that both parties should come together to do that work on behalf of the american people. we can prevent future bailouts. we can address the root causes of the economic downturn, but first, we need to put politics aside. thank you for your time. >> i think there is a huge lack of knowledge about how this town works, how congress works. >> when you are doing the actual research work, you just have to do that yourself. there will talk about their work, on "q&a", sunday night on c-span. >> this week on "the communicators," of the discussion on fcc policy issues with one of the newest members of the commission, mignon clyburn.

>> we are pleased to welcome for the first time mignon clyburn, one of the newest members of the federal communications commission. also joining us is a writer from "the washington post." if i could start with the general philosophical question about communication law. there is a lot of talk and editorials and talk in congress as well that communication law is outdated because of all the changes that are going on in the telecommunications world. it is hard to keep up. what are your thoughts about that? >> i don't know if i would use the word "outdated," but it is definitely dynamic. i think our roles are changing. there are more challenges that we are retrofitting at the fcc, so we recognize that. as relates to regulatory agencies, there is a tendency to have regulatory lag, meaning

that how you do business today sometimes it's hard to keep up with, the way the markets are evolving. you have a commission, you have an agency, and a chairman who is forward-looking. i think this nation and the communications industry is better for it. >> just to take one regulation, just recently the federal communications commission unanimously opposed is the proposed shifting the goal of universal service fund to include broadband services sow is provided and subsidized all around the nation. is that the first step in getting broadband reclassified from title one to title to as a common carrier? >> i would not say it is the first of doing that. it is a recognition of how the market and the communications industry is evolving. they are about 26% of the nation

that do not use a land line as their primary communications device. there is a recognition of that. there is recognition that with companies like skype, in terms of how they are communicating, it is not just on their mobile phones. we recognize there is a need for us to shift. there is a need for persons to be connected, especially if they are going to save money to provide them with more options. this is another example where there is a need, and we have an obligation to keep up, retrofit ourselves, retool, and as we say, we boots. >> i love this work, retrofit. as you think of retrofitting and retooling, what is your thought on the classification specifically? >> i would say at this point, i have not conclusively come up

with -- i cannot say yes or no at this time. i can say to you that we have certain goals that we have put forth that are clear in the plan, that are clear in terms of net neutrality, that we are passionate about. we are passion about having an open network. they know exactly what speed they are getting and what the terms are. we are passionate about those things. how we do that, how we execute that, how we regulate that, we are in negotiations with the american public and with the companies that we regulate as it relates to that. >> what is the process right now at the fcc? are you having conversations with the republican commissioners?

how will you conclusively decide what to do with the classification of broadband? >> we are having conversations. we have a series of notices. the one thing about this agency that on the downside -- on the outside, from our perspective, things are a bit slow, but now that i sit in this chair, it seems quite logical. we have relatively long period of time with a series of notices, whether inquiries or rulemaking, that will allow for interaction of ideas, exchanges of ideas. in order for us to make proper decisions, i have not come in with saying conclusively that we should reclassify or not. but i will say is, the goals that i put forth in terms of having an open platform, all of

those transparencies, those are non-negotiable for me. however we get there, for congressional action, or be it for some types of negotiation or reclassification, i think if we keep the american public front and center, will come up with the right decision and the right path. >> do you have any timeline for we might come up with the decision? the chairman yesterday did not really expose any more detail about the time line. the holt telecom community is waiting with bated breath for an answer. >> i can tell you that we are not dragging our feet.

however long it takes to get a robust docket, a robust exchange, only after that we will come up with the proper regulatory gumbo, a decision that is palatable for us all. >> you talk about your service on the public service commission in south carolina. could you speak a little bit more about the difference between serving on the state level and the federal level, and what you have experience so far? >> the state level is closer to the people that we serve. there were front and center. we had evidentiary hearings. that is the biggest difference. when we had an issue or a rate

hearing, we had an actual hearing where we took witnesses, including public witnesses. you gotta feel right then and there about what people were feeling, what direction they wanted you to go, how they were convincing. it was not just filing paper. sometimes it can be a little cold and exacting. we got to hear from the public, and that was the major difference of how the two agencies interacted. that was a culture shock for me, to be honest. >> do you feel a little isolated as an fcc commissioner? >> at first i did feel like i was on an island. it was definitely an adjustment for me. but it is ok. one of the things -- one of the ways we distinguish ourselves,

we did not take any meetings for the first month when i was here. i wanted to speak to the bureau's. trying to learn what this new universe was going to look like for me. then we took meetings with consumer groups and grass-roots organizations. we took meetings with persons from the disability community spirit who wanted to hear from them first to say, tell me in terms of the decisions we are making in this agency, tell me how we can do things better. tell me what we are doing and what we are not doing, how we are listening and not listening. we thought that was important. i wanted to hear from them first. i thought that we give me the purist views about the new universal was about to embark on.

>> you talked about your position on open access being non-negotiable. what are your thoughts then on the recent federal appeals court case regarding comcast? >> that is a decision i am not depressed about. let me tell you why. a certain journalist pointed out that that decision was relatively narrow. it talked about -- we were sanctioned in 2008 -- we sanctioned con -- comcast for them slowing down traffic for a file sharing entity which provides digitally generated services of video, audio, or what have you.

this isn't aggressive user of bad with. -- this is an aggressive use are a band with. the court told the fcc that we could not regulate their management practices. that is what they told us. i am not an attorney, but it is a narrow decision for my perspective. it does not deter me as it relates to broadband, but we cannot regulate the management practices of the company. that is how i interpreted it. that narrow interpretation gives me hope for what i put forth. >> you have been a big advocate for consumers. how does that decision, that

federal appeals court decision, impact or affect consumer protection going forward? if this narrow interpretation relates to network management and your ability to regulate network management, how does that impact your ability to protect consumers going forward on net neutrality and other issues? it has opened a pandora's box. >> the agency is looking at that and evaluating the decision. will act accordingly -- we will act accordingly. some people say you may lose the battle but not lose the war. there are instances where practices of that nature have been negotiated. so there has been a positive effect for consumers.

increasingly, there are incentives for these companies to work things out. while we are still interpreting what it means from how we conduct ourselves, and while it was a decision against the agency, i do not think in practice as it relates to the public that it closed the door as it relates to their interactions with these companies. >> do you think that the companies are able to regulate themselves when it comes to consumer protection? i will mention a meeting we had with bob quinn, who is in charge of regulatory affairs for at&t. he said there are numerous examples of where the industry has changed its practices as a response to how consumers react. he is saying the onus is on the companies and consumers. you think that is enough? is there may be not a need for

more regulation from the fcc when it comes to net neutrality and rates and these types of issues? >> the reason why regulatory entities are here in the first place -- they are here as a protective tool to the public. they are here because in terms of companies, as much as they want to serve and provide services to the public, sometimes the principle of making money, making profits, does not necessarily work in favor of the public. say you have regulatory agencies who were there as a protection to the public. i am not the type of regulator who is looking behind every

door to regulate every single practice. that is not why i signed up for the job. i am here to protect the public when the markets are imperfect. i am here as sort of a substitute for competition, especially as it relates to broadband availability. most people do not have more than one provider in their markets providing truly high speed broadband internet. if you have that type of scenario, i think part of my mission is to be there as an entity to ensure that you are treated fairly with that monopoly for high-speed internet provision. so that is why we are here, not to be a regulator with big arms and saying what we will do, but to be there as a protection.

those companies know that if things get totally out of whack, there is an entity with some teeth that will take the necessary actions. if it is working properly and the consumers are happy, if the companies are making the what -- the money they want to make, then i will sit back and smile. if not, i am there. >> commissioner, is the national broadband plan moving forward in spite of this court case, and does it increases competition that you call for? >> i think it is. this is what the next -- the rest of the year looks like for us just as it relates to the national broadband plan.

we put forth a set of national priorities, national principles that are reflected in that breagrid. what this -- we have an ambitious six or eight months ahead of us that will benefit the public going forward your. -- going forward. in terms of national security interests, those things are important. cyber security -- those things are enumerated here. those are all part of the plan. this plan has gotten praise and criticism. it looks at the nation in terms

of how we provision everything. i consider myself a steward of this nation. the entities we regulate are responsible for about one sixth of this nation's economy. if you think about the airwaves, the people who are listening to us. when they pick up the telephone, when you watch cable, when they communicate, this agency has a hand in some form or fashion in that. we recognize that awesome responsibility, and we recognize in the broadband plan that there are certain things that need to be delivered differently. there are certain challenges, be it universal service, there needs to be reform their. the way we communicate is different, and the way we conduct ourselves in terms of

medicine and health, all the things that will help improve our lives. to meet it is at the foundation of this plan. it is important and vital, and we are going to be very busy. >> our guest is mignon clyburn, federal communications commission commissioner, cecilia kang is our guest reporter. >> what to were three items in the broadband plant are non- negotiable in your mind for the fcc to be successful? >> universal service reform. the way in which we communicate is changing. we have to have 21st century solutions. we have a 20th-century infrastructure as it relates to the correct usf regime. that has to change. public safety is non-negotiable.

9/11 showed us -- i am from hurricane alley, and the season starts pretty soon. we have got to have an networked -- and network of first responders able to communicate with each other without regard for distance, without regard for jurisdiction. those things are non-negotiable to me. they are at the core of what makes this nation function in terms of communication and public safety. we have got to find a way. we are going to began a proceeding on usf reform. we have a notice of inquiry that talks about cyber security. we knew how important those things were.

>> was there any discussion about the allocations of what should go to broadband and what should go to telephone lines? >> we are going to have ongoing discussions about that. one thing that we did bring forth is that the plan that we have in place, there will not be an increase -- we will work within the existing financial framework. we will not cause that contribution factor to go up. >> could some people, if they have landlines, see a decrease? >> there is a probability of shifting in terms of the factors as it relates to rule carriers. those of the top of conversations we must have.

rule -- roar carriers for concerned about the migration of their land line support to this new infrastructure or the system we are putting forth. those of the types of details we will have to work out. there will be some significant changes. we will have to make some difficult decisions. >> regarding land lines, what does the merger it say about the future? >> that there are changes, there are pushes for scale economies. there is a recognition that it is expensive to support that infrastructure. it will see more of that. i am sometimes leery of consolidations in certain sectors, but i was a business major. sometimes it really does make sense to consolidate.

>> i will try different approach. what is your opinion on the fcc's ability to regulate broadband services? what is your opinion of what the fcc should do? there is a lot of discussion going on. if you could give some texture to what you think you can achieve under title 1. >> i am hoping that under the current framework, we can achieve the objectives i have put forth. i am open, however, if we see in our evaluation that there are deficiencies there are too many challenges there, we need to have a different set of conversations. i will not prejudge, but i will

say that this decision was narrow. it talked about how they manage their networks. i see light behind that door that some people say was all the way shut. how is that for answering your question? >> you have used the fcc as a bully pulpit to send letters. the think you have achieved what you want to achieve? i do not think there has been much change. there have been a lot of letters. >> i did not agree with that wholeheartedly.

there has been some slowdown. a couple of companies have actually lowered their etf's. there has been some positive ripple effect from that. i will do my best to influence it. i think the proper signals have been sent. i am upbeat and positive. >> you mentioned public safety. do you think sale of the d-block should be promoted? >> i have not seen the representatives bill. as it relates to that space, you have two very significant

entities -- some people do not like to use the word trade association, of persons in public safety who are advocates for public safety but do not see it in the same way as to whether or not there should be some private infusions. those are the types of conversations vinita have. what we want is a network that is viable, however that is achieved, whether it is solely dedicated are shared. however that is achieved is what the commission wants and i think what the public needs. >> to take this a little further, what do you think about the fcc and its relationship with congress? we should note here that your father is the majority whip of the house of representatives. >> i have a pretty good relationship with certain members. [laughter]

we have had a few hearings, and we are dealing with the difficult issue. you are going to see some friction, which i think is natural. all in all, it has improved immensely over the last eight or nine months. it really has. the exchanges have been relatively friendly. we are challenged war so -- not necessarily on how we run the agency are how it interacts with congress. we are faced with some difficult decisions ahead. we have to do more with less. we have things before us that éúñthe nation needs and wants. the public has spoken. they want these mobile devices to do almost everything, aside from cooked, and may be cooked in some instances. the public is clamoring for

more. you have an environment that is constantly rebooting themselves to provide that. congress recognizes that and we recognize that. how we get their is subject to debate, but at the end of the day, when all of those opinions and variables are being considered, we think will come up with the best decision. i am committed to that, and you have four other persons at the agency who lead the agency who are also. >> what would you like your legacy to be? what would you want to be known for after term? what are the themes and issues that you want to own? >> i would like to be said when i say goodbye, as it relates to my service at the fcc, that i

was a fierce advocate for consumers, that every decision i made put consumers first. what is the impact on consumers? persons who often without a voice or without the means to come into my office every day. i want those voices to be as loud and as clear as those entities who have millions and millions of dollars who are able to have offices in this nation's capital. i think if that were said about me more often, then other things might be said and i would sleep well in transition and say the job well done. >> what else is on your agenda that we have not talked about? >> telemedicine is important to me. i do not think we talked about it much.