our broadband plan team. we look forward to seeing more in advance of our meeting on february 11. >> what happens on february 11 or february 17 when it gets delivered? does congress have to approve it as part of the stimulus acts of last year? >> it is a little unclear. congress wants us to look at all these issues from national defence to literacy, health care, things of that nature. we will have it formally presented to us february 11 and is due to congress february 17. it is not anything that is a rule. there is no legal effect of this plan. it is something presented to congress, and then i imagine the commission will have a number

of spin-off proceedings of things such as reforming our universal service subsidy program to see if that can support broadband and things of that nature. congress may want to address other issues. i hope they will look at things that we might suggest such as tax incentives to help spur things. telecommuting has many benefits that affect productivity and a positive way and the environment, etc. we will see how detailed it actually is. >> cecilia kang is also joining us today. >> does that mean the commission has to vote on the national broad been planned before is submitted to congress and

approved by the five commissioners? >> i am not sure there will be a vote. the statute says that they shall present it to congress. there are a number of ways historically that the commission has delivered reports and other documents of significance to congress. unless it's specifically says the commission showboat and all commissioners showboat, i think it -- shell both -- the commission and all commissioners shall vote, a vote probably is not required. there is always a chance there could be a democratic dissent.

there are five commissioners, and it is possible there could be concurrences and dissents as well. >> i find it interesting that there is this lack of clarity on the process, given there has been so much attention by the commission and chairman on making sure the process works well and is transparent and clear. given what we talked about and the lack of clarity -- >> i think the commission has done a terrific job of being absorbed ant. at several monthly meetings this last fall, the broadband plan team was presenting to us at open meetings their outlines

and. we have not actually seen the details yet. that will come to us as part of the normal process. traditionally, internal will say we should get these documents 21 days before we have to vote on them. it will go through that process. we do not know if there will be a vote. >> given the fact that broadband really is in many ways ubiquitous throughout the u.s., there are areas that do not have it. it has been around for a long time now. is there a purpose in a broad band planned for 2010? >> we will have to read the statute to see what the purpose would be from congress's perspective. broadband can affect every

aspect of lasife throughout the world. people can argue if this these are fast and up and the ban with is -- bandwidth is fastened up. 92% of the country is penetrated by cable. that can be upgraded merely by adoption of a software upgrade. we want to see more competition. i have tried to focus on the construction of new delivery platforms, be it fiber,

wireless, or other technologies. the most promise right now is in wireless. wireless broadband is the fastest-growing segment of the broadband market. it is what consumers are saying they want. they also want the reliability of fiber because of the speed and reliability. to fill in that gap will be difficult. earlier in 2009 i went to alaska in early march where is 55 below. they have a lot of challenges when it comes to broadband. satellite is their only object -- their only option due to the extreme weather conditions.

satellite fields in the gap. i want to make sure we do not forget about satellite, because there are parts of america that did nothing but satellite. we need to look at what we can do to make that better for consumers who have that as their only option. >> your comments echo the comments made by the white house yesterday. the administration basically said that there is more need for competition. i would love to hear you talk more about what you see as competitiveness today, if there is not enough. how should the commission considered reconsider the fact that the biggest wireless players are the biggest

distributor use of internet access? >> you can i have enough competition. at some point the markets can become saturated, but i do not think that is the case with broadbent. if you have a robust competitive marketplace, it obviates the need for regulation on so many different levels. if you have one player acting in an anti-competitive way, from the consumer's perspective, then presumably consumers would have more choices. there has been discussion of spectrum audits. that would be a great idea, as long as we understand manager expectations ahead of time. it is difficult to pinpoint a point on the map at a point in time and determine who exactly was using that spectrum, and for

what purpose. we have to manage those expectations, and there is a lot of talk on capitol hill about this. it will raise as many questions as it answers. government uses about one-third of all available spectrum. spectrum is finite. we are talking about the airwaves, the radio waves, and different frequencies are better for different purposes. some frequencies'signals can travel long distances and penetrate buildings, like television stations. others are better for medical devices and things of that nature. it is a complex, very complicated area. i do think we are on the early edge of what i will call the golden age of wireless.

i am very optimistic about the future of wireless. i was recently speaking to the inventor of the cell phone. his name is marty cooper. 99.9% of americans do not know him and have not heard of him. he is in his 80s now, and you should have him on your program some time. his theory is that our spectral efficiency doubles every 2.5 years. how much information can we squeeze over the same bit of the airwaves, that doubles every 2.5 years. since the radio was first invented, we are over two trillion times more spec relief efficient today than when the radio -- more spectrally

efficient than when the radio was first invented. when we hear about spectrum shortages, that can be measured in years before that can happen, before the commission can find it, get it clear, get it to option, and get it built out. it may be the better part of a decade before that happens. smart phones are consuming more and more of the airwaves to convey these wonderful technologies to consumers. this tension helped create an incentive to use the airwaves more efficiently. you begin to think of the spectrum as real-estate. is it efficient to build a one story gas station in downtown manhattan, or a 100 story office

building? just the way we have incentives for the use of land, we want to have incentives for the use of spectrum as well. that may be an unintended benefit to the shortage. there can be an upside. >> googled just applied to be an administrator of white spaces. can you tell us what these white spaces are and what googles role is? >> i am delighted you brought that up. the television white spaces are those unused tv channels in a market, and gaps in the spectrum. in urban and suburban areas, the configuration on the map might beat salamander-shaped.

that are more amenable to unlicensed use than licensed use because of that. back in november 2008, the commission took a baby step at a giant leap at the same time to approve of unlicensed use of this part of the spectrum. some call it what fight on steroids -- some steroids --wi- fi on steroids. it is wireless broadband that can travel long distances and penetrate buildings and carry information with it. there is a lot of activity and discussion leading up to november 2008. the commission did a good job of testing new technologies to ensure it was reliable and would not interfere with television broadcasters. since then, we've seen less

activity or at least less discussion on the outside on the use of white spaces. i think it's also a lot of public policy issues, net neutrality and others. it is a terrific way to get new, powerful devices into the hands of consumers. the role for google is, there would have to be a nationwide database of where you are on the map. where there are licensed users of those same frequencies on the map. each handheld device would be able to tell you where that consumer is on the map and if there is a licensee using that frequency for that given spot. if so, that device has to switch to a difference frequency. the device would have to be able to detectives there is some other use of that frequency, licensed or unlicensed, so the

device is cancel each other out. you need to have administrators of this. the idea of was set up to have a neutral third-party administrator for some of these aspects of it. i think that is what you are talking about with google. >> do you think a neutral third- party can be a commercial player that has this interest in communication? >> that is an excellent point, and one that needs to explored further. it needs to be examined before any sort of authority is granted. >> our guest is robert mcdowell, the senior republican commissioner on the fcc. >> i would like to talk about

net neutrality. you use that in the context of white spaces. you have said that you have agreed for the proceeding of the rulemaking process, but you have also said you don't think there is a need for a new policy. is there a net neutrality policy that you could be comfortable with, and what would that look like? >> we are about to how our initial round of comments due on january 14. the first thing we need to do is examine whether or not there is a systemic market share. in 2007, the government twice looked at this issue to examine the broadband market. the federal trade commission to

get to a vote, which was 5-0, unanimous. net neutrality has been an undefined and blue, but now we have proposed rules that give us a framework for debate. i would like for potential commoners who might be watching right now to please give us hard evidence of systemic market failure. in other words, the concern for the proponents of net new trolley regulation is that network owners and operators might somehow discriminate against content or applications in an anti-competitive way to favor their own business interests. thus far there has not been

proved of systemic market failure. there have been maybe five examples of some sort of nefarious behavior, but they have all been isolated. they were either settle before any government action -- the ultimate cure is more competition. when the consumer has a choice of five effort -- five different plans, i think that is important to note. we have more technology coming over the horizon. we are not seeing the fruits of

the new entrants that will come into certain markets for that. it all can be helpful, because if there is a class last mile internet on ramp for the consumer, if there is a market player acting in an anti- competitive way to frustrate the consumer's will by discriminating against the content the consumer wants to see are used, then if you have enough competition, the consumer can fire that provider and hire a new one. that is the ultimate way to go. i am always concerned about the potential unforeseen consequences of new regulations. regulations act as a tax.

you tend to diminish it and make it harder to produce that service. president reagan used to have a saying that there are those who if they see something moving, they want to tax it. if it keeps moving, they regulated. >> another term, search neutrality, has come about. will that be part of any net neutrality plan? >> the proposed rules speak for themselves. they place all the regulations on the network operators and not all the application providers. i would just ask folks to look at the proposed rules and decide

for themselves. what we voted on in october discusses this. i would welcome comments from the public as to whether or not there should be search neutrality. >> do you think the fcc does have jurisdiction? >> i question that. in the context of an item from 2008 called the comeback -- comcast ruling, i dissented in that because i question whether or not congress has given the commission proper authority to exercise what is potentially old style common carrier regulation of information services that historically have been lightly regulated. congress wanted us to regulate

these services, it would say so explicitly in the statute. that is a question i want folks to help me out with. >> along the lines of competition being one solution for net neutrality, how does the comcast merger play into net neutrality in it communications landscape? >> my lawyers tell me i should not, pat -- should not comment specifically on the comcast merger. i am happy to talk about the market in general. what is interesting is, that transaction bucks the trend of the last years. since i have been on the fcc, we

have seen a move toward media de consolidation. last year we sought time warner and time warner cable break apart, get a divorce if you will. it would be a lot of fun to get the ceo of time warner in the same room with the ceo of comcast to debate the strategies. i think consumers are awash in more media choices now than ever before in the history of humanity. the and that is a good thing, if we manage it properly. >> along with entertainment and media, consumers may be watching more options, but there is a big

transition taking place from fixed cable and satellite delivery of video and entertainment to the internet. i would like to hear your thoughts on competition in the video space. there was a complaint filed by some public interest groups saying they are afraid that the strategy called tv everywhere could be anti-competitive. in your jurisdiction of the fcc looking at the public interest, what are your thoughts on the transition and any potential cracks in the foundation of competition going forward as more media goes to the internet? >> that could keep us going all day with those questions. it is a fascinating area to watch. comscore had november figures

for october showing that americans down loaded 28 billion online videos in the month of october alone. the numbers have been growing at double digit percentage rates for quite some time. what we see is a bargain video market right now. this is more than just mementos and the pepsi bottles that we saw in the early days. these are full-length movies and tv shows, as well as user generated content. we cannot even imagine it just five years ago. it is a very competitive marketplace, very chaotic. i try to get out into the world outside of washington d.c. as often as possible to speak with people who are trying to figure out how to pay for all this. consumers still want quality,

scripted programming, and that costs a lot of money to produce. there are two ways to fund that, advertising and subscriptions. thus far the market has not figured out another way to find it. consumers continue to want that. nobody really knows how the story will end up. we are in the adolescence of video competition. adolescence can be an awkward time, whether the person is going to grow up to be an ugly duckling and are a beautiful swan. what we should do from a government policy perspective is allowed as much freedom as possible for them to experiment and make sure there is no anti- competitive content.

>> we are almost out of time. two senators recently introduced legislation bringing more expertise to the fcc. do you support that? >> how could i be against that, especially since my home state senator is introducing the bill, senator warner? we need to make sure we have worked technical expertise at the fcc. we have some wonderful engineers on staff, some of the best and brightest in the world. some of them are reaching retirement age, and we need to be able to compete with the private sector to attract folks to come to the commission. if anyone is watching, please send in your resume to the sec. we need you to donate to years of life to the public sector.

i have known stuart benjamin for a number of years. he taught at my all modern, duke university -- he taught at my alma mater. he is there to help was be a liaison between the commission and the academic community. he is an expert on first amendment law. >> you will be at ces later this week. what will you be looking at and how will you be doing what you see on the floor through a policy lynns? >> i like to go to the consumer electronics show because it is me one-stop shopping for what is coming over the horizon. i will be looking at whatever they presented me. there is always a surprise there.

probably a week from now we should be talking about what i was most surprised about. it will be interesting to see what technology is there to bring more online video content from the internet to your tv set, not just your computer screen. what can we do to make that easier for consumers? a lot of companies are out there trying to make that happen. also, what are some of the new wireless devices out there, what is the latest technology and how is the spectrum being used in ways that we cannot foresee at last year's consumer electronics show? >> as always, we appreciate you coming over to "the communicators." >> coming up,