give the bigger story of what it means to be nobody in 20% to america. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. >> c-span, crater by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> next on "the communicators" a conversation with at&t chief lobbyist james cicconi. then the vice president of afghanistan addresses the united nations. and live at 9 a.m. consumer advocate ralph nader kicks off a daylong forum on citizen engagement and corporate influence in politics. >> host: james cicconi, what

do you do for a living? >> guest: i worked for at&t. i'm senior executive vice president for external and legislative affairs come at least for two more weeks post back what does all that mean transferring it means i'm in charge of at&t's regulatory and legislative and public policy globally. >> host: you're based in washington. what is at&t, what does it do try very well, i think most people class us as a telecommunications company but, frankly, in many ways it become an internet services company, unlike most industries over the last 10 years we've essentially changed the core product we sell for 100 years, which were voice minutes. now we are selling bits and most diverse services. i don't know many companies in any industry that change their core product they've sold for 100 years in the course of about

10 years. >> host: so use of telephones, you sell bits as you said you're also a traditional cable provider in a sense, are you not? >> guest: we have in ip tv service but most of our tv, our pay-tv today is a limited directv satellite. >> host: what is at&t-based? >> guest: dallas, texas,. >> host: what did the directv purchase due to your company? >> guest: it made us of the largest pay television provider not just in the united states but in latin america as well. it's a premium service that we feel we can marry up with at&t's broadband and internet capabilities to deliver a bundle to the american people that they're really going to like. we are will have some of those services now, taking a lot of the directv video services online through apps and juicy more later in the year on that.

>> host: jim cicconi, senior executive vice president extra legislative affairs, what are some the issues you work on in washington? >> guest: most of it overalls around washington under an fcc in washington. usually there's some proceeding underway that impacts as a drug or indirectly. at the moment there tend to be quite a number of things impacting us. >> host: one of those issues is these you set-top box of the the fcc has come out with a new proposal. their new rulemaking proposal. what's at&t's take on that? >> guest: we are concerned. i suppose it's which proposal were talking about, the initial proposal was put up, but chairman wheeler. we are very much opposed to most of the industry is opposed to it. most of the content industry is opposed to it. we've seen a number of other players express concerns, including the u.s. copyright

office and a large group of members from both parties in the congress. chairman wheeler has indicated that he intended to modify that proposal. he described it briefly. it's not out in public. in fact, some people asked him to put out in public, but we don't think the revised proposal as discussed really goes far enough in making changes. it's, it still doesn't provide the comfort protections that are obsolete needed for this content. >> host: overall how would you grade the wheeler fcc? >> guest: you know, i would give it an incomplete right now. i would have to say of these proceedings go. i think there's a lot of disturbing trends that have developed during his tenure. i have a great deal of regard, respect for chairman wheeler.

but i do think the polarization and the legislation of the fcc has accelerated during his tenure, editing that's a bad thing. >> host: before we go further let's bring how buskirk into this conversation. he's with communications daily, executive senior editor. >> you were just talking about the politicization of the fcc under chairman wheeler. do you see that as something that's going to be, is that a permanent state of affairs that the sec's of the future will be much more political? how do you read the bigger trend? >> guest: that hasn't been the case in the past, and i would hope they wouldn't be necessarily the case in the future. depends on whether these disturbing precedents this setting are followed by others. but it's not normally been the case. the president of the united states personally weigh in on

proceedings at the fcc, even montaigne proceedings that are not generally a matter of broad public knowledge or interest. -- monday and. we had an instance and the set top box case where the white house once again sent out chairman council of economic advisers at the end of the last week to indicate support for chairman wheeler's new proposal, which is not public by the way. after a rather tough hearing on the hill. so clearly there's a lot of tabletalk going on. >> do you think there's something more chairman wheeler could do in terms of just saying appreciate the advice but we are an independent agency and we're going to make these decisions on our own? >> guest: that's a question for chairman wheeler, not for me. i do think that the fcc was set up by the congress as a separate and independent agency, primarily to insulate it from politics.

if it is offered in a way that's not insulated from politics, and i think it calls into question the whole rationale of having the fcc as an independent expert agency, specially if it's not showing any signs of independence. and so i think the chairman of the fcc has been the custodian of the independence, and i think it's incumbent on him to preserve it. i think the institution itself is undefined. >> you have a long history in republican politics, worked for george herbert walker bush and jim baker and all about. how difficult was the choice for you to decide to endorse hillary clinton in the upcoming election? >> guest: well, obviously something i did personally and it doesn't need to do with at&t's. but -- >> is the thing everybody is wondering about. >> guest: you know, i know it surprised the number of people

but i would tell you that wasn't a real difficult choice. i have a set of values and beliefs, like most people, that a conservative. i still consider myself a republican, but i've been in close enough to that office during two white house is, working for both president reagan and president bush, to see up close and personal. i think anybody who has been in the position understands the importance of having the person holding the office the a person of character and values and moral integrity and intelligence your and i do not think those are characterizations that describe mr. trump. and so that's what led me to endorse an offer to help secretary clinton.

>> host: have you looked at all or thought about, vis-à-vis, telecommunications issues? >> guest: telecommunications didn't enter in my mind on that decision. i don't think anybody can look at mr. trump and have a clue what is going to do on any issue, let alone telecommunications. it didn't enter my mind. this is a very important election. i think everybody says that every election but it's the only one in my experience where a major party has nominated a person manifestly unsuited to the office of the jim cicconi, a recent cbs poll asked a question about the economy, whether the system was unfairly rigged and that washington got to make decisions along with large corporations. is there some validity in your view to that viewpoint?

>> guest: i certainly understand it. i don't think there's validity to it. i don't think the system is rated. i think the system is in paralysis and i think the different extremes in both parties have really helped polarized and paralyzed the system in washington. so that it really isn't able to do with the core problems that the country faces your compromise is now a dirty word. you have groups at each extreme that seek to prevent it and you compromise as betrayal, and, frankly, compromise is the art of governance and is necessary to solve problems. and i think frankly that's leached over to telecommunications, leached over to the fcc and one of the races were seen this level of polarization, i'll politicization inside the fcc as well. >> host: has net neutrality decision affected at&t?

>> guest: net neutrality per se has not in any way adversely affected at&t. we had endorse the net neutrality principles back when they were principles during the republican administration. we've always been supportive of the main points behind neutrality. and i was very involved on behalf of at&t and putting the a together the conference which became the 2010 ruled the ended when the last issues with it ever to governments in this town have added fortunate that was litigated by a company that didn't share our optimism about it. i think the shame of that is that it was one of the few opportunities we've had to take an issue that has really polarized the conversation, least in telecommunications, and

actually sell it out and went to everybody, grudgingly, seems comfortable with. when that was undone, of course we've seen everybody going back to their respective corners, and then extreme solution. once again we are in litigation, and it's a challenge. >> one of the currents and raids that netted on was that it would reduce spending other broadband providers. just to let me distinguish because of talking the net neutrality and court net neutrality principles. those were never at issue in this case. what was at issue was the sec's legal ability to enforce those principles in case someone violated them. we think there were alternatives that the fcc could have chosen to do that.

unfortunately the fcc chose the most extreme course to give itself enforcement authority, and that was classifying all broadband services as title ii services. they effectively said that we are going to regulate all of these broadband services, you know, wireless or wired or cable, as if they would like to see bell telephone at work. so what concerns us is not the net neutrality principles per se. as you know, howard, but it's all of the other authority to regulate, that the fcc has given itself by deeming these to be title ii services. so they can get into the whole range of things up to including pricing regulation of these services because of that request. >> i want to make sure i'm clear on this. as far as the economic effect, we will not minnesota whether there will be a bigger financial

effect down the road. is it depend on what happens next? >> guest: i think you are sorely not seeing increases in capital spending producing reductions were down this year, and i think, frankly, some people feel it's because of circumstances. but i think the uncertainty, and, frankly, the potentially onerous impact of title ii certainly can affect that. we are investing in wireless in mexico right now. it's frankly a better regulatory environment in mexico right now and it is in the united states for investment. and so you going to start to see companies making these kind kinf decisions. you are not going to know for years what the impact is, but the notion that's put out there by some that the fcc can impose any regulations it wants and

will have absolutely no effect on investment is at the wrong. it's economic heresy frankly. to argue something of that nature. >> there are two more big roles that are pending with you going to be on the commission's agenda for its november meeting. one is services which ago, called special access. do you have concerns about that as well? talk about that a little bit. >> guest: i think it's important to understand their business data services market was deregulated during the clinton administration by chairman bill kennard. so this was actually done under a democratic majority fcc, it was done on the basis that these markets are competitive and they're becoming more competitive, okay? so since that time the cable

industry itself has built up facilities along these lines and is competing actively for customers in the space. and so the market has gotten even more competitive than when it was deregulated, and essentially what this chairman is saying is that nonetheless, we are going to propose to reregulate these services. and i think the danger of this is not that they are proceeding with the david that is, we feel, has been manipulated to yield a false, but everyone is talking about the importance of 5g. the president has been out of talking about it. chairman wheeler has been out there talking about it. there's two essential components for the united states be a leader in 5g that they all want us to be. the want a spectrum industry is doing a pretty good job of getting the specter of the, identified another and available.

the other is backhaul. that means fiber backhaul. during the entirety of this proceeding that's been going on about 10 years, at no time had asked a question about the potential impact of we regulation on the services, you know, on the event note of backhaul that essential for 5g. the core point i think we would make is that when you regulate and you require it to be, capacity to be wholesale, the fcc regulated prices, you know, a lot of people are going to sit back and wait for somebody else to invest. because whoever invests in step with the short end of the stick am editing our experience with that in the past has proven it. if that occurs than people are not going to go out there and

build the fiber backhaul, the infrastructure that's necessary for the 5g. it is the type of question that at least needs to be examined. instead of examining that question and seeing whether it actually undercuts the goals of the chairman and the president as such, they seem to be racing to the finish line so they can get this done before the election or before the new administration takes office, and i think that's wrong. >> one final thing. on privacy is this a big one. these are rules that would be unique to companies like, isps, companies like at&t. why is that a bad idea to? >> guest: it's not necessary a bad idea if you're going to have a common policy. what a bad addition of two entirely different policies i've the same comments apply to different parts of the internet. that makes absolutely no sense. it's not logical. it is the antithesis of good public policy.

the president's own consumer privacy bill of rights has been very clear on this point, that we need a common policy out there, and it endorsed the approach taken by the federal trade commission which is an opt out type of policy. chairman wheeler is trying to propose an opt in policy, but do not just at the unique disadvantage vis-à-vis other internet companies, but you have to parts of the internet ecosphere with totally different privacy policy. from a consumer standpoint it makes no sense. you are not going to build a differentiate easily how your information is being used. and it's a good example of how an agency, in order to establish its own prerogatives, institutional prerogatives, is moving into a space that it need not have moved into house back do you consider besides arise

and t-mobile, sprint, do you consider google, facebook to the competitors? >> guest: in some ways. they are partners in other ways. if you consider our wireless services, we saw a lot of and what phones using google os. facebook certainly is partnered with us on many things. and i think it's very possible that on an ongoing basis we would more direct competitors than we are today, but i think it's a mix. >> host: you mentioned at the beginning of this interview that your two weeks left in your current job. what happened? >> guest: i'm retiring. >> host: why? >> guest: i'm 64, and i've had

a good career at at&t. got a lot of other things i would like to spend some time on. but i'm truly, i am truly retiring. i'm not saying this is a typical washington way, where he begins by new consulting practice or something like that. the company has been wonderful to work for and work with for so many years. i enjoyed it immensely, but i've got a great successor, a guy named bob quinn who has run our regulatory stuff for a lot of years. we worked together very closely. he's extremely intelligent, sharp, strategic, a real good leader. the organization that we built together is going to be in very good hands trembled we look forward to anything mr. quinn when he takes office. what are some of the big battles

were issues that you can find a sense 1998 with at&t? >> guest: gosh, so much of it in the past 18 years has been transaction related. market approvals from those having the biggest fights. we've managed in the time to win most of them. we had one big loss, which was the t-mobile merger. but most of them have been successful. those are probably the biggest issues i think any telecommunications company really confronts, and they are driven by the desire for growth. some of it wasn't driven in the early part of my career by the changes that were occurring in the industry itself. following the telecommunications act. but a lot of it since then has been driven by the convergence of all these services.

where all of them were really divided up into silos previously and you look at telecommunications act and use everything is regulated in its own silo, and everything is sort of a mushed to get another everybody is in everybody else's business in some way. the consumers have been the beneficiaries of this. they've got more choices and more services today than ever before. >> host: isn't just the other side by legislators and regulators to regulate and legislate in silos? >> guest: they certainly did in 1996, and i think the challenge for the next congress, if, indeed, they reopened the telecom act, as they're talking about doing, is going to be not only take a snapshot of the industry as it is today, not the way was in 1996, but also to try to look down the road and

projected these trends out. i do think the most important thing is to recognize that ideally you want consumers to make the choice. you want them to have the choices and you want them to make the choices. you don't want a regulator or a government official to them to begin in the middle in picking winners and losers between companies. you want to buy the competitive situation for consumers themselves can do that. if those choices exist, if the competition itself exists, then the regulars stand back and let the market work. and if anything and use their powers only when there's a market there or an abuse of market power. >> host: what will you do talking about in five years time and do you think the telecom act is ready for a rewrite? >> guest: last question first. i think the telecom act has been ready for a rewrite for the last 10 years.

i think so many of the fights that we are having now over these rules are over the fcc is leaving its provisions to try to do with the technology of today with the legal tools that were never meant for it. and that is why everything seems to go to litigation these days. but i think five years from now, you're going to be looking at a situation on the infrastructure side where the differences between wired and wireless is totally faded and become irrelevant to the consumer, where the devices simply work and what's going on behind the curtain is of no concern to them. i think 5g is going to take wireless speeds up dramatically, to the point where they will be a very acceptable alternative to wired broadband.

and i think that is going to revolutionize not just the services we offer, but the capabilities that consumers get in the process. i think it's going to lead to a whole raft of new innovation. similarly, you're going to be using a lot of this technology through what people are calling the internet of things, but to the internet of things work you've got of the spectrum and the capacity out there in the system to deal with these billions of devices constantly pinging over the internet to convey data. >> i want to ask something you said earlier. it sound like you were concerned a couple of the items that the fcc is working on, that this is predilection step and that there's a lot of politics

behind, especially the privacy. is that a concern? is that something people are sometimes are reluctant to say but do you think some of this is politically motivated into the election? you said they were trying to rush before the election. >> guest: i think, i think the commission is clearly in a rush right now. the almost frantic to get these three proceedings concluded before the end of the year, and if they can come before the election. i think that's obvious to everybody, whether that's politically motivated or legacy motivated, i don't know. but i do know based on my experience in government that it's always a bad idea to try to rush policies are as half-baked. i think what we've seen in the set-top box proceeding is an ill-conceived and ill written proposal that's clearly

half-baked. coming in for criticism from virtually everybody involved in the industry, and from both parties in the congress. that to me is a sure sign that as a policymaker they should slow down and take stock of this. they do not have to conclude every one of these things before they run out the door. the fcc is an institution, has its own credit building a state. it's a damaged if it's viewed as rushing to judgment or russian proposal out any half-baked way or frankly being pushed by white house to do things of that nature. i think we've seen far too much of that with this white house. >> i also want, you talk about legislation. previously, people been talking about telecom legislation longtime, and it looked like there was a lot of buzz something was coming 15 years ago. do you have the sense that they

should come together at this point that we might actually come or is it, seems like it's very difficult to move telecom legislation for british reasons. >> guest: i think it can come together. i think clearly the chairmen and ranking members of the key committees would like to see that. they are legislators first and foremost, i think they all see that the act itself is broken down, and i think it's possible to do. that i think the last time it was done we had divided government and it got done, but has to be done in a bipartisan way. i think the stumbling block right now is a good thing we hope we sell in 2010, which is net neutrality entitled to, with so many groups feeling that they got a victory there. they are going to be much more consumed with defending that victory and worried that it

could be in some way undone with a rewrite of the telecommunications act. i think that's shortsighted i think net neutrality principles of themselves can be preserved. this whole debate was about how best to enforce them. that's how it ended up with title ii. it's not somebody never felt title ii is appropriate in the space. it was all designed to give the fcc a means of enforcing the net neutrality principles. when your legislative you can take those principles and writing into law and get enforcement authority directly. you don't need title ii to do it. i do think this is something that can be solved. i think it's going to take a lot of good faith on both sides in real bipartisan way. ..

what the congress department is trying to a com bush. >> hopefully you'll continue to be the secular senior editor for

him >> once more, we will have a government of, by and for the people did >> we are stronger together. no matter what, remember this. love trumps hate.