>> you've been watching book to see c-span2. -- on c-span2. every weekend we bring you 48 hours of nonfiction books, public affairs, history and biography saturday at 8:00 to sunday at 8:00 am eastern. ..

>> host: well, we're pleased to welcome to "the communicators" table for the first time, mignon clyburn, one of the newest members of the fcc. also joining us is cecilia kang of the washington post. commissioner clyburn, if i could start with kind of a general philosophical question about communication law. there's a lot of talk and editorials and talk up in congress as well that communication law is outdated because of all the changes that are going on in the telecommunications world, and it's hard to keep up. what are your thoughts about that? >> guest: i don't know if i would use the word outdated, but it's definitely dynamic. i think we still definitely have a place, but i think that our roles are changing, they're shifting. there are more challenges that we are retrofitting at the fcc, so we recognize that, and there

is -- especially as it relates to regulatory agencies, there is this tendency to have regulatory lag meaning that, you know, how you do business today sometimes it's hard to keep up with the way the markets are evolving. but you've got a commission, you've got an agency, you've got a chairman who's up to the task, who is forward-looking, and i think this nation and the communications industry is better for it. >> host: well, just to take one regulation, this is just recently that the federal communications commission, in fact, just yesterday unanimously proposed shifting the goal of the universal service fund to include broadband services. so that it's provided and subsidized all around the nation. is that the first step in getting broadband reclassified from title i to title ii as a common carrier? >> guest: i will not say it's the first step of doing that. it's a recognition of how the market and how the communications industry is

evolving. you've got persons who are cutting the cord. there are about 25, 26% of the nation who no longer -- they don't use a land line as their primary communications device. so there's a recognition of that. there's a recognition that with companies like skype that in terms of how they're communicating it's not just even on their mobile phones. so because of that we recognize that there is a need for us to shift, there's a need for persons to be connected especially if the they're going to save money to provide them with more options. so, again, this is another example which you brought up at the top that there is a need, and we have an obligation to keep up, retrofit ourselves, retool, and as we say at the fcc, reboot. >> host: cecilia kang. >> host: i love this word, retrofit. as you think of retrofitting, retooling, what is your thought on reclassification

specifically? would you support reclassification of broadband services to title ii? >> guest: i will say at this point i have not conclusively come up with a -- i cannot say yes or no at this time. i can say to you that we have certain goals that we have put forth that are clear in the plan, that are clear in terms of the net neutrality proceedings that we are passionate about. we are passionate about having an open network. we're passionate about a consumer when they buy a product, they know exactly what they're getting. they know what speed they're getting, they know what the terms are. we're passionate about those things. how we do that, how we execute that, how we regulate that is, it's -- we're in negotiations with the american public and with the companies that we regulate as it relates to that. >> host: sure. and what's the process right now at the fcc?

are you having conversations with the chairman's office? with other commissioners? republican commissioners on this issue? how are you going through your thought place on how -- process on how you will conclusively decide what to do with classification of broadband? >> the answers are yes, yes, and yes. we have a series of notices that, you know, the one thing about this agency that at first on the outside as a state commissioner -- which i was for 11 years -- that from our perspective seemed a bit slow, but now that i sit in this chair seems quite logical is that we have these exchanges, we have a relatively long period of time with a series of notices whether they're inquiries or rule makings that will allow for interactions of ideas, exchanges of ideas. and so in order for us to make the proper decisions. so i have not come in with, saying that con cruisively say -- conclusively saying that

we should reclassify or not, but what i will say is the goals that i put forth in terms of having an open platform, all of those, you know, transparency. those things, those are nonnegotiate for me -- nonnegotiable for me, so however we get there through congressional action because that's a possibility or be it through some types of negotiation or reclassification, however we get there i think if we keep consumers, the american public front and center, that we'll come up with the right decision and right path. >> host: and do you think that there's, do you have any timeline for when you might come up with a decision, when the fcc -- the chairman yesterday in the open meeting didn't really expose any more detail as to any sort of timeline. when do you think -- i think the whole telecom community is waiting with baited breath to figure out when are we going to come up with an answer? >> guest: i cannot give you a date certain. i can tell you that we are not dragging our feet. i can tell you that all of the

things i brought forth in terms of the interactions, they take time. we want to hear from the public, we want to hear from congress, we want to hear from the companies, and so however long it takes -- not trying to be flippant, but however long it takes to get a robust docket, a robust exchange, then and only then after that that we'll come up with i like to call it the proper regulatory gum bow in order to come up with a decision that is palatable for us all. >> host: commissioner clyburn, two questions following up from your answers to cecilia's questions. you talked about your service on the public -- >> guest: service commission. >> host: in south carolina. yes. >> guest: regulated entity. >> host: could you speak more about the difference between serving on the state revel and the federal level and what you've experienced so far? >> guest: i will say to you the state level we're closer to the

people we serve, they were front and center. we had evidentiary hearings, that's the biggest difference. so when we had an issue, a docket or a rate hearing or what have you, we had an actual hearing where we took witnesses including public witnesses, so you got a feel right then and there about what people were feeling, you know, what they were sensing, what direction they wanted you to go, how they were convincing you. so it wasn't just a filing, a paper filing which sometimes from my perspective because i was at it for 11 years can sometimes be a little cold. it's exact, but cold. we got to hear from the public, and that's the major difference with how the two agencies interacted, and that was kind of a culture shock for me, to be honest with you. >> host: do you feel a little isolated as an fcc commissioner? >> guest: the first couple of months i will confess i did feel like i was on this big island, and it was definitely an adjustment for me.

but, you know, it's okay. you find a way. one of the things, one of the ways that we think we distinguish ourselves was the first -- we didn't take any meetings for the first month when i was here because i wanted to speak to the bureaus, kind of get myself, you know, as retooled as possible and then speaking with the -- internality, speaking with the bureau, speaking with the offices and trying to learn what this new universe was going to look like for me. but then when we took meetings, we took meetings with consumer groups, with grassroots organizations. we took meetings with persons from the disabilities communities. we want to hear from them first in terms of tell me in terms of the decisions we're making in terms of this agency, tell me how we can do things better, tell me what we're doing, what we're not doing, how we're listening, how we're not listening.

i wanted to hear from them first because i thought that would give me the purest evaluative view about what this new universe i was about to embark on looked like. >> host: second question, you talked about your position on open access being nonnegotiable. what are your thoughts, then, on the recent federal appeals court case regarding comcast? >> guest: that is a decision that i am not depressioned about. -- depressed about, let me tell you why. there are certain journalists -- [laughter] >> guest: me? >> host: certain journalists who pointed out that that decision was, in fact, relatively narrow. it talked about our -- we sanctioned, and that is a word we used, in 2008 for those who might not know comcast for them slowing down traffic for what we call a file-sharing entity which is an entity that provides

computer generation or digitally-generated services be it video, audio or what have you. so this is a user, an aggressive user of bandwidth. so comcast said we have a right to regulate our networks, and we were going to slow down this traffic because they are a heavy user. the court told the fcc that we could not in terms of comcast regulate their management practices. that's what they told us. that's why -- i am not an attorney, but it's a narrow decision from my perspective. it does not deter me as it relates to what i brought forth, but it just affirms to us that we cannot regulate the management practices of a company. that's how i interpret it, that's how i interpreted subjects check which you put forth, and so that narrow interpretation gives me hope for what i put forth.

>> host: so, you know, commissioner clyburn, you've been a big advocate for consumers, and that's something you and i have talked about for a long time. how does that decision, that federal appeals court decision impact or affect consumer protection going forward? because if, indeed, this narrow interpretation relates to network management and your ability to regulate network management, how does that impact the fcc's ability to protect consumers going forward on net neutrality and other issues? it's sort of opened this pandora's box. >> guest: it has. i will say the agency is evaluating the decision, and we'll act accordingly under the confines. well, one of the things, and sometimes, you know, when some people might say you lose the battle you don't necessarily lose the war? that practice has ceased, and there are other instances where practices of that nature have been negotiated, have ceased, so

there has been a positive effect, i think, for consumers because increasingly there's incentives for these companies to work things out. so while we're still interpreting what it means from how we conduct ourselves and while it was a decision against the agency, i don't think in practice as it relates to the public that it closed a door as it relates to their interactions with these companies. i just don't think that. >> host: do you think that the companies are able to regulate themselves when it comes to consumer protection? i'll mention a meeting we had with bob quinn who is in the charge of regulatory fairness for at&t, and he said there are numerous examples of where the industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. not to say that consumers, the onus is on consumers, but he's saying, though, and this is sort of on the companies and the

consumers. so do you think that that's enough and that there's maybe not a need for more regulation from the fcc when it comes to consumer protections like net neutrality and rates and etfs and these types of issues? >> guest: one of the things when i hear that that i go back to is and i can't quote it chapter and verse, is the reason why regulatory entities are here in the first place. they're here as a protective tool for the public. they're here because in terms of companies as much as they want to serve, as much as they want to provide services to the public that sometimes the principle of making money, of profit doesn't necessarily work in favor of the public. so you've got regulatory agencies who are there as a

protection to the public. i am not the type of regulator who is looking behind every door to regulate every single practice. that is not why, that's not why i signed up for the job. i am here to protect the public where the markets are imperfect. i am here as a sort of substitute for competition where there's not competition because especially as it relates to broadband availability, high-speed broadband availability, most people do not have more than one provider in their market providing truly high-speed broadband internet. if you have that type of scenario, i think part of my mission is to be there as an entity to insure that you are treated fairly with that, in that case, monopoly for high-speed internet provision. so that's why we're here. not to be this regulator with,

you know, big, big arms and saying, you know, what we will do, but to be there as a protection and as, and those companies know that if things get totally out of whack, that there's an entity with some teeth that will take the necessary actions if things get out of whack. if it is working properly, if the consumers are happy, if the companies are making the money they want to make, if there's a widespread deployment of all of these goods and services that will make our lives better, then i will sit back and smile. if not, i'm there. >> host: commissioner clyburn is the national broadband plan, in your view, moving forward in spite of this court case, and does it increase this competition that you call for? >> guest: i think it is. i don't know if your viewers could see this, but this is what

the next, the rest of the year for us looks like just as it relates to the national broadband plan. we've put forth a set of national priorities, national principles that are reflected in that grid that is, i will need -- i've got my glasses to the side, i will need my glasses to read, i will not do that to you. but what this ambitious -- we've got an ambitious next six or eight months ahead of us. that will, i think, benefit the public going forward. the things that i mentioned in terms of competition, in terms of openness, in terms of i did not mention this, but in terms of national security interests, those things are important. cybersecurity, those are enumerated here -- >> host: all part of the broadband plan? >> guest: those are all a part of the plan. this plan which has gotten praise and criticism really

looks at this nation in total, really looks at how we provision almost everything. because just think about the communications by phone. the communications, the agency in which i am employed, and i consider myself an employee, a steward of this nation, the entities we regulate are responsible for about one-sixth of this nation's economy. i mean, it helps fuel -- just think about, you know, the airways, you know, the people who are listening to us. when they pick up a telephone, you know, when they watch cable, when they communicate. this agency has a hand in some form or fashion in that. we recognize that awesome responsibility, and we recognize in the broadband plan that there are certain things that need to be delivered differently, there are certain challenges be it universal service because that's enumerated here, there needs to

be reform there. the way we communicate is different, as i mention, and the way we conduct ourselves in terms of telemedicine, health, all of the things that will help improve our lives. it is, to me, at the foundation of this plan, and it is important and vital, and we're going to be very busy over the next nine or so months. >> host: this is "the communicators" program, our guest is mignon clyburn. cecilia kang of "the washington post" is our guest reporter. next question. >> host: what two or three items in the broadband plan are nonnegotiable in your mind, they must be accomplished for the fcc to be successful? >> guest: universal service reform. the contribution factor is over 15%. that's unsustainable. the way in which we communicate is changing. we have to have 21st century solutions. we've got a 20th century infrastructure as it relates to the current usf regime.

that has to change. public safety. nonnegotiable. 9/11 showed us, and i'm from hurricane alley. i am from charleston, south carolina, and the season starts pretty soon. we have got to have a network, an interoperable network. we've got to have our first responders able to communicate with each other regardless, without regard for distance, without regard for jurisdiction. those two things are nonnegotiable to me, they're at the core of what makes this nation function in terms of communications, in terms of public safety. those are nonnegotiable. we've got to find a way. and yesterday's meeting teed those up. we are going to begin the proceeding on usf reform, and we have a notice of inquiry that talks about cybersecurity.

so we knew how important those things were, and those were teed up in our meeting on yesterday. >> host: commissioner, was there any discussion about the allocations from usf, what should go to broadband, what should go to telephone lines, land lines? >> guest: as it relates to what i like the most about this entity is that we're going to have ongoing discussions about that. so however that mix is that the weight factor, one thing that we did bring forth is that the plan that we have in place, whatever the plan, whether the particulars of the plan we have in place, there will not be an increase -- we're going to work within the framework, the existing financial framework. we will not cause that contribution factor to go up. so that's another nonnegotiable. >> host: so could some people if they have land lines see a decrease in people who have broadband, see a usf contribution? >> guest: there's a probability of shifting in terms of the

factors, especially as it relates to rule carriers. and those are the types of conversations that we must have. rural carriers in particular are concerned about the migration of their land line support to this new infrastructure or this system that we're putting forth. those are the types of details that we're going to have to work out. there are going to be some significant changes as it relates to contribution factors, as it relates to reimbursement, and we're going to have to make some difficult decisions. >> host: and regarding land lines, since the qwest merger of yesterday, what does that say about the future of services? >> guest: that says there are changes, there are pushes for scale economies, there's a recognition that it's expensive to support that infrastructure. so you're going to see more of that. i am sometimes weary of consolidations in certain spaces, but i was a business major, and i do recognize that

sometimes it really does make sense to consolidate. >> host: i'm going to go at it again because i think -- >> guest: uh-oh. [laughter] >> host: what is your opinion on the fcc's ability to, to regulate broadband services? what is your opinion at this point of what the fcc should do? >> guest: again, i will -- >> host: and i go about it because there's an awful lot of discussion going on, as you say, so if you can give us some -- do you think under title i you can achieve what you want to achieve? >> guest: i am hopeful that under the current framework we can achieve the objectives that i put forth. i am open, however, if we see in our evaluations that there are deficiencies there or that

we're, or that there are too many challenges there, then we need to have a different set of compensations. i will not prejudge, but i will say that this decision was narrow. i think it was narrow. it talked, again, about management, you know, how they manage their networks. i am hopeful, i see light behind that door that some people say was all the way shut. i don't think it was all the way shut. how's that for maybe not answering? [laughter] >> host: you showed a little bit more angle. [laughter] i will -- one thing that i found fascinating watching you, commissioner, since you've taken your position is how you've used the fcc as sort of, well, a bully pulpit to send letters when you see bad behavior in the wireless sector, for example. where does that stand? and do you think you've achieved what you want to achieve because i don't think much has changed. there's been a lot of letters,

but -- >> guest: i don't know if i agree with that whole heartedly. no one else as it relates to those advanced offerings in terms of what some people call smart phones, you know, there has been some slowdown. a couple of companies have actually lowered their etfs. and so i think there's been some ripple, positive effects of that. i will do my best to maybe not change the world, to influence it. i think we have. i think the proper signals have been sent. so i'm upbeat, i'm positive. >> host: commissioner clyburn, you mentioned public safety. do you think that the d block should be, sale of the d block should be devoted to public safety, and have you seen representative peter king's new bill on public safety with regard to telecommunications? >> guest: i will say that i have not seen the representative's

bill. as it relates to that space, we are -- that's very -- you've got two very significant entities who are, some people don't like to use the word trade associations, but i will use it here, of persons in public safety who are advocates for public safety but do not see it in the same way as to whether or not there should be some private infusion. those, again, are the types of conversations we need to have. what we want is a network that is viable. however that is achieved whether it's solely dedicated, whether it's shared, however that is achieved is what i think the commission wants, and i think what the public needs. >> host: and to take this a little further, what do you think about the fcc and its relationship with congress? and we should note here that, of course, your father is the

majority whip of the house of representatives. >> guest: i have a pretty good relationship with -- [laughter] i think we've had a few hearings, and i think we're dealing with some difficult issues, so you're going to see some friction which i think is natural. but i think all and all in total it has improved immensely over the past eight or nine months. it really has. the exchanges have been relatively friendly, and we are challenged more so on the positions, not necessarily on, you know, how we run the agency or how the agency interacts with congress. those are positives. and we're going to see more of that. we are faced with some difficult decisions ahead. we have to do more with less, but we've got these things before us that the nation needs, the nation wants, the public has spoken. they want these mobile devices to do almost everything, you

know, aside from cook or maybe in some instances cook. [laughter] so you've got the public that is clamoring for more, they want efficiencies, and you've got an environment, we think, that, again, is constantly rebooting themselves to provide that. congress recognizes that, we recognize that. we recognize that how we get there, you know, it's subject to debate. but at the end of the day when all of those opinions and all of those variables are being considered, we think we're going to come up with the best decision. i'm committed to that, and you've got four other persons at the agency who lead the agency who are also. >> host: great. what would you like your legacy to be? what would you want to be known for after your term? i mean, it's early on still, but what are sort of the themes and issues that you want to own? >> guest: i would like it to be

said when i say good-bye as it relates to my service at the fcc that i was a fierce advocate for consumers. that every decision that i made put the consumers first. what's the impact on consumers? persons who without, often without a voice or without the means to come into my office every day. i want those voices to be as loud and as clear as those entities who have millions and millions of dollars who are able to have offices in this nation's capital. i think if that were said about me more often, then other things might be said that i could sleep well and transition and say job well done. >> host: we've got about two minutes left, commissioner clyburn. what else is on your agenda that we have not talked about? >> g: