>> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. .. >> guest: the proposal arrived at the federal communications commission. it is highly inimical, i think, to the interest of consumers and to competition. it's just another chapter in

this never ending sag baa that has wreaked such havoc on our infrastructure. >> host: what's the issue with consolidation in your view? >> guest: you have these huge companies who are not only in control of distribution, but of content too increasingly, and they're getting hammer locked with an information infrastructure that we as a democracy rely upon to govern ourselves. and it has been a never ending tale. i went to the federal communications commission in 2001 not knowing that i was going to be spending, like, 75% of my time just listening to ceo afcee owe come in and say, well, you've got to let us get bigger because we have all of these efficiencies and economies we're going to pass on to consumers. have consumers seen any benefits on their cable bills from that consolidation? i think the average cable bill has gone up 4% a year since the middle of the 1990s, so consumers are paying dearly for it.

and now we're into not just traditional cable and media, but broadband too. this opportunity creating and dynamic technology that should be opening a new era of media democracy and civic dialogue for us, and it's going down the same road that radio and television and cable went down. it's a tragic way to treat a dynamic technology, and it's a tragic way to treat a democratic country. >> host: robert mcdowell, same question. >> guest: first of all, thank you for having us back. it's always good to be with my friend, mike continues, -- mike copps, we always kept the dialogue civil, not always something that happens in washington. during his six months as chair we had exactly 50 items we voted on, and we voted on them together. he's the only chair with whom i have a 100% voting record which destroy cans our credibility. [laughter] >> thank you, amen.

>> guest: anyway, to answer your question finally which is, i'm not here to advocate for or against. i think the deals will be approved. i think if you look at it through the antitrust lens, you don't have comcast taking out a competitor. it brings up the question whether or not the fcc should be in the merger review business at all. should you have two government agencies reviewing this type of merger? other mergers don't, other industries don't have agencies taking two bites at the apple. but it will happen. and the fcc is going to put a lot of conditions on approval just like it did with comcast/nbc universal, and that was what we call vertical integration which mike referred to earlier which is the ply of content and distributer. the old cable company, the distributer, the supplier of content, and there were a lot of conditions put on that. you've had netflix and amazon prime and other over the top

providers flourish since that merger was approved. whether it was due to the conditions or just the market and smart and savvy marketing by netflix, etc., that's another question. but there are a number of conditions put on this, and keep in mind that comcast is not taking out a rival. they're also responding to the dynamic market. the first screen is becoming the mobile screen. as i watch a very scientific focus group, increasingly this is their number one screen. but real market study's actually proving the same thing. we still is have four national wireless carrier, the average american has a choice of at least five, and wireless broadband is actually the fastest growing segment.

that's all about the mobile screen. we're just awash is --. >> host: the merger review business, as you call it. >> guest: we do have the department of justice and the federal trade commission. they review every other aspect of the economy, and certainly doj will be looking at this one as well. but not every industry has two agencies reviewing their transactions. so the ftc and the department of justice have antitrust laws, the concentration of market power and abuse of that power that results in consumer harm oversimplified the three

questions that are asked. and then the fcc has the public interest, and that is whatever three commissioners or a majority of the commission -- just the three of us, whatever two commissioners -- says is the public interest. and the fcc has actually nothing to do with the transaction that aren't merger-specific harms, in other words, in order to accomplish other public policy which may be noble. is that unnecessary overlay of government bureaucracy? i think that's a legitimate question. i've worked with chairman fred upton and chairman greg walden of the subcommittee that oversees these issues, and they've introduced legislation. >> host: commissioner copps, you were taking notes as commissioner mcdowell was speaking. >> guest: well, so many of the ramifications of these mergers are noncommercial. yes, there are two agencies that look at this, and they look at it for two different reasons.

the department of justice is looking at it for economic indices and hhi indexes and things like that. the public interest standard of the fcc is very, very different. it goes to noncommercial things, what are the effects of this merger on things like public safety or privacy, ubiquity of service or localism of service. and these are every bit as important as some of the things the department of justice is looking at. so i think that public interest standard is absolutely essential and it's pretty clear from the statute. i know a lot of people argue that the statute has outlived its time and all, but i think the statute is pretty clear. it mentions public interest over 110 times. i used to work on the hill. when congress told me something once, i would listen. if they told me 110 times, i

think i would take it pretty seriously. >> guest: formed in 1984, and that is congress' swept. intent. i'll pick up on something mike just said. i'm not sure he agrees that the 1934 act ought to be overhauled, but this was implemented back in the days of vacuum tubes and no tv stations and just a few hundred radio stations, and i think we can all agree the world has changed tremendously since then. and you have pieces of the statute which are really premised on the technological legacy of companies, of title ii coming from whether or not you had twisted copper pair wires offering analog voice service. title vi is coaxial service. title iii in one regard is mobile, wireless, and in another

regard it's broadcast. so, you know, we have convergence thanks to technological convergence, great innovation and investment and also consumer-driven demand convergence that's changing all this. and i think the act is in separate need of a fundamental rewrite, and we also need as part of that to get the federal government to yield more spectrum for commercial use, some of it licensed, some of it unlicensed. i think there's enough out there to make everyone happy. the federal government occupies 80% of the best spectrum. it occupied 80% of the best land, i think people would be unhappy with knowing that. so it's time to turn that over to the private sector, some of it. >> guest: you know, it's going to take us years and years to get a new telecommunications act. the way we got the '96 act was an unusual correlation of forces came together because each got a little something out of it and came together to support it, although then the big companies took what remained and tried to

invalidate it. but i don't think we have another three or four or five years while we wait for congress to rewrite the telecommunications act to endure more of this consolidation, more of this gatekeeper control, this media merger issue so tied up with what the commission is going to do now on open internet and net neutrality, and this is a real inflection point. what the fcc is called upon to do in the next few months is as important as anything that's ever been called upon to do. ecosystem of ours is an information infrastructure and really make it work for american citizens so it can inform them, so it can sustain our democratic dialogue. and we are not taking advantage of that opportunity. this is a preeminently a time where the fcc can be the good guys in this. i've told chairman wheeler that the legacy of the wheeler commission is going to be on the

decision that it makes this fall and the future of the open internet. everything else, important as it is, is kind of subtext to that. it's going to be this, and i think and hope that he realizes that and that his role as commissioner is just vitally important to the future not just of our media ecosystem, but to our whole democratic infrastructure. >> host: well, robert mcdowell, there's another her very out there that's not getting quite the attention, but that's the at&t at&t/directv. what are their outs on that merger? >> guest: i think it goes through. i think it's mainly driven by content delivery and content deals that at&t will be able to now deliver over mobile platforms. in most markets, and certainly most in the country, at&t is not taking out a competitor. in some areas it might be going from, let's say, four to three. but u-verse, at&t is not known

as a pay tv provider primarily, it's a broadband provider, it's a wireless company, it's a lot of things, but the average consumer does not view it as a pay tv provider. so there are a lot of synergies that can come out of that deal which could be very beneficial. you had the marriage of distribution and content there, i think you'll continue to see that throughout the globe, the marriage of connectivity and content especially for mobile platforms. and i think that's going to be very dynamic and beneficial to consumers. >> host: is it different than comcast and time warner cable? >> guest: it is different. again, i think both go through, but it is different, and i think it's also beneficial to consumers overall. >> host: michael copps? >> guest: it's interesting that these mergers, and we talk about, well, can we make this proposal work for the public interest? it's almost like it comes in and you take it as a fact that this is going to need to be changed.

how much better it would be if we could just learn to say no to some of these things at the outset and put a stop to this ongoing consolidation because it is working at such tremendous cost to our country. >> host: michael copps, commissioner mcdowell brought up a point about all these over-the-top broadband providers that are offering competition, offering different alternatives to what we have in our media market today. doesn't that count? >> guest: well, i think it counts, but i think you have to look at that whole picture, what's happened to our news and information, what's happened to your profession of journalism? i think nobody disputes the fact that we've lost maybe at least a third of our newsroom jobs over the period of the last, last ten years. i know you can say, well, there's 5,000 news jobs that have been added on the internet, but how does that compare to the 20 or 30,000 or more jobs that have been lost?

and what a blow that is to investigative journalism. there are so many beats that are going relatively uncovered right now that we should be covering not just with traditional media, but making sure new media has some models that can sustain reporting too. we haven't seen that yet, but hopefully we'll get there. so, yes, the internet has done wonderful things. it made great contributions. but i don't think we've replaced on the internet yet what we've lost in traditional media, and we just have to do something about it. >> host: and what is that something? >> guest: well, i think, number one, we have to learn to say no to some of these mergers. number two, we have to get out of this mindset that everything is going to be all right if we continue down the road we're ott on. i think -- down the road we're on. i think so many people say, well, it's too late to do anything about competition, but it's not too late to do anything about competition. even if you have these big

companies, it's more difficult to reverse that trend. but we have spectrum auctions coming up at the fcc, we have opportunities to open that to small business, to entrepreneurs, to minorities and women who have been so woefully disserved in our auctions and spectrum and communications businesses generally. we could have much more targeted spectrum policies. i always argued in favor of spectrum caps. we ought to at least have spectrum screens at work, i believe. if you're not using spectrum, you should lose spectrum and give it to somebody who will use it instead of just warehousing it to keep the competitors away. so we don't have to throw in the towel, we don't have to say, oh, my gosh. we are where we are in this country in our communications infrastructure not through the fiat of god or the inexorable workings of international law or the inevitable marketplace

mechanisms, we are there because of policy that the federal communications commission has made, policies that have enhanced consolidation, policies that have done away with public interest guidelines that we've had k and we are paying the price for that right now. policy got us into this mess, policy can get us out of this mess. >> host: robert mcdowell. >> guest: i disagree, respectfully, that we're in a mess. actually i think it's the best time in human history to be searching for information. both of my parents were journalists. they both went to the university of missouri school of journalism, so journalism put food on my table and all the rest, so i'm very pro-journalism and a staunch defender of the first amendment. but i think what we're seeing is an evolution in journalism that as evolved since the colonial days when newspapers were sort of partisan rags, the concept of objective journalism was the early 20th century. there's still a market for that. but i think we're seeing citizen

journalists, a lot of bottom-up new media-driven journalism, and the definition of it is changing and the various entry to become a journalist or someone who's reporting or conveying information to the world through social networks or what the case might be is evolving. i think it's good the marketplace is dynamic and disruptive and chaotic in a positive and constructive way, and i think consumers are benefiting as a result. it's democratizing the world, empowering individuals. and we're seeing, actually, minorities and women and those who have been historically disadvantaged actually having an easier time getting into the new media realm of things. you know, again, back to wireless broadband. the fastest growing segment, the adoption of smartphones is faster in minority communities than it is in suburban, you know, affluent, white communities. and that is fantastic news for america. you're seeing the developing world adopt such technologies very, very rapidly.

that's fantastic news for improving the human condition. for allowing people to have the benefit of new information. it's going to change their political expectations, their economic expectations all in a positive and constructive way. obviously, there are some negatives that come along with that as well; pornography, gambling on line, illegal activity. but i think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. and so is i look at it, the glass as not just half full, but completely full, half with liquid, half with air. this is nothing but good that's going to happen net/net, and there's plenty of competition. i've long been an advocate with commissioner copps for unlicensed use of spectrum in addition to licensed. i think that provides a fantastic competitive alternative and a disrupter in the marketplace which keeps everyone honest and keeps innovation flowing. >> guest: what about the idea

that commissioner copps brought up about caps on special auctions? >> guest: right. so i think in lieu of caps what we need to be looking at is getting more spectrum into the marketplace. so, again, back to the point i made about the federal government having 150 megahertz of spectrum -- 1500 megahertz, that's 80% of the best spectrum. i'm doubtful all of it is being used efficiently, so some of that could be put into private sector hands. and let's also talk about spral efficiency. you've -- spectral efficiency. i've had on marty cooper who invented cell phones. he talks a hot about spectral efficiency. there's cooper's law tied to moore's law in terms of our spectral efficiency doubles every two and a half years, so what policies can we adopt to help keep that going so we can squeeze more efficiency out of the airwaves so you can convey more day per megahertz as a

result? so there's a lot of policies here, but all of these new media areas that we're talking about exploded in a beneficial way largely because they were deregulated or unregulated. so trying to retrofit 80-year-old communications law onto them, i think, would be detrimental and slow things down. >> guest: let's go back to this new media. in 2001 the top ten sites on the internet were responsible for 31% of the page views. in 2010, a decade later, they were responsible for 75% of the page views. there is no question, yes, the potential is there, but there's no question that we haven't seen women and minorities flourish there, we haven't seen ease of establishing new web sites. it's getting more and more difficult as consumers expect, you know, instantaneous speed, you know, it's becoming more expensive and harder to get

those web sites going. it's easy to sit down and saying, well, we're all being heard on the internet, but in point of fact if you're going to have gatekeepers deciding what news you can see and what sites you can see and what advocate i causes you can see and who might slow down and who might speed up and what business affiliate they're going to favor, that's not an open internet, and that's not making maximum use, and it's not a glass half full, it's a glass that has the potential to empty out. we are where we are now because, i think, we've had some guidance and some pressure from the fcc over the years. not only good, enforceable rules, but manager to put companies on -- something to put companies on kind of propayings their behavior, and each then we've seen all this experimentation with slowing people down, data gaps. it's not the way we should be going with the internet. >> host: michael copps, i wanted to bring something up that you

both brought up which is federal spectrum. do you agree the feds could give up some of their spectrum as well? >> guest: yes, i do. p i believe it's very, very difficult and will not happen because the fcc says it should happen. it will happen because the military industrial folks and the national security council and the white house say this needs to be done. the politics are very, very -- i mean, these are deeply entrenched forces. they come to a meeting and just say national security, national security, and that's supposed to make everybody cower down and leave the debate. i've been in a lot of those meetings. they're very intimidating. >> guest: so if i can just 100% with everything he just said. before he was at the fcc, he was at the department of commerce as an assistant secretary, and department of commerce -- a different assistant secretary manages the spectrum, but mike worked closely with ntia, and he's absolutely right, everything he just said. it's going to take leadership

from the to oval office and congressional legislation. but i think there's a win/win here for everybody involved. you provide sort of carrots and sticks for federal users of spectrum, you could have the unlicensed use of spectrum, set aside some of that for silicon valley, you could have licensed use for the carriers. so much that you have more available for start-ups and small and minority-owned businesses. so i think there's so much abundance available that this could be a tremendous win/win. but we do need to get the government, the federal government, the users of spectrum onboard but use carrots and sticks, and that's probably a whole other episode of "the communicators." [laughter] >> host: one more potential or failed her very on the table here, and that was sprint/t-mobile. and that, it looks like it's fall p off completely. what are your thoughts on that one? >> guest: well, when he was talking about we just need to say no to a merger, that was one

they said no to and it didn't happen. you had the administration going out of its way, the assistant attorney general for antitrust saying absolutely not several times, the chairman of the fcc saying absolutely not several times, and it didn't happen. i think there is a sort of small r religious conviction in this administration that four national wireless carriers is the right number even though this was a combination of number three and number four versus at&t and t-mobile which is number two and number four, but they just weren't going to allow it to happen. and i think sprint looked for a number of different ways to try to make it happen, and they may be waiting for another administration before it happens. i how you hear about other suitors, potentially, for t-mobile. it's very entering. so stay tuned, we'll see -- >> host: do you agree with that, have to have four philosophy? >> guest: you know, so other countries including japan and in

europe have gone to three for national carriers, and their, it has passed muster with their regulators as well as their antitrust analysts. finish so there's a very strong argument to make that three would be, actually, the right number given that number one and number two have about 80% of the market share and 110% of the cash flow in the industry. so what is the fate, long term, of number three -- sprint -- and number four, t-mobile? we're not going to know for a couple of years, but stay tuned to this story. this is not the end of it. >> guest: i think if we had been true to the competitive advocacy of the telecommunications act, we probably would have four or more, metropolitan four, and i think -- more than four, and i think that would be good. let's not comfort ourselves by thinking, though, that just because one or two of these really over-the-top mergers have been denied, that's the end of

consolidation. last year, 2013, was the greatest year in radio and tv consolidation in all of history. it's going on right now, as we sit here, deals are being done to further con to solation. >> host: well, very quickly, you each have about 30 seconds. 75,000 comments so far to the fcc on comcast/time warner cable merger and the net neutrality issue. >> >> guest: over a million. >> host: over a million now. that second comment period is about to close. what would you like to see the fcc do? >> guest: what i would like to see the fcc do is study those comments closely, number one. number two, get out of washington, d.c., get beyond the beltway. take the commission, chairman wheeler, out around the country, like we went. rob and i went around the cub in 2005, '6, '7 and show the people what the fcc is thinking about and hear what's on the people's minds, the citizens who have to live with the results of the

decisions that the fcc makes. i think before they decide on net neutrality, they should do that, and i think then come back and really realize the centrality that this little commission has right now with regard to decisions that are critical to the future of the country. really it's in a position -- i don't know anybody who's got more power to influence the 21st century than this commission in the next few months. so really take that seriously, take those comments to heart, and i think, i think they would come out if they did that really understanding not just the importance of the decision, but the importance of having a truly open internet and the importance of really nourishing a news and information infrastructure that serves the needs of our democracy. >> guest: so the commissioner should follow the facts of law, we have an open internet that enhappenses freedom, and that's due to a number of reasons. i think the facts will show that there's nothing broken that needs fixing. that's one of the reasons the

government has not done a market study in this area since the ftc did so in 2007. they concluded in a bipartisan, unanimous way that nothing was wrong and warned against new rules. the law is that the commission has a very narrow, if any, path to follow here and could easily be overturned in court for a third time, so a hat trick of losses. and there are other laws already on the books, by the way, to protect consumers; the ftc law, section five of the ftc act, state law, common law right there to protect consumers should something go wrong. >> host: robert mcdowell is currently with the hudson institute as a visiting fellow, michael copps is currently with common cause, media and democracy reform initiative adviser. thank you both. >> guest: 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.

>> coming up, former presidential candidate ralph nader and americans for tax reform president grover norquist talk about how the two parties can cooperate. then live coverage of former presidents bill clinton and george w. bush as they launch a presidential leadership scholars program. more live coverage after that. a speech from health and human services secretary sylvia burwell. congress is back today from summer recess. later, the senate vote on a series of confirmation votes and a procedural vote on a constitutional amendment that would give congress the authority to limit campaign spending. they're in at 2 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. the house also returns at two eastern, they'll consider suspension bills on improving tsunami detection warning systems, increased penalties for identity theft and approving a memorial on the national mall to honor slaves and free blacks who

fought in the revolutionary war. they'll take votes starting at 6:30 p.m. eastern. you can watch live house coverage on c-span. >> now, consumer advocate and former presidential candidate ralph nader and americans for tax reform president grover norquist discuss how political parties can work together. they discuss government transparency, minimum wage and corporate welfare. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. and welcome. my name is myron belkind, i'm an adjunct professor at george washington university school of media and public affairs, harvard international bureau chief with the associated press and the 107th president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this