We moved all of the lanes of the communication highlighted and analog to digital. That was cable, broadcast, satellite and the satellites had been launched but the service had not yet begun. We did with the Digital Radio standard and my First Commission meeting we did ban for pcs and over an extraordinary time. And we were just [inaudible] speaking began the first auction at which point they used the hand placard to build. It was an exciting time to be there. Plus, on top of all of that we implemented the 1996 telecom act which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in the local telepathy and video and also dramatically changed the landscape for broadcast widening the ability to consolidate properties. Host looking back 20 years later, did you get it right to connect to the groundwork laid correctly . Guest some of it we did but keep in mind the other thing we did was what was so important cspan can appreciate this greatly is establishing the Program Requirements for Childrens Television on broadcast. Some of it we got very right and some of it the marketplace said yeah, were not sure we need this anymore and basically the commission implements a law and the issue with this 1996 telecom act was basically the congress pushing backwards was basically settling battles that had taken place during the prior ten years and not looking forward, not looking at what might that really be about and whether some of the issues that we need to be grappling with as a commission needs the tools to grapple with going forward. In that respect the introduction of competition in local [inaudible] and that was the big deal. But about operating companies that were then in the system were not interested in competing against each other and a sickly you can drag them to the lake for water but you cant make him drink. Similarly we introduced Video Service that the Telephone Companies could do. But later that became somewhat [inaudible] as they moved on. Certainly on some of the other areas that we were implementing, the concept of the underlying concept of competition in communications for the foundation that we built and nourished and at the end of the day exists in [inaudible] host when you look back and you look now to do have any idea where we would be and 2020 . Guest no clue. No clue. Basically if you go back then the internet had existed but two years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created and it had been really an Inter University governmental system that had just been commercialized. I dont think anybody had perhaps had vision but i did not have that vision of where it was going. The good news is we, at the commission, did look at the development of modems, the ability up and down and a connection with the internet and we said this is a very Young Service and we dont know whether this will grow and we will not but let it develop and see where it is headed. We took the position that you can do more harm than good if you are trying to, in your own mind, think about where this will go and we thought the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome and indeed it was. Host do you still hold that opinion today . Where we are in telecommuting case. Guest with respect to the internet to i believe that government should regulate portions of it . I think we are at a point today that this would not be the fcc. But more the federal trade commission but we are at a point today where privacy is an important human rights and where we need to be focused more on how we provide citizens with a greater control over what information is gathered and used about them and so, i am hopeful that congress will finally get us back together and pass a privacy act. California and other states certainly are doing that right now so there is greater incidence for or desire to do something across the board for the united states. Gdp are, general Data Protection act and regulation from europe is now largely [inaudible] here, not entirely. For example, many broadcast another companies will not, their Online Platform will not [inaudible]. Dad having been said, that rule tends to be very much governed by process and there may be other ways that are more essential to what we do and how users can take advantage of the system so that its important for us to do our own privacy system in the united states. There is a lot of talk about regulating the internet as a general matter and there may be areas where such oversight makes sense and certainly in the area of transparency and accountability that is something that is extremely important but as a commissioner i hold the First Amendment with Great Respect and today as a private citizen [inaudible] so i would be very cautious about any effort at this point in time to regulate content online. There are other things that we need to be addressed and certainly pushing platforms, both large and small, to help focus in on trying to address some of these issues like bad actors, like bad behavior on the net and they have a lot of value. I think working both with government on the transatlantic basis which is what i do right now i share a High Level Commission that includes legislators, government officials, tech companies, ngos and academics to identify what is working, what is not working to protect both the expression as well as the vibrant internet and at the same time address the violent extremism and deception online. Weve come up with a number of different recommendations that we will be putting forth in the coming months but this is a time when we need to be collaborating with europe to undergird fundamental values, not enough of that has been done and that is one of our main objectives. Working with platforms again, large and small, because the big platforms will be fine. Any regulation they can do. It is the smaller folks, folks like wikipedia that have small staff like the internet archives which, has i think, i dont know, 150 people in its employ and often times they are infected by well intended but drafted regulation. Host susan naz, what is the name of your commission . Ridiculous name. I take response fully but its under the auspices of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at ten and it is called the transatlantic highlevel working group on freedom and expression. Host you mentioned that earlier some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe and maybe guest yes, for example. A group had a session at the osce in indiana and dont ask me what the acronym stands for because i forget but in any event, we have had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador, governor of virginia and they commented that you can no longer get the virginia times. The reason for that basically is they shut off because of gdp are and not wanting to be liable and they have shut off access to european citizens. Host so are we headed towards a bifurcated, try for gated World Wide Web internet . Guest the internet is fractured. You have a number of different internet right now with china which operates on its own system, russia is trying to replicate that in large measure with they control all input and output. You have certainly the rules in europe and they are looking to address liability in some of the other rules involving platform behavior this year. And then of course you have what is going on in the u. S. We share values with europe in large measure. Working together, i think, is beneficial on both sides of the atlantic, even if we dont come up necessarily with the same approach to the same rules. In terms of dealing with china, we know that that is a threat. We know that, for example, someone that is a student of one of our members has said she did not take a particular course because it would be reflected poorly in china, this is the course that was the north america given at a university and could harm our parents. Then she was told well, how about the course and she said i cannot do that either because i know im a student and there are spies who will report that. I am hopeful that that is not the direction in which the entire world is headed. But, protecting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and all the freedoms that we take basically just assume will exist forever but they are fragile and our democracy is fragile. We really need to work hard to make sure that it continues to work for our society and services and broad. Host that begs the question about section 230 and whether Internet Companies should still be free from liability. What are your thoughts . Guest there are a lot of different pieces when you start to take that apart. Our group, in fact, issued a paper on intermediary liability looking at so if you do something here are the ramifications but its very detailed and one can find our papers on our website which is www. Ici r. Ml which stands for netherlands, twg. Im glad i got that in. But the whole point of that was basically to say it is now the go to answer for all the harms on the internet but as a practical matter it will have a dramatic and negative impact to the extent that one plays around with it too much or removes it it will have a dramatic and negative impact on freedom of expression because if you have liability you will not try to take things down which we can be the main point of section 230 and to give the protection for platforms to actually monitor and take down harmful content where it appears and where it violates the terms of service. You will not have that and you will have much more of a takedown and questions will be later. That is not good for free society, particularly in other places where people put up information about governments that are corrupt and if that cant stand the test in one direction or the other it is going to be an invaluable resource that will be destroyed. Other ways of addressing it, one thing i would for sure do is to make sure that platforms are in fact, coming up with clear and concise terms of service that they actually enforce their terms of service that there is appropriate and immediate redress for something that is taken down and one ways that it was taken down in a properly and gaming the system which oftentimes happens and that there is a method of appeal of a decision from a platform. I think there are some things that platforms can do to demonstrate that they are deserving of that protection. That people should not look at the internet and social media platforms as being the functional equivalent of the town square. It is more like a walk in central park then a town square. No one really expects that everything sad as you are walking wrong will be approvable and people have to also be armed with a better understanding of what is and what is not and good, digital hygiene and what you can believe and what you cant believe. So, its an effort on the number of different parts and the transparency is an important part of this whole picture and the platforms need to be more transparent about what they are doing when they takedown and how they do it and provide opportunity for appropriate researchers to begin to see what has been taken down a notch and platforms need to be cooperating more and they are beginning to do this. It is extremely harmful situation for example, on terrorist content they do already cooperate on that and i think there will be an effort from the un to have some Steering Committee on what is called [inaudible] and which is a database that is companies, when they find terrorist content they will tack so others dont copy it. Theres not much greater cooperation that we even had ten years ago but there still is a tremendous amount that needs to be done but i am not sure that the solution is eliminating section 230 or the commerce provisions which will be amended hopefully to provide Good Samaritans opportunities and [inaudible] how did you get into this line of work . Oh gosh, when i was in college way back in the dark ages i had a radio show, wr radio and i actually had the opportunity because i was fascinated by [inaudible] in montreal and i have just given away my age but i had the opportunity to tape wr as you radio and [inaudible] in montreal and the first meeting of the broadcasters because that is what was there at the time we had folks like Walter Cronkite and all these others and i had access to the whole place and it was absolutely fascinating and i was hooked. The notion of communication and transatlantic or transnational youth in communications as a way to improve conversations around the world. I thought would be a great way to do that and so later i went to law school, got a degree, once visited a school looking at communications and there was a lender for Communications Company and then went on the federal communications commission. Host susan ness, thanks for sharing some of your expertise, background and current work with us on the communicators. Guest it has been my pleasure paid thank you, peter. Host just a reminder, this Communicators Program as well as all others are available as podcasts. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court and publicpolicy events from the president ial primaries through the impeachment process and now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch all of cspan Public Affairs programming on television, online or listen on a free radio app and be a part of the National Conversation through cspans daily washington journal program. Or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your television provider. Cspans washington journal every morning we are taking your calls live on the air on the news of the day and we discussed policy issues that impact you. Coming up Tuesday Morning. Maryland democratic senator will join us to talk about the nationwide protests in the wake of george floyd skilling and his call for civil rights investigation into the incidents. Then we will talk about the coronavirus pandemic and her personal experience with contracting covid19, joining us for that is the Columbia UniversityMedical Center emergency medicine physician. And a discussion of evangelical voter support for President Trump and campaign 2020 with the faith and Freedom Coalition founder and chair. Also Maryland Democratic congressman on the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. Watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern Tuesday Morning and be sure to join the discussion all morning with your phone calls, facebook comments, Text Messages and tweets. Space x dragon crewmembers, doug hurley and bob thinking, held a News Conference along with fellow nasa astronauts christopher cassidy. The provided details about their launch and successful docking at the International Space station. They talked about the Mission Objectives while in low earth orbit. This was hosted by nasa tv from the Johnson Space center in houston, texas. Are you ready for the event . Hello, houston. Expedition 63 crew is ready for the event. This is Mission Control houston. Please call station for a voice to text connect station, this is jc pio. How do you hear me . Jc pio, loud and clear. Great. We will start this off of the question from twitter. Probably for you, chris. From rick. When they opened the hatch to dragon have that new car smell . It absolutely did. In fact, there was a space smell in the vestibule that when we got that hatch open you could tell it was a brandnew vehicle with smiley faces on the other side, smiley face on mine and just as if you had bought a new car, the same reaction. Wonderful to see my friends and wonderful to see a brandnew vehicle. We will start off of the questions from bill, cbs