Tech Tuesdays at the Seaport: Net Neutrality in a Non-Neutral Net

Tech Tuesdays at the Seaport: Net Neutrality in a Non-Neutral Net at the South Street Seaport NYC on July 29 2014, presented by Legal Hackers NYC, Launch LM, Internet Society New York Chapter (ISOC-NY)

PANEL:
Bruce Kushnick, Executive Director, New Networks Institute;
David Pashman, General Counsel, Meetup;
Jonathan Askin, Founder/Director, Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic;
Althea Erickson, Policy Director, Etsy.

MODERATOR: Nilay Patel, Editor-in-chief, The Verge

http://www.meetup.com/legalhackers/events/192613612/
http://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/197068302/

VIDEO SPONSOR:
Internet Society NY Chapter
http://isoc-ny.org

#2751

[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