beginning saturday morning at 8:00 eastern through monday morning at 8:00 eastern. nonfiction books all week and every weekend right here on c-span2. >> you're watching c-span2. here is a look ahead. next, the communicators. .. >> members of the house and senate are back today from a weeklong memorial day break. in the senate lawmakers are set

to resume work on a reauthorization of farm programs. off the floor senators are drafting proms to change concern concern -- propoles to change immigration laws. house members return to begin funding the federal government for the next fiscal year. first, a $73 billion spending bill aimed at housing and equipping the nation's military troops and their families. another spending bill up for debate this week, to fund the homeland security department. the nearly $39 billion measure would cover border security, grants for fist responders, cybersecurity and disaster relief. both chambers return today at 2 p.m. eastern. watch live coverage of the house on c-span, the senate on c-span2. >> host: and this week on "the communicators" an exit interview with the former chairman of the fcc, julius genachowski, and the

top republican, robert mcdowell, both who retired from the commission just recently. also joining our conversation, lynn stanton, of "telecommunications reports." chairman genachowski, if i could start with you and, commissioner mcdowell, if you'd chime in as well, former fcc official blair levin said that the spectrum auctions were not going to happen, they were going to push until 2015. what are your thoughts about the spectrum auctions and the timetable? >> guest: well, are you referring to the incentive auctions which we're in a very interesting time. you know, four years ago we had no plan as a country on how to free up a significant amount of spectrum in the 600 megahertz band. in fact, we didn't really have a plan to hit the targets that we set out four years ago, 300 megahertz by 2015, 500 by 2020. and here we are today the community is debating what the

band plan should look like for 600 megahertz. so we adopted an incentive auction -- developed an incentive auction idea, the fcc is moving forward with it. i think the agency will hit the 300 megahertz target by 2015. hitting the 500 megahertz target by 2020 is going to take a lot of work, but it's important that we do that, and we're moving faster than any other country in the world. >> host: commissioner mcdowell. >> guest: so to the specific point -- thanks for having me back, and it's good to be here with my former colleague and i guess current colleague for the show. [laughter] it could start a little later. i've been a little concerned about that since the outset. these things take longer than k3-79ed sometimes -- expected sometimes. during my seven years at the commission, i was there when we did the two other largest spectrum auctions in history in '06 and also the 700 megahertz auction that started in december of '07, and with the 700

megahertz auction, that was part of the digital television transition. folks might remember. we actually had industry asking us to pause while they were still digesting that '06 spectrum auction. so you don't know what sort of surprises there might be. right now the commission's down to three, three of our now-former colleagues, and we're awaiting the other two to come on board. washington has a lot of things going on, especially in congress, and it could be a while before both of those things are installed. so there is a possibility it couldn't start until later. i'm hopeful it could start in 2014. i think it's important to do so, and i do have a concern that the auction could be a little more complicated than it might need to be, so that policy debate needs to happen as well. it's not like the new chairman is walking in on a friday, and they'll have an auction on a monday. as i've said before but it's not exaggeration, this auction will be the most complex in world

history, but the chairman, ex-chairman is absolutely right -- [laughter] in that we are moving faster than the rest of the world and have all along. and so the eyes of the world, at least in the wireless space, are looking at the u.s. to see how we handle this. and i'm optimistic in the long run that it'll yield some spectrum but not as much maybe as is needed. >> host: well, do you both think that acting chairman clyburn should move forward in case there's a delay in getting two new commissioners onboard? >> guest: you know, these incentive auctions are an institutional responsibility of the fcc. a great team up and running at the agency that's been working on this issue all along, will continue to work on it. each of the commissioners at the commission understands these issues, they're experienced with it. i think the commission will continue to move forward with each ten. rob is right, this is the most

complex auction, spectrum recovery idea that we've devised. weaver also the country that devised auctions in the first place, and now we're the country that developed incentive auctions. but i think the agency regards that as an institutional objective. of it'll keep moving forward. and i'm quite certain there'll be agreement that the process should move forward as fast as it can while doing what rob says, which is making sure that we get, that the commission gets the hard, complex decisions right. i do want to say it is a very important thing that we're seeing from the community real engagement in the substantive issues. people aren't debating whether or not to have an incentive auction, whether or not to recovery spectrum. we're debating what the first broadband-era band plan should look like. that's a hard question. the u.s. is going to be the first country in the world to

figure it out. there's some tricky but important issues to address, you know? in the old world, uplinks and downlinks had symmetrical amounts of spectrum. that made sense in a voice world where we talk to each other, it's about equal. well, you know, in a broadband data world maybe that symmetry doesn't make sense because there's more data coming down than up. or maybe it does. these are hard questions. decisions will have to be made, and i think we'll see a focused commission, staff and commissioners working on these issues steadily focused on getting the issues right and getting the auction to move forward. >> you've both talked about the complexity of this particular auction. could you talk a little bit about the specifics in terms both of design, what they need to do -- what the former colleagues need to do in terms of getting broadcasters to come in and return their spectrum and what, um, substantively what sort of decisions they should be making in terms of designing the

auction and the band plans? you just mentioned the uplinks and downlinks. should the commission be deciding that, or maybe should the carriers themselves be deciding -- >> guest: it's a good question, and let me answer it quickly, and i know we've both been thinking a lot about this. >> guest: go ahead. >> guest: your question gets to something important in the complexity of the overall thing because it's not just the question of what the forward auction should look like, what the band plan should look like, what all of those auction rules should look like, there are all the new questions around what is the reverse auction for broadcasters looking like. now, that's a whole set of issues of first impression. and maximizing the number of broadcasters that participate is an important objective because that will correlate to the amount of spectrum that gets freed up. and, boy, if we spent time on each of the complex issues that the commission will have to address in the period ahead, we'd be here for six hours or more.

[laughter] but what i'm -- i think one of the things, i suspect rob and i agree on this, there's a terrific group, staff at the commission focused on facts and data, and we now see an industry that's focused on all the hard questions. it's what you want in this area, and out of it will come, i believe, a set of answers, i think correct answers to many difficult questions. >> guest: you know, on the point of at what point is it worth it for broadcasters to relinquish spectrum, i think that was the heart of your question, and so the viewers need to understand that there's a reverse auction as part of the statute that came out of congress, how cheaply will broadcasters give up their spectrum. then there's a forward auction as to how expensive will the wireless companies bid for that spectrum. and the third component is the repacking which is finding a neighborhood for the broadcasters and finding another neighborhood for the wireless companies.

that's very complicated. the way the notice of proposed rulemaking were to make some of that simultaneous, a lot of game theory going on there, and, you know, as i was leafing the commission, before i left the commission and talked to a lot of folks on both sides, bidders and sellers, there was some concern about the simultaneous nature of that. it was very reliant on software, redesigning and repacking and all the rest after each bidding round. so what it all boils down to for me is be you make it simpler, it's probably going to work better. those are the lessons i learned from the aws-1 auction and the 700 megahertz auction. there are even more unintended consequences if you add complexities and try to overengineer it. so there's one school of thought of just put the buyers and the sellers in a room and, you know, they come out, they can't do that on the statute. there's antitrust and all sorts of price-fixing issues there. but something simple along those

lines, virtually speaking, could work. so, you know, i'm concerned, as i said before, about it being too complex and, therefore, broadcasters not knowing what the right price point might be. so you want to make it a rewarding experience for them to give them an incentive to give up as much spectrum as possible. and if there's more complexity to it, that will actually probably make it less likely that they would relinquish more spectrum. >> do you expect that what you heard as you were leaving that this auction's going to raise enough money to meet all the needs that congress has put on it in terms of the public safety network and 20 billion or so in paying down the deficit and all those wonderful things? >> guest: my expectation is that the money that has been targeted for public safety network and

the other specific fishtives like that -- initiatives like that, i'm very confident the auction will more than raise enough money for that. exactly how much above that i think is uncertain. it'll come down to questions of auction design, level of broadcaster participation. one of the things to keep in mind with an auction like this is that the revenue that comes out of the auction is very important, but the benefits for our economy in terms of gdp growth, innovation, job creation and ultimately tax revenues are much broader than if you just measure the auction revenues. and that's the record going back many years. it'll continue to be the case. so i'm convinced that we'll get the revenue out of the auction to meet the targets in the statute for public safety network and other items like that. and the focus on freeing up as much spectrum as possible, i think, is the right objective for the commission.

>> host: gentlemen, we asked several reporters who cover telecommunications here in washington if they had questions for you, and we got several questions. i want to start with this one from john eggerton of broadcasting and cable multichannel news on net neutrality, surprise, surprise. um, if you -- and we'll start with the former chairman, then we'll go to commissioner mcdowell. chairman genachowski, if you had stayed at the commission, you were prepared to reclassify internet access under title ii if the fcc lost the net neutrality case? is. >> guest: well, first of all, the fcc had a very good cay at the supreme court recently, not only winning the tour siting case that was a initiative that we worked on together, but also on a basis that i think strengthens the agency's authority as appropriate given what the agency needs to do in the broadband era. so i was confident about the open internet litigation before the recent supreme court

decision. i remain -- i'm even more confident now. and i would say, look, you know, the rules were adopted about three years ago. they, the marketplace has shown that they're working. we've seen since the open internet rules went into effect an increase in innovation and investment across the broadband economy. there were people at the time who argued if open internet rules were adopted, that would lead to a cessation in any investment in network infrastructure. well, the opposite has happened. we're seeing an increase in investment in wired and wireless network infrastructure since then. we have a stable framework now that's working. i'm concerned about the uncertainty that the litigation is creating, although i do think the recent supreme court decision will help the fcc in the d.c. circuit. >> guest: despite the fact that the fcc, we agree on things about 90% of the time unanimously, this was one of

those areas of sharp disagreement. first of all, i don't think there was any market problem to fix. second of all, i don't think the fcc has the statutory authority, and even after monday's supreme court decision, that didn't give the fcc legislative authority. what they said was if there's an ambiguity in your jurisdiction, maybe the expert agency gets some deference. in this case, there's no ambiguity. the language coming out of the telecommunications act of 1996 is all about deregulating and never spoke to open internet and things of that nature. so i don't think it blows winds in the sail of the fcc order which i voted against on net neutrality. if, to answer your question directly though, i think it would be economically disastrous if the fcc moves to any classification of broadband internet access as a title ii service or monopoly phone-type service from 1934. there's no way to do that in a skinny fashion. that's like saying you're partially pregnant. and also it would really fuel

this international effort to regulate the economics of the internet at the international telecommunication union. so i think even some of the nontelecom companies are understanding that now because they have thousands of miles of fiber linking servers and routers all over the world, and they offer voice, video and data services. that could be google, at&t, comcast, microsoft. so something internet companies that were pushing for such regulation i think are now realizing they're within an inch of being regulated as a company themselves. i think there wasn't uncertainty before the internet order of 2010. >> host: mr. genachowski, any response to that? >> guest: no, i don't think so. look, the important thing is we preserve in the united states and around the world a free and open internet. we've secured that in the u.s. rob and i agree very strongly that some of the proposals we've seen internationally to create a new layer of international

regulation of the internet are a big mistake. so even in this area i think there are some very significant areas of agreement. with respect to the u.s. landscape, again, i think there's a strong and sensible framework in place. it's working in the u.s. and we should let it continue. >> host: lynn stanton. >> i wanted to ask you about the changes in the delivery video programming. certainly even in the short, relatively short time, less than a decade and four years at your part that you were at the fcc, things changed incredibly in terms of over the internet and also new facilities-based competitors like at&t and verizon and google and on the internet, netflix. what does that mean in terms of what the fcc should be doing when it looks at this industry? do you need to rationalize the approach of regulation to providers that are very differently treated under the

laws? >> guest: listen, i hoped you were going to ask what we thought about arrested development coming on netflix. >> that too. >> guest: personally, very excited about. house of cards on netflix was an important moment. and it says something about the exciting things that we can see when new channels are opened up. so we're in a landscape that's absolutely shifting, and there are areas of the statutory scheme where it would make sense the look at and say are those keeping up with the changes in the marketplace? fundamentally having this kind of competition, programming innovation, access by new players to consumers and access by the traditional players to viewers in new ways, obviously, what's happening on tablets is amazing. what's starting to happen in the living room is very exciting.

we're in just an incredible time when it comes to the delivery of video programming to consumers. there are issues. we heard at the commission, both of us did, from distribute canners who are concerned about the costs of programming. consumers are concerned about the cost of programming. so that's an issue that i think the commission and congress will need to continue to look at. but i do think this is an area where the glass is half full at least, because we're seeing exciting new competition and creativity in this part of the landscape. >> guest: a little bit more, i would actually say the glass is overflowing. [laughter] it's a terrific time to be a consumer in the video and audio market, and probably like the ex-chairman, i look at this market through the eyes of my kids, i have three young kids, and what are their cop assumption habits. they have more choices than any human being in history in terms of what's there and through more cobbed wits too. -- conduits

too. so i think it's a positive be, disruptive and constructive market mace. the fcc has zero authority to forebear from regulation in the video realm. and i think congress needs to help us put to with that or help the fcc -- [laughter] it's only been a week. but also in all areas. so we have these stove pipes if you're offering services over a twisted cup repair, there's one set of rules. if it's coaxial cable, there's another set of rules. over the air, yet another. and the marketplace has converged well beyond that. these are 80-year-old concept, and we need to move on. but congress really needs to initiate a rewrite as soon as possible. >> host: gentlemen, commissioner mcdowell, representative greg walden, subcommittee chair for internet and telecommunications recently said on this program, quote: that the fcc recently has

been more concerned with expanding its authority rather than working with congress to embed better processes. >> guest: well, certainly in those cases where i've dissented, i agree with the chairman. [laughter] and so i do think there are times when the fcc has reached beyond its authority, and i've written strong and clear dissents on that. sometimes i went at the appellate level, sometimes i lose. and i think i owe you a steak dinner or two. [laughter] how come you don't owe me for any times you've lost? >> guest: i wasn't going to mention that. >> guest: bets off camera. i think it does speak to the need for a legislative rewrite. we really do need to look beyond these stove pipes. the marketplace has moved past these creaky, old laws that were written in a monopoly/analog world. >> host: comprehensive rewrite? >> guest: comprehensive rewrite. really, i think based -- you didn't ask -- but on

concentration laws. is there a concentration of market power, because of that power that results in consumer harm? and that really is the way to approach a lot of this. >> host: chairman genachowski? >> guest: you know, the world isn't slowing down and waiting for debates about authority to get resolved. and for the u.s. to lead the world in broadband, to continue to insure that there's a framework for innovation, competition, etc., it has to do its work. and that's what the agency did over the last four years. as rob mentioned on a very long list of things we agreed on, on some issues we disagreed on. but the agency woke up every day and did the work that was necessary to help fuel the broadband economy. transforming the universal service fund. some people argued that the commission didn't have the authority to do that. it's being challenged in court. rob and i agreed that we did, the commission moved forward. broadband data roaming, very important to promote competition in the mobile market. rob and i disagreed on that one,

the fcc won in court on a challenge against -- >> guest: you could have said i lost. [laughter] >> guest: on open internet this debate is going on. it's fine to have these debates about authority. i don't disagree that congress should look at modernizing the statute. but i think it would be a mistake for the u.s. economy, a mistake for our global competitiveness for the fcc to slow down. i'm convinced that the agency has the authority that it needs to address issues around promoting our broadband economy going forward, driving investment, driving innovation, proposing competition and protecting consumers. >> host: did you feel like congress was your partner serving as chairman? >> guest: i did almost all the time. you know, the transformation of the universal service fund, the elimination of carrier was a good example. it's an example of how things can get done in washington. i'm proud of the work that we

did at the commission on it, and we worked very well with congress, both democrats and republican, in a good back and forth dialogue to get that done. i think our relationship with congress was a very healthy one. we didn't agree on everything, but the debates were on the merits, and, listen, in our system debate, argumentation is good. it leads to a better result, better analysis, better outcome. >> guest: and let me say one thing quickly about bipartisanship which is under julius' leadership, if you disagreed with him, he didn't hold a grudge. we moved on to the next item, and that's the way it should be. and that's the way democracy should work. the intercarrier compensation item, that was the first federal entitlement reform since 1996 welfare reform which was also bipartisan, by the way. and that was with a 3-1 partisan divide. we were able to do that. it can't go as far as -- it didn't go as far as i would have liked, but it was a big, constructive step. and that would only happen with

four commissioners, with a chairman who was willing to take some risks. and we all took a race, and it was for the better, and i would hope congress would take a look at that and try to emulate that. >> host: time for one more question, lynn stanton. >> since you both left, the fcc adopted an order on support for a broadband deployment under the universal service program, and they're offering even more money than you reportedly had suggested you do. carriers had left the $185 on the table last year when the fcc -- >> no -- [laughter] >> millions on the table last year when the fcc first paid this offer. do you think there are some tweaks now where they can use it to roll out in areas that have very minimal high-speed or low-speed internet in you want to call it that, do you think more of that money's going to be accepted now under this order? will it make a difference in the areas of the country that are underserved or unserved? >> guest: i do think more of it will be accepted, and i think

the amount that was accepted the first time was a good outcome. you know, one of the things that together, working together we tried to achieve was to make sure that we were spending under the new connect america fund the right amount of money to maximize the bang for the buck. to make sure that we weren't spending a dollar more than we needed to to drive broadband buildout to unserved areas. and so a 50% take rate on the first tranche what it said to me was we got that about right. we're not overspending here, and what the commission is doing now is it's taken a look at what happened in the first tranche, and based on that it's moving quickly, very quickly now to a second tranche. and because of this process, i think we can feel confident that the people's money is being well pent to accomplish the objective -- spent to accomplish the objective of the program which is to get broadband rolled out to areas that don't have it. >> host: anything to add to

that, commissioner? >> guest: no, you know, having 85 million, that's a big table, in my view, but i do think that shows some efficiencies that were adopted, the fruits of the efficiencies going forward, and repurposing it and putting in cost savings, i think, is something that should be emulated for other federal programs. >> host: and let's close with a question from eliza krugman, what is greatest accomplishment during your tenure at the fcc and your greatest regret? >> guest: i'm happy to go first. you know, i'm proud that we got the agency focuses on broadband -- focused on broadband and focused on driving ubiquitous wired and wireless broadband everywhere and that working together, usually agreeing, sometimes disagreeing, we got some big things done to drive that forward. the transformation of the universal service fund, moving

incentive auctions from idea to law to fcc proposal, big steps to promote competition. we're seeing a much healthier mobile market today than we were a few years ago. and in my view, putting the first rules on the books to preserve internet openness and internet freedom. >> host: and what would you have liked to have been able to do? >> guest: i would have liked another 24 hours in the day and another seven days in the week. because working around the clock as we all did and as the staff did, there's just not enough time to tackle all the important, wonderful, complex, difficult issues that are required now by the broadband economy, by the changes in technology and by the global nature of the competition. we're in a global bandwidth race, and around the world other countries are waking up every day and saying we want the investment and innovation here. so i wish we had more time. >> guest: so i think in terms of accomplishments, it would be more thematic which is trying to

make the case for following the law and the facts, not being too imaginative in your interpretation of the law, trusting and being patient with markets. sometimes markets will underweigh fixing perceived problems, being wary of the unintended costs and consequences of new rules. biggest regrets would be not being able to pare back some more unnecessary rules and whatever votes i may have lost on appeal. [laughter] >> host: gentlemen, please come back. sorry we're out of time. robert mcdowell, former lead republican on the fcc, currently with the hudson institute. julius genachowski, former chairman of the fcc, now with the aspen institute, and lynn stanton with "telecommunications reports." >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.

>> coming up next, the u.s. commission on civil rights hears from representatives of advocacy groups on the challenges facing military veterans and current service members. after that we're live with remarks from president obama as he welcomes participants to a white house conference on mental health. later, michigan representative fred upton and political analyst dade gergen are the featured speakers at this year's gerald r. ford journalism awards ceremony. and the senate's back at 2 p.m. eastern with general speeches followed by more debate on the farm bill. >> the u.s. commission on civil rights recently heard from representatives of groups for military veterans. among the speakers was an advocate for gay,less wean, bisexual and transgender generals as well as a representative of african-american vets. the commission is expected to release a report with recommendations fo