[THEME MUSIC]
[Warren Allen] We have a really amazing panel here today
to talk about a really important issue to technology and the law.
Tonight we have, on the far left over here, your right,
We have David Pashman, general counsel of meetup.com,
um, one step over we have
Althea Erickson, Policy from Etsy,
We have Bruce Kushnick. Bruce what's your..
[Bruce Kushnick] New Networks.
[Warren Allen] From New Networks,
A step further we have Jonathan Askin from the BLIP Clinic,
and lots of other endeavors. He's one of our advisers
here at the New York Legal Hackers, and we also have
moderating tonight, we haveNilay Patel,
who's the editor in chief, newly minted, of, from The Verge
So give them all a great round of applause and yeah, let's talk about net neutrality.
[Nilay Patel] So, just to get it started
here I want everybody to sort of
introduce themselves and do just a
couple minutes on background and sort
of where where we begin on the subject
and then we'll begin the debate. So
Jon take it away.
[Jonathan Askin] Actually I'd like to find out who you all are too.
Who's heard of the term net neutrality in the audience?
Who has not? [Nilay Patel] They're my nerds!
[Jonathan Askin] Alright so it's more of tech-oriented crowd
than I was thinking it was
so I'll give you two data points about myself. I'm
a tech law professor at Brooklyn Law School
and the University of London, but
before that I was a D. C. tech policy
lobbyist, an advocate, F.C. C. official.
and I chaired Barack Obama'ss Internet
governance working group during the
08 campaign. So most of what I wanna
talk about is political dysfunction in
Washington, judicial dysfunction in
America, technological inability to
resolve the net neutrality issues, and where
we might try to go from here.
[Nilay Patel] Bruce?
Jonathan just wants all the simple stuff.
[Bruce Kushnick] I thought we were going to have someone discuss what net neutrality is and all that.
[Nilay Patel] Why don't we just start with introductions, just to be on it.
[Bruce Kushnick] My name is Bruce Kushnick. I'm the executive director Of New Networks.
I've been a telecom analyst for 32 years. And I just want to read you one
thing before we start. a rise in claims
Uh, Verizon claims for net neutrality
that essentially..
[voice] Speak closer!
OK. Verizon claims that net neutrality is based on, sorry,
on a sort rises Verizon has sued the F. C. C. to stop, uh,
the F. C. C. from changing whaCharlie what is Title I,
which is information services into
the Title II which is atelecommunication service.
Verizon claims that if it was a Title
mediation communicaservicecommunications service - Title II -
it would harm the economy, it would harm their
investment, and they've been saying this
for the last eight years. They told the
court s that Title II would harm all of
their investments in the United States and
slow down broadband. I read from Verizon's filing
in nNew York for their cable franchise
"Legal authority to construct fiber to
the premises. Verizon New York is a
common carrier under Title II of the
Telecommunications Act of 1934
constructing its fiber to
the premises network as an upgrade to
its existing telecommunications network."
In other words what Verizon has done is
tell the F. C. C. that broadband is a
title oneTitle I service within, with
the internet. and what it's done is on the
other side it said no it's title to Title II. And
why they did this is because everybody
in the audience washo haas a phone line in New
York was charged for the deployment of
the fiere optic wires. All of the POTS
customers - Plain Old Telephone Service
customers paid for the fiber optic
wires, and that is why is Title II. So
I'll be talking about how it's already
Title II, uh, classified and that the
F. C. C. - all they have to do is basically say
it's Title 2 already. Thank you very
much, and open up the networks to competition.
[Nilay Patel] Awesome. Althea? You want to jump up on it?
[Althea Erickson] Sure. in the air I'm the directory C. R. for
those who don't know and see is an
online marketplace where you can buy
and sell vintage and make goods from a
artist designers and collectors around
the world. We have about one million
sellers on at sea world wide and
together they sold over one point three
five billion dollars worth of goods
last year that success would not have
happened without net neutrality and
happy to talk about why German others
proposal would really hurt both at see
the company and also the million plus
sellers you depend on our platform very
well everyone my name is David
harassment on the general counsel of
Meta Meta is the platform that groups
like the legal hackers need a group is
organised on the platform for people
across the world to join in existing
group or start the room group about the
interest and me in the real world and
do great things like have a great time
in south street seaport and more down
net neutrality. So my perspective on
this issue is how the proposed rules
would affect companies and consumers of
internet services such as yourself and
how we can work together to make sure
that the new rules protect innovation
and companies right. So that's what
distinguish down here so john you're a
law professor. So I'm gonna ask you to
do the honours of times where we
weren't twenty ten what happen with the
rule have in the core and where we are
now with the new proposed rule I want
to do it in two minutes yeah yeah that
go size you want would it be possible
me to back this up to two thousand and
four and so that your for me at a
terrible whatever yeah at the histories
important I'll tell you why because I'm
part of the problem. I'm gonna tell you
that I am a serious part of the problem
and it goes back about twelve years.
And I'm part of the D. C. insider
perpetual lobby machine problem anyone
ever lot chart the lobby in Washington
D. C. any of you here that is right
right yeah I mean D. C. yeah yeah that
as Reg is the problem every big company
in technology has a team of lobbyists
in D. C. and no lobbyist gets rewarded
for coming up with the right policy
result what they've got to do is
demonstrate to the home office that
they are bringing value that they are
moving the line of scrimmage that
they're playing a perpetual function
for their company victory means failure
for the lobbyist unless they can find a
new that so not neutrality has been one
of those battles that frankly the
lobbyists in congress have like that
around for the past ten years because
no one in D. C. wins by final
resolution of the net neutrality about
what I mean by that we can get
immigration reform done washington's
this is it a list essential issue we
can't get an essay surveillance issues
resolved in washington. D. C. this is a
list policy issue in D. C. next reality
believe it or not and some of you may
wanna disagree with that is nowhere
close to a list policy issue in D. C.
it's an issue that doesn't necessarily
clearly resonate with the American
people it's not something that a normal
person in America can say it next
realities resolve this way think good
things will happen if it's resolved
outweigh the bad things will happen
it's very tough to communicate that
concept to traditional americans and
their congress doesn't really give a
damn about moving at each other with a
few exceptions what they do care about
is using those B. list in see listing
D. list tech policy items as vehicles
to line their campaign coffers. That's
what we've got and now congress that's
exactly lined up the big pockets on
either side of this that you've got
you're at C. is now that they've got a
I. I yeah I had ten years ago go one
one policy person in D. C. and they
were part of the battle against writing
contest for technicality. Now they've
got an army D. C. also and I don't
necessarily want resolution of
neutrality battle because it keeps them
going. And it so so you got some people
on one side mentality battle lining
half of congress some people on the
other side child about aligning the
other half of conversation the long as
counters and keep that functioning from
term after term after term. That's the
way that's the end keeping for congress
oh my gets a L. and there where there
you guys actually run companies that
really depends on that neutrality and
you are the first false persons that C.
so tell me why are diverse party person
that's why you're fighting this battle
is your first campaign. yeah so the
focus that C. is making it a great for
at the people who sell things and in
the in the people who buy things on it
see so we have just over six hundred
people that work at C. and one person
works public policy and to be honest
the majority of my work is focused on
advocating for Eddie sellers net
neutrality is happening to us and the
reason that we're so involved in it is
we see it as a fundamental threat not
only to see the company I guess just to
break it down we haven't really some
sort of said what the chairman is
proposing but basically the way the
internet has worked so far under
whatever roles that existed all traffic
is treated equally on over the pipes
that deliver internet's your home. So
at the at the same chances in you bag
or some little tiny start of you never
heard of breaking their products
directly to you in your home under the
proposal that chairman Miller has made
a big companies would be allowed to pay
for priority mister access to use the
consumer and so that means that not
only that but startups really would
have to have a for the money in order
to buy access to consumers we see that
is a real threat not only these
potential growth role low margin
business only take three point five
percent of every transaction there's no
way we could pay for priority access
that hurts not only see but also the
million plus sellers you depend on our
platform who sites with load euros
images with load more slowly then say
an Amazon or whatever goals promoting
the company that okay so that's why
we're getting engaged with the egg as a
fundamental Brenda you I. the R.
sellers and also to the startups that
haven't even started yet sort of the
next So I have to play devil's advocate
here. Because that's my job was just to
if you're if on fantastic against it
yeah I would say to you while it's
better for a company like that seem to
be able to pay for priority access. So
you can compete with the Google that
has a C. D. and so you can compute
Amazon which ones against big A. C. D.
N. why wouldn't you want the ability to
pay for faster access. also we can pay
first C. D. I mean we have a choice a
C. D. as like a little bit wonky
technical right but at the also Let's
see as a constant leave or network so
Amazon runs and someone services which
is I'm presuming at C. prior run some
stuff on Amazon web services "'cause"
every startup runs Amazons clout. So
you can pay Amazon for faster access
it's cloudy can they do look and wanted
some data centres all over the world
secure contrast your argument is what
you started a company in your basement
just take a second casting your stuff a
lot faster without is added investment
and Amazon splattered rules what this
so the key difference is at the right
now and any startup can pay Amazon or
another C. D. N. to deliver traffic
more quickly through the network.
However there are terminating map
monopoly that a contrast or a rice and
have where they're the only way to get
to an and user and that essentially
created a point where they can hold
content. And that I think the fact that
the those monopolies exist are why we
worry about the the ability to charge
extra to get to the users "'cause"
they're the only one in the game right.
So maybe hear the general counsel I'm
sure you've that you talked about this
kind of a big policy side a lot what
what's five your perspective on where
the competition supply when you say the
competition what you mean by
competition what more the idea that
there's the facilities based consumer
market there is this sort of the the
web services data distribution market
right so ideally you need a competitive
market all points along teaching
changing ideally you need a highly
competitive market it all points along
that content delivery no work from the
edge providers which is another one
teacher more use which are like the net
flicks and the and designs and the
people that you think of as the cup are
getting the content to you all the way
through what people call the last mile
which is you are your consumer internet
service like a rising by us for time
Warner cable. So there needs to be
competition in all levels of that
delivery or government regulation to
prevent discrimination and so we
haven't really talked about what the
new proposal is and how we would
attempt to regulate or not regulate the
segment of internet delivery between
the the access to the network and the
last mile so we should probably step
back and talk about the distinction
between title one entitled to well
means right so I guess it's highest
level of structure. well you mentioned
is that the rules that the chairman has
proposed would allow the broadband
access providers to discriminate
discriminate against certain types of
traffic. And presumably that
discrimination would be price based so
would allow people that could pay more
for faster access the regime that we've
been operating under a printable
recently as defacto prohibited that
discrimination. So that all companies
could compete equally by having their
content delivery along the same lines
and what the new rules the new rules
propose is that the broadband access
providers would be able to engage in
certain types of discrimination. And
the failsafe that we've been told by
the F. C. C. that would present that
would prevent all the horrible things
like people not being able to watch
their networks or not be able to
purchase a nazi or not be able to
access meet up is that there's this
test that they're proposing which would
allow commercially reasonable in
arrangements what prevent unreasonable
arrangements and so the problem with
that is that no one knows what that
means and it's incredibly difficult and
time consuming for companies to go
through the whole people process to
argue that something is unreasonable or
commercially unreasonable
discrimination and so what we really
need in addition to a competitive
marketplace or clear bright line rules
that allow innovative companies and the
people that are going to invest in them
to understand how these companies are
going to be able to access consumers
and deliver their services right. So
I've saved arts Helga represented for
last and I think what I'm teasing
really you have networks in your in
your company an example for the you
open by talking about how prize in is
jumping back and forth between two
different regulatory regimes and there
it I think you got title shopping
recently kind of explain have arises
using the system as it is now it's it's
an advantage is that mean that's your
argument Um that's essentially what
happened I just that that once that
lose some people to tell vacations that
nineteen ninety six it basically said
is a wire in your home you could pick
your own internet provider you could
pick your own work by you could you
want cable provider it wasn't one
company offering. So or services two
thousand four on the Michael pile
generate lapel the F. C. C. basically
said no no on wire is basically one
company's property. And essentially all
of the services on that all primary
services but your internet service you
broadband service cable service with by
one company this was called vertically
integrating a product yeah that
Michelle use clause because there is no
other way to get on the net you have
one company that it you why the eyes
people you want the matter doesn't if
you had competition there would
basically be a a utility for you say
you know this guy's really over a
little change companies. So well what
what we found basically is as follows
right is claiming that to the F. C. C.
that it's an information service what
their service were left the vertically
cradle of our products and we all that
why. They all the state however that
basically it's a title to service
winningest telecommunications it's part
of the state ability and therefore
their obligations that it should have
now or finding was the year two
thousand six realise it was able to get
multiple rate increases from base to
customers to pay for the fibre optic
wires known as files they did this in
every state however files is also cable
service and it looks like arises been
able to charge the the past customers
the low income families seniors small
businesses for a cable service a
broadband service as well as the
connections the wireless service what
we found was that the wires to sell
flowers every cell towers basically is
attached to wire with don't into cloth
the local service and rises wireless
companies paying a fraction of the
cost. So we feel is as follows we got
to hey it's already finds already title
to it's already paid for by customers
those that we should be reopened all
competitors need. So everybody who has
a force to be able to get it including
all the commercial areas of the city of
new York which are not part of the
original franchise for for Kate
moreover that you feel it's themselves
a fraction of what other companies
would pay time Warner case a dollar
twenty four to itself for the use of
its high speed internet it charges the
customer an average of thirty four
dollars if the networks were open fire
mortars internet service we have to
compete with everybody else to pay the
same amount. I. E. then there's money
actually build up a fibre optic
networks. So were suggesting is that
you're only company that taking control
of the wire you to be separate from the
wire. And that the wires that could be
opened all competitors today there'd be
enough money that's why are the rest of
the state of new York and the rest of
the country okay three there this just
bundling is happening it happens in in
the U. K. happens throughout europe.
And prices there are much lower in
speeds are much higher then we could
even dream up here so I wanna come back
to this I mean you said on and which is
this is and it's your one issue for
people because I write about any saudi
lot I petitioned my readers of the
words like ward I'll the F. C. C. I
believe we crash the F. C. C. which
makes it very proud got bless for
traders the chaotic bastards they are
but they got like hundreds of thousands
if not millions of comments and then
under thousand and tons of phone calls
and yeah this public outcry doesn't
seem to move the needle soon much why
you think that it's well we'll see
we've never really seen anything like
what we said this once before. So I
think this actually might be moving the
needle in a way that the F. C. C. and
D. C. has net has never seen and never
anticipated we we any don't two years
ago with the so what about if you
recall that was the first time that
there was a real genuine public out
crying over and that's your exact
policy issue and it scared the crap out
of congress I think this makes the same
result I don't know that the what what
what comes of this is gonna be
something have particularly good for
people because I think this is a
country about where to turn. We can
turn I don't know that yes he's gonna
have this fine to on scramble the egg
in a pose again title to what tardy to
call P. broadband networks
telecommunications common carrier
services I don't know that is that is
gonna have the spine to do that. I'm
sure at this point the D. C. circuit.
And the supreme court probably also do
not have this fine because they think
that there I mean if you look at the D.
C. circuit in which are three import.
They claim to be strict construction
estimates too difficult at this point
for anyone to give inside the D. C.
circuit and supreme court that there is
a plausible way to read the telecom act
to allow for reestablished minute I
don't to with our yeah I I think so
short of congress revisiting the issue
or probably short of a bona fide
antitrust battle against the cable
couples and the phone company cabal we
may be stuck in this yeah unknown
territory for next year yeah it's
stunning vision of hope right or is
title to I. S. O. the beginning it or
is vital to it every document why has
every cable franchise in every state
you have that be the thing the question
is is did arising commit some kind of
illegal or by not telling congress the
F. C. C. or reports that is that works
for title to continually told that
basically they'll it would form the
investment in their in their networks
with the same right is that about
spending all this money on files. So my
feeling is a alas we need to tell the
F. C. C. it's already title to all I do
you do you do reclassified just say if
I already rising why should we make it
final to for the rest of the networks.
Well my cynicism is overstated I
although on the guy who into that they
work at the bottom administration
crafting tax policy we believe them a
moralising net neutrality as a
principle of this government we've got
and it just they're a bomb a walked
around the campaign trail as first
campaign and said no one is a stronger
supporter manage reality I am and yet
here we are eight years later seven
years later in this wondering that
right we thought that the upon the F.
C. C. what had this fine to one
scrambled to set to reassert telecom
authority over the broadband networks
to recognise these broadband pipes as
the telecommunications infrastructure
digitally that without now if we get a
diligent cathy. I'm sceptical we're
ever gonna get real I want pack that
for a little bit farther. And I wanna
talk about we were in detail but my
question for you gave it is if you're a
cable company if you're contest I think
this is a problem. You can talk about
the rise in pipes and wires all day
long. But contrast exists and contrast
is the future right they're not gonna
get smaller we only want to get bigger.
And what they will tell you is that
well we have a clear regulatory
environment we understand how this
works right now. And or investors are
betting on or increased ability to
moderate size the types the ground
right now. And you change the
regulatory environment we have to go
through a title to reclassification and
then get rid of all the rules that
apply to nineteen thirty four telephone
service which is something we would
have to do for reclassified that our
ability to make money goes up in a
proof of instability our pastors a walk
away what's a rule that gets you past
that is rising was really can propose
the calm that I'm sorry. It's that's
contrast what's rule you can propose
the columns down comp cast in semesters
we're very already at this is a huge
problem I guess I would say it's the
rule of telling the truth because if
they were to say that that sorry a lie
I and so there's there's there's two
aspects of that the first general
principle that any changeable illegal
regime is destabilising to the
investment community and will result in
their investors walking away is not a
basis for a system of what rules have
been changed before and this is not the
first time to do that so I don't think
that investment expectation should
constraint or hand copper regulatory
agency or judicial decision the second
point with respect to them cleaning. Um
that there is this stable clear
regulatory rule based regime is also on
true "'cause" they would be claiming
that presumably well work title one and
were prohibited from engaging in
commercially unreasonable
discrimination but the truth is we'd
had a day facto open internet that
neutrality system that basically is
what companies like mine out the is
arguing for all the time. So not to get
into the we of how the system was
enforced and Claire what the system
that existed before the the court
decision in January was basically a de
facto opener nana open internet order
that treated contrast improvising as
title to common carriers and prevented
the discrimination that we're seeking
to prevent now by enacting these rules.
So both aspects of what they would be
claiming are just on true. So what what
is the rule yeah they're gonna keep
claiming it and they have a lot of
money to pay lawyers to claim it is
loudly as this those lawyers can what
is a compromise you could bring to
those lawyers in the contest to
actually break through the large and
besides you're a liar which just trust
me that would be my that would
undermine together she reality twenty
different. I can tell you it doesn't
work so I'm wondering what what we
yours would be So I guess the first
thing to recognise is that the the
trajectory of trying to reach a
compromise with the comp cast and the
rise in the world I don't know what
that can be reached and I'm certainly
not the person to negotiate that that
that that but the rule that I would
propose which which I am on the record
as supporting would be the clear title
to based commentary your regulatory
scheme that prohibits price
discrimination in requires all of the
carriers to treat all traffic people.
So that is like that that might not be
a rule that cast likes but that is the
clear rule that it basically enforces
the date back to regime that we existed
under since you know the the past
several years that existed before the
January court this right so yeah one of
the I'm curious your take on this as
well also we were small company one
have contest big concessions to the F.
C. C. F. T. C. as they by time Warner
or really tried by someone a cable is
yeah well just agree that rule for a
longer period of time which if your
comp cast is great because you're
already making a bunch of money if
you're activist is seems like licking
the can down the road because my son
all systems are integrated years
readies with everybody and if you're
trying reach a compromise seems like
hurry up and wait. So what's your take
on their sort of we're gonna hold onto
this you let us by time Warner cable
and we'll keep the status quo for a
little longer is that work for you or
do you think that it needs to be more
broadly applied it may be entitled to
ponder that I mean I just don't see how
that's a solution it does feel to me
like a kicking it down we the can down
the road especially because you know I
don't I don't see their position
changing more becoming more flexible as
they get greater and greater market
share and become a stronger and
stronger monopoly and so it seems to me
that at this moment where you have
internet rising up and saying protect
our internet feels like the moment to
say and to say you know tail to or what
however you say I think you know where
we fall out if we don't wanna live in a
world of P. priorities each and we
don't wanna that's not what we want
them and if you can do it a different
way than title to that's great it just
doesn't seem like you can and when you
ask people okay you know if you take it
it given you want no he prioritisation
no block you know discrimination I can
find a way or that says you can do it
outside of I don't to were after me we
could find one way or he said that this
thing was julie's jana Ascii any can't
you can't away ready like one in the D.
C. circuit courts a a right now no so
given that decision doesn't that say
that that compromise position doesn't
exist right and then if you agree with
the principles of no pay prioritisation
of black you know discrimination I just
don't see how you get right so this is
my question for you Tom Wheeler I'm
sure you're listening to us right now
how does Wheeler john how does Wheeler
get there "'cause" what is proposed
right now gets you two the three but it
doesn't get you away from pay
prioritisation and he's heard this
outcry. And one at what I'm ask you
this panel over and over again is
what's the solution beyond title too
how many people are sort of the social
contract not true so that time Warner
social contract become cast social
calendar ninety ninety five all of
cable company so I agree with the F. C.
C. they wanted more money from the
customers so that they could upgrade on
the internet service and broadband
service and why all the schools in
their existing territories the contract
was also get but the phone companies
five all the cable companies five
dollars more a month per customer the
paper this but not the the expenses was
supposed to stop the U. two thousand
the school's roles possibly are
unfortunately after forty years we can
find any schools the wire of this
contract nor did we see them stop
collecting the money. So from our
perspective first question is is that
they take the money through two
thousand or two thousand fourteen. So
upgrade the networks the cup to what
they are the schools if they didn't
well maybe that's negotiating what that
we should worry about so it was that
the rise a wireless which has the do
with rising wired has a deal with
contest in time Warner that's the point
of their products in areas within a two
files. This is not so you're the number
to compete clause meeting that in those
areas provides a wireless verizon
online of rise in the wire occur to
deal with the cable company to not to
be. So if you talk about whatever
comcast deal isn't it interesting that
they don't stop all which this what I
like the list cable T. so from my
perspective. We do before you go you
have to the dirty laundry. And area. So
that people know that things happen as
well as users the ghostly tools to
bring one that the in time Warner ale
well deal the open the competition and
all internet providers that didn't
happen in only happened sporadically we
should go back to say in those mergers
they should have the networks opened
all competition I think question and
that this is why why answer. I think
it's clear that everybody hates it's
out of monopolies in the cable company.
So anybody lot here love the cable
company anybody in your city leather
cable. That's obvious that's where this
feature is coming from and where this
public animosity towards whatever's
happening the F. C. C. is coming from
even if you can't just find what they
want they know the contrast want
something and they don't want on gas to
get what it wants the question is how
do you turn that into something
positive and you turn into something
understandable and how you turn it into
something achievable in our current
political fine. And that's what I'm
asking you to do alright. So so yeah so
I think you will play out moderately
successfully over the next couple
years. Uh the F. C. C. has to be a
goals that currently work you can use
merger conditions they can use the
bully pulpit yet so they can use merger
conditions and the bully pulpit and
additional articulations is a couple
other vehicles in which they can
extract temporary concessions from the
phone companies and the cable companies
to ensure that they don't violate
neutrality was upright like I think the
big foam of because companies are
scared to death about lacking the fact
that the bigger problem. Then they want
government to think there is so for the
past ten years they've been pretty good
actors. They've been trying to started
indicate a garment there's no problem
here. And they freak out every time a
smaller internet access provider does
something wrong. "'cause" they say
there's a bad actor demonstrated what
can be done we're not behaving that way
trust as we're gonna be good actors
going power now. I don't think the F.
the is done enough in the merger
context I think to the extent they
supported every single vertical merger
you know time Warner and second guess
A. B. C. being the most egregious of
those I think they've done a disservice
to the American people I think they've
got a figure out ways to vertically
separate even if it's within the same
company the ability to provide access
and the content that they were
providing over the spikes and that may
mean coming up with something like a
performance metrics process so company
as can offer and P. C. content. But the
way they operate B. C. content is the
way they've got a wall read every other
content provider out there they can't
give preferential treatment N. B. C.
box need the same right of access
network might have access Amazon prime
need to say right of access so there
were a couple tricks like that I think
the S. C. has at its disposal that it
can impose unless and until I think too
big thing one of two big things is
alternately gonna happen at some point
the American people are gonna recognise
we're boring so far behind the rest of
the world in our ability to encourage
startup enterprises here and to
encourage consumer controller there you
know video in internet experience that
this could be a backlash either do we
have to trust laws or through re I new
statutory framework that will
reestablish commentary oversight over
the internet access for the broadband
provider that answer now yeah it's that
that's not being a direct yeah that's
that is super wonky right and this is
the challenge. C. D. building the
political capital momentum to
accomplish one of two very want the
outcomes. So I guess my question you
know these you got a big network about
six hours and you're telling us that
this is gonna deeply affect them if it
breaks the wrong way how do you talk
about it to them how you motivate them
to go and participate in the process
yeah I guess one thing I'd say that
it's not a legal sort of compromise
problem it's a political problem and
that is the solvable hopefully you know
what someone all problems that we have
started to organise and resellers as
soon as they hear about it they're very
up that we have this sort of self
organised groups that teams there's a
new team that just started around that
neutrality and I think you know one of
our goals is to start getting that
these sellers who would be negatively
impacted by these roles in front of the
F. C. C. in front of congress in front
of the white house to say look you know
this can happen in like all of this
sort of upset nist and and and anger
interactive is has a real impact I
guess is coming from a real place and
these rules will have a negative impact
on real small business owners and micro
business. You know that's helpful
though because I guess I would just say
that it these sellers aren't giving a
ton of money do various politicians in
D. C. and the road the only wrote I see
you getting the rose we want is if it
everybody in the world saying one thing
except from cast brides in time or you
know like the five big companies or
whatever it is and I don't you know
that's that's a job that we have to do
between now and the end it here when
they make the decision so I think this
year we've actually borne witness to be
perfect political economic they're real
analogy. And then I I I we have to
figure out the play this I think we as
a as a community so what happened over
the past year and word snowed in we
feel that the N. S. A. has been working
with American based internet companies
to reveal can suck consumer information
to the government and as a result the
rest of the world and many American
consumers imaging just freaked out this
administration never really gave much
political weight to the alternative to
a lead to compelling I I ended leading
the N. S. A. get access to internet
data about consumers and tell it became
apparent that the rest of the world.
And the internet companies were
freaking out and it was going to
potentially me a multibillion dollar
capital flight from America to other
countries results pane or talk about
building an alternative internet don't
use Google use the brazilian equivalent
to new companies that will sanctify
your privacy. So it wasn't until it
became an economic issue for this
government that the government said you
know we need to have this conversation
because there was no counterbalance on
the N. S. A. issue yeah we've got the
potential to reframe what's going on in
that neutrality as a bona fide economic
issue what we have on one side that
you've got come cast Denver rise in an
A. T. and T. wait infrastructure
committee to america. They can help
offshore their infrastructure directory
structure existing here average not be
scared about the rise in in a T. T. and
can't get taking their pipes in moving
at the south America I think that
America but not moving applies here.
They got a business here they're
committed to that business here always
not necessarily committed to that
business here. It's the internet
companies without infrastructure. It's
the people selling online without
infrastructure the Netherlands just
passed the legislation legislation this
year moralising that neutrality in the
Netherlands to me that should be a red
flag to this government the internet
based companies at C. R. I think that a
community the media community might
recognise that the Netherlands might be
more viable place for them to do
business because they're gonna have
their access to consumers over an open
internet then they will in America
that's I think that's I think
ultimately gonna scare got what when
they have their access to much smaller
group of this I mean the another one
just wonderful I've been there I don't
remember much of it but it's a much
smaller yeah and one of the the
internet the N. C. company the idea
it's a user can be based in the
Netherlands and so one half of their
equation has open access does that mean
they're gonna be curved rather
restaurant the might be some
curtailment release one half of their
pipe is open and that they have the
bike where the company that's so the
company with the trade that they could
still be selling to consumers in
America there might be some push back
from the American internet access
providers but at least they know
they're working in he even that has so
one half their equation one half of the
one on one internet communications
experience is originating from a
country with open internet principles
and no gatekeeper yeah and that's is
the sound work okay another way to look
at it is that yes the markets in those
other communities might be
significantly smaller. But if you look
is that better okay if you look at
where the earlier stage innovation is
going to happen it's entirely viable
that it could happen in the smaller
markets because that's a place where
with open and then orders that are
enforced by law those companies can
develop and and get to a scale that
then proves their viable as broader
businesses. So if you take a look at no
don't look at at C. today or me that
today we'll get our company's in me
that's case ten years ago when eddie's
case maybe four years ago when they
were looking to raise a small amount of
capital and start a business. And know
that they would be able to go out and
reach all of the potential users on
equal terms to Amazon and they could do
that for just you know of you not
necessarily a few thousand dollars but
fifty thousand dollars or a hundred
thousand dollars for a few million
dollars whereas if they have to compete
with an an design or or not or any day
they would need tens of millions of
dollars to hire teams of wires and
regulatory attorneys to negotiate those
deals with contest. So don't just look
at the ability of companies to reach
more kids when they're at scale but
look at the market for innovation we're
companies are gonna need to develop
their businesses what somebody inflate
super doubles advocate if you're a
consumer. And you're watching you two
you won't be able to pay for you to be
faster because it's the dominant market
provider video streaming right it if
you're a star to it's actually better
for you in in the market of many many
start ups to be able to dedicate some
revenues it access in consumer faster
or it's better for you to go towards an
incubator I mean they're market
solutions stored we need faster access
right so if there is a prioritisation
the consumer might benefit because the
big companies to the consumer will go
likely okay so they get faster service
and the little companies can find some
sort of market solution making getting
together they can come the other needs
to be all you're shaking your heads
American crazy this is what the cable
companies will tell you they will
actually tell you this one is that some
crazy too because it's falls. Well
below so so so you just presume that
just small imagine a point at the
waiter was like it's false in the law
professors like let me tell you why
yeah yeah so that's I don't know what
those market solutions for the smaller
companies would be because we're
talking about the market for capital to
paper prioritisation and small
companies don't have capital to
negotiate those deals and paper those
deals. So that's just calls that that's
more companies can find a market
solution and then adjusting the first
part of your way which is that the
consumers benefit because well they
want to to be able or or not like to be
able to deliver their content faster in
a world of a prioritisation. Nobody
would have faced book we'd all be stuck
with my space "'cause" my space was the
image content but they would you think
they would about spending that you
gotta prove that you've gotta be able
to show the harm. okay there's
something called no I very quickly
become the bad guy this. this is the
fast lane is the slowly in this the no
you know I you have there's that we in
literary with is we some choice you
right now rice that is the plan is shot
of fifty percent of their territories
and put everybody on wireless eighty
india's file to do the same thing with
the V. I. P. transition eighty eighty
claims that in one of the I. P.
transition test where they wanna go for
I peter service they sort of sixty
percent of the people in a simple car
but he'll Alabama quickly it's good for
them to use the wireless no wireless is
of course have spent with caps and not
the same speed and the local upgraded
you first even though that that upgrade
anyway. So in rice is not upgrading
eighty percent of the disparities in
the state of new york. So vastly
sloppily we're stuck with no lay and
things you get slower because while
society more expensive is gonna deal
that's fast people er. So it's wanted
the Google you two point because who
had a video product that they launch
that ultimately you two why the
beginning was the startup that
ultimately Google decided to apply or
was able to acquire I don't think
because it was the better product label
to demonstrate that it could grow and
build user base in a world where Google
would've been able to pay for priority
access to its frankly crappy initial
video product you to view knows better
for consumers would never have I mean
I'm I'm just gonna push back and there
and reality again but is it is that
true is actually true is it probably
true the back in you go very it was a
crap product that you will be a loaded
faster than you two people would've
used it more so there there are
definitely studies which show that it
delay of milliseconds has a direct
negative impact on revenue not only at
the moment of decision making on the
consumer side but also one last thing
and and so yeah I think milliseconds
matter there but you read the content
right so people wait on you too because
that's where the stuff is this is a
consumer keen was like an on a video
and it's a just a second longer to load
they're gonna click away from ninety to
but even you choose not gonna be able
to build a user creates whatever their
their product depends on the ability to
load. sure so maybe I'm gonna keep
going down this road because I cover
startup something wrong. And I got a
big companies all day long and there
are many barriers for start up to
overcome the costs money you wanna go
compete in the market you wanna be the
asteroid you need a beautiful icon
right that's a thing you need you need
beautiful you access things cost lots
and lots of money to see if the cost
lots and lots of effort. Why should
access P. just another cost of doing
business market. So so I guess research
on it and can probably explain this
better from a telecommunications law
perspective but there is no monopoly
being controlled by or or rather you
know there is no show point on on icons
for the artist or there's no choice
choke point on engineers there is a
highly competitive market for talent
and for all of the other things that
you need in order to compete
successfully as an entrepreneur as a
store issue of open access in that
neutrality is that it broadband access
providers have this show called on the
internet service they are in fact
monopoly or do apply and that is why
they need to be regulated as public
utilities as common carriers there are
absolutely many things that you need to
be successful as a company that you
need money to buy but those things are
not being controlled by a small number
of companies so but let me give you I
that really no no one class it's not
often forgets what it public then it's
okay there is this these people are
drug sorry I but that what we wanted
say it's a wireless which is something
that has come up and just you guys know
right now wireless is not regulated
even is loosely as wire line services.
So company like T. mobile. They make
announcements that are sensibly
wonderful for the consumer like music
unlimited security mobile customer you
can stream is much spot advise you want
you can stream is much already owes you
want as a handful of other services
involved this deal and they just
decided by the exclude this service
that that to me on its face is a
violation of every principle we just
talked about right there prioritising
icon set in there saying we're not
gonna charge against your cap for it.
But as a consumer that's great because
if you are a lower income customer T.
mobile an match a primer access device
you just got free music. So where is
where is the balance so you're
demonstrating the value of the wire
line broadband network. T. mobile is
the exception proving these I the
potential for success in the wire line
but where the hell is the T. mobile of
while I'm right there that dilemma you
T. mobile lady evolves in America the
competitive check on B. monopoly on the
all the topic wireless cabal back in
Germany team or or all the way the
cabal now that's what I wanna be clear.
it's a well I yeah I got wire line
eighteen C. and wire line or rise in
which both own which only two largest
wireless now without without T. mobile
and without sprains. We would see in
the wireless world exactly what we see
in the wire line world so I say the
answer may be great. T. mobile of wire
line but eighteen T. con Casper eyes
and won't let that happen every time
anyone has tried to try to insinuate a
competitive jack on wire line broadband
rise and has gone screaming to the
state legislatures and take much saying
this is a lot of you know other members
Philadelphia try to create a municipal
broadband network alright and what
happens they got in Philadelphia rising
goes to to Harrisburg and cries bloody
murder to the state legislature and
they outlawed municipal broadband
municipal broadband in drop and so they
gave checks to everybody in the
legislature too but would just you know
so yeah I had mixed yeah so few years
ago I go goal was considering bidding
for broadband wireless back yeah I I
something called the yeah there was
this one big wires up to the rig think
about bidding for big buttons like they
did not I did not win that spectrum
instead of rising eighty got the
preponderance of that new broadband
tracking which is being used for for G.
I. broadband networks yeah no I had
mixed reactions about whether I wanted
Google to win that's back in one regard
at least in the short run Google could
very well have been that T. mobile
abroad and check on the rise in and
eighteen T. network I have some
concerns that they probably would been
co opted by the power wire So I would
actually argue it's a durable that
completely co opted that option so I
mean and packed the story very quickly
we gave up a big chunk what image H. T.
television we get a big chunk of
analogue T. V. spectra. And lease
resold it basically to build a high
speed wireless networks double lobbied
very successfully for traditional that
option to be open access so that
whoever built a network on that
spectrum we have to any device connect
to it and the that the provision was
triggered a certain dollar number us a
double bid to make sure that hit the
number their final bit was applied
billion dollars three point one four
one five billion dollars a bunch of
people warrior nerds like high five do
much of the bigger than that happened.
And then rising one and it was fine as
always what rising when but if you're
like me in your tech report or you
remember that what happened next is a
double very desperately wanted to
compete with the ice and and they want
to put out and and rates on it at the
quality and scale that they needed it
can be with the arts and yeah but I was
not available on the rise and so double
cut it deal with arise in so wants to
drive product Motorola in immediately
walked back all over net italian
principles and rising which one the
option there's no way the that open
access provision applies to rise and
there's no way to get a network device
and horizons so you can try you can go
there story can scream bloody murder
you get a sim card and all the stuff
they won't work and Google has no
interested by the only company only
party it's interested in such a
provision and they don't care because
or sign millions of entering. So yeah
they got caught by the web completely
for the dark side what what anyone like
to say with the cable company would a
you yeah I mean that's this is a
feature rubber system right it's
designed what these companies make
money. So how do you bring the consumer
interest into it in a way to can fight
all of this money. goal is always
ultimately let the remark rebel when
they're free market can prevail budding
baited pointed to be it resolved all
problem where we need is very limited
government intercession and that's
where there is at best two choices in
the last mile for consumer access you
got an infinite supply of internet
companies desperate to reach you but
for the fact that they have to
gatekeepers to go through and without a
just a smidgen of government oversight
they will extract you serious revenues
right up to the point where becomes the
internet companies that way that's
almost more than I want to pay but it's
just low enough that I guess I got pay
"'cause" I need and that's the mark
that's what the pretty market will
result in without any oversight over
the gatekeeper to so how B. B. on
unbundling how would you guys propose
creating a real combat or to con cast
rise in time one or is there a way to
do it. Well I just I think it's
political suicide so try something
else. yeah but I think it's a light
touch title so what are you with that
neutrality being memorialised entitled
to not entitle one in section seven is
Okay I mean troll that sign for for
questions so yeah is it just yeah or
where I believe is political suicide to
try unbundling we believe it won't work
I I I will tell you that every lawmaker
I talked to knows that the American
people want this and know that they
will get run either extremely to the
middle on the issue where they run out
of the republican party. That's what's
gonna so on that extraordinarily
cheerful note. What's what six
questions questions are to the yeah so
that down to hear you wanna ask a
question. And I'd like to get things
off a ways I'm from the internet
society no one ago it's or or bourbon
street go speaker. So and why you and
she talked about how impacting your
weather happy young probably because
all these there's a lot more
competition it's a lot cheaper because
these guys are struggling to make the
most money oh that you know where to
buy more don't you know what practise
is going on over there than here where
you know these incumbents like a little
capacity they want there is no
congestion. And and so they don't
really have any any real reason apart
perhaps you know locking them so they
can look a bit of money from from the
likes of net flicks too much to
actually do any net neutrality so there
isn't really so much of a problem. But
so so that you know that's the first
thing I talked about oh have a follow
up that somehow suggestion is you know
what would you what would you it you
got an our own like you can only
afford. So much bandwidth would you
might not want to discriminate monster
traffic. So that your video comes in
foster an uninterrupted and to read but
did not neutrality is also can apply
this principle which is user centric
discrimination well you have become
ultimately to be the consumers choice
there are there are network management
reasons to want to discriminate against
certain types of delivery some content
needs low latency some content need
type quality. So they're always because
reasons but the problem emerges when
you've got time order not want
accountable eyes it's core video
delivery offering and wants people to
get its channel as video would
recognises that of net flicks or Amazon
prime as an alternative. They've got an
unfair inordinate ability to
discriminate against net flicks to be
easy be its own video delivery network
that so they can't discriminate apples
to apples that would be the answer you
can say time order can allow and B. C.
to get better access to not allow net
flicks to get equal access to the
consumers that's the dilemma. So maybe
to me it's almost a matter I said
before performance metrics tree and B.
C. the way you would treat any other
unaffiliated video content delivery
provider so I had a I think that I'd
one answer to your your question about
I create an alternative and that is to
make sure that every every C. D. in
every city around the country has the
ability to build what's right for them.
And that's actually saying that has
been somewhat supported by the F. C. C.
but it's unclear that it's actually
gonna happen but only against what the
cable goes and sell "'cause" one but my
question is there at least handle it
lawyers present and I've been I've been
having some discussions and to doing
some thinking on the S. how is it we
we've been talking a lot about the
internet and really the internet is two
things there's the the services on it
which is what the capital high internet
actually is which is a purely virtual
type of thing and then there's the
infrastructure the physical wires and
the fit the cables and the network
equipment. So it seems to me that a lot
of the out of the discussion especially
in internet circles confuses the two
and separate from how we help the
internet community understand that
there is a very big difference between
the internet and the wires on which are
run is how I'm I'm curious how is it
that the telecom act actually
distinguishes between these two
fundamentally different things. And how
is it that the F. C. C. which wrote the
telecom act and that congress several
telecom act how is it that the keep on
confusing these things and how we make
it so that they can really treat these
two fundamental different things the
wires and then the thing is that one on
top of the wires as separate it
separate things you know from a
regulatory perspective alright in a
either at the beginning of this to this
panel. I admitted that this is
partially my and on the four issue. I'm
not kidding this is Michael about
thirteen years no eleven years ago ten
years ago the F. C. C. came out with an
order. I think all the pole what I was
the lawyer proposal and what we have as
the F. C. C. to do was to say that her
free will dial up besides my students.
And I you know it's like a remote dial
up arguably by many analysts accounts
was guiding force type was like it was
the first real peer to peer voice
communications network in the world
that ran across computers but it a lot
for voice communications. So the idiot
lawyer for power over me. So we can ask
the F. C. C. if what we're doing is or
is not a telecom so so one lightning
speed like a year and a half the F. C.
C. says that this this this voice
communications network that doesn't
have any access any control of any
infrastructure it's just to me points
on the open internet is not a telecom
service and is not subject to telecom
regulation that was great couple
paragraphs later the S. C. did
something within a thing to do and we
think was a huge problem at the time of
the some people said it was value a big
problem. Yes this is that you're not a
telecom service. But you are an
information service. And that sounded
pretty cool "'cause" at the time there
were essentially no real significant
onerous regulations on information
services they weren't common carriers
they weren't subject to this title too
onerous obligations you all this stuff.
So we weren't that concern but then a
whole series of me two petitions came
after that decision eighteen D. file to
me to petition arising filed me to
petition bondage file maybe division
they all said that the service that
they offer just like pull overs we will
dial up service is not the telecom
service it's an information service and
one by one the F. C. C. decided you
know what you're right these are also
not telecom services until they we were
left with the world where all the
dominoes had fallen and Bryce since
broadband internet access service is
not a telecom is it's an information
service even though pricing controls
this fibre in the ground this copper in
the ground being you the facilities. So
there has to be a qualitative
distinction between an information
service that just rides on the open
internet and in information service
it's completely there to the
infrastructure in the soil and in the
air on American property so that's a
distinction that the F. C. C. in
governess pale to make but that's the
extent of the six I think they have to
make it you control the infrastructure
guess what you're getting a special
grant from the American people and with
tech right comes a lot of
responsibility. And it should be
treated differently than the
disembodied internet application that
rides over this place just a quick
follow up. So I'm familiar with that
over order. And everything that
happened but why is rise in Charleston
information service why is paralysed in
fine does not a an infrastructure
that's regulated in one way and then
eight video service basically tell
phone service and any any internet
access service that or separately
regulated in a separate under separate
titles or whatever whatever you legal
words mince yet edit easy circuit in
the supreme court that were a culture
ball with the F. C. C. interpretation
of the telecom act now yeah sequence
said that yes the fire service is a
telecommunications service in the
infirmary in the infrastructure layer
and it's a information service at the
application layer the S. you can said
that they can say that because they
wanted frankly that that they're being
extorted by the cable companies in the
phone companies to build that broadband
networks the F. C. C. want to see
brought that filled out the cable
companies the upon comes they will do
it if we argue I guarantee this
latitude to build it out as unregulated
telecom service. So the F. C. C.
republican at C. C. wrote orders saying
that these broadband pipes are just
information services with topical
telecommunications not we
telecommunication services they won't
be regulated community legal services
and the D. C. circuit. And then the
supreme court both said that this is a
reasonable interpretation of the
telecom no that doesn't mean the
ethical to set the office yes you could
easily said the opposite that that this
is active telecommunications service
and we're regulating it this way and
that way pursue which are title to with
R. T. and the supreme court would also
set S. E. C. this the reasonable
interpretation telecom at so and now
the I'm coming to get becomes will have
us believe that a record set in fact
they are information services they are
not telecommunication services that's
gospel that cannot change according to
this telecom act congress has to
rewrite that does not happen yes you
can say that these are in fact
telecommunication services they were
plywood score chevron deference it
would explain the rationale for on
screen we I can think of no longer
title one title two and the supreme
court probably say this that they there
was a reasonable analysis by the F. C.
C. we understand they are the absolute
policy arbiter on this issue we're
gonna grant and the authority to change
their mind and circumstances just you
could questions of the first is I
thought there was a net neutrality
elements the concave N. B. C. universal
merger from years ago statistics are on
and then the other question sort of
what the guy before me brought up is
what can be done on this you know I I
obviously understand you know federal
preemption commerce clause that sort of
stuff what can be done on a city
municipality level as you guys are some
you guys are talking about city or
state level. So you know push the net
neutrality "'cause" I mean is it
completely in the S. C. C. stands or is
the fact that you know C. D.'s
generally give you know permits in
french ads you know whatever T. V.s
cable companies to put in their wires
is anything to be done on that level
from you know secure state that well
I'll say I there's certainly the bully
pulpit at these municipal and state
level to exact concessions from the
phone covers the cable companies to do
business that there you know that the
cable coverage that get franchised
every once in a while and that's part
of the franchising agreement they can
compel them to open up the network a
little bit more vehemently then they
do. I they could do the same with the
phone companies you'll find some states
incident minutes municipalities a
little bit more courageous they the
problem is if you think that the F. C.
C. in the cable companies wield
inordinate power in Washington relative
to the internet companies they will
even more power at the municipal level.
They're the only entities that really
play at this the utility commissions
and with you know do it here in new
York city to the got internet power now
I I don't know if that's sufficient you
your well for former question yes there
were neutrality lightweight net
neutrality provisions in the merger and
that was a decision based on the fact
that there was this vertically
integrated monopoly that was gonna have
indiscreet you know in order under
power to favourites own content over
the content of others it's short lived
I'm not I think they expire within a
year from now so we will be short that
in it only applies to one care you know
to to to which the parties at that
particular merger so that I did say
that the F. C. C. has been used the
only way the S. is actually have the
balls to do anything in this regard has
been inverter context where for a
couple years they'll pick off one
carrier. And then hopefully another
Carrick and use the of murderous be
able to do what they don't have dinner
or wherewithal to develop a broader a
rulemaking context in the July two
thousand July first two thousand forty
A. R. P. consumer unison common cause
is one or more studies a file the
petition the state of new York start
investigating the flow money between
the affiliates futile wireless company
in the wire like nobody but it also has
the question if we're rises bios just
title to and if it's common carriage
customers pay for cable service to
customers pay for an information
service moreover on the state franchise
the eighteen ninety six is under that
law if it's common carriage is
everybody and and they pay for the
final two is everybody entitled to that
in the franchise area this is actually
may turn into a court case. So in some
state laws that all laws that basically
say it's vital to and it's important
franchise the newer obligated because
the telecommunications service this
still obligated offer services on the
the the three exactly like you thirty
one and and the question is really
whether or not they they pay for all
all of these other titles and those
other titles basically got free right I
but it's wrong but I've been thinking
about so the Reading searched but it's
a new new book and it it was talking
about the possible balkan position of
the internet happening in countries
like you're on and it just maybe take
probably this we might not ever happen
but it made me wonder about poor
neighbourhoods in Brooklyn where I see
people can't afford their electricity
bill string it extension cord from a
streetlight to get electricity it
therefore apartment that wondered at
what point we might see organisation at
a small level we see mesh networks set
up the regular by new America
foundation which in hurricane C. D.
serve the populace better than a
government services. And I see people
selling illegal copies of D. V. D.'s on
the street Brooklyn all the time I
wonder at what point people just gonna
set up the road media servers and
string cables between their their
apartment windows and if go back like
that might be a way of a way that where
people have some affects on getting
people to offer oh away it's easier so
we don't see so they don't see I happen
to them what happened to the music
industry what it was easier to use
napster to find music then the tools
that they were providing a bit sore it
tends to work faster doesn't started
the way that like starters doesn't seem
to get rattled superstars net flicks
one I actually a small answers as which
is disproportionately lower income
people turns a mobile providers. So
that's what used mobile provides to
citizens that's what it provides the
market that's what the ten hours in
sprint prepaid brands provide that's
fundamentally woody mobile robots are
that's why T. mobile offers things like
music unlimited. So you're seeing it
you're already seeing them move away
from six to wire line services or hyper
expensive towards something that has
four more utility and that move. It's
you gotta wonder if it's ever gonna
write any real pressure. But what is
definitely happening is that we are
telling our lower income segments of
society you've got a user were centre
there is a mobile internet is
fundamentally a worse internet then the
wire line internet right now and we
regulate it lasts and we say you can
put data caps on it and we're not gonna
worry about not neutrality here because
mobiles different there's a spectral
crotch. So we've already done that a
little bit in a very serious way and
that's what all those prepaid sim cards
are doing. So you know it the F. C. C.
I. to its credit at this point the F.
C. C. saying we gotta regulate wireless
the same as while and I try to bring it
back because it's already happened
that's my answer all at once as well
finally somebody agrees it yeah I I
some point it becomes that the service.
And we got a municipal stay ordinances
statutes and common law that will go
after many the fire you got rising
tracks in time order trucks running
rolling down the street broken looking
for people who are stealing those sorts
of service good at some point the
connections coming from somewhere at
some point the contents got it area can
run what is arguably legitimate antenna
based signals to specifically your mark
consumers they're not gonna put up with
consumers Jerry rigging that to content
throughout but what we do have is right
reformation a universal service what we
are supposed to be committed to
delivering internet access to our
underserved communities through the
federal and state university response
oh right so like to redirect the
conversation so where it was a bit off
at the point of the and a session which
is basically you lost a very point
question which is how do we just rub
the monopoly that white internet
providers have and so that affect them
sort of wondering if we can a light the
on you amount of influence that's a
cable companies have on lobbying power
doesn't the ads on the government have
a direct interest in deciding that
market by it opening up spectrum of
some kind of like we wouldn't wouldn't
that be an avenue for governments to
crew create alternative that would
provide competition that space and I
had another point but I'm not so oh
yeah I I I you know that the at the
white space there the battle over white
spaces in the old spectrum actually was
supposed to do that the that the push
for municipal wife I was supposed to do
that we had a lot of rumblings that
this is gonna happen out the the the
radios and the all the equipment and
the revenue model isn't quite there for
the folks actually like the white space
and but you ty five programs but maybe
we'll come I don't know you know when
you get a lot of what like I said
before when they try doing in
Philadelphia rise and set it down I
mean doing anything it's not obvious
hard because that's work cast it's okay
it's like you thought the hardest
battle first anyway unless you have one
more question I think where where it
time here well the one more okay this
is actually a ricans actualised in
everything also and that is about
conceptualising with the history it
seems like the time Warner contrast
deal looks to be pretty similar to what
is happening this tree be the paramount
decision or the A. T. T. break up in
the eighties isn't this just inevitable
or going to get to the monopolistic
point and then gonna have to break it
up isn't that how America works or do
you have or optimistic you point about
how we can move forward and prevent
this from happening like it happened in
the past I I think regulatory history
always proceeds in these sine waves.
And yes we have seen over the past
twenty years that you're consolidation
I think we will probably I I say if we
don't resolve something via telecom
definitions or net neutrality
implementation the bell and cable
companies will be beset with a losing
and I trust battle collided which we
saw nineteen eighty four electable too
so nineteen fifty six selected which we
so nineteen ten yeah we'll we'll see
that again at some point if something
is resolved and they maybe chil may may
recognise that the they will ultimately
lose the other just that also they may
say you know that this is as far as
we're gonna go with them or not I don't
have any problems with most of these
horizontal mergers which is largely
what the time Warner come customers
about if you have time Warner you got
time Warner can't get wasn't even
offering service in that region they
divided the country I don't mind a big
bloated horizontal cable company across
the country we know what the like we do
with the other what I hate is when they
get vertically integrated when time
Warner buys in D. C. I can't guess buys
N. B. C. I. am concerned about time
Warner not having access to N. B. C.
plus the time Warner content that is a
vertically integrated monopoly that I
think is very dangerous and controls
the entire user experience than that
thank you professor so we have a hard
stop at eight thirty but we actually we
have a small apropos I land that surf
problem right here. So come on out keep
the conversation going I'm sure some of
our panels will still join us so that'd
be great you know big thank you to all
our sponsors launch a lamb Cleo I I can
why I check us out on the hackers got
or a we have a coming at one point I
thought check out on you know so and
finally huge tanks are often once
they've passed man happy eric's first I
can ask and then know I can tell you
all hang out and I like stocks and more
thank you. ooh ooh ooh ooh