nonfiction books all weekend, every weekend right here on c-span2. >> here's a look at what's ahead this morning on c-span2. next, "the communicators" talks with national association of broadcasters' ceo gordon smith on the proposed sale of broadcast spectrum to create new space for mobile broadband and emergency communications. then republican presidential candidate michele bachmann greets voters in spencer, iowa. just a little over two weeks before the january 3rd iowa caucus. then a live discussion on whether turkey's form of government can be a model for emerging democracies in the new middle east. >> this week on "the communicators," the ceo of the national association of broadcasters, former senator gordon smith, on the sale of broadcast spectrum and the future of broadcast television and radio in a marketplace where internet media are rapidly

gaining ground. >> host: gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of broadcasters, this week in congress they are voting on payroll extension and budget issues, and included in there is potential spectrum sale. >> guest: correct. >> host: in the house bill and potentially then in the senate bill. what are your thoughts about what is contained in that legislation? >> guest: well, i, first, would simply say and i've told my member broadcasters that in the fullness of what they're debating, we're a footnote. but we happen to be a footnote that is a pay-for, and those are pretty valuable right now on capitol hill. so i expect that we will be included in the bill, and we're good with that as long as the language that congressman walden included which has more broadcaster protections, senators rockefeller and hutchison, my friends and

colleagues, went partway, and we appreciated that. but the last pieces that we needed in order for consumers to enjoy future innovation, not have interference and broadcasters the ability to move without any more detriment than they incurred $15 billion in the analog to digital transition, um, we're fine with it going forward. and i want to also thank congressman dingell and bilbray who offered a critical amendment that is not in the senate bill that is in the house language relative to the northern and southern borders. um, these are airways that are governed by treaty with canada and mexico, and in order for viewers not to lose their channels, we need new understandings with our neighbors north and south. but particularly north because if you were to go repack

broadcasters without that understanding, then take a city like detroit. they literally would lose all 14, all 14 of their stations. and, you know, that's not good public policy. so we think that that amendment in particular is enormously important for the american public. >> host: will broadcasters lose spectrum if these pieces of legislation get through? >> guest: you know, they'll lose some. um, and the predicate from the beginning, um, of the national broadband plan is that it be voluntary. we're not opposed to voluntary, that's another word for freedom. what we've objected to is anything going forward that does not hold harmless the nonvolunteers, those who don't choose to go out of business. and for the sake of their viewers, we think these protections that are in the

house bill and partly in the senate bill, that the house bill terms be included in a final package. and then congress has a pay-for, the fcc can do its work, and the american people who can on free and local television will continue to enjoy it. >> host: paul kirby is our guest reporter. >> host: what are some of the provisions in particular that you see as important in the house bill that are not in the senate bill? >> guest: well, specifically, the international treaty piece. and we were very thankful to congressman conyers who is representing michigan and, frankly, every northern senator and congressman. they would be badly impacted by anything going forward that didn't have these, this understanding, this reworking of the treaty with canada and in part with mexico. that that be in place before the fcc can repack. otherwise they don't, they

literally don't have a channel to move to. >> host: that's just the physics of airwaves. when the house bill was marked up in early december, the democrats complained, they said it was too generous in terms of how much money was reserved for broadcasters who were force today relocate. not giving up their spectrum, but as part of the repacking, they might have to move to different channels. it's $3 billion in the house bill. it's less in the senate bill and less than what the house democrats have proposed. do you think $3 billion is too generous? and if not, why not? >> guest: well, i think to properly understand the house bill, you need to understand that the $3 billion is a cap. when we went from analog to digital, the whole cost of redoing, um, the system was $15 billion for broadcasting. i hope that there's much, much less than $3 billion spent because there won't be that many that have to move. but we don't know that until they come up with a plan that says which channels have to

move. and your viewers should understand that moving a broadcast tower is not an inexpensive proposition. so we don't know what the cost was. we hope it's very small. and anything that isn't spent will be put back to the treasury or to the public sector network that they want to build out on the d block which we support. >> host: you mentioned truly voluntary. you say that we're not opposed to incentive auctions as long as they're truly voluntary, but your opponents on the other side including ctia and the consumer -- [inaudible] association say, actually, you've fought the legislation, fought the incentive auction's authority. have you fought the legislation on the hill? >> guest: we have fought only in making sure we have viewer protections put in the language, and, you know, my friends at ctia and cea, they say they're not trying to put us out of business. well, then they should support the house bill.

we support the house bill. we hope it's in the final bill out of a conference with the senate. we're fine. we're ready to go. we're ready for them to vote as long as that language is there. but, um, we think it, you know, the fcc we would hope has the viewers' interest at heart. we'd like to think they had our interests at heart as well, the broadcasters. but whether or not there's a bias at the fcc for broadband as against broadcast, i don't know, i'll let other judge that. but we think members of congress have a very serious interest in making sure this is done properly for their viewers, and i've said to my colleagues up there when it's social security or medicare or veterans' benefits or an immigration issue, i don't know of very many things that made my phones and my senate office melt down more than when people's tvs were messed with. and so i'm just saying for their own sakes, for their

constituents, have these protective policies in there, these guidelines for the fcc because their constituents have a stake in this. so our friends on the other side of this issue look at us now. we're saying, yes, proceed. but proceed with these protections. >> host: a lot of times the devil is in the details. the fcc has never done what's called incentive auctions. basically, they will auction spectrum, and broadcasters agree to give up their spectrum or a share of it will get compensated. how much concern is there among broadcasters that if this legislation passes, a lot of the details still have to be worked out really over the next year or two by the fcc? >> guest: well, obviously, we will be very engaged at the fcc to make sure that viewers are protected, that the nonvolunteers are held harmless, and we think that the guidance to the fcc in the house language is sufficient.

it could always be more, as far as i'm concerned. i'd like more. not going to get more. legislating isn't about perfect, it's getting as much good as you can. if they will follow what is in, we think, the final package which will include these border protections, the noninterference protections, the opportunity for innovation and, yes, provide whatever dollars are necessary to move broadcasters, then we're prepared to go forward. >> host: well, senator smith, there's been talk over the last year that the national association of broadcasters is so-called squatting on extra spectrum -- >> guest: yeah. >> host: -- and that we need it because there's a spectrum country p. how do you respond to that? >> guest: well, it's really been interesting. we pointed out a long time ago from the financial statements of, like, clearwire and time warner and many other companies who have list inside there that they have all of this spectrum that they have purchased with no plans of deployment, but truly

for speculation. and we have been making this point which the fcc has now said to the ceo of verizon, yes, there's a lot of warehouse spectrum out there. we ought to, we ought to go get it. and so verizon has just offered $3.6 billion to, i think it's spectrum code, to buy some of this warehouse spectrum. and so, you know, in all fairness we simply said, you know, before you come and get us and compromise the future of broadcasting which is still really important to local communities, why don't you go get that spectrum and put it to use, deploy it. and so we do think it is not a spectrum crunch, it's a spectrum planning crisis. we're not responsible for that. they're responsible for that. and finally, you're starting to see some moves by those who

would use it to buy it and deploy it. >> host: you said at a recent news conference broadcasters have not told their story well enough on why they shouldn't be hurt by spectrum reallocation. what did you mean by that, and how can you tell your story better? >> guest: well, simply, the fact that when you look at the, the enormous power, financial power of our friends -- and they are our friends. we see the world of tomorrow as broadcast and broadband. at&t and verizon and consumer electronics, these great, great companies. we're outgunned on capitol hill pretty dramatically. and i have, i have told my member broadcasters that because we're an older, more mature industry, um, we take for granted that people know what we do and how it benefits their lives. now, if you ask the consumer out there do you want a faster

download of an app, they'll say, yes. if you ask them, does that mean you no longer have local news, weather, sports, emergency information on your television, they'll say, no, that's not the trade-off that i thought was at stake. but if done incorrectly, that is the trade-off. we think with the language that we've fought for that no longer should be the trade-off. >> host: but you talked about the border cities such as along the canadian border. the fcc has said any number of times what about the more than two dozen stations in republican a.m -- l.a. and new york? a lot of those or some of those may say, okay, fine, we're going to sell off, and we weren't offering local news anyway. >> guest: right. and we say, fine. let them do that. but that's a very different proposition. if you want a regional broadband plan instead of a national broadband plan, there's probably a number of broadcasters in l.a. and new york where the problem actually exists. that will sell out.

but then you have a regional broadband plan, not a national one. but when you want a clear band across the country, you're going to have to start pushing broadcasters. they're not in new york and l.a. they may be in kansas, but they're impacted. and so we're simply saying that, um, let them do that, fine. but make sure that the, that the rest of the country, the flyover country, my part of the country, there'll never be a spectrum shortage in oregon. >> host: no. and, of course, the spectrum where they're really going to need is in urban areas. >> guest: exactly. >> host: so is this an urban/rural problem in. >> guest: it is. >> host: do you think the national broadband plan should be relooked at? >> guest: i do, i do. and i think that when the fcc looks at the physics of if borders and the so-called shortage, um, this may turn into more of a regional broadband plan. and, you know, i think at&t tried to buy t-mobile for one

reason, because t-mobile had built out urban networks in the way at&t had not. and so they were simply saying, look, georgia telecom is in jeopardy. let's buy that because then we don't have to duplicate it. so i think that was the predicate of their purchase which has now been turned down. >> host: do you have any prediction on how many tv stations might agree to sell out? >> guest: i don't know. you know, honestly, i have inquired and broadcaster after broadcaster, i have found only a few who plan to take advantage of this. and they are not the stations that are providing local news, weather and sports. they may be other start-up channels that are just simple my not succeeding financially, and they may take the money and run. >> host: of course. a lot of it is how much are you going to give me, which we don't know, and then what's the economy like. you would assume that an economy that, perhaps, isn't doing as well, more options are welcomed by a tv station if they're

having financial problems. >> guest: yeah, you know, and again, that -- if they choose to do it, we support their freedom to do so. >> host: senator smith, you referred earlier to the fact that verizon is now buying some spectrum from comcast and some other large cable companies because there is excess spectrum. >> guest: yeah. >> host: are the broadcasters, do the broadcasters have excess spectrum that they, too, could sell in the marketplace? >> guest: i'm not aware of it. what i am aware of is that when you get a broadcast license of six megahertz, you can do more with digital than you could with analog, and i'm aware of many, many broadcasters that are deploying multicasting and mobile television. i don't have it with me, but i wish i could show you this little on my ipad i can get an app, then i attach a little dongle that's a little u-shaped thing you plug into the little slot. you can watch local television

with a broadcast signal, not a broadband signal. and that will be coming on the market, i'm told, in the spring. that's going to transform a lot of these things. and you need spectrum for multicasting in mobile. and i would point out that the value of multicasting is, that is the economic entry point in the broadcasting for a great deal of niche programming that is important to many communities; religious communities, ethnic communities, sports leagues, you name it, high school. these are the kinds of things which broadcasting can provide with no net increase use of spectrum which is different from broadband which when you do video by broadband, i'm telling you, that is spectrum hogging of the first order. and there is not enough spectrum in the universe for all video to be done by broadband. >> host: but ctia would respond, yes, but at least you can get --

they're not equivalent because the video by broadband from wireless carriers on demand as s opposed to broadcast. they're going to give me that at 8, and if i don't want it at 8 a.m., i'm going to get it at 8:30 a.m. >> guest: you know, paul, i've often asked the question do consumers, do constituents want television when they want it, or do they want it live? and answer to that is they want both. and if fcc and congress will get this spectrum division done properly, the consumer can have both. so i don't think it's an either/or. i think we get the protections we need to preserve a great and essential live local, free industry to consumers, i think the american people will be grateful for that. and if they don't get that, they're going to be upset. >> host: this is c-span's "communicators" program. our guest, gordon smith, president and ceo of the

national association of broadcasters and paul kirby, senior editor of telecommunications reports is our senior -- is our guest reporter. last week, senator smith, we had michael powell, the head of national cable television and communications association on this program. he talked about the telecommunications act. we're going to show that, and then i want to get your response. >> guest: great. >> guest: we're still regulating in very balkanized buckets. you're entitled to telecommunication carrier, if you use coaxial cable, you're a title vi provider. but when you have industries being whole service communication providers of every type and stripe, almost all regulatory questions now are gray because the act doesn't provide clarity, and it creates a lot of litigation, the heavy inefficiency in the statute. so it's either going to die under its own weight, and it's certainly growing in irrelevancy, i would argue, and

at one point i think, you know, congress has to migrate us out of it. >> host: telecommunications act, 996. 1996. >> guest: um, i think michael is large hi right. largely right. i think a rewrite, an entire rewrite of that '96 act would take the work of many congresses to get done. that's my experience on the commerce committee. my sense is to fix some of the problem michael's identified, a rifle shot approach to fix some of the things that are antiquated or just simply no longer relevant is probably the more efficient way for congress to go. but i think he makes some good points. i mean, before the ink was dry that bill was, technology had moved around. >> host: and maybe in the past had pushed for legislation that would mandate fm chips in cell phones. more recently, nab has said

we're not pushing for a mandate, but it would be something good if manufacturers did it. why did you back off the mandate? >> guest: well, i recognize that mandates are hard to get. i mean, just look at the health care mandate. they're very controversial, and it's hard to get the government to mandate something, um, unless there's an overwhelming public safety reason for it such as seat belts, for example. congress has mandated many, many things. my own sense of radio chips in cell phones is that approaches something that would, ought to be worthy of a mandate, recognizing it's hard to get. the reason i say that it is a public safety feature, all you have to do is go to tuscaloosa, alabama, or joplin, missouri, or washington, d.c. in an earthquake to recognize that the first thing to get jammed -- and, again, there's never going to be enough spectrum to handle

a crisis via broadband. um, the one constant is broadcasting. and an fm chip in a cell phone provides life saving information in a time of natural or human-caused emergencies like a terrorist attack. and so it is approaching because of all of these, this constant emergencies that beset the american people, it ought to be considered. we hope that as spectrum is shorter instead of streaming music that more and more of the manufacturers of cell phones and the cell phone carriers will permit the lighting up of the radio chips that are currently in most models of credit cards. -- cell phones. they're there. they're there already, but they want to bill them by the bit, by streaming music and not have the

consumer have the ability to get music for free. >> host: in november the fcc and dhs along with stakeholders held the first national test of the emergency alert system. now, there were some issues with some cable systems carrying their load. can you give us a sense of how broadcasters fared and what lessons were learned of the government's plans to have follow-up tests to try to work through any difficulties? >> guest: well, there were some difficulties in pockets, for example, in my state of oregon there were some areas that just weren't, they weren't responding. so we learned a lot in the test. we look forward to taking those lessons and fixing the system, um, as to broadcasting to make sure that the national emergency alert system actually works. but there's a lot of lessons that we're still distilling from that. >> host: is it, was it successful? >> guest: it was successful. not completely, but, um, that's why you do a test, to figure out

what you need to relearn or do better. >> host: what right now do you say that we need to do better? >> guest: i think part of it is just education and making sure all the equipment is ready and functioning. a lot of the failure in some pockets of the country was just the, it's actually channel 5 and 6 were not turned on in some areas as i understand it, and be, um, those are the lessons -- that's why you take the quiz. this was a quiz. the real test will come when there's actually an emergency. >> host: senator smith, what damage or what dangers do radio broadcasters face from the internet and from new technology? >> guest: you know, it's an interesting thing, um, the demise of radio, terrestrial radio has been predicted since television came along. and now the internet's come along, and yet radio still

reaches, um, over 250 million americans a week. and i just have to say that people still like it free, they like it local, they like the variety, and while other streaming services -- pandora and others and many radio stations have their own app now that stream their music -- people use those but not to the ec collusion of other -- exclusion of other radio. and i think we see that constantly in the data. radio still continues to be a healthy industry with many, many other competitors, but it's just simply something that people count on, enjoy and are continuing to utilize. >> host: just the fact that so many radio stations have their own apps, tv stations as you were saying will soon have their own broadcast ability, doesn't that go back to michael paul's comment -- powell's comment

about all regulation is a gray area anymore and just because you have one kind of a wire or one kind of a signal you can't be regulated in such a way? and it goes back to your point about urban/rural national broadcasts, broadband plan. >> guest: and there's no question that if you were to start over, you would not create it like it is now. and, um, ultimately, i think that's the business of congress and the fcc to figure out how to rethink all of this gray area and to make sense of it. there's, i mean, broadcasting is one of the most highly regulated industries in america. and yet all of the competitor, um, ways of communicating, um, they're not regulated hardly at all. i'm not propose oing that they be, but i'm just simply saying that the standards of localism, providing local news, weather, emergency information, decency standards, these things are asked of broadcasters, and we live with them.

because it's part of our public service mission. but they're not asked of the, of the internet. they're not asked of these other services. >> host: well, speaking of one of the regulations, indecency is going to be heard by the court. >> guest: it is. and, you know, broadcasters if they were actually in the, wanted to be in the indecency business, they don't have any regulations or prohibitions after 10:00. and you would see the indecent on broadcasting if that was their business. you know, 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. they could be as indecent as cable is. but if you want to see things in your home that are many would say are indecent, you have to turn to a cable channel or a satellite channel. they are not regulated by those local community standards. we are. frankly, i'm good with that because i think we are as a society are just overflowing with the indecent, and it has

cultural consequences that i think are lamentable for familieses and our culture. but you can get it. you just have to pay for it. if you have a subscription service, you can get all the garbage you want in your house. but if you want -- with the exception, we're not perfect, there's occasionally the fleeting expletive or the wardrobe malfunction like at the super bowl with janet jackingson, but generally speaking moms and dads can know if they're watching a broadcast channel, there is an attempt to be more in compliance with sensitivities of local standards of decency. >> host: and, of course, a lot of the problems with indecency with broadcasts have come on live programming, and one of the concerns of networks in the pathst past when they go to court it seems to them very random what the fcc considers ip decent or not indecent. so it's that certain ity there. >> guest: well, as potter stewart famously said on

pornography, i think it was the case of miller v. california, if that's the right case, i know it when i see it. what he said is this is entirely subjective, and, you know, it's one thing when you're watching your television, say you have cable or satellite and you're on a broadcast theme, and can you flip the channel, and you're on a cable or satellite network, and you see nudity and obscenity -- not obscenity, but profanity in ways that are offensive to many people. >> host: and finally, senator smith, the two new fcc nominees who are on the board, jessica rosen for the democrats and -- [inaudible] for the republicans, any, any concerns about those two nominees from the nab point of view? >> guest: i've sent to the commerce committee our support of both of them, and we wish them well. we think they should be confirmed, and as the nab, we look forward to working with them. >> host: have you thought any

about the fact that perhaps the fcc itself should be reformed given the world of technology we have today? >> guest: well, that's certainly the view of congressman walden. [laughter] and his committee. yeah, i think no human institution is impervious to the need of reform, and i think the fcc probably is no different. >> host: senator gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of broadcasters. paul kirby, senior editor at "telecommunications reports." this has been that "the communicators." >> ahead on c-span2, republican presidential candidate michele bachmann greeting voters in spencer, iowa, two weeks before the january 3rd iowa caucus. then we'll bring you three live forums on the new middle east with the first examining whether the turkish form of government can be a model for new, emerging democracies. after that a group of analysts from thoo