tv The Communicators Rep Mike Doyle CSPAN March 16, 2019 5:29pm-6:05pm EDT
congressman mike doyle of the subcommittee on communications about net neutrality. rep. doyle: the priority now is passed once and for all. i think the public overwhelmingly supports net neutrality rules and wants to see permanence to this issue. communicators, monday night at it :00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. ♪ >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today we continue to bring you
unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme public-policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. and congressman mike doyle of pennsylvania is the chair of the energy and commerce subcommittee , thanks for being our guest on "the communicators" this week. what are your priorities? my priority right now is to get this net neutrality issue in statute and finalized once and for all, after 15 years of watching this issue ping-pong back and forth between the fcc commissioner's. i think the public overwhelmingly supports net-neutrality rules and wants to see some certainty and
permanence to this issue. so that is the major issue we are working on currently in the subcommittee. peter: with the house and democratic cans and the senate in republican hands, is that possible? rep. doyle: sure, it is possible. we are going to get a bill out of the house, a strong bill that protects the three bright lines that everyone agrees on, democrats and republicans, house and senate, no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. we are also going to make sure there is a cop on the beat. to fcc has the expertise be the cop on the beat. there are things we don't know about. technology changes, there are new ways to game the system, and the fcc has to have the flexibility to address anything unjust or unreasonable and be able to act on that. so we also put that cop on the beat. when it comes to the senate, i have been here long time, the
senate never just takes a house built as he is. i am sure they will add their touches. this is an issue that cuts across party lines. over 80% of republicans, democrats and independents support this and want to see this past rate i believe we can get it done. peter: chairman doyle, will your bill include title ii? entirety,: not in its there will be parts of title ii and it. two previous fcc commissioner's commissioners- attempted to adopt title i eerie both of those commissioners saw those rules taken to court by comcast and verizon, and the courts ruled against the fcc saying they couldn't enshrined these rules in title i.
order,e open internet the net neutrality rules were established under title ii. that was also taken to court twice, and twice chairman wheeler and the fcc prevailed having this under title ii. what is the criticism under title ii? is not lot of title ii applicable under today's internet, and there is concern around telcos and bundling. what chairman wheeler did when he passed the 2015 open internet on over 700rbeared regulations that were in title ii. the criticism by the telcos and some republicans is that a future fcc commissioner could unforbear what chairman wheeler forbeared. so we have taken the 2015 open internet order and put it in
statute, and what that means is we not only put in the statute the sections that protect consumers, but we also put in statute the forbearance, which means those 700 regulations in 2700 -- and 2700 sections of ii cannot be implemented by enter future -- by any future fcc short of congressional action. there are elements of title ii in there. we protect consumers against unjust and unreasonable behavior. we also do two more important things. we project rural america, leaving the underpinnings for the connect america act, which stripped out when the current commissioner undid the 2015 order. legale stored the underpinnings for the lifeline program and the connect america program. we also keep sections of make broadband
deployment into rural america easier. so we have retained those sections of title ii that help rural america and urban america poor communities, that protect consumers with a cop on the beat against unjust and unreasonable behavior, and we eliminate 27 sections and over 700 ii thations of title no longer have applicability. david: congressman, thanks for being with us. jump on this political problem. you say you have taken out the parts of title ii that were most objectionable, but it seems some republicans in the house are digging in on this idea that no title ii, we can't go back to that. i'm wondering what your plan is to win over republicans in the senate? rep. doyle: republicans have voted for this in the senate.
the cra put forth by senator he hadhad 52 votes, so some republican senators already that voted for the cra, which actually was a tougher vote that i think this bill that we are sending over. i think you're going to see republicans in the house vote for this bill too. this is not an unreasonable bill . this steps toward the concerns we heard from some republicans and some of the telcos. i suspect those republicans that want to take this out of the hands of the fcc, and that is what this is about, they want to take it to another agency. look, the technical expertise to deal with this lies within the federal communications commission. this is where the technicians and engineers are that understand how this whole system works. these are the people that should be the cops on the beat if we are talking about truly protecting consumers. and the terms unjust and
unreasonable our terms of law that go back in the early days of common carriage. these are well-defined terms. basically, all we are saying to telcos is that you cannot act in an unjust or unreasonable way. i would like to know, for the people who think that is not a great idea, what unjust and unreasonable behavior they think is ok? if we take this out of the fcc, this would be like locking the front door with the three bright lines and leaving the backdoor of the house open for things we don't know about yet. it is not a bill that is going to protect consumers into the future. we don't want a bill that is just for today, we want a bill that is for today and in the future. that is the crux of this debate. i think once we get a chance to have this discussion with members who are not on the committee and have not heard these arguments before, we are going to bring some republicans along with us. privately toldy you they are open to voting for? rep. doyle: we just had our
legislative hearing yesterday. i haven't polled every republican, but we know there are republicans, there were some republicans that signed the discharge petition in the house, and there are others that are very sympathetic to enacting these rules that protect consumers, and get it in statute once and for all. and i think a lot of them are going to hear from their constituents. their constituents want them to vote for this. and i think during this process, over the next few weeks, that members are going to hear from their constituents, members are going to have questions, we are trying to address all the questions or concerns members have to make sure they understand that this is no longer a title ii bail. this is a bill that takes what i consider to be the best elements of title ii and the ones most germane to the internet as it exists today, and put those in statute, and that then to take
all those other parts of title ii that people have argued about for the last 15 years and say they no longer apply, and no fcc can bring these rules back. it would take an act of congress. that is a compromise. it is a different position than the cra, which simply restored the order. this now puts those protections in statute. once we get a chance to explain that to our colleagues, we are going to see votes from both side. -- both sides. the only place this is a partisan issue is in washington dc. this is not a partisan issue in america. republicans, democrats and independents agree this needs to be done. david: what are the areas where house democrats will not vote for net neutrality? rep. doyle: it makes no sense for us to not have a cop on the beat. if we can't -- david: and that cop has to be the fcc? rep. doyle: that is where the expertise is. why would the cop be anywhere
else? there is no other agency in the federal government that has the career personnel of the engineers and the technicians that understand the internet. that expertise all stems from the fcc. so it would make no sense to put it in any other agency. so yes, that is where we think it properly belongs. and we are not talking about onerous oversight, we are just saying it is a general conduct standard, no unjust and unreasonable behavior, and the other parts of title ii we think are important is to restore the legal underpinnings for the connect america and the lifeline program, and to make rural america broadband easier. peter: you talked about no blocking, no throttling, isn't that the world we live in today already? the doyle: this is internet, modern-day pre-existing conditions. everybody is for that. the three republican bills that have been introduced also a no
blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. we are not arguing about that anymore. there is unanimous agreement from republicans on the committee and all three bills that have been introduced, along with our bell, that all say no blocking, no throttling, no paid prioritization. so that issue has been resolved. the question is, if we restricted to just those three things, there are other things that can be done, zero rating policies. a lot of these isps on content. and if they say, you have a certain data cap but if you are watching our content it doesn't go against your data cap, but if you watch our competitor's content, it does go against your data cap. that is discriminatory behavior. that is the kind of thing we are talking about that is not covered by the three bright lines. so we want to deal with the problems that have been identified, that are large problems, the three bright lines as they are called, we also want to be able to deal with new ways
that come up to disadvantage or to stifle competition. internet is to keep it free and opened and make sure consumers have access to everyone's content, that they get to see whatever is out there, and that content providers get access to all the customers out there, and that the middleman, the isps, are neutral. that is the whole concept behind net neutrality, and that is all we are trying to do with this legislation. peter: and you don't think the federal trade commission can regulate no throttling, no blocking, no paid prioritization? rep. doyle: we know this already. ed good example -- a good example was the california firefighters. they had a data cap on the service and they hit the gap and their service was slow down. and it was in the terms and conditions of their agreement. so the ftc, the way it operates is that if a company is not violating terms and conditions, there is no action to take it. but that is not just and
reasonable behavior, is it? so there was no cop on the beat and there was no relief for these firefighters, other than to finally get a hold of somebody at the company to renegotiate their data cap so they could get their service back, and it was an embarrassing situation for the telco too. so this is just one example that sits outside the three bright lines, and the ftc was powerless to do anything about it because it was in the terms and conditions. the other thing is, the ftc doesn't have the expertise that sits in the fcc. they just don't have that. they have jurisdiction over the entire economy, and they act on violations of terms and conditions when they are reported. this is not the agency that you want to be the cop on the beat. and i am not just saying that to say anything detrimental about the ftc, i am saying they are not the expert agency that should be the cop on the beat.
why wouldn't we put this in the agency were all the technical expertise is, that understand how various isps may try to game the system or play games with interconnection and issues like that? we want to put it where it should put. david: the privacy debate is roaring right now. i'm wondering what it will take for house democrats to feel comfortable preempting state legislation on privacy? whatdoyle: luck, i think members of congress and what companies are starting to realize is that they don't want a patchwork of 50 different privacy laws in the united states, that it is time for us to look at this on the federal level. strongare talking about privacy protections, and we need to make sure we get this right so that while we protect people's privacy, we also don't stifle innovation.
i think a lot of work needs to be done on this, and it has already started in our committee. under the subcommittee chair there has been a privacy working group established, i have been a part of that, we are meeting with stakeholders and continuing to look at the best ways to attack this situation. it is an issue that house democrats absolutely intend to but it is not something that belongs in the net neutrality debate. this is -- but landlord just -- this is an apple and oranges thing. david: you just said these debates are separate, i hear that from a lot of lawmakers, you don't want to combine them into one, massive internet bill, but how do you balance making sure the energy or on your side -- the energy on your side on net neutrality, a lot of focus on the privacy? rep. doyle: the energy is there
on the privacy as well, make no mistake about it that after we passed net neutrality there is no energy to deal with the privacy issue. americans have understand -- have come to understand that their data is prime and that information, wherever it goes, how that data is being used, is that data being sold to a third party, do they have to give consent for what happens to their data, this is a huge issue that is not going away. and there is plenty of energy behind the american public and the congress to address this issue. so i'm not worried about that. doyle, i want to ask if you think that facebook in particular has done enough in the recent months toward privacy, and i also want to read to you from the father of the worldwide net about what he had to say on the 30th anniversary of the founding, to get your
reaction. this is tim berners-lee talking. where is the balance between leaving the tech companies to do the right thing and regulating them? where is the balance between freedom of speech and hate speech? rep. doyle: i had tim berners-lee in my office on the 30th anniversary, and spoke to him at length. and he has hit the nail on the head, and has also demonstrated how difficult it is to find that balance between free speech and hate speech, between companies just doing the right thing and the need for governments to regulate them when they don't, and to find a balance, like i said earlier, where we protect people's privacy but we don't stifle innovation. do,e are not easy things to but these are the big questions that need to be asked.
he is correct when he says that, and that is really going to be the job we have, to make sure we do this in a thoughtful way, that we don't rush into it, that we consider the law of unintended consequences and make sure that if we do decide to come up with a bill or regulation to deal with these issues, that it is one that is balanced in the ways that tim berners-lee talks about. about whereondering we see hate attacks where people are radicalized online or post howages online in advance, those have affected your feelings about free speech on the internet versus how you regulate hate speech? rep. doyle: i don't think hate speech is free speech, first of all. i experienced this very dramatically in the heart of my district at the tree of life shooting. the gentleman that showed up that day and killed 11 people and wounded some others
basically sat in his basement, filling his head with hate and talking to other like-minded people who were espousing hate against a group of people that he did not even know. and to me, these issues are pretty clear. i don't think the first amendment protects hate speech, and i think it needs to be and i think services like facebook and google and all the other ones that exist on the web have a responsibility to put a check on that. i feel very strongly about that. i was there that day, literally half an hour after the shooting. i know people that lost family members there. and i know what this guy said and what he thought as a result of what he was doing on the is clear thatit
that shouldn't be legal. david: should platforms have legal responsibility to take down these kinds of messages? rep. doyle: that's the really tough part. who has the liability when someone posts something? and the responsibility also is, what is the timeframe between when something gets posted and when it is recognized or seen by the company? what is their responsibility in terms of taking it down in a certain manner? i think those of the kinds of things we are grappling with, that we can find a way to do this. david: where do you fall personally? rep. doyle: i personally would like to see the hate speech stopped, and i personally would like to see more aggressive behavior on the part of the companies. i think we should give them the first chance to show that they can do this without regulation, but i have to tell you that if it continues and it is not being
done, and i think this is the matter that gets back with facebook and others, it is one thing to come to congress and be contrite and say you are going to stop certain behaviors, but andhave got to stop them, with facebook in particular, they have been under and ftc consent decree for quite a long time, for years, and one could question how effective that has been. mostdo think, though, that companies want to do the right thing, i think they should be given an opportunity to show that they can police this on their own, but if they can't than i need to think that but if they can't i think we need to step in. raise whosn't that becomes the arbiter of speech? rep. doyle: yes, it does. i didn't say this was an easy issue. these are tough questions. who gets to decide what hate speech is? i think it is very clear what
parts,eech is in some others there are gray areas, and i think that is where the angst comes on the part of not only the companies, but the government. some people view it as censorship in some cases, some things that people may view as hateful, other people somehow defend. i think in some instances it is very clear and in other instances it is not so clear. it is not an easy issue. i don't pretend that it is. which makes it tricky to legislate and deal with, but i still think that doesn't mean you don't deal with the issue at all because it is hard to deal with. i think we have got to start somewhere, and i think there is a lot of common ground on what we can all agree is hate speech and make sure that that is off, and continue the debate on those areas we have debate over. peter: is this something you
will investigating your subcommittee? rep. doyle: there is dual jurisdiction in this. in anothert will be subcommittee but also part of it sits in hours, and i am part of the privacy working group that has been established so yes, we will be part of that and there is jurisdiction into of our incommittees -- jurisdiction two of our subcommittees, and other subcommittees as well. but this is an issue that isn't going away, and it is important to the american people. another issue that isn't going away's the 2020 campaign. what do you make of senator warren's proposal to effectively break up some of the biggest tech companies? rep. doyle: i'm not there yet. i personally don't think that is something i would propose. peter: why not? rep. doyle: because i don't think we are at a point where we need to break up those companies yet. that is the point we are at.
i think senator warren is trying to distinguish herself from aipac of candidates that -- k ofelf from a pac candidates to distinguish yourself, and she makes a statement like that and it gets headlines and people talk about it. i don't think we are at a point where that is necessary. buy the argument there should be more antitrust scrutiny? rep. doyle: it's one against the other. my thought is, i would like a situation where we don't need more scrutiny. and that would mean that people are behaving properly and doing the right thing. i think the scrutiny comes when , and itvior is not good needs to be there. hammerort of like the
that sits there that is not going to be taken out of the box to swing at you unless you do something to deserve it. i have always thought the best situation is when we don't have to do that, but there are times when it is called for and that is something the judiciary committee and others will be looking at. peter: congressman doyle, would you use a huawei product? rep. doyle: personally, i would not use a huawei product. i think there is some real concerns about that. i am not going to say which phone i do use, i don't want to plug a certain company here on tv, but i would not use that phone. peter: is it because of security concerns? rep. doyle: it is for me, yes. user: and what can you tell about what has been let known in congress?
rep. doyle: i can't to you much, actually, because i am not on the committee where a lot of that information has been disseminated. what i know about it is what i have been reading about it, and i know there are valid security concerns hind that. when youm wondering, go home to your district, what do your constituents care about when it comes to technology? pittsburgh, i have lived there all my life, my dad was a steelworker, my grandfather was a steelworker, i lived in pittsburgh when it was a heavy industrial town and a smoky city. we are a completely different city now. we are a city that has transformed ourselves, we are biotech, we are robotics, we are autonomous vehicles, we are artificial intelligence. young people are coming out of carnegie melon and duchesne and other universities in finding jobs in pittsburgh. they don't have to leave. it is an exciting time to live
in our city and it is exciting for the residents a pittsburgh see this transformation take place, to see us as a city that has more green buildings than any city in america except seattle, and this commitment we have to sustainability and the green environment on technology. now, the challenge we have in pittsburgh and what i hear about from some of my constituents is, getdo we make sure we people trained for the 21st century economy, so they can participate in this growth we are seeing? that is the key, to make sure we bring every buddy along with this exciting change. we did not sit in pittsburgh and wait for the steel mills to come back, which changed ourselves, we embraced change and we embraced technology. and now the challenge we have in our city is to make sure we are getting stem education programs in at the great-school level, that we are getting training
programs at the community college and other educational institutions to help give people the skill set that our employers are looking for in pittsburgh. we are in the process now of creating those marriages between employers who say, we need a pipeline of workers that have certain skill sets, and we don't have enough of them, so they are stealing someone else's employees. we want to put those qualified people in their hands by getting them the training they need that's a big challenge. thegs are always about economy, people's pocketbooks and their ability to send their kids to college, pay their bills, have some money for retirement, and they see this new economy growing in pittsburgh and they want to be a part of it. our challenges to make sure that everybody gets to be a part of it. says: the head of t-mobile to achieve that kind of economy we need 5g, therefore we need sprint and t-mobile merged. you have an opinion on the
merger? rep. doyle: that is john's opinion. our subcommittee held a hearing on the sprint-t-mobile merger, the first hearing on a merger in eight years. the republicans for some reason did not see the need to do that. we give a chance for mr. ledger to make his case. he seems to claim that this merger is unique in some respects because of the complementary spectrum that the two companies hold. in my comments i made it pretty clear that i have yet to see a merger between these telcos that didn't result in less jobs and less competition. i am a great believer in competition and the telephone industry. i have always been that way. i think robust competition is important as far as innovation, and it keeps prices down, so the idea that we are going from four to three concerns me somewhat.
and i think t-mobile and sprint have a ways to go to assure not only the fcc and the justice department, the one key piece of information is the fact they have this complementary spectrum that will enable them to deploy 5g. that is an interesting argument, that has not been made in other merger talks, but i am still skeptical about whether these mergers and that being a good thing or bad thing. going from four competitors to three is a concern to me. >> mike doyle is the chair of the committee chair of energy and technology. he has been our guest on "the communicators." i want to thank him. rep. doyle: thank you.
>> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies, and today, we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> today, former vice president joe biden delivers remarks at a delaware democratic party fundraiser in dover. live coverage of the event will begin at 6:15 p.m. eastern with former vice president joe biden speaking at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. on newsmakers, the president's chief economic advisor larry kudlow talks about high deficit,
trade with china, the future of the u.s. economy, and why the u.s. reacted to the boeing jet crash later than other nations . >> walk us through what happened, why the trump administration moved so slowly on this, and whether you think in retrospect maybe they should have moved more quickly? happened to be sitting in on the phone call between the president and the head of boeing. the president -- i don't know if you ever had the experience of a potus cross examination. i am in and out of their doing policy stuff. you better be ready. he had a lot of tough questions for boeing. i'm not going to go into the details of private conversation, but the fact that we waited a day is of no consequence. i would not read anything into that. decisions were made at the
department of transportation. secretary elaine chao, working with the faa, still trying to find the black box and open it up. we've had some trouble with the ethiopians. they wanted to go to a third party, and this and that. we will learn many, many more facts. it has nothing to do with commercial considerations as far as we are concerned. it has everything to do with safety considerations. to be honest with you, i would not read into that. >> do you think it would take a long time for them to sort out whether these planes are safe? people are wondering is it safe to get on one? will it be fixed in a couple of days or will it take a while? >> i cannot answer that. i'm not directly involved in that. you can be sure that our d.o.t. and faa will not reopen the boeing routes until we are 100%
satisfied of the safety. from what i gather, boeing has come forward to make some adjustments in flight plans and software and centers of pilot training and all kinds of things. i'm not blaming here. i'm just giving you a narrative. they will not be back on the runways until we are 100% satisfied that they are safe. >> newsmakers with larry cut low, the presidents chief economic advisor, sunday at 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> road to the white house coverage continues as democratic presidential candidate senator kirsten gillibrand visits new hampshire where she met with supporters at a brewery in manchester. several new hampshire polls have her with less than 2% support. the state traditionally holds its first the nation presidential primary. we will be joining the delaware