her, go to c-span.org/cities to her. spent you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. ..

>> guest: we created a digital free-for-all in that bill where every company could do anything. that telescoped the time frame that it took in order to deploy fiber all across our country to create the capacity so that all of these new companies could get created so that words like google and hulu and youtube are are part of the culture today. but they were impossible to be created before the act. so we got a lot right. nothing is perfect. but one thing we did do was we moved not only our own country, but the world from analog to digital. and if you're living in india or china, you're now using the words that were created, including twitter and facebook, that would not be possible without that bill. >> host: jack fields, same question. >> guest: you know, i think also

what we got right is we worked together. i mean, we collaborated. fortunately, we had a very strong friendship prior to that as we did with other members of the committee. i think we asked the right questions. i think it was our sincere desire to get this right, you know? the last major piece of telecommunication legislation had passed in 1934 when you had some radio, some telephone, telegraph and smoke signals. so i think we both viewed this as a historic opportunity to, you know, work together. and not only did we work together as members, but we talked with, you know, members of the industry trying to truly understand not only where the world was at that particular moment, but where the world was going to be, you know, 20 year withs from now. 20 years from now. and our goal was to take away the lines of demarcation that prevented competition.

and by unleashing the competitive forces, it created the investment that was needed to bring us to this world today. so i think, you know, it's like -- it's hard for me to say senator markey, my friend eddie -- when we were looking at this, we tried not to pick winners and losers. we tried to do what was best for the average consumers. >> host: well, one of the goals was to set a framework of competition and open entry. how did you do that legislatively? >> guest: well, one of the things we did in regard to telephone and long distance which was a place where we spent a great deal of our time, you know, we had everyone saying to us we don't mind if we have a competitor if certain things are done. so, ultimately, we came up with what has been called the checklist, that if telephone companies did certain things, that they could get into the long distance business, the long distance guys could get into the

telephone business, the cable guys could come in and compete. again, i'm not going to speak for the senator, but i think we had a common view that the more competitors created more opportunity, created more investment, and all of that was to the benefit of the average consumer in america. >> guest: yeah. our goal was to create a darwinian, paranoia-inducing marketplace. and to do that, we had to basically take down all of the old barriers. cable companies couldn't provide phone service. telephone companies couldn't provide cable service. so what we had to do was break down all the monopolies in one bill and then say every company can do everything. and then go to it. we don't know who the winners and losers are going to be except for the american consumer. except for this innovation culture which we would unleash. so from that moment on, $1.4 trillion of private sector

investment went into the sector. it was no longer the black rotary dial phone world. it was no longer this world where you had to go to multiple companies to get all the services. now you could go to one company for each one of the services. so that's really what changed the marketplace. and our goal was really a digital revolution. we didn't know who the winners and losers were going to be. we didn't know if pents.com was -- pets.com was going to win or lose, google was going to win or lose. but we knew this were going to be far many more winners than losers. and if i could just add this: jack and i in 1993 and '94 had already partnered when the democrats were in control. and we had already passed this law in 1994, the telecommunications act of 1994. and and it was killed in the senate. couldn't pass over there. but we had already passed it nearly unanimously.

and what jack and i had decided in 1993 was that although he was one of the most conservative congressmen from texas and i was amongst the most liberal democrats, montana, that we -- massachusetts, that we were going to put it all aside, we were going to be non-ideological, that we were just going to solve it as a problem so that america could sprint out into the lead. so when we reached 1995 and now jack is the chairman and i'm the ranking member and we've flipped roles, what jack said to me was we're just going to keep the same partnership. we're going to act in the same way. we're going to insure that this is completely non-ideological, and that's our best likelihood that we'll be able to take on monopolies, be able to break down all the barriers and be able to get this huge revolution off and running. >> guest: and then, if i could, let me just, you know, brag a little bit about the process. you know, eddie and i were friends. you know, we played basketball every day, we would talk on the

basketball court about telecommunication reform. we would go to each other's offices, we would sit on the floor. but, you know, we also did that with john dingell, we did it with tom buyly, mike -- bliley, mike oxley. we really had a bipartisan team of people working on this reform. we all understood how big it was, and eddie's absolutely correct. if we hadn't begun this process in 1993 and 1994, it would have been difficult to arrive at a product in 199 a -- 1995 and 1996. so when you look back at the recent history of major pieces of legislation, i really believe ours stands out. i'm not saying this, you know, to boast, but i think ours stands out as a major piece of legislation that was highly technical, that was about the future. and you had people other than just eddie and i, a group of us working together for a common result. and we actually, you know, crossed the capitol.

and worked with members of the senate. so it's a very large effort that ended up yielding a tremendous piece of legislation. >> host: and, in fact, it passed in the house 414-16 and in the senate 91-5. what do you wish you had done different? >> guest: well, eddie may disagree with me on this one. the only thing i might have done different is in regard to the checklist. i might have made it more prescriptive so there would have been less interpretation at the federal communication commission over a fairly short period of time. but we had a conscious discussion, and i think we ended up with the right result in saying that we wanted to leave discretion with the federal communication commission realizing that technology was evolving and realizing that there would be things that we could not anticipate. and so i think we made overall the right policy decision, but many that regard i probably -- in that regard i probably would have suggested a little bit more prescriptive approach.

>> guest: before i go to that question, i just want to go through this litany of saints just a little bit more. tom bliley was great. john dingell was great. rick boucher, mike oxley, just so many members -- >> guest: anna eshoo. >> guest: on the house side, just fantastic. trent lott agreeing on everything, and they just were going to clear the pathway to make this possible legislatively in a relatively short period of time. larry pressler. you can keep going down the line including jay rockefeller and olympia snowe working on the e-rate with me over on the house side so that the bills for every computer in every school in america for poor children would be paid for out of this bill so that we could speed up the pace at which kids get the new be skill set as we're speeding up

the pace at which we're going to see technological innovation occur in our country. so the bill includes what is now $40 billion which has been spent on those poor kids, the largest single educational technology program still in the history of our country. if there's one thing i could do differently, i underestimated how much the phone companies would just try to gobble each other up first. all these names that used to be well known companies. rather than trying to compete against each other, their first goal was to try to gobble each other up and spend their first couple years trying to do that. if i could do it all over again, i think i would put a limitation on how many lines that each company could have, and that would have forced them to turn more quickly to the innovation revolution rather than, you know, how do we put ma bell back together again. even that notwithstanding, the paranoia induced by the cable industry moving, by the

satellite industry moving and by dozens of other competitive companies who were now allowed into the marketplace to provide all these services forced them to move more quickly than they historically had ever done so before in the past. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: one other mistake too, and it may not have affected any, but we had a very difficult time meeting with people from silicon valley. the new guys. in fact, i took a trip to seattle to meet with bill gates. took tommy downey with me. and when we walked in the room it was bill gates, steve ballmer and system some others, and it's, like, why are you here? how do you know we exist? and i think that if we had had more input from some of the people who are more on the technological side, i think we would have been maybe even a little bit more visionary in

what we did. although not to detract what we did. i just think when i look back, i wish we would have pressed a little bit harder to have gotten more input from some people who were not traditionally part of the discussion. >> guest: meanwhile, back on the east coast, i'm representing harvard and mit. so at the mit media lab is nick negroponte, one of the leading philosophers as part of a digital revolution. so i'm talking to him on a weekly basis so that we can be guided in terms of what can be unleashed. the vision. >> guest: yeah. >> guest: they're explaining that a company like skype can be created if we move to all digital, that we can have a rev raoul pollution that all these -- revolution that all these kids can now reinvent the world if we give them the opportunities. so there were some questions, without question -- jack is correct -- that were a little bit slow in understanding we

were moving to a whole new interactive model that would give much more control to the software industry, to a new, burgeoning internet industry. but the net result is the same anyway. even though some companies might have been a little slow in understanding how quickly they were going to have to move, that gave even more room for sergei and larry to become household names, you know? because they could move in and do what otherwise would have been done even by the incumbent silicon valley firms. so the net result, i don't think, is much different. it's just that the names of the billionaires are a little bircht because the incumbents could have moved into that space if they had understood the revolution. >> guest: but as you can tell, i was extremely blessed to have a partner like ed markey. i mean, again, we trusted each other. if we disagreed, we were never disagreeable, and we had a laser focus realizing that we had a

moment of opportunity. and it could have been 1993, 1994. it was 1995-1996, but we move it. you know, we had a real responsibility to the country to get something done. and we were able to push it over the goal line. >> host: given the technological nature of this legislation, do you think most members of congress got it, or did they trust in your judgment on this issue? >> guest: i personally believed it was more trust in our judgment because this was for most members terror incognito. this was a whole new world. what are we talking about? they understand analog, they understand kind of the three tv station era. they understand, you know, the fax machine. they understand, you know, some of these things. but where we're going is a revolution. you know? it's almost unimaginable to a kid today that there was a time before you walked around with a device in your pocket that was the equivalent of a super computer just 20 years ago. they have it today.

but you knew it had to happen, that the laws would be changed. and i will say this, the administration was great on this. al gore was great. bill clinton was great. they had a focus on making this one of the signature issues of their time in office. and as you look back at the 1990s and you're trying to decide today what was the biggest thing that happened in the 1990s that transformed not just the united states, but the whole planet, it's probably what happened because of the 1996 telecommunications act. we're seeing syrian refugees with their iphones trying to find where they're going to go next. you can see the communication that's going on across states, across continents exchanging information that was unimaginable. you can't fully understand the magnitude of it because we're

still at the dawn of this era, what's going to be possible in the future. but i, we're proud of this. jack and i are very proud of having begun those hearings in 1993, creating the environment that made it possible for it to happen on a bipartisan basis. we took all the actually knownmy -- acrimony, all of the bitterness of politics out of the system. and i think we created something that is still viable today. you know, if we could rename it, i wouldn't call it the telecommunications act of 1996. today i would call it the internet of things act of 1996, because that revolution has now insinuated itself into manufacturing of every automobile, of every piece of manufacturing equipment, of health care. you name the industry, it's now been transformed by this digital revolution. we had the hearings on that subject, what was possible. but to actually see it come to pass is quite, i think, gratifying for jack and i. because the hearings sounded

crazy, and it was beyond the capacity, i think, of many members to fully grasp what we were doing. but the proof is in the everyday lives of just about everyone on our planet which happened because of that law. >> guest: people talk about the substance. i mean, that's primarily where we spent our time, talking about the substance. but coming back to our process, and eddie mentioned a moment ago the clinton administration. i think they should be complimented. and vice president gore was directly involved. i know he would call eddie up, he would call me up. he was one of our basketball buddies. we knew al very well. he had a guy named greg simon working for vice president gore who would call me up and say, jack, are you really sure that's a direction you want to go? i just want to tell you the president is going to have a problem, the vice president's going to have a problem. sometimes we would agree, sometimes we wouldn't. but it was that line of communication. so when you look at the process that we had, eddie and i being able to work together and eddie

and i also thought we kind of had to lead the senate. they're a little bit slower at times, but we felt like we had to lead, which we did. but we had the ability to talk with each other, we had the ability to talk across the capitol, we had the ability to talk to the president. and i think many times today that's what's missing in terms of governing and passing good legislation. so i think we're not only, the 20th anniversary should not only be about the substance, and what we did is important because we did erase those lineses of demarcation to allow competitive forces, but i think we also set an example of how you work together for the common good for a major segment of our economy. at that time the telecommunication industry was a sixth of the american economy. and i'm sure it's larger now and, of course, it affects everything that we do. and, you know, when i tried to explain to my children where we were prior to the 1996 act and

how we got to where we are today, we can't claim credit for all of the technologies and the applications and how it's improved everyone's life. but what we can claim credit for, i think, is unleashing that competition. >> host: all you have to say to them is long distance, and they have no idea what that means. [laughter] congressmen, 20 years out now, is it time to update the '96 act? >> guest: well, again, you know, we got to that crossroads where among ourselves we wanted to leave things fairly open so that things could be interpreted. honestly, i think there are probably some areas where, you know, congress could come back and look. i mean, you have a much different dynamic and paradigm than you did in 1996. but i think it's possible that our act last for quite a bit -- will last for quite a bit longer. >> guest: in my view? the 1996 act was the future in 1996.

the 1996 act is the future today. and the 1996 act is going to be the future in the future. it works. it is still a job with-creating engine -- job-creating engine. young people all across america as long as we keep net neutrality on the books so that they can access anything anywhere anytime. last year in america 62% of all venture capital went to internet start-ups and software companies. of all venture capital. so this is just an incredible job-creating engine for our country. and meanwhile, we have some problems to solve which is to, again, continue to work on the digital divide, make sure everyone has access to it, privacy issues to get raised. but at the end of the day, the fundamental structure of this bill that every company can do everything and that we protect new entrants as well as the old

incumbents is going to, i think, continue to make america number one. looking over its shoulder at number two and three in the world. >> host: now, senator -- >> guest: eddie can make that statement because we didn't try to pick winners and losers. we didn't have favorites, you know? we focused on what was best for the individual. and i've always been proud of the way we conducted ourselves. and, you know, i would say we stayed pure all the way through. >> host: senator, you've pulled out two wireless devices. how is wireless addressed in 1996? did you foresee the the explosion? >> guest: well, what jack and i did in 1993 is we actually moved over 200 megahertz of spectrum for the wireless revolution. we did that in '93. in 1993 there were two cell phone companies in america. they were analog, and it cost 50 cents a minute, and the phone looked like the thing that gordon gekko is talking into on

wall street. right? and so the fourth -- the third, fourth, fifth and sixth companies were all created so that by 1996 the price had dropped to under ten cents a minute, and this is what people were walking around with all across america. so we did that in '93. and with the '96 act as we're bringing video and voice and data and everything together, we're creating the conditions whereby a steve jobs can, like, further innovate with a new device. which you can't imagine is going to happen, although it looks like in my own mind what the dick tracy two-way tv looked like when i was 9 years old reading the comic strips. actually, the apple watch is the final fulfillment of that. but, you know, there are people right now who are kind of listening to this show and looking at their iphone at the same time. be and i'm kind of proud of that. and i'm looking forward to the day where young people never look up again, they'll just be looking down at these wireless devices.

but it was kind of what the goal was, i used to talk about the dick tracy two-way wrist tv in the hearings in '93 and '94 so that we could kind of just envision a world that would change wireless as well as the wireline worlds. >> guest: you know, the senator mentions something that's so important, and he's not going to brag on himself. but what eddie did, what rick boucher did, what mike oxley did in terms of making spectrum available and auctioning that spectrum, you know, not only is it a tremendous revenue source for the federal government, but also that's the life blood, you know, of the wireless industry. you don't have spectrum, you can't, you know, create the new technologies, you don't have all the applications. and that sounds simple, but that was a major accomplishment. that was outside of the '96 act. but, again, if you get the sense, you know, over a period of years on the telecommunications subcommittee, the full energy and commerce

committee in the house, we developed -- we had relationships outside on the basketball court, the friendships, but we also inside the committee we operated as a team. and whether there was a democrat majority or a republican majority, you know, we respected each other, we worked with each other, we always focused on, you know, what was the solution and the common good for the public. i mean, i feel extremely proud of that process. do you feel that the subsequent fccs have been good stewards of your legislation? >> guest: well, this is where -- [laughter] we may disagree a little bit. that's why in some of the fcc administrations i'd probably think back, and i'd bring up that word "prescriptive" again. but again, we came to that crossroads about did we take that approach or leave it open so that there was more discretion? and i think we made the right

policy decision, but the answer is, no, i wouldn't agree with everything that was done by the fcc. >> guest: my belief? when al gore recommended reed hundt be made the chair of the federal communications commission, that was a great appointment. because he understood what the spirit of this law was, what was required to create a real revolution in our country. and he did it. and right up to today, the very last rulemaking in the bill was voted out last week by the federal communications commission, the last one from 20 years ago. and it's on opening up the set-top box that people use on top of their cable tv set, right? and right now everyone in america, 99% of americans are renting that from the company. renting it. like they used to have to rent the black rotary dial phone that

we did away with, that rental. and so the fcc is now going to open it up, and that is going to save consumers $6-$15 billion a year because they can just go down to a best buy and buy a different set-top box that they will own. they won't have to rent these. but it's also going to open up young technologists all across the country, the ability to reinvent how that set-top box works even while preserving the the copyrights of the cable industry, preserving the privacy rights of is citizens. but to have that device now be opened, and so that rulemaking is now taking testimony at the fcc. and i'm kind of proud that that will be the final rulemaking because that's an amendment that i added with tom bliley, republican from virginia, in 1995 to that bill. and the last piece of bipartisan legislation that will actually be completed on the '96 act.

and that will, that will actually, i think, further accelerate the changes that we see in this entire area. >> host: we only have a minute left so, senator, given how fast technology is moving today, and you're on the commerce committee over in the senate now which works on these issues. >> guest: uh-huh. >> host: do you see areas where further legislation can be used? >> guest: i think we have to set aside more spectrum for wi-fi. i think there's a lot of work that we can be doing in understanding this internet of things and how it is creating new issues for us. for example be, right now a kid with an ipad can take over the control of your automobile. because it's a computer on wheels now. it's a digital vehicle moving down the street.

"60 minutes" has done a story on this. i did a report last year called "hacking and tracking" on how people can now use their digital access into all these new products and create havoc in our society. and i think the congress has a role to make sure that each one of these industries then responds to what has been made possible by the digital revolution. this drone revolution that we see? that's all part of the digital revolution. all remote control. we need new policies for privacy. we need new policies for safety. the technologies themselves do not have any values. the test for congress is to build into each new technology the historic values of our families of our society. and so that's always the challenge for us, because the technologists will be saying, stay away. but yet the job of congress is to make sure that these

technologies serve everyone and that the old values are still placed into these technologies. and the internet of things, the digital revolution, it makes it imperative for the congress to continue to act. >> host: i know it's a moving target right now, but where are you when it comes to the apple encryption/fbi issue that is playing out in the press right now? >> guest: in my opinion, the apple officials should work with the government officials to open that iphone. and at the same time, to keep that code completely secret so that it does not jeopardize the security of every other iphone in the united states or the world. we have to find a balance here. bill gates has now taken that position, the position which i've taken. tim cook is on the other side. but i think, again, it's a

debate that we have to have, because otherwise many of these devices can be used for nefarious purposes. in many ways, there's a dickensian quality. it's the best of technology and the worst of technology simultaneously. it can enable and ennoble, it can degrade and debase. so we have of to decide what values we're going to give to us. and in this case, i think there is a good middle ground that can be reached. >> host: jack fields, final comment. >> guest: you asked earlier about regrets. sometimes i regret not being in public office to be able to continue working with eddie on telecommunication policy. those were the best four years of my life. you know, not only did we have the personal friendship and a relationship, but we really felt that we were doing something for the country. and i miss that. >> guest: and i say the same thing? we had a special, special time -- >> guest: yeah. >> doing --

>> guest: to really create an historic change for our country and on the planet. to me, to have jack being my buddy, we we played basketball every day for one hour. and while technically we weren't supposed to be talking about policy down there, when the endorphins were flowing, we would just sit there and keep trying to work out these differences so that we could get it done. and so we're just the best of friends, then and now. >> host: senator edward markey, democrat of massachusetts, and former representative jack feels, republican -- fields, republican from texas. >> guest: thank you very much. >> guest: thank you. >> 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.