WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.370 align:middle line:90% 00:00:06.370 --> 00:00:09.910 align:middle line:84% I appreciate the opportunity to address this very distinguished 00:00:09.910 --> 00:00:13.840 align:middle line:84% committee, and to participate in today's critical hearing 00:00:13.840 --> 00:00:15.740 align:middle line:90% on net neutrality. 00:00:15.740 --> 00:00:20.140 align:middle line:84% And I want to thank you, Chairwoman Creem and Vice 00:00:20.140 --> 00:00:23.560 align:middle line:84% Chairman Tarr, for convening this discussion. 00:00:23.560 --> 00:00:27.150 align:middle line:84% And I thank you, Senator Barrett and Eldridge 00:00:27.150 --> 00:00:31.480 align:middle line:84% and L'Italien, Lesser and O'Connor, for all of your work 00:00:31.480 --> 00:00:34.540 align:middle line:84% on behalf of the people of Massachusetts. 00:00:34.540 --> 00:00:39.520 align:middle line:84% Net neutrality has been an essential element 00:00:39.520 --> 00:00:44.710 align:middle line:84% for the healthy operation of the internet since its inception. 00:00:44.710 --> 00:00:47.710 align:middle line:84% And with net neutrality protections in place, 00:00:47.710 --> 00:00:50.500 align:middle line:90% the internet has thrived. 00:00:50.500 --> 00:00:57.050 align:middle line:84% In Massachusetts, tech underpins 34% of all jobs. 00:00:57.050 --> 00:00:59.350 align:middle line:84% These are jobs in the tech sector 00:00:59.350 --> 00:01:02.290 align:middle line:84% specifically, but also tech occupations 00:01:02.290 --> 00:01:05.540 align:middle line:84% in sectors from finance, to health care, to education. 00:01:05.540 --> 00:01:08.080 align:middle line:84% You're going to hear that from Tom Hopcroft. 00:01:08.080 --> 00:01:10.180 align:middle line:84% And we're seeing exciting growth-- 00:01:10.180 --> 00:01:13.240 align:middle line:84% 70% of tech leaders in Massachusetts 00:01:13.240 --> 00:01:17.770 align:middle line:84% plan to increase their workforce in the next year. 00:01:17.770 --> 00:01:20.870 align:middle line:84% Our internet economy is thriving. 00:01:20.870 --> 00:01:23.603 align:middle line:90% And we should not mess with it. 00:01:23.603 --> 00:01:30.250 align:middle line:84% Nationwide, in 2016, almost half of the venture capital funds 00:01:30.250 --> 00:01:35.560 align:middle line:84% invested in this country went to internet-specific and software 00:01:35.560 --> 00:01:36.520 align:middle line:90% companies. 00:01:36.520 --> 00:01:39.280 align:middle line:90% That's over $25 billion. 00:01:39.280 --> 00:01:43.840 align:middle line:84% You're going to hear today from the New England Venture Capital 00:01:43.840 --> 00:01:45.520 align:middle line:90% Association. 00:01:45.520 --> 00:01:49.030 align:middle line:84% Their activity, combined with what 00:01:49.030 --> 00:01:53.380 align:middle line:84% happens in the tech sector, is what drives our economy. 00:01:53.380 --> 00:01:57.580 align:middle line:84% And with half of all venture capital going into this sector, 00:01:57.580 --> 00:02:03.500 align:middle line:84% it's a job creation engine, a wealth creation engine. 00:02:03.500 --> 00:02:08.169 align:middle line:84% And it also, because we're a center for this globally, 00:02:08.169 --> 00:02:11.620 align:middle line:84% it's a way of attracting the most talented people 00:02:11.620 --> 00:02:14.920 align:middle line:84% on the planet from our country to come here 00:02:14.920 --> 00:02:17.320 align:middle line:90% to the Massachusetts economy. 00:02:17.320 --> 00:02:21.970 align:middle line:84% But in December, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai 00:02:21.970 --> 00:02:24.760 align:middle line:84% took a weedwacker to net neutrality. 00:02:24.760 --> 00:02:28.220 align:middle line:90% He completely gutted the rules. 00:02:28.220 --> 00:02:30.100 align:middle line:84% What does the repeal of net neutrality 00:02:30.100 --> 00:02:31.240 align:middle line:90% mean for Massachusetts? 00:02:31.240 --> 00:02:33.350 align:middle line:90% Well, quite a bit. 00:02:33.350 --> 00:02:35.320 align:middle line:84% It means that now there is nothing 00:02:35.320 --> 00:02:38.980 align:middle line:84% stopping broadband providers from blocking websites, slowing 00:02:38.980 --> 00:02:41.990 align:middle line:84% down competitors' content, or charging 00:02:41.990 --> 00:02:45.880 align:middle line:84% Bay State innovators and entrepreneurs more 00:02:45.880 --> 00:02:48.040 align:middle line:90% to reach their customers. 00:02:48.040 --> 00:02:51.160 align:middle line:84% It means that big broadband is in control, 00:02:51.160 --> 00:02:53.080 align:middle line:84% and consumers and job creators are 00:02:53.080 --> 00:02:56.120 align:middle line:90% left to fend for themselves. 00:02:56.120 --> 00:02:58.840 align:middle line:84% That's why I plan to fight these actions 00:02:58.840 --> 00:03:01.270 align:middle line:90% in the halls of Congress. 00:03:01.270 --> 00:03:04.420 align:middle line:84% I will be introducing a Congressional Review Act, 00:03:04.420 --> 00:03:09.700 align:middle line:84% or CRA resolution, that will undo the FCC's recent action 00:03:09.700 --> 00:03:14.230 align:middle line:84% and restore the 2015 Open Internet Order. 00:03:14.230 --> 00:03:16.990 align:middle line:84% According to the CRA rules, we can 00:03:16.990 --> 00:03:20.860 align:middle line:84% force a vote on the Senate floor with just 30 senators signing 00:03:20.860 --> 00:03:22.300 align:middle line:90% a discharge petition. 00:03:22.300 --> 00:03:25.600 align:middle line:84% So once the order is published in the Federal Register, 00:03:25.600 --> 00:03:28.600 align:middle line:84% there can be and there will be a vote 00:03:28.600 --> 00:03:31.960 align:middle line:84% on the floor of the United States Senate 00:03:31.960 --> 00:03:34.510 align:middle line:90% to restore net neutrality. 00:03:34.510 --> 00:03:36.970 align:middle line:84% Now, I'm very pleased that my proposal now 00:03:36.970 --> 00:03:40.270 align:middle line:84% has bipartisan support from 50 senators. 00:03:40.270 --> 00:03:43.630 align:middle line:84% And we're only one vote away from securing a victory 00:03:43.630 --> 00:03:44.950 align:middle line:90% in the Senate. 00:03:44.950 --> 00:03:48.280 align:middle line:84% But the votes are not there, so far, 00:03:48.280 --> 00:03:50.770 align:middle line:90% in the House of Representatives. 00:03:50.770 --> 00:03:55.930 align:middle line:84% Donald Trump has basically taken the other side of this issue. 00:03:55.930 --> 00:04:00.640 align:middle line:84% So to a very large extent, the people of Massachusetts, 00:04:00.640 --> 00:04:04.690 align:middle line:84% and Americans across the country, have to be engaged. 00:04:04.690 --> 00:04:09.370 align:middle line:84% Now, according to a recent poll, 83% of Americans 00:04:09.370 --> 00:04:13.570 align:middle line:84% do not approve of the FCC's actions to gut net neutrality, 00:04:13.570 --> 00:04:16.390 align:middle line:84% and they are raising their voices. 00:04:16.390 --> 00:04:18.070 align:middle line:90% Momentum is building. 00:04:18.070 --> 00:04:19.959 align:middle line:90% Millennials are energized. 00:04:19.959 --> 00:04:23.350 align:middle line:84% Governors and state lawmakers across the country 00:04:23.350 --> 00:04:25.180 align:middle line:90% are taking action. 00:04:25.180 --> 00:04:28.250 align:middle line:90% So this committee is critical. 00:04:28.250 --> 00:04:29.470 align:middle line:90% We're Massachusetts. 00:04:29.470 --> 00:04:33.100 align:middle line:84% We're the Bay State, but we're also the brain state. 00:04:33.100 --> 00:04:38.200 align:middle line:84% And net neutrality has helped us to become this state 00:04:38.200 --> 00:04:42.820 align:middle line:84% that we are today, so that we draw all of this talent that 00:04:42.820 --> 00:04:46.600 align:middle line:84% creates companies like Carbonite and Wayfair 00:04:46.600 --> 00:04:51.340 align:middle line:84% and iRobot, TripAdvisor, and thousands of smaller 00:04:51.340 --> 00:04:55.300 align:middle line:84% companies whose names no one knows, but are employing 00:04:55.300 --> 00:04:57.970 align:middle line:84% hundreds of thousands of people in our state. 00:04:57.970 --> 00:05:00.520 align:middle line:90% That's who we have become. 00:05:00.520 --> 00:05:05.440 align:middle line:84% So I encourage this committee to continue its work in support 00:05:05.440 --> 00:05:07.400 align:middle line:90% of a free and open internet. 00:05:07.400 --> 00:05:08.990 align:middle line:90% The grassroots are energized. 00:05:08.990 --> 00:05:11.540 align:middle line:84% Our constituents are speaking up. 00:05:11.540 --> 00:05:14.570 align:middle line:84% I thank you for everything that you are doing. 00:05:14.570 --> 00:05:22.580 align:middle line:84% Your actions, I think, will help to inform this nation of what 00:05:22.580 --> 00:05:24.350 align:middle line:90% is at stake. 00:05:24.350 --> 00:05:26.000 align:middle line:90% We did it on health care. 00:05:26.000 --> 00:05:29.240 align:middle line:90% We did it on gay marriage. 00:05:29.240 --> 00:05:32.870 align:middle line:84% And we can also do it here, because net neutrality 00:05:32.870 --> 00:05:38.270 align:middle line:84% is as much a part of our identity as any other issue 00:05:38.270 --> 00:05:41.600 align:middle line:84% that we have been considering over this past generation. 00:05:41.600 --> 00:05:45.450 align:middle line:84% Thank you very much for everything that you are doing. 00:05:45.450 --> 00:05:47.700 align:middle line:84% Hello, and thank you for this chance 00:05:47.700 --> 00:05:49.830 align:middle line:84% to join you by video for this hearing 00:05:49.830 --> 00:05:52.650 align:middle line:84% of the Special Committee on Net Neutrality and Consumer 00:05:52.650 --> 00:05:53.670 align:middle line:90% Protection. 00:05:53.670 --> 00:05:55.470 align:middle line:84% I'm sorry I can't be there in person, 00:05:55.470 --> 00:05:59.460 align:middle line:84% but I really appreciate this chance to talk to you. 00:05:59.460 --> 00:06:04.050 align:middle line:84% On May 26, 1961, President John F. Kennedy 00:06:04.050 --> 00:06:06.690 align:middle line:84% declared that America would do something 00:06:06.690 --> 00:06:10.020 align:middle line:84% that had never been done before-- put a man on the moon. 00:06:10.020 --> 00:06:13.710 align:middle line:84% And back then, America was barreling into the space age, 00:06:13.710 --> 00:06:16.590 align:middle line:84% pushing the bounds of human knowledge 00:06:16.590 --> 00:06:19.130 align:middle line:90% to make the impossible possible. 00:06:19.130 --> 00:06:22.050 align:middle line:84% And government was the driving force, 00:06:22.050 --> 00:06:25.680 align:middle line:84% pouring resources and manpower into explorations 00:06:25.680 --> 00:06:30.000 align:middle line:84% of science and engineering and medicine and technology. 00:06:30.000 --> 00:06:34.200 align:middle line:84% And the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 00:06:34.200 --> 00:06:38.390 align:middle line:84% or DARPA, as we all call it, was a product of that commitment. 00:06:38.390 --> 00:06:41.190 align:middle line:84% And it was there that civil servants 00:06:41.190 --> 00:06:43.620 align:middle line:84% and government-funded researchers 00:06:43.620 --> 00:06:45.390 align:middle line:90% invented the internet. 00:06:45.390 --> 00:06:47.250 align:middle line:84% Now, Massachusetts has always been 00:06:47.250 --> 00:06:51.010 align:middle line:84% a leader in the search for the next great discovery. 00:06:51.010 --> 00:06:55.350 align:middle line:84% Our world-renowned universities, our educational institutions, 00:06:55.350 --> 00:06:59.340 align:middle line:84% our technology sector, boast some of the world's greatest 00:06:59.340 --> 00:07:03.300 align:middle line:84% minds, in everything from human genome sequencing 00:07:03.300 --> 00:07:06.340 align:middle line:90% to aerospace engineering. 00:07:06.340 --> 00:07:08.730 align:middle line:84% Fair, open access to the internet 00:07:08.730 --> 00:07:12.330 align:middle line:84% has helped jet power those advances. 00:07:12.330 --> 00:07:17.040 align:middle line:84% It has also become essential to the way we live our lives. 00:07:17.040 --> 00:07:21.690 align:middle line:84% Every day, students go online to complete homework assignments. 00:07:21.690 --> 00:07:24.180 align:middle line:84% Grandparents video chat with their grandkids 00:07:24.180 --> 00:07:25.410 align:middle line:90% on Sunday afternoons. 00:07:25.410 --> 00:07:30.300 align:middle line:84% Families gather on their couches to watch their favorite shows. 00:07:30.300 --> 00:07:33.900 align:middle line:84% Entrepreneurs build businesses online to market 00:07:33.900 --> 00:07:35.370 align:middle line:90% and sell their products. 00:07:35.370 --> 00:07:38.930 align:middle line:84% Innovator's code and test new apps. 00:07:38.930 --> 00:07:41.550 align:middle line:84% The government plays just as important a role 00:07:41.550 --> 00:07:45.030 align:middle line:84% now as it did back when JFK told us 00:07:45.030 --> 00:07:47.160 align:middle line:90% that we were going to the moon. 00:07:47.160 --> 00:07:50.820 align:middle line:84% In particular, the Federal Communications Commission 00:07:50.820 --> 00:07:54.000 align:middle line:84% is responsible for ensuring that the internet remains 00:07:54.000 --> 00:07:57.150 align:middle line:90% fair and open to all Americans. 00:07:57.150 --> 00:08:02.670 align:middle line:84% In 2015, the FCC adopted the Open Internet Order, 00:08:02.670 --> 00:08:06.390 align:middle line:84% which established strong network neutrality rules that 00:08:06.390 --> 00:08:09.090 align:middle line:84% stopped internet giants from blocking 00:08:09.090 --> 00:08:13.460 align:middle line:84% or filtering or charging more for internet access. 00:08:13.460 --> 00:08:16.410 align:middle line:84% And although these net neutrality rules have enjoyed 00:08:16.410 --> 00:08:18.810 align:middle line:84% overwhelming support from Americans-- 00:08:18.810 --> 00:08:22.110 align:middle line:84% and that's both Republicans and Democrats-- 00:08:22.110 --> 00:08:25.290 align:middle line:84% big internet companies have worked for years 00:08:25.290 --> 00:08:27.810 align:middle line:90% to destroy net neutrality. 00:08:27.810 --> 00:08:29.610 align:middle line:84% After Donald Trump's presidential win, 00:08:29.610 --> 00:08:31.110 align:middle line:84% they saw their golden opportunity 00:08:31.110 --> 00:08:34.500 align:middle line:84% to finally bury net neutrality rules. 00:08:34.500 --> 00:08:38.190 align:middle line:84% And now, the Republican-controlled FCC 00:08:38.190 --> 00:08:42.659 align:middle line:84% has abandoned its commitment to protect fair and open internet 00:08:42.659 --> 00:08:43.830 align:middle line:90% access. 00:08:43.830 --> 00:08:46.470 align:middle line:84% And that means it's up to citizens, 00:08:46.470 --> 00:08:49.950 align:middle line:84% federally elected officials, and state and local governments 00:08:49.950 --> 00:08:52.860 align:middle line:90% to defend net neutrality. 00:08:52.860 --> 00:08:56.130 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts is already leading in that fight. 00:08:56.130 --> 00:09:00.180 align:middle line:84% Groups like Free Press, the Massachusetts chapter 00:09:00.180 --> 00:09:04.230 align:middle line:84% of the ACLU, the Fight for the Future, 00:09:04.230 --> 00:09:08.370 align:middle line:84% are all working to amplify the voices of citizens. 00:09:08.370 --> 00:09:11.670 align:middle line:84% Last month, Massachusetts joined a legal challenge 00:09:11.670 --> 00:09:15.690 align:middle line:84% to the FCC's decision to reverse net neutrality rules. 00:09:15.690 --> 00:09:18.510 align:middle line:84% In the Senate, over half of all senators 00:09:18.510 --> 00:09:21.900 align:middle line:84% joined an effort to reverse the rule. 00:09:21.900 --> 00:09:26.040 align:middle line:84% The internet doesn't belong to giant internet companies. 00:09:26.040 --> 00:09:28.240 align:middle line:90% It belongs to all of us. 00:09:28.240 --> 00:09:29.970 align:middle line:84% And that's why all Americans should 00:09:29.970 --> 00:09:34.140 align:middle line:84% fight to oppose the FCC's rollback of net neutrality 00:09:34.140 --> 00:09:39.130 align:middle line:84% protections, and work to restore net neutrality rules. 00:09:39.130 --> 00:09:42.990 align:middle line:84% And that's why I'm glad that the Massachusetts State Senate has 00:09:42.990 --> 00:09:46.200 align:middle line:84% convened a Special Committee on Net Neutrality and Consumer 00:09:46.200 --> 00:09:49.140 align:middle line:84% Protection to explore how Massachusetts 00:09:49.140 --> 00:09:54.240 align:middle line:84% can continue to be at the forefront of this fight. 00:09:54.240 --> 00:09:55.560 align:middle line:90% Thank you for all you're doing. 00:09:55.560 --> 00:09:57.810 align:middle line:90% We need you out there. 00:09:57.810 --> 00:10:01.810 align:middle line:84% The first person I have on the list is Dennis McDermott. 00:10:01.810 --> 00:10:05.960 align:middle line:90% 00:10:05.960 --> 00:10:06.980 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:10:06.980 --> 00:10:09.140 align:middle line:84% I wanted to introduce Senator Barrett, too. 00:10:09.140 --> 00:10:09.980 align:middle line:90% I'm sorry. 00:10:09.980 --> 00:10:12.090 align:middle line:84% Senator Barrett, who just arrived. 00:10:12.090 --> 00:10:12.590 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:10:12.590 --> 00:10:13.695 align:middle line:90% Yes, Senator [INAUDIBLE]. 00:10:13.695 --> 00:10:19.440 align:middle line:90% Just a point of [INAUDIBLE]. 00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:20.190 align:middle line:90% I just wanted to-- 00:10:20.190 --> 00:10:20.870 align:middle line:90% Just say it. 00:10:20.870 --> 00:10:22.346 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:10:22.346 --> 00:10:28.742 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:10:28.742 --> 00:10:41.042 align:middle line:90% 00:10:41.042 --> 00:10:42.026 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:10:42.026 --> 00:10:44.978 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:10:44.978 --> 00:10:46.946 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:10:46.946 --> 00:10:47.580 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:10:47.580 --> 00:10:50.690 align:middle line:84% You identify yourself for other people. 00:10:50.690 --> 00:10:51.190 align:middle line:90% Certainly. 00:10:51.190 --> 00:10:51.870 align:middle line:90% I will do so. 00:10:51.870 --> 00:10:54.860 align:middle line:90% 00:10:54.860 --> 00:10:57.549 align:middle line:84% Chair Creem, members of the special committee, 00:10:57.549 --> 00:10:58.090 align:middle line:90% good morning. 00:10:58.090 --> 00:11:00.548 align:middle line:84% My name is Dennis McDermott, and I am the chief information 00:11:00.548 --> 00:11:03.360 align:middle line:84% officer of the recently formed Executive Office of Technology 00:11:03.360 --> 00:11:05.184 align:middle line:90% Services and Security. 00:11:05.184 --> 00:11:07.850 align:middle line:84% Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important issue 00:11:07.850 --> 00:11:11.460 align:middle line:84% as it relates to internet use by the executive department. 00:11:11.460 --> 00:11:14.456 align:middle line:84% I would like to begin, and I hope it will be useful to you, 00:11:14.456 --> 00:11:16.950 align:middle line:84% and I think it will provide you with some frame 00:11:16.950 --> 00:11:19.320 align:middle line:84% for the discussion, by giving some context 00:11:19.320 --> 00:11:21.806 align:middle line:84% on the role of EOTSS, as well as an overview 00:11:21.806 --> 00:11:25.840 align:middle line:84% of the commercial ISP usage in the executive department. 00:11:25.840 --> 00:11:27.266 align:middle line:84% EOTSS is the office charged with-- 00:11:27.266 --> 00:11:28.890 align:middle line:84% You might have to move that mic closer. 00:11:28.890 --> 00:11:30.150 align:middle line:90% Little bit closer? 00:11:30.150 --> 00:11:31.480 align:middle line:90% Any better? 00:11:31.480 --> 00:11:34.100 align:middle line:90% All right. 00:11:34.100 --> 00:11:34.600 align:middle line:90% Of course-- 00:11:34.600 --> 00:11:35.456 align:middle line:90% Turning it on. 00:11:35.456 --> 00:11:37.080 align:middle line:84% Of course, the computer guy is not sure 00:11:37.080 --> 00:11:38.660 align:middle line:90% if the mic's actually on, right? 00:11:38.660 --> 00:11:39.350 align:middle line:90% I did the same. 00:11:39.350 --> 00:11:40.670 align:middle line:90% Not embarrassing at all. 00:11:40.670 --> 00:11:42.121 align:middle line:90% I did the same thing. 00:11:42.121 --> 00:11:42.620 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:11:42.620 --> 00:11:43.744 align:middle line:90% But I'm not a computer guy. 00:11:43.744 --> 00:11:44.715 align:middle line:90% Yeah, there you go. 00:11:44.715 --> 00:11:45.610 align:middle line:90% Can you hear me now? 00:11:45.610 --> 00:11:46.260 align:middle line:90% Yes, I do. 00:11:46.260 --> 00:11:46.760 align:middle line:90% All right. 00:11:46.760 --> 00:11:47.980 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:11:47.980 --> 00:11:51.800 align:middle line:84% EOTSS is the office charged with centralizing and securing 00:11:51.800 --> 00:11:54.350 align:middle line:84% IT services across the executive department. 00:11:54.350 --> 00:11:55.580 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:11:55.580 --> 00:11:58.100 align:middle line:84% The Executive Office of Technology Services 00:11:58.100 --> 00:11:59.300 align:middle line:90% and Security. 00:11:59.300 --> 00:12:02.970 align:middle line:84% We were a new secretariat formed last August-- 00:12:02.970 --> 00:12:06.860 align:middle line:84% across the executive department, and updating policies 00:12:06.860 --> 00:12:09.350 align:middle line:84% and procedures governing state cybersecurity, 00:12:09.350 --> 00:12:11.900 align:middle line:84% digital platforms, and data management. 00:12:11.900 --> 00:12:14.680 align:middle line:84% We maintain and monitor two fully-redundant, 00:12:14.680 --> 00:12:17.820 align:middle line:84% path-independent connections to the public internet. 00:12:17.820 --> 00:12:20.190 align:middle line:84% And the reason for the redundancy is, often, ISPs 00:12:20.190 --> 00:12:22.950 align:middle line:84% and providers have fiber cuts or equipment failures. 00:12:22.950 --> 00:12:26.419 align:middle line:84% And so we do that to maintain high availability. 00:12:26.419 --> 00:12:28.460 align:middle line:84% These commercially purchased internet connections 00:12:28.460 --> 00:12:31.010 align:middle line:84% provide service to all executive offices, 00:12:31.010 --> 00:12:34.130 align:middle line:84% several of the Commonwealth's independent and constitutional 00:12:34.130 --> 00:12:36.830 align:middle line:84% offices, and other branches of government. 00:12:36.830 --> 00:12:39.620 align:middle line:84% In all, approximately 42,000 state employees 00:12:39.620 --> 00:12:42.560 align:middle line:84% and 500 software applications send and receive 00:12:42.560 --> 00:12:46.070 align:middle line:84% network traffic via these internet connections. 00:12:46.070 --> 00:12:48.710 align:middle line:84% It should be noted that we are one of many state entities 00:12:48.710 --> 00:12:52.100 align:middle line:84% that purchase internet services from a commercial ISP. 00:12:52.100 --> 00:12:54.200 align:middle line:84% Prior to the establishment of our office, 00:12:54.200 --> 00:12:56.570 align:middle line:84% most executive offices maintained one or more 00:12:56.570 --> 00:12:59.570 align:middle line:84% internet connections to service their own data centers 00:12:59.570 --> 00:13:01.969 align:middle line:84% and their remote sites throughout the state. 00:13:01.969 --> 00:13:04.010 align:middle line:84% These connections have been historically obtained 00:13:04.010 --> 00:13:05.992 align:middle line:90% from a range of ISPs. 00:13:05.992 --> 00:13:07.700 align:middle line:84% Entities outside the executive department 00:13:07.700 --> 00:13:10.490 align:middle line:84% also continue to purchase one or more connections, 00:13:10.490 --> 00:13:12.590 align:middle line:90% depending on their needs. 00:13:12.590 --> 00:13:15.020 align:middle line:84% Our focus has been to consolidate and secure 00:13:15.020 --> 00:13:17.660 align:middle line:84% internet connections within the executive department, 00:13:17.660 --> 00:13:20.060 align:middle line:84% and to ensure that internet services are cost effective 00:13:20.060 --> 00:13:21.680 align:middle line:90% and of high quality. 00:13:21.680 --> 00:13:23.300 align:middle line:84% Within the last 90 days, for example, 00:13:23.300 --> 00:13:26.570 align:middle line:84% we have shut down the legacy internet connections, 00:13:26.570 --> 00:13:30.280 align:middle line:84% so legacy contracts with three ISPs, 00:13:30.280 --> 00:13:32.390 align:middle line:84% or three of the other executive offices. 00:13:32.390 --> 00:13:35.130 align:middle line:84% So at this point, five of the nine secretariats 00:13:35.130 --> 00:13:36.890 align:middle line:84% in the executive department are using 00:13:36.890 --> 00:13:39.590 align:middle line:84% our primary and secondary internet connections 00:13:39.590 --> 00:13:40.950 align:middle line:90% exclusively. 00:13:40.950 --> 00:13:43.610 align:middle line:84% We expect the remainder of the executive department 00:13:43.610 --> 00:13:47.150 align:middle line:84% to be consolidated by the end of the calendar year. 00:13:47.150 --> 00:13:49.730 align:middle line:84% So in this context, EOTSS is very much 00:13:49.730 --> 00:13:52.400 align:middle line:84% a consumer of commercial internet services, 00:13:52.400 --> 00:13:55.325 align:middle line:84% as well as a provider of these services to other government 00:13:55.325 --> 00:13:56.700 align:middle line:84% agencies, both within and outside 00:13:56.700 --> 00:13:58.940 align:middle line:90% the executive department. 00:13:58.940 --> 00:14:01.520 align:middle line:84% In this role, we carefully monitor 00:14:01.520 --> 00:14:04.550 align:middle line:84% the security and privacy practices of ISPs 00:14:04.550 --> 00:14:06.950 align:middle line:84% to protect our users and systems. 00:14:06.950 --> 00:14:10.000 align:middle line:84% We also negotiate with ISPs in the open marketplace, 00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:12.000 align:middle line:84% to ensure that the executive department receives 00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:15.320 align:middle line:84% reliable internet connectivity at a fair price. 00:14:15.320 --> 00:14:17.840 align:middle line:84% As the FCC's order takes effect, and 00:14:17.840 --> 00:14:19.800 align:middle line:84% as additional legislative and policy changes 00:14:19.800 --> 00:14:21.890 align:middle line:84% are contemplated, the effects on the market 00:14:21.890 --> 00:14:25.590 align:middle line:84% for commercial services will be difficult to predict. 00:14:25.590 --> 00:14:27.890 align:middle line:84% EOTSS will carefully analyze these changes 00:14:27.890 --> 00:14:31.580 align:middle line:84% so that we can fulfill our dual role of improving 00:14:31.580 --> 00:14:33.830 align:middle line:84% digital services and reducing cybersecurity risk 00:14:33.830 --> 00:14:35.697 align:middle line:90% for the executive department. 00:14:35.697 --> 00:14:37.280 align:middle line:84% Thank you for the opportunity to speak 00:14:37.280 --> 00:14:39.363 align:middle line:84% on behalf of the executive department's technology 00:14:39.363 --> 00:14:40.420 align:middle line:90% services organization. 00:14:40.420 --> 00:14:42.378 align:middle line:84% I'm happy to take any questions you might have. 00:14:42.378 --> 00:14:44.079 align:middle line:90% Do you have any-- 00:14:44.079 --> 00:14:45.891 align:middle line:84% I'm going to open it up, but do you 00:14:45.891 --> 00:14:48.464 align:middle line:84% have any positions on net neutrality? 00:14:48.464 --> 00:14:51.416 align:middle line:84% I mean, I'm just [INAUDIBLE] trying to get information-- 00:14:51.416 --> 00:14:52.900 align:middle line:90% appreciate your coming, but-- 00:14:52.900 --> 00:14:54.160 align:middle line:90% Understood. 00:14:54.160 --> 00:14:57.060 align:middle line:84% I think within the scope of the net neutrality discussion, 00:14:57.060 --> 00:15:00.750 align:middle line:84% EOTSS is not a regulatory agency. 00:15:00.750 --> 00:15:03.960 align:middle line:84% And our policymaking mandate is fairly 00:15:03.960 --> 00:15:06.540 align:middle line:84% limited to the executive department. 00:15:06.540 --> 00:15:09.780 align:middle line:84% So it would be speculative for us to take positions 00:15:09.780 --> 00:15:11.670 align:middle line:90% on the broader issue. 00:15:11.670 --> 00:15:14.220 align:middle line:84% I think perhaps the most useful thing 00:15:14.220 --> 00:15:16.500 align:middle line:84% I can do for you is to highlight how 00:15:16.500 --> 00:15:20.880 align:middle line:84% we use commercial ISP services in the Commonwealth government. 00:15:20.880 --> 00:15:23.280 align:middle line:84% And of course, we can follow up with details 00:15:23.280 --> 00:15:25.570 align:middle line:84% on contracts and spending and things like that. 00:15:25.570 --> 00:15:28.740 align:middle line:84% But I think that kind of background information 00:15:28.740 --> 00:15:30.863 align:middle line:84% is the most germane to this discussion, 00:15:30.863 --> 00:15:31.738 align:middle line:90% from our perspective. 00:15:31.738 --> 00:15:33.730 align:middle line:90% Does anyone [INAUDIBLE]? 00:15:33.730 --> 00:15:35.224 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:15:35.224 --> 00:15:37.216 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:15:37.216 --> 00:15:44.188 align:middle line:90% 00:15:44.188 --> 00:15:46.180 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:15:46.180 --> 00:15:49.168 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:15:49.168 --> 00:15:58.630 align:middle line:90% 00:15:58.630 --> 00:16:03.112 align:middle line:84% Can you identify the [INAUDIBLE]?? 00:16:03.112 --> 00:16:09.640 align:middle line:90% 00:16:09.640 --> 00:16:11.800 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:16:11.800 --> 00:16:15.490 align:middle line:84% So in some senses, it's difficult to speculate. 00:16:15.490 --> 00:16:18.240 align:middle line:84% We have an environment that's changing. 00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:22.510 align:middle line:84% We have a set of rules from the FCC that have changed. 00:16:22.510 --> 00:16:27.350 align:middle line:84% But the truth is, what happens now is all potential. 00:16:27.350 --> 00:16:33.370 align:middle line:84% So this could relate to pricing, competition, security 00:16:33.370 --> 00:16:35.530 align:middle line:90% practices, what have you. 00:16:35.530 --> 00:16:38.070 align:middle line:84% And yet there's no guarantee that any of those things 00:16:38.070 --> 00:16:40.100 align:middle line:90% will change. 00:16:40.100 --> 00:16:44.090 align:middle line:84% So as I said earlier, as a consumer of these services, 00:16:44.090 --> 00:16:48.160 align:middle line:84% as an agency that's responsible for securing them and getting 00:16:48.160 --> 00:16:52.520 align:middle line:84% them at a fair price, we're watching what's happening. 00:16:52.520 --> 00:16:54.640 align:middle line:90% I think it would be-- 00:16:54.640 --> 00:16:56.950 align:middle line:84% I don't know that it would necessarily 00:16:56.950 --> 00:16:59.650 align:middle line:84% be productive, from our perspective and scope, 00:16:59.650 --> 00:17:01.898 align:middle line:84% to speculate on what's going to happen next. 00:17:01.898 --> 00:17:02.939 align:middle line:90% I just want to follow up. 00:17:02.939 --> 00:17:03.917 align:middle line:90% Sure. 00:17:03.917 --> 00:17:08.318 align:middle line:84% Can you give us your perspective on what the business 00:17:08.318 --> 00:17:11.741 align:middle line:90% case, advanced by [INAUDIBLE]? 00:17:11.741 --> 00:17:18.587 align:middle line:90% 00:17:18.587 --> 00:17:19.565 align:middle line:90% What are they? 00:17:19.565 --> 00:17:23.500 align:middle line:90% 00:17:23.500 --> 00:17:26.670 align:middle line:84% Again, I think that falls a bit beyond our scope and mandate. 00:17:26.670 --> 00:17:30.060 align:middle line:84% We haven't discussed the business case with the ISPs. 00:17:30.060 --> 00:17:32.430 align:middle line:84% We mainly deal with-- again, we deal with them 00:17:32.430 --> 00:17:34.830 align:middle line:84% as an agency that's buying from them. 00:17:34.830 --> 00:17:37.320 align:middle line:84% So we have not discussed the broader issues with them. 00:17:37.320 --> 00:17:41.760 align:middle line:84% And we just continue to, of course, 00:17:41.760 --> 00:17:45.150 align:middle line:84% monitor their practices to see what's going to happen next, 00:17:45.150 --> 00:17:47.246 align:middle line:84% and how we can best serve the Commonwealth. 00:17:47.246 --> 00:17:50.390 align:middle line:90% 00:17:50.390 --> 00:17:53.885 align:middle line:84% I just wanted to introduce the vice chair, Senator Tarr. 00:17:53.885 --> 00:17:59.110 align:middle line:90% 00:17:59.110 --> 00:18:02.070 align:middle line:90% So I do have one question. 00:18:02.070 --> 00:18:04.470 align:middle line:90% So what about the news-- 00:18:04.470 --> 00:18:07.090 align:middle line:84% are you aware of the Minnesota governor's executive order 00:18:07.090 --> 00:18:11.540 align:middle line:84% on net neutrality and procurement money? 00:18:11.540 --> 00:18:14.373 align:middle line:84% I am not aware of Minnesota's order, no. 00:18:14.373 --> 00:18:14.873 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:18:14.873 --> 00:18:19.306 align:middle line:90% So I would suggest maybe-- 00:18:19.306 --> 00:18:22.517 align:middle line:84% you know, we could talk about that another time. 00:18:22.517 --> 00:18:24.100 align:middle line:84% I wanted to know if that was something 00:18:24.100 --> 00:18:27.290 align:middle line:90% the governor has considered. 00:18:27.290 --> 00:18:29.962 align:middle line:84% I would defer to my colleagues in the governor's office 00:18:29.962 --> 00:18:31.670 align:middle line:84% in terms of what the administration might 00:18:31.670 --> 00:18:32.626 align:middle line:90% be considering. 00:18:32.626 --> 00:18:33.126 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:18:33.126 --> 00:18:38.070 align:middle line:84% And would the administration discuss with me their feelings? 00:18:38.070 --> 00:18:40.470 align:middle line:84% I suspect they would seek our input. 00:18:40.470 --> 00:18:42.690 align:middle line:84% Again, we are primarily a technology 00:18:42.690 --> 00:18:45.962 align:middle line:90% and services delivery agency. 00:18:45.962 --> 00:18:47.420 align:middle line:84% Maybe put a little more informally, 00:18:47.420 --> 00:18:49.760 align:middle line:84% we're the computer geeks of government. 00:18:49.760 --> 00:18:51.510 align:middle line:84% And so I expect they would seek our input. 00:18:51.510 --> 00:18:53.040 align:middle line:84% But I would in no way want to speak 00:18:53.040 --> 00:18:55.340 align:middle line:90% for them on policy issues. 00:18:55.340 --> 00:18:57.781 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:18:57.781 --> 00:18:58.280 align:middle line:90% OK. 00:18:58.280 --> 00:18:59.113 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:18:59.113 --> 00:19:00.110 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:19:00.110 --> 00:19:03.966 align:middle line:84% I'd like to ask the attorney general, [INAUDIBLE] Healey, 00:19:03.966 --> 00:19:05.934 align:middle line:90% to come up and speak. 00:19:05.934 --> 00:19:18.260 align:middle line:90% 00:19:18.260 --> 00:19:21.920 align:middle line:84% Good morning, Chairwoman Creem and Vice Chairman Tarr, 00:19:21.920 --> 00:19:23.060 align:middle line:90% members of the committee. 00:19:23.060 --> 00:19:25.220 align:middle line:84% I greatly appreciate the opportunity 00:19:25.220 --> 00:19:26.900 align:middle line:90% to appear before you today. 00:19:26.900 --> 00:19:30.020 align:middle line:84% Joining me is Assistant Attorney General Jared Reinheimer, 00:19:30.020 --> 00:19:34.460 align:middle line:84% from our consumer protection division. 00:19:34.460 --> 00:19:36.740 align:middle line:84% Thank you for the opportunity to speak to what 00:19:36.740 --> 00:19:39.080 align:middle line:90% is a really important issue. 00:19:39.080 --> 00:19:44.030 align:middle line:84% And I want to talk a little bit about why my office has been 00:19:44.030 --> 00:19:49.240 align:middle line:84% so opposed to the Federal Communications Commission's 00:19:49.240 --> 00:19:51.465 align:middle line:84% rollback of net neutrality, and why 00:19:51.465 --> 00:19:54.140 align:middle line:84% this is important for people in Massachusetts-- 00:19:54.140 --> 00:19:58.000 align:middle line:84% for our residents, for our businesses, for our students. 00:19:58.000 --> 00:20:00.140 align:middle line:84% Here's what I think this is about. 00:20:00.140 --> 00:20:05.180 align:middle line:84% Net neutrality is about ensuring open and equal access 00:20:05.180 --> 00:20:07.100 align:middle line:90% to the internet. 00:20:07.100 --> 00:20:12.230 align:middle line:84% Ending net neutrality and changing how the internet works 00:20:12.230 --> 00:20:16.220 align:middle line:84% will be bad for our students, bad for our businesses, 00:20:16.220 --> 00:20:19.490 align:middle line:84% and bad for everyone who goes online. 00:20:19.490 --> 00:20:21.500 align:middle line:84% Now, we all know that the internet 00:20:21.500 --> 00:20:26.300 align:middle line:84% is so central to our lives, and increasingly so. 00:20:26.300 --> 00:20:29.420 align:middle line:84% We use it for everything, from looking for a job, 00:20:29.420 --> 00:20:32.450 align:middle line:84% to buying a home, finding a doctor, 00:20:32.450 --> 00:20:35.600 align:middle line:84% shopping for groceries or clothes, banking, 00:20:35.600 --> 00:20:40.090 align:middle line:84% and communicating with family and friends. 00:20:40.090 --> 00:20:42.260 align:middle line:84% And here in Massachusetts in particular, 00:20:42.260 --> 00:20:45.020 align:middle line:84% with our knowledge-based economy, 00:20:45.020 --> 00:20:49.050 align:middle line:84% our high tech sector employs more than 300,000 people. 00:20:49.050 --> 00:20:52.260 align:middle line:84% It's one of the largest in the nation. 00:20:52.260 --> 00:20:55.460 align:middle line:84% I think it's clear to so many of us that with so much 00:20:55.460 --> 00:20:59.690 align:middle line:84% of our lives and our economy online, the last thing 00:20:59.690 --> 00:21:04.760 align:middle line:84% we need is a slower, more expensive, more restricted, 00:21:04.760 --> 00:21:07.280 align:middle line:90% and more unequal internet. 00:21:07.280 --> 00:21:11.000 align:middle line:84% But on January 4, that's what the FCC essentially 00:21:11.000 --> 00:21:12.085 align:middle line:90% moved to do-- 00:21:12.085 --> 00:21:14.060 align:middle line:84% to end the internet as we know it, 00:21:14.060 --> 00:21:18.180 align:middle line:84% by rescinding these net neutrality protections. 00:21:18.180 --> 00:21:21.560 align:middle line:84% I think about net neutrality as a measure 00:21:21.560 --> 00:21:26.420 align:middle line:84% necessary to prevent discrimination on the internet. 00:21:26.420 --> 00:21:30.860 align:middle line:84% Now, I think about the fact that before this order even issued, 00:21:30.860 --> 00:21:34.130 align:middle line:84% my office joined with attorneys generals across the country 00:21:34.130 --> 00:21:37.760 align:middle line:84% in commenting to the FCC that there was simply no basis 00:21:37.760 --> 00:21:40.010 align:middle line:90% to roll back net neutrality. 00:21:40.010 --> 00:21:42.470 align:middle line:84% And within days of the FCC's order, 00:21:42.470 --> 00:21:46.250 align:middle line:84% I joined 21 other AGs from around the nation 00:21:46.250 --> 00:21:49.130 align:middle line:84% to stop the illegal and ill-conceived rollback 00:21:49.130 --> 00:21:53.420 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality, because the FCC, through its order, 00:21:53.420 --> 00:21:57.790 align:middle line:84% has opened the door for so-called blocking, throttling, 00:21:57.790 --> 00:22:01.590 align:middle line:84% and paid prioritization of internet content. 00:22:01.590 --> 00:22:05.090 align:middle line:84% In other words, the FCC is allowing internet service 00:22:05.090 --> 00:22:09.410 align:middle line:84% providers to control what content our residents will see, 00:22:09.410 --> 00:22:13.460 align:middle line:84% how they will see it, and what they will pay to see it. 00:22:13.460 --> 00:22:17.480 align:middle line:84% They could even block critical speech they simply don't like. 00:22:17.480 --> 00:22:20.480 align:middle line:84% And given how many consumers have only one broadband 00:22:20.480 --> 00:22:23.420 align:middle line:84% internet service provider in the area, 00:22:23.420 --> 00:22:26.270 align:middle line:84% they can't simply switch to a different provider who 00:22:26.270 --> 00:22:28.820 align:middle line:90% doesn't use these practices. 00:22:28.820 --> 00:22:31.160 align:middle line:84% And those who can't afford to pay a premium 00:22:31.160 --> 00:22:35.690 align:middle line:84% may face slow downloads, delayed or blocked access 00:22:35.690 --> 00:22:38.330 align:middle line:84% to vital services and innovative products, 00:22:38.330 --> 00:22:41.300 align:middle line:90% and limited content options. 00:22:41.300 --> 00:22:43.130 align:middle line:90% I also want to be clear-- 00:22:43.130 --> 00:22:45.170 align:middle line:84% this isn't just about how much you'll 00:22:45.170 --> 00:22:49.040 align:middle line:84% pay for Netflix or Amazon Prime or access 00:22:49.040 --> 00:22:53.230 align:middle line:84% to the hottest movies and new entertainment programming. 00:22:53.230 --> 00:22:55.320 align:middle line:84% This is about much more than that. 00:22:55.320 --> 00:22:58.630 align:middle line:84% This is about young people having a harder time 00:22:58.630 --> 00:23:01.760 align:middle line:84% to do research or take online classes. 00:23:01.760 --> 00:23:05.480 align:middle line:84% This is about small businesses having a harder time 00:23:05.480 --> 00:23:08.480 align:middle line:84% to compete up against big corporations that 00:23:08.480 --> 00:23:14.600 align:middle line:84% may be better able to pay more for faster access and services. 00:23:14.600 --> 00:23:17.570 align:middle line:84% To me, this is a matter of fundamental fairness 00:23:17.570 --> 00:23:20.120 align:middle line:90% and an equal playing field. 00:23:20.120 --> 00:23:23.060 align:middle line:84% This FCC order isn't just a burden, though. 00:23:23.060 --> 00:23:24.110 align:middle line:90% It's also illegal. 00:23:24.110 --> 00:23:26.390 align:middle line:84% And that's why my office has taken action and sued 00:23:26.390 --> 00:23:27.090 align:middle line:90% to stop this. 00:23:27.090 --> 00:23:30.860 align:middle line:84% It's why so many other AGs from around the country 00:23:30.860 --> 00:23:34.220 align:middle line:90% have joined in this action. 00:23:34.220 --> 00:23:36.770 align:middle line:84% We're challenging the FCC's flawed rationale 00:23:36.770 --> 00:23:38.700 align:middle line:90% for issuing this order. 00:23:38.700 --> 00:23:41.630 align:middle line:84% And we're challenging the FCC's even more troubling attempt 00:23:41.630 --> 00:23:45.980 align:middle line:84% to preempt all state and local laws reinstating 00:23:45.980 --> 00:23:48.020 align:middle line:90% net neutrality. 00:23:48.020 --> 00:23:51.470 align:middle line:84% I know you share these concerns, which is also 00:23:51.470 --> 00:23:55.400 align:middle line:84% why we're challenging the FCC's claims that it can wholly 00:23:55.400 --> 00:23:58.430 align:middle line:90% preempt state laws. 00:23:58.430 --> 00:24:00.780 align:middle line:84% As this case progresses through the courts, 00:24:00.780 --> 00:24:04.430 align:middle line:84% we'll keep fighting for net neutrality, and open and equal 00:24:04.430 --> 00:24:06.560 align:middle line:90% access to the internet. 00:24:06.560 --> 00:24:08.900 align:middle line:84% I look forward to, and my team looks forward to, 00:24:08.900 --> 00:24:10.580 align:middle line:84% working with the special committee 00:24:10.580 --> 00:24:13.700 align:middle line:84% to identify any legislative and policy 00:24:13.700 --> 00:24:16.130 align:middle line:84% options to protect Massachusetts residents 00:24:16.130 --> 00:24:19.490 align:middle line:84% and maintain the internet as we know it. 00:24:19.490 --> 00:24:21.260 align:middle line:84% Thank you again for the opportunity 00:24:21.260 --> 00:24:22.610 align:middle line:90% to testify here today. 00:24:22.610 --> 00:24:25.340 align:middle line:84% And I'm happy to take any questions. 00:24:25.340 --> 00:24:27.113 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 00:24:27.113 --> 00:24:30.301 align:middle line:90% Any questions? 00:24:30.301 --> 00:24:30.800 align:middle line:90% Yes. 00:24:30.800 --> 00:24:31.613 align:middle line:90% Senator? 00:24:31.613 --> 00:24:32.988 align:middle line:84% First of all, thank you very much 00:24:32.988 --> 00:24:36.080 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] your office has already 00:24:36.080 --> 00:24:39.200 align:middle line:84% rendered to the committee, as we try to navigate 00:24:39.200 --> 00:24:43.280 align:middle line:90% this very complex situation. 00:24:43.280 --> 00:24:44.990 align:middle line:84% In many instances, in conversations 00:24:44.990 --> 00:24:46.406 align:middle line:84% that we've had with folks, they've 00:24:46.406 --> 00:24:48.920 align:middle line:84% suggested that the federal preemption that's 00:24:48.920 --> 00:24:52.040 align:middle line:84% claimed in this particular rule change 00:24:52.040 --> 00:24:54.900 align:middle line:84% is different than standard preemption. 00:24:54.900 --> 00:24:56.090 align:middle line:90% It's more ambiguous. 00:24:56.090 --> 00:24:57.410 align:middle line:90% It's more verbose. 00:24:57.410 --> 00:24:59.890 align:middle line:84% I'm wondering, to the extent without compromising 00:24:59.890 --> 00:25:01.940 align:middle line:84% the legal action that you've undertaken, 00:25:01.940 --> 00:25:05.650 align:middle line:84% if you can help us to understand the murkiness, 00:25:05.650 --> 00:25:07.850 align:middle line:84% or the difference, in this preemption 00:25:07.850 --> 00:25:09.770 align:middle line:84% as what we would generally see, and why 00:25:09.770 --> 00:25:13.130 align:middle line:84% that may open some window to us to be able to act as a state 00:25:13.130 --> 00:25:14.220 align:middle line:90% legislature. 00:25:14.220 --> 00:25:16.569 align:middle line:84% Well, Vice Chairman Tarr, I really 00:25:16.569 --> 00:25:17.610 align:middle line:90% appreciate that question. 00:25:17.610 --> 00:25:18.985 align:middle line:84% This is a really important issue. 00:25:18.985 --> 00:25:24.739 align:middle line:84% And I think as lawmakers, as legislators, any time you're 00:25:24.739 --> 00:25:26.780 align:middle line:84% faced with this question, this important question 00:25:26.780 --> 00:25:29.060 align:middle line:90% to be looking at-- 00:25:29.060 --> 00:25:33.080 align:middle line:84% look, the fact of the matter is that across any number 00:25:33.080 --> 00:25:35.599 align:middle line:84% of subject areas and fields, there 00:25:35.599 --> 00:25:37.140 align:middle line:84% are federal laws that apply and there 00:25:37.140 --> 00:25:39.410 align:middle line:90% are state laws that also apply. 00:25:39.410 --> 00:25:41.360 align:middle line:84% And a lot of those state laws are 00:25:41.360 --> 00:25:44.810 align:middle line:90% in place for very good reason. 00:25:44.810 --> 00:25:48.320 align:middle line:84% There has been, over the years, a contest about preemption 00:25:48.320 --> 00:25:52.400 align:middle line:84% and when federal law essentially supersedes or takes over 00:25:52.400 --> 00:25:53.990 align:middle line:90% for a state law. 00:25:53.990 --> 00:25:56.080 align:middle line:84% But we take those arguments very seriously, 00:25:56.080 --> 00:26:00.759 align:middle line:84% and we take the delineation of power very seriously. 00:26:00.759 --> 00:26:02.300 align:middle line:84% One of the things, though, that we've 00:26:02.300 --> 00:26:05.300 align:middle line:84% asserted in our litigation is not only 00:26:05.300 --> 00:26:08.290 align:middle line:84% that the FCC acted in a way that was arbitrary, 00:26:08.290 --> 00:26:11.960 align:middle line:84% that was capricious, that lacked the kinds of rationale 00:26:11.960 --> 00:26:14.850 align:middle line:84% that you want in a rulemaking process, 00:26:14.850 --> 00:26:19.100 align:middle line:84% we also have argued that their position on preemption 00:26:19.100 --> 00:26:20.380 align:middle line:90% is wrong-- 00:26:20.380 --> 00:26:24.620 align:middle line:84% that it is wrong, and that they can't simply 00:26:24.620 --> 00:26:27.410 align:middle line:84% wipe away important state laws that 00:26:27.410 --> 00:26:31.860 align:middle line:84% are in place to protect our consumers and our businesses. 00:26:31.860 --> 00:26:34.220 align:middle line:84% So unfortunately, that is the position 00:26:34.220 --> 00:26:36.920 align:middle line:90% that the FCC has taken. 00:26:36.920 --> 00:26:40.250 align:middle line:84% They, it seems, don't want the state 00:26:40.250 --> 00:26:42.950 align:middle line:84% to be able to play at all in this area. 00:26:42.950 --> 00:26:45.110 align:middle line:84% Now, as your attorney general, day in and day out, 00:26:45.110 --> 00:26:47.450 align:middle line:84% so much of the work of our office 00:26:47.450 --> 00:26:50.360 align:middle line:84% is focused on enforcing laws that are there 00:26:50.360 --> 00:26:53.330 align:middle line:84% to protect consumers, to protect our residents, 00:26:53.330 --> 00:26:56.330 align:middle line:84% to make sure there's an equal playing field when it comes 00:26:56.330 --> 00:26:58.560 align:middle line:90% to businesses and our economy. 00:26:58.560 --> 00:26:59.940 align:middle line:90% This is what we do. 00:26:59.940 --> 00:27:05.240 align:middle line:84% So it's particularly troubling to see an attempt by the FCC 00:27:05.240 --> 00:27:07.700 align:middle line:84% to eviscerate, to undermine, to obliterate 00:27:07.700 --> 00:27:09.260 align:middle line:90% that important prerogative. 00:27:09.260 --> 00:27:12.450 align:middle line:84% And I also think that's why you've seen so many state 00:27:12.450 --> 00:27:16.070 align:middle line:84% AGs from around the country come together to say, 00:27:16.070 --> 00:27:17.930 align:middle line:90% no, this can't be. 00:27:17.930 --> 00:27:19.700 align:middle line:84% So again, that's something that I 00:27:19.700 --> 00:27:22.340 align:middle line:84% imagine will be the subject of litigation in court. 00:27:22.340 --> 00:27:25.130 align:middle line:84% But our position, I think, on this is clear. 00:27:25.130 --> 00:27:26.870 align:middle line:90% And it is my view. 00:27:26.870 --> 00:27:29.210 align:middle line:84% And I entirely support efforts here 00:27:29.210 --> 00:27:32.570 align:middle line:84% to think about ways, through legislation, 00:27:32.570 --> 00:27:35.300 align:middle line:84% through policymaking or other means, 00:27:35.300 --> 00:27:38.720 align:middle line:84% to ensure that our businesses, that our residents 00:27:38.720 --> 00:27:41.810 align:middle line:84% have access to the kind of open internet 00:27:41.810 --> 00:27:45.650 align:middle line:84% that I think we need to support and grow our economy, 00:27:45.650 --> 00:27:49.640 align:middle line:84% and to be able to conduct our lives that, as I say, 00:27:49.640 --> 00:27:53.160 align:middle line:84% are increasingly lived on and through the internet. 00:27:53.160 --> 00:27:57.104 align:middle line:90% 00:27:57.104 --> 00:28:04.190 align:middle line:84% So just following up on Senator Tarr, 00:28:04.190 --> 00:28:08.680 align:middle line:84% it may be that there isn't a clear answer. 00:28:08.680 --> 00:28:11.780 align:middle line:84% In order-- and for some of us who aren't as familiar with how 00:28:11.780 --> 00:28:13.140 align:middle line:90% that works-- 00:28:13.140 --> 00:28:18.330 align:middle line:84% so in order to have a preemption, what happens? 00:28:18.330 --> 00:28:20.440 align:middle line:84% Does the FTC have to make a statement? 00:28:20.440 --> 00:28:22.490 align:middle line:90% Is there something in writing? 00:28:22.490 --> 00:28:25.730 align:middle line:84% Is there a general law of preemption? 00:28:25.730 --> 00:28:30.030 align:middle line:84% And again, does this fall, if we do know, 00:28:30.030 --> 00:28:34.880 align:middle line:84% does this fall into how, generally, a preemption works? 00:28:34.880 --> 00:28:40.970 align:middle line:84% So for some of us who may need a little help here, tutorial-- 00:28:40.970 --> 00:28:43.370 align:middle line:84% Well, it's a longer discussion, but suffice 00:28:43.370 --> 00:28:45.140 align:middle line:84% to say there are a few rules that 00:28:45.140 --> 00:28:47.420 align:middle line:84% need to apply when the federal government wants 00:28:47.420 --> 00:28:50.760 align:middle line:90% to preempt a field. 00:28:50.760 --> 00:28:52.280 align:middle line:84% And one of the things that will be 00:28:52.280 --> 00:28:54.440 align:middle line:84% the subject of ongoing litigation, I'm sure, 00:28:54.440 --> 00:28:57.230 align:middle line:84% is the extent to which they did that properly or improperly. 00:28:57.230 --> 00:29:00.890 align:middle line:84% It's our view that they've done this improperly, 00:29:00.890 --> 00:29:02.900 align:middle line:84% and that we have the prerogative and the ability 00:29:02.900 --> 00:29:04.940 align:middle line:84% as a state to act and to enforce laws 00:29:04.940 --> 00:29:08.630 align:middle line:84% that are necessary for the well-being of our residents. 00:29:08.630 --> 00:29:12.590 align:middle line:84% So there are areas where the federal government has 00:29:12.590 --> 00:29:16.490 align:middle line:84% been able to preempt state action, 00:29:16.490 --> 00:29:21.140 align:middle line:84% including some that relate to internet service. 00:29:21.140 --> 00:29:22.520 align:middle line:90% They have that ability. 00:29:22.520 --> 00:29:26.480 align:middle line:84% That said, our position, my office's position, 00:29:26.480 --> 00:29:28.970 align:middle line:84% is that the FCC, in this instance, 00:29:28.970 --> 00:29:32.300 align:middle line:84% has overstepped its congressional mandate, 00:29:32.300 --> 00:29:38.600 align:middle line:84% overstepped its authority through its preemption claims 00:29:38.600 --> 00:29:41.240 align:middle line:84% and what it is claiming through preemption. 00:29:41.240 --> 00:29:45.530 align:middle line:84% I am committed, as I say, to working with you and your teams 00:29:45.530 --> 00:29:46.880 align:middle line:90% on this issue. 00:29:46.880 --> 00:29:48.470 align:middle line:84% We have filed our action in court. 00:29:48.470 --> 00:29:50.690 align:middle line:84% Briefs will be filed soon on this. 00:29:50.690 --> 00:29:54.000 align:middle line:84% But part of the issue here is that, again, 00:29:54.000 --> 00:29:56.990 align:middle line:84% if you look across the landscape in the many areas 00:29:56.990 --> 00:29:59.450 align:middle line:84% that we operate in, whether it's on the regulation 00:29:59.450 --> 00:30:04.040 align:middle line:84% of electricity rates, or whether it's with respect to issues 00:30:04.040 --> 00:30:08.480 align:middle line:84% of Medicaid fraud, or banking, financial services, insurance, 00:30:08.480 --> 00:30:10.130 align:middle line:84% there are any number of instances where 00:30:10.130 --> 00:30:12.800 align:middle line:84% we have federal agencies taking action, 00:30:12.800 --> 00:30:15.000 align:middle line:84% and we have state agencies taking action. 00:30:15.000 --> 00:30:18.650 align:middle line:84% And we have both federal laws and state laws that apply. 00:30:18.650 --> 00:30:20.360 align:middle line:84% So it is simply not the case that simply 00:30:20.360 --> 00:30:23.420 align:middle line:84% because a federal agency says, we're 00:30:23.420 --> 00:30:26.090 align:middle line:84% going to act and own this field, that they 00:30:26.090 --> 00:30:30.290 align:middle line:84% are given exclusive control and jurisdiction over that. 00:30:30.290 --> 00:30:32.120 align:middle line:84% And there have been many, many cases 00:30:32.120 --> 00:30:36.740 align:middle line:84% litigated across subject areas, over decades, 00:30:36.740 --> 00:30:38.660 align:middle line:90% on the issue of preemption. 00:30:38.660 --> 00:30:41.060 align:middle line:84% But here, again, our position is clear 00:30:41.060 --> 00:30:44.810 align:middle line:84% that not only did the FCC act in a way that 00:30:44.810 --> 00:30:48.230 align:middle line:84% was flawed, arbitrary, capricious, lacking 00:30:48.230 --> 00:30:52.490 align:middle line:84% the kind of rationale that we require for basic rulemaking 00:30:52.490 --> 00:30:56.480 align:middle line:84% processes, but also that their assertions with respect 00:30:56.480 --> 00:31:00.838 align:middle line:90% to preemption are simply flawed. 00:31:00.838 --> 00:31:03.320 align:middle line:90% Yes, Senator Lesser. 00:31:03.320 --> 00:31:05.239 align:middle line:90% Thank you, Attorney General. 00:31:05.239 --> 00:31:07.280 align:middle line:84% We appreciate you coming, and for your leadership 00:31:07.280 --> 00:31:08.730 align:middle line:84% on this and so many other issues. 00:31:08.730 --> 00:31:10.520 align:middle line:84% I wanted to just drill into the preemption 00:31:10.520 --> 00:31:11.796 align:middle line:84% analysis a little bit, because I think 00:31:11.796 --> 00:31:13.980 align:middle line:84% it's at the heart of our role of what kind of a law 00:31:13.980 --> 00:31:15.590 align:middle line:90% we put together. 00:31:15.590 --> 00:31:17.950 align:middle line:84% I mean, putting aside the procedural issues that you 00:31:17.950 --> 00:31:19.949 align:middle line:84% to alluded to, about whether they did the notice 00:31:19.949 --> 00:31:24.080 align:middle line:84% and comment correctly, and the arbitrariness of rulemaking 00:31:24.080 --> 00:31:28.580 align:middle line:84% itself, I mean, is this even substantively a close call? 00:31:28.580 --> 00:31:32.090 align:middle line:84% It seems to me like there's a whole host of categories of law 00:31:32.090 --> 00:31:35.910 align:middle line:84% that overlap, as you just said, between federal responsibility 00:31:35.910 --> 00:31:37.010 align:middle line:90% and state responsibility. 00:31:37.010 --> 00:31:39.030 align:middle line:84% There's federal environmental protections, 00:31:39.030 --> 00:31:41.550 align:middle line:84% and there's state environmental protections. 00:31:41.550 --> 00:31:44.690 align:middle line:84% There's federal consumer protection requirements, 00:31:44.690 --> 00:31:46.980 align:middle line:84% and there's state consumer protection requirements. 00:31:46.980 --> 00:31:49.150 align:middle line:84% We have a long history with Chapter 93A 00:31:49.150 --> 00:31:52.700 align:middle line:84% of robust state enforcement of consumer protection. 00:31:52.700 --> 00:31:56.930 align:middle line:84% We have a long history of state regulation of cable providers 00:31:56.930 --> 00:31:58.610 align:middle line:84% and telecommunications providers. 00:31:58.610 --> 00:32:00.770 align:middle line:84% So I guess I have a two-part question. 00:32:00.770 --> 00:32:04.550 align:middle line:84% One, what is your sense at how close this actually 00:32:04.550 --> 00:32:07.700 align:middle line:84% is, in terms of how broad the preemption would be? 00:32:07.700 --> 00:32:11.720 align:middle line:84% Because to me, it doesn't seem remotely close. 00:32:11.720 --> 00:32:14.180 align:middle line:84% It seems like we clearly have an avenue 00:32:14.180 --> 00:32:16.000 align:middle line:90% to regulate on a state basis. 00:32:16.000 --> 00:32:20.927 align:middle line:84% And number two, if we do take on the task of, 00:32:20.927 --> 00:32:22.760 align:middle line:84% what I would say, from a consumer protection 00:32:22.760 --> 00:32:26.450 align:middle line:84% point of view, protecting our citizens and their privacy 00:32:26.450 --> 00:32:29.090 align:middle line:84% and their data security, what would that look like, 00:32:29.090 --> 00:32:32.460 align:middle line:84% to survive that preemption challenge? 00:32:32.460 --> 00:32:37.060 align:middle line:84% Well, I think that this bears, probably, further discussion 00:32:37.060 --> 00:32:38.450 align:middle line:90% and more detailed discussion. 00:32:38.450 --> 00:32:43.040 align:middle line:84% But let me just sort of provide a little bit of context. 00:32:43.040 --> 00:32:44.780 align:middle line:84% Some of what you're speaking to, Senator, 00:32:44.780 --> 00:32:47.980 align:middle line:84% are situations where Congress has acted, 00:32:47.980 --> 00:32:49.700 align:middle line:90% actual members of Congress. 00:32:49.700 --> 00:32:53.480 align:middle line:84% A lawmaking body, as opposed to a rulemaking body, 00:32:53.480 --> 00:32:55.430 align:middle line:90% have taken action. 00:32:55.430 --> 00:32:58.130 align:middle line:84% And one thing that's important to note here it 00:32:58.130 --> 00:33:00.220 align:middle line:84% that this is simply an order, OK? 00:33:00.220 --> 00:33:01.810 align:middle line:90% This wasn't an act by Congress. 00:33:01.810 --> 00:33:05.620 align:middle line:84% This wasn't debated and voted on and signed into law. 00:33:05.620 --> 00:33:09.820 align:middle line:84% This was simply an order issued by a federal agency that 00:33:09.820 --> 00:33:12.550 align:middle line:84% overnight was going to change the way we 00:33:12.550 --> 00:33:14.300 align:middle line:90% do business on the internet. 00:33:14.300 --> 00:33:15.490 align:middle line:90% That's a big deal. 00:33:15.490 --> 00:33:18.460 align:middle line:84% And for them to assert through an order 00:33:18.460 --> 00:33:20.740 align:middle line:84% that they are going to preempt the field, 00:33:20.740 --> 00:33:24.400 align:middle line:84% and they are going to undermine, eviscerate, or lessen 00:33:24.400 --> 00:33:31.240 align:middle line:84% the import or consequence of basic state laws and consumer 00:33:31.240 --> 00:33:34.060 align:middle line:84% protection laws that are in place, 00:33:34.060 --> 00:33:36.640 align:middle line:84% is highly problematic, and in our view, 00:33:36.640 --> 00:33:39.110 align:middle line:90% unjustified and illegal. 00:33:39.110 --> 00:33:41.020 align:middle line:84% So I think that's an important distinction 00:33:41.020 --> 00:33:43.180 align:middle line:84% to point out, sort of procedurally-- what 00:33:43.180 --> 00:33:44.419 align:middle line:90% is it that's happened here? 00:33:44.419 --> 00:33:46.210 align:middle line:84% A lot of times when it comes to preemption, 00:33:46.210 --> 00:33:48.985 align:middle line:84% we're talking about a situation where the federal government, 00:33:48.985 --> 00:33:53.010 align:middle line:84% through Congress, has passed a law, 00:33:53.010 --> 00:33:55.464 align:middle line:84% and that bill's been signed into law. 00:33:55.464 --> 00:33:56.880 align:middle line:84% We're not even talking about this. 00:33:56.880 --> 00:34:00.140 align:middle line:84% We're talking about an order that came out one day, 00:34:00.140 --> 00:34:02.200 align:middle line:84% on January 4-- happy new year-- that 00:34:02.200 --> 00:34:05.170 align:middle line:84% changed forever, or purports to change forever, 00:34:05.170 --> 00:34:07.700 align:middle line:84% the way business is conducted on the internet. 00:34:07.700 --> 00:34:09.580 align:middle line:84% And I think it is an important issue. 00:34:09.580 --> 00:34:13.570 align:middle line:84% It is an issue that I have heard so much about in my office. 00:34:13.570 --> 00:34:16.480 align:middle line:84% And people are justifiably and rightly concerned 00:34:16.480 --> 00:34:17.989 align:middle line:90% about what this means. 00:34:17.989 --> 00:34:20.080 align:middle line:84% Do you want a situation where you 00:34:20.080 --> 00:34:24.520 align:middle line:84% may be paying more for faster access, where 00:34:24.520 --> 00:34:28.810 align:middle line:84% you may be blocked completely from certain content 00:34:28.810 --> 00:34:32.480 align:middle line:90% or from accessing certain sites? 00:34:32.480 --> 00:34:35.110 align:middle line:84% This is not good, I think, for a level playing 00:34:35.110 --> 00:34:36.290 align:middle line:90% field for our economy. 00:34:36.290 --> 00:34:37.060 align:middle line:90% And I don't think it's fair. 00:34:37.060 --> 00:34:38.559 align:middle line:84% I think about the number of students 00:34:38.559 --> 00:34:41.440 align:middle line:84% out there, those conducting research online. 00:34:41.440 --> 00:34:44.409 align:middle line:84% It simply can't be that we have a scenario whereby 00:34:44.409 --> 00:34:46.130 align:middle line:90% this could happen. 00:34:46.130 --> 00:34:48.489 align:middle line:84% And so I think that the efforts and the look, right now, 00:34:48.489 --> 00:34:53.980 align:middle line:84% that you're undertaking is very important. 00:34:53.980 --> 00:34:56.202 align:middle line:84% I may not have addressed the second question you 00:34:56.202 --> 00:34:57.410 align:middle line:90% posed to me, if you want to-- 00:34:57.410 --> 00:34:57.910 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 00:34:57.910 --> 00:35:00.070 align:middle line:84% I mean, I guess, just, so on that, I 00:35:00.070 --> 00:35:01.960 align:middle line:84% mean, I would agree that it seems 00:35:01.960 --> 00:35:04.600 align:middle line:84% kind of obvious that the state has a role, 00:35:04.600 --> 00:35:06.900 align:middle line:84% and has some authority to regulate this. 00:35:06.900 --> 00:35:09.220 align:middle line:90% So what would that look like? 00:35:09.220 --> 00:35:11.050 align:middle line:90% Would it be through Chapter 93A? 00:35:11.050 --> 00:35:12.660 align:middle line:90% Would it be through-- 00:35:12.660 --> 00:35:15.160 align:middle line:84% would we do it through procurement? 00:35:15.160 --> 00:35:16.890 align:middle line:84% What would be your advice to us for how 00:35:16.890 --> 00:35:19.540 align:middle line:84% to craft a law that would get around 00:35:19.540 --> 00:35:24.450 align:middle line:84% some of the predictable and legitimate preemption concerns, 00:35:24.450 --> 00:35:28.330 align:middle line:84% but still well within the ambit of the state's role 00:35:28.330 --> 00:35:30.100 align:middle line:90% as a watchdog of its citizens? 00:35:30.100 --> 00:35:32.020 align:middle line:84% Well, I think that-- look, I intend 00:35:32.020 --> 00:35:35.260 align:middle line:84% to continue to be there to enforce our state consumer 00:35:35.260 --> 00:35:41.320 align:middle line:84% protection law, Chapter 93A, an important law that really 00:35:41.320 --> 00:35:42.920 align:middle line:90% is there to protect consumers. 00:35:42.920 --> 00:35:45.295 align:middle line:84% And we're going to continue to enforce that, particularly 00:35:45.295 --> 00:35:48.690 align:middle line:84% around transparency and disclosure, 00:35:48.690 --> 00:35:51.375 align:middle line:84% or against any instance that results in, basically, 00:35:51.375 --> 00:35:55.300 align:middle line:84% unfairness to consumers out there. 00:35:55.300 --> 00:35:58.810 align:middle line:84% I think that all options should be explored. 00:35:58.810 --> 00:36:02.620 align:middle line:84% And we're certainly going to, in the first instance, 00:36:02.620 --> 00:36:09.010 align:middle line:84% fight this in court, fight the premise of the FCC order, 00:36:09.010 --> 00:36:12.490 align:middle line:84% which is basically to say that there's some role 00:36:12.490 --> 00:36:16.114 align:middle line:84% for the states-- you can still deal with issues of billing-- 00:36:16.114 --> 00:36:17.530 align:middle line:84% but you can't touch anything else. 00:36:17.530 --> 00:36:21.310 align:middle line:84% And you know, we just strongly disagree with that, 00:36:21.310 --> 00:36:23.350 align:middle line:90% and recognize-- 00:36:23.350 --> 00:36:25.630 align:middle line:84% and I particularly recognize, having spent 10 years 00:36:25.630 --> 00:36:28.090 align:middle line:84% in the Attorney General's Office, the importance of state 00:36:28.090 --> 00:36:30.850 align:middle line:84% laws being on the books to make sure 00:36:30.850 --> 00:36:33.160 align:middle line:84% that our businesses, our residents, consumers 00:36:33.160 --> 00:36:34.450 align:middle line:90% are protected. 00:36:34.450 --> 00:36:41.050 align:middle line:84% So I think that thinking about what else needs to be in place 00:36:41.050 --> 00:36:41.750 align:middle line:90% is important. 00:36:41.750 --> 00:36:44.830 align:middle line:84% I also think about the procurement process. 00:36:44.830 --> 00:36:48.280 align:middle line:84% And I think that that's an interesting and additional 00:36:48.280 --> 00:36:51.400 align:middle line:84% means by which we can better ensure, here, 00:36:51.400 --> 00:36:54.460 align:middle line:84% within Massachusetts, particularly 00:36:54.460 --> 00:37:00.250 align:middle line:84% for us, within our control and jurisdiction, 00:37:00.250 --> 00:37:03.550 align:middle line:84% open and equal access to the internet. 00:37:03.550 --> 00:37:07.100 align:middle line:84% And just a final question on the litigation from here. 00:37:07.100 --> 00:37:10.270 align:middle line:84% Is there any concern, or any issue 00:37:10.270 --> 00:37:13.910 align:middle line:84% with us operating and legislating and potentially 00:37:13.910 --> 00:37:18.010 align:middle line:84% passing a law while the challenge to the FCC order 00:37:18.010 --> 00:37:19.480 align:middle line:90% is still pending? 00:37:19.480 --> 00:37:20.650 align:middle line:90% No. 00:37:20.650 --> 00:37:21.460 align:middle line:90% Not at all. 00:37:21.460 --> 00:37:22.690 align:middle line:90% And I think that-- 00:37:22.690 --> 00:37:24.670 align:middle line:84% and I applaud the committee's efforts 00:37:24.670 --> 00:37:27.850 align:middle line:84% to take a serious look at this, and try 00:37:27.850 --> 00:37:30.880 align:middle line:84% to figure out what can be done to deal with this issue. 00:37:30.880 --> 00:37:34.570 align:middle line:84% I can't predict how long litigation will take. 00:37:34.570 --> 00:37:37.840 align:middle line:84% So I suggest that there's not a need 00:37:37.840 --> 00:37:40.390 align:middle line:84% to wait for the resolution of that. 00:37:40.390 --> 00:37:43.150 align:middle line:84% That said, I will, and my team will, 00:37:43.150 --> 00:37:47.080 align:middle line:84% continue to be available to work with members of the committee 00:37:47.080 --> 00:37:52.660 align:middle line:84% and staff to identify, maybe, appropriate options 00:37:52.660 --> 00:37:57.250 align:middle line:84% that you might consider when it comes to acting in this space. 00:37:57.250 --> 00:38:01.240 align:middle line:84% And we'll certainly love to keep you apprised of litigation 00:38:01.240 --> 00:38:02.990 align:middle line:84% and what is happening, and share with you, 00:38:02.990 --> 00:38:06.170 align:middle line:84% of course, the briefs and materials that 00:38:06.170 --> 00:38:09.380 align:middle line:90% are filed before the court. 00:38:09.380 --> 00:38:14.240 align:middle line:84% I think you actually answered my question, but I, and perhaps 00:38:14.240 --> 00:38:18.230 align:middle line:90% at a later time-- 00:38:18.230 --> 00:38:20.710 align:middle line:84% there had been actions taken by other states-- 00:38:20.710 --> 00:38:23.270 align:middle line:90% California and New York. 00:38:23.270 --> 00:38:27.750 align:middle line:84% And those actions attempted to deal with this 00:38:27.750 --> 00:38:31.650 align:middle line:84% not only by procurement, but with other means. 00:38:31.650 --> 00:38:35.840 align:middle line:84% So perhaps it's not appropriate at this time 00:38:35.840 --> 00:38:37.130 align:middle line:90% to have you weigh in. 00:38:37.130 --> 00:38:40.910 align:middle line:84% But it would be helpful, as we go forward, 00:38:40.910 --> 00:38:47.360 align:middle line:84% to weigh in with some of the other bills that are out there, 00:38:47.360 --> 00:38:52.296 align:middle line:84% and kind of give us some guidance, because obviously, 00:38:52.296 --> 00:38:57.022 align:middle line:84% if the legislature and the governor signs a bill, 00:38:57.022 --> 00:38:58.730 align:middle line:84% you're going to have to be the one that's 00:38:58.730 --> 00:39:01.940 align:middle line:84% going to have to support that bill and fight that bill. 00:39:01.940 --> 00:39:06.020 align:middle line:84% So maybe going forward, after you've 00:39:06.020 --> 00:39:09.320 align:middle line:84% had a chance to look at, maybe, some of what 00:39:09.320 --> 00:39:12.570 align:middle line:84% other states have done, it would be great to get some feedback. 00:39:12.570 --> 00:39:16.310 align:middle line:84% Well, we welcome that opportunity, Madam Chairwoman. 00:39:16.310 --> 00:39:20.829 align:middle line:84% And I just want to stress that I think concerns 00:39:20.829 --> 00:39:23.120 align:middle line:84% that have been raised-- and I know some in the industry 00:39:23.120 --> 00:39:24.875 align:middle line:84% have said, this isn't going to happen, 00:39:24.875 --> 00:39:28.460 align:middle line:84% that you're just spelling out a parade of horribles, that isn't 00:39:28.460 --> 00:39:30.620 align:middle line:84% going to come to pass because this is not 00:39:30.620 --> 00:39:34.670 align:middle line:84% how we're going to do business and grow our business. 00:39:34.670 --> 00:39:36.965 align:middle line:84% But my question is, then, why, then, 00:39:36.965 --> 00:39:39.740 align:middle line:84% should the specter of that even be on the table? 00:39:39.740 --> 00:39:42.230 align:middle line:90% Why open ourselves up to that? 00:39:42.230 --> 00:39:46.620 align:middle line:84% And as somebody who's very concerned about disclosure, 00:39:46.620 --> 00:39:49.910 align:middle line:84% about transparency, about fairness, 00:39:49.910 --> 00:39:52.250 align:middle line:84% about an equal playing field, I think 00:39:52.250 --> 00:39:55.400 align:middle line:84% that this is a really, really important issue. 00:39:55.400 --> 00:39:58.670 align:middle line:84% And so we'll continue to be available. 00:39:58.670 --> 00:40:01.430 align:middle line:84% I also think, with respect to procurement and some 00:40:01.430 --> 00:40:07.610 align:middle line:84% of the decisions taken in places like Montana and New York, 00:40:07.610 --> 00:40:11.690 align:middle line:84% I think those are interesting and valuable considerations, 00:40:11.690 --> 00:40:13.700 align:middle line:84% because again, what is it that we 00:40:13.700 --> 00:40:17.330 align:middle line:84% can do within our jurisdiction to ensure 00:40:17.330 --> 00:40:19.982 align:middle line:90% open access to the internet? 00:40:19.982 --> 00:40:22.190 align:middle line:84% And so I think all the options should be on the table 00:40:22.190 --> 00:40:23.150 align:middle line:90% under consideration. 00:40:23.150 --> 00:40:26.890 align:middle line:84% And I'm happy for us to talk further as we move forward. 00:40:26.890 --> 00:40:30.110 align:middle line:84% Because I did notice that Washington went pretty far 00:40:30.110 --> 00:40:31.290 align:middle line:90% in what they were doing. 00:40:31.290 --> 00:40:35.990 align:middle line:84% So maybe at another time, we can revisit that. 00:40:35.990 --> 00:40:36.490 align:middle line:90% Terrific. 00:40:36.490 --> 00:40:37.190 align:middle line:90% We welcome that. 00:40:37.190 --> 00:40:38.184 align:middle line:90% Any other questions? 00:40:38.184 --> 00:40:39.178 align:middle line:90% Oh yeah, Senator-- 00:40:39.178 --> 00:40:43.154 align:middle line:90% 00:40:43.154 --> 00:40:48.130 align:middle line:84% I don't know if you need the mic [INAUDIBLE].. 00:40:48.130 --> 00:40:50.800 align:middle line:84% Thank you very much, Madam Attorney General, 00:40:50.800 --> 00:40:52.240 align:middle line:90% for your comments today. 00:40:52.240 --> 00:40:55.240 align:middle line:90% 00:40:55.240 --> 00:40:59.710 align:middle line:84% I'm interested in the committee figuring out 00:40:59.710 --> 00:41:03.850 align:middle line:84% what a marketplace might look like if, perchance, 00:41:03.850 --> 00:41:07.600 align:middle line:84% net neutrality is ended and the legal challenges don't prevent 00:41:07.600 --> 00:41:10.280 align:middle line:90% that from happening. 00:41:10.280 --> 00:41:13.390 align:middle line:84% And I just will observe now, this is just-- 00:41:13.390 --> 00:41:15.880 align:middle line:90% and I'm groping here-- 00:41:15.880 --> 00:41:19.750 align:middle line:84% that right now, I pay quite a bit for my monthly internet 00:41:19.750 --> 00:41:20.920 align:middle line:90% access from Verizon. 00:41:20.920 --> 00:41:23.920 align:middle line:90% 00:41:23.920 --> 00:41:27.130 align:middle line:84% And I'm talking somewhere between $50 or $60 a month, 00:41:27.130 --> 00:41:28.810 align:middle line:84% if I separate it out from my cell phone 00:41:28.810 --> 00:41:34.640 align:middle line:84% service, my landline service, and cable TV. 00:41:34.640 --> 00:41:37.220 align:middle line:90% 00:41:37.220 --> 00:41:38.530 align:middle line:90% Here's the thought question. 00:41:38.530 --> 00:41:43.360 align:middle line:84% Let's assume that because of public anger 00:41:43.360 --> 00:41:47.830 align:middle line:84% and pushback from places like Massachusetts and your office, 00:41:47.830 --> 00:41:51.490 align:middle line:84% the internet service providers, for a number of years, 00:41:51.490 --> 00:41:53.710 align:middle line:90% take a revenue neutral approach. 00:41:53.710 --> 00:41:56.680 align:middle line:84% They're going to increase charges 00:41:56.680 --> 00:42:00.010 align:middle line:90% for some classes of consumers. 00:42:00.010 --> 00:42:04.750 align:middle line:84% They're going to decrease them for others. 00:42:04.750 --> 00:42:09.460 align:middle line:84% But they're going to make little new net revenue, or none 00:42:09.460 --> 00:42:11.440 align:middle line:90% at all. 00:42:11.440 --> 00:42:13.900 align:middle line:84% Because current internet service is 00:42:13.900 --> 00:42:17.560 align:middle line:84% rather expensive for the household, 00:42:17.560 --> 00:42:20.920 align:middle line:84% what's the possibility that we will 00:42:20.920 --> 00:42:24.610 align:middle line:84% see lower rates for poor people and students, 00:42:24.610 --> 00:42:28.990 align:middle line:84% but higher rates for upper middle class types like me? 00:42:28.990 --> 00:42:32.080 align:middle line:84% I'm just trying to figure out whether every conceivable set 00:42:32.080 --> 00:42:36.950 align:middle line:84% of scenarios is a negative one, or whether the state, if it has 00:42:36.950 --> 00:42:40.360 align:middle line:84% to, could consider a number of scenarios 00:42:40.360 --> 00:42:48.160 align:middle line:84% in which, for some, the service will be basic, you might say, 00:42:48.160 --> 00:42:51.410 align:middle line:90% but also more affordable. 00:42:51.410 --> 00:42:55.894 align:middle line:84% What, really, is the marketing thinking that these companies 00:42:55.894 --> 00:42:56.560 align:middle line:90% are engaging in? 00:42:56.560 --> 00:42:59.830 align:middle line:84% It can't be just a screw us transparently 00:42:59.830 --> 00:43:02.740 align:middle line:84% with no prelude, just get more bucks 00:43:02.740 --> 00:43:04.180 align:middle line:90% and do it as soon as possible. 00:43:04.180 --> 00:43:05.920 align:middle line:90% That would be dumb. 00:43:05.920 --> 00:43:09.520 align:middle line:84% That would really precipitate a consumer revolt. 00:43:09.520 --> 00:43:13.030 align:middle line:84% So what is the subtle approach that we might likely see? 00:43:13.030 --> 00:43:17.260 align:middle line:84% And is there a way of extracting any good out of it? 00:43:17.260 --> 00:43:21.790 align:middle line:84% Well, I appreciate the thought behind that. 00:43:21.790 --> 00:43:25.780 align:middle line:84% I can't tell you that I've given it enough consideration, 00:43:25.780 --> 00:43:28.600 align:middle line:84% to your specific question or hypothesis. 00:43:28.600 --> 00:43:31.180 align:middle line:90% But I'll tell you this. 00:43:31.180 --> 00:43:34.300 align:middle line:84% My office receives a lot of consumer complaints. 00:43:34.300 --> 00:43:37.690 align:middle line:84% And I think that judging from those complaints, 00:43:37.690 --> 00:43:41.020 align:middle line:84% it's safe to say that people are fed up with what they're 00:43:41.020 --> 00:43:42.722 align:middle line:90% paying in their cable bills. 00:43:42.722 --> 00:43:43.930 align:middle line:90% They're already paying a lot. 00:43:43.930 --> 00:43:46.330 align:middle line:84% I think they're also fed up with the way some of this 00:43:46.330 --> 00:43:49.420 align:middle line:84% is structured, around bundling and around access 00:43:49.420 --> 00:43:52.510 align:middle line:90% to basic services. 00:43:52.510 --> 00:43:56.140 align:middle line:84% So I just say that because this is already 00:43:56.140 --> 00:43:58.810 align:middle line:84% a point of heightened aggravation for many, 00:43:58.810 --> 00:44:00.640 align:middle line:90% when you think about the-- 00:44:00.640 --> 00:44:03.590 align:middle line:84% I'm not talking tens of dollars, hundreds of dollars-- 00:44:03.590 --> 00:44:06.220 align:middle line:84% that residents around the state of Massachusetts 00:44:06.220 --> 00:44:10.300 align:middle line:84% are paying every month in their bills. 00:44:10.300 --> 00:44:12.190 align:middle line:84% Alongside that, you've got a situation 00:44:12.190 --> 00:44:15.070 align:middle line:84% where the place of the internet has grown, in terms 00:44:15.070 --> 00:44:17.180 align:middle line:90% of the primacy in our lives. 00:44:17.180 --> 00:44:20.600 align:middle line:90% Everything is now moving online. 00:44:20.600 --> 00:44:23.230 align:middle line:84% So I think we've got to hold the line here, and be really 00:44:23.230 --> 00:44:26.770 align:middle line:84% clear that as we go forward, we need to make sure that there 00:44:26.770 --> 00:44:28.480 align:middle line:90% is open and equal access. 00:44:28.480 --> 00:44:30.990 align:middle line:84% And that is why I will fight hard for it, 00:44:30.990 --> 00:44:32.740 align:middle line:84% work with all of you on it, and work 00:44:32.740 --> 00:44:34.840 align:middle line:84% with others in other states around this country. 00:44:34.840 --> 00:44:38.800 align:middle line:84% It's also why you've seen a lot of, frankly, 00:44:38.800 --> 00:44:41.710 align:middle line:84% bipartisan angst about this, because this 00:44:41.710 --> 00:44:45.290 align:middle line:84% is a bad, bad course for us to go, 00:44:45.290 --> 00:44:47.290 align:middle line:84% when you think about the power and the ability 00:44:47.290 --> 00:44:49.990 align:middle line:84% and what is controlled, simply through people's access 00:44:49.990 --> 00:44:50.990 align:middle line:90% to the internet. 00:44:50.990 --> 00:44:55.360 align:middle line:84% Think about a day without access to the internet, 00:44:55.360 --> 00:44:59.830 align:middle line:84% for each of us, what that implicates for each of us. 00:44:59.830 --> 00:45:06.580 align:middle line:84% And think about the stronghold that poses on our economy 00:45:06.580 --> 00:45:08.620 align:middle line:84% and on our lives, and the ability 00:45:08.620 --> 00:45:10.850 align:middle line:84% to control access and information. 00:45:10.850 --> 00:45:17.200 align:middle line:84% So I guess, before engaging in sort of further scenarios 00:45:17.200 --> 00:45:20.920 align:middle line:84% and thoughts about how this might play out, 00:45:20.920 --> 00:45:24.100 align:middle line:84% with respect to, is there a way to devise a system that allows 00:45:24.100 --> 00:45:28.495 align:middle line:84% for some sort of differential there, I guess, 00:45:28.495 --> 00:45:30.370 align:middle line:84% without having giving this too much thought-- 00:45:30.370 --> 00:45:34.540 align:middle line:84% and my team will be probably troubled by comments unburdened 00:45:34.540 --> 00:45:37.220 align:middle line:84% by too much thought or legal analysis-- 00:45:37.220 --> 00:45:40.690 align:middle line:84% I don't think that here, drawing a distinction 00:45:40.690 --> 00:45:43.100 align:middle line:84% between rich and poor is the way to go. 00:45:43.100 --> 00:45:45.220 align:middle line:84% I think that this is basically a service that's 00:45:45.220 --> 00:45:48.050 align:middle line:84% got to be open and accessible to everybody. 00:45:48.050 --> 00:45:53.700 align:middle line:84% And that's for the sake of our marketplace, 00:45:53.700 --> 00:46:00.690 align:middle line:84% I think, for the sake of just in fairness to everybody 00:46:00.690 --> 00:46:02.164 align:middle line:84% out there, because I know there are 00:46:02.164 --> 00:46:04.080 align:middle line:84% some places within the state where we're still 00:46:04.080 --> 00:46:06.160 align:middle line:84% working to get greater access to the internet. 00:46:06.160 --> 00:46:07.080 align:middle line:90% We've got to do that. 00:46:07.080 --> 00:46:09.510 align:middle line:84% But let's operate from a premise that everybody's 00:46:09.510 --> 00:46:12.180 align:middle line:84% going to need to have access to the internet. 00:46:12.180 --> 00:46:17.190 align:middle line:84% And that should be open and it should be equal. 00:46:17.190 --> 00:46:22.620 align:middle line:84% And that's why I get very concerned about the specter 00:46:22.620 --> 00:46:25.460 align:middle line:90% of what this FCC order enables-- 00:46:25.460 --> 00:46:30.240 align:middle line:84% the throttling, the blocking, the paid prioritization. 00:46:30.240 --> 00:46:31.502 align:middle line:90% Who does that benefit? 00:46:31.502 --> 00:46:33.210 align:middle line:84% At the end of the day, the question to me 00:46:33.210 --> 00:46:38.010 align:middle line:84% that needs to be answered is, who is that benefiting? 00:46:38.010 --> 00:46:42.060 align:middle line:84% And if the answer to that is the bottom line 00:46:42.060 --> 00:46:45.720 align:middle line:84% of these internet service providers and nobody else, 00:46:45.720 --> 00:46:49.778 align:middle line:84% how can we not do everything we can to stand up for people? 00:46:49.778 --> 00:46:56.122 align:middle line:90% 00:46:56.122 --> 00:46:57.098 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:46:57.098 --> 00:47:08.810 align:middle line:90% 00:47:08.810 --> 00:47:11.110 align:middle line:90% Just, this is a backup only. 00:47:11.110 --> 00:47:14.330 align:middle line:90% And I don't want to-- 00:47:14.330 --> 00:47:15.372 align:middle line:90% I don't want to have to-- 00:47:15.372 --> 00:47:17.871 align:middle line:84% I don't want to put you in the position of being unburdened, 00:47:17.871 --> 00:47:19.340 align:middle line:90% again, with legal analysis. 00:47:19.340 --> 00:47:20.780 align:middle line:84% But it would be helpful, I think, 00:47:20.780 --> 00:47:22.800 align:middle line:84% as this discussion moves forward, 00:47:22.800 --> 00:47:25.910 align:middle line:84% for you to give us any insight in the future 00:47:25.910 --> 00:47:29.030 align:middle line:84% about the applicability of 93A as it is currently 00:47:29.030 --> 00:47:30.930 align:middle line:90% written to this situation. 00:47:30.930 --> 00:47:32.750 align:middle line:84% In other words, it does not seem to me 00:47:32.750 --> 00:47:36.620 align:middle line:84% inconceivable that if someone tried to throttle or block, 00:47:36.620 --> 00:47:38.450 align:middle line:84% it may be a violation of the statute 00:47:38.450 --> 00:47:41.690 align:middle line:84% as it is presently construed or constructed. 00:47:41.690 --> 00:47:43.940 align:middle line:84% So I'm hoping that maybe we can get some thoughts 00:47:43.940 --> 00:47:45.030 align:middle line:90% on that in the future. 00:47:45.030 --> 00:47:47.600 align:middle line:84% And as an extension of that, if we 00:47:47.600 --> 00:47:50.030 align:middle line:84% were to take our consumer statute, our consumer 00:47:50.030 --> 00:47:53.510 align:middle line:84% protection statute, which predates this net neutrality 00:47:53.510 --> 00:47:57.950 align:middle line:84% decision and order, if we were to try to modify it to make 00:47:57.950 --> 00:48:00.860 align:middle line:84% sure that it encompasses those practices, 00:48:00.860 --> 00:48:03.860 align:middle line:84% maybe some thoughts on how best to do that would be helpful. 00:48:03.860 --> 00:48:05.900 align:middle line:84% Again, not today, because I think 00:48:05.900 --> 00:48:08.210 align:middle line:84% this needs to be the subject of a careful analysis. 00:48:08.210 --> 00:48:09.485 align:middle line:90% I know you do, too. 00:48:09.485 --> 00:48:12.110 align:middle line:84% But I'm hoping that you can give us some thoughts in the future 00:48:12.110 --> 00:48:15.020 align:middle line:84% about, A, what is the applicability of the Chapter 00:48:15.020 --> 00:48:18.920 align:middle line:84% 93A statute as it is written to some of these practices, which 00:48:18.920 --> 00:48:21.830 align:middle line:84% seem inherently unfair and/or deceptive? 00:48:21.830 --> 00:48:26.450 align:middle line:84% And what might we do to build on that statute's existing 00:48:26.450 --> 00:48:28.730 align:middle line:84% consumer protections to ensure that they're 00:48:28.730 --> 00:48:33.340 align:middle line:84% applicable to this situation if we're not preempted? 00:48:33.340 --> 00:48:34.700 align:middle line:90% We'll do that. 00:48:34.700 --> 00:48:36.680 align:middle line:84% And important to note, 93A, a couple 00:48:36.680 --> 00:48:40.340 align:middle line:84% of aspects-- one, this idea that you 00:48:40.340 --> 00:48:42.320 align:middle line:84% need to prevent and be able to take action 00:48:42.320 --> 00:48:44.900 align:middle line:84% against unfair or deceptive practices, 00:48:44.900 --> 00:48:46.766 align:middle line:90% straight up consumer protection. 00:48:46.766 --> 00:48:48.140 align:middle line:84% The other part, though, has to do 00:48:48.140 --> 00:48:50.540 align:middle line:90% with anti-competitive conduct. 00:48:50.540 --> 00:48:53.120 align:middle line:84% And that's also at play here, with respect 00:48:53.120 --> 00:48:56.000 align:middle line:84% to others who want to provide content or want 00:48:56.000 --> 00:48:57.260 align:middle line:90% to come into the market. 00:48:57.260 --> 00:49:01.460 align:middle line:84% What are the potential anti-competitive consequences 00:49:01.460 --> 00:49:03.710 align:middle line:90% of this FCC order? 00:49:03.710 --> 00:49:06.500 align:middle line:84% And that's another reason why we have real concerns about what 00:49:06.500 --> 00:49:08.630 align:middle line:84% this means for the marketplace, not 00:49:08.630 --> 00:49:13.010 align:middle line:84% just for consumers, but for other entrants 00:49:13.010 --> 00:49:14.210 align:middle line:90% into the marketplace. 00:49:14.210 --> 00:49:18.050 align:middle line:84% So both exist, codified in state law. 00:49:18.050 --> 00:49:21.050 align:middle line:84% I intend on enforcing both aspects, 00:49:21.050 --> 00:49:23.090 align:middle line:90% with respect to practices here. 00:49:23.090 --> 00:49:27.430 align:middle line:84% FCC order has said we're going to allow states, 00:49:27.430 --> 00:49:32.810 align:middle line:84% in part, to continue to enforce laws around billing 00:49:32.810 --> 00:49:34.430 align:middle line:90% and certain disclosures. 00:49:34.430 --> 00:49:36.260 align:middle line:84% But they've also made clear that they've 00:49:36.260 --> 00:49:38.544 align:middle line:84% signaled strong preemption for other state laws 00:49:38.544 --> 00:49:39.960 align:middle line:84% that I think are really important. 00:49:39.960 --> 00:49:41.600 align:middle line:90% And we need to hold the line. 00:49:41.600 --> 00:49:45.510 align:middle line:84% So again, I really appreciate the opportunity to be here. 00:49:45.510 --> 00:49:48.440 align:middle line:84% And we'll certainly look to continue the conversation 00:49:48.440 --> 00:49:49.920 align:middle line:90% with the committee. 00:49:49.920 --> 00:49:51.890 align:middle line:84% So I would just add that it's my understanding 00:49:51.890 --> 00:49:53.630 align:middle line:84% that in some of the contracts that 00:49:53.630 --> 00:49:56.330 align:middle line:84% are issued by some of our internet providers, 00:49:56.330 --> 00:50:00.560 align:middle line:84% there actually are representations about failing 00:50:00.560 --> 00:50:03.380 align:middle line:90% to engage in these activities. 00:50:03.380 --> 00:50:06.950 align:middle line:84% So it just strikes me that it wouldn't be a far stretch 00:50:06.950 --> 00:50:09.170 align:middle line:84% to suggest that if those conditions were violated, 00:50:09.170 --> 00:50:12.200 align:middle line:90% someone would have a 93A action. 00:50:12.200 --> 00:50:15.350 align:middle line:84% And again, trying to live in the space 00:50:15.350 --> 00:50:18.740 align:middle line:84% that we could live in without being challenged successfully, 00:50:18.740 --> 00:50:20.660 align:middle line:84% I think that's a productive area to look. 00:50:20.660 --> 00:50:23.720 align:middle line:84% I completely appreciate that, and expect 00:50:23.720 --> 00:50:26.790 align:middle line:84% that's what we'll see, enforcement 00:50:26.790 --> 00:50:29.690 align:middle line:90% there, of those laws. 00:50:29.690 --> 00:50:33.200 align:middle line:84% But again, I'm happy to talk further, 00:50:33.200 --> 00:50:38.722 align:middle line:84% and think with you further, about what might make sense. 00:50:38.722 --> 00:50:42.138 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 00:50:42.138 --> 00:50:44.090 align:middle line:84% Well, thank you, Attorney General. 00:50:44.090 --> 00:50:47.406 align:middle line:84% And we hope that this dialogue will continue. 00:50:47.406 --> 00:50:48.870 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:50:48.870 --> 00:50:55.214 align:middle line:90% 00:50:55.214 --> 00:50:58.596 align:middle line:84% So the next person on the list is Professor Choffnes 00:50:58.596 --> 00:51:00.548 align:middle line:90% from Northeastern University. 00:51:00.548 --> 00:51:13.724 align:middle line:90% 00:51:13.724 --> 00:51:15.188 align:middle line:90% All right. 00:51:15.188 --> 00:51:16.916 align:middle line:90% Can everyone hear me? 00:51:16.916 --> 00:51:18.320 align:middle line:90% Great. 00:51:18.320 --> 00:51:19.350 align:middle line:90% Good morning. 00:51:19.350 --> 00:51:21.470 align:middle line:84% Thank you for the invitation to testify 00:51:21.470 --> 00:51:23.540 align:middle line:90% in front of this committee. 00:51:23.540 --> 00:51:26.030 align:middle line:84% For context, my name is David Choffnes. 00:51:26.030 --> 00:51:27.950 align:middle line:84% I am a professor in the College of Computer 00:51:27.950 --> 00:51:31.190 align:middle line:84% and Information Science at Northeastern University, where 00:51:31.190 --> 00:51:33.440 align:middle line:84% I'm also a member of the Cybersecurity and Privacy 00:51:33.440 --> 00:51:34.736 align:middle line:90% Institute. 00:51:34.736 --> 00:51:36.860 align:middle line:84% I've conducted research on the internet measurement 00:51:36.860 --> 00:51:38.660 align:middle line:90% for the past 14 years. 00:51:38.660 --> 00:51:41.960 align:middle line:84% And my work focuses on security, privacy, and network policy 00:51:41.960 --> 00:51:43.880 align:middle line:90% transparency. 00:51:43.880 --> 00:51:46.310 align:middle line:84% For the past four years, I've been studying the practice 00:51:46.310 --> 00:51:48.320 align:middle line:84% of traffic differentiation, which 00:51:48.320 --> 00:51:51.170 align:middle line:84% is to say when an ISP gives different service 00:51:51.170 --> 00:51:53.340 align:middle line:90% to different network traffic. 00:51:53.340 --> 00:51:56.330 align:middle line:84% For example, differentiation occurs when an ISP throttles-- 00:51:56.330 --> 00:51:57.920 align:middle line:90% which is to say, slows down-- 00:51:57.920 --> 00:52:00.530 align:middle line:84% internet traffic for video streaming, but does not 00:52:00.530 --> 00:52:03.230 align:middle line:84% do so for web browsing, email, instant messaging, 00:52:03.230 --> 00:52:04.950 align:middle line:90% or social networking. 00:52:04.950 --> 00:52:08.030 align:middle line:84% Such practices are colloquially referred to 00:52:08.030 --> 00:52:10.820 align:middle line:84% as violating net neutrality, because the network is not 00:52:10.820 --> 00:52:12.800 align:middle line:84% neutral with respect to the service offered 00:52:12.800 --> 00:52:15.080 align:middle line:90% to different network traffic. 00:52:15.080 --> 00:52:17.180 align:middle line:84% My research on traffic differentiation 00:52:17.180 --> 00:52:18.950 align:middle line:84% has been funded by the US National Science 00:52:18.950 --> 00:52:22.280 align:middle line:84% Foundation, Google, Verizon, and the French telecom 00:52:22.280 --> 00:52:24.140 align:middle line:90% regulator, Arcep. 00:52:24.140 --> 00:52:26.450 align:middle line:84% None of these relationships places any restriction 00:52:26.450 --> 00:52:29.450 align:middle line:84% on our measurements of traffic differentiation or publication 00:52:29.450 --> 00:52:30.530 align:middle line:90% of the results. 00:52:30.530 --> 00:52:33.050 align:middle line:84% In fact, the contract with Arcep requires 00:52:33.050 --> 00:52:35.720 align:middle line:84% that our anonymized data be made publicly available, 00:52:35.720 --> 00:52:39.620 align:middle line:84% and our source code be made available as well. 00:52:39.620 --> 00:52:42.200 align:middle line:84% Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations 00:52:42.200 --> 00:52:43.910 align:middle line:84% are my own, and do not necessarily 00:52:43.910 --> 00:52:47.330 align:middle line:84% reflect the views of my funding agencies or partners. 00:52:47.330 --> 00:52:50.120 align:middle line:84% So I am here today to talk about how ISPs implement 00:52:50.120 --> 00:52:52.070 align:middle line:84% network management practices, which 00:52:52.070 --> 00:52:56.000 align:middle line:84% I refer to as policies, that violate net neutrality. 00:52:56.000 --> 00:52:57.980 align:middle line:84% Namely, we have direct, empirical evidence 00:52:57.980 --> 00:53:00.470 align:middle line:84% that they do so using special networking equipment called 00:53:00.470 --> 00:53:04.340 align:middle line:84% middleboxes, that inspect the contents of our network traffic 00:53:04.340 --> 00:53:07.430 align:middle line:84% to make guesses as to what application is being used, 00:53:07.430 --> 00:53:09.110 align:middle line:84% and then potentially limit the bandwidth 00:53:09.110 --> 00:53:14.440 align:middle line:84% available to the application in response. 00:53:14.440 --> 00:53:17.940 align:middle line:84% Such middleboxes may be used for reasonable network management, 00:53:17.940 --> 00:53:19.860 align:middle line:84% to limit the impact of bandwidth-intensive 00:53:19.860 --> 00:53:21.990 align:middle line:84% applications-- for example, ensuring 00:53:21.990 --> 00:53:24.450 align:middle line:84% that video streaming from certain users 00:53:24.450 --> 00:53:26.940 align:middle line:84% does not use so much bandwidth that other users can't 00:53:26.940 --> 00:53:29.100 align:middle line:90% check email or websites. 00:53:29.100 --> 00:53:30.870 align:middle line:84% However, they may also be applied 00:53:30.870 --> 00:53:33.510 align:middle line:84% to opaquely limit access to or degrade 00:53:33.510 --> 00:53:36.120 align:middle line:84% services that compete with those offered by the network 00:53:36.120 --> 00:53:37.380 align:middle line:90% provider. 00:53:37.380 --> 00:53:39.390 align:middle line:84% Without regulation or accountability, 00:53:39.390 --> 00:53:41.130 align:middle line:84% such practices could be used to raise 00:53:41.130 --> 00:53:43.500 align:middle line:84% the barrier to entry for new technologies, 00:53:43.500 --> 00:53:45.960 align:middle line:90% or block them entirely. 00:53:45.960 --> 00:53:47.490 align:middle line:84% My research over the past four years 00:53:47.490 --> 00:53:49.890 align:middle line:84% has produced peer-reviewed publications describing 00:53:49.890 --> 00:53:53.010 align:middle line:84% our empirical evidence of deployed middlebox-enabled 00:53:53.010 --> 00:53:55.770 align:middle line:84% policies that provide differential service to network 00:53:55.770 --> 00:53:59.400 align:middle line:84% applications, almost exclusively to throttle audio and video 00:53:59.400 --> 00:54:00.660 align:middle line:90% streaming. 00:54:00.660 --> 00:54:04.290 align:middle line:84% We have also developed Wehe, an app for Android and iOS, 00:54:04.290 --> 00:54:06.900 align:middle line:84% that allows any consumer to test their ISP for traffic 00:54:06.900 --> 00:54:09.510 align:middle line:84% differentiation using their mobile device's 00:54:09.510 --> 00:54:12.570 align:middle line:90% cellular or Wi-Fi connection. 00:54:12.570 --> 00:54:14.790 align:middle line:84% We find that differentiation affects subscribers 00:54:14.790 --> 00:54:20.220 align:middle line:84% of T-Mobile US, Verizon, AT&T, Boost Mobile, and many others. 00:54:20.220 --> 00:54:22.050 align:middle line:84% We used rigorous, controlled experiments 00:54:22.050 --> 00:54:24.570 align:middle line:84% and statistical analysis of the performance 00:54:24.570 --> 00:54:29.120 align:middle line:84% of popular online services to identify this differentiation. 00:54:29.120 --> 00:54:31.290 align:middle line:84% The observed policies include throttling bandwidth 00:54:31.290 --> 00:54:34.710 align:middle line:84% available to video and audio streaming, transcoding video, 00:54:34.710 --> 00:54:36.750 align:middle line:84% and selectively not charging subscribers 00:54:36.750 --> 00:54:39.130 align:middle line:84% for traffic such as video and music streaming, 00:54:39.130 --> 00:54:41.550 align:middle line:90% a practice called zero-rating. 00:54:41.550 --> 00:54:44.520 align:middle line:84% Some of these policies were opt outs, not transparent 00:54:44.520 --> 00:54:48.090 align:middle line:84% to consumers, and/or were presented in misleading ways-- 00:54:48.090 --> 00:54:51.060 align:middle line:84% for example, focusing on video streaming resolution, 00:54:51.060 --> 00:54:53.460 align:middle line:84% instead of more accurately describing the throttle 00:54:53.460 --> 00:54:55.170 align:middle line:90% bandwidth. 00:54:55.170 --> 00:54:57.420 align:middle line:84% Instead of focusing on video resolution and video 00:54:57.420 --> 00:54:59.730 align:middle line:84% streaming in general, we recommend 00:54:59.730 --> 00:55:01.950 align:middle line:84% that providers concerned about traffic loads 00:55:01.950 --> 00:55:05.400 align:middle line:84% use application agnostic techniques to throttle. 00:55:05.400 --> 00:55:08.640 align:middle line:84% Such policies are also easy for consumers to understand, 00:55:08.640 --> 00:55:11.640 align:middle line:84% thus providing better transparency. 00:55:11.640 --> 00:55:13.770 align:middle line:84% We find that the observed policies are implemented 00:55:13.770 --> 00:55:18.330 align:middle line:84% using deep packet inspection, or DPI for short, and simple text 00:55:18.330 --> 00:55:21.010 align:middle line:84% matching on the contents of network traffic. 00:55:21.010 --> 00:55:24.410 align:middle line:84% And this potentially leads to misclassification. 00:55:24.410 --> 00:55:26.130 align:middle line:84% We validate that misclassification 00:55:26.130 --> 00:55:30.180 align:middle line:84% occurs, causing unintentional zero-rating or throttling. 00:55:30.180 --> 00:55:32.100 align:middle line:84% For example, video specific policies 00:55:32.100 --> 00:55:35.090 align:middle line:84% can arbitrarily apply to non-video traffic. 00:55:35.090 --> 00:55:36.990 align:middle line:84% Further, some video traffic may not 00:55:36.990 --> 00:55:39.184 align:middle line:90% be throttled while others are. 00:55:39.184 --> 00:55:41.100 align:middle line:84% In fact, we have shown that current approaches 00:55:41.100 --> 00:55:43.380 align:middle line:84% to implementing network management policies 00:55:43.380 --> 00:55:46.830 align:middle line:84% are fundamentally vulnerable to unintentional behavior. 00:55:46.830 --> 00:55:50.340 align:middle line:84% That is, the DPI-based approach to network management cannot 00:55:50.340 --> 00:55:53.130 align:middle line:90% guarantee 100% accuracy. 00:55:53.130 --> 00:55:55.260 align:middle line:84% We recommend that the specific implementations 00:55:55.260 --> 00:55:58.969 align:middle line:84% of DPI-based throttling be made public to improve transparency. 00:55:58.969 --> 00:56:01.260 align:middle line:84% And further, we recommend that policymakers and network 00:56:01.260 --> 00:56:03.780 align:middle line:84% operators adopt alternative rules and approaches 00:56:03.780 --> 00:56:08.280 align:middle line:84% to network management that avoid such flaws and vulnerabilities. 00:56:08.280 --> 00:56:10.770 align:middle line:84% Last, the legal framework concerning network management 00:56:10.770 --> 00:56:12.990 align:middle line:84% currently lacks auditing provisions. 00:56:12.990 --> 00:56:15.780 align:middle line:84% We argue that this hinders enforcement and compliance 00:56:15.780 --> 00:56:17.550 align:middle line:90% with rules. 00:56:17.550 --> 00:56:20.190 align:middle line:84% Further, network providers' policies evolve over time, 00:56:20.190 --> 00:56:22.380 align:middle line:90% requiring constant vigilance. 00:56:22.380 --> 00:56:25.440 align:middle line:84% So we recommend that regulators impose automated auditing 00:56:25.440 --> 00:56:28.710 align:middle line:84% technologies, such as those designed by my research team, 00:56:28.710 --> 00:56:31.110 align:middle line:90% as part of future policies. 00:56:31.110 --> 00:56:31.870 align:middle line:90% So thank you. 00:56:31.870 --> 00:56:35.206 align:middle line:84% And at this point, I'll take any questions that you may have. 00:56:35.206 --> 00:56:42.691 align:middle line:84% So all of the issues that you mentioned here, many 00:56:42.691 --> 00:56:44.416 align:middle line:84% of the issues that you brought up 00:56:44.416 --> 00:56:48.898 align:middle line:84% seem to be, at least now, as problems 00:56:48.898 --> 00:56:53.380 align:middle line:84% that you have seen, individually. 00:56:53.380 --> 00:56:55.372 align:middle line:90% Is there any difference? 00:56:55.372 --> 00:56:59.854 align:middle line:84% What will net neutrality do, with regard to these problems? 00:56:59.854 --> 00:57:04.834 align:middle line:84% I'm trying to-- while I think they're relevant in themselves 00:57:04.834 --> 00:57:07.822 align:middle line:84% as problems with the internet, how 00:57:07.822 --> 00:57:12.710 align:middle line:84% does it change, and net neutrality coincide or effect 00:57:12.710 --> 00:57:15.720 align:middle line:90% or change or make [INAUDIBLE]? 00:57:15.720 --> 00:57:17.301 align:middle line:90% That's a great question. 00:57:17.301 --> 00:57:19.050 align:middle line:84% So I'll try to answer it with a little bit 00:57:19.050 --> 00:57:21.700 align:middle line:90% of a historical perspective. 00:57:21.700 --> 00:57:25.050 align:middle line:84% So we've been measuring net neutrality violations 00:57:25.050 --> 00:57:27.450 align:middle line:84% since before the Open Internet Order was passed, 00:57:27.450 --> 00:57:30.330 align:middle line:84% so essentially before we had strong net neutrality 00:57:30.330 --> 00:57:32.010 align:middle line:90% protections. 00:57:32.010 --> 00:57:35.050 align:middle line:84% At the time, before those rules were passed, 00:57:35.050 --> 00:57:37.200 align:middle line:84% there were net neutrality violations. 00:57:37.200 --> 00:57:39.690 align:middle line:84% And when we measure them in the immediate aftermath 00:57:39.690 --> 00:57:41.730 align:middle line:84% of those rules being passed, we saw 00:57:41.730 --> 00:57:43.780 align:middle line:90% that those policies stopped. 00:57:43.780 --> 00:57:48.990 align:middle line:84% So we did see a direct effect of net neutrality rules leading 00:57:48.990 --> 00:57:51.153 align:middle line:84% to changed behavior in the marketplace. 00:57:51.153 --> 00:57:52.060 align:middle line:90% For the better? 00:57:52.060 --> 00:57:53.350 align:middle line:90% For the better. 00:57:53.350 --> 00:57:57.000 align:middle line:84% However, what happens soon thereafter, 00:57:57.000 --> 00:57:59.880 align:middle line:84% in November of 2015, was T-Mobile 00:57:59.880 --> 00:58:03.660 align:middle line:84% launched their program called Binge-On, where they offered 00:58:03.660 --> 00:58:06.420 align:middle line:84% zero-rated video, so that your video would not 00:58:06.420 --> 00:58:08.670 align:middle line:90% count against your data plan. 00:58:08.670 --> 00:58:10.560 align:middle line:84% But in addition to that, video would 00:58:10.560 --> 00:58:12.720 align:middle line:84% be throttled to 1 and 1/2 megabits 00:58:12.720 --> 00:58:15.780 align:middle line:84% per second, which, just to give an example, 00:58:15.780 --> 00:58:18.820 align:middle line:84% for YouTube, meant that it would stream at 360p, 00:58:18.820 --> 00:58:23.580 align:middle line:84% which is noticeably blurry on most screens. 00:58:23.580 --> 00:58:26.220 align:middle line:84% There were problems with their initial disclosures, 00:58:26.220 --> 00:58:28.431 align:middle line:84% that the FCC at the time worked with them at the time 00:58:28.431 --> 00:58:31.170 align:middle line:84% to address, so that they were more transparent. 00:58:31.170 --> 00:58:34.680 align:middle line:84% And we did extensive analysis of that approach. 00:58:34.680 --> 00:58:36.810 align:middle line:84% In our view, it certainly seemed to violate 00:58:36.810 --> 00:58:39.700 align:middle line:90% the no throttling provisions. 00:58:39.700 --> 00:58:41.700 align:middle line:84% And I unfortunately can't comment 00:58:41.700 --> 00:58:45.330 align:middle line:84% on what was happening at the FCC in light of that. 00:58:45.330 --> 00:58:47.820 align:middle line:84% But what we've noticed is that other carriers 00:58:47.820 --> 00:58:50.430 align:middle line:84% have started to go down that same path, 00:58:50.430 --> 00:58:53.370 align:middle line:84% to the point now where every major US 00:58:53.370 --> 00:58:56.580 align:middle line:84% carrier, with the exception of Sprint, 00:58:56.580 --> 00:58:58.720 align:middle line:84% we've seen them throttling video. 00:58:58.720 --> 00:59:02.310 align:middle line:84% And specifically, focusing on video, 00:59:02.310 --> 00:59:06.010 align:middle line:84% and additionally, only video that they choose to detect. 00:59:06.010 --> 00:59:08.332 align:middle line:84% So there are certain video providers 00:59:08.332 --> 00:59:09.540 align:middle line:90% who are not affected by this. 00:59:09.540 --> 00:59:12.660 align:middle line:84% So from a net neutrality perspective, 00:59:12.660 --> 00:59:15.120 align:middle line:84% we already have an environment today, 00:59:15.120 --> 00:59:18.240 align:middle line:84% even while the Open Internet Order took effect, 00:59:18.240 --> 00:59:21.930 align:middle line:84% where certain video providers were getting 00:59:21.930 --> 00:59:23.190 align:middle line:90% different service than others. 00:59:23.190 --> 00:59:27.260 align:middle line:84% So we already had an unlevel playing field. 00:59:27.260 --> 00:59:30.820 align:middle line:84% And were there actions taken previously 00:59:30.820 --> 00:59:37.940 align:middle line:84% to stop that because it did not allow them net neutrality? 00:59:37.940 --> 00:59:39.980 align:middle line:84% I'm not aware of any actions taken 00:59:39.980 --> 00:59:44.200 align:middle line:84% by the FCC or other organizations. 00:59:44.200 --> 00:59:45.670 align:middle line:90% Yes? 00:59:45.670 --> 00:59:47.140 align:middle line:90% Senator Eldridge. 00:59:47.140 --> 00:59:50.480 align:middle line:90% Thank you, Chairwoman Creem. 00:59:50.480 --> 00:59:54.340 align:middle line:84% Following up on Senator Creem's question, and your answer, 00:59:54.340 --> 00:59:59.170 align:middle line:84% Professor, about net neutrality violations, 00:59:59.170 --> 01:00:03.470 align:middle line:84% the representatives of ISPs have insisted 01:00:03.470 --> 01:00:06.720 align:middle line:84% that there haven't been any issues with violations 01:00:06.720 --> 01:00:11.730 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality before the FCC ruling. 01:00:11.730 --> 01:00:13.620 align:middle line:84% But you're saying that there were. 01:00:13.620 --> 01:00:15.780 align:middle line:84% I'm wondering if you can give specific examples, 01:00:15.780 --> 01:00:17.550 align:middle line:84% and specifically, those that are not 01:00:17.550 --> 01:00:20.260 align:middle line:90% related to video throttling. 01:00:20.260 --> 01:00:24.910 align:middle line:90% Are there other violations? 01:00:24.910 --> 01:00:28.320 align:middle line:84% So in our measurements, we have only 01:00:28.320 --> 01:00:36.450 align:middle line:84% focused on video streaming, video conferencing, VoIP, 01:00:36.450 --> 01:00:39.540 align:middle line:84% and audio streaming, music streaming. 01:00:39.540 --> 01:00:42.360 align:middle line:84% We have never found evidence of anything 01:00:42.360 --> 01:00:46.890 align:middle line:84% impacting video conferencing or VoIP communication. 01:00:46.890 --> 01:00:50.969 align:middle line:84% We have seen evidence, in some carriers, of throttling audio. 01:00:50.969 --> 01:00:52.510 align:middle line:84% And of course, as I mentioned before, 01:00:52.510 --> 01:00:55.260 align:middle line:90% we've seen video as well. 01:00:55.260 --> 01:00:57.270 align:middle line:84% That is, unfortunately, all I can comment on 01:00:57.270 --> 01:01:00.630 align:middle line:84% at this point, because we have not tested 01:01:00.630 --> 01:01:03.390 align:middle line:90% every single application. 01:01:03.390 --> 01:01:06.900 align:middle line:84% That said, I can say, based on my experience, 01:01:06.900 --> 01:01:10.140 align:middle line:84% video is where we expect to see throttling, 01:01:10.140 --> 01:01:13.810 align:middle line:84% because it imposes the largest loads on their networks. 01:01:13.810 --> 01:01:17.100 align:middle line:84% So when the demand on their network, 01:01:17.100 --> 01:01:19.950 align:middle line:84% in terms of streaming videos all at once, 01:01:19.950 --> 01:01:24.050 align:middle line:84% exceeds their capacity, something has to give. 01:01:24.050 --> 01:01:27.480 align:middle line:84% And so these carriers have, in many cases, 01:01:27.480 --> 01:01:29.640 align:middle line:90% chosen to throttle video. 01:01:29.640 --> 01:01:32.790 align:middle line:84% Although I should point out that they do it 24/7, 01:01:32.790 --> 01:01:36.510 align:middle line:84% regardless of whether the network is overloaded or not. 01:01:36.510 --> 01:01:39.996 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 01:01:39.996 --> 01:01:40.980 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 01:01:40.980 --> 01:01:43.170 align:middle line:84% And thank you for your work, Professor, in the area. 01:01:43.170 --> 01:01:47.340 align:middle line:84% It sounds like you're doing important stuff. 01:01:47.340 --> 01:01:49.070 align:middle line:84% Incidentally, have you encountered that, 01:01:49.070 --> 01:01:53.820 align:middle line:84% as you've considered, safeguards or strictures 01:01:53.820 --> 01:01:57.270 align:middle line:84% that can be imposed on these ISPs, the question 01:01:57.270 --> 01:02:00.105 align:middle line:84% of whether they can be imposed under state as 01:02:00.105 --> 01:02:01.240 align:middle line:90% opposed to federal law? 01:02:01.240 --> 01:02:04.260 align:middle line:84% Is that something where you learned anything about, 01:02:04.260 --> 01:02:06.270 align:middle line:90% in your work? 01:02:06.270 --> 01:02:09.030 align:middle line:84% As a professor of computer science and not law, 01:02:09.030 --> 01:02:11.580 align:middle line:84% I unfortunately can't really comment on any of that. 01:02:11.580 --> 01:02:16.680 align:middle line:84% I will leave it to many of you who are much more educated 01:02:16.680 --> 01:02:17.940 align:middle line:90% in that space. 01:02:17.940 --> 01:02:20.090 align:middle line:84% Let me ask an additional question if I could, 01:02:20.090 --> 01:02:23.840 align:middle line:84% that I'm struggling to educate myself, 01:02:23.840 --> 01:02:27.870 align:middle line:84% and I think my colleagues are as well, as to whether we're 01:02:27.870 --> 01:02:31.860 align:middle line:84% dealing here with unmitigated evil, 01:02:31.860 --> 01:02:34.860 align:middle line:84% or whether there's any shade of gray whatsoever. 01:02:34.860 --> 01:02:37.740 align:middle line:84% You've introduced the first suggestion 01:02:37.740 --> 01:02:41.850 align:middle line:84% that there might be some shades of gray here, 01:02:41.850 --> 01:02:44.610 align:middle line:84% and even a necessity to throttle, on occasion. 01:02:44.610 --> 01:02:47.850 align:middle line:84% And that's when bandwidth-hogging video 01:02:47.850 --> 01:02:53.280 align:middle line:84% is pouring down the cables simultaneously. 01:02:53.280 --> 01:02:57.390 align:middle line:84% Could you talk a little bit about when, if ever, 01:02:57.390 --> 01:02:59.970 align:middle line:84% throttling is a reasonable network management 01:02:59.970 --> 01:03:05.280 align:middle line:84% technique, and when it's unmitigated evil, 01:03:05.280 --> 01:03:09.340 align:middle line:84% which is kind of where we started this point? 01:03:09.340 --> 01:03:09.840 align:middle line:90% Sure. 01:03:09.840 --> 01:03:11.230 align:middle line:90% I'm happy to comment on that. 01:03:11.230 --> 01:03:16.050 align:middle line:84% So reasonable network management is an excellent term. 01:03:16.050 --> 01:03:18.360 align:middle line:84% It appeared in the Open Internet Order. 01:03:18.360 --> 01:03:22.740 align:middle line:84% It's an exception that has existed 01:03:22.740 --> 01:03:27.930 align:middle line:84% at the federal level for our net neutrality regulations 01:03:27.930 --> 01:03:32.280 align:middle line:84% since 2015, and possibly before then. 01:03:32.280 --> 01:03:35.620 align:middle line:84% So the question is what represents reasonable. 01:03:35.620 --> 01:03:37.380 align:middle line:84% So I can give you my opinion on this, 01:03:37.380 --> 01:03:41.130 align:middle line:84% as an expert in the field of networking, 01:03:41.130 --> 01:03:44.370 align:middle line:84% and as someone who has not only done research on the topic, 01:03:44.370 --> 01:03:48.630 align:middle line:90% but works at a telecom as well. 01:03:48.630 --> 01:03:52.974 align:middle line:84% So it's absolutely the case that telecoms 01:03:52.974 --> 01:03:54.640 align:middle line:84% need to be able to manage their networks 01:03:54.640 --> 01:03:58.480 align:middle line:84% so that everybody gets fair access to their resources, 01:03:58.480 --> 01:04:00.840 align:middle line:90% fair access to the internet. 01:04:00.840 --> 01:04:03.390 align:middle line:84% An example of a case where you need to throttle 01:04:03.390 --> 01:04:09.780 align:middle line:84% is if you think of the Mirai botnet, which at one point, 01:04:09.780 --> 01:04:12.150 align:middle line:84% took down a large part of the internet 01:04:12.150 --> 01:04:15.270 align:middle line:84% because large numbers of internet of things devices 01:04:15.270 --> 01:04:16.410 align:middle line:90% had been compromised. 01:04:16.410 --> 01:04:19.710 align:middle line:84% And then they sent loads of traffic at various websites 01:04:19.710 --> 01:04:23.140 align:middle line:84% that the attackers wanted to take down. 01:04:23.140 --> 01:04:26.910 align:middle line:84% So this is an example, in the context of security, where 01:04:26.910 --> 01:04:30.330 align:middle line:84% an ISP is 100% within their rights to try 01:04:30.330 --> 01:04:32.160 align:middle line:90% to block certain traffic. 01:04:32.160 --> 01:04:37.140 align:middle line:84% It makes the whole internet work better if they do so. 01:04:37.140 --> 01:04:39.390 align:middle line:84% And as I mentioned before, in cases 01:04:39.390 --> 01:04:45.420 align:middle line:84% where the load on the network exceeds the available capacity, 01:04:45.420 --> 01:04:49.350 align:middle line:84% that simply means you have to drop some traffic. 01:04:49.350 --> 01:04:51.690 align:middle line:90% Something has to give. 01:04:51.690 --> 01:04:54.870 align:middle line:84% So there's been many decades of research, predating even 01:04:54.870 --> 01:04:59.130 align:middle line:84% my entry into this field, as to how to manage network 01:04:59.130 --> 01:05:01.440 align:middle line:90% traffic under such scenarios. 01:05:01.440 --> 01:05:04.680 align:middle line:84% And so the recommendation that I would make 01:05:04.680 --> 01:05:07.530 align:middle line:84% is that in these situations, you can 01:05:07.530 --> 01:05:11.670 align:middle line:84% ensure that every subscriber has fair access to their fair share 01:05:11.670 --> 01:05:15.210 align:middle line:84% of the bandwidth that's available in the network. 01:05:15.210 --> 01:05:16.940 align:middle line:84% And you can do that without singling out 01:05:16.940 --> 01:05:18.360 align:middle line:90% video applications. 01:05:18.360 --> 01:05:21.120 align:middle line:84% So for example, if there's one subscriber that's 01:05:21.120 --> 01:05:23.160 align:middle line:84% consuming 90% of the bandwidth, and there's 01:05:23.160 --> 01:05:26.520 align:middle line:84% another who can only get 10%, you can make it such 01:05:26.520 --> 01:05:29.940 align:middle line:84% that each subscriber gets 50%, without having to say, 01:05:29.940 --> 01:05:33.270 align:middle line:84% I am throttling video, specifically. 01:05:33.270 --> 01:05:35.100 align:middle line:84% So I recommend policies like that. 01:05:35.100 --> 01:05:37.260 align:middle line:84% And then make those policies in effect 01:05:37.260 --> 01:05:39.900 align:middle line:84% only when demand exceeds capacity, 01:05:39.900 --> 01:05:41.670 align:middle line:84% as opposed to what we see today, which is, 01:05:41.670 --> 01:05:43.050 align:middle line:90% they're doing it all the time. 01:05:43.050 --> 01:05:46.870 align:middle line:84% One more question if I might, and thank you very much. 01:05:46.870 --> 01:05:49.300 align:middle line:90% I chair the Energy Committee. 01:05:49.300 --> 01:05:50.910 align:middle line:90% On the Senate side, I mean. 01:05:50.910 --> 01:05:54.540 align:middle line:84% And there, we're constantly presented 01:05:54.540 --> 01:05:57.240 align:middle line:84% with the problem of managing peak demand 01:05:57.240 --> 01:06:00.180 align:middle line:90% on the electric power system. 01:06:00.180 --> 01:06:04.200 align:middle line:84% One of the policy innovations that's occurred there, 01:06:04.200 --> 01:06:06.150 align:middle line:90% without a great deal-- 01:06:06.150 --> 01:06:08.670 align:middle line:84% I'm not saying there isn't room for debate-- 01:06:08.670 --> 01:06:10.480 align:middle line:84% but without a great deal of angst, 01:06:10.480 --> 01:06:13.210 align:middle line:84% is the idea of demand management, 01:06:13.210 --> 01:06:17.290 align:middle line:84% that you might make deals with certain users 01:06:17.290 --> 01:06:21.600 align:middle line:84% of electric power, and they will agree to having their service 01:06:21.600 --> 01:06:24.420 align:middle line:84% degrade at certain moments of overall stress 01:06:24.420 --> 01:06:26.460 align:middle line:90% on the electric power system. 01:06:26.460 --> 01:06:31.370 align:middle line:84% That requires the ability to differentiate. 01:06:31.370 --> 01:06:35.610 align:middle line:84% And you might say, I guess it requires the ability 01:06:35.610 --> 01:06:38.460 align:middle line:84% to throttle, although it's throttle subject 01:06:38.460 --> 01:06:40.350 align:middle line:90% to my approval. 01:06:40.350 --> 01:06:46.640 align:middle line:84% So if any system of this kind faces the possibility 01:06:46.640 --> 01:06:50.310 align:middle line:90% of peak demand, with-- 01:06:50.310 --> 01:06:52.740 align:middle line:84% and a lot of unanticipated consequences 01:06:52.740 --> 01:06:56.760 align:middle line:90% when you confront the demand-- 01:06:56.760 --> 01:07:02.910 align:middle line:84% how do we permit throttling, throttling according 01:07:02.910 --> 01:07:04.350 align:middle line:84% to a business deal I might strike, 01:07:04.350 --> 01:07:06.930 align:middle line:84% if you'll give me a break on my internet service? 01:07:06.930 --> 01:07:11.340 align:middle line:84% How do we think about all that, if we should? 01:07:11.340 --> 01:07:14.190 align:middle line:84% It's a great question, that I think 01:07:14.190 --> 01:07:16.830 align:middle line:84% to answer in full detail probably would require a little 01:07:16.830 --> 01:07:18.190 align:middle line:90% more time than we have today. 01:07:18.190 --> 01:07:20.490 align:middle line:84% But I can sketch some ideas here. 01:07:20.490 --> 01:07:26.520 align:middle line:84% So I guess one thing to keep in mind, on the internet, what 01:07:26.520 --> 01:07:29.040 align:middle line:84% we're really talking about are three groups of stakeholders. 01:07:29.040 --> 01:07:31.080 align:middle line:90% We have the subscribers. 01:07:31.080 --> 01:07:32.860 align:middle line:90% We have the ISPs themselves. 01:07:32.860 --> 01:07:34.800 align:middle line:84% And then we have all of the destinations 01:07:34.800 --> 01:07:38.190 align:middle line:84% on the internet they may be trying to communicate with. 01:07:38.190 --> 01:07:41.670 align:middle line:84% So one issue with the analogy with electricity 01:07:41.670 --> 01:07:45.465 align:middle line:84% is that we really have many more-- 01:07:45.465 --> 01:07:47.470 align:middle line:84% if we're thinking about sources of bits, 01:07:47.470 --> 01:07:49.330 align:middle line:90% we have a lot more sources. 01:07:49.330 --> 01:07:53.880 align:middle line:84% And what we're talking about is potentially, at least as 01:07:53.880 --> 01:07:56.940 align:middle line:84% implemented today, potentially giving different priority 01:07:56.940 --> 01:07:59.530 align:middle line:84% to these different bits, these different destinations. 01:07:59.530 --> 01:08:01.750 align:middle line:84% And so that has impact on that side, 01:08:01.750 --> 01:08:04.352 align:middle line:90% on what we call the service-- 01:08:04.352 --> 01:08:06.060 align:middle line:84% Are you talking about electric power now, 01:08:06.060 --> 01:08:07.560 align:middle line:84% or are you talking about the internet service? 01:08:07.560 --> 01:08:07.800 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:08:07.800 --> 01:08:09.390 align:middle line:84% So that's-- I mean, that's the question, right? 01:08:09.390 --> 01:08:10.848 align:middle line:84% I'm talking about internet service, 01:08:10.848 --> 01:08:15.840 align:middle line:84% in the sense that selective policies to-- it's not just 01:08:15.840 --> 01:08:17.750 align:middle line:90% about consumers to decide-- 01:08:17.750 --> 01:08:20.430 align:middle line:84% it's not just about consumers deciding to throttle. 01:08:20.430 --> 01:08:23.449 align:middle line:84% There's also who is being throttled on the other end. 01:08:23.449 --> 01:08:29.700 align:middle line:84% And I believe-- and I am not an electrical engineer or really 01:08:29.700 --> 01:08:33.660 align:middle line:84% in that field at all-- but I believe that these are not 01:08:33.660 --> 01:08:34.460 align:middle line:90% direct analogies. 01:08:34.460 --> 01:08:36.330 align:middle line:84% They would be-- it wouldn't be the best idea 01:08:36.330 --> 01:08:40.290 align:middle line:90% to take that analogy too far. 01:08:40.290 --> 01:08:44.069 align:middle line:84% So that said, I think the idea of consumer choice 01:08:44.069 --> 01:08:45.270 align:middle line:90% is an interesting one. 01:08:45.270 --> 01:08:48.210 align:middle line:84% I think that it is important for consumers 01:08:48.210 --> 01:08:51.420 align:middle line:84% not only to have transparency, but to have choice. 01:08:51.420 --> 01:08:56.590 align:middle line:84% Today, typically, the kinds of policies we see are opt out. 01:08:56.590 --> 01:09:01.660 align:middle line:84% So the ISP decides that they want to throttle, say, 01:09:01.660 --> 01:09:02.819 align:middle line:90% video traffic. 01:09:02.819 --> 01:09:05.580 align:middle line:84% And in some cases, but not necessarily all of them, 01:09:05.580 --> 01:09:08.609 align:middle line:84% the consumer is able to find a website where they 01:09:08.609 --> 01:09:10.300 align:middle line:90% can go and opt out of that. 01:09:10.300 --> 01:09:12.630 align:middle line:90% But they're defaulted in. 01:09:12.630 --> 01:09:15.000 align:middle line:84% Those are really the only choices that consumers have. 01:09:15.000 --> 01:09:19.260 align:middle line:84% So I think that it is possible, with both more transparency, 01:09:19.260 --> 01:09:22.050 align:middle line:84% so consumers know what they're getting, 01:09:22.050 --> 01:09:25.740 align:middle line:84% and more reasonable choices, that there could 01:09:25.740 --> 01:09:30.330 align:middle line:84% be a model under which subscribers could get more 01:09:30.330 --> 01:09:32.410 align:middle line:84% of what they want out of their network provider, 01:09:32.410 --> 01:09:35.250 align:middle line:84% and in some cases, for example, say, 01:09:35.250 --> 01:09:38.250 align:middle line:84% allow throttling of their own video traffic 01:09:38.250 --> 01:09:41.714 align:middle line:84% because they want to save data against their data plan. 01:09:41.714 --> 01:09:42.630 align:middle line:90% They have [INAUDIBLE]. 01:09:42.630 --> 01:09:43.890 align:middle line:90% Or pay less. 01:09:43.890 --> 01:09:45.850 align:middle line:84% That would be the other element of choice. 01:09:45.850 --> 01:09:49.890 align:middle line:84% But as presented right now, these aren't real choices 01:09:49.890 --> 01:09:50.760 align:middle line:90% that consumers have. 01:09:50.760 --> 01:09:53.490 align:middle line:90% I see that there's-- 01:09:53.490 --> 01:09:55.547 align:middle line:84% essentially all of the power is in the hand 01:09:55.547 --> 01:09:56.782 align:middle line:90% of the telecom provider. 01:09:56.782 --> 01:09:59.746 align:middle line:90% 01:09:59.746 --> 01:10:03.698 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 01:10:03.698 --> 01:10:07.650 align:middle line:90% 01:10:07.650 --> 01:10:11.460 align:middle line:90% --the ISP making the decision. 01:10:11.460 --> 01:10:13.070 align:middle line:90% Isn't that what we're-- 01:10:13.070 --> 01:10:13.570 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:10:13.570 --> 01:10:14.830 align:middle line:84% And I guess I should point out there's 01:10:14.830 --> 01:10:16.450 align:middle line:84% still another stakeholder here, which 01:10:16.450 --> 01:10:23.980 align:middle line:84% is the service provider, in the sense of services like YouTube, 01:10:23.980 --> 01:10:27.280 align:middle line:84% or Netflix, or others, that we've been, 01:10:27.280 --> 01:10:30.980 align:middle line:84% so far, talking about, really, ISPs and consumers, 01:10:30.980 --> 01:10:33.790 align:middle line:90% as who's making the decisions. 01:10:33.790 --> 01:10:39.570 align:middle line:84% But there is, as was pointed out by Senator Markey at the start, 01:10:39.570 --> 01:10:42.880 align:middle line:84% there's a huge amount of money invested 01:10:42.880 --> 01:10:47.040 align:middle line:84% in the marketplace on that third aspect of the market. 01:10:47.040 --> 01:10:50.210 align:middle line:84% And so to remove them entirely from that 01:10:50.210 --> 01:10:52.730 align:middle line:84% doesn't seem to me like the right thing to do as well. 01:10:52.730 --> 01:10:54.190 align:middle line:90% So I think there's really-- 01:10:54.190 --> 01:10:59.710 align:middle line:84% there needs to be a choice that involves all three 01:10:59.710 --> 01:11:03.891 align:middle line:84% parties, to really come to optimal decisions. 01:11:03.891 --> 01:11:04.825 align:middle line:90% Senator Tarr? 01:11:04.825 --> 01:11:07.700 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] find your presentation 01:11:07.700 --> 01:11:08.660 align:middle line:90% quite illuminating. 01:11:08.660 --> 01:11:10.510 align:middle line:84% Obviously you've done a lot of work on this. 01:11:10.510 --> 01:11:13.810 align:middle line:84% I'd like to revisit, for a moment, the time 01:11:13.810 --> 01:11:17.080 align:middle line:84% before the net neutrality order was adopted. 01:11:17.080 --> 01:11:20.760 align:middle line:84% It lasted for about two years, I think, was in effect. 01:11:20.760 --> 01:11:23.000 align:middle line:84% Prior to that, I think what you would 01:11:23.000 --> 01:11:26.690 align:middle line:84% express to us is that there were violations of what we 01:11:26.690 --> 01:11:28.550 align:middle line:90% would consider net neutrality. 01:11:28.550 --> 01:11:31.520 align:middle line:84% And I'm curious, at that time, my understanding 01:11:31.520 --> 01:11:34.820 align:middle line:84% is the Federal Trade Commission had responsibility 01:11:34.820 --> 01:11:40.040 align:middle line:84% for this area of the law and this area of regulation. 01:11:40.040 --> 01:11:43.580 align:middle line:84% Were there any complaints brought to the FTC 01:11:43.580 --> 01:11:45.380 align:middle line:84% that you're aware of, as a result 01:11:45.380 --> 01:11:47.930 align:middle line:90% of some of those practices? 01:11:47.930 --> 01:11:53.240 align:middle line:84% So I'm unaware of any complaints brought to the FTC. 01:11:53.240 --> 01:11:55.070 align:middle line:84% I can also say, particularly because we've 01:11:55.070 --> 01:11:59.570 align:middle line:84% been focusing on wireless which is where this occurs, 01:11:59.570 --> 01:12:01.850 align:middle line:84% at the time that we started doing the research, 01:12:01.850 --> 01:12:04.160 align:middle line:84% there were really no tools available to even tell 01:12:04.160 --> 01:12:10.520 align:middle line:84% that this was happening, and probably few disclosures, 01:12:10.520 --> 01:12:13.760 align:middle line:84% or at least not ones that most consumers were aware of. 01:12:13.760 --> 01:12:16.080 align:middle line:84% So I would be surprised if there were any complaints. 01:12:16.080 --> 01:12:17.660 align:middle line:84% So that's been a large part of what 01:12:17.660 --> 01:12:21.500 align:middle line:84% drives the research in my group, is to bring that transparency. 01:12:21.500 --> 01:12:26.330 align:middle line:84% So even if today, these policies are completely within the rules 01:12:26.330 --> 01:12:28.280 align:middle line:84% and there's disclosures in fine print 01:12:28.280 --> 01:12:29.984 align:middle line:84% as they're typically are today, I 01:12:29.984 --> 01:12:31.400 align:middle line:84% think most consumers aren't aware. 01:12:31.400 --> 01:12:35.840 align:middle line:84% And so when they see those results, they get upset. 01:12:35.840 --> 01:12:37.790 align:middle line:84% And I think that tells you something. 01:12:37.790 --> 01:12:39.920 align:middle line:84% So while your research initially was 01:12:39.920 --> 01:12:42.522 align:middle line:84% focused on wireless providers, you 01:12:42.522 --> 01:12:46.610 align:middle line:84% have, in fact, looked at other ISPs, I'm hoping? 01:12:46.610 --> 01:12:47.116 align:middle line:90% Yes. 01:12:47.116 --> 01:12:47.740 align:middle line:90% That's correct. 01:12:47.740 --> 01:12:51.170 align:middle line:84% So our software works on mobile devices, 01:12:51.170 --> 01:12:53.510 align:middle line:84% just because that's what most people use to connect 01:12:53.510 --> 01:12:55.730 align:middle line:90% to the internet today. 01:12:55.730 --> 01:12:58.160 align:middle line:84% That works over a cell connection, as well as Wi-Fi. 01:12:58.160 --> 01:13:00.660 align:middle line:84% And so if you're connected to your home Wi-Fi network, 01:13:00.660 --> 01:13:02.930 align:middle line:90% you test your home network. 01:13:02.930 --> 01:13:06.050 align:middle line:84% We don't yet have any evidence of any fixed line 01:13:06.050 --> 01:13:09.800 align:middle line:84% provider in the US doing the kind of throttling that we've 01:13:09.800 --> 01:13:12.710 align:middle line:90% seen in wireless providers. 01:13:12.710 --> 01:13:17.540 align:middle line:84% And so, I say that with caution, because over the past two 01:13:17.540 --> 01:13:22.270 align:middle line:84% weeks, our app has seen a lot more usage, in part because 01:13:22.270 --> 01:13:25.820 align:middle line:84% of Apple rejecting it from the app store, 01:13:25.820 --> 01:13:28.880 align:middle line:84% and then subsequently reinstating it. 01:13:28.880 --> 01:13:32.060 align:middle line:84% So we have a mountain of data that we 01:13:32.060 --> 01:13:33.740 align:middle line:90% will continue to pore through. 01:13:33.740 --> 01:13:38.240 align:middle line:84% And definitely, if we find any cases 01:13:38.240 --> 01:13:42.130 align:middle line:84% where fixed line providers are doing such practices, 01:13:42.130 --> 01:13:44.510 align:middle line:84% we would make it very publicly known. 01:13:44.510 --> 01:13:45.480 align:middle line:90% And we appreciate that. 01:13:45.480 --> 01:13:48.620 align:middle line:84% So it seems like the practice has been fairly common 01:13:48.620 --> 01:13:50.341 align:middle line:90% among wireless providers. 01:13:50.341 --> 01:13:50.840 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:13:50.840 --> 01:13:52.465 align:middle line:84% But to the best of your knowledge right 01:13:52.465 --> 01:13:55.880 align:middle line:84% now, hasn't existed among fixed line providers. 01:13:55.880 --> 01:13:56.860 align:middle line:90% Correct. 01:13:56.860 --> 01:14:02.300 align:middle line:84% And I think a large part of that is because of the wireless 01:14:02.300 --> 01:14:05.120 align:middle line:84% providers have more bandwidth constraints when it comes 01:14:05.120 --> 01:14:07.580 align:middle line:84% to the available capacity on their cell towers, 01:14:07.580 --> 01:14:10.610 align:middle line:84% versus fixed line providers, which tend to have more 01:14:10.610 --> 01:14:13.340 align:middle line:84% capacity, which is not to say that there aren't times 01:14:13.340 --> 01:14:16.160 align:middle line:84% of overloading in fixed line providers. 01:14:16.160 --> 01:14:20.270 align:middle line:84% I'm sure we've all been watching Netflix or YouTube at night, 01:14:20.270 --> 01:14:23.200 align:middle line:84% and gotten a rebuffering event, where we wait for it to load 01:14:23.200 --> 01:14:25.200 align:middle line:90% or it gets blurry. 01:14:25.200 --> 01:14:26.330 align:middle line:90% So these things do occur. 01:14:26.330 --> 01:14:28.420 align:middle line:84% It just seems to be more of a prominent problem 01:14:28.420 --> 01:14:31.610 align:middle line:84% in wireless networks than fixed line. 01:14:31.610 --> 01:14:32.920 align:middle line:90% So thank you. 01:14:32.920 --> 01:14:36.380 align:middle line:84% And then, in terms of what you looked at with regard 01:14:36.380 --> 01:14:40.250 align:middle line:84% to the wireless providers, it would seem like a clear reason, 01:14:40.250 --> 01:14:42.680 align:middle line:84% sometimes, to maybe use the network management 01:14:42.680 --> 01:14:44.707 align:middle line:84% tool would be in the event of an emergency, 01:14:44.707 --> 01:14:46.415 align:middle line:84% and everyone's trying to make, let's say, 01:14:46.415 --> 01:14:50.560 align:middle line:84% a 911 call to report an emergency condition. 01:14:50.560 --> 01:14:51.770 align:middle line:90% Have you seen that? 01:14:51.770 --> 01:14:53.750 align:middle line:84% And could you just opine a little bit 01:14:53.750 --> 01:14:56.070 align:middle line:90% about that particular situation? 01:14:56.070 --> 01:14:57.410 align:middle line:90% Sure. 01:14:57.410 --> 01:15:00.140 align:middle line:84% So having worked at AT&T as an intern 01:15:00.140 --> 01:15:02.630 align:middle line:84% for a summer on their cell network, 01:15:02.630 --> 01:15:04.310 align:middle line:84% unless something has substantially 01:15:04.310 --> 01:15:08.839 align:middle line:84% changed in the telecom industry, voice traffic, 01:15:08.839 --> 01:15:10.880 align:middle line:84% which was traditionally considered circuit switch 01:15:10.880 --> 01:15:14.970 align:middle line:84% traffic, is isolated from internet traffic. 01:15:14.970 --> 01:15:17.030 align:middle line:84% So if their networks are designed properly, 01:15:17.030 --> 01:15:19.340 align:middle line:84% there should be no way for internet traffic 01:15:19.340 --> 01:15:24.560 align:middle line:84% itself to prevent emergency service traffic from getting 01:15:24.560 --> 01:15:25.920 align:middle line:90% where it needs to go. 01:15:25.920 --> 01:15:28.970 align:middle line:84% And so increasingly, that abstraction of telephones 01:15:28.970 --> 01:15:32.030 align:middle line:84% being circuits, wires plugged into a switchboard, 01:15:32.030 --> 01:15:33.650 align:middle line:84% versus the way the internet works, 01:15:33.650 --> 01:15:36.410 align:middle line:84% which is based on packets, that is melted away. 01:15:36.410 --> 01:15:40.940 align:middle line:84% But at a virtual level, they are still providing that isolation, 01:15:40.940 --> 01:15:43.520 align:middle line:84% in the sense that voice, and particularly 01:15:43.520 --> 01:15:46.910 align:middle line:84% emergency communication, is always prioritized 01:15:46.910 --> 01:15:47.820 align:middle line:90% over everything else. 01:15:47.820 --> 01:15:49.760 align:middle line:84% Such that if I'm trying to make an emergency call, 01:15:49.760 --> 01:15:51.200 align:middle line:84% I wouldn't be preempted from doing 01:15:51.200 --> 01:15:53.825 align:middle line:84% that because Senator Barrett is watching the Star Wars trilogy? 01:15:53.825 --> 01:15:54.949 align:middle line:90% I could always get through? 01:15:54.949 --> 01:15:55.460 align:middle line:90% Is that-- 01:15:55.460 --> 01:15:56.279 align:middle line:90% 100% correct. 01:15:56.279 --> 01:15:58.070 align:middle line:84% The only issues that I've heard of recently 01:15:58.070 --> 01:16:00.620 align:middle line:84% is when everybody tries to call at the same time. 01:16:00.620 --> 01:16:03.030 align:middle line:84% And then that aspect of the network gets overloaded. 01:16:03.030 --> 01:16:08.254 align:middle line:84% But it's independent from the internet communication part. 01:16:08.254 --> 01:16:10.724 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 01:16:10.724 --> 01:16:15.170 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 01:16:15.170 --> 01:16:16.652 align:middle line:90% I'll give you the mic. 01:16:16.652 --> 01:16:17.640 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 01:16:17.640 --> 01:16:30.978 align:middle line:90% 01:16:30.978 --> 01:16:34.436 align:middle line:84% Is that legitimate, or were there throttling [INAUDIBLE]?? 01:16:34.436 --> 01:16:39.604 align:middle line:90% 01:16:39.604 --> 01:16:41.770 align:middle line:84% I have a feeling this is the part of the questioning 01:16:41.770 --> 01:16:44.707 align:middle line:84% where I get to help you with your internet problems at home. 01:16:44.707 --> 01:16:45.990 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:16:45.990 --> 01:16:48.790 align:middle line:90% So it's common. 01:16:48.790 --> 01:16:50.080 align:middle line:90% My parents do the same thing. 01:16:50.080 --> 01:16:52.640 align:middle line:90% 01:16:52.640 --> 01:16:55.540 align:middle line:84% But unfortunately, I would prefer 01:16:55.540 --> 01:16:58.420 align:middle line:84% not to comment, unless I were to see this specific scenario 01:16:58.420 --> 01:16:59.453 align:middle line:90% in question. 01:16:59.453 --> 01:17:03.397 align:middle line:84% I got to think that the degradation, even by itself, 01:17:03.397 --> 01:17:04.383 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE]. 01:17:04.383 --> 01:17:10.310 align:middle line:90% 01:17:10.310 --> 01:17:11.540 align:middle line:90% That's correct. 01:17:11.540 --> 01:17:17.450 align:middle line:84% And in our analysis, in the case where, 01:17:17.450 --> 01:17:21.992 align:middle line:84% let's say that your signal was so weak that the-- 01:17:21.992 --> 01:17:23.450 align:middle line:84% even if there was video throttling, 01:17:23.450 --> 01:17:25.760 align:middle line:84% you had so little bandwidth available to you 01:17:25.760 --> 01:17:30.050 align:middle line:84% that YouTube got equally bad performance as anything else, 01:17:30.050 --> 01:17:32.074 align:middle line:84% even though YouTube is throttled. 01:17:32.074 --> 01:17:33.740 align:middle line:84% Our tests would not indicate that that's 01:17:33.740 --> 01:17:36.890 align:middle line:84% throttling, because from that perspective, 01:17:36.890 --> 01:17:40.400 align:middle line:84% all applications are getting the same poor performance. 01:17:40.400 --> 01:17:44.600 align:middle line:84% So we only identify cases of net neutrality violations 01:17:44.600 --> 01:17:46.824 align:middle line:84% where it's clear that one application is able to get 01:17:46.824 --> 01:17:50.180 align:middle line:90% more bandwidth than another. 01:17:50.180 --> 01:17:52.433 align:middle line:90% So I have another question. 01:17:52.433 --> 01:17:55.280 align:middle line:84% So how can we make sure any legislative action 01:17:55.280 --> 01:17:58.812 align:middle line:84% we take will be adaptive to changing technology? 01:17:58.812 --> 01:18:01.300 align:middle line:90% 01:18:01.300 --> 01:18:02.300 align:middle line:90% That's a great question. 01:18:02.300 --> 01:18:04.890 align:middle line:90% 01:18:04.890 --> 01:18:08.900 align:middle line:84% So I guess, could you clarify a little more what you 01:18:08.900 --> 01:18:11.530 align:middle line:90% mean by adaptive technology? 01:18:11.530 --> 01:18:16.780 align:middle line:84% Well, if we do something legislatively, 01:18:16.780 --> 01:18:20.960 align:middle line:84% will that work as the technology changes? 01:18:20.960 --> 01:18:26.930 align:middle line:84% So if it were procurement, or it was preventing anything 01:18:26.930 --> 01:18:32.460 align:middle line:84% throttling or prioritizing, do you have a suggestion 01:18:32.460 --> 01:18:35.374 align:middle line:84% on the action we'd need to take that would change, 01:18:35.374 --> 01:18:40.740 align:middle line:84% because obviously, technology is changing moment by moment? 01:18:40.740 --> 01:18:41.250 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:18:41.250 --> 01:18:41.790 align:middle line:90% OK. 01:18:41.790 --> 01:18:43.060 align:middle line:90% That's a great question. 01:18:43.060 --> 01:18:46.170 align:middle line:84% So the way I tend to think about this 01:18:46.170 --> 01:18:49.500 align:middle line:84% is, although the way we use the internet has changed 01:18:49.500 --> 01:18:53.390 align:middle line:84% substantially over the decades since it was introduced, 01:18:53.390 --> 01:18:56.640 align:middle line:84% the technologies that underpin it, 01:18:56.640 --> 01:19:01.120 align:middle line:84% the protocols that connect the internet together, have not. 01:19:01.120 --> 01:19:04.770 align:middle line:84% So for example, the internet protocol, 01:19:04.770 --> 01:19:08.400 align:middle line:84% which is the common language that the entire internet uses 01:19:08.400 --> 01:19:11.250 align:middle line:84% to speak, it essentially has two versions-- 01:19:11.250 --> 01:19:13.720 align:middle line:90% version 4 and version 6. 01:19:13.720 --> 01:19:16.110 align:middle line:84% And those do not change very often. 01:19:16.110 --> 01:19:19.140 align:middle line:84% Those change on the order of decades. 01:19:19.140 --> 01:19:22.260 align:middle line:84% And the hope is that once we have version 6, 01:19:22.260 --> 01:19:26.700 align:middle line:84% there won't need to be any changes for many lifetimes. 01:19:26.700 --> 01:19:28.680 align:middle line:84% So I think one way to think about this 01:19:28.680 --> 01:19:31.770 align:middle line:84% is instead of focusing necessarily on technologies 01:19:31.770 --> 01:19:34.710 align:middle line:84% that may come and go, like how the internet is used, 01:19:34.710 --> 01:19:37.800 align:middle line:84% instead to focus on the network itself, which seems 01:19:37.800 --> 01:19:39.970 align:middle line:90% to be what remains common. 01:19:39.970 --> 01:19:45.090 align:middle line:84% So if there are laws, rules in effect that dictate how 01:19:45.090 --> 01:19:49.140 align:middle line:84% internet traffic can or cannot be controlled, 01:19:49.140 --> 01:19:51.570 align:middle line:84% that is something that will more likely withstand the test 01:19:51.570 --> 01:19:55.066 align:middle line:84% of time, than if you focus on any one specific use of that 01:19:55.066 --> 01:19:55.795 align:middle line:90% technology. 01:19:55.795 --> 01:20:00.434 align:middle line:90% 01:20:00.434 --> 01:20:02.386 align:middle line:90% That's very helpful. 01:20:02.386 --> 01:20:04.826 align:middle line:90% Any other questions? 01:20:04.826 --> 01:20:07.422 align:middle line:84% Well, thank you very much for your time. 01:20:07.422 --> 01:20:09.760 align:middle line:84% And we hope that as time goes on, 01:20:09.760 --> 01:20:11.560 align:middle line:84% we may need to call upon you again. 01:20:11.560 --> 01:20:13.820 align:middle line:90% I would be happy to come back. 01:20:13.820 --> 01:20:15.200 align:middle line:90% Appreciate, thank you very much. 01:20:15.200 --> 01:20:17.280 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 01:20:17.280 --> 01:20:22.469 align:middle line:84% The next speaker is Professor Lyons, Boston College Law 01:20:22.469 --> 01:20:22.969 align:middle line:90% School. 01:20:22.969 --> 01:20:26.897 align:middle line:90% 01:20:26.897 --> 01:20:28.370 align:middle line:90% My neck will be next. 01:20:28.370 --> 01:20:29.352 align:middle line:90% That's right. 01:20:29.352 --> 01:20:35.244 align:middle line:90% 01:20:35.244 --> 01:20:37.400 align:middle line:84% So I'd like to thank the committee for inviting 01:20:37.400 --> 01:20:38.591 align:middle line:90% me to testify today. 01:20:38.591 --> 01:20:39.590 align:middle line:90% My name is Daniel Lyons. 01:20:39.590 --> 01:20:42.090 align:middle line:84% I'm an associate professor with tenure at Boston College Law 01:20:42.090 --> 01:20:43.610 align:middle line:84% School, where I teach and I write 01:20:43.610 --> 01:20:45.710 align:middle line:84% in the areas of telecommunications and internet 01:20:45.710 --> 01:20:47.326 align:middle line:90% law and federalism. 01:20:47.326 --> 01:20:48.950 align:middle line:84% My sense is I'm probably the designated 01:20:48.950 --> 01:20:51.710 align:middle line:90% buzzkill for the conversation. 01:20:51.710 --> 01:20:54.420 align:middle line:84% I want to address two points today. 01:20:54.420 --> 01:20:58.724 align:middle line:84% We want to be fair and have an open process, you understand. 01:20:58.724 --> 01:21:00.140 align:middle line:84% So one of those two points today-- 01:21:00.140 --> 01:21:01.170 align:middle line:90% Net neutrality, you might say. 01:21:01.170 --> 01:21:01.830 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 01:21:01.830 --> 01:21:03.202 align:middle line:90% Fair enough. 01:21:03.202 --> 01:21:05.660 align:middle line:84% My first point is that with all due respect to the attorney 01:21:05.660 --> 01:21:07.820 align:middle line:84% general, I think it's unlikely that Massachusetts 01:21:07.820 --> 01:21:10.190 align:middle line:84% can act on net neutrality, in light of the Federal 01:21:10.190 --> 01:21:11.992 align:middle line:90% Communications recent order. 01:21:11.992 --> 01:21:14.450 align:middle line:84% And secondly, I think there's good reasons why it might not 01:21:14.450 --> 01:21:17.120 align:middle line:90% want to do so, even if it could. 01:21:17.120 --> 01:21:19.760 align:middle line:84% So first, as the attorney general noted, 01:21:19.760 --> 01:21:22.400 align:middle line:84% the commission has expressly preempted state net neutrality 01:21:22.400 --> 01:21:23.270 align:middle line:90% efforts. 01:21:23.270 --> 01:21:27.140 align:middle line:84% Like the 2015 Open Internet Order, which it replaced, 01:21:27.140 --> 01:21:30.050 align:middle line:84% the recent Restoring Internet Freedom Order expressly 01:21:30.050 --> 01:21:33.470 align:middle line:84% preempts any state or local measures that would effectively 01:21:33.470 --> 01:21:37.130 align:middle line:84% impose rules or requirements that the order repeal, 01:21:37.130 --> 01:21:39.350 align:middle line:84% or rules that would otherwise be inconsistent 01:21:39.350 --> 01:21:41.390 align:middle line:84% with the federal deregulatory approach that 01:21:41.390 --> 01:21:42.729 align:middle line:90% was taken in the order. 01:21:42.729 --> 01:21:44.270 align:middle line:84% The purpose of the commission's order 01:21:44.270 --> 01:21:46.160 align:middle line:84% was to repeal the agency's earlier 01:21:46.160 --> 01:21:49.040 align:middle line:84% net neutrality provisions, and to restore the classification 01:21:49.040 --> 01:21:52.070 align:middle line:84% of broadband providers as information services 01:21:52.070 --> 01:21:53.870 align:middle line:90% under the Communications Act. 01:21:53.870 --> 01:21:55.520 align:middle line:84% Now, for over 20 years, the commission 01:21:55.520 --> 01:21:58.670 align:middle line:84% has consistently said that information services should not 01:21:58.670 --> 01:22:02.150 align:middle line:84% be unregulated, but should be affirmatively deregulated. 01:22:02.150 --> 01:22:06.190 align:middle line:84% And that approach has support in the Communications Act itself. 01:22:06.190 --> 01:22:08.690 align:middle line:84% Now, if challenged, I suspect that this preemption provision 01:22:08.690 --> 01:22:10.250 align:middle line:90% is likely to be upheld. 01:22:10.250 --> 01:22:12.680 align:middle line:84% We saw a similar battle in 2007, when 01:22:12.680 --> 01:22:15.530 align:middle line:84% Minnesota sought to regulate Voice over Internet Protocol 01:22:15.530 --> 01:22:19.340 align:middle line:84% service, like Vonage, under state telephone laws. 01:22:19.340 --> 01:22:22.410 align:middle line:84% The FCC preempted Minnesota's law, among other reasons, 01:22:22.410 --> 01:22:24.500 align:middle line:84% because the state's effort to regulate Vonage 01:22:24.500 --> 01:22:26.510 align:middle line:84% could interfere with the agency's 01:22:26.510 --> 01:22:29.660 align:middle line:84% longstanding national policy of non-regulation 01:22:29.660 --> 01:22:31.900 align:middle line:90% of information services. 01:22:31.900 --> 01:22:34.400 align:middle line:84% The court upheld that decision, and it struck down the state 01:22:34.400 --> 01:22:37.880 align:middle line:84% law, finding that deregulation is a valid interest 01:22:37.880 --> 01:22:42.170 align:middle line:84% that the FCC may protect through preemption of state regulation. 01:22:42.170 --> 01:22:44.000 align:middle line:84% And importantly, the recent order 01:22:44.000 --> 01:22:45.530 align:middle line:84% relies on the very same finding-- 01:22:45.530 --> 01:22:47.570 align:middle line:84% that broadband is an information service 01:22:47.570 --> 01:22:49.050 align:middle line:90% that should be deregulated. 01:22:49.050 --> 01:22:53.330 align:middle line:84% And so I would expect the court to find a similar result. 01:22:53.330 --> 01:22:55.790 align:middle line:84% Nor do I think the state can avoid preemption 01:22:55.790 --> 01:22:57.800 align:middle line:84% by substituting the power of the purse instead 01:22:57.800 --> 01:22:59.180 align:middle line:90% of the power of regulation. 01:22:59.180 --> 01:23:01.790 align:middle line:84% And several states, including Montana, 01:23:01.790 --> 01:23:03.800 align:middle line:84% recently enacted executive orders 01:23:03.800 --> 01:23:06.286 align:middle line:84% refusing to enter contracts with broadband providers 01:23:06.286 --> 01:23:08.660 align:middle line:84% unless they guarantee net neutral practices for consumers 01:23:08.660 --> 01:23:10.340 align:middle line:90% within the state. 01:23:10.340 --> 01:23:12.860 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts has previously learned the limits 01:23:12.860 --> 01:23:16.520 align:middle line:84% on using procurement law to try to skirt federal practices 01:23:16.520 --> 01:23:18.110 align:middle line:90% with which they disagree. 01:23:18.110 --> 01:23:20.102 align:middle line:84% In the late 1990s, Massachusetts felt 01:23:20.102 --> 01:23:21.560 align:middle line:84% that the federal government was not 01:23:21.560 --> 01:23:25.220 align:middle line:84% going far enough to sanction human rights abuses in Burma. 01:23:25.220 --> 01:23:29.390 align:middle line:84% And so we enacted a law that refused to contract 01:23:29.390 --> 01:23:31.760 align:middle line:84% with companies that were doing business in Burma. 01:23:31.760 --> 01:23:33.200 align:middle line:84% And like the recent Montana order, 01:23:33.200 --> 01:23:35.150 align:middle line:84% the idea was to put pressure on companies 01:23:35.150 --> 01:23:37.640 align:middle line:84% to do voluntarily what federal law was 01:23:37.640 --> 01:23:39.740 align:middle line:90% refusing to impose directly. 01:23:39.740 --> 01:23:41.900 align:middle line:84% But the Supreme Court ruled unanimously 01:23:41.900 --> 01:23:44.660 align:middle line:84% that the state's action interfered 01:23:44.660 --> 01:23:47.240 align:middle line:84% with the federal government's carefully crafted policy 01:23:47.240 --> 01:23:50.354 align:middle line:84% toward Burma, and therefore struck down the law. 01:23:50.354 --> 01:23:51.770 align:middle line:84% There are also, I think, questions 01:23:51.770 --> 01:23:54.041 align:middle line:84% about whether orders like the one we see in Montana 01:23:54.041 --> 01:23:55.790 align:middle line:84% violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, which 01:23:55.790 --> 01:23:58.580 align:middle line:84% limits the ability of states to regulate in ways 01:23:58.580 --> 01:24:01.730 align:middle line:84% that burden interstate commerce, and broadband access 01:24:01.730 --> 01:24:03.857 align:middle line:84% is considered interstate commerce. 01:24:03.857 --> 01:24:05.690 align:middle line:84% The market participant doctrine gives states 01:24:05.690 --> 01:24:07.400 align:middle line:84% a little more leeway when they're 01:24:07.400 --> 01:24:09.510 align:middle line:84% acting as purchasers, rather than as regulators. 01:24:09.510 --> 01:24:11.260 align:middle line:84% And I think this is probably the exception 01:24:11.260 --> 01:24:13.010 align:middle line:90% that Montana is leaning on. 01:24:13.010 --> 01:24:15.110 align:middle line:84% But the Supreme Court has narrowed that exception 01:24:15.110 --> 01:24:17.026 align:middle line:84% when states have tried to use their purchasing 01:24:17.026 --> 01:24:19.400 align:middle line:84% power to affect contracts with third parties, 01:24:19.400 --> 01:24:21.802 align:middle line:84% as opposed to the contract with the state itself. 01:24:21.802 --> 01:24:24.260 align:middle line:84% And that's, of course, what Montana is trying to do, right? 01:24:24.260 --> 01:24:29.270 align:middle line:84% It's using its leverage in order to insert terms into contracts 01:24:29.270 --> 01:24:31.700 align:middle line:90% between ISPs and consumers. 01:24:31.700 --> 01:24:34.610 align:middle line:84% Now, it's worth noting that the Court's Dormant Commerce Clause 01:24:34.610 --> 01:24:35.940 align:middle line:90% jurisprudence is murky. 01:24:35.940 --> 01:24:37.773 align:middle line:84% I tell my students, it's one of those things 01:24:37.773 --> 01:24:40.220 align:middle line:84% that's in a category officially known as a mess. 01:24:40.220 --> 01:24:42.041 align:middle line:84% And it turns in part on factual questions 01:24:42.041 --> 01:24:43.790 align:middle line:84% I don't know the answer to, about how much 01:24:43.790 --> 01:24:46.585 align:middle line:84% an in-state ban would actually affect interstate traffic. 01:24:46.585 --> 01:24:47.960 align:middle line:84% But I think at a minimum, I would 01:24:47.960 --> 01:24:49.334 align:middle line:84% suggest that it's not clear to me 01:24:49.334 --> 01:24:51.740 align:middle line:84% that actions like what Montana has taken 01:24:51.740 --> 01:24:55.340 align:middle line:84% would survive a Dormant Commerce Clause challenge. 01:24:55.340 --> 01:24:58.460 align:middle line:84% Secondly, and briefly, even if Massachusetts 01:24:58.460 --> 01:25:01.670 align:middle line:84% could enact state net neutrality requirements, 01:25:01.670 --> 01:25:03.760 align:middle line:84% it's not clear to me that they should do so, 01:25:03.760 --> 01:25:05.510 align:middle line:84% unless it's a carefully crafted provision. 01:25:05.510 --> 01:25:08.510 align:middle line:84% For example, a prohibition on contracting with networks 01:25:08.510 --> 01:25:10.670 align:middle line:84% that prioritize traffic might, for instance, 01:25:10.670 --> 01:25:12.140 align:middle line:84% jeopardize Massachusetts' ability 01:25:12.140 --> 01:25:15.350 align:middle line:84% to participate in FirstNet, which is AT&T's public safety 01:25:15.350 --> 01:25:17.960 align:middle line:84% network that prioritizes first responder traffic ahead 01:25:17.960 --> 01:25:19.895 align:middle line:84% of all other traffic on the network. 01:25:19.895 --> 01:25:21.770 align:middle line:84% And I think that raises a larger concern, one 01:25:21.770 --> 01:25:24.650 align:middle line:84% I think the previous conversation hinted at, 01:25:24.650 --> 01:25:26.660 align:middle line:84% which is whether it's wise to enact 01:25:26.660 --> 01:25:29.051 align:middle line:90% a ban on all prioritization. 01:25:29.051 --> 01:25:30.800 align:middle line:84% And so net neutrality proponents, I think, 01:25:30.800 --> 01:25:33.260 align:middle line:84% are correct, that prioritization can 01:25:33.260 --> 01:25:36.190 align:middle line:84% be a tool that's misused for anti-competitive purposes. 01:25:36.190 --> 01:25:38.787 align:middle line:84% But the reality is there are good and bad reasons 01:25:38.787 --> 01:25:41.120 align:middle line:84% why a network might prioritize some traffic over others. 01:25:41.120 --> 01:25:43.720 align:middle line:84% And I think this gets to your question, Senator Barrett. 01:25:43.720 --> 01:25:46.270 align:middle line:84% For example, some applications, like streaming video 01:25:46.270 --> 01:25:49.430 align:middle line:84% or teleconferencing, are more susceptible to congestion. 01:25:49.430 --> 01:25:51.625 align:middle line:84% And so if congestion occurs on a network, 01:25:51.625 --> 01:25:53.500 align:middle line:84% the network provider might want to prioritize 01:25:53.500 --> 01:25:56.632 align:middle line:84% those applications ahead of web or email traffic, 01:25:56.632 --> 01:25:58.090 align:middle line:84% where a slight delay in delivery is 01:25:58.090 --> 01:25:59.870 align:middle line:90% imperceptible to the consumer. 01:25:59.870 --> 01:26:02.740 align:middle line:84% That's the type of network engineering 01:26:02.740 --> 01:26:04.570 align:middle line:84% that would be a net gain for consumers, 01:26:04.570 --> 01:26:08.290 align:middle line:84% but arguably violates the old net neutrality rules. 01:26:08.290 --> 01:26:11.369 align:middle line:84% And the idea behind the paid prioritization ban 01:26:11.369 --> 01:26:13.660 align:middle line:84% is to prohibit this kind of good prioritization because 01:26:13.660 --> 01:26:16.850 align:middle line:84% of the fear that companies might abuse that privilege. 01:26:16.850 --> 01:26:20.200 align:middle line:84% So ultimately, I think the FCC's recent order simply 01:26:20.200 --> 01:26:22.966 align:middle line:84% restored the law that was in place as of 2015, 01:26:22.966 --> 01:26:24.730 align:middle line:84% the law under which the internet really 01:26:24.730 --> 01:26:27.172 align:middle line:90% flourished-- no more, no less. 01:26:27.172 --> 01:26:29.380 align:middle line:84% And my sense is that antitrust law protects consumers 01:26:29.380 --> 01:26:31.930 align:middle line:84% from a lot of the harms that net neutrality advocates fear 01:26:31.930 --> 01:26:35.110 align:middle line:84% most-- legitimate harms, but one that I think anti-trust law 01:26:35.110 --> 01:26:37.330 align:middle line:84% is there to protect us against, in the same way 01:26:37.330 --> 01:26:39.100 align:middle line:84% that it protects consumers everywhere else 01:26:39.100 --> 01:26:40.410 align:middle line:90% in the American economy. 01:26:40.410 --> 01:26:42.139 align:middle line:90% So I appreciate that. 01:26:42.139 --> 01:26:45.100 align:middle line:84% And I'm happy to take any questions. 01:26:45.100 --> 01:26:49.670 align:middle line:84% So I assume you filed an amicus brief. 01:26:49.670 --> 01:26:52.150 align:middle line:90% No, I have not. 01:26:52.150 --> 01:26:54.525 align:middle line:84% I had some questions, but go ahead. 01:26:54.525 --> 01:26:56.890 align:middle line:90% Go ahead. 01:26:56.890 --> 01:26:57.390 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 01:26:57.390 --> 01:26:59.130 align:middle line:90% That was very interesting. 01:26:59.130 --> 01:27:01.910 align:middle line:84% I want to go back to the preemption analysis, 01:27:01.910 --> 01:27:04.030 align:middle line:84% because I think it's kind of at the root of what 01:27:04.030 --> 01:27:05.154 align:middle line:90% we're trying to figure out. 01:27:05.154 --> 01:27:08.180 align:middle line:84% And it also seems to directly contradict what the attorney 01:27:08.180 --> 01:27:09.200 align:middle line:90% general was saying. 01:27:09.200 --> 01:27:11.350 align:middle line:84% Is it your-- you're claiming that there 01:27:11.350 --> 01:27:15.580 align:middle line:84% is field preemption over the entire field 01:27:15.580 --> 01:27:19.200 align:middle line:84% of internet regulation, around net neutrality for the state. 01:27:19.200 --> 01:27:21.685 align:middle line:84% Is that your analysis of what the FCC order does? 01:27:21.685 --> 01:27:23.060 align:middle line:84% No, I don't think it does, right? 01:27:23.060 --> 01:27:25.077 align:middle line:84% So in preemption doctrine, we distinguish 01:27:25.077 --> 01:27:27.410 align:middle line:84% between field preemption and conflict preemption, right? 01:27:27.410 --> 01:27:29.480 align:middle line:84% Field preemption is where the federal government 01:27:29.480 --> 01:27:31.730 align:middle line:84% comes in and says, we're preempting this entire field. 01:27:31.730 --> 01:27:33.376 align:middle line:90% You can't regulate at all. 01:27:33.376 --> 01:27:34.750 align:middle line:84% Whereas with conflict preemption, 01:27:34.750 --> 01:27:35.480 align:middle line:90% it's a little more narrow. 01:27:35.480 --> 01:27:37.010 align:middle line:84% We're making rules and states can't 01:27:37.010 --> 01:27:39.500 align:middle line:84% make any rules that conflict with our policies, right? 01:27:39.500 --> 01:27:41.690 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:27:41.690 --> 01:27:43.280 align:middle line:84% Field preemption argument is harder 01:27:43.280 --> 01:27:45.320 align:middle line:84% for the federal government to make. 01:27:45.320 --> 01:27:49.302 align:middle line:84% I read the FCC's order as engaging in conflict preemption 01:27:49.302 --> 01:27:50.510 align:middle line:90% rather than field preemption. 01:27:50.510 --> 01:27:54.380 align:middle line:84% What they're saying is we have a policy here of deregulation 01:27:54.380 --> 01:27:57.150 align:middle line:84% with regard to network management practices. 01:27:57.150 --> 01:28:02.120 align:middle line:84% And I think the preemption clause in the 2018 order 01:28:02.120 --> 01:28:03.470 align:middle line:90% tries very hard to-- 01:28:03.470 --> 01:28:05.360 align:middle line:84% anything that interferes with that policy, 01:28:05.360 --> 01:28:08.210 align:middle line:84% any way it conflicts with that policy is preempted. 01:28:08.210 --> 01:28:11.030 align:middle line:84% But the order then goes on to say, 01:28:11.030 --> 01:28:13.610 align:middle line:84% state efforts to regulate that don't conflict 01:28:13.610 --> 01:28:15.380 align:middle line:90% with this policy are just fine. 01:28:15.380 --> 01:28:18.319 align:middle line:84% We're not trying to preempt, for example, general state consumer 01:28:18.319 --> 01:28:20.360 align:middle line:84% protection regulation or contract law or anything 01:28:20.360 --> 01:28:21.050 align:middle line:90% along those lines. 01:28:21.050 --> 01:28:21.830 align:middle line:90% Well, so wouldn't that-- 01:28:21.830 --> 01:28:23.710 align:middle line:84% I don't think anyone is arguing that we would 01:28:23.710 --> 01:28:29.030 align:middle line:84% get into the specific federal, FCC-specific law 01:28:29.030 --> 01:28:32.519 align:middle line:84% to regulate the issuance of the internet. 01:28:32.519 --> 01:28:34.310 align:middle line:84% I think the question here is whether or not 01:28:34.310 --> 01:28:36.190 align:middle line:84% we're allowing our role as consumer 01:28:36.190 --> 01:28:39.400 align:middle line:84% protectors for our citizens in Massachusetts to pass 01:28:39.400 --> 01:28:41.520 align:middle line:84% consumer-facing laws, whether it's 01:28:41.520 --> 01:28:44.930 align:middle line:84% under Chapter 93A or a whole host of other statutes 01:28:44.930 --> 01:28:48.200 align:middle line:84% that we regularly enforce in murky areas, 01:28:48.200 --> 01:28:51.990 align:middle line:84% like energy regulation or transportation insurance, where 01:28:51.990 --> 01:28:55.940 align:middle line:84% there is both a federal history of regulation in the field 01:28:55.940 --> 01:28:57.612 align:middle line:90% and state history. 01:28:57.612 --> 01:29:00.070 align:middle line:84% So I guess the question, to just drill into it a little bit 01:29:00.070 --> 01:29:04.340 align:middle line:84% more, is if we craft a law that's based off the consumer 01:29:04.340 --> 01:29:07.610 align:middle line:84% protection concern, whether it's around fraud, whether it's 01:29:07.610 --> 01:29:11.090 align:middle line:84% around unfair business practices as the attorney 01:29:11.090 --> 01:29:13.220 align:middle line:84% general mentioned, do you feel like that 01:29:13.220 --> 01:29:14.960 align:middle line:90% would be preempted also? 01:29:14.960 --> 01:29:22.400 align:middle line:84% So if the outcome of the law is to require broadband providers 01:29:22.400 --> 01:29:26.169 align:middle line:84% to provide a no blocking, no throttling, no prioritization 01:29:26.169 --> 01:29:27.710 align:middle line:84% promise, then yeah, it would conflict 01:29:27.710 --> 01:29:29.750 align:middle line:84% with the FCC's deregulatory policy, 01:29:29.750 --> 01:29:31.820 align:middle line:84% and therefore it would be preempted. 01:29:31.820 --> 01:29:35.960 align:middle line:84% And this is actually not terribly unusual in this field. 01:29:35.960 --> 01:29:37.940 align:middle line:84% You're right, that for 80 years we've 01:29:37.940 --> 01:29:41.750 align:middle line:84% operated with tiers of federal and state authority 01:29:41.750 --> 01:29:43.630 align:middle line:84% over the telecommunications network. 01:29:43.630 --> 01:29:45.442 align:middle line:84% But for the last 20 years, there hasn't 01:29:45.442 --> 01:29:47.150 align:middle line:84% been a whole lot of dispute over the fact 01:29:47.150 --> 01:29:49.399 align:middle line:84% that the federal government reigns supreme with regard 01:29:49.399 --> 01:29:52.400 align:middle line:90% to most broadband practices. 01:29:52.400 --> 01:29:54.510 align:middle line:90% So part of the debate-- 01:29:54.510 --> 01:29:57.080 align:middle line:84% so part of it comes back to what the statute says, right? 01:29:57.080 --> 01:29:59.360 align:middle line:84% The Communications Act divides the world in two, 01:29:59.360 --> 01:30:01.550 align:middle line:84% for purposes of this discussion-- telecommunication 01:30:01.550 --> 01:30:03.495 align:middle line:84% services and information services. 01:30:03.495 --> 01:30:05.870 align:middle line:84% Telecommunication services, that's the law that used to-- 01:30:05.870 --> 01:30:08.120 align:middle line:84% the common carrier law that governed the old telephone 01:30:08.120 --> 01:30:08.840 align:middle line:90% network, right? 01:30:08.840 --> 01:30:12.260 align:middle line:84% Then makes very clear that state government regulates 01:30:12.260 --> 01:30:13.850 align:middle line:90% intrastate communication. 01:30:13.850 --> 01:30:16.790 align:middle line:84% Federal government regulates interstate, right? 01:30:16.790 --> 01:30:20.000 align:middle line:84% So during the period from 2015 to 2017, 01:30:20.000 --> 01:30:21.862 align:middle line:84% broadband was a telecommunication service. 01:30:21.862 --> 01:30:23.320 align:middle line:84% It kind of fell into that category. 01:30:23.320 --> 01:30:27.814 align:middle line:84% But even then, the Obama-era FCC said, because internet traffic 01:30:27.814 --> 01:30:30.230 align:middle line:84% is hard to differentiate between intrastate and interstate 01:30:30.230 --> 01:30:32.540 align:middle line:84% components, states can't regulate it [INAUDIBLE].. 01:30:32.540 --> 01:30:36.560 align:middle line:84% So even when it was under this grant of statutory authority 01:30:36.560 --> 01:30:39.680 align:middle line:84% to the states, it was a very limited amount of effort 01:30:39.680 --> 01:30:41.810 align:middle line:90% that states could take. 01:30:41.810 --> 01:30:44.280 align:middle line:84% One of the takeaways of the 2018 order 01:30:44.280 --> 01:30:47.350 align:middle line:84% is to remove it from that bucket, the telecom bucket, 01:30:47.350 --> 01:30:50.314 align:middle line:84% into the information services bucket, where, all the way back 01:30:50.314 --> 01:30:53.180 align:middle line:84% to the Clinton administration, the FCC has said, 01:30:53.180 --> 01:30:55.240 align:middle line:84% with the support from the Act, this 01:30:55.240 --> 01:30:59.150 align:middle line:84% is largely an interstate thing, and is subject to deregulation. 01:30:59.150 --> 01:31:01.820 align:middle line:84% So I think that's all understood. 01:31:01.820 --> 01:31:07.150 align:middle line:84% But I guess the potential extrapolation of that comment 01:31:07.150 --> 01:31:10.880 align:middle line:84% is really dramatic for states, because if the idea is 01:31:10.880 --> 01:31:13.566 align:middle line:84% that if there's ever a topic where there's 01:31:13.566 --> 01:31:15.440 align:middle line:84% overlapping federal and state interests, then 01:31:15.440 --> 01:31:18.740 align:middle line:84% we have to just walk away, and have no role 01:31:18.740 --> 01:31:22.010 align:middle line:84% to enforce Chapter 93A and enforce consumer protections. 01:31:22.010 --> 01:31:26.660 align:middle line:84% And we're talking about a whole host of industries 01:31:26.660 --> 01:31:29.180 align:middle line:84% that I would view as our obligation 01:31:29.180 --> 01:31:33.860 align:middle line:84% to police and to regulate, with state interests 01:31:33.860 --> 01:31:38.812 align:middle line:84% front and center, not discriminating 01:31:38.812 --> 01:31:40.270 align:middle line:84% against other states or implicating 01:31:40.270 --> 01:31:41.600 align:middle line:90% Dormant Commerce Clause at all. 01:31:41.600 --> 01:31:43.250 align:middle line:84% I mean, under that kind of rationale, 01:31:43.250 --> 01:31:46.250 align:middle line:84% we wouldn't be able to regulate insurance, 01:31:46.250 --> 01:31:49.530 align:middle line:90% we wouldn't be able to make-- 01:31:49.530 --> 01:31:52.040 align:middle line:84% we wouldn't be able to make judgments 01:31:52.040 --> 01:31:55.260 align:middle line:84% about coverage, [INAUDIBLE],, which we do all the time. 01:31:55.260 --> 01:31:59.840 align:middle line:84% We wouldn't be able to enforce violations of cable bills, 01:31:59.840 --> 01:32:01.940 align:middle line:84% because that would theoretically fall 01:32:01.940 --> 01:32:05.220 align:middle line:84% under this federal umbrella, which, it just 01:32:05.220 --> 01:32:07.960 align:middle line:84% seems much broader than what the attorney general has explained 01:32:07.960 --> 01:32:10.380 align:middle line:84% to us, and what the half-dozen other states that 01:32:10.380 --> 01:32:12.654 align:middle line:84% have challenged the order seem to be saying. 01:32:12.654 --> 01:32:14.320 align:middle line:84% So let's click back a little bit, right? 01:32:14.320 --> 01:32:15.695 align:middle line:84% What we're talking about is maybe 01:32:15.695 --> 01:32:17.100 align:middle line:90% a little bit of a Venn diagram. 01:32:17.100 --> 01:32:20.626 align:middle line:84% Either you have two circles [INAUDIBLE] that don't overlap. 01:32:20.626 --> 01:32:22.500 align:middle line:84% You could have areas where they both overlap, 01:32:22.500 --> 01:32:24.710 align:middle line:84% or areas where the federal swallows the state entirely. 01:32:24.710 --> 01:32:25.790 align:middle line:90% We're not in that realm. 01:32:25.790 --> 01:32:27.230 align:middle line:90% I think that's your concern. 01:32:27.230 --> 01:32:28.260 align:middle line:90% We're not in that realm. 01:32:28.260 --> 01:32:30.060 align:middle line:84% So I guess just to focus that, then, 01:32:30.060 --> 01:32:33.990 align:middle line:84% so what would the realm of laws or potential policies 01:32:33.990 --> 01:32:36.440 align:middle line:84% that we could pass be, that would be in the Venn diagram 01:32:36.440 --> 01:32:39.690 align:middle line:84% side that's state, in your opinion, that 01:32:39.690 --> 01:32:45.150 align:middle line:84% would be in the Venn diagram side of safe state action? 01:32:45.150 --> 01:32:49.230 align:middle line:84% So my sense is, things like what we were describing in the cyber 01:32:49.230 --> 01:32:50.527 align:middle line:90% security privacy sector, right? 01:32:50.527 --> 01:32:52.735 align:middle line:84% Whatever terms of service you put into your contract, 01:32:52.735 --> 01:32:53.880 align:middle line:90% you can hold you to those. 01:32:53.880 --> 01:32:55.380 align:middle line:84% That's a consumer protection issue-- 01:32:55.380 --> 01:32:58.950 align:middle line:84% enforcement of those terms, consistent with what 01:32:58.950 --> 01:33:00.000 align:middle line:90% the FCC has provided. 01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:01.640 align:middle line:84% It doesn't conflict with anything 01:33:01.640 --> 01:33:03.640 align:middle line:84% that's in the Open Internet Order, and so, fine. 01:33:03.640 --> 01:33:05.370 align:middle line:84% So with regard to the conversation that 01:33:05.370 --> 01:33:07.774 align:middle line:84% occurred earlier, right, to the extent that ISPs are 01:33:07.774 --> 01:33:10.190 align:middle line:84% voluntarily adopting net neutral principles in their terms 01:33:10.190 --> 01:33:13.710 align:middle line:84% of service, and I think every major ISP has done so, 01:33:13.710 --> 01:33:16.881 align:middle line:84% it's perfectly fine for states to hold ISPs accountable 01:33:16.881 --> 01:33:18.630 align:middle line:84% for the terms they put in those contracts. 01:33:18.630 --> 01:33:19.910 align:middle line:90% Do you feel like-- 01:33:19.910 --> 01:33:27.720 align:middle line:84% is it your opinion that we could require a terms of service that 01:33:27.720 --> 01:33:29.650 align:middle line:84% prevents blocking and throttling, 01:33:29.650 --> 01:33:33.280 align:middle line:84% and those types of issues that were just brought up? 01:33:33.280 --> 01:33:33.780 align:middle line:90% No. 01:33:33.780 --> 01:33:34.890 align:middle line:84% I think the answer is no on that, 01:33:34.890 --> 01:33:36.431 align:middle line:84% because I think the FCC has made very 01:33:36.431 --> 01:33:40.820 align:middle line:84% clear that a mandatory blocking, throttling, paid 01:33:40.820 --> 01:33:42.360 align:middle line:84% prioritization ban is something that 01:33:42.360 --> 01:33:43.650 align:middle line:90% cuts against federal policy. 01:33:43.650 --> 01:33:46.600 align:middle line:90% What about a mandatory notice? 01:33:46.600 --> 01:33:48.764 align:middle line:84% So then I'd have to look more closely at what 01:33:48.764 --> 01:33:50.430 align:middle line:84% the transparency rules are in the order. 01:33:50.430 --> 01:33:53.460 align:middle line:84% My understanding is that the preemption language 01:33:53.460 --> 01:33:57.209 align:middle line:84% leaves some room for additional transparency, but not a lot. 01:33:57.209 --> 01:33:59.250 align:middle line:84% And I'm not prepared to comment too much on that. 01:33:59.250 --> 01:34:02.495 align:middle line:84% And sorry, just to back up to the procedural analysis 01:34:02.495 --> 01:34:04.980 align:middle line:84% of the challenge, because the attorney general 01:34:04.980 --> 01:34:06.300 align:middle line:90% seemed to say two things. 01:34:06.300 --> 01:34:08.550 align:middle line:84% She seemed to say that there is one potential question 01:34:08.550 --> 01:34:11.480 align:middle line:84% of the arbitrariness and capriciousness 01:34:11.480 --> 01:34:14.750 align:middle line:84% of the ruling, which is its own kind of procedural bucket. 01:34:14.750 --> 01:34:17.490 align:middle line:84% And then the second issue was the substantive question of 01:34:17.490 --> 01:34:20.620 align:middle line:84% whether or not the preemption is actually enforceable. 01:34:20.620 --> 01:34:23.490 align:middle line:84% So I guess, what's your legal opinion, or your analysis, 01:34:23.490 --> 01:34:27.080 align:middle line:84% of that first challenge to the FCC order, 01:34:27.080 --> 01:34:29.630 align:middle line:84% whether it would survive an arbitrariness 01:34:29.630 --> 01:34:31.240 align:middle line:90% and capriciousness review? 01:34:31.240 --> 01:34:34.230 align:middle line:84% So you're right, that if the state attorneys general succeed 01:34:34.230 --> 01:34:36.514 align:middle line:84% in getting the order vacated, then it doesn't matter, 01:34:36.514 --> 01:34:38.430 align:middle line:84% because you're not conflicting with the order. 01:34:38.430 --> 01:34:40.890 align:middle line:84% That having been said, I think they face an upward battle, 01:34:40.890 --> 01:34:43.440 align:middle line:84% in the same way that the ISPs faced an upward battle 01:34:43.440 --> 01:34:44.544 align:middle line:90% the last time around. 01:34:44.544 --> 01:34:46.710 align:middle line:84% And the reason is because federal administrative law 01:34:46.710 --> 01:34:50.490 align:middle line:84% puts a pretty heavy thumb on the scale of agency deference. 01:34:50.490 --> 01:34:53.340 align:middle line:84% The FCC is our government's designated expert 01:34:53.340 --> 01:34:55.050 align:middle line:90% on telecommunications issues. 01:34:55.050 --> 01:34:57.315 align:middle line:84% And so when you go to court challenging 01:34:57.315 --> 01:34:58.690 align:middle line:84% what the expert said on this, you 01:34:58.690 --> 01:35:02.520 align:middle line:84% face the Chevron doctrine, and various other things 01:35:02.520 --> 01:35:05.550 align:middle line:84% that make sure that there's a thumb on agency scale. 01:35:05.550 --> 01:35:08.640 align:middle line:84% In this case, I think the challenges are twofold, right? 01:35:08.640 --> 01:35:10.642 align:middle line:84% One, we haven't seen the litigation yet. 01:35:10.642 --> 01:35:11.850 align:middle line:90% The case has only been filed. 01:35:11.850 --> 01:35:13.360 align:middle line:84% I would anticipate two arguments. 01:35:13.360 --> 01:35:14.693 align:middle line:90% One is a legal challenge, right? 01:35:14.693 --> 01:35:18.470 align:middle line:84% You don't have the authority to classify broadband providers 01:35:18.470 --> 01:35:19.470 align:middle line:90% as information services. 01:35:19.470 --> 01:35:20.845 align:middle line:84% I think that probably is squarely 01:35:20.845 --> 01:35:23.435 align:middle line:84% foreclosed by the Supreme Court's Brand X opinion. 01:35:23.435 --> 01:35:25.310 align:middle line:84% The other challenge would be more procedural. 01:35:25.310 --> 01:35:26.726 align:middle line:84% You do have the authority, but you 01:35:26.726 --> 01:35:30.380 align:middle line:84% didn't jump through the right procedural hurdles to do so. 01:35:30.380 --> 01:35:33.090 align:middle line:84% The order seems, I think, to go pretty far in making sure that 01:35:33.090 --> 01:35:34.920 align:middle line:84% it crossed the T's and dotted the I's. 01:35:34.920 --> 01:35:36.516 align:middle line:84% The primary argument that I've heard 01:35:36.516 --> 01:35:37.890 align:middle line:84% floated around the blogosphere is 01:35:37.890 --> 01:35:39.431 align:middle line:84% this notion that you didn't do enough 01:35:39.431 --> 01:35:42.630 align:middle line:84% about the potential fraud that we see 01:35:42.630 --> 01:35:44.880 align:middle line:84% and the millions of comments that were filed. 01:35:44.880 --> 01:35:46.590 align:middle line:84% But ultimately, the legal standard 01:35:46.590 --> 01:35:49.393 align:middle line:84% with regard to reviewing comments is pretty low. 01:35:49.393 --> 01:35:52.126 align:middle line:84% And so the agency can't take them and throw them 01:35:52.126 --> 01:35:53.400 align:middle line:90% in the dumpster, right? 01:35:53.400 --> 01:35:57.000 align:middle line:84% But as long as it has read them and addressed them, 01:35:57.000 --> 01:36:02.791 align:middle line:84% and incorporated the commenters' views into their analysis, 01:36:02.791 --> 01:36:05.290 align:middle line:84% and showed they meaningfully engaged what the commenters had 01:36:05.290 --> 01:36:07.730 align:middle line:84% to say, then they'd probably survive judicial review. 01:36:07.730 --> 01:36:09.326 align:middle line:84% And then one last, final question. 01:36:09.326 --> 01:36:13.050 align:middle line:84% Just, the AG seemed to indicate that because this 01:36:13.050 --> 01:36:15.550 align:middle line:84% was an order, rather than a congressional act, 01:36:15.550 --> 01:36:18.050 align:middle line:84% that the preemption analysis would be somewhat 01:36:18.050 --> 01:36:22.340 align:middle line:84% different, because obviously, if Congress acts, 01:36:22.340 --> 01:36:27.630 align:middle line:84% and there's an actual law on the books, that would supersede 01:36:27.630 --> 01:36:28.790 align:middle line:90% an administrative order. 01:36:28.790 --> 01:36:32.525 align:middle line:84% Does that impact the scope of the preemption analysis 01:36:32.525 --> 01:36:35.540 align:middle line:84% at all, or how broadly the preemption would apply? 01:36:35.540 --> 01:36:39.050 align:middle line:84% I don't think it does, for purposes of this conversation. 01:36:39.050 --> 01:36:42.687 align:middle line:84% Whether the federal policy at issue 01:36:42.687 --> 01:36:44.270 align:middle line:84% is coming from a statute from Congress 01:36:44.270 --> 01:36:47.510 align:middle line:84% or from a regulation adopted pursuant to a statute 01:36:47.510 --> 01:36:49.850 align:middle line:84% from Congress, either way, the Supremacy Clause 01:36:49.850 --> 01:36:52.340 align:middle line:84% allows it to trump state regulation, 01:36:52.340 --> 01:36:55.370 align:middle line:84% unless the federal government is interfering 01:36:55.370 --> 01:37:00.291 align:middle line:84% with intrastate organization, like telling you 01:37:00.291 --> 01:37:02.540 align:middle line:84% guys how to run a municipality or something like that, 01:37:02.540 --> 01:37:04.240 align:middle line:84% which is what they got in trouble for in the [INAUDIBLE] 01:37:04.240 --> 01:37:04.700 align:middle line:90% case. 01:37:04.700 --> 01:37:05.420 align:middle line:90% That's a little different. 01:37:05.420 --> 01:37:06.950 align:middle line:84% That's sort of off the table here. 01:37:06.950 --> 01:37:12.359 align:middle line:84% But with regard to whether it's a statute or an order at issue, 01:37:12.359 --> 01:37:13.400 align:middle line:90% it doesn't really matter. 01:37:13.400 --> 01:37:16.010 align:middle line:84% If you win-- if the agency wins on the ground 01:37:16.010 --> 01:37:19.510 align:middle line:84% that the order is a permissible interpretation of a statute, 01:37:19.510 --> 01:37:24.470 align:middle line:84% then for these purposes, it's the same thing. 01:37:24.470 --> 01:37:32.902 align:middle line:84% So it's interesting, because in Nebraska, they 01:37:32.902 --> 01:37:36.290 align:middle line:84% have legislation which would allow 01:37:36.290 --> 01:37:40.050 align:middle line:84% for exemption for a reasonable network business management. 01:37:40.050 --> 01:37:43.400 align:middle line:84% Other states have done something which would allow 01:37:43.400 --> 01:37:47.210 align:middle line:90% for exemptions for emergency. 01:37:47.210 --> 01:37:52.020 align:middle line:84% So it seems as though some people, in what they've done, 01:37:52.020 --> 01:37:57.450 align:middle line:84% have tried to allow the objections that you brought up, 01:37:57.450 --> 01:38:02.350 align:middle line:84% and still be able to regulate the [INAUDIBLE].. 01:38:02.350 --> 01:38:04.300 align:middle line:90% Are you aware of that? 01:38:04.300 --> 01:38:06.050 align:middle line:84% Yeah, and I think that's wise, right? 01:38:06.050 --> 01:38:08.510 align:middle line:84% So what I was looking at is something like the more 01:38:08.510 --> 01:38:10.580 align:middle line:84% broad language that we see in the Montana order 01:38:10.580 --> 01:38:11.780 align:middle line:84% or the New York order, that seems 01:38:11.780 --> 01:38:14.030 align:middle line:84% to say all prioritization, or all paid prioritization, 01:38:14.030 --> 01:38:14.810 align:middle line:90% is problematic. 01:38:14.810 --> 01:38:16.650 align:middle line:84% Right, versus other states that have 01:38:16.650 --> 01:38:18.270 align:middle line:90% tried to do exemptions for-- 01:38:18.270 --> 01:38:18.770 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:38:18.770 --> 01:38:21.110 align:middle line:84% And my broader point is, so even independently 01:38:21.110 --> 01:38:26.210 align:middle line:84% of the legality of it, assuming that whatever you all wind up 01:38:26.210 --> 01:38:28.460 align:middle line:84% doing survives judicial challenge, 01:38:28.460 --> 01:38:31.040 align:middle line:84% my advice is be very careful in how you craft it to make sure 01:38:31.040 --> 01:38:33.090 align:middle line:84% there's no unintended consequences. 01:38:33.090 --> 01:38:36.470 align:middle line:84% So in crafting it would be allowed and helpful 01:38:36.470 --> 01:38:38.560 align:middle line:90% to some of the exemptions? 01:38:38.560 --> 01:38:39.060 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 01:38:39.060 --> 01:38:41.810 align:middle line:84% I think both highlighting exemptions 01:38:41.810 --> 01:38:44.810 align:middle line:84% that you recognize are important prioritization requirements, 01:38:44.810 --> 01:38:47.750 align:middle line:84% like FirstNet kind of emergency responder stuff, 01:38:47.750 --> 01:38:50.394 align:middle line:84% and also standards that allow some flexibility, 01:38:50.394 --> 01:38:52.310 align:middle line:84% reasonable network management being the phrase 01:38:52.310 --> 01:38:54.140 align:middle line:84% that the FCC has historically relied upon, 01:38:54.140 --> 01:38:54.590 align:middle line:90% I think is helpful. 01:38:54.590 --> 01:38:55.090 align:middle line:90% Right. 01:38:55.090 --> 01:38:57.090 align:middle line:90% I noticed that in other states. 01:38:57.090 --> 01:38:57.590 align:middle line:90% OK. 01:38:57.590 --> 01:38:58.410 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 01:38:58.410 --> 01:39:00.524 align:middle line:90% Any other questions? 01:39:00.524 --> 01:39:05.484 align:middle line:90% Yes, Senator [INAUDIBLE]? 01:39:05.484 --> 01:39:13.916 align:middle line:84% This may go beyond your purview, but are there-- 01:39:13.916 --> 01:39:28.796 align:middle line:84% are you-- could the FCC [INAUDIBLE] 01:39:28.796 --> 01:39:34.748 align:middle line:84% a number of findings by the FCC that had said [INAUDIBLE].. 01:39:34.748 --> 01:39:47.720 align:middle line:90% 01:39:47.720 --> 01:39:48.360 align:middle line:90% Sure. 01:39:48.360 --> 01:39:51.056 align:middle line:90% So-- how much time you got? 01:39:51.056 --> 01:39:52.364 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:39:52.364 --> 01:39:53.430 align:middle line:90% 01:39:53.430 --> 01:39:56.437 align:middle line:84% There's two layers of analysis going on in the 2015 order that 01:39:56.437 --> 01:39:57.270 align:middle line:90% was repealed, right? 01:39:57.270 --> 01:39:59.340 align:middle line:84% One was the question, do you or don't you 01:39:59.340 --> 01:40:01.590 align:middle line:90% impose net neutrality rules-- 01:40:01.590 --> 01:40:04.500 align:middle line:84% the no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization 01:40:04.500 --> 01:40:05.670 align:middle line:90% requirements. 01:40:05.670 --> 01:40:09.340 align:middle line:84% The second was, what's the legal vehicle by which you do so? 01:40:09.340 --> 01:40:12.390 align:middle line:84% My sense, and I don't want to speak for those who are not 01:40:12.390 --> 01:40:17.700 align:middle line:84% here, but my sense in reading the case law and the comments 01:40:17.700 --> 01:40:23.340 align:middle line:84% was that a big chunk of the impetus for supporting the 2018 01:40:23.340 --> 01:40:26.010 align:middle line:84% repeal was avoiding that second category. 01:40:26.010 --> 01:40:31.892 align:middle line:84% In other words, ISPs generally, because we 01:40:31.892 --> 01:40:33.600 align:middle line:84% see a no blocking, no throttling, no paid 01:40:33.600 --> 01:40:35.550 align:middle line:84% prioritization rules as part of their terms of service, 01:40:35.550 --> 01:40:37.020 align:middle line:90% aren't objecting solely to that. 01:40:37.020 --> 01:40:39.030 align:middle line:84% What they're objecting to was being reclassified 01:40:39.030 --> 01:40:41.580 align:middle line:84% as a common carrier, being taken out 01:40:41.580 --> 01:40:43.420 align:middle line:84% of the realm of a competitive marketplace, 01:40:43.420 --> 01:40:45.780 align:middle line:84% and subject to the legal framework 01:40:45.780 --> 01:40:48.030 align:middle line:84% that we originally designed to discipline the old Bell 01:40:48.030 --> 01:40:52.320 align:middle line:84% Telephone monopoly, because that potentially puts a-- 01:40:52.320 --> 01:40:54.030 align:middle line:84% so their argument was, and the FCC found, 01:40:54.030 --> 01:40:58.830 align:middle line:84% that put a damper on investment in the broadband sector. 01:40:58.830 --> 01:41:00.630 align:middle line:84% Investors looking to allocate their capital 01:41:00.630 --> 01:41:03.410 align:middle line:84% are more likely to invest in places of regulatory certainty, 01:41:03.410 --> 01:41:04.890 align:middle line:84% and not places where there might be 01:41:04.890 --> 01:41:07.591 align:middle line:84% the potential for heavy regulation going forward. 01:41:07.591 --> 01:41:09.840 align:middle line:84% In addition to that, I think the other strong argument 01:41:09.840 --> 01:41:11.920 align:middle line:90% is a concern about innovation. 01:41:11.920 --> 01:41:14.450 align:middle line:84% So when you think about net neutrality, 01:41:14.450 --> 01:41:16.200 align:middle line:84% the effective takeaway of net neutrality 01:41:16.200 --> 01:41:18.780 align:middle line:84% is this idea that the way the internet is now 01:41:18.780 --> 01:41:20.480 align:middle line:84% is the way it always ought to be, 01:41:20.480 --> 01:41:23.100 align:middle line:84% so a homogenization of the internet product. 01:41:23.100 --> 01:41:24.960 align:middle line:84% All ISPs should carry all traffic 01:41:24.960 --> 01:41:28.500 align:middle line:84% and treat them all the same without differentiating. 01:41:28.500 --> 01:41:30.630 align:middle line:84% And that worked really well for a world 01:41:30.630 --> 01:41:34.440 align:middle line:84% where what we were doing online was email and web 01:41:34.440 --> 01:41:36.750 align:middle line:84% browsing, where all traffic was relatively the same. 01:41:36.750 --> 01:41:40.280 align:middle line:84% Not so much, I think, now that we see a huge growth 01:41:40.280 --> 01:41:42.030 align:middle line:84% in differentiation of the amount of things 01:41:42.030 --> 01:41:44.405 align:middle line:84% that we do online, some of which are bandwidth-intensive, 01:41:44.405 --> 01:41:45.420 align:middle line:90% some of which are not. 01:41:45.420 --> 01:41:47.700 align:middle line:84% Netflix is responsible for one in three 01:41:47.700 --> 01:41:50.850 align:middle line:84% packets on the internet at peak time, according to [INAUDIBLE].. 01:41:50.850 --> 01:41:51.600 align:middle line:90% So think about it. 01:41:51.600 --> 01:41:53.280 align:middle line:84% everything we do on the internet, 01:41:53.280 --> 01:41:56.520 align:middle line:84% one in three packets during peak hours is Netflix, 01:41:56.520 --> 01:41:58.600 align:middle line:90% and another 17% is YouTube. 01:41:58.600 --> 01:42:00.090 align:middle line:84% So half of all internet traffic is 01:42:00.090 --> 01:42:02.340 align:middle line:84% video, which is why I think video winds up playing 01:42:02.340 --> 01:42:05.930 align:middle line:84% a huge impetus in giving challenges to networks 01:42:05.930 --> 01:42:08.430 align:middle line:84% and how they're going to manage their traffic going forward, 01:42:08.430 --> 01:42:10.930 align:middle line:84% because it's sort of like this 600-pound gorilla gets pushed 01:42:10.930 --> 01:42:11.730 align:middle line:90% onto them. 01:42:11.730 --> 01:42:15.450 align:middle line:84% So when disruptive innovations like that occur, 01:42:15.450 --> 01:42:20.130 align:middle line:84% companies want ability to manage their practices in a way that's 01:42:20.130 --> 01:42:21.930 align:middle line:90% going to adjust to that. 01:42:21.930 --> 01:42:24.360 align:middle line:84% And mandating a particular network management practice 01:42:24.360 --> 01:42:26.280 align:middle line:84% eliminates the freedom to innovate and respond 01:42:26.280 --> 01:42:27.690 align:middle line:90% to those changes. 01:42:27.690 --> 01:42:32.660 align:middle line:84% One of the big net neutrality complaints prior, 01:42:32.660 --> 01:42:37.020 align:middle line:84% of 10 years ago, was the Comcast BitTorrent dispute. 01:42:37.020 --> 01:42:42.010 align:middle line:84% So in 2008, Comcast got caught throttling BitTorrent traffic 01:42:42.010 --> 01:42:43.189 align:middle line:90% on the network. 01:42:43.189 --> 01:42:44.730 align:middle line:84% The reason that Comcast gave for this 01:42:44.730 --> 01:42:47.430 align:middle line:84% was that BitTorrent was one of these revolutionary changes 01:42:47.430 --> 01:42:49.740 align:middle line:84% that really upset their internet architecture. 01:42:49.740 --> 01:42:53.190 align:middle line:84% So at the time, the internet was a client server model, right? 01:42:53.190 --> 01:42:56.190 align:middle line:84% Most of what I did as a consumer was download a bunch of stuff. 01:42:56.190 --> 01:42:58.376 align:middle line:84% When I uploaded things, it was only to request stuff 01:42:58.376 --> 01:42:59.375 align:middle line:90% to be downloaded, right? 01:42:59.375 --> 01:43:01.230 align:middle line:84% So it's like, hey, give me some package, 01:43:01.230 --> 01:43:03.340 align:middle line:84% and then you send me a whole bunch of packages. 01:43:03.340 --> 01:43:04.920 align:middle line:84% So Comcast had designed their network 01:43:04.920 --> 01:43:07.650 align:middle line:84% so there were many more lanes going from the internet to me 01:43:07.650 --> 01:43:10.180 align:middle line:90% than from me to the internet. 01:43:10.180 --> 01:43:12.600 align:middle line:84% Now, peer-to-peer networking came along 01:43:12.600 --> 01:43:14.790 align:middle line:84% and changed that traffic pattern. 01:43:14.790 --> 01:43:16.740 align:middle line:84% With peer-to-peer networking, everybody 01:43:16.740 --> 01:43:20.024 align:middle line:90% is both a sender and a receiver. 01:43:20.024 --> 01:43:21.690 align:middle line:84% And in addition to that, the way Comcast 01:43:21.690 --> 01:43:24.480 align:middle line:84% had designed their network was that you had shared networking 01:43:24.480 --> 01:43:25.480 align:middle line:90% within the neighborhood. 01:43:25.480 --> 01:43:27.930 align:middle line:84% So those massive download little upload lanes 01:43:27.930 --> 01:43:29.560 align:middle line:84% were shared in your neighborhood. 01:43:29.560 --> 01:43:31.602 align:middle line:84% So what that meant was if you had one bit 01:43:31.602 --> 01:43:33.060 align:middle line:84% torrenter in your neighborhood that 01:43:33.060 --> 01:43:36.060 align:middle line:84% was sending massive amounts of material up, 01:43:36.060 --> 01:43:38.130 align:middle line:84% it would clog the upload lane for everybody 01:43:38.130 --> 01:43:39.588 align:middle line:84% in the neighborhood, and make it so 01:43:39.588 --> 01:43:40.920 align:middle line:90% that they couldn't do anything. 01:43:40.920 --> 01:43:45.210 align:middle line:84% So in the long run, the answer is, create symmetrical lanes. 01:43:45.210 --> 01:43:46.650 align:middle line:84% In the short run, Comcast thought 01:43:46.650 --> 01:43:49.290 align:middle line:84% the answer was throttling back the BitTorrent guy, 01:43:49.290 --> 01:43:52.020 align:middle line:84% so that everybody else can get their stuff through. 01:43:52.020 --> 01:43:53.940 align:middle line:84% Unfortunately, they weren't as transparent 01:43:53.940 --> 01:43:55.500 align:middle line:84% as they should have been, I think, 01:43:55.500 --> 01:43:57.325 align:middle line:84% in disclosing what they were doing. 01:43:57.325 --> 01:43:59.325 align:middle line:84% And so the FCC brought a complaint against them. 01:43:59.325 --> 01:44:01.530 align:middle line:84% Now, that's the Comcast side of the story, right? 01:44:01.530 --> 01:44:03.180 align:middle line:84% The other side of the story might be, 01:44:03.180 --> 01:44:04.999 align:middle line:84% Comcast didn't like that what was going on 01:44:04.999 --> 01:44:06.540 align:middle line:84% in peer-to-peer networking was-- most 01:44:06.540 --> 01:44:07.980 align:middle line:84% of what people were doing for peer-to-peer networking 01:44:07.980 --> 01:44:10.044 align:middle line:84% at the time was trading in pirated movies. 01:44:10.044 --> 01:44:11.460 align:middle line:84% And when you're trading in movies, 01:44:11.460 --> 01:44:14.381 align:middle line:84% you're not renting movies from the Comcast OnDemand service, 01:44:14.381 --> 01:44:14.880 align:middle line:90% right? 01:44:14.880 --> 01:44:17.340 align:middle line:84% So there's an anti-competitive story you can tell as well. 01:44:17.340 --> 01:44:23.460 align:middle line:84% But the point is that that network management, ISPs 01:44:23.460 --> 01:44:26.760 align:middle line:84% would like the ability to respond with network management 01:44:26.760 --> 01:44:29.454 align:middle line:84% to changes in what we're doing upstream with internet content. 01:44:29.454 --> 01:44:31.620 align:middle line:84% And net neutral rules prohibit them from doing that, 01:44:31.620 --> 01:44:33.871 align:middle line:84% or at least interfere with their ability to do so. 01:44:33.871 --> 01:44:34.370 align:middle line:90% Sorry. 01:44:34.370 --> 01:44:35.911 align:middle line:84% That was a really long-winded answer. 01:44:35.911 --> 01:44:37.668 align:middle line:90% I apologize. 01:44:37.668 --> 01:44:41.740 align:middle line:84% So a network management isn't a lot different 01:44:41.740 --> 01:44:45.747 align:middle line:84% than trying to prevent your competitors, 01:44:45.747 --> 01:44:50.840 align:middle line:84% or trying to influence the consumer 01:44:50.840 --> 01:44:54.990 align:middle line:84% to use your product versus a different private product? 01:44:54.990 --> 01:44:56.004 align:middle line:90% That's right. 01:44:56.004 --> 01:44:56.670 align:middle line:90% Yeah, there is-- 01:44:56.670 --> 01:45:00.040 align:middle line:90% And so-- I'm sorry. 01:45:00.040 --> 01:45:01.070 align:middle line:90% I do want it. 01:45:01.070 --> 01:45:05.341 align:middle line:84% So with the changes in net neutrality, that could be, 01:45:05.341 --> 01:45:09.680 align:middle line:84% there's certainly some sentiment for the neighbor 01:45:09.680 --> 01:45:13.944 align:middle line:84% to manage the internet for your own business purposes, 01:45:13.944 --> 01:45:20.970 align:middle line:84% versus blocking the kind of free trade that could be retarded. 01:45:20.970 --> 01:45:23.770 align:middle line:90% And now that might-- 01:45:23.770 --> 01:45:25.610 align:middle line:84% we may not be able to prevent that. 01:45:25.610 --> 01:45:26.610 align:middle line:90% You're absolutely right. 01:45:26.610 --> 01:45:29.070 align:middle line:84% Broadband providers certainly have some incentives 01:45:29.070 --> 01:45:31.590 align:middle line:84% to exercise their tools in ways that are going 01:45:31.590 --> 01:45:34.156 align:middle line:90% to be anti-competitive, right? 01:45:34.156 --> 01:45:36.030 align:middle line:84% It's not that there isn't a solution to that. 01:45:36.030 --> 01:45:38.029 align:middle line:84% It's that the solution, I think, lies elsewhere. 01:45:38.029 --> 01:45:40.477 align:middle line:84% So antitrust law in the Federal Trade Commission 01:45:40.477 --> 01:45:42.810 align:middle line:84% and the Department of Justice has always had the ability 01:45:42.810 --> 01:45:46.890 align:middle line:84% to stop networks from engaging in practices that 01:45:46.890 --> 01:45:49.950 align:middle line:84% harm consumers, so exploiting market power in ways that 01:45:49.950 --> 01:45:51.690 align:middle line:90% create actual consumer harm. 01:45:51.690 --> 01:45:54.990 align:middle line:84% One of the downsides of this reclassification, 01:45:54.990 --> 01:45:58.260 align:middle line:84% from information services to telecommunication services, 01:45:58.260 --> 01:45:59.880 align:middle line:84% is that it stripped the Federal Trade 01:45:59.880 --> 01:46:02.310 align:middle line:84% Commission of its authority to enforce antitrust law, 01:46:02.310 --> 01:46:04.590 align:middle line:84% because as it turns out, the FTC can't enforce laws 01:46:04.590 --> 01:46:06.090 align:middle line:90% against common carriers. 01:46:06.090 --> 01:46:09.540 align:middle line:84% So we took our primary antitrust cop off the beat, 01:46:09.540 --> 01:46:11.730 align:middle line:84% so to speak, during the period of net neutrality. 01:46:11.730 --> 01:46:13.438 align:middle line:84% One of the side effects of repealing that 01:46:13.438 --> 01:46:17.340 align:middle line:84% is to bring the FTC back into the conversation. 01:46:17.340 --> 01:46:23.120 align:middle line:84% So I'm hearing you say there is an avenue, but not the avenue 01:46:23.120 --> 01:46:27.610 align:middle line:84% of [INAUDIBLE],, of saying you need to have net neutrality. 01:46:27.610 --> 01:46:28.220 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 01:46:28.220 --> 01:46:29.660 align:middle line:84% I don't think that the prophylactic rule 01:46:29.660 --> 01:46:31.368 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality is necessary, because I 01:46:31.368 --> 01:46:34.700 align:middle line:84% think that antitrust law is already doing most of the work 01:46:34.700 --> 01:46:36.650 align:middle line:84% to guard against the anti-competitive abuses 01:46:36.650 --> 01:46:40.258 align:middle line:90% that we most fear. 01:46:40.258 --> 01:46:43.487 align:middle line:90% Any other questions? 01:46:43.487 --> 01:46:43.987 align:middle line:90% All right. 01:46:43.987 --> 01:46:44.930 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much, Professor. 01:46:44.930 --> 01:46:45.578 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 01:46:45.578 --> 01:46:47.705 align:middle line:90% It's been very helpful. 01:46:47.705 --> 01:46:52.553 align:middle line:84% So the next speaker is Ari Glantz and Jody 01:46:52.553 --> 01:46:57.510 align:middle line:84% Rose, who run Venture Capital Association. 01:46:57.510 --> 01:46:58.959 align:middle line:90% That's OK. 01:46:58.959 --> 01:47:02.823 align:middle line:90% We are trying, as somebody-- 01:47:02.823 --> 01:47:05.238 align:middle line:90% oh, that's a microphone. 01:47:05.238 --> 01:47:08.393 align:middle line:90% We are running a little slow. 01:47:08.393 --> 01:47:11.690 align:middle line:84% And it has nothing to do with your speaking. 01:47:11.690 --> 01:47:14.420 align:middle line:84% I just wanted to kind of move us along a little bit. 01:47:14.420 --> 01:47:15.470 align:middle line:90% That's welcome news. 01:47:15.470 --> 01:47:17.000 align:middle line:84% Fewer questions for me at the end. 01:47:17.000 --> 01:47:18.380 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHTER] 01:47:18.380 --> 01:47:19.760 align:middle line:90% 01:47:19.760 --> 01:47:20.999 align:middle line:90% My name is Ari Glantz. 01:47:20.999 --> 01:47:23.540 align:middle line:84% I'm the associate director of the New England Venture Capital 01:47:23.540 --> 01:47:24.800 align:middle line:90% Association. 01:47:24.800 --> 01:47:28.730 align:middle line:84% Some brief background context, we 01:47:28.730 --> 01:47:31.100 align:middle line:84% view ourselves as a group that invests 01:47:31.100 --> 01:47:35.420 align:middle line:84% in the entrepreneurial ecosystem on behalf of our membership, 01:47:35.420 --> 01:47:38.930 align:middle line:84% because it's really the strength, vitality 01:47:38.930 --> 01:47:44.960 align:middle line:84% of that ecosystem upon which our members' success is predicated. 01:47:44.960 --> 01:47:49.630 align:middle line:84% We have about 80-plus members, manage about $86 billion 01:47:49.630 --> 01:47:52.190 align:middle line:90% in capital among them. 01:47:52.190 --> 01:47:53.870 align:middle line:84% Our organization has had the opportunity 01:47:53.870 --> 01:47:56.705 align:middle line:84% to weigh in on this issue in various formats. 01:47:56.705 --> 01:47:57.393 align:middle line:90% Who-- 01:47:57.393 --> 01:47:57.892 align:middle line:90% Sorry? 01:47:57.892 --> 01:48:00.688 align:middle line:84% Without asking you to divulge something 01:48:00.688 --> 01:48:02.610 align:middle line:84% you couldn't, is it possible to like, 01:48:02.610 --> 01:48:05.015 align:middle line:84% give us an idea of who your members might be? 01:48:05.015 --> 01:48:06.410 align:middle line:90% And if not, that's fine. 01:48:06.410 --> 01:48:07.820 align:middle line:90% Absolutely. 01:48:07.820 --> 01:48:10.640 align:middle line:84% Names that are probably more household-- 01:48:10.640 --> 01:48:14.970 align:middle line:84% Highland Capital, CRV, Charles River Ventures, 01:48:14.970 --> 01:48:23.450 align:middle line:84% Polaris Partners, Third Rock Ventures, Long River Health. 01:48:23.450 --> 01:48:23.950 align:middle line:90% OK. 01:48:23.950 --> 01:48:25.830 align:middle line:90% A few. 01:48:25.830 --> 01:48:30.460 align:middle line:84% We represent both technology and biotechnology, 01:48:30.460 --> 01:48:33.311 align:middle line:90% large and small firms. 01:48:33.311 --> 01:48:34.810 align:middle line:84% As I said, we've had the opportunity 01:48:34.810 --> 01:48:37.540 align:middle line:84% to weigh in on this issue alongside of some 01:48:37.540 --> 01:48:40.130 align:middle line:84% of the principals who've spoken today. 01:48:40.130 --> 01:48:42.670 align:middle line:84% So I'll just note that my comments will 01:48:42.670 --> 01:48:46.240 align:middle line:84% be both high-level and also repeat 01:48:46.240 --> 01:48:50.090 align:middle line:84% some of the tropes and themes that we've heard thus far. 01:48:50.090 --> 01:48:52.510 align:middle line:84% So as Senator Markey noted in the open, 01:48:52.510 --> 01:48:55.810 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts has a thriving innovation ecosystem. 01:48:55.810 --> 01:48:59.440 align:middle line:84% And it is built on the free and open internet. 01:48:59.440 --> 01:49:02.390 align:middle line:84% We're home to satellite offices of the big three of Facebook, 01:49:02.390 --> 01:49:06.130 align:middle line:84% Amazon, Google, and thousands of startups and scale ups, 01:49:06.130 --> 01:49:10.360 align:middle line:84% among them the more than 3,500 active companies 01:49:10.360 --> 01:49:14.170 align:middle line:84% within the NEVCA membership's collective portfolio. 01:49:14.170 --> 01:49:21.110 align:middle line:84% And these are the drivers of job growth and innovation. 01:49:21.110 --> 01:49:22.990 align:middle line:84% Each and every one of them is built 01:49:22.990 --> 01:49:26.350 align:middle line:84% on a foundation of equal access to the internet, a level 01:49:26.350 --> 01:49:28.780 align:middle line:84% playing field on which to leverage the backbone 01:49:28.780 --> 01:49:31.990 align:middle line:90% of our modern economy. 01:49:31.990 --> 01:49:35.560 align:middle line:84% The FCC's decision to dismantle that foundation, we believe 01:49:35.560 --> 01:49:38.350 align:middle line:84% will have extreme negative effects on that technology 01:49:38.350 --> 01:49:40.540 align:middle line:84% economy, stifling that innovation 01:49:40.540 --> 01:49:43.940 align:middle line:90% and slowing that job growth. 01:49:43.940 --> 01:49:46.990 align:middle line:84% But as the AG noted, net neutrality 01:49:46.990 --> 01:49:50.290 align:middle line:84% is more than just an economic issue. 01:49:50.290 --> 01:49:53.470 align:middle line:84% In an era where societal divisions are increasing 01:49:53.470 --> 01:49:56.290 align:middle line:84% and increasingly concerning, there's more at 01:49:56.290 --> 01:49:58.510 align:middle line:90% stake than just dollars. 01:49:58.510 --> 01:50:01.270 align:middle line:84% Unregulated, telecoms and their backers 01:50:01.270 --> 01:50:04.690 align:middle line:84% have the ability not only to limit consumer choice 01:50:04.690 --> 01:50:07.690 align:middle line:84% for their own economic gain, but to pick and choose 01:50:07.690 --> 01:50:11.860 align:middle line:84% the ideology behind the content that they make available. 01:50:11.860 --> 01:50:14.830 align:middle line:84% So at the end of the day, whether it's 01:50:14.830 --> 01:50:17.440 align:middle line:84% the risk of millions of jobs and billions 01:50:17.440 --> 01:50:20.050 align:middle line:84% in economic contribution, concern 01:50:20.050 --> 01:50:24.340 align:middle line:84% for the voices of dissent that face censorship, or worry 01:50:24.340 --> 01:50:28.240 align:middle line:84% about the specter of ballooning corporate influence on media 01:50:28.240 --> 01:50:30.880 align:middle line:84% and public opinion, we feel it's imperative 01:50:30.880 --> 01:50:34.570 align:middle line:84% that net neutrality remain, or once again become, 01:50:34.570 --> 01:50:37.450 align:middle line:90% a reality in modern society. 01:50:37.450 --> 01:50:39.910 align:middle line:84% To this end, our foremost focus at present 01:50:39.910 --> 01:50:43.270 align:middle line:84% is supporting the aforementioned efforts 01:50:43.270 --> 01:50:46.210 align:middle line:84% of [INAUDIBLE] at the federal level, 01:50:46.210 --> 01:50:50.290 align:middle line:84% and failing that, to support new federal legislation 01:50:50.290 --> 01:50:52.840 align:middle line:90% to protect the open internet. 01:50:52.840 --> 01:50:56.980 align:middle line:84% That said, and adapting a little off the attorney general's 01:50:56.980 --> 01:50:59.200 align:middle line:84% advice, that there's no reason to wait 01:50:59.200 --> 01:51:02.470 align:middle line:84% and no time like the present, if the Commonwealth 01:51:02.470 --> 01:51:06.670 align:middle line:84% has an opportunity to provide an open internet for its citizens, 01:51:06.670 --> 01:51:08.650 align:middle line:90% it absolutely should. 01:51:08.650 --> 01:51:11.800 align:middle line:84% And I think we recognize that to do 01:51:11.800 --> 01:51:15.910 align:middle line:84% that well will require a kind of deep exploration of the issue. 01:51:15.910 --> 01:51:20.740 align:middle line:84% And we are happy to assist as best we can in that process. 01:51:20.740 --> 01:51:24.865 align:middle line:90% 01:51:24.865 --> 01:51:26.714 align:middle line:84% I assume you don't have an opinion 01:51:26.714 --> 01:51:31.864 align:middle line:84% on whether we can legally do this, or [INAUDIBLE]?? 01:51:31.864 --> 01:51:35.350 align:middle line:90% Not my ballpark. 01:51:35.350 --> 01:51:38.338 align:middle line:90% Any questions? 01:51:38.338 --> 01:51:41.326 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 01:51:41.326 --> 01:51:47.800 align:middle line:90% 01:51:47.800 --> 01:51:57.760 align:middle line:84% I expect my comment that one of our legal [INAUDIBLE] 01:51:57.760 --> 01:52:00.748 align:middle line:84% some expenses toward [INAUDIBLE]?? 01:52:00.748 --> 01:52:14.940 align:middle line:90% 01:52:14.940 --> 01:52:15.440 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 01:52:15.440 --> 01:52:18.650 align:middle line:84% I think that's kind of undeniable. 01:52:18.650 --> 01:52:21.320 align:middle line:84% That being said, Massachusetts did miss out a little bit 01:52:21.320 --> 01:52:23.930 align:middle line:90% on the web 1.0 boom. 01:52:23.930 --> 01:52:26.660 align:middle line:84% But I've been up here talking to other committees 01:52:26.660 --> 01:52:31.200 align:middle line:84% about some of the reasons why that might have happened. 01:52:31.200 --> 01:52:35.030 align:middle line:84% I wouldn't-- I think the best way that I would respond 01:52:35.030 --> 01:52:40.350 align:middle line:84% to that question is to say that as has been noted earlier, 01:52:40.350 --> 01:52:43.970 align:middle line:84% the speed at which technology is changing and the platforms 01:52:43.970 --> 01:52:46.550 align:middle line:84% on which new companies are being built, 01:52:46.550 --> 01:52:52.970 align:middle line:84% a lot has happened between 2015 and now. 01:52:52.970 --> 01:52:59.210 align:middle line:84% And I think another thing that was noted is that-- 01:52:59.210 --> 01:53:02.720 align:middle line:90% by the Northeastern professor-- 01:53:02.720 --> 01:53:08.720 align:middle line:84% there was a change after they instituted the net neutrality 01:53:08.720 --> 01:53:10.580 align:middle line:90% regulations. 01:53:10.580 --> 01:53:11.930 align:middle line:90% But I think that the-- 01:53:11.930 --> 01:53:14.300 align:middle line:84% again, I'll go back to the fact that the platforms 01:53:14.300 --> 01:53:18.179 align:middle line:84% and the technology upon which that was built 01:53:18.179 --> 01:53:19.970 align:middle line:84% was very different than what we have today. 01:53:19.970 --> 01:53:24.020 align:middle line:84% And therefore, the ability of the broadband companies 01:53:24.020 --> 01:53:29.437 align:middle line:84% to influence and change what is available 01:53:29.437 --> 01:53:34.110 align:middle line:84% is magnified in today's environment. 01:53:34.110 --> 01:53:38.644 align:middle line:84% So what impact do you predict that the new order will 01:53:38.644 --> 01:53:42.390 align:middle line:90% have on businesses like yours? 01:53:42.390 --> 01:53:45.170 align:middle line:84% Generally speaking-- well, not businesses 01:53:45.170 --> 01:53:47.210 align:middle line:90% like mine, to be fair. 01:53:47.210 --> 01:53:55.070 align:middle line:84% But generally speaking, we feel that when the power 01:53:55.070 --> 01:54:02.750 align:middle line:84% to decide what companies can get to market 01:54:02.750 --> 01:54:11.240 align:middle line:84% is in the hands of the companies who are also producing 01:54:11.240 --> 01:54:15.080 align:middle line:84% competitive products, it would not 01:54:15.080 --> 01:54:20.150 align:middle line:84% be in the broadband companies' best interests to let startups 01:54:20.150 --> 01:54:24.920 align:middle line:84% and scale ups have equal access and access 01:54:24.920 --> 01:54:26.900 align:middle line:90% to the same customers. 01:54:26.900 --> 01:54:35.600 align:middle line:84% And therefore, companies that rely on access to everyone 01:54:35.600 --> 01:54:37.610 align:middle line:90% will fail. 01:54:37.610 --> 01:54:42.890 align:middle line:84% And the capital invested into those companies will be lost. 01:54:42.890 --> 01:54:45.306 align:middle line:84% And you might not know, but do you 01:54:45.306 --> 01:54:50.308 align:middle line:84% have a suggestion for actions that this committee 01:54:50.308 --> 01:54:54.670 align:middle line:84% might take to promote growth and competition? 01:54:54.670 --> 01:54:58.230 align:middle line:84% As it pertains directly to net neutrality? 01:54:58.230 --> 01:54:58.730 align:middle line:90% No. 01:54:58.730 --> 01:55:04.000 align:middle line:84% I think at this point, I don't have the expertise 01:55:04.000 --> 01:55:08.080 align:middle line:84% to make a recommendation about what kind of state 01:55:08.080 --> 01:55:10.450 align:middle line:90% level action should be taken. 01:55:10.450 --> 01:55:12.370 align:middle line:84% But that's a place where I think that we 01:55:12.370 --> 01:55:14.710 align:middle line:84% would be happy to tap into our membership 01:55:14.710 --> 01:55:19.109 align:middle line:84% and provide access to people who have more expertise. 01:55:19.109 --> 01:55:19.650 align:middle line:90% That's great. 01:55:19.650 --> 01:55:23.115 align:middle line:84% We're happy to take, in the future, information 01:55:23.115 --> 01:55:25.590 align:middle line:90% or other submissions. 01:55:25.590 --> 01:55:27.570 align:middle line:84% I don't have any other questions. 01:55:27.570 --> 01:55:29.055 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 01:55:29.055 --> 01:55:33.510 align:middle line:84% So the next person is Matt Wood from the Free Press. 01:55:33.510 --> 01:55:43.905 align:middle line:90% 01:55:43.905 --> 01:55:46.304 align:middle line:90% And I would thank you very much. 01:55:46.304 --> 01:55:49.990 align:middle line:84% I know you traveled here yourself from Washington, 01:55:49.990 --> 01:55:51.834 align:middle line:90% to testify today. 01:55:51.834 --> 01:55:54.270 align:middle line:84% I appreciate very much your willingness to come. 01:55:54.270 --> 01:55:55.120 align:middle line:90% I did, thank you. 01:55:55.120 --> 01:55:58.392 align:middle line:84% I hope you'll forgive my reading from my well-branded computer 01:55:58.392 --> 01:56:00.725 align:middle line:84% that's typed up on webcast, instead of a piece of paper. 01:56:00.725 --> 01:56:02.910 align:middle line:84% But in the traveling, I didn't print something out 01:56:02.910 --> 01:56:04.330 align:middle line:90% this morning. 01:56:04.330 --> 01:56:05.664 align:middle line:90% Well, you could just talk to us. 01:56:05.664 --> 01:56:07.996 align:middle line:84% I could, but I want to make sure I stick to five minutes 01:56:07.996 --> 01:56:10.680 align:middle line:84% and cover some points that I hope you'll take in the written 01:56:10.680 --> 01:56:13.180 align:middle line:90% testimony we also submitted. 01:56:13.180 --> 01:56:14.790 align:middle line:90% Is the mic on? 01:56:14.790 --> 01:56:16.730 align:middle line:90% Yes. 01:56:16.730 --> 01:56:18.180 align:middle line:84% Senator Creem and esteemed members 01:56:18.180 --> 01:56:19.638 align:middle line:84% of the special committee, thank you 01:56:19.638 --> 01:56:21.770 align:middle line:84% for inviting me to testify today on the FCC's 01:56:21.770 --> 01:56:26.060 align:middle line:84% recent and wrong-headed repeal of its net neutrality rules. 01:56:26.060 --> 01:56:29.130 align:middle line:84% I'm the policy director for Free Press, a nonpartisan nonprofit 01:56:29.130 --> 01:56:31.500 align:middle line:90% with 1.4 million members. 01:56:31.500 --> 01:56:34.710 align:middle line:84% And 35,000 of those are here in Massachusetts. 01:56:34.710 --> 01:56:36.076 align:middle line:90% It's an honor for me to be here. 01:56:36.076 --> 01:56:37.950 align:middle line:84% Though I work in our DC office, as you noted, 01:56:37.950 --> 01:56:40.260 align:middle line:84% Free Press has a headquarters in Florence, 01:56:40.260 --> 01:56:43.074 align:middle line:84% and was founded in Northampton some 15 years ago. 01:56:43.074 --> 01:56:44.490 align:middle line:84% And in the legal battle stretching 01:56:44.490 --> 01:56:46.590 align:middle line:84% for the past decade-plus now on this topic, 01:56:46.590 --> 01:56:49.369 align:middle line:84% we've been a leading advocate for net neutrality. 01:56:49.369 --> 01:56:51.660 align:middle line:84% At this point in the hearing, you don't want or need me 01:56:51.660 --> 01:56:54.400 align:middle line:84% providing a lengthy definition of the term net neutrality. 01:56:54.400 --> 01:56:56.290 align:middle line:84% But as attorney general Healey said so well, 01:56:56.290 --> 01:56:58.800 align:middle line:84% it protects internet users' rights to choose what they see 01:56:58.800 --> 01:57:01.470 align:middle line:84% and what they say online, without interference 01:57:01.470 --> 01:57:05.280 align:middle line:84% by ISPs like Verizon, Comcast, or Charter. 01:57:05.280 --> 01:57:07.770 align:middle line:84% I'll just focus on two essential truths concerning 01:57:07.770 --> 01:57:10.200 align:middle line:84% the spurious claims and dubious data 01:57:10.200 --> 01:57:13.956 align:middle line:84% the FCC relied upon to repeal those rules back in December. 01:57:13.956 --> 01:57:16.110 align:middle line:84% First, neither the repealed rules 01:57:16.110 --> 01:57:19.620 align:middle line:84% nor the law on which they were based were new or untested. 01:57:19.620 --> 01:57:21.630 align:middle line:84% Net neutrality is a time-honored yet still vital 01:57:21.630 --> 01:57:24.330 align:middle line:84% iteration of nondiscrimination laws that 01:57:24.330 --> 01:57:27.310 align:middle line:90% protect communication networks. 01:57:27.310 --> 01:57:29.460 align:middle line:84% Second, ISPs say that these rules and laws 01:57:29.460 --> 01:57:32.670 align:middle line:84% are bad for their business and dampen broadband investment. 01:57:32.670 --> 01:57:34.950 align:middle line:84% Those claims are simply not true. 01:57:34.950 --> 01:57:36.780 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts-specific data, included 01:57:36.780 --> 01:57:39.360 align:middle line:84% in my written and submitted testimony, 01:57:39.360 --> 01:57:41.670 align:middle line:84% shows that the now-repealed rules did not materially 01:57:41.670 --> 01:57:45.390 align:middle line:84% change deployment in urban or rural areas. 01:57:45.390 --> 01:57:48.090 align:middle line:84% The FCC's repeal abdicates the agency's congressional mandate 01:57:48.090 --> 01:57:51.030 align:middle line:84% to prevent unreasonable ISP practices. 01:57:51.030 --> 01:57:53.850 align:middle line:84% It also reverses the prior FCC's correct decision, 01:57:53.850 --> 01:57:55.320 align:middle line:84% to treat broadband internet access 01:57:55.320 --> 01:57:57.330 align:middle line:84% service as a telecommunication service, 01:57:57.330 --> 01:58:00.720 align:middle line:84% under Title II of the Communications Act. 01:58:00.720 --> 01:58:02.940 align:middle line:84% That repeal clears the way for blocking, throttling, 01:58:02.940 --> 01:58:06.056 align:middle line:84% and discrimination by phone and cable companies, some of which 01:58:06.056 --> 01:58:07.680 align:middle line:84% circulated here on Beacon Hill, a sheet 01:58:07.680 --> 01:58:10.440 align:middle line:84% about so-called net neutrality myths and facts. 01:58:10.440 --> 01:58:12.240 align:middle line:84% And we've answered and provided a response 01:58:12.240 --> 01:58:15.820 align:middle line:84% to those claims in our written testimony as well. 01:58:15.820 --> 01:58:19.620 align:middle line:84% The 2017 repeal did not restore a pre-2015 light touch 01:58:19.620 --> 01:58:21.520 align:middle line:90% framework for internet access. 01:58:21.520 --> 01:58:24.120 align:middle line:84% And we were just discussing this with the last witness. 01:58:24.120 --> 01:58:27.120 align:middle line:84% In fact, it repealed all rules preventing ISP discrimination, 01:58:27.120 --> 01:58:29.130 align:middle line:84% and tossed out the only legal foundation upheld 01:58:29.130 --> 01:58:32.400 align:middle line:84% in court for such rules, once the FCC had clarified 01:58:32.400 --> 01:58:34.920 align:middle line:84% that broadband transmission is different from the speech it 01:58:34.920 --> 01:58:36.450 align:middle line:90% transmits. 01:58:36.450 --> 01:58:39.360 align:middle line:84% Before 2015, the FCC twice tried to enact such rules 01:58:39.360 --> 01:58:42.480 align:middle line:84% without treating ISPs as telecom carriers. 01:58:42.480 --> 01:58:45.240 align:middle line:84% Those rules did discipline ISP abuses in some respects, 01:58:45.240 --> 01:58:47.220 align:middle line:90% but they lost in court twice-- 01:58:47.220 --> 01:58:49.940 align:middle line:84% first to Verizon in 2010, and then to-- 01:58:49.940 --> 01:58:51.990 align:middle line:84% I'm sorry, first to Comcast in 2010, 01:58:51.990 --> 01:58:54.410 align:middle line:90% and then to Verizon in 2014. 01:58:54.410 --> 01:58:56.460 align:middle line:84% The Comcast suit tossed out the principle 01:58:56.460 --> 01:58:59.370 align:middle line:84% that remedied its video throttling in 2008, 01:58:59.370 --> 01:59:01.530 align:middle line:84% and then Verizon argued in its winning appeal 01:59:01.530 --> 01:59:05.100 align:middle line:84% that broadband providers, quote, "possess editorial discretion, 01:59:05.100 --> 01:59:06.990 align:middle line:84% just as a newspaper does, to decide 01:59:06.990 --> 01:59:09.410 align:middle line:90% which content to publish." 01:59:09.410 --> 01:59:11.709 align:middle line:84% The FCC's 2017 reversal has left internet users 01:59:11.709 --> 01:59:13.500 align:middle line:84% without sufficient protections against such 01:59:13.500 --> 01:59:15.870 align:middle line:90% ISP blocking and editing. 01:59:15.870 --> 01:59:18.930 align:middle line:84% They also removed protections against ISP privacy violations, 01:59:18.930 --> 01:59:20.046 align:middle line:90% too. 01:59:20.046 --> 01:59:21.420 align:middle line:84% As we've discussed today, the FCC 01:59:21.420 --> 01:59:24.530 align:middle line:84% has tried to preempt states' attempts to fill this vacuum, 01:59:24.530 --> 01:59:26.820 align:middle line:84% all in exchange for, as Professor Lyon mentioned, 01:59:26.820 --> 01:59:30.524 align:middle line:84% voluntary promises that the ISPs won't do these things. 01:59:30.524 --> 01:59:32.940 align:middle line:84% But tens of millions of people aren't satisfied with that, 01:59:32.940 --> 01:59:35.430 align:middle line:84% and they're organizing to restore these rights. 01:59:35.430 --> 01:59:38.010 align:middle line:84% They're immensely popular across party lines. 01:59:38.010 --> 01:59:39.660 align:middle line:90% 83% support them. 01:59:39.660 --> 01:59:41.820 align:middle line:84% And that figure includes 88% of Democrats 01:59:41.820 --> 01:59:44.256 align:middle line:90% and 75% of Republicans. 01:59:44.256 --> 01:59:46.380 align:middle line:84% That's why Senator Markey is leading the resolution 01:59:46.380 --> 01:59:47.602 align:middle line:90% of this approval. 01:59:47.602 --> 01:59:49.560 align:middle line:84% That's why Attorney General Healey joins states 01:59:49.560 --> 01:59:51.330 align:middle line:84% from New York to California, Minnesota 01:59:51.330 --> 01:59:53.700 align:middle line:90% to Mississippi, in an appeal. 01:59:53.700 --> 01:59:56.490 align:middle line:84% And Free Press will also join in that legal appeal, 01:59:56.490 --> 01:59:59.310 align:middle line:84% because the FCC's decision was substantively and procedurally 01:59:59.310 --> 02:00:02.032 align:middle line:84% flawed in ways I'd be happy to discuss. 02:00:02.032 --> 02:00:03.990 align:middle line:84% Some 20 states are considering varied responses 02:00:03.990 --> 02:00:06.390 align:middle line:84% to the loss of these rights, with Senator Creem's privacy 02:00:06.390 --> 02:00:09.690 align:middle line:84% bill, S-2062, on broadband privacy among those in response 02:00:09.690 --> 02:00:12.830 align:middle line:84% to earlier reversals, and now Senator L'Italien's 02:00:12.830 --> 02:00:15.990 align:middle line:84% net neutrality bill on that important list, too. 02:00:15.990 --> 02:00:18.480 align:middle line:84% Despite this legal pedigree and popular outcry, 02:00:18.480 --> 02:00:20.790 align:middle line:84% ISPs still say that the rules and the Title II 02:00:20.790 --> 02:00:23.670 align:middle line:84% legal framework for them decreased broadband deployment 02:00:23.670 --> 02:00:24.840 align:middle line:90% and investment. 02:00:24.840 --> 02:00:27.014 align:middle line:84% Again, that claim just isn't true. 02:00:27.014 --> 02:00:28.680 align:middle line:84% We know that broadband deployment is not 02:00:28.680 --> 02:00:31.230 align:middle line:84% satisfactory in every area in the nation, 02:00:31.230 --> 02:00:33.500 align:middle line:90% nor every part of Massachusetts. 02:00:33.500 --> 02:00:35.610 align:middle line:84% And even when fast broadband is available, 02:00:35.610 --> 02:00:38.040 align:middle line:90% not every person can afford it. 02:00:38.040 --> 02:00:40.380 align:middle line:84% Kimberly Longey, one of Free Press' founders 02:00:40.380 --> 02:00:42.410 align:middle line:84% and still our chief operating officer, 02:00:42.410 --> 02:00:44.810 align:middle line:84% has been organizing in Plainfield for almost 13 years 02:00:44.810 --> 02:00:47.690 align:middle line:84% now to overcome the digital divide and deployment 02:00:47.690 --> 02:00:50.120 align:middle line:84% gaps facing residents of the hill towns 02:00:50.120 --> 02:00:52.579 align:middle line:84% and other rural areas of Massachusetts. 02:00:52.579 --> 02:00:54.620 align:middle line:84% The story of their progress is well-known to many 02:00:54.620 --> 02:00:56.390 align:middle line:90% in the statehouse. 02:00:56.390 --> 02:00:58.190 align:middle line:84% But the economic and topographic challenges 02:00:58.190 --> 02:01:02.510 align:middle line:84% of building networks in rural, rugged, and relatively sparsely 02:01:02.510 --> 02:01:05.120 align:middle line:84% populated terrain did not spring into existence 02:01:05.120 --> 02:01:09.380 align:middle line:84% with net neutrality's 2015 restoration of these rules. 02:01:09.380 --> 02:01:11.360 align:middle line:84% ISPs often fail to meet these challenges 02:01:11.360 --> 02:01:13.940 align:middle line:84% when bottom line considerations do not dictate deployment 02:01:13.940 --> 02:01:15.680 align:middle line:90% to these locales. 02:01:15.680 --> 02:01:18.590 align:middle line:84% For example, Verizon announced in 2010 an end 02:01:18.590 --> 02:01:20.900 align:middle line:90% to its new Fios deployments. 02:01:20.900 --> 02:01:24.170 align:middle line:84% Yet, the ISPs own data shows that the 2015 rules did not 02:01:24.170 --> 02:01:25.790 align:middle line:90% slow deployment. 02:01:25.790 --> 02:01:28.620 align:middle line:84% Just a few facts and figures on that before I close. 02:01:28.620 --> 02:01:31.220 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts is relatively densely populated. 02:01:31.220 --> 02:01:34.070 align:middle line:84% Some 98% of its inhabitants are served by at least one 02:01:34.070 --> 02:01:35.720 align:middle line:90% wired ISP. 02:01:35.720 --> 02:01:38.360 align:middle line:84% Yet just 94% of its rural inhabitants 02:01:38.360 --> 02:01:41.630 align:middle line:84% have a wired ISP at 10 megabits per second. 02:01:41.630 --> 02:01:43.160 align:middle line:90% Choices are also few. 02:01:43.160 --> 02:01:45.710 align:middle line:84% Just 82% of rural Massachusetts residents 02:01:45.710 --> 02:01:48.080 align:middle line:90% have two or more wired ISPs. 02:01:48.080 --> 02:01:50.450 align:middle line:84% And only 25 of those have two ISPs 02:01:50.450 --> 02:01:53.660 align:middle line:84% offering a 25 megabits per second service, which 02:01:53.660 --> 02:01:56.360 align:middle line:84% is basically what the FCC defines as a modern definition 02:01:56.360 --> 02:01:58.070 align:middle line:90% of broadband. 02:01:58.070 --> 02:01:59.970 align:middle line:84% So there is work to be done, for sure. 02:01:59.970 --> 02:02:02.630 align:middle line:84% But that work did continue while the FCC's strong rules were 02:02:02.630 --> 02:02:05.720 align:middle line:90% in place from 2015 to 2017. 02:02:05.720 --> 02:02:08.090 align:middle line:84% Both urban and rural Massachusetts residents 02:02:08.090 --> 02:02:11.060 align:middle line:84% saw substantial increases in broadband speeds and capacities 02:02:11.060 --> 02:02:13.190 align:middle line:90% during those two years. 02:02:13.190 --> 02:02:15.650 align:middle line:84% And while the dollar amounts that ISPs invest matter less 02:02:15.650 --> 02:02:18.950 align:middle line:84% than those deployment metrics, publicly traded ISPs 02:02:18.950 --> 02:02:21.650 align:middle line:84% did increase their aggregate investment in that time period 02:02:21.650 --> 02:02:23.990 align:middle line:90% by 5.3%. 02:02:23.990 --> 02:02:26.030 align:middle line:84% By a 2 to 1 margin, these ISPs reported 02:02:26.030 --> 02:02:27.800 align:middle line:90% increasing investments. 02:02:27.800 --> 02:02:29.900 align:middle line:84% And so, for example, Comcast's total spending 02:02:29.900 --> 02:02:32.630 align:middle line:84% during the time period when the strong rules were in place 02:02:32.630 --> 02:02:37.855 align:middle line:84% went up by 26%, Verizon's by 3%, and Charter's by 15%. 02:02:37.855 --> 02:02:39.230 align:middle line:84% And those are nationwide figures, 02:02:39.230 --> 02:02:41.134 align:middle line:90% not specific to the state. 02:02:41.134 --> 02:02:42.800 align:middle line:84% So in sum, the repealed rules were good, 02:02:42.800 --> 02:02:44.534 align:middle line:84% and they were working for everyone. 02:02:44.534 --> 02:02:45.950 align:middle line:84% And I thank you for your attention 02:02:45.950 --> 02:02:47.870 align:middle line:90% to this matter in this hearing. 02:02:47.870 --> 02:02:50.630 align:middle line:84% I'll be happy to take any questions if you have any. 02:02:50.630 --> 02:02:54.113 align:middle line:84% So these are statistics that during the time 02:02:54.113 --> 02:02:59.100 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality, how much the spending of the ISP providers? 02:02:59.100 --> 02:02:59.642 align:middle line:90% That's right. 02:02:59.642 --> 02:03:01.891 align:middle line:84% One of the main arguments made by the internet service 02:03:01.891 --> 02:03:03.510 align:middle line:84% providers-- and you've asked, Senator, 02:03:03.510 --> 02:03:06.210 align:middle line:84% about the reasons the ISPs gave for opposing these rules-- they 02:03:06.210 --> 02:03:09.060 align:middle line:84% said that the mere presence of the nondiscrimination 02:03:09.060 --> 02:03:12.460 align:middle line:84% laws or other aspects of the communications laws 02:03:12.460 --> 02:03:15.150 align:middle line:84% that were not in effect used to adopt these rules 02:03:15.150 --> 02:03:17.250 align:middle line:84% would somehow inhibit their deployment, 02:03:17.250 --> 02:03:20.520 align:middle line:84% dampen their investment, decrease their fortunes. 02:03:20.520 --> 02:03:22.020 align:middle line:84% We just don't see that as the case. 02:03:22.020 --> 02:03:24.180 align:middle line:84% And these are the company's own numbers 02:03:24.180 --> 02:03:26.670 align:middle line:84% that they report to places like the SEC 02:03:26.670 --> 02:03:28.380 align:middle line:90% and to their own investors. 02:03:28.380 --> 02:03:30.382 align:middle line:84% So using their own numbers and the statements 02:03:30.382 --> 02:03:32.340 align:middle line:84% they made to their investors, their deployments 02:03:32.340 --> 02:03:34.440 align:middle line:84% and their investments continued to be basically 02:03:34.440 --> 02:03:36.030 align:middle line:84% what they were before the order took place. 02:03:36.030 --> 02:03:37.446 align:middle line:84% In fact, if anything, there seemed 02:03:37.446 --> 02:03:39.390 align:middle line:84% to be a slight jump in their deployment, 02:03:39.390 --> 02:03:43.234 align:middle line:84% because it's based on demand and not strictly driven by things 02:03:43.234 --> 02:03:46.036 align:middle line:90% like regulatory decisions. 02:03:46.036 --> 02:03:47.437 align:middle line:90% Any questions? 02:03:47.437 --> 02:03:50.700 align:middle line:90% 02:03:50.700 --> 02:03:52.194 align:middle line:90% So I just have one. 02:03:52.194 --> 02:03:53.688 align:middle line:90% I think we're alluding to that. 02:03:53.688 --> 02:03:55.182 align:middle line:84% What consumer privacy protections 02:03:55.182 --> 02:03:57.944 align:middle line:90% do you think are important? 02:03:57.944 --> 02:04:00.360 align:middle line:84% Well, basically, the rules that were struck down last year 02:04:00.360 --> 02:04:03.090 align:middle line:84% were a part of this current FCC's assault 02:04:03.090 --> 02:04:06.450 align:middle line:84% on consumer protections on communications networks. 02:04:06.450 --> 02:04:09.480 align:middle line:84% And the rules that were in place before Congress repealed those 02:04:09.480 --> 02:04:13.320 align:middle line:84% in early 2017 prevented ISPs from making 02:04:13.320 --> 02:04:16.260 align:middle line:84% unauthorized and unpermitted use of their customers' 02:04:16.260 --> 02:04:18.697 align:middle line:84% personal information without asking. 02:04:18.697 --> 02:04:20.280 align:middle line:84% We thought that was a commonsense rule 02:04:20.280 --> 02:04:20.890 align:middle line:90% to have in place. 02:04:20.890 --> 02:04:22.470 align:middle line:84% It was based-- and the reason I mention it here-- 02:04:22.470 --> 02:04:24.595 align:middle line:84% it was based on the same part of the Communications 02:04:24.595 --> 02:04:27.570 align:middle line:84% Act, which is called Title II of the Communications Act. 02:04:27.570 --> 02:04:29.520 align:middle line:84% So the repeal of the net neutrality rules 02:04:29.520 --> 02:04:32.070 align:middle line:84% is really just part of this broader effort 02:04:32.070 --> 02:04:35.010 align:middle line:84% to remove protections and to rely, instead, 02:04:35.010 --> 02:04:37.080 align:middle line:90% on ISPs' promises to behave. 02:04:37.080 --> 02:04:38.490 align:middle line:84% And frankly, we don't think those 02:04:38.490 --> 02:04:40.800 align:middle line:84% are good enough, because there aren't really other ways 02:04:40.800 --> 02:04:42.780 align:middle line:90% to enforce those promises. 02:04:42.780 --> 02:04:46.300 align:middle line:84% FTC and antitrust routes and state routes are all welcome, 02:04:46.300 --> 02:04:48.990 align:middle line:84% but we think the expert agency at the federal government level 02:04:48.990 --> 02:04:51.198 align:middle line:84% is the FCC, and should have those kind of protections 02:04:51.198 --> 02:04:53.062 align:middle line:90% in place for users. 02:04:53.062 --> 02:04:57.580 align:middle line:84% So could we consider that an unintended consequence, as we 02:04:57.580 --> 02:05:01.152 align:middle line:84% speak today, of the change in the net neutrality rules? 02:05:01.152 --> 02:05:02.860 align:middle line:84% Unfortunately, I think it was an intended 02:05:02.860 --> 02:05:04.120 align:middle line:90% consequence for some people. 02:05:04.120 --> 02:05:06.850 align:middle line:84% But it was a part of this, again, 02:05:06.850 --> 02:05:10.841 align:middle line:84% of really massive rollback of internet users' rights, 02:05:10.841 --> 02:05:12.340 align:middle line:84% based on the claim that somehow this 02:05:12.340 --> 02:05:16.210 align:middle line:84% will harm innovation or harm the internet development. 02:05:16.210 --> 02:05:18.100 align:middle line:84% And we think just the opposite, that they're 02:05:18.100 --> 02:05:21.790 align:middle line:84% essential for the continued operation and the free use 02:05:21.790 --> 02:05:24.395 align:middle line:84% of the internet by people that they've come to expect. 02:05:24.395 --> 02:05:28.465 align:middle line:84% So do you have an opinion official 02:05:28.465 --> 02:05:31.846 align:middle line:84% of whether the preemption clause precludes us 02:05:31.846 --> 02:05:33.594 align:middle line:84% from dealing with that issue as well? 02:05:33.594 --> 02:05:35.010 align:middle line:84% I think, as others have testified, 02:05:35.010 --> 02:05:36.520 align:middle line:90% it's a very complicated issue. 02:05:36.520 --> 02:05:39.240 align:middle line:84% I think it's worth noting that not only is the policy choice 02:05:39.240 --> 02:05:42.810 align:middle line:84% a bad one, and that the legal questions are murky, 02:05:42.810 --> 02:05:46.530 align:middle line:84% the FCC's attempt to adopt that preemption was also 02:05:46.530 --> 02:05:48.160 align:middle line:90% procedurally flawed. 02:05:48.160 --> 02:05:51.210 align:middle line:84% In fact, the FCC did not provide notice of its intent 02:05:51.210 --> 02:05:54.480 align:middle line:84% to do that when it first set out this notice of proposed 02:05:54.480 --> 02:05:57.520 align:middle line:84% rulemaking, which resulted in the order in December. 02:05:57.520 --> 02:05:59.700 align:middle line:84% So I think there are challenges to the order 02:05:59.700 --> 02:06:02.370 align:middle line:84% on substantive grounds, but also on just the FCC's generally 02:06:02.370 --> 02:06:05.460 align:middle line:90% sloppy execution of that plan. 02:06:05.460 --> 02:06:08.160 align:middle line:84% And that is why we're very happy to be part of the lawsuit that 02:06:08.160 --> 02:06:11.700 align:middle line:84% will challenge the FCC decision, and glad to see State Attorney 02:06:11.700 --> 02:06:16.820 align:middle line:84% General Healey and others taking such an active role in it. 02:06:16.820 --> 02:06:23.540 align:middle line:84% So just to give us a little bit of a sense moving forward, 02:06:23.540 --> 02:06:26.354 align:middle line:84% what, ideally, would you like to see in a state-- 02:06:26.354 --> 02:06:28.020 align:middle line:84% I know you touched on this a little bit, 02:06:28.020 --> 02:06:31.190 align:middle line:84% but I guess what specifically would you recommend to us 02:06:31.190 --> 02:06:34.690 align:middle line:84% be put in a state-level net neutrality bill? 02:06:34.690 --> 02:06:37.040 align:middle line:84% Well, to be clear, I mean, we do favor the reinstatement 02:06:37.040 --> 02:06:38.356 align:middle line:90% of strong federal protections. 02:06:38.356 --> 02:06:39.980 align:middle line:84% We welcome the energy and the attention 02:06:39.980 --> 02:06:41.510 align:middle line:84% this issue has gotten at the state level. 02:06:41.510 --> 02:06:43.340 align:middle line:84% I think that speaks to the popular support, 02:06:43.340 --> 02:06:45.770 align:middle line:84% and frankly, people's surprise and outrage over the fact 02:06:45.770 --> 02:06:48.110 align:middle line:90% that the FCC has abdicated. 02:06:48.110 --> 02:06:51.140 align:middle line:84% Professor Lyons talked about the difficulties of-- 02:06:51.140 --> 02:06:55.220 align:middle line:84% let's assume that the preemption order does stand up in court. 02:06:55.220 --> 02:06:58.417 align:middle line:84% Replicating the existing FCC rules would be difficult. 02:06:58.417 --> 02:07:00.500 align:middle line:84% I've heard discussion this morning of Chapter 93A, 02:07:00.500 --> 02:07:02.900 align:middle line:84% and sort of an unfair and deceptive acts approach 02:07:02.900 --> 02:07:04.370 align:middle line:90% to this problem. 02:07:04.370 --> 02:07:06.050 align:middle line:84% And contrary to the opinions I've 02:07:06.050 --> 02:07:09.530 align:middle line:84% heard expressed by some up here, at least at the federal level, 02:07:09.530 --> 02:07:12.800 align:middle line:84% antitrust and Federal Trade Commission style actions 02:07:12.800 --> 02:07:15.110 align:middle line:90% have been few and far between. 02:07:15.110 --> 02:07:15.960 align:middle line:90% They're expensive. 02:07:15.960 --> 02:07:18.000 align:middle line:90% They're usually after the fact. 02:07:18.000 --> 02:07:19.995 align:middle line:84% Sometimes the company or the party 02:07:19.995 --> 02:07:21.620 align:middle line:84% whose rights were violated doesn't even 02:07:21.620 --> 02:07:23.900 align:middle line:84% exist anymore, because it takes so many years to grind 02:07:23.900 --> 02:07:26.880 align:middle line:84% through these kinds of cases and antitrust lawsuits. 02:07:26.880 --> 02:07:28.340 align:middle line:84% So we haven't seen those as really 02:07:28.340 --> 02:07:30.530 align:middle line:90% effective at the federal level. 02:07:30.530 --> 02:07:32.959 align:middle line:84% At the state level, I'm glad to hear 02:07:32.959 --> 02:07:34.250 align:middle line:90% you're exploring those options. 02:07:34.250 --> 02:07:36.850 align:middle line:84% But they could be set aside by the preemption efforts 02:07:36.850 --> 02:07:38.344 align:middle line:90% that the FCC undertook. 02:07:38.344 --> 02:07:40.760 align:middle line:84% I just believe that the FCC's preemption attempts were not 02:07:40.760 --> 02:07:43.530 align:middle line:84% only problematic from a substantive standpoint, 02:07:43.530 --> 02:07:45.770 align:middle line:84% but also poorly done in the order 02:07:45.770 --> 02:07:47.630 align:middle line:90% that they adopted last year. 02:07:47.630 --> 02:07:50.270 align:middle line:84% So I guess you have a degree of confidence, it sounds like, 02:07:50.270 --> 02:07:54.617 align:middle line:84% that the FCC order is going to get thrown out in court? 02:07:54.617 --> 02:07:56.450 align:middle line:84% I mean, I wouldn't want to place bets on it. 02:07:56.450 --> 02:07:57.900 align:middle line:84% I was once told that I'm a lawyer, 02:07:57.900 --> 02:07:59.792 align:middle line:84% and that it's malpractice to give odds. 02:07:59.792 --> 02:08:01.250 align:middle line:84% But we think we have a strong case. 02:08:01.250 --> 02:08:03.950 align:middle line:84% There is deference to the agency, 02:08:03.950 --> 02:08:05.786 align:middle line:90% as others have noted for you. 02:08:05.786 --> 02:08:07.160 align:middle line:84% But they have to do things right. 02:08:07.160 --> 02:08:08.990 align:middle line:84% They have to provide notice of what they're going to do, 02:08:08.990 --> 02:08:10.948 align:middle line:84% and they failed to do that in several respects. 02:08:10.948 --> 02:08:12.560 align:middle line:84% You know, the fraudulent comments 02:08:12.560 --> 02:08:16.500 align:middle line:84% that several attorneys general have weighed in on, 02:08:16.500 --> 02:08:17.570 align:middle line:90% those are problematic. 02:08:17.570 --> 02:08:19.400 align:middle line:84% I agree that the FCC doesn't necessarily 02:08:19.400 --> 02:08:21.790 align:middle line:84% have to tote up every single comment it receives 02:08:21.790 --> 02:08:23.600 align:middle line:90% as if it's a ballot box. 02:08:23.600 --> 02:08:25.739 align:middle line:84% But that is a very big problem, for them 02:08:25.739 --> 02:08:27.530 align:middle line:84% to have several million comments and really 02:08:27.530 --> 02:08:30.110 align:middle line:84% have no idea whether they were legitimately 02:08:30.110 --> 02:08:33.062 align:middle line:84% submitted by people with an interest in this proceeding. 02:08:33.062 --> 02:08:35.270 align:middle line:84% And then they have problems with their legal theories 02:08:35.270 --> 02:08:37.220 align:middle line:84% and with their notice they provided 02:08:37.220 --> 02:08:38.877 align:middle line:84% for different decisions they made. 02:08:38.877 --> 02:08:40.460 align:middle line:84% So I think we have several challenges, 02:08:40.460 --> 02:08:46.050 align:middle line:84% both on the substance and on the way the FCC went about this. 02:08:46.050 --> 02:08:49.978 align:middle line:84% So again, I want to thank you very much for helping me today, 02:08:49.978 --> 02:08:53.906 align:middle line:84% and for being helpful with my office [INAUDIBLE].. 02:08:53.906 --> 02:08:57.780 align:middle line:90% 02:08:57.780 --> 02:08:58.396 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:08:58.396 --> 02:08:58.896 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:08:58.896 --> 02:08:59.268 align:middle line:90% It was a pleasure. 02:08:59.268 --> 02:08:59.768 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 02:08:59.768 --> 02:09:00.756 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:09:00.756 --> 02:09:04.228 align:middle line:84% So the next person is Gerry Keegan. 02:09:04.228 --> 02:09:19.130 align:middle line:90% 02:09:19.130 --> 02:09:20.990 align:middle line:84% Madam Chair, members of the committee, 02:09:20.990 --> 02:09:23.770 align:middle line:90% I'm Gerry Keegan with CTIA. 02:09:23.770 --> 02:09:26.060 align:middle line:84% CTIA is the trade association that 02:09:26.060 --> 02:09:29.690 align:middle line:84% represents the wireless communications industry. 02:09:29.690 --> 02:09:34.070 align:middle line:84% Our members include companies such as AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, 02:09:34.070 --> 02:09:35.605 align:middle line:90% and Verizon Wireless. 02:09:35.605 --> 02:09:39.980 align:middle line:84% Let me say from the outset that the wireless industry supports 02:09:39.980 --> 02:09:42.400 align:middle line:90% an open and free internet. 02:09:42.400 --> 02:09:44.480 align:middle line:84% Major wireless providers have agreed 02:09:44.480 --> 02:09:47.135 align:middle line:84% not to block or throttle legal content 02:09:47.135 --> 02:09:49.790 align:middle line:90% in a discriminatory manner. 02:09:49.790 --> 02:09:52.970 align:middle line:84% What the FCC did in its recent order 02:09:52.970 --> 02:09:58.070 align:middle line:84% is to restore authority, broad authority, to the FTC, 02:09:58.070 --> 02:10:01.170 align:middle line:84% to police broadband providers and prosecute 02:10:01.170 --> 02:10:03.390 align:middle line:84% those providers who may be acting 02:10:03.390 --> 02:10:06.200 align:middle line:84% in an unfair or deceptive manner. 02:10:06.200 --> 02:10:09.020 align:middle line:84% The FCC has noted in its recent order 02:10:09.020 --> 02:10:12.550 align:middle line:84% that the FTC can bring action against those broadband 02:10:12.550 --> 02:10:15.740 align:middle line:84% providers that it alleges are acting 02:10:15.740 --> 02:10:18.480 align:middle line:84% in an anti-competitive way, with regard 02:10:18.480 --> 02:10:21.470 align:middle line:84% to their network management practices. 02:10:21.470 --> 02:10:25.460 align:middle line:84% The FCC, for example, has noted that providers cannot 02:10:25.460 --> 02:10:29.480 align:middle line:84% anti-competitively block or throttle content from third 02:10:29.480 --> 02:10:30.660 align:middle line:90% parties. 02:10:30.660 --> 02:10:33.530 align:middle line:84% They cannot enter into agreements with one another 02:10:33.530 --> 02:10:37.400 align:middle line:84% to discriminate against lawful content. 02:10:37.400 --> 02:10:41.930 align:middle line:84% In addition, the state attorney general here in Massachusetts 02:10:41.930 --> 02:10:46.340 align:middle line:84% can enforce consumer protection laws of general applicability 02:10:46.340 --> 02:10:49.310 align:middle line:84% against those providers who she feels 02:10:49.310 --> 02:10:52.550 align:middle line:84% have acted in an anti-competitive, unfair, 02:10:52.550 --> 02:10:55.820 align:middle line:84% or deceptive manner, or are not living up 02:10:55.820 --> 02:10:58.880 align:middle line:84% to the terms and conditions of services 02:10:58.880 --> 02:11:00.740 align:middle line:90% that they have published. 02:11:00.740 --> 02:11:04.190 align:middle line:84% Finally, you've heard a lot about preemption today. 02:11:04.190 --> 02:11:08.510 align:middle line:84% The FCC reaffirmed its 25th [INAUDIBLE] finding, 02:11:08.510 --> 02:11:11.130 align:middle line:84% that broadband is an interstate service-- 02:11:11.130 --> 02:11:13.070 align:middle line:90% in fact, a global offering-- 02:11:13.070 --> 02:11:14.840 align:middle line:84% and preempted state and localities 02:11:14.840 --> 02:11:17.630 align:middle line:90% from regulating in this area. 02:11:17.630 --> 02:11:21.200 align:middle line:84% State-by-state regulation, especially of mobile broadband, 02:11:21.200 --> 02:11:23.000 align:middle line:90% would be untenable. 02:11:23.000 --> 02:11:24.935 align:middle line:84% Just think about this in the mobile broadband 02:11:24.935 --> 02:11:27.720 align:middle line:90% context, which I represent. 02:11:27.720 --> 02:11:31.370 align:middle line:84% Would a law be applicable to where the user signed up 02:11:31.370 --> 02:11:35.630 align:middle line:84% for service, where the antenna that transmits the data 02:11:35.630 --> 02:11:40.100 align:middle line:84% is located, or where the user is currently located? 02:11:40.100 --> 02:11:43.220 align:middle line:84% That type of patchwork of state regulation 02:11:43.220 --> 02:11:47.430 align:middle line:84% would just be unbearable and confusing for consumers. 02:11:47.430 --> 02:11:51.220 align:middle line:84% So in closing, I would say that state legislation in this area 02:11:51.220 --> 02:11:53.360 align:middle line:84% is unnecessary, because of the strong consumer 02:11:53.360 --> 02:11:56.150 align:middle line:84% protections that are already in place, 02:11:56.150 --> 02:11:58.520 align:middle line:84% because the state attorney general has authority 02:11:58.520 --> 02:12:02.420 align:middle line:84% to enforce consumer protection laws of general applicability. 02:12:02.420 --> 02:12:05.600 align:middle line:84% I would also say that federal legislation, 02:12:05.600 --> 02:12:09.650 align:middle line:84% a bipartisan solution, is necessary in this area, 02:12:09.650 --> 02:12:12.830 align:middle line:84% so that we have one set of rules for all providers 02:12:12.830 --> 02:12:14.169 align:middle line:90% across the country. 02:12:14.169 --> 02:12:17.163 align:middle line:84% Thank you for your time, and I'll take any questions. 02:12:17.163 --> 02:12:21.654 align:middle line:90% So, if I might. 02:12:21.654 --> 02:12:27.143 align:middle line:84% So it seems like you would be at least willing to work with it. 02:12:27.143 --> 02:12:35.626 align:middle line:84% But perhaps it could fit into your pattern if we did do-- 02:12:35.626 --> 02:12:38.620 align:middle line:84% if some legislation came out of this committee that 02:12:38.620 --> 02:12:41.614 align:middle line:84% had some of the protections like Nebraska 02:12:41.614 --> 02:12:45.107 align:middle line:84% did, which would add an exemption for ISP sharing 02:12:45.107 --> 02:12:47.602 align:middle line:84% information with emergency personnel, 02:12:47.602 --> 02:12:51.594 align:middle line:84% or allow for exemption of reasonable network business 02:12:51.594 --> 02:12:52.592 align:middle line:90% management? 02:12:52.592 --> 02:12:56.584 align:middle line:84% Because I think I hear you saying that, 02:12:56.584 --> 02:13:01.075 align:middle line:84% at least your [INAUDIBLE] relation 02:13:01.075 --> 02:13:04.069 align:middle line:84% supports an open internet, but wants 02:13:04.069 --> 02:13:07.063 align:middle line:84% to be able to manage [INAUDIBLE].. 02:13:07.063 --> 02:13:10.057 align:middle line:84% So if those intentions were there, 02:13:10.057 --> 02:13:13.051 align:middle line:84% would that fit more into something 02:13:13.051 --> 02:13:20.090 align:middle line:84% that would be [INAUDIBLE] we'd feel more comfortable with? 02:13:20.090 --> 02:13:23.710 align:middle line:84% We don't believe state legislation is necessary. 02:13:23.710 --> 02:13:27.220 align:middle line:84% And we believe that there is regulatory risk here, 02:13:27.220 --> 02:13:30.370 align:middle line:84% with regards to states regulating a truly 02:13:30.370 --> 02:13:32.170 align:middle line:90% interstate service. 02:13:32.170 --> 02:13:35.440 align:middle line:84% So we believe that our current agreements 02:13:35.440 --> 02:13:37.930 align:middle line:84% not to block or throttle traffic can 02:13:37.930 --> 02:13:41.830 align:middle line:84% be enforced by both the FTC and the state attorney general. 02:13:41.830 --> 02:13:43.780 align:middle line:84% The state attorney general can also 02:13:43.780 --> 02:13:46.600 align:middle line:84% enforce consumer protection laws of general applicability, 02:13:46.600 --> 02:13:50.110 align:middle line:84% such as your state [INAUDIBLE] statute, 02:13:50.110 --> 02:13:53.620 align:middle line:84% against any provider that is acting deceptively 02:13:53.620 --> 02:13:56.830 align:middle line:84% or is not abiding by its terms and conditions of service. 02:13:56.830 --> 02:14:01.030 align:middle line:84% So we don't see a need for state legislation in this area. 02:14:01.030 --> 02:14:04.480 align:middle line:84% We do feel that a federal legislative solution is 02:14:04.480 --> 02:14:09.010 align:middle line:84% necessary, so that we don't have, when administrations 02:14:09.010 --> 02:14:13.210 align:middle line:84% change at the federal level, this regulatory back and forth. 02:14:13.210 --> 02:14:16.028 align:middle line:84% We need one final federal legislative solution, 02:14:16.028 --> 02:14:17.900 align:middle line:84% and that's what we are advocating for. 02:14:17.900 --> 02:14:20.710 align:middle line:90% 02:14:20.710 --> 02:14:21.468 align:middle line:90% Senator Lesser? 02:14:21.468 --> 02:14:23.380 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:14:23.380 --> 02:14:27.490 align:middle line:84% And I certainly-- it makes intuitive sense, obviously, 02:14:27.490 --> 02:14:32.040 align:middle line:84% the inherent interstate components of Wi-Fi 02:14:32.040 --> 02:14:33.840 align:middle line:84% and wireless internet and cellular service. 02:14:33.840 --> 02:14:36.090 align:middle line:84% But I guess just a few questions. 02:14:36.090 --> 02:14:39.270 align:middle line:84% First, did any members of your industry, 02:14:39.270 --> 02:14:42.880 align:middle line:84% before the Obama-era net neutrality rules, 02:14:42.880 --> 02:14:46.830 align:middle line:84% block content, throttle content, or otherwise 02:14:46.830 --> 02:14:50.130 align:middle line:84% distinguish between content on their networks? 02:14:50.130 --> 02:14:53.520 align:middle line:84% Before the 2015 order, there have 02:14:53.520 --> 02:14:56.320 align:middle line:84% been virtually no instances where mobile providers have 02:14:56.320 --> 02:14:57.750 align:middle line:90% done that. 02:14:57.750 --> 02:15:00.810 align:middle line:84% There are stories that are reported in the press 02:15:00.810 --> 02:15:05.350 align:middle line:84% about claiming that net neutrality violations occurred. 02:15:05.350 --> 02:15:09.120 align:middle line:84% Those stories were never brought up by the FCC. 02:15:09.120 --> 02:15:12.875 align:middle line:84% And did your terms of service spell out for your customers 02:15:12.875 --> 02:15:15.000 align:middle line:84% that you wouldn't block or throttle content, again, 02:15:15.000 --> 02:15:20.160 align:middle line:90% before the Obama-era rule? 02:15:20.160 --> 02:15:21.160 align:middle line:90% I would have to go back. 02:15:21.160 --> 02:15:23.660 align:middle line:84% I'm not sure what the terms and conditions of service 02:15:23.660 --> 02:15:24.540 align:middle line:90% said at that point. 02:15:24.540 --> 02:15:29.945 align:middle line:84% So then the Obama-era rule came in, and issued net neutrality, 02:15:29.945 --> 02:15:31.380 align:middle line:84% and obviously, then, you complied 02:15:31.380 --> 02:15:34.200 align:middle line:84% with the Obama-era regulation, right? 02:15:34.200 --> 02:15:35.100 align:middle line:90% Correct. 02:15:35.100 --> 02:15:39.550 align:middle line:84% So was there any adverse impact on your business? 02:15:39.550 --> 02:15:43.920 align:middle line:84% Did it impact your ability to grow or serve your customers 02:15:43.920 --> 02:15:45.630 align:middle line:90% in any way, over the multi-- 02:15:45.630 --> 02:15:51.240 align:middle line:84% I guess it was 2015 to 2018, that that rule was in effect. 02:15:51.240 --> 02:15:52.650 align:middle line:90% Did it cost you money? 02:15:52.650 --> 02:15:54.100 align:middle line:90% Did it-- what was the problem? 02:15:54.100 --> 02:15:56.850 align:middle line:90% So there are two aspects there. 02:15:56.850 --> 02:16:02.950 align:middle line:84% From 2014 to 2016, in the mobile industry itself, 02:16:02.950 --> 02:16:06.240 align:middle line:84% mobile providers invested $6 billion 02:16:06.240 --> 02:16:10.220 align:middle line:84% less in capital expenditures in the United States. 02:16:10.220 --> 02:16:11.550 align:middle line:90% That's $6 billion. 02:16:11.550 --> 02:16:14.069 align:middle line:84% Is that because of the net neutrality rule? 02:16:14.069 --> 02:16:14.610 align:middle line:90% It would be-- 02:16:14.610 --> 02:16:17.010 align:middle line:84% Or is that because of broader business-- 02:16:17.010 --> 02:16:20.300 align:middle line:84% We don't collect that level of data. 02:16:20.300 --> 02:16:21.810 align:middle line:84% What I can tell you is that we've 02:16:21.810 --> 02:16:23.790 align:middle line:84% been collecting that type of data 02:16:23.790 --> 02:16:25.980 align:middle line:90% for approximately 25 years. 02:16:25.980 --> 02:16:28.190 align:middle line:84% And even during the Great Recession, 02:16:28.190 --> 02:16:31.390 align:middle line:84% we never saw a decline such as that. 02:16:31.390 --> 02:16:35.700 align:middle line:84% So the industry before the Obama-era rule, you're saying, 02:16:35.700 --> 02:16:41.219 align:middle line:84% followed net neutrality even though it wasn't the law. 02:16:41.219 --> 02:16:45.950 align:middle line:84% While the rule was under effect from the Obama-era FCC, 02:16:45.950 --> 02:16:46.910 align:middle line:90% you followed the rules. 02:16:46.910 --> 02:16:49.980 align:middle line:84% So there was, effectively, no change before the rule 02:16:49.980 --> 02:16:52.410 align:middle line:84% and after the rule in how you did business, right? 02:16:52.410 --> 02:16:56.330 align:middle line:84% Well, I think on the part of, when you talk about the rule, 02:16:56.330 --> 02:16:58.775 align:middle line:90% it's beyond just net neutrality. 02:16:58.775 --> 02:16:59.650 align:middle line:90% We're talking about-- 02:16:59.650 --> 02:17:03.261 align:middle line:84% I know, but we're concerned with the net neutrality rule. 02:17:03.261 --> 02:17:03.760 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 02:17:03.760 --> 02:17:06.830 align:middle line:84% I think it would be hard to differentiate 02:17:06.830 --> 02:17:10.379 align:middle line:84% the net neutrality piece versus the Title II piece. 02:17:10.379 --> 02:17:13.200 align:middle line:84% So then practically speaking, if there was no change 02:17:13.200 --> 02:17:17.059 align:middle line:84% before the rule was issued for you, in 2015, 02:17:17.059 --> 02:17:21.180 align:middle line:84% and there was no change after the rule was issued in 2015, 02:17:21.180 --> 02:17:24.230 align:middle line:84% now it's 2018, and the federal rule has been removed, 02:17:24.230 --> 02:17:27.930 align:middle line:84% if we want to put the same rule back in, 02:17:27.930 --> 02:17:29.239 align:middle line:90% you're already following it. 02:17:29.239 --> 02:17:30.030 align:middle line:90% Why does it matter? 02:17:30.030 --> 02:17:34.080 align:middle line:84% Well, I think before the 2015 order, 02:17:34.080 --> 02:17:36.480 align:middle line:84% the industry were following principles 02:17:36.480 --> 02:17:38.420 align:middle line:90% that guided net neutrality. 02:17:38.420 --> 02:17:41.490 align:middle line:84% You then had a very heavy-handed regulation 02:17:41.490 --> 02:17:45.330 align:middle line:90% adopted in 2015 by the FCC. 02:17:45.330 --> 02:17:51.250 align:middle line:84% So you had broader regulatory burdens placed on providers. 02:17:51.250 --> 02:17:54.726 align:middle line:84% And this especially hits small wireless providers the hardest, 02:17:54.726 --> 02:17:55.559 align:middle line:90% the rural providers. 02:17:55.559 --> 02:17:58.740 align:middle line:90% So then just because, for our-- 02:17:58.740 --> 02:18:00.674 align:middle line:84% it's a question how much authority we even 02:18:00.674 --> 02:18:02.010 align:middle line:90% have over this topic at all. 02:18:02.010 --> 02:18:05.760 align:middle line:84% But assuming that we keep it a narrowly tailored 02:18:05.760 --> 02:18:09.090 align:middle line:84% net neutrality rule of a blocking and throttling content 02:18:09.090 --> 02:18:12.480 align:middle line:84% and protecting consumers' access to the internet, 02:18:12.480 --> 02:18:17.670 align:middle line:84% putting aside for a moment the broader regulatory issues 02:18:17.670 --> 02:18:21.000 align:middle line:84% from the Obama-era decision, is there any problem 02:18:21.000 --> 02:18:23.580 align:middle line:84% with us basically codifying what it sounds like is already 02:18:23.580 --> 02:18:26.820 align:middle line:84% in your terms of service, and creating a mechanism 02:18:26.820 --> 02:18:30.130 align:middle line:84% to enforce those terms of service on a state level? 02:18:30.130 --> 02:18:30.629 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:18:30.629 --> 02:18:32.809 align:middle line:84% We would see a problem with that. 02:18:32.809 --> 02:18:35.100 align:middle line:84% The regulatory risk would be great. 02:18:35.100 --> 02:18:39.610 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts may propose one bill, one law, 02:18:39.610 --> 02:18:41.850 align:middle line:84% and Vermont is doing it another way. 02:18:41.850 --> 02:18:44.820 align:middle line:84% And then we have another state that 02:18:44.820 --> 02:18:47.709 align:middle line:84% really ticks implementation of the law 02:18:47.709 --> 02:18:50.969 align:middle line:84% to their state public utility or public service commission. 02:18:50.969 --> 02:18:53.700 align:middle line:84% So now we have the possibility that we-- 02:18:53.700 --> 02:18:55.770 align:middle line:84% I wouldn't say 50 different state laws, 02:18:55.770 --> 02:18:58.950 align:middle line:84% because I don't see that many states acting in this area, 02:18:58.950 --> 02:19:00.990 align:middle line:90% but say even a dozen. 02:19:00.990 --> 02:19:03.629 align:middle line:84% That regulatory risk is great, especially 02:19:03.629 --> 02:19:05.920 align:middle line:84% in the context of mobile broadband providers. 02:19:05.920 --> 02:19:07.549 align:middle line:84% So then just, last question on this. 02:19:07.549 --> 02:19:09.090 align:middle line:84% There is a lot of examples of this, 02:19:09.090 --> 02:19:12.510 align:middle line:84% though, with state auto insurance regulation, 02:19:12.510 --> 02:19:16.290 align:middle line:84% the California rule on emissions standards for automobiles. 02:19:16.290 --> 02:19:17.790 align:middle line:84% And generally what ends up happening 02:19:17.790 --> 02:19:22.900 align:middle line:84% is the industry adopts the most progressive, or let's say, 02:19:22.900 --> 02:19:27.340 align:middle line:84% most protectionist policy, and makes that their policy 02:19:27.340 --> 02:19:28.809 align:middle line:90% for the country. 02:19:28.809 --> 02:19:31.270 align:middle line:84% So I guess the question would be, 02:19:31.270 --> 02:19:33.820 align:middle line:84% if you're worried about regulatory risk, 02:19:33.820 --> 02:19:38.540 align:middle line:84% if Massachusetts passes this net neutrality provision, 02:19:38.540 --> 02:19:41.559 align:middle line:84% is it such a big deal for you to just follow the Massachusetts 02:19:41.559 --> 02:19:43.841 align:middle line:84% rule which would maybe be more aggressive than all 02:19:43.841 --> 02:19:44.549 align:middle line:90% the other states? 02:19:44.549 --> 02:19:45.965 align:middle line:84% And then just all the other states 02:19:45.965 --> 02:19:47.559 align:middle line:84% end up getting protected as a result 02:19:47.559 --> 02:19:49.730 align:middle line:90% of Massachusetts' leadership? 02:19:49.730 --> 02:19:50.230 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 02:19:50.230 --> 02:19:52.422 align:middle line:90% I would say it would be. 02:19:52.422 --> 02:19:54.820 align:middle line:84% We're talking about a competitive and dynamic 02:19:54.820 --> 02:19:59.950 align:middle line:84% industry that is innovating, day in and day out, in the core, 02:19:59.950 --> 02:20:01.210 align:middle line:90% with providers. 02:20:01.210 --> 02:20:03.730 align:middle line:84% We are about to deploy fifth generation wireless 02:20:03.730 --> 02:20:06.850 align:middle line:84% service in this country, to realize 02:20:06.850 --> 02:20:11.080 align:middle line:84% the true benefits of things like connected cars and autonomous 02:20:11.080 --> 02:20:12.100 align:middle line:90% vehicles. 02:20:12.100 --> 02:20:15.760 align:middle line:84% When we have regulatory policies that 02:20:15.760 --> 02:20:19.910 align:middle line:84% are put in place that can potentially 02:20:19.910 --> 02:20:23.050 align:middle line:84% harm that innovation, harm that progress, 02:20:23.050 --> 02:20:25.300 align:middle line:84% that's an issue that we take seriously. 02:20:25.300 --> 02:20:28.750 align:middle line:84% And that is a risk that we think is too great. 02:20:28.750 --> 02:20:31.870 align:middle line:84% That's why we're calling on the federal government, Congress, 02:20:31.870 --> 02:20:34.910 align:middle line:84% to act in a bipartisan fashion to finally settle 02:20:34.910 --> 02:20:37.210 align:middle line:90% this dispute once and for all. 02:20:37.210 --> 02:20:39.400 align:middle line:84% Bring all the stakeholders together 02:20:39.400 --> 02:20:43.665 align:middle line:84% and allow both the industry, consumer groups, 02:20:43.665 --> 02:20:46.180 align:middle line:84% the federal agencies to come together 02:20:46.180 --> 02:20:48.760 align:middle line:84% and get a solution once and for all. 02:20:48.760 --> 02:20:52.190 align:middle line:84% When we have the risk of state-by-state regulation, 02:20:52.190 --> 02:20:55.660 align:middle line:84% for truly an interstate service like mobile broadband, 02:20:55.660 --> 02:20:59.530 align:middle line:84% that risk is too great to have one state dictate 02:20:59.530 --> 02:21:01.750 align:middle line:84% what every other state is going to do, 02:21:01.750 --> 02:21:04.930 align:middle line:84% because that state may have the most stringent requirements 02:21:04.930 --> 02:21:06.160 align:middle line:90% at that point. 02:21:06.160 --> 02:21:10.100 align:middle line:84% And I think when we have other states that, for example, are 02:21:10.100 --> 02:21:12.355 align:middle line:84% kicking it to their public service 02:21:12.355 --> 02:21:14.830 align:middle line:84% commissions or their utility commissions 02:21:14.830 --> 02:21:18.970 align:middle line:84% to implement the laws, and proposing that, they could 02:21:18.970 --> 02:21:22.570 align:middle line:84% be more stringent tomorrow than what Massachusetts 02:21:22.570 --> 02:21:23.970 align:middle line:90% may be today. 02:21:23.970 --> 02:21:27.610 align:middle line:84% And now, we have this patchwork of differing state laws 02:21:27.610 --> 02:21:31.720 align:middle line:84% that we are going to have to try to comply with, 02:21:31.720 --> 02:21:33.370 align:middle line:84% that could really harm the innovation 02:21:33.370 --> 02:21:36.340 align:middle line:90% that occurs in this sector. 02:21:36.340 --> 02:21:37.330 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:21:37.330 --> 02:21:41.960 align:middle line:84% So [INAUDIBLE] that Congress could 02:21:41.960 --> 02:21:45.150 align:middle line:84% bring all these parties together, 02:21:45.150 --> 02:21:46.515 align:middle line:90% and come up with something. 02:21:46.515 --> 02:21:51.450 align:middle line:84% But in the interim, some states feel 02:21:51.450 --> 02:21:53.048 align:middle line:90% like they need to do something. 02:21:53.048 --> 02:21:56.290 align:middle line:84% So how does your organization feel 02:21:56.290 --> 02:21:59.920 align:middle line:84% if there was a law that said everything 02:21:59.920 --> 02:22:03.167 align:middle line:84% you said, that your providers were going 02:22:03.167 --> 02:22:05.870 align:middle line:84% to believe in net neutrality and provide us 02:22:05.870 --> 02:22:09.780 align:middle line:84% equal access, and no throttling, and no blocking, 02:22:09.780 --> 02:22:17.776 align:middle line:84% unless you opted out from that requirement? 02:22:17.776 --> 02:22:19.090 align:middle line:90% How would that fare? 02:22:19.090 --> 02:22:21.815 align:middle line:84% If the consumer wants to opt out, and let 02:22:21.815 --> 02:22:26.590 align:middle line:84% you do whatever you want, then that would be different. 02:22:26.590 --> 02:22:29.520 align:middle line:84% Our position on state legislation is that-- 02:22:29.520 --> 02:22:31.280 align:middle line:90% No, we know that. 02:22:31.280 --> 02:22:33.210 align:middle line:84% As I was saying to the senator, the risk 02:22:33.210 --> 02:22:38.670 align:middle line:84% is too great, especially for our industry, where consumers 02:22:38.670 --> 02:22:40.826 align:middle line:90% cross state lines daily. 02:22:40.826 --> 02:22:45.162 align:middle line:84% And they commute to New Hampshire, Vermont, et 02:22:45.162 --> 02:22:46.620 align:middle line:90% cetera, Connecticut. 02:22:46.620 --> 02:22:50.580 align:middle line:84% So that type of state-by-state regulation 02:22:50.580 --> 02:22:53.735 align:middle line:84% really runs a regulatory risk for us that's too great. 02:22:53.735 --> 02:22:56.729 align:middle line:84% I think that-- I'm sorry, Senator [INAUDIBLE].. 02:22:56.729 --> 02:23:00.222 align:middle line:90% I couldn't resist [INAUDIBLE]. 02:23:00.222 --> 02:23:02.218 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 02:23:02.218 --> 02:23:05.711 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 02:23:05.711 --> 02:23:10.701 align:middle line:84% I appreciate the general aspect of progress, innovation, 02:23:10.701 --> 02:23:11.699 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE]. 02:23:11.699 --> 02:23:21.679 align:middle line:90% 02:23:21.679 --> 02:23:28.166 align:middle line:84% But I'm losing my sense of exactly what innovations 02:23:28.166 --> 02:23:30.661 align:middle line:84% are we able to make, in an environment 02:23:30.661 --> 02:23:36.150 align:middle line:84% where we've accepted varied access to [INAUDIBLE].. 02:23:36.150 --> 02:23:39.643 align:middle line:90% 02:23:39.643 --> 02:23:42.637 align:middle line:84% What part of differentiation advantages 02:23:42.637 --> 02:23:45.631 align:middle line:90% are you realizing [INAUDIBLE]? 02:23:45.631 --> 02:24:00.102 align:middle line:90% 02:24:00.102 --> 02:24:01.599 align:middle line:90% What [INAUDIBLE]? 02:24:01.599 --> 02:24:04.593 align:middle line:90% 02:24:04.593 --> 02:24:08.585 align:middle line:84% Good, bad, or indifferent, what are you [INAUDIBLE]?? 02:24:08.585 --> 02:24:12.078 align:middle line:84% I'm unsatisfied with your very [INAUDIBLE].. 02:24:12.078 --> 02:24:18.066 align:middle line:90% 02:24:18.066 --> 02:24:22.170 align:middle line:84% What are you talking about when [INAUDIBLE]?? 02:24:22.170 --> 02:24:27.410 align:middle line:84% It would be difficult to pinpoint that at this point. 02:24:27.410 --> 02:24:31.850 align:middle line:84% If you told me two years ago that the industry would 02:24:31.850 --> 02:24:39.410 align:middle line:84% continue to grow to over 135% penetration rate, 02:24:39.410 --> 02:24:43.940 align:middle line:84% you told me that the innovation that's occurring in this sector 02:24:43.940 --> 02:24:46.970 align:middle line:84% with regards to what we're going to be deploying, 02:24:46.970 --> 02:24:49.880 align:middle line:84% and fifth generation was going to occur, 02:24:49.880 --> 02:24:53.510 align:middle line:84% I would probably say it would not happen 02:24:53.510 --> 02:24:55.560 align:middle line:90% as quickly as it is happening. 02:24:55.560 --> 02:25:00.245 align:middle line:84% So it's very difficult for me to pinpoint exactly for you. 02:25:00.245 --> 02:25:03.462 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] ballpark [INAUDIBLE] example of how 02:25:03.462 --> 02:25:05.690 align:middle line:90% the environment might change? 02:25:05.690 --> 02:25:07.670 align:middle line:84% Feel free to make a pitch for [INAUDIBLE].. 02:25:07.670 --> 02:25:09.650 align:middle line:84% I just want to know what's going to make 02:25:09.650 --> 02:25:11.630 align:middle line:90% a difference [INAUDIBLE]. 02:25:11.630 --> 02:25:14.600 align:middle line:90% 02:25:14.600 --> 02:25:18.490 align:middle line:84% From the net neutrality order being reversed? 02:25:18.490 --> 02:25:21.100 align:middle line:90% Again, it would be hard. 02:25:21.100 --> 02:25:26.450 align:middle line:84% I would say if you're talking about de-prioritization, 02:25:26.450 --> 02:25:30.250 align:middle line:84% and there's no plans at this point, 02:25:30.250 --> 02:25:35.380 align:middle line:84% that I know of, with my companies on this issue, 02:25:35.380 --> 02:25:36.550 align:middle line:90% but I could imagine-- 02:25:36.550 --> 02:25:37.470 align:middle line:90% I mentioned-- 02:25:37.470 --> 02:25:39.386 align:middle line:84% When you say your companies, what do you mean? 02:25:39.386 --> 02:25:42.580 align:middle line:84% My companies, the member companies. 02:25:42.580 --> 02:25:46.120 align:middle line:84% As I talked about with Senator Lesser, 02:25:46.120 --> 02:25:50.120 align:middle line:84% 5G is welcoming in real connectivity with regards 02:25:50.120 --> 02:25:51.988 align:middle line:90% to automobiles. 02:25:51.988 --> 02:25:52.922 align:middle line:90% What does that mean? 02:25:52.922 --> 02:25:56.200 align:middle line:90% What does that [INAUDIBLE]? 02:25:56.200 --> 02:26:00.880 align:middle line:84% So if you had an autonomous vehicle, for example, 02:26:00.880 --> 02:26:03.460 align:middle line:84% those cars may be using wireless sensors that 02:26:03.460 --> 02:26:08.440 align:middle line:84% run on our networks to avoid, for example, traffic accidents, 02:26:08.440 --> 02:26:14.260 align:middle line:84% or to ensure that traffic flow was most efficient possible. 02:26:14.260 --> 02:26:18.430 align:middle line:84% In those instances, that traffic may 02:26:18.430 --> 02:26:22.000 align:middle line:84% be prioritized over the traffic of the person 02:26:22.000 --> 02:26:25.215 align:middle line:84% watching the video on the internet, or a web search. 02:26:25.215 --> 02:26:26.487 align:middle line:90% This is paid prioritization? 02:26:26.487 --> 02:26:29.230 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 02:26:29.230 --> 02:26:31.060 align:middle line:90% I don't know that for sure. 02:26:31.060 --> 02:26:33.490 align:middle line:84% But that's something that if you want me to give you 02:26:33.490 --> 02:26:36.537 align:middle line:84% an example of how the landscape may change, 02:26:36.537 --> 02:26:39.022 align:middle line:84% that's an example that just comes into my head. 02:26:39.022 --> 02:26:49.956 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] you write that [INAUDIBLE] including 02:26:49.956 --> 02:26:52.938 align:middle line:84% broadband providers opt in one level 02:26:52.938 --> 02:27:00.890 align:middle line:84% of [INAUDIBLE] differentiated [INAUDIBLE].. 02:27:00.890 --> 02:27:04.369 align:middle line:90% So what are you [INAUDIBLE]? 02:27:04.369 --> 02:27:09.840 align:middle line:90% 02:27:09.840 --> 02:27:13.820 align:middle line:84% So when you're talking about the next generation of services, 02:27:13.820 --> 02:27:17.080 align:middle line:84% or even enhanced fourth generation of services, 02:27:17.080 --> 02:27:19.670 align:middle line:84% mobile health care is one area that we 02:27:19.670 --> 02:27:23.610 align:middle line:84% have seen great development and great progress in. 02:27:23.610 --> 02:27:27.630 align:middle line:84% So for example, when you had the inflexible ban 02:27:27.630 --> 02:27:31.850 align:middle line:84% on paid prioritization, if a hospital wanted 02:27:31.850 --> 02:27:36.290 align:middle line:84% to connect more quickly with its patient, 02:27:36.290 --> 02:27:40.970 align:middle line:84% and that service would be an additional charge, 02:27:40.970 --> 02:27:45.410 align:middle line:84% the ban on paid prioritization prohibited that. 02:27:45.410 --> 02:27:49.520 align:middle line:84% So for example, a patient who may have a heart condition 02:27:49.520 --> 02:27:53.660 align:middle line:90% wants their traffic quicker. 02:27:53.660 --> 02:27:56.076 align:middle line:84% We would not have been able to charge additional money 02:27:56.076 --> 02:28:00.540 align:middle line:90% for that prioritization. 02:28:00.540 --> 02:28:06.988 align:middle line:84% So you imagine [INAUDIBLE] if paid prioritization [INAUDIBLE] 02:28:06.988 --> 02:28:09.964 align:middle line:84% differentiation, and if I could be allowed-- 02:28:09.964 --> 02:28:11.452 align:middle line:90% No, no, no, no. 02:28:11.452 --> 02:28:12.440 align:middle line:90% Go ahead. 02:28:12.440 --> 02:28:12.940 align:middle line:90% Please. 02:28:12.940 --> 02:28:15.916 align:middle line:90% I'm enjoying the very-- 02:28:15.916 --> 02:28:16.908 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 02:28:16.908 --> 02:28:23.852 align:middle line:90% 02:28:23.852 --> 02:28:40.220 align:middle line:84% And there are these [INAUDIBLE] for [INAUDIBLE].. 02:28:40.220 --> 02:28:43.196 align:middle line:84% You're not talking about your [INAUDIBLE].. 02:28:43.196 --> 02:28:51.132 align:middle line:90% 02:28:51.132 --> 02:28:55.100 align:middle line:84% But I'm never going back [INAUDIBLE],, 02:28:55.100 --> 02:28:59.068 align:middle line:84% how am I going to know that the reason [INAUDIBLE]?? 02:28:59.068 --> 02:29:06.650 align:middle line:90% 02:29:06.650 --> 02:29:10.840 align:middle line:84% So if there was a complaint on behalf of the consumer, 02:29:10.840 --> 02:29:15.290 align:middle line:84% or I would see, probably, more of a corporation, 02:29:15.290 --> 02:29:18.190 align:middle line:84% the FTC would review that complaint. 02:29:18.190 --> 02:29:23.230 align:middle line:84% And they can enforce their authority against the provider, 02:29:23.230 --> 02:29:26.526 align:middle line:84% if it's found to be acting in a discriminatory manner, 02:29:26.526 --> 02:29:30.390 align:middle line:84% or in an anti-competitive manner. 02:29:30.390 --> 02:29:33.771 align:middle line:90% And couldn't that happen before? 02:29:33.771 --> 02:29:36.190 align:middle line:90% Couldn't that happen when-- 02:29:36.190 --> 02:29:39.492 align:middle line:90% under the Obama regulations? 02:29:39.492 --> 02:29:40.700 align:middle line:90% Couldn't that have happened? 02:29:40.700 --> 02:29:42.630 align:middle line:90% No, it couldn't have. 02:29:42.630 --> 02:29:47.790 align:middle line:84% The FTC lost jurisdiction when the FCC adopted the Title II 02:29:47.790 --> 02:29:48.900 align:middle line:90% order. 02:29:48.900 --> 02:29:52.320 align:middle line:84% Theoretically, the consumer or the company 02:29:52.320 --> 02:29:54.659 align:middle line:84% could file a similar complaint with the FCC. 02:29:54.659 --> 02:29:55.159 align:middle line:90% Right. 02:29:55.159 --> 02:29:57.190 align:middle line:90% So there was an avenue. 02:29:57.190 --> 02:29:59.003 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:29:59.003 --> 02:30:01.358 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 02:30:01.358 --> 02:30:03.242 align:middle line:90% Not for the association. 02:30:03.242 --> 02:30:04.184 align:middle line:90% Oh, I'm sorry. 02:30:04.184 --> 02:30:05.110 align:middle line:90% Being trained-- 02:30:05.110 --> 02:30:05.610 align:middle line:90% No. 02:30:05.610 --> 02:30:07.740 align:middle line:84% Yes, I am trained as an attorney, 02:30:07.740 --> 02:30:09.476 align:middle line:84% but I do state government affairs 02:30:09.476 --> 02:30:10.716 align:middle line:90% work for the association. 02:30:10.716 --> 02:30:14.188 align:middle line:84% The reason I ask is because the FTC [INAUDIBLE].. 02:30:14.188 --> 02:30:36.560 align:middle line:90% 02:30:36.560 --> 02:30:37.650 align:middle line:90% No, not necessarily. 02:30:37.650 --> 02:30:42.280 align:middle line:84% I think the FTC has acted, for example, in the privacy space, 02:30:42.280 --> 02:30:45.740 align:middle line:84% very quickly, when they have seen 02:30:45.740 --> 02:30:48.380 align:middle line:84% violations or violations have been brought to them, 02:30:48.380 --> 02:30:51.770 align:middle line:84% or allegations of violations have been brought to them. 02:30:51.770 --> 02:30:55.680 align:middle line:90% So I do not see that they have-- 02:30:55.680 --> 02:30:59.000 align:middle line:84% especially, I'm thinking now, in the privacy space-- 02:30:59.000 --> 02:31:02.451 align:middle line:84% that they sit on complaints, or that they sit on allegations. 02:31:02.451 --> 02:31:04.916 align:middle line:84% I'm more worried about the [INAUDIBLE].. 02:31:04.916 --> 02:31:18.250 align:middle line:90% 02:31:18.250 --> 02:31:22.210 align:middle line:84% When, in the experiences of a complaint 02:31:22.210 --> 02:31:26.300 align:middle line:84% or an allegation that I have seen, especially more 02:31:26.300 --> 02:31:33.910 align:middle line:84% recently, against companies with regard to alleged privacy 02:31:33.910 --> 02:31:38.110 align:middle line:84% violations, as I said, the FTC has 02:31:38.110 --> 02:31:41.080 align:middle line:84% been quick to settle those claims 02:31:41.080 --> 02:31:43.930 align:middle line:84% and to figure out a change in business practice, 02:31:43.930 --> 02:31:47.244 align:middle line:84% and if necessary, extract a financial penalty 02:31:47.244 --> 02:31:50.450 align:middle line:90% from the company. 02:31:50.450 --> 02:31:54.280 align:middle line:84% So I don't see them sitting on allegations. 02:31:54.280 --> 02:31:57.920 align:middle line:84% They want to quickly resolve, in the consumer's favor, 02:31:57.920 --> 02:32:00.130 align:middle line:90% these allegations. 02:32:00.130 --> 02:32:04.434 align:middle line:84% And I think also, companies want the quick resolution 02:32:04.434 --> 02:32:06.874 align:middle line:90% of these allegations. 02:32:06.874 --> 02:32:07.850 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 02:32:07.850 --> 02:32:09.314 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:32:09.314 --> 02:32:12.242 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:32:12.242 --> 02:32:14.682 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:32:14.682 --> 02:32:16.146 align:middle line:90% Sarah Morris? 02:32:16.146 --> 02:32:19.562 align:middle line:84% Again, I also want to thank you very much for coming here 02:32:19.562 --> 02:32:21.514 align:middle line:90% from out of state. 02:32:21.514 --> 02:32:26.970 align:middle line:84% Appreciate your willingness, both of you, and your time. 02:32:26.970 --> 02:32:30.210 align:middle line:84% Thank you so much, senators, for convening 02:32:30.210 --> 02:32:32.250 align:middle line:84% this special committee, and the hearing today, 02:32:32.250 --> 02:32:35.550 align:middle line:84% to examine solutions for protecting the open internet. 02:32:35.550 --> 02:32:37.470 align:middle line:84% And thank you to Senator Creem, in particular, 02:32:37.470 --> 02:32:40.640 align:middle line:84% for the invitation to testify before the committee. 02:32:40.640 --> 02:32:43.605 align:middle line:84% As senior counsel and director of open internet policy 02:32:43.605 --> 02:32:46.410 align:middle line:84% for New America's Open Technology Institute, 02:32:46.410 --> 02:32:51.180 align:middle line:84% I work to protect consumers and encourage equitable, affordable 02:32:51.180 --> 02:32:53.139 align:middle line:90% access to the internet. 02:32:53.139 --> 02:32:55.680 align:middle line:84% I was one of the leading public interest advocates in support 02:32:55.680 --> 02:32:58.260 align:middle line:84% of the net neutrality rules at the FCC, 02:32:58.260 --> 02:33:01.570 align:middle line:84% rules that were adopted in 2015 and met with resoundingly 02:33:01.570 --> 02:33:04.590 align:middle line:90% positive public response. 02:33:04.590 --> 02:33:07.620 align:middle line:84% The DC Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the rules 02:33:07.620 --> 02:33:08.640 align:middle line:90% in full. 02:33:08.640 --> 02:33:11.310 align:middle line:84% Unfortunately, the FCC repealed those rules, 02:33:11.310 --> 02:33:13.440 align:middle line:84% and undermined the strong legal authority 02:33:13.440 --> 02:33:15.660 align:middle line:90% under which they were enacted. 02:33:15.660 --> 02:33:17.850 align:middle line:84% FCC Chairman Pai took these actions 02:33:17.850 --> 02:33:21.780 align:middle line:84% over the outcry of advocates, internet companies, members 02:33:21.780 --> 02:33:26.580 align:middle line:84% of Congress from both parties in both chambers, and the public. 02:33:26.580 --> 02:33:29.760 align:middle line:84% The FCC's effective repeal of the net neutrality rules, 02:33:29.760 --> 02:33:33.000 align:middle line:84% and indeed, its utter abdication of responsibility 02:33:33.000 --> 02:33:36.180 align:middle line:84% to oversee the internet access market more generally, 02:33:36.180 --> 02:33:38.838 align:middle line:84% will affect the internet and the vibrant online marketplace 02:33:38.838 --> 02:33:44.210 align:middle line:84% it has created for the immediate and foreseeable future. 02:33:44.210 --> 02:33:46.760 align:middle line:84% Virtually every company has some online presence, 02:33:46.760 --> 02:33:48.560 align:middle line:84% whether or not you immediately recognize 02:33:48.560 --> 02:33:50.690 align:middle line:90% the company as a tech company. 02:33:50.690 --> 02:33:53.140 align:middle line:84% Realtors use the internet to provide potential buyers 02:33:53.140 --> 02:33:57.410 align:middle line:84% with videos tours and high definition photos of home. 02:33:57.410 --> 02:33:59.570 align:middle line:84% Traditional brick and mortar retail stores 02:33:59.570 --> 02:34:03.610 align:middle line:84% now allow customers to shop from the comfort of their couches. 02:34:03.610 --> 02:34:06.830 align:middle line:84% And payment systems platforms have developed an entire market 02:34:06.830 --> 02:34:08.750 align:middle line:90% for online transactions. 02:34:08.750 --> 02:34:12.650 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts companies, like Wayfair, Carbonite, iRobot, 02:34:12.650 --> 02:34:16.190 align:middle line:84% TripAdvisor, and Rapid7, all thrive because of the success 02:34:16.190 --> 02:34:17.870 align:middle line:90% of an open internet. 02:34:17.870 --> 02:34:21.380 align:middle line:84% Indeed, the internet has, for essentially the entirety 02:34:21.380 --> 02:34:24.050 align:middle line:84% of its existence, been subject to the principle 02:34:24.050 --> 02:34:27.555 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality, allowing those online marketplaces 02:34:27.555 --> 02:34:29.780 align:middle line:90% to flourish. 02:34:29.780 --> 02:34:32.870 align:middle line:84% But the internet is more than an economic platform. 02:34:32.870 --> 02:34:35.300 align:middle line:84% It is a vital, digital, public square, 02:34:35.300 --> 02:34:37.565 align:middle line:84% where voices, even those who don't find space 02:34:37.565 --> 02:34:42.350 align:middle line:84% in traditional outlets, can speak, share, and create. 02:34:42.350 --> 02:34:44.540 align:middle line:84% The internet has supported the dramatic rise 02:34:44.540 --> 02:34:47.800 align:middle line:84% in award-winning video content created by new producers 02:34:47.800 --> 02:34:50.300 align:middle line:90% and featuring new artists. 02:34:50.300 --> 02:34:53.130 align:middle line:84% And the internet has facilitated unprecedented political 02:34:53.130 --> 02:34:56.120 align:middle line:84% organizing and engagement in our democratic process. 02:34:56.120 --> 02:34:59.550 align:middle line:90% I was wondering if you could-- 02:34:59.550 --> 02:35:02.211 align:middle line:84% I know you're reading, but that's what we have already, 02:35:02.211 --> 02:35:02.710 align:middle line:90% right? 02:35:02.710 --> 02:35:03.110 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 02:35:03.110 --> 02:35:04.020 align:middle line:84% Well, this is a much shorter version. 02:35:04.020 --> 02:35:04.520 align:middle line:90% But-- 02:35:04.520 --> 02:35:05.580 align:middle line:90% OK. 02:35:05.580 --> 02:35:07.250 align:middle line:84% I'm not going to read all 14 pages. 02:35:07.250 --> 02:35:08.190 align:middle line:90% No, sorry. 02:35:08.190 --> 02:35:09.130 align:middle line:90% I wanted to apologize. 02:35:09.130 --> 02:35:10.070 align:middle line:90% [INAUDIBLE] 02:35:10.070 --> 02:35:11.270 align:middle line:90% Oh, sure. 02:35:11.270 --> 02:35:15.280 align:middle line:84% I'm happy to-- so I'll then just pivot to push back on a few 02:35:15.280 --> 02:35:17.400 align:middle line:84% things, maybe, that the previous testifier-- 02:35:17.400 --> 02:35:19.100 align:middle line:90% That would be helpful, because-- 02:35:19.100 --> 02:35:19.640 align:middle line:90% I apologize. 02:35:19.640 --> 02:35:20.140 align:middle line:90% I was-- 02:35:20.140 --> 02:35:21.140 align:middle line:90% No, no, no, no, no. 02:35:21.140 --> 02:35:22.140 align:middle line:90% And I apologize. 02:35:22.140 --> 02:35:24.640 align:middle line:84% I just feel at some point you're all 02:35:24.640 --> 02:35:28.140 align:middle line:84% going to be testifying just before me, and I-- 02:35:28.140 --> 02:35:29.410 align:middle line:90% and that's fine. 02:35:29.410 --> 02:35:30.940 align:middle line:90% I'm happy to stay all night. 02:35:30.940 --> 02:35:32.715 align:middle line:84% But you wanted other people here. 02:35:32.715 --> 02:35:34.820 align:middle line:84% Well, so one thing I will point out 02:35:34.820 --> 02:35:36.350 align:middle line:84% is that this notion that there were 02:35:36.350 --> 02:35:38.270 align:middle line:84% no violations of net neutrality-- well, first 02:35:38.270 --> 02:35:40.436 align:middle line:84% of all, the notion that there was no net neutrality, 02:35:40.436 --> 02:35:42.800 align:middle line:84% or that something dramatically changed in 2015, 02:35:42.800 --> 02:35:44.210 align:middle line:90% is absolutely wrong. 02:35:44.210 --> 02:35:45.980 align:middle line:84% The only thing that changed in 2015 02:35:45.980 --> 02:35:49.120 align:middle line:84% was the FCC's correct use of Title II authority 02:35:49.120 --> 02:35:51.040 align:middle line:90% to ground those rules. 02:35:51.040 --> 02:35:54.420 align:middle line:90% The rules existed prior to 2015. 02:35:54.420 --> 02:35:58.340 align:middle line:84% It has been a matter of FCC policy since 2005, 02:35:58.340 --> 02:36:01.040 align:middle line:84% and even before that, was baked into the architecture 02:36:01.040 --> 02:36:02.940 align:middle line:90% of how the internet worked. 02:36:02.940 --> 02:36:04.850 align:middle line:84% Second, I'll push back on this notion 02:36:04.850 --> 02:36:08.420 align:middle line:84% that there were no harms, particularly that the wireless 02:36:08.420 --> 02:36:10.070 align:middle line:84% industry did not do anything that 02:36:10.070 --> 02:36:14.270 align:middle line:84% would be violative of the principles of net neutrality. 02:36:14.270 --> 02:36:19.050 align:middle line:84% AT&T, for example, in a well-publicized case and one 02:36:19.050 --> 02:36:21.840 align:middle line:84% that Free Press and the Open Technology Institute 02:36:21.840 --> 02:36:26.030 align:middle line:84% were engaged in with the FCC, blocked the FaceTime video 02:36:26.030 --> 02:36:30.050 align:middle line:84% conferencing application in 2011 on some of its network plans, 02:36:30.050 --> 02:36:31.970 align:middle line:84% in an apparent attempt to convince 02:36:31.970 --> 02:36:34.790 align:middle line:84% customers to change to new plans that 02:36:34.790 --> 02:36:36.120 align:middle line:90% did allow the FaceTime use. 02:36:36.120 --> 02:36:38.480 align:middle line:84% These were more data-restrictive plans. 02:36:38.480 --> 02:36:40.030 align:middle line:84% They were trying to get customers off 02:36:40.030 --> 02:36:41.650 align:middle line:90% of their unlimited plans. 02:36:41.650 --> 02:36:44.510 align:middle line:84% Verizon has blocked access to third-party tethering 02:36:44.510 --> 02:36:46.620 align:middle line:84% applications, and later, along with T-Mobile, 02:36:46.620 --> 02:36:50.050 align:middle line:84% blocked access to Google's mobile payment application. 02:36:50.050 --> 02:36:52.910 align:middle line:84% But the most important harms that I'd like to discuss today 02:36:52.910 --> 02:36:55.070 align:middle line:90% occurred in 2013 and 2014. 02:36:55.070 --> 02:36:56.710 align:middle line:84% And they're harms we have not even 02:36:56.710 --> 02:36:58.200 align:middle line:90% yet touched on in this hearing. 02:36:58.200 --> 02:37:05.125 align:middle line:84% And these were related to the handoff between ISPs 02:37:05.125 --> 02:37:08.030 align:middle line:84% and their last mile networks, and the traffic 02:37:08.030 --> 02:37:10.915 align:middle line:84% that transit providers distribute to those networks 02:37:10.915 --> 02:37:12.290 align:middle line:84% and drop off at their front door. 02:37:12.290 --> 02:37:16.170 align:middle line:84% So essentially, what was happening from 2013 to 2014, 02:37:16.170 --> 02:37:17.090 align:middle line:90% you have-- 02:37:17.090 --> 02:37:20.540 align:middle line:90% we'll use an analogy. 02:37:20.540 --> 02:37:21.980 align:middle line:90% Imperfect, but it will help. 02:37:21.980 --> 02:37:25.220 align:middle line:84% So imagine ISPs are sort of the neighborhood drivers. 02:37:25.220 --> 02:37:27.590 align:middle line:84% They represent the streets in your neighborhood 02:37:27.590 --> 02:37:29.120 align:middle line:90% and up to your front home. 02:37:29.120 --> 02:37:33.770 align:middle line:84% Transit providers represent the interstates and highways 02:37:33.770 --> 02:37:37.670 align:middle line:84% over which traffic is carried from one point to another. 02:37:37.670 --> 02:37:39.075 align:middle line:90% And they are very common. 02:37:39.075 --> 02:37:40.840 align:middle line:84% If you have a lot of traffic, you'll 02:37:40.840 --> 02:37:43.640 align:middle line:84% pay a transit provider to make sure that that traffic is 02:37:43.640 --> 02:37:46.190 align:middle line:84% routed correctly and gets to the users who are requesting it. 02:37:46.190 --> 02:37:48.620 align:middle line:84% So if you're Netflix or Vimeo, you 02:37:48.620 --> 02:37:51.050 align:middle line:84% might pay a transit provider to make sure that when 02:37:51.050 --> 02:37:55.660 align:middle line:84% a customer in Nebraska requests access to a Vimeo movie, 02:37:55.660 --> 02:37:57.740 align:middle line:84% that that traffic is correctly routed. 02:37:57.740 --> 02:38:01.370 align:middle line:84% The problem is that ISPs, as gatekeepers, 02:38:01.370 --> 02:38:06.860 align:middle line:84% have the ability to leverage their capacity as gatekeepers 02:38:06.860 --> 02:38:11.870 align:middle line:84% and charge money, at non-market-based rates, 02:38:11.870 --> 02:38:13.130 align:middle line:90% to those transit providers. 02:38:13.130 --> 02:38:14.690 align:middle line:84% The reason they were able to do this, 02:38:14.690 --> 02:38:17.900 align:middle line:84% as we discovered in 2013 and 2014, 02:38:17.900 --> 02:38:20.480 align:middle line:84% is that they were simply allowing those handoff 02:38:20.480 --> 02:38:22.935 align:middle line:84% points, the ports where traffic was handed off 02:38:22.935 --> 02:38:25.080 align:middle line:84% from transit providers to last mile providers, 02:38:25.080 --> 02:38:26.600 align:middle line:90% to artificially congest. 02:38:26.600 --> 02:38:28.800 align:middle line:84% They weren't doing the proper maintenance. 02:38:28.800 --> 02:38:31.220 align:middle line:84% If this was pipes, the valve fitting 02:38:31.220 --> 02:38:33.650 align:middle line:84% was too small, even though the pipes were sufficiently 02:38:33.650 --> 02:38:35.510 align:middle line:90% large to carry the traffic. 02:38:35.510 --> 02:38:38.600 align:middle line:84% And as a result, millions of Americans, for months on end, 02:38:38.600 --> 02:38:41.300 align:middle line:84% had service that for high bandwidth 02:38:41.300 --> 02:38:44.000 align:middle line:84% intensive service was essentially unusable. 02:38:44.000 --> 02:38:46.580 align:middle line:84% This impacted millions of Americans. 02:38:46.580 --> 02:38:48.950 align:middle line:90% Those Americans had no recourse. 02:38:48.950 --> 02:38:51.860 align:middle line:84% And it wasn't until the FCC ultimately asserted 02:38:51.860 --> 02:38:56.240 align:middle line:84% jurisdiction over the interconnection disputes 02:38:56.240 --> 02:38:59.720 align:middle line:84% that there was any sort of public policy in that. 02:38:59.720 --> 02:39:02.450 align:middle line:84% I mention that because there is a tendency 02:39:02.450 --> 02:39:06.020 align:middle line:84% to talk about the three bright line prohibitions of blocking, 02:39:06.020 --> 02:39:09.100 align:middle line:84% paid prioritization, and no throttling, 02:39:09.100 --> 02:39:12.980 align:middle line:84% but interconnection is, from my organization's perspective, 02:39:12.980 --> 02:39:16.730 align:middle line:84% the biggest threat to net neutrality going forward. 02:39:16.730 --> 02:39:19.910 align:middle line:84% And it is one that has absolutely no recourse, 02:39:19.910 --> 02:39:23.930 align:middle line:84% in addition to the bright line rules, in this current space 02:39:23.930 --> 02:39:26.815 align:middle line:84% where the commission has abdicated all authority 02:39:26.815 --> 02:39:28.294 align:middle line:90% over broadband internet access. 02:39:28.294 --> 02:39:31.460 align:middle line:90% 02:39:31.460 --> 02:39:33.406 align:middle line:84% So I can stop there and pause for questions. 02:39:33.406 --> 02:39:33.906 align:middle line:90% No. 02:39:33.906 --> 02:39:37.399 align:middle line:90% I think that-- 02:39:37.399 --> 02:39:39.727 align:middle line:84% I know you submitted something, but it 02:39:39.727 --> 02:39:42.389 align:middle line:84% seems that you might have more that you want to submit, 02:39:42.389 --> 02:39:44.385 align:middle line:90% after having heard from you. 02:39:44.385 --> 02:39:47.878 align:middle line:84% And I want to offer you to be able to do that, 02:39:47.878 --> 02:39:51.870 align:middle line:84% because whatever you submit, the rest of that committee 02:39:51.870 --> 02:39:54.864 align:middle line:84% is going to see, even though I'm just sitting here. 02:39:54.864 --> 02:39:55.861 align:middle line:90% So just-- 02:39:55.861 --> 02:39:56.361 align:middle line:90% Sure. 02:39:56.361 --> 02:39:58.357 align:middle line:84% There's so much to learn, and for us to hear. 02:39:58.357 --> 02:40:01.470 align:middle line:84% And so I just want to offer that. 02:40:01.470 --> 02:40:03.422 align:middle line:90% I'm happy for you to continue. 02:40:03.422 --> 02:40:07.082 align:middle line:84% But for all of you, points have come up 02:40:07.082 --> 02:40:09.766 align:middle line:84% that you might not have anticipated. 02:40:09.766 --> 02:40:13.182 align:middle line:90% You can help us with those. 02:40:13.182 --> 02:40:16.080 align:middle line:84% So I'm hoping that when you go back, there's-- 02:40:16.080 --> 02:40:16.580 align:middle line:90% Sure. 02:40:16.580 --> 02:40:18.910 align:middle line:90% We're not voting tomorrow. 02:40:18.910 --> 02:40:22.404 align:middle line:84% We are happy to continue to work with this committee, 02:40:22.404 --> 02:40:24.320 align:middle line:84% with your office specifically, with the office 02:40:24.320 --> 02:40:27.520 align:middle line:84% of any senators who are looking to engage on this issue. 02:40:27.520 --> 02:40:29.390 align:middle line:84% I think that there were a number of things 02:40:29.390 --> 02:40:32.014 align:middle line:84% that were sort of conflated or misstated 02:40:32.014 --> 02:40:33.430 align:middle line:84% in the course of testimony today-- 02:40:33.430 --> 02:40:35.170 align:middle line:84% the difference between prioritization 02:40:35.170 --> 02:40:37.230 align:middle line:84% of traffic, which I think no one opposes, 02:40:37.230 --> 02:40:40.720 align:middle line:84% as a matter of public policy, versus the prioritization 02:40:40.720 --> 02:40:43.660 align:middle line:84% of traffic for a fee, which is something 02:40:43.660 --> 02:40:46.030 align:middle line:84% that had an extensive amount of discussion 02:40:46.030 --> 02:40:51.620 align:middle line:84% in the record leading up to the FCC's 2015 adoption of rules. 02:40:51.620 --> 02:40:54.940 align:middle line:84% And so I would just urge the committee 02:40:54.940 --> 02:40:59.860 align:middle line:84% to parse those definitions carefully, and to not presume 02:40:59.860 --> 02:41:02.531 align:middle line:84% that any prioritization is viewed 02:41:02.531 --> 02:41:06.459 align:middle line:84% as inherently bad by net neutrality advocates. 02:41:06.459 --> 02:41:16.770 align:middle line:84% So do you have an opinion as to why the FCC changed the rules 02:41:16.770 --> 02:41:23.644 align:middle line:84% for the [INAUDIBLE] or what happened [INAUDIBLE] 02:41:23.644 --> 02:41:26.130 align:middle line:90% that this all fell apart? 02:41:26.130 --> 02:41:29.340 align:middle line:84% So I think Matt Wood alluded to the fact 02:41:29.340 --> 02:41:33.810 align:middle line:84% that there was, when the current FCC chairman took office, 02:41:33.810 --> 02:41:38.024 align:middle line:84% sort of a extensively, not just deregulatory approach, 02:41:38.024 --> 02:41:40.440 align:middle line:84% because certainly the commission could have adopted a less 02:41:40.440 --> 02:41:43.170 align:middle line:84% regulatory approach in the context of net neutrality, 02:41:43.170 --> 02:41:45.720 align:middle line:84% rather than a completely unregulatory approach. 02:41:45.720 --> 02:41:48.960 align:middle line:84% But there was this inherent deregulatory approach 02:41:48.960 --> 02:41:51.750 align:middle line:84% in response to anything that has happened, quote, unquote, 02:41:51.750 --> 02:41:53.200 align:middle line:90% "under the Obama era." 02:41:53.200 --> 02:41:55.470 align:middle line:84% And so that's where you saw the threats 02:41:55.470 --> 02:42:01.860 align:middle line:84% to the broadband privacy rules, the extreme repeal 02:42:01.860 --> 02:42:05.520 align:middle line:84% of net neutrality, as well as ongoing threats to things 02:42:05.520 --> 02:42:08.250 align:middle line:84% like the federal programs that provide 02:42:08.250 --> 02:42:11.910 align:middle line:84% subsidies for low-income broadband access. 02:42:11.910 --> 02:42:14.016 align:middle line:84% All of these things are sort of part and parcel 02:42:14.016 --> 02:42:16.506 align:middle line:84% of a larger agenda that we've seen play out. 02:42:16.506 --> 02:42:24.972 align:middle line:84% So you heard some testimony with regard to investments 02:42:24.972 --> 02:42:28.956 align:middle line:84% not being made that were made prior 02:42:28.956 --> 02:42:32.442 align:middle line:90% to the net neutrality rules. 02:42:32.442 --> 02:42:34.960 align:middle line:84% Do you have any comments on that? 02:42:34.960 --> 02:42:36.730 align:middle line:84% So I think it's easy to get caught up 02:42:36.730 --> 02:42:40.240 align:middle line:84% in quibbling between what the ISPs have invested in 02:42:40.240 --> 02:42:42.730 align:middle line:84% or haven't invested in over the course of whether it's 02:42:42.730 --> 02:42:45.890 align:middle line:84% the last three years or the last 15 years. 02:42:45.890 --> 02:42:51.520 align:middle line:84% But I think that that approach and assessment overlooks 02:42:51.520 --> 02:42:54.820 align:middle line:84% the vibrant and unprecedented investment that has occurred 02:42:54.820 --> 02:42:56.250 align:middle line:90% on the top of the network. 02:42:56.250 --> 02:42:58.060 align:middle line:84% The startups that would not have existed 02:42:58.060 --> 02:42:59.800 align:middle line:84% but for the existence of the internet 02:42:59.800 --> 02:43:02.630 align:middle line:84% as an open platform for innovation, that depends-- 02:43:02.630 --> 02:43:04.840 align:middle line:84% I told the commission over and over and over again 02:43:04.840 --> 02:43:08.320 align:middle line:84% that their entire business model depended on certainty 02:43:08.320 --> 02:43:10.750 align:middle line:84% that net neutrality would remain law of the land. 02:43:10.750 --> 02:43:13.000 align:middle line:84% Now that that is not true, and that there 02:43:13.000 --> 02:43:18.010 align:middle line:84% is incredible void of jurisdiction 02:43:18.010 --> 02:43:23.410 align:middle line:84% over these disputes and these harms, 02:43:23.410 --> 02:43:26.050 align:middle line:84% those same companies are saying they're 02:43:26.050 --> 02:43:27.134 align:middle line:90% struggling to figure out-- 02:43:27.134 --> 02:43:28.758 align:middle line:84% those internet companies, the companies 02:43:28.758 --> 02:43:30.950 align:middle line:84% that are developing services on top of the network-- 02:43:30.950 --> 02:43:33.310 align:middle line:84% have communicated that they're struggling to figure out 02:43:33.310 --> 02:43:34.434 align:middle line:90% what their next models are. 02:43:34.434 --> 02:43:37.520 align:middle line:84% And if you're a startup who is relying on venture capital 02:43:37.520 --> 02:43:39.340 align:middle line:84% to get your company off the ground, 02:43:39.340 --> 02:43:41.890 align:middle line:84% and you're moving in a matter of days and weeks, 02:43:41.890 --> 02:43:46.690 align:middle line:84% not months, years, and even multiple years, a lack 02:43:46.690 --> 02:43:48.090 align:middle line:84% of certainty about whether or not 02:43:48.090 --> 02:43:50.405 align:middle line:84% you are going to have to pay some unknown fee 02:43:50.405 --> 02:43:52.640 align:middle line:84% to an internet service provider down the road, 02:43:52.640 --> 02:43:55.870 align:middle line:84% whether it's next month or six months from now, 02:43:55.870 --> 02:43:58.070 align:middle line:84% can be devastating to your business model. 02:43:58.070 --> 02:44:00.400 align:middle line:84% Your venture capitalists are going to say, 02:44:00.400 --> 02:44:02.080 align:middle line:84% I like your company, but unless I 02:44:02.080 --> 02:44:06.851 align:middle line:84% can manifest account for what types of payments 02:44:06.851 --> 02:44:08.976 align:middle line:84% you might have to make or risks that you might have 02:44:08.976 --> 02:44:11.096 align:middle line:84% to take to get this company off the ground, 02:44:11.096 --> 02:44:14.768 align:middle line:90% I can't invest in it. 02:44:14.768 --> 02:44:15.268 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:44:15.268 --> 02:44:15.768 align:middle line:90% All right. 02:44:15.768 --> 02:44:17.703 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 02:44:17.703 --> 02:44:21.099 align:middle line:90% And Tim Wilkerson? 02:44:21.099 --> 02:44:21.599 align:middle line:90% Sorry. 02:44:21.599 --> 02:44:23.060 align:middle line:90% You just have me. 02:44:23.060 --> 02:44:26.469 align:middle line:84% If you want to submit anything, let's [INAUDIBLE].. 02:44:26.469 --> 02:44:30.120 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE] submitted my testimony. 02:44:30.120 --> 02:44:33.640 align:middle line:84% And I was wondering if I could invite our counsel, who's 02:44:33.640 --> 02:44:37.147 align:middle line:84% appearing on our behalf as well, just to streamline our-- 02:44:37.147 --> 02:44:39.642 align:middle line:84% We scheduled so much you've got your counsel here? 02:44:39.642 --> 02:44:41.638 align:middle line:90% [LAUGHING] 02:44:41.638 --> 02:44:43.634 align:middle line:84% And he's going to help us draft a bill? 02:44:43.634 --> 02:44:45.630 align:middle line:90% Oh, no. 02:44:45.630 --> 02:44:48.124 align:middle line:84% He's going to impart his wisdom about preemption. 02:44:48.124 --> 02:44:48.624 align:middle line:90% OK. 02:44:48.624 --> 02:44:50.121 align:middle line:90% That would be good. 02:44:50.121 --> 02:44:53.010 align:middle line:90% 02:44:53.010 --> 02:44:55.752 align:middle line:84% So I think the way I can be most helpful without repeating 02:44:55.752 --> 02:44:56.960 align:middle line:90% things you've already heard-- 02:44:56.960 --> 02:44:58.501 align:middle line:84% Right, because I don't think that you 02:44:58.501 --> 02:45:00.476 align:middle line:90% need to read [INAUDIBLE]. 02:45:00.476 --> 02:45:02.892 align:middle line:84% Can you give me some more helpful information? 02:45:02.892 --> 02:45:03.392 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:45:03.392 --> 02:45:10.370 align:middle line:84% I know, particularly, I think you represent the same thought 02:45:10.370 --> 02:45:13.202 align:middle line:84% process that Mr. Keenan represents. 02:45:13.202 --> 02:45:13.702 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:45:13.702 --> 02:45:17.748 align:middle line:84% You may have different people, but you're-- so if you want 02:45:17.748 --> 02:45:22.250 align:middle line:84% to add something to that that might help, that would be good. 02:45:22.250 --> 02:45:24.050 align:middle line:84% And just to be clear, [INAUDIBLE] 02:45:24.050 --> 02:45:26.706 align:middle line:84% represents Comcast, Charter Communications, 02:45:26.706 --> 02:45:29.186 align:middle line:84% Cox Communications, and Atlantic Broadband, 02:45:29.186 --> 02:45:32.658 align:middle line:84% who's headquartered here in Braintree. 02:45:32.658 --> 02:45:34.160 align:middle line:90% OK. 02:45:34.160 --> 02:45:38.140 align:middle line:84% So I would say that the most important top line 02:45:38.140 --> 02:45:39.872 align:middle line:84% message that we'd like to put in today 02:45:39.872 --> 02:45:45.260 align:middle line:84% is that our companies have, in the past, they do today, 02:45:45.260 --> 02:45:48.000 align:middle line:84% and will continue to adhere to and support 02:45:48.000 --> 02:45:50.110 align:middle line:84% the principles of net neutrality. 02:45:50.110 --> 02:45:53.960 align:middle line:84% And we believe that it is clear that in order 02:45:53.960 --> 02:45:58.900 align:middle line:84% to establish a lasting consumer protection 02:45:58.900 --> 02:46:03.785 align:middle line:84% process and procedures, and to spur innovation and investment 02:46:03.785 --> 02:46:07.188 align:middle line:84% in this country, you need bipartisan federal action, 02:46:07.188 --> 02:46:10.176 align:middle line:84% to assure that there's a lasting and clear federal solution 02:46:10.176 --> 02:46:11.670 align:middle line:90% to these problems. 02:46:11.670 --> 02:46:13.164 align:middle line:90% What were the exact [INAUDIBLE]? 02:46:13.164 --> 02:46:16.636 align:middle line:90% Not just any. 02:46:16.636 --> 02:46:18.510 align:middle line:84% Well, and I think when you mentioned privacy, 02:46:18.510 --> 02:46:22.225 align:middle line:84% these are very similar in their privacy, very similar arguments 02:46:22.225 --> 02:46:25.840 align:middle line:84% from our position that if states, when they're 02:46:25.840 --> 02:46:29.250 align:middle line:84% thinking about stepping into these roles, 02:46:29.250 --> 02:46:33.910 align:middle line:84% it's a very tricky and complicated policy 02:46:33.910 --> 02:46:38.229 align:middle line:84% question that has a number of unintended consequences. 02:46:38.229 --> 02:46:40.437 align:middle line:84% I think when you look at the existing frameworks that 02:46:40.437 --> 02:46:41.750 align:middle line:84% are in place-- and real briefly, you 02:46:41.750 --> 02:46:43.083 align:middle line:90% heard from the attorney general. 02:46:43.083 --> 02:46:45.200 align:middle line:90% You heard about the FTC. 02:46:45.200 --> 02:46:50.390 align:middle line:84% The FTC has been a nonpartisan investigatory enforcement 02:46:50.390 --> 02:46:54.290 align:middle line:84% agency that, in 2012, the Obama administration 02:46:54.290 --> 02:47:00.255 align:middle line:84% upheld as the pinnacle, basically, privacy agency. 02:47:00.255 --> 02:47:05.030 align:middle line:84% And in their 2012 Consumer Bill of Rights, 02:47:05.030 --> 02:47:07.660 align:middle line:84% they said that the FTC would be the institution 02:47:07.660 --> 02:47:14.160 align:middle line:84% and should be the agency that is the chief cop on the beat, 02:47:14.160 --> 02:47:18.560 align:middle line:84% in terms of all internet-related investigations. 02:47:18.560 --> 02:47:22.740 align:middle line:84% I think it's also important to point out to you that you've 02:47:22.740 --> 02:47:24.710 align:middle line:84% been here for a number of terms, and you've 02:47:24.710 --> 02:47:29.370 align:middle line:84% seen throughout your time and your leadership working, 02:47:29.370 --> 02:47:33.500 align:middle line:84% that you and your colleagues have built an information 02:47:33.500 --> 02:47:37.000 align:middle line:90% ecosystem that is unparalleled. 02:47:37.000 --> 02:47:40.080 align:middle line:84% Clean energy to life sciences and beyond, 02:47:40.080 --> 02:47:45.430 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts ranks number one in innovation economy. 02:47:45.430 --> 02:47:49.450 align:middle line:84% And furthermore, if you look to what 02:47:49.450 --> 02:47:51.669 align:middle line:84% actions we've taken place, particularly with Comcast 02:47:51.669 --> 02:47:56.550 align:middle line:84% and Charter, and the public-private partnerships 02:47:56.550 --> 02:47:59.960 align:middle line:84% that we've entered into with a mass broadband institute, 02:47:59.960 --> 02:48:03.574 align:middle line:84% you can see that we've delivered broadband services, 02:48:03.574 --> 02:48:04.980 align:middle line:84% and we will in the coming months, 02:48:04.980 --> 02:48:09.360 align:middle line:84% to 18 communities that did not have broadband service. 02:48:09.360 --> 02:48:12.120 align:middle line:84% I point this out because you have worked hard 02:48:12.120 --> 02:48:15.456 align:middle line:84% with your leadership, and your colleagues' leadership 02:48:15.456 --> 02:48:18.800 align:middle line:84% to create, to foster the right environment for investment, 02:48:18.800 --> 02:48:22.100 align:middle line:84% and to step out and to be a one-off, 02:48:22.100 --> 02:48:25.770 align:middle line:84% and to lead or be a part of a patchwork of 50 02:48:25.770 --> 02:48:33.450 align:middle line:84% states to establish rules for net neutrality. 02:48:33.450 --> 02:48:36.860 align:middle line:84% It would send a mixed message, and send a cross message, when 02:48:36.860 --> 02:48:38.610 align:middle line:84% we, the private sector, come and said, 02:48:38.610 --> 02:48:40.050 align:middle line:90% we want to be your partners. 02:48:40.050 --> 02:48:41.970 align:middle line:84% We want to help provide innovations. 02:48:41.970 --> 02:48:43.870 align:middle line:90% So give us a comfort level. 02:48:43.870 --> 02:48:44.370 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:48:44.370 --> 02:48:52.095 align:middle line:84% Because we're just joining a whole bunch of other states 02:48:52.095 --> 02:48:55.065 align:middle line:84% that are answering to our consumers. 02:48:55.065 --> 02:48:59.520 align:middle line:84% So when I suggest that we put in legislation, giving you 02:48:59.520 --> 02:49:02.490 align:middle line:84% the business ability to make decisions, 02:49:02.490 --> 02:49:08.430 align:middle line:84% or to exempt for emergency personnel, [INAUDIBLE].. 02:49:08.430 --> 02:49:12.142 align:middle line:84% I hear your argument about what should 02:49:12.142 --> 02:49:13.810 align:middle line:90% happen at the federal level. 02:49:13.810 --> 02:49:16.558 align:middle line:90% We don't disagree with that. 02:49:16.558 --> 02:49:21.478 align:middle line:84% But in the pressure for us to try and protect our consumers, 02:49:21.478 --> 02:49:25.861 align:middle line:84% I'm looking into if you have any ideas of something 02:49:25.861 --> 02:49:31.800 align:middle line:84% you guys could suggest to us, absent don't do anything. 02:49:31.800 --> 02:49:35.270 align:middle line:84% I understand, but I would say that the principles-- 02:49:35.270 --> 02:49:37.576 align:middle line:84% no throttling, no blocking, nor discrimination 02:49:37.576 --> 02:49:40.504 align:middle line:84% of lawful material-- are bedrock principles for us. 02:49:40.504 --> 02:49:42.944 align:middle line:90% So what's the trade off? 02:49:42.944 --> 02:49:47.390 align:middle line:84% Well, I would-- something that hasn't been mentioned today is 02:49:47.390 --> 02:49:51.320 align:middle line:84% that by our public disclosure of those principles in the terms 02:49:51.320 --> 02:49:53.660 align:middle line:84% and conditions that we enter into with our customers, 02:49:53.660 --> 02:49:55.880 align:middle line:84% those are binding, legal contracts, 02:49:55.880 --> 02:49:59.330 align:middle line:84% that if we breach by doing any of those acts that are those-- 02:49:59.330 --> 02:50:01.940 align:middle line:84% any of that conduct that's illegal-- 02:50:01.940 --> 02:50:05.480 align:middle line:84% we're going to have the barrel of the attorney general, 02:50:05.480 --> 02:50:08.292 align:middle line:84% and/or [INAUDIBLE] federal agencies come down on us. 02:50:08.292 --> 02:50:11.244 align:middle line:84% So if we required you to keep that in, 02:50:11.244 --> 02:50:14.590 align:middle line:90% you wouldn't like that, either. 02:50:14.590 --> 02:50:19.110 align:middle line:84% No, because-- and the reason why is because when you think about 02:50:19.110 --> 02:50:20.666 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts having that approach, 02:50:20.666 --> 02:50:23.018 align:middle line:84% and maybe Rhode Island having another approach-- 02:50:23.018 --> 02:50:23.986 align:middle line:90% I hear that. 02:50:23.986 --> 02:50:26.890 align:middle line:84% But I'm trying to think of something, 02:50:26.890 --> 02:50:30.461 align:middle line:84% and I'm just trying to speak for those that aren't here today. 02:50:30.461 --> 02:50:30.960 align:middle line:90% Absolutely. 02:50:30.960 --> 02:50:34.410 align:middle line:84% We're trying to think of what we could say to our consumers. 02:50:34.410 --> 02:50:39.074 align:middle line:84% Why is Massachusetts different than California, Nebraska? 02:50:39.074 --> 02:50:39.574 align:middle line:90% Why? 02:50:39.574 --> 02:50:45.412 align:middle line:84% I mean, state after state, New York, we're trying to respond, 02:50:45.412 --> 02:50:47.902 align:middle line:84% just as you are, to our constituents. 02:50:47.902 --> 02:50:52.882 align:middle line:84% So if, in fact, you have some ideas that are, 02:50:52.882 --> 02:50:58.360 align:middle line:84% if today or tomorrow, I would love 02:50:58.360 --> 02:51:02.842 align:middle line:84% to hear them, because I think I've moved, in some ways, 02:51:02.842 --> 02:51:07.324 align:middle line:84% from a blanket back to legislation, 02:51:07.324 --> 02:51:09.814 align:middle line:84% to thinking about, maybe, some exemptions, 02:51:09.814 --> 02:51:13.549 align:middle line:84% so you can do the kind of work you 02:51:13.549 --> 02:51:18.778 align:middle line:84% need to do, legitimately, but not have [INAUDIBLE].. 02:51:18.778 --> 02:51:22.762 align:middle line:84% So I'm thinking-- so, in a way, trying 02:51:22.762 --> 02:51:27.991 align:middle line:84% to think of things that don't make [INAUDIBLE] that allow us 02:51:27.991 --> 02:51:30.730 align:middle line:84% to give comfort level to our constituents, 02:51:30.730 --> 02:51:33.220 align:middle line:84% just like they are doing in other states. 02:51:33.220 --> 02:51:36.208 align:middle line:84% You don't have to answer that, but it's a response 02:51:36.208 --> 02:51:39.666 align:middle line:90% to the don't do anything. 02:51:39.666 --> 02:51:41.589 align:middle line:84% And I just want to make two comments. 02:51:41.589 --> 02:51:46.419 align:middle line:84% One, and I know I speak for everyone in the private sector, 02:51:46.419 --> 02:51:48.834 align:middle line:84% we appreciate how thoughtful you're being about this, 02:51:48.834 --> 02:51:50.500 align:middle line:84% and how thoughtful your fellow committee 02:51:50.500 --> 02:51:51.732 align:middle line:90% members are about this. 02:51:51.732 --> 02:51:53.181 align:middle line:90% You're not rushing to judgment. 02:51:53.181 --> 02:51:56.251 align:middle line:84% You're really using the time to think about-- 02:51:56.251 --> 02:52:00.230 align:middle line:84% as you said, you were, at one point, a blanket regulation, 02:52:00.230 --> 02:52:03.130 align:middle line:84% and now you're stepping back from that. 02:52:03.130 --> 02:52:05.592 align:middle line:84% You've mentioned twice the relationship with customers. 02:52:05.592 --> 02:52:09.594 align:middle line:84% And I think that is paramount here. 02:52:09.594 --> 02:52:13.496 align:middle line:84% The interaction between our customers and our products 02:52:13.496 --> 02:52:16.110 align:middle line:90% and services is [INAUDIBLE]. 02:52:16.110 --> 02:52:20.964 align:middle line:84% And that, in an age of cord-cutting and hyper 02:52:20.964 --> 02:52:25.694 align:middle line:84% competition, we hear you loudly and clearly. 02:52:25.694 --> 02:52:29.110 align:middle line:84% And I will take that back to our membership and think about it. 02:52:29.110 --> 02:52:31.062 align:middle line:90% And I don't expect [INAUDIBLE]. 02:52:31.062 --> 02:52:32.038 align:middle line:90% Right, thank you. 02:52:32.038 --> 02:52:33.990 align:middle line:90% I'm certainly [INAUDIBLE]. 02:52:33.990 --> 02:52:36.918 align:middle line:84% But we've been sitting here all these hours, and all 02:52:36.918 --> 02:52:40.822 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE],, something other than nothing. 02:52:40.822 --> 02:52:43.879 align:middle line:84% And I think that the answer is federal legislation, which 02:52:43.879 --> 02:52:45.670 align:middle line:84% I know you said, don't say that back to me, 02:52:45.670 --> 02:52:48.070 align:middle line:84% and I understand, and I appreciate that. 02:52:48.070 --> 02:52:49.520 align:middle line:84% I don't have comfort [INAUDIBLE].. 02:52:49.520 --> 02:52:53.890 align:middle line:84% So let's-- if counsel wants to add something that hasn't been 02:52:53.890 --> 02:52:54.390 align:middle line:90% said. 02:52:54.390 --> 02:52:54.720 align:middle line:90% Sure. 02:52:54.720 --> 02:52:54.970 align:middle line:90% Sorry. 02:52:54.970 --> 02:52:56.345 align:middle line:84% I certainly don't want to repeat. 02:52:56.345 --> 02:52:59.600 align:middle line:84% I'm happy to answer questions about the exemption framework. 02:52:59.600 --> 02:53:00.670 align:middle line:90% My name is Matthew Brill. 02:53:00.670 --> 02:53:03.500 align:middle line:84% I represent a lot of the NECTA members 02:53:03.500 --> 02:53:05.990 align:middle line:84% in the FCC proceedings, related court appeals, 02:53:05.990 --> 02:53:09.050 align:middle line:84% and I'd likely be counsel for the cable industry 02:53:09.050 --> 02:53:10.940 align:middle line:90% in any preemption challenges. 02:53:10.940 --> 02:53:13.075 align:middle line:90% Did you file an amicus brief? 02:53:13.075 --> 02:53:16.400 align:middle line:84% Well, I'm probably a party to this, actually. 02:53:16.400 --> 02:53:19.580 align:middle line:84% I have taken a very close look at the law governing 02:53:19.580 --> 02:53:22.370 align:middle line:84% the preemption standards, and happy to answer 02:53:22.370 --> 02:53:26.296 align:middle line:84% questions of what the state AG may or may not do under 93A. 02:53:26.296 --> 02:53:29.064 align:middle line:84% And we do think there's an effective backstop there, 02:53:29.064 --> 02:53:34.004 align:middle line:84% provided it's exercised consistent with federal law. 02:53:34.004 --> 02:53:40.426 align:middle line:84% So I, on my own, I feel like I've heard both sides. 02:53:40.426 --> 02:53:43.884 align:middle line:84% And unless you have something different 02:53:43.884 --> 02:53:48.330 align:middle line:84% than the professor from Boston College Law School, 02:53:48.330 --> 02:53:52.776 align:middle line:84% I thought his testimony was very helpful and balanced. 02:53:52.776 --> 02:53:56.234 align:middle line:84% And is your organization [INAUDIBLE] members 02:53:56.234 --> 02:54:00.186 align:middle line:84% that had [INAUDIBLE] to us, that you have, too, 02:54:00.186 --> 02:54:02.656 align:middle line:90% a balanced approach here. 02:54:02.656 --> 02:54:07.102 align:middle line:84% So I don't have anything [INAUDIBLE] to ask. 02:54:07.102 --> 02:54:10.878 align:middle line:84% I feel comfortable if we do communicate maybe again, 02:54:10.878 --> 02:54:15.324 align:middle line:84% if you have something to add that he didn't, I'd 02:54:15.324 --> 02:54:17.794 align:middle line:84% be happy to get that information. 02:54:17.794 --> 02:54:21.746 align:middle line:84% I think he was very clear and concise, 02:54:21.746 --> 02:54:27.180 align:middle line:84% at least to me, in his arguments, [INAUDIBLE].. 02:54:27.180 --> 02:54:27.690 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 02:54:27.690 --> 02:54:30.040 align:middle line:84% I agree with Professor Lyons' analysis, 02:54:30.040 --> 02:54:33.990 align:middle line:84% and I won't belabor the point by repeating it. 02:54:33.990 --> 02:54:40.360 align:middle line:84% So I'm not-- I'm in no way am heading you off. 02:54:40.360 --> 02:54:42.810 align:middle line:84% It's just that I'm the only one sitting here, 02:54:42.810 --> 02:54:45.260 align:middle line:84% and I'm thinking to myself, unless you're 02:54:45.260 --> 02:54:49.180 align:middle line:84% something different, I thought that his testimony [INAUDIBLE] 02:54:49.180 --> 02:54:52.120 align:middle line:90% how you must feel [INAUDIBLE]. 02:54:52.120 --> 02:54:53.100 align:middle line:90% Yes. 02:54:53.100 --> 02:54:56.670 align:middle line:84% I might not agree, but [INAUDIBLE].. 02:54:56.670 --> 02:55:00.265 align:middle line:84% Could I-- I recall multiple conversations 02:55:00.265 --> 02:55:05.275 align:middle line:84% about investment, how investment dropped off and, is there 02:55:05.275 --> 02:55:08.056 align:middle line:84% a real correlation between Title II 02:55:08.056 --> 02:55:09.680 align:middle line:84% regulation and investment dropping off. 02:55:09.680 --> 02:55:10.750 align:middle line:90% Well, I will say this. 02:55:10.750 --> 02:55:17.780 align:middle line:84% On the day that the FCC acted in December, Charter 02:55:17.780 --> 02:55:20.460 align:middle line:84% issued a press release to say because of this action, 02:55:20.460 --> 02:55:22.030 align:middle line:84% and they also said because we believe 02:55:22.030 --> 02:55:24.440 align:middle line:84% there will be congressional action coming, 02:55:24.440 --> 02:55:28.970 align:middle line:84% they pledged to commit $25 billion 02:55:28.970 --> 02:55:32.550 align:middle line:84% in additional new investment because of this action. 02:55:32.550 --> 02:55:36.750 align:middle line:84% And in a earnings call last month, the CEO of Comcast 02:55:36.750 --> 02:55:38.720 align:middle line:84% said that within the next five years, 02:55:38.720 --> 02:55:43.770 align:middle line:84% Comcast pledged to spend an additional $50 billion 02:55:43.770 --> 02:55:46.880 align:middle line:90% in investment and in innovation. 02:55:46.880 --> 02:55:49.320 align:middle line:84% So for just those two companies alone, 02:55:49.320 --> 02:55:51.602 align:middle line:84% they're saying the actions of the FCC 02:55:51.602 --> 02:55:54.610 align:middle line:84% have resulted in $75 billion of new investment. 02:55:54.610 --> 02:55:55.936 align:middle line:90% And on another question-- 02:55:55.936 --> 02:55:58.310 align:middle line:84% Well, with all due respect, is that because they're going 02:55:58.310 --> 02:56:00.120 align:middle line:90% to make so much more money? 02:56:00.120 --> 02:56:00.620 align:middle line:90% No. 02:56:00.620 --> 02:56:04.790 align:middle line:84% I believe it's the regulatory predictability, which 02:56:04.790 --> 02:56:08.666 align:middle line:84% would not occur if 50 states were to pass different laws. 02:56:08.666 --> 02:56:12.602 align:middle line:90% I understand [INAUDIBLE]. 02:56:12.602 --> 02:56:17.522 align:middle line:90% But I'm also [INAUDIBLE] 02:56:17.522 --> 02:56:21.490 align:middle line:84% I mean, the effects of Title II have been debated today. 02:56:21.490 --> 02:56:23.247 align:middle line:84% We do think the answer to the debate 02:56:23.247 --> 02:56:24.330 align:middle line:90% lies at the federal level. 02:56:24.330 --> 02:56:28.078 align:middle line:84% But for what it's worth, the FCC did examine economic evidence 02:56:28.078 --> 02:56:30.225 align:middle line:84% in its order that the submissions 02:56:30.225 --> 02:56:32.281 align:middle line:84% of both sides, and it was incorrectly 02:56:32.281 --> 02:56:34.030 align:middle line:84% found that although investment, of course, 02:56:34.030 --> 02:56:36.640 align:middle line:84% has continued-- this is an incredibly capital-intensive 02:56:36.640 --> 02:56:38.900 align:middle line:84% business-- it's belated investment that's 02:56:38.900 --> 02:56:41.290 align:middle line:84% [INAUDIBLE],, investment that would have occurred. 02:56:41.290 --> 02:56:44.540 align:middle line:84% Absent the constraints of an overbroad common carrier 02:56:44.540 --> 02:56:46.336 align:middle line:84% framework from the 1930s, the FCC 02:56:46.336 --> 02:56:48.586 align:middle line:84% concluded there would have been additional investment. 02:56:48.586 --> 02:56:51.172 align:middle line:84% And we think that's the issue here. 02:56:51.172 --> 02:56:53.380 align:middle line:84% The companies we're representing are committed to net 02:56:53.380 --> 02:56:57.130 align:middle line:84% neutrality, welcome prophylactic rules enacted by Congress, 02:56:57.130 --> 02:57:00.722 align:middle line:84% but cannot support Title II, where chairman Tom Wheeler 02:57:00.722 --> 02:57:01.222 align:middle line:90% said-- 02:57:01.222 --> 02:57:06.765 align:middle line:84% So would they [INAUDIBLE] into an opt-out provision? 02:57:06.765 --> 02:57:08.890 align:middle line:84% I'm not sure what you mean by an opt-out provision. 02:57:08.890 --> 02:57:13.005 align:middle line:84% So they would agree that they would continue to provide, 02:57:13.005 --> 02:57:21.915 align:middle line:84% in their contract, a prohibition on blocking and throttling, 02:57:21.915 --> 02:57:24.390 align:middle line:84% unless the consumer is allowed that. 02:57:24.390 --> 02:57:27.596 align:middle line:90% At the federal level-- 02:57:27.596 --> 02:57:30.360 align:middle line:84% Well, at the federal level, those principles, 02:57:30.360 --> 02:57:32.526 align:middle line:84% all the industry have supported, yeah. 02:57:32.526 --> 02:57:34.650 align:middle line:90% I'm charging by the state. 02:57:34.650 --> 02:57:39.230 align:middle line:84% Well, and I think that the difficulty with the Title II 02:57:39.230 --> 02:57:41.840 align:middle line:84% claim was that the FCC never said what was permitted 02:57:41.840 --> 02:57:42.770 align:middle line:90% and what wasn't. 02:57:42.770 --> 02:57:45.430 align:middle line:84% We've heard about the Northeastern professor's view 02:57:45.430 --> 02:57:47.180 align:middle line:84% about certain network management practices 02:57:47.180 --> 02:57:49.790 align:middle line:84% constitute throttling, and zero-rating arrangements. 02:57:49.790 --> 02:57:52.460 align:middle line:84% The FCC never said what's legal and what's not. 02:57:52.460 --> 02:57:55.075 align:middle line:84% And companies lived in fear of being hit with massive fines 02:57:55.075 --> 02:57:57.990 align:middle line:84% and judgments after the fact, and having their rate 02:57:57.990 --> 02:58:00.879 align:middle line:84% setting [INAUDIBLE],, which was a key component the FCC did not 02:58:00.879 --> 02:58:03.717 align:middle line:84% forebear from bringing [INAUDIBLE].. 02:58:03.717 --> 02:58:06.360 align:middle line:84% The one thing, though, that Chairman Wheeler and Chairman 02:58:06.360 --> 02:58:11.170 align:middle line:84% Pai agreed on is both the 2015 order and 2017 order 02:58:11.170 --> 02:58:13.564 align:middle line:84% expressed the view that this is an inherently interstate 02:58:13.564 --> 02:58:15.500 align:middle line:84% service, as you heard, and can only 02:58:15.500 --> 02:58:18.630 align:middle line:84% be regulated in that perspective. 02:58:18.630 --> 02:58:19.130 align:middle line:90% OK. 02:58:19.130 --> 02:58:20.582 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:58:20.582 --> 02:58:21.550 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:58:21.550 --> 02:58:25.920 align:middle line:84% So the next person is [INAUDIBLE].. 02:58:25.920 --> 02:58:28.170 align:middle line:90% Last and last. 02:58:28.170 --> 02:58:29.390 align:middle line:90% If you need [INAUDIBLE]-- 02:58:29.390 --> 02:58:30.850 align:middle line:90% Saving the best for last. 02:58:30.850 --> 02:58:32.696 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 02:58:32.696 --> 02:58:34.480 align:middle line:84% Thank you, Chairwoman, for this hearing. 02:58:34.480 --> 02:58:37.170 align:middle line:90% 02:58:37.170 --> 02:58:40.890 align:middle line:84% We at the ACLU believe that a free flow of information 02:58:40.890 --> 02:58:43.380 align:middle line:84% is vital in a democratic society. 02:58:43.380 --> 02:58:47.040 align:middle line:84% And absent strong net neutrality regulations, 02:58:47.040 --> 02:58:50.490 align:middle line:84% we cannot be guaranteed that such a free flow of information 02:58:50.490 --> 02:58:52.660 align:middle line:90% will exist in the 21st century. 02:58:52.660 --> 02:58:56.550 align:middle line:84% So we actually believe that the absence of strong laws 02:58:56.550 --> 02:59:00.649 align:middle line:84% or regulations requiring net neutrality threatens democracy. 02:59:00.649 --> 02:59:02.190 align:middle line:84% I just want to step back for a second 02:59:02.190 --> 02:59:04.800 align:middle line:84% and acknowledge the political climate that 02:59:04.800 --> 02:59:07.770 align:middle line:90% has produced this outcome. 02:59:07.770 --> 02:59:08.670 align:middle line:90% Elections matter. 02:59:08.670 --> 02:59:10.540 align:middle line:90% Donald Trump won the presidency. 02:59:10.540 --> 02:59:12.570 align:middle line:84% He appointed a former Verizon lawyer 02:59:12.570 --> 02:59:14.330 align:middle line:90% as the chairman of the FCC. 02:59:14.330 --> 02:59:17.280 align:middle line:84% So you know, what happened at the FCC 02:59:17.280 --> 02:59:20.130 align:middle line:84% is really a fox guarding the henhouse situation. 02:59:20.130 --> 02:59:23.970 align:middle line:84% So I appreciate very much this committee's interest 02:59:23.970 --> 02:59:27.180 align:middle line:84% in addressing that problem, because the hens, the chickens, 02:59:27.180 --> 02:59:31.320 align:middle line:84% so to speak, are really at risk here. 02:59:31.320 --> 02:59:35.310 align:middle line:84% We've obviously heard, frankly, totally different facts, 02:59:35.310 --> 02:59:38.790 align:middle line:84% like night and day representations of reality, 02:59:38.790 --> 02:59:43.440 align:middle line:84% from folks in the nonprofit sector, who I would argue 02:59:43.440 --> 02:59:45.870 align:middle line:84% are representing the will of the people here, 02:59:45.870 --> 02:59:47.940 align:middle line:84% and from the private sector, who are 02:59:47.940 --> 02:59:51.150 align:middle line:90% representing their bottom line. 02:59:51.150 --> 02:59:54.990 align:middle line:84% We obviously agree with the folks at OTI and Free Press 02:59:54.990 --> 03:00:00.000 align:middle line:84% and with the attorney general, folks who say that, as we do, 03:00:00.000 --> 03:00:03.510 align:middle line:84% net neutrality is a requirement for a free and open internet 03:00:03.510 --> 03:00:06.750 align:middle line:84% in the 21st century, which as I said before, we believe 03:00:06.750 --> 03:00:09.330 align:middle line:84% is important not only for protecting 03:00:09.330 --> 03:00:11.050 align:middle line:84% Massachusetts' vibrant tech economy, 03:00:11.050 --> 03:00:14.230 align:middle line:84% but also for protecting democracy. 03:00:14.230 --> 03:00:17.700 align:middle line:84% And I want to address a couple of things. 03:00:17.700 --> 03:00:21.360 align:middle line:84% I don't want to restate any things that my comrades here 03:00:21.360 --> 03:00:22.230 align:middle line:90% have said. 03:00:22.230 --> 03:00:25.680 align:middle line:84% I do, however, want to address some misstatements 03:00:25.680 --> 03:00:27.540 align:middle line:90% that I've heard today. 03:00:27.540 --> 03:00:30.330 align:middle line:84% One of those is that there have been no violations 03:00:30.330 --> 03:00:33.040 align:middle line:90% of net neutrality principles. 03:00:33.040 --> 03:00:37.170 align:middle line:84% Another is that before the 2015 Open Internet Order, 03:00:37.170 --> 03:00:40.210 align:middle line:84% no net neutrality regulations existed at the federal level. 03:00:40.210 --> 03:00:42.060 align:middle line:90% That's just false. 03:00:42.060 --> 03:00:45.840 align:middle line:84% In 2010, the FCC promulgated an open internet order 03:00:45.840 --> 03:00:48.590 align:middle line:84% and was promptly sued by Verizon, 03:00:48.590 --> 03:00:52.380 align:middle line:84% who said that they couldn't do so under Title I, 03:00:52.380 --> 03:00:54.760 align:middle line:84% and they won that challenge in federal court. 03:00:54.760 --> 03:00:57.570 align:middle line:84% So then the FCC, under Tom Wheeler, 03:00:57.570 --> 03:00:59.040 align:middle line:84% promulgated rules under Title II, 03:00:59.040 --> 03:01:00.831 align:middle line:84% and of course, they don't like that either. 03:01:00.831 --> 03:01:03.630 align:middle line:84% So we find ourselves in sort of a situation where, 03:01:03.630 --> 03:01:06.630 align:middle line:84% I like the analogy of, you know, it's like, 03:01:06.630 --> 03:01:08.160 align:middle line:84% when the ISPs and their lobbyists 03:01:08.160 --> 03:01:11.310 align:middle line:84% complain about a patchwork of state regulation-- 03:01:11.310 --> 03:01:14.870 align:middle line:84% and of course they've said this on the ISP privacy front, too. 03:01:14.870 --> 03:01:16.950 align:middle line:84% It's a little bit like saying to a judge 03:01:16.950 --> 03:01:19.200 align:middle line:84% after having been convicted of killing your parents, 03:01:19.200 --> 03:01:22.530 align:middle line:84% please, your honor, go easy on me, because I'm an orphan. 03:01:22.530 --> 03:01:25.470 align:middle line:84% They were responsible for killing these regulations 03:01:25.470 --> 03:01:27.420 align:middle line:84% at the federal level, to a large degree, 03:01:27.420 --> 03:01:29.420 align:middle line:84% and now they're coming to the states and saying, 03:01:29.420 --> 03:01:30.300 align:middle line:90% don't you dare. 03:01:30.300 --> 03:01:31.890 align:middle line:84% This would be too complicated for us. 03:01:31.890 --> 03:01:33.348 align:middle line:84% This really is an issue that should 03:01:33.348 --> 03:01:35.730 align:middle line:84% be settled at the federal level, which, frankly, it was, 03:01:35.730 --> 03:01:38.190 align:middle line:90% until they exploded it. 03:01:38.190 --> 03:01:42.000 align:middle line:84% So all right, just a few examples of ISPs 03:01:42.000 --> 03:01:44.850 align:middle line:84% violating net neutrality principles. 03:01:44.850 --> 03:01:47.670 align:middle line:84% AT&T censored a live Pearl Jam concert, 03:01:47.670 --> 03:01:51.900 align:middle line:84% strictly, we believe, because Eddie Vedder, 03:01:51.900 --> 03:01:55.950 align:middle line:84% the lead singer of Pearl Jam, was criticizing 03:01:55.950 --> 03:01:57.510 align:middle line:90% George W. Bush on air. 03:01:57.510 --> 03:01:59.370 align:middle line:90% They just cut the feed. 03:01:59.370 --> 03:02:01.410 align:middle line:84% Verizon blocked advocacy messages 03:02:01.410 --> 03:02:05.400 align:middle line:84% from the women's reproductive rights organization, NARAL, 03:02:05.400 --> 03:02:07.410 align:middle line:84% deeming the speech, quote, "controversial." 03:02:07.410 --> 03:02:09.060 align:middle line:84% These are really serious issues that 03:02:09.060 --> 03:02:13.830 align:middle line:84% threaten not only free speech, but also other core rights 03:02:13.830 --> 03:02:15.930 align:middle line:84% and liberties that we, I think, in Massachusetts, 03:02:15.930 --> 03:02:17.820 align:middle line:90% sometimes take for granted. 03:02:17.820 --> 03:02:21.690 align:middle line:84% AT&T compelled Apple to block Skype and other Voice 03:02:21.690 --> 03:02:24.840 align:middle line:84% over Internet Protocol services on the iPhone. 03:02:24.840 --> 03:02:28.320 align:middle line:84% A Canadian telecom company blocked the website 03:02:28.320 --> 03:02:31.800 align:middle line:84% of a union with which it was engaged in a labor dispute. 03:02:31.800 --> 03:02:33.480 align:middle line:84% I mean, that sounds sort of dystopian, 03:02:33.480 --> 03:02:36.390 align:middle line:84% but just imagine your website getting 03:02:36.390 --> 03:02:38.820 align:middle line:84% blocked because you're here holding holding this hearing, 03:02:38.820 --> 03:02:39.030 align:middle line:90% and-- 03:02:39.030 --> 03:02:39.821 align:middle line:90% I've been checking. 03:02:39.821 --> 03:02:41.484 align:middle line:90% Yeah, right, exactly. 03:02:41.484 --> 03:02:42.900 align:middle line:84% And then, of course, we've already 03:02:42.900 --> 03:02:44.280 align:middle line:84% heard the example about FaceTime, 03:02:44.280 --> 03:02:47.700 align:middle line:90% so I won't repeat that. 03:02:47.700 --> 03:02:52.309 align:middle line:84% So having stated, sort of, my disagreements, the ACLU's 03:02:52.309 --> 03:02:53.850 align:middle line:84% disagreements with some of the things 03:02:53.850 --> 03:02:55.225 align:middle line:84% that have been said today, I want 03:02:55.225 --> 03:02:57.210 align:middle line:84% to move towards possible solutions. 03:02:57.210 --> 03:02:59.370 align:middle line:84% Obviously, we've heard a lot about preemption. 03:02:59.370 --> 03:03:01.440 align:middle line:84% You know, the attorney general has one view. 03:03:01.440 --> 03:03:03.480 align:middle line:84% They're litigating that at the federal level 03:03:03.480 --> 03:03:05.820 align:middle line:84% with a bunch of other AGs representing 03:03:05.820 --> 03:03:07.980 align:middle line:90% the people of 22 states. 03:03:07.980 --> 03:03:12.000 align:middle line:84% We've heard from a law professor at BU and from the ISP lobby 03:03:12.000 --> 03:03:14.310 align:middle line:84% that we shouldn't even bother, because we'll fail. 03:03:14.310 --> 03:03:16.650 align:middle line:84% Those preemption challenges will succeed, 03:03:16.650 --> 03:03:19.520 align:middle line:84% and state legislation will be struck down in this area. 03:03:19.520 --> 03:03:22.290 align:middle line:84% You know, that said, it does send a strong message 03:03:22.290 --> 03:03:23.850 align:middle line:84% to Congress for a bunch of states 03:03:23.850 --> 03:03:26.910 align:middle line:84% to pass laws that reinstate the net neutrality provisions just 03:03:26.910 --> 03:03:28.140 align:middle line:90% flat out. 03:03:28.140 --> 03:03:29.850 align:middle line:84% So I think that's something that you all 03:03:29.850 --> 03:03:32.490 align:middle line:84% should consider doing as a political statement, 03:03:32.490 --> 03:03:34.220 align:middle line:90% if nothing else. 03:03:34.220 --> 03:03:35.910 align:middle line:90% There are other options, too. 03:03:35.910 --> 03:03:37.760 align:middle line:90% Another is transparency, right? 03:03:37.760 --> 03:03:40.580 align:middle line:84% So we heard the professor from Northeastern 03:03:40.580 --> 03:03:42.260 align:middle line:84% talking about an auditing system. 03:03:42.260 --> 03:03:46.880 align:middle line:84% Well, what if we didn't rely on professors from Northeastern 03:03:46.880 --> 03:03:48.950 align:middle line:84% to conduct those sorts of audits, 03:03:48.950 --> 03:03:51.920 align:middle line:84% and we, in fact, mandated through state law, 03:03:51.920 --> 03:03:54.860 align:middle line:84% that the Office of Technology in the executive office 03:03:54.860 --> 03:03:57.530 align:middle line:84% would perform those audits themselves, 03:03:57.530 --> 03:04:00.230 align:middle line:84% using public dollars, and would then tell the public 03:04:00.230 --> 03:04:01.520 align:middle line:90% the results of those audits? 03:04:01.520 --> 03:04:03.650 align:middle line:84% It's really, really difficult for us 03:04:03.650 --> 03:04:06.260 align:middle line:84% as consumers to know what's happening 03:04:06.260 --> 03:04:09.770 align:middle line:90% on our internet networks. 03:04:09.770 --> 03:04:11.150 align:middle line:84% Is the YouTube buffering when I'm 03:04:11.150 --> 03:04:14.030 align:middle line:84% trying to watch a hearing on city council 03:04:14.030 --> 03:04:17.270 align:middle line:84% because my ISP is messing with the traffic? 03:04:17.270 --> 03:04:21.050 align:middle line:84% Or is it simply an issue that has nothing to do with that? 03:04:21.050 --> 03:04:22.580 align:middle line:90% It's really complicated. 03:04:22.580 --> 03:04:25.212 align:middle line:84% Technology users aren't going to understand those things. 03:04:25.212 --> 03:04:27.170 align:middle line:84% And so it would be great, from our perspective, 03:04:27.170 --> 03:04:29.437 align:middle line:84% to have the state actually intervene there, and say, 03:04:29.437 --> 03:04:30.020 align:middle line:90% you know what? 03:04:30.020 --> 03:04:32.420 align:middle line:84% We will inform consumers about what we can see 03:04:32.420 --> 03:04:35.485 align:middle line:90% is going on on these networks. 03:04:35.485 --> 03:04:36.860 align:middle line:84% And then there's one final option 03:04:36.860 --> 03:04:38.930 align:middle line:84% that I'm really struck that no one has talked 03:04:38.930 --> 03:04:42.200 align:middle line:84% about yet today, which is simply to get private ISPs out 03:04:42.200 --> 03:04:46.850 align:middle line:84% of the way and to invest in real municipal or public broadband. 03:04:46.850 --> 03:04:50.300 align:middle line:84% If we did that in a serious way as the state of Massachusetts, 03:04:50.300 --> 03:04:54.170 align:middle line:84% we can impose whatever laws we want to control publicly 03:04:54.170 --> 03:04:57.980 align:middle line:84% funded, publicly owned internet, which is, frankly, 03:04:57.980 --> 03:04:59.810 align:middle line:84% the ideal situation, but obviously would 03:04:59.810 --> 03:05:02.540 align:middle line:84% require a great deal of public expenditure, 03:05:02.540 --> 03:05:05.590 align:middle line:84% so may not be the best idea from the perspective-- 03:05:05.590 --> 03:05:08.090 align:middle line:84% I think Ways and Means is having a hearing as we speak. 03:05:08.090 --> 03:05:09.170 align:middle line:90% Fantastic. 03:05:09.170 --> 03:05:12.200 align:middle line:84% So that, I think, would be the ideal way 03:05:12.200 --> 03:05:14.930 align:middle line:84% for the state legislature to address this problem. 03:05:14.930 --> 03:05:17.930 align:middle line:84% And then I just want to say, briefly, Senator Creem, 03:05:17.930 --> 03:05:20.240 align:middle line:84% thank you for introducing Senate Bill 03:05:20.240 --> 03:05:24.500 align:middle line:84% 2062, which addresses the privacy side of this. 03:05:24.500 --> 03:05:26.660 align:middle line:84% We at the ACLU believe very strongly 03:05:26.660 --> 03:05:29.570 align:middle line:84% that the FCC privacy regulations that 03:05:29.570 --> 03:05:32.960 align:middle line:84% were repealed by an act of Congress 03:05:32.960 --> 03:05:35.030 align:middle line:84% using Newt Gingrich's Congressional Review 03:05:35.030 --> 03:05:38.030 align:middle line:84% Act last spring was a colossal mistake, 03:05:38.030 --> 03:05:40.460 align:middle line:84% and that the state really does have power 03:05:40.460 --> 03:05:41.610 align:middle line:90% to act in this space. 03:05:41.610 --> 03:05:45.440 align:middle line:84% So we would urge Senator Lesser's committee, Emerging 03:05:45.440 --> 03:05:48.560 align:middle line:84% Technologies, to give that bill a favorable report. 03:05:48.560 --> 03:05:50.690 align:middle line:84% And I would urge Senate leadership 03:05:50.690 --> 03:05:52.738 align:middle line:84% to bring it to the floor for a vote. 03:05:52.738 --> 03:05:54.160 align:middle line:90% That's a good idea. 03:05:54.160 --> 03:05:55.450 align:middle line:90% Yeah. 03:05:55.450 --> 03:05:56.450 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 03:05:56.450 --> 03:05:58.674 align:middle line:90% Thank you everybody. 03:05:58.674 --> 03:06:01.000 align:middle line:84% Sorry that my-- there were a lot of hearings 03:06:01.000 --> 03:06:02.493 align:middle line:90% being held in the building. 03:06:02.493 --> 03:06:05.465 align:middle line:84% So I thank you all for coming today. 03:06:05.465 --> 03:06:08.730 align:middle line:84% Thank you all that came from out of state. 03:06:08.730 --> 03:06:13.530 align:middle line:84% We're still happy to take any written submissions, this week, 03:06:13.530 --> 03:06:15.630 align:middle line:90% next week. 03:06:15.630 --> 03:06:18.114 align:middle line:84% So please feel free, if something came up, 03:06:18.114 --> 03:06:19.530 align:middle line:84% if you have something more to say. 03:06:19.530 --> 03:06:20.130 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 03:06:20.130 --> 03:06:26.130 align:middle line:90% 03:06:26.130 --> 03:06:27.030 align:middle line:90% Oh, thank you. 03:06:27.030 --> 03:06:28.880 align:middle line:90% Thank you. 03:06:28.880 --> 03:06:30.187 align:middle line:90%