>> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, televisions -- television for serious readers. 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. ..

you were with a group of your peersm various parts of telecommunications. you were asked about what you uájtk priority for this city in telecommunications. your response was spectrum, spectrum, spectrum. and talked about the three really institutions that have responsibility for that, the ntia, the fcc and congress. i'm going to ask you for our audience very briefly to give a report card on how you think those three institutions are doing and why it's so important. >> guest: so thanks for the question. let me answer those in the reverse way. the reason it's so important is that spectrum is just a fundamental input for all of this investment and innovation that's going on in the industry. as we all know from our personal lives, we're all carrying at this point probably multiple wireless devices. it's what we use for our work, for our play. and those devices require spectrum. they require spectrum, more and more of the airwaves to connect

up and to communicate. so it's necessary that we find ways to make more and more spectrum available to continue this investment and innovation. as far as how we're doing in the different institutions, i think that all three of these government entities that you mentioned are doing a good job within the constraints within which they operate. we do have some structural issues in the way that spectrum is managed in this country. there is no single government agency that has responsibility for managing the spectrum resources of the country, and so that makes it a little bit difficult. , this tia does a great -- ntia does a great job to try and clear up spectrum, but they don't have the authority to really take an overall, holistic view, and that does make their job more difficult. i think the, the cc, likewise, is doing a good job within the constraints that they operate. we are now for the first time looking at over the next year

and a half or so two out of three recent auctions of spectrum after about a five-year hiatus with no spectrum, so that's encouraging. but we need to continue to look out five to ten years and say where is the spectrum going to continue to come from for the continued growth of the industry. >> host: so on the house side chairman walden has listed modernizing spectrum policy along with modernizing the telecommunications act as priorities. but you said again at this panel session that we as a country have no strategy for our spectrum management. i guess how do we get there, how does the strategic vision evolve, and my second question for this is does any country do it better than we do? >> guest: i think on your first question i commend congressman walden more all that he is doing right now to push this forward as well as many others on the hill k ask it really does need to start there. it these to start with congress.

i think in many areas of our communications policy today what we are seeing in many, many debates, issues, sometimes fights within the industry are really symptoms of a larger issue which is that we are operating under an outdated communications statutory framework that may have been successful for the things it was trying to achieve 18 years ago or, some cases, going back 80 years ago. but it's really not well suited for the challenges we face today, and spectrum is one of those. i think as far as a strategy, if you really were going to stand back and look at this as a policy matter, right? and i differentiate that a little bit from politics. the two have to cocoexist, obviously. policy is how the world should be and politics is how the world is, and you have to take both in into the. but from a policy perspective the way this should work is congress should appoint an agency that has the authority to manage the spectrum resources of the country and look at the highest and best uses of those

resources so that we can continue to serve all the important functions; national security functions, but also driving the spectrum needs of the industry for the continuing innovation and investment. >> host: how about the second question? is there a country that does a better job of having a strategy for their spectrum? >> guest: so far, no. i have to commend u.s. policymakers on that. you look particularly at europe right now where the market is very fragmented, they're having trouble getting 4g rolled out partly because you don't have a europe-wide approach to spectrum allocation. so so far i think the nationwide approach, the fairly farsighted approach that policymakers have had in the u.s. has been amongst the best in the world. but we're not all the way home. we still have continued needs, and so we still have room to improve. >> host: before i turn it over to paul, let me go to that other big bucket which is revisiting or rewriting the telecom law which, as you said, has guided the country for 75 years plus. with the speed of change in this

business, how would you counsel if you ever had the opportunity the lawmakers and policymakers to even start thinking about a rewrite of this? how can it be anyway platform specific with platforms changing as rapidly as they can, and what should guide it? >> guest: that's a great question. it should not be platform specific. i think we, first, we absolutely need to modernize the communications laws. as i noted, many of the debates we're having whether it's the open internet order, some of the things going on in spectrum, a lot that's going on in video really are symptoms of the fact that policymakers are trying to apply these outdated regulations that weren't written for today's technologies and markets in mind to modern issues. and so it's time to update those. the way you avoid the law being outdated the minute the ink is dry is insure that you don't start with technology platforms, but rather, you start with the consumer. you start and say how do you

build this around competition and consumer protection in a way that is flexible and can change as the technology changes? the technology cycles in the environment in which we operate today are so rapid that it's not a criticism of congress to say that they couldn't foresee what the technology will be five, ten years out. no one could. so what you need to do is not try and draft a statute that's based on some sort of prescient idea of what the technology will be, but rather look at some general principles that you build around; consumer protection, competition law, lick safety. and -- public safety. and build enough flexibility and discretion into the system that allows policymakers to apply that as markets and technologies change. >> host: all right. let me turn it over to kirby. >> several folks said that a bifurcated approach where ntia is responsible for federal spectrum and the fcc for private and state and local, that doesn't make sense. would verizon support getting

rid of the bifurcated or at least having the fcc responsible for federal spectrum which could make it easier to repurpose spectrum that's not being used? >> guest: you know, i don't want to get into sort of what agencies are right for what specific purposes. i think that gets into a much larger question. i think the real key, again, in the same ways i don't think you should build the statute around specific technologies. i don't think you should also go it and say, well, let's figure out the right agency first and then back into the task. i think the right way is to say what's the right overall spectrum policy or larger communications policy and then figure out where the right skill sets are to manage those. so it would certainly favor some sort of agency having the power -- and fcc may very well be the right one -- to manage those assets overall. >> so drilling down a little, in may the fcc adopted a spectrum

holdings order and an incentive auctions order. the spectrums holding would impart limits on carriers that have more and low arer band spectrum. and verizon and at&t opposed these rules beforehand. since the order was adopted, at&t said they'll go ahead and bid for 20-40 megahertz probably in the auction. verizon praised some other parts of the order but did not specifically mention the bidding limbs. i'm curious if you can give us a sense with verizon, does verizon still plan on participating in the incentive auction? >> guest: i would say, first of all, you're right, we did praise parts of the order. there was a lot, there was a lot this there, a lot packed into the order. we thought the plan for the aws3 auction which will take place starting in november was very good. we commended the fcc on updating the spectrum stream which we thought was long overdue. i think this had become,

actually, a matter of institutional integrity for the fcc, you had an ostensibly objective rule, but they hadn't updated the spectrum that was actually in use, and having brought that up to market realities is a very positive thing. as you note and as we have said repeatedly, we have concerns about putting in these restrictions in auctions. we think the incentive auction is an incredibly complex auction as it is. to begin to micromanage it on who gets what, we think, is one bad precedent as a policy matter but also puts risk in the auction. premature to say what we will do. we're certainly going to explore the opportunities in both of the auctions, and then we'll make a decision when the time comes. >> the incentive auction that the fcc adopted, they said they're going to do some things to try and attract broadcasters to the auction. there's nothing for verizon and others to bid on. do you think the fcc has done enough so far or should they do her to try to attract

broadcasters to give up spectrumsome. >> guest: the fcc is clearly working very hard. they're doing an awful lot of outreach. whether they're successful, i would have to defer to the broadcasters in terms of what their thinking is and what impact it's having, but clearly the fcc is focused on that, and chairman wheeler himself is spend a lot of time personally focused on reaching out to the broadcasters to show them the benefits of this. >> now, the order that they adopted the may meeting and that got the most publicity was the internet. >> guest: right. >> and the fcc's proposing to readopt their anti-blocking rule that verizon had successfully challenged in federal court but with a different interpretation, and that would allow for individualized bargaining above a minimum level of access. would this change be acceptable to verizon? and if not, do you think it would be worth verizon or others charging it? >> guest: when you say "this change," you're referring to --

>> the individualized -- >> guest: -- the individualized bargaining that the fcr's laid out -- fcc's laid out in the nprm. we're going to have to see what comes out. we're at the beginning of the process, and there is a lot of comment period between here and now, so we'll have to see what the final rule is. obviously, i can't prejudge what that ultimate and final rule will be. i think the important thing here is to look at what this overall process is and isn't about. you know, this open internet order and the whole issue of open internet order has been so complex for so long, and partly because it's always been a little bit of an empty vessel into which people pour lots of ideas and ideologies, only some of which are actually related to the open internet order itself. so one thing i think that should be clear is what this is not about is whether or not consumers have access to an open internet. they have and they will regardless of what the ultimate

rule says. and they will for a is simple reason. isps like verizon is in our own self-interest to provide an open internet to our customers. that's what we do, those are the services we provide, and that's always been the case. that was the case before any open internet rules were this place, it was true during it, and it's been true since then. i'd also say what it's not about is some sort of fast lane. the way the internet works today, the fact is content does get delivered to consumers at different speeds. there's an entire part of the ecosystem, the content distribution networks whose entire business model is dedicated to getting certain companies' content to customers faster than others. if you go to google from are your computer, the content from google or youtube's going to load probably ten times faster than a small business somewhere in mountainview nearby to google simply payoff the content distribution -- because of the content distribution networks,

the networks built out by google and others. so this concept of fast lanes i find a little bewildering. it's something that someone came out with right away, and people have constantly then just repeated this mantra. in fact, you have to ask yourself why in all the time the internet has existed has no isp come up with a business model to provide these fast lane over the last mile? i would suggest to you that the answer is that the market has already been filled by content distribution networks. there's no real demand there that's pushing people in that direction. not clear to me why suddenly people fear that for the first time now this'll be a new development that in some way would hurt consumers. so i think what this order and what this process really is about and the question really on the table is what type of regulation do we want to apply to the internet ecosystem. and i think it comes down to a simple question; do you like the internet as it exists today?

do you value the innovation and the investment that's driven? and if so, i think what you should be in favor of is continuing the bipartisan, light touch regulation that started back in the clinton administration. and as i read it, what chairman wheeler and the rest of the fcc are laying out in the nprm, is exactly that sort of light touch regulation. we've all felt that new rules are needed because we think the market already takes care of it, but we think that light touch regulatory approach is the right way to go. the alternative that's being suggested is to reclassify broadband internet as a title ii telecom service. that would actually constitute a significant change to the way this is worked. for the first time, applying 80-year-old legacy, rotary-era telephone era regulation onto this incredibly rapidly-moving ecosystem. that is an untried, risky, radical regulatory experiment. we don't know how that would

turn out. >> host: i want to do a couple of things for our nonpolicy audience. nprm is a notice of proposed rulemaking, the first stop that says we're about to pay attention to this issue. >> guest: right. >> host: and then also, once this happens, when an nprm comes out, is there always a pole adopted? >> well, no. in this we would expect something. you can have proceedings where the fcc will propose rules and then at some point say, you know what? we're not going to do anything. but most of the time, yes. there's a comment proceeding that will come after an nprm. the fcc will accept comments, they'll look at the record. folks can go in and meet with them, and then they'll come out at some point with an order. sometimes you'll have a proceeding that's particularly hard, and instead of doing an order after that, they'll do what's called a further notice, and they'll ask more questions saying here's some things brought up in the original round of comments s and we want to ask some more. so not always, but we would expect some rules from this.

>> host: and whenever we get into internet policy and net neutrality, there's always reference to title ii. for our audience that doesn't follow this, that means the threat of applying common carrier status to the internet. would you very briefly explain to people what the implications would be? what does common carrier status mean? >> guest: sure. and it's a great question, and to some degree i think we're all still trying to grapple with what those full implications would be. we think they would be dire. common carrier regulation brings with it all sorts of prescriptive regulations, pricing regulations, service quality regulations, resale requirements and obligations on downstream resellers. and so if you were to reclassify broadband internet as a title ii common carrier telecommunications service, we believe that it would have implications all the way through the internet ecosystem because you would begin to look at the fcc and state regulators beginning to get involved in all sorts of very micromanaged decisions on how services are

offered, how they're priced, how they're resold and not just by the internet service providers themselves, but by those who are reselling those capacities. and that takes into account all sorts of aspects of the ecosystem. others who have built out networks like google and netflix and and microsoft and others, but also filtering down into other parts of the ecosystem. again, it hasn't been done. you've had really on a bipartisan basis fcc chairmen who have agreed that was not the right way to go. and we think the implications certainly would almost immediately depress investment in the industry. but also likely would change the way that companies all through the ecosystem interact with their customers. >> host: we have about 12 minutes left. >> okay. so on the mobile broadband side, the nprm adopted by the fcc, it opens up a discussion on whether to modify or strengthen the rules for wireless data services. the original rules treated

wireless differently because it's a different technology. >> guest: right. >> so in the original rules it was less stringent. the 2010 order said that mobile broadband providers could not block web sites and applications that compete with the providers' own voice and video services, suggesting the possibility that mobile broadband providers should not be allowed to block web sites and apps that compete with the provider's own services, not just telephoneny. -- telephony. is there a big difference with what they're proposing? >> guest: first, i would say to the kind of premise of your question, first, wireless is different. as i said, we think that rules are not necessary for even wireline broadband, and if rules were to be adopted, we think it's important to continue with this light touch regulatory regime that's been bipartisan for many years now and has driven all this investment. even if there were to be rules for the wireline side, we absolutely believe you need to

look at wireless differently. as you note, wireless does have unique characterrist iings -- characteristics. you have different scarcity in terms of the spectrum capabilities there on the wireless networks. you have unique network management issues, and you need the flexibility to continue to actively manage those network capacities in order to serve your customer as well. and so without regard to what happens on the wirelines, it's absolutely essential that we continue to recognize the unique aspects of the wireless market, wireless technologies and the wireless spectrum constraint issues. >> so what's being proposed in the nprm for wireless, is that problematic? >> guest: i don't want to get too far into that because we're going to be filing our comments soon on that in a detailed level, and so we're going to be commenting on that specifically. i think one of the things that the nprm has posed the question is whether wireless should continue to be treated in a different way, and we think

absolutely that is the case. >> do you think it's likely that whatever the fcc adopts, it will be back in court because of someone? >> guest: i think it depends. it depends on what the fc. >> c does. if the fcc were to reclassify broadband as a title ii telecommunications service, i think it is inevitable that that will end up in court. but i don't know that it will necessarily regardless of what the fcr does here -- fcc does here. i think this is an issue that has generated a lot more heat and light over the number of years it's been debated. i think there are a number of people in the industry who are ready to move on on this issue, feel like there are far more important policy issues in washington that we should we should be talking about, and the question is can the fcc chart a path here that continues to encourage this investment and innovation in the ecosystem that everyone can say this works well enough, we can move on to other things. i think with a care

try-crafted -- care any-crafted final rule, that's a possibility. >> now, another big proceed anything the fcc involves the transitions to all-ip networks. and the fcc is going to be looking at doing -- companies will be doing trials to try to see, okay, in an all-ip world what do we have to look for, and the chairman has talked about his network compact and making sure that things that protect the public don't go away just because things might be all ip. what would the fcc, excuse me be, what would verizon like to see this these trials and give us a sense of how you'd like this reeding to yo. >> guest: sure. and i think, paul, you stated this very reicely which was great because what you often hear people talking about are general technology transitions, and there are a lot going on. there is the tdm to ip transition that's taking place. we see all around us people cutting the the cord and going from wireline to wireless. about 40% of the population uses only wireless for their home

phone. and then you see a transition from copper to fiber that is going on and, in fact, is well underway. and these things often get conflated. so i think one of the things we want to make sure happens as part of these trials is that the fcc does not actually impede or slow down even the technology transitions that are going on that are driven by consumers. as i noted, consumers are voting with their feet in their transition to wireless. we see transition going on to fiber. we're doing quite a lot of transition of copper line to fiber lines. that's not a transition from tdm to ip, these are customers who are actually keeping the same services just over a different physical infrastructure that's far more reliable. we've just come through one of the toughest winters in a long time here up and down the eastern seaboard, and and our fiber networks really showed how resilient they are, how much less repair they take when subjected to that kind of stress of weather. and so that's a great thing.

it's a very positive thing for consumers. so we think the fcc's asking some important questions in terms of the types of values that we have as we move forward with our customers. but we also want to make sure that we don't get into a situation where technology transfer transitions that are well underway such as customers choosing wireless or transitions from copper to fiber which are an improvement for customers don't get slowed down or impeded by a series of prescriptive rules or even questions that need to be answered when, ultimately, this is an improvement for the customers. >> but that -- i'm sorry. but that's an issue customers choosing. there are concerns where the customers don't choose to go to wireless, and after hurricane sandy there were concerns that some customers were being forced to wireless when the wireline infrastructure was destroyed, and wireless is not the same. so you have propagation, other issues, liability issues that you do not have necessarily with

wireline. >> guest: right. and i think you're referring specifically to the situation of fire island, new york, which is a unique situation. fire island is an area that that has predominantly a summer population. the population surges during the summer months. you know, this was an example, to me, of the advantages of a robust and diverse technology ecosystem. we had a situation where we simply could not rebuild a wireline infrastructure between the time that sandy hit and memorial day. when the population was set to surge. we put in lace a wireless solution -- in place a wireless solution that gave people very good functionality, always with the intent of improving that. we got feedback, talks to customers over the course of the summer and at the end of the summer made the determination we were actually going to rebuild with fiber instead. this is an example where wireless provided a great short-term solution for customers. over the longer term, we determined that fiber was the right solution.

and so that was a unique situation. in general, what we are doing and what the trials are -- the trials are looking at issues, for example, are there areas that they go to wireless. in our situations what we're looking at right now is predominantly a copper to fiber migration. which doesn't present those same situations. customers are getting the same services at the same price points just over a different fiber infrastructure. >> another issue that consumers will care about is the theft of smartphones. and it's a big issue. law enforcement has been very concerned with it, and they say, for instance, in washington and other cities a large number of the crimes occur when people steal smartphones. so in april the wireless industry announced what they call voluntary commitment, and starting next year they will include in devices apps and other things that will allow to try to secure their cell phones. and they've gotten -- you've been praised by some legislators, some regulators and others. however, some folks aren't that happy. the attorney general of new york and the da in san francisco have

been very active on the kill switch issue that would allow you to turn your cell phone if it's stolen, turn it off remotely, say that you should do more. you shouldn't have to wait until next year, and this kill switch should come as a default, and people shouldn't have to do anything to make it occur. i guess i wanted to get your reaction to that criticism. >> guest: as you note, ctia is a trade association has really come together and, i think, shown great leadership on this issue. it's an issue that all of the companies take very, very seriously. anytime crime is involved, it's something that we're all concerned about and want to make sure we're doing what we can to help prevent that. ctia did come together, as you note, and this is -- and showed leadership in coming up with a voluntary code here. this has to have all parts of the ecosystem involved. this isn't something that carriers can do unilaterally. we need the handset manufacturers, you need all parts of the ecosystem involves in this. involved in this. you also need to look at the

overall customer experience, because we absolutely want to look at technology that works to, that might discourage cell phone theft. you at the same time don't want to have a situation where4:r customers, say, drop their phone behind the sofa, think it's stolen, have it turned into a brick and call back in and realize they can't have it turned back on. or that it's accidentally done or it's hacked into. one could see teenage pranks of seem turning off each other's phones. so you want to make sure you've really thought through all of the technology aspects of how this solution will work and, again, i think ctia is to be commended in really taking a holistic and thoughtful approach in how we address this consumer need overall. >> but the industry has opposed legislation at the state level for kill switches. >> guest: yes. simply because what we don't want is a patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. we think this voluntary commitment is going to address the issue.

we think we should give it time for it to work, and let's take a look at that. we think it's premature and counterproductive to have individual states all across the country passing separate legislation. >> host: so we have about a minute and a half left, and we have so many big issues we haven't gotten to including many of in the area of security. last week congress passed the usa freedom act, book collection of data. has verizon taken a position on this specific law, and where do you think the policy should be going? >> guest: yes, we did. we came out in support of the usa freedom act. we applauded it because it brings an end to bulk collection, really focuses on privacy of customers and, we think, strikes that right balance. we've been very supportive of that, and we'll continue to be supportive as it now moves on to the senate side to see if we can get a final law passed. >> host: well, thank you. hope you'll come back. as you said, it affects all of us in the country, and each one

of them is very complex. paul kirby, thank you for your questions this week, and thank you for your time. >> guest: thanks very much. >> c-span's new book, "sundays at eight," includes financial journalist michael lewis. >> we are living through a really dramatic period, and it is not over. we're sort of at the beginning rather than the end. and there are real structural problems. yes, that we're going to be living -- i mean, i'm not an economic forecaster, but everything i read suggests we're going to be living with unusually-high levels of unemployment, a lot of pain from are overindebtedness. i mean, the a quarter of the country's on food stamps, i saw it on tv. it's not a great depression. we're not reprising exactly what happened in the '30s, but it's a version of that. >> read her of our conversation with michael lewis and other featured interviews from our