Net Neutrality: What’s at Stake?

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

July 30 (Bloomberg) –- Internet Association CEO Michael Beckerman and Columbia University Senior Fellow Alec Ross discuss the internet experience in the U.S., efforts to protect a free internet and business in the sharing economy. They speak on ‘Market Makers.” (Source: Bloomberg)

Are talking about is net neutrality, the ability for internet users to access open internet, whatever website they want without gatekeepers stopping them from visiting websites they want.

Immigration is another huge issue facing our company as well.

I noticed internet association has backed off from advocating for title ii treatment of internet carriers, which would force them to become common carriers.

That seems to be the most efficient regulatory solution.

I am curious as to why you aren't advocating it wholesale.

Not totally accurate.

Our position is that the fcc should use all the authority they have.

We are focusing on at this stage that the user experience is an open internet.

But 2 court cases have said they don't have the authority unless they use title two.

They have a lot of different pieces of authority they can use and we are saying to use all of it.

The rule that got struck down did not apply to mobile.

In today's managed users -- today's day and age users except the same expense on your mobile device as well as under desktop.

Michael, did the fcc chairman tom wheeler get out in front of the president on this?

I remember president obama come when i was running technology and media for him back in his first residential campaign said -- i was there --" i will take a back seat to nobody," pumping his fist, in commitment to net neutrality.

He appointed the fcc chairman.

Are these two on the same page?

As his views evolved on this?

What we have seen on paper doesn't match that and we are vocal to make sure that the user experience on the internet is what we have come to know and love to allow the internet to flourish.

One of the things i find interesting on this topic is that the internet experience in the u.s. is so fundamentally different from most other felt countries -- other developed countries.

Is this something that commerce is aware of, that the way our market is structured is driving speeds down and costs up?

It is clearly something that congress is paying attention to but this is the future of our economy here.

Do they understand that our market is exceptional in some ways?

It is hard to make apples to apples comparison.

Some european countries are the size of new jersey.

The fundamental point is that internet users should be able to access whatever legal content they want on the internet without deep take -- without gatekeepers slowing down traffic.

Do the phone companies and cable company's just flat out own congress?

Oh, my god.

There you go, live tv.

Do the phone companies and cable companies own congress?

I like the side we are on because we are on the side of voters and internet users and that will be out whatever kind of lobbying -- ooh, ooh, i have an answer!

Yes, they do, and that is the problem.

One of the problems we are seeing -- congress is so reflexively -- obeys what is the phone companies want and have for so long.

We are seeing a shift in congress and they are very surprised at the leverage internet corporations have, particularly over the sopa legislation.

I was there and i saw the thing blew up in my face and was remarkable from where it started and where it ended.

Why?

Because there was a citizen-centered movement that had nothing to do with lobbyists that literally flooded anybody with any influence in washington, d.c. i was in the west wing of the white house at one time and i was in the office of the secretary of state and people have significant influence said, "alec, what in the hell is this sopa thing?

My granddaughter called me from college." it was 17-, 18-, and a 19-year-olds calling their parents and friends and inhibiting a significant amount of hands-on efficacy and took something and flipped it.

Members of congress at the same time said the same thing to their staff, "we are never going to get caught on the wrong side of this again." did that change what you are doing in d.c.? i think that is certainly changed washington's perception of the power of internet companies and users and this is something we're here from the grand and grandsons and children of older members of congress and regulators because that is the side they are on.

Forcing this issue in front of the fcc and not congress.

But usc over one million people filed at -- you have seen over one million people file at the fcc, outpouring of support in favor of open internet.

You have to be the bad guy because we all agree on this.

Fine, fine.

Uber, companies like hoover, what is most important to them?

Open-market.

The challenge these companies have -- one, some communities have regulations on the books since 1970's and 1980's, pre-internet, and they have to work on these revelations that are clearly outdated.

In other communities you have new regulations coming in from entrenched interests trying to block them from accessing the market and competing.

Is this surprising that we are seeing republicans like grover norquist and newt gingrich coming out and saying that democrats are blocking innovation?

It doesn't surprise me.

Unfortunately for grover and newt, their party has gone so completely far to the right that they will never be able to politically capture this community until they move on social issues that have nothing to do with their business models.

But newt and grover are right in that this present the political opportunity for republicans but much more importantly present an economic opportunity for americans.

There are a lot of apartments in queens, in the bronx, in brooklyn, where people have to work 2 jobs and they are getting indispensable income because they are ready to take that spare room and get a couple hundred dollars a night for a printmaking that com -- night for it.

Making that comport with local relations is not easy.

What are uber and others going to have to do to meet the right nation's halfway?

It is a little disingenuous to say that we are not a website and we don't have to do with this.

They should be treated like a hotel or -- why not?

That is what they are serving.

That is what airbnb is -- welcome, this is the stephanie ruhle inn.

You cannot fit a hotel regulation -- technology platform or technicality that they have to get around?

I wouldn't call it a technicality.

Over 50% of airbnb users are able to stay in their home because i used the service and you have 2 communities in the united states, some that shun technology are left behind and others that say, airbnb, open for business, come to our community.

I am with you on the value and virtue of these platforms but i think that making the argument that they are not providing transportation services, that they are providing lodging, is not going to hold up -- i am making document that they should not be treated the same thing as a taxi company or hotel -- but they say they are going to replace taxi companies and hotels.

We would be per raft of regulation altogether.

-- bereft of a regression altogether.

No, it is a saying not to put

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change