>> the ceo of the national association of broadcaster, former senator gordon smith on the sale of broadcast spectrum and broadcast television and radio in a market place where internet media are rapidly gaining ground.

>> host: 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 told my member broadcasters in the fullness of what they are debating, we're a footnote, but a footnote that's a pay for, and those are valuable right now on capitol hill, and so i expect that we will be included in the bill, and we're good with that as long as the language that congressman waldman included and senators rockefeller and hitchenson, my friends and colleagues, went halfway, and we appreciated

that, but the last pieces we needed in order for consumers to enjoy future innovation, not have interference, and broadcasters the ability to move without anymore detriment in the $15 million move from analog to digital transition, we're fine with the going forward, and i also want to thank congressman bilbray who offered a critical amendment not in the senate bill that's in the house language, relative to the northern and southern borders. they are airways governed 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 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 and the predicate from the beginning of the national broadband plan is 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 non-volunteers, those who don't choose to did 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 the pay for. the fcc can do its work. the american people who count on free and local television will continue to enjoy it. >> guest: what are some provisions in particular you see important in the house bill not in the senate bill? >> guest: well, specifically the international treaty piece, and we were very thankful to congressman conyers representing michigan, and frankly, every northern senator and congressmen, 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 literally don't have a channel to move to. that's just the physics of

airways. >> guest: when the house bill was marked up in early december, the democrats complained that it was too generous in terms of how much money was reserved for broadcasters, forced to relocate, not giving up the spectrum, but repacking, moving to other channels, it's $3 billion in the house bill, less in the senate bill. is $3 billion too generous? 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 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. 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 power is

not an inexpensive proposition. 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 publicok sector network they want to build out on the d-block that we support. >> guest: you said truly voluntary. you're not opposed to options as long as they are voluntary, and the opponents on the other side including cti and the electronics consumer association say actually you fought the legislation and the incentive options 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 cta, they are not trying to put us out of business. well, then, they support the house bill, we support the house bill. we hope it's in the final bill

out of 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 we think it, you know, the fcc, we would hope has the viewers' interest at heart and ours 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 others 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 said to my colleagues up there whether it's social security or medicare or veterans' benefits or an immigration issue, i don't know have many things that made my phones and my senate office melt down more than when people's tvs were messed it, 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 sake in this. our friends on the other side of the issue are saying yes, proceed, but proceed with protections. >> guest: a lot of time the devil is in the details. the fcc does not have incentive options, and broadcasters agree to give up spectrum, or share, and they get compensated. what is the concern among broadcasters that if the legislation passes, a lot of details have to be worked out over the next year or two by the fcc. >> guest: obviously, we'll be very engaged at the fcc to make sure that viewers are protected, that the non-volunteers are harmless, and that we think the guidance to the house language is sufficient. i'd like more, but we're not going to get more.

legislating is not about perfect, but getting as much good as you can. if they follow what we think is in the final package to include border protections, non-interference protections, the opportunity for innovation, and, yes, provide whatever dollars are necessary to move prod casters, then we're prepared to go forward. >> host: senator smith, there's been talk over the last year that the national association of broadcasters is so-called squatting on extra spectrum, and we need it because there's a spectrum crunch. how do you respond to that? >> guest: it's really been interesting. we pointed out a long time ago from the financial statements of clearwater, time warner, and many other companies who have listed in there that they have all of this spectrum that they have purchased with no plans of deployment, but truely for

speculation, and we have been making this point which the fcc is now said to the ceo of verizon, yes, there's a lot of warehouse spectrum out there. we ought to go get it, and so verizon just offered $3.6 billion to, i think, it's spectrum co, to buy some of this warehouse spectrum. in all fairness, we 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 and get that spectrum and put it to use? deploy it. we do think that it is not a crisis, but they are responsible for that. we're starting to see moves by those who would use it to buy it

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

if you ask them that no longer means you have local news, weather, sports, emergency information on your television, they'll say, no, that's not the tradeoff i thought was at stake, but if done incorrectly, that is the tradeoff. we think with the language we've fought for, that no longer should be the tradeoff. >> guest: you talked about the border cities along the canadian border, and the fcc said it a number of times, but what about the stations in l.a. or new york that don't have local news so some of those say, okay, fine, we're going to sell out, and we will not offer local news anyway. >> guest: right. we say fine. let them do that, but that's a very different proposition. if you want a regional 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 broadcasters --

broadband plan, not a national one. when you clear parts of the country, you have to push broadcasters -- they are not in new york or l.a., they may be in kansas, and they'll be impacted. we're saying let them do that, fine, but make sure that the rest of the country, the flyover country, my part of the country, there's never a spectrum shortage there. >> guest: and, of course, the spectrum is urban areas. >> host: is this an urban rural problem? >> guest: it is. it should be relooked at, and when the fcc looks at the physics of the borders and the so-called shortage into a broadband plan, and at&t tried to buy t-mobile for one reason because t-mobile built out

networks in the way at&t had not. they said telecom is in jeopardy. let's buy that because then we don't have to duplicate it. i think that was the predicate of their purchase, which has now been turned down. > guest: do you have any prediction that how many tv stations might agree to sell out? >> guest: i don't know. honestly, i have inquired broadcasters after broadcasters, finding 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 simply not succeeding financially, and they may take the money and run. >> guest: of course, 5 lot of it is is how much are you going to give me? which we don't know. how's the economy? perhaps an economy not doing well, more options are welcomed by a tv station if they are having financial problems. >> guest: you know, and, again, if they choose to do

that, we support their freedoms to do so. >> host: senator smith, you referred to the fact that verizon is buys spectrum from large cable companies because there is excess spectrum. are the broadcasters -- do the broadcasters have excess spectrum they, too, could sell in the market place? >> guest: i'm not away -- aware of it, but what i'm aware of is when you have a broadcast license with 6 megahertz, you can do more with digital than analog, and i know many deploying multicasting and multitelevision. i don't have it with me, but i wish i could show you this. on my ipad, i have an app, attach 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. you need sprek rum -- spectrum. the value of multicasting is that is the economic entry point into 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 provides 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. >> guest: cti responds yes, but they are not equivalent because video by broadband from

wireless carrier is on demand where broadcast, if they give it to you at 8 a.m., you can't get it at 8:30 a.m.. >> guest: i often ask myself this question, do viewers, constituents, do they want television when they want it, or do they want it live? the answer to that is they want both, and if the 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 that the american people will be grateful for that, and if they don't get that, they will be upset. >> host: c-span's communicator program, our guest, senator gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of

broadcasters, and paul kirby is our guest reporter. last week, senator smith, we had michael powell, head of the national cable television communications association on this program. he talked about the tele communications act. we'll show that, and then i want your response. >> guest: perfect. >> still regular -- regulating with copper wire, two-way voice service, and if you use coaxial cable, you're a title vi provider, but when you have industry, full service providers of every type and stripe, almost all regulatory questions now are gray because the act doesn't provide clarity developing disputes and litigation. it's either going to die under its own weight, and it's growing in relevancy i'd argue, and at one point, i think, you know, congress has to migrate us out

of it. >> host: the telecommunications act of 1996. >> guest: i think michael is largely right. i think it would take a lot of work for congress to get done. that's my experience on the commerce committee. my sense is to fix some of the problems michael's identifying, a rightful shot approach to fix some of the things that are apt kuwaited or just simply no -- antiquated or just simply no longer relevant is probably the more efficient way for congress to go, but i think he makes good points. i mean, before the ink was dry, that bill was -- technology's moved around it. >> guest: it may be in the past, pushed for legislation that would have fm chips and cell phones, and more recently, they are not pushing for a man date, but would be good if they

did it. why did you back off the mandate? >> guest: well, i recognize that mandates are hard to get. there's the healthcare mandate. they are controversial, and it's hard to get the government to mandate something unless there's an overwhelming public safety reason for it like seat belts for example. congressman dated many, many things. my sense of radio chips in cell phones is that approaches something that would get. if it's a public safety feature, just go to alabama or joplin, missouri or washington, d.c., and recognize that the first thing to get jammed, and, again, there's never going to be enough spectrum to handle a crisis via

broadband. the one constant is broadcasting, and an fm chip and a cell phone provides life saving information in a time of natural or human caused emergencies like a terrorist attack, and so it is -- it is approaching because of all of these of 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 cell phones. they are there. they are there already, but they want to bill them by the bit, by streaming music, and not have the consumer to have the ability to get music for free.

>> guest: in november, the fcc and dhs along with stake holders held the first national test of the emergency system. there's issues with some cable systems. can you give us a sense of how broadband -- broadcasters faired and what lessons were learned and government planning follow-up tests to work through difficulties? >> guest: there were some difficulties in pockets, for example, my state of oregon, there was some areas that just weren't responding, so we learned a lot in the test. we look forward to taking those lessons and fixing the system as to broadcasting to ensure that the national emergency alert system actually works, but there's a lot of lessons we're still distilling from that. >> host: was it successful? >> guest: it was successful, not completely, but that's why you test to figure out what you need to relearn or do better. >> host: what right now do you

say we have to do better? >> guest: i think part of it is just education and making sure all the equipment is failing in some pockets of the country, it's actually channel 5 and 6 were not turned on in some areas, as i understand it, and those are the lessons -- that's where you take the quiz. this was a quiz. the real test comes in the event of an actual 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. the demise of radio, terrestrial radio has been predicted since television came along, and now internet came along, and radio

still reaches 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. 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 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 and tv stations, you were saying will soon have their own broadcast stability, doesn't that go back to michael 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 and rural national broadcasts. broadband plan? >> guest: no question, if you were to start over, you would not create it like it is now, and ultimately, i think that's the business of congress and fcc to figure out how to rethink all of this gray area and toe make sense of it. there's -- broadcasting is one of the most highly regulated industries in america, and yet all of the competitor ways of communicating, they are not regulated hardly at all. i'm not proposing 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 are not asked of the internet. they are not asked of these other services. >> host: speaking of one of the legislations indecency will be heard by the court. >> guest: it is, and broadcasters, if they were actually in the -- wanted to be in the indecency business, they don't have any regulations or prohibitions after ten o'clock, and you would see the indecent on broadcasting if that was their business, and 10 p.m. to 6 # a.m., they can 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, our just overflowing with the indecent, and it has cultural consequences that i think are lamentable for

families 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. we're not perfect, there's the occasional wardrobe malfunction like at the super bowl with janet jackson, but generally speaking moms and dads can know if they are watching a broadcast channel, there is an attempt to be more in compliance with sensitivities of local standards of decency. >> guest: a lot of the problems with indecency with broadcast have come on programming, and the concerns of networks in the past going to the courts is it seems to them random what the fcc considers indecent or not indecent, and it's that certainty there. >> guest: potter stuart said on pornography, the case of miller versus california, i think that's the right case, i

know it when i see it. what he said is this is an entirely subjective, and, you know, it's one thing when you watch your television say you have cable or satellite, on broadcasting, flip the channel, and you're on a cable or satellite network, and you see nudity and profanity in ways that are offensive to many people. >> host: finally, senator smith, the two new nominees on the board, jessica for the democrats and ajik for the republicans. any concerns about those two nominees from the nab point of view? >> guest: i 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 perhaps the fcc