Everybody thank you for coming this afternoon. Before we get started, Donna's from the NSU from the 18th District of California is here to welcome and send her the words. She's been a member of Congress since 1993. She's been a champion of course of that and did a lot of telecommunications issues and social protection issues and then neutrality for ten years during Congress. And also the chair of the Congressional Internet Office.  Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. How are you? Good evening. Good evening. Have a good week before we show up. Right? Thank you for coming today. Let me first decide thank you for being here to acknowledge and thank Senator Ed Markey for the variety of shortening. You should know that he is a foreign partner and a pal on the Energy and Commerce Committee orientating the Senate. So for those I don't hear you you're going to send it to the House Senate. The rest of your House staffers. That's great. You're all most welcome. Very great. Senator Markey, myself and Public Knowledge here comes. Senator Markey. It's great to see you. It's great to see you. Good to be in the same room with you again. I'm very welcome and thank Jim Pickering who heads up in the Congress, Chris Lewis from Public Knowledge. I'm going to hand it over to you. Melanie Nguyen from National Association of Realtors John Sauer who is a Senior Fellow of the Veterans Foundation and former SEC General Counsel under Count Wheeler Rachel Wolbert from Enchin and Lauren Culverson from Twitter. Now why do we think that this would be a good idea? Because one of the best ideas that's ever been created in the history of field time in American invention the Internet and all it represents is actually at stake right now at the Federal Information Commission. Now some history is going to be given by the panelists about where the effort began in order to protect open, accessible Internet. If you weren't going to get this, this is a deep time for you to be inoculated with the best information and I'm not going to be limited in parts to you. Why is it important? Why is it important? What is at stake the member group that you've worked for and the people that the member represents? Well, there were some 40 billion people waiting in with the Federal Communications Commission that's the story which has never been that many Americans that have actually taken time with trouble to contact a Federal Agency about something in the history of our country and amongst about 40,000,000 is your members constituents and they use the Internet and they know so there are forces that want to change according to your business plan we believe that we're here we respect business plans we know that we want business to make money but overall we are responsible for the economy of our country for the public interest so I think that the best are here really and Senator Markey certainly underscored that but this is a herpillian effort and it's a major power relative to the future of the Internet in our country I'm the staffer I know who comes into the offices we know they're familiar interests we have three campaigns you hear from them and see them nice people that come in but this is a really overarching view of not only what we have what we have enjoyed what we want to protect and why we need to protect it and the interest the constituents that elected your boss so that's why your presence is so important and that you're going to be equipped you're going to be armed with the absolute most factual information to talk to your member about and even though you can't the the common period is closed we're going to start watching this thing grow closely you're going to feel that you, yourself your family, your friends have a huge stake in this as well so I'm going to turn the mic over to one I was just going to say Congressman he's been a Congressman and now he's the United States Senator there isn't anyone in the entire name of the Congress that knows as much has done as much in telecommunications internet space in the United States Congress Senator Ann Markey Accounting is one of the best friends I have in my life but certainly one of the most distinguished I think the most distinguished now in the Senate I would still say the entire name of the Congress of the United States Senator Ann Markey to continue to ensure that we react and that we convey it so we've had a partners on this since 1994 before the telecommunications act was passed for this incredible explosion we try to ensure that these new technologies are animated with the values with the rules, with the perceptions that allow for our consumers to be benefited and for that many in paranoia and competition to be published because every voice every idea has access to the internet and that they're able in an uncredited way while being kept upside down having money shaken out of their pockets unnecessarily to be able to reach a market of 320 million Americans and then beyond so that's really well good then all about right from and that's why it is great and that this also passed which has been gathered because now we're coming down to the coming down to where we're going to have to organize and not agonize of this battle that we are coming near the conclusion of at least this date because it could go on and on depending on what does happen at the Federal Publications Commission so I want to thank Phil for moderating this discussion we thank you for being here in our all-star lineup Chilburg Pickering, Person from Lewis, John Salad, L. D. Wynne, Lauren Colerson and Rachel Wolvers so we thank all of you for being here because in your broad range of bipartisan views that has always been a heart of and leading debates of all telecommunications policies that have always been inherently bipartisan have always been trying to take technology and to deal with it in a way that teases out and that's what underscores the broads that would draw the open internet across the entire country the people who are here about the next challenge we call Revere's they're wanting that broad-hand barriers are coming broad-hand barriers are coming trying to shut down the open architecture which is baked into the of the internet and always has been but in the general administration there is an effort now to upend this small arm of American innovation and democratization of access by cutting and neutrality protections the basic principle of neutrality is that all internet traffic is treated equal it applies to principles of non-discrimination to the online world ensuring that the broad-hand providers do not block slow down the sense of prioritizing internet traffic neutrality creates a level playing field with the best ideas not merely the best funded ideas but Gemini and the broad-hand industry want to turn back the clock so just a handful of and shoe companies can pick online winners and losers and if they have their way ISPs will be allowed to set up internet pass signs for those with the deepest pockets and internet traffic paths for those who cannot pay top dollar and all of those exurgages will eventually be passed on to consumers and they will have to ask for all permission to innovate but without neutrality protections that's precisely what an entrepreneur will need to do in the future that's why 22 million people have heard have their voices heard at the FCC and they all have a flame message to Chairman Kai put down your put it in the closet don't need to use it this is a system that is not called master investment in software and internet specific companies master investment by the broad and companies in infrastructure operating it is a job creation engine unknown in the history of America all of the land it's working like the engine of democracy which is so from my perspective today is incredibly important day we are taking off this fall season with an effort to try our best to send a message to the FCC that the American people do not want to see this change so let me turn the moment over and ask you now to take over and moderate this fall cycle thank you thank you all so much for all being here your remarks thank you everybody thank you for joining us I'm just briefly going to introduce our panel before we get started again thank you for coming thank you for joining public knowledge for those of us who aren't super familiar with us technology is a DC based big tank we work on issues ranging from telecom and technology policy media consolidation issues and intellectual property we do so at the intersection of competition so hopefully some of you know us hopefully we have to do the rest of you we aren't that familiar with you who are online and want either live to be or who need access to the event if you're not a staff or a new access to the senate live by network if you're using the senate best network the password is resolution all in more case and if you're not live between we have a hashtag for the event it is FCC rules all one word so that's sort of a little bit of house so we're going to talk about what any child is a little bit some of you guys are you might not have been around going back to the 96 act like the kid was so we're going to talk a little history we're going to talk about what's going on right now and what your losses might be interested in knowing the context for this is in 2015 the FCC after about a decade of working and doing some sort of any child rules under bipartisan FCC internship during the push administration eventually during the law administration adopted a set of open internet rules those have been in effect since June of 2015 initially adopted February of 2015 and then in May of this year the new FCC leadership introduced and adopted a notice of rulemaking that will roll back those open rulemaking right now we have rules on the books but there's a proposal to roll them out so I'm going to throw it to our panel to introduce them down the line the first person I'm going to toss this to you is Jeffrey Brink he's the CEO of InCompass they're a competitive telecom provider of American Association prior to that he was a congressman from Mississippi before that he was a staff member for Senator Trevon where he was instrumental in helping break the law in 1996 well thank you very much it's good to be here as mentioned I was a former staff member and then I became a member and I lost all my power and so I appreciate the role that each and every one of you want to play about what the future of telecom and technology and internet policy will be and should be and I'll give you a little bit of background of who we are and who comes why we advocate what we advocate and what it means to the economy and then I'm looking forward to hearing the rest of the panel and answering any of your questions but InCompass represents well let me step back InCompass is the founding of the first association advocating going back to 1981 for competition in telecom none of y'all are old enough we used to just have one telecom company for the environment and we used to just have one cable provider in every city so all of those monopoly policies that were prior to your birth probably in the mid 80s and then in the early 90s have been changed and replaced with a competition policy and at very far that the travel area is a competition, it is a hard-to-solve competition policy second historically it has been by far strong and it should still be by far and we'll talk a little bit about what unite all Americans behind the principles and the concepts of it open and free internet it is the most pure free market there is so I'm going to recall and if you look at what it means on that neutrality no walking, it's the same as a free trade policy we're not going to have a barrier to entry no dropping, we're not going to drink commerce, it's different we're not going to slow some down to speak some up everyone has equal access to the market and because of that internet there's no corruption of the market it is as a Republican the best, purest small market free market and that's why in the early days I was becoming a member of Congress in 1997-1998 and I was the chair of the circuit committee that I resolved the transition of the internet public research and defense network to the commercial internet that we now know the first chairman of the Bush administration as the internet began to emerge commercially was the first one to adopt net neutrality as a policy the second was chairman of the FCC was the first one to enforce those policies and in 1996 we worked together to codify the principles and we got nearly 400 votes in that house to do so and did not make a good incentive if you all know the Senate Visual of the more slow elections changed the next year but we had a huge bipartisan consensus just a little over 10 years ago around the country the world has changed a little bit and as we see the partisanship of the divisions today the neutrality of the internet started as an American consensus and this is the important thing for Washington may be divided on this issue we conducted a call earlier this year and 80% of Americans equal Republicans equal Democrats equal Trump voters support the principles of that neutrality if you ask the question do you want your internet to be like the internet as it is today it's overload again 80-20 they do not want it to be like cable where you have basic or premium or different access and different prices based on different content and so there's an overwhelming majority of Americans you'll hear from Valley this is now become not just an ISV infrastructure versus Silicon Valley realtor's main street business is to bend on the internet and having equal access to each of their customers or clients to be able to compete in a marketplace and for a realtor or a marketer or a main street business they overwhelmingly want to keep and open and pre-interpreting so what has happened over the last two to three years after the war was about we also asked that question is your internet service today better than it was two years ago now you can ask is the country going in the wrong region that was asked and is famous today is the country better off today than it was four years ago if you ask that question today you're going to get mostly wrong track answers but if you ask is your internet better today and 70% of the country believes that today said that the internet after the 2015 order was adopted is better today than it was three years ago there's one thing that unites Americans both in principle and in practice is that they open the internet to work with so what is happening in the market since the order was adopted we're seeing and we're representing we have something to say we have all of the leading internet companies straining in our own companies but we also have the leading back home companies leading business providers the heartland companies like strained in our own government and competitors we represent both infrastructure and internet and so what we're seeing in the marketplace are three things one straining revolution investment by not only Netflix Amazon Microsoft Facebook making both traditional media better and you from the top streaming high quality at a lower price and more accessible so one straining revolution tremendous investment and innovation too we're seeing a business revolution the cloud based services that are dependent on the network software design open internet principles it's also seeing a point percent increase in just 2015 to 2016 so businesses that are now using internet based services applications software and cloud based services is excluded we just came back to our annual conference in San Francisco and we also represent new fire network builders and then the small sale of new competitors and what internet open internet is driving new networks and investment of new networks at a hundred of and that all is happening in the last two or three years the policy is working it is not broken it is bipartisan it is both the free and the equal principles that make it not just a republic that are democratic and so as we go forward our job is to protect and preserve them hopefully connect with the FCC to stand out in their actions and to find the consensus of how to preserve them and I look forward to all the questions as we go forward the rest of the day all right thank you next we've got Melanie that's what I thought Melanie why don't you be senior technology policy representative at the National Association of Builders she works with Congress and federal agencies on technology policy and the real estate industry she's also a mentor to startup companies that want to enter the real estate space through the National Association of Builders Technology and I think she's going to talk a little bit about the importance of that neutrality to work and work on this thank you so at the National Association of Builders we have 1.3 million members in every congressional district in the country and what's important to know about our membership is that the vast majority of our members are actually very small businesses we do also represent the very large century 21 and the large real estate companies that you've heard of but the vast majority of real estate businesses are one in two person businesses and the other really important factor to the neutrality is that realtors are content creators on the internet and they absolutely today rely on the internet to gain access to their consumers so for that reason NAR has had a policy of neutrality for several years we supported open internet rules we see the rules that are currently in place as ensuring that all companies no matter what size the very smallest to the largest so that really comes to all of our members to gain people access to their consumers on the internet and it's exactly this kind of access and competition that's the engine of the American economy so our concern we're concerned about rule effective rules that might allow for broad link or flat link or really that would be one of the concerns of my members of the National Association having to pay internet service providers to gain access so that's really the first that we're great at and setting the message that this isn't just a silicon valley versus infrastructure issued this really impacts mainstream businesses because today everybody's an internet business and it's an open free internet that gets mainstream businesses access to their consumers that's Melanie next up is Laura Goldberg she works on public policy in Twitter she has a diverse background where she works in politics and campaigns on Capitol Hill and in the private sector she's based here in Twitter's Washington office and she represents the company that speakers on public policy issues here on the bill and in the leadership board Thank you Phillip Hi everyone it's good to be here with you today I first came into this issue about two and a half years ago I've worked in the public and politics since I graduated from college and I'm working now with a coalition of tech startups to share the small business voice if you could talk to startups and the virtual film us too they'll tell you one of the number one things that keeps them up at night is lack of net neutrality because they realize that very quickly their business could be offended by one and by an internet service provider and so why does Twitter care about that we're a larger company now but we realize that without net neutrality principles it's very possible we could be on there today today we have a million tweets every two days and to give you a little snippet from our idea of action where we call on people to voice their concerns about the proposed rules the World Backup Rules by the FCC we saw 400 million tweets in 24 hours on net neutrality so not only is our platform net neutrality important to our platform but we were very happy that it's also facilitating this conversation an open conversation on this issue so we believe this is one of the most important free expression issues of our time again we're an open platform and we welcome and we encourage the free flow and open form of ideas and expression and as you guys know we have a hundred senators who are on our platform and almost every single house member is there so you guys understand the importance of your boss being able to get their message out to their constituents and without net neutrality that could be at risk we also care about net neutrality because it's so important to have enough growth as I talked about it's possible Twitter wouldn't be Twitter without net neutrality but the data and the amount of activity that our platforms are facilitating actually increase the increase the need for investment so it's a virtuous circle right we are creating more demand for the internet service provider product so I think that's something to think about when you're looking at all arguments in this debate and then finally one thing I want to hit on the aspect on our platform last I think that would be September now during the recent hurricanes we saw something that I was really just taken back by really moved by frankly when some of the traditional emergency service service providers and we back up so when hurricane hit east Texas you saw a situation in which 9-1-1 services weren't prepared to adequately handle the volume and so people turned to platforms like Twitter and Facebook to cry out for help and we essentially became a supplement to a specific infrastructure this is something we didn't anticipate but it happened and a group of ordinary citizens created a Google doc and they started cataloging all of these different requests for help and as a result we had to make between 5 and 10,000 people or rescue based on that operation which is a really moving thing to see happen but this happened organically this happened through these platforms so my point is you never know where the internet is going to foster something really important and without net neutrality a situation like this could have been stopped it could have been slowed down and lives might not have been saved so these are other considerations that I would encourage you to think about that are very important to it's a very important reason why we need to ensure strong net neutrality goals and I will kick it off to the next person Thanks Norm Next up is Rachel Wolbers Director of Engine which is a non-profit organization that advocates on behalf of start-ups on policy issues and promote start-up in your systems Previously she was one of the lead director of the launch of strategies which is a bipartisan all women and prior to that she was the e-Judiciary Committee for Portfolio LA for a long time throughout over three years so I'm somewhat new to this issue even though I've had the work before I'm going to be careful who is a Texas Republican member we have not really worked a lot on net neutrality issues until I started with Engine earlier this year and I admit that when I started with Engine I was a little skeptical that net neutrality was so important to start-ups and that we had this real need until I started speaking to start-ups all over the country but I'm from right around Michigan so I went home and talked to a lot of start-ups and I was going to ask them what are some policy issues we need to take care of how can we be helpful every single start-up I've talked to since I started with Engine there's the number one priority with net neutrality and it's been your eye on me for me so I've been thinking a lot and talking to them about how important to start-ups and it really is because the internet has tracks all of the different start-ups in our country and that is healthcare and cyber security and education and manufacturing they all have components of either things or data, major costs and platforms and their networks and so they understand how important it is to have this free flow over Michigan data so when you think about the net neutrality rules and why it's so important for these net neutrality rules particularly for small businesses I think first start-ups are really competing very fiercely for just the first chance with users and they rarely get a second chance so their content is long or broad and they're able to study the show an extra second is a load you are less likely to purchase something from the website or return to that website so it's middle of a second that start-ups really have to make their case and to get your business and your eyeballs and create new consumers so that's very important to them the other thing that that is a paid prioritization issue so start-ups start with $75,000 of investment capital that's usually a couple of friends and family so for a start-up to think that there might be new paid prioritizations schemes, we know that they really won't be able to afford an additional cost or added expense to their business and because they are many times competing with large companies and every dollar really matters and so the threat of paid prioritization it not only keeps them up at night but it also decreases investment investors do not want to invest in companies that their regulatory framework could change and so one of the great things about the open internet order was that it created bright line rules of the road that the investment increases certainty in the marketplace and allow all of our start-ups to compete on a level playing field I'm happy to help do any team around any of those three issues and we're just really excited to be here and be chatting with all of you guys great, thanks Rachel so next up is Chris Lewis he's the vice president here at Buffalo College where I work with the organization's advocacy and capital bill and other agencies prior to joining public knowledge he served at the FCC as deputy director of the office of legislative affairs where he advised the FCC chairman on a legislative and political strategy he also was a former senate staffer so he's back on the stopping grounds and he worked for the late senator Edward M. Kennedy and is over 15 years of political history I didn't want to be informal in Kennedy obviously thanks Bill that was really formal history but I worked for like 15 years I just wanted to say that because I think it's central to this issue and not only that but also far we as Americans having American citizens use all their services I use Twitter all the time Realtors essential to every community and you can go down the line and so there's a couple of reasons why I think consumers are so passionate on this issue that I just wanted to raise up and I'm interested in getting into that one most consumers when it comes to access to the internet have very few choices for ISPs for truly ISPs most consumers only have one choice for ISPs and there's some communities where they really don't have much of a choice at all for ISPs and it's not just the rural communities especially that but even in talk about what you hear about the choice that has to be brought in and so with that the incentive that those companies have to block from throttle or even have paid prioritization can really reduce consumers' choices online to consumers who want to be able to pay for the internet and then have access to the entire internet and choose to make their own choices as to what they see what services they use and that choice will be made for them because of a prioritization scheme or other efforts by the ISP to prefer oftentimes their own content because we've got over rivals and upstart so that's consumer choice issues really important to keep prices low and have the services that you use online and that is important to consumers as the cost of cable and other productivity goes up and services that you can access to online the cost for those services remains dependent and as low as possible the second reason I think is even more important than consumer choice and that's free movement expression which has been mentioned by some other panelists but I think it's essential to be concerned about the America because the internet is the two-way network and and when your speech is slow or degraded or discriminated against by gatekeeper ISP it really reduces the options you have to express yourself and that's important because broadband is essential for everyday life it's essential communications and in a number of ways we're talking about video and entertainment and that's fantastic we don't want to see discrimination we want choices for entertainment but when you think about essential things in your daily life your education that the services that students need online you want to have as many choices as possible you don't want to see a program as you're choosing what education services online are prioritized essential to your daily lives the same with access to jobs most people actually apply for jobs online and so how you apply for jobs is important and what services you choose to use to do that is important advocacy is huge whether you're on the left or the right people are using those like twitter to organize and to advocate they used to look at facebook to organize and advocate you should have the ability to say I don't want to change twitter or facebook to organize but to start their own or to use some other smaller competitor service that make you like their voice allows them to express themselves with their own voice that are unique to dependent voice in a way that's true to that so maybe twitter maybe something else to her competition more of those platforms allow those services online to those essential needs that the internet provides having to see an education challenge to proceed with healthcare and then of course on the entertainment side so that family service is essential to the internet, it's out of college and it has been developed and we don't want to see that change by seeing the new control back the last thing I'll say is I had a film production network at FCC so I've been around this issue for about three generations of the FCC looking at it and previous efforts have been important and should mention some of that but where we've all led up to the goals that we have today because we had to find a way of protecting those bodies of non-lawful, non-threatable paid privatization in a way that was legally sound and I'm so excited that we can hear more about this from our next panel that we've got to a point where these rules are are legally strong and they're popular and they're working and so we need to see in certain circumstances what's important and so that uncertainty has been put in place by the FCC looking to roll back the rules and so we encourage all of you to decide this and see how we can convince the FCC not to repeal or roll back the rules and it will change the way it will take away the fact that it will change the way that people act and move on from that and that would be great uncertainty for businesses but also for the use of services online Thanks Chris and last but not least is John Sound he's a senior fellow competitive foundation and a partner in the anti-trust competition and telecommunications internet media groups is mouthful since step 2 in Johnson previously and probably most famously he was the general counsel of the FCC and he led the FCC's defense of the 2015 open internet order most recently he was the deputy assistant attorney general in the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice and in the 90's he was in the Department of Commerce where he focused on technology policy Thanks very much Jesus so there's a joke that politicians chip probably used to joke and the joke that politicians think about is right last speaker at say a political dinner found a long line of speakers do you stand up and say we've come to the moment in the program where everything that could be said has been said but not by everybody so that's the position I find myself in I'm going to just make three points not a point you would have knew but just for emphasis one we should all understand that the 2015 order the order down in effect rests on a very strong legal foundation I argued the title to a question in the DC circuit and the challenge to that order and the commission wanted not because of my advocacy but because the commission was right when Congress amended communications law in 1996 and put in the definition of communication services and information services that's the technical question they made playing that they were embodying in the law a policy a policy to ensure that gain keeper control of telecommunications networks they not ford for distort competition in other markets in 1996 those other markets were AOL modals online services prodigy but critical is strong today one of them in addition the legal foundation is strong because the rules were based on facts that have only grown stronger than so my own view is that the substantial legal risk that attaches to it can overturn that order and one would expect to see litigation involved second point one of the discussions that happened a lot from 2015 order since is the so-called virtual service right so it's a very simple concept broadband providers may want to limit traffic to the broadband connections but that's not actually their own interest for anybody else's because the more traffic goes the more edge providers will create an unending traffic the more consumers want the traffic the more they will use broadband this will lead to more broadband investment now it's not hard to see why broadband companies might get this wrong as at the FCC we reviewed 3 big health emergencies that involve companies, remember the big broadband companies also are KTV providers I need to include a KTV broad in that description right so one solo was that there was a tremendous incentive and ability to worry about the broadband traffic even to curb it in order to protect the existing revenues of the video site virtual service is designed to make sure that doesn't happen but also make sure broadband companies are rewarded for the investment and the employment that they undertake in fact, I think it's better to say that in the summer of 2014 when the commission was deciding what moves to a doubt what was so of a poor Swiss where the people came in and said look, I'm thinking about investing in a startup and edge provider but it will kill that investment if I don't know if broadband providers are going to pick another company to be its favor to give it preferences and therefore the FCC worried that innovation from the edge would be lost and it worried, this is talking about this about speech the open internet neutrality is not only about economics it's also about modesty and diversity of views and ensuring that there are not gatekeepers operating broadband networks gatekeepers, I think particularly today plays a fundamental role in democracy third point people talk about antitrust well, who doesn't people talk about antitrust and ask whether antitrust isn't a full substitute for the rules so a couple of months ago the commission of McSweeney was very interested in whether or not that it was online through wire and look, she is an antitrust enforcer we're both alumni of justice departments antitrust and what we said was this look, we both strongly believe in antitrust enforcement is a very good thing but let's not misunderstand how it works and we went back to a case that Anthony Kennedy wrote to the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court reviewed the requirement that a cable system carry normal broadcasting and I want to just read you what he wrote he said, regulation would be preferred to antitrust because he said the quote considerable expense and delay inherent in antitrust communication is very easy to wealth and sophistication quote and that is between TV station and cable companies quote that is even more true here by an antitrust rule would say that a consumer for example would have to mount an antitrust challenge to private companies or persuade an antitrust enforcer with far too limited resources to bring in antitrust reasons and I can go into the doctrinal purposes of reasons but the fundamental point is it would tell consumers they had to bring to court very big private companies or force an investigation that led to a formal court action what commissioners weenie and I concluded was that after this kind of despair it helps demonstrate why the old internet rule made sense in 2015 made sense in 2017 and will make sense in the future there was a lot of detailed background helpful to sort of understand where we're coming from where we're going so we analysts mentioned the three broad line the locking rule the broad line rule the no game prioritization rule there's also a fourth set of rules there's a general product tool which gives the FCC some flexibility to audit threats to the open internet and anti-competitive behavior that might not have been contemplated by the three point high rules so this is kind of the only racial I wanted to picture bring on this you know there's a possibility and the general product standard was set up to address behavior that the internet provides if I'm a broadband provider I might have some business incentive to engage it but it might not be covered by the broad line rules is that a general product standard that gives the FCC that flexibility critical for mainstream businesses and for startups why is that important? I would say yes I think that the right way most important is just that essentially the answer is we like the way things are working today we think it's working well and there are rules that are established today and we want to see that one thing I would add is that as we're going forward I've started to be working with data revolutionizing the way that we are communicating with people five years from now is totally different from where we are today and so while there are these great bright line rules the way that the Internet of Things your peacemaker is going to communicate with your doctor and the way that your cars are going to be there's all these new forms of communications that are going to happen on the internet and so making sure that the FCC adapts to all of the new information that's happening that we see across the country and all of the states is really important to start us going forward Staying on the general funder tool very quickly Chip, I know that Encompass has been very active in the FCC and some of the comments that Encompass has emphasized are the importance of international policy which I think probably falls under the general conduct standard as well Can you sort of briefly explain what interconnection is why people why it's important and the role it plays with the important technology members So if you think about interconnection it is the front gate to the last one and the end user is the last one A lot of men neutrality are talking about making sure that the end user does not experience blocking or throttling or pay prioritization The reality is that most ISPs realize that that would be so unpopular that they don't want to really change or they fear the political backlash of changing the end user experience But at the front gate they would really like to make you the edge providers the streaming companies the realtors the businesses that are creating content and sending them over the background over the transport and transit When they get to that gate which is the equivalent if you think about Houston or New Orleans are the great important part of our country It's the point of entry to the market What they want to do is to charge tariffs, tolls access fees Well guess what if you charge at the front gate who pays for it at the back and if you charge one company one thing at the gate another company another thing it undermines and sympathizes the whole policy of an open internet So from our perspective interconnection supply equally and without discrimination from point of entry to the end user interconnection and art experience from all of competition loss at the heart of the 1996 act was interconnection wireless networks could connect with wire lines cable networks could connect with telephones and vice versa utility networks could connect competitive networks and back on could connect with each other We in the 1996 act as a nation said we no longer will have any monopolies and the solution in monopolies is to make all networks interconnect interconnection to the user is the continuation of one of the most successful policies economically in our country has ever known So if you hear anything about not addressing interconnection realize that without interconnection the whole policy you think that you want to achieve to the end user could be lost at the front gate Thank you, so Chris I'm going to throw to you for a second We've talked a lot about the benefits of the open internet whether it's free speech whether it's businesses trying to connect to consumers online or consumers controlling their internet experience Part of the 2015 order was reclassification of broadband to being a title 2 communication service Were there other benefits of that reclassification other than just net neutrality rules we've been talking about here because I know that the NTRM was adopted back in May and there was no reclassification of all the rules but the reclassification What were the benefits and what might be the implications That's a great question because we heard earlier from John about the strong legal footing that 2015 rules were on that legal footing is Title 2 of the Telecommunication Act and the FCC was really smart because of previous efforts to have open internet rules 2010 rules were physically thrown out because the court said if you want to have broadband and not broadband those are common carriers or Title 2 light protections and so if you do that you need to be classified as a Title 2 carrier and so the fact that 2015 rules were called the court reflecting that they followed the court's instructions with that the FCC was very careful to say Title 2 gets us not discrimination all these very net neutrality things but are there things in the Title 2 that should or should not apply to broadband and sometimes they said yes there are things in there that should not apply to broadband so they used their power and these rules will not apply to broadband sometimes they said there are certain rules in Title 2 that are important for communications networks and so we will not forbear from them think of things like universal service that helps us deploy broadband and ensure that everyone has a portal access to that content of Title 2 there were rules like if everyone remembers the environment privacy rules so controversial that was an instance when the FCC said we think privacy is important we don't want to apply the way that we applied it to telephone so they forbear from privacy rules that were for telephone and then created a proceeding to use Title 2 to create appropriate privacy rules for broadband and we were big supporters of that so there are a number of things that come with Title 2 that is beneficial for the broadband age and there are some that aren't and we're glad that we have an agency that could be nimble and be an expert and apply this naturally appropriately and and I think that's important that we talk to the general conduct rule it empowers the agency to use and they're actually using user nimble in a way that is helpful to consumers as technology changes so quickly and changes so rapidly so shifting a little bit to the 2017 NPRM which the FCC adopted in May John I wanted to throw it to you and ask you since you're the former general counsel of the agency can you explain what was in the 2017 NPRM what seems to be the innovating factors behind the analysis and the proposals in the NPRM and where are we in the process I would like to take a minute so we are in the process I just want to ask you the formal comment period has but as you see rules so-called ex-partments if you filed up until about 7 days before the actual open meeting and no open meeting is yet to be set on this so this is the moment in time when people who have used information data and analysis continue to give them to the FCC and the FCC will continue to take them into account now there's a lot in the engineering but I want to zero in on what I think is at the heart of it the I think it's paragraph number 6 I might know but the commission says it believes the title to presses investment by broadband companies in the NPRM it calls that a predictive judgment in the NPRM well there's two very important things I believe that are wrong about that first in the NPRM the free press has led the way in this analysis with just extraordinary extraordinary analysis of great depth there's actually no evidence that title to this cause the increase in broadband investment in fact before my chairman we were looking to speak to Chicago few weeks ago and with the aid of free press we'll have a statement that AT&T had made some years ago in a different setting saying you know you can't really judge much from the short-term shift in capital expenditure like you spend money getting in effect you don't need to spend more so I think the premise that we know that how to lose the press and the investment is wrong but second just as a foreman an open internet rule is not designed to protect any single user not broadband providers not edge providers no single industry it's intended to promote the public interest and the bipartisan consensus up until this year that the FCC should have enforceable mechanisms to keep the internet open I think has stood the test of time and should be maintained so it continues to meet the test thanks and I think jumping off of the point that John just made about investment I want to throw it to Lauren and Chip and Rachel and Melanie and to read the MPRM there's a lot of discussion about claims of investment by the largest internet service providers is that the only metric we should be paying attention to or is there other data points, other investment throughout the internet ecosystem that is relevant in this conversation we actually work with investors a lot we work with a lot of venture capital companies and firms and a lot of startups are seeking an additional round of investment and we have PCs great PCs and Cease Gleason's district actually came up and one of our clients had talked about how they were not considering investing in a number of content distribution platforms until after the open internet order passed and they felt like there were clear and predictable rules to invest in a number of small startups in Louisiana that were creating new ways to share video and to have streaming services which is a great startup that we work with in Grand Rapids, Michigan called Farsie News Network that has a platform for ice proplotic directors to upload content and do all sorts of interesting activities to promote what the ice proplotic department is doing and they said that they were only able to get their second series of investment after the open internet order passed knowing that the venture capital folks wanted to see that there would be these clear rules and obviously some of this is antidotal but I think it's important to a larger point that these clear rules have allowed venture capital firms to invest more in smaller companies who want to take on much bigger services they aspire to be the next few to and that's a great aspiration for them but the only way they can be able to do this is they can make sure that every dollar that they're spending is going towards their innovation and not for angels or being afforded by larger ice pieces who also want to get into the same market with their current land and all of this activity isn't happening within a sidewalk right think about Farsie News Network that Rachel talked about I'm sure they're probably looking at using Facebook and Twitter to direct traffic but some people might be getting these ads given kind of location and age I bought a pair of shoes off Instagram the other day right so this is a startup that sells shoes and the way that they're reaching their so they're a smaller startup reaching their customers through Instagram so think about all the different things that have to work in order to make that transaction happen I had to buy internet service and so did Rockies the shoe service that you get on Instagram which if Instagram had to start an era but had to start paying for fast lanes to get their customer to this startup who's selling shoes that could impede that ability what Rachel said if you have a scenario where it's taking too long to load an ad or a piece of content that could potentially prevent a sale and so there are a lot of different pieces here out play that a lot of people think about startups or make Facebook Google and put smaller Twitter and so these things all work together and so imagine the world in which you have to negotiate paid prioritization deals with all of these different components it would create market chaos as we look at investment there are layers and layers in investment as you look at the internet of things and how it emerges people are projecting trillions of dollars of value added to our economy we're moving into a world where everything will be network dependent used to we'd have one thing that would be network dependent upon and then it became data video and now it's going to be connected cars, all your appliances all your energy usage everything will be network dependent well what happens if you lose and open internet protections and it is the biggest internet companies and ISP providers reaching agreements that shut out the startups and the competitive environment that we have today along all things that are all network dependent so you could go to the real estate market on Main Street to selling shoes I don't know if y'all ever watched Omeguard TV but my hometown was discovered on the Facebook side and now they have a show called Not All Town and they're fixing up homes that are bringing new homes families and downtown this small town is being restored and so you have an example of in Mississippi of the internet bringing investment that no one could have understood the software design and the internet of things their Netflix two years ago before the war was the dominant was being held up a hostage y'all remember John Oliver when he did his talk one night and he had the buffering of Netflix well that was at the point of the introduction these rules ended and if you talk to at least today they're investing billions of dollars whether it is Netflix or Amazon or Facebook or Apple and new content all of that is because they know that they have access without being held up at the front or the back gates of the internet and the gates are open commerce is open and it doesn't matter if you're a startup or a big one and that is the beauty of an open internet the current rules and how they're driving innovation and investment across all sectors and in all places and then lastly on the consideration that the SEC is giving to investment Chris is there has there been any consideration that you're aware of of the user experience of consumer experiences it's just all focused on what big companies are you talking about current proceeding we've largely seen the argument that the current SEC is making pro-mortem that's their central argument and I think that's because it was said earlier that just how popular the rules are only in DC where you have large specialists that are lobbying is this controversial we have rules that protect the old but on a by-marsal basis as we said earlier the rules are popular we want to maintain these protections and since having current rules under title 2 is the strongest way to go on to have these connections it's why so many folks are passionate about Q and then the last question I had before I'll throw it open to the floor for a couple of audience questions and I can remiss we're here with the Russell office building every time I open up the hill I see an op-ed talking about legislation on the neutrality and so I'll start with the ship since he's already got a new board of managers and former legislator is this an issue that is going to be solved by legislation or is it something that the FCC is going to do what would that look like if it was possible being from a congressional background I would like to see the institution that I love actually set policy and to make it permanent and so it is possible and I think that there is a way that agreement that would preserve every single protection in the 2015 order that the right line rules and other side bearing connection and a good general conduct rule if all of those protections are there I think there is a willingness from many to come to the table and find a permanent solution it would have to be the same protections permanently protected by a congressional law and statute I think you can find an agreement if they were to enshrine what the 2015 order did anybody else want to jump in on it I can just say as a republic I've worked on this issue for a few years now when I started working on net neutrality it was a very important issue I did as Chip mentioned it used to not be and so I'm really encouraged by the conversations that we're having with members I think the narrative has also changed to where people generally agree in these parts we know they agree with them they want a free-open internet in the rest of the world but here in Washington you can see members of Congress on the republic talking about the importance of an open internet so I think we're a lot closer to where we used to be and I just really encourage and I hope we will continue to have productive conversations so I probably do not have a positive view I think for everyone to be saying it's possible but what discourages me are a few things one the movement of the FCC to go back to these models is coming up so heavily and in their perspective in December that if they do not have these protections they will go away and there's no sign so the second part is there's been no sign that IC is positive that Congress isn't taking any steps to fix that and that is exactly six or seven years to write this is why you have an expert agency that creates rules like they did in 2015 because if you want to try and limit the law Congress takes a long time to do it and so while it's encouraging I agree to hear so many folks on the left and the right and not more capital saying that preserving open internet is important I get concerned when I see commercial hearings that are called like they were in the house that only invite big companies big ISPs and big tech companies and don't invite small startups or main street groups or consumers to the table to be a part of the conversation that's not the right way to protect something that's important to all of us and then that hearing didn't happen so we haven't seen we haven't seen any legislation that protects open internet in the way that the 2015 rules do and then don't limit the power of the SEC to do its job because of the agency and to be proactive and nimble with policy in the way that Congress can and so that's why I'm discouraged even though it's really possible I think the most important thing right now given the policies that are on the Hill is that we stop the SEC because they will be without protections and let me just add I share this agreement if the SEC actually rolls back we'll be left with no protections and then when John is playing out the legal case of the litigation and the uncertainty that would follow for years would be bad for everyone so it'd be better to keep what is working which is the current set of rules if there is one day of consensus to move politically on a bipartisan basis legislatively and with a process that would be ideal because I don't know if we're there yet we do know that the current rules are working and those should be maintained preserved and protected until we do have a consensus to do something in Congress so we've got a few minutes left I've got a microphone in the back so does anybody have a question that they want to test in the back over there come up here and if you can just identify yourself that would be helpful my name is Monica Dorre Hi I work for about 7 years with the President of the Bank for over solving and I have a PhD in anti-fraud and anti-corruption and I was just speaking about this yesterday I'm one of the internet hack people my case is the recorder with the federal communications community and with the security and exchange commission again federal communications and my name completely vanished from the internet I have a degree from Harvard this is nowhere I have a degree from Michigan State nowhere, Duke, nowhere all my information vanished and I was an international regulator and it's even three months ago there's no change if you post anything online there's nothing I know there is an issue of too much but my name has that aspect to it so that's my heritage and it's still open the internet doesn't generate anything of my name does anyone have a a response I don't know if that's something to call me but I know about knowledge and a lot of us we work on a broad range of broad band issues because while identity is at the core of the internet to keep it open and allow folks to express themselves online as soon as they see fit there are other concerns out there even see folks start talking about a large so there's a lot of questions out there I don't know what would make someone's name disappear from the internet but I think having a built-in internet does ensure that you have multiple allies to choose from to publish and put yourself out there online and without it would be much more difficult and there was a gentleman here I'm making a one of our people my name is Sean Davis I'm an open internet fellow with the Center for Development and College and my question was since the commentary period has closed what are some steps that every day citizen can take to help combat or fight against the whole back of the internet traffic we're going to tweet the answers are at the Isangible to Congress so it's clear that members of Congress are concerned about the direction of the rules if you know let's say you're more optimistic about legislation if it makes sense to have it slow down and stop what it's doing so that if there was interest in having legislation that could take form but I think the biggest threat is to have the rules asking members of Congress to stop what it's doing is probably the best thing to do right now and then there could be time to look at just how great the internet is working right now under the current rules which we're concerned is getting lost in the discussion of the FCC we've got a chairman to do as well as some of the views that are coming in from millions of Americans I think that's sorry one more over there and then we will wrap up Hi, I'm Ashley Gold, I'm a political you guys seem to think there wasn't really much momentum towards a legislative solution right now towards the end of the summer leading up to Congress might be back in session after August recess there was going to be hearing with the House Congress Committee I know some people even on this panel were invited to come in and hear do you know if that's what's going to happen or if that's still a possibility you know at this point there were differences in discussions it is wrong to why it doesn't mean that there's not a willingness by all parties to try to find a reason but at least at this point there's no further action in those early discussions and just to quickly chime in and wrap up I think one of the reasons why you've seen that process disappear at any moment post-office generating towards that process disappear none of the posts on this panel were actually invited none of the organizations there are no organizations in the organization startups, consumer and public interest groups or businesses competitive providers companies as large as you know as Twitter none of us were invited so that's sort of shows how serious that process was so I probably overstepped my doubts there so that's all I don't want to impose on our panels but if folks have any questions we might be able to stick around if folks want to stay around and talk otherwise thank you very much for coming this was all we're going to do is find lots of information about that on our website but again thank you for coming


Mount Ola, Mississippi, going to barely 900 people in a town so small, you would never think it could produce something so big. That is until Steve McNair arrived. McNair was a standout quarterback in high school where his supernatural skills earned him the nickname Air. He then blazed the trailer to HBCU, Alcorn State, where Air landed on everyone's radar. McNair was the swank player of the year four times, and after gaining 6,281 yards in senior season he became the first and only high smith finalist from HBCU. McNair was drafted third overall by the Houston Orders in 1995, making him the first black quarterback to be selected that high in the draft. Air continued to soar past expectations with the Tennessee Titans, becoming the first black quarterback to take home MVP hardware in 2003 and coming within inches of taking home the game's most important trophy. To this day, he's your franchise only Super Bowl apparent. Of course, a guy named Air would throw it deep, but he was never afraid to ramp past you. Between 1995 and 2005, McNair was the only player in the NFL with at least 25,000 passing yards and at least 2,500 rushing yards. McNair is second only to the great Warren Moon in yards passing their franchise history, and the Titans are the only NFL team with a pair of black quarterbacks at the top of their passing list. From humble beginnings to the most wins as a starting QB in team history, Air McNair's legacy will forever fly amongst the greats in Tennessee and help forge a path for black quarterbacks everywhere.