lawsuits exist, and california and vermont is because both of those days tried to reimpose this openended internet commerce standards and we dont will know what it means. We can live with against locking and running which nobody wants to do. And my clients and members have called for federal legislation but we cant have an openended standard when it provides no meaningful guidance is only given in the end. Justin exercises you leave the room today, i would urge you to compare the openended general conduct standard with the fccs description of the nondiscrimination rule in the 2010 open internet order. They are very similar. So we see a lot of the type in this debate is in this industry liking openended standards and test when they were for them but hating them when they might be bad for them. On this year reading example, the fcc very quickly came out with guidance on which types of schemes they would find most problematic to me that was a function of a workable of the fcc approach in that order. It very clearly certain behaviors that are prohibited. We retain the authority to ascertain both of new conduct or both of certain things that might fall outside of those traditions, might are the wise farm users the content of their choosing. It was backstop for them to make sure the fcc retains the authority not just to enforce the street rules, but to ensure that there were any loopholes in those roles that would allow consumers and give us a forum for assessing new prohibitions and behavior at the commission which we dont have no. So those not familiar with the ratings, so that is the basic concept at ground zero rating itself. We believe that is dangerous. In the fcc. For example at t had their own zero rating plan in order for nasa company to be able to qualify for the plan to have the data non, custom in the neighborhood of 15 to 47 a month. At t in terms of their offering the consumers at 35 peers of the longterm, not a sustainable model. Theyre trying to compete with at t. Thats a zero weighting is and we are concerned about it the general comments rule, Company Looks more and forward in the. Its not about google or networker plate facebook. That is really is what is at the heart for us. I happen to disagree at the zero rating issue for the consumers. Doesnt really matter who is right. There has to be an made it through for this at the federal loophole. If each state its not only defining his own internet standards, then making enforcement decisions, it is a recipe for chaos. If you are Offering Service nationally or even a broad region, and both of you are violating this policy on both of the signal happens to go to a tower in virginia or in maryland or the district, thats a good way to run Regulatory Regime or industry. So there needs to be answers to these questions per their sometimes difficult policy questions that can be fairly debated but to me, is the nuances of that is that it needs to be addressed at the federal loophole. In the fcc has taken we will apply section five to decide both of robin providers representation and unfair or deceptive when they talk about things like unlimited plans. All decide both of the unfair self systole lien violation of antitrust laws. So there is a policy on the fcc said they are happy to apply national standards. Great, thanks. Im going to shift gears a little bit was actually great transition. I would like to talk a little bit about Congress Control in this issue. Members of congress on both parties have introduced multiple Net Neutrality bills over the past couple of years. None have passed the house and the senate yet. So can we talk a little bit more about this and what provisions are the Net Neutrality bills that have been argued and is there a way that Congress Might reach on the Net Neutrality bill. Our hope is sincerely that there will be bipartisan consensus on a modern innovative framework that gives consumers the protection and gives clear lines of the road. This is just as it about broadband providers is also about the Innovative Services that we all want from our broadband connections as well. We want innovators to be able to, sponsor data can be proconsumer. We want to make sure that there are opportunities to offer the services and plans that consumers want. There are a lot of elements again and in both of these bills having working on some of them on the hill, and at the fcc, there is a lot of overlap in terms of the types of Consumer Protections that we want. We just dont have the heavyhanded rule Regulatory Regime from 1934, that was put into place. Eightyfive years ago. Thats a really long type. To have those being applied to our modern Innovative Networks is just not the correct approach and there are different ways that we can continue arrive. Remain optimistic that congress will be over the goal line. I think at the type certainly right for congress to take up this issue. And indeed they have in earnest. I will say while this exact same piece of legislation has not been passed in both chambers yet, to very similar cases of legislation nearly identical objectives, the cra which passed the senate, it overturned the 2017, repeal and Internet Access of that. The past with bipartisan support and this intercept which passed the house. Just think about this in terms of, on be careful when we talk about compromise that we arent trading away fundamentals and Consumer Protections or ignoring these vast amount of work is been done on this issue is been and why they supported. Upheld and its importance and validity from a legal standpoint by the dc circuit, essentially twice by a panel and then again on bronx. Which means by the entire panel of justice. The dc circuit. That order was then, the importance of that and represented this regulatory approach of the three bright line rules of authority and that was approach was affirmed by the senate when devoted to undo the repeal from 2017, it was affirmed by the house with the majority of folks through the internet act. And underscored by a vast public support of the american people. Couple by the university of maryland down in a 2 percent of americans, 90 percent of democrats and independents support the approach and the 2015 internet order. Those are poles that are replicated maybe not with the exact same numbers every type this fear method those poles in total sand is that the bipartisan majority of the public, vastly support the 2015 open internet rules approach. As we are moving forward in congress, he is really important for everyone to remember the significant support that this had on the bipartisan basis, both in congress and is certainly the american people. So we will approach congruent conversations of the hill with the 2015 open internet approach as the best practice for what any further legislation should cover. It certainly the safe internet is already past the house and reflects that approach explicitly. Is there a lot of consensus on the policies here. If everybody agrees that there should be Net Neutrality. They are all committed. So why is this so hard. It is hard because we are fighting mostly about labels and title i entitled to. It strikes me as odd the congress which is in charge of the spc and charge of the statute should be cant get hung up animating which version which one to endorse. It can just ride so long. In the consensus, we we know the principles are. And restriction or flat band, is the debate the details. Theres a lot of consensus on what the law should be an enormous support coming from the industry from the consumers. Were never going to get there if this were sort of debating on the people want the 2015 order of the fcc. They dont necessarily know that means. In my mind what is really going on, and my friend here, in using title ii for reasons having nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Namely rate regulation. I appreciate your knowledge and that and sometimes people build on those. We want the Net Neutrality, lets play the Net Neutrality. But we dont need us within the statute that will usher in regulation and totally unrelated types of regulation because its not part of the Net Neutrality. So the open order is we really need a constructive conversation. For the compromise. [inaudible conversation] weight regulations and this is something that was moved forward with the idea that we want to help take hold and ill also provide consumers with protection. We have a version that have passed Republican Senate during the repeal and we have a version of the state internet act and help this year. Boats of debate about what it should look like and we have a lot to look for. Not just about the labels. We need to get the details right. We have a model. If the concerns about regulation think they do not see some improvement the trolleys, okay we have because its a small we have a way to work with them on this issue. To be quite frank, he fought against us, and consensus. Thats why we are here where we are today. There was never a consensus on the regulation. Rate regulation is dangerous and inappropriate. The reason there wasnt a consensus on that on the 2015 order explain why much court. The fcc said they wont engage in what they call prescriptive ratemaking. The set rates in advance. I refuses to do in the total reason that order was subject to appeal, was to regulate rates in the complaint and it also said we can bear this out. Kind of like with your fingers crossed behind her back. That did not provide comfort in this industry. We need to know with certainty that the government wouldnt come in and undermining pictures recovery. That is the big fight in that if people are serious about taking regulation off the table. We can get to a resolution more quickly. Congress would pass no rate regulation on isps, then you would be okay with the 2015 and generally . The other major issue is in the common center. Submit that it would be basically the issue that the ioc sued over. Rate galatian and again we want to know how to regulate these regulated on the live touch regulation. Lets have a moment and compare some of the telephone systems versus your internet and a very short type, the internet was able to eclipse what we were able to do on the title to regulation because his permission and nation. There its not an vital and i mentioned, there is a transparency role. Also coupled with enforcement from the federal trade communications. The trade commission. There we go. We need to make sure that we are not just going to be constraining future innovation and investment. What we saw during the two years the Net Neutrality of the 2015 open order, was investment burden broadband actually went down. And then once the 2017, order or the proposal was indicated, that it was coming so long, we thought this was to back up. That is not the only thing is sort of accounted for the investment during that type. The court made clear to note that u. S. Telecoms prior reports of done that is it too but is deftly a strong indication that we do have heavyhanded regulations, that will impede investment and innovation. The one constant that has fueled the prolific growth of the internet is the fundamental is full of nondiscrimination and the ability to go where you want online that went out biases interfering with those decisions. That principle in various forms as underscore of the internetworks. It since its earliest days. We can play the game, we can play the investment oversight here we have only a few minutes left. I would just pointing that out. Boats of research and analysis of intent that refutes the claim that if an investment that aligns perfectly with the period of type it was a 2015 open order that order was in fact, the reality is the vast majority of the growth of the internet happens because neutrality was something that the fcc had committed to across republican and fcc tariffs and democratic fcc tariffs, since the 2005, open internet principles. We agree and disagree. Yes her toys and a commitment to these principles but the debate is how to enforce them. What is the role of government doing. When is with the sec on chairman michael powell, this patient became one of the powell for freedoms. Date articulated for the first type, when Net Neutrality protection should look like. In terms these were marketbased principles that provide his word in hereto. It is important that it would be in the policy but not the binding set of rules. Not title ii origin. But not crowded with legitimate authority in the dc circuit. In spite of all that it went really really well. Will agree that its this incredible engine and investment entertainment and engagement. If they had not repeatedly sued to fight every step of the neutrality protections. We would not be here today. I dont know what that means. We wouldve had that 2010 rules. [laughter] the point i would make simply is that most of the history of the internet, which is in all of that old, the vast majority of it was in place from 2015 to the end of 2017th thats it. Any of the internet has been incredibly successful. Maybe thats the proof in the pudding. There were only dume and gloom predictions after the title ii. Investment was going to end and the sky was going to fall. Remarkably our internet still works really well and nothing is changed. [inaudible conversation] there is a real potential for litigation on this. Because of that threat, the litigation here, the icy hesitancy here. The second. ,. [inaudible conversation] will forward, move slowly to a more prohibitive forum, guide the bad conduct. Can be very difficult to immerse an effective regime we are talking about monopoly bad actors. I think really thats what the furious. Why do we keep fighting those protections going forward. To figure out where harms are occurring, there may be loss of bad actors. We just have it serviced right yet because it has not there is no venue to air those types of complaints and we have seen examples of problematic behavior that wouldve been the dive boat behavior that we wouldve wanted the fcc to set. Interference a firefighter access in california, during the california firefighters, we can debate and we can set on this stand until we turned blue both of or not that wouldve been Net Neutrality violation with the reality is we have no agency right now and is empowered to affect it. One of the fcc . Limited to anti competitive behavior. No. Proper authority, after the fact that that is what we are debating, complaints. Provider was engaging and anticompetitive. They would have to be transparent about that and there is insufficient. He found that the commission did fully justify in the broadband marketplace to be able to support the transparency on his provider is engaging in those practices and not being transparent about it, and that is when the fcc would step in. I will remind everyone that broadband provider does not have an inventive to swallow you their incentive is to be able to make sure that there is traffic on our network. That they can be able to deliver the services of their product. So when we are looking at the competition and the court did uphold that part in the investment analyses that were made. There was substantial evidence to show that. The commission fully justified. It did uphold those portions of the order. They do support the current framework. Sony decision and it is said that the court said they are going to use his judgment and competition. Lesson two providers in a given state. Obviously i appreciate that there is a hard economic to justify that. That kind of judgment, i think events. To have competition from two parties to make apart market. I think the court said that when there are two providers not more than. I dont think thats what the court sick ill go check again but i think it was less than two. Great. Sonya turned over to audience questions in a moment. Very quickly i just want to ask if there are any next steps for consumer groups, Internet Companies or broadband dividers. Are there opportunities for appeal of this case. If so what might that look like and what might the timeline be. Theres a world of possible next steps that includes a petition for Panel Rehearing by the dc circuit and a petition for a rehearing on all of the judges. As the dc circuit. And petition the Supreme Court. Sufficiently bright legal questions or for the Supreme Court. All of those unvarying timelines and is important to note that anyone party could initiate a petition for either a rehearing by the panel and any party including a petition. Timelines and petition. If nobody seeks a hearing, december 30th, if there is a rehearing, that pushes back the type line. Does anybody in the audience have any questions . President trump made the kind of unusual step today of seeing the support decision. I think that was unusual because he doesnt usually has a positive reaction to this. [laughter]. Mediation and forget they do have a dream and on its plate directed to go back and reconsider with Public Safety. Part of congresses role to hold the fcc accountable and particularly to answer for the millions of Public Comments that they show we are fraudulently directed with broadband for america in which they have not fully answered for yet. One more quick question. Going back and forth just wondering if that has the confidence that they have the ability to invest quick. Unequivocally no, and with that pingpong match i dont think anybody benefits from that coddling from different regimes thats why members from the Telecom Industry for them to come up with this regime that would not be back and forth every two years. But that has largely almost exclusively than over previous generations. One lawsuit resulted that was upheld by the dc circuit. Thank you so much thats all the time we have today. [applause] also thank you to the audience for coming and discussing Net Neutrality. [inaudible conversations] my advice is to find the topic to pursue that as much as you can be getting a new term this month the George Washington lobby viewing the National Constitution center brought together former Supreme Court clerks to talk about what its like right now for the justices they also discuss the impact working at the Supreme Court has had on their careers and personal lives. This took place at the George WashingtonUniversity Law school in washington dc. [inaudible conversations] one hundredth anniversary of the Supreme Court function. I am Jeffrey Rosen head of t