202-626-3400, send us a tweet or e-mail us. join the conversation lie by liking us on facebook or following us on twitter. >> two former fcc chairman talk about media mergers and then in 30 minutes former president's bill clinton and george w. bush launch a leadership training program and texas senator ted cruz said americans who fight with isis should be stripped of their united states citizenship. that is later. >> 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. on the communicators we are

here to discuss the media corporations. michael copps and robert mcdowell. mr. copps, should the time warner and comcast merger go through? >> guest: absolutely not. it is against the interest of the consumers and it is another chapter in the consolidation chap chapter that is wreaking havoc. >> host: what is your issue with consolidation? >> you have companies in control of the news and information and we rely on this information to govern ourselves and it has been a never ending tail. i went to the commission in 2001

thought knowing i would be spending 75% of the time hearing the ceo's coming in saying we have to get bigger because we have benefit for the consumers. have consumers seen any benefits on the bills? the average bill is up 4% on cable so consumers are paying for it. and now we are not just into the traditional cable and media but broadbrand today and this should be creating a new era of media democracy and civic dialogue and it is going down the same road that radio, cable and television went down with consolidation. it is a tragic way to treat a democratic country. >> host: robert mcdowell, same question. >> guest: thank you for having

me. it is good to be back with michael as we had many years together and kept the dialogue civil through the entire time. during his six months as acting chair with the fcc we had 50 items on and we voted together. he is the only chair i have a hundred percent voting record and that destroys our credibility. >> guest: thank you. >> guest: i am not here to advocate for or against. i think the deals will be approved. you don't have comcast taking out a competitor so it brings up a question of whether or not the fcc should be in the merger review business at all. should you have two government agencies reviewing this merger. others don't. they take two bites of the apple. it will happen. the fcc is going to put a lot of

conditions on the merger approval just like it did with comcast and dc universal and that was vertical integration and that is the supply of content and the distributor which is comcast buying the supplier of content and there were a lot of conditions on that. next netflix and amazon primes improved whether that was due savvy marketing that is another question.

this is their number one screen. real markets are proving this. we have four carriers and the average american has a chance of five. and wireless broadband is the fastest sector. at&t and directv is all about content and the mobile screen, i think, among other things. it is a very dynamic fast moving market place and it is the best time ever to be an american consumer of voice, video and data services. we are a wash of choices that were not imagineable. >> guest: we have the department of justice and federal trade commission and they review every

aspe aspect of the economy and not every industry has two agencies reviewing their transaction. so the fcc and the department of justice review things under the antitrust standards and if there is a focus of market power and abuse of the market power that results in consumer harm. and then the fcc has the public interest standard and that is whatever three commissioners, the majority of the commission, three of us, so whatever two commissioners says of the public interest. and the fcc can extract conditions out of emerging parties that have nothing to do with the transaction and are not merger specific arms in order to accomplish other goals that maybe noble but nothing to do with the transaction. is that good policy or unnecessary overlay?

i think that is a good question to ask. i have worked with chairmen that oversee these and they introduced legislation. >> host: you were taking notes as the commissioner was speaking. >> guest: that is good to know. >> guest: so many ramifications in this. it is being looked at it from the department of justice for economic industries and hhi indexes and all things that go to the working of the marketplace. the public interest standard of the fcc goes to non-commercial things and the affects of the merger on things like public safety or privacy and localism and diversity and these are every bit as important, i would argue moreso than the department of justice is looking at.

so i think public interest standard is essential. and i think it is pretty clear from the statue and i know a lot of people argue it has outlived its time and all. but i think it is clear and mentioned public interest over 110 times. i used to work on the hill when the congress told me something once i would listen. if they told me 110 times i would take it seriously. >> host: what about the public interest aspect? >> host: that is the bases of why the fcc was formed over 80 years and that is congress' intent. i will pick up on something mike said. i am not sure if he agrees with the act should be overhauled but it was made in the day of vacuum tubes and no tv stations and a few hundred radio stations and i think we can all agree the world

has changed since then. and you have pieces of this statute which are really preachily premised on the te technilogical of the industry. title six is coaxle cable tv service. title three is mobile wireless and in another regard it is broadca broadcast. we have convergence and great innovation and investment and consumer driven demand convergence that is changing all of this. and i think the act is in desperate need of a fundamental rewrite. and to get the federal government to yield more spectrum or commercial use. some is licensed and some isn't.

it occupies 80% of land and people would be unhappy with knowing that. >> it is going to take us years and years to get a new telecommunication act. the way we got the 1996 act was unusual correlation of forces coming together and each piece got something out of it and came together to support it. then the big companies took what remained into court and tried to invalidate it. i don't think we have another 3-5 years while we wait for congress to rewrite the communication act to endure more consolidation and this media merger issue is so tied up with what the commission is doing with open internet and net neutrality and this is a real inflection point. what the fcc has called upon to do in the next few months is as important as anything has been called upon to do. are we going to take this media

ecosystem and really make it work for american citizens so it can inform and sustain our democratic dialogue. we are not taking advantage of that opportunity. this is a time where the fcc can be the good guys on this. i told chairman wheeler 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 as important as it is subtext to that. it is going to be this and i think and hope that he realizes that and his fellow commissioners do, too. it is vitally important to the future and not just of the media ecosystem but the whole democratic infrastructure. >> host: there is another merger out there and that is the at&and

directv merger. what do you think about that one? >> guest: i think it is going through. it is driven by content and delivery and deals that at&t and deliver on mobile platforms. at&t isn't taking out a competitor in most areas because at&t isn't known as a pay tv provider primarily. it is broadbrand provider and wireless company and a a lot of things but the average consumer doesn't view it as a provider of tv. you will have a merge of content there and you will continue to see that throughout the global. and i think that is going to be

very dynamic and beneficial. >> host: is it different than time warner and comcast? >> it is different. i think both go through but i think it is different and beneficial to consumers. >> it is interesting can we make this work for the public's interest? it is almost like it is coming in and needs to be changed. how much better would it be if we could say no at the onset and put a stop to the merger? >> host: commissioner robert mcdowell brought up a point about the competition and alternatives being offered to what is in the media market. doesn't that count? >> guest: i think it counts but

you have to look at the whole picture of what happened to the news and your profession observation journalism. we have lost maybe a third of the newsroom jobs over the period of the last ten years and i know you can say there is 5,000 new news jobs that have been added on the internet but how does that compare to the 20-30,000 jobs that have been lost and below that is to investigative journalism is there are so many beats going undercovered that should be covered are traditional media and models. we have not seen that yet but hopefully we will get there. the internet has done wonderful things with great contributions but i don't think we have replaced online what we lost with traditional media and we have to do something about it.

>> host: and what is that something? >> guest: well, we have to learn to say no to some of the mergers. two is we have to learn to get out of the mindset that everything is going to be all right if we continue on the road we are on. some people say it is too late to do anything about competition but it isn't too late. it is more difficult to reverse the trend but we have spectrum options coming up and opportunities to open it to small businesses and entrepreneurs and minorities and women who have been disserved in our auctions and spectrum and communication businesses generally we could have much more targeted spectrum policies. i argue in favor of spectrum caps or screens that work. if you are not using spectrum

you should lose it and give it to someone who is going to instead of warehousing it to keep people away. we are where we are in the country and infrastructure not through the workings of god or natural law or marketplace mechanisms we are there because of policies that the federal communication system made. policies that have done away with public interest guidelines and we are paying for the mess. >> host: robert mcdowell? >> guest: i disagree that we are in the mess. it is the best time in my opinion to be in the news and information service. both my parents were journalism

and went to the university school of missouri journalism so it put food on the table and all of the rest. but i think we are seeing an evolution in journalism that has evolved since the colonial days with the concept of objective journalism and there is a market for that. we are seeing bottom up new media driven journalism and the definition of it is changing and the entry to become a journalist is someone conveying information to the world and that is evolving. i think the marketplace is very dynamic and disruptive in a positive and constructive way and consumers are benefiting because it is empowering individuals like no other time in human history. we are seeing minorities and

women who those who have been disadvantaged having an easier time getting into the new media realm of things. the fastest growing segment and adoption of cell phones is faster in minority than suburban communities and that is fantastic news for america. you are seeing the developing word adopting technology and that is great news for improving the human condition and having people benefit from new information and change their political and economic expectations all in a positive and constructive way. there are obviously negatives like pornography or gambling online and illegal activity but i think the benefits far outweigh the negatives. and so i look at it as the glass is not just half full but completely full. half liquid, half air and this

is nothing good that is going to happen. there is plenty of competition and i have been an advocate for commissioner for unlicensed use of spectrum in addition to lines license. it provides an alternative and destruction in the marketplace and keeps everyone honest and innovation flowing. >> host: what about the caps on the spectrum option idea? >> guest: i think in lieu of caps we need to be looking at getting more spectrum in the marketplace. so the point about the federal government having 15 megahertz of spectrum and i doubt all of that is being used. let's talk about efficiency as well. you had the inventor of the cellphone, marty cooper, on your

show and i will give him a great deal of credit based on the fact he practically invented fire. there is cooper's law in terms of spectrum doubles every two years so what policy can we adopt to foster that and keep it going so we can squeeze more efficiency from the airways. there is a lot of policy here but all of these new media areas we are talking about exploded in a beneficial way largely because they were deregulated. >> guest: let's go back to the new media that is there. in 2001, the top sights were

responsible for the a small percentage and then it moved up to 75%. there is no question that we have not seen women and minorities flourish and we have not seen keys of establishing new websites and more and more consumers expecting instantly obtaining and getting the websites going. it is easy to sit down and say we are herded on the internet but it the point of fact is if we are getting gatekeepers going down there and deciding what we can see and what advocating we could see and what we will favor and disfavor that is not an open internet and it isn't a glass half full but it is a class that has potential to empty out and

we are where we are now because i think we have had some guidance and pressure over the years not really good, enforceable rules but something to put companies on probationary behavior and then we have seen all of this experiments with paid priortization and that is not the way we should be doing. >> host: do you agree the feds can give up some of their spectrum? >> guest: yes, i do. i can it -- i think it is difficult to do. it will happen because the military forces and the whitehouse will say this needs to be done. the politics are up hill. this is a deeply entrenched force that comes to a media and it is supposed to make everyone

cower down and leave the debate. i have been in a lot of meetings and they are intimidating. >> guest: i agree with everything he said. he was at the department of c commerce and worked closely there. he is right with everything he said. it is going to take leadership from the oval office and congressional legislation. but i think it is a win-win here for everybody involved. federal users of spectrum and you could have the unlicensed use of spectrum set aside and you can have it used for the carriers and so much it is available for start ups and majority owned businesses. so i think there is so much abundance available this could be a win-win.

but we need to get the federal government users of spectrum on board but use carrocarrots and sticks. >> host: one more merger that failed was sprint-t-mobile and it looks like it fell off. but what were your thoughts on that? >> guest: that was one they said no it. you had the administration going out of it's way saying absolutely not. the care -- chairman of the fcc saying absolutely not. there is a religious conviction in this administration that wireless carriers are the right number.

they were not going to allow it to happen but i think sprint looks for a number of ways to try to make it happen and maybe they are waiting for another administration before it happens and now you here about other suitors for t-mobile that is interesting. stay tuned. we will see. >> host: do you agree with that? you have to have four philosophy? >> guest: other countries have gone to three. it passed most of their regulators as well as their anti-trust analyst. so there is a strong argument to make that three would be the right number given that number one and number two are about 80% of the market share and 110% of the cash flow. what is the fate of number two

and three? stay tuned because this isn't the end of the story. >> guest: i think if we were true to the act we would probably have more or more. let's not comfort ourselves by this. that was the end of the consolidation and deals are being done to further it. >> host: the net neutrality issues is over a million now. the second comment period is about to close. what would you like to see the

fcc do? >> i would like to see them study the comments closely. number one. and number two get out of washington, d.c. and take the commission chairman wheeler around the country like rob and i went in 2005-2007 and show the people what the fcc is thinking about. and hear what is on the people's mind. the citizens who have to live with the results of the decisions that the pharmaceutical fcc makes. before they decide on neat neutrality they should decide that and come back and realize the centrality this commission has with regard to decisions that are critical to the future of the country. it is in a position and i don't know anyone who has more power to influence this country. take the comments serious and to heart and i think they would come out understanding and not

just the importance of having a truly open internet and the importance of nourishing the news and infrastructure. >> we have freedom that enhances and that is due to a number of reasons. the facts will show nothing is broken that needs fixing and that is why there hasn't been a study since the federal trade commission that concluded nothing was wrong and warned against new rules. the law is the commission has a very narrow, if any, path to follow and could be overturned in court for a third time. so a hat trick of losses. and there are other laws on the books to protect consumers. ftc law, section 5 of the act, anti-trust law and common law.

>> host: robert mcdowell and michael copps thank you both for being here. >> c-span created by america's cable company 35 years ago. >> you can join this conversation on facebook and twitter. watch live coverage from the senate homeland security committee tomorrow at 10:30 on cspan 3.

>> this is one hour long. [applause]