industry? and been more cooperative and got slapped around quite a bit. by the customer, the federal government. why did you want to make it work? its 59 people in the market, that's a good reason. but the other reasons i think is they don't have a lot of confidence in republicans when it comes to health care policy. if obamacare blows up and fails, and it's just this god-awful mess that looks like new york or new jersey individual insurance pool did in 2013, it's in terrible, terrible mess, and will republicans grab this thing by the hordes and deal with that? they haven't had history of the. they like to sell insurance across state lines but they do not get terribly serious in the congress. u..

>> but it is particular was a benefit required to add to the cause? is there enough money to

allow for the less merrill networks? >> go back to this section of the love with the benefit requirements. hospital doctor lab them prescription drug benefit for each. he did have the prescription drug benefit or a hospital benefit that pays 7% of the first 30 days then 100 percent. not that you take any benefits away but that you do a different co pay and with what can be delivered with those benefits to restrict generic drugs if there are alternatives available. there is flexibility how to provide those benefits. employers provide a 70 percent actuarial benefits but they do it efficiently for a much lower cost.

there is a number of variables the way you packaged the benefit. don't get me wrong. it is a zero sum game. you take something away when you do that. but the difference is healthy people want different things than six people. everybody wants catastrophic insurance because the healthy person is in a motorcycle accident but they point different things on the up front. where you get a selection? with party drug benefit you could go on to the computer program you putting your drugs you figure out which plan is the best of that is not anti-selection i don't know. that is efficient. we can manage entire selection there's always that. >> i am an emergency

physician you mention how only 30 percent of the dogs like the food. only a small percentage were previously uninsured. >> and we don't know. >> the only dog food they were served. >> exactly. and we are in the individual market but 70 percent of people for not previously insured tomorrow are not. but to litigate the future uninsured to make sure they still have insurance later. >> people who are in the market today there is no reason they libyan the market tomorrow afternoon.

you want to do the gallup poll or there are rand paul you just did a poll of 29 billion and a 30 percent showed up. that is the good predictor of future performance. >> i with the heritage foundation. laura trend. i want to ask about the back end. we were assured everything would be fine with obamacare then the curtain lifted and there was a lot of disasters than the mysterious back and. what are you hearing from insurance companies about this system was working and will we have some issues

dropped? >> with the age 34 transactions from the fed to the insurance company on a moment they are generally working okay. you do still have the unacceptable error rates for high volume performance but it is and fellow single digits. it is to keep their heads above water bill is workable. with the billing system to compare the list between the insurance companies and the offense. there is a meeting next week between cms and the insurance company they focus on to talk about the issues what the back end should look like. the back end is not close to be tested yet. i am hearing of we are lucky

we will have back end by september. that would be one year later it should have been tested last year and don't discount this. insurance companies don't know what their premium is. they know the claims but they don't know the premium because they have not been able to do reconciliation. but with the affordable care act we send them a bill and they send us the money. [laughter] what's our the subsidies per month? $10 million? we're now into the fourth or fifth month with no backup or reconciliation. i will assure you they are good for it to. [laughter] but we have the mother of all reconciliations coming.

if you live by this war you'll die by the sword. i would not push that to heart. >> this is the last question we're up against a deadline. >> just a follow-up question insurance companies are paid for the benefit who was on the hook? are they rendering care? >> the provider is on the hook, the insurance company. when the payment comes the insurance company cannot take them off the system for two months. if a person goes to the doctor and the consumer does not pay the premium in the second and third month the insurance company can suspend payments but the dodgers providing treatment.

one of the practice leaders was they said we collect up front because we're not sure if they are covered or not and the deductibles are so high especially for a specialist they have a $2,000 deductible? they have catastrophic insurance so there is a lot of trauma. these are the complicated moving parts. have to say obamacare is screwed up but it clearly has to be fixed. the fact we don't have a reconciliation ultimately the insurance company will get their money but the

providers will not necessarily. >> rich barton. state medicaid expansion given the likelihood the administration will not hold to that 90 percent rate would that be irresponsible for governors to except anything? >> here is the question i often get from my conservative friends. the federal government pays one and% then it drops at 90 percent when it drops the state is on the hook for a lot of money. don't tell me the state is not on the hook for medicaid expansion.

>> my responses simple. you are telling me you don't know how to make market based reform 10% more e efficient? you cannot sweat and percent more out of the system you cannot read your program $0.19 of the dollar analyst with hedger%? put up or shut up. [laughter] i have an opinion on that. [laughter] some of us have to believe in the market even though they say that. some of them actually spend their life in the american i could manage any state $0.90 on the dollar and so can most of my peers. >> what is risk adjustment

like if you loosen up the benefits? medicare advantage type system? >> what is a look like from 2017? >> it goes away to out of the three years. >> i am corrected. yes the risk adjustments days a health plan and lucky enough to get the sick people and some are too small but the training wheels the subsidies go way. what you have is the regulated market that is what they have with party and medicare advantage. the biggest customers the federal government.

>> i re mentioned medicare vintage they still give the free gym membership. >> clearly the risk adjustment formula, that is why you hear these people say the insurance companies are nothing more than a cherry pickers. it is the zero sum game. you can bring to a healthy people it does not do any good but the sustainability for the insurance industry has the adequate spread for the affordable care act. you could be the best cherry picker in the world put it will not do you any good today. remember that the next time you talk about the insurance company cherry pickers and how they screw it up. >> as the moderator i will ask my question.

you were very adamant about the hatch amendment going backward before it goes forward but is it tough to enact with a transition? >> yes. it is semantics that republicans have a real problem. i think they have to figure out how to get around the repeal part anytime legislation you pass to fix obamacare is repealed and replaced but the perspective has to be going forward. i have the great deal of respect for many parts of the bill is serious i wish they proposed it to thousand nine because know if you pass it he will eliminate medicaid expansion 30 states will have expanded this 60 senators you will eliminate the medicaid expansion?

>> they replace it with a uniform credit that everybody has insurance through the system. this was proposed 2009. >>'' we talk about is going for word. >> but to go forward you have to do so lobotomy first. [laughter] >> the problem republicans have got to, they will get along with the notion they want to go backward. that will be the wrong political move to make. it could win some tea party primaries but that is a terrible thing with november because the vast majority wants this fixed. they don't care about the conservative and republican criticisms in the backroom problems. they want it fixed.

and burr/hatch/coburn has a lot of good ideas. >> that is the last word. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

president obama has been traveling this week starting in a shut today he is in seoul self korea before moving to malaysia his other stuff includes the philippines and will return to washington on tuesday. looking at prime-time programming.

>> independent scientists looked at monsanto's korn that the jade was switched on that produces the allergen so you could have the allergic reaction or dying from eating corn that is genetically engineered but the process of genetic into during creates is us which of bad dormant gene and 43 others as well as changing the shape of the proteins. soy has the sevenfold increase this was not intended to put the background a side effect of the process of genetic

engineering. the process from this '08 of the corn that we eat. >> the deal leizhou the european safety authority, australia, ama, no problem with the gm well. is it a conspiracy that suddenly they uncovered? if that is not enough here are a bunch of other organizations with the scientific sounding name but a protective organizations that epa be paying attention to with global warming or something like that but it would not pose the unreasonable risk to people in the environment and i could come up with dozens

former sec chairman in commissioner discuss regulation looking at ned neutrality media ownership rules and the structure of the fcc and the panel features both democratic and republican the point -- appointees also held to regulate internet service providers post by telecommunications management and lot and just over 90 minutes. >> it is appropriate at this time with this gathering of people whose serve at the fcc with there expertise to talk about the challenges and strategies going forward. i will not introduce the panel but instead i will introduce the moderator richard wiley. anybody here knows about him. then chairman of a law firm

that has the premier communications law practice in the united states. he has been making profound contributions for both the private and public sector. in the early '70s he served eight years as general counsel and the commissioner is the chairman. after that spent nine years to chair the committee that devised the sec and those standards became the broadcasting and birds we have now and was recognized with an m.a.. -- emmy so with that i will turn it over. [applause] >> thank you very much. we will miss you

tremendously at michigan state. ladies and gentlemen, i will add my welcome to what will be an interesting panel discussion featuring the extinguished commissioners. [laughter] i am the most distinguished of all. [laughter] the time that we have available we will try to get the views and a key communication issues of the day. i plan with the exception of the first question will put individual questions to individual panels but if somebody wants to say something, we will take that on. a little later we'll offer up the panel for friendly questions from the floor. so let me introduce our very

distinguished panel. rachelle chong was a republican appointee during the clinton administration and later served on the california state public utility commission and also served in now a principal in strategic counseling rachelle chong i would like to get some of that. next is michael copps who served over a decade on a longer-term does us a democratic member and an acting chairman during an important period serving with george w. bush and obama administration. now a special adviser to common cause and sets on the

board of public knowledge. next the democratic appointment appointee during the clinton and administration now the sais center a member of the board of directors of the gannett company. next is henry rivera the resource -- reverse role as a democratic commissioner serving in a republican administration of ronald reagan. after leaving the fcc his law practice is communications and most currently at our firm where he serves as a partner in for some 20 years the

sheriff the minority media telecommunications council. i a appreciate debra tate to is filling in at the last minute for chairman michael powell who was ill and could not come at the last moment a and we regret that but commissioner tate is here today and we appreciate it as a republican appointee to the sec under george w. bush now a special envoy to the child online privacy with protection and serves on the board of the aspen institute and the free state foundation. i should just bad i was at the fcc during the administration of nixon and ford and carter.

you remember those people? also when gm first arrived i was there through the confirmation of the fourth term it only lasted eight minutes so that was an important aspect. so one question from of a few -- all of you if you were back, what would be your primary policy? >> i would have to. first the critical issue is of the spectrum because silicon valley there is innovation every day the one thing that i fear the most is how much they know things are driven to wireless and small personal devices warned on the body.

that is very important to them. second, a broad band access and adoption. california spends a lot of time working to bring broad band to remote areas to engage him in broad band trading with low income and nine english speaking community so this is an important issue because of government services now move to the internet and as a result you are disenfranchised if you don't have a connection. >> i would say probably the same thing then i focused on what i was the commissioner for 10 years. [laughter] focus on the traditional media to major new media serves the public interest

to make sure we have a truly open internet so it is the same sorts of issues spencer a broader lessons to emphasize the changes that have taken place in communications and won big ecosystem where companies are more and more i'd like the content distribution is a different situation riata real inflection point right now to where this is going but the decision the commission will make this year the future of internet freedom and the deal will tell us where it is going for the next generation i am very worried about the direction we seem to be

headed. >> to'' another michigan indian to have read -- michigan resident my name priority is anything that congress by of legislation and says it is my priority. [laughter] having said that certainly competition is a critical element to make sure the consumer is well protected in a competitive environment completing the motivation of which we had begun with the it administration under which i served. . .

as we were waiting to go into the hearing room he put his arm around me and said let's do this. don't let some know you are scared to death. [laughter] >> it worked well for both of us but in terms of answering the question, i would like to see more minorities involved in the telecommunications base. the number of minorities involved is pitiful. this is particularly the case when you consider the large percentage of the population that the united states is going to be at minority majority country in the not too distant

future and next year many people feel that the majority of american children will be minorities. we have to do something about this problem and that would be my policy priority if i am still there. >> once again, thank you for being with us. >> i just wanted to share one 5 and that is i would do almost anything chairman richard wiley asks me to do it was someone upstairs who had me sitting in this state because he said will you promise to be at my 100th birth day, i don't have bold lame, but i am here and had something to do with it and it is good to see my colleagues.

i will be a little provocative in saying do we need an fcc? when i was at the state level i was chairman of the state psc and i will work myself out of the job, things are changing so dramatically and at that time you may remember the state legislatures were beginning to step back via sorry for all the wireless regulation in america and a lot of economic, a lot of other companies so in the telecom arena, with this explosion of competition and technology, digital types of technologys, what is the purpose of the sec moving forward? i would be reflective. i would hope that truly respect commissioner susan ness and mr. dingell, the sec should be pro-active in saying to congress

this is what we need going forward. >> i will answer your question. washington communications lawyer, absolutely. i don't want to answer my own questions but i will say my primary preoccupation if i were back there today would be to modernize the ownership rules which i think i badly outmoded today in the modern communications age particularly the metamorphosis we of seen in the marketplace in the last year and they are counterproductive but let's move ahead to other questions. henry rivera, this question was submitted by professor at ennis you named waldman or something like that. from a big picture standpoints what do we need to know that we perhaps don't know about the

evolving communications technologies and markets, so we could effectively serve the policy standpoint. >> i think he touched on this in his introductory remarks. regulators today do not have the appropriate strategic and regulatory schools to deal with the rapid developments we are seeing in the communications space, technological development we are seeing. this is particularly true in broadband and internet ecosystems. the scenario of a regulator chasing technology in order to craft regulatory environment works in a new technological environment, isn't new, but what is new is the rapidity with which the technology is

developing here because it is making the conceptual framework and regulatory tools regulators as used in the past obsolete and they do need to be rethought if they are going to make any sense. i think this is particularly true where regulators have not changed the values they had previously embraced prior to this rapids evolution. if one takes for example diversity, over the top service providers, the commission says diversity is important. do these concerns evaporate as over-the-top providers capture more market share, or is the ability of the commission to

impose those concerns and regulatory requirements on over the top providers the way to go. and if they do that and there are violations in that sphere, what are the commission's remedies? the commission needs to worry about whether imposing regulatory requirements, and the investment sector. i am not optimistic that congress is going to legislate this problem away. it will try to feel its way through this. is a real concern for me. >> take this question further. >> the commission has to do a better job of keeping up with it but if there is one thing we learned, experience with the internets, no matter how dynamic

a technology can be, it is not necessarily a match for the business marketplace or ability of consolidators and gatekeepers to come through. and this is something we have never seen before in history. it is exempt from the rules, the tech bubble in the 90s, it is nirvana where we found out, fast forward to this internet, it is not so natural forces hence the need for public interest oversight forward and we have to be cognizant that when we talk about the need for an fcc, my goodness, we have and as feet --

fcc, protector of public interest, and congress, to inform congress, what would you have left? you can't even build municipal broadband. that is happy sailing but protect the consumer. >> a good example of your view of how technology is changing, and high-definition television or digital television, replace standard in 1941. be over original standard. already another new standards, all from high-definition and a lot of truth. that has only changed since 1996 when the commission set the standard. in the digital world the technology is moving around. let's move ahead and say as you look at the commission, tom

wheeler is commissioner of the fcc, got to be an active thing, we have already seen that in the time served. what do you see coming from the commission primarily and what would you like to see or not see? >> certainly has the two cited auctions coming up, has got to get right. certainly when we served on the fcc we introduced the whole auction process and found how difficult it was and how carefully one had to proceed to get the auctions right to incentivize broadcasters in this instance to incentivize company's to participate in the auction to purchase one spectrum. it is a very complicated thing. he is going to do it carefully.

secondly, he has got the ip transition looking to address the issue of telecoms at some point give up the copper mines and what that means for the american public and companies that proceeded to provide competition to the local telecom by virtue of being able to lease capacity on their existing lines. that is an issue we have got to address and we are doing that with demonstrations to see what the issues are before it goes forward. maintaining an open internet obviously we are all aware of the discussion, with the announcement of the meeting of the commission, open internets

order remanded by the court, giving the fcc and approach to section 706 which michele and i spent a lot of time on when the telecom act passed in 1996. in any event, looking at how you can continue to ensure competition and protect consumers in an open internet with fretting through a very narrow angle. i think he has got quite a bit on his plate. i would hope that he would see the quadrennial review a little bit more rapidly than it has been in the past. >> we talk about this, sounds like a lot of things we're going to talk about today, very helpful. and ask questions of the spectrum auction. do you foresee that the commission is going to get enough spectrum to read purpose from broadcasting to make all

whole thing work? >> it will be difficult. from the reaction of broadcasters to it i don't know what success looks like. i know with failure with the option would look like. failure would be if we just take a huge swath of spectrum from big broadcasters and turn it over to wireless. that would be the disadvantage of consumers, innovators, competitors, small-businesses. i would like to be seeing them right now and i hope they are doing this as they design these rules, trying to find a way to make sure small-business and competitors and particularly minorities in which folks are eloquently doing so much for the cause to make sure those are given an opportunity to get to some of that. they got some of that which means a big success but this is a tough, tough, tough, tough

climb tom and the rest of the commission. >> focus on broadcast spectrum, what about government spectrum? is it possible we could read purpose or share the government spectrum in the future with the wireless needs we all know are out there? >> i come at this differently. i know it is important to free up spectrum. is absolutely critical as we go forward into the internet of thing so the machine communications we expect with the new program being put in across the nation across the world. you are right, we have got to be successful. i think the government has a lot, my friend kerri who i serve them during california, former c i o of california and now the pentagon, working on this very avidly i know. and frankly i think they could do more. on the option question we absolutely must have decent incentives for broadcasters to

give back room because we've beat this special return for more productive uses going forward. i think broadcasters can share. there are ways to assure them a voice and less space and i just want to say if we don't get enough spectrum relief from government, broadcasters, we are seeing a problem. if you haven't looked at cisco's global internet report you need to because as your home become smarter, everyone talking to each other we have got to have data. will innovation help? yes. a bunch of smart people are working on this and all those silicon valley tight communities to make sure innovation may help the problem but overall we know we need to do something and this focus is extremely important. >> susan touched on the idea of

quadrennial review that congress required every four years, and look at the ownership rules to determine whether they are still necessary in the public interest. the commission was unable to complete the 2010 quadrennial and basically is moving into a new 2014 quadrennial that chairman wheeler is going to start. what is your view of this process? >> it is too slow. that is the point that has been made and of course we were not always in agreement but we were moving forward on many of these issues, back in 2009-10. it is deeply concerning as all this explosion of technology and how we are getting content and

how content is moving around, our whole world and whether or not fees are to be necessary, here we are talking about these explosions and yet we have world that date back to when you were there. if it is concerning to me, commissioner michael copps has the same number. we saw 87 newspapers close because we were unwilling to take some steps so that there could be more partnerships between journalists who work for media companies and those who work for newspapers. i was really sad about the potential for really great partnership, really good friends of mine to move forward. there are so many things the commission could have already done that would have enabled

investment in these properties, a journalist could do in-depth reporting, and bytes of news, and more investment. if they were able to have the revenues to do that. >> you are correct, newspaper broadcast ownership, prevents one entity for newspaper, and the same market in most situations. we put in in 1975. we were trying to get rid of it. and the reason we put it in, changed remarkably in the marketplace. but michael copps has different views. >> i would take issue with it, more reporters walking the street looking for a job rather than covering the story because of the excess of consolidation

we have had in our media, talk about these things and financing these transactions, and the first place they look all these marketing efficiencies, the news room, 20, 30,000 and more newsroom employees working at the turn of the century, 2005-2010, though are not working right now. an effect on the civic dialogue in this country. when you look at the entertainment these companies produce, investigative journalism hanging by a thread. we have to understand why it is hanging by a thread and why we don't have situation like we had years ago, people assigned to west 44 a year or two, go get the truth, how many ceos are going to do that now? take two years and get to the bottom of this. and write a blog.

:the screen. and they don't have a camera anymore. that is another journalism this country needs. and given the severity of the problem the united states faces we are in deep trouble, i don't know a bigger problem the state faces in the state or the media at or the lack of really good news or information in journalism to sustain for small d democratic dialogue. >> one of the great newspaper broadcasts, a lot of people agreed with that. >> i am not speaking on behalf of the expanding company. by will report what has been reported publicly. we have been increasing and number of reporters and

investigative reporters. we have been working to share resources among local newspapers and usa today, and the local newspapers doing local investigative reporting. to provide more centrality so zach our television stations provide information back and forth with newspapers to having debt discussions and investigative journalism. i know certainly there are companies out there that are looking very hard that are totally committed to the -- providing their local community with the kind of news and information they need. there are other companies that are not so committed. at consolidation, has not been a good friend in many

circumstances, greater local news and information. >> we are in the digital world now and we see broadcasters provide the same kinds of services cable and television or telephone, and equivalent services and different industries that are regulated in different ways. the so-called silo approach. what is your take on that? is it time for a change in the way we regulate diverse industries? >> i would say probably. it is the most often criticized aspect of the communications act. the act provides services and technologies in different groups, regulations flow from these silos if you will. and the act doesn't contemplate

these networks and services and context. this is most clear i think in the examples you just cited. these things in the broadband ecosystem. that said i don't think we should examine, reexamine the silo approach with the goal of bringing these technologies under regulation. the better way to proceed is to look at this, the regulatory touch they initiated in the internet space. i am not sure what congress is going to do, looking at this question because it is not something that is covered in the '96 act. >> when you look at different industries, one industry that is considered a little different by

regulators, is broadcasting. if we go to a change, should broadcasting still be considered somehow different, especially if you will, because it is free to the public, reached by practically every home. what is your view on that? >> in 1996 when i was on the fcc i would have said absolutely broadcasters are special because they are free and reach every house. but now in 2014 i have to say my view has changed. part of it is because i have seen the rise of the internet as a place for this kind of discourse to occur in a much less costly way. so we are now seeing new speaker's arrive on internet platforms and they are able to speak and discourse as easily as the click of a mouse or upload from smart phone device. i will say at this time i see so many different expressions and fox for people to speak, whoever

they are, including minorities, including groups that are not traditionally connected to the media that is less important than i used to think in 1996. >> what is your view on that? >> it is interesting. i like the back-and-forth. yes, there are many more forums. at the same time algorithms in parts of the world, in tennessee, people are not connected and where it is expensive and free television does enable people to have access to information, public safety. all of the same values we saw that made broadcasting special to begin with. i am not quite at the point to relinquish that they aren't still special. one of the things i did want to jump in and say something about the silos. when i first got to the fcc i

decided my staffer is the only staff that wasn't on wireless or whatever. we were going to be everything to all people. so my staff would come in and say this goes to the wire lines at the meeting, who goes to the wireless meeting? it was so frustrating because even when you could see how the world was changing it was so impossible to do anything different inside the fcc because that is how everything, every filing, every bureau, every bureau in chief and so it was very difficult to try to merge those even when i pointed the tried to do that. >> a lot of you may know, some in the audience don't know, each commissioner gets three legal assistants usually and looking at all your staff they were terrific, people that really were knowledgeable and picked

terrific people and use the coming and lobbies them. i appreciate people who knew what they were talking about. >> people got rid of an attorney for economists. >> i used to have an engineer. >> something the commission lacks is a commission within the commissioner's office, would be extraordinarily helpful to some many issues which are technical issues. >> this question of news on the internet is a pretty well-documented fact that probably around 80% of the news the we see when we go on the internet comes from traditional media, from the newspaper, newsroom and the tv newsroom, a shell of its former self. it has been downsized but that is where it comes from. we are looking for a mall on the internet. we don't have one yet that will sustain journalism. the old advertising model is broken for traditional me and

probably is a different model on the internet right now but we have to be innovative to figure out how it is and how we can energize -- getting harder and harder to start a blood, more expensive as people say, folks especially, can't wait half a second or a full second, the technology where you can download and a tenth of a second or something, it is hard to do. you are seeing more consolidation, not just internet service providers but the internet itself. we have to find ways through non-profit models, which are slow to improve, maybe to support public broadcasting, is eminently possible, fire walls between public support and content and a lot of other countries that we are afraid to even think about but we have to be thinking about how do you make that internet the most wide-open full everett that can take us to undreamed cases, how do we make that serve the

purposes of the average not just consumer but citizen of the united states of america. >> before we move onto another subject, you were at the oral argument this week, and it relates to how we are looking at new delivery systems particularly over the top systems. how do you see this developing? >> it was a fascinating and well presented oral argument and certainly the justice started grappling with how to -- i think basically the justices were suggesting under the copyright act you can't play games to get around it. they recognize, sounded like they were recognizingv aereo was trying to get around copyright provisions.

but at the same time as they were having a tremendously difficult time trying to parse through how you would address that situation without engulfing yourself in the cloud technologies and all of the new innovative activities going on in the cloud. ..

>> these services are starting to do come up. but hopefully from the regulatory standpoint there is an opportunity for consumers. >> you have to look at it from the environment that i talked about before in the paper this morning about at&t and a $5 million deal.

there on morphine with the distribution. you have to put that into the calculation with the telecommunications act does not always get good reviews. >> henry you bridal of subjects that others have touched on for diversity. the supreme court said the government cannot deal with minority prefaces how do you incentivize even with the ownership? >> then is the good question and a question we continue to wrestle with but the commission can do absolutely

nothing to foster the minority ownership policies. there are plenty of vehicles the commission:have a disproportionately positive impact that would not run afoul and subject to strict scrutiny with an incubator. >> explained that. to permit a radio broadcaster to be free from whatever regulations with the low limits for minority purposes. then with the time that i was the earhart it was a very important smith said to incentivize people for

minorities than unfortunately it was abused and congress did away with it but would you favor the return? >> absolutely. there is of a bill pending by senator mccain that does that and is the attempt to deal with the abuses the tax certificate was subject to the early history. >> do you have use of this? >> they did actually work. we have numbers to prove its purpose was just unfortunate but the rules should be crafted so future abuse would be a positive thing to. >> it is not just what government can do but what the industry does.

and both clear channel and citadel have handed over the number of small stations that are going to be minority-owned. there is a prime example for tax incentives to encourage the corporation. maybe there are some smaller stations. what a great way to enable people to get experience and learn to deal with becoming a broadcaster. >> there are also an industry programs that encourage purchase a patient to move up into management

with the ability program it has been very successful. we have spoken there to get minorities getting into which a man to i hope these will all find ways that we can improve the situation. here we have six of us talking together but the sec commissioners the three cannot get together. [laughter] when i was that the commission and we had several leniently could talk together. we would hear the oral argument and hash it round and bake at a decision. and after that we cannot have those discussions. is it time to change an open meeting law to make it possible for more participation in discourse?

>> it is long past time every time i testified in front of congress over the last five years i brought this up. it is ridiculous that more than two commissioners cannot talk with one another. congress does not work that way when they pass a lot. the accord does not work that way. they talk with other justices. the college of cardinals does not work that way with the catholics. [laughter] if it is good enough for congress and hold the mother church. [laughter] >> but it is not against you are the open part of government but you try to go behind the doors. >> but we did make progress thank you to our friends and others trying to move congress to a better understanding of this is something we need to do. we would have avoided a lot of adversarial stuff in the

past years of commissioners had gotten together once or twice so you know, where they stand. the five different people selected from five different skill sets, you can have the general counsel there you can make sure no question about that. there is more support on the hill but to be mixed up with the wider efforts some have conditions that would restrict the ability like to legislate away their ability with conditions on mergers or requirements. standing alone we might come pretty close to passing it.

>> what about up possibility of non decision meetings like you discuss the issues issues, and frame it but you don't make the decision but bring it out to the open at that point? >> i agree. it inhibits the ability to come to a rational decision in a friendly way win no more in into fcc commissioners can talk about a topic without a public meeting and as a consequence you have five advisers one from each office getting together to debate the issue to say essentially what their commissioner would to are not due oftentimes having no clear. [laughter] with the commissioners were talking amongst themselves the outcome may be considerably different.

the situation today with the internet with the information and distributed to the public where you can see summaries so quickly there is tremendously more transparency they of there ever was in a part of the reason of the to a member of rule i think that has passed i would very much anchorage -- encouraged to sign a petition that went to the administrative conference to get the sun shine in a government law removed and unfortunately the very body we appealed to was eliminated with the

cost-cutting. [laughter] >> i should add one of the last thing was michael did is we wrote in favor tubal sides to change the rule. we did the same thing and at a think the chairman was quite as induced but to tell folks that they could choose the best job. >> one of the things that makes a commission valuable is the fcc primary role is to take the legislation passed to make sense of it. , there is some lot of people here and they would agree to have conflicting convoluted provisions of role is to make sense out of difficult issues.

so it really would be a helpful if commissioners were of the of mind set to work together to come up with solutions and sometimes it is compromised sometimes digging deeper by working together to form a solution not to be a junior congress but one that has devolved into a republican and democrat situation. that would not serve the american public very well. it was a collaborative process. >> and adds to the drag. >> with shadow diplomacy. >> exactly the staff between

you and your colleagues it will just take longer. so that comes about the fact that it takes them too long to do anything. some of that is caused by sunshine and people don't make that connection. >> i had to say i was saw hock to make the government make decisions quicker we would identify every decision for over a year to categorizing and set a goal to get them out if we could. we didn't always make the right decision but we tried to move that. [laughter] but what would help to get them to move? in to make it move faster? >> i did not even know you had done that because one of

the concepts i have talked in and written about is if you have a docking procedure at a more local level if one of the commissioners or administrative law judges over its how long has this been here? when we were there we looking there were over 1 billion complaints against the broadcasters and my idea was let's go through them all and find out what has been here for more than two years and dismiss its. we did that with the tennessee commission and we got a bid of 2,000 dockets just on the timeliness to employee. also commissioner michael copps and reilly of course, utilized the commissioners to listen to to their commissioners.

each one is there with there expertise or background to let them take more control over issues. a as a chairman you might know that maybe you give somebody of really difficult job to oversee and if they screw up at least a does it come back on you and you can blame the other commissioner. [laughter] but there is us a time line back to the quadrennial. stick with the timeline. if you have a timeline for mergers then stick with it. why do you have a date if you end up ignoring them? there are large and small processes or things that could be done that would encourage efficiency. with the shadow diplomacy how long it takes to go back and forth when one commissioner, said with another idea that has to be

socialized around all other commissioners. as a mediator there are so many ways that mediation could be used. we have head in any discussions over xm sirius radio. >> over 70 months stemming thank you for reminding me. there was another process other than the commissioners have to oversee every single issue. >> a commissioner wanted to comment? >> i had the pleasure to serve to commissions but one thing that we did do it is we've met more often. twice a month and the president gave the areas of responsibility to other commissioners.

i had telecom some had energy or water or gas. that way it was overseen by five active commissioners not just the chairman's office. the bad thing about california is even the advisers can you believe that? they would have to do shadow diplomacy it was a disaster. honestly if there was one change would be this. >> we used to meet three times a week. that things were simpler then but i gave the commissioners monday. [laughter] >> certainly with the implementation of the telecom act we did 80 regulatory proceedings all you dennis and done on time and partially because

everyone agreed we would do whatever it took to do them in a thoughtful but rapid fashion. >> we were very religious about it. >> many times the conversation into a cough. >> to set internal the timeframe that everybody is an agreement on to use a shot clock and keeping to that would help enormously. but from a business perspective it is extraordinarily and unnecessarily costly. >> with the paper cavemen from the bureau he would circulate in really rather

than keeping it there. >> talk about changes in 1996 congress passed a new communications act after 60 years. do we need a new one yet again? we're talking about it and if so what would it accomplish? >> my answer is yes because the 96 act does not address many internet topics. >> ended does not address broad demand at all. >> now we have competition we need to scale back there are still the important principles santa wheeler has

done a good job. how long does that take them? one method of calculating legislative action is one year = seven dog years so that is 14 years in my view. [laughter] >> i am not sure. some in congress does think they need to be written but i don't see a groundswell in favor of their right now. while the broad beans -- the broad band of the 96 active they already have the tools to regulate the industry and if congress does legislate it will very likely to

create a statute that deals with the parts or the aspects of the industry the 96 act does not deal with this gimmickry better get used to living and to rub we have right now. and in 1996 to justin for and then also to remember the 1996 act that was a lot of provisions in there that had been more ignored but if we talk about waiting for a new telecommunications act keep in mind the johnny mathis of.

[laughter] >> in the ideal world that would be lovely to have a strong direction but we are not in that world but i em guessing if we would go about to have another telecom act to put kids through college but the unintended consequences coming from the legislative process d&b very disruptive and not helpful so all in all the telecom act was transitional come i think it has served its purpose well and i would be a little bit upset if we tried to redo the entire thing rather than address specific issues as

they come through congressional action still make you get the final word on this one the commissioners. >> i think what was exciting was of deregulatory philosophy of the 96 act. i wish the commission would have done more in terms of forbearance and sitting in michael powell chair he was the one that i borrowed being humbled regulator form. so not to be so proud regulation with that net neutrality you may be getting to but there are many cases win the sec will

be humble and are there actual consumer harms? >> what about that? we don't have a congressional act the at the commissioner should promote new technologies. what do we want to see? >> and ( internet to power of consumers with online experience with the isp if the reports i everything and the press is right to with the sec today it appears we might not be embarked with

of clear-cut rationale to get it done with those ways to rephrase words of what is reasonable and unreasonable. to have some clarity the best possible legal argument is difficult but to invite the commission in to do something about non network neutrality to be classified as title role back to. a and if you plotted on a case by case business they never understand and consumers don't always understand their rights. we could have a good player net work neutrality rules that are not burdened some.

to have that certainty ended just goes on and on and while it does however long it takes the future of the internet is not just to make sure not just from network neutrality standpoint but if you take all current communications television and civic dialogue to move them tuesday internet id becomes usually invested with the public interest. you cannot just say go gangbusters on consolidation but we've learned that

lesson from the progressive era in the early 1900's. >> does that mean the does that mean a somebody wants a faster service they should not pay more? >> i would not answer that specifically but what i would be cautious about whenever the united states does has verifications' internationally and large the based with the revelation there was a

concern around the world to keeps the internet free and open to think about that in thinking about what larry has done that the nt i a gets the acceptable agreement to be tied for the congress department to enhance the approach to governance but that is the good way to go. there is a tremendous amount of concern expressed with u.s. abandoning the internet in some fashion. but providing a multistate coulter approach to be a

consortium of government. >> the how the panel would favor. >> being able ty stakeholder approach with put forward by secretary strickland's what is the acceptable government's regime but the flip side the wes government is perceived to correctly to give voice and energy. >> bating is incorrect. >> but it does give a voice to those that does try to

create roles that constrain the internet. >> anybody want to comment? >> i want to talk to commissioner to nine-point there should be certainty and there were the original dissenters with the original net neutrality. i will reiterate where are the flood of concerns the of the problem we try to solve? some companies have come forward to say here are the approvals we are willing to abide by and will continue and others have stepped up and adopted those as well. the industry says we want to compete with one another to make sure the internet is

open to everyone. there is some lot of pressure of the industry itself. and the technological explosion and the dynamism that we talk about is because there has been of late touch regulation and no net neutrality rules. >> just one other area and then to open the floor of our outstanding battle. talk about the digital television area and another important transition occurring is the transition to use up all ip world and we will move away from playing television on dash telephone environment but the core values that we had

for example, the fact secure that your phone will work a and reaches everybody. do we want to maintain those values with the ip center to environment? >> i think so. public safety communications passed to be available regardless of technology. people have to have affordable communications services and everyone has got to have, and competition needs to be continued and foster to bring better service and lower prices. choice for consumers and businesses. and consumer welfare costs to be protected.

there are core elements to carry forward no matter the technology. >> with the ip world we don't necessarily have the boundaries but the future of state regulation where do you see the future? >> we were trying to have a partnership with the fcc and we felt with the consumer protection area that that was something frankly the sec is that after i have of personal pet peeve the consumer affairs branches terrible i put in complaints in never heard back from anybody ever. >> a former commissioner. >> never heard back. but we tried to do at the state little is we

understand you have overreached a national policy to implement we except that but to deal with the complaints on local level and work together to have objectives so we are on the same page generally. we brought before word and they brought it up to the sec but nobody listened at all. is very disappointing. so the states have important roles of consumer issues. and to also with interconnection disputes because we'd know the local players. where it is not useful is of a service of interstate flavor than rules -- rules

across the nation that is not productive with an interstate service such as the internet or wire carriers are national so i am more reluctant to have state oversight. >> commissioner teeeight night you were there at the key moment of the digital television transition and ip transition was your position in? >> with regard to this state regulation in 1996 looking at a closer with much better coordination between the states we tried to do that. but you have got to realize these commissions are in danger. and members go round to get laws passed to take the public utilities commission

and it was taken away. and disappointed for verizon and comcast and at&t are in that counsel. the reason they were passed is because it flew the eighth the radarscope there is no zero state house coverage any more. i did not until three or four years ago. but at that point general motors, wal-mart, then the membership would expire. in bin to shake the public

utility commissions out of business even the areas of the big companies but the essential point is included with the 1996 act for coordination i hope the current commission would work closely with the expertise with consumer complaints that the sec does not at have with 1900 employees of these things to do but not the resources to do them. >> at&t is conducting trials and it is the effective way to looking at it on a great healer basis as we change over to ip.

>> i don't think so. in the old days maybe it made sense to have more of a local presence the congress thought so to devise a statute that relegated to the states the authority to implement and come up with these policies that have to do with what they were but as you transition to the it network we don't have the geographical and point how much sense for the end point it will have to be a fundamental reassessment of

the telecommunications network and congress has to lead the way because it is part of the statute. >> you have handled easily all of my question. is there a a microphone out there? identify yourself please. >> it has been a great piano i worked at the world bank. i have a question. like many americans scoring above the open and free internet we're concerned with action so my question is a call for help. a lot of my a friends and people i speak with and the blocks online they see what seems to be a conflict of interest specifically the former commissioner who

oversaw or parts of the fcc nbc merger then left for comcast and former chairman of the commission goes on to lead the industry trade association also commissioner rachelle chong you worked in california. they see this as a conflict of interest in the bias that are revealed later in decisions the sec comes out with. i don't believe that is the case but it is hard for me to say i know it looks that way but progress above your help and and what i say after that is with the perceived conflict of interest when we look for you to protect us and we all see so much close relations.

i would appreciate your help. >> we had a long private sector craft eric government career how would you feel about that? >> it has certain safeguards in place with former government officials to go back to the agency they worked at to lobby on issues they have worked on. the fcc also has provisions in place the obama administration took that one step further to prohibit folks from working in the industries they regulate for an even longer period of time. there are safeguards in place. i would respond to your correspondence but having said that i did commit it looks bad when one of us

goes out to occupy the position of responsibility. but it is not as bad as that looks. people have forgone those opportunities for that very reason. you would be surprised how many have done that. by and large the group of people that occupied those seats have a very high since of ethics and responsibility not just to the institution but the public in general. i would say it is not all that bad. >> another question. >> thanks for participating.

i am a professor of telecommutes sheet -- telecommunications law at penn state. >> we know you. >> forth coming from that fcc with the next wave, and i would like to ask the group what regulatory agency of the marketplace can do about mission critical. michigan state basketball basketball, streaming flub will oat -- football or academy award but consumers really want to better them best efforts. of the internet or the ip protocols first transmitted system very democratic but sometimes with full motion video consumers want better than best is there a way for a consumer driven that does

not become the standard where everything is mission critical subject to a surcharge? where they could have the flexibility to prioritize traffic with the ad hoc basis based on consumer demand. >> that is what is on the plate to right now and what they distribute to their colleagues and to to maintain and what consumers want to do you get to have other traffic taiz paid for

potentially the medical system in begin at this may be better for the consumer but to be on the table to be in conjunction with the court order. >> but the ultimate answer is for infrastructure that and of government the fcc cannot do this alone and it is my personal belief they operate on a business plan to ration scarcity that is how we get it into priorities and you cannot correct that with a stroke

of the want. have retaken the beloved seriously instead of the first out there even when there was not a business case to get beyond that is not how we build infrastructure but realize that a government mission with partnerships and incentives to get it done. we did some of that with the obama administration battle long way from where we should be. >> another question. >> my name is pat and i teach at george washington university. thank you for a great panel and we have students here. talking about net neutrality i know that all if you are pro consumer if we took a vote they but say yes but as a consumer i don't see what comcast charging netflix for

a faster delivery does for me? basically what will happen is i pay comcast and netflix i will pay more to netflix because they have to pay comcast. i would like to throw that out as an example where net neutrality is very important to. >> who would like to respond >> with one of the issues of net neutrality it is eclipsed the important thing i would like to say if there is a market demand for could speedy service the market will meet it is so public safety and tell us all the applications were there is a need they haven't interest of the underlying i sp.

address competitive purposes that is a different story. there should be an area where government should be acting. case by case? we can debate and forever there watching them on. >> they struck a deal with netflix they checked care of that problem. >> that was part of the process. >> you had requested? simic you had a great discussion in of the policy process but almost entirely focused domestically.

people don't acknowledge the important tool fcc a cast to play with international policy 95% of the internet users are somewhere else and people have influenced what has gone on around the world. maybe it could use more technology is with us i counterparts to push them in the right direction and to build a global system. >> what the fcc does it becomes of precursor with the communications the european countries and other parts of the world stayed home but that change because united states took a leadership role in the

private sector. >> wade did ted chawed international just a little bit but that is why i feel so strongly, i don't want to college to regulatory but appropriate level of regulation because our country's are competing globally. and stood to get such a of view of that from the fcc but during the transition we would have live telecast the ever colleagues in germany and austria. we would have the engineers come in it was some will fight our i was so excited. one of the things i wanted to do was cache that if they

went through a the transition they could use that but i don't know if that have been dan president bush was obviously very close so we went to the education secretary to work together. we went down as they were collecting money for the universal service fund we went to talk about the good parts of the funds and some of the not so good parts so i could not agree more. after being so criticized to say you are the gold standard is unbelievable. and chairman dick wiley is

so bright it is such an incredible impact. so now starting to occur with the wireless auctions that maybe it went to your family member now it is opened up and auctioned off. we have a and incredible or the sec has an incredibly important role of international policies. >> we have time for one final question. this gentleman has a question. >> you mentioned international but with respective many countries have taken a different path if you look at europe europe, australia, new zealand and others. are the policies end approaches for a competition

or other aspects where u.s. public policy could benefit not just they pick up what we do but conversely we could turn from experiences elsewhere? or is the model rely on intermodal competition and the only viable long-term model? >> we have a lot to learn from other countries as well. >> the fact we are 15 or 16 or 22nd or 35th of penetration with broad began to speak and low-cost obviously be havilah lot to learn and a long way to go. i appreciate what international because there is a lot the fcc can do with the commissioners all need to be brought in to win in the current ones are doing of good job but we are

underfunded internationally but to have those regulations but the clarification to make it is on net neutrality international. just because we don't want the chinese to sensor is there internet does not mean we cannot have a discussion of net neutrality in the united states it is like comparing apples to oranges. of course, we want to open overseas and don't want the chinese to play the role of the gate keeper but we try to keep the internet open it may be a different kind but it is us a different question and to act if we just talk about this problem we open ourselves up to the international ramifications but i don't think it is

true. >> we have one more question from a student. >> one more. >> after a. i am from george washington university from the media law class. i've want to ask how is the reignited surveillance debate with the nsa will impact net neutrality? we talked about with international law and european countries have broader privacy laws. how will that affect the debate going forward? >> you touched on that when you said going through the multistakeholder role. >> to reinforce multiple stakeholder approach is one way we can address that.

it has had an impact. i am working on the transatlantic trade investment partnership under negotiation right now between the united states and the e.u. and certainly those issues have come up in the context of cross border data flow if they will be a part of the agreement. it is something that has to be addressed but the business community recognizes that you can allow the internet with a little fence to say just in my country only with special rules. particular the with data storage and expect that will work or prevent citizens from ever having a governmental or anyone else

listening to conversations or intercepting communications and. but to ensure privacy that is very much on the table certainly in the context of the trade agreement. >> join me to thank our panel today. [applause]

>> i remember we had some discussion during 2012 is it appropriate the sitting president to give interviews to john stuart? the answer is yes because the young voters are more likely to watch "the daily show" they and others but if you look back at the sitting president of united states the toughest interview he had was jon stewart the most substantive of challenging interview barack obama had the election-year was the

anchor of "the daily show." what does that tell you? >> i thank you should all examine it. that is at a broader discussion but it is a reflection of the fact that jon stewart is very smart and sophisticated he just package is in a way that draws eyeballs and young eyeballs' which is what we are looking for. >> washington j. unde: robert won is . .can we get your reaction to something paul ryan recently said on bill bennett radio

interview. here it is. >> we have got the tailspin of culture in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning to value the culture of ork --" caller: i think he was absolutely correct. he was mimicking something someone else said that i like to quote back in 1978. i quote, "our children are living in depressed neighborhoods and on the verge of economic collapse. people finally contribute to the politics of decadence, a generation of people lacking the moral and physical stamina necessary to fight a protracted civilizational crisis is a danger to itself, its neighbors, and to future generations.