>> could your dad come? would he come? could he do the seven dirty words first? so i went to my dad and i said, so i am taking this class and i had to had to explain the thing to them. i said works studying the case and my dad was so cute and interesting. his reaction to that was, oh, no i cannot do that. cannot do that. i do not know anything about the case. it is just an accident of history that it was me, and blah, blah, blah, and he was going on and on and about it. and i set dad i don't think they are asking you to know the law. i think they want you to come and be george carlin and say the seven dirty words. but words. but he was so darling about it. that really showed my father's

humility. he had a lot of humility about his place in the culture and what he did. >> it watch this and other programs online epic tv.org. >> this week, the communicators go to the eye and tx show in boston, the internet and television expo and television association. we interviewed a four sec commissioners. >> this is a special taping of c-span's communicators program. we think in techs for providing us this opportunity. all four commissioners are here and i want to use dart start at the sent. as a regular and as a consumer, what is your view of the cable industry? >> wow. first of all, thank you for having me here. it is. it is a treat to be here with my colleagues .. in new england, i am a native. it is a is a real joy to come back to boston.

that cable industry strikes me as one of the most important infrastructures. it is not just traditional video, but but broadband. it is clear to me that broadband they provide is a market leader and it is now gone from luxury to necessity in all of our households and it is an essential part of what we do every day. >> mission or? >> a thank you peter for having us. thank you to in techs for giving us this opportunity. it is a treat to appear here with our colleagues. to me the cable industry has helped drive the digital revolution. the broadband networks we enjoyed today that created the internet economy is the megabyte of the world. it is due in no small part to the fact that cable companies, large and small, and cities and cities big and small have taken the risk and that capital did not happen happen have to be

made. the fact that it is in the fact that so many americans today enjoy digital opportunity they didn't have before is due in part to your members efforts. >> commissioner o'reilly? >> i look at that cable industry is a dynamic one. it is challenging other technologies to meet consumer needs and demands. i think it is an american success story to serve the consumers in the communities throughout america and i think you have another a number of challenges with how technology is changing and also what were able to do. >> it has totally changed the landscape when it comes to content. as a former, while current tv junkie, one of the things i noticed now i do not have to watch he taught at seven. that's how it was when i grew up. now i have so many more options and opportunities by way of programming that speak to my

background and interest. when you talk about content, the sky is the limit in terms of options an opportunity. for me, as a consumer of entertainment, it has taken it to the next level and that is a great thing. >> do you see it as a technologically advanced competitive industry at this point? >> absolutely. they are driving, and leading in so many ways. i don't want to get to techie here, we are talking about -- 3.1 now. what that means is what we talk about the internet of things in the internet of everything, it is pushing by way and recognizing that content is a driver, but also that the platform is increasingly becoming agnostic in your meeting people where they are. if i mobile, if i'm stay home a lot, no matter what it is, there is a device or infrastructure

conduit that cable is helping to provide that will meet me where i am. that is a phenomenal thing that i do not have at ten years old, watch and he hot 7:00 p.m. >> let's. >> let's take that question around the horn. >> sure. i think it is advance stage. systems have upgraded to reflect what consumers want to meet their demand. that is what you really want from an industry. my conversation with industry leaders and what they are investing in on what they're trying to do going forward, it is no longer, and as my colleagues indicate it's not just about video, or broadband it's also about wi-fi, about how do i meet the future as my colleague indicated, the internet of things. they're trying to be all of this on the spectrum of ideas and needs and it starts with a very advanced platform. >> i think that anybody who uses the phrase a dumb pipe to explain cable providers and

broadband providers have to account for the fact that .3 .1 in in the future is really setting the standard for cable in the future. they have to realize that cable is leading the charge in the future. they have to account for the fact that cable has been leading when it comes to delivering affordable access to low income communities across the country. so the notion to me, at at least of a dumb pipe is completely blighted by the business practices. cable has been leading in the efforts. as i said to deliver benefits to the american people in the digital economy. >> well, i think i'm going to repeat what i my colleagues have separate but i will point out that communications industry is changing at a rapid pace and taking the cable industry with it. what what used to be the place where we went to watch video content when it was on, on a single's green has morphed into a broadband industry. and i think a mobile industry as well. the cable industry's contribution to wi-fi has been

flat out amazing. it has change changed the way we access content wherever we are. it has. >> it has redefined what the word bundle means. it has been a driver, once upon a time bundle meant something very bundled. very constricted. now. now when we talk about bundling, because of the options and building on and knowing people one oh one stop shop efficiency when it comes to their services, cable has come i have to admit cable has been a driver. talking about triple play and now are talking about quadruple play in some instances. when you talk about service delivery with utilities. there are some relationships that have been forged, whatever you decide is a utility and i know when i said in that way, but whatever you think is a necessity in your home, in some markets there is a one check and

you have the capacity to get all of your services that come to the home. that is what is being enabled by this industry. >> lydia? >> speaking of changes in the industry, we seem to have crested with cable consolidation and now some are predicting that the industry is going to be looking more toward content and bundling their content with their conduit. as regulators, what will you be looking for an industry practice and new service offerings in terms of how providers may try to leverage their status as an isp with their other offerings to stay competitive in the marketplace? >> i think what we see right now is a great deal of experimentation the marketplace. cable providers are trying to figure out if programmers and others what the business model is that allows people to supply the content that everybody wants to see over the networks that

everybody wants to flourish. my views the fcc should generally take a more restrained approach, let the expert mentation happen. not rule any particular business model in or out preemptively based on an ideological predisposition. instead try to figure out what ultimately is going to be an consumers welfare. to me, what is what is in consumers welfare is the current digital expert mentation that we see among cable providers and others. everybody's trying to figure out is that a bundle of services that makes the most sense? is it a skinny bottle? is a standalone offering? is it an over-the-top offering question marks consumers are also the beneficiary of that ask your mentation but that will continue with the fcc sticks within the letter of the law and adheres to the basic principle of consumer welfare. >> the letter to me is evolving and changing. sometimes at the a capital and sometimes it's a small. so consumers have an expectation that their regulatory agencies are going to backstop when markets are less efficient.

we have to keep all of that in mind that we want to be, we think competition is part of our middle name. we want to be regulators that are partners in terms of options and opportunities and stimulators of growth. so it is really important, but it it is also important that the consumers are not left on their own if things are less than perfect. so we have to keep in mind that we are there for them if markets are less-than-perfect. >> but i think we should not serve the idea that markets are inefficient or less-than-perfect. i think we want to understand what is happening. i do not want to predetermine what may be something beneficial to the consumer weather is partnering with content or working with finding the best price for content in different spears. that may be more beneficial to consumers. what i think you see overall is

cable is trying to figure out what is the next step. what is the future, how do we constantly change? that's a good thing in my opinion what can be beneficial to consumers. >> i think the answer to your question starts and ends with consumers. we want to make sure the consumers can get the content they want, when they want it, and where they want it. that is the wonder of the internet age. i thing as public officials that is something that we want to make sure our markets actually accomplish. >> yesterday in his speech to in text, michael powell said the fcc is conducting a relentless government assault on cable. >> that was subtle. >> we all have our role to play in this legal system. i took it all to ensure that whatever comes over my desk to book both for what the public

wants and i keep that in the front of my mind. i want options and opportunities. i want innovation, i innovation come i want competition. all of these things i want. and consumers wants them to print my fellow citizens want them to. i do not come from a posture of, regulation first and being in a vacuum, that is truly not what i am saying. what i am saying is affirming what my role is to be that person who watches, who listens, and who is there if you need us. >> when i look at the items that come across my desk i would say that michael powell's comments are not too far off the mark. we are imposing new burdens on the cable industry. i would say, to be fair it's not like the cable industry is alone in that. you can look you can look at other sectors in the medications fear that are looking at similar types of burdens and obligations.

i think there's problematic going forward. that cost is passed on to consumers in one form or another. >> so speaking of some of the consumer issues within the cable industry and the idea of the regular to the onslaught of the same industry, the proposal is been one of the most recent, and is there a way for the fcc to thread the needle and achieve the consumer benefits that is possible while at the same time protecting the copyright and many of the piracy and many of the other things that cable providers are concerned about? >> call me an internal optimist. i happen to believe that nirvana exists. i think we can get there. what is exciting is that we are having this conversation. we are talking we're talking

about content and opportunity. we're talking about robust ecosystem. i really think that especially when we see certain households, when we get to certain places in our evolution that we need to have a conversation about which direction to go. so while i know there is a lot of emotion and people of various sides of the pencil comes to this particular issue, the fact that we are having this conversation and not immediately passing down-mike really speaks well for what this interactive processes. it is a notice of proposed and rule-making that we are putting forth where everybody has an opportunity to weigh in. i think it is healthy at this point to have these conversations and i'm looking forward to what i know like michael powell already said was an interesting and dynamic

exchange. >> do you agree with what your college aside? >> i would take a different view. this example is problems with the fcc the found itself inches also with regulation, on one hand you can take a four look if you were the market place is going, try to encourage technological innovation and the benefit of consumers. or, you can look at the snapshot of the marketplace that is increasingly yellowing with age and try to double down with the paradigms. it's a classic example of that. you don't have to take my word for it, take the word of literally over 100 members of the united states house of representatives. republicans and democrats have said and with a variety issues, whether as copyright issues or others that the fcc's proposal is a solution that will not work and in search of a problem is simply working itself out in the marketplace. by the fcc would choose with all the other issues on its plate for example, broadband appointment across rural america

, etc., to focus on something that is increasingly fading into the background is it something beyond me. nonetheless, we're going to be spending the next couple months debating this very issue despite the fact that both the private sector and congress has told us it's a displaced priority. >> do you think the fcc has a duty to listen to congress, the three of you with your prior experience on capitol hill in your own ties to capitol hill? does fcc have a duty to do the studies that lawmakers have cover and others others are saying that these are delay tactics and the pursuit he needs to push world, what is your stance on the fcc's?

>> i had the privilege years ago working for the united states senate and i know deep in my bones that we have to respect the laws that congress has placed before us and asked us to implement. we certainly do have a section of the statute that speaks of the which is legally for current rulemaking. i think we also have to be mindful of the contributions of congress and letters in our conversations back and forth. we we are wrestling with all of that information right now in the preceding we have before us. >> we are devitt driven agency. i really think this exercise which i also referred to as notices of this type as, i really think it is healthy for us to pause, look, and weigh in. these are important, serious complex issues were talking about. were talking about consumption habits of our citizens. i really think it is important for us to look at the entire ecosystem, how they get information, the platforms that are used, i just used, i just don't think it is

an unhealthy exercise to look, every few years when we talk about really significant issues and challenges that we have to have a conversation, gather data data and make a decision if we deem it necessary in order to improve, encourage and sometimes push these dynamic ecosystems that we have. >> i appreciate your comments but i would say if that's the structure that we want to understand and have data, then we should do a notice of inquiry. we should not put forward specific rules. to answer your other question is there some the commission can do to thread the needle. i would take the current position and throw it in the garbage. that's where it belongs. we had an opportunity to embrace what the cable industry is offering. to get rid of the top box. get eliminated from the consumer's home. we

should embrace that opportunity, figure. 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 of what consumers are doing today. you don't need to thread the needle when they put out the platform pressed to look at. >> if i could add to that, with the analogy what is happening at the fcc, not just in terms of the set-top box proceedings for privacy and special activists and data services et cetera is not a conversation, it's dictation. it is the allison waterline paradigm of sentence first, predict afterward. the agency has chosen an ideological position on all these issues pretty close to the formality of having this process in which it receives public input but the decision has been made. they're not open to different points of view. that's part that's part of the reason why so many people have been speaking out in terms of the set-top box proceeding, in particular the writing was on the wall when the downloadable security advisory committee says you know what, there's two approaches here, one that's being pushed by the cable industry, the other proposal

that they ultimately adopted. now one would think that if it was a genuine conversation the agency would say, here are two proposal, american public, tells waiting. instead, it instead, says this is our proposal and the proposal advance for the cable industry, here 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. >> it allows the opportunity for people to weigh in. so i guess what i'm saying here is you have, if you do not agree with, i'm if i'm embracing what you said, if you don't agree with the original pregnant premise, you have an opportunity to weigh inches again i think is a healthy way, if way, if you go around the world and see the regulatory dynamic, you, even

when it's less-than-perfect here, you will find out, or get affirms 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 mouse trap, so to speak we have the opportunity to view that. again, again, i think that allows, that type of process and interaction is healthy. we all need to bring our best case word i believe, including regulators in order to make the consumer experience more robust. i just think it's a healthy way of doing this. >> commissioner? >> thank you. first of all, my mind is open. i do not want my colic to suggest that it's not. we have a proceeding of. we have a proceeding of thousands of pages of information before us. i cannot claim to have read every single one. but we are going to try because we want to make sure that we understand the consequences of our proposal. and i have are ready said this is a market that could use competition, but we also have a proposal before us that is very complicated.

there are issues. there's issues of copyright, privacy, diversity, they all need to be addressed. we're looking for that input to make sure that we address them as we move forward. >> commissioner, think i saw that the and cta sent in a 394 page opinion on section six to nine on the set-top boxes. is that something that you will have time to actually read, will your staff really? >> we will make sure that my office takes a good look at everyone of those pages. i will not claim that i will read every single one of them, but, but i guarantee that i will spend some time with that. >> your issue with the complexity of this proposal, why didn't you break it apart into multiple proceedings and try to achieve the commission that way, or is that not feasible? >> i don't know that i have i have an answer for you about that at this time.

were still waiting for the reply comments and i think i want to assess those before we decide precisely how to proceed. >> this again is an interactive process. when things are propose it doesn't mean that every word is adopted. so that is why we have this interactive process. it informs the commission to hopefully put forth, if it is necessary in any case, a really solid regulatory bypass that will enable all of the things that we see on the showroom floor and more. >> i really appreciate my colic's openness. i think that's great. i do believe what they say. but that's not what the chairman is going for and that's not the

direction that the commission is going. the item is already being written. it was written probably at the time of the mp rm. that is what is going to be voted on in a matter of months. i predict it's in october thing. you don't want to get too far into the election season. but i think it's season. but i think it's already pretty much done. it's cooked. i don't see a changing. i appreciate will have colleagues looking at comments and we will digest the material but at the end of the day the proposal performed by the chairman is going to be the one that we're going to vote on. i am happy to bet anybody in the building that is when to be different. >> the fact that all four of you are sitting on the stage, is this an official meeting of the fcc #. >> i think there is enough advertising and quote unquote notice and i think were in good standing. >> however i want to make sure all inquiries it are directed to one peter -- >> could the four of you do this at the fcc building? have a chat? >> without notice? >> without notice? >> isn't that crazy? it it seems to me that the supreme court can get together and hash things out, at the

moment all eight of them. are members of congress can get together and have discussions, people get together and boardrooms and try to come up with solutions of their companies and institutions. i think that we would be better off if we had the ability to visit with one another and speak more often and more candidly about how to manage the issues before us. >> and with one thing is that we are on the cusp of a final decision. i can understand understand that. that makes perfect sense. but the commissioner and i both chaired the joint boards the intersect of federal and state commissioners. it's like musical telephone chairs, you have two or three of us that are members in at 1045 am one of us has to sign off a one sign on. were talking about a price that is not a final with this it's

very cumbersome and it makes for a disjointed conversation. i think it is something, we were talking about it for years. i think it's i think it's something that we need to look at because it really just promotes this exchange and interactions that we have. it apsley makes no sense. >> will see if the republicans great? >> unfortunately this is not something within the power to remedy. it would be up to congress to change the law. in the meantime, meantime, i think there are so many more important reforms that we could and should adopt, commissioner riley and i have talked about the radical notion that the fcc should pope push what it's went to do before it actually votes on it allow the american people to have input. we should allow every commissioners office to have a full opportunity to have his or her views known prior to a commission vote. there are some very basic process reforms and it would go a long way towards openness and transparency in

accountability. the fcc leadership is denied those proposals that a return. >> i groove my colic. colic. this is something for congress to decide. i've given them my views. and i don't have a problem eliminating or removing parts of the burden on the sunshine band to get and prevent from getting together. the spirit of the statute is to prevent the majority of getting together to decide where things are going to go. i'm not as worried about that. i'm happy that we have circumstances in place. that seems to be not a violation in law but circumstances play out that way. i'm fine if that's the case. i'm happy to have all my colic sit around. i think would i think would have a very wholesome conversation. my second point is that if we put forward a number process reform ideas, actually i was counting somewhere between 24 and 25 depending on what you think is a valued idea to improve the fcc operations without undermining the

chairman's authority or the majority's authority. so we can improve our process for the american people without harming the process of getting to an outcome. i think that is something we should spend more time on, unfortunately the chairman has set up a task force and has not succeeded yet. i know recent he had said is more traditionalists and therefore the process should stand it is. so kind to cook the books on where that's going. >> so do you agree the issues related to privacy, with the internet of things. with the growth of connected devices in that system that were looking at off the horizon and many industries and cable industries looking at this, what roles you think see the higher levels of the fcc playing in regulating the consumer data

that is being collected? what should you be doing, what policy should you be putting in place now to help that flourish? >> well, i think first and foremost the reason the fcc is injected into the spaces of result to of reclassification of all broadband providers which then leads to the fcc having to make determinations without what privacy restrictions should apply to internet service providers in particular. mild preference with respect to the second point is what should those regulations be, to the maximum extent possible we should look at our rules which are applied to everybody else. i think the worst thing the government can do in the space or generally in the other is to have non-level playing field where one set of regulations apply to one group of companies and another center regulations apply to another group even though they are competing essentially the same space. think support for the agency not to pursue ideological ends but

to make sure that consumers are protected in a way that i think generally was widely done by the ftc. have a baseline level of protection that was based on the on fear practice authority and some of the less information that consumers would share based on their authority. that would be my preference. >> lydia, u.s. about the internet of things which is one of the more exciting developments in communication policy as the landscape before us will be large array of information. a large a large that conversation and aries will take place over a spectrum, something something the cable industry has been at the forefront of particularly work the work of the five gigahertz