>> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, televisions for serious readers. .. >> you can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free

c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime, and a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want. play podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs like "after words," "the communicators" and "q&a." take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> host: and michael o'rielly is the newest member of the federal communications commission, a republican. he was sworn into office on november 4, 2013. commissioner o'rielly, welcome to "the communicators." >> guest: thank you for having me. >> host: appreciate it. just to start in a general

sense, how do you approach your job, how do you approach the different issues? is each issue different, or do you have a philosophy behind that? >> guest: each issue should be handled differently, but i have a general philosophy. it starts with the basic premise that i approach everything which is economic freedom is my guiding principle for how i approach. and from that comes four factors. one, does the commission have authority to act on a particular issue. what authority has congress given us in the statute. two with, is there harm to consumers and a solution that we can actually remedy through whatever harm has been brought forward. three, is the solution tailored to the particular problem that we're addressing and we not regulate by analogy. and, fourth, even with all those three elements do the benefits of regulation outweigh the costs? that's how i'm view, that's how i'm approaching each issue individually. but you tend to take each issue as they come before you.

>> host: do you have an inside track in the sense that you were a staffer in congress for a long time to know congressional intent? >> guest: i actually had the benefit of working on a number of provisions that are in the current statute, communications act of 1934 is our guiding statute and, therefore, i've worked on a number of those pieces over my 20 years as a staffer in congress. so from the '96 act to the latest spectrum act, i've had my hand in on behalf of a number of employers. so i actually know a number of the pieces quite intimately. >> host: well, we also want to bring to the table brendan sasso of the national journal who's participating in our conversation this week. >> thanks for having me on, peter. commissioner, the fcc's been in the news the last couple weeks, more so than maybe it's used to, and that's mainly about this net neutrality proposal. the old rules were struck down earlier this year, and chairman wheeler is pushing a proposal that would still bar isps from blocking web sites but would

allow these fast lanes in some cases. what do you think of that proposal and how are you going to vote next week? >> guest: so i don't want to get too specific because i'm precluded from doing so, so i'll give you my general views, and hopefully that'll give some guidance to your answer. i worry when people use the phrase "fast lane," because that implies that there's a slow lane. i worry on the net neutrallyish sure, and it goes back to my -- neutrality issue. chairman wheeler has highlighted he plans to use a provision known as section 706 which was brought forward in the court case in the d.c. circuit, and he plans to use authority to have it in this space. i worked on that provision as a congressional staffer, and so i have different views on whether it is allowable to use that for this piece. i disagree, i disagree with the court. so i have to get past that hurdle. that's a big one for me to get past. but then i get to the question

of is there a problem that we're solving. and in here there isn't a problem. there have been, you know, antidotes, there have been prospective problems, and people think what could be the harms in the future, but they don't actually have any instances today. today our broadband providers are providing a good experience and complying with simple principles they think meet the pest needs of their consumers. so i don't want to regulate in the future what may happen. so i raise concerns there. three is unintended consequences. i worry about using section 706, for instance, on what it can be used for in the future. you could take that language, it's very broad in the way the count has interpreted it, to do a number of different things including getting back to the edge providers which people talk about edge providers, and i think of pandora, google, a number of different players in that space. so you could use that to regulate those kind of players. and i worry about that kind of scenario. i also worry because you have an implication for investment.

when you impose new rules and new regulations, it has an impact on what broadband providers are willing to invest, what services and features and functionality they're willing to bring forward to the marketplace. so that has an impact on consumers' experience going forward. so i'm leery on that. and the fourth answer, the fourth response here is this is something that should be addressed by the congress. there's a question of congressional intent in terms of section 706 from my viewpoint. i think this is something where congress could provide us very clear rules for the road on what our role should be in imposing net neutrality rules. congress has declined to do so. i worked on a number of those efforts over the last many years of my time, and they've declined to do so, and so that is something that that would be an indication. >> so you brought up some concern about the sort of broad interpretation of section 706 and how the fcc might start regulating the web companies themselves like google or facebook. >> guest: right. >> there particular examples, or

do you have a reason to think the fcc might get involved in that area? >> guest: absolutely. we've already used that authority in a couple different instances. we used it as part of our ip trials earlier this year. we cited it as part of an argument that we may move forward in cybersecurity, an area where the question of authority for the agency otherwise, and we've also, you know, used it, and we're planning to use it in other fronts. so there are concrete experiences where we've used it, and it's been talked about in a number of other fronts going forward. >> so you're pretty skeptical ca, i guess, of the fcc's involvement in net neutrality, but do you see some areas where there's a possibility that your internet provider might be abusing its network power, if comcast starts blocking cbs web sites and features nbc which comcast owns, are there areas that the fcc should be involved in? >> guest: well, there is something -- i'll answer it this way.

i want to be careful regarding comcast, because we have a pending merger before us, and so i don't talk about pending mergers or potential mergers, but let me give you a general perspective. i -- everyone should worry that anytime that the internet experience can be harmed for consumers, so i want to keep my eyes and ears open and pay attention to anything brought forward. so if there are legitimate experiences and legit mitt harms that consumers are experiencing on their internet service, i want to know about them. that's something we can look at if we actually have a viable petition before us. right now we're kind of regulating as a guessing game on what might happen. >> host: commissioner o'rielly, given what the court decided earlier this year with regard to net neutrality, what, if anything, would you like to see the fcc do? >> guest: well, i think as i just highlighted, i think it's something we should be keeping our eyes open for, and we'll be actively making sure that the consumer's experience is positive. now, in terms of i've had those conversations with our broadband

providers, and they've expressed to me that they have no intent in changing their behavior. that today they do not block, they don't discriminate, they're open in terms of their transparency, and they'ring looing forward, that's one piece the court didn't strike down. so they'll be moving forward on that. they want to provide a good experience to consumers, and i don't expect the consumer experience base as changing that significantly. >> host: do you support what chairman wheeler had to say about not mergers, but agreements to have a faster track? >> guest: well, it is something, like i said early on, i hate to use the word "faster track" because that implies there's a slow lane as well. but in general, it's something we should keep our eyes on. it's something former chairman genachowski talked about. it's a business model that we want to keep our eyes on in terms of mechanisms to raise money for broadband and edge providers as well. we want to see how that develops, but it's early on in

the equation. >> host: you also in a hill newspaper op to ed -- op-ed, you indicated this could potentially lead into the fcc regulating cybersecurity. >> guest: yes, sir. >> host: how did you get from there to there? >> guest: so as i talked about just briefly, i worry that section 706 can be interpreted very broadly. it is language that i determine, that i worked on on behalf of previous bosses. it has two components. one is a horde story language that broadband is good and, two, is an examination of whether broadband's available and whether it's being deployed appropriately, and if not, it leads to deregulatory measures. we've kind of flipped it on its head and said there's some regulatory measures we can do on net neutrality, and i worry that the way the court has interpreted the language -- and this came forward in the dissent by judge silverman -- you can have very broad authority for the fcc in any direction in

terms of how it views the virtuous circle it's talked about. broadband deployment leads to better broadband experience which leads back to more broadband deployment. so it's an interesting circle. take cybersecurity, for instance. i view the communications act of 1934 that doesn't provide a great deal of authority to the fcc on cybersecurity issues. the congress has, rightfully, provided a number of federal agencies with jurisdiction over cybersecurity, and i've spent some of my time when i worked on capitol hill for other members on the issue of cybersecurity. and in very few instances did the issue of fcc jurisdiction or fcc authority ever come up. it was something we were looking at department of homeland security, department of defense and a number of other federal agencies that i won't mention right now that work on the issue aggressively and attentively. the fcc's role is very limited n my opinion. it could provide some, its analysis of telecommunications networks and oversees those

situations and provide advice to other federal agencies. where i worry about is where i think the chairman has talked about, and i wait to see what he actually puts forward. but he's talked about getting very aggressive on the issue of cybersecurity and what that may lead to. and, you know, the question is, does it lead to regulation? the only place i can see you get regulation authority is from section 706 in interpreting the court's decision from earlier this year. >> host: michael o'rielly has mentioned that he worked on the hill. he began his hill career as a legislative assistant to tom bliley who served as energy and commerce chair. he also worked for senator john sununu and for a long time to senator john cornyn, republican of texas. what's it like to go from being a staffer to a commissioner? >> guest: well, it's actually been a very smooth transition. the good part about my job is it doesn't come with too many surprises. i spend a great deal of my time working for the members that you highlighted, overseaing the fcc in -- overseeing the fcc in one

capacity or another, whether the specific nuts and bolts or the more general macro policy. in those instances i got to know what the fcc does, got to meet the members. i will say there is a difference in terms of working, as being the person who writes things for members and then being the person who's actually on the show itself. so there's a difference there, but i hopefully am handling that transition smoothly. >> host: brendan sasso. >> i know you can't talk about mergers in front of you or coming down the line, but we have comcast/time warner before you, sprint/t-mobile potentially in the pipeline. can you just give a general sense of when a merger comes before you what do you look at? is are there certain red flags that might indicate to you that a merger would be bad? >> guest: so let me give you my general philosophy. i haven't had a merger yet. we have one pending, and we'll have to review the record. again, i don't want to comment. but let me give my general philosophy, and hopefully that will help. i would like to see the

commission provide an expedited review, and that means working closely with our department of justice friends in examining all information that we need from an applicant. so i want as much information early in the process. i want to make sure that we can make decisions and have everything we need early in the process. what's been disappointing in the past in some instances is the information is collected really late in the game, and that's problematic. you don't have time to analyze how it fits together with other decisions you've previously made. i also approach a merger with the idea it should be looked within the four corners of the application and what potential harm it may cause to consumers, if any. there may be none, and that's understandable. but it should be within those, you know, i'm very leery to look at solutions that are outside of those corners or potential remedies that people have looked at that have been outside that universe, conditions that people have talked about in the past that have been adopted that are unrelated to the merger itself. so i'm trying to stay within the woundilies of what -- boundaries

of what the application implies. >> do you think the broadband is competitive now? >> guest: i think it depends how you're defining it. i think the broadband market is much more dynamic. we're seeing every day consumers switch to ip services, we're seeing everyone switch to wireless devices and wireless broadband being very effective. i know myself as a consumer it's been something i've adapted very quickly. so it depends on how you define the market and how broad you're willing to go. i have probably a broader definition than some. i think the technologies are very dynamic. >> when the obama administration blocked at&t's attempt to buy t-mobile a couple years ago, a big deal was made about the need the filings in the fcc agreed with it. what do you thinkover that? do you think it's important to have -- is four a magic number? >> guest: i'm not sure i have a magic number, i'll have to analyze the information as it's presented if any application is

provided. >> host: michael o'rielly, with all the convergence going on in the telecommunications markets, apple, google, comcast, broadcasters, at some point do you see them all coming under the same rubric as far as regulation goes? >> guest: well, i would like to see some removal of the silos that we have today and how different companies are treated a different way based on the way they're set up or based on the technology they use. so i think that is something that i know the congress is looking at. how do you treat similarly-like companies in the same way. and so i think that's something we have to move forward. whether they all come under the fcc's jurisdiction is a matter for congress to decide. >> aside from net neutrality, another issue that's going to be coming up soon is the incentive auction, and the chairman is pushing rules that would cap the ability of especially verizon, at&t to buy spectrum. do you think, well, what do you think of those rules, and are you worried about the success of the auction?

also at&t has so vehemently a posed to the rules, they've said they might skip the auction entirely. a real threat. >> guest: so let me try and parse your question. a lot at once. i have to repeat my common phrase, we're going to consider want to get on specifics, but my general thoughts are i do not support caps, aggregation limits, whatever. it comes from a particular reason. i spent, as i talked about, a great deal of time on capitol hill overseeing the fcc, and i've watched them a number of times trying to manipulate the marketplace, the auctions for a particular purpose. you either believe auctions are a way to make sure that the license gets the most efficient use possible, or you don't. and i actually believe that auctions are a way to do so. so i believe in the auction process. and i don't want to manipulate the process going forward. so i have trouble in that part of the equation. r or

presentation, you'd have to ask them in terms of their take, and then you asked another -- >> i just, so do you think that the rules jeopardize the auction? >> guest: so i'm going to measure the auction in this way and hopefully provide some viewpoints. one, does the auction, is it fair for everybody, all participants? do broadcasters, do all the different folks that are going to be part of the equation whether it's broadcasters who are participating or broadcasters who decide not to participate continue to serve the market? is it fair for them? two, does it release, does it make available more commercial spectrum for companies to offer services, wireless broadband services to consumers? no fee at will. and three, and it's kind of four, but it's three and a half. so three is are we able to close the auction under the statute? did we meet the statutory obligations that i have to work on? are we able to close the auction and end it? and there are certain

obligations from within. congress has actually outlined a number of different spending targets and functions it would like to have for money for firstnet, next generation 911 and a healthy dose of deficit reduction. i want to see are we going to be able to meet those targets, and that'll be my definition of success. and it plays into how much money we're able to raise in terms of for the american people on behalf of this asset that we're selling, we're going to license out to wireless providers, and that gets you to the question, the first part of your question which is the holding, you know, can you, should you restrict any potential bidder. and i have deep problems doing so because we, in this case, congress has said we'd like you to get to a specific target. >> host: commissioner o'rielly, now that you've been with the fcc for six months on the other side of the fence, do you have any different view of congress and their oversight role? >> guest: no. i miss my friends and my colleagues and my former employers. i wish them well. one thing i've tried to do is

avoid providing them any unsolicited advice. i believe the information should come and the direction should come from congress to the fcc. we are a creature of the congress, so i believe the information should come this way rather than me telling them what to do. so i'm receptive to their ideas. i read all information from members and talk to them as best i can to keep up to speed. >> host: some of the ideas from congress include fcc reform and more of the management of the commission, i guess, is one way to put it. do you agree with those efforts in congress? >> guest: i don't want to endorse any particular item, but i do think there is room to improve the fcc process. chairman wheeler has worked to do so. it's a very aggressive effort in working with diane cornell at the commission, so i think that's been moving forward pretty fruitfully, and that's a good avenue. i know there are a number of pieces of legislation that the congress will consider, and we'll take them as they get passed or not. >> host: would you like to be able to sit down and talk issues with one or two commissioners?

privately without -- >> guest: so i can today speak with one. i can't speak with two. i leave that to the congress and the american, you know, them representing the american people and whether they should. you know, in my time have i been worried over the years that that was a problem? perhaps not. i don't know that it's a problem today, but i leave that to their discretion. >> host: and just to go back to the spectrum, what about the government-controlled spectrum? what should be done with that if there's excess in that? >> guest: no, absolutely. we're going to need both more licensed and unlicensed spectrum going forward for all this demand built-up need for more spectrum going forward. our wireless devices are multiplying in everyone's home. every user has two, three, four purposes they connect. we talk about the internet of things, and that that's going to only expand. and we're going to need more commercial spectrum. one of the places we're going to have to look at really closely and where it's more than likely going to come from is we're going to ask our federal users

to be more efficient and reduce their allocation. they have a pretty healthy dose of spectrum today, some of that is on equipment that can be modernized and condensed. so we're going to need the department of defense, department of transportation, department of justice, department of homeland security who are our biggest users to reduce their allocations, and we'll be able to reallocate that for commercial purposes. >> host: is that something the fcc has authority to do? >> guest: so we work in partnership with our colleagues at the national telecommunications and informs organization which is an agency bureau within the department of commerce. they regulate, they oversee the spectrum handled and used by our federal agencies. so we're a working partner with them. >> host: brendan sasso. >> how do you think chairman wheeler is doing? there have been a few 3-2 votes on the commission. i don't think i'm going out on too much of a limb to say there'll be more 3-2 votes with the spectrum auction and net neutrality. do you think he's been too partisan?

do you feel included in what the commission is doing? >> guest: well, chairman wheeler and i have a very good relationship. he and i spent a good deal of time getting to know each other as people to figure out how to work together. there'll be times when we disagree, and when we disagree, we'll disagree, you know, respectfully and then move on to the next issue. in terms of 3-2 votes, that happens. i don't necessarily know that, you know, 90% ofw& our work, 95% of our work depending on the day you measure is going to go through with a 5-0 vote. so there'll be instances where we don't agree, and those, you know, will we'll have our partir disagreements and move forward. i'm not sure necessarily based on partisanship, maybe just different viewpoints on how we approach an issue. there's some times i would have liked some things to change and they weren't able to make 'em, the chairman had different viewpoints, and so we disagreed. but that's okay. we'll move forward and see who's right in the end. >> host: where do we stand when it comes to media ownership rules, regulations?

>> guest: so that's one of the issues where we had disagreement. we are in a process right now where we're going to ignore the statute. we are missing a deadline that the congress asked us to do. we're missing that statutory deadline, and we're going to review this based on the chairman's promise. we're going to have another item at some point in 2016, mid 2016. so i'm disappointed in that. i don't believe it's we don't have the right to ignore statutory deadlines. and so that's very disappointing from my viewpoint. in addition to that, we also found a mechanism when congress asked us to review the media ownership issues holistically, we've taken an opportunity to ignore that part of the equation and just focus on one piece of the issue on what are joint sales agreements and focus on that and tightening up those limitations without doing the bigger ticket issue that we were asked to do. so i have problems with that and voted accordingly. >> host: should there be then, that leads into retransmission fees, should there be a look at

retransmission costs? >> guest: so there's only so much authority under the current statute that the fcc has in this space. we did take a little bit of action in terms of what authority we have. you know, the question of how you define good faith negotiations. but congress has limited exactly what we can do in this space, and that's something that i know that they will debate going forward and whether they should change the statute or not, and that i leave in their capable hands. >> host: you're watching "the communicators" on c-span. michael o'rielly, one of the five commissioners, a republican. november 4, 2013, is the date he was sworn in. brendan sasso is with "the national journal." >> you brought up ntia and their role in managing spectrum. another issue they're involved in right now is giving up current u.s. oversight of icann, this nonprofit that manages the internet address system. what do you think of that? do you think that's a smart move? >> guest: i've been really critical of this decision, and it's not was the good people at ntia are doing this in a malicious way, it's just i'm

worried where it's going to go in the long term. i've been, you know, i've talked about this extensively, and the problem is it's a component of the current relationship that we have, the oversight of icann and particularly the functions for the domain name system. from the domain name system you can control, you can regulate content, you can prevent people from accessing the internet. so there are ways to use that process in a bad way. and the question has been today what mechanism should we go from the current system which i think is working very well and i wonder why we would change from that, to some other mechanism. i like multistakeholder, community, you know, relationships in the internet. i think they're very helpful. the worry i have here is you can have the multistakeholder community and then have governments or intergovernmental organizations have a way to try and control that process. and we've seen that already. so my worries are not based on

my, you know, on beliefs, they're based on actual practices. so we've seen countries such as russia, china, iran, turkey all try to influence the itu to be more involved and individually try to be more involved. and those are all countries that have tried to limit their internet experiences for their citizens and, therefore, by way of american consumers. so i have a big problem with the direction that the ntia is going. because at the end of the day even if it's a successful transition to a structure that we can live with in the short term, we don't know what the long-term ramifications are. because you can always have a short-term, multistakeholder community structure that then is taken over over time, and that's very problematic. if we are going to go down this road, i'm not sure why we would or should, but if we are, i want crystal clear, airtight guarantees this can't be influenced going forward by governments or intergothal organizations -- intergovernmental organizations. i'm not sure how you would do

that. i have my doubts. that's what would be necessary for me to move forward on this issue. >> you're mentioning you support the multistakeholder model of internet governance. congress endorsed that model. why is this different? there should be an exception on this issue for the u.s. role? >> guest: it's not the exception. you can still have multistakeholder community. i think they're a very positive influence, and i just think congress has recognized it as well. i support those scenarios. where i have difficulty is how can governments and intergovernmental organizations influence this part of the equation relating to the domain name system because it has an impact on what you can actually see and what you're going to have in your internet experience going forward. >> host: besides icann and the issues surrounding that, so many telecommunications issues are international. europe has a different model than the u.s. is this something we should be concerned about, or are we moving towards a more global type regulation? >> guest: i don't know if it's something we should be concerned as much as we should keep our

eyes on it, be very aware of. i'm not sure -- there have been a number of existing intergovernmental organizations that deal with telecommunications, the itu, international telecommunications union, has been one that's existed for a number of years. and that will continue to exist. so i don't worry we're moving towards losing autonomy in our system. i think the fcc is a very effective regulator, i think it's something congress continues to oversee and fine fine as necessary, but -- fine tune as necessary, but i don't see us melding into one unified internationally. >> host: michael o'rielly, republican commissioner on the federal communications commission, first time on "the communicators." thank you. brendan sasso of "the national journal," thank you. >> thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

>> i wrote something one time k and it stated that in the south he was looked at as a hero. and when you have anytime a crisis, your people are always looking for someone that they can look up to. you had a person here who escaped a blockade. he devastated union commerce. people in the free world or the other parts of the world, if you will, europe and stuff, you have to understand commerce be back then was ships. no planes. stuff like this. seas, he captured the imagination of people in england, france, everywhere. and people were constantly writing about him. but, now, if you were from up north, you hated him. and just like anybody, you're going to label himyou hate