Lines. Here is fcc chairman tom wheeler. Chairman wheeler after a decade of debate and an open, robust, yearlong process, we finally have legally sustainable rules to ensure that the internet stays fast, fair, and open. Cory over the next 20 minutes we will have an indepth discussion on Net Neutrality and what it means for global business. We caught up with Steve Wozniak who attended the vote and had these comments. Steve the internet was so beautiful when it first came. Even when it was dialup. It was such an open and Free Expression form, and over time decisions were being made by the isps, the gatekeepers, you might call it. Do we trust them to make decisions . No, we need some kind of supervision of their bad behavior. Are they likely to make deals and accept bribes . Peter you are confident that the rulemaking adapted today will in fact ensure an open and Free Internet . Steve i think it will be a positive step. I think the other side is also for open and Free Internet. The decision today goes a lot further than Net Neutrality. Title ii regulation means oversight of bad behavior, not meddling, not controlling things, but looking for bad behavior. Or could be a lot of things that are illegal, unconstitutional behind the scene of the big isps. I do not think we can trust them that much. This is for the people, the consumers, the average joe against the suppliers, that have all the power and the wealth. They feel hopeless and helpless. Here 4 million of us signed petitions, and it is an indication that the people can sometimes win. We have had a lot of defeats over the years, but sometimes we have a win. Peter some say this will stifle investments. That is going to dry up. Steve tom wheeler himself pointed out in an article in the wall street journal that said, we really do not think it will matter. No, i do not think this is running their business. This is just having oversight of bad behavior, when they do bad things for the people and customers. Peter what about the notion that this a solution to a problem that does not really exist . Throttling and discrimination is happening now on the web . Steve there are maybe things in the background we do not even know about that of been going on inside those companies, because they have not had enough oversight. We do not even know about it. As far as Net Neutrality goes, everyone agrees we need Net Neutrality. There are bills by republicans in congress, of course after fighting it for years and trying to overturn it, now they say it is the right thing to do. At least pertaining to that part of this decision, this order. Peter let me just ask you, if you were trying to start a company today, the apple of the future, will todays Decision Making easier . Steve i do not know that make a difference. Yesterday it would. In the earlier days, it would. After a while, it condenses down to a few take players, the big 800pound gorillas who do everything to stifle and not let the little guys get in. And the innovators from the outside. I think it improves it but slightly and only in restrictive places. Im hoping things like broadband, able to be declared a necessity, brought to everyone. There is no big isp that will bring broadband to my house. I live a little segway ride into town. I do not have broadband. I am in Silicon Valley, and i do not have broadband because i have no choice. It is a monopoly. That pipe, that is what i grow up with knowing, these are the utilities. The things that we needed for life they came into our house that we had no control over and did not have a choice. Cory apple cofounder Steve Wozniak and bloombergs peter cook. It is a huge win for some internet activists, who launched a grassroots campaign. Heres evan greer of fight for the future. Evan this is an unprecedented victory that everyone, a year ago, thought was impossible. They did not anticipate what happens when any institution of power comes to take away people pass internet freedom. And they should have because any time that happens, people rise up. We use the internet to defend the internet. We do not have millions of dollars or an army of lobbyists we can send to the fcc to get our voices heard. We built tools using cuttingedge technology that made it easier for the millions of people who care about this issue, to have their voices heard in washington, d. C. Cory it is really an amazing thing with our society that does not like to vote unless it is a president ial election, to see such an uprising of voices regardless of what side you are on. Even if there is a side to this issue. You did things like a countdown clock to the vote, which kind of kept the drumbeat going. Talk to me about how that worked and Health People were able to incorporate that in other places of the internet, not just your site. Evan sure. What we did is, we built a 12 that made it so that any website could put up that countdown timer, ticking off the seconds literally until we get Net Neutrality. We got more than 20,000 websites to do that for the month leading up to the fcc vote, which helped drive an enormous amount of phone calls and emails to members of congress to let them know that if they come and try to take away this victory from the internet, the internet will come for them and it will not go well. Cory evan greer, campaign for fight for the future. We will be right back, talking with some opponents of the Net Neutrality vote, call it dangerous for american consumers. Cory im cory johnson, this is the best of bloomberg west. Congressional republicans are criticizing the fccs decision to subject the internet to title ii legislation. I spoke with representative kevin cramer just moments after the vote. Representative cramer i disagree with him fundamentally on the need for this type of a rule, that i do agree with him and i think the vast majority of republicans in congress agree at we ought to caught a fight in law some of these provisions. Throttling, those things we agree on. The idea, however, even the idea the fcc is overwhelming the title ii authority i think is the wrong way to go. We talk about process, and i appreciate what he had to say about the timelines and meetings and whatnot, but it did not seem like this rule reflects the majority of congress. I think provides more certainty and frankly more confidence, both to the consumer and the investment public. It is unfortunate they trumped congress today, but this is the only the beginning of the litigation process. Cory congressman, it is interesting to hear you take a middle stance. Theres an argument of no regulation at all. Theres the argument that says title ii is the best way to go because these companies have a responsibility to consumers to provide them important access. I guess the argument that you are making is title ii is the wrong way to do it. Chairman wheeler just said look, under title ii, the Telecom Companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars providing service. Are you saying that is a bad thing . That that kind of innovation will not happen . Rep. Cramer i am saying that it is unnecessary, and when you give that type of leeway, that type of authority to a regulatory agency, which pass this on a 32 vote, it opens the door to lots of other things. While he has given assurances that other things like price controls would not be part of his leadership, there is nothing to prevent the next chairman, or the next commission. And why go that way . Why always rely on forbearance to be the exception . Why dont we leave the internet as open as we can, and let the consumer, let the innovator to be the regulator as opposed to the government . Quite frankly, whether it is the fcc, or name your agency, over regulating which could lead to why open that door when we already have people working from both parties on a congressional solution i think is more middle ground. Cory you struck on an important word here, forbearance. Forbearance gives the fcc some leeway in terms of enforcing this rule, yes . Rep. Cramer it does give them some leeway but it gives them discretion. If we will trust our discretion to forbear certain things, why would we not trust their discretion on other things like specialized services, as an example . If we are going to give discretion to the commission lets trust them a little more to do the right thing, as opposed to give them the authority and hope they do the right thing. Cory in defense of the commission, they tried that before. The courts threw that out and said you have to have a stronger legal basis. Title ii gives them that, yes . Rep. Cramer yes, title ii gives them the legal basis if this can in fact be upheld, and im not sure it can be. It will be litigated, and litigation as we know is a long process, throws uncertainty into the mix. It is my hope that once the litigation begins, and the chaos begins, quite frankly, that that will bring more democrats who in recent months have drifted in defense of their president , in defense of mr. Wheeler. Hopefully it will bring them back to the negotiating table for a more common sense, moderate approach as being proposed in the energy and commerce committee. Cory that was congressman kevin cramer, republican of north dakota. Also speaking out, former fcc commissioner harold furchtgottroth who says these rules are not good for consumers. Harold here we have in the united states, for 20 years writing itself on not regulating the internet, and something has changed. This cannot be good for the american public. Cory yet those who advocate title ii say that something has changed, the Internet Service providers have started to charge fees to pick favorites, winners over losers on the content side. Are you saying that title ii is the wrong way to do it, or any regulation on the internet is bad . Harold i do not believe there is any need for regulation. All of these allegations about isps imposing charges on service on content companies, this is all hypothetical. They cannot point to actual examples. This is all regulation in the name of what might possibly happen in the future. It is not addressing actual problems that we have today. It is not addressing actual complaints that are before the fcc. Cory let me respectfully disagree. Netflix has been compelled to pay to get ahead of the line. As a company that opposes having to make those kinds of things. Let me read a statement from reed hastings, the ceo of netflix. What he had to say about this specifically, he said strong Net Neutrality prevents isps from charging a toll to Services Like never ask. They must provide significant access to their Network Without charge. He goes on to say allowing fast lanes gives isps the perverse incentive to allow networks to congest, and the power to pick winners and losers on the internet. This is a company that has been compelled to pay this to comcast, to verizon, to get ahead of the line. Harold i respectfully disagree. I am afraid that what we are seeing here has just been from netflix. Netflix entered into agreements for contracts with verizon and comcast to effectively put themselves at the head of the line, in front of millions of other content providers and users on the internet. Before netflix entered into that agreement, it was treated the same as everyone else. That is what title ii is going to require. It will quite frankly prohibit the type of contract netflix entered into. Cory they do not want that. That is their argument. Furthermore, what they say is that it lets the isps congest their networks or make their networks look congested so they could charge that fee, and there was sort of the perverse problem. What do you do for that problem, creating an incentive to create that congestion for the benefit of more income . Harold first of all, i do not agree that there is a problem. I believe a lot of this is a manufactured problem. Lets hypothetically say there is a problem. Is the solution to impose telephone regulation on every broadband provider in america . Is that really the path we want to go down . Is the solution to congestion problems to make every isp in america look exactly like the Telephone Company . I do not think so. I think this is the wrong solution for a wrong problem and a problem that likely does not exist. It is all hypothetical. Cory hypothetically, but not hypothetically, twitter has not had to pay this type of fees but has come out strongly against it. I want to read a statement from twitter to see if i can get your reaction. Twitter telling us through a blog post on our site saying we strongly support ensuring that such Net Neutrality rules include prohibition against blocking, or throttling of sites and services, as well as paid prioritization of some traffic over others. I feel like the companies in Silicon Valley, maybe most of them, see real problems and this for the development of the services they have already created and the development of the Services Going forward. Harold first of all, again, twitter does not point to an example of a single website that is being blocked by isps. In the past 20 years, the fcc has had complaints about one site blocked, and the fcc took Decisive Action to unblock that. It did not require new title ii regulations to do that. Cory that was former fcc commissioner harold furchtgottroth. We will be right back. Cory this is the best of bloomberg west. I am cory johnson. It was a blockbuster trial that had a major influence on Silicon Valley culture. She is suing her former employer. In her lawsuit, she says she was pressured to have sex with a coworker, and spent five years retaliating against her after she broke off the affair. They say she never complained about the affair until later. What does this say about the place of women in Silicon Valley . Professor williams this is quite different from what we have been hearing about. On one hand, i just completed a survey in stem, and one third reported Sexual Harassment. Most of what we have heard of, of women in Silicon Valley is much more subtle stuff, women being called aggressive as opposed to a assertive. Women having to prove themselves over and over again. As alleged in the complaint and we will see in trial what comes out, but there were literally quite different business rules applied to women and men. Business rule that were directly related to pumps, for example. Women not invited to important maleonly business dinners. This is very, very different from what has come out before, and really is the kind of thing that was going on, for example in law and medicine 20 years or 30 years ago. Cory bill, is this an outlier for something that is more subtle and pervasive things that are affecting women in Silicon Valley and technology . Bill not necessarily in my view. The courts look at each situation casebycase. When you are in the trenches you are looking at exactly what happened here. She has direct evidence that statements were made to her, she was denied compensation, she was sent to siberia, men were promoted over her. This is typical of her most Sexual Harassment cases, and women face this all the time. It will be a situation of what the jury feels occurred, and how they want to dole out the damages if they think there was a problem. Cory as a straight white guy, the last thing i want to do is take the devils argument here, but i wonder if the case proves she was not sexually discriminated against and indeed that she was such a crummy employee. If the case does prove that, is it still useful to look at these issues through the lens of this case or is it damaging to do so . Prof. Williams i think it is important to look at it through the lens of this case for many of reasons. She does not allege Sexual Harassment, she alleges retaliation. Once she brought this to the attention of people in the firm, the coo, the head of hr, and they basically were not responsive, or they were inappropriate. For example, she alleges that one partner suggested a oneonone lunch with the man who had in fact harassed her. Not a professional way to handle that kind of complaint. If you have an employee who is alleging either Sexual Harassment or gender discrimination of any kind, very important to take it seriously to get on it, immediately conduct a thorough and responsible investigation, and act on it. Cory i would say, duh, except that Kleiner Perkins did not get this if what she is alleging is true. Bill, is it damaging, is it even not helpful to have this discussion if it was a crummy investor as opposed to someone who is sexually discriminated against . I have no idea. I just wonder about this point. Bill basically, in every one of these cases you have the same situation. You have the employee saying theyd have been retaliated against, that things have happened here it and you can employer saying there is a legitimate business reason. What is striking to me, cory, is the case is actually going to trial because there will be a lot of inquiry into the way the company does business. No one wants to know about the way you make salami, and that will be revealed here. With respect to mr. Howe, a lot will come out about her life her Emotional Distress caused with other things, her relationship with her husband, her motivations. It is really nobody wins. It is less about money and more about vindication and position in the industry and trying to not accept each others position. Most of the time these cases do not make it this far, so there is definitely some bad blood going on here. Cory the fact that tom perkins, one of the initial principles of the company, stated the company had returned to its highest ethical standard, does that matter a lot . That was one of the first things that came out of the trial. Bill it will hurt the company just being in the trial. When you are brought to task with the National Spotlight on you and you have to explain yourself, regardless of the outcome, i think the company will take a hit. Talking ethics