Classified the Internet Access service and Information Services are limited to the really broadband Internet Access service. And there are things that broadband providers do that are not broadband Internet Access service that could be clarified to be the common Carrier Service that could get you some amount on the road in helping to create a more even Playing Field with regard to content that is transmitted by the providers so that is a possibility. And they could move relatively quickly on that. If it works under 706 and it constitutes Something Like the internet policy statement, it likely would have to be adopted as a rule with some clarification that allows them to affirmatively engage and differentiated services. So that they are not common Care Services or have a rule consistent with 706 high level rule, no walking and how that at adjudicated on the case by case basis. And chairman, we noticed on the case by case basis it would be appropriate, and that would not necessarily involved. So the fcc has a lot of tools at its disposal to move forward, but if it wants to have no discrimination rules it really needs to do some sort of a clarification or classification of the Broadband Service providers. It is an interesting question. If they want to reclassify the internet in the categories of the telephone service, there are people that advocate that and people think it is a possibility. I actually think that they have a couple there is a Supreme Court decision to stand in a way that is called red neck and there are technical things we could say that its not an absolute obstacle for them, but in fact i wrote a recent law review on this and when the fcc proposed it they relied entirely on the Supreme Court opinion, and just in the general matter building the argument on the Supreme Court case is rarely successful strategy, so it is not impossible, but i would say its overcome. The bigger question to me is whether the fcc politically wants to put the energy into it because right now the chairman has come in and he has a little under three years at which point she has made the focus of his chairmanship. We traditionally thought of the network as the fundamental connecting technology that runs the country together. In many places 6 of people reside and that is transitioning. The main connecting technology that is the internet and that raises a whole bunch of questions about how we handle certain things in the past such as emergency response, 911 coming universal service, disaster response, disability access. And there are a whole bunch of issues that are more broad than the network neutrality. And it is quite possible that the chairman may decide that he will listen to a broad discussion how we should be thinking about the internet and make it part of a broader debate. Someone told me that when the chairman genachowski and then he brought up the second Major Initiative in the network neutrality. It you want it to be known as a National Broadband plan and i actually think the chairman takes this. Do not be known as the chairman or do you want to be the energized and pull yourself back there is a chance that people want to get past this and make it part of the debate that we are talking about. We should break out of the pattern of just marching down the table each time. So, where to begin. There are a lot of trends about the choice before the chairman of the political consequence. I think it both ways you cant get anything like the neutrality backend does he want to be the chairman that says the internet is now the discrimination, so where you can be discriminated against by your carrier for the purpose of being innovative and saving money or whatever and it is exactly the opposite. But putting aside the political question because that is the important thing especially appear in this neighborhood and in the long term. Want to go back for a second. Justice scalia should be noted wasnt some kind of a raving liberal met neutrality or anything like that he said of course broadband is a Telecom Service. The fcc red bull all wrong. How can they possibly say this. But Justice Thomas doesnt say and cant say that the fcc made the right call. They have the discretion to choose the Telecom Service and how they might not able to live without cable operators. It stems from the fact that he has to make that call in the first place and Justice Scalia says that they dont have discretion here and the fact that its of indigenous, the broadband is clearly a Telecom Service. Going back to davids point what happens next everything about the process for the classification is the dockets that the fcc has opened and i would imagine they would take the comment again rather than just say we have a full record on 2010 and they could try to work with them on that i dont think they will move super quick based on what we have heard this far. Not being able to get that back its hard to dispute that no matter what we might think about the legal position is very unclear that they could do anything like prevent discrimination on line under 706 or anything short of the classification. And what this means take for example a competitor to the existing internet Providers Service for some kind of a chat applications. We saw this last year and we were just about ready to file a complaint to happily change the practices. They dont have to block that to make your life more difficult as a consumer to make the choices less available. They could just say you know you are welcome to use as much as you want, all you have to do first is i think is of contract will at all what happens. All you have to do is paid for the unlimited. The house long as youre paying for the voice minutes, you are free to use as much of the application as an alternative as you want me that is why the Net Neutrality really is based on the projections on the unreasonable discrimination as the telecom lawyers would say. But the simple no blocking world that they may or may not be able to is not really good enough to protect you against that kind of behavior. One other thing when it comes to the competition and market its not by most peoples stretches because you have the Wireless Industry that is more complicated than although where the people are really happy with their customer service. But any case no matter how many choices you have with a cell phone provider, for example, we have admittedly for National Carriers and some other local carriers as well. Very few people in the voice world would say, you know what its okay if Verizon Wireless wants to block my calls to pizza hut because they have a deal with dominos, thats cool i will just switch. I will switch to sprint. Theres something in the Communication Network and what verizon said when they were giving the rules that we would be exploring this kind of arrangement. Not to write a we block somebody but to find a way to get more money out of the particular edge provider to fix favorites, facebook, google, pizza hut, dominos who want to launch two kids in the garage and the fcc was trying to prevent those people from having to pay into the system. The Customer Satisfaction rates are high. We have a very high majority saying theyre very satisfied with a surface but i want to put that aside. I want to second with what you said about the political oxygen in the room. Having worked at the commission it is the case that the prioritization is relatively limited Staff Resources and as you get higher and higher on the Decision Making levels and having the intent of the spectrum Auction Going on, these are big issues that take up a lot of time. Review the connect natural the classification would take a lot of energy and in very real way is what effect the chairmans agenda and that is the point that people have to make. On the legal issues as the seat with classification i agree with what everyone said the process of the open dhaka at. It always puzzles me a little bit because it is in the context of Net Neutrality framed and the words used to adopt the nondiscrimination rules and reclassify so that we can act and for me that is the way we look at the statutes on its head. It is not the reverse. The congress set up definitions and said to the fcc to figure out how to get the definitions to fit, and then we will tell you in the other law what obligations apply to the different rules and the different services. And the fccs job is to make the best call and to say this ase Information Service or this is a Telecommunications Service and then say okay under the congress rules here is what applies to it. And there is something to me that says well, we didnt get to you the thing that we want by giving our best shot and applying the statute in the first time. So in order to get into the Regulatory Authority that we want to be in, we are going to change our mind. It seems to be the exact kind of outcome oriented Decision Making that the components of the Net Neutrality would get aggravated about and very angry about as if it were pursued in the pursuit of some of their ends. So im very reluctant to promote or to account the regime in which the fcc to fit into the scheme. Lets see the fcc were to do this and i have to agree with mark that we like it to need it least one last comment. The issues in the order lets say the best case is the last third or fourth quarter. I dont think that this would be a good case. That would lead to a lot as well. Not only on the reclassification is soft but on all of the things that the fcc would need to do to make that work. So in 2010, when the proposed this part of his proposal was to use what is called the fcc for Parents Authority to eliminate and cross out a lot of the requirements the lead otherwise apply to the Telecommunications Service. All of those i dont know if all of those that many of those would be challenged and people would think that the obligations would still apply and i think that leads to another year or two of litigation and in all three or four years of certainty but that is not a great portion. Talking on that prospect of the future litigation or the future proceedings. I would like to change gears and ask where the decision leaves the environment in the marketplace and policymakers and the regulatory certainty is a really important goal. How do they lead the certainty and all of the potential litigation and how might we see different broadband providers and edge providers of Online Services response. Like the decisions to cannot otherwise my sense is the best portion now is to seek out things fallout and should think about essentially about the chairman approach of and adjudicating cases that come up just like the common law and all other kinds of products. It is in a relatively good place where there is a cop on the beach and multiple copps on the beat. We mentioned the ftc earlier and it clearly has authority to do a lot of things. Matt disagrees that this regime can protect against the kind of thing that the average person would really worry about with respect to that neutrality. I dont know if i buy the pss or an allergy and whether i think there would be outside on the fcc authority under this section. I think they can guard against that and there is a lot that work so the market has done a pretty good job to react much to this decision either on the side or the edge provider side and we should wait and see how things go before jumping into another three or fiveyear fight. Much of it would be good for my pocketbook and my Daughters College fund. A constant litigation is not the way to govern the most Important Industries in the country. One way to avoid that would be to stop pursuing the rule that is understandable but i dont know i dont have any college fund potential from this spigot i will try to be briefed this time. As i said earlier this does not create a lot of certainty for people because it does not tell them with the fcc can or cannot. It basically says you can prevent some things from happening but we arent going to tell you in advance what they are because the important part, not just the tail end. You cant have a rule the way that you try to do it this time on the nondiscrimination. Certainly they do not jump all over the place and i think there is a little bit of a spike for some and not for others. Whos on the internet now and who are some of the companies that might think about the decision. We have that kind of a status quo and the chairman noted the broadband providers promise not to do bad things, but i dont think that its dirty comforting for the long term prospects of the companies again experimenting with new ways to monetize the network and take that money out of the pockets of consumers and pockets of the innovators on the network. I thought one of the really profound parts of the d. C. Circuit opinion is the upheld the fccs rationale, one of the rationales for developing the regulation, which was that not that the rules or regulations were needed because of the market power of any of the stakeholders. In fact, some of the actors at the edge of the internet from the market power perspective are pretty deep layers. Rather, it incurred its rationale for the rules in determining the access monopoly or the gatekeeper role so whether there is a thousand or millions of flowers of booming at the edge, ultimately every one of the edge providers has to deal with one provider, verizon. So with regard to everybody at the edge of the network, they are dealing with a monopoly for every one of their customers just trying to reach them. And i think that was a profound part of the d. C. Circuit decision. I dont think it was necessarily one was obvious that the d. C. Circuit with a uphold and the fcc continues on that. I think it does lead then want to think about how to enforce that and how to guard against that. And, you know, there are obviously of their ways that the verizon and others have said lets have this regulated by the ftc and we will agree to some rules and service and those can be the enforcement but for the fcc universe i think they have to do something without rationale so whether that is to have a no blocking regime or to do some sort of a title to, that does beg the result in some way to have an enforceable rules. We have an interesting experiment going on right now. Theyve largely adopted the rule that mark and matter are suggesting that they have the traditional rules governing telephone networks. And we see it here how we are behind europe and theyve got these rankings but the 200 kilobyte standard which is by most peoples standards crawling. You cant do anything on that. If you go to europe, they have a different discourse you look and they are invested in the networks thats one half per capital it is in the u. S. And there are 35 megabit coverage that is half of what it is in the u. S. And the coverage is onequarter of what is in the u. S. Lead and in fact what they are saying is not just in the infrastructure but where is the google and facebook and they are concerned not just on the infrastructure side but on the other side. And so, the data point i dont mean to suggest im doing a study on this right now because everybody wants to know whats going on, but my point is that there is a reason in other parts of the world where they are trying to regime where they put back on the telephone regime where they are not happy with the outcome and opens up the really interesting discussion that we should probably have about policy Going Forward. I would just add on that point, you know, google and facebook, when we had first cable and classified as something the they were all the Information Service on the telephone offerings were still subject to the kind of carrier rules and then we have the internet principles in place for a couple of years. All of it is to say that they have grown up where we do not need permission from the broadband provider to innovate. So, i think that yes there may be questions to ask about why dont we have as big a presence in the economy from europe or other places. I wouldnt say that we have such a big presence because the internet would come out of the control of the broadband provider to say the opposite we have innovation without pressure and because of a series that is changing and yet ultimately, somewhat consistent protections for innovation on line in the u. S. Internet access ecosystem. Is this decision helping move us towards a more coherent picture of what the fccs proper role is, or is this where congressional action is necessary . Well, one aspect, speaking in the halls of congress, it did clarify a couple things. Some people wanted this to shift from the fcc to the ftc. Interestingly, that would have very few implications in the senate because the Senate Commerce science and Transportation Committee has jurisdiction over both. On the house side, it would have shifted jurisdiction of which committee was responsible from the energy and Commerce Committee to the Judiciary Committee which would have been a big change in terms of how to process would have happened here. As of now, that didnt happen. It remains w