Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Love -- -- a matching your Internet service provider as sort of -- traffic cop with the power to control what you see.
And how fast you can see it fears of a controlled Internet now -- given birth to the concept of something called net neutrality net as -- Internet.
Or one Internet for all and it's now become a hotly contested debate on Capitol Hill adding fuel to the fire Verizon and Google.
Now have their own proposal developing the parameters for an agreement after talks between media and Internet companies and the Federal Communications Commission.
The Google Verizon plan would give carriers the right to control wireless access speed.
I had to that concerns over how much the government will involve itself in controlling the Internet and you have a very complicated.
And controversial topic that the FCC is right smack in the middle -- so.
Who better to provide an inside look at perspective and former FCC chairman.
Michael Powell who joins us live in studio and a Fox Business.
Exclusive Michael is now senior advisor -- Providence Equity Partners chairman Powell great to see you thanks very much for being here.
Let -- put up first of all the concerns of at least one person in the industry Time Warner of course has a very serious stake in all of this they provide a lot of service to a lot of people around.
The CEO of Time Warner Glenn Britt said to the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago nothing has happened.
As in terms of net neutrality that would cause a need for intrusive regulation most of this.
Is people thinking well somebody could do something maybe this will happen so therefore we should have regulation that is dangerous he said.
Within an area of technology that is changing every day you -- Yes.
I think there's an element of what -- saying that is correct which is if you really look at the demonstrable evidence in the market people are talking about a situation.
There really hasn't occurred in a widespread way.
No real demonstrable -- number of cases demonstrating the kind of hypothetical harms the proponents of net neutrality -- that we do nothing.
Well I don't think it's quite right I mean I think I think there are reasons to be concerned about making sure that the fundamentals of the Internet that is it's open -- and nature.
I continue to be preserved but interestingly enough all carriers and all web companies seem to be in consensus about that view.
And even in consensus about the government having a limited role I think the argument is how expansive that role should be.
And how far they go on preventing carriers take care of their business.
But let's clarify here there are certain companies like the Google's the -- the Amazon's of the world.
That want all you can eat out there for people who want to download everything from our long YouTube videos to who knows what that eat up a lot of so called bandwidth so it's sort of it would appear to us to be the cable guys who spend the money to lay down the infrastructure.
-- the people who are providing the content a re reading that correctly.
I think that's correct and I think the other thing that I think people think this is an esoteric debate among companies but there's a consumer -- here.
Take the cable companies are talking about the average consumer is sharing that capacity with his neighbors.
If my neighbor chooses to hang a huge music server on his network I will have a degraded -- experience.
One of the things that the cable companies and wireless companies in particular concerned about is we need to be able have a lot of freedom to manage.
That kind of data consumption so that we have a quality experience for all of our consumers and not just for the elites who are using.
You know maybe 20% -- uses for using 80% of the capacity.
You know Thomas -- a great economists said there are no solutions and economics are only trade offs.
And I guess the question is what is worse and Internet provider that can steer everybody towards products that they have or an overzealous government.
That puts too much too many dams in the way of the free flow of information.
Yeah I think I decidedly come on the view of be careful what you wish for with respect to the government in fast moving innovative industries.
You know we -- the telecommunications infrastructure for a hundred years as a monopoly with a very heavy and complex regulatory regime and it had its benefits but one of them was not.
Innovation one of them was not fast moving change.
We're dealing with a network that year by year looks different than it did last year.
And which applications kids emerge from garages and do things no one thought was possible I've never been confident in the government's ability to both predict.
And to move quickly enough.
To maintain relevancy and accuracy in the regulation of markets to be fair though -- the government try and push both sides to come up with their own solutions among each other that's a great point because you know this Google Verizon.
Agreement that you talked about what you really left of agreement and more about.
Proposal to the government of how to resolve this controversy has really been invited by the government itself.
The government's own proposed rules look a lot like the Google Verizon proposal.
The the FCC and members of congress are telling both sides look go out and find consensus.
Go out and find common ground here to companies have been diametrically opposed on this issue for years are coming together to try to provide a constructive answer and I think that's at the government's invitation.
The question of how you get money off the Internet has been some -- but folks right from the beginning all kinds of entrepreneurs now of course.
Those were involved in newspapers and magazines are hoping that the Internet will provide some method of getting payment rather than giving everything away free.
So far we haven't talked much about regulation because there hasn't been for a magic solution to make money although the iPad may eventually play pardon that.
What are your thoughts about that do you think that there is a way he had to provide paid content on the Internet that may save newspapers and magazines in this country well I.
Think so I -- but I I think that's key here is everybody is unsure about that and so -- had this period of rampant innovation experimentation.
What I get concerned about the government help that or might they intrude and prevent that from -- on balance my fears they intruded because government tends to be best with static judgments.
I'll make a set of rules about what I know here now -- -- It's much easier to put a rule on the books and it never -- to take it off.
Or to modify -- subsequently.
And when you're looking for companies scrambling to figure out new business models for digital content distribution.
You've got network providers from rising capital cost to build faster networks and trying to figure out new sources of revenue -- That's a period in which having the government play a role in how that's resolved is is at least deserving of -- Well but going back to what Glenn Britt said and and we can put up another quote from bill -- about about opinions on the subject.
Is the government a little too heavy handed in this why -- they pursuing this so much you know Julius genachowski the current FCC chair.
-- talk about him and -- what his interests are in all of us.
Well I think he's a great guy and a and -- -- -- chairman I think his concern is not different than when I was chairman there are certain core elements of the open Internet you wanna preserve.
I think though that this issue became highly politicized and almost religion during the campaign it was not one of president Obama's plaques that Silicon Valley network of community a very powerful community -- important constituency this administration strongly almost religiously committed.
To this issue in a very forward -- way.
And I think that provide a lot of power and impetus to keep this issue moving.
And to push the more extreme versions.
-- net neutrality but I do think at the end of the day.
There's a compromise to be had at the FCC would take control.
Of the issued and the side they think they could resolve this issue and in an appropriate way.
By the way is there -- -- religion around the Internet.
Is -- a religious experience it is it's Nirvana but it.
But it's not something that public money was used to build -- like the airwaves.
Yeah well if they -- complicated right on the on the end user side these networks the telephone networks and the cable networks are certainly built with private capital.
The other side might argue well the Internet the core of the Internet itself was a government project.
Done by dark by and so there's -- contain published but it is not like the Airways is not a situation the government owns.
The Airways and you had to do with the -- they don't on the Internet.
Michael you're gonna stay with -- -- absolutely consider.
Filter by section