comes from nothing. bog, hard work pays off. disaste yo borrowing is a road to disasterd and the kind of things we tell our children every day thiso nation needs to do it if the business community in the o country goes in that direction r nothing could be better for our economic growth. dewitt say the united states of america has finally got it. th they've got their hands on right making the decision to make then foundation for found delete somd positive growth in the future, and they are not trying to get their way out of the probleme they are in by barring something from nothing, some gimmick. i think the chair and would yield the floor.

..

>> host: also joining us is eliza krigman of "politico," a technology reporter there. if i could start, mr. levin, it's been about a year since the national broadband plan that you spearheaded was introduced to the country, give us your assessment of the past year and its progress. >> guest: well, first, you have to understand what the plan really was, and what the plan was was an agenda setting and target clarifying device. it was supposed to say, here's the things that we need to do over the next few years, and also here are targets we either need to shoot for or shoot at. here's to say there's concrete proposals to move us towards action. in that way, it's been a very, very successful year. every debate that's going on with the exception of dates about mergers are really debates that are very -- about how cowe accomplish the goals of the broadband plan. i think in terms of agenda

setting, it did prove to be a very unifying and consensus kind of document, that everyone, the stake holders kind of agreed the kinds of things, universal service reform, rights of way reform were very important things to be done. in terms of the targets we set, you know, moving towards some of them. some were coming up with better ideas. that's absolutely fine. i think it's been a pretty good year. i would say that this is not like a blueprint where every element has to be exactly right or there's structural instability. it's more in the nature of a book to a movie, and it's a different kind of source material, and there are, you know, as many ways to implement the plan as there would be to make a movie out of the book "the christmas carol," and by the way, the answer is 41. two steps forward, one step back.

there's some things that i think are great. there's other things i go, really? that's the way you expect it to be. >> host: where would you like to see improve wants or the policy different? >> guest: well, there's certain very important issues where we've gone off track on the debate. for example, on the spectrum issue, very important for the future of the country, not tomorrow, but over the next five to ten years and certainly over the next 20 years. i think the important issue we have to resolve is how do we constantly reallocate spectrum to serve what the public needs? we've had a lot of different spectrum debates about issues such as the deblock for public safety, about repacking spectrum and things like that, but at the core, we need a plan so as markets and technologies change, we reallocate spectrum in a way that serves the public interest. i think we're off track of that debate, and indeed what's interesting is that in some ways

there's an argument being made that we don't ever need to reallocate spectrum. the most important thing we all do every day is figure out how to reallocate whatever our scarce resource is. whether it be time or in the case of this show, how do you allocate -- who will be the guest on the show, those kinds of things. you know, when i was on wall street, everyone figured out how to reallocate the capital they had. well, the most important aspect in broadband in the next few years that the government controls is spectrum. we need a method to reallocate it, and the debate is getting lost. >> host: okay. one aspect of the reallocation is the proposed incentive options, do you support those in >> yes. the first way is to assume we got it perfect in the first allocation and therefore never need to change it. in any business, in any life, this would be considered insane. in washington, it's actually a

very respectable argument where people say, hey, allocate it this way in the 1950s, you have to stick with it. i disagree with it. a second way is let the market determine it entirely. have no restrictions at all. that's actually not a bad argument, but it's interesting. there was a letter from 112 economists pointing out the many problems with that. you have to coordinate, there's international harm -- harm minnization, there needs to be a spectrum, and the government needs to be that maker. it's a debatable point, but that's the better argument. the third way is the status quo. you wait for a crisis, and then the government by administrative fiat takes it away from whoever had it to begin with. you know, i'm okay with that other than that's crisis response. it's ineffective and basically leads to years and years of litigation. what incentive options do is

create it with the moorgt base. that's what i'm for. >> host: are the broadcasters sitting on underutilized capital? >> guest: well, i think some are and some are not. what's interesting about the debate is the broadcasters continue to say things that assume that all broadcasters are the same, that if we allocate spectrum to any broadcaster, it has to be the same to all broadcasters. we have 25 broadcasters in new york, 32 in language, many others many many other cities. that was done before there was cable, before there was internet. do we really need that many? now, i'm -- i think the right answer is to let the market determine that, and what incentive options are about when the market changes and changes the value of spectrum to go up, but the value of broadcasting to go down, for the 25th broadcast from new york, it may be more

valuable to sell the spectrum, and we need to have a rational mechanism for doing that, but it's curious. the broadcasters seem to be of the view that any change in the system is very, very problematic, and i disagree with that. >> host: eliza krigman? >> guest: you said we're off track from the debate is that because of the actions taken or have not been taken or the debate going on in congress with this? >> guest: i think there's a lot of different reasons why. for example, the debate over the reallocation method was paired with the debate over public safety. i understand why people did that, and that was a rational decision, but i think it's unfortunate because i think it's very important that we establish the right reallocation method. i think the broadcasters have been very successful in taking people's eye off the ball which is again, what's the method that you want for reallocation? by the way, i'm happy to come back on the show if you want to invite gordon smith. i'd love to hear his answer to

the question how should the country reallocate spectrum over a 10-20 year period. he's never answered that question and the country deserves an answer from the broadcasters. >> guest: the administration would like to use the money for incentive options to help reduce the deficit. is there enough money for both? how should this be parched out? >> guest: look, congress is spending the money the way they want to spend the money. i don't have expertise in that, nor if i did, would they listen to me anyway, but the more important point is i was involved in the first auctions and followed every auction as an analyst. you can make estimates about auctions, but they are very tricky, and there's so many different variables that affect the auction. if you had a spectrum auction in 2007, if you had it a year later

after the financial crisis that has nothing to do with telecom, that would be a different result. everybody needs to have a certain level of humility about what the projections are. they obviously are a very important tool, but the fundamental point is not about using spectrum to raise money, but using spectrum to create competitive, innovative, dynamic markets that drive economic growth and productivity. >> host: that's money for both. >> guest: the truth is, i don't know. i really don't know. you have to make an estimate, and it would be great if there was, but, again, i hope that the decision makers focus not so much -- i mean, the money will drive the process to some extent, but the fundamental thick again, let's have policy that drives competitive, innovative, dynamic markets. >> host: do you agree with julia that there is a looming spectrum crisis? especially when it comes to the new tablets and smart phones, ect.? >> guest: absolutely, and it's

funny. we did our estimates prior to the ipad coming out, and if you look at the numbers on the ipad, you know, we were way too conservative. there's no doubt there's a looming spectrum crisis. the only question is it something that hurts us in two years, three years, five years, seven years? whatever number it is, we're going to need a method to reallocate spectrum, and i think it's very important we put this front and center on the nation's agenda today because if they were to pass incentive authority tomorrow, it would be a number of years before that spectrum could be reallocated. this is a long term process, so you have to start now. if you think the spectrum crisis will hit in five years, you got to start today. >> host: some have said. well, the federal government essentially gave the spectrum to the broadcasters back in the 50s and 60s, so why should we have to buy it from them?

>> guest: you mean, why don't we take it back? actually, the law allows that to happen, and if the government wants to do that, so be it. i would say one could foresee a situation in which the economic consequences to our country could be so damages, not tomorrow, but learn term, that the government would actually be forced into a position where that would be an alternative. you know, if we don't have the same spectrum allocated that other countries do, we are essentially -- it would be the equivalent of having a highway system with a lot of potholes and a lot of tolls, and so it's -- i think that the process of simply taking it back is not the most effective way to do it, but if we don't get incentive auctions, you know, that's the only other alternative i think. >> host: this is c-span's communicators program. our gears is blair levin and former fcc broadband plan

executive director now at the aspen institute. joining us as well is eliza krigman of "politico". >> guest: thank you so much. let's talk about another component of the broadband plan, universal service reform, transforming that from traditional tornado watch lines to broadband. there's an order by the end of the summer, is that possible, and how do owe see this process coming along? >> guest: it's possible. i don't think it's likely, buttic they should be forgiven if they miss deadlines by a month or two. that's not as important. what's important we move in the right direction, and we move with some speed. here's what's happening is that the industry is currently negotiating among themselves and hoping to give the commission kind of a consensus document. i think that there's, you know, it's roughly 50/50 whether they'll succeed with that, but i think that -- this are a lot of

things to be optimistic about, and there's some that cause me some concern. the things to be optimistic about is the general consensus to move to broadband, that the old paradigm doesn't work, that we need to reform both universal service and inner carrier comp which is a very arcane system by which phone companies pay each other, but i do think that we've lost a little bit of the sight of the fact that we need to do this as part of a public strategy. these are essentially as we do with other things cause a lot of people to pay so that other people can have service, and when we do that, there's got to be a public purpose to it, not just a private purpose. we should not do it to prop up certain phone companies, but do it because there's a public gain where we all gain because of it. i think some of the proposals i've heard about and seen are really much more about propping up private companies who frankly we have been paying a long time to act in noneconomic ways, and

it's very disturbing. >> guest: the commission has the equation side of this yet, is that important to be done at the same time as the other pieces? why or why not? >> guest: two pieces. how do you raise money and district money for the fund? we in the broadband plan set out a ten year plan to reform the system in three stages, and we said the first thing to do is deal with the distribution, and to deal with the contribution which is how do you actually raise the funds in the second phase? the reason i think that it's important to do it that way is first of all, there's tremendous gains to the country to be made by rationalizing the distribution. there's a lot of money that simply is not going to an efficient public purpose anymore. we need to change that right away, and, in fact, some changes have already been done which i think is good. if you try to do it simultaneously, i think you get gridlock and nothing happens. ic, you know, there's -- i think, you know, there's time

to do the change in the contribution, but make sure the money we spend goes towards that public topic. >> guest: leaving the post at the agency and take a lobbying gig at co mcast. did that surprise you? >> guest: it did. >> guest: is there anything ethically incontribute about it? >> guest: any time you know a person, you view it through the eyes of the person. i worked with her a lot want plan. she was really good on spectrum rn issues, very, very smart, knew the landscape well and made an enormous contribution. i'm grateful for that and she made contributions other ways often very quietly. i'm quite certain she didn't brake any law and this offer came to her after the merger. it was already approved, but i

think completely understand why the public feels the way they apparently do about it, and i think there is -- look, there's a very simple answer to this that she shouldn't be held accountable for, but i hope we learn a lesson here, and that's this. knowing who the senate confirmed person at that agency should interview for any private sector job while they are there. they should make a commitment that, you know, it's one thing with the president saying i want to move you from the commission to something else or if a nonprofit comes along so there's no financial interest, but if you go there and the senate confirms you to be a decision maker, go there and be a decision maker, and when you want to leave, leave, and then take some time off, enjoy the family, and then start looking for a job. i think if we just had a simple rule that nobody interviews for a private sector job, while commissioner, it would be better off. >> guest: so you agree with free press then in the letter to the agency today asking their remaining four commissioners

pledge they would not take a job at at&t or t-mobile? >> i have to see the letter. i agree with the sentiment that -- i'd go further and said they should not interview for any private sector job while they are serving at the commission. they should wait until they leave to do that. my only concern about the letter is i don't know that you want a lifelong ban for working for those entities or something like that, but in some ways i go further than they would. >> host: blair levin, just to follow-up on a question, what about the at&t, t-mobile merger, should it go through? >> a lot of people asked me about that, and i remain quiet. first of all, mergers are fact specific. i learned this at the fcc and also while practicing law, and unless you are really willing to dive into the details which

require far more, you know, a lot more realizing than i'm willing to do, i don't think someone like me should pine on it. sprint just filed a 377-page document. i have not got all the way through it yet. also because of my role with the broadband plan, i'm hesitant to say something that could be interpreted in various ways relating to the plan or merger that i didn't intend because it's not what i'm working on these days. i will say it's been interesting to me the extent to which at&t premised some of the merger on the broadband plan which i find interesting. i do think it remits that people -- remits that people recognize the goals were good goals. i also say that at the end of the day, they make an argument to the fcc and the merger, the question of whether or not that merger goes through is fundamentally decided at the

department of justice, and they look less at those issues about what's the impact on service and more on the issue of competition, and that's the way it should be. the real question is a competition issue. the doj will figure it out. >> host: on its face, on the competition side, looking at it on its face, does it strike you as okay for competition? >> guest: that's the same question you just asked me. i'll avoid it again. if i studied it, i might have an answer, but i -- i have a lot of respect for antitrust economists and lawyers. they are kind of like the neurosurgeons of that part of the practice and are smart and know a lot of stuff i don't. i'll decline to answer. >> guest: let's approach from another angle. [laughter] at&t's deal is viewed as good for the public because they are bringing wireless connectivity to 99% of the country.

critics are concerns they will not follow-up. can you address merger conditions? >> guest: that's a great question. you know, there's certain things where i have not studied that as an academic, and it is an interesting question. when i looked back on my own time at the fcc, i would absolutely say this that we -- we had certain merger conditions and stuff, the best stuff we did had to do with market structure and had to do with competition. what we did -- we made a series of decisions in 93 and 94 time frame. there were five critical decisions about wireless, and i think a few of them were absolutely great, and a few we looked at and said, maybe they were great, maybe not so much, but fundamentally laid the foundation for a very competitive, very dynamic, very innovative wireless market that we really enjoyed the fruits of in this country, and i think that, you know, making sure that

there is a competitive market is far more important than whatever conditions you could put on that you then have to enforce. at&t make the argument there is sufficient competition. i'm not pining on that question. i'm just saying that if you are depending on enforcement actions, it's a much tougher road. i do think, and i think it's very interesting that verizon picked up on this, that one of the concerns you'd have about a merger would be does that inevitably lead to the need for more regulation? i think that's one of the questions that the department of justice will grapple with, but when rita and i got to the fcc my first time, we had essentially a regulated dualopoly, and it was not working for the country, and a lot of things went into changing that, but worked better when we had a deregulated market, and i hope we keep that. >> guest: if you don't give a

an answer, would you like to be the next commissioner at the fcc? >> guest: the next commissioner? i'm working on stuff that would be more fun than being the next commissioner. i think commissioner baker's leaving actually does a funny thing to what happens to her seat and what happens to the cop's seat. i think that there's some great people who could go there, and i think i prefer to keep working on the stuff i'm working at at aspen. that's more important for me right now. >> host: blair levin you thought the plan was successful in some areas and not so much in others. overall, in your view was it far reaching enough? >> guest: first of all, i think the implementation is two steps forward and one step back. there's a variety of factors. the best single line in the plan is this is in beta and always welcome. i deeply believe that. we moved a lot very quickly, and

i think it was certainly in the sense of a new agenda for spectrum reform, very, very good. for universal reform, we moved the ball forward for rights of way reform. there's other things people have not noticed in education, for example. we were aligned, and we were not unique in this, but aligned with what the department of education is doing. if you look at their technology plan, it's similar to ours. if you look at the new consumer finance agency, they are taking a number of lessons that we talkinged about in the sphesk engagement section about how an agency can interagent with the public. i think there's some other things, you know, not that much attention, but i think it's profound. there's a proposal we had called the unified community anchor network proposal which is how do you get next generation high speed networks into every community, not every home, but every community through

anchors. that has not got a lot of attention, but moving along, very, very well. i think it was visionary enough, but i have to say i react a little bit negatively with the desire to be visionary. there's a lot of people who wanted us to be visionary without relationship to mathematics by which i mean money, or to effectiveness. people said you have to be visionary and do what korea does with a gig bit in every home. that's not a great policy. it may be smart for korea with a different market structure and a different population density, but for the united states it would be incredibly costly, and i'm not sure much gain so i think it was a pragmatic document, a thoughtful document setting out an agenda. i'll let history decide whether it was visionary enough. >> host: you said it's always going to be in beta. >> guest: i gave a speech on the one year anniversary about what i have thought was my personal biggest mistake. i think what we did on the

adoption side was thoughtful and very good in a lot of ways, but as i studied it over the year that i was at aspen, i began to realize that was not visionary enough, and we really needed a new fresh approach, and i laid it out in a speech. >> host: back in beta, always in beta. we talked about technologies and policies set years ago. >> guest: right. >> host: your chiefs of staff at the 1986telecom act. how do you rewrite that? [laughter] bring it up to 2011 or 2012? >> guest: the problem is rewriting law, the first draft of that was in 1973, okay? you don't want to freeze things by depending on the change in the law. if we could all get in a room and rewrite the law in two weeks, hey, i'd love to do it

and sit there. that's not the way law making works. i think we as a country, there's a lot of discreet things that we need to do to move forward. there are many interesting things about the 96 act. i think in some ways it was an untold success story. i know this would be a controversial notion, but one reason why we actually, you know, mckenzie has a study about the internet with the effect on economic development and it surprised people how well the united states does there, but there are fundamental reasons. one of them is research institutions that we just have human capital that knows how to use this stuff leading to us being the leaders in a lot of applications which is very important. the 96 act actually led to a lot of buildup of infrastructure which turns out to be important too. the fundamental mission of the 96 act was to allow long distance into local and i think we would look back in history

turns out that was not the biggest most important issue from a historical perspective. that's one that its roots lay many years earlier in the breakup of at&t. we have to be humble in how we approach these things with grand designs and great visions. we can see a need for spectrum and reallocation. we need to transform education dramatically. i mean, the ipad and the tablets create incredible opportunities to improve the way kids learn, and you are seeing that in some schools and hopefully nationally. incredible stunts to change the way we do health care, the way we do public safety and job training. we need to focus on those things. >> host: eliza krigman? >> guest: another law where people want to see a rewrite, carrier fees in the cable industry. broadcasters have an unfair advantage and what's your take? >> guest: it's interesting on these things. you know, my take is that this

is a fundamentally and economic battle between two industries on how you divide an economic pie. my guess is the most critical thing is not what is being debated and here's what i mean by that. right now, the date is what is the nature of the law. in a very important piece that the firm, samford just put october on the impact of poverty on the telecommunications sector is points out that we are now because of what's going on in our greater economy, we are reaching a point where a huge portion of the population is not really going to be able to afford the -- the kinds of things that we think of as being almost essential, and this -- if i was in the industry, this would be my biggest concern. the problem with the way retrans has gone is i