>> you have been watching booktv, 48 hours of programming beginning saturday morning at eight eastern through monday morning at eight eastern. nonfiction books all weekend every weekend right here on c-span2. .. >> the house gavels in today at noon eastern for general speeches before it begins

legislative business at two. on the agenta this week, a bill that would delay regulations put forward by the consumer financial protection bureau, and members may also debate an increase in the national debt limit. the senate returns at 2 eastern as members continue to work on a bill dealing with the cost of living increases in military retirement pay. the measure would repeal a one percentage point reduction in the annual cost of living adjustment for veterans under the age of 62 that was included in the budget agreement. the senate will hold a test vote at 5:30, 60 votes needed to advance it. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span and the senate here on c-span2. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> host: now in our fifth year on the federal communications commission, commissioner mignon

clyburn served as acting chair for about half the year in 2013. commissioner clyburn, to "the communicators." >> guest: thank you so much. it's my pleasure to be here. >> host: i want to start with an issue that you've worked on for quite a while, and that's the prison rate telephones. >> guest: yes. >> host: what do you think of the current situation with regard to the appeals court and their partial decision on this? >> guest: well, and you were right to say partial because what i am most happy about is on february 11th rate relief will go into effect. so millions of families will have the opportunity to more affordably communicate. now, i will affirm that this is an interstate engagement, and we will continue our work on intrastate engagement, and we, of course, will answer any questions the court may have. but i am really happy that the state did not impact the rates that we're going to affect, and to me, that's the most important

thing. >> host: i read that this is a $1.2 billion industry, prison telephone calls. >> guest: thisit is an industryo that's highly concentrated. you have two providers that have 80 plus percent of the market, you do not have a competitive engagement for the families and for those legal persons that are representing those people in prison, because the only type of competitive engagement is when the facility puts out a bid, you know, some type of notice. and so that ends it, and so the families do not have that type of engagement like we are afforded each and every day. there might be some reasons for that, but when you have a framework like that, that is not competitive, that, of course, screams loudly to me for regulatory oversight or engagement. >> host: how long will this rate take effect? i mean, when will the next decision be made? >> guest: again, this is a temporary engagement at this point.

these are interim rates. we will continue to work on that. we're hopeful that by mid summer, early fall that we will have a permanent engagement, and ask we will, of course, continue to work with the states to, hopefully, insure that they embark on a pathway. and if not, then we will have to review our options as -- when it comes to intrastate engagement. >> host: well, joining our conversation to talk about some of the communications issues facing the fcc is gautham nagesh who is now with "the wall street journal." >> thanks for having me. commissioner, the big news for the, for this sector, obviously, is the court decision regarding net neutrality. court threw out the rules but found that the fcc does have authority in that area. what was your reaction and what, in your view, should be the road for the commission in terms of net neutrality rules in. >> guest: to maintain the course of providing the means for an open and free engagement. that has always been the objective, that will always be the objective. and you made it clear that the

court gave us a road map. it upheld our 706a and b engagement which covers advanced communications options and opportunities and incentives. and for those who are not, do not navigate in this space often, we're talking about broadband or high-speed internetment it upheld our -- internet. it upheld our transparent sigh rules which means a provider must publicly disclose their rules, their network management principles, their performance, that they must tell us, you know, how they are engaging with us. it also laid out a significant road map for us which i am very happy about. it said that if you want to stay the course, that if you do not want to make any changes as to how you classify the internet, then you have the data roaming order that you can look at more

a possible pathway forward. and so this decision while it made a lot of headlines about, you know, a lot of legal scholars are still debating on what it did not do, i am concentrating on what it did do. it still provides the public a transparent opportunity to engage with their providers, and i think that's a good thing. >> now, chairman tom wheeler has been very cagey about what the road forward is in his per peck i. however, there are indications they are not planning to reclassify broadband. how do you feel personally about title i versus title ii for broadband internet? >> guest: i respectfully take issue with what you said. i don't think he's been cagey. he's been very forthright in saying he will accept the court's invitation to act. so we, of course, are reviewing our options, and we, of course, will, again, stay firm to our objective for a free and open engagement.

>> well, moving to another topic which is one of interest to a lot of our viewers, i think, it's the fcc sports blackout rule. we saw this at the e7 of the -- at the end of the season. i believe your last act as acting chairwoman -- >> guest: it was. >> what impact will that have? there still could be blackouts for nfl games, so what impact will this have on viewers? >> guest: it really gets the fcc out of the business of determining what will or will not happen in terms of private negotiations. and i think that in terms of looking at why the rules were initially enacted, where the monies -- most of the monies back then were ticket sales, you know? the majority of that came from ticket sales, and there was a reason, you know, 40-plus years ago for this type of engagement. the reason no longer exists. so we are out of that part of the business. i think we will be, i trust, out of that part of the business. and i think the negotiations are where they belong, between private enterprises.

and so i'm hopeful that the fans will have more opportunities to engage, but that is, of course, in the hands of others and, hopefully, not the fcc. >> host: commissioner clyburn, another issue that's been discussed publicly and at the fcc is the issue of cell phones in airplanes. >> guest: yes. >> host: how do you personally feel about that issue? >> guest: well, when you talk about the verbal engagement, i am like many who might not welcome that so broadly. i have often said that when i am traveling on amtrak that i run, not walk to the quiet car. but what this, i believe and i know will provide for consumers, and it already has on some airlines, is more opportunity for data-rich engagement. it will open up the market for more competitors to provide options, so it will be, hopefully, over the long term less expensive for those

engaged. when you look at the international ecosystem when it comes to this, they -- i have been told by those in the business that 90% of the engagement is data only. so a very small part of it is conversation. and what is also great about is it's up to the carriers, up to the airline whether to permit that kind of conversation. what i know is already happening, i sat to someone last night who said, my gosh, thank you for allowing me to engage with my e-reader. i don't have to take this big, heavy, you know, 5-600 page book. it will enable that type of engagement, and i think that's good for consumers. so i would not get -- so i am not so is hung up on the voice engagement, because i think, again, the way many which our teenagers and way in which we deal and engage on planes is usual lu very quiet, very passive and very data driven. >> commissioner, one of your greatest accomplishments along

with the prison phone rate order was the wireless interoperability agreement in the 700 block. this is something, from what i'm told, where you collected the various carriers in a room and basically told them to hash out an agreement. can you tell us anything more about that process, and do you think that's a model for maybe how some other things could get done at the commission? >> guest: i hope so. it is one in which i grew up learning. learning by example the way in which we conduct ourselves with our family and friends. when we have a disagreement, we sit down and we talk about it lt and so on july 31st we sat in a room with a couple of dozen or so of our closest friends, wink, wink. [laughter] and we entered into a very serious series of conversations about why not in this space and how can we get there. and what we saw, meaning as the fcc, as neutral observers, as the parties is that the parties were really not that far apart. they were just so firmly

entrenched in their positions. and so we were able in a relatively short period of time to help broker a voluntary agreement which already is providing dividends more those in rural areas. it's already providing a significant build in those areas which were basically landlocked. these small carriers purchase and bid on these properties on this spectrum with the anticipation of being able to build out. now that is possible. and it's possible in an expedited manner because we did not take a route that will be challenged in court. so i'm very proud of thatten gaugement -- that engagement. again, we did it the old-fashioned way. everybody came out with something. no party came out with everything they wanted, and that is the spirit of cooperation and negotiation, and i'm very proud of it and hope that it is contagious. >> host: how do you feel about

the h block spectrum auction so far? >> guest: i am hyped. the last time i looked at this on wednesday morning we were in round 42. there was approximately $1.2 billion already committed, 176 of those areas, every area is engaged. i am very, i am very proud of being able to take credit for circulating that item when i was acting chair, because it is going to bring 10 megahertz of spectrum in a very short period of time. it's going to provide a down payment for firstnet, the first responders' network, that will provide an interoperable, nationwide public safety platform. for this nation. and, again, it is not so long ago it was spectrum that no one thought was valuable. and so our engineers did a lot of hard work to insure that this spectrum was ready and able for

this wireless mobile engagement, and i am very -- i'm still anticipating. you know, we set a reserve price of $1.56 billion, and i am confident that, i am hopeful that we'll exceed that. >> host: what to you see as the timetable for the larger spectrum auctions which are due at the end of this year, beginning of next year? >> guest: in terms of aws? or are we going to -- so, you're right. we anticipate that to be engaged by the end of this year. but, of course, the big talk is the incentive auctions that we anticipate in all next year. so we are working hard to repurpose spectrum to its best and most efficient use. we are engaged in a voluntary process following the model with broadcasters to insure that we are able to support and to feed the public's desire and need for a rich wireless engagement.

>> host: commissioner clyburn, i have just a follow-up on what gautham was talking about a little bit earlier, the sprint folks visited with chairman wheeler recently about t-mobile/sprint merger. what's your view on a t-mobile/sprint merger? >> guest: well, that is something that i read just like you about. it is not before me at time, so -- at this time, so i don't think it would be very wise of me to be speculative. i am, of course, interested in competitive options for others. i'm interested in those players that are offering robust and varied services to be as strong as possiblement so whatever -- as possible. so whatever comes before me, i assure you that i will review appropriately, but i will not engage in any type of speculation at this time. but thank you for the offer. [laughter] >> host: gautham nagesh, wall street journal. >> setting aside talks of the

merger, t-mobile is disrupting the market generally. what is your view of competition in that market? obviously, the commission voted against at&t's bid to acquire t-mobile three years ago. what impact do you think that has had? are you happy with some of the changes we're seeing of late? >> guest: well, i am -- i go back to the question you mentioned earlier about this interoperability agreement, because where i lay hope in is that those smaller regional providers will enable others, enable more competition to become stronger as they become, their foot print, you know, would become wider. and so what i am hopeful is as we continue along this path, as we free up more spectrum, as we consider different things in different configurations as it relates to that to possibly have smaller, you know, areas in order to bid that we will fuel the type of competition needed for small players to become

larger and to fuel this competitive -- what i think would be a mutually beneficial for all in terms of competitive framework. so, you know, competition is, of course, a mantra in which you hear us speak about. i mean, it is a very, very prominent in the communications act. and so whatever we can do to help facilitate that, we will. >> on the other side of the spectrum incentive auction, you have the broadcasters. and, of course, there are two concerns with them. one is will enough of them show up to bring in at least the 84 megahertz or what have you to make the auction a success, and then the other side of that is a lot of people believe it's going to be the must-carry systems who are going to be taking this money and possibly going out of business. and how will that impact communities that are underserved by media right now? i know that's a concern that you have. >> guest: that is definitely a concern of mine, that those who might be more economically vulnerable, who might be those that are filling some diversity

gaps might be impacted. but, you know, with me the market and the voluntary option should be open for all. and so what i am hoping is with other things, if this does impact in that manner, that we will continue to think creatively about how we can incent others to do more and others, you know, these cooperative relationships for channel sharing that could provide other opportunities. what could we do to incent the market to be more refective of -- reflective of the market? it's going to be a challenge, but there are a whole host of opportunities that i hope that existing station, channel holders will entertain. because you do not in order to engage, you do not have to sell 100% of it. you can have, you know, partial engagement, and that could promote and provide opportunities for the type of,

the rich opportunities that we all want. >> host: so do you foresee rulemaking or any action on media ownership rules this year by the fcc? >> guest: i anticipate some action on that in the coming weeks. >> host: in the coming weeks. >> well, is there anything you can tell us about the direction? because the commission previously discussed relaxing the cross-ownership newspaper broadcast local market. we've seen people argue for and against that. did you have a stance on that issue, and do you think that will be something that would be revisited? >> guest: these are things that we have been talking about for a number of months, as you know. i am looking forward to whatever the chairman, whatever he circulates. and at that time i will be in a better position to answer your questions. again, i thank you for the opportunity. [laughter] >> host: mignon clyburn, you mentioned talking with your fellow commissioners. >> guest: yes. >> host: greg walden has proposed some fcc reforms.

>> guest: yes. >> host: would that make your job easier, or would it make it more difficult? >> guest: the spirit of it, i think, will make the engagement more robust, and i think um prove. improve. you know, we're taking, if you followed our meeting this past january, just a couple of days ago, we were doing some internal things in terms of process reforms ourselves. we have done an incredible job, our staff has done an incredible job under just circumstances. you know, we've had shutdowns, we've had, you know, budget constraints and the like. but yet we continue to do the public's work. and so we've done some remarkable things under those circumstances, but we know we can continue to do better. so the chairman has put forth in a crowd sourcing manner a mechanism and a means for us to self-evaluate. and so we are not in isolation,

we're not working in a vacuum. we continue to work with congress to better process, but we continue to look within ourselves, you know, getting information from those who do business us, from those internal in terms of -- i always say from the guard's desk to the chairman's desk, just looking at creative new ideas in order to um prove ourselves. so -- improve ourselves. so we are in the reform business. we are in the process reform business, and i am really happy that we're not satisfied. we're doing a great job, but we're not satisfied with that. we want to do better. >> host: you're now in your fifth year at the fcc. have you been surprised at the engagement of the american public with your commission? >> guest: i am -- the word may not be -- i'm pleased. because people recognize, particularly with one of our key objectives, providing more

ubiquitous and affordable broadband opportunities to this nation, more and more people, more and more communities realize how important this is, how enabling this is. so i'm really pleased with the willful of engagement -- the level of engagement. i'm really pleased that people have figured out that i'm at the fcc and not the ftc because that's an issue back home. they recognize how important in this agency is and how it can be partner to progress. so the word is pleased for me in this context. >> turning briefly back to broadcast, some groups here in town have been circulating concerns over the lack of diversity among the owners of broadcast stations. it seems the broadcast market has consolidated quite a bit in the last couple years, and now there are, by some counts, no longer any full-power stations owned by african-americans. as someone who has been a media entrepreneur yourself and served the african-american community, is this a concern? and do you see the internet filling this gap at all? >> guest: that is absolutely a

concern. i am looking at the internet and other platforms to augment. it's not a substitution, and i would not be satisfied until there are pathways to parity in terms of engagement. it is important by way of programming and ownership that the american experience is reflected. i just really think that's important for opportunities, for information dissemination, the critical needs of our society, i think, are better met when there is a reflective engagement. and so i am, remain concerned, will not be satisfied until there are opportunities for all, on all platforms. >> now, of course, representation of minorities in the media has declined significantly since the recession at a greater rate than other groups. we do not see what we once saw in this area which was the commission reviewing the broadcast licenses of individual

companies. are there any approaches, perhaps license reviews, that the commission would take to encourage representation? >> guest: well, that is one of the areas that i am continue, i continue to be reflective on and welcome row was engagement from the public -- robust engagement from public in terms of guidance. >> host: commissioner clyburn, one paragraph in the president's recent state of the union address addressed broadband and public/private partnership. will the fcc have a role in administering those private monies from the different telecom companies? >> guest: well, absolutely. we're doing some of that now. when you look at the connect america fund, it used to be the high-cost fund for the universal service fund, we're leveraging private dollars. we're targeting public dollars to airs where there is -- to areas where there is not broadband-enabled service. so in some ways we're already

doing that, we're already enabling investment and opportunities. as it relates to the president's connect, we, of course, embrace his initiatives. i had the opportunity to attend the announcement at buck lodge middle school, and i believe it's in maryland. and i was in there with an enthusiastic audience who's willing to embrace that type of engagement, because we know government cannot afford to do it alone. not with the current state of the economic state of play. and so we're looking for a legally-sustainable, creative ideas that will close those gaps. we've got 15 million americans who do not have the infrastructure for broadband today. they're primarily in rural areas, but not 100%. we've got a little less than 100 million people who have not adopted broadband at home, and when you talk to many of them, the economics, you know, that's the primary reason why they

cannot afford broadband after paying off the rest of their bills. so we've got some very significant issues to attend to. we've got some very significant, you know, problems that we immediate to address. and only through -- we need to address. and only through a collective engagement, a public/private partnership, in some ways a public/public engagement with other agencies, then and only then can we address those gaps and narrow the divide. >> you mentioned the digital divide and the fact that cost is the driving factor in broadband adoption. there are some debates over this. some people have introduced the notion that digital literacy or that people don't understand the value of broadband internet which is, obviously, very contentious. and the other aspect is if cost is the primary issue, again, that would be an argument for reclassification in which there could be cost parameters put on by the government. do you see something like that or perhaps a usf-like program to

unsitize costs for lower income households? how can they address that issue? >> guest: well, when would one e things we're doing through pilot trials is we've got be, i believe, 14 or 7 different mod -- 17 different models where we will glean from that data exactly what direction that we should, you know, the most effective means for us to head. so we have not been satisfied with early targeting, rightfully targeting that type of, the type of financial incentives and engagements in those areas. we are really trying to see what types of things work, you know, what types of incentives work and, hopefully, within a few months and i've said this at the time, that i will be able to look at that data and come back to you and say here is the pathway in which we think it's best to engage those issues that you put forth. >> host: commissioner clyburn, what kind of a state of disruption right now in the telecommunications world when

you think of google tv and netflix, for example, the aereo case is at the supreme court. is it time to rewrite the '96 telecom act? how often do you all have to refer back to the 1934 radio/it's -- radio/television act? is it possible in today's world to regulate and manage all these disparate components? >> guest: it's becoming more and more of a challenge. i cannot sit here before you and say that it hasn't been. i mean, we're going through -- we've been talking about ip transitions, but we're going through technology transitions. sometimes, you know, people say that we are in a digital world and trying to fit, you know, analog regulatory framework. i won't get boo that argument with you -- into that argument with you today, but what i will say is that we are increasingly forced to be more creative in terms of how we, you know, deliberate. of we are, continue to be

engaged in more mous and some types of agreements and experiments which will take part we will see in some of the ip trials that i think we will get more of a feel and more of -- by march 6th is when some of the experiments are due to come in. and so this type of engagement is a recognition that, yes, we may have, you know, some challenges as it relates to the existing framework, but we all mutually recognize that things are changing, things are evolving, and it's in everyone's best interests to retrofit and work together for the greater good. >> host: gautham nagesh. >> the ip transition is something that has taken up a lot of the commission's attention of late. we ran an article on this, and we received quite a few letters, some of which we published this the "wall street journal,"

regarding the fact that the ip network isn't as resilient, doesn't come with power attached and at times of natural disaster it's not always as reliable. how can this be addressed, and what do can you foresee the values, as chairman wheeler calls them, which values and regulations should be transferred from the existing phone network to the ip network? >> guest: i say the existing values as codified in the act remain. those are nonnegotiable. and so one of the reasons for these experiments or these trials is to address the very same issues that you put forth. the transitions in which we are experiencing have offered some incredible positive engagement, you know, more opportunities, more capacity, more options more those with disabilities, video call opportunities for those for e-911 engagement. but you do address some of the challenges in which the reason for these ip trials that we

think it's so important for a host of people to engage from public safety networks to those dealing with health care issues big and small, rural cities and urban centers, it's so important for us to address those issues. things are changing. we are migrating. we are cutting the cord. we're moving again from wire line to wireless, from tdm to ip, so change is here. and so what do we do to insure that the public's expectations are realized, to insure -- which will include and to insure that these networks are as hardened as possible, you know, working with the utility companies meaning legacy utility, electric gas companies to help with resiliency. when we talk about, you know, location, the accuracy in terms