Net Neutrality Panel

Video thumbnail (Frame 0) Video thumbnail (Frame 933) Video thumbnail (Frame 9143) Video thumbnail (Frame 23784) Video thumbnail (Frame 29418) Video thumbnail (Frame 41509) Video thumbnail (Frame 53600) Video thumbnail (Frame 65691)
Video in TIB AV-Portal: Net Neutrality Panel

Formal Metadata

Net Neutrality Panel
Title of Series
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Release Date

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Over the last five years, network neutrality has moved from an abstract buzzword to FCC-enacted policy. Supporters and detractors both contend that their opponents position means "the end of the Internet as we know it!" This panel discussion will present a reasoned discussion of the issue from multiple viewpoints. Among the issues to answer: What is network neutrality and can we even agree on a definition? Does the FCC have the authority to enact net neutrality rules? What is the role of Congress in net neutrality? Lastly, what are the future implications for the Internet? This panel discussion will cover the basics of net neutrality, the role of Congress and the FCC in regulating the Internet, and the future legal and policy implications of the FCC's neutrality rules. Is the future of the Internet really at risk?
Multiplication sign Right angle Staff (military) Quicksort Scherbeanspruchung
Group action Direction (geometry) Multiplication sign Sheaf (mathematics) Set (mathematics) Open set Client (computing) Web 2.0 Web service Different (Kate Ryan album) Videoconferencing Office suite Fiber (mathematics) Regulator gene Fitness function Bit Band matrix Degree (graph theory) Arithmetic mean In-System-Programmierung Process (computing) Pi Telecommunication Internet service provider Order (biology) Quicksort Point (geometry) Functional (mathematics) Simultaneous localization and mapping Similarity (geometry) Branch (computer science) Rule of inference Theory Twitter Power (physics) Content (media) 4 (number) Broadcasting (networking) Goodness of fit Flow separation Internetworking Term (mathematics) Authorization Energy level Utility software YouTube Execution unit Information Weight Lemma (mathematics) Physical law Planning Line (geometry) Cartesian coordinate system Word Software Integrated development environment Personal digital assistant Normed vector space Statement (computer science) Charge carrier Wireless LAN
Point (geometry) Slide rule Digital media Information systems Set (mathematics) Rule of inference Numeral (linguistics) Content (media) Internetworking Term (mathematics) Operator (mathematics) Netzwerkverwaltung Authorization Information security Physical system Theory of relativity Information Regulator gene Block (periodic table) Weight Chemical equation Bit Group action Term (mathematics) Vector potential Digital rights management Internetworking Software Personal digital assistant Internet service provider Statement (computer science) Quicksort Simulation Communications protocol
Axiom of choice Email Android (robot) Differential (mechanical device) View (database) 40 (number) Multiplication sign Sheaf (mathematics) Expandierender Graph Bell and Howell Open set Parameter (computer programming) Mereology Perspective (visual) Web 2.0 Direct numerical simulation Web service CAN bus Bit rate Different (Kate Ryan album) Computer configuration Netzwerkverwaltung Encryption Videoconferencing Endliche Modelltheorie Error message Physical system Area Email Regulator gene Block (periodic table) Digitizing Shared memory Data storage device Bit Term (mathematics) Hand fan Type theory Category of being Digital rights management Curvature In-System-Programmierung Googol Internetworking Addressing mode Internet service provider Order (biology) Website Right angle Quicksort Freeware Web page Point (geometry) Domain name Mobile app Link (knot theory) Maxima and minima Web browser Rule of inference Theory 2 (number) Content (media) Latent heat Internetworking Term (mathematics) Natural number Gastropod shell Authorization Energy level Computer-assisted translation Address space YouTube Mobile Web Standard deviation Dependent and independent variables Copyright infringement Internettelefonie Weight Prisoner's dilemma Physical law Plastikkarte Planning Line (geometry) Limit (category theory) Cartesian coordinate system Word Software Personal digital assistant Search engine (computing) Statement (computer science) Charge carrier Wireless LAN Communications protocol Spectrum (functional analysis) Gradient descent Computer worm
Multiplication sign 1 (number) Mereology Perspective (visual) Web service Mechanism design Mathematics Bit rate Different (Kate Ryan album) Netzwerkverwaltung Process (computing) Fiber (mathematics) Area Regulator gene Block (periodic table) Sound effect Bit √úberlastkontrolle Band matrix Message passing In-System-Programmierung Googol Addressing mode Internet service provider Order (biology) Right angle Quicksort Point (geometry) Web page Game controller Maxima and minima Web browser Rule of inference 2 (number) Power (physics) Number Content (media) Goodness of fit Internetworking Natural number Authorization Energy level Utility software Traffic reporting Metropolitan area network YouTube Scaling (geometry) Forcing (mathematics) Weight Physical law Total S.A. Basis <Mathematik> Line (geometry) Voting Software Personal digital assistant Speech synthesis Fiber bundle
the panel that we put together today is sort of you know we have a bunch of questions that we're going to ask and we'll have everybody up here to discuss some of those questions and then towards the end we want to leave some time for your questions because I know you have a you know a lot of questions about your
here so you're interested in this topic so with that here's the panel I'm going
to introduce myself my name is Michael shear I go by the present 98 and I own my own small business and I'll be moderating the panel today all the way to your right is Abigail Phillips from the eff I'm as I'm a staff attorney at
the eff where I focus on online content issues those are mostly around copyright but net neutrality kind of fits in there too next to her is Todd Kimball hi everyone I am it basically a small business infrastructure geek and kind of playing the role of the old guy who's been on the internet for a while and asking how things have changed and why is this different than 1994 and next to Todd is our def con virgin Debra hi I'm this is really loud that work hi I'm Debra salons I'm at d salons on Twitter I'm a telecommunications attorney in Washington DC and my practice is primarily regulatory in front of the FCC I'm supposed to give you all this disclaimer that I'm a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer and I'm here to give you legal information not legal advice and the opinions that I'm expressing today are my opinions and not the opinions of my firm or the firm's clients thanks and this is her first half concert buddy give me it's my first step and my first panel first everything awesome okay so let's talk what do we want to talk about here is when I started looking into this issue of net neutrality a year or two ago first thing I want you know you see all these people on YouTube videos I support net neutrality or I oppose net neutrality and I couldn't really find well what is net neutrality and it turns out that that's not it's it's it's easier to ask the question than to answer it because you know we can break it down to a very simple statement say all bits are equal and I think most people would say okay that's a reasonable definition of net neutrality and that's net neutrality from a sort of you know philosophical standpoint but how do we put that into practice and putting that into practice is is one of the problems that we've run across and then secondly why should we why you should care about this issue so I want to show you a little bit of the foot that's been out there over the past couple years okay so this is what the one I talked about this is the net neutrality all bits are created equal and this is the sort of the the most basic thing you can say about net neutrality and that well that content should be treated equally okay I think most people can agree with that on a general concept then we have save the internet save the world and now we're kind of getting into this like well you know really like if we don't do this the world's going to end or what what's going on here we have advertisements where companies are you know advertising different plans at different levels of content at different prices and then we have headlines some people have said if we adopt net neutrality it will be the end of the Internet as we know it some people have said if we don't atop the top net neutrality it will be the end of the Internet as we know it and then we have the most extreme case this woman is named Tanya Devereaux and she ran for office in Belgium and she said she would take the virginity of anybody who supported net neutrality unfortunately we do have the virgin here so this is sort of what we're dealing with net neutrality well what is it it's all of this or is it none of this so what we want to talk about is let's let's let's start off let's kind of go through each panelist and say well what is net neutrality what is it to you from a sort of philosophical standpoint and then what is it from a you know an actual regulatory standpoint anyway England why I mean I can give one thought I mean to me net neutrality is really about consumers being able to access the content that they want on the devices that they want and when I say content I also means services applications content so whatever that vehicle is that doesn't mean to me that consumers might not pay more for more bandwidth but it does mean that they don't have to pay more say to be able to get access to youtube as opposed to not having to pay it all to get access to some other video service in my mind that neutrality is you know kind of at the high level just you know at each end not you know oh sorry my concept is just not being double billed for stuff you know if you're paying for internet access either as a consumer or a corporation you're paying for that bandwidth at one end you shouldn't be charged for it at the other end okay and for the definition of net neutrality for me I thought this was actually a really interesting question when you're posed it to the group because net neutrality means different things to different people so I was doing a little bit of research on the internet in the definition that I felt most comfortable with was no restrictions by ISPs or government on consumers access to networks that participate on the internet and for me as a practitioner and especially an FCC practitioner when the open Internet rules came out people are calling them the net neutrality regulations and to me that's very ironic when you look at it and we'll get in more into that later in the panel but those those regulations are actually promoting net neutrality when you take a step back you're like wait a minute the
government is actually getting involved and this is the first time the FCC's actually you know well they've been attempting this but it's one of the first steps that the FCC is trying to regulate the Internet so to me I know it means different things to different people but i think it's it's a no it's no restrictions by is keys or by the government absolutely i think one of the interesting things that magnet neutrality is is this community and we'll talk about this a little bit later I don't want to put labels on the community as large but this community is generally libertarian and the fact that we're skeptical of the government we're skeptical of government actions were skeptical of of government overreach yet when we how many let me backtrack how many of you think in principle not necessarily in practice how many of you think in principle that treating traffic equally is a good idea net neutrality in general is a good idea okay most of you and I think how many of you trust the government to enforce it okay so this this is what I'm getting at we r we have a principle that we mostly all agree with but we want the government maybe or maybe not we want the government to enforce neutrality and I don't know if that's a good idea I'm not saying yes or no I'm just sort of posing questions so right so in his so his comment was do you trust the government more than the ISPs because they may not want to enforce the net neutrality and we'll get into that so let me get a little let me give you a little background on the first so so that's let's wrap up the first section there is no agreed-upon definition of what net neutrality is comcast and verizon will tell you something then that the FCC commissioners will have a different definition then you or me or anyone else up here so net neutrality is a concept but what in practice what does that mean for example do you want is Pete your ISP to block spam for you well is that a net neutrality violation I don't know we'll talk about stuff like that later so this in this next section to talk up a little bit about the government and the FCC and enforce sort of enforcing that neutrality so back in about two thousand seven the two thousand yeah 2007 the government in our the FCC enacted some FC net neutrality guidelines and how many of you remember the issue where comcast was called throttling bittorrent traffic most people remember that yes yeah so the FCC took comcast a court and it turned out that the DC Circuit Court of Appeals said to the FCC that your guidelines you don't have the power to enforce them because Congress has never given you the authority so what we're talking about here is an issue of Congress giving an executive branch agency the authority to do something which they they had not done at that point so while comcast violated the FCC guidelines those the court said the FCC didn't have the power to enact those and that's sort of the environment we're in now as a post comcast where the FCC's authority is not really clear since then last December the FCC has enacted a new set of net neutrality regulations and some people are questioning do they actually have the authority to do that so let's talk a little bit about the FCC's authority to regulate the Internet in general and where might they find authority to regulate in net neutrality regulations well i mean i was i will say um the FCC in this most recent order that it issued december twenty third last year they claimed they claimed authority to regulate using a very similar theory and it's the legal underpinnings are sort of arcane but a very similar theory to the same one that was weird directed by the DC Circuit earlier so it seems pretty unlikely that the court because the the order should be challenged in fact it already has been but then the court found that debt challenges premature and sure to be overturned again it does not seem like the FCC is going to successfully find authority under the Communications Act as it exists using the kind of theory that they're using which is that it's not right the internet is not regulated as a common carrier under Title to but rather through ancillary jurisdiction and that's jurisdiction that Congress has given the FCC to regulate anything that's sort of related to other other things that it has definite authority to regulate under the Telecommunications Act and I kind of want to bring in the English side of all of that the FCC is involved with us for those of you who you know might be kind of new to this internet thing you know past 10 or 15 years the FCC is involved because the internet branched out from you know shared networks 40 years ago that we're all you know on AT&T this was all telco territory so for years and years any Internet traffic long before there was a web was effectively regulated by the FCC because it's all on these public utility lines and things shifted in the 80s when AT&T was broken up and now that we have providers like Comcast coming in and you know Google owning all this dark fiber so it's different from the old telco lines as well as all the wireless stuff that's you know one of the things that makes this problem different than maybe things were in 95 when the web started and we saw similar sort of kind of restrictions on how you access data yeah um I want to piggyback on some of the stuff that Abigail said what the FCC is claiming for their jurisdiction is ancillary jurisdiction and it sounds like a lot of legalese but just to kind of give you the background on this and Congress opponents of the open Internet order would say that Congress hasn't given FCC Express direct authority over the Internet so to give you an example in the Communications Act title two is on telecommunications services title 3 is on broadcast and wireless and title fours on cable there's no title for Internet and the Internet has it been classified as a telecommunications service so there hasn't been any direct mandate from Congress saying yes you can go ahead and regulate this what ancillary jurisdiction is is an overarching statement as Abigail set in the Communications Act that basically says the FCC may perform all acts make such rules and regulations and issue orders not inconsistent with this chapter and may be necessary in the execution or functions so it's just an overarching thing saying you know Congress might tell you to regulate telecommunications but you have a little bit more leeway than exactly what that what Congress says but they're taking it a little too far at least that's my opinion and I think that's the opinion of most people so I think what you're here would you sort of I think we kind of all degree may agree on this that that whether you support net neutrality regulations or not the concern at least among the panelists and i would say myself is that maybe the process is is not working out so well in other words as an executive branch agency the FCC can only do what its authorized to do by law and even people in Congress many people in Congress who support net neutrality are telling the SEC maybe you need to back off a little bit because we haven't given you the authority to regulate that so I think that's a concern a process concern in terms of in terms of what the FCC is doing actually can I add one other thought I mean one of the concerns at least to me with the way that the FCC is going about this is if if what they ended up doing was merely regulating net neutrality or regulating I mean apparently regulating that neutrality that might be okay but the theory that they're using is so broad that it seems like would really give them sort of unbridled ability to regulate the internet generally and that's really scary so even if you think net neutrality is great and you totally want regulation that would ensure that you don't necessarily want all the other collateral damage that could come from the FCC deciding that it's going to start doing other things and I mean we've seen FC seen the us try to regulate indecency on the TV for example would not want to see that happening on the internet for sure so if you give them an inch they'll take a mile or they can they can keep using this this justification to do other things exactly I think one of the other and unlovable obviously I let the lawyer one of the other provisions that the FCC maybe secondarily is relying on is there's sort of a deregulatory provision that's too that the FCC is supposed to try to get out of the way to spread book to promote broadband and that and that they're sort of using that as a regulatory rather than deregulatory right yeah what again they're charged with um with promoting broad bands or information and services to throughout the country and I think they're piggybacking on one little thing that Congress said and saying oh well that means you know we can regulate the
Internet in front of something that's very broad just to make sure that people um to make sure that the information systems continue to to go forward actually yes okay so um net neutrality
definition not really sure definitely concerns about the process and whether the FCC is sort of exceeding their authority on this next slide I have a of what people it what the press or whatever you know some people have talked about as potential net neutrality violations so what I want to do is talk about each one of them and then have the panel may be discussed what they think about it is it a net neutrality violation is it something that that potential net neutrality of light relations should take care of the first one which i already mentioned is is the comcast and bittorrent traffic so if you remember back about 44 years ago I think the Associated Press had done an investigation and some other people have done investigation and found out that Comcast was inserting reset packet into a bittorrent traffic so that that you know the torts were slowing down or not completing and this I think was probably the first big you know big media look at net neutrality in terms of of a violation so let's talk a little bit about what comcast is does that violate sort of the principle of net neutrality and and is there is there a way that net neutrality regulations could fix something like that well let me start off with myself I'll say that I think it's certain what they were doing certainly a violation the principles of net neutrality I mean they're sort of interfering with traffic we're interfering with a protocol I don't know that that regulations could fix that but let's let's see what the rest of the balances just to back up just to back up one set just so that you know what the open Internet will say right now is what the regulations are basically the net neutrality rules there's four principles and one is transparency they want network operators to talk about their practices and their management of their systems and and give consumers information about what they're doing and Internet services can't block legal content and the next principle is no unreasonable discrimination so therefore if you're a cable company like Comcast you can't just say I'm going to block Netflix just cuz and an overarching principle which is the fourth principle is reasonable network management so an internet provider can actually do some things that's within reason to knit to manage their network such as security bam bam so I guess with the comcast BitTorrent case these principles came after that case but before the case there were some principles that were very similar to it that the FCC was relying upon and it was a policy statement it was not regulations but on what the comcast a bittorrent a situation what the courts and what the FCC was focusing on was reasonable network management and was it reasonable for comcast to be blocking the BitTorrent stuff and they didn't disclose it right so I'm one of the things that's in there that Deborah didn't go into is it this applies to legal traffic which when we're talking about BitTorrent should be brought up because a lot of stuff that people do for bittorrent could be although maybe not criminally illegal there could be civilly illegal yeah I actually I want to add to that point it's really
interesting to me that the FCC will don't actually necessarily prohibit or they they create loopholes that might have allowed what comcast was doing and that's interesting because FCC of course tried to go stop comcast from doing it the rule of the rules say no unreasonable discrimination it's not clear I mean there's a specific section in the in the order that says you while it while it's not forbidden by the order paper prioritization is probably not okay so you look at that you say okay well maybe then comcast couldn't do what it was doing but there's also a loophole in there for any any reasonable efforts to address copyright infringement so comcast had merely said oh you know this was our reasonable effort to address copyright infringement because we happen to believe that you know a certain percentage of the traffic or a large percentage of the traffic on BitTorrent is copyright infringing then it actually might have been okay under the FCC order which is I think one of the significant loophole concerns I also think interesting about about the the four principles that she said is that both our third and the fourth one use the word reasonable and I talked about this in my previous talk on on the Fourth Amendment which has the word unreasonable is that is that what does that mean reasonable is and I use this I don't I don't even know who the quote belongs to put the it's been said that reasonable or unreasonable it might be the most litigated word in the history of American ministry of America what is reasonable and what is unreasonable and two of the four principles use that word so so certainly you know these principles are that are interesting but they're certainly they're destined for the courts sure and and actually in the open Internet order the FCC specifically says that with reasonable network management it's going to be case-by-case right they give some examples as to what that could be but they say its case by case so it's not defined and that's that's going to be a problem so in this case it's like obscenity and as far as these regulations how do other things tie in like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act you know when you're talking about doing reasonable things to prevent illegal activity and the other laws that are in place that are a bit could be controversial and you know the things that big corporations effectively have for shutting down traffic yeah I mean it's a good it's a great question it will encourage certain behaviors that might be over overreaching or over broad in terms of stifling traffic and activity where the law might otherwise actually provide some protection question several first off the point about reasonable unreasonable legal illegal once you define legal then everything else is illegal which is great because they can make anything they want legal as long as they think of the kids and then everything else is illegal second reasonable it's light and unreasonable it's like being a little bit pregnant I mean let's be honest here that's what they're saying okay third those are statements forgive me third question why the hell are we talking about and my question is this we're talking about just American net neutrality the you know a significant portion of internet traffic is outside of our borders outside of our control outside of the FCC and we have the arrogance to think that we control it all fascinating what do you think about well I didn't I didn't do a lot of studying up on the International views but I think that I think that it's more open across across the world but one of the things that I did see in the FCC order in one of the descents to the net neutrality rules one of the commissioners brought up the fact that look America is a leader in the internet and in an innovation with the Internet well that's what she said that's what she said ok that's what she said um but you know if they're gonna if the FCC this is in the dissent if the FCC is going to go ahead and regulate this what kind of a what kind of a role model are we serving to other countries because that could be dangerous too because then they have their own rules and where are we going to be then in South Korea they get what 100 gigs to the house what I mean the point you raises it is a good one and that is what we're talking about regulating is only part of the Internet yeah the traffic that's in the United States what about traffic from Europe to Japan or and and how does any of our stuff can we can we regulate that traffic if it transits the United States I'm even if it's not I mean at bsides and forgive me for mentioning but we were handing out 0 bank cards and the 0 bank cards gave you 400 with the free VPN out of Iceland Germany Japan they give a dozen two dozen different choices including the u.s. a couple but I mean so now that traffic is going encrypted across and gone and how does that affect net neutrality I mean so as more and more people go to encrypted VPN traffic how is that going to affect or is the legislation going to give a crap about it and that's another question let me walk let me just walk through the rest of these violations and then we'll start you know we can start talking about them individually no no no problem how many of you have mistyped a domain name and instead of it just not appearing correctly you got your ISP search page with maybe some advertisements right and long for the days when that brought up porn sites so verizon has done this in the past and there's a lot of ice peas that do this now you type in the wrong thing and instead of not just not resolving and giving you an error you get maybe you're trying to search for this or maybe and it's a certain well some people have suggested that your ISP by doing this is sort of messing with the DNS protocol and that's the net neutrality violation let me walk through these all I want to speak on that really great work I've got some strong feelings on this this all started out in 2005 verisign who effectively owned the domain name system for years rolled out this concept where if you know you typed in something that didn't resolve they brought up the ad pages and at that point because they owned it and well because they own the infrastructure and any DNS stuff had to go through them I was firmly against it that was breaking DNS dns might be a sketchy protocol you know dan is always talking about it he's in a trap to or something right now but you know it's one of those things they were breaking it in this case well you're getting a service from your provider and if they're going to redirect it that's kind of contractual thing you can use other DNS providers you don't have to use you don't have to use the one provided from you i know i have it for years so I've kind of i mean i agree with todd on that one I don't I mean have some problems with it or certainly I think it works requires some transparency that may solve the problems I don't see it as a net neutrality issue and partly I think it's nice to keep those net neutrality issues discreet because there may come a day when there really is some kind of regulation so let's let's only affect right and and you sort of mentioned the devil's advocate argument Todd which was if you're a verizon customer you don't have to use verizon dns server right you could use google or opendns or so maybe it's a technical violent I don't know a you could argue it away well it lets you know let's expand that to other services beyond just a dns say you don't get it so much anymore but it used to be you got an internet account you had an email account that went with it I mean the concept of all right you have got email address and i had a Pac Bell account for 15 years I paid twenty bucks a month I didn't connect to them just so I could keep that address and people connect to me how would those sorts of things I me buddy with it opens a hole just big can of worms we start getting into the services that are available elsewhere you know when you get beyond just kind of the physical infrastructure that's kind of what the
limitation is with a lot of this and that's my feeling on okay if we're going to look at the net neutrality when you look at kind of the physical nature of it and those specifics okay a while back Xbox Live started providing espn3 streaming over Xbox Live it turns out that some ISPs like Time Warner didn't want to war blocking it is anybody had this problem in the past where you had time warner or another isp and they blocked espn3 from xbox live okay well maybe one a couple people I will skip through this one just because what do they show on espn3 is that the door faucet tossing yeah oh okay is anybody of us this is this is this I only do this if someone actually has a phone is anybody knows samsung fascinate samsung fascinate cell phone one person only one person okay one at one of the problem one this was another issue that people mentioned the samsung fascinate phone which the search engine was locked to bing and it is yours is yours lock to bing okay that was another issue if Ken yer can your wireless provider lock you down to using a certain search engine and what is that in net neutrality violation and then last one I want to mention and then we'll sort of we'll talk we can talk about any of them is metropcs metropcs is a wireless carrier in Texas and they provided a couple different 4G plans one was like a forty dollar plan that gave you sort of internet and YouTube and then if you paid fifty dollars you could have access to like skype and and what else Netflix and some other things so what they were doing was charging more for different types of content which I think that sounds principle most people would think that that's a net neutrality violation charge charging people more for using based on the type of content and I actually like to discuss that a lot because it goes back two years ago there you go back to the beginning of this fancy web thing and in 95 you had your options you know you can have your AOL in my case you know Netflix was the first comfort estaria netcom first company that came up with a flat rate actual web plan but you know you pay less money and you get a shell account or you pay a bit more and you can actually use a web browser and you didn't have to do links and stuff and so looking at the historical concept these are similar things I don't know whether it's good or bad and then my feeling you know I'm not the attorney here is I've gone back for years on the common carrier clause and I always thought that was a good thing I mean that's kind of the original net neutrality thing and that basically from my perspective and managing networks has been alright if I have the capability of filtering certain content and I filter that content then I'm responsible for what's passing on my network I mean the Internet is based on a lot of sharing and so you let other people's traffic house on your network if you are filtering that traffic and you're responsible for it so the kiddie porn comes across your network if you're not filtering it that's fine it's not yours if you are filtering it that kitty porn you own that kiddie porn and it's you know you're going to federal pound you in the ass prison and I so that's why I'm a fan of kind of the common carrier stuff which we're kind of losing with things not being telcos and you know infrastructure changing and the legal wrangling stuff well I guess one one of the things out of all these um the net neutrality violations that I think we should point out is in regards to wireless with the new open Internet regulations wireless is treated differently than wireline broadband services and the Commission gives a little bit more leeway 82 wireless services because they feel like they want to be a little bit more hands-off since it isn't as developed or so the FCC says as a technology so with the four principles the transparency the blocking the unreasonable discrimination and the reasonable network management wireless companies have to abide by the transparency rules the blocking wireless companies have a little bit of a different standard than the wireline company right I believe that wat in the wireless standards they can block as long as they're being transparent about it is that correct um they cannot block they can't block lawful websites and they cannot block the applications that compete with the providers voice or video telephony services so therefore if you're a mobile broadband provider you can't be blocking someone else's VoIP service right so in the arena where they actually have more authority they're doing less basically because the wireless spectrum is totally regulated by the FCC there's no question about that and it's also all those are still fall into the category at least as far as i know of traditional telcos so you know on a couple levels they have way more authority versus just the standard internet these days but they're doing less i mean i guess i guess what's going on with these rules is one of the the arguments against these rules is let the market let the market do this let it play out and so the FCC is like well the waterline broad bands been around for a while the markets kind of done its thing we can go in and regulate it and as far as the wireless goes I will regulate it you know just half as half as much as the wireline we'll keep an eye on it and we'll see how how how it works out and they don't want to stifle any innovation there yet these regulations don't stifle innovation and the wireline so it's it's kind of funny that way um yeah I mean I don't buy that distinction I mean plus like if you want to increase competition which in theory they do wireless is the area where we have none of that and particularly if this AT&T t-mobile merger goes through they're going to be two companies that own 80 the market it seems to me that wireless is maybe where where more would be valuable it needs more my in my mind it should have more regulation because it's a far more you know limited resource the spectrum has already been sold so there should be more regulation because you can't have more competition because well you it's not like I can go out and it's tough to buy you know a hard line but theoretically if I wanted to run over to my neighbor's house and throw some cat 5 over there it's fine but the wireless spectrum is totally regulated and it's old so you know generally by much more i mean there's another interesting issue there which is tethering verizon had recently asked I don't know some app some either Android or Apple to take tethering apps out of its App Store and there was a complaint that was filed alleging that that was in violation of the open openness rules that govern that particular spectrum that Verizon was using I mean separately just a question whether tethering is a net neutrality issues sort of an interesting one I'm not sure what I think I mean I think tethering should be permitted but I think the question whether net neutrality goes from content to devices is interesting the FCC thinks it does we have about 15 minutes left so we wanted to save the rest of the time for your questions I'll the only thing I ask is that you just try to make your question brief so that we so that we have time to get to as many people as possible if we were at a time we can spend you know sometime in the question and the answer of room but we want to get as many you know questions as possible go ahead mostly it's too brief statement / question first the one back to when your previous statements where you are discussing the actual service provider regulating the services if it's a part of the legal aspect Howard you know your big 3 verizon ATT tmobile how are they actually able to be blocking skype if there's actually a law or regulation
saying here not a lot of block service provider so how are they are they blocking skype if there's a regulation saying so well these regulations aren't in effect yet they have to be published in the federal register and then there's going to be 60 days and then after that they will be in effect so I mean unless correct me if I'm wrong Abigail us that's my understanding it I mean they will surely be challenged yeah and so it could be a very long time if ever that we actually see them implemented so right now there's nothing right right and if unless there's um my understanding is unless there's official stay and the court grants this day the laws will come into effect 60 days afterwards so but if somebody challenges the rules which they're most likely going to verizon tried to challenge the rules and the court threw it out saying it wasn't right because it wasn't published in the federal register yet um then I'm sure someone will stay the rules and who knows when is likely yeah and the way they're written me if it's my network I can come up with total legal justification for throttling any traffic I want to so you know it's it's you know you have good attorneys and you have a good justification and okay skype is causing you know unwarranted the consumption of bandwidth you know it's just it's unequal I can't provide the service that I'm contracted you to provide all of everyone so let's that's the loophole I'd go with if I wanted to pull that off and it was my network right and and just add to that if if I'm verizon or Comcast and I and I pay to put the infrastructure in then then I might have my my claim that well I paid to put this infrastructure in so why can't I have some reasonable control over what's on it so in a good question i think i think what goes to heart of it is like you said the regulations themselves whether the force that they have because they are be there going to be challenged and whether or not you know because if an isp blocks that stuff now there's not really because the rules aren't in place a hundred percent yet there's not really an enforcement mechanism in place okay the second question kind of goes more towards the copyright aspect when you look at things in a pass such as Microsoft when they came out with a loser or vista or seven and the European Union actually say that you are not allowed to force your browser's only to IE and they made it so that you know you had to offer the services through ie Firefox Chrome etc at the same regards can't that be taken with net neutral you're regulating your services based on samsung fascinate locked of being verizon locking you down to using their certain services Comcast all your ISPs are doing the exact same thing how are they varying in as far as their legal regulations how are they different than Microsoft blowing out here and doing the same thing with their browsers well that I mean that would be another way to attack some of the perceived problems that come from net neutrality which is to take an antitrust perspective and say let's try to increase competition here and maybe that will improve some of the problems that they're the fallout that we would see from not protecting that neutrality per se thank you thank you we have ten minutes so let's let's try to limit it to one question per person so we can get through old thanks my name is Josh and I'm from Seattle and I appreciate in respect the panel and and I my impression was that most people are pro net neutrality and in the interest of getting both opinions out I'm just wondering if you guys could elaborate the opposing argument about in my opinion why it might why isn't my my dollar my vote enough to actually cause this to to effect a change I worked at a small ISP a couple small ice peas with less than 10 employees and in generally we had people come to us because we didn't have any kind of regulation on our network traffic and and I'd like to hear why that wouldn't work in the case of certain service providers you know throttling different services and people being unhappy with that and going other ones thanks um my feeling on that is the last mile stuff is a limited commodity and in you know for a while with dsl it was open I know in California that was turned around so that you know for a year or two there was on the bundle unbundled dsl and you know you can still get dsl through other providers but then another ruling came through and said oh no you know if you want to have dsl like AT&T you can charge you for that and hear that at that point is kind the last mile sort of the thing is you know who owns the lines and you know if there are tariffs in place so that you know reasonable rates for other competition I think it's great I don't know whether there is anything like that for things like cable and that maybe someone else can answer that I'm not sure I mean sure there's there's a less yeah and that's because the government funded a lot of telephone lines being put in what 100 ish years ago and so yeah that's a public utility sort of the things so they were able to regulate that which is how the FCC got involved the cable stuff they own all of this so you take a look at Google with the all the fiber they have who knows what's going to happen the next five years Google you know there could be a whole free second super fast internet here 100 gigs to your door that totally avoids all the rest of this stuff you just have to let them sniff all your bits and am ia I'm scared of Google but since I know where they sleep at Burning Man when that changes then well I'll stop using them hi um this isn't my primary area so I was just kind of hoping that maybe you could get answer our question do you know if there is a push on either the Congressional level or the international level to provide regulation in the net neutrality or to expand the FCC's delegating Authority or is it just going to be a court battle going out on a case-by-case basis at this point well there's been a push on boats on both sides meaning the Republican side and the Democratic side so the Republicans are trying to get a bill through Congress it would say FCC can't regulate this the Democrats are trying to get a bill through saying that they actually have explicit authority to but maybe bound that authority and do you know if there's anything on the international scale just given the International nature of the internet there's some inner there's some international net neutrality regulation has some laws i think the netherlands does I think Japan does it more like at a treaty scale like everybody working together to try to to regulate I think it was mentioned in one of the recent EU commission reports but my positive yeah thank ya just that just add that to my stool I didn't hear exact all everything she said but be generally speaking Republicans are opposed to giving the FCC power to regulate the internet and Democrats are generally speaking and because the house is controlled by the Republicans in the Senate control I don't think in this congressional session that will see Congress give the FCC any additional authority and I even like three days ago when they were dealing with the whole budget crisis I saw some press about some of the Senators some of the Republican senators were I don't know if I think they sent a letter to chairman Genachowski of the FCC saying you know you guys need to review these rules because President Obama came out with some kind of speech saying that all regulations that have been passed or about to be passed you need to make sure that they're efficient and they're saying hey you guys have to talk these over again so I know that the Republicans aren't very happy with what's going on and there is there is definitely some push back there but um you know whether or not it's a priority for Congress it might be a matter that the courts get a hold of it first ok so you guys started a lot with content filtering but it seems like from an ISP standpoint they're not filtering content because they don't like youtube or netflix they just don't like the bandwidth suck that it is and for reasonable network management yeah you can throttle some services to give priority to others but then all bits aren't equal how is the regular hell are the regulation is going to propose the isp standpoint of over selling their
bandwidth they offer everybody X number of megabits but they really don't have the capability to give everybody X number of it megabits all at the same time so if you start using all of your bandwidth then they look at you and they ask you okay what are you doing with your traffic and can we shut part of your traffic down because you're creating a problem on our network even though you all are only using me a lot of bandwidth that we told you but have I think I might be able to answer this in the FCC order as far as reasonable network management goes they say that congestion can be legitimate reasonable network management so I mean I think and I'm not a technical person it sounds like there might be some kind of congestion issue well it's like the oboe bandwidth oh yeah it's over some flights been happened with cable from day one where things are oversold and unfortunately i don't know I've looked through this briefly I haven't read the whole hundred eighty pages yet but when it comes right down to it I don't know that that's really addressed and I hate to say that's kind of one of those contractual things where you know as you there's last mile things we don't really have the competition on the cable side and you know that's cable I mean wireless ISPs with wireless you know where you know and on any of that amount they were unlimited now we are being cut off so no all right okay I'm i finish this week America fruitful house would never join as those of you who haven't asked questions please come to question antrim thank you to everybody on the panel for coming today and thank you for coming I appreciate thank you thank you