Aneesh Chopra talks Net neutralityFederal CTO Aneesh Chopra offers the administration's views on Net neutrality: "We've always supported it."
[ Music ] ^M00:00:08 >> We have a Twitter CNET reader who wants to know is the FCC doing the right thing on that neutrality in fighting Comcast and has -- as has been reported starting a new rule making conversation on the topic. Are you involved in those discussion? >> The President has been explicitly clear that we have been in support of net neutrality. He said it on the campaign trail, he said it again in our -- in his speech on cyber security. >> But it did oh so briefly come off the website. >> Oh, I don't know that. I can't -- I'll have to go check into that. I appreciate that heads up. Which website in particular? >> It was on the change.gov site. There was a version tracker where there was a very explicit commitment to net neutrality that was very briefly changed. It kind of disappeared. >> I will -- well, change.gov was the transition website so I will look into that, but I can assure you as the President said emphatically in his remarks on innovation earlier this week that we are committed to the principles of net neutrality. Chairman Genachowski at the FCC has as I said independent regulatory authority and the chairman has set forward a plan. We have great confidence in Chairman Genachowski and are supportive of the actions that he's taken and we don't have any direct influence over those actions. It's an independent regulatory body, but obviously we do what we can to collaborate where we are appropriately engaged on policy issues for the President outside of the FCC's domain, but we work very closely together. I can assure you we're working hard on this issue and I'm confident we'll get to the right space. >> Another net neutrality follow up. It's one thing to say you support the principles and the President has been in my recollection clear and consistent about this, but taking it down one step into details would it be sufficient for the FCC to come up with its rule making assuming it ends up where we think it is or does Congress need to pass legislation because you know future FCC commissioners -- >> I understand. >> Could have a different view in Republican administration the votes could switch. >> I agree. Well, I would think of this in three parts. I think of life has light, medium and heavy. The light would be to what extent -- this doesn't require legislation, this doesn't require any new regulatory frameworks how are our actions actually promoting the principles of network neutrality. I think in the work we're doing around collaboration with the private sector in cyber security are built on the principles that would be espoused as you're describing. Second would be medium. And FCC rule making process does have sustainability. It could be overturned, but at least rules -- right now we're operating under the framework of guiding principles. I think rule making would provide a little bit more regulatory heft behind the principles. And then the third would be whether or not we need a formal legal framework. To date we have pursued the light and the medium. I leave it to Congress if it wishes to pursue this matter, but are confident that we are achieving the President's goals in the model that we have. ^M00:03:03 [ Music ]