Our focus, Net Neutrality. Yesterdays fcc decision. We want to welcome randolph may, the president of the free state foundation, which is what . Free market think tank, freemarket think tank. Host and chris lewis, with a group of the foundation of Public Knowledge . We want to give you a sense of what is happening outside the fcc yesterday, as inside the commissioners were deciding the threeto ruling. [video clip] is it any wonder they want to shut it down, silence it, and stop it . Are we shocked . . Shocked . No. Are we going to let them get away with it . No. Post some of the demonstration outside of the fcc. Access isrnet overturned by the fcc. What you heard outside in this headline, randy may, is it accurate . Mr. May no. Really, what happened yesterday was going back to the type of fromnet regime that we had the beginning of the regulation of the internet until 2015. We had a return to what we called a light touch regulatory regime. In 2015, the Previous Commission imposed public utility type regulation on the Internet Service providers. That type of regulation is really too heavyhanded for the environment we have today with the internet. It is appropriate for maybe water systems, a lecture said he electricity delivery, but it is not appropriate for the technologically, rapidly changing environment we have with the internet. I dont expect any more. When people access the internet, they will not notice a change. I do not suspect that they will notice a change a year from now or two years from now, but what happened yesterday is that the fcc removed the threat that was overhanging the internet, that this public utility type regulation would stifle innovation and investment. Out one steptake further. The argument put forward by tom wheeler, the former chair of the fcc, is that when you turn on the light, you expect the electricity to be there. We have become so dependent on the internet we should expect the same service and speed, regardless of which site we are on . Mr. May no, i think it is fair to have that expectation. But from my perspective i think this is the perspective of a lot of economists who study this issue, a lot of other policymakers, we did not have a problem with the internet before the imposition of these public utility type rules. There was no market failure, the consumert cite problems at the time that it imposed the rules. It is really appropriate it is better to wait until problems impose aefore you heavyhanded regulatory regime. I think what we will see if we do have Problems Develop in the future, nothing the fcc did yesterday would prevent the fcc from coming back in and changing its rules. It certainly doesnt prevent congress from legislating, but importantly this has all been lost in what we heard yesterday and some of the rhetoric what the fcc did was restore the enforcey of the ftc to its oversight of Internet Service providers, which had byn invested from the ftc this 2015 regulation. Isis not as if the internet not going to be regulated by isp Service Providers, the ftc is restored now back as a police, cop on the beat to oversee the practices of the Internet Service providers. Wrecks is what we heard from the heard. Hat is what we we want to share some editorials. This from the wall street journal, the internet is free again. By effectively deeming the internet a utility, former chairman tom wheeler turned the fcc into a political gatekeeper, killing obama era rules will remove the fcc. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plan accordingly. Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation. The fcc is restoring the promise of internet freedom. That was the argument put forward yesterday by ajit pai, the republican chair of the fcc. [video clip] brokeninternet was not in 2015. We were not living in a digital dystopia. Isthe contrary, the internet one thing, perhaps the only thing in American Society that we can all agree has been a stunning success. ,ot only was there no problem this solution has not worked. The main complaint consumers have about the internet is not and has never been that their Internet Service provider is blocking access to content. It is that they do not have access at all or not enough competition. These regulations have ironically taken us in the opposite direction from these consumer preferences. Under title ii, investment in highspeed networks has declined by billions of dollars. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the internet era. When there is less investment, that means fewer nextgeneration networks are built. That means less access and less competition. That means fewer jobs for americans building those networks, and that means more americans are stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide. Was part of yesterdays hearing by the fcc, again, on our website at www. Cspan. Org. Lewis. Go back to chris you have heard the rebuttal from mr. May, your of you . Mr. Lewis we are very disappointed in the boat. This is the first time they have decided they would take themselves off the field as the enforcer and the cop on the beat to make sure the internet is open. This is another editorial, from the l. A. Times. The fcc sacrifices the free and open internet on the altar of deregulation. Deregulation of at t, comcast, and other broadband providers is a abdication of authority that could usher in a new era of content and Services Online and people who rely on them. The obvious problem is that the broadband providers could pick winners and losers online. There is also a realistic fear that broadband providers would favor their own sites and services, because some are doing it already. For example, at t effectively exempts video streams from its directv city area subsidiary from its wireless data cap. Congress needs to clean up the iss that fcc chair ajit pai creating. Mr. Lewis they have it absolutely right. There is a long history of isp, internet providers blocking applications, giving preferential treatment to some traffic over others, like you described with directv. The fcc ignored that history that led their predecessors to create these rules and to principles, these protections over the last 15 years. Host randy may . Mr. May i really dispute the notion there is a long history of any type of discriminatory action. There were literally three or four examples cited when the fcc 2015. D the rules in i think a lot of people, steve, are beginning to realize that perhaps the greatest threat of discrimination to actually actually comes from the socalled edge providers,. Oogle, twitter, facebook twitter, for example, recently took down an ad from congresswoman Marsha Blackburn that was prolife, talk about blocking. There is an increasing realization that the giant internet sites, google, facebook, and so forth, that they are more likely to discriminate because of their dominance then these Internet Service providers. Progressives organizations that are so concerned about Net Neutrality with the Internet Service providers were as concerned about the same type of conduct that we see from the edge providers. I do not happen to believe that they should be regulated either by public utilities, i am not advocating regulation for them. What i think it is wrong to look this out a onesided way in a onesided way. Ist we have now, and this the important point, is that the ftc will be able to oversee the types of practices of both the Internet Service providers on the one hand and the edge providers, google, twitter, and so forth, on the other hand to see whether they are living up to their representations. Point one final on final point, we focused the action yesterday by the commission. It is important that the mission strengthens can parents he rolls transparency rules. They have to disclose their practices, they will have to be clear to consumers, and that is the basis upon which, if they violate those practices, that the ftc would be able to sanction it. Our guests have worked at the fcc, so they come to this from very different perspectives. Randolph may, who is a graduate of duke university, where he also earned his law degree, is the head of the free state foundation. He served as the fcc assistant general counsel. Christopher lewis is a graduate of harvard, the former fcc Deputy Director for legislative affairs. Our phone lines are open, give us a call. Frank, one for republicans. Thank you. Caller good morning, thank you everybody. I am concern about concerned about the present censorship on the internet. I have been centered about four imes in the past censored about four times in the past year. Last night i was censored again. I raised a question about any collusion between the prodemocratic people at the fbi in the murder case in the rich murder case. But they would not send my online tweets on that subject matter. I had to work up to the final question, and they still have not let me send the final two. Host what site were you on . Caller well, i am just hoping under the new system, there will not be censorship. Host frank, thanks for the call. Will there he censorship on the larger matter of issue what people can or cannot post and who can post it . Mr. Lewis we are very clear about who the rules impact. They have access to the network providers. They do not have jurisdiction over website, web services, and large platforms. While i agree with randy that there are concerns with some platforms, and we have spoken out about that recently, and agree with those were calling for a deeper look at the competition of those large toolorms, we have a at the fcc under the law that they could be using to have strong Net Neutrality rules and make sure folks give you access to the internet. Which consumers know the difference between a website and the company that gives them access to the internet . The difference is that you do not have a choice in network provider. Most consumers have one highspeed broadband provider, some have none, very few lucky folks have a couple. If they do not like the rules that they have from that internet provider, they do not have any else to go. That is why we needed an fcc that can enforce clear rules of the road, that said you cannot block a website, you cannot throttle and application, you cannot set up a prior tour is paid prior to her station prioritization schemes. Host when did you work at the fcc . [indiscernible] host and you . Mr. May 19871991. When i was at the fcc, we were the belling with anomaly. The competition was beginning to there were even online providers that were beginning to emerge at that time. We were developing rules for those online providers. What we did, and i was actually part of working on this process, was classifying online providers as Information Services so they would be unregulated and mopbell and the telephone classified asd be television carriers that were regulated. That was the environment that we had really from that time, those were called the computer 2015,ies, right up till when the information providers, the Broadband Companies were flipped and classified as telecommunications carriers, and public utilities. I think most people agree when they think about it, that all those years that we had the light touch regulation of information Service Providers, the internet did flourish, surely, we would all like for it to be faster, cheaper, but the reality was it was 1. 5 trillion of broadband providers in building out Broadband Networks in that. Period of light touch regulation. When we switched over to a new ,egime without a good reason there was not a reason to impose stifling of investment , innovation stifling regulation. Host we will drill down even more on this issue of Net Neutrality. Program the communicators airs over the weekend, and is also available on the website, www. Cspan. Org. But what is Net Neutrality . According to the fcc, here is the definition. Broadband Service Providers cannot deliberately block or slow speeds for Internet Services for internet apps, favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration, or engage in other practices that harm internet openness. That is from the fcc. Elaine, olympia, washington, republican line. Caller there are two things i want to bring up. When i first got my computer, i watched live tv, i could record data, but anyway, i cannot even stream. I cannot stream anything on the internet that is live, nothing. For ay, i was looking i was researching those emails on bing and google, and i was reading different sites, and all of a sudden, they were gone. I could not find them anywhere. They were off the internet, i could not access one thing about fraud. That happened yesterday, and i would like to know why. Host elaine, thank you. Christopher lewis. Mr. Lewis that is a good question to ask for broadband provider, what happened to her access . Hopefully nothing is going wrong with her service there, but what is important about these rules is that there is Nothing Holding frombroadband providers taking a service or a website and saying we will not show that website and service anymore. The rule that says you cannot block anything has gone away with this repeal. Unfortunately, the federal trade commission is not a rulemaking body. They do not have the ability to create and enforce any no blocking rules. All they can really do is use what is called section five authority, their unfair deceptive practices authority, to say that if the broadband provider says they are not going to block, they can hold them accountable if they do. So we are setting ourselves up now to trust and rely on the broadband providers to be honest , and to set the rules for themselves. ,ost your opinion and views setting aside, what happens next . What can congress do and what could we potentially face in the court . Mr. May i think there is a real opportunity for a mr. Lewis i think there is a real opportunity for a court challenge. We have dealt with these cases before and we are evaluating that, and we hope we can build a case to overturn the decision at the the. The fcc. We hope folks will follow that. Congress has a chance to overturn these rules as well, and there have already been to members of congress, one in the senate and one in the house, who have suggested they will introduce a resolution to overturn the rule and decision of the fcc yesterday. Heard attorney general eric saturn of new york saying yesterday there are a lot of petitions, and there were some fake comments that included 100,000 new yorkers that posted on there, but did not say anything. There is an investigation into the fake comments, that we ensure that people are putting up fake comments, they are putting up comments under other peoples names. Names. We do not see that had of investigation before the decision was handed down. Host democrat line, thank you for being with us. Caller good morning, guys. I think this is a huge mistake and could put hundreds of thousands of Small Businesses out of business, because right now the internet runs at full speed for everybody and everybody has access. That was the rule put in place , even the obama era access. They are trying to reverse that. So couple of corporations might make some more. Right now, everything is running at full speed. The only way to make things faster is by slowing everyone down. That will make pages load slower for hundreds of thousands of Small Businesses, and google will penalize them. Before you know it, google searches might drop them all together for being slow, and the republicans have no idea what they are doing. They are hiring revolving door lobbyists around the country to talk to the fcc, and it is up to congress to stop them and go against them. Host thanks for the call. Randy made . May . Mr. May the reality is it takes billions of dollars each year to keep building up a network to accommodate the explosion in traffic. I think chris will agree with that. On average, it is about 70 billion a year that is invested by the isps. That is not government money, that is private capital by the internet is providers. What this decision may do over time is allow the Internet Service providers to innovate new types of offerings that allow them to recover more of those costs from those companies that really imposed disproportionate amounts of cost. It is not clear that will happen, but it could. What i am referring to specifically is, for example, on any giventflix, night on average, 50 of the traffic on the internet is actually generated by those two companies. If that is the case, we are not talking about the average , orumer that is imposing who will pay for it. In order to ensure that the video andthat netflix Googles Youtube are delivered in a manner that satisfies their consumers, it is possible the enduser customer would pay less because ultimately someone has to pay for the investment in these networks. If you are just tuning in we are talking about Net Neutrality. , theterans on the fcc president of the free state foundation. And Christopher Lewis of Vice President of Public Knowledge. We are disappointed in the Net Neutrality protections that ushered in an unprecedented era of creativity and civic engagement. This is the beginning of a longer legal battle. Netflix stands with innovators large and small to oppose this misguided fcc order. Caller good morning. I just got off of the phone yesterday with my city council members. To at them to go preinternet, pennies on the dollar and bypass a lot of this monopoly from inner net providers with their noncompete contracts they have with each other to keep prices up. I feel the competitive rest of the world, in our area, the United States, it was 20th in speed to the rest of the world being faster than i was. So