acceptable? is that the best we can do for competition, for consumers, for jobs? >> you have done a lot of these mergers over the years. >> many, many. >> what kind of conditions would you like to see imposed? what kind of conditions have you tried to impose on other deals? >> this is something that would be a very steep climb for me in the first place, but i would hope that if there is going to be a majority of the commission that is going to agree with this, that we would obviously be looking at market by market and what the messages might be called for a. i think certainly the open internet and that neutrality is important, and just looking at the level of concentration of power across the board is

important. it comes into all of the considerations that go into deciding if this is in the public interest. it is a pretty wide-ranging charge that we have under this statute. >> you said you thought this could, if not derail, at least slow some of the other priorities of the federal communications commission. could you explain a little bit more about that? >> not as the commission, but perhaps on the hill too. i worked on the hill for 15 years. i am not going to predict what the is going to do, but if we are talking about incentive options and things like that, this is change, and does it change the name of the game? if you have one less competitor in the wireless market, does that make it more or less attractive? in regards to public safety and

so much spectrum, these are all factors that might have the effect of encouraging some folks to say well, let's see what happens before we go ahead and act. >> gordon smith was recently on this program. here is what he had to say about potential spectrum auctions. >> would your viewers need to understand is the difference between broadcast spectrum, the way we utilize it, and the way wireless uses it, is that when we use it, our transmission is one to everyone in a desperate -- one to every one in a demographic area. if i send you a video on my telephone, it is me to you. one two one. it takes a tremendous amount of

bandwidth. nvidia creates congestion. no one does it more efficient -- video creates congestion. no one does it more efficiently than we do. there is probably in a spectrum in the universe to manage one to one video. >> i hope we are not getting into a communications civil war. probably we are, but having to choose, i consider myself a friend of broadcasters, particularly small, independent broadcasters, and i think there utilization of the public spectrum very often serves the nation well. on the other hand, i am understand that spectrum needs to be used and utilized, and there are swaps of broadcast spectrum that have resulted from a transaction that are not being

fully used. we need more spectrum for wireless. there is no question about that. we have very spectrum-hungry devices. i want to avoid generalizations. i do not think you can say in every interest that it serves the public interest to remove spectrum from a broadcaster and give it to a wireless duopoly. i think we have to look at it and say is this market open and realize that both broadcasters and wireless perform essential services in the 21st century, and those who are doing a good job should be recognized for doing a good job. >> one of the things the broadcasters have been saying is that there are spectrum-holders like cable companies and others who are not really using their specter inefficiently, if at all. the fcc -- using their spectrum

efficiently, if at all. the fcc has an inventory of that. >> i do not think there is anyone in america right now that has the foggiest idea of what spectrum is being utilized for what particular purpose, and i think it would be helpful to know that. that does not mean we should remain motionless or inactive in the months ahead. i think we need more spectrum for wireless. but as we proceed on this path, before we get to the and road, we ought to have a better idea of understanding what is going on with spectrum. the commission is taking some actions and i applaud those, but we need to do more. >> there has been a lot of talk about spectrum inventory. is there any drop dead date for that to occur? >> no, i think the commission

feels is making good progress in getting a basic sort of inventory up theire. there will be a legislative push for specter and inventory again. i will see how that goes, but in the meantime, we will use all of our resources to do it. it is not an easy task. it is time consuming, it takes resources including our ever- shrinking budget. we should be doing really, a credible sample. particularly in the markets where there is a spectrum crunch. >> i want to go back to something you said earlier. you regret that at times the fcc has become the federal merger commission. how do you avoid becoming that merger commission and having to

set conditions on every deal that comes before you? >> it is very difficult. the private sector drives a lot of this and the private sector modus operandi has changed in telecommunications. we have gone through an enormous concentration in recent years. much sought after but seldom eat achieved economies and efficiencies are though -- seldom achieved economies and efficiencies are the wave of the future. the commission has, or should have, i can have an approach that it takes towards mergers. the government spends a lot of time blessing this kind of consolidation, not as a blessing

in, but actually encouraging it. it was not just the private sector, but the privapublic-secr that encourage this kind of commission -- this kind of consolidation while moving away from oversight. at some point we have to decide whether we are really serious about having competition or not. if you are going to have this constant trend toward duopoly or monopoly, then there have to be some rules of the road. there has to be some oversight. there has to be some regulation. i am hesitant to use that term. if we're serious, on the other hand, about fostering competition, then let's go about the job of doing that and have some rules of the road. maybe at that point, the private sector and companies will begin to understand that any and all

mergers are not going to be automatically rubber stamp for past with conditions when they come to the federal communications commission. >> this is the c-span communicators program. >> the fcc used to have spectrum caps in place to prevent companies from getting too big. then they did away with them. do you think it is time to bring them back? >> i think it would have been much better if we had considered with spectrum caps. it would have avoided some of the excessive concentration we have had since then. yes, i think that is something we could consider. the numbers would have to change. the percentage would have to change. i noticed just the other day

that a company announced it would have an enormous auction for 250 megahertz of spectrum. anybody can end up with it. it is premised on the idea that they think there should be at least a minimum of four wholesale competitors. >> when you talk about limits on auctions, and auctioning things off, do you think there should be any limits in place to help continue to have diversity on the airwaves? >> that is what i worry about. who are the original candidates going to be the b step up and say we have this option idea and i am going to participate? i think the first are going to be the hard pressed minority

station or diversity stations in big cities trying their best to serve the public interest but the economics is not working. the advertisers are not there, and try as they might, they want to take advantage of this. the other is going to be the head funds and the banks and the folks that on the big stations. for them, it is just a numbers game. if we keep it, we can make this much money. sell the licensing, participate in this auction, make $0.15 more. i can tell you that they are going to take the one worth $0.15 more, and what happened to the public interest? >> there was a recent news report about the rollout in deployment of broadband nationally and that it was behind schedule or not fully as scheduled. do you think that is a fair report, and if the fcc could, how would you increase the deployment?

>> i am hopeful that we are on track. it took awhile to develop the national broadband plan, but it provided a road map for eight years. we have done nothing in the way of developing broadband strategy for the united states of america, so we now have that strategy. i believe that this year of 2011 can really be a good year. in my be counterintuitive. people might say that the political dynamic is changing, i can i get anything done. i do not believe that. i believe there is a lot of bipartisan interest on these complicated issues in solving them. i think if you look at the agenda, the sec is starting to get into this in a substantive -- fcc is starting to get into this in a substantive way. i think this will be the year

for us to do that. there is sort of an alignment of the stars. it is not perfect, but it is sufficient to allow us to move ahead and to make some progress. by the end of this year, i would have liked to see the fcc make a detailed transition plan. that does not mean every last t. has to be crossed or i got it, but company -- dotted, but companies have to know where we're going with these two very important programs, and then i would like to see some other things past. i think that is doable. >> in your view, what is the biggest obstacle? >> just people used to another system for many, many years.

a system that is not serving the public interest well, is not responsive to the needs of the broad band era, the digital era, but people are used to doing business that way. you have to change the mindset and get everybody to understand that everybody has to sacrifice a little bit. the rules of the game are not going to be the same because we cannot afford for them to be the same. we are in a different era, a different technological time, and we are going to have to undergo some fairly significant change. it is really about getting people to sit down around the table and think bottom line. i do not want to go around and have sections were people are just bringing us their santa claus wish list of what they would like. we have done that for years and years and years, and we are still in the same place. i think what has to occur at the fcc is some sessions in the next

few months where we sit with them, they sit with us, and we get what people live with and get an understanding, and then we take all that back into in a very short period of time come up with the proposal of rules. >> so far, the fcc is really only talking about the distribution side, not really much about the contribution side. what do you think the impact of this is on consumers? >> i think we need to look at the contribution side. i think if we do it right, it will be a good impact for everybody. if we had broadband not only on the distribution part, but on the contribution part, it would mean considerable extra money, and it should be there because broadband providers are selling triple play and making more money, so i think there is some obligation for them to participate and support a

universal system that is going to be, hopefully, serving the needs of the broad band era. i am for including that. i am for congress passing something that would allow collection of intrastate revenant -- revenue. it would make an enormous addition to the program. it would increase the revenue base from something like $68 billion-tutored $38 billion. it is an enormous distribution -- $238 billion. it is an enormous distribution difference. >> as we enter the political season of 2012, the media access project has proposed changes to

the disclosure rules for political broadcast. here is what they write. do you see changes to the sponsorship royals? >> i certainly hope so. i have been talking about this for months and months. when you see an ad on tv and a line comes up that says paid for by citizens for spacious skies and amber waves of grain, but the person really sponsoring it is the chemical company that once the right to dump, i think citizens have a right to know that. it does the public a disservice if they do not. people are trying to buy elections. there was something like two

billion dollars in political advertisement on the last election cycle, most of it attack ads. i am not trying to cut off those ads, but i think media access project is headed down a good road. i think the time has come for this. i think people have a right to know who is putting that in the air. if you put a bottle of coca-cola right here on this program, people will tell me that this product placement. we are talking about the future of democracy in the influence of elections. do people not have as much right or more to know? i think they do. i think it is the democratic, patriotic, right thing for us to do. i have been trying to elevate the attention to this matter at

the federal communications commission, and i know my colleagues will do something about it. >> one thing you have talked about a lot over the years is media ownership. you are behind in your review for this year. what would you like to see the recommendations be in your report? >> strong, hard hitting. i would like to see it come out stand. it has been pending for a while. we need to be more active on media. as you know, this is the kind of thing that drives me at the fcc. we need to get our media right. we have had all this consolidation, downsizing of newsrooms, firing of

investigative journalists. we are in deep, deep trouble. we have a lack of investigative journalism. we really have to be addressing that. i think we need to come with of good, hard hit a reports and recommendations. i would like to see a return to public interest licensing processes for broadcasting licensees. that does not solve the whole problem, but it begins to solve part of the problem. i think the licensing process ought to go back to where it used to be, every three years. for years and years it was three years. now it is eight years. we is to have public interest guidelines and you would look at them and see of this asian -- see if the station was making an effort to serve the public interest.

that is almost all gone now. that is no way to take storage above the public airways. i would like to see us have some -- take stewardship of the public airways. i would like to see as have some guidelines, not in the content of the news, but in putting more resources, investing in the news. that would be one of the factors we would look at. we really need to do something about this because i do not think we can afford another four or five years of this hemorrhaging in journalism. >> any comment on your former colleague michael powell going over to head the end cta? >> i have congratulated him. ed we often disagreed, but he is experienced, smart, personal.

i am sure they will welcome him with open arms. i look forward to seeing him a little bit more in the months ahead. >> getting back to that, the rules he has proposed are still in the courts. now we're talking about another quadriennial review where you might have changed the role somewhat to increase the public interest aspect. do you think, given the fact that these things are already in court, that it is even possible for the fcc to move forward? >> i think you have to segment

the so little bit. i think the ownership rules are structural and go to the numbers. we can do that. congress can do some of that. it is a time consuming thing, but we can make a down payment on media reform. the fcc has the authority to do that right now. bring it to a vote and do it. we should have done that by now. i do not want to see media become the orphan child of the commission. in point of fact, we need to do more of these important media questions in the commission. >> finally, could you reflect on your 10 years on the commission, give us a hint of what your future plans are, and what structural changes would you like to see? >> i have not done a lot of

reminiscing because we have such an important year ahead and i think we can make some much progress. i just hope we do not have a government shutdown. i would like to see us all keep working. as i look back over the 10 years here, i think making the media questions a matter of public issue is important and no matter what i do in the years ahead, i will always be associated with working on those issues and pushing for action. if we do not get the kind of action i would like this year, i will at least be pleased to play a role in talking about broad band. as soon as i got to the commission in 2001, pointed out that the internet could be in some peril because of potential gatekeeper control. i am proud of reaching out to nontraditional stakeholders,

native americans and disabilities come to mind, people who are so profoundly impacted by decisions that are made at the fcc but often do not have input like the big companies and the lobbyists in washington have. i think all of that was important. it has been a wonderful experience. as i say, my thoughts now are mostly on the rest of this year, but while i am on the commission, i will not leave these issues. >> any structural change you would like to see and how the sec operates? -- in how the fcc operates? >> i wish we could get congress to change the closed meeting rule. we are prohibited from having

more than two commissioners talking to each other unless it is a public meeting. so, we cannot sit down around the table and have general counsel present or something unless it is on the public record. there are five people. each one has a different skill set, and there is a lot to be exchanged, a lot to be done. there is legislation that has been introduced, and i am really hoping that will move ahead, because i think it would expedite the business of the commission. we all get along well right now, but i think it would take it to a new level. if i could have won reform just magically appear before i leave, that would be it. >> to follow-up on that question, some people would

argue that already the fcc does so many things behind closed doors, that it is almost worse to have you guys sit around a table privately. >> i do not agree with that. members of congress, when they are crafting legislation or bills, are talking. members of the court before they decide a case sit around and talk about it. it would not be super secret. you would have the office of general counsel there. it is just a way that you need to do business. it affects other agencies too. why should they be denied the experience of sharing some perspective and trying to work things out around the table? i think it would expedite

business. i do not know how different the final results would be. i think in some ways they would be better. there is plenty of opportunity now for the staff to get together and do it one-on-one, i guess, but we are missing important opportunities for some positive interaction that i think could lead to a positive outcome. >> as always, thank you for being on the program. >> thank you for having me. >> tonight, c-span coverage of the annual congressional correspondents dinner. that is at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> now, and gender discrimination case against walmart that could include as many as 1.5 million current and

former female employees. if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed, it could potentially cost walmart billions of dollars. this is about one hour. t>> the mandatory nationwide class in this case is improperly certified for two fundamental reasons. it fails to satisfy cohesion requirements as reflected in the requirements of the role. second, the monetary relief fails to satisfy requirements for certification of a mandatory, non-opt out class. regarding rule 23 a, because the plaintiffs' claims in this case in john the delegation of discretion to individual manager -- hinge on the delegation of