About internet policy questions. Net neutrality is toward the top of that list. All of us may not agree on how to approach Net Neutrality, its important for all of us. We have a chance to hear from various stakeholders on how we should be thinking about it. This is been an issue for many years. Important to many of us. She let an amicus brief. The lead plaintiff is headquartered in our district, which we are proud of. 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 just 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. Policy atresident of 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. Did we get to where we are today . 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 2018. 2015, 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. They didcircuit said 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. They passedt a new rule, the open internet rule. It reestablished rules and internet traffic. 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. Abstain from additional powers. In 2016, the circuit ruled again, this time they opened. Upheld thercuit reclassification of Broadband Service as title ii services. If congress did not specify the statute, the fcc had the leeway to choose. The018, the fcc passed restoring Internet Freedom order, which repealed the order and changed the classifications from title ii act to title i. After the order came into effect, it was challenged in court. Mostly upheldit the 2018 order that found issue with the provisions. 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 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. The 1934is from 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. Translator is the that you type in into a numerical ip address. Ofts a critical function Internet Service and the fcc its from theally transmission that occurs. With integrated transmissions of broadband data to make the service information. The circuit upheld that, that 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. Apa, the court went through a long series of objections the petitioners had lodged against the analysis. , they upheld those critiques. Order, theg 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. Explainres the fcc to these three issues. Ofy were the importance 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. Thatommission argued getting rid of the prior rules was in the Public Interest generally. Enoughrt said it wasnt discussion about the safety issue. The second issue involved pole attachment. Those are granted under section 220 42 cable providers. 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 serviceof the universal 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. Broadband, they have to explain what that means. On theediate impact program, the fcc needs to better consider. Regardinge decisions 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. Wheres preemption exists congress or the agency in advance precludes the application of state law. They do that directly. Iny regulate wireless rates the Communications Act. There are other instances where they have been given authority over an issue on its own. Crux of the analysis divided the decision. Identifyssion did not 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 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. Havecc said we dont positive regulatory. You dont have the authority to preempt state law in advance. The court said under the other exemption, it is premature to determine whether state law is preempted. 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. Is topical. Iterally 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 debated here. Broadbent should be treated as a Telecom Service, it should be mandates. The federal law says the opposite of those things. I can talk about this further. There will be a strong case for argument. Judge thought there was authority. He thought the majority analysis expressed might implicate his ability the fccs ability. 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 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. There very active in both proceeding for the 2015 rules as well as the preceding to overturn those rules. To thinkts helpful about what the decision means in a more practical sense. Terms,it into laymans this is how much discretion the agency has to interpret this. 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 safety,ions of public lifeline attachments. Impactil to consider the of the repeal on First Responders, firefighters, the impact of that order on the one federal program that provides subsidies to overcome the most tomonly identified barrier internet, cost. This provides competitive opportunities for access. They fail to consider Public Safety, ems and First Responders , affordability, and access. Understate the magnitude or the significance of to bringfcc has to do this into consideration. This is what is likely to happen. Preemption, its important to recognize that we withhad lots of laws engagement Net Neutrality. It said thatheard 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. Andoes provide more clarity confidence for states who may have been worried about the legitimacy of the preemption. 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 it iset service, 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 this as anstates see 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. Fcc is a product of the deregulation in this space. We have seen Consumer Protection laws work on a statebystate basis. This seems fairly overstated. Fightsill be lots of 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. We 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. Agency didound the not have the authority. Specific context, the it is not done on a casebycase basis. Doesctual formula itself or does not exist. 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. Of what this is about is utilitybased regulation. Be of this is going to 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. Like then is not traditional fights we had with Telephone Service where there was a local phone service. Here is not like the fit the traditional fights with Telephone Services where the there was a local phone service and a Long Distance phone service. Where states have a clear role in here is not like the fit the traditional regulatie regulate asian those regulations conflict than they have to yield. There is no role for states to play in regulating an interstate service. It is commerces job to decide what is the framework. Think the best evidence of this is that the title to order, paragraph 433 said we can only have federal law when it comes to deciding this framework. The importance of that does not change if certain advocates dont like the contents of the federal law. It is still a federal debate, he needs to be resolved by congress. This is not a state issue. As to the notion that the fcc advocated authority, 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. Of theregulatory portion 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 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. 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 protections,ed 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 the different approaches to 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 authorities. Sometimes thats title i, sometimes that was title ii. What changed in 2017 was not simply 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. All internet providers by and toge have committed not block traffic not to throttle traffic, not to engage in other competitive conduct. What are we worried about . Let me tell you what we are worried about. The 2015 title ii rule embodies a completely open ended standard we call the internet context and are which says something is illegal if the fcc declares it to be illegal. We will not tell you in advance what that is. It was frustrating to advise isps about how they will comply with the standard like that when the fccs the 15 order gave a few examples and comments that were alleged to be inconsistent. Zero rating is a, debate about whether wireless providers can provide a certain content like video, netflix, without accounting against the data cap. If you have 20 to give exhibits a month, can they give you free data . Some said thats terrific for consumers. When the fcc was put to this question, they said we dont know, we will decide later. The incredibly uncertain debate is you cant invest in innovation. The amtrak example is maybe you can do and in delaware but not pennsylvania. The reason these lawsuits exist in california and vermont is because both of those states tried to reimpose this openended internet conduct standard. We dont know what it means. We can live with prohibitions against throttling which no one wants to do and which my client other members have wanted, but we cannot have an open ended standard when it provides no meaningful ride ends and it will only impede innovation. Sarah as an exercise as you leave the room or sitting in the room, i would urge you to compare the openended general conduct standard with the fccs theription of nondiscrimination rule in the 2010 open Internet Order. They are very similar. What we see a lot of the time in industry liking openended standards and tests when they work for them, but hating them when they think that they might be bad. On the zero rating example, the fcc quickly came out with guidance on which types of zero rating schemes it would find problematic. To me, that was a function of a workable ive the workability of the fccs approach in the order. It said clearly they are certain behaviors that are prohibited. But we have retained the authority to ascertain whether conduct in the future or whether certain things that might fall outside of those bright light prohibitions might otherwise harm Internet Users ability. Them to backstop for make sure the fcc retain the authority, not just to enforce those three conduct in the futur whether rules, but to ensure there were not any loopholes in those rules that would allow consumers, and to give a forum for assessing new prohibitions and behavior at the commission, which we dont have now. Really quickly for those in the audience who are not familiar with the concept of zero rating, it is when you use a specific service with your isp, it does not count against your data cap. Thats the basic concept around zero rating itself. Itst mozilla believe that dangers for innovation online. The fcc did work on this. At t had their own zero rating plan. In order for an outside company to be able to qualify for this plan to have their data cap it, it cost them in the neighborhood of 16 to 47 a month. The program they were offering was 35. In the long term, this is not sustainable for small and mediumsize companies who are trying to compete with the vast assets that at t has. Thats what we are concerned about. Thats why we need the general conduct rule to help companies who are smaller in this space move forward. It is not about google or netflix or facebook. Its about the next companies that might come up through that vein and that is what is at the heart of the Net Neutrality decision for us at mozilla. Matthew i happen to disagree on the zero ratings issue for what is good for consumers. The most important point i want to leave everyone with here is it doesnt matter whos right, there has to be a clear answer at the federal level. If each fate is not only deciding its own conduct, but making enforcement decisions that a very, it is a recipe for chaos. If you are a wireless provider Offering Service nationally or over a broad region, whether you are violating this policy turn on whether the signal happens to go to a tower in this area in virginia or in maryland. Thats no way to run a Regulatory Regime or an industry. There needs to be answers to these questions. They are sometimes difficult policy questions i can be fairly debated. The nuances of that underscore, it needs to be addressed at the federal level. The ftc has taken up the mantle. The ftc has said we will apply section five to decide whether broadband providers representations are unfair or deceptive when and they talk about things like unlimited plans. We will also decide whether they are unfair subs attentively. Has been they are happy to apply national standards. Im going to shift gears a little bit. That was a great transition. We are on capitol hill today and i would like to talk a little bit about congresss role in this issue. Members of congress in both parties have introduced multiple Net Neutrality bills over the past couple years. None have passed the house and senate yet. Could we talk more about this . What provisions are in the Net Neutrality bills that have been introduced and is there a world where congress may reach bipartisan consensus on a Net Neutrality bill . Sarah our hope is sincerely that there will be bipartisan consensus on a modern, innovative framework that gives consumers the protections and gives clear lines of the road. This is not just about broadband providers. This is also about Innovative Services that we all want from our broadband connections. We want innovators to be able we know data caps excuse me, sponsored data can be proconsumer. Theret to make sure that are opportunities to offer those services and plants that consumers want. There are a lot of elements in these bills having worked on some of them on the hill and at the fcc. I think there is a lot of overlap in terms of the type of the Consumer Protections we want. We dont want to have the Regulatory Regime from 1934 that was put into place 85 years ago. Thats a really long time. To have those being applied to our modern Innovative Networks is just not the correct approach. I think there are different ways we can arrive. We remain optimistic that congress will give it over the goal line. Get it over the goal line. Sarah i think the time is ripe for congress to take up this issue. Indeed, they have in earnest. While the exact same piece of legislation has not been passed in both chambers yet, two very similar pieces of legislation with nearly identical objectives, the cra which passed the senate seeking to 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. Just to think about this in terms of i want to be careful when we talk about compromise that we are not 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. We have the 2015 open internet itsr, which was upheld in importance and validity from a legal standpoint by the d. C. Circuit judges by a panel and then on bonk by the entire panel of judges. Then thes importance that represented this regulatory approach of three bright line rules, backstop commission, authority, and that approach was affirmed by the senate when it voted to undo the repeal from 2017. It was affirmed by the house with a majority of folks through the save the internet act. And it is underscored by vast public support of the american people, a poll by the university of maryland found 82 of republicans, 90 of democrats and 85 of independents support the approach in the 2015 open Internet Order. Those are poles replicated not with the exact same numbers message thatut the those polls send is that the bipartisan majority of the public vastly supports the 2015 open internet rules approach. Moving forward in congress, and think it is important for everyone to significant support this has on a bipartisan basis, both in congress and certainly among the american people. Approach conversations on the hill with the 2015 open internet approach as the best for what any further legislation should cover. Certainly, the save the internet act which has already passed the house, reflects that approach explicitly. Want to be an optimist, and it is easy to point out there is a lot of consensus on this underlying policy. Everybody agrees there should be Net Neutrality. Every isp is committed to having Net Neutrality. Why is this so hard . Its hard because we are fighting mostly about labels, about title i, title ii. It strikes me as odd which congress of that congress which is in charge of the statutes should get hung up on debating which version of an order to endorse. Congress doesnt need to endure endorse any order, it just needs to write a. Law we know what those principles are. No throttling. On restriction or flat band on papers asian. You can debate the details. There is a lot of consensus on what the law should be an and norma support from industry and consumers. We are never going to get there on the peopleting who want the 2015 order. People dont necessarily know what that means. Whats really going on, and my friend here was acknowledging, theres interest in using title ii for reasons having nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Namely rate guilt rate regulation regulation. Some people dont want to acknowledge that. In ant need to sweep statute that will usher in rate regulation and totally unrelated types of regulation because that is not part of the Net Neutrality. Ferras the open Internet Order, i think there is a law where we really need a conversation, work toward a compromise. In many ways, was a compromise. This was something that was moved forward with the idea that we want to help take all of that into account and also provide consumers with adequate forward. Ns moving we have a version of Net Neutrality protections that has passed a Republican Senate during forward. The cra vote last year. We have a version that passed the house this year. Debate about what the final form of the legislation should look like. But we already have a good blueprint. It is not just about the labels. It is by getting the details right. We have a model for those details on how that should work and practice. If the isps are concerned about have aion, ok, we consensus model. We have a way that we can work them work with them on this issue. To be quite frank, if they fought against this issue, and that is why we are here where we are today. Matthew there was never a consensus on rate regulation. The isp has set a rate regulation is dangerous and inappropriate in this marketplace. I think the reason there was not a consensus on that aspect of the 2015 order explains why it went to court. The fcc said we wont engage in prescriptive ratemaking, meaning we will set rates in advance. What it refused to do and the only reason that order was subject to appeal was to regulate rates and responds. Is promising something with your fingers crossed behind her back. They did not provide comfort to industry that we could invest with the certainty that the government would not come in and set different rates. Is promising something with your fingers crossed behind her back. That is the big fight. If people are serious about taking rate regulation off the table, i think we could get to a regular a resolution. Sarah Congress Just passed an amendment to the Communications Act that said no rate regulation on isps, then you would be ok with the 2015 approach generally . Matthew the other major issue was internet sarah you said that was the issue that isp sued over. Matthew there were two big ones, one was rate regulation, and the other was the internet constant. Kristine i think you have to think how we want to regulate these networks going forward. The internet really grew because it was regulated under the light touch regulation. Lets have a moment to compare some of the advances in telephone systems versus your internet. In a short time, the internet was able to eclipse what we were able to do under that title ii regulation because its permission less innovation. It is not unbridled. There is a transparency rule that is coupled with enforcement from the federal trade communication commission. Which has been the cop on the beat for this. We need to make sure we are not just going to be constraining future innovation and investment. What we saw during the two years the net the 2015 open Internet Order was in fact that investment in broadband actually went down. Order washe 2017 indicated, that it was coming along, we saw investment sheet backup. That is not the only thing that could have accounted for the investment in that time. The court made quick made clear to know that prior reports on done that but it is a strong indication that when you have heavyhanded regulation, that it will impede investment and innovation. Hash the one constant that fueled the Prolific Group growth of the internet is the fundamental issue of nondiscrimination and the ability to go where you want online without isps interfering with those decisions. In various forms has underscored how the internet works since its earliest days. We can play the game, we can play the investment numbers, we have only a few minutes left remaining. And i would just lots of research and analysis has been done that refutes the claim that there was this dip in investments that aligns perfectly with the periods of time in which the 2015 open order was in effect. The reality is the vast majority of the growth of the internet happens because Net Neutrality was something that the fcc had republicano across fcc chairs and democratic fcc chairs since the 2005 open internet principal. Matthew let me agree and disagree. There has always been a commitment to these principles but the debate is how do you enforce it . What is the role of government doing so . When i was at the fcc under chairman michael powell, he made a speech known as the powell for freedom. He articulated for the first time what Net Neutrality protections should look like. In chairman powells mind, these were market face principles that providers would adhere to and it was important that it ended up enshrined in the politics and that was not a binding set of rules. More importantly, it was not title ii. Sarah and was not held to be grounded in a sort of legitimate. The internet works really well. The point is we are all agreeing that it has flourished and has been this engine of civil discourse and investment and enter payment and engagement. Sarah if isps had not repeatedly sued to fight every stage of the fccs attempts to impose Net Neutrality protections, then we would not be here today. Matthew i dont know what that means other than sarah we have the 2010 rules, we have the 2015 rules, isp sued. [laughter] the point i would make is most of the history of the internet which is not all that old, the vast majority of it, title ii has not been in place. It was in place in any 15 to the end of 2017. They are nanette has been successful under that. Maybe the best proof in the pudding is after the repeal of the heavyhanded title ii order, there were these doom and gloom predictions that the internet was going to stop, it was going to end, investment was going to stop. This sky was going to fall. Our internet still works really well and nothing has changed. Ferras you want this one . This idea that the internet is going to fall in stock. We have here is that the potential future litigation on this because of the threat, the isps have an incentive to be on their best behavior. Thats one point. We second point is that expect i expect this to move slowly. Small things like zero rating then to forward, and move slowly into prohibitive forms. Is very difficult, it can be difficult to enforce and create an enforcement regime when you talk about monopoly bad actors. I think that is what the fear is in terms of why we have Net Neutrality protections and why it is important to fight for those protections. Sarah and importantly we dont have a cop on the beat at the fcc to figure out where harms are occurring. There may be lots of bad actors in the space that have not surfaced yet because it has not there is no venue to air those complaints. We have seen examples of problematic behavior that would have been the type of behavior we would have wanted the fcc to assess. The interference of firefighters access inthe interference of fis access in california during the california wildfires. We can sit on this debate and debate until we turn blue whether or not that would have been a Net Neutrality violation. We have no agency right now that is empowered to assess it. Ferras its a pretty big agency. Sarah ferras its a pretty big agency. Sarah they are limited to anticompetitive behavior. Ferras they can only act after the fact. Matthew thats what we are debating, complaint. Kristine a provider was engaging in anticompetitive ferras prioritization, they woue to be transparent about that and there is sufficient in the court did find the commission fully justified that there was sufficient competition in the broadband market place micah place to support the transparency. And a provider is engaging in those practices and not being transparent, then that is when the ftc would step in. I will remind everyone that your broadband provider does not have an incentive to throttle you. There incentive is to be able to make sure there is traffic on our networks that they can be able to deliver the services and products. When we are looking at the competitions, the court did uphold that part of the competition. They found there was evidence to show that. The commission is fully justified in its position, the court did uphold those portions of the order they do support the current framework. Decision, thee court believes that they are going to defer to the agencys judgment on competition, even when there are less than two providers in a given space. Obviously, i appreciate there is a lot of hard economic work to justify that. But i think the judgment defies common sense. You shootmpetition, parties to create a marketplace for a thing. Matthew i think the court said when there are two providers, not more than two. Ferras less than two actually. I dont think thats what the court said. Matthew i will check again, but i believe it was less than two. Caitlin great. We are going to turn over to audience questions in a moment. I just wanted to ask if there are any steps for consumer groups, internet companies, or broadband providers . Are there opportunities for appeal of this case . If so, what might that look like and what might the timeline be . I suspect we will also we are considering our next steps. The world of possible next steps, that includes a petition panel, petition for a rehearing en banc, meaning all and a petition for the Supreme Court if folks think there is a sufficiently ripe legal question for the Supreme Court. All of those are on varying timelines. It is important to know that anyone party could initiate a petition for either rehearing for the panel or en banc. Timelines, it is due november 15. If nobody seeks a rehearing, it would be due december 30. Is there is a rehearing, that will push back the timeline. Caitlin does anybody in the audience have any questions . Go ahead. President trump made the unusual steps today of tweeting his support for Net Neutrality decision. I thought that was unusual because he doesnt often talk about Telecom Policy issues. Would any of you like to respond to his positive reaction to that decision . [laughter] ferras do you have feelings on this . Matthew i do recall one president obama in november of 2014 spoke out in favor of title ii, not just in favor of Net Neutrality but the authority. I guess there is precedence to elevating this to the president ial level president ial level. Ferras we hope it can be a bipartisan issue. Obviously, i think we have some work to do among republicans to bring them on board. Moving forward, this is something they can work on both here and congress and hopefully in the executive branch. Sarah can i go back to the list of what is next steps . Kristine sure caitlin sure. Sarah as we are watching to see which things we should not forget they have a remand on its plate and it has been directed to reconsider its 2017 orders effect on Public Safety. Of congresssrt role can be in holding the fcc accountable as it does that. I think particularly, pushing the fcc to answer for the millions of Public Comments which reports are now news reports are showing we are fraudulently directed with ties to broadband for america which populated the docket in 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. Materiallyng if this gives providers the competence confidence that they have stability 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 debilitate debilitating from it for everyone. Clients andy 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 changed with each administration. Ah i will reenter late reiterate the toggling has been because of isp lawsuits over preview previous reiterations of Net Neutrality. Matthew for their lawsuits. Sarah one lawsuit resulted in. He one order that was 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] announcer outs will be in order. Announcer for 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country. So you can make up your own mind, created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local or cable satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Coming up later this afternoon, former cia director and retired general David Petraeus will talk about cyber threats, military strategy, and the role of nato live at 4 45 p. M. Eastern here on cspan. Partyis evening, canadian leaders including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will take part in an hourlong debate in quebec ahead of the october 21 federal election. Live coverage begins today at 7 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Tonight on the communicators, fcc commissioner Michael Orielly on the d. C. Federal Appeals Court ruling that the agency can repeal Net Neutrality, but cant block state laws. I think what you are going to see is a number of states that have acted and try to to do certain things that i disagree with, and you will probably see others that jump into the debate. Having 50 different states pull us in different directions, is not what the structure should be. It is not interstate commerce, it is why we have interstate commerce clause. And it is not something that they have the expertise and because they are supposed to be governing trustee traffic. My definition and structure, my analysis of the architecture, there is no intrastate traffic on the internet. Announcer tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan two. Announcer lawmakers met last week in chicago for a field hearing on gun violence and its impact on public health. They heard from doctors, a funeral home owner, any woman who lost her son and brother to gun violence. This is about two and a half hours. Good morning, everyone. We will now come to order. Begin between the majority and minority i would ask for unanimous consent for the house members who are with us today, who are not members of the committee, that they be recognized for three minutes to ask questions. After Committee Members have asked theirs
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.