[ 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 ]
