supporters of obama. he was one of the first to bring the telecom community forward and supporting it. very clearly, his first goal is to blanket the country with internet access. we also know that he has spent time in the private sector. he has been sensitive to their needs about being overregulated. he is democrat. he is progressive. they're going to see some scrutiny like to have not had in previous administrations. >> several articles described him as pro consumer. what does that mean?

>> i am not sure there's anything in the hearing besides his own words that indicated he was pro consumer. there is so much talk about this guy. i say this in the nicest possible way. whether or not he is pro consumer, -- that is really the only thing that we know. so whether or not he is pro consumer, i think that we will see after he is confirmed. >> keep in mind that everybody is pro consumer in this business. of the big companies will use consumers as their excuse for almost anything. in a way, is a word that we're not quite sure what it means it. we will find out. >> one of the issues they talked about was the national broadband strategy. here is what julia's had to say

about it. >> the growing consensus that we need a national broadband strategy in this country, in fact, the requirement that the sec developed an issue with national broadband is a recognition that we as a country -- we should have the communications infrastructure that is world leading. a twenty first century infrastructure that generates economic growth, opportunity, prosperity, and critically, we should have a twenty first century communications infrastructure that extends to all americans and that does so meaningfully. in a way that they can afford to sign up and use and take advantage of the opportunities that communications technology offers. >> i think that is a perfect example that lays out what he

wants to do it as chairman. like he has said and barack obama has said, he wants to make sure that everybody has access to high-speed internet, however that is possible. the question is going to be how to do that. the fcc has already begun a series of questions on how to bring these connections to people in very hard to reach areas. i didn't hear at the hearing any specifics about how we're going to pay for it, and whether or not the government will have to pay for some people to be connected to simply -- who simply can't be connected any away. >> it is interesting to note that the answer he gave was not actually answer to question about broadband. it was a question about whether or not the sec was structurally incapable of reform.

it was a wonderful speech about broadband that illustrates the president's priorities and what i think would be his priorities at the commission. i think is worth noting that that was not the question that he was answering. >> another question i was asked by the senate commerce chair, senator rockefeller, was about the sec be more open to the public. >> you agree that the sec should be more open to the public? >> yes. >> how? >> it requires a commitment throughout the agency to principles of openness, transparency, fairness, fact based decision making. if confirmed, i would want to lead the sec in that direction. i do not see how it can be otherwise. the issues are too complex. we need an sec that a smart about technology, smart about the law, smart about economics,

smart about the business, and navigating a complex communications world. so i think this is quite important. i had the same experience that you did in trying to navigate the fcc website. it should be a model for transparency, openness, and fairness. there's a lot of work to do, but i would like to see the fcc been modeled to communicate openly with the american people, and with all the constituencies interested in what the commission does. >> and along that same line, the senator had a statement he made. >> let me say however, it seems to me you will lead a coup rather unhealthy agency. by that, i mean we have been three. a substantial secrecy. i believe we have a very difficult work environment,

questions about biased policy research studies, some of them perhaps do not match the impression of what should have come out of the studies so they weren't released. a lot of very important, serious questions were raised. i am pleased that we have an opportunity for a new direction. i think he has done a fine job and acting capacity, but we need more transparency, openness, and policy development. >> transparency, greater openness, a great resolve, buzz words of the obama administration. i will believe it when i see it. a new web site would be wonderful. i think is worth noting that the administration has talked a lot about open government and the transparency, and made it sort of their mental. it has really been limited to a

small number of groups. it has been a lot of the sunlight foundation doing great work, people like that with a very limited notion of what open government needs. it is more technology center than people centered. the think there's a sense that anything could be -- anything is better than the former fcc under chairman martin. >> the former sec chairman -- fcc chairman made some efforts -- it is true his administration was considered very secretive and his very good conducting last-minute deals. he also put all of the orders that were circulating up on the web site. it was not easy to find, but i did it after a little while. he would hold press conferences when it was time to announce the meeting's agenda. there are parts of the sec which

institutionally are difficult to make public, especially when they're trying to put together a difficult role. remember, there are five commissioners. i think we can believe him at his heart. this is really what he wants to do. i am not so sure that we're going to be able to see it. >> your to professionals that all these issues. you have trouble with the sec -- with the fcc website? >> it took a little while to find some of the filings that people would be putting through. but i think it definitely could become more user-friendly. >> i think 90 -- 1998 -- the information is all there, but the interface could be better. the chairman talked a lot about whether two.

01 point. -- talked a lot aweb 2.0 at one point. >> we're still going to be calling up all of the staff and asking them to tell us. >> the ranking member, kay bailey hutchison, had played quite active role in this hearing, too. one question she asked about was the media ownership issue. >> when i first came to the senate, i was a person who believed that a newspaper should not have too much television presence in the market, because i think more media outlets are good thing. since i came to the senate, the technology world has exploded. i no longer think that we need to police that.

we have the most incredible situation, which i don't think any of us ever anticipated in our lifetimes, that major newspapers would be on the brink of going out of business and not having that avenue for news coverage for the citizens of big communities. it is now a viable possibility. my question is, the sec does have rules against ownership, and i think it is important that you look at that and determine if we really ought to be doing everything we can to keep newspapers alive in order to have the most outlets for people who like to get their news in different ways. >> very early in my career, i worked on a newspaper in college and reestablished the oldest

newspaper at the college that i went to. my heart is filled with respect for the role that newspapers play in our society and our democracy. i spent time in the broadcasting industry later, where learned that it is a special business that plays a special role in our country. it is a hard business, especially in these times. it is a unique business. it is our only universal medium. consolidation is something that needs to be paid attention to, but at the same time, it would not be right for the sec to ignore the changes in the marketplace that are apparent, and the struggles in the various parts of the traditional media business. >> that was a classic example of maneuvering very deftly around

it really controversial and difficult question. senator hutchinson was asking him whether or not, in these difficult times, we might be able to allow some more consolidation and save some of our jobs. if you can tell, the very charmingly talked about his experience in the media, and it one of these on the one hand, on the other. we have to be careful about the marketplace. we're going to see a lot of that coming from him, trying to balance the needs of the advocates who have supported him greatly, and the businesses to say that we can't handle more regulation. >> i think he is a very good dancer. newspapers, the news business is good. i don't know if business is good, but i think the issue that

the senator was raising speaks more to republican fears or worries about overreaching sweeping regulations that are going to be the anti market -- the anti martin administration. she was one of two republicans that came to the hearing. >> the senator was there briefly from south dakota. there was not a whole lot of republicans there. >> i want to go back to the media ownership before we move on. she was very clear about her position on this issue, wasn't she? >> i think so. it was a statement in the form of a question. i think he responded to it very deftly and did not raise any hackles. >> speaking of senators

attending, it did not seen the full committee was there to attend this hearing. >> about half of the members were there for some of the time. i did not know if you have this honor clips, but senator rockefeller got a little angry about senators joined up and asking questions and leaving. to be fair, this hearing has been a long time in the making. there is a lot going on in the senate, but still. it was not particularly well attended. it was well attended by the media and the lobbyists. >> why? >> the problems surrounding the delay for his confirmation have not had anything to do with him. everyone likes him. any problems anyone would have, we do not know about yet. it is the rest of the fcc going forward. once the republicans finally settled, and there was another nominee who had his confirmation

hearing at the same time, it was almost like the dispute was over. this was now just seeing it through. i think that was part of it. >> is robert mcdowell's renomination controversial and anyway? >> i do not think so. he is almost a perfect pick for obama. he is very much his own man. he is a republican, but he has gone against the grain. he recused himself and did not make people very happy on some sides of the issue. he said he was going to be an independent commissioner, and an independent agency. that is the kind of republican a president wants. >> he will be -- he will do a good job of keeping genachowsky

honest. one administrator raise a few problems about him. we will see how that works out. >> why did they have problems? >> is not entirely clear. there was a merger with bellsouth that he recused himself from, even after he was asked by chairman martin to vote on it. it caused some problems for at&t. there were other decisions that he may down the line that they have not been too happy with. he looks at the statute first. so he will look at what an individual character might want in any particular context. >> as another republican been nominated yet, or more than pass the discussion stage? >> i do not believe so.

>> the word on the street is that meredith baker who is the former head of an gia, the commerce department -- ntia. as plans conceived around, the plan is to have hurt nomination go forward. that is the plan. >> one senator talked about that neutrality. this was his answer. >> if there is a competitive market for broadband services for consumers to purchase broadband from multiple independent providers, with the discussion over net neutrality change? >> in a market of unlimited

competition, it might change. the goal as i see it of the net neutrality debate is to preserve the internet as the greatest platform for innovation and small business creation that we have ever had. more competition, more consumer choice would help achieve that. that would be an excellent thing. >> but the concern is not to artificially segment off parts of the population and give them a higher cost. you see more competition and broadband services? >> competition is clearly a goal for the sec and the communications act. -- for the fcc and the communications act. >> i heard him say competition lot of times. he did very well on that. i think he again tap danced very nicely between what his

position clearly is, which is one towards transparency and network neutrality, no matter what you want to call it. and the other side is afraid of sweeping over regulation and anti business practices. i think that he answered it in the only way he could without jeopardize in his confirmation. >> was it significant that senator cantwell from washington state as the question? >> you mean that she represents the state where microsoft is located? i think so. microsoft is one of the companies as worried about, i would say, excess of overregulation. i do not think they're going to object to the current status

that the fcc is doing now. this is one of the examples of the senator asking a question on behalf of the industry that employs a lot of people in her state. i agree with andrew. it is a very deft response. he turned a question about network neutrality into a question about competition. he actually did not use the term openness, which is a buzzword of the obama campaign. very nicely done. >> she talked about and probability with julius. >> my co-chair of the united caucus, i am a former prosecutor. some of these interoperable in the issues, -- we had a bridge collapse. they had a very good job of and probability. i have seen difficulties in the

past and as some of our rural areas with that. it seems like that is one of the areas of our nation's infrastructure that may continue to elude us absence of federal action and federal involvement in terms of making our emergency services in trouble. -- interoperable? is that something that you could work on? >> my wife and i were not very far from the world trade center on 911 -- 9/11. most of my family was in new york or washington. none of us should be satisfied on where we are with public safety. other members of this committee have been leaders on this. as one of your colleagues mentioned earlier, the 9/11 commission urged the country to do something about public safety and interoperable already. we have to do it.

it is not acceptable that firefighters and police cannot communicate with each other on the scene. we need to move as quickly as possible around mobile broadband. now that we're through the digital television transition, there's a spectrum available for public safety applications for our first responders. i do not think we can move too quickly in tackling that. it is something i look forward to working with you on. >> that was a very succinctly of describing a problem. the previous fcc has tried to address that problem by getting private sector companies to partner with the firefighters and the police officers to form and interoperable network. it did not work. i believe this is something that congress is going to have to work at and mandate. the current chairman and acting director has already put on the table that just giving this

valuable spectrum away to the public safety groups -- quite frankly, nobody in the private sector wants it. it would have to partner with somebody else. congress has the mandate that. he did a fine job of talking about the problem, but he really can't answer that. i will no that his -- the wireless industry has, since i've become -- that been left behind in these conversations about broadband. the fact that you mention wireless should make them more happy. there are numerous ways that we can use a broad band in the wireless context for of-three. -- the throughout the country. i think he would try to merge the people that deal with the

traditional land line connections and the other people deal with the wireless connections and work together. that was interesting. >> i think it was interesting that he did not mention specifically the failed auction. he did it in passing, but without going into a lot of detail. for something that got totally left out, it was the issue of spectrum reform. senator kerry has a bill to do a spectrum map, inventory and believe. i think that something the fcc can deal with is reforming how we allocate spectrum. there is a great debate always going on on whether there is a scarcity in spectrum or permission to use the spectrum. this huge swath is now sitting there and they can give it to public safety, or they could give it to everyone, or they could give it to both.

you could have a real shame that -- a real change in our spectrum policy. >> we're almost out of time, but we wanted to show one more quick. senator pryor. >> i wanted to ask you about the broadband technology and opportunity program in the stimulus package. the new know much about that? you have a sense of how that is going to be administered? >> my understanding is that it is the commerce department and the agriculture department that have the grant making authority. the fcc has responsibilities to consult with those agencies as they put together the plans for administrating -- administering the grants. >> you understand the fcc is involved in this process? >> my understanding is that

there is consultation, yes. >> are you happy with what you hear on that, or should be fcc be more involved? will it get to unserved areas as senator hutcheson was referring to? >> senator, i do not have access to public information. from what i have heard publicly, an active healthy policy going forward, these activities are ways to demonstrate how government can work together collaborative lee to pursue a common and. the fcc is the expert agency around communications -- and around the communications infrastructure. it is important that we play eight consultation of role. i will work with you to understand -- to play a consul take -- consulattivtative role.

>> not only is it important to play that role, it is in the statute. i was wondering if he had forgotten or skipped that part of the legislation where he was -- when he was reading through it. the fcc has no grant making authority in the btop program. they're just defining served and and served -- unserved in making the plan. >> you mentioned earlier that the room was full of lobbyists? lots of lobbyists? >> lots of lobbyists >> >> from all aspects of the industry? >> this is the guy that is going to be dictating their future for the next four or five, six or eight years maybe. who knows. it is important to have representatives in the room.

when i showed up at the hearing, the line was snaking down two flights of stairs with various people from the major companies and the lobbyists who represent them. it makes sense. these people who are confirmed to be commissioners of the fcc have a lot of power over the industry. the regulations are very complicated and congress does not want to get involved. they need to develop a relationship with julius chenakowski. >> our guests have been fawn johnson and andrew feinberg . we have been discussing the nomination of julia's chenakowski. -- julius chenakowski. when will the vote happen? >> it could happen before the july 4 recess. it only takes one senator. that has been the plan, at least

the committee -- we will have to wait and see. we are still waiting on that. >> you can watch the full hearing if you like on c- span.org. thank you both for being on "the communicator's." >> tomorrow on "washington journal." it look at iran and the health care debate with tony blankley and jon-christopher bua fro "sky news." and later, a look at the cover story in harper's magazine, "barack hoover obama, the best and brightest blow it again." this week on c-span's "newsmakers." pete stark discusses legislation working its way through congress.