programming beginning saturday morning at 8 eastern through monday morning at 8 eastern. nonfiction books all weekend, every weekend right here on c-span2. .. >> this week on "the communicators," a look at spectrum and other issues before the federal communications commission with fcc commissioner robert mcdowell.

>> host: commissioner mcdowell yesterday at the senate commerce committee hearing oversight of the fcc, you had all five commissioners at there. has the dynamic changed now that you finally come to the full conference of commissioners. >> guest: they were sworn in monday morning first thing. we are taping this on a thursday, so the third day on the job, yesterday. they testified with us before the senate commerce committee. certainly that changes the dynamic. right away we have very to qualified people in, both of them have worked out the fcc and on capitol hill before. they know these issues. they are very smart, easy to work with. and i look for a much forward to work with him over the years. >> host: does that restrict now, what are the restrictions on the five commissioners actually meeting? can you talk with the other republican on the commission privately or go over to chairman genachowski's office and talk to them privately?

>> guest: enacted in the wake of watergate, some people felt as though some agencies were meeting making rules and smoke-filled dark room somewhere out of public view. so the rule says, the law says no more than two of us can meet without it being a public meeting. without public notice, to discuss substance. so we can only need one on one. so when it's the three of us, myself, chairman genachowski and commissioner clyburn, we only had to. now have two more. we each have four meeting so it does increase the meeting time. we hope that someday, i can't speak to the two newest but for the rest of us on the record are supporting a reform for the sunshine government act that would allow us to meet in private everything we do ultimately is public and a peelable to courts and rationale written out in order, sunshine government act in this regard

can be cumbersome but if you think about, congress can meet behind closed doors. the supreme court to meet behind closed doors. you can have substantive meetings in a larger context. by brother was a mayor. he tells us the city council can be behind closed doors. we don't want secrecy in government but we want to be able to lease share thoughts and then we will explained in public. >> host: in your testimony, you talked about opportunities for further fcc reform. would that be number one on your fcc reform list? >> guest: it would, yes. and a whole bunch of other stuff. we don't have enough time given on c-span to talk about. >> host: joining us is jonathan make, assistant editor of -- spent while we on the topic of having a full complement of sec the first time within a year, what is the rulemaking proceeding should like to see maybe be acted on faster having the full complement on board? >> guest: so even with three out of five, we still have a

quorum and were able to get things done. so the commission was not shut down. the number 140 for the commission wrote is implementing this new instance of auction legislation. and that is legislation that congress just passed earlier this year that gives tv broadcasters an incentive to voluntarily relinquish their spectrum. they will then be auctioned off so consumers can have more wireless bandwidth for their devices as devices become more, wireless devices become more sophisticated, the apps are gobbling up the airwaves very quickly. and so there's a real concern there. so that's going to be quite literally, i don't mean any hyperbole by cink's, the most complex spectrum auction in history of the world because the first thing i to do is find out which broadcasters are interested in what price. there's a reverse auction there, then you have the option to auction it off to the wireless carrier, whoever wants to be.

there will be a lot of moving parts, sort of like three-dimensional chess added to the degree of difficulty, and they will take, it will be measured in years as to when people get it done. but i think we need to get as many proceedings also launched that as possible this year. then there is huge program called universal subsidy, and we have repurposed the spending side of that to make a more efficient and modernize it so it supports broadband rather than the old analog voice services. but we haven't figured out how to pay for it. so the contribution side, attack side. so we just launched a public notice for public comment on that last month. and we hope, i hope we can get it in the fall. the tax rate has been skyrocketing and this is sort of a silent automatic tax increase

that every phone consumer pays on the phone bill. part of that confusing language on your phone bill. those numbers get bigger and bigger, the tax rate automatically increases. >> host: in your testimony you talked about broadening the base of the manner before the attacks are. what you mean by broadening? >> guest: excellent question. so that taxi right now is essentially interstate long distance revenue. and if you think about it, that's an old analog concept. database has been shrinking over time as things go over, like voice over internet protocol, skype for instance. and other enhancement technology that enable folks to make an enron around. so that pool is shrinking, and for a while the spending side was increasing. we have put cost controls, we been able, big news, flatten the spending curb. i don't know when the last time we can say those words in

washington, d.c., but we have been able to do that. so in terms of broadening that base, one of the concepts we're looking back and looking a backend 2008, was phone numbers, should assess a fee on phone numbers versus revenue. but we have proposed a number of different ideas for comment. we'll people will give us their thoughts or no ideas as well. phone numbers may no longer work. it may be something else. will be broadband revenue? >> host: would you be in support of that? >> guest: we will see where the record goes. i have sort of a rebuttal present in my head that phone numbers are still a good place to go next because of our statutory authority, what we can do under the law that congress has given us. it also broadens the base. he keeps it squarely within traditional telecommunications. but there are a number of entities that want to carve out, first, university. i was at the university of

virginia and they told me it might cost them an additional $1 million a year. we'll see if that holds up after we sort of run a financial analyses. companies like onstar, if you push the button in your car for onstar, there's a phone number associate with the. if you put your credit card into a gas pump, that there's a phone number associated with it. google phone has a phone number associated with it. currently it is a free service. skype sometimes has phone numbers associate with. there might be folks paying under that type of a scenario, that will happen regardless of what we do. that's what makes a controversial. that might be why the commission has waited so long to do because if you're broadening the base, that means someone who is not thing that will be paying later. i hope that it's a broader base and a lower rate. it's better to take a little bit from a lot of folks that a lot from a few through a flat tax type concept. and this is all mandated by congress that we have to have this program, for some viewers

were watching this, like my father long. >> you think you have momentum on the commission side right now on the universal service fund contribution preceding? and also on the spectrum are savings, top priority? >> guest: i think we do and they can't speak to the other commissioners but i can speak especially for the two new wind. but contribution reform, we launched those for public comments i think that's a good sign. i continue to speak out very publicly about the need to do that as soon as possible. i wish we had done universal service reform before. my now well-worn analogy is it's like fixing a watch. it's hard to fix one part when the whole needs fixing. so i hope there's momentum but i think it's a good sign. we just launched that on universal service. and the chairman has spoken many times about the need to get on as good as possible with the new

spectrum. >> you've expressed some, i don't know if concern is the right word, but some caveats that the fairest spectrum, the spectrum auction and the rule-making associate with it may take some time. do you see private market transactions, one company buying another company spectrum as a way to get more spectrum that may be fallow online sooner? >> guest: first of all, the first part of your question, he can't take a long time. digital television act passed in early '06. the auction started probably in a way. that took two years and that was about the quickest. that's pretty fast. because we have to put out rules, public comments, then you have the option. then the winning bidders have to submit their checks. the checks have to clear literally. and they need to clear the spectrum which means gets any users off. and he carries me to build off

their networks. so they can take a better part of a decade before consumers actually realize the benefit. so it will take a lot of time, and the second part of your question speaks to the secondary markets a spectrum. consumers are very frustrated right now. their mobile devices, smartphones. then this appointed an executive branch as a very thoughtful report, but the national broadband plan two years ago said we need to free up 500 megahertz of spectrum within a few years. and the federal government occupies about 50% of the best spectrum. we don't know how to efficiently the federal government is using that spectrum. and that is sort of the biggest, baddest target, lowest paying frame to look at. with the stroke of the pen and the west wing of the white house, the executive branch agency can really read double their efforts to try to find

strike to bring to option. we could find out the actual cost of how much it would cost to move federal users off of certain frequencies, move them elsewhere or just give the spectrum away altogether. so i want to know what the costs really are, and if in congress and the commission and executive branch all have a responsibility here. >> is that you say you would like to see an executive order question mentioned a report which is part of the commerce department, which spoke about the cause close to $20 billion to relocate a federal government spectrum and to repurpose that for commercial use. does that need an executive order to speed things up in terms of repurpose and? >> guest: i think so. i think the folks to be terrific job. larry strickling, an excellent portrait that you rely on cost assumptions provided to them by other agencies and had no way of relief following up on those assumptions that drill down on than to make sure they're accurate.

nobody wants to give up their spectrum. it's a very viable resource. nobody wants to really give it up. so there's a gift -- disincentive. so i think an executive order or something at the price highest levels of the west wing of the white house would need to buy in there to get this done at this point i think that's what the report ultimate points towards. in the last part what you just brought up is important, which is secondary markets a spectrum to the people, the companies that already have the licenses can neither be spectrum to others were in a need of it in a certain area or region, or nationally. and the free transfer. it has to meet in antitrust standard but i think we need to make it easier to have the secondary markets because otherwise we are out of options. the only other option is efficiency and that's the last leg on the stool is where going to have, as a government in

partnership with private industry, figure out what we can do as government to get out of the way or facilitate advancing technologies, deployment of technologies and will help squeeze more efficiency out of the airways as they already exist, otherwise consumers are going to be very frustrated in the years to come. >> host: what is your view of the current holed up in the verizon cable company arrangement on spectrum? >> guest: i won't speak specifically to the merits of the deal. it's before us right now. i think as it stands right now, according to the chief of the wireless bureau, rick kaplan, it looks like we have a deadline of august. exact date in august but the clock was pushed out. there's other questions that need to be answered but it's still on a pretty good timeline in terms of historically if you look at sec reviews, some other transactions, it's taken a lot longer. this is, spectrum by the way, folks should know it was bought at auction by group of cable companies that formed a company called spectrum code that

subsequent did not build any networks. we're not talking about customers or network that is built out. this is spectrum that has been lying fallow since 2006. so we will see what the antitrust review says and what the public interest review says from staff of the fcc. >> host: recent story in politico by brooks. this was the headline. broadcasters, fcc in spectrum turf war. is that a fair headline, in your view? >> guest: i read that story. i think when you read the story, it's not quite as inflammatory as the headline figures, but certainly broadcasters before the spectrum legislation was passed at a fear that the process would not be voluntary. meaning that they would not have the freedom to either relinquish spectrum that they have under the licenses or not. so the bill has been signed into

law. it's clearly voluntary. the plain language of the act, they don't have to give up their spectrum if they don't want to. i think it will be hard in some cases to free up as much spectrum as has been advertised, sort of advertised 60-80 megahertz. that's a measurement of spectrum, tv broadcaster usually uses six megahertz of spectrum. in a city like new york city with 23 or four tv stations, they would have to be at least 10 to get to 60, right? there's a lot of tv stations who would have to go off the air, but maybe if there's money in it for them, enough money, they would be up for that. so we won't know until we ask, and we need to go forward with it and we need to be fair to everybody. there's a big public interest benefits to having free over the air broadcasting, and we need to balance that as well. but congress did that in the act. >> host: robert mcdowell is a senior republican on the federal communications commission. he is in a second term, just reappointed last summer.

>> guest: '09. time flies. >> host: and jonathan make is the assistant managing editor of communications daily, our guest reporter. >> so, what can the commission do right now besides rulemaking process to further engage broadcasters so they can get as much spectrum as for tv now can be used for wireless broadband? >> guest: the commission just also had another big vote on, a concept called spectrum sharing. there's also read packing which we can talk about in a minute. so spectrum sharing, so three, all you need are three megahertz to broadcast high-definition broadcast. actually you need even less than that with the best cutting edge technology, but is it possible to have a station stay on the air by sharing three megahertz with another station?

so each use just three, that totals the six we talked about earlier. and then you can free up a block of spectrum, relocate broadcasters to their own neighborhood if you think of spectrum as rooster, which i do. then you have the wireless broadband, in another neighborhood. so i think there's a lot of potential in that item. in the concept of broadcaster sharing spectrum, and i look forward to going there. >> host: go ahead, jonathan make. >> let's switch tears and talk about m.e.d.i.c. south and also wireless and video competition, a number of things. you voted against -- >> guest: this is an hour nap show, right? >> you voted you voted against the net neutrality order. it currently is being litigated i believe that the d.c. circuit court of appeals. what do you think about the development of managed services we've been seeing a little bit

by some internet service providers, some of the big ones, comcast, at&t and the like, is that something you think is a positive marketplace? >> guest: december 2010 is when the fcc a doctor those rules of the 3-2 vote. explaining why just was a need to begin with another sec didn't have to go forward, et cetera. so managed services, that is again sort of an amorphous term, but there is a carve out for managed services in the net neutrality rules. and it means that broadband internet service providers should be allowed to innovate and come up with new ideas as to how to offer new innovative services to their customers. so that's absolutely necessary. i don't think the rules are necessary at all. there's no marketplace failure that wanted those rules to begin with. but managed services and making

sure that it stayed alive and well and the government keeps its nose out of it i think is very, very important. >> you help the commission, it is not actually i should mention been asked to intervene yet although some stakeholders public interest groups and companies that are in this sector have said they might ask the commission. it would sound like if the commission were ask him to help the commission would stay out of it, is that rights be? >> guest: unless there's evidence of a market failure and do have some statutory authority to do something, yes. >> host: commissioner mcdowell, was lightsquared treated fairly by the fcc? >> guest: this of course is the subject of a congressional investigation on how side in particular. senator grassley also is can conducting his own investigation in the senate, we put a hold on to colleagues, to new colleagues until he was provided documents. the lightsquared matter, just for again my father-in-law was

probably watching, was to we purpose satellite spectrum to be used for wireless broadband use. the fcc, the euro did not come to a vote of the commissioners. it was handled by the bureau in the chairman's office, voted a couple of years ago. they decided a couple of years ago to go ahead and we purpose the spectrum. once that happened, the gps community and defenses community and john deere, verizon gps for a lot of its new farming technology expressed a great deal of concern, in fact some of the spectrum by lightsquared would be used there would cause harmful interference to gps units. created a great debate. again, the issue did not come to the full commission so i don't have a substantive answer to give you. the commission reversed itself, again, at the bureau's level.

so we will see where the congressional investigation leads. but i wasn't part of the proceeding. >> you would rather the full commission handle the matter? >> guest: you know, the bureau's handle a lot of matters but usually we decide matters of new novel policy ideas come as a very high profile merger or transaction, merger review transaction. although technically we don't have to vote on those mergers. you know, there are hundreds that are, -- we have lawyers and economists and engineers and other professionals that can make these decisions. so, you know, i don't want to say should of been handled as we are that way because i just don't know exactly how it was handled. >> no, you mentioned the gps interference concerns, and some, i think on both parties have expressed some hope that perhaps it may be many years in the future something can be worked

out, that aspect in which isn't being used, the spectrum that lightsquared now owns could be used. would you hope that that somehow some time could be used? >> guest: there are a number of issues you flag right there. absently i believe what we call flexible use of spectrum. so over the years the fcc has tried to sort of micromanaged the use of frequency. it has to be used for satellite or something else. and by the time those rules are in place, networks are built up, sometimes technology and innovation has moved beyond those rules. the golden rule and wireless is to ensure there is no harmful interference. that's like a prime directive in star trek. you have to live and die by the. no harmful interference. so i would like to see more flexible use of policies adopted. i think new technologies that promote spectral efficiency, again more efficient use of the airways will help us in this regard, as light of the chairman

-- not to get too technical here but part of the concerned with the gps is that they've been receiving signals out of their band, really big years like dumbo the elephant are hearing more than they should. we haven't had a very robust or defined receiver standard policy, and we need to have one and i think that would help spectral efficiency. that then frees up more spectrum for more uses. >> host: yesterday the oversight hearing, frank lautenberg democrat of new jersey, talked about an investigation, potential investigation into news corp. is what senator lautenberg had to say. >> there is evidence that news corporation has been involved in a broad range of misconduct, reaching the highest levels of the new york-based company, and involving actions in the uk and the u.s. now, if we look at the lister, and we see these are senior people from the company, from

the news corp. and they applied for renewal of the license in 2007, 2007. five years ago. and despite this long list, the fcc has not announced any plans for proactive investigation into whether or not news corp. -- in the u.s. and i give this to each one of you. what does it take for the fcc to begin an investigation? >> guest: obviously we have important responsibilities under the law we are aware of the serious issues that we see in the uk. these matters may come before the fcc. i think would be an appropriate -- inappropriate for us to prejudge him, and also inappropriate to speak about any investigations we -- spent we're talking about an action that has to be taken. >> we don't comment as of agencies of government don't

comment on the status of investigations. obviously, we have important responsibilities that we will take seriously. it's important we not prejudge it. >> that would be very good, take seriously. >> host: is an investigation of news corp. and legitimate action in your view? >> guest: first of all of the chairman genachowski gave a very good answer to senator lautenberg. for any possible adjudicatory matter we don't comment. we don't comment on investigation. whether they are or not are not happen. i don't know of any sec investigation in this regard, but i may not know. we have and it forced the bureau who can investigate things on their own. and so, we will follow the facts and the law as established president and procedure. in this case should it become the case, and any of the case that comes along as we'll. >> host: and back to your testimony from the oversight hearing. in today's robust and dynamic online and mobile marketplace, government should not limit the

option to broadcasters and newspaper community to attract investment efficiencies and share the costs of news production. media ownership, is that going to be an issue in, within the fcc in the next year or so? and showed online companies, like facebook, like yahoo!, have the same regulatory framework that a "washington post" or and abc would have? >> guest: so, ask a question. speaking in that testimony to the newspaper broadcast ownership ban, which came but in 1975, in the wake of watergate, some say, maybe it's to punish the "washington post" for watergate, breaking the watergate story, and so the "washington post," also on radio here in town as well as channel nine television, so the idea then was one, an entity can be

too powerful when it owns all those outlets. so whether that is true or not, whether that was true or not in 1975, the world has changed a lot since 1975. and by the way, -- long sideburns, i was referring to yours. you look great. but i've made a remark about how this newspaper broadcast cross ownership and is out of data. the disco music of 1975, the year of the dan's birthday we look at this the last time around, '06-'07 timeframe when we reviewed our ownership media rules. we are supposed to review under laws every four years, review our media ownership rules. and with absolute no jurisdiction over newspapers we do a jurisdiction over broadcasters. so back in 75 the commission said to broadcasters, if you want to own a newspaper, to bed. there are some grandfather properties as will as waiters and all the rest. i think we need to read salmon additional marketplace, look at

broadcast can push the content out to radio, tv, internet, mobile devices, billboards, skywriting come any other platform you can think of but somehow isn't a threat to democracy, put that on a piece of paper and distributed to people's doorsteps. if they can push it out through other devices, through other portals that consumers are looking into more and more. some say, trying to save newspapers, may very well be. let's let the marketplace take care of itself. let's not have an unneeded government will exacerbate the problem posting jonathan make, time for one more question spend what about outside the broadcast your? is subject to the upcoming fcc report. something also the commission has been in. what is your sense of what it can do to encourage competition among tv? >> guest: i think there's tremendous competition with video right