the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow. >> a number of amendments are pending. before leaving, they approved the louisiana judicial decision. here on c-span, "the communicators" is next with fcc chair tom wheeler. and then we will look at operations at the centers for disease control and prevention and later a discussion on the personal.

>> c-span, created 30 years ago and brought to you by your local satellite or cable provider. >> host: tom wheeler, president and ceo of the national cellular telecommunication and intero association. and now chairman of the fccs fcc. how is this different from your previous positions? >> guest: what i was lucky enough to do in the cable and wireless industry is be involved while they were bringing great change to the economy and the way people live their lives. we are in the middle of the

greatest revolutions of all time and the job of the fcc is to say how do we deal with the changes happening all around us. so to answer your question i think it is a continuation. >> host: let's bring brian fung into. he is a technology reporter with the "washington post." >> thank you. mr. chairman, you said you understand how the lobby playbook works because you have been there. you said when you worked for industry they were different times and the industries were different. you sit here as the chairman of communication now and how have those industries changed in terms of their approach to washington? how has their strategy and tactics change as the industries have grown and matured? >> guest: as i was saying

before, it was truly a privilege to be president of the cellular industry and the cable industry when it was just taking off. at that point time what we were dealing with a public policy sense was that we were the insurgeants and incumbants were not thrilled about the new competition they were facing. but everybody grows up. and today those industries are themselves facing new insurgent challenges. >> everybody grows up. we are seeing a whole new crop of businesses and online video growing up. do you foresee a time when those

new industries become incumbents and what does that look like when they do? >> guest: golly. my crystal ball is foggy in terms of what things look like. but i think you stated it correctly that everybody grows up. >> host: chairman wheeler -- >> guest: let me go back. steve cates has a book "third wave" and talks about the three stages of technological development which is first everybody getting connected, then the apps came along and took advantage of the connection and he is saying there is a third stage and that is you have to build on what has been done before. the policy issues become more important at that point in time. it is not just the idea but how do you build a successful business and consumer service and that is the reality

everybody is in right now. >> in the ways that you have pointed out, the cable industry and cellular industy have worked to foreclose competition. could the new entrance themselves become barriers to competition? >> guest: we want to try to create a regulatory environment in which competition is allowed thrive. you know, i don't think you want to play the hypothetical game about could this or that happen but this is what we are trying to create. >> is there something fundamentally different about online video as compared to what came before cable and other forms of communication technology? >> guest: that is a good question. i don't think the difference is obviously the video. it is still there on the screen and they are using digital

instead of tape now but you know those are technical differences. there is more of it. and what you want to make sure happens is to allow for the distribution of that video which will then encourage the production of that video. that was kind of -- that was one of the concepts behind our open internet order. there is this virtuous circle here that producing material drives demand for the network, the better the network, the more room for producing material which drops. we are existing in that kind of environment right now. >> chairman wheeler, a lot of people who don't support the open internet order said it is a solution looking for a problem. the internet has grown up without net neutrality

regulations and it has been highly successful. >> guest: i think the reality is we need to make sure networks are open, fast, and fair. and that the success of the internet is the fact that it was a home for permissionless innovation. people could say i have an idea, let me go deliver it. here is this wonderful broadband pathway. the fact there are gatekeepers there which are those who provide the internet conneonne t connectativity and the question remains how you maintain that open access to the web and the answer is to say we will have a rule that says it is going to be open and that drives this virtuous circle we are talking about.

>> host: and just to follow up on what brian was pressing on. has the mission of the fcc changed given everything that has been changing in the industry? >> guest: oh, yeah. i have been hanging around the fcc for 40 years and i can guarantee you it has changed many times and i hope it continues. the job of the fcc is to be the advocate for consumers in a vastly changing environment. >> the open internet order in particular with regard to the general conduct standards you have essentially seen a lot of questions bubbling up about this program a company came out with or that one. hasn't the fcc put itself in a position of having a position on everything that comes up when it comes to new business models?

doesn't that create the opportunities for inconsistent rulings and precedents that could allow certain behaviors to get through a loophole? >> guest: that is a good question. but we have tried to do just the opposite which is not to be judgmental. you talk about has the fcc changed. when i first got involved at the fcc it was very directional and detailed you will do this. we will look at your books for this. you will have these kinds of directors. it was very specific in terms of what it did. and the open internet order, we have a very different kind of approach where instead of preemptively saying we know best. we said you want a couple concepts. an internet where there is no blocking, no throddling and

consumers know what they are getting. transparen transparency. then you put a referee on the field and he can look at the circumstances and throw the flag if necessary. and that is an entirely different approach the fcc used to be. i think it is the kind of approach that encourages this innovation i was talking about earlier. >> some of your republican colleagues have pointed out this approach could leave to uneven enforcement and sort of ambiguity around regulations that create business uncertainty. >> guest: every company in the world would like to have certainty and monopoly. that is the way the actively business used to be run.

markets are inherently uncertainty. we are engaging in an activity that allows markets to be markets. yes, that is uncertainty. but what we want to make sure happens is that, as i say, there is a referee and someone in a striped shirt that can say that is not right. we will look at them on a case-by-case basis. not a big broad brush approach. >> one of the cases has been zero ratings and data caps. i wonder, you have met with companies such as comcast and at&t on these programs. did those meetings satisfy your questions or do you still have outstanding questions remaining for these companies? >> guest: i wasn't actually -- >> do you or your agency have the same --

>> guest: we are in the process of sorting through all of the information. it wasn't just meeting with companies. there a lot of consumer representatives and advocatiadv for positions including other companies who wanted to meet with us and share their point of view. the fcc ought to be the cruicibe where all of these things come together. i was saying to someone the other day, the concept of the public interest which is our responsibility and our statute, as everybody is sophisticated in how they present their arguments it is, well the public interest is also with me. if you don't do this the public interest wouldn't be served. i am trying to say how do we look for a concept where the

public interest means the common good and that is why i think we want to create this crucible where everybody has input and we try to seek out what is the common good. >> host: i know you don't like hypotheticals but i am going to propose one. twice the net neutrality put out by the fcc have been overturned. it is in court now. what happens if your position goes down again? >> guest: you are right. i don't like hypotheticals. but i have all of the respect in the world were the court and the judgment they make. i feel pretty confidant in the outcome. i think if you go back to the last court decision, one of the things they said was wait a minute, you are imposing common carrier-like requirements but you have not said they are

common carriers. >> host: december 14th, article in the washington journal, there was an article detailing net neutrality regulations. i don't think i have heard you respond to what you saw in that article. was it accurate? >> guest: to tell you the truth, i don't remember the details of the articles. the white house runs its own process but we are an independent agency running our process. >> the fcc has been looking at the terms and tariffs associated with the business broadbrand market. is there enough competition in this space? do cable companies who are getting more incentive broadband and data did they represent competition or are they more of the same? >> guest: i think you asked a good question and my response is

stay tuned because we are about to put out a proposal on this but right now is a premature time to talk about it. >> host: november 2014. >> guest: you keep pulling out these old numbers. >> host: that is the day you were confirmed as chairman. what was your agenda then? did you have an agenda? >> guest: that is a really good question. i was held up being confirmed in the senate for about six months. awhile we were waiting, we were able to say okay, what are the kinds of things we would like to do. yes, we arrived with an agenda and i think you have seen it play out. >> host: what haven't you got to? >> guest: i would love to see the incentive auction get completed. the process has started.

i would love to get through the issues brian just raised. i would love to see us resolve the privacy issue, the cable set-top box issue. when you look back there are lot of things that have happened since november of 2014. >> when you came into office you had the things that you wanted to get done. at that time, you know, the comcast-time warner merger wasn't issue, net neutrality wasn't an issue. did those take you by surprise? were those issues -- did they come on your radar at a time when you were trying to get other things done? >> guest: we always knew the net neutrality issue was before the court and something could happen that could dump its back in our laps. i didn't know anything about anticipation of the comcast deal.

one of the things about this job that makes it really fun is i will guarantee you every day something happens that wasn't expected. sometimes they are bigger than others. but it is one of the things that makes it interesting. >> host: your colleague was on this program and i want to play a bit of tape and get you to respond. >> it is unfortunate there was a partisan divide. as we look at the numbers, we see partisan rank is unprecedented. we see more party-line votes than we had in the previous 43 years. that is unfortunate because these issues are not politicized usually. >> guest: the reality is there are intelligent, dedicated, strong willed individuals, five

of us, and people have their own opinions. buthe way the system has been setup is -- but it -- is there a majority that comes together to make a decision. and you know the answer is there has been. >> host: do you think you should be allowed to meet with two other congressioners in private to have a conversation? >> guest: it is an interesting conversation. three commissioners can't sit down, to clarify, alone. for fear they would bypass the process. is it frustrating? yes. might there be efficiencies that could be gained? possib possibly. is there a need for urgent change? it is working. with it comes to all of the procedure -- when -- at the commission, i mean i am kind of a traditionalist.

the rules that we are living by today, or the rules that have been in place for decades, and they have worked. >> what would it be like to be a democratic chairman or democratic commissioner under a republican president? >> guest: i don't know. >> do you anticipate staying on as chairman after the election? >> guest: i think it is too long a time away to make a decision like that today. let's see what develops. >> the question was posed to you at a recent senate hearing and you declined to answer then. >> guest: i am inconsistent. >> we are nearing the election.

there is pressure building in the political sphere. >> host: you mentioned you a traditionalist. >> would you follow tradition? >> guest: what did i say at the hearing? i said i fully understand tradition but it is too early to make a commitment. >> host: is it because it makes you a lame duck automatically? >> guest: i just think it is early. we are ten months away from a new inauguration. we will deal with things when they get closer to that. >> host: mr. chairman, how would you describe congress' interest in the fcc proceedings and potential for a rewrite of the telecom act? >> guest: congress is very interested in the work of the fcc. i am not the guy that can make

the decision about a rewrite. you need to speak to the chairman of the committees about that. but i can remember my days representing the industry that congress was interested then and could be interested today. >> let's talk about something that is reasonably within your control and something you dealt with earlier on as chairman. should consumers be allowed to use cellular telephones on airplanes? >> guest: that is a question divided into two parts. the first part is we have responsibility for how the networks operate. the fcc had, for years, a rule in place that said you could not use a device on a plane because it would interfere with the

terestrial networks on the ground. new signals came along that can be captured on the plane, so you can do wi-fi on the plane, that doesn't interfering. we said if you have the new technology on the plane and it is not interfering that is fine. that doesn't have anything to do with whether you can make a phone call and i have been outspoken that i don't want to be at 35,000 feet and listen to someone yakking away on the phone. but that is not our rules. those are rules made by the faa. we handle the technical side of things and the faa is preparing a proceeding to face the consumer thinks. >> you faced public backlash from that issue when it came up. did that take you by surprise? what did you learn from that experience? >> guest: i think that was an

issue of i failed at the outset to define what was going on as i did. here is my scope of responsibility and others scope of responsibility. did where learn from it? sure. i hope i learn from everything every day. >> i think consumers, that earlier experience tends to be how they viewed you earlier on, and as the tenure moved on i think people were surprised about things like the net neutrality. do you feel like people underestimated you? >> guest: look, the job that i got, which is a great job, is to look at a set of challenges and to try to figure what the best path forward is representing the american consumer.

they can make up their own mind about this. and they do, i hear. but you know, i don't think -- >> host: you mentioned overall you look at your job to increase or promote competition in the telecommunication field. >> guest: competition, competition, competition. >> host: where does the privacy issue fit into that and what are your early thoughts? >> guest: you know, for as long as many of us can remember, we had an expectation of privacy on the phone network. the fact that i was calling air france was not information that the phone company should be able to turn around and sell to hotels in paris or tour agencies

or things like that. it was private information of the consumer. the question is when you go to the internet and you are going to the air france website why should that be different? we have a proposed rule that says it is the consumer's information and the consumer has the right to make a decision as to whether he or she wants that information to be packaged and sold by the network. there are many cases that folks will want that. terrific. that is their decision because it is their information. >> host: so let's take that another step and talk about set-top boxes. some call this the google regulation because then google can sell ads around what you are

watching. >> guest: no. the rules say -- the proposed rules say you have to maintain the consent and you cannot substitute commercials and put windows around it. one of the nice things about the process we go through is we specifically propose language. if that language isn't good enough then tell us how to fix it because we don't want google doing that. we respect privacy and these assets owned by programmers and the cable company. we are just trying to follow the statutory mandate that congress gave us. not a maybe you should think about this thou shall mandate saying consumers should have choices in terms of navigation

devices they use on their cable or satellite system. and the situation exists today that 99% of cable consumers don't have that choice. >> that is one of the final pillars of the telecom act of '96. the set-top boxes? >> guest: navigation device competition was the way it was labelled. >> host: we have time for one more question. >> on that point, before congress, you said there are competitive navigation devices available and opponents to the set-top box ran with that and said you were contradicting yourself. do you have a response? >> guest: there are. you can go to best buy and look at the choices there. i went to best buy a couple weeks ago and bought an amazon fire. i was at the consumer electronic

show and saw how there were devices there that you could buy and substitute for the box if the cable operator would give the box the data it needs to operate. >> let me sneak one more in here. >> host: i tried to stop him, mr. chairman. >> before you were at the fcc, you were in venture capital. put on your venture capital hat for a minute. we are seeing capital drying up for startups and they are saying it is getting harder and harder to raise money. what needs to happen next in this space? >> guest: i think there are two things going on. one is, i think there was a 35% increase in venture capital going into the internet based startups in the last year. and i think a lot of that is

open networks. you don't have to do mother may i to get on there. it is becoming less expensive to start a business. in my roughly ten years as a venture capitalist i saw the amount of money needed for startups to decline because of the advent of the cloud and the fact they don't have to go out and buy hardware and software. they can go to the cloud and get more. the nature has changed and investments up front are not as big and that is good for entrepreneurs. >> host: tom wheeler, chairman of the fcc. brian fung covers technology

issues for the "washington post." >> c-span created 35 years and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. >> the centers for disease control and preventi h