>> up next, "the communicators," and in 30 minutes, on c-span2, a conversation about federal transportation spending and safety. >> host: this week on "the communicators," exit interview with the former chairman of the fcc and top republican, robert mcdowell, both of whom retired from the commission just recently. also, joining the conversation,

lynn stanton of telecommunications report. if i could start with you and commissioner mcdowell, if you chime in as well. recently, former fcc official 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: the incentive auctions, which we're in an interesting time. four years ago, we had no plan as a country op how to free up a significant amount of spectrum in the 600 megahurtz or have a plan by 2015 or 500 by 2020. here we are today, the community is debating what the plan should look like. debated the idea, congress

passed it, the fcc is moving forward with it. i think the agency will hit the 300 megahurtz target, it's important we do that in removing faster than any other country in the world to free up spectrum for the mobile economy. >> host: commissioner? >> so to the specific point, and, by the way, thanks for having me back, good to be here with my former colleague and current colleague for the purposes of the show. >> guest: yeah. >> guest: so it could conceivably start later. i've been a little concerned about that since the outset. these things take longer than expected sometimes. during my seven years in the commission, i was there when we did the two other largest spectrum auctions in history in 2006 and also the 7 # 00 megahurtz auction in 2007. that was part of the digitallal television transition that folks might remember. industry was asking us to pause

while they were still distinguished -- digesting the auction. you don't know what surprises might be. the commission is down to three of the former colleagues, waiting for two more to come op board. washington has a lot of things going on, especially in congress, and it could be awhile before both of those folks are installed, so there is a possibility it couldn't start until later, hopeful it's 20 # 14. it's important for it to do so, and i have concern that the auction could be more complicated than it needs to be so that policy debate needs to happen as well. it's not like the new chairman walks in on a friday and starts having an auction on monday. there's a series of complicated orders to go out, and as i said before, it's no exaggeration, this auction will be the most complex in world history with the chairman, exchairman, absolutely right, 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 be yielding some spectrum, but not as much maybe as is needed. >> host: well, do you both think the acting chairman should move forward in case there's a delay in getting two new commissioners on board? >> guest: these incentive auctions are an institutional responsibility of the fccth there's a great team up and running at the agency that's been working on this issue all along. we'll continue to work on it. each of the commissioners at the commission understands these issues. they have experience with it. i think the commission continues to move forward. rob is right. this is the most complex auction spectrum recovery idea that we've devise. we're also the country that

devised auctions in the first place, came up with unlicensed spectrum in the first place, and now developed incentive auctions, but the agency regards this as an institutional objective, keeps moving forward, and i'm certain there's an agreement that the process should move forward as fast as we can. will they get the hard complex decisions right? there is a very important thing we see from the community debating what the first broad band era ban plan should look like. that's a hard question. the u.s. will be the first country in the world to figure it out. there's tricky, but important issues to address. you know, in the old world

uplynns and down links had seemlessly met -- smet try call placement, and in a broadband data world, maybe symmetry do you want -- doesn't make sense. maybe it does. hard questions have to be made. there's going to be a focused commission, staff and commissioners, working on the issues steadily, getting the issues right and getting the auction to move forward. >> you talked about the complexity of the particular auction. could you talk about specifics in terms of the design, what former colleagues have to do to get broadcasters to return the spectrum and what decisions they should make in terms of designing the auction and the plans. the uplinks and links, should the commission decide that or

the carriers decide? >> guest: good question. let me answer quickly, and i know we've been thinking a lot about this. it's the complexity of the overall thing, not just what the forward auction should look like, what the ban plan should look like, what auction rules should be, but there's new questions around what is the reverse auction for broadcasters look like? now, that's a whole set of issues of first impression. maximizing the number of broadcasters that participate is objective, and that correlates to the spectrum freed up, and we have to be here for six hours or more, but what i'm -- i think one of the things i suspect rob and i agree on this, and there's a terrific group staff at the

commission focused on facts and data, and we now see an industry focused on all the hard questions. it's what you want in the area, and out of it will come, i believe, a set of answers, i think correct answers, to many difficult questions. >> host: you -- >> guest: you know, on the point the heart of the question, the viewers need to understand there's a reverse auction as part of the statute that came out of congress how cheaply will broadcasters give up spectrum? there's a forward auction how expensively it will be wireless companies bid for that spectrum, and then the third component is the repacking, which is finding a nabbed for the broadcasters and another neighborhood for the wireless companies, and that's comp kate -- complicated. the way the notice of the proposed rule making, proposed ideas, were to make that simultaneous. th as i wase theory n

leaving the commission before i left the commission and talked to the folks on both sides, bidders and sellers, there was concern about the simultaneous nature of that that's reliant on software, redesigning, repacking, and the rest after each rebidding round. what that boils down to, for me, is if you make it simpler, it's probably going to work better. those are the lessons i learned from the aws one auction and the 700 megahurts auction. there's consequences, even if it's simple, but for if there's complexities and try to over engineer it. there's one school of thought of just puts broadcasters, buyers and sellers in a room, and, you know, they come out, and they can't do that in the statute, and there's antitrust and price fixing issues there. something simple along those lines virtually speaking could work, so i'm concerned as i said

before about it being too complex, and, therefore, broadcasters are not knowing what the right price point might be. do you want to make it rewarding experience for them to give them insenttive to give up as much as possible, and if there's more complexity to it, that creates uncertainty and makes it less likely that give up more spectrum.

>> the fcc lost the net neutrality case. >> i think, first of all, they had a good day at the supreme court. >> guest: it was an initiative we worked on together, but also on a basis that i think strengthened the agency's authority appropriate given what the agency needs to do in the broadband era. i was confident about the open internet litigation before the recent supreme court decision. i remain -- 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 are working. we have seen since the open internet rules went into effect, an increase in in innovation, investment across the broadband economy. people at the time argued if rules were adopted, that would lead to a cessation. the opposite happened. there's increase in investment in wireless network infrastructures since then. we have a stable frame work now that is working. i'm concerned about the uncertainty that the litigation is creating. although, i think the recent supreme court decision helps the fcc in the dc circuit. >> guest: despite the fact of the fcc, we agree 9 5% unanimously, this was of sharp disagreement. i don't think there's a problem to fix or that the fcc has the

authority, and after the supreme court decision, that does not give the legislative authority. if there's am ambiguity in your jurisdiction, the agency gets deference here. in this case, there's no ambiguity. the act of 1996 is all about taking away regulatory barriers, deregulating, and never spoke to open internet and things of that nature, so i don't think it blows wind in the sail of the fcc's order, which i voted against on net neutrality. if, to answer the question directly, though, i think it would be economically disastrous if the fcc moves to any classification of service or monopoly regulation from 1934. no way to do that in any fashion. that's like saying you are partially pregnant, and that fuels an international effort to regulate the constant operations and economics of the interpret.

even some of the nontelecom companies understand that now because there's thousands of miles of fibers linking servers, routers all over the world. that could be google, comcast, at&t, and microsoft. they are within an inch of being regulated. i hope the next chairman scraps the docket all together. it's disruptive. there was not uncertainty before 2010. >> host: any response to that? i don't think so. look, we have to preserve in the united states and around the world a free and open internet. we've secured that in the u.s., and rob and i agree strongly that the proposals seen internationally to create a new layer of international regulations of the interpret are a big mistake so even in this area, there are significant

areas of ugliness. withwith respect to the u.s. landscape, there's a strong, sensible landscape in place that's working in the u.s., and let it continue. >> host: lynn. >> guest: i wanted to ask you about the changes in the delivery video programming. certainly, even in the relatively short time, less than a decade, four years you were with the fcc, things changed just incredibly with the internet and the competitors like at&t and verizon and google and netflix, and other areas now. what's 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 regulations of providers who are differently treated under the laws? >> well, i thought you were going to ask what we thought about arrested development

coming on netflix. >> guest: that too. >> guest: which i'm very excited about, "house of cards" was an important moment, and this says something about the exciting things that we can see when new channels are opened up. it's absolutely shifting. there are areas of the statutory scheme making sense to look at and say, well, are those keeping up with the changes in the marketplace? fundment tally, having this competition, access by new players by consumers, and access by the traditional players to viewers in new ways. i mean, obviously, what's happening on tablets is amazing. what's starting to happen in the living room is very exciting, and we're in an incredible time in the delivery of the consumers.

their issues, we heard it about the cost of programming, consumers heard about the cost of programming, an issue that commissioners in congress have to continue to look at, but i think this is an area where the glass is half full at least because there's exciting new competition and creativity in the part of the landscape. >> guest: the glass is actually overflowing and running over. it's a terrific time to be a consumer in the audio market, and probably like the exchairman, i look at this market through the eyes of my kids. you know, three young kids, and what are their consumption habits here? they have more choices than any, you know, human beings in history in terms of what's there, and more conduits too. i think it's a very pos positive, constructive, and disruptive environment now. the law has to reflect that.

the fcc has 0 authority to fore bear regulation in the video realm, and i think congress has to help us out or help the fcc out, but also in all areas. we have stove pipes if we offering services. there's one cable e another set of rules, over the one way, over the air, yet another, and the marketplaces converge beyond that. these are 80-year-old con cements, and we have to move on. congress needs a rewrite as soon as possible. >> host: gentlemen, starting with you, commissioner mcdowell, representative greg walden, subcommittee chair for telecommunications recently said on this program, quote, 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 dissented, i agreed with the chairman. i do think there are times the fcc reached beyond its authority, and i've written strong dissents on that. sometimes i lost, but, you know, anyway -- >> guest: i was not going to mention that. [laughter] >> guest: bets off camera. i think this speaks, though, to the need for legislative rewrite. we have to look beyond, and the market place has movedded past the creeky old laws written in the monopoly analog world. >> host: comprehensive rewrite? >> guest: comprehensive rewrite, basically, you didn't ask, but i think competition law. is there a con concentration of market power that results in consumer harm? that really is the way to approach a lot of this.

>> host: chairman smit >> -- chairman? >> guest: you know, the world is not slowing down and waiting for debates about authority to be resolved. for the u.s. to leave the world and have innovation, competition, ect., it has to do the work. that's what the agency did if four years. on a long list of things we agreed on, others we disagreed on, but the agency woke up every day and did the work necessary to help fuel the broadband economy, to transform the universal fund, and some argued the commission didn't have authority to do that. it's challenged in court. we agreed we did. the fcc won on court in a challenge against the fund. >> guest: you could have said i lost. >> guest: open internet, this debate is going on, fine to have

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 global competitiveness for the fcc to slow down. i'm convincedded the agency has authority it needs to address issues around promoting our broadband economy going forward, driving investment, innovation, promoting consumers. >> host: did you feel they were your partner serving as chairman? >> guest: i did, almost all the time. the transformation of the fund, the elimination of compensation was a good example, example of how bipartisan things can get done in washington. i'm really proud of the work that rob and i and the rest of the commissioners did on the commission on it, and we worked well with congress, both democrats and republicans, in a good back and forth dialogue to

get that done. our relationship was a healthy one, didn't agree on everything, but debates on merits, and, listen, in our system, debate, argumentation is good leading to better results and outcomes. >> guest: one thing about bipartisanship. if you disagreed, he didn't hold a grudge, move on to the next item, and that's the way it should be, and that's the way democracy should work. the compensation item was the first entitlement reform since the 1996 welfare reform which was bipath san with a 3-to-1 partisan divide, one republican, three democrats, and we did that, putting spending controls -- nots 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 risks, and we all took a risk, and it was for the the better, and i

hope congress looks at that to emulate that. >> host: another question. >> guest: since you both left, the fcc adopted an order that circulated before the u.s. on support for employment for the program, and they are offering more money than you reportedly suggested that they do. carriers left $185 on the table last year when the fcc first -- millionses, when the fcc first made the offer. do you think that there are tweaks now where they need to roll out an area that have minimal high speed or low speed interpret if you want to call it that? do you think more money will be accepted now under the order and make a difference in the areas of the country that are under served on unserved? >> guest: i think more 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 we were not spending a dollar more than we needed to to drive broadband build out to unserved areas, a 50% take rate on the first tranche, what it said to me is we got that right, we're not overspending here, and what the commission is doing now is taking 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 spent to accomplish the objectives 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: you know, having $185 million left at the table, a big table, by the way, in my

view, that shows some efficiencies adopted, and thatst fruits of the efficiencies going forward, and repurposing it with cost savings is something to be copied for other federal programs. >> host: closing with a question from elijah, an independent tell come reporter who worked for "politico" for a long time. what's the greatest accomplishment at the fcc and greatest regret? >> guest: i'm happy to go first. you know, i am proud we got the agency focused on broadband and focused on driving ewe ubiquitos wire to wire broadband everywhere, and that working together, usually agrees, sometimes disagreeing, we got big things done to drive that forward. the transformation of the universal service fund, moving incementive auctions from idea to law to fcc proposals, and big steps to promote competition.

there's a much healthier mobile market today than a few years ago, and in my view, putting the first rules on the books to preserve internet openness and freedom. >> host: what would you like 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 where any global bandwidth race, and other countries wake up every day wanting innovation and investment here. i wish we had more time. >> guest: i think in terms of complierments -- accomplishments, it's making the case for following the laws and facts and your interpretation of the law, trusting in being

parents with markets. sometimes they have a way of fixing perceived problems, being weiry of the unintended costs and consequences of the new rules. biggest regrets would be not being able to pair back more unnecessary rules, and whatever votes i may have lost on the field. [laughter] >> host: gentlemen, come back, we're out of time, robert mcdowell, former lead republican on the fcc, now with the hudson institute, and joule yous, now with the aspen institute, and lynn stanton with telecommunication reports. >> guest: thank you.

>> up next, a conversation on transportation spending and safety. from washington journal, this is 40 minutes. >> host: looking at your money, how federal dollars are spent, what programs they fund, and what purposes the programs serve. bridge safety, the guest, directer of transportation for america. thanks for being here. what's the federal government's role and speedometer in making

sure america's bridges are safe? >> guest: sure, the federal government has a strong role. ever since 1956 the highway act, we funded the nation's highway system and mass transit system, but from high profile bridge collapses in west virginia 1969, and connecticut in 1973, they stepped in and taking the oversight role in rating bridges. we have a national bridge inventory, making sure states, every two years, look at basically how sufficient and safe and structurally sound the nation's bridges are. it does play a role. it's important to understand, though, that the states are in the driver's seat when it comes to spending dollars and federal dollars. >> host: there's ramifications unfolding from the skagit bridge collapse in washington state and it's tearing the town's economy because it's an important artery for transportation. what