it is illustrated of the companies that are petitioning us. let's take another one that is pertinent to the merger. that is the video. the danger is that comcast, now running -- owning nbc, will withhold programming from other companies. that is a concern for what this merger might produce. i think the broad scope of the

condition and duration of seven years is problematic. if we sat down with by of the people who are deciding what online programming will look like with this company -- which these companies, we will get five different answers with these companies will look like and how to monetize online programming. it is a different part of business and we do not know what is going to look like. seven years is a long time to have a condition. i am afraid we are market forming rather than imposing regulatory conditions. >> where did the seven years come from? >> i think it is longer than we have ever had at the fcc paid it is shorter than at the department of justice. >> be considered voting against the merger? >> -- did you consider voting against

the merger? >> we considered it. it is going to offer a different opportunity for programmers. a lot of times with the deal, nobody walks away with everything they want. >> eliza krigman? >> is this a matter of self restraint with the commission is? >> we do what congress tells us to do. we know congress is going to take a look at it. it is an area of concern that i have. >> if it were up to you, how would this have been conducted differently? >> it would have been more rapid it would have been in a timely manner. there would be a nexus to the harm called by the conditions. there were some conditions that are extraneous to the deal. >> congress was mentioned. there is a new republican house

in the 112th congress. several members of the energy and commerce commission have talked about bringing the fcc to task and to hearings up on the hill. how do you see that? >> i expect to spend a lot of time on capitol hill in the next few months. that is their prerogative. the first order of business is to look at our net neutrality rule. this is something i have objected to. if you want to talk about all of my objections to this, meet -- which might be here all day. my basic exemption to it is that i wish we had been more humble. if we look past the internet and the past five years, none of us would be happy with what we have there now. if we look forward to the next five years, we cannot predict what the internet is going to look like. i think the engineers have done a terrific job on the first and

second generations of the internet. i do not think regulators need to step in for the third and fourth generations. i think government involvement is going to hinder the innovation as opposed to help it. >> marsha blackburn has already introduced legislation to reverse what the fcc did when it comes to net neutrality. do you support her legislation? >> i do support her legislation. i do not think net neutrality was necessary. there is no problem we are addressing. there is no market failure. this is one part of our economy that is working. i do not think we need the legislation. we have exceeded our authority. there is no place where congress has given us jurisdiction of the internet. i think it is a healthy discussion to talk about the internet and jurisdiction of the

internet and what to do. but i think it is congress's choice. i think congress should continue to have these discussions and tell us what the proper role of the fcc is. >> do you think the court will uphold the net neutrality regulations? >> i find it highly likely that the court will overturn our role. not to get to legal, what we have done is to base our jurisdiction on a section of the communications act that half of -- communications act that asks to get rid of broadband deployment. to say that net neutrality rules have anything to do with that is a strong legal stretch. i hope the discussion will continue in congress. >> does it matter what did the case is cold in the district court or it is heard elsewhere

that hurt in the district court or it is heard elsewhere? >> i do not think it matters. i think the legal case is weak enough that it does not matter where it goes. it will be turned around. >> we had gary shapiro on this program recently. he talked about spectrum and the broadcasters. we want to show you a little part of what he had to say and get your reaction to it. >> the broadcasters are a phenomenal political lobby and they have terrified congress with their power to use broadcast signals in a way that demonizes congress. when broadcasters were first loaned the spectrum -- they do not own it -- they had 100% of the population covered. when i was a kid, we had four channels and that was it.

now the broadcasters are going in less than 10% of american homes. americans are using cable and satellite. and they are also using the internet as a primary or exclusive source of information. when you are in fewer than 10% of american homes, you have to ask if it is worth it to take up all of the beachfront property for one type of ship. >> gary shapiro is the head of the consumer electronics association. that is something you have spoken on the on several occasions. >> i am glad that is something i like. let me tell you why spectrum is so important. mobile broadband is what was all over the consumer electronics show floor this year. in 2007 when the iphone was introduced -- from there until now, 46% of americans use a

smartphone. a smartphone uses 250 mb per month. steve jobs introduced the ipad. on the consumer electronics floor there were 90 tablets. it is a game changer and the next big hit. they use a gigabyte. the united states uses 1 billion gigabytes per year. from what we see, they say it is going to double by 2014. i think it is going to quadruple. we are quickly approaching spectrum exhaustion. what we do about that? it is clear we need more spectrum. some of it may come from the broadcasters. some of it may come from the federal users. we keep talking about broadcasters. i think what we really need is a comprehensive spectrum policy.

that is not only more spectrum, it is using the spectrum we have more efficiently. it is encouraging the deployment and development of more innovative consumer electronics techniques. it is also changing the paradigm as to how we think about interference. >> in order to have more effective use of spectrum, do you still need the broadcasters to change the way they are using it or to relinquish some of their spectrum? there is still a political fight if we are going down the east asian sea route instead of unleashing more -- instead -- if we are going down beat efficiency - down the efficiency route instead of unleashing more into the market. >> this is being portrayed as a

fight between broadcast and broadband. i think there is a place for both of them. there is a place for one to one many.one to what i wish we had started with were the incentive option -- auctions for satellite. it is an easier discussion. i think the conversations have to take place on multiple levels. we got a great letter from senator snowe this week. it was talking about this is a piece of the pie. what about create database with the spectrum inventories so that we can have one sharing and more secondary markets. we need to pursue all paths if we are going to have america

remain competitive. that in a recent speech, you laid out -- in a recent speech, he said we should create internet operative dynamic spectrum databases. -- interoperative internet spectrum databases. >> radio was an analog signal. it was precious. you put it in a late in you had to protect each side of it. now we -- you put it in a lane and you had to protect each side of it. now we can look at how we can share spectrum in a new way than we ever have before. these are smart technologies that can tell if 90% of our spectrum is on use. if we can use them and share, they can make more each fishing

use of the spectrum we have. >> another area you laid out was that we need to look at service rules to encourage spectrum users to take advantage of the new information and technology. >> if we have a comprehensive spectrum database that includes the federal and the non federal, people can see where spectrum is that they want to use, we have much more flexibility in the technologies we are using now. we need to update our regulatory model. >> what other area you mentioned, we need to ensure secondary market rules that encourage efficient spectrum use. >> absolutely. it is 90% at any given time of our spectrum that is on use. we need to encouraged deployment of course of technologies that can utilize it. is it on a secondary basis.

>> given that you have spoken on the spectrum, what you think about an auction on the b block? >> part of the digital transmission that was so exciting was that we were going to give the police and the firefighters the technology they need to operate in times of crisis. it is still one of the most critical responsibilities we have. there are competing ideas about what to do with the b block. if there was one right answer, we would have moved forward with it. we are trying to make a decision so that, on the anniversary of 9/11, we can actually have a plan so that we can have interoperable operations. >> do you leaned toward a dedicated area? >> i think both models were.

i look forward to working with those who are interested in the subject. it is important that we find an answer. the policeman and first responders deserve a network. >> as i understand it, the commission has the authority to auction off the b block. is it the commission that is not moving forward with it or is it something else? >> the commission was moving forward in one way. congress forced some dissent on that. we acted to congress. the only thing i would say is we are building out these 4g networks now. for it to be as cost-effective as possible, we need to move forward. >> i understand the fcc will be laying the technical groundwork for the interoperable network. what is the timetable to have

this working? >there is no ballpark figure? >> i do not control the agenda at the fcc. i can only encourage us to work together to find solutions. >> this is c-span's communicators " wall -- c-span's communicators " " -- c-span's "the communicators" program. >> you are moving and it is a little bit technical and confusing. >> i use the word on crunching and confusing. it is an $8.80 billion fund. the contribution factor was fitting 0.5%. what that means is that it is a

15.5% tax on everyone's -- a contribution factor was 15.5%. it is clear that the fund is not sustainable. needs reform. we have commitment from all five of the commissioners to move forward. congress is interested in this. if congress has more ideas on how to revise this fund that has been traditionally our telephone or broadband, those ideas are welcome. we all have similar starting point, which is there needs to be a path for all americans toward a broad band future. there are more businesses, there are more consumer services that are on broadband. we need to provide a path for that. the fund is too big. this is a large and unsustainable fund. i think we need to look that the efficiencies of it.

we need to acknowledge that this is taxpayer money that we need to spend efficiently. the last point is we need to work together on this universal service fund. broadband is so important. >> you say that all five commissioners agreed that some reform is needed. >> we all agree that reform is needed. we agree on the high level talking points. there was a company is a path forward to go from place to broadband over 10 years. that is a reasonable -- to go from voice to broadband over 10 years. we will have to work together to find consensus. we will start in february. we have many options and we will take comment on a lot of different paths or what.

>> you said you are going to start in february. is there a plan to change that you see going forward? >> we call it proposed rulemaking. that will be voted on in our february meeting. it is going to take us a while. we hope this builds consensus. it is complex and there are a lot of people who are providing voice to rural areas. we cannot endanger that. we are going to work together to see if we can build consensus toward a broad band future. >> can you talk about enter carrier -- inter carrier solutions? will that be a part of the broadband fund that you are hoping to move to. [laughter] >> it is complex and it is

actually what it says. inter-carrier compensation. the carrier's exchange money in traffic. the traffic moves through the backbone of the internet. we will be working. there are a lot of experts in congress on these matters. there are a lot of members of congress who are extremely interested. we will be working with them as to how we help define the system for the next generation. i used to say inter-carrier compensation paid a had a working plan where the carriers sat down to try to come up with a solution. they were not quite able to get the ball across the goal line. we will probably have to roll up

our sleeves and work on it. >> do you see the congress moving ahead with a rewrite or update of the 1996 telecom act? >> i had given up on long time ago in predicting what congress would do. i am hopeful. we are trying to work with an outdated communications act. we try to put a square peg in a brown coal. in a round hole . we have been talking about net neutrality for a decade. even now, we do not understand what the confines of net neutrality means. it can take a while. we are willing to work with congress. >> where would you like to see it updated? >> i think it needs to be updated for the internet age. >> how would you define net

neutrality as we try to define an amorphous term? >> we believe in experimentation that is crucial to the future of the internet. i would like to stick with net neutrality right there. we need an open internet. >> yesterday, commissioner mcdowell said this is just the beginning of the net neutrality discussion. it will be revisited every time there is a complaint. the you agree with that? >> i do agree with that. we are already seeing that at the fcc. we have a complaint. a backbone complaint. it was included the that it was excluded from the net neutrality order. -- it was excluded from the net

neutrality order. >> in a recent speech to the federal bar association, you urged restraint. that is the best way to put it. i will read your words. >> we must resist the urge to stray from our original purpose." >> if there is a problem, we can fix it. i am afraid that we will engineer a one size fits all and we will lose the innovation and experimentation that makes this industry so robust. there is an article, and op-ed in "the washington post" that is good. it talks about the same thing. government is having to find a solution for everything. i agree with george will.

we do not need to do that. we used to talk about politics in a limited manner. now, any social policy has an adjoining public policy to it. this is a place where the industry is doing well without our help. we need to exercise restraint and humility. >> where does the fcc need to exercise regulatory control? >> our traditional guideline is radio, television. we have public interest responsibilities, localism and broadcast responsibilities. we have additional responsibilities. we regulate the infrastructure. >> the think congress needs to revisit the rules that govern the right to carry? >> good question. congress has given us a limited role. in many years of change, it could be right for them to

revisit it. we should have some perspective on this. it is a $1 billion program in industry. of the reach transmission dispute, most of them gets solved without any sort of high- profile problems. we do here several per year, a handful per year. -- we do hear a handful per year. you have broadcasting that is changing. you have the cable industry that has competitive pressures not to have to raise their prices. it is a natural flareup of the dispute. we -- we know that espn and tnt at a cost. as costs moved to a new generation, these are

discussions that need to take place. it's our job that congress has given us a limited responsibility -- is it our job that congress has given up a limited responsibility? >> the big companies have the right to maintain financial aspects as private? >> we need to watch out for consumers. if there is a point to be some sort of delay or we are point to lose channels or signal, we need to let consumers know. as far as the rights and rates and conditions of these terms are, they are private negotiations. >> finally, one of the aspects that you talk about in your speeches is the international aspect of telecommunications and spectrum policy. when does regulations stop at the u.s. border and when does it not stop? >> increasingly, we are in a global world.

when you look at tele- communications, we need to consider what this point on in other countries. particularly in the spectrum world, spectrum harmonize asian is critical. -- spectrum harmonization is critical. i am a big believer in working with other countries in our with otherion countries. we need to work with other nations. >> is the itu the right regulatory model? >> it has been helpful in telecommunications. i think part of the beauty of the internet is that it is not regulated. i worry about bringing internet issues to the internet. this is a more regulatory regime.

>> meredith attwell baker, one of five fcc commissioners. thank you for been on "the communicators." >> said day on -- sunday on "washington journal," aamer madhani. president elect of the american college counseling association on the growing need for psychiatric sources -- psychiatric services at american colleges and universities. "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> david dreier talks about a

resolution to cut federal spending to 2008 levels. >> this weekend on "road to the two speeches.," >> your name is now in the present accommodation. you are aware of that. will that continue for months to come? >> i know it is shocking when a girl goes to buy what that that speculation might come along. i am here to be a part of the compensation for 2012. there has been no decision about candidacy. i want to be a part of the compensation. >> watched her speech in its entirety and along with rick at 6:30 p.m.marks

and 90 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> this new law is a fiscal house of cards and a year house of cards. >> had any family in america, any single mother, in spouse, any child, met a more bureaucratic system than the american health insurance system? >> watch the health care debate from the house floor anytime. see what your representative said. check in time line and read transcripts. congressional chronicle at c- span.org. >>