 So usually I start these introductory remarks with something like I'm so thrilled you all are here And of course, I'm grateful that you are spending the morning at our event today But like many of you I'm maybe a little bit weary of this topic So the topic net neutrality it is nonetheless an important one and we have a really stellar lineup for our conversation today And so for that I am very excited So I'm Sarah Morris senior counsel and director of open Internet policy for new America's open technology Institute New America is a non-partisan think tank and civic enterprise dedicated to the renewal of American politics prosperity and purpose in the digital age Our experts here work on a wide range of issues from national security to the work family balance and of course technology and telecom policy The open technology Institute works at the intersection of technology and policy to ensure that every community has equitable access to digital technology and its benefits We promote universal access to communications technologies that are both open and secure using a multi-disciplinary Approach that begin that brings together advocates researchers organizers and innovators And I'm very honored today to introduce you to our keynote guest ranking member Frank Pallone After spending many years working on telecommunications issues on the energy and commerce committee Frank Pallone Jr. Took over as the top Democrat in 2015 In that time he has endeavored to make consumers voices heard in important policy debates here in Washington and The ranking member has quite a track record on communications issues He has delivered a number of policy speeches on subjects ranging from media issues to emergency response and communications resiliency He is the author of the Sandy Act a bill that would help ensure our communications networks Remain operational during national disasters and was also Instrumental in brokering a deal between the vast majority of wireless carriers last year to allow carriers to roam onto each other's networks during natural disasters Giving Americans the ability to call 911 even if their wireless services down Mr. Pallone also authored the viewer protection act to ensure that viewers don't lose their over-the-air television as a result of the FCC's recently completed incentive auction and He was one of the principal members of the encryption working group Which last year found that any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest Most recently ranking member Pallone laid out a three-part technology policy strategy focusing on security opportunity and connectivity This past March He and Democratic members of his committee rolled out a suite of 13 bills breathing life into that strategy and proposing fresh Ideas to address some of the most pressing technological issues of today and among those most pressing issues is net neutrality and the recently announced plans to undo the 2015 Open Internet rules Ranking member Pallone is a critical ally in the fight for strong net neutrality Protections and we're so pleased to have him here today to share his thoughts on why those protections are critical to a vibrant online Ecosystem and he'll be joined Following his presentation. He'll join our panel discussion following those remarks and before I welcome up to the podium I'm just gonna cover a couple quick housekeeping things We are live streaming the event today and tweeting so please join us with the hashtag fight for an end whether you're joining us here in the room or online and Rankin ranking member Pallone will unfortunately have to duck out a little bit early But never fear we will pause for a moment before he has to depart to take a question or two from the audience and His chief counsel David Goldman has graciously agreed to step in on his behalf for the second half of the panel And then we will take obviously open up for audience questions at the end of the panel discussion And so with that I will welcome ranking member Pallone to the stage Thank you Sarah for that kind introduction and and also want to thank the Open Technology Institute for inviting me here today The Institute has been an important source of data-driven research on some of the most important issues we face today Issues like privacy cyber security and broadband access. So I want to thank you all for the work that you do here I obviously am here because I want to talk about net neutrality and I want to talk about it because it's an issue that I think is critical to both our economy as well as our democracy Last week as you know the the chairman of the FCC pie with the backing of the Republican leadership in Congress Proposed a plan to do what I say is ignore the will of the American people and kill net neutrality and I think the plan is clear sabotage net neutrality By kicking the legal legs out from under it And I believe very strongly we can't let this happen and that we all have to do whatever we can to stop chairman pie From accomplishing that goal Now at the most basic level net neutrality means that we the people can decide for ourselves What we do online? We decide which videos we watch which sites we read and which services we use and nobody gets to influence that choice Not the government not the companies that run the networks and that's how the internet in the US has always been operated And that's how it should be operated in my opinion If the Washington Republicans have their way the consequences will be severe Their plan will have a chilling influence on our democracy It'll cut away at our connections with each other and limit economic opportunities for the future and I'm not sure That the Congressional Republicans behind these plans really understand how important the internet is today For example, one of my colleagues from Wisconsin Representative Jim Sensenbrenner was asked at a recent town hall Meeting why he voted to eliminate our internet privacy protections She was done as you know a few weeks ago with the FCC privacy rules and he didn't seem very sympathetic He told his constituents at the town meeting and now I'm quoting Nobody's got to use the internet. Well, I I can't believe he's serious about that This we all know how important it is for people to use the internet and how Difficult it is and how to get through life if you don't use it And I'm afraid that that's the same kind of thinking that's driving Chairman Pi that it somehow It's not necessary to use the internet now I wanted to start by talking about what I consider Probably the most important, you know, there's the Democratic aspect of this and that is the economic aspect of this their course are interrelated But in many ways, I think that the issue of free speech is the most important because that's basic to our Democracy and our American values and it's not partisan. It's not political in my opinion As we know the internet is home to some of the most important conversations taking place today The dialogue that happens online is in my opinion critical to our democracy for for example The organization or the organizing behind black lives matter or the women's March where they these were inspirational But this kind of active activism is not limited to the political left You have important conversations on all both sides of the on the right and the left But these conversations today often take root and grow to prominence online Even the president even President Trump was able to energize his followers by using online online platforms in new ways and That's because the the internet is the tool that we use to reach across Geographic and social boundaries to find people we agree with or people that we don't agree with Conversations that start small can quickly grow into important forces of change in national politics This is what grassroots is all about But now I think the problem is that Republicans in Washington want to jeopardize the fundamental freedoms that we enjoy by using an Open internet without the FCC's net neutrality rules in my opinion large corporate interests can begin to choke off Conversations they don't like and they can speed up the ones that they do and if you think that this threat isn't real Let me give you an example that the conglomerates that own network infrastructure Are increasingly purchasing content like news outlets, correct? And the Trump administration is signal that it's going to allow even more consolidation So that means that companies that connect us to the internet have financial incentives to give preference to the shows They like to the content they like the websites They run the news that they report and I think the consequence of that is that independent voices Those outside the mainstream may be most at risk simply because they don't have an affiliation with the companies that run the internet Unfortunately, the broadband companies have more than just financial reasons to choke off independent content It can also be political Under chairman pies plan nothing stop those in power from pushing broadband companies to censor dissenting voices or Unpopular opinions even large companies may feel pressure to please those in power out of fears of reprisal And again if I can use an example many of you remember I guess it was about a year ago that we had the debate on the floor about gun safety We had the sit-in that was sponsored by John Lewis a hero of the civil rights movement and You know the Republicans use the house rules essentially To stop the debate. I joined many of my Democratic colleagues in the sit-in on the floor We were protesting Congress and inability to pass any kind of meaningful gun safety legislation But the Republican leadership cut off the cameras that provide the video for the cable TV They tried to disconnect us in a sense from the American people But because of the power of the free and open internet We were able to break through in a move that would have been impossible just a few years ago We streamed our own protests alive and online now imagine the same situation without Strong net neutrality protections the Republican majority that killed the video on TV could now pressure broadband companies to block our video Online to and they might succeed because the companies who control the networks would be caught in the middle They wouldn't have they'd have to make a decision without having any real legal protections And so the same people who showed off these cameras in my opinion are cheering chairman Pye's proposal to take away our Open internet. I think it's important that we fight to make sure that doesn't happen Because again, it's a threat to free speech. It's a threat to our democracy is the threat It's a threat to what we believe in as Americans. So that's the free speech Democratic component the most important but secondly is the issue of economic opportunity and jobs Because I think that neutrality deals obviously with that as well It's critical to economic prosperity and to economic opportunity if you want to get a job today People need to be online when I talk to my kids. We're looking for a job, you know, they're on the internet They don't you know, I hate to say but they're not necessarily reading a hard copy newspaper like You know some of the older people like myself do By the end of president Obama's term almost half of new start startups were sprouting in regions outside the top 35 metro areas so This isn't just an issue of getting a job It's the issue of whether or not startups and our ability as a country to continue to generate a lot of startups And the most startups is going to be in jeopardy Because it's not only that the internet is creating a job opportunity. It's allowing the startups and the small businesses to to flourish The jobs that today are either online or can be found online with a working broadband connection Anyone can work from home sell their own products online connect with companies a world away The internet is essential for training and applying for new jobs, but let me just give you an example I think that Julie is here. Where is Julie? She's over here Julie is is with Etsy and Etsy joined the internet Association, I think they've done this in other In a with other congressman, but a couple months ago We went to Asbury Park, New Jersey famous because of music Bruce Springsteen and so many other things and but Asbury Park 2030 years ago was kind of dead All of a sudden in the last 20 years has been totally revitalized And so we went with the internet association to highlight how Asbury Park's Revitalization it's a small town less than 20,000 people how Asbury Park's revitalization was linked To the internet and we saw people running small businesses Everyone we visited every business we visited said they needed broadband so they could do what they do And these people who we were talking to an Asbury Park store started small businesses That not only helped them, but you know create and make a profit But also created a lot of jobs for the people that worked for them or to were dealt with them And it wasn't just tech entrepreneurs too. I want to stress that we had we went to a bakery Julie We went to a bike shop Anyone with a new idea could basically start their own business and succeed by going online And one of the places we visited was I guess what you call an incubator in other words This was a place that started I Don't know about a decade ago, and you know they had everything you could go and rent a desk You could rent a small booth or if you really grew up you could rent an office, right? Or maybe then eventually move out of the incubator and have your own office But when they started ten years ago with this incubator, they only had ten members now they have more than eleven hundred members in a place as small as Asbury Park and They made it quite clear that that wasn't going to happen without a free and open internet But again, it's not its access and it's also speed these entrepreneurs need access to the same internet at the same speeds as The large corporate inches I've heard some people in Washington and including my own colleague Marsha Blackburn Who's the chairman of our subcommittee suggests that big business should be allowed to pay their customers broadband providers? To speed up their content and some people call this paid prioritization others call it pay-for-play Fast lanes. I think that's a bad idea The internet has been such a powerful tool precisely because the small businesses in Asbury Park and have websites as powerful as the world's largest Corporations the only limits on this are their own imaginations not their bank accounts And once they pay to plug into the web They're free to compete with anyone and that's how the internet has always kept course from new businesses so low and created the Competition sometimes I think that those who are against net neutrality Somehow suggests that they're the capitalists. They're the ones that are creating competition. They're the ones that are creating New businesses. It's just the opposite the competition comes because of net neutrality The opposite side are the monopolistic ones. They're the ones that are trying to create a monopoly and trying to You know control everything so that competition doesn't exist So, you know, we have the broadband providers who want to charge extra for fast lanes or other advantages to access their subscribers Just imagine for a moment that you're comparing services from two different companies One a well-established company with a lot of money and the other a new service that is just trying to get off the ground If the well-established company pays you ISP extra your ISP extra its site will be a lot faster And think about it if you're a potential customer deciding which website to visit or app to be to download Which would you choose and the fast one of the slow and personally I have no Patience so I know where I'd end up but real net neutrality rules stop this from happening and chairman pie's proposal does not His proposal will put a new hurdle in front of new and aspiring entrepreneurs like the ones in Asbury Park and Too many of them that will be one obstacle too many and they just won't exist anymore So I don't want to be to I don't want anybody to be fooled by those who say that they support an open internet But they also want fast lanes. That's not net neutrality if they get that way They would tear the internet into a fast version for those with deep pockets and a second-class internet for everyone else And so I keep asking myself. How is that good for the people of Asbury Park? How's that good for any small community without net neutrality? They won't stand a chance and we'll all suffer for it And I honestly believe Julie that the things that not only to put you on the spot But you know when I think that was there that day that if it wasn't for an open internet We wouldn't see what's happening in Asbury Park and the revitalization Because I think that innovative startups of today and tomorrow are going to simply disappear Because they won't be able to compete with the big ride with the big guys So that's why we can't let this happen. We have to keep the power with the people not the big corporations We can't let them kill net neutrality now. The last thing I wanted to talk about is what we can do to save our internet Fortunately, we know The oppositions playbook they have no problem getting rid of critical consumer protections in order to give huge handouts to large corporations And I wanted to I want to also put this and I know this is probably not what you want to hear but I want to put this in the context of what I see the Trump administration doing in the first hundred days because if you remember when President I'm being totally political now when President Trump and partisan when President Trump ran The reason I believe he got elected is because he basically said I'm gonna look out for the little guy And I'm gonna fight your battles against the big corporate interests Wall Street, you know, whatever it is But I think in the first hundred days, we're seeing just the opposite We're getting rid of every consumer protection ever privacy protection every health protection every environmental protection The first thing of course was to get rid of so many environmental protections with the various executive orders and the Congress and the CRA's then of course was the ACA. They're still at it You know, I'm gonna leave here and the question is whether they're gonna, you know repeal the ACA tomorrow Hopefully the Senate Won't go along with it, but we keep hearing this idea of repeal and replace with the ACA with the FCC privacy now with net neutrality and we have as Democrats We have no reason to believe that there's going to be any replace for the repeal Okay, because I know everybody's saying to me. Well, what is it Matt is saying? Well? What does it matter? You know, this is what some of the Republicans say including my chairman of my committee They say well, what's the difference? We still believe in net neutrality. We just don't like the FCC doing this We're gonna do it through legislation Understand I have no reason to believe nor does anybody else in my party that that's gonna happen We have no reason to believe that you're gonna repeal the ACA and replace it with something That's just as good no reason to believe you're gonna repeal the privacy protections that the FCC put in place and they're Gonna be replaced with something that's protected no reason to believe that if you repeal net neutrality That there's gonna be legislation. It's gonna effectuate the same. We just don't buy it so I Think that's you know, I want to get I kind of want to get that across because if you listen to pie what he says is Well, we have a better way of accomplishing the same thing Although lately hasn't even been saying that much, but some of the Republicans say that back in the House of Representatives I'm a practical person if we are able to get net neutrality through the FCC's action And the court has fully affirmed that, you know Both at the district level the court appeals level and most recently the court of appeals on bonk have said this is the law All right, FCC did it. This is the law Well, I have no reason from her practical point of view because I'm not an ideologue and saying well Well, we're gonna do it a different way That doesn't make sense. I mean, it's almost laughable from the point of view of the people and the public that are concerned about net neutrality so you know The way that this sort of Eliminating the legal underpinnings of net neutrality and you know using a sort of legal ease to justify it In my opinion is just nonsense the other thing that bothered me greatly and again This is maybe sort of a bureaucratic thing But it did was that you know after the FCC After they did the CRA on the floor on the FCC privacy provisions a couple days later Spicer was asked at a press conference about it and he said oh, don't worry We got rid of the privacy provisions and the next thing the president the president is gonna do is get rid of net neutrality Well, I don't know but you know again, maybe these are the niceties I don't remember. I always thought the FCC was supposed to be an independent commission I didn't know that the president's spokesperson was gonna say that the president was gonna eliminate net neutrality and then tell the FCC to do Was bidding I guess the so-called independence of the FCC or the notion that somehow they relate to Congress is just you know totally out the window, but Again, the truth is that chairman pies position has been remarkably consistent two years ago He said net neutrality was a solution in search of a problem two months ago He said net neutrality's days were numbered seven days ago. He announced his plans to kill it In fact his draft proposal suggests that the FCC shouldn't even enforce the basic bright line protections like no blocking He asked whether he should Allow loopholes like paid prioritization and exemptions from data caps for favorite content and and quite simply This is not net neutrality these loopholes in my in my opinion all come under the rubric of net neutrality But and I know I'm being very critical of pie We're actually gonna see him this afternoon. He's gonna be up on the hill But this is the first time a chairman of the FCC Democratic Republican has ever suggested that his own agency shouldn't have any part in enforcing these basic rights I think it's a dramatic turn for the worst from the successful history of the internet And the truth is that the opponents of net neutrality know that their proposal is going to be unpopular They know who it harms and that's why they're jamming it through before they have five commissioners That's why they're telling people they can only weigh in during a short window in the middle of the summer When students small business owners and everyday Americans are often away, but it no matter The bottom line is that you know the House Republicans still support this The chair chairman Weldon supports it last Congress He circulated a bill that would that with more loopholes than protections in my opinion and of course, you know Marsha Blackburn is even more blunt in saying that She told Breitbart news that she wants chairman pie to eliminate net neutrality So I guess there's no news here The only thing that I want to stress in conclusion is that You know, we're tired of this issue becoming a political football We want Chairman a part of withdraw his proposal And we're gonna do whatever we can to fight this No one believed we could stop the the ACA repeal I still think we can a lot of it is grassroots and Basically, you know stoking the grassroots and the American people four million people Spoken favor of net neutrality when the FCC first proposed it So I just want you to do whatever you can talk to your friends even those with different political beliefs Talk to your parents or grandparents or neighbors who maybe don't understand this issue educate them The public outcry can work it has saved the open internet before tell everyone to make some noise That's what John Lewis said on the floor of the house during the Gun safety debate make some noise a right to the FCC call your representatives in Congress Go to the town halls and I think it will make a difference because I know that the path for victory is uphill We can't win this battle alone But when we come to that together we can still stop the money to interest here in Washington I've seen it many times a lot of people think well the big corporations and money interests always win That's not true, and it doesn't have to be true in this case, but it's important not only Because not because we dislike the money dintris, but because we believe in capitalism and competition We believe in democracy, and if you're truly American and care about the country and its democracy and the bill of rights and Capitalism and competition you should be on the side of net neutrality. Thank you very much I'm the Stella here at New America until recently. I was director of digital economy in the Commerce Department and Many thanks to the congressman. Thanks to all of you for being here. We're joined today by a stellar group of experts on this issue and I'll introduce them quickly and say a little short program note to the congressman's left Carmen scurrata, who is the scurrata, sorry, who is the Policy and legal affairs director at the national Hispanic media coalition To her left is Sarah Morris who's director of the open internet director for open internet policy at New America's open technology Institute you heard from her earlier and Julie Steitzel who's the senior manager for federal advocacy and policy at Etsy And you heard her referenced earlier, so thank you all for joining us and of course we're joined on the panel for a little while By the ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee and as a central Jersey boy I'm delighted to be here next to you and of course we are really grateful for your leadership on this issue We're gonna do a little bit of question and answer up here From here from our panel that will do two rounds from the audience because the congressman needs to leave around 1145 So we want to get him out and give you a chance to ask him some questions first but why don't I start start with our panel and You know, we've gone through a half an hour of conversation about net neutrality and nobody's used the words groundhog day There is an element of this that we've seen before but there's an element of it that we haven't and some of it's laid Out by the congressman in the sense of what is really at stake now And maybe you could just give us your one or two minute view from your own perspective about you know What is important about this issue? And why is it important now Carmen? Do you want to kick us off? Sure? So the National Hispanic media coalition is a media advocacy and civil rights organization for the advancement of Latinos And one of the things that we've done over our 30-year history is to advocate for media that is fair and inclusive of Latinos But what's still true today is that we're misrepresented and underrepresented by traditional media outlets So we see the open internet as critical to telling our own stories Organizing and communicating without being blocked by these powerful gatekeepers Sure, I mean the internet is so foundational to every aspect of our lives and increasingly so more and more commerce is moving online It's difficult to be a retailer these days without an online presence our education system is is Increasingly relying on internet access both at schools and at home We are using the internet to organize to communicate to Understand what's going on in the world and there has never been a More critical time for keeping that internet the internet open as a platform for Access to to all the content that it has to offer And I think you know and I expect as Julie will talk about that the internet is also this incredible platform Right, so it's important for for just us in our everyday lives, but it's also important as a component of this great ecosystem where small businesses can grow into giant household names and You know anyone with with a computer can open an Etsy shop for example, and so All of this speaks to the the ever-increasing need for for net neutrality And internet openness to be the guiding principles of the internet, but also for strong rules that ensure that that happens We are a global platform that provides services markets and economic opportunity for creative entrepreneurs around the world We have 1.7 million sellers in the u.s. 87 percent of those sellers are women 77 percent are businesses of one 97 percent run their businesses out of their homes So the internet is a critical piece of to the success of their business 30 percent of our sellers are located in rural areas When we think about net neutrality, it's not a political issue for us. It's a business issue because our Sellers understand that time matters and it's not just what we think It's what we know from research that we've seen from Google and Amazon seconds when you're talking about online transactions Matter and so when we talk about net neutrality when we talk about The speed of those transactions and how important it is for our online sellers Around the world, but also in the United States who by the way represent the political ideology as a whole It's not a republican or or democratic issue for us It's a critical piece for our sellers to start and scale their businesses in the u.s And it's appropriate that we're talking about that today because it's small business week Well, maybe we can go down on that piece of it a little there's two components of it one that the congressman mentioned one is the Economic side one is the sort of the democracy side on the economic side, you know There was a letter recently from 800 small businesses What do you think that small businesses to the congress and to the FCC basically saying in defense of the open Internet in Front of net neutrality. I guess the question is why do they care so much? You know why and do they do you think that small businesses get it? What's the message that we need to send the small business to your sellers? Yeah I think they absolutely get it and they got it in 2015. It was what galvanized or so I mean on our on my best days at Etsy I get to spend time with Etsy sellers and you'll notice a few things about them immediately They're super smart. They're very savvy and they have very limited time But they will take the time to weigh in on this issue as they did in 2015 This year again if it need be because it they recognize the impact for their business On the democracy side, you know and the question for you Carmen and for anybody else like How in what ways is this a civil rights issue? I mean why are communities of color particularly interested in this issue? I think it's because we are Misrepresented and underrepresented in the media and so we see this openness of this of the Internet as the way that we could communicate across geographical lines and That's you know using just Twitter to organize. It's just it lowers these barriers of entry and We can just we can communicate and we can tell our stories from our own words And that is just very critical in this movement, you know if you think about is very parks I already still go back to the edge of it because people you know think of it as the music capital which it is But you know 20 30 years ago It was destitute right the business aspect of the city and it's a city That's about you know, that's a majority African-American also has a huge Hispanic population But you know if you were going to start doing things you didn't have any Cash, you didn't have any you know money much money to invest and and you were maybe Renting in a place that was you know dilapidated and you probably had to spend a lot of money just to fix it up and get Going, you know, so I mean it that's why I think when you see that's why I think as great was such a perfect example because Some of these businesses are minority owned Some many of them were people that had very little in the way of assets or capital to make investments And so you know that it's that this is why the open Internet is so important They can't afford to pay more, you know You're running your business on the margins every dollar counts So it just that the net neutrality rules that are in place level the playing field 32% of our sellers do their creative business full-time and for the rest of them They supplement roughly 15% of their household income with what they make on Etsy So those dollars matter to the micro businesses the 1.7 million But again the capitalist aspect because nobody's given anybody a Handout right this isn't the government giving you something applying for a grant right this is just your you know You're used you're being an innovative capitalist. That's why you know, it's really sort of the ultimate in competition and capitalism One or two political questions since we're here and we have the congressman You know legislation has been raised as you know, some are saying legislation is the right answer You know, this is that's what we really ought to do. Why isn't legislation the right answer right now? Nobody nobody in our side out leaves Any of this okay? I mean look let's say it was a year or two ago. You might say oh, okay You know, I'll entertain that possibility But it makes no sense now first of all because the FCC has put this in place and the courts have already upheld it Okay, so if I care about net neutrality. It's the law. I have no interest in in in you know Repealing it and hoping that at some point the Republicans are gonna get together and do something positive And why should I believe they're gonna do anything positive? I mean, you know President Trump and the Republican leadership Literally right now are telling everyone that their Replacement for the ACA repeal is going to guarantee everybody health insurance same quality Same benefits, but if you look at the bill, it's a total lie They've eliminated the essential benefits package CBO says that more fewer people are gonna have insurance After the repeal and so-called replacement then had it before the ACA I mean you'd have to be a fool to think that they're gonna actually legislate something That's gonna be anywhere near as protective. I mean, I I wasn't born yesterday. I look at the reality. It's just the reality There I am I'm old enough To remember a time when this issue was actually not a hyperpartisan issue right and there are Conservatives in the world who care a lot about competition. What is the what do you all think is the best argument? What do you say to your colleagues? Who are conservative about why they should support an open internet? Does it need to be a partisan issue? No, I mean I mentioned, you know Marsha Blackburn being on Breitbart and saying that You know that she wants to eliminate net neutrality if I were Marsha Blackburn I'd be worried that somebody might get rid of Breitbart and not allow access to it because after all Breitbart gets a lot of criticism by me By the comedians late night. I mean at some point, you know, you might have a liberal CEO of one of the Providers that said I don't want to carry Breitbart to me if I was a right-wing conservative I'd be more concerned than ever about shutting it down. Okay. No to any Duly noted. I know that the congressman has to leave in a couple minutes So why don't we open it up for a quick first round of questions from the audience? I don't know if we have mics here yet, but why don't you go ahead this gentleman right here in the front or in the second round here? All right, Warren Codes This interesting and important conversation wouldn't be as interesting if there weren't contrary views. So let me make my contribution Net neutrality Covers a lot of different things and they're all getting smished together here one commissioner Pi is Proposing to go back to the way things were two or three years ago. I don't remember them being so terrible then To I'm totally with the congressman with regard to the political aspects defending free free speech Competition those I agree with all of that is being very important on the business side I'm an economist and as an economist any time You don't pay the marginal cost of delivering what you're getting Resources are misallocated The outcome is from an economic point of view not as good as it might otherwise be so that aspect I think this is the the fast lane and some other things There are providers like skype. I may be out of date here, but that gobble up huge amounts of capacity And if they don't pay more for that they have no financial incentive to program their service in a way That's more economical. So so okay. Yeah, why don't we pause there are two good questions about why you know Sort of why can't we go back to the way it was a couple years ago and and also the economic piece of this any takers Straightforward answer to the question of why can't we go back to where things were two years ago? So because the DC circuit said we couldn't use that approach I mean taking away title to effectively undo the entire base that legal basis for for the net neutrality The legal basis of the DC circuit has subsequently found to be sound even after petitions for reconsidering for rehearing And so, you know, there is this this isn't the same legal ecosystem that we were in three years ago And so in order to do To implement net neutrality rules that are real we need title to and and to be clear. We already have those rules in place Well, I mean on your Skype thing. I mean look there's always gonna be you always have to weigh things I guess what we're saying, you know, what I'm saying is that I think Because of the benefits of the open internet in my opinion outweigh, you know, the concerns you Express with regard to Skype and the possibility that you know, there's not as much money for certain things I just think it you know, just you just have to weigh the two and the open internet I think is more important And since we do like facts here, I'll just say quick quick factual point. Skype does of course pay for bandwidth when they connect to the internet It's just a question of whether consumers should pay to be able to extra connect to Skype or to Skype pay extra to be able to protect Pay connected particular consumers. They do pay for the first part of that their own connection to the internet Other questions here Hi Ross Marchand taxpayers protection alliance. I'm just wondering Do you do you guys agree that some? Bits of data that's transmitted through the internet networks are more important than others and therefore it's acceptable to subject some data packet transmission to a slower rate than others the analogy that I would think of would be if you're on the highway and There's a fire truck coming that's responding to an emergency It would be common sense to ask all the other drivers to slow down to make way for the more vital emergency vehicles to come down because It's acknowledged that some services are more vital than others and need to make their way faster than others Do you buy this analogy as it relates to transmitting data through the internet? I mean, I don't think any of us up here. Well Alan has an engineer, but you know, I I think that that's You know That's not really what the net neutrality rules were about. It's an interesting thought exercise But the the 2015 open internet rules were very specific in the practices. They prohibit And and it's not that sort of bit by bit equalization or inequality and and in your analogy, I think the The ambulance or the emergency vehicle speeding that's such an infrequent thing That I you know, I think that the the analog certainly we would want 9-1-1 calls to go through when they need to go through But I well, I guess one question I have is who do you think should decide that question? I mean if you said like that the ambulance can go through faster who gets to decide that Well, I mean, I think that you don't want necessarily the the road crew deciding it as they're building the the internet And you don't want toll roads deciding whether they're going to let the the ambulance go through And so, you know there I think we need we do need rules of the road to govern how that happens and under what circumstances Maybe one more question in the back of the red Jacket We need I think in what's becoming kind of more of a converged Landscape are there thoughts that you know, these types of rules should apply on the tech side as well like when you talk about what happens around what a Facebook or Google or any of the companies that have like large market share when it comes to advertising Are there concerns that maybe there should be an analog analogous rule set that applies to make sure that voices aren't suppressed and that Content, you know rises to the top maybe on the merit of the content not just because somebody could afford to pay for better advertising I mean my view is that you have a legitimate Concern and so the answer is yes again, I I'm always going to be I want to make sure that there's equal opportunity and that you know The concerns that you have so sure. I mean, it's certainly something to look at I know that want to be sensitive to the congressman's time I think we're at the moment when we're gonna he's gonna trade places, but Thank you Dave is a lot better actually, but please join me in thanking him the congressman for joining us today And I will welcome up David Goldman who is the chief telecom council I think for the Democratic side of the House Energy and Commerce Committee staff and and in a long time Den is in of these parts and these issues so please Thank you for joining us and Maybe we can sort of unpack this a little bit more get a little wonky here Sir, let me just start with the sort of what happens next. Okay, right, and we've had some court cases We've had this notice of proposed rulemaking from the From the proposed by the chairman What's the timeline look like when is this going to be happening? Who wants to dive in and explain that a little bit? Okay, yeah All right, so it gets voted may 18th the current comment cycle that they have Puts this thing it puts comments winding up in the middle of August I think as you heard the congressman say it seems like a bad time to be ending comments So I'm I'm hopeful that the FCC does what they often do in these situations and doesn't extension And pushes it into the fall, but so then comments will go into about September and then at that point Hopefully they read the comments and don't just go with what seems to be a kind of a preconceived Decision that maybe they're writing it right now And so that should put it towards the end of the year. I would think So we basically got six eight months perhaps How do you? Imagine I mean there were four million comments submitted in the last proceeding at the FCC Do you imagine that consumers will be weighing in again, do you think that we'll get those kinds of numbers again? What's the right way of looking at this and how are you all going about engaging consumers on this? I? mean I think we're always trying to I think of course we're concerned about numbers and the amount of people weighing in but I think that the bigger issue here is to constantly broaden the constituency of people who understand the importance of net neutrality and how it relates to them and to that and I think that that we have made so much progress in the Recognition that exists across the country on this issue, and so you know There will be lots of I'm sure grassroots and that roots advocacy and efforts happening But you know, I think the very fact that the net neutrality is so important and resonates with so many people will naturally galvanize a lot of support Yeah, we are I mean our seller base is already engaged, and we have a presence in every congressional district 99.9% of the US counties So we expect our sellers to engage as they did in 2015 because they're the ones leading this That's the is not saying engage on net neutrality our sellers This is an important issue for them, and they're really driving us They are leading the way for us, and we're following their lead As folks who dug into this issue, you know and have followed it for a while Is there anything about the current approach that was has been surprising to you? I mean we've now got this notice of the polls rulemaking from the From the FCC People have now had a couple days to dig into it and look at it Is there anything in it that's surprising to you or is there anything that's been surprising about the way that the FCC has? Or the chairman has decided to go forward with this I mean I think for me what what is surprising is that he's saying we don't need the rules because there aren't any problems and when you really look into the facts Consumers understand that these are protections for them, and if you go to the consumer Web link on the FCC's website, and you just look you can actually say I have an open internet net neutrality complaint And I just did a little bit of research, and there's a little under 37,000 complaints That have been launched since these rules went into effect So consumers understand that these are protections for them, and they're looking for the FCC to resolve these issues Well, I actually didn't know that number. That's incredible, right? I think it's also been surprising at the way that the chairman has approached the process I mean he has really he started off really touting the need for Transparency and and open processes at the Commission and what we've seen on a variety of issues but in particular on this issue with a series of closed-door meetings of private announcements about what's actually in the order and and You know reports in the media about how Chairman Pi is building up his Republican Army to defend these rules and at the same time, you know there there are calls for everyone to link arms and join together and you know bipartisan legislation and so If that is the end goal is sustainable If the end goal is that we want something legislated then then the people want to move in that direction Then they approach I would use if I were the chairman would be to Look for consensus and that just doesn't seem to be what's happening. So that's not what you're seeing in the current NPRM. No No, I mean to me What was surprising? I I think this is the first time that a sitting FCC chair is Suggesting that his agency shouldn't be the ones dealing with net neutrality. I mean going back various administrations Republican Democrat Every every chair has acknowledged that there's an issue here and every chair says the FCC is in the middle of this I think this is a dramatic turn And I mean just to Sarah's point as well It is a little interesting because I think mostly you see chairs coming out saying at least initially saying, you know Let's see if we can try to figure some way out that we can all do this Just sitting where I see said and seeing how the Democratic members of Congress are reacting to this the constant reports of How the chairman is going to the right and honestly is not Trying to do anything to build the tent It's really it's hard to Buy the argument that this is something that everyone as Sarah said is should come together on at the same time that we're seeing He's not just going to the right He's going as far to the right as he can find and it's just it's a really really mixed message To say that this is actually a bipartisan issue that we all agree on but at the same time This is a fight that he's gonna win against us. I guess With the backing of the Republican Congress who keeps saying this is wonderful that he's doing it It's just it's hard to swear those two things If the Commission were to proceed with this reclassification part What is some of the other well first of all do you all see a path for them to have authority that continue to do? The open to promote an open Internet in a way that's meaningful if you know if we don't have title to anymore Maybe somebody should explain what title to as I'm sort of banking at the audience is sort of familiar But how do we work our way through this authority piece Sarah? Do you want to yeah? We've gone through three multiple rounds of the DC circuit now and the DC circuit in the Verizon case Basically sent back the rules that the good rules from the 2010 order back to the SEC and said look These rules are fine. You know, you've demonstrated that there's a need for these rules We are convinced but you can't use the the you must use title to authority in order to to ensure that They're sustainable and so, you know, that's in even the the wheeler FCC considered different ways that they could you know Do something other than title to to implement strong net neutrality rules and ultimately they recognize that the That's the only way you can enact strong enforceable Net neutrality protections is their title to Yeah, I just I was going through the NPR It was a little bit surprising to me also even the DC circuit has been clear on Like 706 authority and I know a lot of people would prefer it be entitled to but 706 authority, which is in title one This NPR despite what the DC circuit has ruled and now reaffirmed is saying maybe that's just oratory And that's the the word that they use is maybe this was just Congress just you know was kind of Pontificating in the law Which is it was also an interesting position to take it's now. I mean, it's not this is just questions It's just the NPRM, but I mean the court ruled on this Right, so it's an interesting position to take What's the right way to interpret what the courts have done just this last week there was in the left within the last week There's there was a ruling out of the DC circuit. It was alluded to earlier Somebody explain that briefly. Why is that important? So basically after the DC circuit ruled last summer in in favor of the support of the FCC's rules the petitioners who had brought the legal challenges to to the rules in the first place Petition for rehearing the petition for rehearing by panel and rehearing on bonk on bonk means they would like the whole DC circuit to hear the case rather than just a three panel judge and so The DC circuit had not yet until this week decided on those petitions and then this week they said no We're not going to hear either by panel or by the entire DC circuit So it basically just reconfirmed the the legal soundness of the FCC's approach and Confirms that these these rules are the law of the land and the next step for this legal challenge would then be to the Supreme Court any Any any of the lawyers have a bet on whether this is likely to get taken up or I mean the Supreme Court very rarely grants Search and so I mean we first of all we don't know that that's the any of the petitioners will bring a claim I think it sounds like they're still deciding We we don't know if the Supreme Court will grant cert and even if they were to hear the case we you know, there's a There's still is the hurdle of actually Succeeding on the merits of the petition. So, you know, I think this is a very very narrow legal window for for any challenges Maybe we could explore some of the other arguments that have been raised about why Why it is important some of them already come up with some of the question answer, you know One argument that the chairman made has made pretty Strongly is this investment in economic argument That we we need to repeal we need to reclassify we need to get rid of title too We need to change these rules in order to get better investment in broadband And if you care to comment on that and whether that's a good frame for us to be looking at this Going back to your previous question that he actually used the numbers that he did in his speech around Investment because if you dug a little deeper there seems to be some pretty solid evidence that that's actually not the case and so Yeah, I I I think before you base an entire framework or argument around Around this you should have a pretty solid foundation of evidence to move forward and that doesn't seem the case with what pipe look forward Of course, it's also as Julie talked about earlier. It's important to think about investment and And innovation in the broader internet ecosystem, right? That's not just you know, we care not just about the Investment on the broadband side, but why not? Ensuring that the internet is a platform for all of this incredible commerce and innovation online And I also I don't think one of the things that sounds surprising to me One of the things that the net neutrality rules do is they force internet service providers to compete on the merits of their service Which to me sounds like a good economic framework to work within if I'm an if I'm an ISP My my contract with with my customer Alan is that I'm going to provide X amount of bandwidth per month for a price the internet the open internet rules basically ensures that that's that's the model and Prevents me as an internet service provider from cutting other deals to augment, you know my income And so as consumers, I think that that sounds pretty good but but and and again I think that the investment conversation sometimes missed the point and look at this very very narrow construct of what investment means while while not Accounting for all the other rich activity that's happening online. I Mean another argument of course is that you know in the name of trying to make sure we get good net neutrality rules We've you we've adopted this authority title to that has a lot that it brings a lot with it that wasn't necessarily You know isn't necessarily what a lot of people have said needed to be applied To broadband providers How worried are you about that and I guess the converse thing is you know How worried are we if we change title to that there might be collateral damage on other issues that people care about? like privacy or Lateral damage It's actually in the NPRM the lifeline program that is Certainly the lifelines standalone broadband program is going to go away if title two goes away And that is it's critical and the lifeline program I'm not sure how many of you are familiar with it, but it provides a modest subsidy to low-income families to access voice and now broadband and Because it was based on title to and this universal this concept of universal service title to goes away Lifeline broadband goes along with it To the point of like title to just bring some regulatory overhead with it Which is like just title to is so scary in and of itself because one one day maybe an FCC might do Where is that once we're not utterable in Washington, DC, you know, right? Yeah, so I It that that really raises the question of why he's doing this now I don't think anybody Anybody on any side of this issue thinks there's any threat that chairman pie is going to use title to to extend his regulatory Reach into the ISPs and start putting burdensome regulations on them anytime while he's sitting in the chairman seat So we have time to talk about this, but he's he's moving forward before we have a full complement of commissioners He's got a short comment cycle that he put forward on this Why is this like if the threat is this regulatory overhead from title to? that's going to happen when Elizabeth Warren is elected president and Puts one of us in the chair of the FCC. It's if that's the threat. Don't we have time? It would be Alan. I don't know. I don't know. It's a pretty formidable group here But if that's the threat don't we have time to actually work this thing out I mean look back at what his dissent was to the 2014 MPRM in the first place He said his dissent primarily was we're rushing into this before we've done enough economic studies He said there should be 10 economic studies independent economic studies done. It's I'm not even saying that's the right approach, but his main point at the time was what's the rush? I mean, I would just turn that back to him. What's the rush? Why are we doing this now? And maybe it is that he's worried that a third Republican commissioner may not go along with him Why else would he be doing it? Right like the title to is just this crazy thing that is going to break everything and what we've seen in the two years Since these roles were enacted is that it hasn't broken anything in fact It's led to some really important reforms to the Lifeline program and to other universal service fund programs and you know If anything, I think this we have definitely a net positive Even setting aside the rules that the strong rules themselves that required title to in the first place Maybe a political reality question You know certainly chairman Pi and Commissioner O'Reilly have not been ambiguous about their their feelings about About these rules and where they're headed What is it that you think that makes it can possibly make a difference or make a dent? Change where the Commission seems to be heading right now, you know, everyone thought that The chairman wheeler's original proposal was a foregone conclusion in the wake of Verizon BFPC and what we demonstrated was that with you know persistent Organizing and a compelling message and a big tent that we were able to move the needle now We're in a different political climate. Sure But but the if anything the support for net neutrality and the recognition of net neutrality throughout the country has grown And really when you get outside we talk about the politics of it inside the beltway when you get outside the beltway This is not a hyperpartisan issue. This is something that the research and polling has has shown is Something that actually most people agree on and really resonates with the majority of American people and so you know, I Think that there's still there's still a lot to be seen and I wouldn't I wouldn't Assume any outcomes at this point. No, I think that's right I mean, it's exactly right pointing back to chairman wheeler's proposal and all the twists and turns in the drama there But I mean This is already coming up at town halls. We're talking to members yesterday They're already getting asked about this and I mean those are the Democratic members But it's happening in Republican districts as well I mean, we're seeing reports of it already of it coming up in Republican districts and Republicans being asked by Republicans. Why are you doing this? So I think that it is there is still something to be said. I think you know Healthcare it as you heard my boss thinks about that a lot We couldn't tell We were supposed to have lost that one already and it's not happening that way Privacy I think yes the ISPs that came a lot closer than they thought it was gonna come And that was they did that dead of night rushing it this one. They can't do it that way So I do think that the grassroots matters I do think that what you hear from the country and it's true with in this job and former jobs I've traveled around the country a lot with bosses where we've done a lot of forums a lot of meeting with people and stuff That had nothing to do with net neutrality it was coming up and no one argued against it It was always why is this an issue? Why isn't this just solved? And I it's it was never even it just came up on its own. That's where people are No matter where we traveled. So hopefully that's what starts happening again And that these people start learning kind of where the rest of country is on this And you're with the SC sellers they really kind of cut through the noise and there what it would what it? what are the practical implications for me as an SC seller and When we lead with the business argument where we're when we're talking to legislators, they listen There are a lot of good Republicans who are helpful Republicans on the on the small business micro business agenda leader McCarthy Chair Shabbat of small business committee And so we found that leading with the business narrative and starting with how this impacts Micro small businesses is actually quite effective regardless of what party you're affiliated with so again We don't see this as a partisan issue I want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience He's got one right here, and I think there's a mic and so why don't we start and we'll just go across the room here Hi, so I'm Ash. I'm a grass turn at American University I just so I'm a I'm a proponent of net neutrality But there are a couple of issues that have kind of nagging me and I hope you guys can help me with that So I want to take this conversation a little bit broader than just chairman pass decisions And net neutrality in general and Facebook's zero rating initiatives in particular So they've been universally planned across the globe in India where I'm from as well as the United States So but the problem is Facebook's internet.org and free basics does allow access to the internet even though It's a small portion of it So should net neutrality take and in India almost 70% are not connected to the internet and maybe like 15% in the States, so should net neutrality take priority over internet access even though it's only to a small portion of the internet and my follow-up Our second question is how do we as people who have access to the internet justify speaking for those who don't? Zero rating it's a very it's a great question and a tricky question Take a shot I will say as a caveat, you know, we my team tends to look at the issue of net neutrality from a domestic lens So, you know, we we are certainly Concerned about internet access on the global level, but when it comes to the policy recommendations We make worse. We're more focused on on the domestic side and I think that and part of that is because the Arguments for different types of zero rating arrangements around the world are very different depending on what the Landscape on the ground looks like and what the the action the realities are for people who live in those countries And so to your second question, you know, it's it's more challenging to speak to Policy recommendations at that level and also Facebook is it's sort of different because of the way that it were it's different from the Domestic zero rating policies that we talk about more frequently because of the way that it's structured I mean Facebook's not an ISP. They partner with with mobile providers to execute the Their service there and so if you were to analyze it under the Open internet rules, you might you might come to a different different outcome on zero rating and so And within as we're thinking about these these questions whether it's on the global scale or domestically of course We need to be thinking about balancing the need for access and the need for Promoting an open robust internet, and I don't think those are necessarily it's mutually exclusive, right? like we should be constantly striving as a country and as And around the globe to ensure that everyone has equitable affordable Robust internet access and that should be that should be a goal that we have And you know how we get to that goal and how we benchmark our progress to it. I think it's really important to consider And but I think that that's a separate question Betsy Braman I'm with the State Department I have a quick question for Julie and Carmen kind of along the lines of the last question I'd love to hear more from you all about what you consider to be some of the international impact of these Access policies on your constituents, especially because so many of them will be relying on Communications with family members doing international business selling All of those different bits and pieces. I just love to hear how you all are Articulating the nuances and priorities as it works with the people that you're working with in your businesses and associations So For the price of an internet connection and 20 cents you can open up a shop on Etsy And you immediately have access to more than 28 million buyers around the globe so the speed by which that Connection it makes a difference in and we talk about time whether it's the time from the minute Someone makes a sale to the time that you're getting the the the product to the buyer or The time for browsing and so we see this as a as a global issue. Obviously, we're focused very much on on the domestic Debate with net neutrality and just generally how It's how important it is now critical it is for to have a level playing field for our sellers They are businesses the one they're doing everything. It's not that it's not that they can compete with the with the larger Folks and retailers in the space, but as far as messaging goes we are we see speed as something in time It's something that is extremely critical regardless of where you're located We're really focused on the domestic issue as well But in terms of the way that we speak to our audience We're telling them that if these net neutrality rules go away Then it what it's doing is it's creating a system where you're gonna need a toll to access more information It's gonna be a toll to access your relatives on the other side of the globe And what we're doing there is we're tipping the scales, right? We're tipping the scales against Equality and opportunity for all for that of the privileged few and do we really want an internet that is just for the privileged few My question goes back really to the first question that was asked today about paid prioritization I'm very sympathetic to the plight of the little the little guy who doesn't want to be shoved aside by Netflix or whoever When he's trying to get you know access to bandwidth But in the real world don't we see a situation like you know every main street in America has a Gucci a Prada You know with Tiffany's and they pay a premium for being in the best retail street in each city and you might say well That's a little unfair to the other retail merchants who don't who can't afford to pay to be on that special, you know retail property So I guess what I'm asking is you know the way we've structured the way We distribute goods and services in our society is you can pay you know for a better spot You know faster access if you will and why is the internet any different than that? I mean I see the internet as equalizer right so instead of having those physical locations now where we're online and if if we allow prioritization for the Netflix what does that say for the next Netflix and Do we really want to stifle innovation in that way? And I think that you know the physical location analogy is is very different, and I don't think it really applies to the internet Right like isn't that the whole point it's think of all those all the stories We like telling about the two people in their garage or whatever that they're doing that that so it became big like That that's the whole thing like that's the point is we don't want it to be the internet I mean it is the equalizer We want it to be that that someone who's sitting in Asbury Park in an incubator can compete with anybody if they have the best idea They should win on their idea That that's what we want So regardless of where you're located and this this is an issue that should be important for everyone in the United States So back to the the stat about 30% of Etsy sellers in rural America Regardless of where you're located you have access to this global marketplace because of the internet And so I agree that it it has the potential to stifle innovation if you have this sort of pay-to-play Component of who who receives the fast lane who receives the slow lane? Kyle daily Bloomberg BNA So the FCC seems to be kind of signaling that they may not necessarily be moved by public outcry I mean we did a press call with some pi staffers where they were sort of a Disputing the idea that most of the comments or the vast majority of the comments in the last proceeding were actually in favor of title To and be saying that you know, well, it's not about the volume. It's about the quality of the argument So with that in mind, you know, how do you guys plan on? Mounting this fight is it about legislation down the road restoring title to is it about the legal challenge? What's what's your part? Well, I mean first of all I think we would certainly dispute any notion that there wasn't a majority of Americans in favor of a title to approach And I also I mean, I think it's worth noting that as we're seeing play out now in the first hundred days of the Trump administration Politics are hard like policymaking is not instantaneous. It's not a snap your fingers and and Change the rules there. There are both, you know, actual procedures in place for how those ships happen There's also real-world consequences practical consequences on the ground What does this mean for consumers for sellers for internet users and what does this mean for policy makers? What is their future look like in this space? And so I think you know As I said earlier, I think there's a lot to be seen about how how the what levers can be pulled to Move things but yes, of course, we're looking at you know, what's happening in this rulemaking What's happening in Congress and what what potential opportunities or or challenges there will be it from a legal standpoint down the road? I think that Sure, the current FCC would love to consolidate down who they listen to to lobbyists Who all went to fancy law schools to draft those things? But I thought there's anything wrong with that But it's yes self-censoring But I you know who does listen is members of Congress I Mean people should be reaching out to the FCC. We should be building the record We should show them where the majority of the country is but members of Congress do care Maybe chairman pie doesn't have to run for reelection, so he doesn't care about that And so he doesn't care what people think but There are elected officials who do My name is Justin Brown with National Journal We've talked a lot about the end users and how it affects average Americans But we haven't really talked too much about the internet service providers So I just wanted to know what is it about the market the different attributes and factors of what we're experiencing today That makes internet service providers see all of these things as a solution And how can we change how we interact with the internet and the market things like that? So that we can almost take the gas out of their fight so that they're not fighting against us And instead don't look at zero rating as a solution But instead now oh, I don't have to fight for this because I know don't have this problem Like why are they fighting for this in the first place? We haven't really talked about that By talking about what makes internet service providers sort of unique in the in the ecosystem, and so yeah, there's a question earlier on Think from the audience about you know Facebook and Google and the big internet companies and don't they need to be regulated too And I think that's a that could be a whole other panel of conversations But one one reason that they're that the internet service providers have come under such scrutiny within the lens Of the FCC is is because of their role as gatekeepers to the internet So if you're an end user at any given moment You have one home broadband at most one home broadband subscription that you subscribe to right unless you or you're in some odd circumstance Where you have multiple broadband service providers, but that's highly unusual So you have one one broadband subscription at home That means that the only way that that you can access the internet But importantly the only way that the internet can get to you is through the gateway of that internet service providers Front door into your home. And so when the internet service providers decide either that they can monetize something As it comes through that door or that they don't like what is coming through that door or that they could create some new scheme of Charging for for fast lanes or slow lanes. There's no real check against that certainly you could Cancel your subscription pay the switching cost to get on it But there really is no solution to that at that moment in time You have there's one one gateway in and one pipeline out And so as we're thinking as we're kind of moving into where what the role the ISPs play in this You know, that's the sort of place that we're starting from I don't know if others have anything to add on why Or other comments on you know, why did that why are the ISPs pushing so hard and There's something that could be done to address their concern And explaining where they are in the ecosystem, I think that kind of illustrates what their desires are I mean, there's opportunity new opportunities for monetizing internet access whether it's charging edge providers for preferential access or And you know, there may be we We like to not think that that our our internet service providers are politically motivated But there could certainly be other reasons that aren't even economics that would dictate why they might let them particularly in these very politically charged times Why they might let some content through and not others So, you know, and how do we address? I mean, I think that how we address those concerns is through the the light-touch approach that we had in the 2015 open internet order We had three clearly delineated practices that were prohibited We had essentially the non-discrimination rule from the 2010 rules that became the general conduct rule that said okay So if anything's not captured by these three rules, we'll evaluate it through this this multi-part test To me that seems like a pretty thoughtful way to approach these problems and give Opportunities for internet service providers to innovate in certain ways, but prohibiting the most egregious practices Maybe time for one more question then we can wrap it up. I have a final question If chairman pie is successful, what's next? I mean it depends on on what that looks like, you know, is it the proposal that that we have here Is it something that's changed? You know, I think all of that will will instruct how we approach this and I want to just like re-emphasize There is a long time between now and even when the comment on that a long time But there we are the very beginning stages of this process and I think a lot can happen and will happen But you know, I think there are certainly Legal concerns with with the approach outlined in this in this order that we have and we would be exploring those types of options But how do we address that? We'll continue to have conversations with with Congress, but really like I Think everything's still on the table at this point Nobody in Washington likes to make predictions But maybe I'll ask you if you'd like to make some predictions if we were sitting a year Imagine ourselves a year from now coming back together. You're all invited and we're having this conversation. Where do you think we'll be? And what do you think will happen before to get us there? We did it. Okay. That's a fair right. I'll take it It'll be great. I will have champagne sitting here Chairman pie will be sitting next to me. We'll say I'm so glad we figured this out together Wow, okay an optimist any other takers We will go down the line and any other final comments welcome to well I feel to be a little bit more negative, but I think we're gonna still be in this fight A year from now, and I and I don't know what what that will look like But we I think we will still be fighting this because this is such an important issue for all Americans I Mean, I like I said, I think that there is there are so many factors that play still that I'm I am Optimistic like David, but you know, there's always the chance that the that will still be Fighting it certainly has been the case so far Thank you all more folks who are familiar with net neutrality because the issue will be elevated publicly and then you'll see maybe competing Pass between what the FCC is doing and maybe some tension Legislatively with what folks are doing in Congress, but I have a feeling we'll probably still be here Well, you all are welcome back for that too, but thank you for joining us today and please join me in thanking our panelists