god bless you all for coming out. iñi know it is a sacrifice, but you are doing the work. thank you. have a good march. we will see you on the other side. ñi ñi[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next, of the communicators." the fcc's efforts to expand broadband spectrum. later, a look at this rick -- the supreme court's recent ruling to ease limits on campaign spending by corporations. >> sunday on "prime minister's questions," british prime minister gordon brown talks about the government relief efforts in haiti and the creation of the united nations reconstruction agency to respond to future disasters. that is at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> each year, the washington center brings thousands of students to washington d.c. to experience the workings of our government firsthand. this weekend, they will discuss politics, government, and their futures. sunday night at 8 on c-span. >> this week, a conversation with the new president of the

national association of broadcasters, a former oregon senator gordon smith. se6 to 2008. our guest reporter is the washington bureau chief of broadcasting and cable magazine. i want to start with the supreme court decision this week. i will ask you what their ruling on campaign finance means to your members. >> i probably should admit i never voted for mccain fine gold, so i think it is a big decision for freedom of speech. oddly, you cannot get on tv or radio without paying for it. broadcasters have a lot of cost

in production and content. the american people rely on their tv and radios. ultimately, i suspect there will be more political advertising, but i think the best part of the ruling was full disclosure. i think the more that is disclosed to the american people -- an informed citizenry is the best. it does helpy in terms of a tie when political advertising is down. >>çó before we get into the nuts and bolts, i would like to have you talked to us about what you see your members' business looking like 10 years from now. >> i am very optimistic about the future of broadcasting on the radio side and in terms of high-definition ready of taking

off. i don't know whether satellite radio will continue flat lighting or whether it will probe -- flat lining. part of being american is having a radio handy for news, entertainment, sports, politics, and certainly for emergency services. in terms of television, i think the digital transmission has reawakened the future of broadcasting with digital television. you get a better picture. you have three becoming soon, and you will find what is called multi casting. sports channels, weather channels, children's programming, in addition to the traditional broadcast signal, this is more opportunity for the public. if they want to get the old

fashioned way, they can get for free, right over the public airways. >> you have to have spectrum, and spectrum reclamation is the elephant in the room of any discussion about broadcast. can you explain why you are so concerned about the issue? >> the spectrum is basically the highway of the3w airwaves. it is the way the federal communication organizes the signal so there is not interference from one channel to çóanother. in an age where people are becoming very hooked to their blackberry and their iphone, and i have one of each, and i love them, and laptops and the demand for wi-fi space, it will in coming years crowd the spectrum. when president obama was inaugurated, people were using their cell phones to communicate and to participate,

and it crashed the system. these are what are known as one- to-one uses of spectrum, they are spectrum hogging devices. broadcasting conversely uses its spectrum historically to provide 812 many kind of distribution of information, politics, information, entertainment, all vvq!7m(5hpì(+ things. the proposal now is so that every american can everywi-ñiígi broadband, to take spectrum or broadcasting from the federal government or from some areas that are not fully utilized. broadcasters proposed surrendering their spectrum, because in a digital age we use it more efficiently, but we do have a high-definition signal now that people are really enjoying. we do have multi casting which will expand. in the future, broadcasting will

provide your mobile phone with your local television station. all of these things will require the use of the spectrum that broadcasters have. in addition to all of that, in making the transition from analog to digital, i was on the commerce committee when we appropriated $2 billion to help people get the little boxes, the new antenna so they can get the digital signals. ñiñii know our industry spent at $15 billion on new equipment to go digital. the american people in the tens of millions went out and bought digital tvs. if they take broadcast spectrum, and some of the proposals are to stack tv stations in a way that will ultimately destroy the high definition broadcast signal, it would take away the multi channel availability and

eliminate the future of mobile tv. we think that in the digital -- digital tv should not be sacrificed on the altar of the digital device. >> i talked to tom stafford last week, and he said the most extreme case was off the table, mandatory li taking it back are pushing hdl. is there some middle ground can fine with the fcc? >> we are open to discussing this and are looking at it and utilizing the spectrum efficiently. nobody uses it more efficiently than broadcasting, but i do not know until i see their proposal. i have a moving target. i do not know what i am trying to kick the ball over or what i am trying to avoid. we are not saying a blanket no, we are saying let us see the

proposal and we will try to calculate. the problem is that these are not straight lines with the spectrum. it is a blanket quilt of how it is utilized from community to community. when you say let's take it back or turn it in, i don't know how that translates, or whether or not we could share the space. the technology broadcasters use is not compatible with the digital technology that 121 devices used. until i see their proposal, i do not know if it is technologically feasible. >> you had a chance from your senate position to know a number of fcc shares and to look at them philosophically. what do you see? >> i have always enjoyed working with commissioners from both parties.

we were willing to work with chairman genachowski and others. i see them trying to think forward lee and figure out how to provide wi-fi universally to everyone, and i do not disagree with that objective. what i disagree with is, if it becomes so activist that they simply sacrifice tv for the sake of a mobile phone. i love my mobile phones, but we all need our tvs for information, entertainment, news, sports, emergency services. it is a pretty important feature in american life, and i think it ought to have a bright future. after all the billions have been spent, i think it would be politically impossible for them to sell on capitol hill a proposal that says even though you relied on the digital

transition, never mind. i do not think of that as a proposal that has much promise. >> retransmission consent is anotherñtf[m issue that got a f ays,attention over the ho& with people fearing they would lose their bowl games. ñiñr>> what is happening is,ñi e watching the marketplace work. there are thousands ofs thousands ofs arrived at in the marketplace -- thousands of ñrretransmission consents. time warner charged their cable operators one pocket to another dramatically more than they paid broadcasters for their content. when you look at what people are watching, we all have cables.

we are watching broadcast content, and they pay dramatically less for broadcasting content than they do for their own cable content. if you want to make them equal, that is good for broadcasters. a ultimately, we think the marketplace is working. it is very important for the future of television networks and their affiliates to be able to have read transmission dollars so they have good journalism in our newsroom and provides local content. >> as a follow-up to that, the fccñi launched an initiative ino the future of media and journalism. the chairman said that rapid technological change in the media marketplace has created opportunities for tremendous innovation. has also called financial turmoil for traditional media,

calling into question whether the allis will continue to plague the historic role in providing essential news and information. is he right? >> with the very best of intentions, some times government regulation has unintended consequences and becomes counterproductive. they had vertical ownership prohibitions, and ultimately, what people are beginning to realize is that legitimate journalism, good investigative journalism, costs money. if you have one new center here and a newspaper, and a radio station, they are all suffering. the dispersal of information over so many media, they are simply failing financially. my point is simply that we ought to look at some of this and say

there are economies of scale, newspapers, radio, and television, that can beñr enjoyd together. that means some relaxation of ownership rules, or allowing some vertical integration in communities. it is just one idea. i am not necessarily advocating it, but i am saying that is a better option than the federal government's subsidizing newspapers when newspapers are supposed to be the watchdog of government. >> wouldn't you advocate for getting rid of the ban on newspaper cross-ownership? >> i think that makes a lot of sense. some of our members or affiliate's do not like some of this, and some of us do. i am simply pointing out the obvious, good journalism costs money. if you factor it so much between different outlets, it cannot come together to have -- to produce what we need produced

the fifth estate of the government's. we will not have as vigorous a media as we had in the past. >> talking about content, we have seen another trial on decency standards. what is the right position for this? where are we going as a country with the kind of content we provide? >> broadcasting is in a unique place. broadcasting is a free service, but most of your viewers do not know whether they are watching a broadcast channel or a cable channel. cable channels are subscription channels. you can get anything you want, and the obscenity -- you can get anything you want on a cable

subscription service. when it comes to broadcasting, we have stewardship over the public airwaves. with the public airwaves, there are public responsibilities not to offend local community standards. there are fleeting expletives, things that are said, wardrobe malfunctions. there are technological functions with these pickups and broadcasting. there is a rating system, five second ladies were you can delete things -- 5 second delays where you can delete things. i would suggest that is a better way to manage things, rather than to regulate to a point where broadcasters are unduly muscle. we are not pushing obscenity, because under the rules now, if broadcasters wanted to be obscene, that could be after 10:00 p.m.. but you do not see letterman tried to be obscene, or leno.

they still adhere to humor, hopefully without the obscenity. broadcasters understand their responsibility. at the same time, we do about your freedom of speech. >> a number of broadcasters want to go back to the supreme court on first amendment issuesñi and suggested should be broadcasters and the community, not the fcc. >> i acknowledge that some do want that. several of my friends are for it, and some are against it. i am with my friends. how is that for a political answer? there is a range ofñr feelings within the national association of broadcasters.

obscenity and indecency are different words. >> all of your competitors, @ r ones you have to competeñkóçóñói against anti-competitive in this multi channel world, c-span and might magazine, they can all speak to their community without the fcc. >> it does put us at a competitive disadvantage. i'll acknowledge sethat, and broadcasters want to produce what our constituents and viewers want to watch. they have all kinds of options today that are in decent to obscene, and yet we have to restrain you need to broadcasting that we have a public responsibility. -- we have restraint unique to

broadcasting. >> and the movie sectors will be using the public's rectum -- public spectrum as well. >> everything ought to be regulated by the enfcc. >> the playing field is not level on that issue of indecency. >> do you want to talk about the opportunities there are, not only in terms of multitasking? >> i think the future is very bright for all those things. it takes time to wrap these things up and get the products to market. i was just at the ces show in las vegas.

these things will be available to the public in the washington d.c. area. there probably 20 channels you can get on the mobile phone right now. as we figure out how that expands, there will be advertising opportunities that will be important to the health of the industry. >> are cell phone companies putting these tuners in their devices? >> i think it is sort of a chicken and egg. there are phones being produced that have them. whether it will take off, that depends on the public's awareness and purchase of them. when one does it and it starts to grow, the others will fall in line for a percentage. >> you referred to 3-d as one of

the bright spots on the horizon. i wonder whether or not you think the sudden emergence of 3- d is a good thing for us to be promoting and talking about. >> i do. the nfl has already announced they are going to film in three dimensions. it takes new cameras to do that, but at this show, ice all the manufacturers, panasonic, sony, toshiba, they all have 3-d products there, and some were better than others, but they were all dramatic. for example, we went into the panasonic booth and we saw a football game that had been filmed in 3-d. without the glasses on, it is a tremendous, two dimensional high-definition picture.

you put the three dimensions glasses on, and you are on the field. when you see, you can hardly believe that you can have that kind of entertainment quality right there in your tv, but it is coming. "avatar"is something where the public is saying they are ready to go 3-d. it is a category in the television business in for broadcasters. >> does that mean we will all have to go out and buy new tv sets in the next year or two? >> i think the manufacturers are hoping so. [laughter] >> let me talk about children's programming. the fcc is looking at a wide ranging review of its children's programming. the chairman said again this week that may be educational and informational programming is not the place that broadcasting is

the place for. >> if you have a children's program with someone in front of a chalkboard, kids are not going to watch that. you have to do it in a creative way to sell the advertising. multi casting does give networks an opportunity to provide children's programming 24/7. ion does have a program that is 24/7 right now for children. there are some trying to get ahead of this. i think is a real opportunity for us to satisfy public obligation that we take seriously for children, to provide more children's educational programming. >> is their problem in the back story to that? there seems to be a back story

that comes down to a point that says broadband israel the future, that maybe the tv set is going to become a broadband monitor. is there a problem against lobbying against that, particularly since brought rejects and broadband means health and education and government services? >> when i was in congress, unless you are on one of the house or senate commerce committees, the understanding was broadband is at a very surface level, a catchall for the cure to every societal ill. ultimately, i think you will see some new technologies coming along where broadband and broadcast are blended.

i am not pushing particular companies, but there was a product coming along that blends broadcast and broadband in a way where you get 200 channels, broadcast in an antenna that cuts the costs dramatically and issued the clearest picture because it moves over broadcast spectrum. >> but you talked earlier about how tough it is to produce that programming. >> a company like that is going to pay retransmission to cable companies and to broadcast. by using broadcast spectrum, they can do it at a price that is dramatically less than laying a cable or shooting it up to a satellite.

>> that are already doing it in some cities. they are being oversubscribed. you have to speak to them to sell the program, but i was really impressed. i would have to understand more of the technology to answer the possibility of that question. >> broadcasters in the cable industry for many years were friendly adversaries. how does the potential merger change the game? >> the democratic platform was opposed to media consolidation, so the obama administration will look at this proposed merger

with lots of caveat and conditions on it. that is the supposition on my part. the department of justice will be looking at this, and what they decide, i cannot fully predict. nab has not taken a position for or against it, but let's let the process work and let all the parties make their case and enjoyed due process of law. many affiliate's have expressed concerns. if you only station in oregon and you are an nbc affiliate, and the potential exists that nbc could simply program around your local station, you would be concerned about that.

networks and affiliates need each other. my assumption is that nbc does continue to care about its local affiliatesñi. it wanted to follow or receive its national news program. they will continue working out an arrangement, even if on by cable co., that will preserve those essential features of what we think of as local in broadcasting. çó>> what questions should i hae asked that you wanted to answer? >> we have been talking about the tv and radio side. the great debate in congress is how to -- whether you pay not just the copyright owner of a song but whether the radio

station has to pay the performer as well. historically, congress has always backed off from that. they said that the promotional service is the equivalent value of the right to play. we still feel that way, and frankly if it changes,ñr you wil compromise the economics of a lot of the radio in this country, and i think it is a mistake. ñii think getting it into more w cars, getting people familiar with what hd radio would be like. it is brighter and clearer. it is new technology to give the consumer a better radio experience. it is