up next on the communicators conversation with robert mcdowell of the federal communications commission this week, communicators, a look at spectrum and other issues before the federal communications commission with fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. >> commissioner mcdowell yesterday at the senate commerce committee hearing oversight of the fcc you had all five

commissioners there. has the dynamic changed now that you have finally a full complement of commissioners? >> right. there were sworn in monday morning first thing the third day on the job on wednesday, yesterday. they testified with us before the senate commerce committee and certainly that changed the dynamic where right away we have a very qualified people both of whom have worked at the fcc and on capitol hill before they moved these issues. they're very smart and easy to work with and i very much looking forward to continuing to do work over the years. >> does that restrict now -- what are the restrictions on the five commissioners actually meeting, can you talk with ajik on the commission privately or go over to german genachowski's office? >> there's the sunshine in government act in the wake of watergate some people felt as though some agencies were

meeting making of rules and dark rooms somewhere out of the public view so bill walsh says that no more than two of us can meet without it being of public notice to discuss substance. we can only meet one-on-one so it's the three of us, myself, german genachowski and commissioner clyburn, the meetings we now have two more, we have four meetings so that does increase the meeting time. we hope someday i think the rest of us are on the record of supporting the reform of the fact that it would allow us to meet in private everything we do ultimately is public and appealable to the courts and rationales written out. we think about it converse to be behind closed doors and supreme court can be behind closed doors we can have meetings and a lot of different contexts.

my brother was a mayor and tells me the council of california can be behind closed doors and we don't want secrecy in government but we want to be able to share thoughts and the public and explain them in public. >> in your testimony you talked about opportunities for further fcc reforms would that be number one on your fcc reform last? >> what, yes and a whole bunch of others. >> joining on the committed ziz john thune make, assistant managing editor of communications daily. >> thanks for having me. while we are on the topic of having a full complement in the fcc in about a year where the rulemakings and proceedings then you would like to see maybe be enacted faster now having the full complement onboard? >> sure. and even with the five we are in it were unable to get things done so the commission is not shot down. the number one priority is

implementing this new incentive option legislation come and that this legislation the congress has passed earlier this year that tv broadcasters have the incentive to broaden the spectrum that we would then auction off so consumers can have more wireless bandwidth and as they become more sophisticated they are just gobbling up the airwaves very quickly so there's a real concern. that's going to be quite literally i don't mean any hyperbole by saying this the most complex spectrum auction in the history of the world because the first thing you have to do is find out which will broadcasters are interested and at what point there's a reverse option, then you have the option to auction it off to the wireless carriers. so there will be a lot of moving parts like three-dimensional chess all of a sudden because the added the degree of

difficulty, and it will take some talks measured in years as to when it can get done but i think we need to get as many proceedings of the launching pad as much as possible this year, then there's a huge foreign subsidy program called the universal service subsidy from and we have repurchased the spending side of that to make it more efficient and modernize it so it supports broadband rather than create the old analog voice services. but we haven't figured out how to pay for it. so, the contributions side we just launched a public notice comment on that last month, and we hope -- i hope we can conclude this fall as quickly as possible because the tax rate has been skyrocketing and this is a silent automatic tax increase that every consumer pays on their phone bill as a part of that language on your phone bill of what this is. the numbers get bigger and bigger as the tax rate

automatically increases. >> in your testimony you talked about broadening the base before the tax rate. what you mean? >> the tax base right now is essentially interstate long-distance revenue coming and if you think about it, that's an old analog concept and that poll that has been shrinking over time over voice-over internet protocol were skype for instance and other enhanced new technologies that enable folks to make a run at that so that pool is shrinking and for a while the spending side was increasing. we've put cost controls and we've been able to -- this is new news, leighton and i don't know when we can say that in washington, d.c. but we've been able to do that. succumb in terms of broadening the base, one of the concept we were looking at back in 2008 was

the numbers should we assess the feet on phone number versus revenue, but we have proposed a number of different ideas and we hope people will give their thoughts or new ideas, phone numbers may no longer work and maybe something else will be brought in revenue. >> would you be in support of that? >> we will see where the record goes. we still have a presumption that phone number sar stila good place to go in what we can do under the law congress has given to us. they also broaden the base and keep it squarely in the traditional silicon indications. but there are a number of entities that want to carve out universities as the university of virginia they told me it might cost an additional million dollars a year. we will see if that holds up if we run the financial analyses.

things like on star if you push the button they have a phone number associated with it. if you put your credit card into a gas pump that has a phone number associated with it, google has a phone number associated as a free service, skype sometimes has the numbers associated so there's a lot of folks that aren't paying now that might be paying under that type of scenario but that is to happen regardless, so it makes it controversial and that might be why they've waited so long to do it because if you are broadening the base that means someone that isn't paying now will be taking leader but i hope that it's a broad base and lower the rate better to take a little bit from lot of folks van from of you flat tax type of concept and this is all mandated by congress we have to have the program for some viewers watching like my father in law. >> do you have a momentum on the side right now on the universal

service fund contribution proceeding and then also on the spectrum proceedings, too >> i think we do and i can't speak for any of the other commissioners by can speak for the two new ones, but contribution reform we've launched that proposed rule making for comments so i think it's a really good sign. we continue to speak out publicly and i wish we had done universal service reform at the same time the analogy it's like fixing a watch it's harder to fix one part of it needs fixing into the same time because it sticks to the other come so i hope it's a good sign we just launched that proposed rule making on the universal service and the chairman has spoken many times about the need to get there as quickly as possible. >> you have expressed some concern, some caveat that the

various spectrum and the rulemakings associated with it may take some time. do you see the private market transactions one company by another company spectrum as a way to get more spectrum that may be shallow online sooner? >> the first part of your question they can take a long time. digital television act was passed an early 06 and started in early 08. for two years and there was about as quick as they could have moved that's pretty fast because we had to put out rules for public comment. then we have the option and the winning bidders submit their checks and then you have to clear the spectrum which means any users using the frequency is off dundee need to build up their networks so it can take the better part of a decade before consumers realize the

benefit. so it will take a lot of time and the second part of the question is the spectrum. consumers are very frustrated right now. the mobile devices, smart phones are working so slowly. then disappointed i think in the executive branch not with the ntia report with the national broadband plan said we needed to forget 500 megahertz of the spectrum and the federal government occupied the best spectrum. we don't know how efficiently the federal government is using that spectrum and that is the lowest hanging fruit to look at. with the stroke of a pen in the white house executive branch agencies can really redouble their efforts to try to find spectrum to bring to auction and we can find out the actual cost of how much it cost to move

federal users of a certain frequency as far as moving elsewhere or just spectrum altogether so i want to know the costs are and i think the congress and the commission brand all have a responsibility here. >> would you like to see executive order mentioned the report which is a part of the commerce department which spoke about the cost could be close to $20 billion to locate the federal government spectrum and then to repurchase that for commercial use does that mean executive order to speed things up in terms of the three purposing? >> i think so. the folks did a terrific job. i think was an excellent report. they had to rely on the cost assumptions provided to them by other executive-branch agencies and had no way of really falling upon those assumptions, the double the ultimate sure they are accurate. nobody wants to give up their spectrum. the government private sector users it is a valuable resource and nobody wants to give it up,

so there is a disincentive. so i think the executive order or something at the very highest level in the white house we need to get this done at this point i think that is really looking into the report and what points towards and in the last part you brought up this important come too which is the secondary market spectrum the people companies that already have licenses can either lease spectrum to others that are in need of it in a certain area or region or national and the free transfer of licenses it has to meet an antitrust standard but i think we need to make a easier to have the secondary market otherwise we're out of options and the only other option is the efficiency and that is the last leg on the stool is we are going to have to as a government and partnership with private industry figure out how we can do to get out of the way to facilitate advancing

technologies, the deployment of technology that will help squeeze efficiencies out of the airwaves as consumers are the rise and the three frustrated. >> what is your view of the current holdup in the rise in cable company arrangement on spectrum? >> i won't speak to the merits of the deal that's before us right now. i think as it stands right now it looks like we will have a deadline in august the clock was pushed off and there's other questions that need answered. it's still on the time line in terms of his radically if you look at the review of other transactions it's taken a lot longer this is spectrum by the way folks should know it was brought by a group of cable companies that formed a company called spectrum the addition to bill dolph in the networks so we are not talking about customers or the network has built the

spectrum lying fallow since 2006 so we will see what the trust refuses and the public interest review says. >> recent story in politico this was the headline, broadcasters fcc in spectrum turf war. >> i read that story. i think when you read a story it isn't quite as full an injury as the head line appears but certainly broadcasters before the spectrum legislation past the feared the process wouldn't be voluntary meaning that they would not have the freedom to relinquish spectrum they have under the licenses or not. so the bill has been signed into law, it is clearly voluntary, they don't have to give up their spectrum if they don't want to

providing it will be hard to free up as much spectrum as has been advertised so it's advertised 60 to 80 megahertz that a measurement of spectrum atv broadcaster usually uses six said in a city like new york with 23 or 24 tv stations that would have to at least be ten so that's a lot of tv stations who would want to go off the air but maybe if there's money they would be up for that. we won't know until we ask and need to go forward with it and we need to be fair to everybody. there's a public interest benefit to having free over the air broadcasting and we need to balance that as well but congress didn't act. >> robert macdill was the senior republican on the federal connections commission. he's in his second term reappointed last summer. >> 09. time flies. >> jonathan is the assistant

managing editor of communications daily the guest reporter. >> what can the commission do right now besides the rulemaking process to further engage broadcasters so that they can harvest if you will was much spectrum as used now that can be used for wireless broadbent? >> the commissioner just also had another big vote on the concept called spectrum sharing and there's also repackage we can talk about an imminent in the article you mentioned in politico so all you need or 3 megahertz to broadcast high-definition broadcast signal and unique less than that with the cutting edge technology but is it possible to have a station stay on the air by sharing 3 megahertz with another station so each is just three and that is a total of six we talked

about earlier than you can free up a block of the spectrum, relocate broadcasters in the neighborhood in the real estate as i do and broadcasters in the neighborhood you have both of the wireless brand in the mobile broadband. i think there's a lot of potential in that i come in that concept of broadcasters spectrum >> go ahead, jonathan. >> let's switch gears and talk about net neutrality and also why your list video competition. you voted against -- >> is an hour-and-a-half show is and it? >> you voted against the net neutrality order. it's currently being litigated that the circuit court of appeals. what do you think about the development of the managed services we have been seeing all little bit by some of the service providers, comcast at&t and the like? is that something you think is a

positive marketplace development? >> december of 2010 is one the adopted those rules as the commissioner baker and myself meanwhile it was and began with and they didn't have the legal authority to do it etc. so the managed services in the amorphous term there is a carved out for the managed services and the net neutrality rules, and it means that when the broadband internet service providers should be allowed to innovate and come up with new ideas how to offer new innovative services to customers so that is necessary. there's no marketplace failure of course but the services and making sure they stay alive and well.

>> it sounds like you hope the commission -- it hasn't i should mention also some stakeholders public-interest groups and companies that are in the sector have said if the commission were asked you hope the commission would stay out is that right? >> unless there is evidence of a market failure then we have some statutory authority to do something. >> commissioner mcdowell, was lightsquared treat fairly by the sec? >> this is the subject of a congressional investigation. senator grassley is also conducting an investigation in the senate until he was provided documents the matter and again my father-in-law is probably watching it is to reproduce satellite spectrums to the use for trustful use of wireless

broadband. the fcc bureau didn't come to the commissioners as handled by figure in the german's office phone to the couple of years ago, they decided a couple of years ago to repurchase the spectrum. once that happened, the gps community and the defense community and john deere and gps for the technology expressed a great deal of concern that some of the spectrum would be used to cause harmful interference. there is a great debate again the issue didn't come before the commission so why don't have a substantive answer to give you the commission reversed itself again at the bureau of level. we will see where the congressional investigation leads because i wasn't a part of

the proceeding. >> would you have rathered the full commission handle the manner? >> the bureau handles a lot of matters. usually we decide matters of new novel policy ideas and some very high-profile merger transactions also technically we don't have to on those mergers there are hundreds per year handled by the staff where as other professionals to make these decisions. i don't want to say it should have been handled this way or that way because i don't know how it was handled. >> you mentioned the gps concerns and on how both parties expressed some hope perhaps median many years in the future something can be worked out in the spectrum that lightsquared now could be used.

would you hope that somehow could be used? >> there's a number of issues right there. absolutely i believe and what we call flexible use of spectrum's over the years the fcc is trying to micromanage the use of certain frequencies for satellite and something else and by the time the rules are in place and networks are built sometimes technology and innovation has moved beyond those rules. the golden rule in one year ... to ensure there is no harmful interference. you have to live and die by that so no harmful interference. i would like to see more flexible use policies adopted. i think new technologies that promoted efficiency again more efficient needs of the airwaves would help in this regard as the chairman and she did to the workshop of standards part of the concern of gps is they've

been receiving signals out of their band and have big ears like dumbo and the elephant and we don't have the standard policy we need to have for the efficiency and that frees up more spectrum. >> commissioner mcdowell, yesterday's the oversight hearing, frank lautenberg democrat of new jersey talked about an investigation, potential investigation into the news corporation. here is what senator lautenberg had to say. >> there is evidence that news corporation have been involved in a broad range of misconduct reaching the highest levels of the new york based company and involving actions in the u.k. and the u.s.. if we look at the list and we see that these are senior people from the company and they apply for renewal of the license in

2007, five years ago and despite this the have announced any plans to throw out the investigation into whether or not the the broadcast license in the u.s. and i address this to each one of you what does it take for the fcc to begin an investigation? >> we have important responsibilities under the law we are aware of the issues that we see in the u.k.. these matters come before the fcc and i think it would be inappropriate for us to prejudge them it inappropriate to speak about any investigations -- >> we are talking about an action that has to be taken. >> we don't comment as other agencies don't comment on the status of investigations and obviously we have important

responsibilities that we will take seriously. it's important we not prejudge it. >> the would be very good to take it seriously. >> commissioner macdill is it a legitimate action in your view? >> first of all, the german genachowski get a good answer to senator lautenberg. for any adjudicatory matter we don't comment on investigations. i don't know if any investigation to in this regard in the enforcement bureau to investigate things on their own and so we will follow the facts and establish precedent and procedure in this case should it become a case and any other as well. >> back to your testimony from the oversight hearing in today's robust and dynamic online and global marketplace the government shouldn't limit the options of broadcasters and the newspaper community to attract investment, increase efficiency

and share the cost of news production media ownership, is that going to be an issue in the next year and should online companies like facebook and yahoo! have the same regulatory framework that a "washington post" or abc would have? >> excellent question. a system that testimony to the newspaper broadcast which came about in 1975 in the wake of watergate some say maybe it's apocryphal to publish to leave to punish the "washington post" for watergate, breaking the watergate story. so the "washington post" and also the radio here in town as well as channel 9 television. the idea was it could be too powerful in those outlets. so whether it is true or not the

world has changed a lot and broadway jonathan made a remark on the sideburns. [laughter] i made a remark about how this newspaper broadcast as with 1975 the years of the advanced. we've looked at this the last time around in this timeframe when we reviewed the media ownership rules so we are supposed to every four years review the media ownership rules and we have no jurisdiction over newspapers but over broadcasters come so that the commissioner said with broadcasters as to what a newspaper, too bad. there are some grandfather properties as well as weaver's. i think we need to examine the digital marketplace so a broadcaster can push their content out through radio, tv, internet, mobile devices,

billboards, any other platform you can think of but somehow it is for the democracy to put that on a piece of paper and distributed to people's doorsteps. if they can push it out to other devices that consumers are looking to more and more some say why are you trying to save the newspapers are a dinosaur dying industry once it has and i needed a government rule. see jonathan make, one time for one more question. >> outside of broadcast the subject of another fcc report and also the commission. what is your sense of the company's. estimates in the video right now by the way we are supposed to every year producing video competition report. the last time we did that was in january of a nine in the days of the chairmanship that