the arts. >> coming up sunday on "washington journal," a look at the health care law. also, a discussion on the role of consumer credit scores and reports with stuart pratt. following that, stephen wayne discusses how presidents learn the presidency. that is live at 7:30 a.m. on c- span3 >> this week on "the communicators," a discussion about updating broadband policy with tom tauke. >> you compared telecommunications law and regulation to the winchester mystery house, which grew up over years and has hallway ans

that do not go anywhere and doorways that do not open. what do you think of this dynamic field? >> it is true that our telecommunications law needs to be updated. it has grown up over time. there are many amendments and additions that have built this structure that is now the framework that governs our industry. it does not really changed to reflect the new world of communications. this law was essentially constructed of a time when you had monopolies in the cable industry and the telephone industry and essentially broadcast monopolies in the local community. it was constructed as us silo set -- as a silo set of industries. all of that has changed. everybody is in everybody else's

business, so to speak. you cannot address these industries in silos anymore. the nature of development of content, with users being developers rather than receivers, that has changed the dynamic of the industry so significantly that it is time to take action. >> do you think that the 1996 telecom lot is out of date and needs to be updated? >> when you think about the driving force between the 1996 -- behind the 1996 telecom act was allowing local telephone distances -- local telephone companies to get into long distance. we do not think about that any more. the notion of differentiating between a local call, and in-day call, a long-distance call -- that has been blown away. if you talk about that to a 15- year-old or an 18-year-old, they look at you strangely. they do not remember what it was like when you had all of these different calling structures.

>> who takes the lead? the sec? is congress ready to develop a framework? >> i think congress needs to take the lead. that is, in part, why i did talk about this issue. the federal communications commission is facing a tough task. the chairman of the fcc, german genachowski -- german -- chairman genachowski just came out with the national broadband plan to try and look at all of the challenges that we face as a nation and how broadband can address some of those challenges. they see this as a vital infrastructure. they want innovation in the space. this is good, but they are trying to work with a statute that is not structured for this area. when we look at this world of the internet, which bill that we do not want it to be a wild,

wild west. we wanted to be governed by bloc and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law -- by a rule of law and congress has to determine the principles for that rule of law. >> we're talking with tom paul kirk -- thomas tauke and kim hart. >> you talk about how everyone is playing in each other's sandboxes. computer companies are selling cell phones and network providers have their own app stores. you stressed the need for the government to ensure that no player has an advantage over the other and that he wanted technology-and get -- agnostic -- and that you want but technology-agnostic policy going forward. others the civic updates needed

to make sure you are keeping up with this -- are there specific updates to make sure you're not keeping up with these? >> we have not come up with all the answers ourselves. many people will have different ideas. part of the effort to was to get a conversation going in encourage people to come forward with their ideas and how the legislation might be put forward. a former member of congress -- it is not my job to do this. i do think there are many capable people on the hill who are going to have good ideas about how to address some of these issues. if that -- with that, let me just say that i think that, in essence, what we need to do is to approach this from the perspective of the consumer. one example i used was behavioral advertising, for example. behavioral advertising was very well-described by senator byron dorgan when he said, if i go into a store and the clerk is

keeping track of what i buy in that store, i feel fine with that. but if i go into a mall and somebody follows me around from store to store to see what i am buying in order to keep track of that and then send advertising to me, i would feel very uneasy about it. that is what happens on the internet with various players who can keep track of you as you go on the internet and they can compile that information in direct advertising to you. our perspective is that generally, consumers should not be tracked on the internet, unless they give their affirmative permission. that should apply to anybody who is trapped. it should apply to the internet service provider, the search engine, anybody who would be attracting your -- who would be tracking your behavior on the internet. it is a little bit like walking into a grocery store today or you can give them permission to keep track of what you buy, joining the club to get a

discount, or you can deny that permission. that is what we should have on the internet. it should apply to everybody. the consumer can say no, i do not want to be tracked. it should apply to everyone. there should be a situation where you have to get every player not to track. from a consumer perspective, you want to make sure it is easy for the consumer, that the consumer feels secure and safe, and at the same rules apply for all of the people who might be participating in the consumer experience on the internet. >> do you si -- allow the players on the industry, especially in the advertising world have really advocated for a self-regulatory -- >> for a self-regulatory practice, i would advocate as well, because it is such a fast- moving world and government does not move that fast.

government is not designed to move that quickly. to the extent that you can have self-governance that works well. the advertising industry is a good example. it is, in large part, a self- governing industry, with the federal trade commission overseeing it and stepping in when the industry is not able to handle it themselves. i think that is not a bad model, at least for a lot of things that might go on on the internet, at least at this time in our history when things are moving quickly and we have many new experiences and technologies being put out there. >> mr. tauke, the broadband plan recently released -- there seems to be general, across the board support. is verizon a supporter of this plan? >> there is so much in the plan that to say a full supporter would probably get me in some trouble. generally, there are a lot of very good things in the broadband plan.

i want to single out the very good work that the team that put a plan together did. they did it in a limited amount of time and came out with a very credible document based on a lot of research. we think that there are things in there like the call to the -- call to begin work to free up spectrum is right on target. some of the efforts to try to restructure the high cost funds and universal service to insure that it is going to bring broadband to rural areas -- we're on target there i think. the average to focus on adoption and get the federal government to play a role as a purchase the -- as they purchase services and drive adopting broadband, and using broadbent to deliver services to constituents. i think all these things are very good. there are some aspects of our cause for a little bit a pause, but that happens when you have a free dinner 60 page document --

a 360 page document. >> such as? >> there are some questions as to regulation. we're generally of the view that the policies that the federal government adopted during the clinton administration has essentially followed since then, that the government is really the light regulatory presence on the internet, espousing a policy through the world -- not policy throughout the world. it raises a question about whether or not there should be a change from that policy. there are other specific issues. copper retirement is close to us. when you replace the copper with fiber, you want to pull the copper out at some point, because you not want -- you do not want to run to the networks. if you were required to maintain the copper, your ability to deploy fiber is diminished,

because you cannot afford to maintain two networks. i think that when that kind of issue is raised, which had not been on the table on our perspective before, that causes us some concern about whether or not -- where this might be headed. in any comprehensive review of this, there is something you like in something you have concerns about. overall, i think that the fcc deserves commendation for its work. >> verizon's ceo and google's ceo co-wrote points of agreement that they see within the broadband plan. can you talk a little bit about what you are eye to eye on? >> there is a little bit of history there that i might just recount. we have been trying for about two years to try to bridge some of the gaps between some of the

players in the internet space. we have had some policy disputes here in washington. if you can bridge some gaps and help the policy process a little bit, and we would like to help that develop appropriately for this internet ecosystem. it is fair to say that one area of dispute has been net neutrality, where verizon has been on one side saying that we do not see it as it is defined by some of the proposals that the fcc has to be a good thing. google has been a strong advocate of this policy. we have been working with google to try to see if we can bridge that gap. we did a filing, a blog, a filing at the fcc at the net neutrality proceeding more we outlined areas of agreement. now, this op-ed is another

attempt to try to continue to bridge gaps. in essence, i would say that what we -- i think we generally agree that the policy of the light regulatory touch is probably the right policy going forward for the government. we also agree, however, that you need a structure here -- a policy structure that works. we both consider our companies to be good actors in this space, doing a lot of good things. we also know that bad actors can chill consumer behavior in the space, which would not be good for anybody. you want government oversight in order to ensure that bad actors are disappointed in the space. the question is how you do that. i would say there are two kooky things that we have for this. -- two key things that we have for this.

one is government intervention. they should step in when there is harm to consumers or users in the space or if there is anti- competitive activity. that is reason for the government to step in. the other thing we have focused on is process. we have been working on a process for self governance in the industry, to the extent that is feasible, and also a mechanism for when disputes go to government that a government entity like the fcc or ftc has a workable process that gives you a quick answer. instead of having a system like we do today at the federal communications commission, where the fcc makes rules and anticipation of what might cure -- occur, -- we think it is very hard to anticipate this market, especially years in advance. it is better to have a system where they have the issue brought to them when it comes

forward and they can make a quick decision and in the course of making those decisions is flushing out the policy for this space. what we're looking at -- we're looking at both past and process as key to come into a common understanding of something that would or for our industry. >> you mentioned the fcc. you said you wanted a more flexible, adaptive oversight of this quickly-changing industry. some have said that is kind of advocating -- taking some of the fcc's piece away, taking some of their force away. you see it more as having an enforcement power, but not as much rulemaking power. >> i do not think it is taking their teeth away at all and that clearly is not the intent. it is using the power of government in as smart a way as possible, while attempting to achieve the objective of having

innovation -- quick innovation in the space, the development of lots of new products and services, and having a quick- moving market. if you have those things, you cannot have a cumbersome regulatory proxies -- process. you need and agile process. what we're saying -- you need an agile process. what we're saying is we need guidelines laid out. we need to start moving on these things quickly. if you have a process where it takes years to get an answer and you are bogged down in the courts, which is threatening our industry right now, that is not a good answer for anybody and it does not make agency effective in the marketplace. what we want is, whenever the agency that has the jurisdiction, whether the fcc or the ftc, that they move promptly and are able to make

decisions quickly, in that way shaping the market, rather than having everything end up in the courts. >> thomas tauke, if you could just reconcile a couple of things. in your speech, you said a lot of things about verizon blogger filings about the investments that have been made and the people who have access to the internet -- the 95% of americans, etcetera, and then you talk about a light, regulatory touch. at the same time, there is discussion here in the op-ed saying that you need private investment and partnership between government and private companies. in your recent speech, you talked about perhaps subsidies for broadband a la foodstamps. could you reconcile those? >> sure. let's start by saying the investment in this case is huge. our company alone has been

investing at the rate of $17 billion a year for the last several years. when you look at that, contrasting it to other american companies, it is much greater than any other american company but at&t. a few years we have been ahead, a few years they have. the rest of the industry is investing huge amounts of money in infrastructure. the >> plant -- the broad been planned -- broadband plan was are in for sure to improve to match the demand that will come into the marketplace. -- once our infrastructure to improve to match the demand that will come to the marketplace. part of creating the climate is having a government policy that makes sense. you want policy that ensures the consumers feel comfortable in the space. that is part of encouraging investment. you also want the policy,

however, that moves with the marketplace and technology, which is what i was trying to describe earlier. i think there are other things government can do. there are little things. when the state of virginia put its driver's license process online -- and this is a great thing. you do not have to go to the dmv to stand in line anymore. i spent most of my time working in new jersey and new york. you can go on line and see all of your property tax things for your car and home. it is terrific. it makes doing business with the government's so much easier. government can encourage adoption by doing those things and using the tools are available. the broadband plan focuses on that -- using it in education and conserve the energy, using it to improve our transportation system, accusing it in order to improve the delivery of health

care services. the government's role in encouraging the use of this technology and updating government is a terrific thing. government can also play a role if the private sector is not reaching some of the citizens. it can try to make sure that those citizens are reached. i do not think anybody suggests it is wise to keep them out of this system or offline soda speak. we do not want a digital divide. traditionally, we have had universal service funds to support universal participation. the government's role is to create the climate for investment to ensure that everybody is engaged, to promote the use of the technology as much as possible so that people adopt the technology and their lives are enhanced by it. >> along the model of using a

different model for subsidies for technology, like along the lines of the fuel or food stamp model, can you elaborate how you might see that happening? >> i think one of the things that is an example of what government should not do -- government, increasing the right climate, should not be picking winners and losers. if you look at the fuel industry for home heating or food stamps, you do not have the government in the home heating industry saying to companies, you collect money and then we will distribute money and provide the services. instead, the government collects money from the general tax base, gives money to the consumers who need it to purchase fuel, and then the consumer decides if they're going to buy natural gas, home heating oil, electricity, but the government

is not in the business of directing money to companies and then telling the company's how to deliver the service. if it did, it would mess up the delivery of heating to the people who need it. similarly with food stamps. the government does not come in and send money to the grocery store and food manufacturer to then provide food to consumers. instead, the government sends money to the consumers of the can go to the grocery store and buy food like everybody else. i believe that the government, if they tried to send money to the grocery store, would mess up the food dressed -- food distribution system. when it comes to broadband, my only point is this -- we have had a world where there was one telephone company in an area, so you would send the money to the telephone company and they would then provide the consumer the service. that is not a model for the industry we have today. instead, we have many companies

that are providing broadband services to consumers and consumers who need the assistance should receive the funds and purchase it from the company they choose, a satellite company, cable company, telephone company -- whatever. i do not have the government picking the winners and losers in the marketplace or controlling the marketplace for the distribution of subsidies. subsidies to consumers, not to companies. >> thomas tauke the is tand kim. next question. >> i want to talk about title onei and t -- title i and title ii. we're waiting on the comcast court ruling. the sec classifies it as -- the fcc classifies it as title i. comcast has challenged that.

the fcc indicated it is open to considering a reclassification of broadband. the indicated in your speech last week that you do not think that is a wise idea because they do not necessarily have the jurisdiction and also because the current broadband industry does not fit into that remark. -- that framework. can you tell us more about what you think will happen as they go forward? >> it is probably an understatement to say that i think it is unwise to classify it under title ii. it was great for the industry -- the telephone industry. it includes excruciating regulation of the industry from the kinds of packages that the workers were on their uniforms.

many time the phone rings before it is answered. it is very extensive regulation on the industry. and it is horribly, ill-suited for the industry that we have today -- the communications sector that we have today. i think that if the fcc would try to shoehorn in this industry into the title ii section of the law and applied that, we would end up with years of court battles. this is in part what would not be good for anybody. i think it is time for congress to step in. the fcc, i do not want to speak for them, but as an observer of the federal communications commission, they are only doing this out of desperation, because the court would be telling them -- you have classified it as title i, so let's try title ii, because there is no title that really fit.

they're doing it because there is no place else to turn. this is when congress is supposed to act. we do not have a segment of the communications statute that really applies or works for this segment of the industry. congress simply needs to update the law. >> would classifying it as title ii cover companies like mobil? >> no -- like google? >> no. it would cover companies with certain kinds of networks. google has an extensive, nationwide network connecting its servers and storage capability. it does not have the kind of network that would be regulated under title ii. it creates, from a consumer perspective, it would not work. from the legal perspective, it would result in a lot of dispute. it would not be a good thing for

the growth of the industry or the achievement of the objectives of the national broadband plan. >> that would cover, cast in verizon. >> comcast things they're under title virgin islands and wireless is under title iii -- under title virgin islands -- under title vi and wireless is under title iii. this is kind of inside baseball, but it does have a profound impact on the consumer experience. going back to the consumer -- if the consumer should have some kind of sense of certainty in this space and not have to worry about which company is doing which thing, but just, what is my experience and to have a good experience in this space? this would not work well for the consumer. >> do you see any movement in congress or the fcc leaning

towards considering these companies to be equal partners? >> the fcc is constrained, some might even say hamstrung, by the statute under which they operate. they have some flexibility. what is happening potentially with the court decision is that their flexibility is being constrained. that is in part why it is important for congress to act. a lot of members of congress who believe they ought act -- the chair of the element -- the telecom subcommittee, we need to have a comprehensive look at the law. other members of congress have said similar things. there's a general recognition that sometimes, when you have an industry as dynamic and as changing as this industry, -- in 1996, whoever thought of a search engine? what was to go? this is a different world. you're downloading video on your

wireless phone. people did not have wireless phones. to think that sends what was written in 1996 would apply to today's industry -- most people would say it needs to be updated. >> and you have said you see -- the power is shifting. how d.c. verizon playing our role in that? what is your place in that? >> first, let me try to explain what is the cloud. here is what is happening in the world that we live in today. i have a wireless phone, a tv, a computer, and i might have them in different places. i have three different jobs. in new york, jersey, and d.c. i want to be able to access my information any time and any place on whatever screen i would like. we're moving to that the world. how does that happen? instead of