a case like the westboro baptist case which involved

i don't think it had much to do with me personally but rather an understanding that sort of somebody has to fill this role whether it's moderating a discussion in conference or anything else. they were very supportive from the beginning. >> it is a tough position in terms of leadership. i'm pretty sure none of them regard me as their boss.

[laughter] >> maybe it is the same. it's kind of hard. you can't fire them or dock their pay. [laughter] any notion of leadership has to be a little more subtle and down through persuasion. the other members of the court our leaders as well. justice scalia has been there for such a long time that he is a leader by virtue of his experience. and others carry out a lot about role as well. it is very much a collegial group. we are obviously all because when it comes to discharging our constitutional responsibilities. and any leadership that i' i've able to exercise is really only with the support of the members of the court. >> chief justice roberts, you have talked about the value of

consensus in the courts decisions. again with these strong-willed independent people, many people thought aiming for consensus was like dreaming the impossible dream. can you talk about the valley of consensus to you and whether that remains one of your goals? >> -- the valley to speak i think public but also the lawyers i think appreciate it if you have a decision that is say nine did nothing or 12 to -- 8-1 it carries more weight than a decision that is five for or even worse that is up around for something else. i think it's not remember of the public to look like if you can't get together and agree on what the answer is, why are we supposed have such great confidence that you've got it right? for lawyers and practicing

attorneys and judges, it's kind of hard for them sometimes to figure out what the court is up to with it is splintered like that. i do think it's worth trying to get broad agreement to you do it by sometimes talking about issues although that more than otherwise that i get people to see everybody's point of view. may be that causes people to come around. but it's not something -- you can't customize the way you can in the legislature. it just as they think something violates the fourth amendment and justice be think that doesn't come you can't meet halfway. it either does or doesn't. in some areas you certainly are not suggesting it wasn't when i talked about that that judges should compromise their conclusion about what the law requires after careful consideration. i think careful consideration might lead to a broader agreement, and how you shape the decision can also have that same

effect. this agreement might emerge only when you get to a particular level of decision if you can decide just a simple case that is familiar to lawyers, decided case on a statutory ground or a constitutional ground. it almost always make sense to decide on the basis of the statute and perhaps that's an area where you can get broad agreement. if you make a decision narrow perhaps people can sign onto a narrower resolution. but if you decide to issue decisions more broadly, that's when people start saying i'm not quite prepared to go that far. i think it's a good idea to consider whether it makes sense to decide on the mayor workaround if you can get more agreement. >> it seems to me there is a lot more consensus than sometimes some in the media might have you believe. the five for decisions are certainly here and there, but in

focusing just on those five for decisions, do you think there's a misperception as to just how much consensus there really is on the court? >> i do. more of our decisions are 9-0 than anything else. the number varies. some years 45%. sunday or something else. we agree and i more often than anything else. and if you throw in the 8-1, 7-2, it's a big chunk will regenerate the great across the board. obviously, you can look at what our dock is like any cases that are on it and i think you'll realize that we are not all going to agree on a lot of issues that are before us. but yes the ones we disagree tend to be where we disagree tend to be the ones that tend to be the sort of hot button issues that people focus on. they must think we are at each other's throats and narrowly divided throughout the year when

that's not at all the case. >> i'm just wondering whether you see yourself as having a leadership style. you clerked for chief justice rehnquist, editing usage were students in the last few days that you learned a great deal from them. do you see yourself having a certain style? if so, does that differ in your view from some of your predecessors? >> i know it differs from many of them. i have done some reading recently about charles evans hughes and what frankfurter said about was he looks like at any spoke like god. i'm pretty sure no one has ever said that -- [laughter] -- about me. and i'm quite sure that my colleagues have ever said that. you know, chief justice rehnquist, first of all, he was beloved by the members of the

court. they all admired him. for his leadership ability. justice ginsburg said that he was the best boss she ever had. she says that although more frequently -- [laughter] i've heard her say it several times lately. anti-i think generally lead with a pretty soft touch. you have to appreciate what things are appropriate and it's in many ways the unwritten what things are appropriate for chief justice to decide on his own. and what things need to be submitted to the conference as a whole for a boat. you try to be careful in that respect. you do have to appreciate as i mentioned earlier, you are not at all a boss in the usual sense. chief justice rehnquist i think had a good sense of where he

should exert and assert his authority as chief and when he shouldn't. that's something you try to be careful about. >> one of the things that i think the faculty is still talking about is something that we all learned at lunch when you were kind enough to lunch with faculty today. and that is your role at the smithsonian. and i think that's something very few of us know about. would you mind telling us a little bit about that? >> it might come as a surprise to many people but for chief justice by virtue of his office is also something called the chancellor of the smithsonian. which is an even better sounding title than chief justice. [laughter] and there are some odd historic reasons why that is so. but part of the reason i think is that you have the board of regents that administers james

smithson's trust as well as the federal appropriations, and they serve for a limited time and they wanted somebody there who would have continuity and could tell the new regions, well, when you make this decision you need to know that 12 years ago this is what happen. it's not because i have any expertise or experience in research or other sciences. the smithsonian is the largest research and museum complex in the world, and the idea that they were turned over to me as kind of a surprise. [laughter] and is not an ex officio job. i do preside at meetings, and i try to stay out of purely policy as well as the people who know what they're talking about discuss it. it's a fun thing. it takes more work than i had expected but it's a nice distraction from the legal work.

>> if i may let's talk about collegiality among the members of the court. particularly after a 5-4 decision, you listen to the media and maybe even read some of the dissent, you would think that the members of the court are constantly at one another's throat. yet we've been fortunate enough to have six of justices from the court come in recent years, and every single one of them who has visited new england law boston talk about the great respect and affection that they have for one another. is that your experience? is that something you try and foster your self? >> it's certainly my experience and something i was very happy to discover when i came on to the court. we are nine very, we have strong views on very important issues,

and where to sit down and discuss those and reach some type of a resolution. and, obviously, a lot of these cases, important ones, we are not all in agreement. but as a like to say in the conference room where we need, a long table with nine chairs around it, we've had very strict discussion. we have had sometimes pointed disagreements but there has never been a voice raised in anger in that room. partly because of the nature of being a group that is thrown together to decide these very important questions for an indeterminate period. i mean if you just think about it, pick nine when the people out of the blue, though the interim that's okay, you will be working together for the next 25 years on some of the most important and divisive issues the country faces. i mean, naturally almost you

immediately come to the realization that you can't end up shouting at each other every time you decide one of those issues. it's more of a long-term relationship, and you do, to appreciate the good faith of the people with whom you work. that's certainly been my experience. it you're going to have a knockdown dropped out -- knockdown drag out fight. the process of having to decide those cases and recent through them is not really has a bonding effect even when you find out that you're on opposite sides of the issue. it's a very unusual thing on the court, unlike most jobs for other situations, very rarely do people do the exact same thing. even if you're in the same department of the corporation or whatever, you are responsible for different areas or whatever.

your faculty members are working together but you are teaching different things. the nine of us have the same job, take the same oath, reducing cases, go to the same arguments and are tasked with coming out with decisions. there is a strong bond that develops among the colleagues. we are very supportive of each other. i understand that doesn't always shine through in some of our opinions, and that's more writing, a matter of style for some justices. the one thing i will say is that it's an awfully good thing that we get away from each other in july and august. [laughter] justice brandeis said he could do the 12 month worth of work in 10 months, but he couldn't do it in 12 months. i think there was lots of wisdom behind that spirit all that

aside this is a wonderful collection of individuals. often come nobody on that court is like anybody else on that court. it's a fascinating group, very diverse interests and it's a real honor and pleasure to be able to work with them. most of the time. [laughter] >> you mentioned opinions the moment ago, and in crafting an opinion, i'm very curious as to what your intention, who are you writing for? obviously it's the parties, lawyers, law students of the future, some of these college educated judge judy fans. who are you writing for when you're crafting your opinion? >> i like to think of it as i'm writing for my sisters. i have three sisters, none of them are lawyers, and yet they

are intelligent laypeople that have active and busy lives that don't necessarily involve the government but they keep up with what's going on. i like to think that they could pick up one of my opinions and be able to read it and understand what the issue is, understand how it's been resolved, and understand a general view of how. the reason we write our opinions is because we have to justify the antidemocratic position in which we are in. if you don't like what the president is doing, you can throw him out of office. if you don't like what your congressman is doing, you can throw him or her out of office. if you don't like what we are doing, it's too bad. [laughter] and because of that, because of that, this process has developed that we have to justify ourselves. we have to explain to you why we

issued his decision. that congress does have to let anybody why they're pursuing a certain course. the president doesn't have to explain the action he's taken. they obviously do but they are entitled to do it today because the people elected them. we are entitled to do what we do because we are interpreting the law and not imposing our own views. and to make sure that's the case we explain it to you. i would like to think that intelligent laypeople can understand that explanation, and if people don't like the explanation or don't think it pulls together, then they are justified i think in viewing us as having transgressed the limits on our view -- on our role. so i write for people who are not necessarily lawyers, but who do follow public affairs and can read the opinions intelligently. there's no reason to think that's necessarily the right answer. i think my colleagues have different views about it. you could be writing for the

lawyers. so if it's in a particular area of law you would feel comfortable using the legal terms and the background principles. you could be writing for the academy. in other words, they are the ones has been a lot of time reviewing our work and wanting to understand at a particular double why we've done what we've done. but i'd like to think and i'm sure it's not true in every case but i'd like to thank somebody who's not a lawyer but is a thoughtful person can pick up an opinion, read it and not necessarily follow all the nuances of have a good idea about what was the issue and what was decided. >> chief justice roberts, in reading your opinions you seem committed to clarity, also to keep it interesting for the reader. for instance, in a case described by the "new york times" as quote, and achingly boring dispute between telephone companies, you live in of your dissent by suggesting a lack of

standing quoting bob dylan, one of my favorites, by pointing out when you've got nothing, you've got nothing to lose las. [laughter] what was your objective with quoting bob dylan? >> i think an intelligent layperson appreciates bob dylan and his poetry is not his music. [applause] you know, second of all it was after all a decent. that's a little bit, you have a little bit more leeway there. it may have been achingly dull to the reporter, but it's very important to me. it's a very important standing decision. i would not have decided if i didn't think it was important -- dissented. bob dylan captured the whole notion guy standing at what was

at issue when he said if we don't have anything you have got nothing to lose but in that case the party didn't have any stake in the case and had nothing to lose communities should have been thrown out on that basis. i know bob dylan would have agreed. [laughter] >> but you did clean up his language because the original language, the double negative, when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose. >> while action i did get into a bit of discussion about that was so great that is as performed. the line notes show it doesn't have the ain't in it. i'm a bit, i'm a bit of a texture list so i went with the liner notes spirit if not an originalist. arthur justices who you particularly admire for their

writing? anyone in the past that comes to mind for you? >> well, yes. and i think many of the judges here would have the same answer, robert jackson is probably at least in the modern era the most eloquent craftsman. he reads passages which are just, the sort of things would you put anything, i wish i could do that. most of us can't. but most of because he has a very good i am understands, he sees things how things relate to other things in the world. there's this great passage, first amendment religion clause cases. he doesn't just go through the precedence but he's making the point when he says what would architecture be like without the cathedral or painting without religious concepts and music without religious masses but he makes a point about the case

that was before the babies able to draw on all those experiences that are familiar to people. and again it would speak to somebody who doesn't necessarily know about the law would appreciate the point he is making about, in that case. so he's a very eloquent writer and it's nice to come upon one of his opinions and read it. but the other thing is someone like john marshall, his opinions are very accessible. you think marbury v. madison, the old style print and the pages are faded and it's a long, but when you sit down and read it if something anybody can understand. is very, very clear that it wasn't until this period in the late 19th century where judges in particular think opinion wasn't legitimate if it didn't have 24 whereas and heretofore spent all that in. so the a lot of good writers out of there.

-- there's a lot of good writers out there. it improves the understanding of their legal judgment and its accessibility when they have that skill. >> we can talk just a little bit about you, chief justice roberts. in high school you were captain of the football team. spent i do have -- [applause] >> they were 24 boys in my graduating class. [laughter] half of them are on the soccer team so it wasn't -- [laughter] >> so why law over the nfl? >> i did expect to become my original ambition was to be a halfback for the chicago bears. somebody named gale sayers already have the job. know, as i said it was a very and we were, in fact, the

smallest high school that played football in the state of indiana. it wasn't that hard to be the captain. [laughter] >> you are regarded as one of the finest advocates of our time. arguing 39 times in front of the supreme court in the decade you for being confirmed for a seat on the d.c. circuit. any advice for our new england law boston students and alumni about preparing and conducting an oral argument? >> yes. the one thing i would say is i would be a much better oral advocate and brief writer today than i was before i became a judge. you really do get a very different perspective on the process when you were on the other side of the bench your brief writing is very easy. i was talking about this with the students.

a page limit and the supreme court is about 50 pages. we do the word count because we got tired of lawyers scrunching everything in there but it comes up to about 50 pages. when you're getting ready, they pick up the first brief and its 50 pages. you pick up the respondents brief that it's 50 pages. next case a 50 pages. 50 pages. all of a sudden you pick up one at its 35 pages. can you imagine the impact of that? you aren't a lawyer, trying to reach the judges. really, can you imagine that? its 35 pages. the first thing you do is turn over onto the is turn over but the top al-qaeda figure new best friend in the bar is. [laughter] but then you also realize that she probably has a good case. it only takes her 35 pages and she's done. she must have a lot of confidence in the strength of her argument. the second thing you realize, you agreed to those 35 pages very, very carefully because you

know that she went to the trouble of distilling it into way that the opposite can be a lot of fluff to it so you're going to read it more carefully. so judges at all the time and people think it's because they don't want to work so hard. but no, it's a very good idea tactically to put -- i look at it as if you really can't explain why you should win in 35 pages, do you really think you need the additional 15 pages? and if you don't, then it does hurt you do have them. so i think that's very important. it's hard for lawyers. i spent many years adding clients, and by the way, don't check my greece and see how many pages they were. this is something i learned that not necessarily something i didn't. it's hard to explain to a

client, this is one of 25 incorporate they say no, i paid for 50 pages. you are shortchanging me. but you have to have the professionalism and the confidence to simple, you hired me to handle this for you. i think we have a better chance. if it's 35 pages instead of the 50. on the own oral advocacy part, get is the same -- on the oral advocacy part, to avoid the question judges want to ask that you really have to take it seriously. you don't need the wind appeared as a judges asked one of the lawyers a question, it's probably not a comfortable question. it's something they want to try to draw out, point out a flaw in your argument and get you to explain it. but welcome the question. john w. davis said that in a famous piece, you know the judge is concerned about that and you're given a chance to address it. but do it directly. if somebody says, in this case,

whatever, didn't the person in the same position as you climbed raised as an argument and that was rejected, right? if it was say yes. as soon as you say yes, the judge is going to listen to what you have to say about it. as soon as you said no, no, no, that was very different for this obscure reason. that does anything to do with the line of argument your try to make, the judge says all right, now i've got to try out of his lawyer what the position is on this particular case. he or she is not going to give me a straight answer about it. you develop a hostile relationship as opposed to being in a position where the judge is okay, this person understand we are both engaged in this process. he's going to help me out with this entity is going to respond in a particular way that helps his client but at least he's not fighting the question. it's not good when you leave as

a lawyer and said this is great, i had this big problem in my case and i didn't get a question about it. that means you haven't been given an opportunity to tell the court what your answer to the problem is. >> what are some of the attributes or qualities, i know this is difficult question, but president bush saw that led to his nominee new to the our chief justice? >> i don't know to be honest with you. [laughter] and i don't know, but i do know that he gave it a lot of thought. the interview process with him was very uplifting for me. not because of how it worked out at the end. frankly, at the end of the interview i didn't expect it to work out of the way it did, but i was very impressed with his understanding of the role of the

courts in the government and his general view of the responsibility on him. you know, there's always, there seems to be a strange and unusual story behind every appointment of the chief justice. for john marshall, for example, of course he was not john adams first choice. john jay was it was a time when the jeffersonians had taken over the jefferson was about to be inaugurated. oliver ellsworth had health issues, and john adams needed a new chief justice pick a spot was john jay. john jay is the perfect person. he's got experience with it. he's done being governor of new york which he thought was a better job. i was just, like in the, he will take it. john jay wrote back a letter from accessing a letter, the gist of which was, the supreme

court is never going to amount to anything. i was well out of it before and i'm not coming back. and so john adams was secretary of state -- john adams suggested putting the letter. adams read it and said, looked up at his secretary of state who was john marshall and says, who should i nominate now? i yes, i have to nominate you. [laughter] and the rest is history. ..

his portrait in the east conference room has a picture of him obviously and a little picture of grand so at least he was appreciative of grant. so think about that when you're asked to introduce somebody. edward became chief justice because although taft had assured him when he became the chief justice that he would elevate him when the vacancy became available he suddenly realized that hughes was 47-years-old and if he appointed him, presidents taft would never

be able to become chief justice. his wife wanted him to become president so at the last minute he decided to the point appoint a 65-year-old edwin blight as well who was as surprised as everyone else and it all worked out. taft became chief justice and then when taft (-left-paren charles evans hughes became the chief justice again so you never know quite how the appointments, about. >> the biggest challenge you see going forward? >> i can't speak for the others but i think the incredibly rapid development of technology that's going on right now is going to be a challenge. it's not going to be a particular area but it cuts

across many different areas. we had a big case a couple of years ago for example above smartphones and whether police needed a separate warrant. if they arrest you you've got a smartphone, did they need a separate warrant to access your phone but not all of us are as familiar with the technical devices or with different things are or the capabilities. so how does that fit with the fourth amendment? there weren't smartphones back then and it's one of those things you get history from -- guidance from history that didn't like the british troops executing general warrant and kicking the door down and rummaging through their desks. if you think about it, right now today which would you rather

protect if you had a choice, do you want to keep the police out of your desk without a warrant or do you want to keep them out of your smartphone? how many would say the desk and how many would say your smartphone? it is your desk and has all of your documents and everybody you talk to and it's what you've been reading, everything so it's a new technology that you have to apply the old standards. how does the first amendment work with respect to speech on the internet if everybody is a reporter how is the freedom of the press with respect to that. it is a challenge now as the technologies developed and what is the role of the tiny little chip that somebody has that controls how the entire system functions what does that have to do with monopoly and analysis

and things of that sort? that's going to be the challenge across-the-board in all sorts of cases. >> i often wonder whether someone who has obtained a position of chief justice of the united states would ever entertain doing anything else. for instance, william howard taft served as chief justice but that was also president of the united states. [laughter] >> what a horrifying thought. ' [applause] >> it is a life term, and i intend to fill out the term. >> thank you, chief justice. thank you for sharing with us so much. i appreciate it.

thank you very much. [applause]

on saturday february 20. live coverage of the results starts on saturday at 7:30 eastern with the candidate speeches and your reactions to the results on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. coming up washington examiner politics editor james on the upcoming primaries and caucuses of nevada and south carolina. >> the politics editor of talk about south carolina want to show the viewers with a governor said when she endorsed marco rubio yesterday. >> we have good people in this race. we have good people running for president. and i thank them today for their

sacrifice and their willing to serve to honor this great country and make her better, but my job was to find the person i thought could give it the best, so i wanted somebody with fight. i wanted somebody with passion. i wanted somebody with conviction to do the right thing, but i wanted somebody humble enough to remember that you are for all the people, and i wanted somebody that was going to go and show my parents but the best decision i ever made for their children is coming to america. [applause] we say that everyday every day is a great day in south carolina. [cheering] ladies and gentlemen, if we elect marco rubio, every day will be a great day in america. [cheering]

help me welcome the next president of the united states. let's go to the polls on saturday and moved down the way. marco rubio. [cheering] >> host: what does that do to the race in south carolina, that endorsement? >> guest: it's a big and was meant for marco rubio. nikki haley is popular. her approval rating upon the republicans is high. i think that her personal story, her family history and in her relative use as a reelected official reinforce basic messages into some of the narrative that marco rubio was looking for in his own candidates to promote his own candidacy, come and he needs a little bit of a boost. he disappointed in new hampshire after a strong showing in iowa, and he is generally in contention for second place, but he is generally behind ted cruz as well as donald trump in the

polls. so he could use a boost and i think it was helpful. >> host: what does this mean for senator ted cruz, who's been trying to frame the race since the hampshire as a two-man race between him and donald trump? >> guest: it's clearly not a two-man race you. i think what you're seeing at the moment is ted cruz and marco rubio are fighting for a certain slice of the conservative electorate. rubio is also fighting with jeb bush and john kasich for establishment whose lead to find backing with the republican party, and then there is trump versus cruz going on for another slice of populace, maybe more disaffected republican voters. >> host: so, according to nbc, wall street journal national poll that ted cruz is now on top nationally, however others show that donald trump is still on top nationally. and ted cruz has been ratcheting

up his argument and criticism of donald trump kerry i want to show the viewers what he had to say recently about donald trump's record on social issues. >> you know, i have to say, mr. trump, you have been threatening frivolous lawsuits for your entire adult life, even in the frivolous lawsuits, this takes the cake. so, donald, i would encourage you if you want to file a lawsuit, challenging this act claiming it is defamation, filed a lawsuit. it is a remarkable contention that an ad that plays video of donald trump speaking on national television is somehow defamation.

the operative word of the ad comes from donald trump's own mouth. and i understand if the candidate has a record of donald chumps. how he could consider anyone pointing to his actual record as being defamation. but if donald trump files a lawsuit that he threatens in this letter, that lawsuit will be frivolous, and it will result in both donald trump and any lawyer that signs his name to the plate in being filed in court for filing a frivolous litigation. >> host: okay, jim janet antle s pushing back on the criticism from ted cruz. but it poll that shows that he's making headway is, or those attacks working against donald trump? >> guest: we saw when he is actually attacked and treated like a normal candidate, it does have an effect on his numbers and certainly on his favorables

even if it doesn't seem to end his core base vote. being good disciples of atoms become as republicans often are, that we are each looking at their comparative advantage. ted cruz is a checklist conservative. he can check all the boxes on the issues and say i have taken conservative positions and vote for the conservative way on those issues. donald trump is more of an attitudinal conservative. he's not a movement conservative come as he is comes he is appealing to sort of an attitude and anger come and so cruz is attacking him on whether he's been consistent on the issues and seeing if he can get some traction. >> host: and then you have jeb bush who's put all his chips in new hampshire and south carolina. according to the polls that we are talking about and he's still not faring very well in south carolina as it is 4%. what does the endorsement of marco rubio from nikki haley mean for jeb bush and what is

the south carolina primary for jeb bush? >> guest: it could conceivably be a changing of the guard. he brought in the former president, jeb bush. he has the support of lindsey graham who is the senior state senator and a big player in the south carolina politics for a couple of decades now. we could be seeing a younger generation coming to the floor, which is certainly with marco rubio would like to see and has been a big part of his argument. jeb bush really needs to do something in south carolina. he spent a lot of money, not a lot of results. >> host: here's the headlines in the "the washington times." south carolina will decide the campaign. if he doesn't do welcome is it over for him? >> guest: it's up to him to decide if its over but a lot of the donors will make that decision for him. especially given that he has some organization there and he is pulled out of some really big endorsements, if he can't make any impact with the voters, it's going to be hard to see if he

has any impact going forward. >> host: here's what the donald trump have to say about jeb bush and his campaign yesterday. >> if we can win in south carolina, we are going to very well run today. i don't know if you saw -- [cheering] i guess a lot of you have seen next week in nevada it's going to be phenomenal committed relationship there to the people. bush is 1% in nevada. why doesn't he just give up and go home? go home to mom, go home to mommy. bush is only 1% in nevada. a couple of them are ten to 11, 12, and i'm at like 40 something, 48 great >> host: jim antle, what has donald trump done to jeb bush's campaign? versus low energy come and now he never lets up on jeb bush.

>> guest: right. welcome he clearly views jeb bush is a convenient hunting bag and he's a symbol of what he's running against. jeb bush is a dynasty figure. he's pretty establishment. he's symbolic of what donald trump and people who support him argue is a republican leadership has failed to deliver for the party's base. jeb bush wouldn't have been able to raise $100 million without his family name to be a.com in a lot of ways, the family name with voters has hurt him. and maybe if you were jeb smith he would be calling better. >> host: the political editor with the washington examiner to take your comments and questions about campaign 2016. only a couple days away from the republican primary in south carolina and the democrats caucusing in nevada on saturday. so, start dialing in. republicans (202)748-8001.

2,027,478,000 independent 748-8002. let me go to michael in jamaica new york independent. good morning. >> caller: what's going on? donald trump coming in second, i feel like ted cruz would be my second choice, i think that donald trump is a great businessman, great ideas for the country and ted cruz doesn't have that great of a plan. i would rather take donald trump over hillary clinton. >> host: how is it shaping up, jim antle come in the hypothetical matchups that the polling companies like to do if it is donald trump versus hillary clinton or another public and candidate or bernie sanders, what is it looking like? >> guest: so far it doesn't seem to make a difference.

bernie sanders is slightly outperforming hillary clinton in the most recent matchups, but not by a big margin. maybe not even statistically significant in some polls. so i think you are really seeing sort of just a generic partisan vote in the lower to mid 40s for both candidates on the democratic side and on the republican side. >> host: so, does a possible entry by the former new york mayor michael bloomberg -- is that a credible strategy for michael bloomberg to get him? i mean come could he win an independent bid? >> guest: it's hard to see how that would work. michael bloomberg said in 2013 to difficult to win if you're not a major party candidate. he got elected in new york the first time as a republican, decided to run as a major party candidate. bloomberg would clearly have some degree of a constituency, sort of a pro-life constituency may be more to the left. but, he would be competing

mostly i think with hillary clinton's base vote coming and it's hard to see how he gets out of the teens and really compete even for some electoral votes. >> host: does it help republicans? >> guest: it with marginally help. if donald trump were the nominee, you might have this can-do billionaire boat that would be split with my view is that he would draw a liberal vote of the committee expense of the democrats. >> host: jim in virginia, hello to get >> caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. this is a crazy time, crazy politics race we have going on this year. i kind of like bernie sanders, and i hope that he gets a little bit more with him. there's a lot of problems we could fix with just common sense. we need our troops on the border. we could fix social security can't take 50%, take 50% of the earned income tax credit from the day the baby comes out of the hospital, take 50% of the earned income tax credit and put that on social security.

that would more than probably pay for healthcare health care in this country. minimum wage, wait until they are 18-years-old to do that. there's common sense things we could do that and i just hope things get better. thanks very much for c-span. >> host: jim antle, what is it looking like heading into nevada for democrats this saturday between hillary clinton and bernie sanders? >> guest: it is a state hillary clinton is and has been been favored and it will be a well turned up caucus, so it's hard to fold. it does seem bernie sanders has been making some headway. the two groups i think you really want to watch are the latino voters, who should be able to deliver pretty heavily for clinton. where did the union voters who are going to be big for the nevada caucus, the nevada democrat, where do they go? union leadership has been favoring clinton, but there's a lot of support for bernie sanders sanders in the rank and file command to receive a

discount to the discount play out when they go to the? >> host: that could be why the afl-cio said they are going to hold off on the presidential endorsement. rating story yesterday this is a big win for bernie sanders was the headline. >> guest: it is a big win for bernie sanders but there is a desire among the union leadership to call us about hillary clinton, to get on board with the front runner in the likely nominee early, even though bernie sanders is closer to the heart of the a lot of the rank and file union members. the longer we can delay organized labor getting into the clinton camp, the more he can create the impression that this is still a competitive race, and if you continue to create that impression after having having strong performances in new hampshire and iowa, that perception can become a reality. >> host: by the way, hillary clinton is featured in the latest edition of vogue magazine. if you're interested in the headline will hillary clinton make history. the report of their having access to hillary clinton,

following her on the campaign trail from iowa to new hampshire and sitting down to do an interview with her in december. corky in atlanta, republican. >> caller: good morning. i'm very disappointed in the republican voters, if they are republican, supporting trump. it seems like they are not just voting for their brain. they are voting on what they think they can get. and as an example, donald trump can finish and maybe i won't do better, he can't finish a complete sentence when asked the question them about what people do -- he doesn't do anything like that trade pacts with the asian countries, he thinks we are dealing with the newest one is with china, which is wrong. and he also? at -- when he was asked who he would pick for a supreme court replacement for justice leah, he quite well my sister is a federal judge, i might appoint

her. and then when he was pushed on that a few days later he said i was just joking. but his sister is the most avid pro- abortion judge there is coming even saying that partial-birth abortion is okay. >> host: i'm going to leave it there and have jim antle jump in. what do you make on that, that was a republican calling and he >> guest: scalia's death is going to heighten the scrutiny on donald trump. he's made a lot of conflicting statements on social issues both in the course of his public life, has no track record on legal and judicial issues. so if you are ted cruz in particular but also the lesser extent marco rubio, this is a huge issue for you to highlight. to associate of you want to nominate donald trump, because do you want to have the judges that donald trump will choose, it is a big issue but i think will potentially peel off some of the evangelicals and social conservatives. >> host: the editorial board

at the times echoing what that caller caller have to say this morning saying the stakes in south carolina, donald trump can talk the talk that he hasn't mastered the walk. they say only the foolish having examined a record of persuading him as a conservative were anyone other than looking out only for himself, republicans and independent voters in those where call him a moderate because they can't fit into either ideology. they say that his persona has worked in the early primaries and caucuses because they the earned a reputation as a party of big talkers and attended actors and millions of americans are fed up with them. no one doubts that he is a tough guy in talk and action but upon close examination, he reveals himself to be someone without an anchor. the risks and challenges this time are considerably greater than usual. and every voter in south carolina and the primaries and the state that follow must keep that in mind. the rest of us are depending on that. why do you think they write this? because of debate that it's

working out? >> guest: there is a large anti-donald trump vote and when you have some one-on-one polling done it breaks down marco rubio versus donald trump and ted cruz versus donald chump it looks like they could beat him in a one-on-one race. we have to see what happens to create the dynamic that would let that happen but right now rubio and ted cruz are dividing that into a lesser extent jeb bush and john kasich. the fact they are attacking each other so ferociously and competing with each other and calling one another names plays into donald trump's hands because it keeps the vote divided. .. host: so far giving him the mt delegates. ,uest: to the greater extent the race looks like a circus outside of trump.

it makes trump look like he is more in keeping with the dynamic of the race. there's this feeling that we have a sophisticated dinner party that donald trump is the boorish guest who hasn't shown upuninvited -- has shown uninvited. a lot of name-calling and anger. likeore donald trump looks it plays into the message from is sending the this is a circus to begin with before he even got there. >> hi, richard? >> good morning to you. question or comment? >> the race will really change america this year because it was founded on working class, to live their own lives but they can't do that. i think the whole campaign, we

look back at history we will find the republican party freed the slaves. was in the democrats and so we look at that and i was a union member working at general motors 13 years but i didn't ask people to give me stuff. i worked hard for it. there's something you were gone, you keep a budget you can afford. john f. kennedy said don't look for what the country can do for you but what you can do for the country. >> turn your point. >> guest: that is a theme you're hearing over and over again in the republican primaries and it is across the spectrum of all the candidates. marco rubio argues president obama is changing the nature, character of the country, donald trump is trying to be the champion of the working class, ted cruz is arguing overweening government is sapping the initiative of the american

people. it is a big theme throughout the republican primary. >> host: on twitter, if jab was jeb smith he would not be in the race because he would not have that $150 million war chest. >> guest: no question his family ties are why he is so well funded. the question is you talk to republican primary voters all the time to say i kind of like jeb but i don't think the country needs another bush and i am tired of there being so many bushes. the dynastic politics that were a benefit to him as he got out of the gate have been more of a stumbling block as we head into the primaries. >> host: south carolina, independent caller. >> caller: good morning, how are you? >> host: who are you going to vote for? >> caller: from a supporter, just about my whole family is a trumped supporter. my sisters, there hasn'ts, we

don't have landlines. the thing i like about from is fit he is for the american citizen. it seems like the establishment -- i registered republican years ago. i am an evangelical christian and it seems everytime the vote came around, the establishment republicans -- we are not going to do gay marriage, we are going to try to do something about partial birth abortion, look what they're doing, they have gay marriage, they have partial birth abortion, cutting baby parts of. i am angry. don't come ask for my vote now. whenever you have -- when you have said you were going to do when i did all the christians

things you did nothing, you sat silently by and so i am for donald trump because he is for the american citizen. marco rubio and ted cruz have the same resumed, the president in the office today. >> host: cathy says she is angry because fred barnes points out in his opinion piece 47% of new hampshire republicans in exit polls said they felt betrayed by republican politicians. >> guest: that is driving donald trump's appeal indeed is a limit to the criticism of him on issues, people are saying what he didn't take this conservative position or that conservative position, you are going to hear a lot of voters like the caller who's a we have these people who took the right positions but what changed? what was different after we voted, after we elected them?

that is trump's main argument. >> we are going to leave this discussion and go to a federal communications commission open meeting, proposed rule changes to the top box market. tom wheeler is current fcc chair. live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> anybody going to get started? >> we are going to do that.

>> the most important person of the moment has arrived. good morning, madame secretary. and when we say good morning we really mean good morning to you this morning. and welcome to the february meeting of the federal communications commission. please introduce the agenda. >> good morning to you and good morning, commissioner. for today's meeting, three items for your consideration. first you will consider an entry that seeks the current state of programming diversity and the obstacles independent programmers face in obtaining

carriage on video distribution platforms. second you will consider a notice of proposed rulemaking that seeks comment on framework for providing innovatives, devoe manufacturing and apps developers, the information they need to develop new technologies to access video content. third, you will consider a second report and order that allocates responsibilities for the delivery of closed captions on video programming and handling of caption complaints. you will also consider a consent agenda as listed in the commission's february of 2016 sunshine notice. this is your agenda for today. promoting the availability of diverse and independent sources

of video programming presented by the media and the chief of the bureau will give the introduction. >> you may now catch your breath. mr lake. >> good morning mr. chairman and commissioners with the media bureau presents a notice of inquiry that exit -- seeks comment on the challenges independent video programmers face in gaining carriage of their content above traditional in the emerging distribution platforms. this notice of inquiry furthers the commission's ongoing efforts, for availability to consumers. programmers have expressed concern that certain practices of cable operators and others may limit their ability to reach viewers and stifle competition and innovation in the distribution of video programming vijay singh troll objective of multi channel video

programming regulation is to foster a diverse and competitive programming marketplace. as the agency charged by statute with implementing this objective we seek to begin a fact-finding enterprise. on the current state of programming diversity and consider possibly possible actions the tonight take to address the concerns that have been raised and thereby foster independent sources of programming. joining me at the table are martha heller, raymond ramie, a kalisha will present the item. >> chairman, commissioners, we are pleased to present the notice of inquiry that provides opportunity for stakeholders, consumers and others to voice their concerns about the state of diversity, competition and innovation within the video programming marketplace. over the last quarter-century we have seen significant changes in

the media landscape that fundamentally altered the ways in which americans access and consumer video programming. consumers can access video programming over multiple competing platforms and the dominance of cable operators or pay-tv distributors has eroded. however incumbent operators retain an important position in the video programming marketplace and obtaining care from individuals is still vital for the growth of many emerging programmers. through this notice of inquiry, we invite comments generally on this independent programming marketplace and the challenges knew in the emerging programmers face in attempting to lunch or grow. we seek comment on several specific challenges identified in other proceedings. first we seek comment on certain types of contraction positions, that are typical and program

carriage agreement including most-favored-nation an alternative distribution method. independent programmers have asserted both types of provisions often hinder their ability to obtain distribution of their content. we seek comment on issues related to carriage by over the top providers including cost and benefit independent programmers going to additional cable or satellite carriers to pursue a carriage. next we seek comment on the impact program bundling may have an independent programmers. and some large media companies with multiple program offerings including vertically integrated programmers are able to force them to carry less desirable content through bundling arrangement. some parties left such bundling arrangement limit programming shoelaces and raise costs for consumers by forcing them to

accept less desirable content that displaces independent and diverse programming. in addition we seek comment on any negotiation practices whether discrimination is occurring against providers of public, educational and governmental programming. finally we seek comment on the legal authority in this arianna and and what role we should address obstacles that hinder providers of independent and diverse programming reaching consumers. the media bureau recommends the commission adopt notice of inquiry and address this, thank you. >> thank you and welcome to your first presentation before the commission. well done. commissioner clyburn. >> much has changed when it comes to viewing habits of americans since the passage of the 1992 cable act. most video programming distributors maintain significant influence in the

ever expanding video programming marketplace. since my arrival a skier in the summer of 2009 i have met with and spoken to dozens of independent programmers from extreme ends of the ideological spectrum. politics and prose a side they find agreement on three, four issues. ecb says they are finding insurmountable balances what comes to acquire kroger and challenges, that it is difficult for them to receive fair or reasonable contract terms and the growth in their online distribution model is inhibited because program distribution access is often restricted the a contract. during the recent at&t direct tv merger, a number of these issues were raised yet again by many parties including independent and network affiliated programmers as well as small cable operators repeatedly

requested relief. we found the issues raised were not best handled in the context of that merger, the level of concern merited a separate proceeding for a better understanding of video programming marketplace where certain practices by operators as claimed are limiting the ability for them to reach their

viewers. while i the goal is to launch a fact-finding exercise that will start a conversation on how best to promote the availability of divers and independent sources of video programming. and governmental programming. any issue, mr. chairman that brings together content provider who campaigned hard very hard

for my house to rent another juicing is my phrase is, surely merits a robust discussion. again i would like to thank the media bureau for this item especially marked the heller, raylinnn and holly. . >> you are rare it came together. >> it feels like a storm. >> commissioner rosenworcel. >> this will be more calm. we have a dizzying array of channels available to consumers. we expect programming to be available anytime, anywhere and on any screen. on top of that novel platforms for content are cropping up here, there and everywhere. the future of watching will not look like the past and that is exciting. despite this change, old

problems linger. time and time again, we hear independent programmers face a daunting challenge securing real estate on cable and satellite systems. these systems still dominate our video experiences, and securing carriage can be a prerequisite to building the viewership that in turn supports investment in more diverse content. this notice of inquiry tackles these issues and asks hard questions about new voices, new viewpoints and the state of the market for independent programming. this is important. because what we see on the screen says so much about who we are as individuals, as communities and as a nation. in this season of oscars and female directors, starting a conversation about independent voices might be hard but it is the right thing to do and kudos

to my colleague commissioner clyburn for encouraging us to get this started. >> when i was growing up i did not see many people on screen who looked like me, one of use the characters i remember was on the cartoon johnny quest which was occasionally run in the late 1970's, it featured johnny's sidekick who picked at this march on the streets of calcutta and had mystique hours. the only real life recurring in the american character i recall was one of the classroom full of gifted students on the abc sitcom, and in the early 1990s, from the simpsons who was voiced by the noted indian american, things are different today. netflix now carries master of

none, who was also co creator. the show focuses on the american-born son of immigrants. they tell stories we have never seen before on american television. as an american-born son myself, i especially enjoyed episode 2. the title parents, it examines relationships between asians who came to this country in the 1960s and 70s and their american children. two of the closest friends on the show are chinese american and african american lesbian. needless to say the show was a far cry from leave it to beaver. stock contrast between the way things are and the way things were informs my approach to notice of inquiry. there are more outlets for which creators of video content can distribute their programming than ever before. over the top video has been a game changer, it has given

diverse voices a new way to be heard and given americans novel content they previously might not have seen. considered the youtube sensation hit series the messages of awkward black girl. when that why she created a series set i felt my voice was a thing as the voices of other people i respect and admire and want to see in the mainstream on this thing. the first part of this year is filled with some friends quickly got attention and youtube. thanks to a successful kicks are inert campaign ray was able to raise over $65,000 through almost 2,000 donations and could complete the rest of the forsees in. to date ray has 208,000 subscribers on her use of the tube channel and her shows had amassed 20 million views including my own. last year she published a collection of short stories and last year hbo picked up her new

cd's. and limited to the production side of the video ledger. it is wide content for over-the-top services. one researcher put it multi-cultural viewers are more likely to have made over the top and in troubled part of their viewing life style. 45% of african-american viewers, 46% of asian-american viewers and 51% of hispanic viewers studying reports spending 20% of their total tv viewing time watching that as opposed to 39% of white viewers. to be sure there still may be some challenges in this brave new world of video. some independent programmers have expressed concern that certain carriage practices cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors may limit their ability to reach viewers. i have heard these concerns in my own meetings with independent

programmers and i am pleased the commission is giving all stakeholders a chance to provide feedback on the issues we tee up. i have said many times we are living in the golden age of television. one of the reasons is the amazing range of diverse content available to americans today with the push of a button, click of a cursor or the connection of a toggle. important to remember programs like master of none or the misadventures of awkward black girl are not the product of government regulation. they are thriving because of the free market in which creativity, technological innovation are recognized and rewarded. as the commission moves forward in this and other proceedings we should be careful not to hold back this video revolution. for indian americans today, kids today concede themselves on screen in roles more varied as snake charmers, that is the good thing and we should not hold it

back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> commissioner o'reilly. >> in reading the item as circulated there are a number of edits i believe are needed and appropriate. there were slightly more concrete language in the statement of the primary goals of proceeding. and to begin conversations my colleagues mentioned about the state of independent and diverse programming and i ask that they changed from beginning at conversation to seek information which is a more appropriate goal for an inquiry of a federal regulatory agency. all my proposed at its, this was the easiest but surprising to me, my request was denied more than once. which left me wonder what the commission was so deeply wedded to this innocuous sounding phrase begin the conversation and the more i thought about it the more it became clear that beginning a conversation is not accurate description of what is occurring here. begin applies to a novel topic that interested parties have not

had the opportunity to weigh in on yet. however, anyone who has ever followed media regulation issues is a where the debate around program carriage or lack thereof is as close as it gets to a constant fixture. almost as long as there have been cable and satellite systems, programmers have been arguing they need more carriage. we should all be able to agree this conversation began long ago, at least since 1989 when it included several timeless assertions, some program suppliers complained rising concentration, a cable system ownership has led to their inability to gain access to large cable systems. programmers found many synthetic years to their complaints in congress and at the commission over the decades from the least accessed systems established by the 1984 cable act, and a 92 cable act to the commission's

2011 modifications to carriage rules and further carriage requirements as conditioned of mergers, there have been numerous legislative regulatory attempts to address the challenges faced by independent programmers from any angle. the technology has changed the lot since it began but the arguments have not changed substantially. we are not living in an age of thousand channel lineups and many consumers seeking a different structure are rapidly adopting robust over the top offerings of the year and on demand programming alike. additionally compelling content is being monetized to praise the unimagined degrees on the web and mobile devices in a world that has brought this explosive growth in terms of sheer number of potential platforms for content. it is interesting access to the old network is still considered a major issue but with this debate the more things change the more they stay the same. if this item is not the

beginning of the conversation what is in fact beginning? many of you that have interest have not been able to read the document yet but it should not come with what is beginning as more accurate description of the latest regulatory push. laying out some questions to give platform more dialogue, almost every paragraph in the original draft was slanted in the direction of that. i appreciate what was submitted to be adopted to this and i appreciate the work of majority. it allows me to confirm with the item. i hope these edits will be able to steer the proceeding into conversation territory. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i have a statement for the record. let me begin by thanking the commissioner ajit varadaraj pai one for treating this front and center with us, being the

advocate that is the reason why it is on the agenda today for all of your leadership. this is a simple issue of how do we expand diversity of choice and opportunity and the next item we will be discussing, so all those in favor say aye, opposed, the ayes have it. the item is adopted, request for editorial privileges is granted with the objection noted. >> thank you very much to the bureau for all your efforts on this. madame secretary. >> next item on the agenda presented by the media bureau, expanding consumer is video navigation, commercial

availability of navigation -- >> bill and marissa, some things never change. you want to start? >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. memorandum, opinion and order proposes rules for a competitive market or devices and their when consumers can use in lieu of leased equipment to access cable and satellite video programming. these rules are intended to meet the commission's obligations under section 629 of the communications act. joining me at the table are marge the heller, brendan mary

and lyle elder, and chief technologist, brendan will present the item. >> mr. chairman and commissioner, we are pleased to notice proposed rulemaking, to ensure the availability to consumers of competitive sources of equipment to access a tv programming as the commission is directed to buy 629 of the communications act. section 629 which just celebrated its 20th birth day along with other provisions of the telecommunications act directs the commission to adopt regulations to insure commercial market for devices and apps that can access video programming from sources other than subscribers pay-tv provider, cable and satellite provider. in short it directs the commission to untether consumers from the pay-tv providers. to achieve this directive, we

have multi general programming distributors to offer three information flows using any published transparent format that conforms to specifications that have open standards. these information flows will allow manufacturers and other companies not affiliated to design and build competitive devices and applications to access video programming under the same terms of use under which the lease equipment design apps can access programming. under this proposal they could use different standards for their own user interfaces so as not to impede the competitive evolution of these devices and apps. to choose the security systems they use to ensure all video programming is protected and only those who subscribe to a service are able to access it provided a each support one content protection system that is licensed, and reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms by an

organization that is not affiliated with it. this approach will balance their rates to choose the content protection systems to protect programming with the needs of manufacturers to build devices that access protected content from a variety that may use content protection systems. next day -- the npr and provides parity will allow each to offers an application on unaffiliated devices without the need for specific equipment but also offered the information flow to an affiliated applications without the need for specific equipment. ..

>> and the build of various types and sizes of providers to comply with the proposal. finally, the item includes a memorandum opinion and order that removes the so-called integration and language from the code of federal regulations as required under section 106. the bureau recommends the commission about the nprm and member of opinion in order and request editorial privileges. >> thank you very much. thanks to everybody for all your hard work. commissioner clyburn. >> in 1996 thousands mentioned congress added section 629 to

the communications act which mandated the agency take steps towards ensuring that a competitive navigation device market access for access to both a channel video programming. while prior commission attempts in this area have been less than successful, standardization and technological advancements have made it easier to introduce competition and innovation into the set-top market. while these developments have resulted in some competition, consumers deserve more. today's notice of proposed rulemaking seeks to give consumers more control in how they access the video services they prescribed. it promotes innovation in the display selection and use of this programming. in short, choice. it would allow for the development of more user-friendly interfaces, opening the market to additional platforms that are not strictly

under the purview and management of a single distributor. today, 99% of the paid tv customers rent a set-top box from an mvpd at a cost that exceeds $200 per year. while the cost of other technologies have fallen as competition increased, the cost of the set-top boxes risen in more than three times the rate of inflation for american paid tv subscribers over that same period. this item proposes, not jobs, but proposes to provide a technology neutral means for consumers to choose how they interact with the multichannel video programming distributor's they pay for. if a consumer wishes to purchase a device or application to access this programming, this proposal will empower that choice. is a consumer chooses to continue to rent a box or app from their mvpd, they have the

option to do that also. this item does not propose a specific technical standard like the proposal the commission considered in 2010. instead, a standards setting body in consultation with those affected would lay out technical specifications enabling manufacturers, retailers and companies, including the cable or satellite provider, to build and design navigation devices. there's been much discussion lately about how in this proposal affect content diversity with some expressing concern that it could lead to decreases in the level of diverse programming choices. sadly we are only speaking about a paltry number of diverse channels that can be currently found over these systems today but for the handful of those who have had success in being carried by an mvpd, i see no

legitimate business or economic reason why this item should make their programming or the relationship with the distributor anymore vulnerable than their counterpart. what i hope will look for is that creators of content who have been unable to get mvpd carriage may soon have them means to reach consumers directly. similar to the way that internet searches provide consumers with information from various sources, a competitive solution with improved search functionality could allow consumers to find programming that is available over the top, something you cannot do with today's set-top boxes. these developments should result in consumers having a wider range of options. i think they media bureau for the hard work on this item, especially the efforts of brendan murray and lyle elder. thank you very much.

>> thank you, commissioner. commissioner rosenworcel. >> is an experiment. you can do it at home. just sit in your favorite, comfortable chair, you know, the one in front of the television. and in one hand holding the remote control for a set-top box. in the other hand hold your mobile phone. now ask yourself which of these two devices has changed substantially over the past two decades? which has seen extraordinary innovation? and which has benefited from competition? the answers are obvious. the bulky, graceless mobile phone from two decades ago have been replaced by sleek new models, but it's a lot more than just aesthetics. what we can do with these devices now is incredible. smart phones have changed our lives and are changing our world. but the clunky set-top box and many buttoned remote'have not

evolved at the same pace, nor have they face the same level of competition. the numbers make this very clear. 99% of consumers still purchase, excuse me, rea rent their set-tp boxes from their paid television provider. the typical household now spends more than $231 the year on those set-top box rental fees. costs are high, innovation is slow, and competition is too limited. congress did not want it to be this way. two decades ago in the telecommunications act of 1996, this agency was charged with ensuring the commercial availability of navigation devices, creating a competitive market for set-top boxes. there are times when legislative directives are not clear. this is not one of them. i think that we can do better so i support today's rule-making.

but i also think we have a lot of work to do. important questions have been raised about copyright, privacy, diversity, and whol and a host r issues in a marketplace that has been tougher competitors to crack. we will need to explore them in the record that develops. let me raise one other. this rulemaking is complicated. it describes three information streams for navigation devices, work that needs to be done by standards body, a medley of securing systems and a trio of parity requirements. the most successful regulatory efforts are simple ones here more work needs to be done to streamline this proposal because in the end, for consumers to benefit and enjoy the bounty of what we have proposed, well, execution is all. so we have here may or may not be the precisely forward but

something has got to give. i support chairman wheeler's effort to get this proceeding started because it's time, palestine, to give, to live up to our statutory obligations and give consumers the competition they deserve. >> thank you, commissioner rosenworcel. and your observations are well taken, and as you point out the reason why we have a will making like this we can get that record built. commissioner pai. >> thank you, mr. chairman your someone with three set-top boxes in my home, i share the frustration felt by millions of americans across this country. these boxes are clunky, expensive, and they feel the pain each and every month when i have to pay my video bills. as a commissioner i know that the current set-top box market place is the product of an intrusive regulatory regime. something has to change. what should that change be like?

what should be our aim when it comes to this marketplace? what would be the best for consumers? my goal is pretty simple. our goal should not be to unlock the box. it should be to eliminate the box. if you are a cable customer and you don't want to a set-top box, you shouldn't be required to have one. this goal is technically feasible and it reflects most consumers preferences, including my own. but in this notice the fcc takes a much different task. a double to a necessity of having a box substituting one interested regular toward regime for another. essentially it would introduce an entirely new set of boxes into consumers homes. because this proposal moves us further with an objective of dropping the box and takes a 20 centric approach to a 21st century problem you respectfully cannot support this notice.

let's start with one indisputable fact. when it comes to navigation devices the fcc has not embraced free market policies. instead it's embraced a form of centralized planning. by implementing the so-called cablecard regime and the integration band, the sec sought to move the set-top box workplace to its desired shape your there's widespread agreement that the commissions intervention has been a massive failure. indeed, this notice repeatedly admits the rules failed to achieve their objective. the fcc's regulations have raised the price of set-top boxes costing americans millions of dollars in additional fees. they've increased cable customers energy consumption by 500 million-kilowatt hours each year, enough to power every home in the washington, d.c. area for three months. and they have failed to produce robust competition in a set-top box market. less than 2% of customers who purchased their set-top box at

retail. the failure of the fcc's policies is what brings us here today. but as we seek to trade one complex regulatory scheme for another, we should pause and ask ourselves a simple question. will result in a different this time around? will the sequel be any better than the original? in my judgment the answer is no. this is for several reasons. first and foremost this proposal is likely to produce a stalemate, not a newly competitive market. the cornerstone of the notice is the heavy reliance on open standards bodies operating through consensus. according to the commission's proposal, mvpd is will be required to supply certain information in formats that conform to specifications set by open standards bodies. these open standards bodies in turn would consist of members representing all stakeholders and would develop standards by consensus. but would it is ever really

happened? today the defining characteristic of this proceeding has been vigorous disagreement with video distributors and content rich on one side, and the consumer electronics industry on the other. we saw this in the downloadable security technology advisory committee. we have seen this in the run up to today's vote and i am sure we will see it in the comments are submitted in response to this notice. should we have confidence in the highly -- open potters standing will become harmonious after the commission issues final rules? if anything when it's time to get down to the technical nitty-gritty of the many these controversial regulations i believe it will be harder not easier to reach consensus. indeed, the odds are probably better than mark zuckerberg will agree to kanye west requests for $1 billion. second, there's a problem of timing. the commission's rules will not have any impact for years. for example, the notice proposes

mvpd is what not have to implement these regulations until two years after the adoption. even if all goes according to plan, and i think reasonable minds doubt it will, consumers probably would not feel the effects for another three years. think about what three years means in the dynamic video marketplace. three years ago there was no such thing as google chrome cast or the amazon fire stick. there's a ton what for the individual occur over the next three years we know it will happen and we know it will happen fast. while in dvds and content creators spend years trying to intimate the commission's rules, technology could render all of the obsolete by the time is ready to roll out. that would be a waste of time, energy and money for all involved. third, the standards condition by the commission's proposal are ever actually implemented, the likely result is that consumers will have to deal with two boxes instead of one.

much of the controversy surrounding this proposal has centered on whether it would require an additional box be deployed in americans homes. to be sure, the notice doesn't say it's only words that in dvds would be required to provide customers with another box but that unfortunately is likely to be the outcome if these rules are adopted and implemented. here's why. in order to carry out the standard called for in this notice, in dvds would likely have one of two options. first, they could make substantial changes to the network architecture or second, they could provide each customer with an additional box. during my discussion with mvpd is in the week leading up to this meeting each and every company has told it would be less expensive to deploy additional box is in customers homes. the american people will probably end up paying for more boxes, not fewer. fourth, the proposal could hurt

content creators. this proposal would allow set-top box manufacturers to profit from the content produced by others without paying those programmers. for example, nothing in this proposal would prevent a set-top box manufacturer from replacing the commercial television show, the commercial sold by that manufacturer. nothing would prevent a set-top box manufacturer from adding commercials to reprogram. to be clear we could to foreclose those possibilities. the drafters of this notice could've address content creators concern without compromising the core of this proposal. but they did not. minority programmers are perhaps the most at risk. that might explain why a wide variety of civil rights organizations including the rainbow/push coalition, the league of latin american, united by an american citizen, multicultural telecom and internet council and lgbt technology partnership among others have expressed opposition to this proposal.

that's why minority programs are opposed to it as well. this morning i believe that victor cerda is with us. victor, argued your? victor is the head of ndp -- in et which is the first national television network and to try to part with public television. they bring high quality entertainment to latino families. along with representatives of other latino organizations he signed a letter opposing the commission's proposal. he said the commission's proposal could, in his words, lead to a new round of tv redline and which set-top box developers pick and choose what networks to show a drop latino programming, or bury it deep in the channel lineup. nothing in this proposal addresses that concern. taking a step back this notice promises a lot but it probably will not deliver much. most of what they will deliver

is likely to be bad for american consumers and content creators. none of us had to be. right now we are en route to eliminating the need for a set-top box altogether. and atkin turner ipad or phone into a navigation device to mvpds have a deployed is under in the process of developing more advanced but. the commission should be encouraging those efforts. but this proposal would do precisely the opposite. they would divert the industries energies away from app development and towards a long-term slog a complaint with the commission's new regulatory scheme for unwanted hardware. the notice goes further. it proposes a number of regulations that would discourage the development and deployment of mvpd apps. that's not what the american people. i'm confident most consumers would rather eliminate the set-top box altogether and embrace a complex regulatory scheme that will require them to

yet another box in their home and it will not take effect for at least three years. in fact i daresay most consumers would urge the fcc to adopt a version of neo's conversation in the matrix. do not try and bend the set-top box marketplace. that's impossible. instead only try to realize the truth. what truth? there is no set-top box. there is no set-top box? then you will see that it is not the set top box that vince. it is only yourselves. all of this might explain the deep bipartisan concern on capitol hill about the fcc's approach to set-top box regulation. senator bill nelson, ranking member of the senate committee on science, commerce, science and transportation has told us to avoid taking any action that could threaten the vibrant market for quality video program. a diverse group of 25 democratic representatives led by tony

cárdenas has called for restraint think it is important for the government to not be overly prescriptive in regulation. congressman tom arena and ted deutch have warned us of this proceeding could upset the delicate system that underlies the creation, licensing and distribution of copyrighted television programming and potentially jeopardize efforts to prevent copyright infringement. representative doug collins, lamar smith, adam schiff and mimi walters have expressed their concern over the proposal potential adverse impact on independence minority of religious content creators. i wish the commission to listen to these voices rather than plowing ahead with a fallen proposal because it does not, i respectfully, dissent. thank you. >> commissioner o'rielly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. over the years i spent considerable time on the policy issues involving set-top box appeared past experience along with serving the current the

landscape has led me to conclude that set-top boxes are relic of the past. they are well underway to the fate of the video rental store. so why in 2016 with the commission be doing a set-top box item? the id of an agency maintaining its control by placing outdated regulation of new technology sounds familiar, you may be on the right track. in recent weeks we've been subjected to a steady stream of hype about this item unlocking the box. never let it be said is commissions propagandists have a hard time staying on message but this particular catchphrase only papers over constructive results to come individual marketplace if the commission proceeds to adopt the rules presented today. this proposal would be harmful to some extent for consumers as well as to almost every type of business involved in producing and distributing video content in many predictable ways, not the least busy unbreakable and

unpredicted facts. it could also open mvpd networks to assist security for those exposing them to potential network damage and content theft. they could strip content producers of the right to control the distribution and presentation of the content. it could ultimate subject ott to the same machine as i will discuss later. worst of all they would survey the value of the content produced by programmers, large and small i need that anyone capable of writing a compliment act to turn on free video stream of video content painstakingly cobbled together by mvpd at great expense. the ultimate free rider problem. mvpd is broadcast at any the programmers alike with all those some incentives to keep doing what they do and some opt for the sidelines leaving consumers with fewer options. for consumers, the commission's response, excuse they come to most of these concerns oils down to trust us, you will be okay.

or rather, try scrolling at existing entities like an organization as effectively with mvpds to come up with a security system that will protect content. and trust open standard bodies to set up acceptable specification for any app developer to interact directly with an mvpd network. trust marketplace forces to keep presentation standards and advertising impact. the item is forced onto a few detours from this particular path, resigned tuesday to comment on such basic questions as whether licensing can't ensure adherence to copy control and other rights information and adequate content protection. can it even be done? we don't know. yet somehow despite all of the open questions about who, how, where, when, the majority have so much faith in the ability of outside and informed entities to save the day to be eyed

intensity with this should be a two-year deadline for compliance within the rules. this is regulation by pure speculation. the statutory authority of which is fantasy rest is equally far-fetched. the section that discusses authority along with a testament to level of certainty which can be achieved in four short paragraphs when the statutes fall down a rat hole into a land where words have no meaning. while billed as an attempt to enhance competition in the set-top box market, the item she smiles be on that narrow frame on the very first page redefining statutory term plainly referencing hardware such as navigation device, interactive communications equipment and other equipment to mean hardware or software, including apps. i don't know how much clearer the terms device or equipment could be in their intent to reference tangible physical hardware.

if those words don't restrict the commission, are there any that could? i don't think anyone who believes 42nd at steller could've made it out of a single congressional committee in 2014 if the members had known they would interpret to allow the fcc to force mvpd is to string all other content for free to any app developer willing to jump through a few hoops. getting back to the original question, why this proposal. the rationale state is to achieve parity among competing interfaces but at this class glance anyone can see the exact opposite is what would result in the free content flowed into to buy this item will be the one way street from mvpd is to ott. in order to have come to ever have parity, in order for mvpd interface to ever be competitive with an ott solution, that integrates video from other mvpd is, ott would need to be bound by the same rules and send the other content for free. and, indeed, to each other for free. i was told of one early meeting

this idea was brought up it was quickly dismissed as outside the scope of both steller and the commission title vi of 40. so no one here is talking about making a one way street a two-way street, or are we? with 3-d movie you need to look through both red and blue sites of the glasses to see the whole picture, to make any sense of the item it must be viewed together with the other half. the commission's proposal to reclassified ott as an mvpd. if both of these are followed to their logical conclusion, an entire class of innovators who bear no similarity to mvpd is except, excuse me, also offer video would be redefined as mvpds and subsumed into title vi but meanwhile, i'll mvpd is whether existing or newly minted will be forced to provide all of their content to each other under an fcc mandated ski.