Net neutralityThe argument over network neutrality. Will business interests kill the future of the Net? Does the FCC know what it's doing? To discuss these topics, and of course the recent Google/Verizon proposal, we're joined by author and frequent CNET contributor...
-- and don't. I -- went -- to reporters roundtable and -- people in San Francisco. Today we're talking about an issue that's been in the news a lot last couple days net neutrality the concept of a network infrastructure that is non discriminatory when it comes the types and sources of the content of Internet traffic. To support net neutrality is to support freedom. Open that's fair competition and economic growth. According to supporters anyway on the other hand somebody of course -- to pay for the Internet. Both its wires and it's wireless towers and radios and and wireless licenses and who should that. And if someone's -- -- should they have some say what goes on over their equipment. Isn't telling businesses what they have to do with they're privately built infrastructure anti business anti growth and shortsighted. These are the arguments this is a fundamental argument and network neutrality and there are some very -- -- specifics being added to the dialogue just recently. For example Google and Verizon's -- the last couple days produced together what the two companies want to serve as a framework. For net neutrality going forward eighteenth he came out to endorse its proposal FaceBook said there against it. Today we're going to talk about these developments and look at net neutrality overall how we got where we are where we're going and -- the actors are and it's very interesting debate. My guess today our two regular CNET writers on -- topic first here in the studio Larry -- a well known writer. And thinker about emerging technology policy issues he's the author of the books laws of disruption. Check it out. And unleashing the killer app any writes frequently on news.com as well as on other publications about -- net neutrality welcome thanks for joining -- my pleasure. And joining us from our where are you -- Boston -- New York. -- -- Our New York bureau is another CNET writer Maggie Reardon Maggie reports regularly on Telecom policy and technology issues for CNET. And you made senior recently on that reporters roundtable she was on our show about a month ago we were discussing the iPhone four and -- issues. Welcome again thanks coming back the reporters roundtable. So -- -- let's get started Larry. You're a teacher professor of sorts of sorts. What is give -- net neutrality 101 what. Is network neutrality okay so personal that this -- -- like net neutrality pledge week. Because -- you know. This is the time of year when nothing supposed to be happening and in Washington and don't flood served rolling and yet everything has been going on. So this is a very old story it's been in really now going back and forth for at least four years that I've been following it. And the concern is that because of the but the concentration. Internet service providers. Especially a certain local markets may only have one or two choices and that some groups are concerned. That the fighters will limit or otherwise try to dictate what kind of content you can send or receive. You know let's say your -- of -- searching on Google but they have -- deal with Microsoft and so they rerouted to being. These are off by right so far largely theoretical concerns but that's the kind of thing. That is generated this problem and everybody who understands how -- the Internet has survived and thrived song last ten years has what's really made it work. Is that it's completely neutral that whatever you put up whenever somebody else wants to see. The providers don't get in between. The sending and receiving up all kinds of content all kinds of communications whether -- content social networking video audio whatever it is -- never providers have nothing today to say about. Who goes where and why and how sultan. Thank you for it. -- giving them the broad overview on that Maggie do we. Actually have what could be considered network neutrality to day -- just an argument for the sake of arguing or. Are are -- in danger of losing something we already have. -- -- this is an argument for the sake of having argument and -- -- you know and Larry has pointed out. And Internet has an open well there and no rules that specifically state and your -- the open. The reason why it's working the way it's working it's because it's in the best interest of the broadband providers to -- IE get -- hot and like get. You know if you're a -- you're restricting what people get upset about that -- I -- -- -- -- you know. Barring that there -- -- someone else you can go to you you're not gonna find out more expensive broadband. Service. If you're limited to where you've got and that's ultimately what it you want to keep paying for higher and higher speed service. And it can't do that it eat -- -- From so. If we didn't have this how with the Internet look I mean what what are some -- -- alternate presents. If we could it could the Internet have evolved in a way where. We have. This horrible. Network that people are saying we're moving toward yes in fact we have it it's called cable television -- Essentially and in -- cable television isn't for an alternate version of the Internet it uses now increasingly. It's digital it is they IP protocols and uses the IP infrastructure that that Internet content as we understand it does so cable TV right you have. The cable provider makes the deals with the content that it's going to give you. Charges you for content. And you can only see the programming that the cable provider wants you see when they want to see how they want you to see it all the other restrictions they put on it. The concern is that the Internet will turn into something very much like cable television looks today okay. So who are the combatants into the current. Debate that we're having right now. Who the players and kind of what they're they're brought positions and -- -- but categories and -- because everybody switching sides it's you know exits through one of these really great wars where. People change -- positions overnight. I'm basically you have on the one hand there's the Internet service provider specially large ones both. A cable broadband. Wireless broadband the copper networks and so on. Fiber -- all those people there -- pretty much on one side resisting the interference of the FCC as the arbiter of net account -- that slowdown second so they're resisting the interference -- anybody to tell them what they can and cannot do. What do they want to do. Well and we don't know what are we know what they're doing now which is pretty much what we want them to do I think mine largest -- says the real concern is what they might do in the future and and again may be built to try and turn it into something that looks -- -- -- cable television where it's it's essentially gated community. So they they are very resistant to -- the FCC. You know historically they don't like the kinds of things the FCC does in the idea of them being in the middle of this. Makes people worry even like the idea of net -- -- and on the other side basically you have the large content providers people like Google Amazon. EBay and Microsoft. Who have said general. That they're concerned they'll be asked to pick up more of the cost. Of new infrastructure were fiber optic and so on in the form of kind of premium service to get their content where they wanted to go. Without being degraded or slow down. Now they have all as this debate has gotten nastier and more political they've backed away more of last lot of them have certainly Microsoft. An Amazon -- particular have. And what's being picked up now in the slack is a lot of the of the Portland public access their political groups. In Washington. Who see this is an opportunity to push other agendas that they have. -- along with it. Now Maggie Q1 of the big issues in this whole debate is the role of government and government agencies like the FCC. Bring us up to date on what's happening in our on the government we pay for what they're doing to either. Keep the networks open or make things more confusing when you are we doing here. Well you know people. Outlook -- -- back up here in the previous FCC. Well to FCC's. When Michael outlets that FCC chair and he got he nobody principles -- principles that basically it out to it. Certain that short here is yet. For writers can't monkey. -- traffic security principle it or not enforceable. Cities Edward Eric Snow find it and you have Kevin Martin's. FCC 81 -- -- -- -- principles actual. Regulation an end when Comcast issue came up where. Consumers basically discovered it -- asked what's slowing down certain types track it track torrent traffic. Com. Kevin Martin knew it -- it not like cable company's street gave Comcast slap on the wrist citing -- use principles. Okay so fast forward -- it went chairman genachowski. Comes into town -- her key. They keep it current chairman so he he wants to make -- He wants to make the principles into act or regulation that they have a little bit more T. So now FC CE is taking comments are eight and eight are supposedly -- ink. Some actual odd. Regulation. To go along so they're still deliberating but in the meantime there -- a court -- it was decided because I asked Allen's FCC's. -- century none of them and it court. Basically decided you know FCC didn't really authority to do that. So that's. Another being at certain and thrown into this whole message now. The whole authority FCC. -- -- any. And -- when I hate is on it being called into question so. You got two things going on here in terms you know you've got. On. People saying -- -- CC needs to start. Monkeying around with some of these other regulate Asians to assert there. And then you've also got folks saying now the funny that party and they should keep working on these regulations. Changed -- It. So there's no. A -- so there's an argument over whether or not the FCC's positions are having Keith whatsoever yet the fact that I mean that's I think -- what's clause. Companies like Amazon and now Google search start backing away from this because in order to resolve the problem that that court case caused. The FCC is now proposing to change the entire regulatory structure broadband and bring it under the rules that have applied you know since the thirties to the telephone network. And I think that scared off some of the the pro net neutrality advocates and -- what are some of that's scary and it's the telephone. Network regulations that could impact. The Internet. Well for one thing I mean if you went all the way with the telephone regulations you would be allowed the FCC would be allowed to set rates. They would be about they would be able to force on bundling and make you know people who have facilities. I give those facilities to anyone who wants to use them at rates overseen by the FCC. You have the potential for state and local regulators to now also get in on the game and start taxing -- broadband access. And also getting involved in the in the licensing and and franchising abroad mean you know would be like the telephone network and of okay so we've got the FCC who who puts these. These rules these guidelines which are arguably -- or not paying -- -- Tokyo when. And then. Most recently the big news courses that Verizon and Google. After denying that they were having talks -- the results of their talks are this. Framework for future regulations -- future. Structure and network neutrality. Larry you what did Verizon and Google really say what are that the the key takeaways. Women come to the future of of the opening -- addition to go and yet make your head right. It -- it this is a misconception. Google and bright and did not -- it. -- everybody it in public it -- and talking for -- year and working to get better and eight in submitting. Filing suit FCC on their -- on track for almost a year but there's no secret this -- any and this was not eight. Il -- a proposal which it. It is funny to me each people understood that I -- -- Thank you expect there. Yes I'm glad you get excited wanna correct rate that he's here because I can't I can you know it's okay you know camera everything got so so what Google Verizon proposed this this week was regulatory framework away in which they thought this would be resolved through congressional action and it's really the proposal to congress if you will. And -- they they repeated all the same. Net neutrality rules that the FCC's been considering since October and they said we think congress should pass these make these law. And that the FCC should have authority to enforce those rules. And really. -- there a couple of key differences but by and large but Google Verizon said was. We we want the rule making that the FCC proposed back in October we want that to become a matter federal law which in some ways is a very big concession on the part certainly Verizon and avoiding this -- they -- what. -- bit -- would net also solve this problem of SEC -- at a party because congress gives FCC. There are so if you -- -- -- it's an FCC had authority to regulate. -- -- -- Then. Any don't have -- you all -- -- gymnastics to reclassify. That's right it exactly would solve the problem with outgoing through this this whole re classification common -- -- I always get suspicious whenever a business that we want to be regulated I know that something else going on there. Well it's the fear of something much much worse in this case which is which would be this re classification to two telephone rules as common carrier has commentaries universal access and all that -- Now one of the big areas of debate. In the Google Verizon proposal. Is the idea that it's. That whatever they're going to do on the -- and -- will be transparent which everybody seems to like no its argument that. But the wireless is carved out yes let's let's talk about that -- and that is the big difference between. What the FCC proposed in October and the framework that Google Verizon released this week and even the FCC the -- way in October said. We are not so sure wireless broadband is appropriate to apply these rules to but -- came down ultimately on the side of doing so. Google and Verizon said no we think that wireless is different. Largely because you know the network is so overburdened. And it is the -- available bandwidth for wireless broadband is much much more limited and the ability to build new infrastructure to bring it up to -- to snuff. Is again it's much were limited as wealthiest cities don't let you put up more cell towers. Very easily and so the prospects for getting wireless broadband to be anywhere near the kinds of speeds and reliability. That we've got for wireline broadband. Don't look so good for right now. And in the -- and it's very important for network operators to be able to manage the network and that includes some pretty heavy handed things. You can't. Do large scale file sharing over the wireless broadband you can't do high definition video watching over the wireless broadband network. Those kinds of things would be not allowed -- the net neutrality rules applied. But -- frankly it actually necessary in today's environment to keep the broad band wireless network running. Question is because -- you know. Yeah in the rules it I in the part of it. It proposal it -- -- Verizon come up with -- spell out very clear money. Today it. It -- -- providers should be allowed to manage their networks. Without blocking traffic it would harm users. So. Even with added a network it constrained like wireless and acts. I don't buy the argument that it would -- rules could not be applied to buyers it seems like they could. I mean it its own any -- -- and -- and you know why it's set at two different. Sets of rules for two different networks -- alternately as wireless. You down that road it is gonna catch up in terms speeds and once you get orgy and -- it's never gonna reach. This speed you have you know in land -- broadband connections but it certainly getting get faster so it just seems to me. In my mind it's all -- not even in these rules are good enough. Four -- the Internet period for don't have -- -- not. You know what your -- they right now -- mean it the rules both that the FCC and Google and Verizon have proposed. Do make exceptions for what they call reasonable network management. And that could in the end in essence allow them to do what they're doing now with wireless and then let them get away with it I think. Yeah you think about it it's you know the whole reason they Comcast got into trouble with it it point is. Comcast did not have seen act eat it right and AT&T app I mean it cable networks are Morton street. Then I let it telco networks are so. You know. It hate it some network manager decided to manage traffic was to just -- I'll get more traffic and that -- detect it and before that about that. But now they come up with a different way to manage -- network so again it's. It seems to need it it would be -- that wireless couldn't manage the network without state you know AT&T completely blocking applications like. I'm -- you know for awhile or any -- -- -- now eight bed with. Didn't stream video and we take out -- where. Well you know when he talked -- air application actually detects when your network congestion and it throttles back. And -- -- meaning whatever threshold. -- -- -- -- -- You don't what's the just to it -- and for keeping particular application. Off. A particular phone -- just particular service you on to -- -- doesn't seem like that's that's scary open or even bury it for innovation. -- well I think so there's two athleticism there's a sort of the technical answer in a practical answer in the technical answer is. That I don't that the wireless carriers have -- you don't want the FCC. Being able to constantly be back and we're saying -- that's reasonable network management that's not reasonable network management think. They're really concerned about. Micromanagement specially when they're so constrained right now. The practical explanation as I think this was the compromise that Google made to get Verizon to go along with the basic net neutrality rules and say we know -- -- -- -- Will encourage congress to pass -- we'll stop we'll stop trying to to to block it. But the -- -- sort of the quid pro quo back from Google was but we get to leave wireless out of the story for now. It's do you think that it's a little bit suspicious now that Google has such -- tight relationship in wireless now and and its position in wireless is completely different. From its position and higher world for example. Google's means strategy and wireless right now -- and right at the operating system. So they're coming preloaded on all these Android phones -- All -- Google applications. On the you know so it's a very different relationship I know that they put out. Eight statement yesterday or block those defending themselves netstat I still think that there's. There's good reason to be slightly suspicious that somehow this stuff and I -- benefit and -- well of course. Yeah they're gonna they're gonna. Work off their own interest but again is -- Google reminds us in this affect you you wrote the story Maggie originally. When the auctions went on for the four -- a spectrum. That Verizon ultimately bought. Google was the one that made sure that the basic net neutrality open Internet rules were enforced for that part of the spectrum so you -- it for one thing. Even if the wireless and even if that -- -- doesn't apply wireless it will in some sense apply to that forgy part of the spectrum that Verizon bought. And that's because Google insist -- it. But that's also hold another topic where -- you know again what is opening -- eat and what what. Worthy intentions yet does that mean you you can bring any device on the network any application because wait eight wait brightening at -- -- You know. The eat streamline that process for you getting on our network you know because it has -- I haven't. They have -- in I mean that four G network actually haven't watched that we don't know exactly. How they're going to power. You what -- get finished at open is going to be yeah it I find this -- the whole wireless. Debate that's so interesting because obviously were out there a technological point right now where we don't have wire line and with yet on the other hand. Wireless. Is a shrew. Public resource. In a way that even wired wired Internet -- not and somebody owns the wires from the ground. And the air the band -- in the air that is in of the spectrum is. Bizarrely sold even though nobody really owns it to. EE ink in an agreement on among different people in a different companies -- -- It -- totally created our own you know. Spectrum crisis and and when you sell airwaves and -- -- op and nobody else can you get this up on this and yeah billion dollar got you. -- eventually you're at. -- only so much you can slice and dice but yet in time -- -- you know areas not. I mean that's not something. It goes away Brent thank you can you can split sell. Any number wait eight but when you -- -- And it once I mean we started -- it and -- create -- the problem and I unwind it. Now we've been talking about Google Verizon and the FCC all American institutions that how is this problem being addressed in other places in the world. -- I mean that the rest of the world looks at us with complete Apple monotonous because they're that are so why we're spending so much time. And essentially what for now is a theoretical problem it doesn't actually exist yet. And it's not really come up too much and other countries partly because. They have much higher bandwidth in a lot of -- got fiber optic and lot of countries and they don't really have to worry about constraints. Of course there's all its long history of government investment in some -- government ownership of Internet access and lot countries as well. And they've got much more you know important fish to fry and his story. Australia and -- lot of countries in southeast Asia are worrying about you know actual content regulations censored -- censorship of content. They got England and France we're adding about three strikes rules where you are caught file sharing illegally. Three -- to be permanently barred from ever having Internet access again -- so they're kind of we have Canada in particular in European -- they're definitely watching this closely but for them this is not the urgent Internet related -- they have to deal with and little -- a hero before we continue this as. People may never listen to the sport like right now there is a protest actually a demonstration -- a going on. At Google headquarters down a Mountain View organized by move on civic action color change. Credo action progressive change campaign and the free press. To quote urged the search engine giant live up to its corporate motto don't be evil. Our reporter Tom -- as it is there at the moment for this massive protests. He's just emailed me from his mobile device over the open airwaves and said the protest is now up to about fifty people a rough estimate. Usual suspects very peaceful. I was hoping for so much more. Anyway go on so. We it -- -- -- to say in light of the conflict if the war's over. -- Anyway so what's the Abbott is a problem so it it is a problem that the that this you know this is largely I think you could say. A technical issue of network management. The Internet protocols you know they've always been enhanced and developed and so on by engineering committees and -- and and really a big part of this net neutrality is just. That technical issue a technical problem. And it is been by both sides but I think particularly by the the free press public knowledge side of it it has been politicized in a way that is -- been helpful to getting it resolved nothing else. Larry I completely agree with you in fact when I -- moderating a panel. Late last year in DC right at CT IA air and -- -- group. On the other side and we redeem you aggregate eighty and you're pretty much every day except for other wireless eight but -- -- They -- and just about everything you I was like well it -- pretty green. Stuff I mean. And and and I think when it comes to you -- a lot of lawyers in DC. Who wouldn't have a job if they didn't have a big issue today. Sort of rally around so it it just it blows my mind -- -- -- -- while this whole -- just went away. Then an actor after the election after Obama got and it you know it got -- yet and it just. To -- it just doesn't make a whole lot cents and again like you mentioned before it's a theoretical. Argued there. You know there are no -- or they're very few instances people can point -- and lastly Comcast. In -- was not something at a high level it. Brian Roberts it -- near and it block it. I think it's probably a low level all network manager -- solvent -- -- on the network and you know the trying to figure out what was the best way to resolve the issue and that's how it it and -- You know it upset -- -- yeah so it's it is a technical issue. And -- ironically that's the of the BitTorrent running lot of the BitTorrent traffic of these look at certain studies that have been done since that. A lot great deal of it is illegal file sharing which wouldn't be protected under the net neutrality rules even if they going to go visit that. Let's -- would the ISPs or would anybody be able to. Block. Traffic based on the type of packets or based on content I mean. They would be able to -- based on the content to mean that the rules say is you can't block lawful content. Which suggest that if you know -- you unlawful content you can market which suggests you kind of you have to and you gotta look at it to find out as well. Which is a whole other can't arms you know you -- I don't even think carrier's. AT&T he's been working -- somebody's. Contents folks but you know from my discussions a lot it. You know the big broad and -- they don't want and get in the business of leasing Kot now that's Ericsson and Syria -- and yes and it's on an -- and very unpopular. Yeah it also though is it's not something that an algorithm -- necessarily pick up I mean a lot of that copyright take stuff I mean that's something that's decided individual -- and someone -- determined -- that spirit used or not fair use and the things people go to court over that all the time I don't think that they really want any art. V do you think that. The way the argument is shaping up -- the debate is shaping up. That Google Verizon ATP -- -- whomever. That there that these businesses will act in the long term interests of the Internet and society that they're moving in the right direction. Or that we need some sort of regulation to keep things open and -- And well I I'm very suspicious and skeptical the FCC I think anyone who's looked at the history of the agency and long term. Would recognize that there are tremendous risks to introducing them into any industry or any piece of an -- -- just look at how they. You know handle still content in and censorship on the broadcast network so I would like to think. That the industry will behave in a way that's -- long term best interest of of their profit margins and that that would line very nicely with consumers' interest. If they don't. You know then maybe it's time to think about government regulation but from my standpoint -- regulation is is more likely to be a worse -- than the disease itself. Would mean. Agree with Larry and I asked it -- it you know you you can hear what people fear in the -- turning into his cable television if you look at it what. Television well where did our over the air television. I played it and somebody who lives in New York City I can't get. Over the air television and I -- like thirty blocks from you know. And -- -- so great that makes no sense but that's because they're all kind of regulation I can't -- an antenna on my group. They're all other kinds of regulations. And an adopted it in it stands FCC in other agency that probably -- our free access. -- and so on. It's you know I would also agreed it you know we probably need lax regulations and more now. One of the so that's a very very interesting and very strident arguments of course against the cool -- -- proposal. And including the the -- we knew -- I think and I and I wrote. That this will turn the public Internet -- -- -- the public Internet into sort of a slump. And will there will be a strata vacation between the haves and have -- Republican and there'll be slow and -- commercials and the private Internet with these new to. Services that are exempt from the current a proposal. Would be where everybody wants to be but not everybody can afford it -- by you have -- have nots and it. Is that type of a future -- -- future of the Internet a viable or or possible plausible -- it's entirely possible I've. Don't think it's gonna happen and I certainly don't want to regulate. Ahead of it happening -- especially you know when it's so far into the future and so theoretical -- sure it is a possibility. I don't think anything that's we've seen so far would suggest that's what would happen. But it might and if it did you know we've got got -- trust law we've got all -- existing. Ways of of stopping it and if we don't you know then it's time to talk about changing the FCC's role. Mean. Our reality people seem to forget. Or don't even realize it Verizon -- ER REE. Providing managed services -- -- three years -- in providing managed services to businesses. Eight and you know if I just TV an eighteen TU verse TV shows -- managed services over an infrastructure at eight. -- -- -- to people's homes which also per I don't. That the public Internet. Great so and that they're not clowning -- you know that I yes. Internet your year -- now they're trying to encourage you to paying more for faster speeds to you can you are and the cool things yeah so it's just that the argument makes no. This actually hang on and on that because I I have. Maybe emanated here but I get confused here we have all these arguments -- network neutrality and about artificial throttles and filtering and and bandwidth caps all the stuff. And then I go to. Go to any -- SB minus Comcast. And there are tiers of service men and -- it's it's for speed. It's like you wanna that you paid this much you get this -- -- -- -- more you get that much faster which means if I don't pay for this much more I get a slower Internet now. In May not filter my content by -- or by content. Itself -- but it is not the same I have to pay more to get the full Internet isn't that. Anti net neutrality. Well no I mean certainly not any of the rules of the proposed so far because its its its neutral in the sense that it applies. Those caps. Independently of the source of the type of content or application that's being applied its played everything equally it's okay I -- I don't think there's any you know you had eastern public which is best actor. Interest -- so that means -- My eight streaming video service. -- somehow get you know -- congested network I. It's might get blocked behind somebody email button and went surfing traffic and all that great because. I can't prioritize your -- service provider is not prioritizing that might. And video track it gets to my customer. Any quicker than -- -- Kenya. -- -- so let's say you have a service and you want you're you're customer to have a better experience you could go to Verizon. And -- You know just add a offered -- -- TV service they can develop the service for you to deliver -- -- it gets service to a customer in a way I. I'm a customer I wanna have -- experience. And I -- the market yesterday dictates what people pay for you know so it. People are upset about right thing then don't -- service. Well lower the. In Manama and and a -- in a monopoly market sometimes with the difficult argument to make. I if I -- going to run out of time here shortly I'd like to ask for some predictions on where we think this argument will be say six months from now on the navy three years from now. Maggie who wants they'll first on. And that little softball question there. I hadn't had him. -- go ahead I think -- the -- its audience I think in six months thumb. We me see is it. Yeah it actually and a I don't even know where to begin any I -- -- -- that Comcast court if I would've said in six months FCC's gonna come out. With air rules. It's gonna look very much like white. What changed and and genachowski proposed in the beginning which is very similar to what Google and Verizon and it -- -- you and I think com it. It wireless will probably be it in -- -- pressure from the from -- it helped those -- that won't get mixed in there and you know whether there'll be any rules for wireless or whether they'll be thoroughly that Mac. Picture that's that's kind of my prediction I don't it's gonna happen. Month I mean he could still be actually still -- eight issues. In six months. Larry that was going to be my prediction I was gonna say you know with technology can always predict. The tremendous accuracy thanks to Moore's law and we know what's gonna happen in six months everything's gonna get better and faster and cheaper we're gonna see new -- -- don't -- that apply to congress had exactly the one constant political things. There's no way to predict and and and although I would predict as Maggie says that we will certainly be talking about this in six months. And we'll still have the same Internet that we have right now -- -- -- better. Look at. I hope -- guys right Maggie Reardon from New York thank you for joining us. You can follow -- stuff on that CNET news.com to write about she she will keep you informed and all the happenings in this debate. Larry -- author of laws of destruction among other great books. You can also find him on CNET news as well as elsewhere Larry downs that come and and the technology liberation front. The technology liberation front now we know your perspective are at the thank you very much Jason how things are producing. That's it for this edition of reporter's roundtable I will be gone for the next two weeks next to -- -- -- on September 3 with another great -- of the roundtable. Until then. Join the rest of the month everyone -- from.