scombl >> here is a look at some authors -- karl rove talked about the importance of william mckinley's 1896 presidential campaign. and darcy olsen, president of the gold water institute took a critical look at the review period new medications undergo to receive fda approval. in the coming weeks, former senators tom dashal and trent long offer their solutions to resolve the current state of partisanship in washington. jeffrey callen explores theodore roosevelt's unsuccessful campaign. and an argument that america continues to suffer from racial in inequality. and mei fong talks about the

effects of china's recently discontinued one-child policy. >> the problem is there is no input from economist or psychologist. so issues on how human behavior can shape a plan. it is not rocket science to think a nation so in love with son is restricted to one child and they will have more sons and at one point you will have more men than women. >> "after words" airs every sunday at 9 and 10 p.m. eastern. you can watch previous programs online at booktv.org. >> 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.

>> and this is the senior republican on the federal communication commission and he is our guest this week on the "the communicators." commissioner, welcome back. it is an election year. can we suggest an active docket in the election year? >> you would have to ask fcc leadership but i will say i will be pursuing a partisan initiative to deliver on what i consider to be the public interest. that clouincludes broadband deployment and making sure every american has access to digital opportunities. they are non-partisan issues and focus on the consumer's interest. >> is broadband deployment your number one issue? >> it is. and probably imformed from my travels around the country going from louisiana to north dakota and the consistent message i got

from consumers and innovators is we need faster, better and cheaper internet and that is an area where the fcc has a role to play. >> where is it not deployed today? what percentage of the american population doesn't have access? >> whatever the number is i think it is clear there are people out there who don't have the broadband opportunities we can take for granted on the belt way. for example, i have been on the outskirts of reno, nevada, rural mississippi. places that don't stand out in the american consciousness but have many americans who are yearning for that digital connection. those are the folks we need to focus on to make sure they have the ability to live, work, and get health care opportunities and educate their kids in the same way any other american does. >> joining our conversation is bring fong who is a technology

reporter for the "washington post." >> thanks, peter. commissioner, i wanted to circle back on the political conversation we started with at the top of the segment. we are looking at an election year. people talked about the fcc being divided at this point in time. just wondering if there is anything that, you know, you and your colleagues on the republican side agree with with the majority on this and the cycle. >> it is unfortunate there is a partisan divide. as we look at the numbers, it is disparaging over the last few months that we see them unprecedented in scope. 50% of the votes at the monthly meeting have been party-line votes and that number is north of 90%. we see more party-line votes than we had in a previous 43 years. that is unfortunate because the issues are not politicized but i

will keep advocating for what i think has support along party lines like a streaming infrastructure, advocating further changes for am radio to survive. there are many things we can do that don't have a political tinge to it. and that is what i think the agency can speak with a unified voice on. >> sounds like you have a loaded agenda here in the next few months. but your term is expiring at the end of june. what is your plan for after? >> i don't have a plan for what is next. i will focus on doing as good of a job in the office i hold now. it has been the privilege of a life time to serve with the commission a little over three and half years and whatever is next i am hopeful that will be taken care of. >> would you like to be reappointed? >> i have not thought about the next steps. i am focused on the term i am

trying to finish up. i don't have any politculpaicpo patren -- patron i am calling on. >> who is in charge of the that? >> the president appoints the commissioners and the minority members are recommended by the leadership of the other party in the senate. when i was considered in 2011 it was senator mcconnell who advanced my name to the white house. i am grateful to him and all of the senators who ultimately unanimously voted on me and one of my colleagues. >> one of the things in the news lately that we cannot ignore is t-mobile and its binge on program that let's consumers exempt certain services from the data cap. there is talk about if it violates the neutrality act and what, if anything, the fcc should do to oversee these

tactics. can you offer thoughts on what t-mobile's program is? and how it relates to the fcc's rules. >> this is part of the reason why i expressed concern about the internet conduct and the net tr neutrality situation. we are seeing net neutrality morphed into the fcc managing all kinds of business plans and what they might chose to put out in the marketplace. this is generated by the fact the agency is of two voices. in november, leadership ben jon was said it is highly competitive and innovative. fast forward a month later, at the direction of the leadership, two fcc bureaus are hauling that

in saying there is concerns raised about this and if it violates net newtrality. for months and months the fcc's answer about an offering tends to vary based on the political winds. >> like it or not the rules are the rules on the book so we have to live under them. how should the fcc apply those rules to t-mobile now? >> i think the rules -- it is from the get-go are necessary. the wireless marketplace has been competitive in particular. 90% of americans have access to four more facility base providers. prices are being cut with new service offerings. if people don't like a particular service they can switch with ease. in that situation, the fcc should be highly hesitant to apply the regulations, a sort of mother may i approach to

regulations >> if you think the fcc decides not to scottact on the proposalt precedent would that set for others who are thinking about engaging in similar activities? sdwl >> the first harm is they are being called into the fcc at all. i think no company should have to include the pitch for the business plan slide trying to figure out from the tea leaves whether the fcc might decide to second-guess and prohibit it. that will harm consumers in the end. i think regardless of what the fcc does in this case the president said if a band of special interest groups protest an offering the agency is going to jump to the tune and i don't think that is helpful for the american people or public. >> if you were chairman would

you take a hands off approach supporting the net newtrality -- neutrality rules. >> i didn't support this and i didn't think we had the legal authority. so for the application of the regulations in the future i would have to be presented with a concrete case to voice a particular opinion. >> commissioner, if you look at it, it has been a year that the anita haidanet neutrality regul been put in place. you talked about the competition with the cellular companies doesn't it say it is working? >> if you look at the first months, capitol expenditure by major broadband providers went down for the third time only. the first was the tech bust and

then the second recession. we see at&t investing billions not in the domestic broadband network but in mexico. on the micro level for the smaller providers we see wireless speeds which might be the canary in the coal mine. this very day before the house energy committee the owner of a airostotle said she is withholding because of the fcc's rules and how it is not induceive to investment. whether you look at a micro or macro level there are concerns. the way to solve this is more competition and that means the fcc should be focused on the bread and butter work of

incentivizing the organizations. >> are networks incentvising the incu industry for better service? >> that depends on the transaction. that is the bottom line. in this transaction going to benefit the public and if the marketplace is going to be harmed i have concern about it. >> the new york regulators approved the charter transaction with time warner cable. i realize there may be limits of what you can say about the transaction but is this a positive sign for the party? >> because it is a pending proceeding in which i, and colleagues have to render judgment, i cannot say how the new york decision might inform for the fcc and its decision. >> let's talk about the

incentive auction where the deadline is this week. have you -- what is your impression of the broadcasters that have applied to participate in the auction? a promising level of engagement? >> it is interesting. we will see by the close of today, tuesday, whether or not there is a sufficient level of broadcast participation and that is going to be an initial interest. i heard there are a number of broadcasters who are interested in participating. i hope that it is a success. and we will see in march and there after. >> your colleague commissioner suggested that, you know, the commission should make available some information about which broadcasters or maybe in the aggregate which elected to participate. is that something you would also support? >> i think if the chairman decided to release that

information in itemized form that will not raise competitive concern. if it helps illuminate another aspect that the public would be interested in that is another conversation to have. >> are you hearing from local consumers about loosing their television stations or potentially loosing them? >> i have heard from a few people. not so much in those words but what happens after the incentive auction. i rely on this station and will they be there after the incentive auction and that is part of the education process, i think. to make sure people know it is not a case of your tv station turning off and the wireless network occupying that spectrum. there are other options to help insure that local tv service people rely on will be there after 2016. >> what are you hearing as far as non-wireless carriers participating in the florida auction? there is a lot of discussion

about what cable companies and tech companies might be interested in. what are you hearing? >> i think the same thing everyone is seeing in the press. there are companies that traditionally have not been involved in the wireless look to enter. that is a great thing as a commissioner and consumer. we want to see the best and brightest companies competing to provide cutting-edge services to consumers. now the speculation is running as to who is going to show up to the table. >> are we talking hundreds of non-carrier participants or thousands? give me an idea of the scale you are anticipating. >> the only thing i can assure you is i will not be participating in the incentive auction. everything else is fair game. >> is the size of the smaller companies worthy? >> i tend to the think to fcc

doesn't do the american public a favorite when they exclude certain companies from participating in spectrum. it ends up distorting the marketplace in a way that i don't think serves consumers because the spectrum doesn't flow to the highest value. it is not the fcc's job under the law or good policy to decide what the outcome should be. we should set this framework that givers everybody a fair opportunity to participate and we didn't do that hear unfortunately. >> another thing that has been interesting to me is automotive technology. at an event earlier today, your colleague, commissioner riley was saying how the 5.9 giga hertz of spectrum is not being used enough. and some of the technology will not be mature for some time. what is your thought on how 5.9 giga hertz should be used?

>> i commend commissioner riley on this issue and think it highlights one of the most promising areas of innovation. the five giga hertz broadband is taylor made for the next generation of wi-fi. the technical standard is in place to use it. there are all sorts of applications yearning to use it. that particular part of the band hit a snag meaning we need to coordinate with counterparts in the auto motive industry to make sure whatever unlicensed uses that proliferate don't interfere. a lot of solutions are on the table but we need to make a commitment to resolve this in the near future. there are people of good faith on both sides of the issue. >> a similar issue is the unlicensed issue which has been percolating on the back burner.

and in november, at&t published a blog post that suggested maybe the fcc could use authority under section 333 to essentially say that unlicensed and license spectrum should all live under the same non-interference expectations. what is your take on that? >> i think this issue is an engineering issue. it is not an issue for 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. i think that is important in this area because as you know the congestion is growing. we need a way to make sure every innovative service can exist. >> commissioner, there are reports that technology has kind of hit a lull in a sense. there are improvements going on

but no breakout product like a smart phone and we have seen the cars and drones. what was your impression of what you saw? >> i was really impressed. your question highlights something i thought about a lot. we live in the day to day and forget the progress and how quickly we made it. two decaddecades ago if someone there could be a smart refrigerator or you could print in 3-d or there would be an internet of things that virtual reality would proliferate you would not believe it. but that is where we are today. that is the spirit i always bring with me when i go to ces. i did a virtual reality demo and it is really incredible within a span of a generation from the movie lawnmower man which you might remember the '91 film to the technology that enables that to happen. it is exciting. i hope i am around in a couple

deca decades to see the fruitition of it. using virtual reality. if you look at high resolution virtual reality pictures that people can see that requires extremely high bandwidth meaning a lot of spectrum. an engineer said it would be terrific if the fcc took the 50-60 giga hertz spectrum very high where you have super wide channels that allow this extremely high through put of data because that is what virtual reality requires. if i am in one room, and you in another, and we are creating wirelessly in the virtual world, that is an enormous requirement of spectrum and that is an area where the fcc could operate. i hope future innovation and virtual reality will be tested

in my own household. i think it is exciting to see the possibilities. >> and looking at connected cars and the rise of information systems that will consume a ton of data from wireless services what is your expectation for the sort of data implications and who is going to be controlling the data that is gathered from consumers and how long and what are some of the implications surrounding that. >> i think there are thorny policy issues that have to be ironed out. it will not just be the fcc or any given agency looking at it. it has to be a conversation between us, the manufactures, and consumers. the possibilities are exciting but we need to be concerned about the potential pit falls as well. >> i wanted to ask one more question about the broadband deployment issue and the fcc's report finding broadband wasn't being deployed in a timely enough manner. there was some criticism of the fcc when it revised its

broadband definition to 25 mega bits per second. some said this was merely a way for the fcc to justify further intervention. is the fcc, you know, are we seeing this play out? >> i think this exercise is the ultimate in the theater from the beginning. under section 706, if we make a negative finding or find broadband hasn't been deployed, it gives the fcc more authorities over the marketplace. and the shifting of the goal post here has been the latest. we were told we would spend 10 million on connect and then it turned to 25.

that is not the approach thing to do. it is not lawful but it suggests the agency is behaving in an arbitrary way. >> under which conditions should the fcc revise their bench mark? >> look at how consumers use the internet, try to see what the standards should be as objective as possible and adjust in the future as needs arrive. we need to take stock of the facts. i studied data suggesting that broadband deployment is exploding in parts of the world. here in the united states, there

are a lot of people innovating and taking the risk to deploy capital. i traveled to byue of louisiana and heard from people in lawrence, kansas saying how hard it is to get the permits to allow the digital lines to be built. >> commissioner, 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 telecommunication what would you tell him or her? >> doesn't have to be a republican candidate. it could be anybody. broadband deployment is the key driver of job creation and economic growth. one thing i found striking is is that in the 21st century that is a democrization of entrepreneurship.

people are using the broadband connecti connections to build business and in a previous era would have had to move to the coast. but because of the connection they can innovate. that is powerful in rural america. i come from rural america and traveled throughout rural america. and in places without sufficient broadband there is, i hate to say lack of hope about the future, but a pessimistic view of what is going on here. i have heard from people in rural america who have broadband who are able to build, to create, to generate value and that binds communities together. regardless of political affi affiliation i hope every candidate could focus on. >> you grew up in parson, kansas and attended harvard and the university of chicago law

school. worked on capitol hill and worked at the fcc prior to becoming a commissioner in 2012. all right. is the commission setup, in your view, for the 21st century? is it structured correctly? >> that is a really good question. certainly in terms of process i think the answer is no. i think we have a lot of cumbersome rules and regulations that govern our operation that need to be modernize. and i thank the house for trying to help us become a more modern industry. almost three years ago, for example, i proposed the creation of an fcc dashboard. a website where anyone can see

how many consumer complaints are pending. what was the disposition of any given petition. these are the basic metrics i think people want answers to. and knowing the spotlight was directed at gives us a strong incentive to behave in a way. i was in the bay area, and 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 and how the network is acting. if you asked how many complaints are pending i would say let me get back to you and survey the people who had input in that question. the very meaning of public servants should be we give that information to you proactively, we are transparent, open and responsi responsive. >> one of the things you raised before in congressional

testimony is some of the spottyness of the fcc enforcement. are you seeing any changes now to indicate things are improving? >> unfortunately, not. as you have seen the enforcement process has pretty much gone off the rails at this point. there have been a lot of party-line votes. more votes than in the previous 14 months in the 43 years before that. in addition, it seems like in a lot of cases there is a disregard for what the law is or is not. and almost neglect of what the facts are in search of press headline and that is something that needs to change and needs to change soon. it additionally it is difficult for commissioners to oversee the operation of the enforcement process. recently in june i asked for insight into what the pending investigation list was like. i asked 12 times after that. i was rebuffed every single one of those times. if a commissioner can't get information about how the enforcement process is working,

and i am accountable for congress for how the process is working, we have a problem. so i think both in terms of how the process of role proceeded and the nature of any given investigation i have concern. >> are you saying the majority is cherry picking which cases to look into? >> i am not sure. i can tell you the focus is less on the fact and what the law is as opposed to what is likely to generate good headlines. >> there is a lot of spade work in congress done on fcc reorganization issues and rewrite of the telecommunications law. how would that benefit or not benefit the fcc if there was a rewrite? >> i think one way it could benefit the fcc is to make clear what our authority is in an area of convergence.

the discussion was how do you fit this into the round hole of the communication act? telephone, wireless, and cable companies were not conceived when the act was written are competing in the same space. a great amount of brain power at the fcc is not spent on how to incentvise the networks but more how should we think about applying yesterday's regulations to today's technology and that dissever -- disserves the american people. >> the senior commission for the republicans on the federal communication commission. his term is up june 30th, 2016. brian, a is a technology reporter for the "washington post."