a plan down and having it official. the book goes way beyond in terms of having a play-by-play for something like this, gets into a more abstract analysis. hope that addresses these questions. well again, thank you all for coming and i hope you enjoy the book. [applause] >> thank you all so much for coming. those who are seats, if you could just fold up your chair and but against the book case and then i homeorule buy a book and get a book signed. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> every weekend booktv offers programming focused on nonfiction authors and books. keep watching for more, here on

c-span2. and watch any of our past programs online at booktv.org. >> here's a look at the upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. march 14th and 15th the university of arizona with live coverage the seventh annual tucson festival of books the following week the virginia festival of the book will be held in charlottesville, virginia. then from march 25th through the 29th the city of new orleans will hope a tennessee williams literary festival. the "los angeles times" festival of book will take place on the 18th and 19th of april and also air live on booktv. let us know about book fairs and festivals in your area and we'll be happy to add them to our list e-mail us. >> hough is this country going to be able to understand another culture or another country that think thursday in hundred year terms? we are lucky in this country if

people can have a eight-year plan when a president gets elected for the first time and assumes he will get re-elected. how does america deal with this? >> well, what i've really tried to do is put the issue of china and the narrative of our relations with china, on the presidential election debate agenda for 2016. china was not much of an issue in 2012. mitt romney has a chapter on china in his book. no apology. and romney brings up we need to be more competitive with china but that's not much debate and what i'd like to see in 2016 is our media, who really dominate the issues they're going to ask -- everybody knows, judy woodruff and fox news are going to raise a topic in the presidential debate. better be ready. so, if the media starts saying

what's this all about? is china really doing these things to us? are we sort of naive and gullible? we'll get our presidential candidates to become engaged with the topic. so far only two have talked about it. elizabeth warren has a comment online one of her speech, where she is talking about losing jobs the middle class and how china invested deeply in infrastructure, and she gives a percentage of gdp so she is kind of admiring the chinese model that -- if only america could be like that. in fact that's the title of a book by tom freedman, which is quite good. i think the title is roughly, we used to be like that. there's a similar book by rich haws called foreign policy begins at home. big section on china. so the idea there is but it's not yet a presidential issue because there's so much complacency. ...

the canvas as well know what that and the american dream and you discuss the china dream. >> host: michael powell what does the term net neutrality mean to you and how has it evolved? >> guest: was kind of confusing

in its own right but you know being a person who first started articulating the principles of policymaker when i was chairman in early 2000 device meant to me first and foremost the rights of the consumer to enjoy the full blessing of what the internet really promises which is really an open platform that allows them to go where they want and do what they want in a way that they want and attach innovation to the network in the way they want in order to bring the internet more fully into their life. i think it's a really important principle and i thought so when i gave that speech and i think just as strongly today. >> host: how has the argument and the positioning evolved in the last 15 years? >> guest: you can write a book about it. i think it's the law of unintended consequences. you start off with an engineering principle. that articulated the principle of guidance and public policy and i think it worked really well for the country for many years and then with each

successful commissioner seemed to be an upping of the anti-to prove that you are more committed to net neutrality than the previous. german martin chairmanship it became a declaratory ruling and applied probably in a reckless way that led to being overturned in court which folder intensified the interest. it became a rule that had to be promulgated as a political imperative and i think that sort of thing was to my mind got off the rail because it was an effort to do something defensible put in place has a standard rule. the commissions power and jurisdiction came under and was rejected by the court which has driven this notion of if we just change the name of you we will expand the commission's power and it will overcome the jurisdictional difficulty it had with the rule. but today now we are talking about a regime that will be much more broadly evaluated them

serving sustainable net neutrality rules. i don't think that's was the intention that i don't even think that was the intention of most advocates during this proceeding but it was where we were headed and i think that is a fatal step that we are dealing with today. >> host: joining our conversation on "the communicators" is brian fung of the "washington post." >> guest: thanks for having me theater. mr. chairman i wanted to pick up on something you were just saying about the way things went off the rails. did you ever anticipate when you are developing the principles that things could get this far? >> guest: no and if you went back and looked at the speech i'm a believer that if you set the culture and you set the tone at the beginning of innovation in the beginning of a new environment that those guiding principles can really cause those initial business decisions

and those initial engineering decisions to abandon the right direction and avoid the need for greater intervention. the goal was to shoot across the bow of the industry and say these are things consumers come to value. engineer faithfully to them and you will prosper and they will prosper and there will be no need for the government to play a heavy regulatory role. if i can say so in my own judgment i think it was wildly successful. no matter what the rhetoric but the reality is there has not been any demonstrable pattern or practice of many of those principles being violated in the marketplace even though no legal prohibition is existing that would keep a company from doing so. it was profitable or compelling to do so. so today most of my ceos would say if i tried half of what people are saying or interested in doing i would be clearly hung by my customer. the average would be intolerable

for us as a company and they made so many preceding decisions over the last 20 years of building networks in a very different way, i think i would be a really radical business to start doing those things. i especially argued that they shouldn't be but you know i think it's a cautionary tale that regulation tends to grow and expand and not contract over time and i think that's going to be the reality as well. >> guest: when you go into a little bit why you took on the net neutrality issue in the first place and if you had to do it all over again would you? >> guest: yes i would. i'm starting to feel like an old guy that i used to say i had a front row seat at the revolution. i was at the commission the minute it was more or less invented as a commercial enterprise during the clinton administration. this was something we hadn't seen before and they were really these organic questions about what was this thing that was so

different and exciting and so innovative and dynamic. we wanted it to explode and we wanted consumers to get it. and so you know a lot of fun conversations about what its nature was in grade engineers like hatfield and others who are teaching us how the network worked in the sand sand and principle of his valuable. tim lew a friend someone i knew in those days and i knew he was talking about it in the legal scholarship and in many ways it was some of this thinking that i needed to think i should speak out on the subject. very glad that i did and i would again i still do. if you had asked me them if you had asked me now do i think the government should regulate the internet under the telephone platform i would have opposed that then as they do now. by the way back then so would virtually have everybody. >> guest: so wonder you you have laid out these principles

and there were additional actions. but now it seems like net neutrality has been picked up by mostly democrats on the hill, president obama is a standard policy. how would you suggest making the case that republican case for net neutrality at this point? >> guest: republicans are first of all note different than democrats in the idea that they want their messages to be heard. republican kids want to go to nickelodeon.com just as much as democratic children do. we all want to user iphones to check the weather. we all want to do instagram and these things aren't partisan. even the republican party and conservative movements on the far right also have a real vested interest in the internet to communicate effectively so i don't think the substance is particularly partisan.

by the way i would disagree with your characterization that only democrats pick it up. even if you look today the legislation being proposed by the republican congress every one of the staunch net neutrality principles advocated by the community pushing for this are incorporated in this proposal. there may be other things to criticize about the proposal but on the substance of net neutrality they are identical with the president's statements. would also say i think candidly it was the president's interjection two-party political partisanship. >> guest: just to pick up only legislated them a number of democrats seem to be balking at the bill over concerns it would restrict the fcc's authority if the bill were to sort of remove remove -- the question would be would you support it watered down bill that perhaps strips out the provisions of that title

to? >> guest: two quick things. look legislators legislate in that's a negotiating process. my appeal to democrats would be now that you have to swallow what these guys put up a table but they put an offer under the table and tell them what would have to change to make them supported. i think that's what is not as is not happening it should happen as a matter of responsible government and there's plenty of room as i understand where opt-in and others want to negotiate the specific details. they just need a partner and a willingness to sit at the table and that hasn't happened yet. i'm still hopeful that it does. that's number one. i think number two when i testified in the house recently i expressly said my industry would not object to the prohibition of 706 being removed. i defined the interpretation of it relatively expansive and as an independent matter i would agree but i think it's a bridge too far to take it away at this

point. we have argued all year that we should adopt net neutrality under that provision so it wouldn't be consistent for us to say you know we were supporting roles to be adopted from and now we don't want to. to be honest with you i think a lot of republican legislators have put that provision and thinking it's what the tech community wanted it. what nobody is talking about is the breadth of seven a six interpreted. there's no reason why the commission couldn't reach web companies. there's no reason you couldn't reach google, facebook amazon e-books. or rather content companies and that is a worrisome interpretation in the statute did i think a lot of people on the hill that possibly reversing that was something that would attract tech but if they don't show an interest i don't see the purpose. >> guest: let's talk about the litigation for a second and what seems to be impending court case

involving the draft rules. what is your sense for what the litigation risk is here? does the whole thing get thrown out, just a part of it and which parts? >> guest: honestly i can't fully assess that yet because we haven't seen the orders. everyone of those words matters. everyone of those words could potentially result in legal error. any one of those conclusions could not be based on the full record or properly noticed. any one of those things could be illegal and doesn't pass the standards applied by the court. it's hard to say but i will say this. it's a massively complex legal term embodied in this. they are going to completely throw out 20 years of definitional interpretation. number two they will have to explain why the internet actually somehow different than it was in the 2001 was classified differently. i'm not so sure we believe it is changed as much as they needed

to change in order to change the definition. they are going to preempt the legislatures in a way that runs contrary to court cases by the supreme court. they are going to do that first untested global exercise that has ever occurred in the commission. on a record that his intentions with their their record on adoption of the rules. there are lots and lots of grounds and they are for challenge and what the prospects of any one of them winning or all of them winning we don't know yet. without bravado i am confident there will be serious arguments against aspects of what they have done. the interesting thing is and i will sum up quickly is that kind of a jagged game, house of cards. we are told all these people are dependent on each other. are we reclassifying but only for net neutrality except we are going to keep a few worlds that have nothing to do is net

neutrality except we are going to forbear onerous regulations so that as a whole lot of stuff that's got to hold together. you could say one piece, one piece can be instrumental to the whole regime. just because you prepared to reclassify with a reclassify and you can forbear for these things? this is why this will be a litigation circus and why it will go on in my judgment for many years. >> host: michael powell is president of its national television's -- >> guest: i should say i think her board hasn't made that discussion -- decision but it's highly likely. this is so dramatic we have been investing, this industry has invested over $1.2 trillion over the course of the last decade on the assumption that investment was going into a network that was regulated as a light touch

regulatory environment shift a completely different regulatory environment that puts those since expectations at risk. it risk. the changes been made sure of the way you run a business. i think it's too dramatic, too serious of a change not to ask the court to review the propriety of what the commission did particularly when so much of it rests on whether they have the authority to do it in the first place. i think this is why back to brian's question is tragic to see people dismiss as of the legislative process as though it's trying to subvert the objective. the problem of the net neutrality case's fcc authority. if congressional authority is unclear than congressional action is the solution. this whole thing can be fixed with a sentence if congress wants to. it could save us all the headache time and expense and uncertainty associated with it. regrettably it's become so highly politicized people are profiting politically from different aspects of controversy

and i think that has clouded our policy judgment and is not allowed us to seek solutions to this. i don't believe the fcc whether this one or any other one should make such a monumental decisional change without the direct input of united states congress. they are an independent agency. all the authorities derive from the will of congress and i don't think congress has ever said they want the fcc to be an internet overseer or regulator. i don't think the commission attempted to build that world for itself without additional input from the congress as a constitutionally appropriate way to go about this. all that can be cleaned up and fixed a people is down at the legislative table and find a solution. >> guest: should the fcc released its draft rules to the public? >> guest: you know first i would say with respect to the commission despair and nothing is an butterfly prevents them from doing so if they choose. other than straight of agencies do it and have done it. i would say this is probably the

most serious regulatory decision the commission in over 25 or 30 years. it's highly controversial. it has enormous public interest in it and i am frustrated as i am sure you are in people's dual meaning interpretations of what is in the door is not in it. we have wall street and capital markets trying to guess whether it means this or doesn't mean that. all of that certainly could be improved by letting the world know. i certainly would welcome it if they wanted to release it. the chairman is correct in saying past practice is generally not to do so but nothing prevents them from doing so should they choose and maybe with something this controversial that has had 4 million comments filed and enormous interest maybe we should all now what and at that we are fighting about the four comes a lot. >> guest: if you are in the chairman's seat right now would you release the draft and if not can you think examples from your tenure?

>> guest: i think is a tough question you know. i think to cut to the chase i think i probably would do it. i think i would seriously consider doing it and why? because i think it would help them as well meaning right now what you're getting is an enormous amount of positions about people spin about what's in it or not and it doesn't have regulations another say it does. why don't you let people see it quite so what the? usually you are worried internal deliberations of the commission which is i think it's a fair thing to be concerned about. i don't think this particular one is going to have much internal deliberation. republicans are against it and if you take their own words they are not engaged with the chairman or he is not engaged with them on the substance and there's nothing going on there. i can't speak for the democrats.

they widely perceived they are in lockstep of the chairman with this. the president has locked that down so -- >> host: michael powell did you see the press conference the other day and what did you think about that? >> guest: i did. it's unusual but i think it's completely giuda med. every commissioner has a right to be heard on their views of the issues. every commissioner has a right to hold a press conference in a right to go to the order. i think he is trying to carefully abide by the rules of the commission. the picture but i find humorous but you know i think he is a very smart person could i think he's a very competent and skilled lawyer. i think he works hard. i think he is probably one of the handful who generally

follows order. you may or may not agreed with his political predilections as he approaches it but you have to look at the seriousness of his work. when i look at the press release and argument he made with a few exceptions i think they were substantive criticisms. if everybody wants healthy debate then what's wrong with that? this is one of these cases where it seems like people like diversity of voices until the one they don't like in the smear campaign i seen being launched against him by those who want to see it succeed is discussed -- is as despicable as anything he did more so in my judgment and why do you have to try to disenfranchise the person? i don't have any respect for anybody is doing that. >> host: laissez title ii is the lava lamp. how does that affect your member companies like comcast and cox etc.? >> guest: again details matter. one thing i would say though is

it really does change how you run a business. if you are talking about it today and are information services you sit down and your team brings you a new network innovation. one thing i want to emphasize is it's like networks are railroad tracks. networks get rebuilt every 18 to 20 per month. there's an enormous amount of science and innovation revolution that goes into that. it's not just software not just apple as an innovator. the industry has to re-engineer. there's a lot of innovative engineering that goes into the product so when engineers come together there product coming here is what we like to do here's what it's going to cost here's the engineering change, here's the marketing plan and here's where we would have to price it. whether you like it or not everyone of those decisions gets it has to be filtered through regulatory screening that yesterday they did not.

anyone can make those decisions based solely on what they believe the market wanted the cost of their distraction the cost of the engineering and because regulatory costs are low they can spend more money on bigger regulatory leaps than they might have bought -- otherwise be starting the day after you can't just take rates for example. they respect the chairman saying not regulating rates but is not inaccurate statement. now your rates are subject to reasonable review whether you like it or not. you can be sued in federal district court in class-action case over your rates so when your team brings you the new price you as the ceo have a fiduciary duty to ask yourself is this price going to be legal? right now he will have no idea or she will have no idea because the commission hasn't said was reasonable. all you know is they could decide that it wasn't. so you have to decide what you are going to put on the market or not. it's the day-to-day. i'm sort of frustrated with

those who act like while it's not going to be an explosion. of course it's not going to be an explosion. companies are not going to invest. they are not going to stop what is going to to cause a depressive effect across all business decisions and the historical proof of the depressing effects of these kinds of regimes aren't proving that anybody proffers it doesn't. we could sit here for hours arguing over investment depression under title ii and i would add 20 examples for anyone that you could come up with i assure you. it has not been a history of regime that promotes expenditure of capital or innovation. the valley likes to talk about innovation without permission as being a critical ingredient. networks need innovation too and if they have to innovate with permission you can expect the velocity of their change to slow down. >> guest: you were just

drawing a distinction between silicon valley and the app universe versus the networks and network operators. the app university is obviously much closer to the consumers. i think companies like netflix or amazon or google art very well-regarded by consumers whereas i think it's safe to say that many consumers don't find the industry is popular. in that light, you know is there a connection between the popularity of an industry and its success at lobbying or success at driving policy victories in washington? >> guest: i'm not sure understand the question but i would say the only thing it affects consumer popularity is how you treat a customer and what your relationship is with the customer and whether you

give them services they value. i don't think any neighbor of mine thinks two wits about how their industries are faring are not paired faring and whether or not they don't like products and services they consume. i also dispute the apps are closer to consumers and i think it's quite the contrary. cable companies walk right into your house. nothing more intimate than that. cable companies are the ones ascended the bill. cable companies are the ones that you call when you have a problem even if it isn't there. you brought your linksys router which was made in silicon valley that you will call comcast because it's not working. they're the ones and i think part of the tougher relationship with them is about that. they are in your house and they have to fix fix it. they send you a bill. google has never sent me a bill as a consumer. i had met her -- never met a google customer service rep.

have you ever called google for customer-service? had the upper called facebook likes has anybody? they are destined from the consumers and that's the genius of both their service but the reality of the product they are providing. i think the thing people need to remember this is a symbiotic system. if i unplug your cable you are not going to use google or facebook or amazon. they need that network as much as that network needs the company and what's really depressing about this debate is driven a wedge between the two sides in a system that desperately depend on each other's driving. there's iced in this historical commitment ethos to all of them wanting government out of their business like regulatory environment for the internet as a whole. that is now been breached. you have driven this legend said the side of the internet will live out from under. the first thing i will say is

stay tuned. you will not be long before they have things come after them. ask air bnb and any company that's running into a regulated environment. this will come to haunt them as well. they are very popular and distance works to their advantage but that bill some portion of that dollar that we get goes from 50 megabits to 100 megabits which makes google a lot of money. so they need each other. >> host: michael powell last question. assess the strengths and weaknesses of the cable industry and what is its future? >> guest: let me start with a weakness and i think brian hit on it. customer service right now is completely unacceptable. i think the industry needs do not double to triple make a tenure commitment to the recovery of that relationship. i think don't think it's because the people. the consequence of their growth,

a consequence of networks that have essentially been built for another era better than innovative. there are a lot of glitches getting it to hd getting into broadband and fast broadband. there have been a lot of growing pains and i think their customer service has suffered. it could be more investment in the innovation of the product. as the industry moves from hardware centric blog structure will move to software centric like comcast x. one has started doing that will allow faster more media rich entertainment packages. i mean interfaces that consumers will appreciate. lastly look we are middle-class industry. we depend on selling lots of service to lots of americans. we can't survive selling to some high elite were some niche. we don't have the virtues of some businesses that can go on market and survive. we have to have 85% penetration. we have had to have 80%

penetration so affordability has to be priced at a level in american can afford. i think it's more affordable than it gets credit for. i read about things like the dish sling offering. add up the whole bill for $20 plus the broadband plus dvr capability employed by netflix and hulu and i guarantee you it will quickly be the same price as entry label -- level cable pact packages. i think there's a lot of value and that's why consumers this by complaining about it buy it in droves and i think cable has a bright future to solve these problems and gives consumers the value they are asking for an innovate so use the new generations will bind the product more compelling than previous generations. that is their challenge. they will either live up to it and thrive or they won't. that is what competition markers

do. >> host: michael powell is present ceo of the national cable health medications association former chair of the fcc brian fung of the "washington post." gentlemen, thank you. >> guest: thank you. >> guest: thank you. and now from booktv's recent coverage of miami book fair international, kris paronto and mark geist. they are members of the cia n security team that responded to the attack on the u.s. special mission in benghazi libya on september 11, 2012. they discuss "13 hours" the inside account of what really happened in benghazi. this is about 40 minutes. >> host: joining us are two

members of the benghazi response team. this is kris paronto and mark geist also known as oz and tonto. they are parts of this book "13 hours" the inside account of what really happened in benghazi benghazi. we will begin here. mark geist where were you on september 12, 2012? >> guest: benghazi libya and that night was actually being a case officer having dinner with people we had to me that night and talk to. we had just about wrapped it up when i got a call from tyrone woods on the cell phone and he said you need to get back to the mx as quickly as possible. there's something going on. there is trouble at the consulate. >> host: were you a member of the military? why read there? >> guest: i was working as chris was, we are both private military contractors contracting