>> two-thirds of the american people depended on the network

news, those three networks as their primary source of news information about the president of the united states. all were hostile to richard nixon. >> go inside pivotal moments in american history online at the c-span video library. search, watch, clip and share with every c-span program from 1987 through today. it's washington your way. >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion about the work of the federal communications commission with democratic commissioner minion clyburn. >> host: and we're pleased to welcome back to "the communicators" commissioner minion clyburn of the fcc. commissioner clyburn, in a recent speech you said that you were going to be supervigilant of the wireless industry. what did you mean by supervigilant? >> guest: i meant that what is important is the consumer experience. what is important is the marketplace. so those two things in terms of

trying to balance to insure that the competitors, that is the competitive marketplace, that the competitors in the market, that it's a healthy experience and that the consumers are getting what they pay for and meeting their expectations. so when i say supervigilant, i mean that i am the substitute often for competition when it's not as intense as we would like or as robust as we would like, and i am the consumers' eyes and ears that if there is a problem, then we're the cop on the beat to be there. that's what i meant by supervigilant. >> host: are you satisfied with how the wireless industry is conducting itself right now? >> guest: for the most part, consumers seem to be pleased with the innovation. there are still a number of challenges and complaints as it relates to quality of service. those things we are hearing, those things we are addressing. but for the most part i think consumers are happy about the flexibility that they have, they are happy about the dexterity

that it gives, they are happy that mobile is just that, that they can go anywhere anytime and be able to -- in most places, i should say because there are still spots where there are coverage challenges. but the consumer, i think, is generally pleased to see the evolution in this market, in this industry. >> host: well, recently we had on "the communicators" your colleague, robert mcdowell, and here's what he had to say about the wireless industry and regulation. >> guest: congress very consciously with the 1996 act had a hands-off approach when it came to wireless, and what we saw was an explosion of entrepreneurial -- and now the penetration rate, you know, over 300 million people in the country but 290 million or so have wireless handsets or subscribers. so there's more power in the hands of consumers as a result.

as a result of having that deregulatory approach to that industry. but what we're starting to see now at least at the fcc is more of a regulation of the wireless space as wire line monopoly, and i think that could start to, as one example, start to inhibit innovation and investment. >> host: commissioner clyburn. >> guest: i agree with the majority of what my colleague said in terms of innovation, investment, in terms of options and opportunity. i said that at the top. but one thing that i am, i recognize especially in rural areas there are at least ten million persons in rural census blocks that have two or fewer providers in terms of options of services. that is not competition. so what i worry about by and large are those areas where you don't have robust competition. i worry about the consumer experience. i worry about that type of engagement. we have to think about the entire market, both the national as well as local markets.

we need to get granular in terms of our overview in our oversight, and those are the things that concern me, and we need to look out for every single american with their wireless or mobile experience. >> host: joining us also is howard buskirk, associate managing editor of "communications daily." >> host: commissioner, i wanted to ask you as a follow-up question to what you just said, what dole -- role do you see the fcc and federal government in trying to spur some wireless buildout in some of these rural areas? >> guest: some of the things i'm proud of we're doing, we just a couple of -- about a week or so ago in terms of a pole attachment order, i know that sounds boring to some, but that will provide for more access, more opportunity for providers to attach their infrastructure, you know, the means to provide service to a pole, to an existing pole.

and, again, that would provide for more communication opportunities. we're doing a lot of things by way of universal service reform through the joint boards and the like and attempting to modernize the system in order to include broadband as a part of the mix. the way we're communicating is changing, and we are changing with it. so what we're attempting to do is encourage public/private partnerships that work, we are, we're doing that in the wake of. >> -- of shrinking government money to go exactly where we want it to go, so what we're trying to do is encourage all these things in concert in order to enhance the consumer experience. those things are important. >> host: so is the fcc on the right course with these things? are there areas where you would like to see the commission to more and get more -- do more and get more aggressivesome.

>> guest: i think we are on the right course. of course, you are sometimes impatient. you want certain things, especially in unserved areas. you want them to move as an exponential rate. sometimes the realities of the day don't provide or permit that. but i think we're on the right course. we are focusing on some of the things that might not be as exciting to some like universal service reform and intercarrier compensation reform which will send the proper signals to carriers which would compensate those that are supposed to be. if proper signals are sent, sometimes that is, government encouragement is needed to do that. then i think the investment and development of these technologies that we are growing ever dependent on will, that will move in the right direction. >> host: let me ask a universal service fund follow-up question. that's before the commission right now. >> guest: yes. >> host: chairman's talked about a fairly aggressive timetable, perhaps even some kind of

decision by august. is that realistic? how long is it going to take to work through the commission? >> guest: i think not only is it realistic, it's a must do. we are recognizing that this system needs to be updated. the way we're communicating is different. we are, you've got voice overip now, you've got d voiceover ip now, you know, people are connecting with each other in more innovative and interesting ways. we've got to keep up with the times, so there is -- that's an aggressive schedule, yes, but you've got an all hands on up to the task. >> host: one final question on that. the politics of usf have always been difficult, though, and there's always a lot of resistance to whatever is attempted to be done by the fcc. do you expect a lot of resistance to the reforms that the commission's working on right now? >> guest: it's going to be difficult. the short answer is, yes. but i think now you recognize even some of the rural carriers who are rightfully worried, and

some of the others in the system recognize that we have a system that needs to be updated. we have a system that is not fully functional, it's not very efficient. and so we're going to have to make some very difficult decisions over the next ten years or so. but i think you have most people willing to come to the table. they recognize that we're not talking about flash cuts, we're talking about gradual reforms, reforms we must make in order to send the proper signals and provide the most bang for our buck. that is important. >> host: commissioner clyburn, when it comes to the usf reform proposals, are you finding agreement among the five commissioners, or does it break down among party lines? >> guest: overall, i think we're seeing agreement. i don't hear or sense any resistance that we want an efficient, we want a fraud-free system, we want the proper signals to be sent, we want

provisioning of service, we want broadband to be included in the mix. but we, the chair has made it clear that in terms of the overall fund even with all of the things that we want and need to modernize this system, we're talking about existing dollars. and you've got, you've got fair agreement on that front. because, you know, from my perspective i am not necessarily a proponent of capping the fund because i know we're asking for it to do a lot of things that it hasn't done in the past. but i am definitely a proponent of having an efficient and effective system that's fraud-free, and on that we have agreement. >> host: are you finding resistance in congress? >> guest: i don't sense resistance. i will say that you've got rural carriers who are concerned. they should be, because the way in which the system as we know it, the way in which they have grown accustomed to dealing with

compensation and how they receive funds, that potentially, that will change. and so you're going to have congresspersons from rural states who are concerned. but i am from a rural state, i am concerned also, and i am not a proponent of having slash cuts, making immediate decisions. we do have to make gradual decisions in order to have the system work most efficiently for the american public. >> host: can we -- let's shift to at&t/t-mobile. you've already spoken about that in some of your recent speeches. you have some concerns about that. can you talk to us a little bit more? >> guest: let me first affirm that i'm going to keep an open mind about the proposed transaction. and i say proposed because as of today's taping there has been no filing at the commission. but in terms of process, i am comfortable talking about that. once an application is filed,

our staff will do thorough review of that, and it will look at a number of things. we're a little bit different from the department of justice which concentrates on the antitrust and sherman act type of oversight. we are responsible, we have a public interest standard which includes looking at competition, you know, how the market looks, how the existing players in the market will be affected, how consumers will be affected. will there be price impact, will there be a device impact in terms of number of mobile devices offered. we've got to look at the rest of it in terms of the consumer engagement and how the marketplace will change with any potential transaction. so those are the types of things that i'm comfortable telling you right now that we will have to review. but the particulars of the transaction, it probably will not surprise you that i won't get too granular. >> host: no, i understand that.

is it your thought that whatever -- i think you've already said whatever, if this is agreed to, it's going to have to be heavily conditioned and that les going to have -- there's going to have to be a lot of stuff involved to protect consumers. >> guest: i will affirm as a commissioner, as a commission we have to look at both the harms and potential benefits. again, i mentioned the harms. the benefits could be increased efficiencies. but if there are harms that are identified, we must address those, and harms are often addressed in what we call conditions. some people might criticize the word "conditions," but you cannot ignore the fact that if there is a change in the marketplace, that we have to insure that the consumer experience is enhanced and that the competitive landscape is not harmed to the point in which we don't have the options that we need for service provisions and pricing and devices and all of

those things that we're taking for granted. >> could i, one final question in there. is it possible to go from four national carriers to three wireless carriers and not have a loss of competition? >> >> guest: i will say that what you mention in terms of the change in the marketplace will be something that we will take into consideration when we get to the final decision. >> host: and, commissioner clyburn, could you give an example of a condition that you could see being placed on this proposed transaction? >> guest: if you will allow me to go to a past transaction which was the more recent comcast/nbcu merger which we did approve january of this year. one of the things that sticks out to me that we did was make sure that in terms of their engagement with other companies on other online providers or other video, cable providers that the offerings that they have in terms of nbcu/comcast

programming that at whatever rates, terms and conditions they offerit's coming from come -- if it's coming from comcast, nbc or vice versa, they would offer the same uniform rates as they do others. so that's, in principle, what i mean. it's a parity type standard from that perspective. so it's difficult for me to talk about upcoming transactions, but i will say one of the things that we made sure in that past transaction that the experience of other providers, of competitors so to speak is not harmed because of a transaction. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. our guest this week fcc commissioner minion clyburn. -- mignon clyburn. she is a democrat. howard buskirk is the associate managing editor of "communications daily." he is our guest reporter. mr. buskirk. >> host: commissioner, you came to the fcc from somewhat an

atypical background in that you were a state commissioner. can you talk to us a little bit about making that transition from going from, from working in a state to working at the federal level? how difficult a transition has that been? >> guest: i will affirm that it has not been the easiest coming from a relatively small, rural state in the southeast to the big city of washington, to the capital city dealing with major, significant organizations and persons that you read and hear about. so from that perspective it's been somewhat of a challenge. but what i think it's given me a very solid foundation to know and to affirm what people on the ground think. i spent 11 years on my state commission. i spoke with consumers. i took part in evidentiary hearings. i would hear them on the stand, i read, you know, testimonies, you know, testimonies and filings from companies. that gives you a very unique perspective that you cannot

forget, especially after 11 years of service. and those types of experiences i bring to this post, and it helps me in terms of decision making, in terms of my processing. and i think it's a benefit. >> host: you've also talked about, i think, that you feel like you have a role to play in defending some disadvantaged populations. talk that a little bit. i mean, do you feel like that you do have a special, that you're on the commission for a reason, you know, and a role to play? >> guest: i think so, and it's so much it holds true in terms of ownership. and that means a lot to me. i look at the percentages of women and minority owners in this space on the radio side for women and minorities respectively, 3% ownership. in terms of the telephone -- i mean, in terms of on the radio side it's 6%. on the television side if i was not clear, it was 3%.

when you see those abysmal numbers, and if you see the boardrooms where they're producing content and the like, when you see a lack of diversity in this space, it manifests itself. and i think sometimes a disconnect in what we see and hear on the air. and i hear and see a lot of complaints about that. and if there were more of a presence, i think we would hear and see less andless of that. -- less and less of that because you already america truly reflected in those, where the decisions were made, and that would be reflect inside the content heard or seen. >> host: what can the fcc do about that? >> guest: the fcc can talk about it, the fcc could make rules and encourage when someone is in a space and if they're selling off assets, may encourage those entities that look first at

underserved communities. look at the communities in which they do business and possibly find buyers in those particular markets. targeted approaches where it's legally sustainable are, i think, the things we can encourage in this space or from this pulpit, so to speak. >> host: so, commissioner, would you possibly see a review of the media ownership rules at the fcc this year? ghg well, you know, we go through that process every four years, and we're talking now. and so what we do, again s look at the current rules in which we are governed by and see if there's still a need for that. looking at all of the changes in the marketplace, looking at all of the options. i can't ignore the fact that we're becoming more digital, so to speak, that people are going elsewhere other than the traditional, you know, radio and television to get their news and information and entertainment.

so all of those things, the changes, the evolution of it all in terms of the delivery of content, those are the things that we take into consideration where if existing rules are still needed. or if new rules are needed. >> host: well, as you noted, to switch topics, house government oversight dale issa's -- darrell issa's been holding hearings, and this week google companied that the fcc is too slow in its decision making, and can it hurts business overall for a lot of the silicon valley companies. what would your response to that be? >> guest: well, i will say that on the outside before i got to the agency i was probably a member of that chorus that complained a bit. but when you get inside of the agency and you recognize all of the noticing requirements, all

of the things that you have to do because it's mandated, you can't just make a decision quickly without getting input from the public, without getting filings from other persons who might feel a different way. all of those things, for better or worse, in review take time. and, you know, i know persons in their transactions whatever their, the thing that they have before us, it is the most significant thing to them. and, yes, it is significant. we've got thousands and thousands of applications and reviews and all of these other things that, to be honest with you, that come into the agency each year that we are responsible for turning, so to speak. and often the decisions don't move as fastly, as quickly as some would like. we are ever reviewing our process, we are ever trying to streamline the intake as well as the, you know, the delivery of

decisions, and we will continue to work on that, and we'll listen to constructive criticism. >> host: well, telecommunications subcommittee chair greg walden has stated he's going to hold fcc reform hearings. what do you think of that idea, and what reforms would you make in the fcc decision making process that you've been able to witness over the past two years? >> guest: you know, i am always pleased with positive engagement with congress. i don't pretend as a regulator in the space that i have all of the answers. and sometimes fresh eyes on this is a good thing. and i trust it will be so here. in terms of, in terms of review process, when we can put things on the fast track, when we can simplify and streamline, i think we are and will do, and we will continue to do that in a number of ways. ask that's, i would continue to be -- and that's, i would

continue to be a proponent of that. so things like that, i think, would expedite in terms of intake and would put on a fast track things that would benefit all. but all these large, significant, very detailed transactions to expect a very expedited, you know, a very short-term decision from the fcc i think would not be in terms of long-term benefits to the american public. certain things, certain significant transactions take time for review. and that's just an agent of that. >> host: from your perspective i wanted to ask you, there have been a lot of criticisms lobbed at the fcc from capitol hill. do you think that's mostly just politics, republicans who aren't pleased with -- taking shots at a democratic administration, or do you think there's a real interest in reform? >> guest: you know, i've been in this space for, i guess, about 1 3 years, and i have never in

terms of -- i have never not heard criticism about the fcc regardless of who was in power at the white house, congress or at the fcc. the white house and the fcc chair, they're same party. so you're always going to have that friction, and i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. it helps in terms of checks and balances, so to speak. it helps us in terms of taking the pulse of not only the consumers, but the politicians who are consumers also. so, you know, that is not necessarily a bad thing. you're always going to have that, that friction so to speak. and for the most part i welcome it. it's not always comfortable. but for the most part when we all are in it for the right reason, when we all basically want the same results in terms of the public benefits, in terms of having a healthy business and economic ecosystem, when all of us have the same goal, then i

can deal with some of the differences in terms of how we get there that there might be differences on that. that's what makes the world go round, that's, that's a positive to me. there's no one rightanswer. >> host: well, commissioner clyburn, the house recently voted to suspend the fc cnet neutrality order. what's your reaction to that? >> guest: well, i cannot say that, that when i heard that, that i was jumping up and down in joy, with joy. but i'm comfortable with the decision i made. i felt that it was important for the american public, for the consumer to have an open engagement in terms of their online experience. that if you have a device that's not harmful to the network, if you've got information that people want to have access to that's lawful, if there's to be transparency in terms of your engagement, you should know exactly what you're signing up for. all of these things are important to me, so i felt

comfortable with the vote i took, i felt comfortable with the reason why i took that vote. i see the power of an open internet. i see how it has enhanced communities, i see the millions and millions of potentials who now do -- of persons who now i do business online whose economic base has been lifted because of this experience. because it doesn't matter if they have a big shop, they don't have to spend, you know, money for rent in order to deal in commerce. it is the great equalizer. so i am very comfortable with the decision. again, it goes back to what howard mentioned, you know, sometimes we see things differently in terms of the particulars of a decision. but i think all in the all we want -- all in all we want a robust engagement, we want consumer comfort. pause if you have consumer comfort -- because if you have consumer comfort and a healthy economic exchange, then everybody wins. and i think clear signals do that, and i think this is what

the open internet decision we made promotes. >> host: well, that open internet has led to a crisis or a looming crisis in spectrum. how do you think that should be dealt with? >> guest: well, i think what we're doing now is really taking, looking at what we have, what is out there. some, as you said, have said that we are in a crisis. i am not sure if i'm going to say that we're in a crisis. i can say that what you put forth is valid, that you've got smartphones, smart this, smart that, and that uses up a lot of that type of real estate. and so we need to as a commissioner we need to promote policies that promote efficiencies, that promote any type of voluntary message in order to possibly acquire spectrum for the use and the drivers which a lot of it is mobile. the drivers that, you know, in

terms of that hunger for spectrum. so we're having some very interesting and difficult conversations as it relates to that, especially with the broadcasters as you know. >> host: are they being treated fairly? >> guest: i think they are. they might not agree with me necessarily, but i go back to the keyword "voluntary." i think there is, if there are persons who are station owners who might not have the economic wherewithal to sustain themselves, i think that they should be given the option to maybe vacate or partially vacate or fully vacate that spectrum in which they have possession and get fairly compensated for it. and so those are the types of conversations we, that i think we should have. again, i am a proponent of a voluntary means to any type of acquisition if we go down that road. >> host: howard buskirk, final

line of questioning. >> host: yeah. just what's the likelihood that congress is actually going to approve incentive auction legislation, and also do you have a sense that broadcasters genuinely, a lot of them want to sell some of their spectrum? >> guest: i am hopeful that as we gain more comfort that we are truly talking about a voluntary exchange here that we will have more of a positive engagement and a more expedited engagement with congress. on the -- there's never going to be 100% comfort, i don't think, in this space. but i am a person of my word. i am committed to a voluntary process. i don't know what that will mean in terms of the amount of spectrum that we will acquire when we go down that road, but there is a need, i mean, the