going to enable our consumers to do wi-fi roaming. and if you're a customer of any one of our companies for wi-fi, you can go anywhere and use it. i think that's great. and i think we're just at the beginning of the innovation that we'll see from wi-fi, from unlicensed, from wireless, as you know, we've been working to put on the market more unlicensed spectrum that has even more exciting characteristics than the wi-fi that's on the market now. >> yeah, we appreciated the chance to work with you during the spectrum bill, which you were a big champion of. and congratulations on ultimately securing passage of, in order to deal with the spectrum crisis. the industry fought hard, i think, with you for the view that unlicensed is going to play a critical role in the ecosystem. and one of the great advantages is innovation without permission. it allows companies and people like apple to design a device and know it will be able to have some access. one thing you said, i'm curious your thoughts about, because you're much more a wireless

expert than i am about offloading. we've heard a lot about the wireless market being congested, and the importance of getting those things off towers and into the ground. do you think that's an important role in helping bring down that traffic in order to ease congestion? >> absolutely. it's a big part of the solution. you know, in the category of the kind of problems that you want to have, is mobile congestion. it would be great in some respects if we had no mobile congestion. but then we wouldn't have any demand. and we wouldn't have the exciting apps and services. we have a spectrum crunch because incredible people in this country have innovated exciting apps, people are using them, and they're hungry to use them anywhere, anytime, anywhere. that's great. but we have a limited resource in spectrum. you have a lot of experience in this.

no one anticipated this increase. so we haven't managed spectrum policy to anticipate this kind of increase. but we have to do that now. we have to do things like look harder and more carefully at government spectrum. about 60% of spectrum has government as a primary user. we have to think about making much more of that available for commercial more quickly, and think about the innovative ideas like sharing of government use and commercial use, building on some of the technologies and ideas in wi-fi. which is largely a sharing technology. it's a little bit geeky, but i'll say one thing, this is an enormous opportunity, a new opportunity for the u.s. to lead the world in an innovation of a new category that will rule for many years. it's important that the u.s. lead in this. >> i think that's a good point. i sort of share the optimism about the -- and a little bullishness about our employment story. it reaches 93% of the american

households today. in a minute we'll talk about the remaining percentage, how important it is to reach them. but we have this gap. we have this fantastic service, and all of us who are big techno files, or techno euphoric about the broadband, we still have really roughly two-thirds of american consumers on the net, and a third that are not there. let's talk about adoption. i think this is something the industry recognizes, proud to be a part of. and you've really challenged us, and the country to solve that problem. tell us what you think about that, and the best ways to do that are. >> a big challenge. so about a third of people in the united states don't have broadband access, don't have broadband at home. they don't subscribe. 67%, roughly, adoption rate for broadband. if you believe, as i do, and i know you do, that this is an essential platform for people to participate in our economy, participate in our democracy, get access to education, health care, 67% isn't anywhere near good enough. how to bring that up is a very

difficult challenge. there's no silver bullet. but we've seen some very important steps forward in the last year. so connect to compete, internet essentials, the earlier comcast initiative, cox started this several years ago, and really tested these concepts out. the idea of broadband providers, cable broadband providers offering low-cost broadband to low-income people, in the case of connect and compete in essentials, people -- families with kids on school lunch programs, $9.95 a month, this is a big deal. and it can move the needle on broadband adoption. i'm very pleased that this is happening. i commend the cable industry for accepting up, to responding to the challenge. and for now, working through the many very difficult operational challenges to roll this out in the market. but i think in the next year or two, we'll see just very

exciting results from this. and we're seeing other parts of the ecosystem contribute as well. the ad council is announcing today that it is going to make digital literacy and broadband adoption a priority campaign, in january, with the help of cable programmers, and operators and broadcasters and others. it's going to roll out a national multi-lingual campaign to help drive broadband adoption, and digital literacy. >> that's an interesting question, because one of the things that i thought was unique in your national broadband plan and your findings about the adoption gap, and one of the things i think our companies would say, that they've discovered is, well, even though affordability is a component of the adoption story, it isn't the only one, and it may not be the only significant one. you found that as well with respect to literacy. flush that out for us a little bit.

what's going on with the american consumer on that front? >> there are too many americans who lack basic digital skills. there was a study that came out yesterday that reported that half of american businesses are having trouble finding people to fill available jobs, because they can't find people with suitable skills. and often that's basic digital skills. about 66% of americans don't have basic digital skills. they don't know how to upload documents, upload a resume. you can't look for a job if you're not online. so this is a -- it's a major issue. and if we don't tackle this, we'll fall behind as a country. and it's an important part of the campaign that you've been leading. >> we appreciate your leadership on it.

i think this is something that cable industry has really committed itself fully to. we think that it's great for our industry. and our own self-interest. but more importantly, we think it's essential to the country. and i think we expect to be proud of what we've done, and in partnership with you. i want to thank you for everything you've done on that. segway a little bit to other dynamics in the market. you know, there are a lot of elements to innovation. there are a lot of elements to changing marketplaces. and as we both experienced, particularly in the broadband internet space, the speed of change is sort of breathtaking. and you have to constantly be reevaluating what you're doing in services. one area i wanted to touch on with you, without some controversy, is pricing flexibility. right now, in the internet ecosystem, all kinds of companies are experimenting with new pricing. and it's not really actually exclusive to cable.

satellite companies are doing it, the wireless companies are certainly experimenting with different pricing tiers, consumption based pricing. you've spoken about this, understandably, in the past. and i wonder what your thoughts are today about that. because i think it's something our companies are wrestling with getting right, that works for them, that allows them to fund the investment necessarily to keep this network innovating and growing, but is consistent with the law as well. >> well, business model innovation is -- it's very important, particularly in new areas like broadband. there was a point of view that said a couple of years ago that really is only one permissible pricing model for broadband. i didn't agree with that, and the commission didn't agree with that. and we said that business model experimentation, usage based pricing could be a healthy and beneficial part of the ecosystem. it could help drive efficiency in networks, increase consumer choice and competition, and increase fairness, right? because it can, we said, result in lower prices for people who consume less broadband. so experimentation in this area, with those goals in mind, is

something that's completely appropriate. >> yeah. that's terrific. you know, another area that you probably cannot walk through this hall and have somebody not ask you about is the continuing strains and kind of the programming distribution marketplace, and particularly retrans. a market where the government plays a role. right or wrong, they can influence that dynamic. for all of you out there, i take no current position on this issue. but i wanted to -- i wanted to ask you a little bit about it. i'm sure you've heard a little bit about it. how do you see this issue in

your role? and do you see anything out there that concerns you? >> well, the -- there are a difficult set of issues here, as you mentioned. you know, first, creators of programming have the right to charge for carriage of their programming. it's true for cable programmers, it's true for broadcasters. the framework that covers this, the statutory framework that was put in place 20 years ago was relatively rigid. there are questions about whether that framework is addressing the issues -- some of the issues that are coming up now as more and more retrans agreements are being put in place, particularly broadcasters moving to charge compensation for their programming. again, which is perfectly permissible. but we've seen blackouts and we've certainly heard from consumers, concerns that they have about the effects on them. that's why we opened a proceeding on this several

months ago. one of the things that's come up in the proceeding that is an issue that's getting closer attention at the fcc is something that's called shared services agreements. and so there are some broadcasters who, in addition, for example, to negotiating for two stations together in connection with a permissible duopoly, have shared with a third station, so now it's three stations negotiating together for retrans. that raises real issues, and something we're taking a close look at the fcc. >> we appreciate that. i think as the conversation morphs into 2013 around perhaps a new telecom law, a new basis for regulation in the industry, which given the last one in 1996, it's beginning to gray, we hope there may be a way to find some accommodations to all of these issues in that process. one last question i wanted to ask you about. because something i'm actually quite proud of you for, because as chairman of the fcc, i tried

it. every chairman i know has tried it, and failed. and that's to reform the universal system. while there's efforts to try to undermine what you do, i wanted to publicly both commend you for it, and i think you've struck a very positive balance, and give you the last word, of what i think is one of your most crowning achievements. >> the first thing i must say is it's an achievement of the entire commission, because it wouldn't have happened if all the commissioners together in a bipartisan basis didn't support the goals that we laid out for universal service. for people who don't follow the ins and outs of this, fundamentally what we did, and what others had sought to do, was transform a universal service system that was focused on telephone service. to one that's focused on broadband. moving from the 20th century named communications platform to the 21st century named

communications platform, and do it in a way that recognizes the fiscal constraints that we're all under in a government, and that recognizes it, like other programs, this one had gotten a little creaky over the years, inefficient, wasteful, and certainly not driving our national broadband objectives. so we were able to put these reforms in place, eliminate things that really didn't make sense. for example, with cable providing broadband, we saw there were many parts of the country where this program was spending consumer money to subsidize a company -- a telephone company to provide broadband where there was an unsubsidized cable provider in the market. that doesn't make any sense standing alone. it particularly doesn't make any sense that there are some that aren't getting any support. it's an incredible thing that the u.s. has 93% cable penetration. really, the rest of the world looks at this and says, wow, how did you accomplish that,

america. that's an amazing thing. particularly for a country of our geographic size. but we have it in the u.s. it's an incredible thing. there's still another 7% of the country. it's about 18 million americans who live in areas without broadband infrastructure. and so what we've been able to do at the fcc, working together, is move this program to strip out inefficient spending, and shift it to optimally, efficiently supporting broadband in parts of the country that don't have it. we couldn't have got it done without broad support from stakeholders for change. >> i know the details are mind numbingly complex. which is trying to get all

americans on an affordable platform that allow them to be part of the american dream. thank you for your role in bringing that dream about. ladies and gentlemen, julius genachowski, chairman of the fcc. >> thank you. >> you're very welcome. tonight c-span 2 will show campaign stops by michelle obama in virginia on women's health and ann romney in miami on cuban americans. tonight is the 68th annual radio television congressional correspondence dinner. c shall have span will have live coverage. john boehner is the keynote speaker with entertainment by award winner wayne brady. sunday night on american history tv, mark the 25th anniversary of president ronald reagan's 1987 speech from the brandonberg gate in west

germany. also this weekend on c-span 3, our series the contenders. 14 key political figures who ran for president and lost but changed political history. we continue our look at cable news and politics. we sat down with cnn's john king. and univision. they discuss coverage of the 2012 presidential campaign. this is just under 30 minutes. thank you all for being with us. >> thank you for being with us.

has there been a game changing molt in 2012, and if not, what could potentially be a game changing moment? >> i think there has been a game changing moment, particularly for the latino community, the latino voters. that came before mitt romney even became officially, or unofficially, but before he became the front-runner. and that is when he said that the response, or the answer to the immigration issue would be the self-deportation of undocumented immigrants, and when he vowed to veto a dream act if it ever came to his desk. because the hispanic voter, even though most polls show it's jobs, the economy, that it's health and education, the issues that they most care about, of course, jobs, there's 10.3% unemployment among the latinos. the issue that drives their vote is definitely the immigration issue. so you can see right off the bat, the latest polls, president obama has 64% to 67% of support from the latino voters.

and romney has 20% to 25% from latino voters. for there to be a change in that, i don't know what would have to happen. either he would flip-flop on his positions and then he would be accused of flip-flopping. right now it will be an uphill battle for the republicans to get the latino vote. >> john king, a game changing moment, has it happened or potentially what could it be? >> we call that evolution. we call that evolving now. we don't call it flip-flopping anymore. we've had a very interesting campaign so far. i don't think we've had a game changing general election dynamic yet. what could it be? it could be the showdown with iran. and if there is some uncertainty in the middle east, at least a

military conflict, and the domino effect of that, which would be energy prices spiking again. if you're an incumbent president, people in the $4 gas, the controversy now. if that went up in the august, september period, that could be devastating for an incumbent president. if it's domestic, it's not a dramatic game changing surprise, but i think when people around labor day see what the unemployment report is, around september, that's when the psychology, any good pollster will tell the psychology of the electorate settles in right about then. if it's a better number, then people start to feel better about the economy, that could change things. >> chris matthews? >> iran. i think if there's an attack on iran and obama has to react to that, i think that would be interesting. i think that would change everything. >> you brought the smart board to cnn. part of the changing technology

that we've seen in our industry. if you look back to the scope of history with radio and roosevelt and the debates in 1960 and the social media in 2008, where are we in 2012 with technology, and with social media specifically? >> i'm an old a.p. wire guy. i remember when i had a pencil, and a note book. that's all i needed. i didn't have to wear a tie and makeup. things are changing. if you run if it, you will be obsolete. you can embrace technology. it's scary sometimes, but if you run from it, you will be obsolete. so i think the technology, it's a challenge to our business. you know, it's a challenge, you can't tell people anymore you must watch john king at this time or you must watch chris matthews at this time. anybody under 40 says i'll watch it when i want to. in terms of our politics, it's changing phenomenally how the campaign is reaching out and contacting people. if you want to report on a campaign, you just don't go to the events anymore. you don't see as many yard signs as you used to see anymore. why? people don't have to do that. they're in touch with people over their devices, through text messages. that's how they raise money, that's how they do voter contact. if you're an old school guy like me, i still love to go to events and stop by headquarters, but phone banking is done now by people on cell phones. you walk into some headquarters and see 1,000 people there. but technology is changing everything.

and you have to study it and learn it or else you'll be covering the last campaign, not this campaign. >> i think a more important thing, technology allows us as citizens, in the way we debate issues, the depth in which we go at an issue. i will spend the rest of my life trying to figure out how we went to war in iraq. why we had the iraq war. the president was able to talk us into a war. the noncritical factor of the media is gone. we are a critical media today. the media today is totally different than it was in the war to the buildup. there would be questioning on ms, fox, cnn. people would be listening to the neocon drumbeats. and they would say, wait a minute, this is a class of people here pushing this war. that group of idealogs would want this war. we wouldn't allow people to say

let's get even with the thoughts on war. they would be challenged, and i would like to think there would be a reckoning that we didn't have then because of modern media. it's not only breadth, but depth. and critical argument on the air. no more of this, the president said this, let's get embedded with his thinking. wait a minute, let's question his thinking. the united states has never been the aggressor in this way before. aggressors were the bad guys. how do we change that position overnight with limited ability, he's able to do that? changing the definition of when we go to war? the critical questions weren't asked. the media was intellectually embedded with the thinking of the administration. i'm just reading the book, morley safer said we're not winning this war. cronkite was slow to accept that. andy rooney, always with the

embedded thinking. we have to be with the military. that debate was three years in the running. today it would take about an hour. that's why it's different. we would move quicker. we wouldn't take three years to realize a war is unwinnable. that's what's great about what's happening today. depth of argument and diversity of opinion. and not this sort of lemming-like acceptance of authority. that's gone. thank god for cable. because that's what's going on today. without cable, it's just network thinking. i'm telling you, embedded thinking, which is dangerous in a democracy. >> let me take the other side of the argument. there's a new book out called

"the cable chatter" where the left is talking to the left, the right is talking to the right and maria elena salinas, they're calling this corrosive to our democracy. the rising of the opinion of journalism that we're seeing in our industry. >> that's one opinion. >> i do think it's very dangerous, and chris is right, because people nowadays have designer news. they watch news depending on what they want to hear, and they want to listen to people that they agree with, and agree with them. but that's very dangerous, because now there's a very fine line between news and commentary. and to the average viewer, to the average voter, they don't know the difference between a news person who is actually giving the news, and a commentator. visually they look the same. they're sitting behind a desk. they don't know the difference. and unless you sell yourself as a commentator -- i remember a while back with lou dobbs, where he was very critical of the latino community. and john, i'm sure when you remember he was constantly attacking immigrants, i remember sending him an e-mail and saying, what you're doing is not right. you're giving your opinion. you're supposed to be a news person. he wrote back saying, you notice in the beginning of the program it says news and opinion. but it's not clear at what point you're providing the news and at

what point you're providing an opinion. >> i totally disagree. people are thinking all the time when they're watching the news. they can hear an argument -- by the way, the argument for the vietnam war, i'm sorry, the argument for the vietnam war and iraq war was commentary. it was opinion. the case for the war was opinion. there wasn't an objective reason to go to war with iraq. that was an opinion of the people around the president, the neocon community. they wanted that war. that was an opinion. it needed to be looked at critically with other opinions. that isn't the objective fact that we have to cover, like, tokyo's the capital of japan. this administration wanted to go to war. i don't believe ronald reagan would have gone to war in iraq the second time. that's an analysis. i think you can look at history and see that. that's an argument. the idea that we shouldn't be argumentative when cable -- i tell you, we need to be in-depth. this idea of the embedded thinking is scary. it just says the president said today. well, this isn't heily telling us what to do. we're supposed to question. we're supposed to criticize.

that's what journalists do. >> it's very clear when people see chris, they know he's giving his opinion, there's no doubt about that. that is very clear. [ laughter ] >> that's right. >> that's true. >> but john -- >> that's what he is, and that's what he says. but i think it's dangerous when people can't tell the difference -- >> who are these people that can't tell the difference? who are these people who are so unaware, that they don't know what they're listening to? when you turn on channel 61 or 63, you know how to find that channel because you're looking for it perhaps. you don't accidently finding msnbc and overwhelmed by the propaganda. no, you know reverend al sharpton and the way he looks at things. if you respect him, and you pick up on it, you learn things. i learn things from everybody, by the way. especially people i disagree with. >> i think this comes down to your brand, number one. and your brand is very important in the world right now. you know if you're watching fox in primetime or msnbc in primetime, you know what you're watching.

i think those of us who want to be in the middle, we have a challenge to make the conversation more provocative. >> but also, it's not just black and white. every people on these networks has a different point of view. there's no -- >> you're right. far left and far right. >> that's not true. that's a funny line. by the way, that is an opinion. >> okay -- >> that's just an opinion. >> how is it not true? >> who's your audience, john king? who's watching cnn? >> fewer people, at the moment, which is part of the challenge. but you can laugh all you want. it's a challenge. you have to study these things and you have to learn. we've always been this network. there are good things about that and there are some bad things about that. but there are people who want to make this about, it's his fault or fox's fault. i actually disagree. i view this as a sports analogy. if you're a sports fan, or you're in business, you study your opponents. this is a parenting challenge, a teacher challenge, when you

reach age of maturity to say -- >> your-offering yourself up as the objective observer of different points of view. i'm just offering an opinion. >> what is your opinion? >> it's fairly obvious. >> yes, it is. >> there's nothing wrong with advocacy journalism that says, here's what i think you should think. there's also nothing wrong with objective journalism saying here's what's happening. >> i think there's three levels to what we try to do on msnbc. report the news. that's what you start with. people don't know what's going on. number two, you try to analyze. i try to figure out who's winning elections, who's making smart moves. i talked about the corey booker thing all last night. that's analysis. and it's true. that's not advocacy. i was amazed and dismayed at what i saw at the political

mishandling of a show by political advocates. that's analysis. that's, oh, i'm rooting for or against the guy. you have to do all three layers if you want to do modern cable. you've got to do news, analysis, and let them know where you're coming from. that's all useful. >> i do think it's very important to have -- >> and everybody's coming from somewhere. >> when people are basing their political decisions on opinion and not fact, that's when it becomes dangerous. chris is right in the sense that you do need analysis, you do need perspective. it just needs to be clear. it needs to be clear to the audience and unfortunately not all of the viewers and/or voters are as sophisticated understand the difference. >> come on, you don't think that the average viewer of fox knows that the ironic -- the irony is deep in the phrase fair and balanced? they laugh at it. they know it's a joke. they all say, yeah, we're fair and balanced. and everybody who watches fox, right, left and center knows that fair and balanced is ironic and fun loving by roger ayles. they're all in on the joke. they know it's right wing. they love it. that's why they watch it. >> some people don't actually