GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE WELCOME TO THE FORD SCHOOL I'M MICHAEL BARR, THE JOAN AND SANFORD WEILL DEAN OF THE GERALD R FORD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY IT'S MY DELIGHT TO WELCOME YOU ALL HERE THIS AFTERNOON FOR POLICY TALKS AT THE FORD SCHOOL. OUR FIRST ONE OF THE YEAR. OUR TALK TODAY IS CO-SPONSORED BY THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION. THE SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC POLICY PROGRAM AND THE PROGRAM IN PRACTICAL POLICY ENGAGEMENT. PLEASE JOIN ME IN WELCOMING JESSICA ROSENWARSAL, OUR SPECIAL GUEST AND JACK BERNARD, FROM THE UNIVERSITY'S GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE. [APPLAUSE] IT'S MY HONOR TO INTRODUCE THEMSELVES BOTH. AND I'M GOING TO START WITH JACK, WHO WILL BE HOSTING THE DIALOG, WITH THE COMMISSIONER. JACK IS THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL. HE HAS BEEN WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE SINCE 1999. ALONG THE WAY, HE'S TAUGHT COURSES AT THE SCHOOL OF INFORMATION, SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL. HE RECEIVED HIS JD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL AND HIS MASTER'S IN HIGHER EDUCATION FROM THE U OF M CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHER AND POST SECONDARY EDUCATION. JACK IS AN EXPERT ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, COPYRIGHT, FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREE SPEECH, AMONG OTHER TOPICS. I WAS LEARNING THAT HE HAS BECOME TEMPORARILY AN EXPERT IN DEALING WITH SPECIAL STUDENT PROBLEMS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. I WON'T SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THAT. JACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US HERE. I'M VERY DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU. I'M ALSO DELIGHTED TO INTRODUCE OUR FEATURED GUEST, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER, JESSICA ROSENWARSAL. SHE WAS APPOINTED TO THE FCC BY PRESIDENT OBAMA IN 2012. AND REAPPOINTED BY PRESIDENT TRUMP IN 2017. PRIOR TO JOINING THE AGENCY, SHE SERVED AS SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE, ON COMMERCE SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION. HER PORTFOLIO COVERED A WIDE RANGE OF COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES, INCLUDING SPECTRUM AUCTIONS PUBLIC SAFETY, BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AND ADOPTION, UNIVERSAL SERVICE, VIDEO PROGRAMMING, SATELLITE AND DIGITAL TV. BEFORE JOINING THE COMMITTEE, SHE SERVED AS LEGAL ADVISOR OF FORMER FCC COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COXE. AND PREVIOUSLY SHE HAD BEEN IN PRIVATE PRACTICE. NATIVE OF HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT. AND GRADUATE OF NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW. COMMISSIONER HAS A WELL EARNED REPUTATION IN D.C., FOR COMMISSIONER OF OPPORTUNITY, AFFORDABILITY IN OUR NATION'S COMMUNICATION SERVICES. SHE COINED THE TERM HOMEWORK GAP TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE PROBLEM OF GROWING INEQUALITY IN SCHOOL CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED INTERNET, BASED ON SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND GEOGRAPHY. THIS IS I BELIEVE, THE COMMISSIONER'S FIRST VISIT TO ANN ARBOR. SECOND. SECOND. AWESOME. BUT LIKE MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD, SHE HAS A SPECIAL MICHIGAN TIE. HER MOTHER WAS A STUDENT HERE. GRADUATE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. SO I WILL SHARE OUR WONDERFUL EXPRESSION, GO BLUE. I'M REALLY EXCITED TO HAVE COMMISSIONER HERE AND PLEASE JOIN ME IN THANKING HER FOR BEING HERE. [APPLAUSE] SO LET ME JUST SAY A WORD ABOUT OUR PROCESS. IN ABOUT 20, 25 MINUTES AFTER THE HOUR, STAFF WILL BEGIN WALKING AROUND THE ROOM TO COLLECT QUESTIONS FROM THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE. AND THEY'LL COMPILE QUESTIONS FROM TWITTER AS WELL, FOR THOSE WATCHING ONLINE. JACK WILL TRANSITION US INTO THE Q&A AND THE COMMISSIONER WILL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. THE Q&A WILL BE FACILITATED BY FORD SCHOOL MOLLY KLEINMAN. ALONG WITH FORD SCHOOL STUDENTS JACKSON BOSS AND LINDSEY, WHO ARE RIGHT HERE. WITH THAT, LET ME TURN THINGS OVER TO JACK. AND I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO THE CONVERSATION. THANK YOU. WELCOME AGAIN TO MICHIGAN. WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU HERE. YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT A FULL AUDIENCE. THANK YOU. I THOUGHT WE MIGHT START WITH TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW YOU GOT HERE. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THE DEAN GAVE A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR BIO, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOURSELF. YOU KNOW, I WAS ASKED THIS QUESTION EARLIER BY SOME STUDENTS. I THINK THE WAY I PUT IT WAS THERE ARE THOSE PEOPLE WHO KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO FROM DAY ONE AND THEY TOOK EVERY JOB AND EVERY CLASS FOR THAT GOAL AND REACHED THAT GOAL. I WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE. IT DIDN'T GO LIKE THAT. I CAME FROM A FAMILY OF SCIENTISTS, MY MOTHER WENT TO GRADUATE SCHOOL HERE. AND THE MOST REBELOUS THING I THOUGHT I COULD DO WAS GO TO LAW SCHOOL. I FOUND MYSELF IN WASHINGTON AND I PRACTICED THERE FOR A WHILE. I WORKED ON THE PRIVATIZATION OF A PUBLICLY-OWNED UTILITY. WHICH IF YOU SPEND SOME TIME STUDYING ECONOMICS, ENGINEERING AND LAW, IT'S QUITE INTERESTING. SHORTLY THEREAFTER I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN THE JUNIOR STAFF OF THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. A FEW YEARS EARLIER, CONGRESS HAD PASSED A LAW KNOWN AS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996. THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO IMPLEMENT THAT LAW. I EVENTUALLY WENT TO WORK FOR A COMMISSIONER. AND THEN I WENT TO WORK ON CAPITOL HILL, WHERE I WORKED ON ISSUES INVOLVING THE DIGITAL TELEVISION TRANSITION SATELLITE SERVICE AND THEN WORKED WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON SECURING MORE SPECTRUM, SO FIRST RESPONDERS COULD TALK TO ONE ANOTHER. AN IDEA THAT EVENTUALLY BECAME LAW. AND THEN I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF GOING TO THE AGENCY TO OVERSEE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT, WHERE I LEARNED QUICKLY THAT IMPLEMENTING A LAW AND JUST COMING UP WITH THE IDEA ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT'S GREAT. I THINK FOR SO MANY IN THE ROOM WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT A LIFE IN PUBLIC SERVICE, IT'S GREAT FOR THEM TO SEE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE A ROUGH AND TUMBLE PATH TO GET TO MAYBE WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. ALONG THE WAY, CAUSE JUST THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF TROUBLE TO MAKE THE OPPORTUNITIES HAPPEN. SO YOU ARE A COMMISSIONER ON THE FCC RIGHT NOW. I THINK PEOPLE IN THE ROOM HAVE A GENERALIZED NOTION OF WHAT THE FCC IS. BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT UNPACK THAT A LITTLE BIT FOR US. WELL, I'M TOTALLY BIASED, BUT THE FCC OVERSEES ABOUT 1/6 OF OUR ECONOMY, COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY. I THINK IT'S THE MOST EXCITING SECTOR OF OUR ECONOMY. SO THAT INVOLVES EVERYTHING FROM BROADCASTING TO BROADBAND. FROM WI-FI TO WIRELESS. TO SATELLITE SERVICES IN THE AIR. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH THE DAY WITHOUT TOUCHING SOME FORM OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT THE SEC OVERSEES. IT'S AN INSTITUTION THAT CONGRESS CREATED IN 1934. BACK WHEN IT DECIDED THAT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, THEY DIDN'T THINK CONGRESS SHOULD BE THE ENTITY DECIDING HOW WE DIVIED UP OUR AIRWAVES. COMMUNICATIONS HAS GROWN MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT IN ALL OF OUR LIVES. THE FCC AS A BODY MAKES DECISIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATION SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY AND CONGRESS OVERSEES US. BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF AUTHORITY, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES BEFORE US. HOW DOES THE FCC INTERACT WITH THE INTERNET? HOW DO WE INTERACT WITH THE INTERNET? I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT IS WE THINK ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS TRANSMISSION. OUR JURISDICTION AND OUR AUTHORITY LARGELY SPEAKS TO MAKING SURE THERE IS A WIRE IN THE GROUND. OR THERE ARE AIRWAVES THAT ARE ALLOCATED FOR WIRELESS SERVICE OR SATELLITE SERVICE. IT'S THAT TRANSMISSION THAT IS AN INPUT INTO EVERYTHING WE DO IN MODERN LIFE. AND THAT'S WHERE OUR AUTHORITY LIES. SO IN ANTICIPATION OF YOUR ARRIVAL HERE, I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR SEVERAL WEEKS AND STARTED TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE CENTRAL THEME OF OUR TALK TODAY, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO FOCUS ON NET NEUTRALITY. SO I STARTED ASKING PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY HERE WHAT THEY THOUGHT ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY. AND WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS THAT PEOPLE HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF CONCEPTIONS ABOUT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY ACTUALLY IS. AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE VERY VERY STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THINGS THAT I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE ARE NET NEUTRALITY. SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT GIVE US AN A WORKING DEFINITION OF NET NEUTRALITY, AND PERHAPS IF YOU COULD TRY TO GIVE US ONE THAT ISN'T LADEN WITH A PARTICULAR VIEWPOINT. WE'LL GET DEEP INTO THE VIEWPOINTS. OKAY. I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE ACRONYM AND VIEWPOINT FREE. WE'LL SEE IF I SUCCEED. BECAUSE THAT'S A HARD TASK FOR SOMEONE FROM WASHINGTON. I THINK NET NEUTRALITY MEANS THAT YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS HAVE TO TREAT THE TRAFFIC ON THEIR NETWORKS EQUALLY SO THAT THEY DO NOT DISCRIMINATE ON THE BASIS OF SOURCE, DESTINATION OR CONTENT. LET ME PUT THAT IN BETTER ENGLISH. IT MEANS THAT YOU CAN GO WHERE YOU WANT, DO WHAT YOU WANT ONLINE AND YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER DOES NOT MAKE DECISIONS FOR YOU. IT MEANS YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BLOCK WEBSITES, TO SENSOR ONLINE CONTACT. YOU USED THE WORD EQUALLY THERE. I'M WONDERING WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, WE'RE KIND OF LEAVING OUR DEFINITION, BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EQUALLY? WELL, NONDISCRIMINATION IS WHAT I MEAN BY EQUALLY. WHICH HAS BEEN A PRINCIPLE OF OUR COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS LAWS FOR A LONG TIME. I MEAN, SO MUCH SO YOU DON'T EVEN REALIZE IT. THINK BACK TO THE BASIC TELEPHONE NETWORK. IT IS A GIVEN THAT IF YOU WENT TO A WIRED PHONE ON A WALL, YOU CAN CALL WHOEVER YOU WANT. AND THE TELEPHONE COMPANY CAN'T DECIDE YOU CAN'T CALL THAT PERSON. NOR CAN THEY GO IN AND EDIT YOUR CONVERSATION. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE A NON-DISCRIMINATORY RIGHT TO MAKE THAT PHONE CALL. IT'S UP TO YOU. THOSE IDEAS TRANSFER TO THE DIGITAL AGE ARE WHAT I THINK WHEN I THINK ABOUT TRAFFIC AND TREATMENT WITH NET NEUTRALITY. WHICH IS AGAIN, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO WHERE YOU WANT REGARDLESS OF SOURCE DESTINATION OR THE CONTENT YOU'RE SEEKING TO ACCESS WITHOUT THE BROADBAND PROVIDER GETTING IN THE WAY. TO ME, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT NON-DISCRIMINATION, WHICH HAS BEEN A PRINCIPLE OF OUR THINKING ABOUT NETWORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS FOR DECADES AND DECADES. SO I'VE NOTICED THAT THE DIFFERENT BROADBAND PROVIDERS I'VE ENGAGED WITH, THEY PROVIDE DIFFERENT SUITES OF SERVICES OR DIFFERENT SPEEDS, A VARIETY OF OTHER OPTIONS. SO MY EXPERIENCE ISN'T UNIFORM. SURE. SO I'M WONDERING REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH. YOU CAN GET THESE THINGS, I THINK CONFUSED. BUT IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE FOR SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T DO A LOT OF ONLINE ACTIVITY TO DECIDE THAT THEY'RE HAPPY WITH 200 KILABIT SPEED. IT'S GOOD FOR THEIR E-MAIL. YOU COME TO MY HOUSE, AND YOU GOT FOUR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALL TRYING TO WATCH VIDEOS SIMULTANEOUSLY, I'LL PAY FOR A GIGABIT. AND I THINK THAT EVERY CONSUMER SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE CHOICES. BUT THEY'RE MAKING THE CHOICES. YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER IS NOT MAKING THE CHOICE FOR YOU. HOW IS IT THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF NET NEUTRALITY OUR BROADBAND PROVIDER MIGHT INTERFERE WITH YOUR FOUR VIDEO FAMILY WATCHING GROUP ENJOYING VIDEOS ONLINE, WHAT COULD THEY DO THAT WOULD UNDERMINE THE EXPERIENCE? SINCE WE ROLLED BACK OUR NET NEUTRALITY POLICIES, OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BLOCK WEBSITES, THROTTLE ONLINE SERVICES, SENSOR THE CONTENT. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO TO ANY CREATOR AND SAY HEY, IF YOU WANT TO REACH THAT CUSTOMER, YOU GOT TO PAY US A TOLL. AFTER YOU GIVE THE LEGAL ENTITY A LEGAL RIGHT, THEY HAVE THAT LEGAL RIGHT. DO THEY HAVE THE TECHNICAL ABILITY TO DO THAT? YES. NETWORK MANAGEMENT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. DO THEY ALSO HAVE THE BUSINESS INCENTIVE? WELL, YES. IF THERE IS A GREATER REVENUE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BEHAVIORS, CHARGING MORE TO REACH CERTAIN WEBSITES, I'M SURE THEY WOULD TRY TO ENGAGE IN IT. WHEN YOU ALIGN A LEGAL RIGHT WITH TECHNICAL ABILITY AND A BUSINESS INCENTIVE, OVER TIME YOU EXPECT THAT THOSE BEHAVIORS WILL EMERGE IN THE MARKETPLACE. BY ROLLING NET NEUTRALITY BACK, I THINK WE DID JUST THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR CONSUMPTION OR CREATION ONLINE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK ABOUT WHEN WE ADD REGULATIONS TO A SYSTEM IS THAT WE'VE INCUMBERED THE SYSTEM. THE FCC ADDED REGULATIONS, THE SYSTEM BECAME INCUMBERED. WHY WOULD WE NEED TO INCUMBER THE SYSTEM? MARKET ACTORS MAKE SURE THEY TRIED TO ABIDE BY THEM. THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT REGULATION, I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH OVERSIGHT YOU WANT IN A MARKETPLACE. I BELIEVE YOU NEEDLESS OVERSIGHT IF YOU HAVE A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE. COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACES ARE THEMSELVES THE BEST REGULATOR OF ACTIVITY. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BROADBAND MARKETPLACE, ACCORDING TO THE FCC'S OWN DATA, ABOUT HALF OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE OF BROADBAND PROVIDER. THAT'S NOT EXACTLY COMPETITIVE. AND AS A RESULT, IF YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER DECIDES TO MUCK AROUND WITH YOUR TRAFFIC, BLOCK WEBSITES OR CHARGE YOU A PREMIUM FOR REACHING CERTAIN CONTENT, YOU CAN'T PICK UP YOUR BUSINESS AND TAKE IT ELSEWHERE. THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. IT'S THE ABSENCE OF THAT COMPETITION THAT I THINK MAKES SOME LIGHT OVERSIGHT FROM AGENCIES LIKE THE FCC USEFUL AND NECESSARY FOR CONSUMERS. SO I WANT TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER THERE. BECAUSE MY OWN EXPERIENCE WITH MY BROADBAND AND CABLE PROVIDER WAS THAT EVEN WHEN THE NET NEUTRALITY RULES WERE IN PLACE, I FELT THOSE CONSTRAINTS YOU WERE JUST DESCRIBING. THAT IS MY BROADBAND PROVIDER ONLY PROVIDED SO MUCH SPEED AND ONLY SO MANY OPTIONS. I FELT CONSTRAINED BY THAT BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF CHOICES. HOW IS THAT A NET NEUTRALITY ISSUE, THOUGH? TO ME, IF THE MARKETPLACE WAS ROBUST AND EVERYONE HAD A HANDFUL OF PROVIDERS, THEY WOULD COMPETE TO PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH THE BEST SERVICE. AND I DO THINK THEY MAKE AN EFFORT TO DO THAT NOW. BUT THEY WOULD COMPETE AND PERHAPS COMPETE ON THE BASIS OF MAKING SURE YOUR INTERNET EXPERIENCE WAS AS OPEN AND FREE AS POSSIBLE. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF HAVING THAT MANY PROVIDERS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT COMPETITION. AND THAT'S WHAT NET NEUTRALITY RULES ARE DESIGNED TO HELP MANAGE. TO MAKE SURE THAT CONSUMERS CAN GO WHERE THEY WANT AND DO WHAT THEY WANT ONLINE, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A FULLY COMPETITIVE MARKET. WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED WHEN WE ROLLED BACK THE NET NEUTRALITY RULES? WHAT SPECIFICALLY CHANGED. THE FCC HAD IN PLACE RULES THAT SAID YOU CAN'T BLOCK, YOU CAN'T THROTTLE, YOU CAN'T ENGAGE IN PAY FOR PLAY PRIORITIZATION. WHERE YOU TREAT TRAFFIC JUST FINE BECAUSE THEY PAY YOU AND CONSIGN THE REST TO A BUMPY ROAD. I DON'T THINK THOSE POLICIES WERE RADICAL. THEY WERE RADICALLY POPULAR. THEY HAD ALSO BEEN UPHELD BY THE COURTS. AND SPEAKING AS AN FCC COMMISSIONER, WE DON'T ALWAYS GET THE LUXURY OF OUR RULES BEING UPHELD BY THE COURTS. SO THEY WERE JUSTIFIED BY JUDGES, WELL RECEIVED BY THE PUBLIC. AND THEY WERE STABLE. BUT WE CHOSE TO ROLL THEM BACK ANYWAY. THAT WAS DONE OVER MY DISSENT. YOU WERE VERY VOCAL AND BROUGHT FORWARD ARGUMENTS AND WERE NOT ABLE TO PERSUADE YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. YET. YEAH. JUST DEVIATING A LITTLE BIT FROM WHERE WE WERE GOING, ALTHOUGH I'LL COME BACK. WHAT IS THAT LIKE? WHAT'S THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING THE HOLD-OUT OR THE LONE DISSENTER? WELL, I'M A DEMOCRAT IN WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW. SO I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THIS. I FIRMLY BELIEVE PEOPLE DON'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID BUT HOW YOU SAID IT. YOU TRY TO FIND THOSE ARGUMENTS AND THEN YOU REPEAT THEM OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. YOU STILL REPEAT THEM, AGAIN AND AGAIN. I THINK YOU CAN MAKE CHANGE OVER TIME IF YOU DO THAT. IT'S NOT A SINGLE ACT OR A DECISION. AND I THINK YOU KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER, NET NEUTRALITY HAS BECOME THAT. FCC MADE WHAT I BELIEVE IS A MISGUIDED DECISION LATE LAST YEAR. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WROTE OUR AGENCY. AND IN THE WAKE OF THEIR ANGER ABOUT OUR DECISION, THEY DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT, THEY WENT TO GOVERNORS. SIX GOVERNORS REQUIRE NET NEUTRALITY IN THEIR STATE CONTRACTS. THERE IS MORE THAN 100 MAYORS WHO COMMITTED TO DO THE SAME. THEY WENT TO STATE HOUSES, THERE ARE LAWS IN OREGON, WASHINGTON AND VERMONT AND GOVERNOR BROWN IN CALIFORNIA MAY BE SIGNING ANOTHER LAW. THEY WENT TO COURT. IN CONGRESS, UNITED STATES SENATE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED TO OVERTURN THE FCC. IF YOU STAND BACK AND LOOK AT THAT SWELL OF ACTIVITY, THAT'S DEMOCRACY IN ACTION. THAT'S PEOPLE ACTUALLY DOING WHAT THE SYSTEM CONTEMPLATED. WHICH IS PARTICIPATING IN CREATING CHANGE. SO I DON'T THINK THE NET NEUTRALITY STORY IS OVER. AND I HAVE THIS OPTIMISM THAT IF THAT CONTINUES, WE CAN ONCE AGAIN RETURN INTERNET OPENNESS TO THE LAW OF THE LAND. SO HOW DO YOU -- YOU'VE HAD THIS DIFFERENCE OF VIEW ON A VERY PUBLIC MATTER. WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE REALLY UNDERSTAND IT IS STILL UP FOR DEBATE I THINK. BUT YOU'VE HAD THIS REAL DIFFERENCE. HOW DO YOU BUILD COLLEGIALITY AFTER THIS? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. IT'S ONE THAT YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ASK EVERYONE IN WASHINGTON. I'LL TELL YOU HOW I DO IT. I TRY TO DECIDE WHATEVER DISAGREEMENT WE HAD IS LIKE A BOOK THAT GOES ON THE SHELF AND I'M MOVING ON TO THE NEXT VOLUME. AND I TRY TO FIND SOMETHING WITH EACH OF MY COLLEAGUES I MIGHT BE ABLE TO AGREE WITH ON THEM. I HAVE A COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, WE DO A LOT OF WORK OF UNLICENSED SPECTRUM POLICY. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH MORE WI-FI WE CAN PUT IN OUR AIRWAVES AND MAKE AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN OPEN A BOOK TOGETHER, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIND AGREEMENT ON. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU SHOULD KEEP TRYING. IT DOESN'T ALWAYS SUCCEED. HOPPING BACK IN TO NET NEUTRALITY. WE TOOK A DETOUR THERE. BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE A MOMENT AND TO TRY TO STEEL MAN AS OPPOSED TO STRAW MAN THE POSITION ON THE OTHER SIDE. OKAY. LET'S SEE. THIS IS A GOOD EXERCISE. IT FEELS ALMOST LIKE ACADEMIC. WASHINGTON NEEDS TO BE CAREFUL. IT CAN OVERREGULATE INDUSTRIES. IT CAN COME UP WITH POLICIES THAT ARE WELL INTENDED AND THE RESULTS CAN BE HARMFUL. WE WANT OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO EXPERIMENT AND COME UP WITH PACKAGES AND PLANS THAT SERVE EVERYONE. TAKING REVENUE FROM ONLINE PLATFORMS IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THAT MIX OR SETTING UP SERVICES THAT ONLY ALLOW PEOPLE TO REACH SMALL PORTIONS OF THE INTERNET COULD CREATE MORE AND DIFFERENT PACKAGES, WE WANT THEM TO HAVE THAT FREEDOM TO EXPERIMENT. WE ALSO WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO RAISE ENOUGH REVENUE AS PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS SO THAT THEY CAN DEPLOY THEIR BROADBAND NETWORKS FURTHER AND IN MORE PLACES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT THAT WOULD BE MADE ON THE OTHER SIDE. I COULD PICK APART WHAT I JUST SAID. BUT IF I WERE STILL TALKING TO YOU AS THE PERSON BOLSTERING THAT VIEW, AND I SAID, WELL, HOW DOES NET NEUTRALITY INTERFERE WITH THAT? THIS IS GETTING CONFUSING. GOD. I JUST DON'T THINK IT WILL. I'M BEING HONEST. I THINK THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT'S CALLED ZERO NET RATING WITH THAT AND HOW MUCH EXPERIMENTATION YOU SHOULD ALLOW PROVIDERS TO HAVE, WITH RESPECT TO EXEMPTING CERTAIN WEBSITES OR ACTIVITIES FROM ONLINE DATA CAPS. NOW WE'RE GETTING A FEW LEVELS IN. LET ME LET YOU BECOME YOURSELF AGAIN. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU JUST DID. BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU WANT TO MAKE PROGRESS ANYWHERE, IN WASHINGTON OR ON YOUR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BOARD, YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S DRIVING THE OTHER SIDE. AND TO BE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH POLITICS AS DRIVING THE OTHER SIDE OR WHETHER THERE IS ACTUALLY A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT'S AT STAKE. TOTALLY RIGHT. I THINK YOU HAVE TO PAUSE AND SAY IF I CAME TO THAT POSITION AS A DECENT INDIVIDUAL, WHY DID I REACH THAT RESULT? YOU HAVE TO SUBJECT YOURSELF TO THAT DISCIPLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE TIGHTER. BUT ALSO BECAUSE YOU MIGHT FIND BRIDGES IF YOU SUBJECT YOURSELF TO DOING THAT. SO ONE THING I THINK WE HEAR A LOT FROM INDUSTRY ALONG THESE LINES IS THAT NET NEUTRALITY IS A BARRIER TO INVESTING IN INFRASTRUCTURE. AND IT'S A BARRIER BECAUSE WITH NET NEUTRALITY, THE STATE, I MEAN THE GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIALLY NATIONALIZING THE INVESTMENT OF THESE INDIVIDUAL PORTION OF THE SECTOR, WHO ARE TRYING TO INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE. ESSENTIALLY CREATING A KIND OF EASEMENT ON SPACES THEY'VE PUT FORWARD. THIS IS THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD. I'M WONDERING HOW YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THAT. LISTEN, WE DO HAVE BROADBAND CHALLENGES IN RURAL PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY. STATES WITHOUT BROADBAND AS WE'VE DEFINED IT TODAY. AND REMOTE COMMUNITIES. AND INSTEAD OF HAVING THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY, I WOULD LIKE TO MAP WHERE THOSE PEOPLE ARE AND IDENTIFY HOW WE'RE GOING TO BUILD SUPPORT PROGRAMS FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, AND NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT IS GOING TO MAKE SERVING THEM FOR FEASIBLE. WHEN YOU SAY WE, DO YOU MEAN WE THE GOVERNMENT? WE AS A NATION. PUBLIC SECTOR AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS. DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT ALONG WITH ADVOCATING FOR NET NEUTRALITY, YOU COULD ADVOCATE FOR GOVERNMENT INCENTIVES FOR INDUSTRY TO DO JUST THOSE THINGS? ABSOLUTELY. THOSE TWO THINGS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT. YOU CAN DO BOTH THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. I THINK THAT IS A FALSE CHOICE TO PRESENT IT AS ONE OR THE OTHER. SO GETTING BACK TO THIS IDEA OF EQUALITY, COULD IT NOT BE THE CASE THAT MAYBE LESS THAN EQUITABLE SERVICE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE BETTER FOR THE WHOLE? I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, THINK ABOUT THINGS LIKE ROADS, WHERE WE GIVE A PREFERENCE TO SOME VEHICLES, PERHAPS VEHICLES THAT ARE TRAVELLING WITH MORE THAN ONE PERSON IN THEM. OR AT THE GROCERY STORE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LINE FOR CASH AND A LINE FOR CREDIT CARD. SEE, HERE IS THE PREMISE THAT YOU HAVE THERE. THERE ARE MULTIPLE LINES. THE POINT IS THAT THERE IS A LANE FOR TRAFFIC WITH PEOPLE YOU KNOW, CARPOOLS. AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER LANES. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS PLAUSIBLE IN A MARKET THAT IS COMPETITIVE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN MULTIPLE LANES. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WITH OUR BROADBAND MARKETS RIGHT NOW, EVEN DATA FROM THE FCC SUGGESTS IT'S NOT. I THINK THAT THAT ANALOGY HAS LIMITATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO BROADBAND SERVICE. DO THE LIMITATIONS STEM FROM THE FACT THAT THERE TENDS TO BE FROM EACH MARKET, ONLY ONE OR POTENTIALLY TWO BROADBAND PROVIDERS? I THINK IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM. IF THERE WERE A GREATER PROLIFERATION OF COMPETITION -- I THINK WE WOULD REVISIT THIS, YES. WE MIGHT NOT NEED NET NEUTRALITY? WE WOULD REVISIT WHETHER IT'S NECESSARY. THAT DOES MAKE SENSE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE FREQUENTLY SEE POINTED OUT BY PEOPLE ADVOCATING FOR NET NEUTRALITY IS THIS IDEA THAT THERE WOULD FORM CARTELS OF RELATIONSHIPS OF PEOPLE ACROSS INDUSTRIES. SO THERE WOULD BE THE PEOPLE WHO -- THERE WOULD BE THE BROADBAND PROVIDERS WHO LIKED NETFLIX AND THE ONES WHO LIKED YOUTUBE. RIGHT. AND THAT IF YOU WERE WITH ONE, YOU WOULD GET ONE SERVICE MORE QUICKLY AND IF YOU WERE WITH THE OTHER -- IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THAT? I THINK THERE IS DISCUSSION SOME OF THAT IS STARTING TO HAPPEN. IT DOESN'T PRECLUDE YOU FROM REACHING THE OTHER. BUT WE'RE ALL SUPER IMPATIENT. THAT CIRCLE OF DEATH COMES UP ON YOUR SCREEN AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I'M SURPRISED ABOUT HOW SWIFTLY I CLICK OFF THAT AND TRY TO FIND SOMETHING ELSE. EVEN THE SLOWEST BITS OF THROTTLING CAN CHANGE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED IS ALSO REAL OVER TIME CORROSIVE FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO FIND A WAY TO GET INTO THE MARKETPLACE WHEN IT'S BEEN DIVIED UP BETWEEN THESE MAJOR PROVIDERS? IT'S MORE LIKE ORDERING YOUR CABLE SERVICE, WHERE YOU CHOOSE CHANNELS. I THINK THE GREATER CONCERN OVER TIME IS FOR ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND THE INABILITY TO DEVELOP NEW SERVICES THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE PREMIUM THAT IS PAID FROM THOSE SWEET SPEEDS. I SUPPOSE THAT CREATES AN OBSTACLE FOR THE ARGUMENT FOR NET NEUTRALITY. BECAUSE IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR MOST PEOPLE TO IMAGINE THE WORLD A LOT DIFFERENT THAN IT IS RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. HOW DO YOU OVERCOME THAT? YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD. I CAN POINT BACK TO A WHOLE BUNCH OF SMALL EPISODES, WHERE VOICE-OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL PROVIDER WAS DENIED SERVICE. ANOTHER TIME WHEN GOOGLE WALLET AND FACE TIME WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON CERTAIN SERVICES. BUT THE TRUTH IS, WITH CONSUMER PRESSURE AND NET NEUTRALITY LAWS IN PLACE, WE WERE ABLE TO OVERRIDE THOSE. ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, I THINK MY AGENCY HAS DENIED ITSELF THE AUTHORITY TO FIX THOSE PROBLEMS AND I HAVE CONCERN THAT ABSENT OUR PRESSURE COMBINED WITH CONSUMER PRESSURE, IT WON'T BE SO EASY TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE. ONE CHALLENGE GIVEN PEOPLE IN THE ROOM HERE, EVERYONE HERE HAS ACCESS TO REALLY HIGH SPEED TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY. IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP IN THE UNITED STATES, SOME OF THE BEST BROADBAND IS IN BIG UNIVERSITY TOWNS. RESEARCH. THE NUMBER OF YOUNG PEOPLE. YOU ALL USE IT IN WAYS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO SO MANY OTHER PLACES IN THE COUNTRY. IT'S ALMOST HARD TO FATHOM. BUT I'VE BEEN IN SCHOOLS WHERE STUDENTS CAN'T ALL GET ONLINE AT THE SAME TIME TO TAKE SOME STANDARDIZED TESTS BECAUSE WE'LL OVERWHELM THE SYSTEM. I'VE BEEN IN TOWNS WHERE THERE ARE KIDS WHO ARE SITTING OUTSIDE THE LIBRARY LATE AT NIGHT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET SERVICE UP THE ROAD WHERE THEY'RE AT HOME. JUST TO GET ONLINE. THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW. I FEEL LIKE IF WE CAN CREATE THIS ABUNDANCE HERE, WE MUST BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT SUPPORT SYSTEMS AND TECHNOLOGIES TO HELP GET IT EVERYWHERE. THE ONLY TIME I NOTICE A REAL DRAG ON THE SYSTEM IS DURING FOOTBALL GAMES. OH, MY GOSH. MAYBE YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE. SO I THINK A RARE THING HAS HAP HAPPENED, MAYBE IT WON'T BE RARE IN THE FUTURE. LOTS OF AMERICANS NOW KNOW THE NAME OF THE CHAIR OF THE FCC. I KNOW. WHAT'S THAT LIKE? ISN'T THAT STRANGE? I THINK THAT'S STRANGE. I LIKE A LITTLE ANOMITY. ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, IT'S OKAY. ON ANOTHER LEVEL, I THINK THAT'S TERRIFIC. BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE JUST MAKING DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT. WE'LL GET SOME BIG INDUSTRY OVER HERE THAT WANTS THIS. MAYBE AN INDUSTRY ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT WANTS THAT. BUT WHAT'S TERRIFIC RIGHT NOW IS THAT THE PUBLIC IS STARTING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORK OF THE AGENCY AND THEY'RE SPEAKING UP. THEY'RE LETTING US KNOW. AND I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON PUBLIC SECTOR ACTORS LIKE MYSELF TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS WITHOUT DROWNING IT IN INDUSTRY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND ACADEMIC TERMS AND FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE. SO THAT A BROADER SWATH OF THE UNITED STATES GETS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION MAKING IN WASHINGTON. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. SO THERE IS UPSIDE TO PEOPLE KNOWING WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO. IT LEAVES ME EXCITED TO REALIZE THAT THAT IS TRUE. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT HERE. EVEN THOUGH YOU PREFER A MORE ANONYMOUS APPROACH. BUT I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE. RIGHT. I'M WONDERING, HAVE YOU NOTICED WILL THERE BE ANY -- BECAUSE YOU'RE SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE POSTURE THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES TOOK. DOES THAT CREATE CONSEQUENCES? SURE. I MEAN, PEOPLE -- GO IN ANY ROOM, SOMEONE IS GOING TO LIKE YOU BETTER IF YOU AGREE WITH THEM. THAT'S THE WAY THINGS GO. I LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON RIGHT NOW. I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO SPEAK OUT CONSISTENTLY ON THE THINGS THAT YOU THINK ARE MOST WRONG. AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. SO I BROUGHT US TO THE DISCUSSION OF CHAIRMAN, AND I'M INTERESTED IN NEWS THAT TOOK PLACE RECENTLY RECENTLY. BOTH HOUSES IN CALIFORNIA PASSED A NET NEUTRALITY LIKE BILL FOR CALIFORNIA. AND WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, ACTUALLY, WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, CHAIRMAN PI TOOK A STRONG POSITION AGAINST THAT CALIFORNIA WAS ILLEGALLY TOUTING LAW. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROPOSAL? HE IS A NICE INDIVIDUAL. I HAVE PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENTS WITH HIM ON SOME THINGS LIKE THIS. WITH RESPECT TO CALIFORNIA, I THINK I ALLUDED BEFORE, I'M EXCITED, I SEE DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, IN STATE LEGISLATURES GETTING INVOLVED. I DO THINK THE FCC IS IN A STRANGE LEGAL POSITION WHEN IT COMES TO ISSUES WITH PREEMPTION WITH THE STATE. AND I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A LAW DEGREE TO UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT PREEMPTION FOR A SECOND. THE AGENCY IN ITS DECISION LATE LAST YEAR SAID WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY. WE MADE A MISTAKE BEFORE TO HAVE THESE NET NEUTRALITY RULES. I'M GOING TO ROLL THEM BACK. WE CAN'T POSSIBLY DO THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY. I DISAGREE WITH THAT. IF THE POSITION IS YOU DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEN GO TELL THE STATES THEY TOO DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY. BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF YOU CHOOSING TO EXIT THIS AREA OF THE LAW, YOU DON'T GET THE RIGHT TO PREEMPT OTHERS. AND I THINK THAT THERE IS SOME COGN COGNITIVE DISIDENCE IN THAT POSITION. IT NEEDS EXPLAINING. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT REALLY WHAT HE WAS GETTING AT. I WAS WONDERING WHETHER HE WAS GOING TO MAKE A KIND OF FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUMENT, THAT SOMEHOW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A CONSTRAINT ON THE ABILITY OF CORPORATIONS TO FACILITATE COMMUNICATIONS IN SOME WAY, WHERE A STATE LIKE CALIFORNIA MIGHT OVERSTEP. I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT. I THINK IT'S MORE ABOUT COMMERCE CLAUSE. WE'RE NOW LIVING IN A UNIVERSE WHERE THESE INTERSTATE NETWORKS ARE SO IMPORTANT TO WHAT WE DO. AND THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE HAVE A MIX OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AND STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION THAT MANAGES THESE KIND OF SERVICES. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE DIGITAL AGE JURIS PRUDENCE TO FULLY MANAGE THAT RIGHT NOW. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I SEE HIS POSITION, HE'S TRYING TO ARTICULATE. WE MIGHT COME OUT IN DIFFERENT PLACES ON IT. BUT I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE AND I RESPECT THAT HE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT IT BEFORE WE LEAVE NET NEUTRALITY, I WAS WONDERING IF YOU MIGHT HELP THE AUDIENCE AT LEAST BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE YOUR VIEW IN A PITHY WAY. HOW WOULD YOU SUMMARIZE YOUR VIEW SO WHEN PEOPLE GO HOME FOR DINNER, I JUST WENT TO THIS AMAZING TALK TODAY, I LOVE SEEING GOVERNMENT IN ACTION, HERE IS WHAT I LEARNED? YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO WHERE YOU WANT AND DO WHAT YOU WANT WITHOUT YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER MAKING CHOICES FOR YOU. ALL RIGHT. ALMOST BUMPER STICKER. I EXPECT WE'LL GET QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I WANT TO STROLL INTO A FEW OTHER AREAS. THE FCC HAS THOUGHT FOR AT LEAST MEDIA. AND I'VE NOTICED A CHANGE OF LATE IN THAT POSTURE. AND I'M WONDERING WHETHER YOU COULD UNPACK THAT ISSUE FOR US A LITTLE BIT AND THEN TALK ABOUT WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. YEAH. LOOK, MEDIA HAS CHANGED. THERE WAS A TIME SOME PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE TOO YOUNG TO RECALL, WHEN YOU GOT THE NEWS IN THE MORNING AND NEWS PRINT ON YOUR DOORSTEP. AND IF YOU WANTED THE NEWS AT NIGHT, YOU TURNED ON THE TV. AND THREE GUYS WITH REALLY GOOD HAIR COULD DELIVER IT TO YOU. AND THAT WAS IT. I MEAN, I CAN'T FATHOM THAT NOW. WE EXPECT TO GET WHATEVER INFORMATION WE WANT, WHEREVER WE WANT IT, ON ANY SCREEN HANDY. THAT CYCLE IS EXHAUSTING. BUT IT'S ALSO CHANGED THE MEDIA BUSINESS. AND IN MANY WAYS, FCC POLICY, WHICH OVERSEES CABLE SYSTEMS AND BROADCAST STATIONS STRUGGLES TO KEEP UP. BUT I THINK THAT YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO THAT. AND OF LATE, THE FCC'S RESPONSE HAS BEEN WELL, WE SHOULD LET THERE BE MORE CONSOLIDATION. BECAUSE THESE OLDER FORMS OF MEDIA NEED MORE HEFT AND SCALE TO COMPETE WITH EVERYTHING THAT IS NEW. I UNDERSTAND THE THINKING BEHIND THAT RESPONSE, BUT I ULTIMATELY REJECT IT. I THINK WE NEED MORE COMPETITION AMONG NEWS ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE JOURNALISTS THAT GO DIG STUFF UP. AND I'M WORRIED THAT DESPITE ALL OF THE COMMENTARY THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE LESS, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO LOCAL NEWS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONSOLIDATION THAT WE HAVE ALLOWED AMONG BROADCASTING. THOUGH I RESPECT THAT THEIR MODEL NEEDS UPDATING FOR DIGITAL TIMES. SO THE CONCERN THE FCC HAD HAD ABOUT CONSOLIDATION WAS THAT IF THERE WERE TOO MANY MEDIA OUTLETS IN A LOCAL AREA, CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PARTY, THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH DIVERSITY. GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO JUST IMAGINE A MARKET, WE'LL SAY DETROIT, SO THERE USED TO BE POLICIES THAT SAID THE NEWSPAPER COULDN'T OWN ANY OF THE TELEVISION STATIONS OR RADIO STATIONS. THERE USED TO BE POLICIES THAT SAID NO COMPANY COULD OWN LIKE HALF THE STATIONS IN THE MARKET. THERE USED TO BE POLICIES THAT RESTRICTED OWNING SIMULTANEOUSLY THE NEWSPAPER HALF THE STATIONS, AND THE RADIO STATIONS. WE GOT RID OF THEM. LOCAL MEDIA IS STRUGGLING. WE SHOULD LET THEM ACHIEVE MORE SCALE. THERE IS CERTAINLY AN ARGUMENT THAT THAT MIGHT HELP THEM. I THINK YOUR OBJECTIVE ISN'T SO MUCH HELPING THEM. YOUR OBJECTIVE IS HOW DO YOU SUSTAIN DIVERSE VIEWPOINTS. THE HEALTHIEST ECONOMIES AND CIVIL SOCIETIES ARE ONES WITH MANY VIEWPOINTS AND BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF OWNERS OF SOME OF THOSE STATIONS, NEWSPAPERS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE CONTRIBUTED TO DIVERSIFYING NEWS POINTS. WE'VE JUST CONSOLIDATED THEM. WELL, I GUESS WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE THE NEXT STEPS ALONG THOSE LINES? AND HOW SHOULD WE BE THINKING ABOUT GOVERNMENT STEPPING IN IN THIS INSTANCE? WELL, THERE ARE CONGRESSIONAL LAWS THAT CONSTRAIN A COMPANY FROM NATIONALLY OWNING I THINK IT'S 39 PERCENT BROADCAST REACH FOR TELEVISION HOUSEHOLDS. AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE RAISED. THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS SHOULD DO IT OR THE FCC SHOULD DO IT. ALL OF THIS MIGHT FEEL REAL AT A DISTANCE FROM YOUR REALITY. BUT ALL OF THIS SORT OF FEEDS INTO THE SYSTEM OF JOURNALISM FOR WHICH WE GET LOCAL NEWS. FOR ALL OF THE DIVERSITY OF RESOURCES THAT WE REACH OUT TO TODAY, ALL OF THE DATA SUGGESTS MOST AMERICANS STILL GET THEIR LOCAL NEWS FROM TELEVISION AND RADIO. WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THOSE RESOURCES REMAIN STRONG. LEARNING WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY REALLY HELPS US BE GOOD CITIZENS. OVER THE LAST YEAR, I'M SHIFTING TO SOMETHING ELSE, WE'VE HEARD THE PRESIDENT SUGGEST THE POSSIBILITY OF REVOKING THE LICENSE OF A PARTICULAR MEDIA COMPANY. NBC IN PARTICULAR. PURPORTEDLY THIS IS BECAUSE THERE IS CRITICISM, MAYBE IT'S FELT THAT THAT CRITICISM IS UNWARRANTED OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE ADMINISTRATION. THAT'S COME UP A NUMBER OF TIMES. HOW REALISTIC IS THAT KIND OF A THREAT AND I GUESS I'M HOPING THAT YOU CAN UNPACK THAT FOR US AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIND A DIPLOMATIC WAY TO DO THIS. LET ME TAKE YOU BACK ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WHEN I THINK THAT THREAT WAS FIRST THROWN OVER IN THE TWITTER-SPHERE. THIS IS ACTUALLY FUNNY. I BROUGHT IN A NEW MEDIA POLICY ADVISOR THAT DAY OR THE DAY BEFORE. AND I DID WHAT I NORMALLY DO IN THE MORNING, WHICH IS LIKE DRINK TOO MUCH COFFEE, COMB THROUGH MY E-MAIL AND SEE WHAT NEWS IS AVAILABLE ON TWITTER. SEE SOMETHING THE PRESIDENT HAS WRITTEN. IT'S NOT RIGHT ON SO MANY LEVELS. CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. WE DON'T LICENSE NETWORKS. WE ONLY LICENSE INDIVIDUAL STATIONS. I TOOK A SWIG OF MY COFFEE AND JUST PECKED OUT ON TWITTER IN RESPONSE. I THINK MY OFFICE THOUGHT I WAS DRINKING SOMETHING STRONGER THAN COFFEE. AND I WROTE NOT HOW THAT WORKS. I LINKED TO THE 34-PAGE SINGLE SPACE FCC MANUAL ON BROADCAST LICENSING. IT'S TRUE. AND SOMEWHERE OVER THE MORNING IT'S LIKE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. SUDDENLY LIKE THESE CABLE NEWS NETWORKS ARE ON THE PHONE, WILL YOU COME AND TALK ABOUT THIS. WILL YOU COME AND TALK ABOUT THIS. BUT IN MANY WAYS, I THINK IT WAS A STORY ABOUT WHAT'S TO COME. ANTAGONISM TOWARDS THE NEWS. I THINK IT'S TROUBLING BECAUSE IT'S NOT POLITICIANS CRITICIZING THE NEWS MEDIA. THAT'S AS OLD AS TIME. PRESIDENT KENNEDY DESCRIBED THE NEWS AS HIS NATURAL ENEMIES. THERE IS NO SHORTAGE IN OUR HISTORY WHERE YOU SEE ADMINISTRATIONS COMPLAINING ABOUT NEWS AND JOURNALISTS. SO LET'S TREAT THAT AS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT UNCOMMON. BUT WHAT WORRIES ME MOST IS WHEN YOU HAVE GOVERNMENT USE THE TOOLS OF ITS POWER TO TRY TO CHECK ON THE MEDIA THAT COVERS WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE ABUSING THAT POWER AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT GOVERNMENT USING ITS TOOLS TO PREVENT MEDIA FROM SERVING AS A CHECK ON POWER. YOU WANT MEDIA TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO COVER. AND I THINK IN THAT THREAT TO TAKE AWAY LICENSE, UNFOCUSED INACCURATE AND WRONG, I THINK YOU SEE THAT PROBLEM. AND THAT LEAVES ME CONCERNED. SO IN THE 2016 ELECTION, DATA CAME OUT, AND SOMEWHERE AROUND VOTED. SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW THE NUMBERS VARY A LITTLE BIT, DEPENDING UPON WHICH STUDY YOU LOOK AT. BUT IT SUGGESTS THAT PEOPLE, MAYBE MANY PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM, FEEL DISENFRANCHISED AND DON'T FEEL A PART OF WE THE PEOPLE MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN OUR PROCESS. EVEN IN THE VOTING BOOTH. AS PEOPLE ARE THINKING, IN THIS ROOM ARE THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS, MAYBE THEY HAVE STRONG VIEWS ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY. MAYBE THEIR VIEWS HAVE EVOLVED SINCE THE DISCUSSION STARTED. WHAT CAN THEY DO TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE? AND ALSO, HOW CAN THEY FEEL AS IF THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE DOING MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE OF MAKING A DIFFERENCE? YEAH. WELL, I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR ANYONE'S CYNICISM. I'M A PUBLIC SERVIENT. I'M AN IMPATIENT OPTIMIST. YOU GOT TO DECIDE, IF YOU DON'T SPEAK UP, WHO WILL? IF YOU DON'T VOTE, WHO WILL. IT HAS NEVER BEEN EASIER TO BUILD A MOVEMENT. WE HAVE THIS ONLINE RECESS, THE INTERNET, THAT PART OF THIS IS ABOUT. WE'VE GOT A CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE AND MAKE NOISE NOW THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED IN HUMAN HISTORY. I THINK AS CITIZENS WE NEED TO USE IT. I DON'T WANT TO BE LOBBIED BY THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN WASHINGTON. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE THINK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTRY. AND I THINK THERE IS NOTHING STOPPING EVERYONE HERE FROM HAVING A BIGGER VOICE IN WASHINGTON. JUST GOT TO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE IT. WELL, THAT'S GREAT. I CAN SEE THAT WE GOT A WHOLE BUNCH OF QUESTIONS THAT CAME IN. I WANT TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. AND SO I WILL TEE IT UP TO OUR STUDENT TEAM TO TAKE THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE. HELLO, GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JACKSON BOSS. I'M A STUDENT HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE STPP CERTIFICATE PROGRAM ALSO HERE AT THE FORD SCHOOL. I'M LINDSEY, CHEMISTRY PH.D. CANDIDATE. WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS FROM THE CROWD. YOU MENTIONED THIS EARLIER IN ONE OF YOUR ANSWERS, LAST MILE INTERNET ISSUE. THE NUMBER THE PERSON HERE GAVE IS 30 MILLION AMERICANS WITHOUT RELIABLE HIGH SPEED INTERNET. I'VE HEARD MUCH HIGHER NUMBERS. I'VE HEARD VARYING NUMBERS. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RURAL, TRIBAL LANDS AND ALSO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN URBAN AREAS, WHO ALSO DON'T HAVE RELIABLE ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED INTERNET, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CONNECT THESE PEOPLE? AND THE SECOND PART OF THIS QUESTION IS, WOULD THIS GAP EXIST OR WOULD THIS GAP BE A BIG A PROBLEM IF WE TREATED THE INTERNET MORE LIKE A TRADITIONAL UTILITY? SO MY NUMBERS FROM MY AGENCY, BROADBAND. THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE. YOU DON'T HAVE A FAIR SHOT AT MODERN LIFE. MOST OF THEM ARE IN RURAL AMERICA. BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. SOME OF THEM ARE IN URBAN COMMUNITIES. IF YOU ASK ME, ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD DO AS A NATION WITH MORE ACCURACY AND AGGRESSION IS SOMETHING PRETTY SIMPLE. WE NEED TO MAP WHERE THE BROADBAND IS. WE ACTIVELY HOLD UP OUR PHONES AND REPORT HOW MANY BARS WE HAD. WHAT IF WE CROWD SOURCED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. WE HAD IT WITH GREATER ACCURACY. BECAUSE IF WE DID, WE WOULD KNOW WITH SOME PRECISION WHERE SERVICE IS NOT. AND WHAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGIES. ARE YOU DEALING WITH A COMMUNITY THAT IS SO FAR OUT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT OTHER TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES TO REACH THEM. I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF MAKING SURE WE HAVE SUCCESS. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. ONE OF YOU COULD START BROADBAND FOR US. I LIKE IT. ALL RIGHT. SO ANOTHER QUESTION, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NET NEUTRALITY AND THE PRIVACY OF CONSUMER CONTENT, INCLUDING METADATA ABOUT SOURCE AND DESTINATION AND NOT JUST THE CONTENT? GOOD QUESTION. YOU CAN WATCH IN REALTIME CONGRESS TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH PRIVACY POLICY AND YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY. CALIFORNIA JUST PASSED ANOTHER BILL. THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE IN WASHINGTON TO IDENTIFY WHAT MODERN PRIVACY POLICY WILL LOOK LIKE. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE FCC, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF RELATIONSHIP. IT DOES NOT TOUCH ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. BUT CONGRESS, AT THE START OF MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT BROADBAND PRIVACY. THAT WAS REGRETTABLE. SO NOW I'M LEFT WITH A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT TELEPHONE CALL PRIVACY, BUT NOT BROADBAND PRIVACY. I HOPE, NO MATTER WHERE WE GO OR WHAT WE DO, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH POLICIES THAT ARE SIMPLE ENOUGH, ALL OF US CAN UNDERSTAND THEM. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, DESPITE WHAT I DO PROFESSIONALLY, IF YOU READ THROUGH THE PRIVACY POLICY ON ANY INDIVIDUAL WEBSITE, IT'S TORTURE. AND I DO THIS PROFESSIONALLY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW YOU'RE ASKED TO TICK A BOX AND IF YOU DON'T READ IT, YOU CAN GET FREE SHIPPING. THERE IT GOES. DESPITE THAT DESCRIPTION OF MY ONLINE ORDERING, MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO ALIGN OUR PRIVACY POLICY ACROSS SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY. SO THAT WHATEVER YOU EXPECT FROM A WEBSITE HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM YOUR BROADBAND PROVIDER. AND IS SIMPLE ENOUGH THAT NONE OF US NEED TO BE ENGINEERS OR LAWYERS TO UNDERSTAND IT. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I THINK ARE PARTICULAR INTEREST TO PEOPLE HERE IN MICHIGAN. DSRC AND CONNECTED VEHICLES. ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERNET OF THINGS AND CONNECTED DEVISES AND VEHICLES CHANGES THE CONVERSATION AROUND NET NEUTRALITY. THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IS ABOUT WHEN IS THE FCC PLANNING TO DECIDE BETWEEN 5G? THE FCC DREAMED UP THIS TECHNOLOGY 1999 OR SET ASIDE SPECTRUM FOR IN 1999. A LOT HAS HAPPENED IN 1999. IF YOU TOLD ME ABOUT SELF-DRIVING CARS BACK THEN, I WOULDN'T HAVE BELIEVED YOU. THINGS BEING TESTED HERE. WE'RE USING RADAR AND CAMERAS AND ALL OF THESE NEW KIND OF SPECTRUM BANDS TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO HAVE CARS TALK TO ONE ANOTHER. IT'S ACTUALLY EXTREMELY EXCITING FOR THIS REGION OF THE COUNTRY AND FOR ANYONE WHO IS ON THE ROAD. THE QUESTIONS ARE, DOES THAT OLD SERVICE FROM 1999 STILL HAVE VIABILITY. ACCORDING TO THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD, IT'S GOING TO BE A FEW DECADES BEFORE WE COULD HAVE DSRC IN EVERY CAR. SO THE QUESTION IS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WHAT SHOULD OUR SPECTRUM POLICY BE? I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE. MOST NATIONS HAVE SET ASIDE LESS SPECTRUM FOR DSRC. I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD LOOK AT THAT BAND AND TRY TO SEE IF WE COULD ACCOMMODATE SOME PORTION OF IT FOR WI-FI. SOME PORTION OF IT FOR AUTO SAFETY. AT THE VERY LEAST, WE SHOULD START TESTING IN THE LAB TO SEE IF THOSE THINGS ARE VIABLE. ABOVE ALL, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SACRIFICE SAFETY. BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN LEAVE OUR SPECTRUM POLICIES STRANDED IN 1999. I THINK THAT THE GOAL HERE IS NOT TO DECIDE WHERE WE'RE HEADING, BUT TO DO SMART TESTS IN THE LAB TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT MODERN AUTO SAFETY TECHNOLOGY LOOKS LIKE WITH THIS SPECTRUM AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE CAN BE OTHER USES THAT ARE NEARBY. SHOULD WE BE NARROWING THE SPECTRUM OF ANY PARTICULAR INDUSTRY RIGHT NOW? THAT'S A LOADED QUESTION. BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH SPECTRUM, RIGHT? WE HAVE CHOICES TO MAKE. AND YOU TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY EXPANDING SOME. WHERE WOULD WE CUT? OKAY. SO THIS IS THE TWO-MINUTE VERSION OF THE HISTORY OF SPECTRUM REGULATION. READY? WE USED TO SET ASIDE OUR AIRWAVES, THINK OF IT AS ZONING, HERE YOU CAN DO THIS, YOU CAN BROADCAST ONLY. HERE YOU CAN DO THIS FOR AUTO SAFETY. YOU CAN DO THIS FOR RADIO. BUT THEN WE DECIDED YOU KNOW WHAT, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO LESS OF THAT SETTING ASIDE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. MAYBE I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERY AIRWAVE SHOULD BE USED FOR AND WE SHOULD START AUCTIONING OFF FOR FLEXIBLE USE. AS LONG AS WE CAN MANAGE INTERFERENCE, CAN WE LET THE MARKETPLACE FIGURE IT OUT. THAT WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE A MOBILE DEVICE IN YOUR POCKET. AND IT'S BASED ON THAT PRINCIPLE. NOW GOING FORWARD, THE PROBLEM IS OH, MY GOSH, EVERYONE WANTS SOME. YOU'VE GOT THESE LAWS OF PHYSICS. CAN YOU OVERWHELM THEM AND SUDDENLY DO MORE WITH OUR AIRWAVES. WE'RE EXPERIMENTING WITH HIGH AIRWAVES THAT HAVE LOTS OF CAPACITY. WE REQUIRE MANY MORE MICRO TOWERS. I THINK WE HAVE TO GET MUCH MORE CREATIVE ABOUT SHARING AND COME UP WITH THINGS LIKE DYNAMIC FREQUENCY SHARING. THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, INSTEAD OF SAYING THIS SPECTRUM IS FOR YOUR WIRELESS PHONE USES, AND THIS IS FOR WI-FI. WHAT IF WE CREATED LIKE A HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS, SAID THIS IS SUCH A PRIORITY AND INVOLVES SAFETY AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, YOU GET PREEMPTIVE RIGHT. IF SOMEONE IS NOT USING IT, MAYBE WE CAN LICENSE OFF A SECONDARY RIGHT. AND THEN OPPORTUNISTIC USE FOR WI-FI. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXPAND THE PHYSICS. BUT CAN WE BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH THE WAYS WE DISTRIBUTE OUR AIRWAVES. WE COULD DO THAT WITH DATABASES OR WE COULD LOOK AT NEW DISTRIBUTED LEDGER TECHNOLOGIES LIKE BLOCK CHAIN. THAT'S SUPER BUZZY. BUT I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START EVOLVING SPECTRUM POLICY TO THINK ABOUT IT. BUT WE GOT TO RECOGNIZE THERE IS PUBLIC SAFETY USES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PRIMARY. BUT MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH SYSTEMS OF RIGHTS THAT ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY YOU OR THEM BUT CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL OF US TO QUITE LITERALLY SHARE THE ROAD. AT TIMES THEN, IN THE HYBRID MODEL WHERE LOTS OF US ARE USING THE SAME FREQUENCIES, I MIGHT GET THROTTLED BACK? WELL, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE TERMS OF USE. YOU KNOW, SPECTRUM THAT WOULD MANAGE YOUR EXPECTATIONS IN THOSE ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT. AND WHEN YOU USE UNLICENSED SPECTRUM, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU USE THE TWO DOT FOUR TO CONNECT, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT YOU FALL OFF THE WI-FI. THERE ARE DIFFERENT SERVICES THAT YOU BUILD DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS FOR. NEAT. OUR NEXT QUESTION IS, WHAT IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON LOCAL PUBLICLY OWNED BROADBAND, SUCH AS WHAT'S IN CHATTANOOGA AND WHAT ROLE DO YOU THINK THAT COULD PLAY IN ENSURING AN ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN INTERNET? GREAT QUESTION. WHAT'S THE FUTURE OF MUNICIPAL BROADBAND. HALF THE STATES IN THIS COUNTRY, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HAS PROHIBITED IT. I THINK IT'S REGRETTABLE. IT'S NOT THAT IT'S EASY OR THE RIGHT SOLUTION FOR EVERY JURISDICTION, IT'S EXPENSIVE TO FINANCE, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN A NETWORK. THERE IS A REASON THAT THERE ARE EXPERTS IN THAT. IT'S HARD STUFF. AND EVERY CITY OR STATE MAY NOT BE UP TO THAT TASK. WE'VE GOT SOME COMMUNITIES IN THIS COUNTRY THAT FEEL THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE ADEQUATE BROADBAND SERVICE. IT'S LIKE THE TRAIN PASSING THEM BY IN ANOTHER ERA. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN THEIR ECONOMIC FUTURE IF THEY DON'T DO SOMETHING. AND IF THEIR INCLINATION IS TO COME TOGETHER TO BUILD ROADS OR BRIDGES OR BARNS, MAYBE IT'S BROADBAND IS WHOLLY CONSISTENT WITH THAT. AND I THINK FOR THOSE WHO FEEL LIKE THE DIGITAL ERA IS PASSING THEM BY, I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE STATE LAWS LARGELY PROHIBIT THEM FROM DOING SO. ALL RIGHT. DELVING BACK INTO SOME NET NEUTRALITY RELATED QUESTIONS. BECAUSE WE HAVE SEVERAL. WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FROM PEOPLE I THINK WHO WERE WONDERING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE ABILITY TO CHARGE FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO CHARGE COULD BE OF SOME UTILITY. SO THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY IS BASED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE ANALOGY, WHAT MAKES A TOLL FOR AN INTERNET PASSAGE, IF YOU WERE GOING TO USE THE TOLL TO PAY FOR CYBER SECURITY DIFFERENT FROM PAYING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR EXAMPLE? AND ALSO, WHY SHOULDN'T PROVIDERS BE ABLE TO CHARGE A LITTLE TO DISTRIBUTE THINGS THAT THEY -- THAT THAT -- SO ONE EXAMPLE THAT WE GOT IS FOR PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITES. WHICH MAKE UP A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF THE INTERNET. SHOULDN'T PROVIDERS BE ABLE TO CHARGE A LITTLE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS KIND OF STUFF IS THE QUESTION. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO ALWAYS COME UP WITH USE CASES THAT SEEM PLAUSIBLE. THE PROBLEM IS THE ONES THAT SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO YOU MAY NOT SEEM PLAUSIBLE TO THEM OR HIM OR HER. WHAT YOU WANT IS THE CONSUMER TO HAVE FULL CONTROL OF THEIR ONLINE EXPERIENCE. WE ARE EXCEEDING A LOT OF AUTHORITY TO OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE THAT DECISION. IN AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF COMPETITION, I'M NOT SURE THEY WANT TO GIVE THEM AUTHORITY AND CONTROL AND NOT HAVE A VOICE IN IT. BEFORE YOU DIVE INTO THE NEXT QUESTION, YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, I WANT TO TEASE IT OUT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL. RIGHT. I MEAN, WE HAVE THE SERVICE PROVIDER THAT WE HAVE. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU SHOULD CORRECT ME, PLEASE, IS IF WE DON'T HAVE NET NEUTRALITY TO PROVIDE SOME SIGN POSTS, GUIDANCE, CONSTRAINT, WE HAVE EVERY REASON TO EXPECT IS OVER TIME BROADBAND PROVIDERS WILL DO THINGS THAT CREATE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE. LIKE FORMING RELATIONSHIPS AND SPEEDING UP SOME TRAFFIC AND SLOWING DOWN OTHER TRAFFIC. YES. I THINK THE CHALLENGE FOR US RIGHT NOW IS WHILE THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE DOING THAT, WE HAVEN'T -- EITHER WE HAVEN'T NOTICED IT THAT MUCH OR WE'RE JUST COUNTING ON THE FACT THAT PEOPLE WILL BEHAVE THE WAY THAT -- OR COMPANIES WILL BEHAVE THE WAY WE EXPECT THEM TO. I THINK IT'S FAIR. I THINK THIS IS WHY IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE NET NEUTRALITY ARGUMENT WHEN YOU'RE SITTING ACROSS THE TABLE FROM SOMEBODY. BECAUSE THEY'RE SAYING I DON'T SEE FIRE HERE. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS EARLIER, THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AND NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY. THEY'RE NOW DOING TESTING. AND LOTS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING I THINK STUDENTS, DOWNLOAD AN APP TO TRY TO TEST HOW FAST THEY CAN GET TO CERTAIN VIDEO WEBSITES. DOES IT INDICATE REASONABLE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT? WHICH WOULD ENTAIL TREATING LIKE SERVICES THE SAME OR DOES IT INVOLVE SOME KIND OF BIAS FOR OR AGAINST CERTAIN CONTENT. AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN INTERESTING UNIVERSITY CAMPUS TO TRY TO DO THAT KIND OF EXPERIMENTING ON AS WELL. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE, AS CONSUMERS AND AS CITIZENS, START PAYING ATTENTION TO THOSE THINGS. AND DEVELOPING WAYS TO TEST WHAT'S HAPPENING. ANOTHER THINGS I'LL MENTION ALONG THESE LINES, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT HOW WE DON'T HAVE AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS HOW COMPANIES WILL CONDUCT THEMSELVES, YOU DO HAVE TO TAKE SOME TIME TO IMAGINE WHAT IT WILL BE LIKE IF THEY ALREADY HAVE. THAT IS IN A WORLD WHERE THEY'RE UNCONSTRAINED AND NOW WHEN THE GOVERNMENT COMES IN AND SAYS, OH, IT TURNS OUT WE'RE SEEING THE PROBLEMS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE ANTICIPATED, NOW IT LOOKS A WHOLE LOT MORE LIKE A TAKING. BECAUSE THEY'VE INVESTED AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS CHANGED AND IT BECOMES DISRUPTIVE REGULATION. AS WE'VE TRANSFERRED OVERSIGHT TO THIS TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, THEIR TOOL IS TO TAKE SOMEONE TO COURT. I'VE AT LEAST GOT SORT OF THE ABILITY TO MAKE RULES AND SAY YOU CAN DO THIS, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. BUT TAKING SOMEONE TO COURT IS ADDRESSING THE HARM AFTER IT'S OCCURRED. AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM DOESN'T MOVE ALL THAT FAST. IF YOU'RE A SMALL WEBSITE OR A SMALL BUSINESS, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE THE RESOURCE, TIME AND ENERGY TO COME TO WASHINGTON, FILE A COMPLAINT, FOLLOW IT UP, TO IDENTIFY IF THERE ARE SIMILAR OTHER COMPLAINTS, SO THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO GET RESOLUTION, TO ME THAT'S IRRATIONAL FOR SMALL BUSINESSES IN THIS COUNTRY. JUST SETTING UP A CLEAR SET OF RULES WORKS A LOT BETTER FOR THEM. IT'S ANOTHER REASON I THINK THERE IS A PRO BUSINESS SIDE TO HAVING NET NEUTRALITY RULES IN PLACE. IT'S UNDERAPPRECIATED. WE TALK ABOUT BROADBAND PROVIDERS AN INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT WE SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT SMALL BUSINESSES RELY ON ONLINE ACTIVITY AND ONLINE GROWTH IN WAYS THAT ARE EXTRAORDINARY AND WE SHOULD SEEK TO CREATE PUBLIC POLICIES TO GROW. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS HERE THAT ARE KIND OF ALL RELATED TO THE FAKE NEWS CONVERSATION. SO DOES THE FCC HAVE ANY ROLE IN REGULATING ACCURACY AND TRUTH ON THE INTERNET? NO. CHECK THAT ONE OFF. NO. IN THE WAKE OF THE NET NEUTRALITY DISCUSSION, WHY SHOULDN'T INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BLOCK CONCERNING OR OFFENSIVE CONTENT OR FAKE NEWS AND KIND OF THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT HAVING NET NEUTRALITY IF THEY DO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THAT POWER ON FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EQUAL ACCESS INFORMATION? THE FIRST QUESTION IS EASY. THE SECOND ONE IS SOPHISTICATED. YOU KNOW, SO MUCH OF OUR TOWN SQUARE RIGHT NOW TAKES PLACE DIGITALLY. WE HAVE OFFERED A LOT OF CONTROL AND AUTHORITY TO ONLINE PLATFORMS. AND I THINK IT WOULD COMPOUND SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE BY OFFERING THEM THAT SAME AUTHORITY TO OUR BROADBAND PROVIDERS TO CHOOSE WHERE WE CAN GO AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T SEE. EVEN IF OUR AUTHORITY IS EXERCISED WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS, WE'LL GET RID OF DISINFORMATION. WE'LL GET RID OF FAKE NEWS. I DON'T HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN EXERCISE THAT APPROPRIATELY UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. I WORRY ABOUT PROVIDING THEM WITH THAT AUTHORITY. AND IT WOULD BE THAT IT CONSTRAINS ALL OF OUR ABILITY TO GO OUT AND GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THIS IS WHY WE TEACH CRITICAL THINKING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN. SO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF WHEN YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION. MAYBE IF WE CAN PROLIFERATE A LITTLE MORE OF THAT, IT WILL BE PRODUCTIVE FOR SOCIETY. SOUNDS GOOD. THIS NEXT QUESTION COMES TO US FROM TWITTER. THIS QUESTION CONCERNS CORPORATE MERGERS SUCH AS AT&T AND TIME-WARNER, WHERE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE ALSO BECOMING CONTENT AND DISTRIBUTION AND PRODUCTION COMPANIES AS WELL. HOW DOES NET NEUTRALITY CHANGE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THESE KINDS OF MERGER? OKAY. GOOD QUESTION. I SHOULD SAY AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT REVIEWED THAT TRANSACTION, SO I DIDN'T HAVE A ROLE. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE COMBINATION OF DISTRIBUTION AND COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTENT. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WITH NET NEUTRALITY, THEY COULDN'T CREATE WAYS IN WAY THAT DISTRIBUTION WAS BIASED TOWARDS THEIR OWN CONTENT, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE TREATING CONTENT IN A DISCRIMINATORY WAY. WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY POLICIES IN PLACE, THERE IS A LOT OF CORPORATE INCENTIVE TO MAKE SURE YOUR NETWORK IS BIASED TOWARDS THE CONTENT THAT YOUR COMPANY OWNS. DOWNLOADS FASTER. EXEMPT FROM DATA CAPS. IS OFFERED TO YOU FREE OF CHARGE. AND SO YOUR VIEWERSHIP OF IT MIGHT INCREASE. AND YOUR VIEWERSHIP OF OTHER VOICES, OTHER CONTENT MIGHT DECREASE. SO I DO THINK THERE IS A NET NEUTRALITY CONVERSATION TO BE HAD THERE AND THAT THE COMBINATION OF CONTENT AND DISTRIBUTION HAS CONSEQUENCES, ESPECIALLY IN A WORLD WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY IN PLACE. ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS KIND OF PLAYING OFF OF CALIFORNIA'S NET NEUTRALITY. BUT ASKING IF THIS WAS FROM THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, DO YOU THINK IT IS POSSIBLE AND IS IT POSSIBLE FUNCTIONALLY AND LEGALLY FOR AN INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER TO SAY WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE NET NEUTRALITY TO CERTAIN CONSUMERS FOR A FEE BASED ON SOME SORT OF BIAS? SO THIS WOULD BE A WORLD IN WHICH NET NEUTRALITY WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US BUT FOR A FEE. I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, SINCE THE FCC CHANGED ITS POLICIES. CALIFORNIA LAW YOU DESCRIBED WOULD MAKE THAT COMPLEX IN CALIFORNIA. I'M PRETTY SURE A COURT IS GOING TO SORT ALL OF THAT OUT. NOT ME RIGHT HERE. BUT YES. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT ENCOURAGING BROADBAND COMPETITION. IN YOUR VIEW, WHAT ARE SOME WAYS THAT BROADBAND COMPETITION COULD BE ENCOURAGED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE FCC, BUT I THINK MORE IN GENERAL. WE NEED TO BE IDENTIFYING EVERY WAY WE CAN ENCOURAGE COMPETITION. AND SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY MUNDANE, BUT. WHEN YOU RIP UP THE ROADS, YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS SO THEY CAN LAY DOWN FIBER FACILITIES AT ONE TIME. IT ONLY ADDS ONE PERCENT OF THE COST TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. BY VIRTUE OF MAKING IT KNOWN TO EVERYONE THAT THEY CAN LAY FIBER FACILITIES DOWN, WE CAN RADICALLY INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ONGOING ROAD CONSTRUCTION. WE'VE MADE CHANGES TO OUR ACCESS TO TELEPHONE POLES. AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT THE SEXIEST ISSUES. BUT FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE SURE OTHER PROVIDERS CAN GET ACCESS TO THEM. AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN DO IT WITH A MINIMUM OF BUREAUCRACY, WILL INCREASE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMPETITION. BUT I THINK THE BIGGEST COMES WITH TECHNOLOGY CHANGE. BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS BEHIND NETWORK DEPLOYMENT RIGHT NOW ARE PRETTY HARD. IF YOU'VE GOT MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE IN A SQUARE MILE, PRETTY CONVINCED THAT THE COST PER SERVING EVERY ONE OF THOSE CUSTOMERS IS MANAGEABLE. YOU MOVE TO A RURAL LOCATION, IT BECOMES HARDER AND HARDER TO SERVE ALL OF THOSE CUSTOMERS. FCC TRIES TO HELP THOSE PROVIDERS, TO MAKE IT MORE FINANCIALLY VIABLE. OVER THE LONG HAUL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED NEW TECHNOLOGIES. I DO THINK THAT FIFTH GENERATION WIRELESS IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE MANY TIMES MORE THE CAPACITY THAT OUR CURRENT WIRELESS HAS RIGHT NOW AND WILL BE COMING MORE VIABLE COMPETITION TO TRADITIONAL MORE HOME BROADBAND. I THINK THAT'S THE MOST EXCITING THING ON THE LANDSCAPE FOR BROADBAND COMPETITION. BUT IT'S NOT SATISFYING. BECAUSE IT'S STILL FAR OFF. SO OUR NEXT QUESTION ASKS ABOUT HOW CLOSELY THE FCC COMMISSION WORKS WITH NETWORK ENGINEERS WHEN YOU ARE DETERMINING YOUR POLICY. WE DO HAVE A PRETTY BIG OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH. I ACTUALLY ADVOCATED FOR SEVERAL YEARS IN FRONT OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT THE AGENCY NEEDS TO START AN ENGINEERING HONORS PROGRAM. WHICH IS LIKE GO TO SCHOOLS LIKE THIS ONE AND SAY CAN WE ENTICE YOU TO COME FOR A TWO-YEAR TOUR OF DUTY IN WASHINGTON AS AN ENGINEER? AND BRING IN YOUNG ENGINEERS AND CYCLE THEM THROUGH. AND MAYBE THEY'LL GO OFF AND DO OTHER EXCITING THINGS IN INDUSTRY OVER TIME. OR THEY'LL CONTINUE IN PUBLIC SERVICE. BUT WE'VE GOT TO FIND MORE ON-RAMPS TO BRING ENGINEERS INTO GOVERNMENT ACROSS THE BOARD. WE NEED MORE DIGITAL NATIVES SERVING IN GOVERNMENT. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE WHO SEE OPPORTUNITIES WITH DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, AND NOT BUREAUCRATIC HEADACHES FOR NEW SYSTEMS. WE NEED MORE. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THIS WILL BE OUR LAST QUESTION FOR THE EVENING. IN YOUR OPINION, COULD INTERNET ACCESS BE CONSIDERED A HUMAN RIGHT? IF SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE ARGUMENT FOR THAT? YEAH. THIS IS A QUESTION I FEEL LIKE I GET ASKED FROM TIME TO TIME. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU CLASSIFY IT. YOU DO NOT HAVE A FAIR SHOT AT PROSPERITY IN THE 21ST CENTURY IF YOU DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET. I THINK IF WE CAN AGREE ON THAT PROPOSITION, THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. SO FIGURING OUT HOW WE GET MORE PEOPLE CONNECTED IN MORE PLACES AT HIGHER SPEEDS. IN WAYS THAT ARE OPEN. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE TICKET TO OUR CIVIC AND COMMERCIAL SUCCESS IN THE FUTURE. AND IT NEEDS TO BE A FOCUS OF OUR NATIONAL POLICY MAKERS ACROSS THE BOARD. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU'VE BEEN INDULGENT WITH YOUR TIME AND CONVERSATION. SUCH GOOD QUESTIONS. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING OUT. THANK YOU. AND PLEASE JOIN ME IN THANKING OUR WONDERFUL PANEL. [APPLAUSE] WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM HERE TO A RECEPTION OUTSIDE. HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE COMMISSIONER MORE INFORMALLY. JUST OUTSIDE. AND HOPE YOU ENJOY IT. THANK YOU.