that includes broadband deployment and making sure every american has access to digital opportunities. hopefully, the agency can focus on what is, ultimately, in the consumers' interest. >> host: is broadband deployment your number one issue right now? >> guest: it is. i think it's partly informed by some of my travels from around the country. the consistent message i got last year from consumers was we need ubiquitous deployment; faster, better, cheaper internet. that is an area where the fcc has a role to play. >> host: where is it not deployed today? what percentage of the american population does not have access? >> guest: it depends on what metric you use, but i think it's pretty clear as i've traveled that there are people out there who still don't have some of the broadband opportunities we take for granted here in the beltway. for example, i've been on the outskirts of reno, nevada,

alaskan native villages, rural mississippi, places that don't stand out in the american consciousness and have many americans who are yearning for that digital connection. and those are the folks who we need to focus on to make sure they have the ability to live, to work, to get health care opportunities, educate their kids in the same way any other american does. >> host: joining our conversation today is brian fung, technology reporter for "the washington post". >> thanks, peter. commissioner, just wanted to circle back on some of that political conversation we started with at the top of the segment. again, we're looking at an election year, people have talked about the fcc as being an incredibly divided agency at this point in time. just kind of wondering, is there anything that you and your colleagues on the republican side glee with the majority -- agree with the majority on in the cycle? >> guest: it is unfortunate, and as we look at the numbers, it's especially dispiriting that

we've seen such partisan rancor, unprecedented in scope. something like 50% of our votes at monthly meetings have now been party line votes. on enforcing matters in particular, we've seen more party line votes than we had in the previous 43 years. that's unfortunate because these issues are not typically politicized. nonetheless, in the spirit of bipartisanship and consensus, i'm going to keep advocating for what i think does have broad support across party lines, advocating further changes to allow am radio -- there's so many things we could do that don't have any political tinge to it, and those are the things i think the agency could speak with a unified voice on. >> so it sounds like you have a pretty loaded agenda here in the next few months. your term is also expiring at the end of juke. what's your -- of june, what's your plan for after?

>> guest: i don't have a plan, i'm just going to try to keep focusing on doing as good a job i can in the office i hold right now. i've served at the commission a little over three and a half years, and whatever comes next -- >> host: well, commissioner pai, would you like to be reappointed, and who's your patron? >> guest: i haven't thought about it. i'm occupied with the term i'm trying to finish up. certainly don't have any political patron i'm calling on -- >> host: well, if you were to be reappointed, who would be in on that decision? the president? >> guest: obviously, the president appoints each economieser, and the minority commissioners are recommended by the leadership of the other party in the senate. and so, for example, when i was considered in 2011 it was senator mcconnell who advanced my name to the white house and i was, obviously, very grateful to him and to all the senators who, ultimately, unanimously voted on me and one of my colleagues. >> so one of the things that has

been in the news lately which we really can't ignore is t-mobile and its program which leapts consumers exempt -- lets consumers exempt certain services from their data caps. there's been a lot of back and forth lately about whether or not this practice is a violation of net neutrality and what, if anything, the fcc should do to oversee these tactics. can you offer some thoughts on what t-mobile's program is and how it relates to the fcc's rules? >> guest: this is part of the reason why i expressed concern about the fcc's internet content standard in particular and its net neutrality decision generally. i called it then and now a solution that won't work in search of a problem that simply doesn't exist. what we are now seeing is net neutrality has morphed into what was traditionally conceived as a concern about last mile connectivity, hauling in companies to fly speck whatever

innovative service offerings they might choose to put out into the marketplace. especially in this area, the uncertainty's been generated in part by the fact that the agency has been of two voices. t-mobile's binge-on was, quote, highly innovative. fast forward one month later, two fcc bureaus are now hauling in that very company to justify its offering, expressing that there have been concerns raised about this and whether it violates any net neutrality regulations. that's the very definition of regulatory uncertainty when from month to month the fcc's answer tends to vary based on what the political winds are suggesting. >> so like it or not, the rules are the rules on the books, and so we have to live under them. what, you know, how should the fcc apply those rules to t-mobile now? >> guest: ing i think the rules from the get go are necessary. pretty clearly the wireless

marketplace in particular has been exceptionally competitive. 90 some percent of americans have access to four or more providers, prices are always being cut, there are these new service offerings, and people can switch with relative ease. this is not a dysfunctional marketplace, in short. so i think in that situation the fcc should be highly hesitant to apply yesteryear's regulations, a sort of mother, may i, approach to regulation to some of these innovative companies and novel offerings. >> so do you think that if the fcc decides not to act on these, you know, proposals or business offerings, what kind of precedent would that set for others who may be thinking about engaging in similar activities? >> guest: well, i think the first harm is the fact that they're being called in to the fcc at all. i think no company should have to include on, you know, the pitch for the business plan a slide trying to figure out from the tea leaves whether the fcc in the future might decide to second guess it and to prohibit it. that itself injects uncertainty

in the planning process that ultimately will harm consumers. i think regardless of what the fcc does in this case, the president has said that if a band of special interest groups in the beltway decide to protest a particular offering, the agency's going to jump to the tune, and i don't think that's helpful for the agency or for the american public. >> if you were chairman today, would you take a more hands-off approach? >> guest: well, i certainly wouldn't have supported the adoption of the regulations to begin with. i don't think the record suggested the need for it. we weren't living in some digital dystopia before the regulations went into effect, and secondly, i don't think we had the legal authority to do it. as to the application of regulations in the future, i would have to be presented with a concrete case to voice a particular opinion. >> host: well, commissioner pai, it's been about a year now that the net neutrality regulations have at least been put in place. you just talked about the

competition in the cellular networks, in the cellular telephones. doesn't that say, hey, this is working, or it's going to be okay? >> guest: to the contrary. if you look in the aggregate over the first six months of 2015 and the first nine months, capital expenditure by major broadband providers went down. that's only the first time that's happened. the first was in the wake of the tech bubble burst anything 2001, the second was in the midst of the great recession. we see providers like at&t investing billions of dollars in mexico. on the micro level, we see wireless pieces in mar, canaries in the coal mine, who are holding back on investments. this very day, in fact, before the house energy and commerce committee the owner of a wireless isp called aristotle testified that she is withholding some of the funds she was going to spend expanding

their network in arkansas specifically because of the regulations the fcc passed. so i think whether you look at it onq a macro or micro level, there are worrying trend lines. i think entire thing has been a distraction. the way to solve the problem is to have more competition, focusing on the bread and butter work of incentivizing the private sector to build better, faster networks that benefit be all americans. >> host: are mergers incentivizing the network -- or incentivizing the industry to better service and better competition? >> guest: that depends on the particular transaction you might have in mine. certainly for me, that is the bottom line. is the consummation of this transaction going to benefit the american public. if it doesn't, and if in particular the broadband marketplace would be harmed, that's something i have concern about. >> does the new york regulators recently approved the charter transaction with time warner cable. do you -- i realize there may be

limits to what you can say about the transaction, but, you know, is this a positive sign for the parties? >> guest: as you suggest in your question, because it's a pending proceeding in which i and my colleagues are going to have to render judgment, i can't really say one way or the other how the new york decision might inform or what it might portend for the fcc's decision. >> let's talk a little bit about the incentive auction whose deadline is, in fact, the reverse auction this week. have you, what's your impression, you know, of the broadcasters that have applied to participate in the auction? is it a promising level of engagement? >> guest: it's interesting, we're going to see by the close of today, tuesday, whether or not there's a sufficientq level of broadcaster participation. that's going to be an initial indication of interest. i've heard anecdotally at least that there are a number of broadcasters who are interested in participating, and that bodes well for the reverse side of the

auction. i hope that it's a success, and we will see in march and thereafter. >> so your colleague, commissioner rosenworcel, suggested at ces that, you know, the commission should make available information about which broadcasters or maybe in the ago regate which broadcasters have elected to participate. do you share that? is that something you would also support? >> guest: i think if the chairman decided to release that information in anonymized form, that's not something that would raise competitive concerns. if it helps illuminate another aspect that the public would be interested in, i think that's an important conversation to have. >> host: are you hearing from local consumers about losing their television stations, potentially losing their it's stations? >> guest: i have heard from a few people. not so much in those words, but more what will happen after the incentive auction. i rely on this particular station. will that station be this after the incentive auction. and so that's part of the education process, i think, to make sure that people know that

it's not simply a case of your tv station turning off and the wireless network occupying that spectrum. there's the repack, there's channel sharing, there are other options to help insure that that local tv service that people still rely on will be there after 2016. >> what are you hearing as far as non, you know, wireless carriers participating in the forward auction? there's been a lot of discussion about, you know, what cable companies might be interested, you know, what tech companies might be interested. what are you hearing on that front? >> guest: i think the same thing everyone has seen in the press, that there are companies that traditionally have not been involved in the wireless space looking to enter, and i think that's a great thing. both as a commissioner and, frankly, a consumer, we all want to see the best and brightest companies entering the space, competing to provide cutting edge services to wireless consumers. so the proof is going to be in the pudding, obviously, but now the speculation is running pretty wild as to who's going to show up to the table. >> we talking, you know,

hundreds of noncarrier participants or thousands? just give me an idea of, you know, what the scale is that you're anticipating here. >> guest: at this point, the only thing i can say is i, myself, will not be participating -- [laughter] >> host: commissioner pa ai, are the set-asides for smaller companies worthy, in your view? >> guest: i tend to think the fcc doesn't do the american public a favor when it excludes certain companies from participate anything the auction of spectrum. ultimately, that yields pennies on the dollar for the u.s. treasury, it ends up distorting the marketplace in a way that i don't think serves consumers because the spectrum doesn't necessarily flow to the highest valued use and, ultimately, it's not the fcc's job under the law or good policy, i think, to decide what the outcome should be. we should set regulatory framework that gives everybody a full and fair opportunity to participate and, unfortunately, that's to not what we did here. >> and one ore thing that's been really interesting to me coming

out of ces is automotive technology. and, you know, at an event earlier today your colleague, commissioner o'rielly, was saying how that 5.9 gigahertz band of spectrum isn't being utilized enough and some of the technologies that are associate with making connected cars safer and what not, you know, won't be mature for some time. what's your thought on how 5.9 gigahertz should be worked on? >> guest: i commend commissioner o'rielly, and i think it highlights one of the most promising areas for unlicensed innovation in particular. the 5-gigahertz band is tailor made for the next general race of wi-fi. the technical standard is already in place to use it. there are all sorts of applications just yearning to use it. that particular part of the band has hit a snag, however, which is that we need to coordinate with our counterparts in the automotive industry to make sure whatever license uses proliferate on the wireless side

don't interfear that. there are a lot of creative solutions on the fable -- table, but we need to make a commitment as the fcc to get this resolved in the near future. there are many people of good faith on both sides of the the issue and intelligent engineers who can help us square that circle. >> and a similar issue has been percolating kind of on a back burner. you know, in november at&t published a block post in which it suggested maybe the fcc could use its authority under section 333 to essentially say that up licensed and -- unlicensed and licensed spectrum should also all live under the same, not interference expectations. what's your take on that? >> guest: ultimately, i think that this issue is an engineering issue. it's not an issue for, you know, politics or anything else. i think, ultimately, we need to figure out a way to make the engineering work so that unlicensed innovation can thrive. and i think that's so important

in this area because, as you know, the congestion in the wireless bands, in the unlicensed bands is growing. so we need to figure out a way to make sure every innovative service can coexist. >> host: commissioner pai, you just earned from ces, the vegas show sponsored by cta. there were some reports that technology has kind of hit a lull in a sense. there's some improvements going on, but there's no breakout product, another smartphone, or we've seen the cars, we've seen the drones. what was your impression of what you saw? >> guest: i was really impressed and, actually, your question highlights something that i've thought about a lot. we live so much in the day-to-day that we forget how much progress we've made how quickly. two decades ago if somebody told you there could be such a thing as a smart refrigerator, if somebody told you you could print something in 3-d, if somebody told you there'd be this internet of things, that virtual reality would proliferate, you wouldn't believe any of it. it would seem like a jetsons

episode on steroids, but that's exactly where we are today. that's the spirit i always bring with me when i go to ces. i did an of course plus, a virtual reality demo, for example, it's really incredible that we've gone from the movie lawnmower man, a '91 film about virtual reality, to the actual technology that would enable that to happen. it's an exciting thing, and i can't -- i simply hope that i'm around in a couple of decades to see the fruition of it in all of its fullness. >> host: so at what point does the fcc have a jurisdiction over something in virtual reality or self-driving cars, etc. >> guest: just to use virtual reality as an example, so if you're looking at high resolution virtual reality pictures that people could see, that requires extremely high bandwidth, and that means a lot of spectrum. and so, for example, i spoke with an engineer who said it would be terrific if the fcc could take the initiative on 50-60 gigahertz spectrum, very, very high in the electromagnetic

spectrum where you have super wide channels that would allow this extremely high throughput of data because that's, essentially, what virtual reality requires. if you're in one room and i'm in another and we're communicating wirelessly, that's an enormous drape. that's an -- drain. that's an area where the fcc can operate to. i'm making myself available for any of it, because i think it's really exciting what the possibilities are. >> and looking at connected cars and the rise of infotainment systems that will be consuming a opportunity of data from wireless services, you know, what's your expectation for sort of data implications there? you know, who's going to be controlling the data that's gathered from consumers and how long, and what are some of the implications surrounding that? >> guest: i think there are definitely some thorpeny policy issues -- thorny policy issues that have to be ironed out. i think there has to be a

holistic conversation among us, the manufacturers, consumers and everybody. i think the possibilities are exciting, but we also need to be concerned about the potential pitfalls as well. >> i wanted to is ask one more question about the broadband deployment issue and, you know, the fcc's recent report finding that broadband was not being deployed, you know, in a timely enough manner. there were some criticism of the fcc when it revised its broadband definition to 25 megabits per second. you know, some said this was merely a way for the fcc to justify further intervention in the broadband space. is that the way that you feel, is the fcc, you know, essentially are we seeing those predictions play out now with this report? >> guest: absolutely. i think this exercise has been the ultimate in kabooky theater from the beginning, because under section 706 if we make a negative finding or find that broadband isn't being deployed, that gives the fcc more authority over the broadband

marketplace. and this has been a case, just the latest, in the shifting of the bowl mosts. -- goalposts. november of 2014 we were told we were going to be spending $10 billion on 10 megabits per second connective. fast forward to january, we were told, no, 25 megabits per second, that's what broadband is. fast forward one month to february and the net neutrally order, we decide anything faster than dial-up is broadband. so the goalposts are shifting depending on what the particular policy goal the agency is looking to achieve might be. that's not the thing to do for a couple different reasons. number one, it's not lawful, but it just suggests that the agency is behaving in an arbitrary and capricious way. we ratchet the standard up or down depending on what preordained goal we want to achieve and that's just, ultimately, bringing discredit upon the agency. >> so under what conditions

should the fcc revise its benchmark? >> guest: i think we need to look at how can consumers actually use the internet, try to measure what the standard should be and then, obviously, adjust it in the future as needs arise. additionally, we need to take stock of what the facts actually are. on a macro level, i've studied a lot of data suggesting broadband deployment is really exploding across all different, you know, parts of the world. here in the united states there are a lot of people who are innovating and taking the risk to deploy capital. on a micro level, i've traveled to the bayou of louisiana to string fiber myself new a trench. i've heard from people in lawrence, kansas, how difficult it is to get those regulatory permits to allow those fiber networks to be built. those are the kinds of facts we should take stock of, not figuring out what we want the result to be and working backward to adjust the standard accordingly. >> host: commissioner pai, if a republican candidate for president came to you informally and said what are some of the

issues i can talk about that deal with telecommunications, what would you tell him or her? >> guest: it wouldn't have to be a republican, it could be anybody. i think broadband deployment really is one of the key drivers of job creation and economic growth. one of the things i found striking is in the 21st century there's been a democratization of entrepreneurship. everywhere from sioux falls to bozeman, montana, i've seen people who are using that broadband connections to build businesses that in a previous era would have had to migrate to one of the coasts or would have withered on the vine, but because of that connection, they're now able to innovate. i come from rural america, and i've traveled throughout rural america, and i can tell you in a lot of places without sufficient broadband there's, i hate to say lack of hope about the future, but there's a pessimism about where things go from here because there is that stark dingal -- digital divide. i've also heard from people in the rural america who have

broadband who are able to build, to create, to generate value, and that's something that binds communities together. regardless of political affiliation, that's something i hope every political candidate would focus on. i know it's not be necessarily the biggest issue of the day, but nonetheless, it's one of those things that really in the digital era can help build a stronger america. >> host: ajit pai grew up in parsons, kansas. he attended harvard and the university of chicago law school. he worked on capitol hill for the senate judiciary committee as well as worked at the fcc prior to becoming a commissioner in 2012. all right. is the commission set up, in your view, for the 21st century? is it structured correctly? >> guest: that's a really good question. certainly in terms of process, i think the answer is, no. i think that we have a lot of cumbersome rules and regulations that operate -- that govern our operation that need to be modernized, and i commend congress in particular for looking at ways of streamlining

that. the consolidated reporting act, process reform act found bipartisan support in the house, for example, would help us become a more modern agency. there are also things i think we need to do, and we don't require congressional authorization to do that have been languishing. almost three years ago now, for example, i proposed the creation of an fcc dash boar, a single -- dashboard, a single web site where everyone can see how many consumer complaints are pending, how long does the fcc take to resolve petitions for reconsideration, what was the disposition of any given petition? these are the kind of basic metrics people want answers to. also knowing that spotlight was directed at us, it would give us a strong incentive, i think, to behave in a more expeditious way. i'm often struck whenever i visit companies, for example, i was recently in the bay area, every company i met in the front lobby or somewhere nearby has a huge dashboard where you can see all of the numbers of subscribers they have, how the

network is operating. it's very transparent but if you came to ask me how many complaints are pending at any given point in time, i'd have to say let me get back to you. let me survey all the hundreds of people who might have input in that question. if anything, the very meaning of public service should be we give that information to you proactively. we're transparent, open and responsive. that's the kind of thing that a digital agency needs to embrace. >> so one of the things you've raised before in congressional testimony is some of the spottiness of fcc enforcement. are you seeing any changes now to indicate that things are improving? >> guest: unfortunately, not. as you've seen, the enforcement process has pretty much gone off the rails at this point. there have been a lot of party line votes, as i said, more than the previous 43 years before that. in addition, it seems like in a lot of these cases there's a disregard for what the law is or is not, and almost negligent what the facts are d neglect

what the facts are all in search of press headlines. additionally, it's become very difficult for commissions to oversee the operations of the enforcement process. recently in june i asked for simply some insight into what the pending investigation list was like. i asked 12 times after that, and i was rebuffed every single one of those times. if a commissioner can't get information about how the enforcement process is working and if i'm accountable to congress for how that process is working, we've got a problem. so i think both in terms of how the process overall has proceeded and the nature of any given investigation, i do have serious concerns. >> you saying that the majority is cherry picking which cases to enforce based on a political agenda? >> guest: i'm not sure what the motivation is, but what i can tell you is the focus has been less on what the facts are are and what the law is as opposed to what is most likely to generate good headlines. >> host: commissioner, there's been a lot of spade work done in congress on fcc reorganization

issues and on a rewrite of the telecommunications law. how would that benefit or not benefit the fcc if there was a rewrite? >> guest: i think one way it could benefit the fcc is to make clear what our authority is in an era of conerer generals. the very first communicators conversation we had involved partly this discussion about how do you fit this square peg boo this round hole of where the communications act is. unfortunately, we have this siloed approach where telephone companies and wireless companies and cable companies is and others that weren't even conceived when the act was written are now competing in the same space. and increasingly, a great amount of the brain power at the fcc is spent not on thinking about how do we incentivize the construction of next generation networks, incentivize the delivery of services, it's more how should we think about applying yesteryear's regulations toed's technology. and that, i think, ultimately disserves the american public.

it distorts the investment decisions of the private sector. >> host: ajit pai is the senior commissioner on, for the republicans on the federal communications commission. his term is up june 30, 2016. brian fung, a graduate of middlebury college in vermont, is technology reporter for "the washington post". >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. [inaudible conversations]