every weekend we bring you 48 hours of nonfiction books, public affairs, history, and biography saturday morning at 8:00 through monday at 8:00 am eastern. ... >>

>> this week on "the communicators," a discussion with fcc commissioner meredith attwell baker. she discusses several issues currently before the fcc including net neutrality, media ownership rules and federal broadband policies. >> host: well, meredith attwell baker is our guest this week on "the communicators." also here is kim hart of the hill newspaper to join in the questioning. commissioner baker, if we could start with the issue of network neutrality, network management. were you surprised that chairman

genachowski emphasized this as his priority issue? >> guest: well, i think i was surprised because we didn't necessarily have a heads up that it was coming, but certainly the president had outlined it in his campaign speeches, so we knew this was a priority of the chairman. i think to discuss it i'd like to start with something that we all agree on which is the fact that we want to have an open internet, and we want to have the free flow of lawful content on the internet, and we all agree about that. i think where we disagree is whether consumers and innovation would be better served with rules of network neutrality. i worry more about the unintended consequences of that. >> host: and you voted to go ahead with the open comment period on net neutrality, net management but still at the same time expressed reservations. >> guest: correct. i think, again, that i am not convinced we actually have a problem we need to address. there have been two instances,

really, of bad actors, and i think they've been dealt with expeditiously, and i think that really we're going to have to take a close data-driven record to move forward, and i'm actually very, very happy with the chairman's process that he's put in place with this. we have just appointed a technical advisory committee, and we're going to have workshops to look at how networks actually operate. and so i think there's a really tremendous opportunity for the industry to help us in this process. >> host: kim hart. >> host: and in the beginning of the process you had raisedusions had been made before the process even began and that in the meeting you actually said that you were prepared to dissent with respect to the whole initiative. what changed your mind? >> guest: i think it bodes well for the cooperative working environment we have at the fcc now. the item was very conclusion oriented, and i think that the chairman's office and the bureau heads were very helpful in working with us to where we're

asking questions, we're at the beginning of this process, we're not at the end, and there isn't a determined end yet at this time. >> host: okay. and what about network management? what does that mean to you, and how would you like that definition to unfold as we go forward in gathering this data and asking these questions? >> guest: i think it's an e involving process, and i don't think there is one definition. i am most familiar with the wireless networks, and clearly there has to be prioritization on the wireless networks for them to work. i was recently at cable labs, and they could have shown me the exact same slides as the wireless industry has shown me as to how they have to prioritize some of their content and packets. so i think it's going to be an evolutionary discussion, and there's not one definition yet that we know of, but we'll be working with the industry to make sure we come up with something that's reasonable. >> host: okay. >> host: commissioner baker -- >> guest: i hope. >> host: i want to pick up on

something you said in your testimony about going ahead with network management. we must be particularly careful before we risk extending any internet principles to mobile broadband. what did you mean by that? >> guest: i think the way the wireless networks work is basically on a network management prioritization, so as we move forward, i'm actually not clear how we could impose network neutrality rules on the wireless networks. so i think we'll leave it to the engineers and the discussions as we move forward in these workshops to see how we actually could do that. what we don't want to do here especially in the course of developing a national broadband plan is do anything that would harm the innovation and the investment in these networks. we're encouraging them to build out and make them faster and bigger and better, so we want to make sure we do not do anything to damage that. >> host: and just to follow up, again, from your testimony, i also think that important questions are outstanding about our legal authority to regulate broadband internet access

services that we need to explore. >> guest: i think jurisdiction is still at question here. and i think that, certainly, people were comfortable with the principles that the fcc had enacted, but there's a, clearly a dispute as to whether those principles were enforceable. there's a joint jurisdiction between the ftc and the fcc, so we'll have to move forward, again, carefully. >> host: kim hart. >> host: you mentioned that the last thing you want to do is hinder any investment into these broadband networks. what do you think is the best way to spur the deployment of broadband networks and to actually encourage that investment? >> guest: well, great question. and i think that we're looking at that through the national broadband plan that's due in february. and that's been a very widely-encompassing kind of effort. i think there have been 24 public notices so far, over 30 workshops and field hearings. what we're learning is a bunch of different things, and in a deployment area we've actually done a pretty good job.

there have been economic incentives that don't tax these networks, there's some research and development tax credits that have worked very well. i think that the regulatory environment that we have created which has been, allowed these networks to build out kind of free of overburdensome regulation, i think that's really empowered the networks to be built, and i think when we move forward with our national broadband plan, we want to make sure that we continue those incentives as well as find others. >> host: well, speaking of national broadband plan, another issue that we wanted to talk to you about, could you just give us a policier on your guiding philosophy when it comes to building outside broadband? >> guest: sure. i have, you know, made pretty clear what i think my regulatory philosophies are, and that's that i think competition and the marketplace allow consumers the best choice. so whatever we can do to encourage private sector investment in these networks is

going to be the primary goal as far as i'm concerned because i think -- >> so, first of all, of course the -- >> guest: to be careful what we do at the commission because both what we do and what we don't do has ramifications, so we need to make sure we set up an economic environment, a regulatory environment that can allow this investment to flourish. >> host: do you believe that the government can does have a role in helping to reach areas that maybe private companies wouldn't? >> guest: i think that -- i do. i think that that's part of the importance of the mapping part of the broadband plan is that you should map, and where you can't incentivize the private sector investment, then possibly we need to look at how we need to use government subsidies to get broadband. as our digital economy continues to increase, it's important for every american to have access to broadband. >> host: on, touching on your previous experience at the ntia and the commerce department,

spectrum was a big part of your job there. your agency was responsible for managing the federal holdings of airwaves and as this broadband plan goes forward, one thing that we've heard over and over is that there is a spectrum shortage or there is a concern that we won't have enough airwaves to meet the demand, especially in the wireless area to make this idea of universal broadband a reality. what are some of the ideas you have in terms of spectrum and making sure that we optimize what we have? >> guest: that's a great question, kim. first, let's take a step back. i think we've done a very good job, we've put three times as much spectrum out for commercial access currently, and these networks are still just being built in the 700 megahertz area and in the aw spectrum. so we're good today, but we don't have a strategic plan for tomorrow, so what we really need to develop is a short-term, a mid-term and a long-term plan for commercial spectrum. let's take a look at some of the numbers.

i think right now there are about 270 million mobile subscribers. of that only about 40 million are internet broadband survivors -- subscribers. [laughter] so what that means, actually, if you drill down one more to that, the ages from 18-29, 93% of those are internet mobile subscribers of broadband. so our crisis is not today, but it's going to be coming around the corner pretty quickly, so we need to lay the groundwork for by 2020 when everyone accesses the internet by mobile that we are prepared and america can continue to be competitive. so i think your question says, how do we do that? and it's got to be a three-pronged answer. i think we need to find new spectrum, i think we need to leverage the spectrum that exists currently more efficiently, and i think we need to encourage new technologies and innovation in that area. >> host: and you've also talked about be more flexible with spectrum policy. what do you mean by that?

>> guest: that really goes to my rev languaging the current -- leveraging the current spectrum management. what i'm talking about there is a more vibrant secondary market, i'm talking about sharing spectrum both commercial and federal, and i think that there's a lot that can be done in those areas. they almost all depend on a better database than currently exists, so i think one of the recommendations you're going to see is that we have a more user-friendly, more thorough database that can be used up to, on a, you know, hour to hour, minute to minute basis. >> host: commissioner baker, you talked about finding new spectrum. a couple of weeks ago there was some brouhaha about, perhaps, taking away some of the broadcasters' spectrum and giving it over to wireless. do you agree with that? >> i think that all ideas should be on the table. broadcasters actually have 294 megahertz of spectrum, and what we're talking about for these future networks is we're going to need in the range of 800 megahertz. so it's not the golden egg.

it might be part of the solution. what i think is that these discussions, again, from my role at ntia, we have a great broadcasting infrastructure here. these people are part of our local and national dialogues, so i don't think that this discussion should be at all antibroadcast. the broadcasters are also looking for new business models. the mobile video standard was just set, so i think we ought to take a look at do those broadcast rules need to be attached to that service? what i guess i'm saying is a comprehensive look at everything should be on the table. i don't think it should be anti-broadcast, i don't think it should be acrimonious. i think we actually may come up with a solution that's a win/win. >> host: just a little bit about meredith attwell baker. prior to being confirmed as an fcc commissioner earlier this year, she did serve as acting add morer of the national telecommunications and

information administration underneath president josh w. bush's -- george w. bush's administration, and you may remember her from the coupon program. kim hart is a reporter with the the hill newspaper, writes the silicon valley column. next question, please. >> host: i guess following up on the spectrum question, we know senator kerry and congressman waxman have introduced spectrum inventory bills that they'd looking at to try to get a better sense of what the agencies themselves have. since you're familiar with that, is there a possibility that maybe reallocation of what the defense department, for example, has or the military has says to in terms of maybe some sharing of that spectrum as you mentioned before, or do you have any ideas on that? >> guest: i think that's a valid question to ask. there was a executive order from president bush that actually called far strategic plan, and ntia actually did do a federal strategic plan looking at the

spectrum that the federal agencies used. we need to do the same thing at the fcc, and then we need to bring those two plans together and see if there's some room for us to, you know, possibly maybe some of the department of defense wants to use some of the commercial spectrum as well as, obviously, commercial into theceps. we have one test bed together, i think we need to implement more test beds, and certainly some of these technologies that are out there, cog any tiff radios, software-defined radios, these are technologies that are in development both at the dod as well as in the commercial sector. they're going to make all of these things easier to make sharing of spectrum. they're smart technologies where they can see when something is being used and moved. so it really, we need to expedite that development and make it easier for them to be brought to the market. but, yes, i think we certainly need to work together at this project.

>> host: go ahead. >> host: oh, i was just curious about white spaces. it reminded me of the software to find the open airwaves. do you know if the fcc is moving forward with it? they kind of approved a preliminary step, but we haven't heard much since then from companies like microsoft and google who have been behind this. >> guest: we have. [laughter] we have, we've heard from them, and i think it's important. we're looking at some of the issues with wireless mics right now that are in the white spaces, and as soon as we solve that problem as to maybe where to move them and, again, it's all part of a long-range plan. you don't want to move wireless microphones to a place where you have to move them again. so it's a long-range planning process, but i think we're close to really being able to fully implement some white spaces. >> host: great. >> host: commissioner baker, chairman genachowski told us last week on "the communicators" that if the fcc made a decision, it still would take 6-13 years

to implement that decision when it comes to wireless spectrum. what are your thoughts about that? >> guest: that is historically true. i show the scars of the advanced wireless spectrum, services spectrum that we moved the department of defense. we passed a law in congress to where those who bought the spectrum actually paid for the department of defense to move, so the department of defense got new equipment, and the commercial industry got the spectrum for the next generation of wireless services. it's a win/win, but that coordination takes a while. hopefully, we have laid the groundwork and have figured out where some of the bugs are, and maybe we can do it better next time, maybe quicker, but, yes, it does take a while. >> host: and you talked about finding new spectrum. it's a limited commodity, isn't it? >> guest: it is a limited commodity, but just, for instance, we discussed the broadcasters' spectrum, i don't expect we'd take all of the broadcasters' spectrum, but i expect there might be some that could be more commercially used in a commercial wireless sense.

i think the same is true for some of our other allocations. we're looking at a bunch of other parts of the spectrum to see if there's a more efficient use of it so consumers could have a wider variety of choices. >> host: another issue that's -- i want to return, actually, to the broadband development plan that's due in february. in, chairman rockefeller of the commerce committee, senator rockefeller said that he is worried that the plan will come to the congress and will be an incomplete road map and will not be specific. >> guest: i appreciate chairman rockefeller's view. and you certainly, you want to make sure that we come prehence ily -- comprehensively take the pen to all of the data we have gathered, but it's impractical to think we're probably going to solve universal service within the plan. i laugh about the commission these days because all of these decade-old problems whether it's universal service or

intercarrier compensation or special access, they all are kind of walking around the fcc saying, if you solve me, you have solved broadband for america. and it's just these problems that we've been stuck before. what i hope is that we've got a comprehensive look, and we can move forward to solve all of them, but that probably won't be by february 17th. i think that we will have action plans shortly thereafter. i think that, hopefully, it's going to set out goals that we can, you know, make actionable work on throughout the next year. i think we'll be very busy. >> host: and regarding the universal service fund and potentially using that to help pay for the federal part of broadband deployment, do you agree that with some on the commission that say that the usf is outdated and flawed, the way it's set up now? >> guest: i think there's no doubt that the universal service fund has actually achieved an awful lot for keeping america connected, but in the changed marketplace, it is time to reevaluate the universal service

fund. it's timely we need to do it, we need to do it in a transparent and cooperative way, but i think its time has come to be reevaluated. >> host: but you don't see that happening before february, the deadline for the actual recommendation? >> guest: clearly, we've been gathering data. i don't think we feel yet ready to vote on how that path forward is going to be. i'm ready to put the wheels in motion to come up with a new plan, but i don't think that we're ready yet to say this is the direction that universal service reform is going to take. >> host: great. is there -- come february is there one larger recommendation that you see as being essential that the fcc puts before congress? >> guest: you know, i mentioned that i thought deployment, we'd actually had a lot of progress in the deployment area. where i think that we are lacking is in the adoption area. and so i think that there will be some concrete, there's also not a one size fits all on adoption. there are problems, you know,

because of the price, because of digital literacy, there are problems because of online content. people are not adopting for a bunch of different reasons, but i think the fcc itself could do a much better educational part in helping americans realize what the value is to broadband. and so i hope to see that the fcc itself will use kind of on the digital television transition model to help educate americans as to how to utilize broadband better. >> host: meredith attwell baker, if you could give us an update on your thinking on media ownership rules. i know the fcc is due to do a review by law. what's your philosophy? >> guest: media ownership. people are extremely passionate about media ownership and the rules there. obviously, the quadrennial review, which is every four years, is going to start in 2010. i think we have a changed marketplace, and we need to look at that. i'm particularly concerned when i see some of the small and

mid-sized media markets having financial problems in this hard economic time. i'm encouraged again that it seems we are really putting ourselves on a course to develop rules that are actually going to be sustainable in court. as you probably know, the head of the media bureau has already started with workshops to discuss how we should go about form lathing these rules. so i'm encouraged with the effort that we are going to make. >> host: do you have any particular concerns with some of those consolidations going on specifically with the proposed comcast/nbc merger that will probably get a lot of scrutiny? >> guest: you know, we're charged to look at the public interest and to look at competition, localism and diversity. i certainly don't want to comment on something we may have in front of us shortly, but i do think it's important to do this in a timely manner. we have a 188-day shot clock on this, so i think it's important to do it timely and just philosophically, i also feel

that mergers should be dealt with on the merger proceeding in front of you, that you shouldn't attach conditions that are extraneous to the actual deal in front of you. >> host: next question. >> host: what about internet parental controls? that's been a smaller issue there, but you have put out a couple of statements, and you have talked about what you feel is a need for greater control for parents over what their kids are saying on the -- accessing on the internet. what is your philosophy regarding that and how to go forward with that? >> guest: well, thank you for asking because it is something i feel really strongly about. i have four stepdaughters who are in the teenage to 20 age range, and to watch them deal with the new media landscape is entirely different than the way we watch television ourselves. the television has become the laptop which has become the ipod. it all has seamlessly integrated, but we have not empowered parents or educated parents as to how to raise their children in this digital age. i think chairman genachowski

also feels passionately about this, so we're going to move forward with this children's noi to see both encouraged technology out there and help the parents to know we need better technology and better education so that the next generation of children will have parents who feel empowered to let them, you know, watch what they want to watch and not watch what they shouldn't be watching. >> host: so you see it much more as an educational campaign, or a lack of education on the parents' side to feel confident in what they're kids are doing? >> guest: i think the technologies are out there, they're not well known by the parents, and i think they could be easier to use, so hopefully, we'll be working with the industry so that we can come up with solutions that do work across all the platforms since that's the way the kids watch media today. >> host: commissioner baker, that speaks to the issue of the very rapid change in telecommunications in our world today. and is the fcc prepared?

is the fcc up up-to-date on all these changes and the way it's structured? >> guest: we are trying. i think goth agencies historically -- government agencies historically, you know, the problem with the fcc has always been that it's federal meaning that government can always be a couple steps behind the industry. i think the new leadership has brought an excellent team into the fcc where we're really trying to get out to see what is actually going on outside of the walls of the government agencies, and i'm encowrminged that we -- encouraged that we will have the relationships to actually deal with the realities that exist as opposed to what we read. you know, our proceedings at the fcc blogs are actually allowed as comments in our proceedings now. i think we're really working towards becoming a new media agency. and because that entails an awful lot of education, but we're really working towards that. >> host: the structure of the commissioners yourselves, you're

really not allowed to meet with each other, is that correct? >> guest: we meet one-on-one an awful lot but, yes, because of the sunshine rules, we do not meet together. >> host: and do you think that's helpful? >> guest: i think it would be nice if instead of empowering our staff to go have visits to the, if we could -- together, if we could actually do it ourselves. >> host: you've also been judging from the number of meetings you've been having on the net neutrality issue, you and commissioner clyburn as the newest members have been getting a lot of attention or at least having busy schedules with meetings. what is, what are some of the biggest questions that you're being asked by companies coming in and wanting to know your position on this? what are the biggest issues that they're coming to you with? >> guest: you know, i think network neutrality has a couple different sides to it. you have the four principles that were originally espoused, and then you have the two that have been tagged on to there. so i think really we need to get past the lawyer words and to

what the actual engineering of these networks looks like to make sure that we don't impede innovation. so as far as i'm concerned, we're trying to drill down and understand what exists now and what are the plans for the future to make sure whatever we do is not harmful. >> host: and, meredith attwell baker is a lawyer, she got a law degree from the university of houston. what surprised you in your few months at the fcc? >> guest: the fcc is a -- you know, having come from ntia which is a wonderful government agency, but it's smaller, and you're part of a larger team at ntia. it's fun because you're part of the trade trips, and you're part of the economic agenda. but you are kind of always answering as a team, not necessarily as what you think. when you go over to the expert agency of the fcc it's almost three times as large. the depth of the expertise there is incredible, and the fact that you are independent and it's communications all the time is really delightful.

my second or third day of work i met this woman, and she was lovely, and she said, you know, i have been working on the universal service high-cost fund for the last 18 years. and so it's just terrific to be able to delve into, you know, have the expertise to really understand these issues in as much depth as we really need to to be able to make the decisions for the communications for the next generation. >> host: but you've gone from the presidential administration to a minority position on the fcc. >> guest: that's true, but we're five people. i think when people have analyzed it, we vote together 90 something percent of the time. >> host: last question, kim hart. >> host: what are some of the other priorities that you have over your term at the fcc that we haven't talked about here? broadband, clearly, takes up a lot of the discussion these days. do you have other things relating to broadband or other issues entirely? >> guest: i really think that my experience at ntia and with spectrum can add a great deal to

the fcc agenda, so i really want to work on the fcc's strategic plan so that we have, again, a short-term, a mid-term and a long-term plan for the next generation of spectrum usage. so that is something i really hope to bring to the table and those relationships and that knowledge, i think, is important. and i, again, think that we need to empower parents with the technology to parent their children better in this century. >> host: and finally, commissioner baker, any leftover issues when it comes to digital tv and the digital transition? >> guest: i think that we still have case by case analyzing some of the markets, and the engineers and the consumer bureaus are really working on that. >> host: meredith attwell baker is the newest commissioner on the fcc and kim hart is with "the hill" newspaper. thank you both. >> guest: thank you.

>> "the communicators," c-span's weekly look at the people and issues shaping telecommunications policy also airs in prime time. if you missed any of today's program with fcc commissioner meredith attwell baker, you can see it again tonight starting at 8 eastern here on c-span2. change their vote? if not, on this vote, the yeas are 60, the nays are 39.