One of the cochairs of the internet caucus, along with her presented of doug collins. The internet caucus was created 20 years ago to inform this debate and discussion about key internet policy questions, and of course Net Neutrality is toward the top of that list. Even though all of us or our bosses may not agree on how to approach Net Neutrality, this is important for all of us. Net neutrality has been a top issue for my boss for many years. The lead plaintiff is headquartered in our district, which we are proud of. This year, we did a town hall with the commissioner of the fcc focused on Net Neutrality. Im looking forward to what you have to say. On behalf of the caucus, i want to ask thank the panelists for helping inform the debate. I want to thank tim for helping host and organize this. She is to be a follow at the academy and is now at brookings. Thanks for the introduction. Thank you for attending our panel today. Thank you for cohosting this pal. I am looking forward to discussing the Circuit Decision last week. Im looking forward to discussing the case with our panelists. We have the internet policy manager for mozilla. We have a partner in Global Charity communications practice. We have the director of the open technology institute. The Vice President of policy at u. S. Telecom. Our panelists will talk about the decision. What the case might mean for congress. I am going to briefly explain the background on the case. How did we get to where we are today . There is one definition, it is the principle that Internet Service providers which are known as broadband providers manage all traffic in the same way and not speed up or slow down specific websites or applications. The fcc has adopted three separate neutrality orders. In 2010, 2015, in 2018. In 2010, the fcc approved the first open Internet Order, specifically providing providers from discriminate against any traffic. The 2012 was challenged in federal court. The d. C. Circuit said they did not have the Statutory Authority to impose these antidiscrimination laws. Broadband provided classified Information Services at the time. The 1934 Communications Act which was amended creates a distinction between title i Information Services and title to telecommunications services. Because they classified broadband as title i services, the court said the fcc did not have the authority to impose regulations on them. The d. C. Circuit they passed a new rule, the open internet rule. It reestablished rules and internet traffic. It also reclassified title i to title ii services. This classification of broadband is significant because unlike title i classifications, title ii could enable the fcc to regulate things unrelated to Net Neutrality. They could abstain from additional powers. In 2016, the circuit ruled again, this time they opened. The d. C. Circuit upheld the reclassification of Broadband Service as title ii services. If congress did not specify the statute, the fcc had the leeway to choose. In 2018, the fcc passed the restoring Internet Freedom order, which repealed the order and changed the classifications from title ii act to title i. About two months after the order came into effect, it was challenged in court. The d. C. Circuit mostly upheld the 2018 order that found issue with the provisions. I would like to turn it over to our panelists. I would like to explore this further. We can start with matt. What did the court decide . Thank you for having me here today. I worked at the fcc from 2001 through 2005. The early concept of nondiscrimination disclosure was emerging at that time. I represent the cable industry. I just want to provide a brief summary of the decision. Its 186 pages long with a lot of detail. Im only going to talk about every other page. She mentioned the classification of broadband. Thats at the heart of these proceedings. The reason for that debate is they have different starting points. Title i classification starts from the foundation of no regulation, the fcc can later rules on top. Title ii is from the 1934 telecom act. It has a broad array of regulations. The fcc can cancel out some of those regulations through a forbearance process. There is a good starting point. The fcc and the 2018 order concluded to go back to the original determination that broadband should be treated as an Information Service because of its function and that would bring about a framework that would best work in advancing its policy objectives. The d. C. Circuit upheld that classification. The court relied on some of the Technical Analysis the fcc did involving two particularly important functions. Ems is the domain name system. Thirdparty is the translator that you type in into a numerical ip address. Thats a critical function of Internet Service and the fcc found historically its from the transmission that occurs. It is integrated with transmissions of broadband data to make the service information. The circuit upheld that, that the decision the prior decision in the telecom case upholding Telecom Service. They can choose either label. They can make it a Telecom Service or broadband and information. That classification was submitted to the agency. It comports with both the statute and administrative law. Turning to the apa, the court went through a long series of objections the petitioners had lodged against the analysis. By and large, they upheld those critiques. In upholding the order, the court concluded the analysis of the classification decision was sufficiently well reasoned and explained to comply with the procedure act. The analysis of the Competitive Landscape was valid. The commission explained the backstop for relying on Consumer Protection from the department of justice and the state attorney general. In contrast to those issues were the court upheld the commission, they found three issues were the fcc had not explained the decision. Those let the court to conclude that further explanation by the agency was needed. The court did not vacate the order. They did not think the errors were serious enough to undermine the order. It requires the fcc to explain these three issues. They were the importance of Public Safety. Public safety officials argued the fcc had not considered the implications of its Information Service classification or the decision to get rid of certain carrier mandates. It did not consider how those can affect Public Safety. The fcc will have to consider those further and explain why its decision will not threaten Public Safety interests. The commission argued that getting rid of the prior rules was in the Public Interest generally. The court said it wasnt enough discussion about the safety issue. The second issue involved pole attachment. Those are granted under section 220 42 cable providers. Section 224 two cable providers. They considered the lawful poll rights for standalone broadband providers for consideration. The lifeline program, the low income universal service program, the statute provides support of the universal Service Programs for communications services. That was the case before the 2015 order. To be eligible for lifeline support, you have to have service. They concluded broadband could be eligible for discounts under those programs. Now that broadband, they have to explain what that means. The Immediate Impact on the program, the fcc needs to better consider. After those decisions regarding the classification and the elimination of conduct rules, the court had a discussion about state law. Im sure we will talk about this more as time goes on. This is one of the more interesting and hotly debated aspects of the order. There are two types an issue. Express preemption exists where congress or the agency in advance precludes the application of state law. They do that directly. They regulate wireless rates in the Communications Act. There are other instances where they have been given authority over an issue on its own. The crux of the analysis divided the decision. The commission did not identify explicit Regulatory Authority to justify preempting state laws in advance. The best way to understand this is the fcc concluded that because broadband is in a title ii service, it doesnt fall within the major provisions of the act. The Commission Also said that section 706 invoked previously in the 2010 and 2015 orders, the fcc said that is in the basis for regulation. It only guides the exercise of the regulatory function. The fcc said we dont have positive regulatory. You dont have the authority to preempt state law in advance. The court said under the other kind of exemption, it is premature to determine whether state law is preempted. It will it arises under the clause of the constitution. That is the essence of our system. Where the courts of applied that doctrine, there are two ways to have a conflict. Compliance literally is topical. State law requires you to do something. Federal law preclude you from doing it. State law must yield. The other type of conflict is when state law is an obstacle to achieving federal policy. That is going to be the principal debated here. Broadbent should be treated as a Telecom Service, it should be subject to mandates. The federal law says the opposite of those things. I can talk about this further. There will be a strong case for argument. The judge thought there was authority. He thought the majority analysis expressed might implicate his ability the fccs ability. Thats a detailed summary. I will stop there. Thank you matt. It sounds like this is one of the bigger issues. Many states of introduced legislation, california has passed a law. The court said that the order to not preempt state Net Neutrality laws in advance, should this gives states the confidence to enact their own legislation . I can jump in. If i could back up just a little bit. This is a slightly different perspective on how one might im the director of the open technology institute. We were parties to the case. We were intervenors in support of the 2015 open internet rules. We are advocates in Net Neutrality space. We are very active in both the proceeding for the 2015 rules as well as the preceding to overturn those rules. I think its helpful to think about what the decision means in a more practical sense. To put it into laymans terms, this is how much discretion the agency has to interpret this. The court said you were within the definition afforded to you. The court went through great pains to see that was just barely the case. I also want to point out the remand is quite significant. This wasnt remanded on three narrow procedural things. They fail to consider the applications of Public Safety, lifeline attachments. They fail to consider the impact of the repeal on first responders, firefighters, the impact of that order on the one federal program that provides subsidies to overcome the most commonly identified barrier to internet, cost. This provides competitive opportunities for access. They fail to consider Public Safety, ems and first responders, affordability, and access. I dont want to understate the magnitude or the significance of what the fcc has to do to bring this into consideration. This is what is likely to happen. Going back to preemption, its important to recognize that we have had lots of laws with engagement Net Neutrality. I think ive heard it said that the issue has been punted. I would say thats been quite active for the last two years in establishing a clear track record. It culminates most noticeably in the california Net Neutrality. It was stronger than the 2015 law. This does open up opportunities in this space. It does provide more clarity and confidence for states who may have been worried about the legitimacy of the preemption. The technology issue, we are engaging with lawmakers on the understanding of the issue and figured out the best way to go. Im just going to jump in on the preemption point. I am with u. S. Telecom. Going back to the preemption part, the thing with broadband Internet Service, it is national. When you think about your broadband connection, youre not thinking about at you have exclusively in california or vermont, another state of his past Net Neutrality law. You want to work across the country. You want to have a reliable broadband connection. The challenge we are going to see as the states see this as an invitation to legislate. We will end up with a patchwork of laws that will make it difficult for consumers. You wont know what to expect from your broadband connection depending on where you might travel. One of the examples we hear about is you jump on the amtrak and you stream a movie on netflix to new york, there is a different broadband regulation providers must comply within each of those different states. That makes it very difficult. We have to keep that in mind. The patchwork will be very difficult and will not have expectations for consumers to can rely on. What the court did here was say no to blanket preemption. The commission cant blanket lay preempt any state laws. The court did make a distinction with interstate and intrastate broadband. Were not sure what and intrastate broadband might be. Someone might be able to correct me. We need to look at the conflict of preemption. If there is a specific law that did conflict with the policy of the regulation, that could be in conflict and struck down. Couple of things worth noting, with regard to the patchwork, this is a patchwork that the Internet Service providers invited by pushing for the repeal of the Internet Orders that was a federal regime. This is a product of the fcc deregulation in this space. We have seen Consumer Protection laws work on a statebystate basis. This seems fairly overstated. There will be lots of fights that will be happening at the state level. That will create a lot of work to be done over the next few years. In the absence of fcc regulation, im not convinced we will see a workable patchwork. To take this back a step from where weve and the right now, the basic idea in the decision is the concept that federal agency cant regulate an area where it doesnt have authority. The concept does not believe they have the authority to regulate in the specific field. They wont have the ability to regulate in the field. They dont have the ability to preempt. We can talk a little bit about preemption and what it means. Matt explained this. The court found the agency did not have the authority. In the specific context, the court it is not done on a casebycase basis. The actual formula itself does or does not exist. I think we talk about what the patchwork could mean. The benefit for consumers longterm is not only that we would get Net Neutrality protections on the state level, this would innovate and fill the void in terms of protecting consumers. That could mean something touched upon earlier. I think a lot of what this is about is utilitybased regulation. All of this is going to be played on this Going Forward. Its not merely that we will get Net Neutrality. The state might move farther. I think nobody disagrees that broadband is an interstate service. The fcc said so. Its an interstate service. Preemption is not like the traditional fights we had with Telephone Service where there was a local phone service. States have a clear role in regulating Telephone Service. There really is no role for space to play in the regulating service. The best evidence is the title we can onlyt said have federal law and it comes to deciding this framework. The importance of that doesnt change of certain advocates dont like the conflict of the federal law. Add to the notion that the fcc advocated all of already here, that is just not the case. The d. C. Circuit judge ruled last week is that they did have authority to classify broadband as an Information Service. The regulatory portion of the community. This is outside the jurisdiction of the fcc. Matthew it is. And the case law is clear that when an agency d regulates or when an agency regulates, the law needs to be given effect. The fcc did not just a regulate, it imposed a disclosure obligation under section 257 of the act which petitioners challenged in the court upheld that. I forgot to mention that. The debate between judge williams on the majority was can you preempt old state laws regardless of their details and advanced . The majority said clearly you cannot. What the majority was quick to say, if the commission can explain how a state practice undermines the 2018 order, then it can invoke conflict preemption. It goes on to say that the preemptive effect within its authority do have preemptive effect. What we will see on individual cases, two pending lawsuits im involved in, is where the fcc has authority to classify and the court says it does, where it had authority to rely on transparency, fcc backstop, antitrust backstop, those are affirmative regulatory choices, in the state contradicted those choices. Im confident the story the court will say the state cannot contradict the policy choices of the federal agency. Thank you. Nobody really disagrees that consumers should not be able to access the content and services and applications of their choices. Our members, broadband providers want to servers to reliably be able to access the online content they want. Really where a lot of this debate is is the classification status. That title i, the 2018 order restored or the title to which was in place for only about two years. Prior to that, the internet really grew and flourished under the title i framework with some of the policy statements coming out of the commission. As we think about the type of debate, it is not no protections or heavy handed protections, its about the classification and being able to make sure that as we make sure consumers can still reliably and predictably access the services they want they have the protection, but we are allowing the internet to continue, and allowing networks to innovate and doing all of those great innovations. The internet we have in 2019 is very different than the internet we had in 2005 when this debate started. Matt alluded to before then. If you think about how much growth has happened under the framework, thats the piece that most of this debate is centering around. Just a couple responses and im sure there is a lot more for many of you all here. If we take Internet Service providers at their word, that they have no intention of interfering with your ability as Internet Users to access the content of their choosing, the amtrak example fails. If you are on amtrak and everyone is committed to allowing you to access all the content you want, it should not matter if the laws very slightly when you are in virginia versus in pennsylvania. The central obligations will remain the same and the internet will continue to function as we expect and has has historically it is true that there has been different approaches to the classification of broadband throughout the history of Net Neutrality. The reality is up until 2017, or 2018, we when it went into effect, there were clear and enforceable Net Neutrality obligations. The fcc was wrestling with the best authority the best way to justify those regulations under some underlying source sometimes that was title i, sometimes title ii, but what changed was not a shift in classification but rather a shift in the overall regime of how Internet Users are protected when they are trying to access it. Providers by and large have committed not to block traffic, not to funnel traffic, not to engage in other anticompetitive conduct, so sarah says, what are we worried about . Let me tell you. Rule embodies ii the internet conduct standard, which says something is illegal if the fcc declares it is it it is illegal. Where knuckling to tell you in advance what that is. It was frustrating to devise isps about how they are going to comply with the standard when the fcc order gave us examples of conduct that were allegedly inconsistent with principles we are trying to effectuate. Zero rating is a debate about whether wireless providers can provide certain content without accounting against the data cap. So can they give you free data . Underminethat would Neutrality Principles and other said and others said that was terrific for consumers. The fcc said, we dont know, we will decide later. The debilitating effect of guidance like that is that you cant go back and innovate, cant go back and roll out new plans. The amtrak example is, maybe you could do it in delaware, but not pennsylvania. The reason these laws exist in california and vermont is that both states tried to impose an internet guy an openended internet product standard. We dont know what that means. Have called for federal legislation to enshrine it, but we cant have an openended standard when it provides no meaningful guidance and will impede innovation. Sarah as you are sitting in the room today, as an exercise, i would urge you to compare the open ended general conduct standard with the fcc description of the nondiscrimination rule in the 20 in the 2010 Internet Order. They are similar. What we see in this debate is industry liking openended standards and tests when they work for them, but hating them when they think they might be bad for them. On the zero rating example, the fcc quickly came out with of zero on which types rating schemes they would find most problematic. Ofas a function of a the workability of the fcc approach and the Internet Order. It said clearly, certain behaviors are prohibited, but we have retained the authority to ascertain whether new conduct in the future, or whether certain things that might fall outside those bright line prohibitions, interneterwise harm users ability to view the content of their choosing. So was a backdrop to ensure that there werent any loopholes in those rules that would allow give a forumand to for assessing new prohibitions and behavior let and behavior at the commission, which we dont have now. For those not familiar for those not familiar with the concept of zero content rating, it is when you use data and it doesnt affect your data cap. That is the concept. We believe zero rating is dangerous for innovation online, here is why. At t has their own zero rating plan. And in order for an outside company to qualify for the plan to have data not counted against to cap, it costs around 60 47 per month. The program from at t offered to consumers is 35. This is not a sustainable model for model for small and mediumsize companies trying to compete with the vast assets at t have. At t has. That is what zero rating is and that is why we need the general conduct rule, because companies that are smaller in the face can move smaller in the space can move forward. It is not about google or facebook, it is about the next company that is coming up. That is what is at the heart. I disagree on the zero rating issue about what is good for consumers. It doesnt matter who is right. There has to be a clear answer at the federal level. Again, if each state is not only defining its own internet conduct standard, but than making enforcement decisions that very, it is a recipe for chaos. If you are a wireless provider Offering Service nationally or over a broad region, does whether you are violating the policy turn on whether the signal happens to go to a tower in maryland or virginia or the district . That is no way to run a Regulatory Regime or run industry. So there needs to be answers to these questions. They are sometimes difficult polity policy questions that can be fairly debated, but the nuances of that underscore it needs to be addressed at the federal level. The ftc has taken the mantle. It has said we will apply section five of the ftc act to see whether broadband provider representations are deceptive when they talk about unlimited plans, and will decide whether they are unfair substantively in violation of antitrust laws. There is a cop at on the beat at the ftc stash ftc has said there is a cop on the beat and the ftc has said they would be happy to provide regulation. I would like i would like to talk about the congressional role in this. Members of both parties have introduced Net Neutrality laws, but none have passed house and senate yet. What provisions are the in the bills are in the bills, and is there a chance congress could reach consensus on a Net Neutrality bill . Sincerely that there will be bipartisan consensus on a modern, innovative framework that gives consumers the protections and gives clear lines on the road. This isnt about just broadband providers, it is about Innovative Services we want from broadband connections. Sponsored data can be proconsumer, so we want to make sure there are opportunities to offer those services and plans Consumers Want want. There are a lot of elements in these bills and i think there is a lot of overlap in the types of Consumer Protections we want. We just dont want the heavyhanded Regulatory Regime from 1934 that was put into place 85 years ago. That is a really long time. And to have those being applied to our modern, Innovative Networks is not the correct approach. There are different ways we can arrive. So we remain Optimistic Congress will get it over the goal line. The time is ripe for congress to take up this issue. Earnested they have, in. Same piece oft legislation has not been passed two veryhambers yet, similar pieces of legislation with nearly identity of objectives, the cra which passed the senate, it can overturn the 2017 repeal, and the save the internet act, which passed the senate with bipartisan support, and the save the internet act which passed the house. I want to be careful when we talk about compromise, that we arent trading away fundamental Consumer Protections or ignoring the vast amount of work that has already been done on this issue, and has been widely supported read so we have the 2015 open Internet Order which was upheld by the d. C. Circuit judge, essentially twice, by a panel and then again en banc, which means the entire panel of judges on the d. C. Circuit judge that represented this regulatory approach of three bright line rules, backstop commission that approach was affirmed by the senate when it voted to undo the repeal from 2017. By the houseed with a majority through the save the internet act, and it has vast public support from the american people. A poll by the university of maryland found 82 of republicans, 90 of democrats and 85 of independents support the approach and the 2015 Internet Order. And those are poles that are replicated, maybe not with the same numbers every time, but with the clear message that those poles send is that thee polls send is that bipartisan public vastly supports the 2015 open internet approach. As we move forward in congress, it is important to remember the significance that significant support this as on a bipartisan basis, both in congress and certainly among the american people. So we will approach conversations on the hill with the 2015 open internet approach whate best practice for any further legislation should cover. And certainly the save the internet act, which already passed the house, reflects that approach. I want to be an optimist. There is a lot of consensus on this underlining policy. Everybody agrees underlying policy. Everybody agrees that should be Net Neutrality. Why is this so hard . Because we are fighting mostly about labels, but title i, title ii. It strikes me that congress, who is in charge of the fcc end in charge of the statute, should get tied up on which fcc Order Congress should endorse. We know what the principles are, no blocking, no restrictions on flat band, you can debate the details. So there is a lot of consensus on what the law should be, and enormous support from industry and consumers. We are never going to get there if we are debating the people want the 2015 order of the fcc, people dont necessarily know what that means. In my mind, what is really going on, and my friend here was acknowledging, there is interest in using title ii for reasons having nothing to do with Net Neutrality, namely rate regulation. I appreciate your acknowledging. , because sometimes people dont want took knowledge that. If we want to talk about Net Neutrality, lets legislate Net Neutrality, but we dont need to sweep in statutes that will usher in rate regulation and totally unrelated kinds regulation, because that is not part of Net Neutrality. The thing about the 2015 open Internet Order, the conversation really needs to work toward a compromise. And the Internet Order was a compromise, it quickly moved forward from rate regulation and local bundling. This moved forward with the idea we want to take those concerns into account on the ifb side and provide consumers with adequate protections. We have a version of Net Neutrality protections that have passed a Republican Senate during the cra repeal, the cra vote muster. And we have a version of the safe internet act that passed the house this year. So yes, lots of debate about what the final legislation should look like, we have a lot to work for. It is not just about labels, its about getting details right. In the 2015 open Internet Order, we have a model for those details and how that should work and practice. If the ifps concerned about regulation, ok, we have a consensus model, we have a way we can work with them on this they fought against this issue, they fought against the consensus that was built and that is why we are where we are today. Ferras there was never a can matthew there was never a consensus on rate regulation. The fcc said it was dangerous and inappropriate. That when he 15 order explains why it went to court. They wont engage in prescriptive ratemaking, meaning the fcc will set rates in advance. But what it tends to do, and this is the reason the order was subject to repeal, is regulate rates in response to complaints, it is like promising something with your fingers crossed, that didnt provide comfort to industry that we could invest with certainty the government wouldnt come in and set different rates that would undermine your company. That is the big fight area if people are serious about taking rate regulation off the table, i think we could get to a resolution much more quickly. Congress just passed an amendment to the 2016 regulation if Congress Just passed an amendment to the 2016 regulation that said no regulation on ifps, you would be ok with that . You just said that would basically be the issue the isps sued over. Regulatione was rate and one was internet content. But again, think about how we want to regulate these networks Going Forward erie the internet really grew because it was regulated under light touch regulation. Some advances in telephone systems versus your internet. In a very short time, the internet was able to eclipse what we were able to do under the title ii regulation, because it is permissionless innovation. But it is not unbridled. There is a transparency role coupled with transparency rule coupled with enforcement from the federal trade commission, which has been the cop on the beat for this. We need to make sure we are not going to be constraining future innovation and investment. And what we saw during the two years that the 2015 open Internet Order was any fact is that investment in broadband went down. Order, nohe 2017 superimposed rulemaking was indicated it was coming along, we saw investment shoot back up. That is not the only thing that could have accounted for the investment in that time, the court made clear to note u. S. Telecoms prior reports have done that as well, but it is a strong indication that when you have heavyhanded regulation it will impede investment and innovation. That hase one constant fueled prolific growth of the internet is the principle of nondiscrimination and ability to go where you want online without ifps interfering with those decisions. And that its a pole, in various forms, has underscored how the internet works since its liest days sarah earliest days. We can play the investment and lots of research has been done that refutes the alliancet investment that the dipping Investment Alliance with the time the Internet Order was in effect, but the majority of growth happens because Net Neutrality was something the fcc had across republican fcc chairs and democratic fcc chairs sent the 2005 open internet principles. Let me agree and disagree. Yes, there has always been a commitment to these principles. The debate is how you enforced. What is the role of government . When i was in the fcc under chairman michael powell, he gave a speech and articulated for the first time what Net Neutrality protection should look like. In chairman powells mind, these were marketbased principles providers would adhere to, and it ended up enshrined in the policy statement but was not a binding set of rules and more importantly was not title ii. Bound was not held to be as legitimate authority by the d. C. Circuit judge matthew despite that, d. C. Circuit judge hea. If isps has not repeatedly suit to fight every stage of fcc attempts to impose Net Neutrality protections, we would not be here today. We would have had the 2010. We had the 2010 rules. Isps sued. We had the 2015 rules. Isps sued. Matthew one isps sued. [laughter] most of the history of the internet, which isnt that old, the vast majority of it, title ii has not been in place. It was in place from 2015 to 2017, thats it, and yet the internet has been incredibly successful under a light touch regime. The proof in the putting is that after the repeal of the heavyhanded title ii order, there were doom and gloom predictions the internet was going to stop, investment was going to stop, this guy was going to fall. Our internet still works really well and nothing has changed. This idea that the internet is going to stop, the idea is theree is the only is only the potential for futile litigate for future litigation on this. So because of that threat, the isps are on their best behavior. Ie second point is that expect this to move slowly, small things like zero rating that may not be spatially offensive to consumers, and move forward to slowly more prohibited forms of isp bad conduct. Prohibitive forms of isp bad conduct. Keeps it so important to fighting for those protections moving forward . Sarah we dont have a cop on the beat at the fcc to figure out where harms are occurring. There may be bad actors in the space that havent surfaced yet because there is no venue to air those types of complaints. And we have seen examples of broad medical examples of problematic behavior that is the type of behavior we would want the fcc to set, interference of firefighters wireless access during wildfires in california. Can debate 10 we turn blue until we turn blue about whether that was a violation, but the fact is we have no agency and power to assess it. They are limited to anticompetitive behavior. They dont have rulemaking authority. They can only act after the fact. Matthew that is what we are debating, complaints. Ina provider was engaging throttling, they would have to be transparent about that. The court did find the commission justified there was sufficient competition in the broadband marketplace right now to be able to support the a providery, and if is not being transparent and engaging in those practices, the ftc will step in. But your broadband provider does not have an incentive to throttle you, there incentive is to make sure there is traffic on our networks that they can deliver services and products. Atwhen we are looking competition, the court did uphold that part of the argument with the competition, and also with investment analyses that were done. So the commission fully justified its position in the court upheld those portions of the order that support the current framework. It said that the court believes that they are going to defer to agency judgment on competition, even when there are less than two providers in a given space. I appreciate there is a lot of hard economic work to try and justify that, but that kind of judgment defies common sense. To have competition you typically need at least two parties to create a market for things. I think the court said when there are two providers, not more than two. I think it is actually only one. Less than two providers, but i dont think that is what the court said. Butas i will check again, it was less than two. We are going to audience questions in a moment. I want to ask if there are any next steps for consumer groups, Internet Companies or broadband providers. Are there opportunities for appeal for this case, and what might that timeline be . I suspect we will all say we are considered our next steps. But of the possible next steps, that includes a petition for a en banc, meeting all of the judges of the d. C. Circuit judge, and a petition for certain of the Supreme Court focusing on whether there is a sufficiently ripe legal question for the Supreme Court. All of those are on varying timelines. Ay one party could initiate petition for either rehearing or party could any petition. Timelines, aof rehearing petition is due november 15. If there is a rehearing, it pushes back the timeline. Does anybody in the audience have questions . Yes, go ahead. President trump made the unusual step today of tweeting his support for the Net Neutrality decision. That was unusual because in because he often doesnt personally get involved in telecom issues. Would any of you like to respond about his reaction to that decision . I didnt see the statement. President obama in 2014 spoke out in favor of title ii, not just in favor of Net Neutrality, but the specific legal authority, so i guess there is precedence of elevating this to the president ial level. We help support for Net Neutrality can be a nonpartisan issue. We have work to do among republicans to bring them onboard, but moving forward, this is something democrats and republicans can work on here in congress and hopefully the executive branch. Cap can i go back to the list of next steps . As we are watching to see which steps are going to rehearing, we shouldnt forget the fcc has a remanned on its plate and has been directed by the court to reconsider its 2017 orders effect on Public Safety. And part of congresss role can be holding the fcc accountable as it does that, i think particularly, pushing the fcc to answer for the millions of Public Comments which news reports are showing we are fraudulently directed with ties to broadband for america, which populated the docket, and which the commission has not fully answered for yet. Caitlin i think we have time for one more quick question. We have gone back and forth in the past 10 or so years. Im wondering if this materially gives ip providers the confidence that they have the ability to invest . I can try to take that one. Unequivocally no. The problem with what is called this pingpong match, title i, title ii, title i, title ii, it is debilitating for everyone involved. Dont think anyone wants a constant toggling between two regimes. Thats why my clients and kristines members in the Telecom Industry say to come up with a stable regime that will not be back and forth every few years and change with each administration. Sarah sarah the toggling has almost exclusively in over isp lawsuits because of isp lawsuits over previous reiterations of Net Neutrality. Matthew for their lawsuits. Sarah one lawsuit resulted in the one order that was fully. Fully caitlin thats all the time we have. Thank you to our audience for coming and exploring to complex legal and policy issues regarding Net Neutrality. Thank you. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] bob cusack, editorinchief of the hill, joining us now, talking about the house impeachment inquiry, who is going to testify in the coming week . Hill used to be a diplomat for the Trump Administration. Shes going to testify, and that is a concern because she knows what is going on in europe, and it follows on the heels of marie anovitch testifying today. We know the Trump Administration tried to block her. She is a Current State Department employee, she wanted to testify and she was subpoenaed, House Democrats a the subpoena forced her to testify, but she really wanted to testify. The testify Going Forward of hill and sunderland, another one whose texts were released recently, he was a trump donor. The state department did block his testimony, but it looks like he will also testify next week. We getting timeline from house leadership on an Impeachment Vote . Now, interesting question, that is what members are asking about. Certainly, you will see something this year. The question is not only, but is it going to be about ukraine, obstruction of justice, will it be larger than that . Will it be Financial Issues . How broad will impeachment be . I think you are going to see it in all likelihood before thanksgiving, but Speaker Pelosi has not given any timeline. Covering her for many years, i dont think she wants this to drag on, certainly not into 2020, an Election Year when remember, democrats won the house not talking about impeachment, but talking about issues, health care, so i think she wants to get this vote and it looks like it is going to happen, just a matter of when, done in 2019. That is in the issue has split republican leaders. Steve scalise from louisiana and Kevin Mccarthy are backing the sanctions bill. It will divide republicans torn between supporting their president and this move abandoning the kurds. You will potentially see next beyond them admonish the white house for this move. The president sees the withdrawal as a political winner. Thats right. There was a rally last night and he repeatedly mentioned we have to stop the endless wars. Some republicans will support him. I think some democrats will support him if they are forced to vote on it. The vast majority dont support this move. I think the white house has been surprised by how much republican pushback they have gotten, especially from leaders. That is so unusual in this congress. , Speaker Pelosi introduced her Prescription Drug plan. When might we see some floored debate and votes on that . This is a big issue for House Democrats. Mentioned, Speaker Pelosi unveiled her bill. The industry is not pleased with this. Adshave seen a lot of tv going after the big and supporting what the Trump Administration has done on administrative policy. Mitch mcconnell is not a fan of this bill. The bill had to be strengthened to get progressives on board on how many drugs could be negotiated and to bring down drug prices. It is unclear when it will go to the floor. Committees in the house have jurisdiction, so you will have hearings that are very partisan, then you will have markups moving through committee and going to the floor sometime in 2019. For quick yes no question you, will the senate take up usmca before the end of the year . Knifes edge. E but impeachment is a problem because of the politics of it. Nancy pelosi and republicans want to get to yes, so a little over 50 chance this will Pass Congress this year, but dont bet money on that. Thank you so much for joining us. Announcer follow cspan as Congress Returns on tuesday after a twoweek recess, with impeachment inquiries against president trump, legislation to lower Prescription Drug costs, and curbing the outsourcing of u. S. Jobs. The Senate Continues work on the president s executive and senate nominations. Watch live coverage of the house on cspan, and the senate life on cspan to come online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the goat using the free cspan radio app. Announcer today, president thep delivers remarks at values voters summit and washington, d. C. , live at 6 15 cspan come cspan. Org, or on the free cspan radio app. The house will be in order. Announcer cspan has been providing coverage from washington, d. C. And around the country for 40 years. Created by cable in 1979, cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government