>> c-span where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by a america's cable television companies. and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider >> host: fcc commission her mignon clyburn as you move from the majority into the minority on the commission.

what are your biggest concerns? >> guest: number one. great to be here today. people have been talking about this a lot over the past week 1/2 or two or three, who's counting? but it is not a positioni'm unfamiliar with. as you know, i spent 11 years on my state public utility commission in south carolina and if you know anything about south carolina it is a state that does not have the political balance on its commission. so i was either one of one or one of, one of seven or, two of seven depending on where thing. so it is not a very uncomfortable and uncommon place for me. what i feel and what i hope we will have going forward is the need to really address the communications needs of this nation. there's a lot of work to do when it comes to broadband coverage. mobile broadband is something i

care about in particular. really connecting communities and bridging the digital divide. those are things that he i care about. i trust that those will not have partisan leanings. >> host: do you plan on serving out your term and would you like to be renominated? >> guest: i plan on completing my term which ends on the 30th of june. as you know this part of the process, the other part of the process is something that i do not necessarily have that much of a say in. tradition would individual that that particular post, one of the seats is usually kind of one that the minority leader has a say in. i read some things in the paper that, i'm not sure what's going to happen with that i have enjoyed by past seven 1/2 years. it has been the highlight of my professional life. i've been able to influence, in some cases change policy directives of i believe for the betterment of those who

previously did not have a voice, previously did not see themselves as beneficiaries in the communications space. very proud of that. would love to continue to serve but, that, and i'm comfortable with this, that is not necessarily my choice or, it is my, i should say, it's not a decision that i could make personally but i've enjoyed it and i think my record speaks for itself. >> host: you have about a month left being in the majority. >> guest: yes. >> host: what is the agenda for the fcc in the next month? is there one? >> guest: one of the things we've been asked by leadership to not make any major moves unless we have total consensus. so the last month 1/2 or so we've been going through items that we feel will, we can agree on.

we've been going through and green-lighting issues and concerns that i think push our agenda forward. i don't think that we will crank back up into full gear honestly until after the meeting, probably in february. and we will see where things go from here. >> host: left's bring david kaut of communications daily into our conversation. >> one of the things the republicans on the hill and fcc clear wanting to undo your net neutrality decision, called open internet and how you regulate broadband. what would be your biggest concerns if they move ahead with their promises to undo all that? >> guest: i am very proud of that decision. it was upheld by the courts and it offers certain hety for consumers and for companies. it is built on the strongest framework that will insure the freedoms and opportunity that we

honestly take for granted. we're the envy of the rest of the world because we have a framework that says if i had my own device i can use it if it is not harmful to the network. if i have a business, entity or web page that someone, internet service provider might have opposing interests that provider can not discriminate or prefer someone else's content or website or business over mind. this is very empowering and enabling and this is has opened the door for millions of people, four million people weighed in and spoke. we joke about it but they literally did crash the website when they weighed in. it shows how significant and important this decision is. i want that innovation and having a spirit of freedom and openness to continue. and part of what i hope everyone

will be mindful of is that we have certainty now. the rules were based on principles that we had been guided by since 2005. if there are disruptions within that, then honestly the rest of the, know, ecosystem could be compromised. so i'm hopeful even though, i didn't necessarily agree with everything we voted to approve but overall i thought it was a an incredible framework that will allow this country to be the leader in the world when it comes to innovation and investment and opportunities for those in communities large and small and i will be a vigilant in and vocal about that wishing for that to continue. >> do you think there is much of a chance, they clearly want to get of so-called title two broadband reclassification which is traditional phone regulation of broadband but do you think

there is much room for any type of compromise on the underlying net neutrality rules in terms of how you deal with this? >> guest: one of the things that off the on people don't talk about is, you know, this 700 plus regs and rules that we dispensed of. it is not your mother's and father's title two. it is not the legacy framework that we used to regulate the pot, plain old telephone service. it is very different. it is mindful of the evolutionary nature the broadband ecosystem has to offer us. so it is not the same. the title might read the same but the application is incredibly different and people want and need certainty. when we talk about what our goals and objectives are at the fcc in terms of connecting america, what tool we use to encourage and to insure that

companies are building the infrastructure needed to enable, you know, all of these incredible opportunity. if you don't have backstop when it comes to poll attachments or sightings which again are part of this framework enables, what does encourage those companies to build companies to, or cities, municipalities, to site or having you know, reasonable pole attachment rates? what mechanism dough we use to encourage all of this? that is why i was saying we have to be careful and mindful about many soft things that we look at. can we further improve or enhance? maybe but i hopefully we will take a scalpel approach and not a sledgehammer because i think at sledgehammer approach would have some negative unintended consequences. >> have you talked to the current fcc commissioners on the

republican side about what their agenda will be? obviously they're going to control the agenda. one will be the chairman at least for a while. about how they want to approach things in the next year and are there areas you're already starting to look at, potential areas where you can work on with them? >> so i have not spoken to them in terms of the election when it come to policies. we are very clear. we have a very interesting interactive relationship. a lot of positions are very clear and been on the table for a long time and some of our votes, 90% of our votes are unanimous. some of the critical votes have fallen along party lines. so i will say there are no real surprises that are here but look, i continue to be hopeful. we just had one particular decision that when it comes to particular provider, that was not following our rules when it

comes to our universal service, and commissioner pai, and i who is the person that you are referencing is said to be the more likely interim chair, we, issued a joint statement because we want our universal service, regime to be one that's clear of waste, frau and abuse. when an entity does that we can all agree on that. so we had times we come together on certain items people might say, hmmm. it is really about connecting america and insuring that our funds are appropriately spent. so i'm mindful of changes that on the horizon but i am hopeful that the spirit in which i've grown accustomed to when it comes to regulation will be realized regardless of where the tilt in partisan or political power will end.

>> host: commissioner, clyburn, aren't there strict rules how you can have a conversation with fellow commissioners? what do you think about the reforming that, now that a new administration is coming, chance to reform the fcc processes? >> we do have sunshine restrictions. i can speak to commissioner pai, that is not a problem. when it goes through three and majority, it goes to noticing requirements. this goes through issue of sunshine reform this is something talks about a long time. what happens, i was chair a number of years of the state, federal, universal service joint board and even if you're not poised to make a final decision, what was happening was a strange sort of round robin approach meaning that if i'm on the phone and another commissioner is on the telephone, then the third commissioner who is on the board wants to call in one of us would have to rotate off. not a final decision-making place.

here a joint board and all of the commissioners can not weigh in. that is very inefficient. so i believe that hopefully the congress will look at modifying those rules again. transparency is key, particularly when we come up to final decision-making but when you're talking about joint boards and you know, other entities panels or whatever we have at fcc that are informative, to have the strict rules in place, really it is inefficient. doesn't make a lot of sense. so common sense reforms when it comes to that i think will be a positive. i look forward to working with my colleagues and congress to that end. >> host: over the years you have served on the fcc has it gotten more partisan? >> guest: it has gotten more interesting and maybe a little more tense. my first couple of years, i said it was, you know, again with the same political balance i can say that there was not as much, i

use the word intense today, intensity when it comes to our interactions but part of that is because we view, i would say the application side of the regulatory equation a little differently. i think at the end of the day we want the same results. we want a communities to be able to thrive and be robust. we want functional, functional marketplace when it comes to the providers and the companies that we have some oversight but we do disagree and sometimes very visibly when it comes to the application of that. so i'm hopeful that everyone will take a pause and really will, you know, kind of reset the narrative, because my natural posturing. my natural comfort level is not one of intense confrontation.

i really want to do what is best. i take my oath here seriously. i want to do what is best for communities large and small, particularly those who have been left on the wrong side of the opportunity divide and really look how can we insure that the communications act and all that it is instructs us to do, how do we make that applicable to all people no matter where they live and that is the most important thing to me. >> you just mentioned the opportunity agenda you have. one of the things you all did was adopted a lifeline overhaul order that among other things extended subsidies for low income consumers to their broadband service. how concerned are you that the republicans are going to either hamstring that or cut it back? it is currently got a $2.25 billion annual budget. obviously republicans want to cap it with a hard cap i understand at two billion. can you elaborate at all on your concerns in that area?

>> guest: was only difference we had to this whether or not there was budget or cap. to me application it works the same because we're very mindful, i live within my budget. i could call it a cap because i only make a certain amount after taxes but i live within a budget and i really think that i do not get intensely involved with, you know, the wording or phrasing of certain things. i am intensely passionate about this program being reformed. that the reforms are implemented so more competition and more providers will weigh into the space. so there will be more opportunities for individuals to really get connected because we have done an incredibly great job when it comes to the infrastructure side of the equation with what we call the connect america fund, formerly

the high-cost fund. e-rate, some people still calls schools and libraries fund that takes care of some infrastructure and what some people call anchor institutions. we have not done a fabulous job when it comes to the affordability side of the equation. we can build all of the incredible palatial broadband infrastructure that would be the envy of the world. if people can not afford to use it, we have only tackled, we are in essence building this incredible best of my knowledge to nowhere. i'm so passionate about the lifeline program and why i was not enamored with a cap. what if the need and opportunity and the demand grows? are we going to say to the person that comes after that 2.1 or $2.2 billion you need not apply because we capped out? i think that would be very sad state of affairs for us to tell that next person in line that they don't have the

opportunities that their neighbors have and that's why i was for a budget which gives you a little bit more dexterity as opposed to a hard cap which says no one else needs to apply if we ever reach it. >> another one of your causes that you have championed is inmate calling service rates. i don't think most viewers, probably are very familiar with. you've goat a campaign going on right now, phone injustice you have now transitioned to phone justice which you're tweeting about. >> guest: right. >> why don't you explain your, this issue and what you're hoping to achieve there. >> guest: millions of americans do not realize there is severe economic crisis and burden and a market dysfunction when it comes to what we call the inmate calling services regime and what that is, if you don't know about it, then great for you but there are millions of people in

america that have at least one family member who is serving time who is behind bars and for the last several years, what has been happening is this incredibly sad and perverse and egregious structure where inmates or their families mostly are paying incredibly high rates. we have heard in one, a couple of particular instances where one person paid $17 a minute for a call, that's an anomaly but it has happened more than once. but typically, people who have a person or someone in prison, and that includes the attorneys who represent these individuals, they pay in excess of a dollar a minute. that is unaffordable to most of us and that is incredibly unaffordable when it comes to these families. the majority of these families with someone in prison are on

fixed incomes and many of these families are really experiencing severe economic hardships because of their need to keep in touch. and so you are seeing an infrastructure that because of some of the, i call them kickbacks and some might people might push back of that, but the amount of money and proportion of monies have been going to some of the facilities and they have been enriched by this structure. so there is no economic incentive to be the low-cost provider. all the incentive under this framework for to the highest cost person gets the contract award from a particular facility and that of course is passed on by the families and it is incredible, egregious economic cycle that nobody wins here.

people are not, less than 40% of those inmates keep in touch with their families on a regular basis because they can not afford the fees. it is something that i have been working on for a number of years. we've got a little bit more sanity when it comes to intrastate rates but 85% of the calls made to and from facilities are within a particular state. families are paying sky-high prices. it is. it is a regime where nobody wins except for the providers except for some of the facilities and we need to call more attention to this. >> host: so, commissioner clyburn, what is the holdup getting reform in this area? >> guest: one of the things we have a stay right now in the court and one of the challenges is whether or not we have authority when it comes to intrastate rates. there has not been any argument when it comes to the interstate or the federal side of it but

whether or not we have authority. we believe we do when it comes to regulating or monitoring intrastate rates and so that has been a part of the holdup. i am hopeful that the agency will affirm its position. if we are given our day in court to challenge, because at the end of the day, regardless of where the call is made to and from, families deserve, i believe, just and reasonable and fair rates. i, it is societal benefit if people keep in touch. 75% of those incarcerated are, go back into the facility after five years. and a large part of it is because they can't afford to keep in touch with their loved ones. it is something i think we should look at. it is something that i believe it is important. it is costing us dearly, that revolving door has to stop. one way we can do that is to have just, reasonable and fair rates.

that's what we're fighting to get. >> host: in your view, commissioner what do you think tom wheeler's legacy is? >> guest: i think tom wheeler is an incredibly multidimensional individual who has seen, has background in cable and mobile. what i think about him i kind of smile i say this person has been on the cusp of two of the most incredibly life-changing when is it comes to the communications in the u.s. industries that we now take for granted. you know, cable as well as, you know cellular phones. he is a person passionate about providing opportunities, looking through a current day lens with some legacy background and i believe that he has been incredibly effective chairperson, moving the needle,

challenging all of us. you know ruffling some feathers inside and outside of the agency and i think that's a good thing because i think your regulator should be one not only in tune with the times but will, you know, challenge all of us, consumers and companies to alike to be better at it. so i think, if even if you don't agree with every decision or every posture or every speech he has made he mad us better at what our respective portfolios or gains are and i think history will be tied with him. >> you were asked about chairman wheeler, but what about commissioner ajet pai, rumored to likely fcc chairman. what do you think about him? >> guest: he is incredibly bright. i don't know where he gets his social references from. if you watch some of his

speeches from the dais, he is incredibly witty but he is extremely bright. he is a committed, i believe, to, insure that america's connected. i mentioned to you that there are places where we do agree and and where we do agree, we are embracing of that. there are some places and some, you know, avenues that we, we diverge but what i am hopeful if all predictions are true, that we will meet and come together and really, you know, not allow one or two things where we might differ cause us to not move ahead unanimously with an item that i think would be for the good of the country. i start from the 50-yard line. i don't start from a place or posture where i'm assuming i

will get 100% of everything that i want. i am compromise is not my middle name but it's a posture and a place from which i start. so i am willing and i, and i believe in reciprocity. >> is there any chance -- there have been some rumors given that the republicans are taking over and commissioner rosen, one of the democrats was not reconfirmed, is there any chance, you said you intend to serve out your term to june 30th. you will serve longer if you're not replaced. is there a chance to you would quit before then if it woe deny republican as quorum to act? >> that is interesting. i don't know if people are giving me incredibly crafty or not but that is not, that is not how i'm wired. the way that i am wired as i mentioned is to make a difference in an atmosphere that

will allow for input and opportunities. again i am not looking to fet 100% of anything that i ask for. i am looking for certain baselines that i hope that where we can agree we will -- i am not planning some type of, thank you for giving me credit for being, you know incredibly nimble from that perspective. that is not something that i'm planning. i take my oath seriously. in it is not any type of you know, trying to be cute or crafty. that honestly is not my makeup. i am here to serve. i am a natural public servant and i don't think part of that is some grand vision of me as a disruptor. >> host: commissioner clyburn, someone who served as interim chair, what is your advice for the incoming interim chair? >> guest: start at the 50-yard line honestly. i think it works.

being inclusive, attempt to find common ground. if you disagree on one are two or three things, i don't think you should three out an entire item. no, i don't think you should compromise your core principles because i will not. when it talks about the four pillars in the communications act, which includes competition, which includes consumer protections, those things are very much important and they should not ever be on the table when it comes to compromise. but i really think what worked for me for those five 1/2 plus, five 1/2 month where i served is we talked, we had meetings every couple of months with my colleagues and we attempted through staff a lot of times with the details to work out items where we could agree. i think if we start from that vantage point what is the goal, what is the objective what do we want to do, what is the thesis sentence or statement for the item, if we work from there, i

think at the end of the day we can come to to consensus in less contentious way craft policy and draft and vote on orders that would be, continue to be the envy of the world and that's my goal and that's my advice to anyone leading the agency. >> host: david kaut, time for one more questioning. >> since i'm rumormongering, there is always speculation what your future plans might be, since we're getting a little closer, we don't know exactly how long you might serve, any thoughts future, possibly running for congress in particular seat in south carolina if a certain distinguished gentleman from south carolina steps down? >> host: he asked that. >> guest: let me answer by saying this, whatever is next for me it will include and embrace all the experiences i

have had 7 1/2 plus 11 years on state commissions. i'm very comfortable in this space. i am excited about connecting communities and serving. i'm excited about the technology and can bring. whatever is next for me i will embrace it. i insure you see continuity when it comes to community and no matter what my title will be, it will be definitely in line with mignon clyburn with title of commissioner. i felt -- did that answer your question. >> i would note, peter, that was a very good political answer. i think you have a future. >> thank you. >> host: commissioner mignon clyburn, democratic commissioner on fcc thanks for being on

"the communicators". >> guest: it's been i my pleasure. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> good morning. welcome to the cato institute. i'm roger pilon. i'm the director of cato's center for constitutional