everyone in this room. if we opened up, we would find ourselves competing with others at our skill's level and our only level wouldn't go down very much, but i bet they would go down enough to make an impact because income inequality is a relative concept. people who are absolutely at the top of the scale, in say, 1925, would be getting food stamps today. it is a relative issue so you don't have to bring up the bottom as you bring the top down. immigration has many pronged.

there are two types. one is what do we do with the 11 million illegles and maybe half of them are in the workforce -- illegal -- if we required them to leave the country, our economy would fall apart. i think we have making a mistake in the immigration area which i think in many respects could be the easiest thing we could do. >> that was just of the are remarks. you can watch the entire event at 8 p.m. eastern. coming up tonight, the

communicat communicators looks at the comcast merger. and then alan greenspan and then we will talk about the minimum wage. c-span created by america's cable company 35 years ago. >> host: and two big new items in the telecom world the fist being comcast bid for time warner cable and the second the open internet rules or net nutrality rules that fcc chairman tom wheeler comments on. joining us this week is craig aaron who is president and ceo of free press and former fcc commissioner robert mcdowel. commissioner mcdowel, can the

fcc put the stops on the merger? >> guest: absolutely. sometimes when mergers have been were proposed in the past and we would here that is unthinkable but that hasn't happened yet so they have not put the kibosh on it yet. >> host: do you think the fcc should stop this merger? >> guest: i think the better question is will it. and i don't think it will. i am in a think tank now with a hudson institute so i am looking at this objectively not as a commissioner. you don't have to keep calling

me commissioner by the way. but it isn't like i will kercar on these titles forever. but it could be fewed to implement public policy the fcc might not be able to do as quickly. this happens with big mergers of this type. you have the largest cable company buying the second larnl largest. the big hurdle, and i mean legal big hurdle, and comcast agreed to a lot of stringent orders for net nutrality and the shared content they owned and pricing and build out and all of the

rest. so if you are sitting at the fcc and we are in the wake of last months net nutrality decision by the court, and of course, policy objectives that you have, and i am not saying this is the way i would do it. transactions a used to shape the market so there are a a lot of things that could be used be it net nutralieutrality or what.

this incredible power they will have over the content. i think comcast will be at the center of every debate. i think it would be wise to block this merger and i think for most americans a deal like this seems unthinkable. and the fact it is being debated says a lot. but for me there is no condition that is good enough to get this go through. >> host: 33 million customers devesting of 3 million comcast

said so they will be below the 30 percent level so that is 30 million customers or so. netflix has 31 percent. >> guest: you need a connection to the internet to get next. so comcast for half of americans will be the only viable option for high-speed broadbrand. most americans don't face a lot of choices. maybe you can get verizon but it is few and far between. this gives comcast so much power, including power over next that do compete with them in video space. it makes them the gatekeeper over next, over who can thrive

on the internet and which websites and won't. that is so much power and once the deal is done there is nothing standing in their way. so actual, i know and understand and apripreciate the free press being against this, but what craig outlined could be resolved through merger conditions. the fcc wanted a 10-year term and comcast said 7 and they have done well since the merger with cbs. so i would look for the similar conditions to be imposed including maybe price controls. and from an anti-trust perspective comcast isn't taking out a rival. it is getting bigger and they

will devest maybe 3 million subs i understand to try to stay under the cap of 30 percent of cable customers. what i think it is interest that is threating cable company is over the top video. and you have to get that through a pipe. but house of cards is the hot topic through next is the hot topic. but you tube and amazon is being looked at through cable and online screens as well. some through licensed and some not. craig talked about the buying power for content.

there is the argument does this give comcast more balance of power with other broadcasters in other areas it doesn't have broadcast property. what about cable-only outfits, do they get more bargaining power? will that keep those prices in check? there are a lot of questions to be ask. this will take the better part of a year to resolve. >> guest: there is a lot of questions but i am having to trouble seeing the benefits of the merger. i think because it gives comcast power in so many places. time warner cable is a local monopoly right now. i don't think that is a good idea to make a bigger monopoly but i worry time warner isn't a programmer so they had a reason to keep the cost down. comcast is a huge programmer so

if the cost comes up they move from one pocket to the other. i see why comcast wants to do this. there is amazing economies at scale for them. but from the public perspective and what we are paying for. i pay verizon because i want to watch netflix or amazon prime. from a consumer perspective you don't want to see i have to pay for a cable subscription to get this. there is no real advantage from a consumer point. give me what i want and i am happy to pay for. what comcast and time warner have done is limit those choices.

allowing a merger like this makes it that much worse. >> host: does the department of justice have a role in this potential merger? >> guest: certainly. they will have to review it and see show they will draw the markets. they might say these guys are not competing head to head so let's move it around. we need to look at how dominant it is in the broadbrand offering where i think this might be the only giant in town. they need to look at the triple play market with voice, internet together they would be 52 percent of the market. those are the issues that justice needs to scrutinize and look closely out. the obama administration stopped the at&t/t-mobile merger.

we need to look at what the market is likely to lock -- look -- down the road. commissioner mcdowel knows their standard is is this deal in the public's interest and i don't see how they will make the case it is, but that is an important measure before approving a deal like this. >> host: two questions from your former fcc perspective. in a case like this, how would you work or interact with a department of justice from the fcc and how much lobbying would be done by different groups? perhaps free press or comcast at the fcc? >> the fcc has a team of career-pointed servants who work

on merger transactions like this and they integrate and the department of justice or the federal trade commission. they work very well together and are meeting and talking throughout the day and some of the durations go beyond a year. and they are looking at economic, competition, consumer protection issues, integration of technology issues. and so it is rare i get asked, what if doj went one way and the fcc wept went the other, and i don't think that has happened with me because the teams are

integrated. there is an assistant attorney general in u pointed and the fcc commissioners are also a political appointee so you will see the same philosophy given whoever the president is at doj and the fcc to work through these things. they will come at it from different respectives. it is different from the public interest which is more define. anti-trust has a century of precedent there. i cannot think of when the two centuries diverged but i am sure they will reach at the same time. >> craig aaron, will congress

play a role in this? >> guest: absolutely. the signals coming from the hill matter. and i think hearings on a deal like this is an area where the public gets into the window of what is being discussed. i think that is key for congress and the way that people who are dissatisfied with their cable company and both of these companies worst among the worst in america when it comes to customer service and they will have a chance to weigh in. they have an important role in weighing in. >> host: what is free press? >> we should have started there. that is a national non-profit organization. we advocate on media and technology issues. we try to give the public a

voice in these debates that they have been excluded from. >> host: if you could make the decision, how would you see comcast structured and part of the telecommunications world? >> guest: i think consumers benefit when there is lots of competiti competition. i think we let these companies get too big and anything the agencies can do to encourage more choice and competition and give people the ability to vote with their feet when they are dissatssified with their service is important. in cases where there is a natur natur natur natur natural monopoly we need them to step in and play the watchdog role. we think they are too big and we

were against the merger with nbc. and there is an fcc talk in here on that. the fcc is doing their part to rein in this power and break it up and encourage competition in local markets and not allow this runaway consolidation continue. >> host: robert mcdowell, is there competition in the telecommunications world today? >> guest: there is. americans have, for the most part, a choice of three paid television provider and two satellites companies and sometimes a vios or grande in texas. so is there competition.

and there is a growing trend that is on broadband signals and that is focus relying on over the top only and are not buying a video package just relying on over the air and downloading whatever they can from amazon or whatever. and for yours estimates were 1% of households were in that. now i am seeing it could be 5%. but i think that is going to be an interesting trend and as you see content companies and programmers and cable companies themselves are concerned about this. where does is go?

especially as the mobile screen becomes the first screen and they are watching user-generated content. >> host: craig aaron, what about the wireless world? it isn't part of this regulation in many ways. >> guest: i think what we are looking at here is, you know, a couple big companies that have divided up the market. they are operating like a cartel. they have split up the country and are not competing. and then the wireless side we have a handful of dominant providers and the president did step in to make sure there are four. wireless is growing and we want

it. that is not a substitute in terms of speed and what you can do with that connection. i think most of these companies they are realizing most companies want both. if they have to chose, they will probably go with mobile. >> guest: as we get into the spectrum debate, there is interesting things that could happen. comcast is going to have a large wi-fi thing running off people's boxes. i don't see it as a competitive substitute. i worry about having so few choices in both arenas. >> host: comcast would control a lot of the last mile in order word? >> guest: absolutely. we see them working together in the spectrum program because

they are not competing and people's prices are not going down. they go up and up more and i think that is all of the evidence we need that this market is broken. >> guest: couple points. they got out of clear wire and it is interesting to see cable step out of the licensed wireless business and more into the unlicensed business to hold on to customers in wi-fi. you will see cox and comcast

having a lot of wi-fi spots because they do see the mobile spot being the first screen. and back to at&t/t-mobile was seeing as two com bet -- competit competitors buying each other out -- and that is different. comcast isn't taking out a competitor. >> guest: only because that is how it is split out. the countries agreed to spread out in different teriti tearrit. . >> guest: i think there is going to be price controls there. craig can argue how long the terms should be, maybe forever, but it could be a long time in terms of cost control. look for that to be approved as

part of the deal. >> host: did you vote on the at&t/t-mobile merger? >> guest: it didn't come to a vote at the fcc. the doj blocked it. and then the fcc came out with a staff report that was damming of the whole idea of the combination and at that point, after the brief delibilation deliberation at&t resigned >> host: do you know how you

would vote? >> guest: i didn't get the commissioner staff reports to read. so i felt like it wasn't okay to comment because i never reviewed the case file. >> host: we have another piece of news in the telecom world and that is tom wheeler's statements on the net neutrality verizon versus the fcc decision. this is how i read the statement: they want to strengthen the net neutrality rules and they are leaving title two on the table to potential make broadband a common carrier. >> guest: i think that is how they are describing it. i think this is a disappointing move from the administration.

i don't think it is going to strengthen net neutrality and i think in some ways it ignores what the court did. they are trying to salvage a victory from a defeat. this isn't enough if your concern is net neutrality. if you want to stop blocking on the internet and stop discrimination and interfering with resources you can only do title two court. the fcc has said we think we can do it this way, no we have this other there ory and the court rejected it. here comes the fcc again saying well, maybe this might work on a case-by-case bases. i don't think that is good

enough. the millions of internet users are asking for decisive decisions. >> host: tom wheeler left it on the table. >> guest: he did. and that was the only notice he descended on. i thought it was so harmful to the market that we have a form of regulation that was formed in the 17th century with canal regulation and railroad operation hoisting that online. this is why we need a communication update that looks at everything we are talking about today through protection law rather than based on what you used to do in terms of your old technology. i agree this is a newsfla flashd i think it is going to be risky

on the fcc going forward if indeed they try to enact another non-discrimination regulation. the court said that look like a carriage regulation and under 706 or title 1 isn't going to stand up on appeal. what might happen if they have a darned different panel of judges 706 might be blown up. and there was a long paper written on why the authority was wrong on the 706 decision. the court could say the fcc doesn't have authority there. so there is risks there. but title two isn't a caiguaran

to win either. there is a lot there that could be attacked on appeal. >> guest: anything the fcc does is going to find them back in court. but i would argue they are on stronger footing and the court painted the picture. they had we have to go back and look at how we classify broadba broadband. there is an eft ert effort to d demonize this common care and i think common carrier at its core is about free speech and not being able to stand up on the soap box but have your word reach the audience. i think it is dangerous for the fcc to continue to inflate the wires and pathways that come into our home and bring us this

content and the content itself shouldn't pea bee be treated the same. and i think what has been started under the bush administration and continued with the obama has been a failure. that is why this murky, legal limbo and going back and looking at the '96 act as it was written, it is the law all of the land, it should be on the table. the judges made it clear to the fcc, if you want to protect internet users you have to look at title 2 and pretending t otherwise doesn't give them the authority they need