>> this week on "the communicator's" a discussion with fcc commissioner michael copps. >>we are pleased to welcome back to "the communicators" fcc commissioner michael copps. also joining us is jonathan make, from the "communications daily," where he served as assistant editor. commissioner copps, we appreciate you coming over and talking about some of the issues facing the fcc. ów'9&éf@y2c@&c+ one of the issues that is a little bit nebulas right now. it deals with the comcast court cases, net neutrality, and the ftc. there is a provision in the house financial regulatory bill that would give the ftc, the federal trade commission, power over the internet, thus taking

it away from the fcc. what did you think of that, and did i interpret it correctly? >> i do not know if it is taking away or sharing. this is a huge infrastructure and ecosystem, information technologies and broadband that we are talking about. i do not think any one agency or any one office has a monopoly on addressing it. i think the ftc has things that it should be doing. i think the fcc has things it should be doing, a lot of things that it should be doing. so i think that there is room for both, and i am happy to see both agencies interested in this and alive to the responsibilities that they have. they both have jurisdictions. >> so, would you say that the fcc's jurisdiction has been lessened because of the court case? >> i think the fcc's jurisdiction has been lessened by the horrendous policy decisions that we made back in 2002, 2005, which issued kind of a gilt-edged invitation to the court to step in and say you have gotten that wrong. >> jonathan make. >> just to follow up, when you are referring to the 2002 and 2005 decisions, is that the dsl and cable modems classification as an information service? >> yes. >> well, i guess that brings us to the present now.

there was a comcast ruling by the d.c. circuit april 6th. the big question now in media circles is, how will the fcc proceed with net neutrality rules, something you have spoken up for and are very passionate about. is reclassification that is taking broadband service from a title i to a title ii common carrier service the only way that you can see that the fcc can proceed right now and continue its net neutrality proceeding and actually have an order? >> the short answer is yes, i think that is right. before we get into the arcane of all of this, i think it would be good for your listeners to really understand what is at stake here. there is an absolutely mind- boggling new information infrastructure. we have an evolving telecommunications infrastructure that offers so much promise, so much potential

to the american people to change our lives for the better, to create opportunity, to help us find jobs, to care about and engaged in at the civic dialogue. the question is, what rights are consumers going to have to control their online experience? is this going to, to the maximum extent possible, give the consumers control over where they go on that internet, what applications they can run on that internet, what devices they can attach, what transparency they can expect from the companies who provided the internet services, and to expect some competition too. are we going to work for that, or is this going to become the province of the gatekeepers and the toll booth collectors? the answer to me on that is clear. we have this wonderful technology, probably the most transformative technology since the printing press, from the standpoint of what i said before, and we have been heading down the road for the

last eight years of saying, that is not even telecommunications. let's call it something else. we went through this ridiculous intellectual sure raid in 2002, 2005. let's call it something it is not. let's stop calling it what we have been calling it. so, we ended up robbing these advanced communications of all of the protections that generations of consumers and advocates had worked so hard to craft under the laws of telecommunications. basic consumer services, privacy, security and safety for the public. why would consumers not have a right to expect that that is going to transfer as telecommunications evolve? instead, they are saying, we are going to move everything to broadband eventually.

everything is going to be on that. start from that blank. no consumer protection. no privacy. i mean, that is just ironic. but it is really more than ironic. it is tragic to think that as we move toward this all- encompassing infrastructure or ecosystem that it is going to be bereft of all of those things. so, when we went through that charade of a reclassification, i think the folks behind that were not looking to make sure that title i could serve those purposes. they were looking to get this out from under that, and they were responding to the special interests, who basically said, give us a free hand. fast forward to your question, which i am not trying to evade, but i think that background is important. i think what we did was not sustainable from a legal standpoint. the court told us that too. i think the court could have taken a little more expansive view of the title i than they

did. do i think they could have shown us a little more deference than they did. they showed us absolutely zero. yes, i do. this ecosystem is evolving very quickly. we do not have a year, or two years, or three years, or five years to come up with wonderful new permutations of title i authority. the next time we do that someone is going to drag us into court. the cleanest way to do this, the best way to do this, in my mind, the only viable way to do this, is to reclassify. the short answer to your question was yes. >> would that not also lead to court cases? >> everything we do, i have found out in the nine years i have been there, at least two court cases. so, when you go into court, you want to have the best case possible. you want to have the strongest case, and i think that is the strongest way to go, to say, we are calling this what it is. we are calling this what people have always called it. we are calling it what the american people think it is.

let treat it that way. i think that is the best foot forward in the court rather than trying to invent all of these wonderful new angles. that is like death from a thousand cuts. >> you are in the majority now. is it fair to say that you are the only commissioner who has said out loud that we need to move it from a title i to title ii? >> i am only going to speak for myself. i have said it out loud. i will say it again. i am for classification -- reclassification as a title ii service. hopefully, when it settles, we will have a majority at least. >> let me ask you about the impact of, basically, not dickering around. you want the commission to move, as you said, sooner rather than later. this should not be a multi-year stage for reclassification. >> yes, we cannot afford that. >> what sense have you gotten -- sometimes commissioners meet with investors, even go up to new york or san francisco, to wall street, about the investment community's reaction, let alone the telecommunications industry reaction. should there be a

reclassification, would there be a flight from these stocks, more risk adversity, in terms of an investment strategy? >> i do not think there is going to be a flight from the most transforming it infrastructure changes taking place in our economy. i think there will be a future dedicated to getting broad band to places where it is not now. it will be hugely transformative in terms of jobs. i would hope that the investment community, the political community, the legal community, the judicial community and all of us could take an expensive look. third there is no reason not to do that. call something what it is and have a measure of oversight on it.

that should not scare people off. >> investors need some confidence, some maturity of the rules. that is another reason not to go down this right -- down this route and say we are going to try this experimental thing. we need to make a decision, say that this needs to be the rule of the role -- rule of the road, and investors will understand what it is. >> let me ask you about another way to provide certainty. in 2006 there was an industry public interest compromise that was later enshrined in sec rules on digital multi-past -- multi-casting, what sort of at you can show and for how long.

do think there is a way that every side could get together and present the commission with some sort of a voluntary solution that might be able to get around the court cases? >> i think that would be a happy outcome, to have that sort of undertaking and conversation hopefully leading to a consensus. i think the atmosphere has been provided for give and take. i would be encouraging of circumstances like that. but at the end of the day, people need to realize that that would provide the basic guidelines from which the commission would proceed. that should be apparent to everybody. whether we can do that in a

completely voluntary way, have a voluntary guideline or commitment, or have a commission find some way to affiliate itself with that or recognize that, so that when you went to court you had some solid ground. >> are you pleased with the rollout of the national broadband plan so far? >> i am . it has resulted in a the most open and transparent process i have seen in my nine years at the sec. we had many workshops and hearings, thousands of pages of records, so it was really well done. the chairman had lots of folks

within the fcc to really focus on this infrastructure challenge. i think it was comprehensive. it is not exactly the plan i would have written or any other commissioner would have written, but it was something i have been waiting for for nine years. you will recall that i have asked before, why do we not have a national broadband strategy? let's get in the game. let's do what every other industrial country on the face of this green earth does, and that is have a broad band planted -- broadband plan. finally, we got an administration and a congress that agreed that this was integral to our future.

it was really a music to my ears when they said, have the fcc to do it. we have a long way to go, and there are lots of t's still to cross before we get ubiquity out there. there may be variations along the way. some things people think will work will not end up working, and we have to be flexible. >> two follow-ups. do you agree with the former fcc chairman who said that broadband is the new national media? >> there is no question in my mind that broadband is fundamental to the future of our media. how quickly, and how much of our media is going to migrate to broadband is still a question. i am not at all ready to say that we can forget about traditional media now.

we do need to have a discussion. i have been calling for that for years too. what happens if and when the radio and television moved theire and in newspapers contine to diminish? how do you protect the public from that? i think in the next several years, traditional media will still produce the overwhelming bulk of information that this country gets. right now it is between 80% and 90%. even the news that people read on the internet comes from newspapers and broadcast stations. there is not as much of it because journalism has been hit. there is less news, and that is unfortunate, but it is coming from there. we need to figure out what

happens to that diminishing news and information in it this time of possibly years as we migrate to new media. i do not think this country cannot really afford to have four, five, six or 10 more years of the kind of disintegration of journalism that we have seen in the last 15 or 20 years of news being shuttered, investigative reporting being in danger. 27 states no longer have an accredited reporter on capitol hill. it is the function of journalism to hold power accountable, how can you hold them accountable if you're not there? we do not have as many reporters covering what cops are doing or anybody else. it is good to have that coverage. people need to have that coverage.

this is a longer discussion, but i think some of the bad public sector and private sector decisions that have been made about traditional media art bringing us perilously close to denying the american people and the depth and breadth of information they need to do their duty and keep their responsibility as citizens. i am worried that new media is starting done the same road as traditional media, too much consolidation, too many private and public sector decisions. >> we will have a follow up on that, but first, one more follow-up on a broad ban. had you see the universal services fund being affected with money going toward other services?

>> universal services is a critical tool to help us meet our objectives. it is the only way we will get broadband ubiquitous be deployed in this country. it is necessy to modify that fund and make it primarily a broadband fund. we still have some challenges, as you know, in places where you are lucky if you have the two- thirds of people even having wireless service. we need to transform it into the infrastructure of a the future, and universal service has a role to play in that. i understand that people get nervous, and i get nervous too. i am not into making promises

that we can hold the universal service fund at such a level forever. >> our guest is sec commissioner michael copps. jonathan make is also with us. >> you raise a number of interesting point about traditional and new media. some of that relates to the new broadband plan we were just speaking about. part of the plan sees television stations in that larger market giving back some or all of their spectrum so that there can be more of broadband. as that occurs, what concerns does that raise in your mind about continuing to have what you would like to see, vigorous oversight of public television stations? there are fewer of them.

how you achieve those things? >> i am let you asked that question. there is no question in my mind that we need more spectrum for wireless technology. exactly how much, i do not know. we will be doing some measurements, and congress is considering a spectrum inventory built so that we can understand exactly how much spectrum is being used in this country. nobody is clear how much is being used at this time. how much is sitting there and could be available for other uses? the first thing to do is to get a feel for it, but we do know that we need more spectrum. i think there are some areas of the country where more broadcast spectrum might be freed up, but it raises a lot of questions. how do you do that? if you need some congressional authority to do that, we will

have to see how that is false. to me, all of spectrum -- have to see how that evolves. to me, all spectrum is public interest oriented. we rely on it so heavily to inform the american people. my message to broadcasters is this. if you really want to make sure that spectrum is not going to be too much of it taken away, a figure out what the best public use of it right now. i said years ago that we are going digital. we are going to have all of these multi-cast opportunities. you could now do three or four other program streams.

these could reflect the local community. that is broadcasting's strength. you could do a better job covering the diverse elements of your community. what issues are they interested in? you could do a better job of covering local politics. if every time we have an election year, a search in vain for coverage of local races. we do not do a very good job, by and large, of covering two things. that is public interest broadcast. they need to get independent producers, a local talent, and all the rest. i am not think nobody has done that, but it has not been anywhere near a critical mass. most of it is not being used for purposes like that. had it been, people would have been much more reluctant to come up with ideas for the extra spectrum. i want to see that spectrum used

for public interest. it that spectrum is being used for the enhancement of public interest in local areas, for the enhancement of localism and diversity, i would be much more amenable to keeping that spectrum in the hands of the broadcasters. >> in a way it is a double edged sword. you are saying that in one way they have brought this upon themselves, but on the other hand, they could show that their airwaves should not be repurchased by showing that they are in the public interest. there is lobbying here in washington from the national association of broadcasters. they have said, we want to serve the public. we want to use all of our

spectrum, but we cannot do that while also police serving the public interest if we have to -- also fully serving the public interest if we have to give back some of our spectrum. how can they do that? >> they can engage in the discussion. they are a little bit on the defensive when it comes to some of the spectrum plans out there, spectrum fees. i would think the time would be right for them to engage in some discussions about creating a good future for broadcasting. it should not be hard to do. i travel around the country. i talk to a lot of that state broadcasters. there are a lot of public broadcasters whose flame of public interest still burns

brightly. it is harder and harder to justify an expenditure on local news when wall street says, well, unit 10% last year, you have to make 15% this year. that is not the future for the kind of news and information that this country needs. that was the deal end the first place. you have to get the spectrum of public interest to people for free in exchange for being stewards. >> what about the potential merger of nbc and comcast? >> that remains a steep climb, and i have not been a very enamored of industry

consolidation in the past garrett is not only in the public interest -- in the past. it is not only not been the public interest, but i think many companies may regret that they got involved in these mergers after all. we have to create an environment in which that is possible. we have to do a better job of getting news and information to people. that is the biggest challenge facing the those of us in the communications field right now. that is the number-one thing that i respond to, because i really am worried about how we get information out. go back to the founding fathers. you can find the quotes from george washington, thomas jefferson, james madison, saying that the infrastructure of that

day, newspapers, was mightily important to everybody into the country. so they found a way to support that information infrastructure with subsidies for newspapers. they did not pick winners and losers. they partnered on all sides. they said all newspapers should be shipped for free and there should be subsidies to get them out there. that was the promise of their experiment of the democracy they were building. they really did not know if they could make that republic work, they said, we have to get information out to the american people. that is the same challenge that we have now. they found a way to do it. we have found ways to encourage that with the spectrum of broadcasters. and now we have that talent again. -- we have that challenged

again. >> jonathan make, final question. >> falling upon your concerns about media transactions, if comcast is allowed to buy nbc, nbc will be a stronger property. is there a way that that would actually be beneficial to the public interest? how can the commission make sure that its review is as transparent as possible? >> i thing we should have some public hearings. it is not without precedent at the fcc. there was the case of aol some years ago. we have done other cases too.

i think you have to really look. there are a lot of questions to be asked here. there are consumer rights, cable, access to the internet, what it will do to programming, what it will do to local news, all of those things. a stronger nbc? yes. but we really have to get in and measure that. again, i believe in localism and diversity. i believe democracy is when you have the control in the community to the extent possible. we have been heading into the wrong direction for the last 25 or 30 years. >> as always, michael copps, we appreciate you coming on to talk to us. jonathan make, thank you for

being here with us. >> in 2000, ahmid rashid wrote about the taliban. he looks at what is next, sunday night on c-span. >> sunday, television analyst, author, columnist, and three- time presidential candidate pat buchanan on the conservative ideology and today's political climate. he will take your calls and e- mails, sunday, at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the people who were coming to us for risk