is where i start book in a way, to what extent -- and it's our problem as much as the row monos' -- right, justifiable or necessary to suspend the liberty of the citizen in the interest of protecting the state and homeland security. and we are still talking talkint that in way that is the romans have helped us to talk about. and i think that's the direction i'd go, sadly, rather than aqueducts. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> here's a look at some upcoming book fairs and festivals happening around the country. the san francisco chronicle is hosting the bay area book festival in downtown berkeley, california, on the first weekend of june. later in june we head to chicago for live coverage of the 32nd annual printers row lit fest featuring amy goodman and

sebastian sebastian junger it's the roosevelt reading festival. and this year's harlem book fair will be held on july 16th. for more information about the book fairs and festivals booktv will be covering and to watch previous pest value coverage, disturb festival coverage, go to booktv.org. >> this week "the communicators" goes to the intx show in boston, the internet and television exing poe sponsored by the national cable and telecommunications association. we interviewed four fcc commissioners. >> host: and this is a special taping of c-span's "communicators" program. we thank intx for providing us this opportunity. all four commissioners here, and i want to start a little broad, and let's start down at this end. commissioner rosenworcel, as a regulator and as a consumer,

what's your view of the cable industry? >> guest: wow. well, first of all, thank you for having me here. it's a treat to be here with my colleagues and back in new england. i'm a native, so it's a real joy to be able to come back to boston. the cable industry strikes me as supplying some of our nation's most important infrastructure. it's not just traditional video, but broadband. and it's clear to me that the broadband they provide is a market leader, and it's now gone from just luxury to necessity in all of our households, because it's an essential part of what we do every day. >> host: commissioner pai. >> guest: thanks, peter, for having us. thanks to intx for giving us this opportunity. to me, the cable industry has helped drive the digital revolution. i think the broadband networks we enjoy today that have created the economy that's the envy of

the world are due in no small part to the fact that cable companies large and small have taken the risk to deploy next generation networks. and that capital didn't have to be risked, those investments didn't have to be made, that infrastructure didn't have to be deploy. but the fact that it is and the fact so many americans enjoy digital opportunity they didn't have before is due in part to your members' efforts. >> host: commissioner o'rielly? >> guest: well, i look at the cable industry as a very dynamic one that's challenging other technology in the space to meet consumer needs and demands. so i think it's a success story, an american success story of what you're able to do to serve the consumers in the communities throughout america, and i think you have a number of challenges with how technology's changing and also what we're able to do in our business. >> guest: it has totally changed the landscape when it comes to content. as a former -- well, current tv junkie, one of the things that i

note is now i don't have to watch heehaw at seven -- [laughter] and that's how it was when i grew up. "batman," which was pretty cool. now i have so many more options and opportunities by way of programming that speak to my background and my interests and the like. and and so when you talk about content, the sky's the limit in terms of options and opportunities. and for me, again, as a consumer of entertainment, it is taking it to the next level, and that's a great thing. >> host: do you see it as a tech lodgely-advanced competitive industry at this point? >> guest: absolutely. they're leading in so many ways. you know, i don't want to get too techie here. what that means is, again, when we talk about the internet of things or the internet of everything, it is pushing and recognizing that content is the

driver, but also that the platforms are increasingly becoming ago knost iic -- agnostic, and you're meeting people where they are. if i'm mobile, if i'm fixed in terms of, you know, if i stay home a lot, no matter what it is, there's a device or an infrastructural conduit that cable is helping to provide that will meet me where i am, and that's the phenomenal thing that i didn't have at 10 years old, you know? >> host: and let's take that question around the horn, and then lydia beyoud will take over. >> guest: sure. i do think it's an advanced state, and the systems have upgraded to reflect what consumers want my conversation with industry leaders and what they're investing and they're trying to do going forward, it's no longer -- and as my colleagues indicated, it's not just about video, it's also about wi-fi, how do i meet the future quites that will -- devices that will come onboard

in the internet of things. so there's this spectrum of ideas and needs, and that's a very, you know, it starts with a very advanced platform. >> guest: i think that anybody who uses the phrase dumb pipe to describe broadband providers generally and cable providers in particular have to account for the fact that we're setting the standard for high-speed connectivity. cable's been leading the charge in the five gigahertz spectrum. they have to account for the fact that cable has been leading when it comes to delivering affordable access to low income communities across this country. and so the notion to me at least of a dumb pipe is completely belied by the business practices i think that i've described. cable's been leading in the effort, as i said, to deliver benefits to the american people in the digital economy. >> guest: well, i think i'm just going to repeat what my colleagues have said, but i will point out that the communications industry is changing at a rapid clip, and the cable industry with it.

what used to be the place that we went to watch video content when it was on, on a single screen has now morphed into a broadband industry, and i think mobile industry as well. the cable industry's contributions to wi-fi have been flat out amazing and have changed the way that we access content wherever we are. >> guest: and it's retwined what the word bundle -- redefined what the world bundle means, right? once upon a time it was very constricted. now when we talk about bundling because of the options and building, you know, knowing people want a one-stop shop sort of efficiency when it comes to their services. cable has, i have to admit, cable has been a driver, you know, talking about triple play, and now we're talking about quadruple play in some instances of, you know, when you talk about service delivery with utilities. there are some relationships that have been forged offering,

whatever you define as a utility, and i know there's going to be a little -- when i say it that way, but whatever you think is a necessity at your home, in some markets you write one check, and you have the capacity to get a all of your services that come through the home. and that is what is being enabled by this industry. >> host: lydia beyoud. >> well, speaking of changes in the industry, we seem to have crested a wave in cable consolidations, and now some are predicting that the industry's going to be looking more toward content, bundling their content with their conduit. so as regulators, what will you be looking for in industry practice and new service offerings in terms of how some providers might try to leverage their status as an isp with their content offerings to try and get a competitive foothold in the marketplace?

commissioner pai? >> guest: well, i think right now what we see is a great deal of experimentation in the marketplace. cable providers are trying to figure out as are programmers and others what the business model is that allows people to supply this content that everybody wants to see over the networks that everybody wants to flourish. and my view is that the fcc should generally take a more restrained approach. let this experimentation happen. not rule any particular business model in or out preemptively based on an ideological predisposition, but instead try to figure out what is ultimately going to be in consumers' welfare. and to me, what is in consumers' welfare is the current digital experimentation we see among cable providers and others. everybody's trying to figure out is it a bundle of services that makes the most sense? is it a stand-alone offering? i think consumers are the beneficiaries of that experimentation, but that will

only continue as long as the fcc adheres to that basic principle. >> guest: well, to me, it's evolving and changing. consumers have an expectation that their regulatory agencies are going to be a backstop when markets are less efficient. so we have to keep all of that in mind that we want to be -- we think competition is a part of our middle name. we want to be, you know, regulators that are partners in terms of on the options and opportunities and stimulaters of growth and the like. so it's really important, but it also is important that the consumers are not, you know, left on their own if things are less than perfect. and to we have to keep in mind that -- and so we have to keep in mind that we are there for them if markets are less than perfect. >> guest: yeah. i think we shouldn't start with the idea that the market is inefficient or less than perfect and then go from there. i don't want to predetermine, to

your question, i don't want to predetermine what may be something beneficial to the consumer if it's partnering with content or working with the best price for content in different spheres. that may be more beneficial to consumers. what i think you see overall the cable system is trying to figure out what is the next step, what is the future? how cowe constantly change? -- how do we constantly change? that's a good thing, in my opinion. >> guest: well, i think the answer to your question starts and ends with consumers. we want to make sure that consumers can get the content they want when they want it and where they want it. that's the wonder of the internet age. and i think as public officials that's something we want to make sure our markets actually accomplish. >> host: well, yesterday in his speech to intx michael powell said that the fcc is conducting a relentless government assault on cable. >> guest: that was subtle.

[laughter] >> guest: we all have our roles to play in this ecosystem. that's -- you know, i took an oath to insure that whatever comes over my desk promotes what we all, i think, want in terms of the public needs and necessities of consumers. e keep that in the front of my mind. i want options and opportunities. i want innovation. i want competition. all of these things i want, you know? and consumers want them too. my fellow citizens want them too. so i don't come from a posture of regulation first and being in a vacuum. that is truly not what i'm saying. what i am saying is affirming what my role is here, to be that person who watches, who listens and who is there if you need us. >> guest: well, when i look at the items that come across my desk, i would say michael

powell's comments are not too far off the mark. we are imposing new burdens on the cable industry. but to be fair, it's not like the cable industry is alone in that. you can look at other sectors that are facing similar-type burdens and similar-type obligations that are coming from the federal government. i think that's problematic going forward. it adds cost to the service, and that cost is passed on to consumers in one form or another. >> so speaking of some of the consumer issues with the cable industry and this idea of regulatory onslaught on the same industry, the set-top box proposal has been one of the most recent -- one of those, i think some would argue. and is there a way for the fcc to thread the needle and achieve the consumer benefits that it says are possible while at the same time protecting the copyright and many of the piracy and many of the other provisions that cable and content providers are concerned about?

commissioner clyburn? >> guest: well, call me an eternal optimist. i happen the belief that nirvana exists. and i think that we can get there. what is exciting is that we're having this conversation. we're talking about content and opportunities. we're talking about a robust ecosystem. and i really think that especially when we meet, when we see certain milestones, when we get to, you know, certain places in our evolution that we need to have a conversation about which direction to go. and so while i know there's a lot of emotion and, you know, people on various sides of the fence when it comes to this particular issue, the fact that we're having this conversation and not be, you know, immediately passing down any edicts really speaks well for what this interactive process. it's a notice of proposed rulemaking that we're putting forth where everybody has an opportunity to weigh in.

i think it's healthy at this point to have these conversations, and i'm looking forward to what i know as michael powell already said will be a very interesting and a dynamic exchange. >> host: ajit pai, do you agree what your colleague just said? >> guest: i would take a somewhat different view. this example is, i think, parodyingmatic of the crossroads the fccs has found itself in. on one hand, you can take a forward-looking view of where the marketplace is going, try to encourage technological innovation that's in the benefit of consumers, or you can look at the snapshot of the marketplace that is increasingly yellowing with ages and try to double down on yesterday's paradigm. and set-top pox proceeding is a classic example of that. take the word of literally over a hundred members of the united states house of representatives. republicans and democrats who have said across a variety of different issues whether it's copyright protection or other

issues that the fcc's proposal is a solution that won't work in search of a problem that simply is working it out in the marketplace. and why the fcc would choose with all the other issues on its plate, for example, broadband deployment across rural america, etc., to focus on something that is increasingly fading into the background is something that is beyond me. but nonetheless, we're going to be spending the next couple of months debating this very issue despite the fact that both the private sector and congress has told us it's a misplaced priority. [cheers and applause] >> do you think the fcc has a duty to listen to congress? the three of you with prior experience on capitol hill and your own ties, does the fcc have a duty, maybe do those studies have lawmakers have called for? others are saying these are delay tactics and this proceeding needs to push forward. what's your stance to the

response you're hearing from some of these lawmakers? commissioner rosenworcel? >> guest: sure. well, i had the great privilege a couple of years ago working for the united states senate, so i know deep in my bones we have to respect the laws that congress has placed before us and asked us to implement. and we certainly do have a sectioning of the statute that speaks to the competitive availability of navigation devices which is legalese for our current set-top box rulemaking. i think we also have to be mindful of the contributions of congress and letters and our conversations back and forth, and we're wrestling with all of that information right now in the proceeding we have before us. >> guest: we're a data-driven agency, and i really think this exercise which i often refer to notices of this type as, i really think it is healthy for us to pause and look and weigh in. you know, these are important, serious or, complex issues that we're talking about. we're talking about consumption

habits of our citizens. i really think it's important for us to really look at the entire ecosystem, how they get information, the platforms that are used. i just don't think it's an unhealthy exercise for us to look, you know, every few years when we talk about really significant issues and challenges that we have, to have a conversation, gather data and make a decision if we deem it necessary in order to improve, encourage and to sometimes push these dynamic ecosystems that we have. >> guest: well, i would just -- oh, sorry. >> guest: i appreciate your comments, but i would say, like, if that's the structure that we want to understand and have data, then we should do a notice of inquiry. of we shouldn't put forward specific rules. to answer your previous question, is there something the commission can do to thread this needle, i would take the current proposal and throw it in the

garbage. that's where it belongs. [applause] we have an opportunity to embrace what the cable industry has offered, and that is to get rid of the set-top box. eliminate frit the consumers' home. we should embrace that opportunity, figure out what's the right timeline whereby there are no set-top boxes, embrace what's happening in the marketplace, embrace applications and what consumers are doing to today. you don't need to thread the needle. >> guest: if i could just add to that, keying off commissioner clyburn's analogy, what is happening at the fcc, privacy and special access, business data services, etc., is not a conversation, it's dictation. it is the alice in wonderland paradigm of sentence first, verdict afterward. the agency has chosen an ideological division on all these issues. it dose through the formality of this process, but the decision has essentially already been made. they're not open to different points of view, and that's apartment of the reason why i think so many people have been

speaking out. the writing was on the wall when our d stack for the downloadable security technology committee said, you know what? there are two distinct approaches here, one that is being pushed by the cable industry, an a apps-based economy, the other proposal that the commission ultimately adopted. now, one would think if it was a genuine conversation the agency would say here are two proposals. american public, tell us what you think. instead, it said this is our proposal, and the proposal advanced by the cable industry, here are a couple of paragraphs. it's going to be terrible for america, but let us know what you think anyway. that's not exactly an open and fair debate, i don't think. >> well, it allows the opportunity for people to weigh in. finish -- and so i guess what i'm saying here is you have, if you do not agree -- i'm embracing what you said. if you do not agree with the original premise, you have an opportunity to weigh in. and, again, i think it's a healthy way.

if you go around the world and see the regulatory dynamics, you -- even when it's less than perfect here, you will find out or get affirmed that this allows consumers and all interested stakeholders including all of you in this audience the opportunity to weigh in. if there's a better mousetrap, so to speak, we have an opportunity to view that. and, again, i think that allows, that type of process and that type of interaction is healthy. we all need to bring our best, you know, case forward, i believe, including regulators in order to make the consumer experience more robust. i just think it's a healthy way of doing this. >> host: commissioner rosenworcel. >> guest: thank you. well, first of all, my mind is open. i don't want my colleague to suggest that it's not. we have a proceeding with thousands of pages of information before us, and i cannot claim to have read every

single one, but we're going to try. because we want to make sure that we understand the consequences of our proposal. and as i think i've already said, this is a market that could use competition, but we also have a proposal before us that's very complicated. and there are issues of copyright, of privacy, diversity that also need to be addressed. and we're looking for that input to make sure that we address them as we move forward. >> host: commissioner rosenworcel, i think i saw the ncta sent in the 394-page opinion on section 629 on the set-top boxes. is that something that you'll have time to actually read? or will your staff read it? [laughter] >> guest: we will make sure that my office takes a good look at every one of those pages. i will not claim that i will read every single one of them, but i guarantee that i will spend some time with that filing. >> commissioner, you raised thish shy of the complexity with

this proposal. might it be easier to somehow break it apart into multiple proceed examination try and achieve the commission's aims that way, or is that not feasible? >> guest: i don't know that i have an answer for you about that at this time. we are still waiting for the reply comments to come in, and i think i want to assess those before we decide precisely how to proceed. >> guest: and this, again, is an interactive process. when things are proposed, it doesn't necessarily mean that every word is adopt 3. and so -- adopted. and so that is why we have this interactive, you know, process. it informs the commission, you know, hopefully to put forth -- if it is necessary in any case -- really solid regulatory glide paths that will enable all of the things that we see on the showroom floor and more. >> guest: i really appreciate my colleagues' openness. i think that's great, and i do believe their spirit.

i do believe what they say. but that's not what the chairman's going for, and that's not the direction the commission's going. this item was written probably at the anytime of the -- at the time of the nprm, and that's what's going to be voted on. i predict this is an october thing. i think it's already pretty much done. it's cooked. and i don't see it changing. i appreciate that we're going to have colleagues looking at comments and we're going to digest all of the material, but at the end of day, the proposal that was put forward by the chairman is the one we're going to vote on. i'm happy to bet anybody in the building that it's going to be different. >> host: the fact that all four of you are sitting on the stage, is this an official meeting? >> guest: i think there was enough notice we're in good standing. >> guest: aiding and abetting the violation, peter slen. [laughter] could the four of you do this at

the fcc building, sit and have a chat? >> guest: without notice? >> host: without notice. >> guest: isn't that crazy? it seems to me that the supreme court can get together and hash things out, at the moment all eight of them, and our members of congress can get together, have discussions. people get together in boardrooms and try to come up with solutions for their companies and institutions. i think that we would be better off if we had the ability to visit with one another to and speak more often and more candidly about how to manage the issues before us. >> guest: one thing if we're on the cusp of a final decision, i can understand that. that makes perfect sense. but, you know, commissioner rosenworcel and i both shared the joint board, the intersect of federal and state commissioners, and i had to -- it's like musical telephone chairs. you've got two -- the three of us that are members, and at

10:45 one of us has to sign off, and the other one has to sign on. and we're talking about a process that is not a final say so when it comes to our deliberations. so it's very cumbersome. it really makes for a disjointed conversation, and i think it's something -- we've been talking about it for years. i think it's something that we need to look at, because it really just kind of promotes this kind of staccato-like exchange, sewer actions that we have -- interactions that we have. >> host: let's see if the republicans agree. >> guest: congress established this over 40 years ago in the ironically named sunshine act, so it'd be up to congress to change the law. but i think in the meantime, there are so many more process reforms we could and should adopt. commissioner o'rielly and i have talked about the radical notion that the fcc should publish what it's proposing to do before it votes on it and allow the

american people to have input. we should allow every commissioner's office a full and fair opportunity to make his or her views known. there's some very basic process reforms that i think would go a long way toward promoting accountability but, unfortunately, the fcc leadership has denied those proposals at every turn. >> guest: well, i agree with my colleague. this is something for congress to decide. i have given them my views, to the extent that they've asked for them, and i actually don't have a problem eliminating or removing parts of the burdens on the sunshine ban that prevents us from getting together and talking about things. the spirit of the statute is intended to prevent the majority from getting together and deciding where exactly things are going to go. i'm not as worried about that. i'm happy to have, if that's the case, i'm happy -- we have circumstances that occurs, so that, to me, is not in violation of law, but the circumstances play out that way. so i'm fine if that's the case. i'm happy to have all my colleagues sit around. my colleague's second point

which i think is just as valuable, and that is we have put forward a number of process reform ideas. i actually i was counting somewhere between 24 and 25 depending on what you think is a valid idea to improve the fcc's operations without undermining the chairman's authority or the majority be's authority. so we can improve our process for the american people without harming the process of getting to an outcome. and i think that's something we should spend a great deal more time on. unfortunately, the chairman has set up a process task force, process-review task force. it hasn't succeeded yet. and then i know recently he has said he's more of a traditionalist and, therefore, the process should stay as it is. so he kind of has cooked the books on where that's going. >> you all have raised issues related to privacy and other things, mentioned internet of things. so with the growth of connected devices in that ecosystem that we're looking at right on the horizon and a lot of industries

including the cable industry looking at this as a new vertical for them, what role do you see the higher level of the fcc playing in regulating the space particularly with regards to privacy and the orders of magnitude of consumer data that's going to be collected? what should you be doing, what policies should you be put anything place now to help that flourish? commissioner pai? >> guest: well, i think first and foremost the reason the fcc has injected into this space is as a result of the reclassification of all broadband providers as common carriers which then leads to the fcc having to make determinations about what privacy restrictions should apply to internet service providers in particular. my own preference with respect to the second point, however, what should those regulations be, to the maximum extent possible we should harmize our rules with those promulgated by the federal trade commission. i think the worst thing the government can do in this space or generally any other is to have an unlevel playing field

where one set of regulations apply to one group of companies and another set of regulations apply to another group even though they are competing, essentially, in the same space. so i think it's important for the agency not to pursue ideological ends, but rather to make sure that consumers are protected in a way that i think generally was wisely done by the ftc. have a baseline level of privacy protection based on the unfair practice authority and a level of less stringent protection for some of the proposals, some of the less sensitive information that consumers would share based on the ftc's deceptive practices authority. that would be my preference to the extent possible. >> guest: sure. well, lydia, you asked about the internet of things which is one of the more exciting developments in communications policy as the landscape before us will include an almost