Meet something the f. C. C. Proposed a set of open internet principles. The f. C. C. Tried in 2010 to put rules in place but most of those rules were overturned in court so the f. C. C. Tried to in a pragmatic way put into place rules that ensure theres not blocking of traffic, theres no degradation of traffic on the internet and so forth. But they also sought comment on a variety of different other approaches. So i think given the complexity of the situation, given all of the politics involved and all of the questions involved in this, i think they did a pretty good job. I think they asked the right questions and its absolutely appropriate so many people are writing in and commenting. This is a tremendously important issue. Matt wood is with free press. Hes their policy director. Mr. Wood what do you think . We think the f. C. C. Did ask some of the right questions but the path theyre proposing to do that ken is talking about, preventing blocking and degrading of traffic is not going to do anything for the rest of us and will not work. The f. C. C. Chairman said he wato use a particular Legal Authority to reinstate the rules, section 706 of the telecom act with apologies for diving straight in to numbers and codes. The court case that was issued in january in the d. C. Circuit basically said ok, if you want to use section 706, will you have to allow substantial room for individualized bargaining and discrimination. Right there in the text of the court case saying that the f. C. C. Has some authority under this statute but not the authority to prevent discrimination or blocking. Thats why we agree with chairman wheeler saying we need to have these protections in place, we appreciate the fact hes asking these questions. We just think the answers hes provide 0ing thus far with his preferred path will not get us to the place where the f. C. C. Is prevent this discrimination and blocking by i. S. P. s. And randolph may of the foundation, what is your Opening Statement . First, thank you for having me here and im glad to be here with my friend matt and kevin as well. I have a different perspective. The bottom line is that they not move forward to adopt new regulations. At this time they just proposed rules. What i prefer to say is the commission to watch the marketplace, see how it continues to develop. Remember, the internet space is a dynamic space. Its changing very rapidly. And this is the key point. In its notice, and even in its previous attempt to adopt rules, the commission really hasnt identified a market failure, in other words, its not saying this market has completely failed and consumers are being harmed at this time. There are an awful lot of coulds and mights in the notice about things that might happen and could happen to consumers and i agree if they did happen, the commission in that case should take some action. But the commission itself says quite explicitly that it doesnt that in its view, the need to adopt these regulations is not dependant upon whether theres really a failure, in other words, whether theres lack of competition or whatever. Right from the beginning from our perspective, thats the wrong approach to take. Im sure its what were going to get into will be, lets assume the commission is going to adopt rules in one form or another. Its not just going to, as i would prefer it to do, to watch and wait and defer to congress. And then theres a very big question and i think kevin alluded to this and matt as to what course of action the commission should take. Theyre basically two different proposals. One that i think matt prefers is to for the commission to classify the internet providers as common carriers, referred to as title 2 approach. And another the other approach would be to adopt a commercial reasonable 234s standard under which their practices would be judged through whether or not theyre lawful or not. I will just say at this point and i think we will get into i think lovely discussion about these two different approaches. The title 2 approach and i think matt will agree with this thats essentially the same common carrier model that was first adopted actually back in 887 when congress adopted past the interstate commerce act to regulate railroads, thought to have monopolist tick power. It was incorporated essentially for all practical purposes word for word into the Communications Act when it was adopted in 1934 to regulate what was thought to be the monopolist tick telephone system, what we called ma bell at that time. And if we put these two xs together, interstate commerce on one side and Communications Act on the another side, title 2, im absolutely certain because i have studied them, that theyre essentially the same. What they do it was their purpose to do, was to establish really strict regulatory controls on these entities to prevent the abuse of market power. And i would submit that now at this time in this digital age we have a very different situation d we dont want to apply Railroad Type regulation to telephone companies. Assess your position correctly . In some ways. These for not new rules theyre proposing but have the principles we all had in case for our communication system. So the notion somehow we can do without them now because theres no market failure ignores the fact we still need an open 0 and nondiscriminatory Communications Platform available to everybody even as technology changes. I use cell phone camp here. Yes, common carry regulations can apply to monopolies and utilities. And they can apply to other situations where you have more than one choice. Nobody would really think its ok for Verizon Wireless not to pick up verizon but they were the plaintiff in this case, for Verizon Wireless to block my phone calls to a certain number or group of numbers because i can always switch to at t or i can always switch to sprint or tmobile or some other carrier. These are just as valuable as they always been. Yes, telephone and broad band are different but we want the same principles in place saying the person that provides my connection doesnt get to decide how i use it or who i call. Based on the charges they set the rates but it should be spare and reasonable for me and i should be able to use it however i wish once i paid my bill. If you had your druthers would would the internet be in title 2 . Not the internet. Theres distinctions here. Theres internet access, wire we use and spectrum we use to get online. Internet content i think we all agree should remain free from regulation, especially if not by or totally free from fec regulation. But as Susan Crawford said, its like confusing the conversation for the sidewalk. We want conversation to be free and f. C. C. Has no place regulating content online. They have always made sure communication pathways stay open. So today we have the vestiges of regulated phone system. The f. C. C. Does not regulate what i say to you when i call you but they do make sure Communications Pathway is open, affordable, available, nondiscriminatory and there for everybody to use, not just those few that the phone Company Might favor. Kevin werbach, you have been listening to this conversation. Yes. I wanted jump in and take a step back and say first of all, lets make sure we understand what this debate is all about. Were getting into the details, are really important but whats at issue here is the openness of the internet. And the internet is the most extraordinary engine of opportunity, innovation, economic growth, freedom that we have ever seen. And basically the broadband platforms and systems were talking about are the information infrastructure of the 21st century. They are the way that were going to communicate with each other and also the ways that were going to do business. So its crucial to think about whether those platforms remain open the way they have historically. The internet has grown up as a network where anyone communicate, anyone can get online. A teeny Little Company can get access to the network and become, in some cases like google or facebook, a huge business. Its vital that the no change as the internet evolves. Were moving more into a broadband world and randy is right saying the internet is evolve and we shouldnt fix it in place. But i think everybody agrees these values are important. And thats important to say a Significant Development in the debate. We have been fighting about Net Neutrality or open internet rules for more than a decade now in the u. S. In that time theres been a real shift. When we started out, you had people like ed whit we are, who was then the c. E. O. Of at t saying things like no one can touch my pipes. We paid to build our network and we should decide what happens on it, even if that means discrimination essentially. Now you have Companies Like comcast, david cohen of comcast has said, we think were more committed to Network Neutrality and open internet than anyone. Jim cicconey, head of Public Policy for at t put put out a blog post we agree we shouldnt discriminate and block, and in fact putting that into our some of our terms of service. So i think theres an emerging consensus these values are important. Then we get down how to do it. Then theres legitimate disagreements about about whats going to but that has to be the starting point. Why i share some of randys views, i think the starting point of saying we dont think anything bad happened so therefore we shouldnt adopt anything is problematic because once we lose the openness of the internet f. We move into an environment where its closed, where it doesnt have that competition. Where investors, venture capitalists dont fund startups because they say, well, im not sure you will get access to the network, that has a essentially a vicious cycle and creates that prevents that kind of innovation. So we have to avoid that happening and in order to avoid that happening, we have to have a cop on the beat. And thats the role the f. C. C. Has historically played in these communications markets, as matt said and its the role it should continue to play here. So we have this debate about the best way to do it. And quite photographingly, i dont think in practice it would matter all that much between title two and the 706 process that chairman wheelers proposing. Again, were talking here about hypotheticals and there are some forms of differentiation of traffic that are perfectly legitimate. For example, every i. S. P. Blocks spam and denial of service attacks and no one is saying they shouldnt be able to do that. Everyone allows companies and individuals to pay more for higher capacity. I may have a better broadband connection than my neighbor because i pay more. No one is saying that illegitimate. The question is as these new kinds of Business Models develop, new services get tried, whats the scope that the f. C. C. Should take off the table . And theres a debate going on about whether the f. C. C. Should totally preclude whats called paid prioritization or not. That actually doesnt go to the title 2 issue. So whichever set of rules the f. C. C. Picks, there can be some limits the limits. As matt said the f. C. C. Is more constrained on totally prohibiting these prioritization deals but it can allow for some degree of prioritization even under the common carrier rules as long as theyre offered on the same terms to start with to everyone. So were going to get very quickly into the wes no matter what happens here but i think we need to start with the recognition that we need to move forward. We need to get something adopted thats in place, that gets through the courts, and then were going to add the fight inevitably about the details. I agree with, again, quite a bit of what kevin said, articularly about the values that he articulated. Openness is important. So so is innovation, by the way. And not only innovation at the edge, the content providers, application providers but also in the network because innovation can take place there. But i want to move this forward, i want to assume the some on is going to adopt new rules and i differ with kevin i think in this sense that he minimize the difference between two different approaches. Title 2 approach and or lets call it section 706 commercial reasonableness approach. And have said it may not make much difference. I think there is a significant difference. And im not entirely sympathetic to section 706 approach, although i did say the day that it leaked chairman wheeler might propose that, that it did have certain merits. Hopefully try and move this debate in that direction. Heres what the difference is and why its important. I was actually at the commission from 1978 to 81. That was during the heyday of title two regulation of at t. I was in the general councils office, associate general council. And i understand whats in title 2 and where it comes from. And theres a lot of regulatory baggage that comes with it. I know under one theory, truly im not going to get two deep into the wes but theres a theory the commission could adopt this title two regime and forebear from requiring all of the different requirement thats come with it. But they have to do with allocating cost as among different services, valuing property, getting the f. C. C. s permission before you extend that works or discontinue networks. Getting the f. C. C. s permission when you have a director that is in common with a director of another company and things like that. By the way also interconnection with networks and traditional Public Utilities proceeding. Theres a lot of baggage and it, in my view, it would not necessarily legally be easy for the commission to get rid of all of these various requirements nor could it be done in a short time. O aside from the rigidity of title 2, theres practical problems. Let me focus on the commercial reasonableness standard. To me if theres going to be some action thats far preferable because if its implemented properly, and it would have to be implemented this way if its going to past judicial muster because i think, as matt said, if the court said the commission cannot in effect assuming doesnt reclassify, cant impose a regulation as ractical matter is just like the carry regulation. So the key would be interpret personal reasonableness so theres sufficient flexibility for the internet providers to be able to experiment with some new dels and i guess from my perspective just presume absent of some showing of consumer harm or, again, market failure or possibly there could be that. But at least go in with the esumption that the practices are going to be reasonable unless theres evidence presented to show theyre not reasonable and to place the burden on the complaining party to show the unreasonableness. And then you would have a regime i think that perhaps in order to get past this issue thats been with us for over a decade, that we could live with and just see whether that works that way. Randy said innovation could occur in the middle of the network and that true to point but im always skeptical of claims that my innovation is blocking your innovation, which is often the way these inowe vacations by phone companies, Cable Companies are phrased. An at t or comcast says, allow us to prioritize or manage traffic in a way we find suitable that will make our network more efficient and we say will benefit our consumers, we just take those claims with a grain of salt, especially when we look for consumer harm. Its not always easy to prove what were missing out on. Its not your innovation that may be blocking my innovation. Egulators review and potential misjudgments and in having to make our priority judgments in advance about whats permissible any im not attributing ill intent to the regulators at all or even in confidence but thats just the nature of regulation that there can be those type of misjudgments. I would rather wait and see whether theres an actual marketplace problem and consumer harm before trying to stop something in advance. And im not necessarily attributing ill will to at t and comcast, although sometimes i might, and as kevin pointed to whitaker, the reason we see at t and comcast and verizon as well, somewhat quieter than the other two Companies Embrace the proposal and say theyre fine with section 706, randy, you and i probably agree more than i do with kevin, i think theres a meaningful difference between 706 and title 2 and under title 2, the f. C. C. Could keep the network open, sprept blocking and prevent driss crimm nation and monetizing of their network that i think these Big Companies want to dofment of course, they should be allowed to modernize their network as kevin said selling different amounts of capacity to different people but, two things, not by saying we will charge you more based on how you use that capacity. Meaning if you want to go to netflix, cost you one thing but if you want to go to amazon, it costs you another. The problem with putting the burden of proof on the complainer, internet innovator or user is these companies are quite literally saying everyone on the internet is now a customer of the i. S. P. If i come to cspan. Org and i visit cspan using my broadband connection, suddenly cspan is not just comcast of its own internet provider, its now a customer of my Internet Service provider. And can be charged for the privilege of reaching me and thats really discrimination and differentiation and prioritization we see out of bounds here, as harming innovation, as something that will be difficult to measure consumer harms because we wont know what were losing out on once the Internet Service provider is in that drivers seat and can say only certain sites will reach you at a certain seed or certain sites reach you at all out of a comfortable relationship theyre able to craft, whether my i. S. P. Dictates whether other i. S. P. s want to reach me. Now were starting to get into something new here. A lot of this debate we have been having is the same debate we can have on any Telecom Policy issue. Theres always a reasonable argument with we shouldnt regulate ahead of time and reasonable argument why we should regulate ahead of time. The question is whats going on and how are things likely to evolve . Part of whats new is realizing how little we actually know. So there are these relationships inside the internet and most of it is dark. Most of it because the f. C. C. Has not chosen to address the internet core market, theres no tra