Explicitly say you shall not regulate or oversee the internet under title 2. Do you agree with that . As ive testified consistently, i think the cost and damage to americans ambitions of bradband in title 2 far outweigh the benefits. I think if the narrow task before us is to create solid bullet proof Net Neutrality, which we accept, we believe that can be done without resorting to that hammer. Mr. Chairman, i want to thank the former chairman for those comments. I do believe that its wise to put this out as a draft. I think there are some very valid questions and my friends on the minority are asking some of those questions about how to perfect the language. I have some concerns myself about certain parts of the draft. But the base principle, the fact we should not regulate the internet under title 2, i think is beyond question. If we start from that premise i think the discussion draft is an excellent document and we can iron out the details through these hearings. If you take it to
Slow and steady pull out at the time. That enter ocular test forced people to be more clear about things. I give a lot of credit to steve hadley for running a very that wasprocess inclusive of peoples views but got to frame up a distinct set of decisions. One of the things we love to do in washington is a model things together. Take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and muddle them together. Everybody walks out thinking their position prevailed. Quite frankly, you saw a bit of that in the Bush Administration where people walked out thinking their position had revealed and therefore there was not a clear vision and direction. Examplesork, a lot of that has encouraged that creative ambiguity among their advisors. Bill clinton is famous for that stop for that. Of examples a lot in american politics of it. It does not mesh with the award. It can be very dangerous in a wartime. If you did take away something specific from watching that surge decision in terms of your own persona
The clerk the speakers room washington, d. C. , february 4 2015. I hereby appoint the honorable david w. Jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. Signed, john a. Boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. The speaker pro tempore pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority andinit leadersorng hour debate. The chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majory d noty leaders and e nority whip limited to five minutes but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11 50 a. M. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. Ross, for five minutes. Mr. Ross mr. Speaker, i rise this morning to bring to the attention my colleagues an important event taking place in the 15th Congressional District of florida which i have the privilege to represent. With the opening in tampa this friday, our state marshalls, the str
Host what led to that decision. Guest well, it was during the Johnson Administration in the late 1960s. It was part of the Telecommunications Task force. It had concluded that the Telecommunications Industry could be competitive. And they have made recommendations mainly to the federal Communications Commission on how to make that happen. Then when Nixon Administration came along, the staff in the antitrust division, after watching for a couple of years, decided to pursue antitrust rather than sec regulation as the means to introduce the competition. My role that i was on both the Telecommunications Task force and i was one of the outside economists advising the department of justice when the case was being shaped. Host professor houseman . Guest i didnt come in until 1982 and thereafter when the antitrust division decided to review, about three years later, there was a report that was done. I was an advisor to the government on the reports. I was involved thereafter in the various cha
Pacific. It was in 1982 that judge Harold Greene issued a decision which led to the breakup of the at t corp. That is our topic this week on the communicators, the impact of that decision 30 years later on the telecommunications. Joining us is professor roger noll of stanford, as well as professor Jerry Hausman of mit, both of whom were involved at various levels in the breakup or the decision to break up at t. Joining us in the washington studio is paul. Professor noll, first of all, what with your activity during the breakup of at t and what led to that decision . The antitrust case was formed during the Johnson Administration the late 1960s and a president ial task force called the Telecommunications Policy task force. It concluded the telecommunications industry, the part in federal jurisdiction, should be competitive and made recommendations both mainly to the fcc about how to cause that to happen. Then when the knicks and the administration can along, the holdover staff of the an