It's time for a public hearing about what's going on with our stock market. I've said Michael Lewis' claim that the stock market is "rigged" is a gross exaggeration, but we can thank him for one thing: the megaphone he has with "60 Minutes" has helped revive a sleepy debate on what is right—and wrong—with our market structure.

And now, it is time to strike while the iron is hot: It's time for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to convene a series of public hearings on the stock market.

Read More Michael Lewis, 'Flash Boys,' and '60 Minutes' Bring in exchange heads, asset managers, regulatory experts, academics. Let's examine all the new market data that the SEC has been generating recently about trading volumes, and about high frequency traders.

Let's get some consensus of what has gone right, and what has gone wrong.

Most importantly of all: Let's open up Reg NMS, the rule that came into effect in 2007 and helped "cement" much of the current market structure.

Adam Jeffery | CNBC

This is the rule that required traders honor the best price. This is the rule that established the routing requirements between all the exchanges. This is the rule that allowed stock exchanges to pay rebates to customers. This is the rule that created new exchanges (BATS, Direct Edge). This is the rule that spurred development of dark pools and was responsible for "speeding up" the markets. This is the rule that is at the core of our current market structure. Why reopen all this nerdy stuff about the markets? Because the real risk is not high frequency traders: the real risk is the structural integrity of the market. Read MoreMichael Lewis' 'Flash Boys' and high-speed trading I think it is time, and the SEC thinks so too, apparently. When I spoke to SEC Commissioner Dan Gallagher a few weeks ago, he said the SEC would conduct a "holistic" review of the markets this year.

That's a great idea, but let's start it off with public hearings. From there, the SEC can move to a report that will make concrete suggestions on what should and should not be done to improve the markets. Also, how about the SEC getting a little bolder by setting a goal: it should aim to have a report out by year-end. No endless debate. No endless commentary periods. And no shelving the recommendations. Read MoreNew York to probe high-frequency trading

The SEC had little comment in reaction to the Michael Lewis interview, releasing only this statement: "The staff, at Chair [Mary Jo] White's direction, is conducting a comprehensive data-driven analysis of a range of market structure issues, including high frequency trading practices and their impact on the fairness, efficiency and integrity of our markets." That is a sign that they have already begun a review. Good. Let's accelerate the process. What are the right questions to ask? I have been writing about this stuff for years. I have a laundry list of things I would like to see changed or at least carefully examined, much of which has nothing to do with high frequency trading, but rather addresses the rather creaky market structure we have: