tv Book TV After Words CSPAN August 11, 2013 12:00pm-1:01pm EDT
we don't have any of the fastest of the five cities in the world but comes to internet access in america, so we're not in the world leaders. we are somewhere in the middle of the pack. we also have a very deep digital divide. having inaccessible kampf is very correlated tear socioeconomic palace. -- have a people have internet connections at home, but that number is even lower for people with incomes under 30,000 per year. rich people tend to have an and also 9 percent of americans cannot access the internet revenue because it has not been built up to their area. >> added we get here? it seems like the internet was started here.
what is the divide? why has it not gone to people sums? >> quite a street. a great thing about the internet is that you can reach anybody. that is the whole point. a universal a disability program all idea was that the content provider, like google, would not be subject to the lens of a telecom provider, but we have this huge split between the ideals and openness of the internet is dependent upon this activity and just dirt and wires and money expense of building infrastructure in america. so we started off in america with the phone system that was the leaders world, the envy of the world. and then in above the 70's -- by skipping some history here, the cable industry was launched in america. cable initially was just for one-way entertainment. but as california and kaywun started competing, particularly
in the late 70's cable had a tremendous advantage which was local exclusive franchises and then a law in 1984 the completely deregulated cable. so fast forward. since 1984 s now cable was its model of not being particularly open, not being a role for a disability everywhere has taken the lead as a financial matter. it is much cheaper to upgrade cable system that it is today at the phone wires and the places with fiber. so we get to this place of the local monopolies and the result of policy vacuums in the united states. rid of a very long history of common care plan under which the telephone operators had adopted. were not allowed to pick and choose among content.
t problems, ever structure elements that are expensive to build and operate on huge economies of scale. cabalistic in the late, dominate the market, and the telephone companies are backing off. as a result of all this been a plan to upgrade to is very high seas. and no particular obligation to serve all of america to close this internal digital divide. just the freak economics of how expensive it is to build it's very difficult to see any competitor. >> it seems as if there would have been a moment with a cable companies would have had to act like a helicopter or there would have had to recognize the sec are however it would have been regulated, there would have had to recognize the table at --
table at this serve everybody. that is that the case, obviously >> not the case but it has been for 30 years. started in 1984 and deregulated cable almost entirely. we tried to claw back a little bit of that in 1982, but there is nothing in the '96 pact that would make it act differently. for the last few years campbell has been building in the assumption that there would not be essentially regulated much. >> was it as simple as that? >> basically they see themselves in -- just like any private store on the corner, no different, never viewed themselves as a utility. obligations to serve everybody and a reasonable cost and to connect with other networks. none of that is part of their sort of vetoes as an industry. that was part of the telephone industry, with they lost this battle.
they have gone into their corner, which is wireless. silver ryan and -- verizon and at&t are mostly wireless. high prices, i use digital divide internally and the country as a whole is fighting for connectivity. >> let's go back and talk about common carriage which does seem to be a way of thinking about it that would be satisfying some of our needs are broadband be read part of the origins? how is it executed? >> this is an ancient regime because of the way back to the evil era in europe. when you hold yourself out to the public it provides something essential and you are subject to out public obligations. so the whole idea that can not only from within but then travel to railroads and reaches the
telephone industry in 1910 is that in exchange for essentially a private monopoly you to provide pitbull with services. you take on public burdens to charge a reasonable rate that serves everyone and to not discriminate when it comes to content and attachment. so this regime would still exist in law but has not been applied to the cable companies and void if applied to a high-speed internet access picture in america. the threats are digital divide. i want to focus more to begin with and the notion of free and open internet : not just as a divided, but the possibilities that the isp in the telecoms are actually faltering or wherever it may be. if you put that ahead of the divide of the digital divide? >> these two things fit together . with no competition.
very high speed internet access and america. the provider has every incentive and no legal limitation for price discrimination to make sure that it is reaching the markets and charging as much as they can pay, not charging the poor systematically which helps the digital divide issues and ensuring that they can provide specialized services, their own video-on-demand, whatever it is. the charge a lot. so the risks really cannot be overstated. you can think of it as one big flow of water. that pipe is controlled by the gatekeeper, the cable company. they are moving to technology that would make the pipe essentially undifferentiated. of the same stuff, but the cable company can pick and choose
among communications, looked up whenever it wants to, send some communications when you tell your god chicago. all kinds of opportunities for testing dials that would remove the threat to them of competition from services that they would like to sell various to think of anything, of security, video, whenever it is, a cable guys can't use well feel more alive to the consumer and can pick and choose among what goes on line and just a lever that tousles. it is like living in a gated community, taking the idea of the internet, which is all about not having to ask for permission and being a will to reach anyone in the world and sticking that runs out of an infrastructure which is absolutely controlled by a set of navy for five gatekeepers. there is a deep conflict there. the threats are real.
>> you have been restrained so far. your book is about the story of comcast and nbc universal. you have not mentioned comcast specifically. is that present or future? either signs of that now? is it more sort of a confirmed -- concern for the future? >> careful to restrain themselves. the franchise wars. since then there has been tremendous consolidation. comcast is by far the giant. 50 million american households in the foot print in 39 states. 45 percent of the american population is within the compass footprint. and never repeat with their big company. it's also very big.
not quite up with comcast in their region when it comes time high-speed internet access they dominate with the exception of cable. everyone else pretty much stands alone. the threat is real today to a company like netflix. netflix as is possible for about half of the internet traffic. it is eating a lot of traffic. their future is entirely dependent upon what the cable companies decide to do with that you know, whether they make it less convenient for netflix to bring extreme close to people so that they can be seen easily it quickly, with a stuck charging based upon usage so that people will assume that accessing netflix will drive their
internet access bill up even higher. the economic future is completely dependent, and that is just one story of hundreds of thousands that have to do with the power of a single gatekeeper overall operation reaching american home. >> is striking to me. there is up bit of wild west there. if you what, this base stack, at the moment comcast, that because very, very contested. >> very cheap.
and yet because of this bottleneck controlled by a few actors over eyeballs' access to the hall they can judge whether the law. so where you might see a contested market, and i'm not sure that will stay the case. anyway, putting that aside, even though the insurance is getting cheaper. competition is giving cheaper. all price of the system has gone down except for businesses and consumers that the buyer is connections. where there is absolutely no control over price. and so price, quality, a liability, all of that is up for grabs. the cable industry has the largest trader of consumer satisfactory of rain in the street.
>> separate from regulatory. i envision almost like access. of future which give him there are possibilities for different options we can choose a service. if it is not public, then perhaps it is transparent or fast, something less. , not separate from these giant monopolies. he think that people would choose that? >> the is some shimbun this question, not sure what makes sense. that is because the services as an economic in better are really a financial monopoly. so expensive to build without initially. and it does not make sense to add more than lohan.
so is very difficult for competitors say answer this. this is like water or electricity. you would want to cut you would not want those to his team around. no way i want other countries to ensure the there is a fiber to home connection everywhere and every single citizen death he when -- what is hot about where we're stuck as a country with this series of cable monopolies is that cable will position connection itself the second-best. cable is called a hybrid fiber coaxial. would build initially this network for passive consumption
for being entertained. in these can be upgraded, but as an upload matter it is very cramped. and if we think of ourselves as all publishing and going to the doctor come all the things we should be doing, that will require a fight. a single thing, strand of gas can carry 90 dozen tv channels and can be adapted as high as we can sell. >> in you create more capacity. >> the electronics cystectomy and. >> who owns the fiber? >> a deep tradition of private operators building accurate cases network. that's with a foreign company came from. and that is where this fire
erupted national network eventually is going to come from i see a progression, the united states, really irritated. they're agitated. fiber built into the businesses and consumer loans. that progression, there is a patchwork across the country that will eventually reach a tipping point of jealousy in awareness of america which will change federal policy and drive toward having an integrated national network, but not national lines, not of by the government. another is not our tradition or how we do things, but giving private actors are rare reasonable rate of return in exchange for what is essentially a monopoly works pretty well. we can also, something happens
in many developed countries, the operator has to be wholesale level only commend this is going on in singapore and many european countries and the destroyer. the uproar is a biased to allow regional competitors. people call this homes. imagine moving to a big development and you get water, electricity, sewage, and a choice of internet service providers, retail and german service providers. there will be traveling to you over a standardized will sell five retail the has the ability warehouse. so this happens today. he moved into an apartment, you have a choice of the doe for fiber tom providers of services 30 to 40 months which means people upload and download and
thereabouts of blood to a big event 100 times faster. lots of choice, very low prices. a standard wholesale infrastructure across the entire country. >> this is happening in some places in the west. one great example. can you describe this? can you describe what is happening? >> jet knew it, the electrical utility there decided that a great side business would be to use their connections to every home, the electrical utility, to provide fiber. and they're doing that, they're selling services to residents. they don't have this retail competition that i just explained, but the utility is in the business of making reasonably priced fiber available to everybody. as a result businesses are moving from natural to chattanooga and very excited, every part of society in china is excited because they are getting recently priced and chad
access. >> out of the cable embrace feel? >> they fought tooth and nail. a lot. and the more than 19 states in america, it is either legal or difficult for cities to do this. the cities should not be allowed to compete with us is how they put it, and they try to make it difficult. we see that pattern over and over again, and i am hopeful that in the next few years some of those laws will rollback because it does not make sense, remove the power of self-determination. >> clearly bad for american consumers to not have the choice of cable or fiber. is it purely the power of the lobby? the business arguments that they have made an investment in the network? >> it gets a lot of traction. we are serving the community
perfectly well. cities will waste money by going into the business, and it is social some help. this error of not letting cities get into this business. we went through exactly the same battle with electricity in the beginning of a 20th-century the city's one the to run their run municipal electricity systems. a private monopoly said don't do that. that is a terrible risk to the fabric of american society. details about the claims in the state houses, but the attraction negev is the feeling that government should not be an the business of even --, rationing d access. and that is enormously attractive to people in a time when government has less and less money. so this story is that it is actually very cost effective for a city to be patient with capital to guarantee loans to
private operators to build these systems the payback over several years and then they're free and clear, not trapped by as cinco gatekeeper who will dow edged. >> out as a highway analogy play with that? is that the correct analogy? in the book you say we are tracking gravel behind of the track. does that resonate as an alternative way of speaking about it rather than going to the movies and buying a movie ticket? you mentioned comcast torchy entertainment. >> sometimes. look. we make sure there are railway is costing the united states. they built the federal highway systems to connect all americans not to leave people behind. this is the business of government. for some people, that has traction. there is enough fear of government to even be involving communication. there is an instinctive
reaction. this is a very new reaction coming in now. today is the anniversary of the first telegraph cent between boston and new york. and at that point city fathers would have naturally been involved and where there would be strong in would have the right to have the franchise. today we seem to have some nervousness about it. in fact, this is the only way, the only way this government convention can ensure that everybody gets a connection at a reasonable price. rica's of uprighted ag is building and upgrading, but they have to be subject to public oversight. otherwise the incentive system non-aligned and companies are not able. is in their interest, but maximize the profit by picking perfect neighborhoods that compare more and more and more for service and by not taking the risk of running wires to neighborhoods that are in populated areas and keeping prices as high as possible.
>> our interest are constrained. we do not have a choice. over the last 50 years we have gone from paying $0.35 for a cup of coffee and going to starbucks. we don't separate. there is not even an option for superior service. >> there really is no choice. it is interesting. all water became bottled. you know, there should just be of flow of communication available to everyone in the country. we turn on lights and don't even think about it. it is an input into everything that we do as a country. indications should be the same thing, but because we have been confused, people have the sense that internet access is a luxury electricity was treated as a luxury in the early a 20th-century. water, everybody needs. electricity is really only for
the rich, and it took decades to change the perception of electricity. we are and this new point right now are internet access is still viewed as something slightly magical, expensive, but talk to someone who runs a business from his home. for m he can't even get killing without having that a reasonably priced connection and now there is no option for it. >> in the phone runs over the internet. the internet has a habit of swallowing everything. >> we should not get confused between these layers. the internet is the agreement of a computer to speak to another computer using a particle. i am talking about this very basic infrastructure which used to be used for entertainment for the cable companies. that is now missing to most american homes.
he ever structure slowed everything. the mail system, postal system dying, journalism having trouble but it is the idea of a digital wire. it just becomes a platform for absolutely everything. for these non actors, no oversight emanuel competition, that is pretty disastrous. three of their formation and economic growth. i do think that this situation is dragging down the entire united states economy. if every business could depend on this basic connectivity we would be doing better as a nation. >> the electricity analogy is higher than that because it is not just the light goes on in the light goes off. the core of our democracy, free information, the free flow of information. >> is should be scary to people that everything that they
learned, think, and vons might, under the control of a single company. >> it isn't, the. >> for some reason america's not marching in the street about this one. a lot of it has to do with lack of awareness. not aware of what is happening in other countries. we don't really care about what is happening in south korea or sweden or anything about the european countries are japan or china. china may be this story. maybe they wake up and say, oh, my god, we will be done. committed to getting very high capacity cyber connections to every home as quickly as they can, building these homes, and they see this as just part of their infrastructure story to create a giant middle-class that can consume lots of stuff, does a lot of that online. we have no plan to do this. as a result where falling
farther and farther behind. my goal is to reach just by educating and they will figure out what to do in their communities to make sure that the connectivity exists and then gradually we will get to the point where federal policy changes. >> networks are inherently local. in fact the connectivity, the neighborhood units is technically speaking in a good way of going about with these changes. >> it could be. because the economies of scale, the systems are so great. once you have built the thing in this energy to add an additional customer that the neighborhood level but might not be the right unit of interest and then tried to detain. pick a pair communication at a reasonable cost. lots of bottlenecks. almost as if you had to go
through as city-wide we are doing this, make sure that everyone has fiber. in that city is strong enough. so the demand reasonable carriage rates from the next provider of the chain. you need help. i am not sure than ever. >> i see a lot of opporunity. your technical knowledge of knowing how to connect. certainly new york, this building is one of them it turns out. to get across the street is a whole of the story to me if they're is a way of leveraging. >> that would require government intervention begins you have to force the middle mild providers
to let the neighborhood connections sit down and a reasonable rate which is tricky. one of them what have to break from the pack and more and more are run by private equity companies should not have an interest and offering nondiscriminatory connections. is not there. as another business. the one i capacity dedicated connections to businesses with they can make a lot of money. so breaking this whole system open his on an order of what we had to do with railroads, electricity. it takes ultimately national leaders to say that this is a problem, dramatically under serving the population on which we depend. we will fix it. ..
they are very, very at it in their localities. there's no particular reason for them to speak out on a national scale because they are solving their local problem and there's no particular reason for them to be aggregating although i really think they should be cast again, when you sit in your living
room, you are choosing among very physical attributes of the internet. so they haven't been resourced, bound together to form a collect it to march on capitol hill. they do often march on local or state house of representatives. just in march in georgia, when of these terrible bills was proposed voter with the power of cities to elect the commission has been a support network for everybody in florida if there was in that city a wireless signal available to those people at the state but what is said you can't can't compete with that. in georgia, city managers, individuals, representatives rose up and defeated the bill. i am hoping that as a turning point for the state-level efforts to make it so different for municipality. >> host: there is the contradiction for the need for the local infrastructure.
it surprised me again because that is supposedly what the internet does. it allows them to form those groups. but the infrastructure is always local. >> guest: i'm so glad you raised this point because there's something about the very dirt and wires fundamental issues that doesn't cross over to the people who love the internet could claim to love the internet. i am one of them. they still believe you can get around this stuff. i'll just build a better mousetrap, some kind of apple fixed this. at path can't fix the economics of infrastructure in america, where he really have a natural monopoly that's operated on companies. the only way to get around it is to force them to act differently. he upbraided against copyright laws that might have constrained operations on the internet at the higher level with enormous.
that has not yet crossed over to concern about this problem. that is what i'm trained to help implement. >> i would like to draw a distinction between communication companies and information companies, particularly as information companies are in the business of an infrastructure and speaking most specifically about a company like google that one website is now a global network. is that communication versus information, is that an economy of thought about it all? is that a legal way of phrasing it quick >> the dichotomy is that we've treated communications companies and then we do you as they did at the entire set her on cable arrived on the scene. telephone wanted to be treated to cable would have no rules at all. we are just the kind of company
that sells you content. soon lee says from any possibility of future roles. that above may not, we level down in those table on chad cable companies are selling your tuna fish sandwiches. they're not funny communications in their view. postcode information -- he used to buy the information from the company. now the bad information from you. just go right. you're right to draw attention to the fact that companies we think of, we think of google as basically a use of the internet to provide search engine functionality and get us quickly to things they want to see. google is experimenting now with building fiber networks have made doneness in kansas city and they've announced they'll do it in austin and provo.
they will cover a small portion of the united states populace. >> they may go bigger with it. there has been indication. >> guest: we wouldn't want google to do that we should not wait. what we need is intentional policy that doesn't just swap out time warner cable are, subject to no regulation. but provides to make sure everybody's scared. so what google is doing is very interesting and disruptive. i don't think they're going to go that far with it. they just want to show that it's possible to make money building fiber to the home under certain conditions and people love it in kansas city. every part of society in kansas city is talking about this. it's a big deal. >> host: again, i have been left restrained about this that you have. for me, the notion of a single
company may kinematics, controlling the post office and also the infrastructure is essentially the creation of alternative internet. >> guest: compared to what? for me, the google experiment is like the worlds they are. we could not imagine electricity and other domestic uses until these giant world fairs in the beginning of the 20th century. people went to visit and they saw a lecture kitchens any idea that electric appliance totally foreign at the time. so kansas city is the world fair of high-capacity bp people will say that not an experience in touch feel it and that will drive policy. i am more interested in the google experiment as a digitalization of what is possible. i share your concerns that if you had one at your doing everything, content and
everything else, there are risks to the free flow of information there. google swears they are not using data from people in kansas city to travel over into building their search engines without permission from the people by not conductivity. they put a file between actions as communications provider and information provider. but i am with you. that wall could rake at any time. as i say, the twinkling of the kansas city network is the change that it makes to our perceptions. we don't make progress until we see something. >> host: to pick up on your firewall, i do want to touch on the nsa and the news over the last month or so now and systematic tapping her collection of information. again, it is striking to me there was a moment where was its
own tapping. the information was passing by and the fbi, whether court jurisdiction or not was tapping phones. now it's a different model. we don't know the details, but it's just taking it from google's data center, from facebook status and are. where does this -- could this be -- could this be a tipping point of an alarming moment in the way we treat and control freedom and openness of our networks?
>> guest: for me, the story is a continuation of a long history of surveillance by the united states government. it is different in degree, but not in kind. in the 20th century, every single telegraphs and from the united states to another country was systematically copied by our government and retained. there was widespread domestic
surveillance of networks. now today we try to
constrained using law, domestic intelligence surveillance. but we've also built networks that carry our innermost thoughts and dreams in ways that telephone calls may not have. so we know the nsa in the past has systematically copied wholesale internet transmissions go into large exchange points and saved a copy for themselves in case of david wright needed. they are building a gigantic $2 billion data center in utah to chew through this staff they will retain forever. that is interesting that there are really two actors in the world who understand all of this staff. the head of the nsa in ahead of google. they are both powerful in terms of their ability cheater
information. as a lawyer, i would like to see much more process associated with this wholesale surveillance. i don't think it makes sense to be capturing absolutely everything without any reason for any legal oversight. that's the first position for me. second is if we are selling up everything, running a query against that stuff should only be done with judicial oversight. we should have real visibility into what is happening with the retention of all the information and holidays being scraped through. i agree with you that our intelligence actors are using these pools of data created by google and facebook particularly abroad to vacuum up, inhale all possible information about people's lives connected to these networks. but that's always happening. it's just that there is more of it now than it used to be.
we've always relied on judicial frameworks to constrain its insatiable appetite for data. right now that's what needs to change. post a ahead of google, the head of the nsa. we've talked about -- you write at length about the culture of cable, the culture of telecom. we talk about the culture of washington. what is the culture of silicon valley? what is their intent? what is their master vision? >> guest: what is silicon valley. google and facebook for me are just like espn, gigantic successful content companies without which the infrastructure guys can't survive. you have to think of this is a powerful negotiation, who gets to beat you up. google and facebook can be got to communications companies. there started in lockstep. so for those companies, they are not going to rob the boat with
this particular policy problem of monopoly infrastructure. data once they go get that monopoly because they look to people like monopolies. so that you say silicon valley has google and facebook, they keep the status quo in place. bear lake jaya police who are there particular corners and have their markets. they don't beat each other up. the status quo slot in place with them. so i'm hopeful there's another silicon valley, which is an upstart to smaller companies whose future will be dependent on a lot of information flowing through an addressable market in america that is not subject to want gatekeepers control locally. they should really be exercised about this. they should say how could this be my destiny depends on some cable guy? that can't be. they should be ganging together and taking on this issue.
here's my third point about silicon valley. i love techies. they are made favorite people, but they seem to think you can keep around everyone. let's just build some new shiny thing. and that eat those, that culture is pretty ingrained in silicon valley. george packer had a beautiful piece that started the same as the world will work the way they wanted to and don't have a sense of social conscience, national obligation, trying to make sure everybody gets a reliable come a decent standard of living. that is not something to think about. >> a promise of the internet has often talked about the democratization of everything. whether that's youtube or crowd funding or the ability to access information from anywhere by anyone. just go true. that could still be true for a
few companies that make it through the cable said because if you are a high-capacity application, it's going to be using a lot of bandwidth, you will look more like a netflix that is competing with products the cable company wants to sell. so this mismatch between what people think of as the internet and the reality of the pipes and wires is fascinating. your work on explaining how the internet does its job, how it is transported is extremely important to make this clear. >> host: it is interesting. we share somewhat of a pessimistic view of the future, how things stand at the moment. and yet, it mostly works. it's difficult. i have to sometimes catch myself. occasionally it doesn't work, but it does mostly work. are we seeing the future?
are prepared by? for you, this comes out of a legal background, a study of the history of these monopolies. >> host: we are suffering in a poverty of imagination. we have no cases that would show us what life would be like. it should be the conductivity, even something to think about. issued either we can be present fully, humanly present to anybody in the world at any time. it should be that every wall can be a screen. which is the two of us talking. why don't we bring people from silicon valley who could talk about was silicon valley actually is. that very high-capacity zero latency networks will make that possible. imagine if your aging parent could stay at home, never have to go to the hospital unless it was a real emergency in the visited by a friendly neighbor
or and then have fiber access connection to the doctor who would see him or her when they needed to. we can't even imagine that right now. >> host: if you experienced full hd telepresence, no delay, special networks, it's remarkable. the cost is enormous. tens of thousands of dollars a month. >> guest: that is because it so they dedicated companies. if there's a network in place that allows for the ubiquitous connection, anybody could sell that and it really shouldn't cost anything. it should be like texting. it should scale to that. >> guest: the jeter, the low resolution, we are not satisfied with that. the deepest team in need is actually communicate with a very high-capacity network, we should be able to do that.
we can even imagine that now. and so we save ink seem all right, you fumble with our fellows and stare down at the spinning circle and we don't realize what we are missing as a result. >> it is a fundamental democratic need as well. can you elaborate on your vision of what is good for america? >> guest: just as we make sure everybody gets a first class public education can we take that seriously. we make sure that hospitals treat people well. we make sure that our food is an unadulterated. it is a function of having a decent life and being able to communicate, being part of society that everybody get a reasonably priced communications question. this is easy if the nation for the in the passage of time since then we have forgot these are essentially democratic values to be out to communicate, to be
able to travel without being impeded. so we are suffering from amnesia for some reason and it is in the interest of giant companies to keep us a little bit in the dark. >> host: a question about that. you have been talking about these things as a law professor, as an author. what is your address at this? direct and as a lone wolf at the moment. there was a petition on the white house that you should be chair of the fcc. how do you envision you continue in this type? >> guest: i am privileged at the internet engineers on the washington players and they are all wonderful people and i am privileged to have served in the white house and been involved in this at a high level. i feel it is my duty to keep explaining this issue until
everybody gets it and to do it in this passionate that case, clear way so that ultimately we stop being bullied. this is actually about just being bullied by comcast and time warner. we haven't even talked about wireless data. verizon, et tm the wireless side of god is and it's fair and it's not good for the country. they're lots of people around the country who understand this. i am lucky that i wrote a book. this object gives me the opportunity to talk about it. >> host: what will happen next? that is always the refrain of silicon valley and technology. who can see the future first? it is not yet evenly distributed. the round in which you have not doing a broadband started. it is not your approach to it.
>> guest: my approach is to explain the municipal startups together, to try to empower as many as we can. they can understand how we got to this point. to make sure that they cannot together seems important to me, to make sure this is a question raised at every debate with every political candidate. the elections based on other fibers can have it or not. why not in america? the president recently said that in five years, 99% of schools and libraries in america will have fiber connections. he is putting new money, promises to put new money into that endeavor. that's huge. that is another tipping point. we care about this when it comes to kids. now we have to do is care about it when it comes to the rest. my view is this upgrade to fiber is inevitable. if we wait for the incumbents to deal with the existing companies, it will take 90
years. it is not in the interest of speed this up because they are doing very well with status quo. i want to speed things up. i want to make this catches fire across the country. >> host: is the fcc the apparatus to do that? is that wearable come from quite >> guest: the fcc has a lot of power choose at the moment not to exercise. so the fcc could label every provider of high-speed internet access as a common carrier. it is within his power to do that. they could say you are doing this transport function as a result you have an obligation to serve everybody at a reasonable cost, connect to everybody, every other network. a matter of administrative labeling. the fcc right is facing a case in front of the d.c. circuit, where it has gone through some gymnastics to pretend not to label everybody as communications providers.
the yet retains the power. the court is likely to say that's not. either they both have as a communication device. after that case is decided, which is probably march 2014, the fcc will be confronted with a harsh choice of what to do, to relabel everybody is a communications provider and exercise our broker some kind of deal to obtain better treatment for americans. i would much rather see the former than the latter. >> host: there is a new chair at the sec? >> guest: here's tom wheeler, deeply experienced. he has a real.good. he cannot be thinks it's the right to do. so i am hopeful that when he is in this issue we look at a lot of attention. >> host: that brings us into 2014.
>> guest: the next six to eight months will be extremely interesting and communications policy. what i am hoping for is a sharp edge, a moment that gets -- galvanizes public attention, gets people activated and gives the fcc the political air cover it needs and gives mayors across the country air cover. it's all about politics and power. the language exists in law. it just has to be used. >> host: we've had just a few more minutes. i want to pick up on that. think about as well what it is looking at politics and power as a way to understand this. i understood it, asking people how these places were built. what does your evolution into this, from the lumber generally to telecoms specifically? >> guest: i cannot this to the internet site. i represented yahoo! back when they were cool and i really
cared -- they are cool again now. it's the most important idea of my time that you can introduce a new service, a new business without asking anybody for permission because there is the standard protocol that lets anyone talk to each other across the road. that's amazing. so i was so fascinated by that. i thought this telephone and cable guys were irrelevant. and then they rose up. i spent 10 years in their vocabulary, learning the acronyms, trying to figure out what they were up to. now i understand what they do and now i see that it is just about power and money and these natural monopolies in size and scale that make it very difficult for any competitor to enter. all of this spending is in the service of that internet ideal, which is world shaking, the idea that a farmer and molly can sell
things online. and they can reach any size audience without some gatekeeper getting in the way. i want to keep that he doesn't place. there should be a global, interoperable internet. whatever i can do to further that vision is what i'm going to do. >> host: it is striking is a groundswell of people bring in that original bell, one of silicon valley it has become so much about billion dollars. that intent is always clear, especially from the start up side. it does seem as if there is more and more people saying remember what this was about. >> guest: and you can make money. in the united states, it's always going to do better. we push t. t. i p. s. an affirmative foreign policy and not a lot of markets and other countries possible. we came up with the best. now we are at this next moment where we can push for high-capacity networks in the
gathering of pre-thinkers. my idea for some time has been, the freedom movement radically defined. for social libertarians, economic libertarians, maximum freedom. minimal government interferences possible. we do have some anarchists here. it's been growing. my idea was most of them are herds of cattle. they do their blogging and website in all of this, but they seldom get together to conspire. so my idea is to create freedom sites to physically get together. we don't do any live streaming. you can buy the tapes afterwards, but we want people to physically come here. we've got 2200 people here in planet hollywood and we are growing. >> host: organized libertarianis