Of them happened to stick. Thought Net Neutrality is catchier. I did not think it would stick. Y here is what he had to say. On a plan tong keep the internet free and open. At us while am i urging the fcc everything they can to protect Net Neutrality for everyone. They should make it clear whether you use a computer, phone, or have a, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable companies cant decide what streaming services you can use, and they cant let any company pay for priority over its contenders. I am asking the fcc to reclassify Internet Service under title ii under a law known as the telecommunications act. In plain english, i am asking them to recognize that for most americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and life. What is your reaction to what the president had to say . Very welcome. I thought it was a terrific statement and speech. He went back to his Campaign Promise in 2007. He said, im second to nobody in my believed in Net Neutrality. I could not have been happier that the president came through with his support. Bywere also been joined colton from the wall street journal. You have been following Net Neutrality as closely as anyone. Think it has hit a reset button on everything going on. Was one of the few people that made it clear what he thought. Inyou reported, things were some ways moving towards a slightly different approach. I think it was like turning a computer on and off. Lets reset and everyone is grandly to figure out what will happen. Everything what you think it will go from here . Do you think tom wheeler will do anything with the what the president has put out there . It falls into a murky area of administrative law. The experiment of the fcc, unlike the attorney general, is not obliged to obey the president. Tom wheeler for not doing what he says. That is a longstanding constitutional rule. He cant say im glad for your input, but i have a different view. On the other hand, it is difficult to disobey the president. He is the head of the country. On the other hand, wheeler will have a lot of people in congress telling him not to do with the president says. Is, frankly, even by Net Neutrality standards, a new area. That thereict is will probably be a lot of therts you have to think most likely outcome is the tangle will delay things a little bit. It may get tangled up in the question of whether the administration is allowing comcast to take over time warner. I believe they will all get tangled up. Why would that get affected . The main it is really not illegal. It is legal and political. Subject of the Net Neutrality rules is the cable and phone companies that offer broadband internet. So the proposed comcast takeover of time warner would have an enormous effect on, first of all, the danger posed by abuses of Net Neutrality, the principle of ignoring Net Neutrality. Also and the comcast merger needs to be reviewed by january or february. I dont igo will be or is trading i dont think it will be horse trading, but there are two issues. Net neutrality is trying to protect Internet Companies against cable. Consumers is putting against cable and other innovators. In some ways, they have the same goals and they will get all mixed up. That reported last week the fcc was delaying Net Neutrality rules until next year. They have confirmed that. Litigationthink could affect the timeline in terms of the rule taking affect . That is a complicated question. There are a lot of people who are going to push wheeler and the fcc to act. Frankly at this point, i dont know. I think the pressure will be on wheeler and the president may make another statement that if he does not do anything by at least next spring. Tom wheeler himself has said multiple times, i want to get this done and get on to other things. There is nothing funny a funny about Net Neutrality. You know how president s come to office and say i dont want to do with the middle east, and and you are dealing with the middle east . In some ways, Net Neutrality is the middle east of telecom policy. I imagine trying to get this done in the spring. The second question is how litigation will affect it. There is nothing to litigate until the fcc actually does the rule. I would say that will be act two. We are still a knack for or act one and a half right now. Would you explain how title ii would affect internet policy and how section 706 would affected as well . What a question. Is the historic, most powerful authority that the agency has. It was part of the 1934 telecommunications act. Deal levelsncy new of power. An incredible delegation of power, to regulate all committee kaisha within the United States that go over a wire. Communication all within the United States that go over a wire. I can imagine much more than that. Cable companies and phone companies have long wanted to put title ii Authority Six feet underground. They dont, obviously, like the massive powers because it is regulatory. Back in the 1930s and all the way to the 1980s, and frankly, now in some areas, it was used for rate regulation. Classic utility common carrier regulation. There are a lot of features they would like. The effect of passing Net Neutrality under 706 or title ii a superficially, it is not any different. Ii doesong run, title give the agency much more power to do things that it later decides are more important. 706, which has been talked about, is a much narrower authority and it may not have been able to support full Net Neutrality rules. It is very weak. I will use a metaphor. Imagine the fcc as a battleship. You can understand the title ii authority as its main guns, the 18inch guns that are meant to be used and the 706 authority is like a bunch of fire hoses. Is not use them, but it the main power. It has a lot to do less with this set of rules and more with the long picture of regulation over the long run. One of the things i think carriers are concerned about, and the reason they so resist lurking, is that phantom, or the lurking possibility of rate regulation. There are a lot of people in this country that feel their cable bills are too high and you can imagine, not now but in the distant future, elizabeth worn or someone saying, it is time to regulate these prices and if title ii is alive and well, that would be an easy route. Backgroundbe an easy and investors would notice that as well. Im not talking but the merits, im just giving you a sense. You mention rate regulation. The president specifically said he did not think the fcc should engage in rate regulation. Does that impact the likelihood of it happening, in your view . And secondly, what about the adoptiondeployment question . Could that be addressed under title ii . That is an interesting question. Advocating rate regulation at this point, even Net Neutrality advocates. The president i dont think there is. Nobody believes that rate regulation is in the cards right now. But i pointed out is there is potential for it. Words, their power is there but it would not be used. In terms of access, i have long felt that one of the things that is getting overlooked in this debate not everyone is overlooking it, but generally, in the big picture is the question about what about people have done with broadband, how are they going to get it. I would say no one is addressing that right now. Title ii does give the agency more power to try to do things, like mandate universal service like we did for the Telephone Service back in the 20th century , and it collects money, which right now mostly goes to rural Telephone Service, which could be repositioned to create Rural Broadband service. There are possibilities with title ii that a future president or fcc chairman could say, you know what . We need a universal Service Program and people all over the country need bodhran broadband. U. S. Ofessor wu, the group releaseput out a news after the president pasta statement and in part, here is what they wrote third it is baffling why the president would risk continued broadband , growth, and job investment by asking the fcc to reverse course on the very successful bipartisan policy that has now been in place for more than a decade. Something broken here . Do you agree . The carriers have been threatened for basically all of their existence that if you do this, something we dont like, or that thing we dont like, youre not going to invest anymore in our network. I guess in some sense the president is calling their bluff. He is saying the public is concerned about the rising power of consolidated Cable Companies and phone companies. Both the 18th 1980s, but a lot of the features are coming back. Cable and satellite crisis and so high. We need an agency with the power to deal with this. That is the president calling their bluff. He says, you are making so much money you believe your bluff. We cannot cleveland reveal invest. We have seen how much money they, and we are not quiteregulating you want rates that will survive the course. The recent there is no status quo is because the laws were struck down. Frankly, it is a hypocrisy chance of rising challenge you will out and struck down, and housing, why are you telling them . They are challenging the status quo by suing to knock down every possible regulation and saying, . We have the status quo, actually change . . Because you know the rules out . The president is calling their bluff. And verizon. You mentioned verizon and the rule. Whether it will stand up in court and you are an expert. The proposal will suppose reflected in part an idea suggested, a hybrid reclassification. Can you explain what you think the practical differences between that sort of solution and what the president called . , i think opinion there are those that do not think the differences with great. That thebably true president s approach is a little straightforward and has a slightly higher likelihood of surviving. I think those are its main advantages. It also creates a longterm possibility that we discussed how universal service broadband. There are two approaches on the table. I thought they were ok, but the president has gone to be more Old School Approach of what is called in jargon reclassification. The president s approach, unlike the idea floated by yourself and others, would require the fcc to establish there is not adequate competition in the broadband market and chairman tom wheeler has been making speeches to that affect this year. At there a possibility th reclassifying to title ii would decrease future competition . I think they are relatively independent factors. Ofht now, there is not a lot competition as it stands. Most people have cable. Some people have fios. Some people have google. We are not looking at the environment for there is a lot of competition and suddenly this will freeze things. We are talking about an environment that already suffers from highlylimited competition, which i think is why the public has been clamoring for a lot more of this space. I just dont think they are really relate to. I dont see the logical idea. In some ways, title two could be used in very bold ways to increase competition foot a future sbc 12. He creates increase competition should a future sbc want to. We are going to let competitors all use the underlying infrastructure and trying to Sell Services separately, instead of seeing if it is a way of introducing competition when there is something close to a natural monopoly. That might be something that prompts competition in the future. It is a long way off. I should say that i also support the president s plan. The other proposal out there was an alternative to people who found title ii too unpalatable for whatever reason. Quo, have the status there been problems currently that need to be addressed . There was no problems because there was the Net Neutrality rule of some kind, by my count, since the 70s. There has always been some sort of sbc rule that says the phone companies are Cable Companies dont get to mess with the networks on top of them. They have to carry them. That has been the rule. It was part of the at t breakup and the early dialup network. Part of the dsl, early cable. There was a Net Neutrality rule for some kind of all the 2000s. What happened is this year, because of verizons challenges, were struckty rules down. There is nothing wrong with the status quo. I think it is great. I think that is why they need to restore the Net Neutrality rule that was struck down by the d. C. Circuit. We are talking with lumbee a law professor tim wu, who is the corner of the term Net Neutrality. He also runs the study of the First Amendment issue we are talking with columbia law professor tim wu, who is the coiner of the phrase Net Neutrality. He also runs the study of the First Amendment issue review. He does not agree with professor wu. As it was said last week, he made the argument that allowing exceptions to the Net Neutrality rule for things like zero rating or sponsored data programs could benefit consumers, particularly lowincome consumers. Since we dont seem to be close in this administration to something resembling a universal Service Program, what do you think of the tradeoffs with those sorts of programs . I think the programs i think there are much better, more efficient ways you can serve underserved communities than sacrificing the basic principles of the open internet. If it aint broke, dont fix it. The internet has been an incredible engine of growth for the country. Since the 1980s, the rule has been cable, phone companies, you cannot mess with us. You cant extract extra money. A handsoff rule for cable and phone companies. You can say, we can relax that rule and maybe they can do some stuff for poor people, but if you want to do stuff for poor people, maybe subsidize it directly instead of destroying the engine which has produced to so much economic growth. I am all about programs that subsidize phone access for poor people, i just dont think it is worth doing it by trying to give Cable Companies a way in. It is a Public Relations thing. You have a new program for poor people. Great. It offers the possibility of other income streams, which well use to destroy the internet economy. You put up an attractive poster child to try to hide a darker motive. I am suspicious of their plans. In developing countries, and might be another start. This country, what we should do is that when the Cable Companies merge, you say, you want to merge . Why dont you offer people below a certain income 10 a month cable broadband access, or free . We know it cost you less than five dollars a month to provide it. You will still make a profit. There are very direct ways as opposed to trying to get Net Neutrality. The president also called for the rules to be extended to wireless. The fcc said they will attack wireless in some way after largely exempting them from the 2010 rules. How will this play out in wireless in your view . Wireless was not completely exempt from 2010. I think most people view the internet as the internet at this point, and it has been a success story. A lot of innovation has been in wireless. The basic rule for the road that is the internet, other than making some actions for the fact we need more bandwidth management on the wireless side, there is no reason to tinker with what has been so successful. Under the basic principle of Net Neutrality, the wireless sector has prospered as well. It is also worth pointing out it was a wireless, technically most of the Wireless Network is also wire. It is just the last couple of hundred feet that are wireless. They exaggerate that difference. One rule for the internet makes the most sense. Part of the discussion has included the term fast lane. What is your opinion . I think slow lanes and fast lanes tend to have a destructive effect on innovation. Lets go back to the early 2000s. If the fast lane or slow lane say,is that carriers can we will make a deal. We will make your thing go faster than somebody elses. The problem is it tends to interfere with competition, survival of the fittest. If you imagine in the early 2000s when yahoo was the dominant search engine, it is easy to imagine yahoo in competition with google as opposed to trying to make their engine better, trying to sign a to slow down google and speed themselves up. If that were the case, google would not have gotten started. We would still have yahoo i could imagine myspace doing the same thing too fast fate same thank you facebook. Fast lanes or insulation for incumbent companies to wreak havoc on their sometimes better rival. Problemlly are a have a with increasing power of the application companies. They are getting more and more difficult to challenge, and fast laneslow lane would make it almost i would not say impossible, but incredibly different for a challenger to take on one of those companies. When you came up with the term Net Neutrality and pondering ideas, i think it is fair to say that a lot of examples were conceptual. He to imagine a day were a president would be delivering a statement in such detail that he and what doubject, you think that set about the conversation and role of the internet in our society in general . Frankly, im shocked. Looking at the headlines the day after, id never wouldve imagined this. When i gave the first to talk on Net Neutrality in 2002, i think, 12 years ago, it was too a halffull auditorium. It was an academic paper. People like, what is he talking about . It was a weird proposal. Frankly, at the time it went nowhere. On the it is a comment fact that people have increasingly come to see the internet not as an experimental toy or hobby, but kind of those an essentiallys utility. You set up a new house or business, you need water, electricity, internet. People want it now to be reliable and as cheap as possible. It has become an essential part of the economy. They basically want to rule, i think, and the president reflects this, the 4 million comments reflect this, they want the internet to not become more and more like cable television. I think it has come a long way. Im kind of shocked, but i guess the internet has surprised us many times. Tim wu, andy kessler had an oped this week entitled the department of the internet. Here is a little bit. The internet cannot function as a public utility. Public utilities dont serve the public. They serve themselves, usually by maneuvering through byzantine regulations that they helped craft. Utilities are about tariffs, rate basis, price caps, another choke holds that kill real price discovery and a most guarantee the misallocation of resources. Would you like me to react to that . I am actually somewhat in sympathy with that view in the sense that i think i think we have to be very careful about it. Some of the great regulatory schemes in history have not performed well ahead of stagnant industries. Im very concerned about being too heavyhanded with the regulation based on contradiction. Im an academic, and i have studied the history, and im aware of that. It is very important to notice that Net Neutrality is not about the whole internet. It is only about the phones and Cable Company delivering it to your house or business. It does not affect the entre nor in the garage trying to think of a new program to launch. It does not affect companies trying to prove themselves, whatever. Nstagram, i guess they approve themselves. Twitter, foursquare, tumbler. It does not affect these companies. It does not regulate the internet. It regulates the delivery of Internet Service. I think what we have to be careful about is that those are different things. Net neutrality, frankly, helps keep the internet dynamic by trying to prevent cable and phone companies from messing with the rest of the internet. Which they have shown a historic tendency to do, i will tell you, especially the phone company over its 100year history. The final question. It seems to come down at the end of the day to chairman tom wheeler, the toughest job in town. What does he have any wheel room on this . What you expect him to do and you think there is anyway he can get through this and satisfy the many constituencies that are staring him down and protesting outside his home and every thing else . There is no way he will satisfy all the constituencies. That is guaranteed. Washington, and this issue in particular, the middle is a place where you get run over right now. It is somewhat unfortunate. I dont think this issue needs to be as partisan as it is, but it has gotten that way. I would suspect does he have any wiggle room . The only thing i would say is that the wildcard of the mergers is in the game, and no one understands how that will play out. That is involved in all of this think is possible i maybe probable that the sec will turn its attention to the mergers for a while, put in a new challenge he someone on the back burner, and perhaps the merger conditions or blocking the merger altogether, i think there is a decent chance to block comcast, and say this problem can be tackled from more than one direction. That might justify different Net Neutrality rules. That is the card that he has to play that he has not played it. Tim wu, columbia university. Thank you, gentlemen. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] by the cableeated industry 35 years ago and brought you by a local satellite or cable provider. On a washington journal, how Republican Leaders in congress should handle major policy issues including gr