moorishness. glmpleght our online book club meets tomorrow night. if you haven't read it. read what others have said on # #btv book club. join it tomorrow night at 9:00 p.m. eastern. if we can start this about the discussion about the spectrum. if you can give us an update we've heard 2014 they may begin. 2015. how do you see it? >> thank you. it's great to join in. i don't underestimate the difficulty of -- of doing the auction. ..

>> the broadcasters actually got together on some points. they are usually at each other's throats. i think that this includes the incentives

this is important work. and in warmest number of jobs in america come from innovation technologies. we want to make sure that broadcasters know and the sec and doj know that this is involuntary action. we want to get set up so we have a maximum number of purchase of an area that already has gone through this policy adjustment. what i don't want to see, and what i was disturbed about what some of the most recent examples

of what is that they are once again sort of leaning towards freeing up everything. making way in the unlicensed world. that is not something that i am familiar with and in favor of. there are more people probably licensed in different ways. but this process is a really valuable process. potential communications are localized. >> host: finally, in regards to the spectrum, what is the issue with firstnet? >> guest: i'm cautious on the efforts. i am trying to make sure that the states are represented. it is one of the board members who come out and they are pretty

open about how things are happening, he is as an important voice. as you may or may not know. she is a representative for state. it's like saying that, you know i wish states have a bigger role here. we are going to watch it. it is important to maximize the local infrastructure that is available. the assets that are available. the build up from there, what ended up in the lot was really a top-down approach. but i think that they are finding out that that has its

own set of problems, especially when it comes to cost and the potential prospects of local fire departments. that it would be double or triple. >> that is part of our due diligence, a committee that has to work in that way. >> host: now we are going to speak with tony of political. >> guest: you know, when the congressional budget office was affected by the spectrum, they came back with the figure about $23 billion of revenue, as he pointed out, some of the jobs act has gone for firstnet. argue old in the view that the s having a problem with this? >> i don't know if i really agree with that.

usually what happens is when it's designed properly, with up with you have to get it right, that is why we are spending our time focused on making sure the sec gets the auction set up. some that the fcc wanted to, at least it felt like, clue in some of the bigger players, horizon, others from participating. they have the ability and we pointed to the department of justice. that is an existing monopoly form. what i wanted was the players to be at the table. we also put language in there to

day that other players can be at the table as well and have an opportunity to participate. so these are balances that you have to achieve. i think they can probably exceed the goals that they do it right. >> guest: as they undergo a significant leader change come at the same time, they have to do a lot of changes. frankly number of other priorities as well. what do you think the fcc should do under the active chair. should they do it now or should they wait remapped. >> guest: i think they should continue. it doesn't mean that they make every major decision. first, let me congratulate her for crashing through the glass ceiling.

yes, i think they should go forward. it's too much work not to. >> guest: are you saying that the spectrum options might be delayed as the sec go through this natural evolution of leadership? >> guest: it is possible. they have outside consultants or that they are working with and designing these options. >> guest: as we wait for the next chairman, as he pointed out, should the sec take a step back and not do anything major while she is in charge? should clyburn have all of the capabilities afforded to her?

>> she is going to manage it properly. she is not going to see the kingdom and pull up the drawbridge. i think she is very thoughtful and her colleagues are all good and very informed. i would think that they will continue to move forward. i think they will have two new commissioners on and two new chairman. so i think that she will be fine. >> guest: are your what are your thoughts? it is pretty much divided between the telecom community and those who praise the business experience and some of the public interest to think that he is too closely tied, what do you think about that? >> first of all, i think he is a very talented and bright individual who has a great effect on the business. that is important to have on the commission. you need people that have been out there and know the realities of these different industries. whoop whoop whoop up with

i find this offensive, frankly, from a public policy standpoint. with whatever commission you want to pick up, it does not have the underlying regulatory authority. here is why this is important. because you have other players. there is going to be a subject of where the condition is. that is not really fair to the other participants in the marketplace.

i think it's wrong to have three people in effect in the majority of the commission to say that we are going to hold you to this because we can't accomplish it over here. >> host: you said that the sec has been more concerned about spending authority than creating profit. >> guest: yes, i knew i said, and i would also quote the broadband plan. the author that said it is becoming more of a political institution. and that is what i think people get concerned about.

whether it's this one are others that we are hearing about, they still have their own agenda. moving away from good public policy processing. i felt that way with the merger conditions. this is a policymaking body. we are the policy makers. they should be the experts. >> host: let's talk about this process. there is a lot of angst over the house and senate. where do you go from here on the legislation reign.

>> guest: we are going to go right back at it. there are those that oppose our efforts. we think that process reform means allowing the sunshine act to go forward. which is ironically vaguely inappropriate because it allows this to go through over business. you get to do it in private and i actually could support it if it was connected to all we are saying here. you said the predictable timeline, but nobody really has time to read and then understand this. so we are going to move forward. i am impassioned about this.

we haven't made these decisions, but i would like to find partners beyond what i have had, certainly figuring out what we have to move forward. for the life of me, i cannot understand the accountability and transparency i will tell you what, you can have another term in common than he could have a whole different management style. >> guest: would you like to have

a bill or a hearing in a certain amount of time? >> guest: yes, i would. we have a lot on our plate, a lot on our agenda for this year. as you know, this was a priority. >> host: why do you refer to them as a candy company? >> guest: well, my dad got his radio license and 1934. he was a ham radio operator. >> host: you talk about the television extension expires next year. what would you like to see dumb? >> guest: well, you know

business. people in the marketplace to who say, you don't need to do anything. it has to be reauthorized very narrowly. then there is a whole collection approach . what brought it back through 1988, the satellite, the competition out there, there is a marketplace change. so we will have another hearing fairly soon. i believe on this issue we are going to continue to work with all of the issues and make some decisions. i have not honed in on exactly what we are going to do. the video world was going through enormous change. i think a huge paradigm change right before i read the program

and the huge consequences. you have a limited basis in one market. you have that provider thinking, well, okay, let's get around this regulation here and maybe we will do that. you have a cable company that said, oh, we will look at that as well. all of a sudden, it seems like we can't fix it. >> host: are you going to use this as a kind of excuse? >> guest: no, we are going to face the problems head on. i prefer to do one thing at a time and not have all of these other things hooked on this.

i was surprised by the decision. you know, i am an old radio broadcaster. disruptions aren't bad, not necessarily. but this one, i think, it has much bigger consequences as people begin to read into it. >> guest: yes, as we progress through the courts and the bureaucracy, others are talking about their signals in response how does that play into this? >> guest: i think that is part of it.

someone has to pay the bill. a lot of that been going through the various financial arrangements. among the providers and their tv stations and, you know, all of those very complicated mismatched laws and rules and legacies. if that goes away and someone is taking your product and putting it up on cable for free, big ugly, then all of a sudden you probably have to look at how you change that. that is what chase carey made in his remarks. this is the point i'm making. you have everybody saying, okay, what just happened? what does that mean? does that mean that i get around this and if you are a local broadcast provider, what does that mean for you? i do not think that we know all the implications.

it can be a two to one decision in one quarter, but it could be formal everywhere. >> in that same speech, you say that we are not convinced that we need to format this time. >> that is true. most of these agreements have been reached. we want a marketplace that works. whether it is in broadcast, cable, wireless world -- and one competitive market prices. and i would like a marketplace work. i do not want government coming in and let the marketplace fail. so here you have most of these incentives and agreements that have now been signed. i think virtually all of them are. some of them extended out four years or eight years. so the marketplace has worked in that respect. and i think that is a more efficient way.

>> host: what you think of john mccain's reelection? >> guest: there are a lot of pros and cons. some of the smaller cable providers -- i'm not sure if many think that it is right to just pick the shows that you want. you still have that local requirement where the broadcast signals are there and then you go above that. i don't know if he's talking about getting rid of that. again, you wonder what that does to the pricing model. and also to the wide range of the trade-off, tainted with the current system, you get a lot of programming. up up and we wouldn't exist otherwise. because there wouldn't be this consumer demand for it.

up in the market, something that it is disastrous and are not what they are getting into. suddenly get a lot more for work program up that. >> host: up let's talk about her up there to cybersecurity hearings before congress. can you talk about the takeaways from their? are you happy with the president's executive order focusing on critical infrastructure? >> guest: it is better than where he started a year or so ago. you know, i think he came a long way. i will tell you, tony, this is the biggest thing that america faces, cybersecurity attacks. we heard that across the panel. i think they all agree that this is a very serious problem for the country. that is where i think mike rogers has done a perfect job as

being a member of her subcommittee. he is her intelligent. i asked about the supply chain vulnerability workgroup. there were several over the years to bring members together and dive deep on these issues. mobility is a big issue for america and our security. i think that they will develop a lot of good information for the subcommittee on us. going forward, i think that it is a matter of trying to figure out how do you determine whether it is a vulnerability, perhaps with a specific piece of equipment or brand -- how do you communicate that in to make those decisions. those are not easy to figure out how you get from here to good housekeeping seal of approval on a piece of equipment we are talking about

this significant amount. there's a big branch of this that makes it better if they buy this command, yet we have courts indicating that there could be problems with some of the equipment. >> guest: so do you have an idea of what you want to supply chain to do and the timeline that you want to operate in? >> guest: i try not to put too many parameters around it. the value of the workgroup is putting people who are not otherwise available to testify. so we can get some real technical experts in, we can go into classified environments and i think that we can find -- what i would like to find is is there a way to get the procurement improvement. to figure out where the vulnerabilities lie. we need to figure out the most reasonable course of action.

>> guest: we are talking about requiring government contracts and there a certain set of standards in government. it has been pretty controversial. what he think about that process? >> guest: this gets to the issue is very appropriate. backing him in the hearing that we had. this random call night that says, don't do it. and so we are trying to figure out how do you get a system in place.

>> host: why did you feel a need for that legislation? >> guest: because we did not do so well in the country of dubai. eighty-nine nations, i believe, they believe that we should use the old legacy itu inter- telecommunications union structure to regulate the internet. this is a legacy authority that is designed to deal with telephone calls among countries and over copper. that is where it all started her he had you have some in countries that don't embrace our first amendment right and freedoms like we do.

we have the greatest growth in the history of humankind. there are some areas where we do not do so well. as we were voting on things, switzerland and another meeting that we have next year and south korea -- i just felt, as did my colleagues, a unanimous vote. the management of the internet is the best way to manage this. it is what is giving us this economic process. as you know, there was some concern and somehow this was taking the way israel voted the last time and putting it in as a

statute where we have disagreement in neutrality. so we backed off, we got language that agreed and did not offend the issue. and we moved forward. so i would be hopeful the senate would pick it up. >> host: we have greg walden with the sub indication technologies and tony romm with politico. thank you for being with us. >> c-span is brought to you by a public service through your television provider. up next on booktv, writer ben goldacre talked about the influence of the pharmaceutical industry and the global health care system. he argues that pharmaceutical companies hide negative studies

and use questionable testing and intensive lobbying to get what they want. this is from the seattle townhall and it lasts about 90 minutes. >> thank you. i can't understand why there are more than five people here. [laughter] i am writing this and you are my people. [laughter] there is no reader's health advice here. and we want to talk about conspiracy theories on how the drug companies are trying to kill us. it is very well documented in

the medical academic professional literature. what i am hoping to do ensure that probably with the public. we are going to talk about the fair test are not all created alike. how there can be structural design flaws in the way that we run trial so that they no longer our tests about what treatment is best. we are talking about marketing. although that i find marketing a little bit worrying.