tweet us at booktv, posted to her facebook page or send us an e-mail, booktv@c-span.org. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with the top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. .. who have been working on telecommunications issues.

joining us first is representative bob latta, republic of ohio. i want to start with what the house did just very recently, and that was reauthorizing the satellite television extension and localism act. what is that, first of all? >> guest: every five years that has to be reauthorized. what that is is, again, what it is, it's for satellite. folks out there who get their tv from satellite, we had to get this thing done by the end of year. if we didn't, we have about 1.5 million americans who would not be receiving television anymore. it was very important, that was the overall part of what the act was for, we wanted to get it done, but there were certain titles in the legislation that dealt with integration band that the fcc had imposed several years back which said that they had to, if a cable company had a settop box, they had to have -- they couldn't have overing in there -- everything in there,

they had to have a cable card in there which added to the cost. probably about a billion dollars being passed on to consumers. we said, you know, we shouldn't have that anymore, and so that was included in there. also when we had another of our hearings and one of our other secretaries, the secretary of energy was in talking about set-top poxes and how much energy they -- boxes and how much energy they use that adds to your bill. overall, we got this piece of legislation. a lot of times people think it's going to be contentious. we started over a year and a half ago. chairman wall said we had 24 months to get the reauthorization done, and it got to the point that we had it on the floor this week: we were able to yet that bill passed out what we call on a voice vote. and so it went over to the senate now and, hopefully, the senate will act on it very soon. >> host: well, first of all, what was the reason to have

cable cards in the first place? to have this all separate? >> guest: well, what they wanted to do, the fkc, again -- fcc, again, this is not congress, the fcc decided they wanted to have competition. if you were receiving cable, they said you ought to be able to go to your local store and buy one of these boxes. and then to make sure it was fair, you'd get a card from that cable operator that you would insert in there or they'd insert in there for you, and you could receive the signal through the cable. what the problem was, people doesn't go out and buy these boxes. so probably about 650 or so thousand had been purchased, but there's over about 43 million out there right now. so if this turned out that what they thought was going to happen didn't happen, and so what we want to do is say that didn't work, let's go back the way, you know, congress did not intend that to happen, so we will have, again, it cost a million dollars out there, and you're using a lot more energy, so those, you know, hope through the senate

will take that up as part of their legislation, and we'll have that out of the way then. >> host: well, it still is considered must-pass legislation, but what if congress didn't pass it? what would happen? >> guest: well, again, on december 31st at midnight i'd be getting a lot of phone calls. a few years ago when we went from analog to digital on television even though there was all this stuff going on across the country about what was going to happen, i warn ored my office -- warned my office, the staff back in ohio, be prepared. the next day people were going to say, hey, my tv's not working, or i'm getting a terrible signal. again, people were turning that tv on in the morning and it's not work, they're calling to find out what's happened. in this case we would have 1.5 million subscribers that would not be receiving a signal that next day. >> host: now, i read in one article that it's now the satellite television access and

retorization act -- reauthorization act. [laughter] >> guest: it has to be done every five years, so, you know, we've got our work done here in the house. i think we now have about 325 pieces of legislation in the senate. they need to take it up quickly and act on it. >> host: one other provision in there that's retransmission. did you support that? >> guest: well, there was several other titles that were included, this is really to even thicks up between -- things up between, with cable and for the regular television set, stations out there. it was really putting everybody on the same footing out there. and so, again, as the bill went through, we had quite a few discussion on some hearings and, again, i think the if you see a piece of legislation that could have been very, very controversial in the very beginning, that we were able to take it up on what they call

suspension and to not only have that, but to have voice vote at the same time. >> host: will that have influence in the senate? >> guest: i think it should because, again, if the senate are looking at something they might think is controversial, the house -- again, through its due diligence, and i commend the chairmen -- they worked through the legislation, they wanted to make sure it got to where it was. this was a republican and democrat sitting down together to work this legislation out, and we got it. so, again, you know, it's not very up where you have something this large that you can say it was on a suspension calendar, and that means when it's up, you've got to get a certain amount of votes. you can't just pass it by a simple majority, you've got to pass it with a super majority. and in this case, it passed on a voice. >> host: congressman latta, something else you've introduced deals with title ii and net neutrality and broadband. what is that bill?

>> guest: the situation, again, we seem to be talking about the fcc a lot. and the fcc, when we're talking about net neutrality, first of all, i believe in an open internet, a free internet without government intervention. when you look where the internet has come and where it's going in the future, this is all being done on the sector. it's noting with done because of -- not being done because of what the federal government has done. when you look at this, they're trying to come in and say this is an information service, it's been an information service from when you go back to the previous chairmen of the fcc, going back almost two decades, and all of a sudden they're saying, no, they want title ii to make it more like a telecommunications using a law from about 1935. and what we'll see happen then is that the inundation out there that's spurred about a trillion dollars of private investment is all of a sudden going to be tied up like it would be with, you

know, a telephone company. we don't want that because once you start that up, then all of a sudden innovation's going to slow up, the dollars being put in it, you know, tens of thousands of jobs will be created. we want to make sure that it remains free, that it remains open and it stays away from government control. >> host: like you said, we've been talking a lot about the fcc. what do you think of chairman wheeler's tenure so far? is. >> guest: we have an informal working group that i'm one of the co-chairs, and we have a democrat that is also one of the co-chairs. we had a meeting with a working group, so we sat down with the chairman, i think it was six or eight of us, just around the table. but, you know, i think we look at some of the things where the chairman wants to go, i think some of us on the republican side want to don't want to see the fcc going. we want to see less regulation.

everybody needs the regulation that you can live with, but at the same time we don't want this over-government control coming down on our telecommunications, our internet and those spheres out there. i think time's going to tell. we just had a hearing this morning, and chairman walden also at that time voiced his concern as to where the fcc was going. >> host: fcc has been working on the e-rate. do you support furthering funding to e-rate? >> guest: well, again, when you look at something there again, you know, where are they going with it? how much are you going to spend? again, we want to make sure that anything that's being done especially like the legislation that i have out there that says, you know, when you're talking about, again, like on the net neutrality that i was talking about, we want less out there, not more. >> host: are telecommunications

issues often a rural/urban divide? northwest ohio where you represent has a lot of rural areas. >> guest: that's a good question because, again, one of the bills that came up in subcommittee today is it's how things are spread out. all of a sudden if you start taking a peg out over here, does that break the chain of helping more folks in rural communities? sometimes you look at it it's rural/urban, but at the same time like one of the pieces of legislation today we also deal with communications that are out there in areas that you might, and certain minorities. and some of the communities that have more language channels to be affected by the spectrum. of it's one of those things we want to make sure there's as much spectrum out there we can possibly get, and that's another bill i have out there that deals with the five gigahertz areas. we want to make sure there's

testing we can get because if we don't have that extra spectrum, right now it's calculated we're going to have about seven mobile devices or some type of device per individual in the united states by 2017 or 1.4 across the globe. and that is absolutely ip cred el when -- incredible when you think about that and how much spectrum we're going to have. >> host: and that deals with the unlicensed spectrum and spectrum sharing, correct? >> guest: especially that legislation looking at that upper part of the five gigahertz side. >> host: congressman bob latta, thanks for your time. >> guest: thank you very much. >> host: well, joining us now on "the communicators" is someone we don't normally talk to. this is congressman brian dickenson, democrat from new york. -- congressman higgins from new york. you've sponsored the sports blackout rule, first of all, what is that rule? >> guest: the rule allows the nfl to not broadcast in the

local area football games that are not sold out. and the fcc late last year started to end government support for the blackout rule that's been in effect since 1975. the reason for that is the economics of the nfl. keep in mind about 70% stadium construction for the nfl is financed by taxpayers, not by nfl owners. the whole game-watching experience has changed with advances in audio and visual technology, and, you know, stadiums like buffalo which is the second smallest team, second smallest market in the league have -- [inaudible] in their stadium of 73,000. things like luxury seating, things like advertising in

accordance with the bargaining agreement in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the league and the teams are revenues retained exclusively by the team. so we just believe the blackout rule is obsolete, it doesn't serve the purpose anymore. you know, given the merchandising, why would a team not want their team exposed, their product, their brand exposed to tens of thousands of people? so we think the blackout rule is obsolete. the fcc will vote finally at the end of this year. >> so the nfl has final say on whether or not this happens? >> guest: they do. the fcc movement would remove government support for it. senator blumenthal and i have introduced legislation in both the house and senate, the fans

act, which would remove the nfl's antitrust exemption for blackout toes. so we think we have some leverage. but i think the economics of this will drive the issue, and the nfl will come to realize it's in their economic best interests to do away with the blackout rule a altogether. since 2009 over a hundred games have been blacked out in the nfl and, again, these are teams -- communities that support their teams not only through their emotional commitment, their financial commitment, but also through their fax payer -- taxpayer dollars as well in stadium reconstruction to make these venn venues that much more profitable for the nfl teams. so at very least, they should do away with the blackout rule altogether. >> host: so how did this blackout rule come to be anywaying? >> guest: well, it made sense at a time where -- keep in mind, this was 1975, and the home game viewing experience was very,

very different. today, as i said, with audio and visual technology, surround sound, you know, the game, the home game watching experience has been increased tremendously. and also, you know, at a time, 1975, there was very little stadium advertising going on. now you see, you know, stadiums are replete with advertising which diminishes the potential economic benefits to the team and the league in trying to market advertising. merchandising, you know? when i was a kid, you got a banner which was maybe 75 cents. today fans, by and large, are wearing authentic jerseys in the stadium. that's a direct result of the reach and frequency that comes with more access to the brands. so we think that the nfl will catch up with this issue and do the right thing and remove the blackout rule altogether. >> host: now, do individual teams support the blackout rule such as the buffalo bills?

>> guest: well, typically, the league acts as a league, you know? it's a rarefied group of people, and i don't think they want to be encouraged to do anything other than what they want to do. but i think my responsibility is to continue to advance compelling economic data which shows the blackout rule is obsolete and, you know, they're protecting something that really is against their self-interest economically. and i think all the data bears that out. so i think that -- it's not a question of if, i think it's a question of when, and i think the league will come along and support this, and i think that's why the fcc action has already voted and they will take action at the end of this year. >> host: take us back to buffalo. how does this affect buffalo? >> guest: well, you know, you have a team that's the second smallest market in the league. it has a very, very loyal fanarl s of the performance of the team. ralph olson stadium, it's an

older stadium. they say it has good bones and, therefore, it can be retrofitted time and again. it's currently undergoing about $100 million renovation today, but the stadium capacity is 73,000. so they have to sell out 73,000 seats regardless of the performance of the team in order to be able to watch the game. so in because of low and other smaller -- in buffalo and other smaller market area, we disproportionately get blacked out. so ten of thousands of people are denied access visually from their team. and what we would argue is that actually hurts the team because this is all about reaching frequency. and if you're denied access to the brand, you're less likely to buy the jersey, to see the in-stadium advertising and the kinds of things that really drive the economics of the nfl. we think, again, not a question of if, it's a question of when. >> host: and it's, there's tv revenues there as well, aren't there? >> guest: tv revenues are shared

revenue, that's right. every team gets approximately the same amount. general seat ising is also a shared revenue. so whether you have 73,000 or 67,000, every team gets the same. and that's why, you know, some people say in buffalo it's hard to accept that they may be having financial challenges because they sell out virtually every game -- with exceptions -- despite the performance of the team. well, genre seats general receipts are shared revenue. it's the advertising, the luxury suites that determines, ultimately, viabilityover nfl teams. so we just think this should be a recognition that the small american teams that are storied franchises in the nfl should be given an opportunity to survive. and we believe that the blackout rule will accrue to the economic benefit of the nfl teams in addition to the loyal fan base that each of them has a.

>> host: but now you said that the fcc has voted for it, to end it. the nfl is the one who has to implement it. where does the congress come in? where does your legislation come in? >> guest: the leverage is stripping the league of its antitrust exemption. so, you know, we do have leverage here. and we think that we're act in the best interests of the -- acting in the best interests of the fan base which were mentioned at the outset; finances, a disproportion nately large percentage of stadium improvements throughout the league, 70. not nfl owners. there's other taxpayer sub subsidies as well, working capital for some of these teams that operate in smaller cities. when you really do a cost benefit analysis that's objective, you will find the economics all point to an elimination of the blackout rule. >> host: brian higgins, democrat of new york, thank you. >> guest: thank you very much. >> host: well, next up on "the communicators," we want to introduce you to representative corey gardener, a republican of

colorado and a member of the energy and commerce committee. congressman gardner, we've not had you on "the communicators" before. if you could talk generally about your philosophy when it comes to telecommunications issues. >> guest: well, this is an amazing world that we're in today. i can remember the first bag phone that one of my friends had in high school and how amazed we were at it. we used business bands to communicate, and the very first brick phones. and today talking about the technology we have whether it's an iphone, an iphone 5, whether it's snapchat, you name it. the changes we have seen, the delivery of video into places we never imagined we could have is truly remarkable and incredible. my philosophy is how can we continue to spur innovation, how can we continue to get out of the way of that innovation and make sure that the consumers in this country have access to the innovation that they're, quite frankly, demanding. >> host: what are some of the ways to get out of the way? >> guest: i think some of the ways, we've introduced -- i've

worked with steve scalise on legislation that would sort of deregulate some of the providers to make sure it's not too heavy-handed in one party or the other when it comes to negotiations over what could be carried, what programming could be carried, making sure we're protecting people's ability to get paid for what they are doing, but also making sure we don't have regulations that are stifling innovation and the delivery of that media. >> host: well, you've introduced a bill called the next generation tv marketplace act. >> guest: right. >> host: what is that? >> guest: it tries to address concerns over must carry carriage rules, other retransmission concept, basically, giving people a level footing when it comes to negotiating with broadcast and being able to negotiate with the providers and the people who are trying to deliver that media to the consumer. so it puts people on a level playing field when it comes to those kinds of negotiations. >> host: do the broadcasters have a lot of oomph in this

town? >> >> guest: absolutely, they do. look, it's changing dramatically. the broadcasters are certainly a critical voice in california and in -- in colorado and in washington, d.c., but as we've seen cell phones be able to, you know, east watch netflix from your cell phone, your iphone, you name it, and now you can do the same thing on t, but all of them falling under divot rules. the consumer, i don't think, realizes that the rule that govern their television when they're watching "kung fu panda" ii are different than when they watch through netflix. it's an amazing system where you can watch the exact same program but have it completely separate under the law. >> host: so specifically, what does the marketplace -- >> guest: again, what it does, it details how rewill address -- we will address retransmission consent and makes sure we have the opportunity to level the playing field between broadcasters and satellite companies as they deliver that content to the vow viewers.

still make sure the broadcasters are getting paid for their work and their material, but it doesn't give them the great advantage they have now which often results in blackouts. >> host: what'd you think of the recent aereo decision? >> guest: it's fascinating, i usually carry a little air owe owe -- aereo antenna with me. i think it's a sign of things to come as technology and innovation moves forward, that there will be more conflicts and decisions that have to be made by supreme court because of a communications act that hasn't been updated for decades. >> host: do you see technology taking over how we watch tv when it comes to cable, when it comes to satellites? do you see those companies as kind of old, old cool? >> guest: i think in many ways technologying's already done that. a smart tv that you can watch hbo go on your television in the same cable or dish that's coming

into your tv, but now you're getting internet, and you're watching internet through the smart tv, and you're watching hbo go on demand. so i think it has fundamentally changed how we watch, how we react, and you're starting to see this with shows on netflix and amazon which show that you can deliver the same kinds of things that were available only 30 years ago on a television, but now you can get it online through your iphone be, your cell phone. so technology is changing how we watch and when we watch. >> host: what's congress' role this updating that? >> guest: i think congress' role is to create a playing field that's a level playing field but also out of the way. how do we make sure this kind of technology can norrish, and really it's being driven by consumers. it's being driven by the consumer who wants to have access at whatever time of the day to watch their program or to pick which program they want to watch. and that's the exciting or part of it, is to see that, see that

change over not just the past year, but over the past several years and that change moving even faster now. >> host: fcc just closed its comment period on the net neutrality issues. >> guest: right. >> host: what's your position on that? >> guest: again, i don't think it's in the best interests of the consumers of this country to have the government regulating the internet. i don't think we need to move in the direction of more government interference with the internet. i have a number of constituents who are concerned about that, and that's why i think the fcc will have to, ultimately, side with the consumer who do not want government regulation over the internet. >> host: do these telecommunications issues play at all on the campaign trail while you're running for -- >> guest: you know, they do. it's interesting, in a state like colorado, it is a huge, huge geographic area. my congressional district's as big as south carolina. the western slope of colorado is as big as the state of florida, and there's five other congressional districts in between, so when it comes to issues of internet, broadband access, that's a big issue that

we talk about in terms of policy. and then in the four coroners of colorado -- corners of colorado, if you're living in durango or cortez, you don't get denver tv. you get albuquerque, new mexico, television. you don't watch the denver broncos -- i think they've tried to work on that over the past few years, but it's as if they're not even in the state of colorado. we've tried to address that through a series of amendments that scott tiptop, representing colorado's western slope, we have worked together to try to find solutions legislatively and technologically to address this issue of people in colorado can't even get colorado television. >> host: is it a marketplace issue? >> guest: it's a dma issue. the way they've created the regulations years ago carved out areas that would go with different parts of the country, and this is something that happened years ago, and it was determined that this area would be with albuquerque. and, of course, that becomes a big issue when it comes to hissing, when it -- to advertising, when it comes to a broadcaster's ability to sell

advertisements for the local car dealership. somebody might be coming in from cortez to buy a car in new mexico, and if that changes, they've got a lot of arguments. i'm simply saying,,, look, we ought to give them the option to buy a car in colorado. is there an evolution that would fix this for those viewers in southwestern colorado, but i do think it needs to be to changed. >> host: there's been some talk on the energy and commerce committee about rewriting telecommunications law. is -- in a more comprehensive sort of way. is that something you support? >> guest: i think it needs to be done. again, the more we can get government out of the way and let technology work, let america work, the better off we're going tock. the communications act has been amended in 1992, and, of course, written decades before that. if you look at the changes that have occurred since 1992, the changes that have occurred in the decades before that, i mean, people -- we now have, our family business, we sell farm

equipment, and our tractors are now satellite guided. so, i mean, the technology has changed dramatically from the time that you had a single horsepower or single horse pulling a plow to today satellite-guided tractors all because of technologying, and now you can watch tv or netflix in the tractor while the tractor's driving itself, it's pretty incredible. >> host: satellites also need spectrum, something else the fcc is working on. >> guest: yes. >> host: are you satisfied with the process? >> guest: we need to make sure the it goes the way it needs to, also making sure that it's not just certain players that are going to have access to this, but we make sure that spectrum availability around the nation is open for all, everybody to participate, small companies, big companies. >> host: representative corey gardener, republican of colorado. this is "the communicators." >> guest: thanks so much for having me. >> 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. >> today the metropolitan junior baseball league of richmond, virginia, holds a symposium in which coaches, journalists and former major leaguers talking about the relationship between african-americans and baseball and what baseball can do to ebb courage players -- encourage players from the african-american community. we'll have that live at one p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> on friday former inmates and prison health officials discuss challenges in delivering health care to the prison population and why the prison population is considered an expensive insurance pool due to the large number of people with mental illness, addiction disorders and conditions associated with aging and hepatitis c. this is an hour and 40 minutes.

>> attention, please. i don't want to interrupt your lunch munching, but i'd like to get us started, if we could. we have a lot of ground to cover and some great people to hear from. i know i'm looking forward to that. myom name's ed howard. i'm with the alliance for health reform, and i want to welcome you to this program on behalf of senator rock feller, senator blunt, our board of directors. the program concerns the health of people in prisons and other correctional facilities and the health care they need and the healthe care they receive which may be the same and may not be the same. if you're concerned about getting care to those who need it, you need to care about health.budg states spend about $8 billion on