>> first, housing and urban development secretary shaun donovan talks about effects of the recently-enacted tax cut package. after that, remarks by the head of the justice department's community policing services program. >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion with meredith attwell baker, republican commissioner at the federal communications commission. >> host: meredith attwell baker is one of the two republicans who sits on the federal communications commission. she's our guest this week on "the communicators." thank you for being with us, commissioner, we appreciate it. >> guest: thanks. it's a pleasure. >> host: eliza krugman is with us as well, she is our guest

reporter with politico. commissioner, if we could start with a vote that the fcc took this week which was the comcast/nbcu merger. you voted for it, and in your statement you attached strong reservations to the whole process and to the vote itself. why. >> >> guest: good question. you know, historically, the fcc has taken too long, and they've attached too many not pertinent conditions to the merger. and this is my first time through a merger at the fcc. and, unfortunately, i would have to say that we've fallen into the same pitfalls. for instance, comcast filed this merger with us on january 28th of last year. we have an internal shot clock of 180 days for review. now, this is a big merger, and it should be thoroughly vetted, and we should absolutely carefully consider it, but with i think we need to do it in a more timely manner. as far as the conditions go, let's just take one, for instance, broadband deployment.

now, you know that i've been involved in the policy area for the last eight years really with the main goal as broadband deployment. but we have under conditions forced comcast to build out to 400,000 households broadband. while this may be an exciting move, it seems to me nowhere is there a nexus between a merger between a programmer and a distributer that causes us to force them to build out broadband to households. so i think it's just illustrative of the leverage that we have over these companies that are petitioning us. let's take one more, for instance, condition that we have, one that i think is pertinent to the merger, and that is online video. now, the danger is that comcast now owning nbc would withhold nbc's programming from other online internet sites such as apple or maybe google tv. that's a legitimate concern as

to what this merger might produce. however, i really think that the broad scope of the condition and the duration of seven years is problematic. if we took and sat down with five of the people who are really deciding what online programming is going to look like with these companies, we would get five different decisions as to what the business plan looks like, what the consumers want and how to monetize online programming. it's a very beginning part of this business, and we don't know what it's going to look like. so i think seven years is a really long time to have a condition when those people who are actually doing it don't know what it's going to look like anyway. i'm afraid we're market forming as opposed to forming regulatory positions. >> host: where did the seven years come from? is. >> guest: it's longer than we've ever had at the fcc, we work together with the department of justice to come up with seven years. >> host: did you consider because of the conditions voting

against this merger? >> guest: we considered it, but i think, you know, we are for the merger. i think it's going to be good for consumers, i think it's going to provide an interesting business opportunity for programmers, and so i think, you know, we worked to, you know, moderate the conditions. lots of times with deals nobody walks away with everything they want. >> host: eliza krugman. >> host: should congress narrow the scope of authority the fcc has over these reviews or is it a matter of self-restraint of the commissioners? >> guest: i know that, you know, what congress wants to do, we are a creature of congress. we do what congress tells us to do. i know congress is going to take a look at it, and can certainly it's ap area of concern that i have. >> host: if it were up to you, how would this have been conducted differently? >>ing i think it would have been more rapid, and i think that the conditions would be specific. there would be a nexus to the harm caused by the merger to the conditions, and there are just a whole host of voluntary conditions that are extraneous to the deal.

>> host: commissioner attwell baker, eliza mentioned congress, and there's a new republican house in the 112th congress, and one of the things that they've talked about, several members of the energy and commerce committee especially have talked about is bringing the fcc to task and to hearings up on the hill. how do you see that? >> guest: well, i expect to spend a lot of time on capitol hill in the next couple of months. i think that's their prerogative. i think as i understand it the first order of business is to look at our network neutrality rule, and as you know, this is something i've objected to. and if we wanted to talk about all my objections to this, well, we might be here all day. [laughter] but i think, you know, my basic exemption to it is i just wish we'd been more humble. you know, i think be we look past at the internet in the past five years, none of us would be happy with what we had now, and we can't really predict what the next generation of the internet

is going to look like. so i think the engineers have done a terrific job on the first and second generation of the internet, and can i'm not sure the regulators need to step in for the third and the fourth generation. we don't know what opportunities and challenges are going to come in the next generation of the internet, and i just think that government involvement is going to hinder the innovation as opposed to help it. >> host: well, representative marsha blackburn has already introduced legislation to reverse what the fcc did when it comes to net neutrality. do you support her legislation? >> guest: i do support her legislation. i think that there are two point bees here. one, i don't think that net neutrality was necessary. there's no problem that we're addressing, there's no market failure. this is the one part of our economy that's working, so from a fundamental standpoint, i don't think we need the legislation. but the second part is we have exceeded our authority. there is no place where in this our statute that congress has given us jurisdiction over the internet, so we have exceeded

our authority. i think that it's a very healthy discussioning to talk about the internet and jurisdiction of the internet and what to do, but i think that's congress' choice. so i'm happy that congress will continue to have these discussions and tell us what the proper role of the fcc is. >> host: do you think that the court is going to uphold the net neutrality regulations? because many have speculated that there are sure to be lawsuits challenging it. >> guest: i find it highly likely that the court will overturn our or rules. what we've done is, basically -- and not to get too legalistic -- but what we have done is base the majority of our jurisdiction on a section of the communications act that asks us to write a report to congress on how broadband deployment is going and to get rid of any impediments to broadband deployment. now, to say that network neutrality rules have anything to do with that, i think, is a really strong legal stretch. so i do think the court is going to overturn it, and i'm hopeful that the discussion will continue in congress. >> host: does it matter whether

the case is heard in the district court which ruled against the fcc in the comcast case or if it's heard elsewhere, in your opinion? >> guest: i don't think it really makes a difference. certainly, the district court is familiar with this case. they did a quick turn around on the last comcast decision, so i think maybe they are probably the most experts on this particular matter, but i think that the legal case is weak enough that it doesn't matter where it goes. i think it will be turned around. >> host: commissioner attwell baker, we had gary shapiro on this program recently, and can he talked about spectrum and the broadcasters. we want to show you a little part of what he had to say and then get your reaction to it. >> well, certainly, broadcasters are phenomenal political lobby, and they have terrified members of congress with their power to use their broadcast signal in a way which demonizing members of congress. but i think everyone recognizes this point. when broadcasters were first loaned the spectrum -- and it is a loan, they do not own the spectrum, it is borrowed -- they

had 100% of the population covered. we had, you know, i was a kid we had three or four channels, and can that was it. now broadcasters, basically, are going as a primary source in less than 10% of american homes. americans are using cable, they're using satellite, and they're also, frankly, using increasingly the internet as a primary source or exclusive source of information and broadband. so when you're in fewer than 10% of american homes, you have to say, is it worth it to take up all the beachfront property for, basically, one type of ship? >> host: and gary shapiro, obviously, is the head of the consumer electronics association, and spectrum is something that you've spoken on on several occasions. >> guest: i'm so glad we get to talk about something i like. [laughter] okay. so let's take a step back on spectrum and let me tell you why i think it's so important, and then we can get to the question on gary. so mobile broadband is really, it's what was all over the consumer electronic show floor this year. we in -- i guess it was june of

2007 when the iphone was introduced. so in that time from there until now i 46% of americans actually use a smartphone. now, a smartphone uses 250 megabits a month your average user. so last year steve jobs, bless him, introduced the ipad on the consumer electronics show floor there were 90 tablets that are there. so it's really a game changer, and it's sort of the next venue. they use a gigamonth. so the united states right now is at a place where we're using one x bite which is a billion gigs a year. from what we see, they say it's going to double every year by 2014. i think it's going to quadruple. so we're in a place where we're quickly approaching spectrum exhaustion. so what do we do about that? it's clear we need more spectrum. some of it, you know, may come from the broadcasters, some of it may come from the federal users. we need to work cooperatively for more spectrum, but we keep talking about broadcasters and

incentive auctions, and can i think what we really need is a more comprehensive spectrum policy. and that is not only more spectrum, it's using the spectrum we have more efficiently, it's encouraging the deployment and development of more innovative consumer electronics techniques, and it's also really changing the paradigm as to how we think about interference. >> host: but in order to have more effective use of spectrum do you still need the broadcasters to change the way they're using it or to relinquish some of their -- i'm getting there's still a political side here even if we are going to be going down the more efficiency route rather than just trying to unleash more to market. >> guest: i think that we need to pursue all paths. and, you know, i went through the digital television transition which was just a year ago, and so we have moved the broadcasters just a year -- i guess it's a year and a half ago. i think we need to give them a chance. they're looking at mobile broadband. they're looking at -- or mobile

television. they're looking at hd television. this is being portrayed as a fight between broadcast and broadband, and i think that there is a place for both of them. i think that there's a place for one to one and one to many. and so i think that broadcasters are important, it's an important part. i think the voluntary incentive auctions are a terrific idea. what i sort of wish we'd started with is the incentive auctions for the satellite spectrum because it's clear that we have too much satellite spectrum and not enough terrestrial spectrum, and that's -- it's an easier discussion because it's more ripe. the broadcasters are still just beginning to try and find what their new business models are going to be. again, i think the conversations have to take place on multiple levels. we got a great letter from senator snowe this week talking about this is a piece of the pie, but what about the spectrum inventory and what about creating a database with that spectrum inventory so we can have more sharing and more

secondary markets. so i think we need to pursue all paths if we're going to have america remain competitive. >> host: commissioner, in a recent speech in stockholm you laid out five areas that you think spectrum management should look at. number one, you said that we should promote the creation of interoperable, dynamic spectrum databases. could you expand on that a little bit? >> guest: sure. i really think that, well, okay. so we have been regulating radio technology sort of the same from when it just began. 1934 communications act when radio was an analog signal, it was of precious. you put it in this a lain, and you -- lane, and you had to protect both sides of it. what we have now are these fabulous digital ip technologies that are, they are inherently accepting to packet dropping. and so we kind of can look at how we can share spectrum in the new way than we ever have before. these are smart technologies that can tell 90% of our spectrum at any time is unused, and these technologies if we can

encourage them and use them and share, then they can actually make more efficient use of the spectrum that we have. >> host: another area you laid out was we need to look at service rules to insure they enable and encourage spectrum users to take advantage of the new information and technology. >> guest: uh-huh. no doubt about it. what i really think is if we have a comprehensive spectrum database that includes both the federal and the nonfederal, then we can encourage both secondary markets where people can see where spectrum is if they want to use it, spot leasing, and spectrum trading. i think that we can all sorts of -- we have much more flexibility in the technologies that we're using now than we did previously, and i think that we need to update our regulatory model to suit that. >> host: and one other area that you mentioned. we need to insure secondary market rules encourage efficient spectrum use. >> guest: absolutely. i mean, again, it's 90 at any given time of our spectrum is being unused, then certainly we

need to encourage the deployment of these commercial technologies that can utilize it. if it's on a secondary basis, it's on a secondary basis. >> host: so given what you have spoken about on the spectrum, what do you think about an auction on the d block? for public safety? >> guest: ing you know, this has been a really vexing problem for us for a long time. i think part of the digital transition that was so exciting was we were actually going to give the police and the firefighters the technology that they need to interoperate in times of crisis. and it is still one of the most critical things and responsibilities that we have. there are competing ideas as to what to do with the d block. if the there was one right answer, i think we would have moved forward with it, so i look forward to working with those members of congress who are interested in this to try and make a decision so that by the anniversary of 9/11 this year we can actually have a plan forward so that we can have interoperable communications. >> host: do you lean towards a dedicated area? >> guest: i think that both

models work. and i look forward to working with those who are entered in the summit because i think -- interested in the subject because i think it's important that we find an answer. policemen, the first responders deserve a network. >> host: but as i understand it, the commission has the authority to auction off the d block, and that's what's in the broadband plan. so is it for political reasons that the commission is not moving forward with this, to let that battle play out in congress, or is it something else? >> i think it's both. i mean, i think that the commission was moving forward in one way and congress, you know, voiced some dissent on that, and i think that their opinion, again, we're a creature of congress. we answer to congress. the only thing that i would say is that we're building out these 4g finishes now, and for it to be, you know, as cost effective as possible, we need to move forward. >> host: i understand that next week the fcc will be laying the technical groundwork for the interoperable network. when is it that americans can

hope to have this network working? >> guest: i hope as soon as possible. >> host: there's no specific time frame? whereupon the pressure's going to be rising as we come upon the tenth anniversary of 9/11 and we still don't have it, but there's no ballpark figure? >> guest: you know, i don't control the agenda at the fcc. all i can do is encourage all of us to work together to find a solution. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. our guest is meredith attwell baker, guest reporter eliza crigman of politico. next topic. >> host: another issue that you guys are going to be looking at in february is reform of the universal service fund. could you delainuate for us what the agency can do on its own and what it needs congress to legislate? you guys are moving, and it's a little bit technical and confusing. >> guest: it is technically confusing. in fact, i use the word bone-crunchingly confusing. [laughter] it's an $8.8 billion fund. last quarter the contribution

factor was 15.5%, and what that means is that it's a 15.5% tax on everyone's phone bill. so it's $8 on a $50 phone bill. that's a lot in an economic challenging time. it's clear that the fund is not sustainable, it's clear that it needs reform, and i think we have commitment from all five of the commissioners to move forward with that. congress is also very interested in this, and if congress has more ideas on how to revise this fund that's been traditionally for telephone for broadband, then, obviously, those ideas are very welcome. i think we all kind of have similar starting points which is there needs to be a path for all americans, especially rural, towards a broadband future. there's more businesses, there's more consumer services, all of this is on broadband, and we need to provide a path for that. i think the second point p is that the fund is too big. this is a very large and

unsustainable fund, and i think that it's -- we immediate to look at the efficiencies -- we need to look at the efficiencies of it, the transparencies of it and acknowledge that this is the taxpayers' money that we need to spend efficiently. and i guess i'd say the last point is really that we need to work together on this universal service fund because broadband is so important. >> host: you say that all five commissioners, you think, agree that some reform is needed. >> guest: we all agree that reform is needed. i think we all agree on the high-level talking points. the broadband plan laid out a very comprehensive path forward with a glide path to go from voice to broadband over ten years. so i think that's a reasonable glide path as we work towards the details. the devil's in the details in something this large, this ingrained and this complex. and so we're going to have to work together to find consensus. we're going to start in february. what we have is sort of many options, and we're going to take

comment on a lot of different paths forward. and then we'll work together to see what we can do to find a broadband future for america. >> host: commissioner attwell baker, you said you're going to start in february. is there a planned change in the usf that you see going forward? >> guest: we call it notice of proposed rulemaking which is going to be voted on in this our february meeting. of course, intercarry compensation is the other part of this equation which makes it even more complex. it's going to take us a while. we hope to build consensus. again, it's very complex, and there's a lot of ingrained people who have, you know, are providing voice to rural areas right now. we can't endanger that as we move forward with a broadband plan. so we're going to work to see if we can build a consensus towards a broadband future. >> host: can you explain about intercarrier compensation? from the observer, it seems somewhat like choosing corporate winners or and losers. is that the case, and what needs to change about it, and will

that be a part of the broadband fund that we're hoping to move to? is. [laughter] >> guest: it is complex, but it actually is what it says, intercarrier compensation. and so it's how the carriers exchange money in traffic. and as we move, again, from, you know, as traffic has moved towards a backbone and an internet and voiceover ip has taken over the switch networks we've traditionally used, this has changed as well. so we'll be working, there are a lot of experts in congress as well on these matters, and there are a lot of members of congress who are extremely interested in the it. so we'll be working hand in glove with them as to how we, how we help define this system for the next generation. i used to say intercarrier compensation, they had a working plan it was called the my siewl la plan several years ago where the carriers sat down at a table and tried to come up with a solution that was intercarrier.

they didn't quite, they were not quite able to put that ball across the goal line, so i think we're probably all going to have to roll up our sleeves and work on it. >> host: commissioner baker, do you see the congress moving ahead with a rewrite or an update of the '96 telecom act at this point? >> guest: you know, i have given up a long time ago predicting what congress is going to do and what congress wasn't going to do. i'm hopeful because i do think we are trying to work with an outdated communications act, that we are trying to put a square peg in a round hole as i think the saying goes. so i'm hopeful that we can work with them. sometimes it takes a while for these issues to gel in congress. certainly, we've been talking about net neutrality for a decade, and we're still even now trying to -- even now don't quite understand what the confines of that term means. so it may take a while, but we're certainly willing to work with congress if they wish us to. >> host: where would you like to see it updated? >> guest: i certainly think it

needs to be updated for the internet age. >> host: eliza krigman. >> host: how would you define net neutrality as we p grapple with this amorphous term? >> guest: again, we all believe in an open internet and the free flow of information on it and the innovation that is important to the next generation of the internet. so i think -- i'd like to stick with net neutrality right there, that we believe and we need an open internet. >> host: yesterday commissioner mcdowell said that if rules don't fall in court, that this is just the beginning of the net neutrality discussion because it'll be revisited every time there's a complaint. do you agree with that? >> guest: i do agree with that, and we're actually already seeing that at the fcc. we have a complaint, a backbone complaint, and backbone has traditionally been a very competitive industry. it's not been regulateed, and it was excluded from the net neutrality order because of its competitiveness. we are already seeing companies trying to game the system and

define net neutrality broader so that we with will take -- we will take part in some of those disagreements, commercial disagreements between carriers. >> host: commissioner baker, in a recent speech to the federal bar association you urged restraint, i think is the best way to put it, and i'll read your words so i'm not interpreting them. but we must resist the urge to radically depart from our existing framework in an effort to engineer better results or specific flavors of competition. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: why? >> guest: i think that that's a -- i firmly believe that we don't immediate to build the house -- need to build the house of regulation in case something might happen. that if there's a problem, we can fix it. i'm afraid from our regulations that we're going to engineer a one size fits all and that we're going to lose the innovation and experimentation that does make this industry so robust. i think that the fcc, you know, there's an article, actually an op-ed by george will today in "the washington post" that's quite good, and it kind of talks

about the same thing that government is now having to find a solution to everything. and i agree with george will, we don't actually need to do that. we used to talk about politics in a very limited manner, and now any social policy has an adjoining public policy to it. and i think that this is a place where the industry's doing really well without our help, and we need to exercise restraint. and humility. >> host: where does the fcc need to exercise regulatory control? where is it important? >> guest: well, i mean, our traditional guideline is radio, television, you know, we have public interest responsibilities, localism and broadcast responsibility bees. so we have traditional responsibilities. we regulate the infrastructure. >> host: do you think that congress needs to revisit the retransmission consent rules that govern how cable and broadcast -- not just cable and broadcast, but the right to carry? >> guest: good question.

congress has given us a very limited role, and i think as, you know, in the many years of change it could be ripe for them to revisit it. retransmission consent, you know, we should have some perspective on this. it is, basically, a billion dollars out of the $30 billion programming industry. so it's a small part, and of the retransmission disputes, most, the large majority of them get solved without any sort of high-profile problems. we do hear several a year, a handful a year, i'd say. so it's right because i understand both sides of the problem. you've got broadcasting which is changing, and you've got a cable industry which also has competitive pressures not to have to raise their prices. so it's a natural kind of flare-up of a dispute. we traditionally know that espn and tnt have a cost to it. we're not quite sure, but cbs and abc also are going to have a

cost attached to it. what is that cost? is as broadcast moves into a new generation, these are natural discussions to take place. is it our job? at this point be, congress has given us a very limited responsibility be. if congress wants to revisit it, we'll have a broader one. >> host: should there be more transparent by at the draft legislation, or do you think companies have the right to maintain the aspect of negotiation as private? >> guest: i think what we need to watch out for are consumers, so if there's going to be some sort of delay or if we're going to lose a channel or signal, then we need to let consumers know. as far as transparency as to what the rights and the rates and the conditions to these terms are, they're private negotiations. >> host: commissioner baker, finally, one of the aspects that you talk about in your speeches is the international aspect of telecommunications and spectrum policy. when, when does regulation stop at the u.s. borders and when does it not?

how do you see that divide? >> guest: i think increasingly we're in a global world, and i think particularly when you look at telecommunications, we need to consider what's going on in the other countries. i think that particularly in the spectrum world, spectrum harmization is critical for the next generation. it's going to make it evolve faster, it's going to be cheaper, and we're going to work more people if we work together. so i'm a big believer to work with other countries on our harmonization of spectrum, and i think we are the leader of the free flow of information. and i think that we need to continue to work together with other nations on those ideas as well. >> host: is the itu the right regulatory model? >> guest: the itu has been a traditional, very helpful in telecommunications. as we look towards the internet world, again, i think part of the beauty of the internet is that it's not regulateed, so i worry about taking internet issues to the internet.

i think that takes it to a more regulatory regime which can lead to places that we don't want to go. >> host: meredith attwell baker, one of five fcc commissioners. thank you for being on "the communicators." we appreciate it. eliza krigman, "politico," thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> host: thanks. >> "the communicators" is c-span's weekly look at the issues and people impacting telecommunications policy. if you missed any of this discussion with fcc commissioner meredith attwell baker, you can watch this program again tonight in prime time at 8 eastern, 5 pacific here on c-span2. >> next on c-span2, two speeches from the u.s. conference of mayors' annual winter meeting.