all were hostile to richard nixon. >> go inside pivotal moments in american history on line at the c-span video library. search, watch clip and share with every c-span program from 1987 through today. it is washington your way. speech tonight on c-span2, "the communicators" with fcc commissioner mignon clyburn on the proposed merger between at&t and t-mobile. this become "the communicators" of discussion on the work of the

federal communications commission with democratic commissioner mignon clyburn. >> host: we are pleased to welcome back to "the communicators," commissioner mignon clyburn of the fcc. commissioner clyburn, in a recent speech, you said that you were going to be super vigilant of the wireless industry. what did you mean by super vigilant? >> guest: i meant that what is important is the consumer experience. what is important is the marketplace, so those who speak two things to ensure that the competitors, that is the competitive marketplace, that the competitors in the market, that it is a healthy experience and the consumers are getting what they paid for and beating their expectations. so when i say super diligent i mean that i am the substitute often for a competition when it is not as intense or robust as we would like and i am the

consumers eyes and ears that if there is a problem then we are the cop on the beat to be there. >> 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 of those things we are dressing 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 -- there are still spots where there are challenges but the consumer i think is generally pleased to see the evolution in this market in this industry. >> host: well recently we have on "the communicators" are coley, robert mcdowell and here is what he had to say about the wireless industry and

regulation. >> congress very consciously with the 1996 act had a hands-off approach when it came to wireless and what we saw with was a tremendous explosion of the entrepreneurial brilliance in the wireless indicia. weiss our rates come down and we saw functionality and innovation go up and investment go up. and now the penetration rate, over 300 million people in the country with a 200 million -- 290 million or so have wireless handsets or subscribers and so there is more carnahan to consumers as a result. as a result of having that deregulatory approach to that industry, but what we are starting to see now at least at the fcc is more of a regulation of the wireless space as a wireline monopoly. i think that could start as one example start to inhibit innovation and investment. >> host: commissioner clyburn. jaczko i agree with the majority of what my colleague said. i said that at the top.

one thing that i am recognizing especially in rural areas, there are at least 10 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 i am larger 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 the local market. we need to get regular in terms of our overview and 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 at the table also is howard buskirk associate managing editor of "communications daily." commissioner i wanted to ask you as a follow-up question to what you just said, what role do you see the federal government and the fcc playing in trying to

spur more wireless buildout in some of these rural areas? >> guest: some of the things i'm proud of that we are doing, we just did about a week or so ago in terms of a pole attachment order. i know that sounds a little boring to some but with that will do is provide for more access, provide for more opportunity for providers to attach the means to provide service to a pole to an existing pole and again that would provide for more communication opportunities. we are doing a lot of things by way of universal service reform through the joint lords and the like, and attempting to modernize the system in order to include a broadband as a part of the mix. the way we are communicating is changing and we are changing with it. so what we are attempting to do is encourage public-private partnerships.

that works. we are doing that in the wake of a very shrinking government ability to put money exactly where we wanted to go, and so what we are doing is trying to encourage all of these things in concert in order to enhance the consumer experience. those things are important. >> guest: is the fcc on the right course with most of these things? are there areas where you would like to see the commission do more and get more aggressive? >> 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 us to move at an exponential rate. sometimes the reality of the day don't provide or permit that. but i think we are on the right course. we are focusing on some of the things that might not be as exciting like universal service reform and they are carrier compensation reform which will send the proper signals to

carriers, which would compensate those that are supposed to be used. is the proper signals are sent, sometimes there is government encouraged him and needed to do that. then i think the investment and development of these technologies that we are growing ever dependent on, that will move in the right direction. >> guest: let me ask you a universal funds follow the question and that is the very question now. the chairman is talked about a fairly aggressive timetable perhaps having some kind of decision by august. is that realistic? how long is it going to take her the commission? >> guest: i think not only is it realistic. it is a must do. we are recognizing that this system is to be updated. the way we are communicating is different. we have got voice-over ip now. we have got you know, people are connecting with each other and more innovative and interesting ways. we have got to keep up with the

time so it is an aggressive schedule, yes but you have got an all hands on up to the task. >> guest: one final question on that. the pile to take savoie's been difficult and there is always a lot of resistance to whatever's attempted to be done by the fcc. do you expect a lot of resistance to the reforms that the commission is working on right now? >> guest: is 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 is not very efficient and so we are going to have to make some very difficult decisions over the next 10 years or so. but i think you have most people willing to come to the table. they recognize we are not talking about flash cuts. we are talking about gradual

reforms, reforms we must make in order to send the proper signals and provide the most bang for that. that is important. >> host: commissioner clyburn when it comes to the usf reform proposals, are you binding agreement among the five commissioners or does it break a breakdown among party lines? >> guest: overall, i think we are seeing agreement. i don't hear her since any resistance that we have want an efficient, a fraud-free system. we want the proper signals to be sent. we want provisioning of service. we want rabin to be included in the mix, but the chair has made it clear that in terms of the overall fund even with all of the things we want and need to modernize the system we are talking about existing dollars. and you have got, you have got fair agreement on that front. from my perspective, i am not necessarily a proponent of capping the funds because i know we are asking to do a lot of

rings it hasn't done in the past. but i am definitely a proponent of having an efficient and effective system that is fraud-free and on that we have an agreement. >> host: are you fighting resistance in congress? >> guest: i don't sense resistance. i will say that you have got rural carriers who are concerned they should read because the way in which the system as we know it, the way in which they have grown accustomed to dealing with a calmer station and how they receive funds, that potentially, that will change and so you are going to have a congress person from a rural stayed who is concerned but i am from a rural stayed. i am concerned also and i have not a proponent of having flash cuts, making immediate decisions but we do have to make gradual decisions in order to have the systems work most efficiently for the american public.

>> guest: let's go to at&t t-mobile. ufr to spoken about that and some of your recent speeches. you have some concerns about that. can you talk to us a little bit about that? eska let me first affirmed 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 plan comfortable talking about that. once an application is filed, our staff will do a thorough review of that and they will look at a number of things. we are a little bit different from the department of justice which concentrates on the antitrust on sherman act type of oversight. we are responsible -- we have a public interest standard which includes looking at competition, how the market looks, how the existing players in the market will be affected, how consumers

would be affected. will there be price impacts? will there be device impacts in terms of a number of mobile devices offered? we have 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 we will have to review but the particulars of the transaction it will probably not surprise you that i won't get to granular. >> guest: i understand that but i think you have already said that if this is agreed to it is going to have to be heavily conditioned and that you are just going to have to -- there will have to be a lot of stuff involved to protect the consumer. >> guest: as the commission we have to look at 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 and what we call conditions. some people might criticize the work conditions but you cannot ignore the fact that if there is a change in the marketplace, that we have to ensure 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 a service provision and pricing and divisive and all of those things we are taking for granted. >> guest: one final question. is it possible to go from four national carriers to free wireless carriers and not have a lot of competition? >> guest: i will say that was you mentioned in terms of the change in the marketplace will be something that we would take into consideration when we get to the final decision. >> host: commissioner clyburn could you give us 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 trends is -- transaction was a more recent comcast 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 on line providers or other video cable providers, that the offerings that they have in terms of nbc comcast programming, at whatever rate's terms and conditions they offer whether comcast-nbc or vice versa that they would offer that as a similar or uniform rates as they do others. so in principle that is what i mean in terms of it is a parody type standard from that perspective, so it is difficult for me to talk about upcoming transactions but i will say one of the things that the major in

the past transaction that the experience of other providers are competitive so to speak and is not harmed because of a transaction. >> host: this is c-span's can mitigators program. our guest this week, fcc commissioner mignon clyburn. she is going on two years of service now on the fcc commission. she is a democrat. howard buskirk is the associate managing editor of -- daily. >> guest: commissioner you came to the fcc from somewhat of 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 working for the state to working at the federal level? how difficult of a transaction transaction -- transition has that been? >> guest: i will affirm it is not an easy is coming from a relatively small blue 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 has been somewhat of a challenge. at what i think it has given me and a very solid foundation to know and to affirm what the 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 testimonies, testimonies and filings from companies. that gives you a very unique perspective that you cannot forget especially after 11 years of service. 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 is a benefit. >> guest: you have also talked about i think that you feel you have a role to play in defending some disadvantaged populations. talk about that a little bit. i mean do you feel that you do have a special -- that you are

on the commission for a reason and you have a role to play? >> guest: i think so and it is so much holds two 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 site for women and minorities respectively, 3% ownership. in terms of on the radio side, it is 6% -- back on the television side if i was not clear with 3%. when you see those abysmal numbers and if you see the boardrooms and were they 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 and hear on the air. and i hear and see a lot of complaints about bad and if there were more of a presence, i think we would hear and see less

and less of that. because you will have america truly reflected whether decisions are made and that would be reflected in the content heard or seen. >> guest: what can the fcc do about that? >> guest: the fcc can talk about it. the fcc can make rules and encourage when someone is in the space and if they are selling off assets. it may encourage those entities that look first at underserved communities, look at the communities in which they do business and possibly find buyers and those particular markets. targeted approaches where it is legally sustainable i think are the things that we can encourage and this space or from this pulpit so to speak. >> host: so commissioner would you possibly see a review of the media ownership rules at at that the fcc this here? >> guest: you know we go

through that process every four years and we are talking now. so what we do again is look at the current rules in which we are governed by and see if there is 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 are becoming more digital so to speak. people are going elsewhere other than traditional 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 our content. those are the things that we take into consideration if the existing rules are still needed. if new rules are needed. >> host: as you know to switch topics just a little bit commissioner, house government oversight chairman darryl isa is -- and he was out in silicon valley and this week google

complained essentially that the fcc is too slow in its decision-making and it hurts business overall for a lot of the silicon valley companies. what would your response to that the? guest: well i will say that on the outside before i got to the agency i was probably a member of that court that complained a bit, but when you get inside of the agency and you recognize all of these noticing requirements, all of the things that you have to do, because it is mandated, you can can't just make a decision quickly without getting a bit from the public, without getting filings from other persons in a different way. all of this things for better or for worse in review take time. persons in their transactions whatever the thing they have before us it is the most significant thing to them and

yes it is significant. we have got thousands and thousands of applications and reviews in 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 quickly as some would like. we are ever reviewing our process. we are ever trying to streamline the intake as well as the delivery of decisions and we will continue the work on that and we will listen to all constructive criticism. >> host: telecommunications subcommittee chair greg walden has stated he is going to hold fcc reform hearings. what you think of that idea and what reforms would you make in the fcc decision-making process that you have been able to witness over the last year? >> guest: i am always pleased with positive engagement with congress. i don't pretend as a regulator

in this 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 review processing, 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 and that will continue to be a proponent of that. so things like that that i think would expedite in terms of intake and to put things on the fast-track i think would be benefiting us. but all these large significant very detailed transactions to expect a very expedited, very short-term decision from the fcc i think with not be in terms of long-term benefits to the american public.

certain things, certain significant transactions take time for review and that is just the nature that. >> guest: from your perspective, there've been a lot of criticisms throughout the fcc on capitol hill. do you think that is mostly politics, republicans who are not pleased? is it taking the democratic decision for real interest in reform? >> guest: i've been in the space for about 13 years and i have never in terms of -- i have never not heard criticism about the fcc, regardless of who is in power at the white house coming congress or at the fcc which of course the white house and the fcc chair are the same party. so you are always going to have that friction and i don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. it helps in terms of checks and balances so to speak. it helps us in terms of taking the posted not only the consumer's and the politicians

who are consumers also. so you know that is not necessarily a bad thing. you are always going to have that friction so to speak and for the most part i welcome it. it is 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 result in terms of the public benefit, in terms of having a healthy business in the 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. that is what makes the world go around. that is a positive to me. there is no one right answer. >> host: commissioner clyburn the house recently voted to suspend the fcc net neutrality order. what is your reaction to that? >> guest: well i cannot say that when i heard that that i was jumping up and down with

joy. but, i am 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 on line experience, that if you have a device that is not harmful to the network, if you have got information that you want to have access to, that is lawful. there is to be transparency in terms of engagement. you should know exactly what you are signing up for. all of these things are important to me so i felt comfortable with the boat. i felt comfortable for the reason why 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 persons who now do business on line, whose economic base has been lifted because of this experience, because it doesn't matter if they have a big shot. they don't have to spend 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. sometimes we see things differently in terms of the particulars of a decision but i think all in all, we want a robust engagement. we wants consumer comfort. because if you have consumer comfort and you have 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: the open internet has led to a crisis or a looming crisis and spectrum. how do you think that should be dealt with? >> guest: well but i think we are doing now is really looking at what we have, what is out there. some, she said, have said that we are in a crisis. i am not sure if i'm going to say the one we are in a crisis. i can say that what you put

forth as valid that you have got smartphones, smart this and smart that and that uses a lot of that type of real estate. 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 a choir spectrum for the use in the drivers which a lot of it is mobile, the drivers that you know in terms of that hunger for spectrum. so we are 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 key word voluntary. i think that there is a person or station owner 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 their spectrum in which they have possession, and get fairly compensated for it. so those are the types of conversations that i think we should have. again, i am a i proponent of a voluntary means to any type of acquisition if we go down that road. >> host: howard buskirk final line of questioning. >> guest: what is the likelihood that congress is actually going to approve incentive auctions legislation and also do you have a sense that broadcasters genuinely a lot of them want to sell 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. there is 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. you just looked at the mobile trend. every single person over 10 years old has a mobile device and that requires more spectrum. >> guest: is that going to be tough getting through congress? >> guest: it is hard for me to predict. i know i have some engagement with congress but for the life of me i can't read them. but, i am hopeful that we will come to a series of decisions that will think of the needs of the