i am on the armed services committee and planned to continue working to make sure that this country is safe and we take care of our military men and women and veterans pay for a response? guinta: yes. she always references the sequester. i remind the audience that it was the president and the leader of the senate he required and demanded the sequestered to be included in the budget agreement, otherwise the budget would have been shut down. if you hear congresswoman carol shea-porter speak on this issue, she would have voted to shut down the government rather than try to work with the senate and president. no one likes a sequester. it is a difficult position. we got through that process. i voted three times to find reductions in spending throughout the federal government to replace the sequestered. unfortunately, the democratic senate refused to

take up any of those three bills before a response. shea-porter: i do. all of that tea partier set arrived in 2010 that forced this. if he did not like to sequester he did not have to continue the budget slashing. the reality is, what i'm hearing him say is that he agrees with the president to man the president agrees with him on the sequestered. i do not agree. i think it does damage command we know that we had a head start. it hurt too many health centers. we know how much it hurt new hampshire. i would not support to sequester. guinta: i did not demand a sequester cut. what the president did was said, if you do not passed the sequester cuts the government will be shut down so to hear congressman carol shea-porter, she would have shut down the government. that is not responsible. with the president and democratic senate it was now responsible, and it held the

house of representatives in a terrible situation because they refuse to work with us on a reasonable, responsible budget. again, i voted three times to replace the sequester reductions. we found savings within other areas of the federal government. and unfortunately the senate refused to take up that legislation. >> moderator: a short answer, and then we can move on. shea-porter: the rewriting of history, but the sequester was not severe enough. he voted for the republican study group budget, which was the ryan budget on steroids. actually, republicans had to come together because democrats only voted present. they forced republicans to say no. so your budget was actually more severe. the republican study budget was far more severe, and yet you supported it not once but twice. >> moderator: we will hear

from congresswoman carol shea-porter through the course of the evening calling me a tea partier, telling people i am supported. these are approaches she takes to try to malign who iamb, the service that i have offered our state. i want to go to washington to work with both sides, republicans and willing democrats, to move the country in the right direction. people are listening receiving want to hear about policy, substance, and the direction we will take the country. she tries to focus on substance. shea-porter: well, that is why that is important. you know, i think if you believe in then vote for it you should stand and defend it. we are talking about policy. >> moderator: thank you both. think you both. in year 2010 and 2012 election health care was a major issue. again at a major issue. we have a question. >> good evening to both of you and thank you for being here.

my first question is about the affordable care act popularly known as obamacare one question, but there are different pieces for each of you. you make no apologies for your vote in favor of the affordable care act. some critics object to the provision requiring all people to either buy health insurance or pay a fine. why do you support of -- why do o support requiring ?veryone to pay into the and congressman, you pin it leave voted to repeal obamacare. what would you replace it with? for us begin with you. shea-porter: thank you for that question. the reality is that this health care law brought so many people affordable health insurance and has been helping hospitals and doctors to be more efficient but here is the thing about what you just asked. this was a republican idea. and if they wanted people to

pay for insurance. it did not want people going to the emergency room without health insurance and the rest of us having to pay for it. so when we start to work on health care, and republican and democratic presidents tried to do this for years, we adopted the republican idea that people should pay, but we knew that some could not. for those who cannot, there are subsidies to help them. i think there is a fair way to do this, and i commend the republicans who came up with that idea because it has worked. >> moderator: congressman. guinta: it is clear they do not support the notion that obamacare is working. she supported it when it first came to the floor. she has doubled down on this piece of legislation put it this state of new hampshire proposes, continues to oppose this piece of legislation. the congress will is not listening to the constituents of the first congressional district.

in four years we have had 22,000 people lose health insurance. just sunday 70,000 more people in november in a state of new hampshire are going to have their insurance canceled. this is a policy that congresswoman carol shea-porter says is working. there are a host of things that we can do. let's start with allowing anyone, individuals or small businesses to purchase across state lines coming anywhere in the country, immediate commis immediate new markets for the individual to small-business owner to. secondly, we have to have transparency when you provide the cost of a procedure to and individual and provide an choice, they will start to choose the lesser cost, and that will pay for a lot of the things that howard asked for in his original question. third, you can allow

businesses to pull together to build purchasing power. >> moderator: a short response. shea-porter: plata fact said that what he is saying is not true. they did not lose health insurance. they raided that true when i said that, and i am proud of that because it is telling the truth. what happened to, the only insurance company, and some, tried to do that. they agreed to keep those policies going. it is not true, and you can look it up. as for your idea about putting everybody together, we have that. it will be coming forward. allows states to do exactly that. i am glad you support the idea because it is exactly what we did. >> moderator: thank you both very much. let's move to another issue which has been at top story.

>> thanks a lot. the spread of ebola has become a major public health concern. what steps should be taken to stop the spread? guinta: i think the response by this president, administration has been terrible. there is fear across the country that this is going to spread, number one. number two, the cdc unfortunately has not been able to properly take care of its own physicians and medical teams that are trying to help the patients who are possibly infected. third, the president of the united states has not politicize this process with his appointment of another is our. it is a person with no medical background whatsoever. it is purely political. things have to change immediately. you need a travel ban immediately.

this president refuses to take those basic steps, and i hope that he does so that we can get on the other side of this terrible tragedy here that could spread in the united states. >> moderator: congressman. shea-porter: i think at the president was pretty flat footed at the beginning. i do think that we should have a ban on nonessential travel for a week or two or three weeks in the countries that are having difficulty. i thought the cdc response initially went too far. that was pretty surprised they did not show up right away to help to hospital there. there is also some responsibility here. we don't have as surgeon general because republicans are holding that up in washington, and we do not have the funding we need for the center for disease control because washington republicans cut that, and we do not have the proper funding for the national institutes of health for the

same exact reason. republicans in washington cut that. we should not be sitting here saying it is not of political. this is serious. this is something we should not be fighting over, something that should be properly funded. i feel very comfortable saying that the president and administration should have done more faster, and i think that he should feel comfortable saying that he screwed up by cutting the funding to for a sharp response. guinta: i remind her that she is a member of congress who served for six years and has had the opportunity to try to work with republican democrats to craft responsible budgets and has declined. she has focused on supporting budgets that have massive tax hikes that would hurt american families, the very ones we are trying to get out of economic challenges. the reality is that the president and his administration's response has been nothing short of

terrible. simple question, simple answer @booktv actually, we did pass a bipartisan budget , compromised, passed it. we have a bipartisan budget, and i am proud of the work that we did together. >> moderator: let's change gears here and take a question. >> disparities of income and wealth are wider than at any time since the 1920's. despite steady gains in productivity real wages have not risen significantly in three decades. low-paid jobs represent a greater share of employment than in any other industrial democracy. the median income is slightly above its 1995 level, while the incomes of the most affluent 5% have risen 15% since then. what do you make of these numbers? how do you think that government should respond to them?

shea-porter: i think it is heartbreaking, and you are absolutely right that middle-class wages have been flat, and we had a recovery, but it has benefited those in the top 1 percent, millionaires, billionaires', and the corporation. what we need to do is raise the minimum wage. some people are concerned and say they are afraid that would somehow or another upset the economy. the reality is it would actually help because people who are close to the edge will take the money right downtown and spend it. there will not ship off. they will spend it on the economy. and since our economy is 70% consumer driven people need to have money in their pockets in order to go purchase, and it is the purchasing power that will move the economy forward. it would begin to raise the minimum wage. misti -- we see families working two jobs. we really need to grow the economy.

we have to grow the middle class to do that. we should reward companies are bringing jobs home. and lost too many overseas. give them tax breaks when they come back we need to build infrastructure to for your response. guinta: she has not been able to deliver on the very promise that he made almost six years ago to try to help middle-class families. she has not been able to do anything of substance economically with the exception of voting for the stimulus bill which was 800 billion that did not stimulate the economy. we have a larger long-term debt and 18 trillion. it was almost half that when she first took office page continues to talk about ideas flowed at don't think many people feel in this state or in this country that we had a recovery.

we have the highest number of people out of work, and the labour participation rate is at its lowest in history. >> moderator: a very short response. did we need to go to commercial. shea-porter: we see the economy getting better. the deficit is much lower this year than it was. we are on the right track, and i worked for that legislation. a number of small-business provisions. this country almost went into a depression, and our work saved it. we had 50 plus months of job gains. >> moderator: thank you both we have lots more to talk about tonight canard debate continues in a moment . ♪ ♪

>> moderator: local back. a new television ad yesterday criticizing the congresswomen. let's take a listen to that commercial. >> carol shea-porter wants to make sure we know what she stands for. that is why she voted to collect her tally. so you know what i stand for. >> and she voted to give members of congress first-class travel and health care for life. >> you know who i stand for. >> that's right. we do indeed that is why we need a change. >> i approve this message because it is time to put people first. piffle congresswoman, i would like you to address those plans and give you a chance to respond. shea-porter: let me say, i'm shocked. on thursday he will saying he was only going to run

positive ads. i am not really shocked. what disappoints me is that he used something completely inaccurate. the "washington post" gave eight 1/4 pinocchio's, meaning it is a big lie what this is, of course i will vote no on a budget that would hurt the middle class. i have to say, in all fairness, the democrats have tried to put a poison pill and. you know, do not use that stuff. that is just political silliness. that is all. not true. >> give you a chance to respond in a minute. also running right now a new spot from this campaign. let's take a look. >> restricted. >> she is a woman, isn't she? >> equal pay, forget about it. >> i thought you appreciate all i have done here.

>> sadly, my opponent has never once stood up for equal pay, voting to defund planned parenthood and opposes a woman's right to choose even to save another life. i approve this message. take us back to the fifties is the wrong direction. >> not a chance. >> moderator: she had a chance to respond to your ad guinta: i got a kick out of that ad. most people at home are probably frustrated with the number of negative ads. for the first four weeks of this general election campaign starting from the evening of the primary victory back in september she was running negative sense. at some point after to take them down. she declined. at some point you have got to respond. what are want to focus on is what people want to hear about most, jobs and the economy to begin the budget balanced for moving the country forward in trying to

find positive solutions. that is where i will focus my efforts. >> moderator: want to keep this conversation going. >> on the same topic. the most unfair criticism leveled at you during this campaign by your opponent or independent groups supporting your opponent? why is it unfair? what is the truth? shea-porter: i think the suggestion that somehow or another i am not for the middle class probably is the one that i would say is the most unfair. i have spent my life working for the middle-class, spent my life working for seniors. hearing that nonsense about cutting medicare or this or that, it is not who i am, what i have done with my life's work you know, we all know not to get offended too much by this. let me point out that we understand that this is part of it. the first that of the whole political cycle was run

against me by frank's party, about the second week after i had gone back and in january of 2013. you know, it happens. i did ask frank if he would sign a statement with me asking third parties to stay out of new hampshire and he declined. i asked him the last time. this is what happens. it comes in and is tough. we know how to deal with this. we cannot get emotional or upset. i looked at it. all i wanted, a pretty good picture of me, and i did like those pictures. >> moderator: respond but also answer the question. guinta: so far just about every ad is a distortion of who i am personally. that is why you campaign bigger to talk about how you're going to move the country in the right direction and be reflective

of what people want in the state of new hampshire which is focusing on job growth, economic growth, balancing the budget, things that have not been able to deliver for the state of new hampshire. that is why we need a state of change. shea-porter: what you learn to do is prove it, but the reality, he did about to defund planned parenthood, and there is a bill called paycheck fairness that he never voted for he never co-sponsored it. you know, there is nothing wrong in that ad. it is all factual. >> moderator: 15 seconds. guinta: again, distortions of my record. i will continue to focus on helping the middle class to moving the economy, things that she has not been able to do. >> moderator: thank you both. let's change gears right now

>> i want to ask both of you about gun-control. after the massacre of 26 children and educators a bill was introduced in the u.s. senate to expand the national gun background check system to private sales at gun shows and on the internet basically making these follow the same rules. here's the question. should all of these groups of gun sellers be subject to the same rules and regulations? if not why not? guinta: we need to respect the second amendment. twenty-seven words that i think should not be changed or modified. people take that seriously. we have to focus on criminals and indeed that is what i did what i was mayor. i was able to focus more resources on adding police officers, providing more programs to get rid of criminals.

that is what we need to be focusing on. focus on the criminal, not a good citizen who, again, is abiding by the law. there is another clear difference between myself. she does not support the second amendment, wants to restrict gun rights on individuals. that is out of touch with what new hampshire wants. i think that we need to focus on criminals. eliminate the criminal command you will see a reduction in crime. shea-porter: of course i support the second amendment. i am fine if people want to own a gun to fund -- hunt. i am fine with that. i am also fine with family members being able to give each other guns and do that. we grew up in new hampshire. new plenty of people who hunt or grew up in a rural area. i am fine with that. he wants to go after criminals.

the only way to do that is to find out if we're buying a gun. it only takes a few minutes. new hampshire citizens are law-abiding, but it is like this if you go into the airport and somebody says, 60 percent of you have to go through the medical to -- metal detector and 40% can walk around it, i am very certain. i just want that extra certainty. that is what this is. the gun shows. you need to know who they are. another way to find the guns that criminals have or people who should not be having guns because they might harm themselves or others. it is simple, and i think that we should hear it. ♪ it is an issue that is being debated in congress. >> you think illegal immigrants should be required to return to their country of origin before

eligible for citizenship. as an opponent, what do you think should be done with these young children of immigrants who came here illegally? shea-porter: i think people come over the border now, they should be sent back. there are people who have been here and have settled families here and lived here for a long time. i support exactly what kelly a. god, our u.s. senator who is republican and u.s. senator gene machine supported in the senate. we need reform, and we need to make it difficult. when need to make sure they speak english, pay fines. if they spend a long time, they understand said citizenship. but you cannot roundup 11 million people and send them back, even if we wanted to we could not produce the weather than create this permanence of culture ready to bring them out.

i admire and praise the republicans in the senate who voted for this. we all know that we need immigration reform. guinta: there are a couple of things that we need to do first of all. we need to upgrade so that you can provide more access for those individuals who want to come here legally, work here during a seasonal job or a longer amount of time. those are things that have to be done that should be updated. secondly, we have to close the border. said nothing about closing the border and stopping what the problem is which is this flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border because i believe that she supports the order that the president issued not once but twice. 400,000 people illegally came across the border.

it is not right. it is not keeping our country safe and it hurts us economically than it that can be rescinded. i have called for the rescinding of that order. but let's start with closing the border and not making the problem worse. >> moderator: specifically with the dream back to. ♪ let's start with closing the border first and then we can determine what to do with those individuals who are here. we have to stop the problem from continuing to grow which means closing the border. that is a clear difference between myself. shea-porter: he voted to cut the funding. he is mixed up. that is for children. they have to have been in this country. it is not because of that

you're seeing people cross over the border. >> it sends a message to anyone who wants to cross the border. what is happening is druglords are getting payment of $6,000 for an individual to come across the border illegally. so it is exactly why this is happening. that should be rescinded. kara have called on the president to do that. again, a clear difference between the two of us. >> moderator: thank you very much. a lot more ground to cover. the debate continues in a moment. ♪ >> moderator: welcome back to the nh1 debate.

developments have been a top story the last couple of weeks. i want to go to howard for question. >> you have both said that you do not support boots on the ground or harming assyrian rebels. can you envision any turn of events that would warrant the u.s. sending ground troops? guinta: thank you for the question. i would support the legislation that came to the floor of the house harming the syrian rebels. i did not think it was a complete plan. i would like to see real. he needs to articulate what a plan is to congress. their needs to be an upper down vote on whether we will go to war or not. most people feel like we are, but you need to follow the war powers act in order to follow the constitution and the obligations of the legislators and executive branch.

firework to see something that was clear and definitive then recognized as a planned, that is something that i could vote for, but i have not seen that from the president yet. >> if baghdad fell, hypothetical, would that be a situation? guinta: need to see what the plan is. i would like to see continued airstrikes, cooperative relationships with friends in the region and around the world for them to help with bonds on the ground. again, you need to see this from the president and he has not provided a true plan to the congress yet to. >> moderator: car respondent. shea-porter: here is something that we agree on. we should have had a very vigorous debate said that the american public could see and here and have that vote. i said no because we don't really know exactly who they are.

was i decided to go ahead and vote yes to arm the syrian moderates the first thing one of them said was i don't want to go after ijssel, want to go after assad because they are fighting syrian presidents as well. we cannot put ourselves in the middle of that. i think that it would be a disaster. what we do need to do and can do is build a strong coalition of countries in the region and other countries as well. that has been happening. they are building what i consider to be a solid collision. i support the air strikes, and i think that we certainly can help on the kurds because they are fighting very hard. we see what they are doing. i support in helping, but we should not have our troops there the leader should ask the countries in the region.

you know, the iraqi soldiers need to step up. we saw what happened after we pay that money and the treasurer and the blood that we gave to that country. they need to step up. other countries need to lead. >> moderator: thank you very much. let's shift gears here and head back to the u.s. >> now we will talk education. common core education is increasingly controversial with considerable pushed back across the country. what is your assessment of the program, and what changes, if any, should be made in moving forward? shea-porter: this did not start with the federal government. in all fairness this did not start with the federal government. states came together and looked at this. i have concerns about it might ultimately i decided it no child left behind was

not working. i have concerns about this. the couple of videos about how they are teaching. some of it looked good. i think that it would be perfectly legitimate staff this conversation on every level before we if our's ourselves to deplete. we need to know one thing. we need to make sure our children are compared -- prepared to compete. we are not number one in education. i wish said we were. we have competition all around the world. we need to beef up science, technology, engineering, and math. develop critical thinking skills. clearly there is a lot that is good and some that is troublesome. guinta: i oppose, and cooler. i absolutely oppose it. families, teachers, administrators, superintendents i have talked to across the district and the state are

in growing numbers opposing this mandate. this is the fundamental problem with the federal government being too involved in our everyday lives. i think she tends to think the federal government can be the answer to everything. i disagree there is no reason to treat every school district across the country the same. that is what education policy is doing. we do not treat rochester and manchester the same. we should not be treating all of the school district the same with top down mandates. they believe in local control. would like to put my faith in the school boards, not the bureaucracy of washington d.c. >> moderator: a very short rebuttal. shea-porter: i believe in local control. what i said was i was

concerned about a number of elements. this has not come from the federal government, but i am concerned about how this is playing out. i think pause and have a look and make sure we are getting what. so what worked and what does not. we need to be able to make changes when we find that it is not working. guinta: we have had, in court long enough to know that it is not working. people don't like it. i don't understand why she will not draw a clear line. i oppose it. most are opposing it in our state. it is, again, another clear difference between the two of us. >> moderator: think you very much. a question from you. >> drug addiction and heroin in particular. we now have more deaths from

drug overdoses and traffic deaths. the cost our economy is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. heroin addiction is a big part of that. how would you help new hampshire tackle this? guinta: thank you very much. as the mayor of our state's largest city i have to deal with not just violent crime but property and drug crime. you have to have a local, state, and federal approach. one of the first things i would do when i return to christmas, if kind of the fortunate enough thought this to work through the appropriations process and return dollars back to new hampshire to utilize through our communities in the state of new hampshire so that we can eradicate this problem. it has to be not just a federal issue. it has got to be dealt with on a state and local issue as well. shea-porter: it is a good question for me because i

was a social worker for many years. whenever properly funded this so now we have got this huge problem. we have to work on prevention, but we need to take care of those. one of the good things i think about the expansion to medicaid, people will have access to health care. we need to do intervention. when you pick somebody and they just shoplifted at walmart or walgreens, a look at them and ascertain if there is a reason that is drug-related and get them into an early treatment. i have talked to a number of police officers in various communities, and they agreed that we must focus more resources on this. this is a bad time to go cutting programs that treat people who have addiction to six drug dealers in this state are a significant

problem, and i do not think she understands the severity of the issue. when i talked to chiefs and police officers, they tell me that their lives are endangered because you are talking about drug dealers who are armed and dangerous, individuals we have to go after and put away. her proposal of treatment just does not eradicate the try problem here in the state of new hampshire. we have to take this on. we have to protect our citizenry, and that means getting rid of drug dealers in the state of new hampshire. >> moderator: i want to go back to you. >> i want to ask you about the affordable care act. i think this was mentioned. medicaid will for the first time cover substance abuse, and people in this field say that it is a welcome development. guinta: again, she believes that there is a top-down

approach. in the state of new hampshire, again, 22,000 people lost their insurance. we just read another 70,000 people in the state of new hampshire in november are going to lose their coverage this is not the intent of the court originally what people focused on in terms of trying to reduce costs and increase coverage. there are things that you can do any free-market approach. again, purchasing across state lines, transparency is critical. we did that when i was mayor and saw the cost come down voluntarily. allowing tipple, those three things we can do and have more money in the system to be more effectively utilized shea-porter: attics to not have money to buy health insurance. and so we have to take care of them indeed it is in our best interest. i want to say that i

absolutely support the police and know that they need more support. i have voted for every program that would help them including putting more cops on the street, making sure they have the proper equipment to read it is false to suggest that somehow or another i am weak on law enforcement. i am strong on law enforcement and treatment, and i am speaking from a lot of experience. as a social worker families, then decimated by it tried or alcohol abuse. this this problem. >> moderator: is there for each of you to ask a question to the other. i will start right now. can't respond, your chance? shea-porter: are you sorry that you voted against all of those programs that made

the shipyard sufferer, the furlough that hurt the national guard, the military readiness? i sit on the armed services committee and hear them come in all the time would you change your vote for that now or go right back and support the republican study groups which want to slash federal budget is 30%? do you still also think that we should abolish the irs? guinta: let me take a sequester question first, and then i can answer the irish question. the sequester, again, was the idea of an mandate by the president of the united states and leader of the senate. they held the house hostage and said, if you do not vote for cuts in defense the government will shut down. you would have voted to shut down the government. we kept it functioning, found, and then not twice but three times to replace

the sequester reductions. harry reid refused to take it up. that is part of the problem in this country. things are not getting accomplished because you do not have legislative branch is willing to work with one another. in this congress, and i have said this quite a bit, 250 pieces of legislation and the house of representatives, the senate less than 30 votes. that is a fundamental process problem with washington d.c. and why people are so frustrated with washington d.c. i don't think many people like the irs. people are frustrated. i think one of the fundamental challenges is that they take advantage of people, of taxpayers. they're going after individuals and groups? and what is frustrating, you have benefiting from a penchant thousands of

dollars. then you've voted in favor of irs subsidies. that is something that the american people are frustrated with and we have to change to for a jet to ask her question. shea-porter: he did not answer my question. first of all, there is no irs pack. let me ask you one more time, please, do you still want to abolish the irs? i want to reform it. you want to abolish it. guinta: you voted against -- to support low a slender, and you voted against eliminating the outlandish parties and lavish money that they have been spending. you did that because you took $10,000 from the irs and are benefiting, according to your disclosure, from a salary and a pension at the same

time. that is the kind of frustration that people have in this country. shea-porter: can i get an answer? you have been saying that you want to abolish the irs. do you still want to abolish the irs, or do you want to reform which? guinta: i've answered the question. >> moderator: time for your question. guinta: why do you continue to support obamacare? in november, since live their policies canceled. why would you continue to ask for president obama to come and campaign for you in the state of new hampshire? >> i did not ask the president to come and campaign for me. people did not lose their policies, as you know. if you don't, you can look it up. statements that are just simply not so.

guinta: in november 70,000 people in the state of new hampshire are going to have their policies canceled. shea-porter: why are you -- let me ask you a question. why are you okay with people not having insurance? insurance companies discriminate. you were in congress and kept voting to repeal. you never voted to reform more fakes. you have voted repeatedly to repeal health care. why are you okay? why are you okay with people being unable to get insurance and to pay? >> moderator: thank you. i voted -- guinta: i voted to repeal the affordable care act. new hampshire opposes this piece of legislation that he supported and voted for.

you let people in the eye and said if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. that is not happening in the state of new hampshire, rochester, portsmouth. these are significant population bases in the first congressional district. i think you of the people an explanation. going to lose once again in the state of new hampshire. shea-porter: you never voted to repeal and replaced. there has never been a replacement. they have started repeatedly to try to repeal its. >> moderator: thank you both very much. very quickly and try to change the conversation. a short answer. a chance to have dinner with anybody, who would that person be? guinta: i would love to have dinner with george washington. i think the founding fathers were phenomenal individuals who had a vision for our country. shea-porter: i would love to have dinner with my parents

again. >> moderator: thank you both very much. tomorrow night a gubernatorial debate. on thursday, the u.s. senate debate these debates will be live and simulcast on new hampshire public radio. if you have questions for the candid it's, facebook, e-mail. i want to thank the congressman. it thank you at home for watching. .t.

for a list of rules and how to get started to student can taught organ. >> now look at the latest wireless technology and efforts to make it more widely available. government officials and tech industry analysts talk about reserving more spectrum for broadband and making mobile internet faster. this is two hours. >> good morning, everybody. i want to thank you for coming today. it promises to be a beautiful summer day. thank you for coming to this forum on season immobile moment. why consumers should pay attention.

maybe the most exciting thing that is happening and certainly the thing that gives consumers the most excited about what is happening in the business sector. everyone is eagerly awaiting the next device, and it is a rare archival fang. that shows you how old i am. but in any case, the new device i am looking for is something that will help me navigate sidewalks and escalators that are swarming with cellphone zombies going back and forth. really, more than playthings for all of los, this broadband revolution is a powerful catalyst for job creation, economic growth, invention, and entrepreneurship. and yet you hear almost nothing about it on the campaign trail, which is sort of odd. maybe it is another sign of this growing disconnect between politics and government.

more likely it is a reflection of the fact that this is a highly technical area of public policy. the bison and elk teeth. and let's face it. al you allocate the electromagnetic spectrum is not exactly the stuff of a grand political narrative, not nearly as compelling as ebola where the war on women, but it is important. as my friend has written, behind all the sound and fury that surrounds the neutrality debate questions like spectrum shortage and other capacity shortages in the mobile space are going to have a bigger impact on our ability to improve and expand the immobile broadband ecosystem. so they have laid heavy stress on protecting the environment. it is an urgent political

issue. is key to a strategy which we think is the most important thing this country needs for getting in on a high-growth path to rebuilding prosperity. that strategy ought to start where we are showing real success and build on unique strengths and comparative advantages as a country in fusing science and commerce. the chief economist has really documented the lives of what we call the data driven economy propelled by a mass of private investment in broadband, fixed and mobile, and by furious competition. and he has measured the number of jobs created just since 2007 alone, it is a remarkable story and is now working on a road map for getting to a six she world and beyond, which i am sure he will talk about shortly. the main minutes on the expansion of the mobile

ecosystem. >> the redeployment of underused spectrum, cell towers, and tennis, these kind of questions to be in a terrific report last year we examined the question of spectrum policy and auctions, and they argued in this report that spectrum policy should be guided by the desire to maximize investment in next-generation wireless rather than maximizing the number of wireless providers. ..

>> >> [applause] good morning thanks to ppi for the invitation. with deals like a lot longer but i have been at the fcc a little less than one year. and in the commission time barely a blip on the radar but under the chairman's leadership we're moving at a very fast pace taking on many complex issues so by way of example we have options incentive option will will spectrum infrastructure spectrum said frontier. 17 competitive bidding rules

joint bidding rules competition policy and i suspect the pace will not let up anytime soon. what we are busy working on these issues the wireless industry continues to involved in challenging ways but we just don't see challenges and that is what i want to talk about today's opportunity that we see in those with arab agenda at the bureau more specifically we see opportunity with wireless infrastructure to make more spectrum available is a new ways with broadband demand and to promote and protect the marketplace also to promote innovation was divert devices networks with policy innovation is important.

in with that overarching strategic goal putting into three categories from infrastructure deployment and not just referring to the sec staff and requires the collaboration of stakeholders many parties have the important role to make to the u.s. continues to be the world leader of wireless. those to approach the issues that they advocate as great opportunities to work collaborative flee. one quick observation in a short time that the agency i have come to appreciate how refreshing it is to have advocates to come before you to offer reasonable solutions. those that benefit the interest but not overly

protective defensive or aggressive but the even notice that at the agency. not everyone comes from this perspective and i will not call anyone out here but. [laughter] may be some time over a couple of big piers. [laughter] but they do notice when they don't look at other perspectives and don't give consideration to other stakeholders. he should not assume it is just big companies enter pushing there is no monopoly on that. last year the german challenge the industry to step up to take new approaches but i want to reiterate the request to take the opportunity for some of these opportunities to find new approaches

instead of highlighting problems of specific suggestions when we don't have to adjudicate between legal technicolor policy positions everybody is better off the lessee space is bureaucrats making a decision managing the spectrum and competition and infrastructure deployment looking at collaboration as well as opportunity so first talk about spectrum there are great examples is be seen is an issue to capitalize the mayor hertz of spectrum in the commission's inventory for years but it was perceived to be an unsolvable problem

but now they were collaboratively to build on advancements when they found a solution earlier this year we were at the auction block raising 1.$5 billion a ws 31755 through 1780 many were skeptical of the spectrum never be available for commercial use the have been working on this problem for years and i saw this from my time on the hill there often period the time there is no hope but due to a solutions based thinking the sec and other agencies and congress in just over two weeks will begin auctioning 65 mhz the largest auction in five years marked on your

calendars we're very excited november 13 building on the successful efforts their other opportunities for other spectrum behan's it is an opportunity to explain new way for spectrum and if we are successful capitalizing on the potential opening prospects for access for other behan's party still need to come together to drive the solution and over one week ago to embark on an exciting opportunity determined whether to make a spectrum much higher for mobile broadly and. susan to proceeding with a look at technology to the higher frequency bands to ensure that they flourish. in the bureau this is called the frontier but as the

chairman noted that i don't care what they call it even if it is a kumquat i don't care is a part of the spectrum efforts where we strive to create rules that are deployed is also a fresh based approach this is really the ground floor we cannot forget about the first ever auction of the innovative approach ford van spectrum the commissiocommissio n announced last week but we're not slowing down those vital input should be coming in the near future as they

make more spec available we need to major providers of all sizes have an opportunity in the wireless marketplace backed by the commission of rulemaking to look at the competitive bidding rules for the first time in eight years that is a lifetime in the wireless industry not to have an opportunity to support small businesses. spectrum is only part of our framework will also need to seize opportunities to foster a competitive marketplace. i have made infrastructure a key priority and i spent some time in the private sector and other private sector history in this area with a special appreciation how hard it is. and when i was in the

private sector some of it is real-estate some of it is land-use but it is critical to make it available to consumers that has been particular the satisfying we saw an opportunity to revolve the infrastructure demand of the modern wireless network. the commission unanimously adopted to reduce the cost associated with collocation it takes critical steps to promote the deployment necessary to provide the public with the ubiquitous sabaeans wireless on demand. more specifically we update the manner that the fcc by waite's the impact of the environment and with rules to implement statutory

limitations on state and local governments to review infrastructure including for the first time a remedy of a state or local government to act on ineligible facility and a certain period of time and in codified then narrow exemption but the great thing about this it is pro environment and preservation but it takes into account wireless and they will all help do develop more wireless capacity to consumers throughout the u.s. real six steps to streamline the rules of marketing to take steps to expedite the facilities going forward in any number of towers with the regulatory status being

brought into compliance for echolocation this is an example for us to have reasonable solutions so all parties came forward we really would miss that spectrum opportunity but finally we will fall flat we don't wish to preserve the competition i'm sure you've all heard the chairman speak about how important competition is to him as a consideration with everything we do to preserve the competitive marketplace into the future he is encouraged by recent announcements that the industry's robust nine competing in the marketplace from our perspective is a good thing we expect to

drive innovation for further investment one of the major successes was the mobile spectrum holdings report we revise our spectrum screen for mobile broadband and treated as a reserve of will band spectrum to be auctioned off in 2016 to secrete the opportunity for providers to get the spectrum they need to compete for large and small but that they wanted as soon as possible there is significant risk of anti-competitive behavior and they will promote competition to that end so long those lines to carefully consider transactions including the enhanced factor analysis for

the specter malleolus for opportunities for competition in will making casual though it drives innovation and investment for all end-users and devices also working to address questions to data roaming there are formal complaints pending at this time and do occur marketplace we're actively reviewing those. finally the discussion of competition would not be complete but we worked closely with consumer protections for the open internet for mobile wireless also as part of that review we're considering the implications of capacity constraints meanders and wireless is different and if you wrap the roundtable the chairman understand it is different your actively

exploring what that means in practice in what applies to mobile providers also looking if it could interpret the statute definition to be applied to mobile van service we will commit to encourage additional thoughts now is a time to wait and. it is a time at the wireless bureau and we need to seize opportunities to promote competition in access we want to do everything we can to stimulate innovation in all forms so we can continue to be the world leader in wireless. thank you for your time. [applause]

the panelists may come up to now. [inaudible conversations] >> we have more chairs available here if you want to come closer. >> thank you roger and thanks for coming and ppi for hosting this event a want to sink the folks behind the scenes close to get the show going i appreciate all you do to put all this together but now it is time for the expert panel that what they have in common is they have written

papers on wireless issues so give them an opportunity to talk about their research and it is all available on the ppi web page with else is available to recent ppi shows and proud of the last two of you have not seen them with policy watch we had one on interconnection and we had the key note and then one on neutrality debates were thought we had reach a consensus but i guess that did not put an end to the debate the their fabulous. i am very excited to have c-span3 covering the event i called my mom she said who is on one and two?

it will take time. [laughter] the purposes to explore wireless issues but versos go over ground rules i will ask questions of the panel if they go along with the premise of the question there will insert you want to fight we will get cost file questions. [laughter] and one tip for the audience i will rely heavily on the audience i will go to you about 20 minutes is going to sit back there and listen so be thinking right now about tough questions you want for that panel and with that money quickly introduce the panel with mary brown

director of government affairs from cisco systems senior director for spectrum policy from the government affairs office in during her career she has worked as a staff lawyer and manager at the second holds a master's of science in telecommunications from syracuse and michael mandel chief economist also holds an appointment as a senior fellow at wharton's institute for management innovation in pennsylvania prior to joining ppi he was the chief economist at business week 21 years? amazing he has a ph.d. in economics from harvard that is fairly impressive almost as prestigious as from johns hopkins. [laughter] writer at the end of the

table founder and leading analyst leading expert on telecom with wireless communications in the senior vice president and head of research of telecom practice for the nielsen company will largest providers in the world also senior vice president at research and vice president of telecom inc's for joining us. finally peter is an expert on the capabilities of wireless technology and president and executive director. >> notice called wireless technology. >> import in the year as a master of science from electrical engineering from stanford we will be known

that heavily particularly with my first question. even though it question is directed to one panelist i encourage you to weigh in so we can get some conversation going. let me start on that issue of the day of neutrality to talk about how this relates to wireless but put that engineering degree to work. advocates of strong neutrality's want to be an deals where they pay for priority they're worried everyone else will get of lower quality service if true it would be a legitimate concern. but does a priority necessarily entail a sacrifice of the quality of service or is it possible to introduce a priority without

degrading the quality of nine prior ties traffic? >> it depends if it is a zero sum game or not i don't view it as such there may be some scenarios where there is capacity and that tends to be much more of the case but certainly with wired networks there is plenty of capacity so to prioritize and it will have any adverse effect. >> so in light of peter's answer. >> that could be a priority deal that there are no

injured parties, does it matter of that moment economically with the large pool of investments with very low interest rates so writer mentioned investments we need to set a policy with the incentives for investing with the pay parity raising quality at the same time can do that's so the favor needs to look at that what can we do to create long-lasting

incentives for investment? if you have paid priority you have a commodity product and allowing higher quality that will produce more competition. >> with a blanket prohibition and case by case. >> that would be a terrible mistake from the big picture pointed you because if we want to create more capacity and more room for competition we have to create a structure that people say i can earn back that many in investing but if it is what new providers can do? and they blocked off the possibility to create a new network that could create a

lot more competition and investment it is a bad idea to have a blanket prohibition and what we have seen with economics allowing a differentiation of products is better. >> a blanket prohibition means we're freezing innovation the way business models are evolving those deals that may be bad yes but then we should address that on the case by case basis regional route every participant in the marketplace to innovate with a new innovative ways to provide services to consumers not to say it is

only this way or the highway. >> we should think of policy in long term rather than short-term cents to produce different outcomes. >> there is a lot of talk they want a different set of neutrality rules so what is the right answer? there is a different market structure there is wireless providers or a different capacity constraint with different sets as the fcc did? >> cisco supported the 2010 order we saw what was made

by the fcc and it made a lot of sense to us we did not base that on market structure as the basic difference of technology the wireless carriers deal with end-users to move around with capacity constraints that vary by time of day and physical space by defense happening whether the world cup for though world series so these have a impact relative to wireline we thought that 2010 decision hit the right notes to stick to that as it contemplates the next wave in the decision.

>> i would like to add to that i heard mentioned that wireless and wireline a different avenue of the average person knows how different they really are so let me provide some insight one fiber optic cable has 2,000 times the capacity of all broadband spectrum so with that difference of capacity there extremely dynamic with those connections if they have a good signal quality bentleys in order of magnitude of coverage areas of the whole environment is extremely

dynamic in wireless networks move to that capacity so how they're managed is different said also looked at the capability like ltv with the transition boyce over lte voice over it for wireless that traffic handled with higher priority it just will not work there is nothing comparable happening right now i just want to emphasize that fundamental distinction >> what i am hearing perhaps is they should be treated different with a different set of rules and i'll make

that counter argument so let's go back to his largely vacated by the d.c. circuit and then reconsidered a blanket prohibition we will not do that here that there was a presumption that a priority is in violation of nondiscrimination law this is what got them and in trouble with the d.c. circuit to come for regard bended knee to say we have led deal they thought that was tantamount. if we were to new flip that presumption around to make the priority deal is presumptively efficient

otherwise by a content provider to prove that treatment was discriminatory with that approach would we need to different structures 14 wireless or one for wireline? >> assuming your analysis is correct is a better approach. i hearkened way back to my a sec-- at was deputy chief even there looking and a discrimination case the moving party to make then a demonstration had some burden to come forward to

show the tariff was discriminatory was no presumption pages to the wave the flag of discrimination for it to occur like we were going with the idea to have to think about it. [laughter] >> it is the same approach the sec uses to adjudicate in the videos space the cable network has the burden to prove that it was discriminatory not to mention the blog yesterday with the takeaways at the roundtable the authors without two from three alternative paths and a case by case resumption it is in violation of the standard but they did not lay out

this third approach which they were begging for was the case by case resumption. that is my eyes like critique but i have two more questions on that neutrality then we will go to the panel. this goes to the audience and pertains to the sponsorship to - - sponsorship deals. metro pc has introduced an unlimited data planned $40 a month that excluded video service youtube was included but all others were excluded into understand for that odor of youtube had to compress but i don't know if

google made us side payments they said this was in it neutrality violation and in april 2011 they quietly pulled the plan but was that planned a good thing for wireless consumers or a bad faith? >> first of all, the recognition that there is only a certain amount of available and video is the biggest spectrum peace that exist because of the steady traffic. and for this to work already 3g is a challenge tucci is the bigger challenge --

teeeighteen is a bigger challenge so with high compression with the need to compress this and at that time youtube was the biggest of consumption so did deal that metro did for people that otherwise could not have that video at all. it is better to bring some water to somebody who was thirsty in the desert and no water at all. >> i like that analogy. >> rather than pay parity think of quality differentiation for better quality services and also lower quality that they could charge less for to

make it accessible to lower-income but higher-quality services for those that produce no wider range of services and if you think about the economics you end up with more revenue and tired consumer welfare if you allow the products rather than leaving it. >> my follow-up question goes to the audience but it is conceivable certain content providers such as facebook and google and others may want to subsidize access for low income users and maybe they could monetize the eyeballs to defray the cost of the subsidy so should the sec stepped in between to bar

any sponsor data plan is a provider subsidizes the price? >> i think one of the goals we have is to bring broadband services to more people and money is an obstacle for us to bring access to or did it is a win for everybody involved so they could not use it to that extent it is a positive thing. >>. >> so in terms of general principles to the board

attila commission dawned that -- telecommunication one is maximizing investment and in this case so we should think about this as an investment as well with an investment with a better service possibility with the lower end of the spectrum. >> so to recognize with the company's that are provided over wireless are sitting quite handsomely the average google user has $40 of revenue for google b average facebook user generates more

than $10 of revenue for facebook. so for them to users of these services and benefits the companies if they would like to stimulate usage for them to share the revenues that they make from users using that service they would benefit as the usage would go up. >> we're in the early days of mobile probate -- broadband it is hard to predict exactly what kinds of applications so and the constraints on the evolution

of a likely to have adverse consequences we should experiment with different ways to make content and broadband services available with pricing models and serve as models and i am all for the encroaching flexibility in this area. >> we have been going 45 minutes now i want to see if there any questions from the audience and if you could perhaps introduce yourself? >> i want to follow-up on the last question to ask what opportunities for private companies are changes of policy to make

meaningful broadband access? so not just the pipeline barrasso the technical support to make that meaningful as well as entertainment? >> i will start little ball is the dancer looked around the globe at ways most of the world's population connects to the internet through mobile devices. and i would suspect as to march forward that trend will continue certainly the embrace of mobile technologies is firm and a growing and as we watch the cost of the connection drop

those are all good things. so that space is important to keep the price down but the answer will bring people into the broad band space. >> that they are leading in the wireless revolution with the higher percentage of ownership and caucasians that the minorities have already made that we just have to make it more affordable.

>> talking about the premise of net neutrality with new start-ups talk on the video side there are rules with the new provider of discrimination whether the isp but on the program side of the those claims are hard to prove for a small start up and suddenly looking at those terms and conditions to get that customer to come out to say we can improve it is very hard in the boat have lawyers and smart lines but can you talk about how that works they will not be

sophisticated have a large enterprise backing them. >> go ahead i give you permission to answer that. [laughter] >> it all depends that burden committee been shift one very low threshold but at that point the burden could shift to the isp like it was desperate nine the grounds but if it is excessively burdensome it to go on five years there are

infirmities have is set up but that does not mean that is the right answer we can design the rules to accommodate. are there any other questions. >> larry downs is in the house. >> name from the georgetown center public policy making my way through the infrastructure order and i am curious are there any items that were this saying that the fcc could do to greatly accelerate the deployment that should be in future orders? >>.

>> anybody? >> what about the detail to encourage infrastructure? >> we will look to the future it is very important to encourage infrastructure investment as much as possible for that spectrum's though anything that makes it easier is an improvement especially with the small cells. i think the conversation going forward will be more evenly balanced with infrastructure than it is now. >> i thought it was one of the most interesting data points 60 percent of voice trafficking is happening and

the cutting edges around the south side placing is around building comforts this will help significantly for wireless carriers that the outdoor coverage is not alone for those municipalities the u.s. had vowed your coverage? it is fine. but the reality of the use it indoors this will help stimulate investment to recognize how much happens

but to give more help to the carriers to build the sites. >> there was a question over here then we will go back. >> talk about access to wireless service and demand that the providers are doing but we have not talked about spectrum to keep costs as low as possible to have more spectrum in the pipeline to any panelist had been a creative idea is to have more government spectrum that is into usable spectrum for mobile carriers?

>> that is a great question. how to get them to give up spectrum? >> it incentives are a good way there is the inertia happening there is one case around cape canaveral 10 minutes during the course of a year we blocked it out nationwide there is a lot of inertia if you take a spectrum analyzer to hold out with his commercial

mobile radio service the analyzer will show virtually no usage is used to 99 percent of the time. >> i just want to say we're getting ready to start that a dip u.s. auction in drear pausing to consider but the congressional policy makers with that leadership with the department of defense to enable them to go forward so it took creative law making

to pay for the changes the dod will be incurring it required a long process that the department of commerce that the end of the day where it cleared to put in place for mobile broadband so we should applaud our friends on capitol hill and tattersalls on the back. >> critical to that a debut last -- 8ws spectrum but it is the only sector may and the kenaf have roaming rag everybody on the planet if

everybody could agree with they will allow americans they've mayor may not be lucky if you go overseas to actually access the lte network that people had in that country. >> think of it as an improvement of global consumer welfare. it is transferred because of the roaming and it is in billions of dollars. >> asking agencies to give that up one economist said

we should pay them. that is why we don't get invited back to the cocktail parties. >> but if you have spectrum they never talk about paying them to do so. >> can i do have a question. >> with a and a unlaces spectrum economists think of that as a common property resource with increasing demands overtime it is it a common property resource? >> eventually it anticipated the very next part of my

topic so lettuce knockout unlicensed spectrum because this is what i wanted to get into february 2013 was touting a new super public life by network to be so powerful and abroad in reached that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the internet without paying a soulful bill every month. i got very excited because i don't like to pay for my cellphone. [laughter] i not what you or cisco to state in the way of my free cell phone service. >> as best as i can tell what that was referencing was the initiative led by

proponents in the tech sector with the license used of the television and what i have from the auction being done with it chairman's labeling of that of license used as super life by neither suchard nor wife by at the time those not steeped in the technology it is a technology that began in the 2.four of megahertz band in the unlicensed junk base and then also now migrated into the five gigabyte though the latest

is exclusively designed for the five gigahertz band. why is that? because the technology uses requires very wide channels to deliver very high throughput of gigabytes per second there are a the mhz wide or 160 mhz wide. that is super wife i. they are not unusable but to design a a radio system but you'll have the specter of available in the big city may have just 6 megahertz so what you do with 6 megahertz of spectrum in the technology whose latest iteration?

there is a mismatch so while i read the article with great interest i was reminded back in 2006 when the sec issued its very first report my good friend and commissioner complaint under the christmas tree 2009 and i am still waiting. [laughter] >> with my view with that wide kiryat as mutually exclusive they are incompatible the we have coverage areas of and access point then if you need capacity your coverage there is another in the next room

and those will actually go to other channels even if there is a neighbor loiret a business below is a way to coordinate to make that work. but now getting into a situation that premise is you can build community networks that have coverage with multiple people to use that spectrum it is completely on coordinated nobody with any of the standards with unlicensed use their like those multiple service operators operating at the same time so those situations where we

have no idea with function does not make sense but made with wireless isp but in general will not seek efficient use. >> and in that defense with small groups of people that is an unlicensed usage with the designated speaker of the evening somebody will bring order so they will quiet down and if not when everybody is quiet with the designated speaker then

somebody has the question they get the microphone in you can do that what is most beneficial? and unlicensed four small areas. >> looking at may 2014 auction rules that came out and it depends on how much spectrum up at 28 megahertz broadband will be available that seems like a minimum of 14 then and additional six will be made available by allowing unlicensed use of channel 37 bob bob lot.

but how much and where should it be? and to i am not going to use it there's something wrong with my equipment because of the 600 mhz says somebody the other part of town so if we want the unlicensed spectrum we should move up and if we go higher up there is more spectrum available

and with that use the fcc had some very difficult problems as a contingent with how many broadcasters will show up which is why we don't see what we used to in this spectrum. and they have done a heroic job so far. . .

and gives that tool a huge boost for future transitions of other things, and that is the most important thing. so people have got to walk into that auction, particularly the forward auction with the confidence that what they are buying is going to be usable by them. >> any other comments are maybe it's time to get to the audience? >> neither super nor wi-fi. i think i used those same words in an article i wrote. i just want to mentioned that the current wi-fi standards do not work in that span.

they're looking at entirely new standards. so no existing device is going to work in those bands, and i think it is instructive to look at where they are getting the most usage today. it is not in the u.s. it is in places like africa providing coverage to places where there is no broad band at all and then using those low frequencies in a fantastic way of providing back call to towns that do not have broadband and using it as a back haul connection from providing local wi-fi at higher frequency. there are use cases for the spectrum. i am just not sure that we will ever be a viable alternative to the mobile broadband systems that we all enjoy today. >> i think that there was a question from the audience back here. i think that you were waiting. go ahead.

>> my name is sarah, and i have, perhaps, what is a much less sophisticated question that what you all are talking about in terms of spectrum. i have recently been accepted to a global start up incubator program to launch on mobile application development company, specifically centered on health. and based upon what i heard today and have read in the industry first on the positive side i am thrilled at the market potential. estimated to be about a $6 trillion industry going forward. having said that, i have a concern based upon the into dependency of what we are talking about in terms of infrastructure, and that is that if i travel from dulles airport to of this location and use my mobile device i have a couple of challenges. one will drain my batteries, and there is no way to

charge on the metro. the second concern is that i do not have reliable service in terms of video and application usage. here we are in a very tech center, how do we, capitalizing on what you referred to as both maximizing the investment and the equity of consumers, feel comfortable capitalizing on this tremendous opportunity but understanding that our customer base is going to shrink if we cannot provide the liability and increase the power in connection. >> that me answer your first question first. you probably don't know, but on the silver line they have power outlets. [laughter] no, it is not true. it is not true. they shared. we wish it was true, but it is not. okay. i wake up in the morning, my

phone friends before i get to work. if you think about health applications, high-value use, especially if -- especially in monitoring in real time people's condition, and it is exactly this sort of high value use that you would imagine being prioritized. and so this is where the different pieces come in. if you have a high value you use that can be prioritized and paid at a higher rate than you can end up being able to find the infrastructure and a way that provides more coverage. you ask yourself the question, what would you need to make sure that your health that was having a sufficient connection and every point. and you're talking about investing a lot of money.