Somewhat bold step of reclassifying Internet Service to treat it as a title ii service, more of a utilitystyle regulation although thats a somewhat tricky term of art. While that happened way back in february, the rules were not formally published until just this week in the federal register which is the governments compendium of regulations, and that gets the process going for the next stage here which is, on the one hand, there will be enacted 60 days hence, so these rules will actually go into effect in june although right now whether this process has been going on for a while, there is nothing actually on the books. But what that publication also does is sets the stage of this new fight would be the court fight now that the rules have been published, companies and anyone else can file suit against the regulations and that is exactly whats happened. At least five so far, last time i checked, major lawsuits against the fcc just in the first 24 hours or so after the rules were published which is kind of were off to the races x therell be a Court Process here Going Forward. And then this could be a number of months until we kind of fi will, indeed stand on the books or whether the court action and strike them down. Host well, one of the groups that filed suit is u. S. Telecom, Walter Mccormick is the president and ceo. Mr. Mccormick, why did you file suit against these new rules . Guest peter, the irony here is we support the substance of the rules as around ticklated by the chairman of the fcc and the president of the United States. The open internet standards are to prevent blocking, throttling paid prioritization. But what were challenging and the reason we support them is our industry operates in conformance with those standards today. Our industry supports their adoption as regulation. We support their enactment into law by the United States congress. But what were challenging is the reclassification of Internet Access from being an Information Service to a Telecommunications Service regulated as a common carrier pursuant to Century Railroad regulation. Common carriage as a vestige of the English Common law was originally applied to railroads and then to Trucking Companies and then to airlines but its been repealed for all of those industries going on over 30 years ago because it proved to impose new costs on consumers, it delayed deployment, slowed innovation and really chilled investment. So we would be supportive of the open internet standards but not pursuant to a reclassification of the Industry Services as being common carriage. Host Christopher Hill christopher lewis, sorry about that with Public Knowledge, vice president. Mr. Lewis, what do you think about u. S. Telecom and its members filing their lawsuit . Guest well, i think, you know, first we start with where we degree. We both agree that Net Neutrality protections are important, and thats an important thing to start with. We do disagree with the lawsuit. Weve been very supportive of the rules that the fcc enacted and have now become force of law. We think that after a decade of working towards a way to have Net Neutrality rules that could hold up in court, that this is the strongest set of Net Neutrality approximates that weve seen in the protections that weve seen in the three different attempts at the agency to insure that the internet remains open. So were very hopeful and supportive of these rules and expect that theyll have a strong chance of holding up in court. Host why does Public Knowledge believe that Net Neutrality rules are necessary at this point . Guest so the internet really developed under the idea that consumers could go anywhere online if theyre 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 services online. And so thats the thats the principle and the value behind the nonblock nondiscrimination rules of Net Neutrality. You know, the fcc has tried for years to insure that those protections are upheld. They, 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 in january of 2014. And when those rules were knocked down the court basically said that nonblocking nondiscrimination are common carriagelike rules. So if youre going to enforce them, you would need to reclassify as a common carrier. Youd need to reclassify broadband as a common carrier in order to implement those sorts of rules. And so title ii was necessary to get can us to strong Net Neutrality rules and i think it also opens the door to a lot of other questions about broadband policy that the agency and congress will have to deal with in in the future. It may not be the easiest road but it certainly gets us to where we need to be. Host lets get Julian Hattem of the hill in this conversation. Thank you both for joining us. Im curious, you say Telecom Companies always say we support the big three prohibitions, no blocking throttling or paid prioritization on the internet but still whats so bad about title ii, the fcc has said, okay great that you belief that, but there should be rules on the books to make sure that its not just your word. And theyve tried before as in the verizon case and the court said essentially, no, you cant to it this way. As chairman tom wheeler has said, they painted a path for us to go down the title ii route. Why is that wrong . Whats so onerous about that and, i guess more importantly why is that illegal . Guest so i think chris articulated very well that the way the internet has developed over the course of the last 20 years, the internet was commercialized 20 years ago this year. And the way the internet has developed is in a way where it is open, where consumers can go anywhere, that there is no blocking that theres no throttling. And its developed that way because the industry that provides Internet Service operates the internet in that way. Thats why we have absolutely no objection whatsoever to the standards. We think they are consistent with the way in which the internets developed and the way in which 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 the authority to regulate telecommunications but when Congress Last acted in this area nearly 20 years ago it said that this should be no federal that there should be no federal or state regulation of Information Services, and it defined Internet Access service as an Information Service. And the Reason Congress wanted to have the internet up fettered unfettered by federal and state regulation is because its so dynamic. And congress at that time had just had experience with repealing this kind of common carrier regulation on the Traditional Industries of railroads and airlines and Trucking Companies in order to spur investment. So theres complete consensus on the objectives, theres complete consensus on the fcc doesnt have Clear Authority. This is the third time its tried. The fcc has no Clear Authority to regulate the internet. So you can go to two branches of government to seek clarification. You can go to the judiciary and say does the fcc have authority and the judiciary can sum my look at the simply look at the statute and say, well its not clear that they do. Or we can go to the congress. So thats why we are advocating that this should be an area where congress should act. We are simultaneously saying two things. The fcc acceded its authority exceeded its authority in promulgating these standards under title ii, but were now asking the congress to expand the fccs authority to allow it to provide these protections to consumers. Guest i think that thats an interesting its a good explanation of the position of the industry, and i think, you know, what were looking for is both on Net Neutrality and on broader broadband policy, were looking for a protection of the values and a protection of the expectations of consumers and businesses on how that internet is supposed to work. And the fcc has always had authority over Communications Networks. The problem and you can see it as a problem or you can see it as an opportunity the problem or opportunity is that Communications Networks have evolved. When the internet was first born in the 90s when i was in high school i first learned about the internet. And i got my first email account. And i remember vufdly when we first vividly when we first got our dialup modem at home. And that service Internet Access at that time was regulated as a title ii service. The dialup service i was getting. And when we moved to dsl, same thing. It was regulated as a title ii service because it was built on the phone network. And what weve seen since the 90 is weve seen the industry begin to converge where everything that you would think of to as tradition alltel communications, your voice as well as new Services Like interactive Internet Services, video services, its all beginning to converge. And so we have an important question in front of us as policymakers, the congress the fcc, those of us who advocate. We have an important decision in front of us to say, you know, do we want to continue to have a federal Communications Commission thats empowered to protect consumers and protect the openness of those networks as they converge . And i think that we do want that sort of commission. Net neutrality is a part of that, but theres a whole broader spectrum of values that need to continue to be protected, and i think title ii gets us that conversation. Host mr. Lewis, has the internet been successful has it been fair, and if so, why change the rules now . Guest it has been successful, and we want it to continue to be successful. And so i think the when we talk about it being successful, we want at Public Knowledge we want to see the internet continue to develop in the way that its developed, and that means promoting both the ability of access providers, Broadband Access providers to build out their networks to build Robust Networks that are capable of using all the great new services that are being developed and created, ones we havent even thought of but you also want to be able to encourage investment in those services the Startup Companies that are started in garages, the new services that i just took an uber here today, and ive only been using uber for five months, but i love it. Its a tremendous app that runs over the internet, you know . We want to continue to see new Services Like that. And those services have had the freedom to innovate and be creative by small ineventers, by Small Businesses inventers by Small Businesses because they did not have to compete against services owned by the Internet Service providers, your comcasts and verizons of the world but host those are the types of buzzes that were formed prior to title ii businesses that were formed prior to title ii doing. And also during title ii. Title ii ceased to exist for Internet Service providers in the early 2000s. So both the early internet and the middle years of the development of kind of the next phase of the internet where you saw video develop online were highly successful times for investment in the network and investment in online services. It happened under both regimes. Guest i think uber is a great example because what uber does is it competes with a service thats offered as a common Carrier Service. Taxi cabs are regulated common carriers. Uber is not. Uber is more innovate i uber is more exciting, uber is able to offer consumers a wide variety of applications and innovations that taxi cabs cannot because taxi cabs have to seek authority from the Taxi Cab Commission over their rates, their terms and their conditions. Thats what were concerned about. The internet has been as free as uber. But now under title ii common carrier regulation the fcc is asserting jurisdiction over rates, over terms and over conditions of service. So Going Forward, they have invited anyone who has a complaint to file it at the fcc. Theyve invited the industry Going Forward to come to the fcc first when it is establishing new services or new applications to get the fccs view as to whether or not the rates or the conditions for those services are acceptable. This is going to slow innovation. And this is why i think that we are at an exciting time because there is a consensus here. Theres a consensus that there should be a role for government, an appropriate role to protect consumers so that 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 really provided guidance in this area for 20 years. Really suns the internet since the internet was in its infancy. And so its time, we think, for congress to act on this consensus that has developed and to provide the commission with Clear Authority to guarantee an open internet, but to prevent the commission from having to redefine the entire internet to be a telecommunications common Carrier Service simply to achieve the power in row objective of the narrow objective of assuring consumers of open and free internet. I appreciate your enthusiasm about congress, but i think optimism about action on capitol hill is maybe most people would say not super forthcoming on this and many, many other issues. Since the Telecommunications Act dates back to 1996 which is the last time that Congress Really dealt with these issues, right before there was this modern internet i think a lot of folks at the fcc and supporters have been saying in the wake of congressional action, the agency should have the authority to change with the times. The internet in 96 was not the internet of today. Shouldnt the agency be able to respond to these new changes and to be able to assert regulations and to make sure that there are no loopholes so that companies dont exploit a 20yearold law that guest absolutely, the agency should be able to change with the times if Congress Gives it the authority to change. Uhhuh. Guest but im not as pessimistic. Im actually very optimistic. Congress tends to act where there is consensus on a problem and where there is consensus on a solution. Theres absolute consensus here on the problem. Even the chairman of the fcc has said my authority is unclear. Thats why theyve moved to redefine the internet as telecommunications. So theres consensus after the fcc has now tried three times to impose these regulations and been unable to find Clear Authority. Theres consensus that theres not Clear Authority. Second theres i think, consensus on the solution. The solution is provide the fcc with the authority. That can be done very easily by congress, and we have seen a real bipartisan approach to doing this in the senate. Chairman john thune and Ranking Member bill nelson have both been talking about the importance of providing the fcc Clear Authority to be able to guarantee an open internet. So im hopeful. Do you share that optimism, and would you support a legislative approach . Guest you know, theres room for optimism and then there has to be a real dose of reality. The optimism is the consensus that we keep referencing, and i think thats why you see chairman thune Ranking Member nelson and others, leaders from the house as well sitting down and talking. I think thats why you see them calling folks like us in to give our views about how you can move forward on congressional legislation. The reality that sets in is while theres consensus on Net Neutrality the unintended consequences of Net Neutrality legislation have to be dealt with. The impact on other values around broadband beyond Net Neutrality have to