>> the media especially highlights the polarity within the republican party -- >> right. >> i would like to ask this regards to modern -- in regards to modern conservativism between the center-right and the conservatives themselves, who would be right in this instance, and how can we create more of a unity to, you know, within the party rather than, you know, a separation? >> it, obviously, it is tricky because at the end of the day what conservatives have to do to be most el relevant is to --

relevant is to win a presidential election. and to do that, you have to find somebody who both embodies the message and can win. so it's a lovely thing to write a book of political philosophy, but basically you've got to find a candidate who can embody enough of that to be a conservative and to win. i think a lot of people felt be, for example, this the last election that mitt romney wasn't really a philosophical conservative, that he was more of a pragmatic businessman and maybe wasn't at the core, you know, bought into all of these policies. and then as you say, we have the debate now between, say, christie and a cucinelli example. obviously, one thing i think conservatives have to do is to quit killing each other and to give each other a little room to breathe. right after the election, you know, chris christie has beaten his opponent by a modern landslide, and he says after that i'm a conservative. and in my view, he has, had the

sort of conservative impulses to try and lead with some conservative policies. he's, obviously, in a blue state. he's not going to have the same success that you have with that in my home state of kansas, for example. and so, in my view, you cut him a little bit of slack for the kind of lace that he has to govern -- place that he has to govern. but then republicans come in and, you know, call him part of the surrender coalition or whatever. i mean, they have all the rhetoric to suggest he's not a real conservative. it just seems to me that they have to give each other a chance to sort of play that out rather than, you know, try to cut each other off at the knees. and, again, i think that when conservatives get or republicans get frustrated enough with losing, then they come to their senses and do that, you know? i doubt if it's going to be a book or a speech that's going to make them do that. i think it's going to be too much losing that makes them do that. and so -- and that's painful to watch, you know? you have to wait til the train wrecks before you can go this

and fix things sometimes. one more or shall we get back to work? [laughter] well, i thank you very much for coming today. i know that going back to ancient conservative history might not be the most interesting thing to do, especially when washington is the here and the now. i always liked what former senator alan simpson used to say, he said washington is the only place where sound travels faster than light. so i know it's a fast-paced kind of place. i appreciate your taking time to come and think about this stuff today. we have a copy of the book for you if you'd like to have it. chapter five is really kind of the current, most relevant part to today, so if you want to read one piece of it, take a look at that. thank you for coming, and we'll stand adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> we'd like to hear from you. tweet us your feedback, twitter.com/booktv. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> host: and joining us for our conversation this week on "the communicators" is the senior republican on the federal communications commission, ajit pai. commissioner pai, this is the week that the net neutrality decision came down, and part of your response to this -- i want to read it for our audience, get you to expand a little bit on it. for the second time in four years, the d.c. circuit has ruled that the fcc exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate the internet. it is time for the commission, the fcc, to take no for an

answer. >> guest: that's my statement. well, first, peter, thanks for having me back on "the communicators." my statement signified what i think is a clear signal from the courts that the fcc exceeded its authority to regulate the internet. and in my view, the better course would be to not appeal the decision and to let congress, if it sees fit, to clarify what the fcc's authority in this space is. otherwise, i think we should focus on what i think are the bigger priorities which are incentivizing the deployment of broadband infrastructure, and creating greater sniffs for innovators and entrepreneurs to do what they do best which is create cutting-edge applications which write over those networks. >> host: but didn't the decision leave the door open for regulation of the internet by the fcc? >> guest: i'm still parsing the opinion. it's 81 pages of dense legal prose, as i'm sure you know.

but i think the better course even if the fcc has the option of moving forward with the internet regulation would be to stay its happened and let congress -- hand and let congress take the lead in terms of what, if anything, happens in the space. >> host: the new chair of the fcc, tom wheeler, here's a portion of his statement, his response to this decision: we will consider all available options including those for appeal to insure that these networks on which the internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression. >> guest: well, i think the chairman has put it well in that statement, but this another context when he said the great thing about this space is that it's very dynamic, very innovative, and so from a regulatory perspective, he's opined that we need to allow different business models to flourish. this is not an area where you have clearly established relationships that have always been one way and will always be the same way. so i think that i share that view of restraint, and i think the agency acts west when it --

best when it allows things to develop organically, and if there's any competitive problem that needs to be remedied, then we can address that particular problem. >> host: how significant is judge silbermann's dissent in this case? >> guest: well, i think the judge focused in part on section 706, the interpretation of it. but by and large, i think the core of his dissent was his agreement with the majority that the two primary net neutrality rules that were struck down should have been struck down. >> host: joining our conversation, commissioner, is monty falo who is an associate editor at "communications daily." >> thank you very much. you said you'd like the chition to let things play out, but if the be commission did try to reclassify the internet as a title ii service, would they run into problems? >> guest: to be sure, i think there are some who argue there should be a back to the future solution to internet regulation, that this looking at this innovative, dynamic broadband industry we should apply the

outdated, in my opinion, 19th century railroad-style regulations. but i think the key for us if we really want to incentivize broadband deployment and greater investment in broadband infrastructure is to have a forward-thinking approach that leaves behind some of the heavy-handed common carrier-style economic regulations of the past and recognizes the marketplace for what it is today, which is one of intermodal competition, of telephone companies, cable companies, satellite, wireless and other companies competing to provide the same service. and if we do that, i'm confident that the it will take care of the problem without the need for prophylactic regulationses from the fcc. >> proponents of net neutrality rules often compare the internet to a utility like electricity. why shouldn't it be treated that way? >> guest: this is precisely the sentiment that motivates what i was commenting on earlier, the 19th century railroad regulation. because that was exactly what motivated the common carrier

regulations that eventually became the core of the title ii communications act. but if you look at what the broadband marketplace is like today, we're seeing one of the most striking technological shifts in history in terms of the network revolution, and that is that there are no longer silos where telephone companies provide voice service, cable companies provide video service and wireless companies provide wireless services and never do they all meet. i mean, now you have companies competing directly against each other. my telephone company at home is my cable providers. companies are significantly making inroads on market share when it comes to voice, and in terms of broadband competition too, the vast majority of people have a number of different choices. i think because of that what's called intermodal competition, there's no reason to see any particular broadband provider as a utility. now, to be sure, if there was a particular example of one company that is engaged in anticompetitive conduct, then that's an antitrust problem and

potentially an fcc problem as well. but by and large looking at the system globally, it's hard to argue this is not an innovative area where we should just deem one company or group of companies, essentially, a regulated utility. >> host: could this decision lead to higher costs for consumers, however? >> guest: i don't believe it will, and i think the reason is we are going to allow companies to experiment with different business models that ultimately are going to serve the consumer well. certainly before the net neutrality decision was rendered this 2010, what you saw -- in 2010, what you saw this development of the internet was a very vibrant, open system in which broadband providers and content providers were competing against each other to deploy network and applications respectively, and that all redounded to the benefit of consumers. and i'm pretty optimistic that begin how innovation always has a way in this field, that that's going to continue to be the case. >> host: commissioner p be ai, do -- pai, how do you see this playing

out in the next year? >> guest: i certainly don't have a crystal ball, but my hope is, as i said, we at the fcc restrain the impulse to go further, to reclassify under title ii and instead to focus on some of the building blocks of a vibrant broadband industry which is infrastructure, spectrum and application development. >> host: back to monty talo of "communications daily." >> charter went public this week with several offers to buy time warner cable. time warper so far turned them down pretty strongly, but if they did find a way to merge, would that make it through regulatory approval? >> guest: certainly, i'm not in a position to comment on a transaction that, number one, has not been proposed, number two, if it's proposed, would require fcc approval, so i'm afraid i will to demur on that one. >> host: what about your general philosophy on that one? >> guest: the question is always

will the consummation of a proposed transaction serve the public interest. and i evaluate whether or not there are certain anticompetitive effects that might result, and if there are, is there a narrowly-tailored condition that the agency can develop that would ameliorate that anticompetitive harm, and that's the general standard i would apply to this one if it came before me. >> you've been quoted as saying you didn't think a comcast deal would be approved by the fcc. >> guest: in that situation i was simply saying that recent precedent suggests the proposed transaction would face greater regulatory hurdles. certainly wasn't commenting on how i thought a transaction would come out, but just looking at some of the recent precedents. that was the basis of the statement. >> if a comcast merger did come through, would you support extending the merger conditions that still apply to comcast from the nbc-u merger? is that a strategy you would be open to? >> guest: again, this is a situation where i would have to review the particular facts as

presented by the parties to the transaction and other outside, interested parties, and i can't say at this point what my decision or the commission's decision would be. >> host: commissioner pai, recently the supreme court decided to take up the aereo case. before the supreme court took that up, what have you said about aereo? >> guest: i have said very little because it's such a novel area of the law, and the particular or case that you mentioned before the supreme court, the question is one of copyright law rath or than substantive communications law. so at this point i am in the position of being an interesting legal observer -- interested legal observer to see what the supreme court does with the very complicated arguments in front of it. >> host: do you see aereo becoming an fcc issue at some point? >> guest: it certainly could be at some point. the parties involved are before the fcc regularly, and depending on what the supreme court does, i can see the agency having involvement in the issue. >> some have suggested that a

way to settle the aereo question would be to change the question of an mvpd so that it encompasses aereo, would that ever become part of what you guys are doing? is. >> guest: i knew there was an open proceeding as to what the classification should mean. as a general matter, my own view -- without commenting on the particular case -- is that we should refrain from applying the mvpd classification and the whole panoply that apply under it to companies that are using innovative business models. now, if there's something unlawful about what the business model is, that's, of course, a separate question. as for the classification, i tend to be a little more hesitant. >> host: the comment period has started on cell phones on airplanes. have you made a comment on it? [laughter] >> guest: i have not, but identify heard there people around the country -- i've heard from people around the country. >> host: as a consumer, what's your opinion of that?

>> guest: i certainly share the chairman's view that i don't want someone yak next -- yakking next to me when i'm several thousand feet in the air. >> host: what about texting? >> guest: that's a separate matter, of course, and that's part of the issue that the commission's going to have to figure out, whether any kind of communications transmission, voice or data, can be sustained at, you know, up in the sky. >> i'd like to to talk about broadcast m&a. the media bureau recently approved the tribune local merger, and there's been a couple other big issues that have been decided on delegation authority recently. how do you feel about those big transactions being handled at the bureau level? >> guest: i think as a general matter if a proposed transaction involves a novel question of fact or law, that it's important for the full commission to weigh in on it. the neurotechnical reason is under our rules, the commission has to weigh in on it. but i think more generally, it

is important for all the commissioners to be on the record as to the agency's evaluation of a transaction. i think it gives the decision more legitimacy if the public can know that all commissioners who have been, after all, nominated by the president, confirmed by the senate and who are accountable to congress have to make their policy views known. but in this particular case, if there isn't a novel question involved, then -- as a matter of principle, i think, it's appropriate to be handled on the bureau level. >> we reported that the belo order was originally circulated as a commission report. the sinclair merger is still sitting out there. should that be handled at the bureau level or by the full commission? >> guest: again, i don't want to prejudge the procedural disposition of a particular case that's pending, but as a general matter, to the extent that the sinclair transaction or any transaction involves a novel

question or challenging policy questions that the commission is ultimately going to be accountable for, the better course is for it to be handled at the full commission level. >> free press released a big report attacking the sharing arrangements that are involved in all three of those transactions. basically, they're a way to get around the fcc rules, a work around. do you think the commission should change those rules, or are they going to change soon? >> guest: i personally do not believe that joint sales agreements and shared services agreements per se pose a threat to consumers or are otherwise anticompetitive. to the contrary, i think they have significant pro-competitive value especially in smaller markets. if you're going outside of big markets like los angeles or new york but looking at cities like topeka or wichita, for example, back in my home state of kansas, a shared service agreement might be the best way for news operations to consolidate some of the up-front costs of maintaining operations and

focusing on what they really want to coffer which is the local news. so we've seen evidence of it, and some of it is in the record this our media proceeding where shared services agreements allow companies to pour more money into doppler radar, for example, in joplin, missouri, with a company was able to save millions of dollars that then poured into a public safety communications feature. we've seen that in other markets too. so my concern is that the fcc tries to attack a problem that really, frankly, doesn't exist, we might end up hurting the ability of consumers in smaller markets to obtain the local news and information that really is vital to them. >> host: you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. our guest this week is the senior republican on the federal communications commission, ajit pai. joining us in our conversation is monty today low, associate editor at "communications daily." this is probably the longest we've gone on "the communicators" without using the word spectrum. [laughter] what's your current thinking, and how do you see the schedule -- is the fcc on time

when it comes to the spectrum auctions? >> guest: well, i think that without question the intensity of consumer demand has only increased since i've become a commissioner, certainly over the last several years, so it becomes more critical to bring more spectrum into the commercial marketplace. it is unfortunate that we've not had major spectrum auction since the bush administration in 2008, but i'm happy to say that we are taking initial first step with the auction of ten megahertz of spectrum later this month, what's known as the h block auction that will raise over $1.5 billion it is hoped. and in the longer term, we're looking at broadcast auction which would be purchased by wireless carriers, and there are a host of other spectrum options when it comes to licensed spectrum. on the unlicensed side, too, i don't want to let it go without mention that there's a tremendous opportunity in what's known as the five gigahertz band. this is an area where the commission has teed up the possibility of having up to 195

megahertz available for what is, essentially, super wi-fi. and i've seen it in person, the ability to transmit one gigabit of data per second wirelessly is a real possibility. the technical standard for it all already exists. there are devices being shipped all across the country which incorporate radios which can receive and transmit those signals over five gigahertz, so that's an area to look forward to over the next year. i think there's some exciting possibilities in all of those areas. >> host: well, the h block, not many participants in that auction. >> guest: well, the key is we do have a number of participants who have filed, but the key question is, number one, are we getting more spectrum into the commercial marketplace? i would say, yes, for the first time in six years we're holding a spectrum auction. number two, are we raising money for the treasury that can be donated to the first responders network authority? we are, 1.5 billion where it previously doesn't have any. and most importantly, are we bringing the spectrum to its highest valued use? your time's not on the side of the fcc or, frankly, the

american consumer. we need to get more spectrum in the marketplace, and holding that auction now, i think, is a win for the commission and for the consumer. >> host: is the incentive auction going to take place in 2015? >> guest: i certainly hope so. i support the chairman's announcement that 2015 is the target date, and working back from that i think it's important for us to take the requisite steps necessary for that to be a success. setting up the band plan, testing and retesting the repacking software and setting up an auction design that allows everything to work smoothly. i'm hopeful that if we take those steps in 2014, we'll be in the position to hold a successful auction in 2015. >> broadcasters have started looking ahead to the repacking with concerns that the tower manufacturing industry, the crews that work on all that stuff, they might not be ready for the amount of work involved in the repacking, moving all those stations around. how should the fcc address that problem and, you know, make that industry comfortable with the repacking demands that's going

to be on it? >> guest: i think there are a number of steps the fcc can take. first and foremost, we need to understand the magnitude of the problem. that was brought home to me when i was at the empire state building. i got to go up to the 85th floor, i believe it was, and i could see the actual pipes that are used the transmit the broadcast signals. and it was shown to me that, you know, it's not a matter of just flipping a swim to repack. those pipes have to be physically moved. there's a lot of work that goes into it. so i think if we appreciate the nature of the problem, we'll be in a better position to provide a solution, and that leads me to the second big step. we do much more outreach of to broadcasters to let them know what exactly the contours of repacking are going to be. now that, of course, involves making the software available for comment so they're able to see what the likely outcome is going to be. but it also means understanding the nature of the technical challenge and what the auctions are for the -- what the options are for the fcc so they can give us feedback on the smoothest way to affect the repacking.

>> antenna manufacturers have said that the problem of getting ready for the repacking is exacerbated by the free modification -- the freeze on modification. do you agree with their able sis of that situation -- analysis, and would you support dropping the freeze or should it continue? >> guest: i did have some concerns about the freeze when it was first adopted, but at this point i think i certainly would work with my colleagues, especially my new colleagues who have not weighed in on this issue to see what the best way forward would be. >> host: commissioner pai, why do you think rick kaplan of the nab felt it necessary to send out a press release saying this is a voluntary auction for broadcasters? is there pressure on the broadcasters to make this not voluntary? >> guest: i certainly hope not, and there has been no pressure along those lines from this quarter. the statute says that this is a voluntary broadcast incentive auction, and i think part of the reason why i think that the fcc should do more aggressive outreach to broadcasters is to let them know that there's a

value proposition on the table, that if they choose to avail themselves of it, it might benefit them. the they choose not to, that's fine too. >> host: all these issues we're talking about beginning with the court case, the net neutrality case and the aereo case and potential mergers, spectrum, is there pressure coming from different directions for more regulation of wireless? >> guest: i think in some areas there might be, but my own view is that the wireless market is more competitive than it's ever been. you look at the fcc's most recent report, the vast majority of americans, upward of 90%, have a choice of four or more facilities-based wireless providers. and those companies are competing aggressively against each other in terms of price and quality the get the consumer's dollar. in terms of device innovation too. i i still remember the days when a cell phone meant a brick that was impossible for you to carry on your person, let alone in your pocket. but now we have smartphones that serve not just as phones, but as

video transmission devices, as gps receivers and things like that. so i think the wireless market is a historic success that we should celebrate. and from a regulatory perspective, i think it just vindicates the views of those in the early '90s who took a hands-off approach and allowed this market to thrive this the way it has. >> how likely is it that the fcc will put spectrum limits on the upcoming option? >> guest: i can't speculate as to the likelihood in terms of percentage, but what i can say is our goal is for the incentive auction to be a success. and one of the metrics of of success is to maximize the amount of revenue the auction yields. and to increase the amount of santorum that's available -- spectrum that's available for beside. if we adopt limits, we are effectively going to preclude certain carriers from participating at all or limit the extent to which they participate. and ultimately, that's going to reduce the amount of revenue that the auction yields, and

that would be a tragedy under any circumstances, but especially so in the context of the incentive auction where congress has told us not only do the supply and demand curve have to cross, so to speak, but we these to yield additional revenue, $7 billion be, for example, for firstnet, additional money for deficit reduction and other national priorities. so with that in mind, i think it would be foolhardy for us to limit spectrum holdings in a separate proceeding when we know that could impair the success of the incentive auction. >> do you favor smaller license sizes for the forward part of the auction as sought by the smaller carriers? >> guest: one of the proposals that's been put on the table, as you suggest, is the idea of what are known as partial economic areas or eas, and that's an innovative idea that i'm looking forward to seeing developed further in the record. i know that some of the rural carriers have made that proposal, and if it's technically feasible, i think it's one of the ideas that we should be open to. >> do you support the two-phase

proposal that ntca just put out? >> guest: that's another one that i hope will gain a little more comment in the record, and at the appropriate time, i certainly will take an open mind as to how to resolve it. >> host: well, the head of the ntca, ncta, michael powell and michael copps and dick wily and reed hundt are all testifying this week as well on the hill about changing the communications law and whether the '96 law needs updating, whether the '34 law needs updating. would you be game for a big overhaul of communications laws at this point? >> guest: i think without question the communications act at this point is not keeping pace with where the marketplace is. as a general principle, what i've tried to advocate for my own perch at the fcc is that the fcc should do what it can to calibrate its regulations to fit the times. if a statute requires us to do the contrary, then we are essentially stuck. so i think we've reached the point now given the intermodal competition that we see that we,

the fcc, needs to be able to take action to bring its regulations into the 21st century, to reduce the silos, for example, that require us to treat telephone companies and cable companies and wireless companies differently even though they're competing to provide the same service. so i think an update would be very useful, and i've worked closely with our colleagues in congress to help make that a success. >> host: but couldn't that lead to more regulation of wireless companies and maybe pushing broadband in as a common carrier? >> guest: well, certainly, you know my own views as to what fcc should do with respect to that. l i would hope the congress, too, would recognize wireless innovation has been the hallmark of that part of the industry, and that is a direct result of the historic agreement in 1993 to let this ecosystem thrive, you know, without common carrier regulation of the type that you saw under title ii applicable to telephone companies. >> host: monthty talo. >> the reply deadline on that

proceeding was this week. you and a bunch of commenters have said it shouldn't be eliminated without also looking at the ownership cap. i've had sources tell me that the ownership cap could never be eliminated under a democratic administration. could you tell me how you'd persuade your colleagues on the fcc to support moving that cap? >> guest: i would say simply you can't do one without the other, the two are inextricably linked, and getting rid of the uhf discount without altering the cap would simply be bad policy. the 39% limit was established at a time when, you know, the discount, obviously, was taken into account. so i think it's important for us to re-examine the cap to see whether it would be necessary and in the interest of competition. >> how should the commission handle the grandfathering rules? some people have proposed permanent grandfathering. are you in favor of that? >> guest: well, my own position on grandfathering as an initial matter, it's what i pointed out in my separate statement, which is that we should not effectively make the rules

applicable now before the fcc has even taken final action. >> you're referring to the nprm. >> guest: correct. which applied the elimination of the uhf discount to any transaction that was pending as of the day the fcc adopted the nprm. i think the better course would be at least not to apply it until the final report and order has been adopted. >> if a vhf discount is enacted by the ownership cap isn't moved, does that address your concerns about getting rid of the uhf discount? could it be a perfect replacement? >> guest: without a firm record on that question, i really wouldn't want to prejudge, you know, what the appropriate course would be. >> host: commissioner pai, three consumer issues i want to ask you about. sports blackouts, are we going to see any more? >> guest: i certainly hope not, as a diehard nfl fan. i know it causes a lot of aggravation to