tv Open Phones with Taye Diggs CSPAN2 May 30, 2016 8:30pm-9:01pm EDT
protected in a way that i think generally was widely done by the ftc. have a baseline level of protection that was based on the on fear practice authority and some of the less information that consumers would share based on their authority. that would be my preference. >> lydia, u.s. about the internet of things which is one of the more exciting developments in communication policy as the landscape before us will be large array of information. a large a large that conversation and aries will take place over a spectrum, something something the cable industry has been at the forefront of particularly work the work of the five gigahertz
and. i think it going forward they will not be all under the fcc purview but the first is in that spectrum and freeing up more of our airwaves for licensed and unlicensed use to support the internet of things. the second is privacy which my colic has touched on. then we also have to think about security, cyber security with all of that connectivity and finally making sure that we do not exhaust ip address. i think all of this things play into the internet of things and will be really important going forward. >> the fact of the matter is that you two agencies primarily in the space. with that being the expert agency when it comes to telecommunications, platforms and the like. we have to recognize and i believe the way the world is evolving. once upon a time you went to
paper and i'm surprised i don't have it in front of me and that's where information was stored. now most of our information is not. so when so when you talk about these companies that have access to your personal information and it seems like there is every hour that we're hearing about a data breach, it is important for us to keep this working relationship with the fcc and other agencies to ensure there is a seamless line of protection for consumers by all of the agencies that have either influence or impact here. so we are the expert agency when it comes to communication agency, that we have an item that is being keyed up that we will review and i guess from where i said i look at, i want simplicity and administrator ability if i said that correctly. so this is what were looking at.
this is your very personal information that i know that you are protected and we want to protect it too. there should be no disconnect along that playing when it comes to your personal information and that's where this comp conversation is a part first to have. >> my answer is that i want the commission to have a very small role. that we have an agency in congress has not changed authority in the meantime to give us greater role over the internet of things. so i want ftc to do what it does best and if it's not doing sufficient work that's for congress to review not for me to judge. there some subjects of that conversation in the commissioner and i have been working hard on the on listen issue and to provide more license spectrum. but beyond, the spectrum and approving certain devices, i
don't want the commission to have a heavy role. we have assigned ourselves certain roles because of our interpretation of certain things as my colleague has said. because of one of our decisions we now say that we have statutory authority to do certain things on privacy and now amazingly were had a security, cyber security not mentioned in the statute at all. so i've deep concerns with where this commission is going in terms of exceeding what congress has asked of us. >> when you have rules and regulations and laws. there snapshots in time. when you have regulatory authority, and this process i believe that we are interpreting things based on our current framework you cannot talk about a law that might be 20, 30 years old and expect for it to anticipate what we see on the showroom floor. so so what i always say is again, a law is a snapshot in time and what we are charged to do is to interpret that through today and through this current lens.
>> privacy is a cherished principle. we all understand that. but it is also evolving. let's let's be honest, the way the we access information is changing. the research center has found that nine out of ten of us have found that it's important to control where information goes. at the same time, i think every consumer knows that there is a value proposition associated with going online and exchanging information for services. that that must sound familiar to all of us. there is that moment when you pause and you read just in the blank that fine print any check that box to get free shipping. maybe you come through for hours and try to figure out the consequences, but most of us just check it. because we are aware that we are willing to exchange some information for free service. i think that just the fcc but our colleagues at the fcc are going to have to wrestle with, over time how privacy norms are
changing, how her behaviors are changing and how her expectations are changing as well. >> i can remember with most recent study was which talks about how consumers are not engaging, especially her seniors as much getting the full benefit of the broadband, and the internet has to offer because there feel full. as a part of his regulatory space we need to be mindful, part of encouraging innovation and connectivity, which is what we're doing, we need to think about the entire ecosystem. i know know we over use that word but it's important here because it just lends itself and reinforces the fact that it is not static, it's not sideload. we cannot come through the postures self in a way and expect american consumers to be rightly served. >> i think the commissioner bring this issue perfectly.
i agree entirely with it. the question is what kind of revelatory framework preserve those consumer expectations. i entirely embrace the white house 2012 -- into the privacy report about having a level playing field for all the competitors in the space and a consistent set of protections for consumers. let me giving example of how the approach has gone off the rail and this regard. if you are at home with an android smart phone any power up on your home wi-fi network, you are using one isp, if you then go to work in your on the highway on the cellular network you might have another isp. when you're at work and you use your works wi-fi network you might be a third, and if you take a coffee break at a local starbucks there might be a fourth. does it make sense for consumers are using the internet in that way and are increasingly mobile world to face a multiplicity of regulations depending on who the ice p's?
they might not even know who it is. yet the fcc tries to single out particularly stringent regulations, far more stringent of what the federal trade commission has done to single out isp is uniquely competitive in the space. that makes no sense to me. nor does it make sense to former trade commission, or a lot of people have weighed in that says we need a uniform set of regulations to apply to everybody, not just a single out one niche of the marketplace. the new competitors in the online advertising market were trying to pose a competitive threat. >> let me build on that. i'm not not going to agree with every last thing you said. but let's go ahead and think about a mobile phone today. we have different privacy regulations that are going to apply to the hardware, the software, the wireless network associated with it, and the the online applications you might access. candidly, that's far too complicated for consumers.
you should not have to be a network engineer to understand how your information is collected and you should not have to be a lawyer to understand how your information is protected. i think that across the board we should be thinking from the consumer perspective about how to be consistent on all of those marketplaces. i think the frameworks that we have in place, which are from a long time ago, and were wrestling with how to update them, they are too complex. >> but that's what was great about the federal trade commission framework. it calibrated its rules to consumer preferences. for example, is ever more sensitive information there should be an opt in requirement and for less sensitive information there should be an opt out requirement.
that was a way to calibrates -- >> in fact, in candor here you have to acknowledge that there are questions about opt in an opt out in our existing rulemaking. that is certainly something we will talk more about going forward. >> we will certainly talk about it. i think it's clear that the writing is on the wall for anybody things again that this is an open conversation -- >> i think were having an open conversation. >> we are, but the very fact that they refuse to give anybody in this with a stake in this issue a few extra days to submit comments on the 500 questions questions. >> i want to point out that i did count them. >> i was when he said it's more than 500 questions and i do believe that this is the kind of subject that is complicated and would benefit from a longer rulemaking process to maximize the chairman say no. when i quit have more time. why won't you listen to three of us and agreed that we should have more time on such a complicated subject matter? your point is very well taken in terms of different portions of devices and activities that you have an how they operate differently. but that something that we highlight that the ftc was able to handle.
going to slice up one portion of it safer broadband providers this is what it looks like. we already know what the rules are going to look like, that was what was in the and prn. the chairman is already moving forward with that. and intending to move forward with that in the short order. >> one of the things you keep on talking about his harmonization with our colleagues outside the agency who operate different laws. i should think we should focus on something else which is harmonization within the agency. there are different privacy rules that apply to cable operators for instance under section 631, and to set satellite providers under 638. we also have privacy policies under 222 of the law. going forward is my hope that we can find a way to create a level playing field within the agency and to within the industries that we oversee. >> going talk about level playing field, you're so right. were not talking about identical playfield because were not talking about identical
interactions, products or offerings. so harmonization should always be the goal. but when the options and the product is not the same, i just part a little bit on that because i think that is unrealistic. maybe that is not what you're saying but that is just how i interpreted. >> harmonization means more regulation than don't put me up for that. >> appropriate regulation is what minor valdez. >> and increase on that is what the statute sets and it can be something that just create what the four of us magically determine any particular word means. if you look at 222 and our statute, telephone records, let's talk about broadband data services and some of the other things that were going to capture in our universe. that's problematic. the words on
the page actually has to mean something or activities are not bound by anything. >> again, a lot of the things were talking about today were not ambition back then. that's why when you talk about laws and when you talk about their application and interpretation, we are not in the 18 hundreds or the early 19 hundreds in terms of certain laws that are on the books right now are certainly not applicable. i'm going to be extremely sensitive to some of them. so we talk about from a can medication standpoint which is more narrow for the purpose of this conversation, we again, you have regulatory bodies in place that rightfully interpret what may have been written in a certain point in time and apply it to the way in which we can use the services. >> but if the statute has gotten out of bounds with what is really happening, that that is the job of the legislative branch to fix it. >> we know how quickly they move, right? >> they take a longer time. that's because they determined that it takes longer time. >> is the conversation happening because you don't get the
opportunity to talk in washington? we have about 15 minutes left in the conversation we do want to involve the audience, if you have any questions you can see a microphone, go ahead and lineup will try to get to the questions in the last seven or so minutes. the next question. >> so you have all demonstrate how comp located issues are before you. is the f cc adequately equipped in terms of personnel and funding to handle this growth in privacy regulation and other things? also with the issues before you the chairman's office has been making the case that they need more resources, what do you think? >> when you look at the number of personnel that we had in comparison to five or ten years ago, we are at an all-time low in terms of numbers. and that's for number reasons. were not the only agency that has been under some strain when it comes to resources.
we've been in a budget crunch. our budget has not been increased and it's been constricted. so you are going to have come i don't know know the exact numbers are, 1634, i don't know why that sticks in my, but the issues are getting more complex. so not good to sit here and say that you are wrong, we are doing the best, were doing incredible work considering the fact that compared to five or six years ago we had fewer people. >> hear something that concerns me. all of our issues across the board are getting more technical, more complicated and we need more engineers. the agency's operating right now with its lows level of engineers in decades. our engineers were tremendous are by and large older individuals. we have had for some time, and
attorney program at the fcc, i think it's fair to say that we have a lot of attorneys in washington, dc. i would like us to convert that program into an honors engineering program and invite engineers into our ranks, more aggressively and earlier in their careers. i hope that hope that going forward we can make that a priority. >> an answer to your question, i think the fcc has adequate resources to discharge its responsibilities. the question is, what is the fcc doing with those resources? if you think about the great and many rabbit holes the fcc staff has been having to pursue at the leaderships and systems, it's amazing the time that's been wasted and how many responsible these have been ignored. for example the broadband diploma, they're so much the agency can it should be doing, instead we spent a great many staff hours on things like the set top box proceedings and singling out cable in particular for the
special access market even though they took the risk to deploy the next-generation networks. ic connectivity, those are the kinds of activities that distract us from the court mission which we have under the law which is to make sure that this industry in every industry is able to compete on a level playing field to deliver digital opportunity to every american. >> i want to answer this way. congress decides are budget i think they're capable of. in terms of resources, priorities are driven by the chairman. if you see where staff is allocated today, i would say it's problematic. when i. when i worked on a number of things are pretty this year you see how many staff are at a project, we work together on a rate of return, they were ten - 15 people working on. the on. the number people working on privacy is ten-15. my collie talks about 1600 people and ten people or 20 people are are working on privacy, that's a little disturbing. it's a complicated issue that just the four of us have come up with. so such a small number people
and the it's been overrun with work and fewer people. that's a problem in in my mind for that something for the chairman to decide. >> i want to ask this of all the commissioners, do you have a chance commissioner o'reilly, to see some of the complaints that come into the fcc with regard to cable, particularly content and delivery? >> both. i do get a number of complaints that come directly to me. have an opportunity to talk to the consumer and governmental affairs at brio role and talk about consumer complaints they're getting. i have that opportunity to see what is developing from consumers in the marketplace. to be quite frank, there's number of people that are generally happy with their service and they're not the ones writing to us. it is those that have the biggest concern or maybe some of them are little unhinged. >> we all have public it counts, think all of us monitor from time to time. we have regular visits from the consumer and
government affairs bureau that they help reinforce reinforce that. most of the feedback i get i have to say is complaint driven. but i get quite a few at the fcc in terms of those people who are saying we are on the right track but were doing certain things. you naturally, when things are going well, you usually it's usually by very nature of human, you don't broadcast it to the world unless you're going to benefit from that practice. when things are going on it usually escalates. and that's just the nature, and that's why we have complaints because we want to know when things go wrong. when consumers are not getting what they expected. that's important and we need to take care that. >> just last week for example in l elderly gentleman emailed us and said we have a problem with
my provider. i forwarded to the relative bit bureau staff and got a taken care. it was good to be able to help an individual consumer who is having an issue. people complain on twitter as well. i don't i don't know if these guys get complaints all the time but i've gotten a complaint about a signed in the 1990s what are you being going to do about this. and i said milli vanilli is a gift to civilization. so you can look it up. it's on the inter- web. >> and they can really sing out on the why they let the other one up. >> i think the consumer function is critical for us to remember is were not simply an agency to look at the industry and to regulate and figure out what the roles are. we also have a serious consumer protection function. i think we all share that. >> i think it's important that we spent time coming through the complaints that come into the agency to understand how consumers are experiencing medication services. we get lots of complaints about broadband
not reaching certain locations come about content, and oldie but goodie, the do not call list doesn't work. no one is the fan, and i'm not either and we're going to have to work harder to make sure that consumers don't get the call they don't want. >> on more than one occasion i responded, you made me think about a lady, i don't know west virginia, that was complaining that her areas shows in broadband but she's not. so i responded to to her about you made another concern and listed and she thanked me, she wasn't necessarily happy about what we had an opportunity to exchange because she doesn't have broadband services, but i responded to her and forwarded and we do that individual, and on some and of with the consumer bureau. it's important for us to never forget who we answer to.
in i think that's why i always look every day i look at my public accountant to it keeps me grounded and it's a reminder about who our obligations are. >> i also learned new expletives to the people who right into me. so we've been talking about individual complaints, but i i think the aggregate is in porton too. i think it's very difficult to us to get insight about there's no single repository for that. we proposed an online dashboard were among other things, we, the american public can see exactly how we were doing with respect to consumer complaints. what's the meantime for disposition, what was the actual disposition in any case, what are the different categories of how the change over time. >> we had that reflect categories on a quarterly basis. >> but in real time.
>> i agree we should move towards real time but i do want to complement the people work to update that database and make sure that information was more transparent in public. >> and updated consumer complaint form is better than it used to be. >> commissioner clybourn, what would you like to see the cable industry do when it comes to broadband deployment if they are not already doing. >> that's a great question, one of the things i've been pushing for when it comes to broadband is affordability. i would the love for there to be multiple tears when it comes to options for those who are, who could barely afford their services. that there's something there for them. i'd like like for them to participate in lifeline. we have that was expanded to include broadband of capacity. i would really appreciate if the industry, being a part of the program that will provide opportunities for those who can
afford, with the subsidy that the government can open up the universe for so many. so that's on my wish list. >> commissioner o'reilly? >> simple request, that is, if it makes business sense i left to expand your reach to bring the benefits of your technology to americans. we are struggling with the fact that there are plenty of americans who do not have adequate broadband services. were trying to figure out how to solve those issues throughout america and is very difficult. we have a subsidy program were working with to try to provide funding to entice people to enter these areas and people love to live in those areas but it's hard to figure out how to provide broadband service. i'd love for you to expand your services to other areas of it makes business sense. >> we have a question from the audience, could identify yourself, thanks so much. >> i'm jane, my question has to
do with the new european data regulations. the consumer privacy protection part of it in particular. if that has any impact, or, or how you are seeing that both in terms of u.s. corporations working in europe and if it has any impact on how you're thinking about it going forward. >> why the u.s. that question? >> i was at a conference in europe recently and they're very concerned about it and there is a lot of discussion about it, particularly the the opting and of all these consumer data. from the measurement and research and advertising world in which i work, there is a lot of concern about whether, how we will deal with this in the next global world with multinational corporations were were all having to follow different regulations in different parts of the world. and how we will be able to manage that. some people say the u.s. would
never do that, but i'm just curious, i've i've never had you in front of us like this. >> who wants to start? >> so the short answer to your question is, we we do not have direct involvement with european privacy regulations. but, we have been and i have personally been briefed by some of the folks looking on the e.u. data shield which is something that was critical for us to enable u.s. companies to be able to compete effectively in europe. that framework has been relatively useful. it's telling it's telling going back to the privacy debate earlier that are,'s department speaking on behalf of the entire administration has told the european union that we believe this policy framework backed up by the federal trade commission, is important to for protection.
i think it's telling them that the fcc is essentially carved out a space for itself and said no, we don't we don't believe the ftc is doing an adequate job with internet providers, we need have special regulations for them. that disjunction is something we need to be careful about. >> we have a gentleman over here as well. >> beyond broadband technology. commissioner you recently issued a long time ago about the set-top box preceding saint this is a complicated proceeding. i wish we could simplify. today, you mentioned the commissioner that there is a serious lack of engineers at the commission, yet set-top box proceedings is one of the most complicated proceedings with regard to engineering. some of us have been trying to make the commission understands that
there's another way to do this. that downloadable security, set-top boxes that could be sold in the open marketplace already exists, standards already exist, we have been trying to show them to the commission for at least five years now. the questions raised in the set-top box the preceding go to changing business plans of the industry. it is that that creates a complication for the technology. so why don't you simplify this process by looking at the real statute that says, we want retail sale of set-top boxes? that could be done without changing. >> thank you sir. >> good point. i look for to to reading more about them in the record. >> i will get to him and just to second. >> let's go around the horn on this question. in your view, who owns who owns that last mile into the home or the business? >> was responsible to that last mile? that's interesting. who owns it? i never really thought about it. i i've always that once you
cross my boundaries is me. but i think i've changed it to who is responsible for it and i think it's all of us. that we should enable that conductivity, there's 34,000,000 americans who don't have, who can answer that question right now. they don't have the capacity for the high-speed internet and i think that's important. that's a great question exactly how you phrase it. but i will just say we all have a role to play. . . . . rules and regulations and statutes to bring more competition to that portion of the network. and you actually saw cable stepping to that marketplace very successfully. i don't think cable owns it
but there's a great deal of success in that marketplace for the business side. the good news, for all the good work we will regulate the heck out of you. thank you so very much. >> time for one final question from lydia bay youth of bloomberg. >> you have painted a picture of the regulatory complexity. can congress resolve some of these issues with a comprehensive update, is there a solution or some other measure needed? >> well, the federal communications commission is a creature of congress. it is 1st and foremost their choice, and i, and i appreciate that they are taking a look at some of our laws that date back. and they are trying