Transcripts For CSPAN2 The Communicators 20150421

Although that is tricky term of art. It happened way back in february, but the rules were not published until this week. The governments regulations were printed. And that starts the process of the next stage which is they will be enacted in 60 days so the rules go into affect in june, although right now, whether this process has been going on for a while there is nothing on the books. But what the publication also does is set the stage of the new court fight now the rules have been published companies and anyone else can file suit against the regulations and that is what happened. We have seen at least five i think, major lawsuits filled against the fcc in the 24 hours after the rules were published. There is a Court Process Going Forward and it could be a couple months until we learn if they stay on the books. Host one of the groups that filled suit is u. S. Telecom, walter mccormick, why did you file suit against the new rules . The chairman of the fcc and the president of the United States, internet standards are to prevent this. We are challenging the reclassification of Internet Access being an Information Service to a u. S. Telecom service regulated as a common carrier pursuant to railroad regulations. It imposed new cost on consumers and delayed improvement and chilled investment. We would be supportive of the open internet standards but not pursuant to reclassification of the Industry Services being common carrier. Christopher lewis what do you think about u. S. Telecom and the members filing a lawsuit . First you start with where you agree. We agree anita haidaryNet Neutrality regulation regulations are important. We have been supportive of the rules the fcc enacted and now become force of law. We think that after a decade of working toward a way to have Net Neutrality rules that could hold up in court this is the strongest set of Net Neutrality protections we have seen in the three different attempts at the agency to ensure the internet is open. We are hopeful and supportive of the rules and expect they will have a strong chance of holding up in court. Host why is Public Knowledge believing Net Neutrality rules are necessary at this point . Guest so the internet developed under the idea that consumers could go anywhere online if they are paying for access and developed and blossomed because innovators were able to innovate without permission and they didnt have to ask Internet Service providers for the right to create new seamarksrvices online. That is the principle and value behind the nonblocking and nondiscrimination rules of Net Neutrality. The fcc tried for years to insure those protections are upheld. When the court asked them to create rules, to enforce those rules, they did in 2010. And those rules were knocked down in the verizon case of january of 2014. And when those rules were knocked down the court basically said that nonblocking, nondiscrimination are common carrierlike rules so if you have going to enforce them you would need to reclassify as a common carrier and classify broadbrand as a common carrier in order to implement those rules. Title two was necessary to get strong Net Neutrality rules and it opens the door to other questions about broadband policy that the agency and congress will have to deal with in the future. It may not be the easy road but it gets us where we need to be. Thank you for joining us. I am curious if Telecom Companies support no blocking straddling or privetization of the internet but what is so bad about title two . There should be rules on the book to make sure it isnt just your word and they tried like in the verizon case and the court said no you cannot do it this way. And tom wheeler said they paved the path to go down the title ii root. And why is that illegal . I think chris articulated the way the internet developed and the way the internet developed is in a way where it is open where consumers can go anywhere there is no blocking there is no throttling. It is developed because the industry that provides Internet Service operates the internet life. That is why we have no objection to the standards. We think they are consistent with the way the internet is developed and the way consumers have come to enjoy the internet. But title ii is only being imposed because the fcc was given no authority by the congress to regulate the internet. The fcc was given authority to regulate telecommunication, but when Congress Last acted in this area, nearly 20 years ago it said that there should be no federal or state regulation of Information Services and it is defining Internet Access service as an Information Service. The Reason Congress wanted to have the internet unfettered is because it is so dynamic. Congress at that time just had experience with repealing this kind of common carrier regulation on the Traditional Industries of railroads, airlines and trains to spur investment. There is complete agreement that the fcc doesnt have Clear Authority. This is the third time it has tried. The fcc has no Clear Authority to regulate the internet. You can go to two branches of government to seek clarification. You can go to the judiciary and say does the fcc have authority. They can look at the statute and say it isnt clear they do. Or we can go to the congress. That is why we are advocating this should be an area where congress should act. We are saying the fcc exceeded its authority in probigating the standards. But we are now asking congress to expand the fccs authority to allow it to provide these protections to consumers. I think that is a good explanation of the industry. The fcc always had had authority over the networks jockyou can see problem with opportunity is Communication Networks evolved. When the internet was born and i was in high school i learned about the internet and got my first email account. I remember when we first got the dial up modem at home. And that service, Internet Access, was regulated as a title ii service, the dial up service i was getting. When we moved to dsl same thing, regulated as a title ii service because it was built on the phone network. Since the 90s the industry converged and everything you would think of as tell communications, your voice, Video Services all beginning to converge. We have an important question in front of us as policymakers, the congress the fcc those of us who advocate we have a decision to say do we want to continue too a federal Communication System that is empowered to protect consumers and the openness of the networks as they converge. And i think we want that. Net neutrality is a part of that. But there is a whole broader spectrum of values we need to protect and i think title ii gets us to that conversation. Host mr. Lewis, has the internet been successful fair and if so why change the rules guest it has been successful and we want it to ton to be successful successful. We want to see the internet developing the way it has been developed. And that is promoting Broadband Access providers to build out their networks build Robust Networks capable of using all of the Great Services ones we have not thought of and we want to encourage investment in the services, start up companies that started in garages. I just used uber. We want to continue to use Services Like that. In order to host those are the types of businesses formed prior to title ii . Guest and during title ii. It seized to exist in the early 2000s. So the early internet and the middle years of the development of the next phase where you saw video develop online were highly successful times in Online Services happening under both regimes. I think uber is a great example. Uber competes with a service that is offered as a common carrier. Taxi cabs are regulated common carriers. Uber is not. It is more innovative exciting able to offer consumers a wide variety of applications and innovations that taxi cabs cannot because they have to seek authority from the Taxi Cab Commission over their rates, their terms, and conditions. That is what we are concerned about. The internet has been as free as uber. Now under title two call in carrier carrier regulations, the fcc is assert asserting jurisdiction over terms and rates and such. They have invited anyone with a complaint to file it with the fcc. They invited the industry to come to the fcc first when establishing new services and applications to get the fccs view as to whether or not the rates are acceptable. This is going to slow innovation. This is why i think that we are at an exciting time because there is a concensus that there should be a role for government. An appropriate role to protect consumers so they have open access to the internet. But at the same time that should be defined by the United States congress and congress has not provided guidance in this area for 20 years. Really since the internet was in its infancy. So it is time we think for congress to act on this concensus that developed and provide the commission with Clear Authority to guarantee an open internet and to prevent the commission from having to redefine the entire internet and be a common carrier simply to receive the narrow objective of assuring consumers. I appreciate the excitement about congress but optimism on capital hill many would say is not forthcoming. Since the telecommunication act goes back to 1996 which was the last Time Congress dealt with these issues folks at the fcc and supporters are saying the authority should have the authority to change with the time. The internet of 96 isnt the internet today. Shouldnt they be able to respond and make sure there are no loop holes so they dont exploit a 20yearold law. Absolutely. The agency should be able to change with the times if Congress Gives it the authority. I am not pessimistic. I am optimistic. Congress acts where there is agreement on a problem and a solution. There is absolutely agreement on the problem. Even the chairman of the fcc said my authority is unclear and they moved to redefine the internet as telecommunication. There is agreement after the fcc tried three times to impose these regulations and have been unable to find Clear Authority. There is agreement there is not Clear Authority. Second there is agreement on the solution, i think. The solution is provide the fcc with the authority. Wach we have seen bipartisan support. Ranking members have been talk about the importance of providing the fcc Clear Authority to guarantee an open internet. I am hopeful. Would you support a legislative approach . The optimism is the agreement we keep referencing and that is why you see chairman thune and Ranking Member nelson and other leaders sitting down and talking. I think that is why you see them calling folks like us in to give views on how you can move forward on congressional legislation. The reality that sets in is that the unintended consequences have to be dealt with. The impact beyond Net Neutrality has to be either dealt with or has to be you have to answer the questions legislatively or make sure you dont hurt the ability to answer the questions in the future. Those questions are things like do you preserve universal service for broadband in the way you had it for phone services because phones are moving on to ip networks. Do you preserve broadband in an internet age . What do they look like . Those are difficult questions. Those policy questions, they come into the conversation when you Start Talking about the authority under which you create Net Neutrality rules because then you are talking about broadband policy. So it is difficult conversation. It will take time. Our position has been we welcome the conversation. We have been a part of it. We set high standards for it and in protecting the values that are important. We have an agencies that is protecting open internet while Congress Takes the time to do the work. It is fantastic we have the rules we have now, if Congress Works in a bipartisan way, i think the public will benefit from that. And mr. Lewis in fact spent time at the fcc as Deputy Director of the office of legislative affairs. Walter mccormick is the former General Council to the department of transportation. Now the lawsuit has been filled what happens next . The courts will set a Briefing Schedule. So we expect that Briefing Schedule will occur sometime this summer, then oral arguments in the fall. We will see. I know there are other parties that are now engaged in filing. The Cable Operators filled on tuesday. We have been in formed there are other parties filing as well. So the court will take the filings and set a Briefing Schedule and move forward. Mr. Lewis, will the regulations go into affect even with lawsuits spending and what is Public Knowledges role in this lawsuit . We hope the rules go into affect. We saw in the 2010 open internet rules having the rules in place, even when verizon chose to challenge them was important for consumers. We were able to raise concern that we thought was a potential Net Neutrality violation while the 2010 rules were in effect. And because we had the rules as a threat the company we were concerned about changed their policy. Having rules is helpful even while the court is considering. Public knowledge will certainly wait to see the filings and the lawsuits and probably file on behalf of the rules and the fcc since we strongly believe in them. But i think, you know while that happens it is important we continue to have conversations about broadband policy in general. If i can i want to go back to the uber example. I think we agree it is a great example of how Net Neutrality plays. Uber is a fairly new company. Imagine with the isps, comcast or at t, had authority or i am sorry, had a competing service that competed with uber and they, for example, decided their service, their car service did not have to abide by or abide by the data capture for the usage limits of data on their network. That would be a concern for a Startup Company like uber. It is those sorts of practices that we are looking to protect online. And so you know we can talk about uber competing with cab companies. But the real concern is the gatekeeper isnt the internet part of the service. That is where uber is innovative. You can use their app, follow the car, the Payment System and everything runs through the application. It would be a shame if Companies Like uber had to negotiate with large monopoly companies that control access to the internet in order to bring this Great Service to the american people. I think it is a perfect example of why Net Neutrality rules are important. I would emphasis the standards that chris is talking about. The blocking and the protection of the internet the way consumers expect to internet. In terms of the quality you have there is no body that wants to see an innovator like uber treated like a common carr for the same reason we should not treat Internet Service providers, wireless cable satellite, we should not treat Internet Service providers as common carriers and do to them what has been done to taxi and railroads. The good news is uber is not in danger of being a common carrier. These rules are just about the companies that provide that access. I want to go back to the lawsuit because it is interesting as it evolves over the next couple months. Tom wheeler said they have expected the big dogs to do what he said. How confidant are you about the rules . As a nonlawyer but working at the commission i know they are talented attorneys. We trust based off the Verizon Court decision they have gone done the right path. The chairman said the court paved a path for them toward title two. And we believe they have the power to make that decision. They have classified broadband in the past. Changed the classification. They did so in the early 2000s and the court has been showing they have the power to do that. Walter mccormick, who do you represent at u. S. Telecom and with the mobile component of this how do you see that . I represent the nations broadband Service Providers like at t verizon frontier century link, and over a hundred smaller providers around the country. Our Companies Offer Internet Access on a fixed and mobile bases. And we serve urban areas, rural areas, and companies that are publically and privately held. When it comes to mobile is this going to be a strong argument in your lawsuit . I think it is a strong argument. The argument is this Congress Never intended to treat mobile broadband as a common carrier service. It was quite explicit. Internet Access Service was an Information Service and that is why i said the fcc is having great difficulty keep in mind the standards we all agree with can be written in a sentence no blocking throttling or paid private. But they had to issue over 300 pages in order to achieve a simple objective. So i think it is important to go back to the court. I am quite confidant the court is going to say what is clear on the face of the statute. There is no authority for the fcc to be regulating the internet. And then i hope that we can get congress to expand the fccs authority to be able to address these issues that everybody agrees are important. Host one last question. We have one minute left. Are you looking for stay to hold the rules off for the next year while the case works out . This is going to be a relatively long and drawn out process and most likely not a decision in the case for a year and a half it could be appealed and go to the Supreme Court and go on forever. Why is this long and drawn out battle good . How can we for stall it . How can we get certainty . I dont think it is good. I think we should get certainty for a couple reasons. First, this issue has been filled with uncertainty for almost ten years. This is the third time the fcc has tried to do it. It is something we should all agree should be done in a way that is targeted and specific. This uncertainty as it continues is an overhang on the industry and innovation. It is also an overhang on other issues the congress would like to address with regard to updating the nations communication laws. So if we could see the initiative where there is agreement, get congress to pass a narrow will it will allow the nation to move forward, under understanding the open internet has been protected by those, and engage in other Public Policy debates we think are important. I think it is clear that the real struggle and the conflict is over Broader Authority of the fcc. Not the Net Neutrality rules. We have agreement those rules are good. So it just shows that it is important we have these rules in place why congress and policy policymakers and the fcc look at the challenging topics. This is why you are getting push back from the broadband providers. They are worried about how title ii impacts their broader services. Not potential