>> this week, a discussion about the work of the federal communications commission with the democratic commissioner. >> we are pleased to welcome back to the communicators commissioner cliburn of the sec. in a recent speech, he said that you were going to be super vigilant of the wireless industry. what did you mean by super vigilant? >> >> i meant that what is important is the consumer experience. what is important is the marketplace, so those two things in terms of trying to balance to ensure that the competitors, it's a competitive marketplace, that's a healthy experience and the consumers are getting that they paid for and meeting their expectations. when i say supervigilant, i mean that i am the substitute often for competition when it's

not as intense as we would like or robust as we would like and i am the consumer's eyes and ears. that's what i mean. >> are you satisfied with how the wireless industry is conducting itself right now? >> for the most part, consumers seem to be pleased with the innovation. there are still a number of challenges and complained as it relates to quality of service. those things we are hearing. those things we are addressing. they can go anywhere anytime and be most places, there are still spots where there is coverage challenges. but the consumer i think is generally pleased to see the evolution in this market, in this industry. >> well, recently we had on the

communicators, robert mcdowell and here is what he had to say about the wireless industry and regulation. >> congress consciously with the 1996 act had a handsoff approach when it came to wireless. what we saw was an explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance in the wireless industry. we saw rates come down. we saw functionality and invasion go up. 200 million or so have wireless handsets or subscribers. so there is more power in the hands of consumers as a result. as a result of having a deregulatory approach to that industry, but what we're starting to see now, at least with the f.c.c. is more of a regulation of the wireless space as a wireline monopoly. i think that could start to, as one example, start to end innovation and investment. >> commissioner. >> i agree with the majority of what my colleague said in terms

of innovation investment, in terms of opportunity. i said that at the time. but one thing that i recognize, especially in rural areas, there are at least 10 million persons in rural census blocks that have two or fewer providers in terms of option of services. that is not competition. so what i worry about by and large are those areas where you don't have robust competition. i worry about the consumer experience. i worry about that type of engagement. we have to think about the entire market, both the national as well as local markets. we need to get granular in terms of our overview and our oversight and those are the things that concern me and we need to look out for every single american with their wireless or mobile experience. >> well, joining us at the table also is howard buskirk, associate and necking editor of "communications daily." commissioner, i wanted to ask

you as a follow-up question to what you just said, what role do you see the federal government and the f.c.c. playing in spurring with wireless buildout in the rural areas? >> some of the things that i am proud of that we're doing, we did a week or so ago in terms of a pole attachment order. i know that sounds a little boring to some. what that will do is provide for more access, provide for more opportunity for our providers to attach their the -- provided service to existing poles and that will provide more communication opportunities. we're doing a lot of things by the way of universal service reform through the joint boards and the like and attempting to modernize the system in order to include a broadband as a part of the mix. the way we're communicating is changing and we are changing with it. so what we're attempting to do is encourage public-private

partnerships that work. we're doing that the wake of shrinking government ability to put money exactly where we wanted it, want it to go. and so what we're doing is trying to encourage all of these things in concert in order to enhance the consumer experience. those things are important. >> is the f.c.c. on right course with these things? are there areas where you would like the commission to do more and get more aggressive? >> i think we are on the right course. you want them to move at an exponential rate. the realities of the day don't provide or permit that. we are on the right course. we are focusing on the things that might not be as exciting to some like universal service reform and intercarrier

compensation reform which will compensate those that are supposed to be -- if the proper signals are sent, sometimes that is government encouragement is needed to do that, then i think the investment and development of these technologies that we are going ever dependent on, that will move in the right direction. >> let me ask a universal service fund follow-up question. the chairman has talked about a fairly aggressive timetable, perhaps some kind of decision by august. is that realistic? how long is it going to take for this to work through the commission? >> i think not only is it realistic, it's a must do. we are recognizing that this system needs to be updated. the way we are communicating is different. we have voiceover i.p. now. you got people are just connecting with each other in

more innovative and interesting ways. we got to keep up with the times, so that's an aggressive schedule, yes, but you have got an all hands on up to the task. >> one final question on that. the politics have always been difficult and there is always a lot of resistance is attempted to be done by the f.c.c. do you expect a lot of resistance to the reforms that the commission is working on right now? >> it's going to be difficult. the short answer is yes, but i think now you recognize even though some of the rural carriers who are rightfully worried and some of the others in the system recognize that we have a system that needs to be updated. we have a system that is not fully functional. it's not very efficient, and so we're going to have to make some very difficult decisions over the next 10 years or so. but i think you have most people willing to come to the table. they recognize that we're not talking about flash cuts, we're

talking about gradual reforms, reforms we must make in order to send the proper signals and provide the most bang for our buck that is important. >> commissioner clyburn when it comes to the u.s.f. reform proposals, are you finding agreement between the five commissioners or does it break down between party lines? >> overall we're seeing agreement. i don't sense or hear any resistance that we wanted an efficient, a fraud-free system, we want the proper signals to be sent. we want provisioning of service, we want broadband to be included in the mix. the chair has made it clear that in terms of the fund, overall fund even with all of the things that we want and need to modernize this system, we're talking about existing dollars. you have got a fair agreement on that front because from my perspective, i am not

necessarily a proponent of capping the fund because i know we're asking for it to do a lot of things that it hasn't done in the past, but i am definitely a proponent of having an efficient and effective system that's fraud-free and on that, we have agreement. >> are you finding resistance in congress? >> i don't sense resistance. i will say that you have got rural carriers who are concerned. they should be because the way in which the system as we know it, the way in which they have grown accustomed to dealing with compensation in how they receive funds, that potentially or that will change and so you're going to have congresspersons from rural states who are concerned, but i am from a rural state. i am concerned also. i am not a proponent of having flash cuts, making immediate decisions where we do have to make gradual decisions in order to have these systems work most

efficiently for the american public. >> can we -- let's go to at&t, t-mobile. have you already spoken about that in some of your recent speeches. you have some concerns about that. can you talk to us a little bit more? >> let me first affirm that i'm going to keep an open mind about the proposed transaction. i say proposed because as of today's taping, there has been no filing at the commission. but in terms of process, i am comfortable talking about that. once an application is filed, our staff will do thorough review of that and it will look at a number of things. we're a little bit different from the department of justice, which concentrates on the antitrust ensurement act type of oversight. we are responsible -- we have a public interest standard which includes looking at competition, you know, how the market looks, how the existing

players in the market will be affected, how consumers will be affected, will there be price impact? will there be device impact terms of the number of mobile devices offered? we got to look at the rest of it in terms of the consumer engagement and how the marketplace will change with any potential transaction. so those are the types of things that i'm comfortable telling you right now that we will have to review, but the particulars of the transaction, it probably will not surprise you that i won't get too granular. >> i understand that is it your thought -- i think you have already said that whatever, if this is agreed to, it has to be heavily conditioned and there is going to have to be a lot of stuff involved to protect consumers. >> i will affirm that as a commissioner, as a commission, we have to look at both the harms and potential benefits. again, i mentioned the harms. the benefits could be increased

efficiencies, but if there are harms that are identified, we must address those and harms are often addressed in what we call conditions. some people might criticize the word "conditions," but you cannot ignore the fact that if there is a change in the marketplace, we have to insure that the consumer experience is enhanced and that the competitive landscape is not unharmed to the point in which we don't have the options that we need for service provisions and pricing and devices and all of those things that we're taking for granted. >> one final question -- is it possible to go from four national carriers to three wireless carriers and not have a loss of competition? >> i will say that what you mention in terps of the change -- terms of the marketplace is something that we take into consideration when we get to the final decision. >> commissioner, can you give an example of a condition that

you could see being placed on this proposed transaction? >> if you were allow me to go to a past transaction which was the more recent contest in d.c. merger which we did a prove january of this year, one of the things that sticks out to me that we did was make sure that in terms of their engagement with other companies, other online providers, other video cable providers that the offerings that they have in items of nbc, comcast programming, at whatever rates, terms, and conditions they offer, if it's going to be comcast or nbc or vice versa, they would offer that at similar and uniform rates as they do others. that's in principal what i mean in terms of -- it's a parity-type standard from that perspective. so it's difficult for me to

talk about upcoming transactions, but i will say one of the things that we made sure in that past transaction that the experience of other providers, of competitors, so to speak, is not harmed because of a transaction. >> this is c-span's communicators program. our guests this week, f.c.c. commissioner mignon clyburn. howard buskirk is the associate managing editor of "communications daily." , he is our guest reporter. >> commissioner, you came to the f.c.c. from a somewhat atypical background in that you were a state commissioner. can you talk to us a little bit with that transition from working from the state to the federal level, how difficult of a transition has it been? >> i will confirm it hasn't been the easiest coming from a relatively rural state in the

south coming to the capital city dealing with major significant organizations and persons that you read and hear about. from that perspective, it's been somewhat of a challenge, but what i think it's given me, a very solid foundation to know and to affirm what people on the ground think. i spent 11 years on my state commission. i spoke with consumers. i took part in evidentiary hearings. i would hear them on the stand. i read testimonies and filings from companies. that gives you a very unique perspective that you cannot, especially after 11 years of service. and those types of experiences i bring to this post and it helps me in terms of decision-making, in terms of my processing and i think it's a benefit. >> you have also talked about, i think, that you feel like you have a role to play in defending some disadvantaged populations. talk about that a little bit.

do you feel like that you do have a special -- that you're on the commission for a reason and with a role to play? >> i think so. it's so much, it holds true in terms of ownership. that means a lot to me. i look at the percentages of women and minority owners. on the radio, 3% ownership. in terms of the, on the radio sigh, it's 6%. on the television side, if i was not clear, it was 3%. when you see those abysmal numbers and if you see the boardrooms and where they're producing content and the like, when you see a lack of diversity in this space, it manifests itself and i think sometimes a disconnect what was we see and hear on the air. i hear and see a lot of complaints about that. if there were more of a

presence, i think we would hear and see less and less of that because you will have america truly reflected in those, whether decisions are made and that would be reflected in the contact heard or seen. >> what can the f.c.c. do about that? >> the f.c.c. can talk about it. the f.c.c. could make rules and encourage when someone is in a space and if they're selling off assets may encourage those entities that look first at underserved communities, look at the communities in which they do business and possibly find buyers in those particular markets. targeted approaches where it's legally sustainable i think are things that we can encourage in this space or from this pulpit so to speak. >> commissioner, would you

possibly see a referral of the rules at the f.c.c. this year? >> we go through that process every four years. we are talking now. so what we do again is look at the current rules in which we are governed by and see if there is still a need for that. looking at the changes in the marketplace, looking at all of the options. i can't ignore the fact that we're becoming more digital so to speak, that people are going elsewhere other than the traditional radio and television to get their news and information and entertainment. so all of those things, the changes, the evolution of it all in terms of the delivery of our content, those are the things that we take into consideration where if the existing rules are still needed or if new rules are needed. >> as you know to switch topics a little bit, commissioner, house government oversight chairman darrell isi search has been holding some field

hearings and he was out in silicon valley and this week google complained essentially that the f.c.c. is too slow in its decision-making and it hurts business overall for a lot of the silicon valley companies. what would your response to that someone >> i will say that on the outside, before i got to the agency, i was probably a member of that chorus that complained of it, but when you get inside of the agency and you recognize all of the noticing requirements, all of the things that you have to do because it's mandated. you can't just make a decision quickly without getting input from the public, without getting filings from other persons who might feel a different way. all of those things, for better and for worse and reviews take time. i know persons in their transactions, whatever the thing that they have before us,

it is the most significant thing to them. and yes, it is significant. we have thousands and thousands of applications and reviews and all of these other things that, to be honest with you, that come into the agency each year that we are responsible for turning, so to speak. and often, the decisions don't move as quickly as some would like. we are ever reviewing our process. we are ever trying to streamline the intake as well as the delivery of decisions and we will continue to work on that and we'll listen to all constructive criticism. >> telecommunications subcommittee chair greg walton has stated that he is going to hold f.c.c. reform hearings. what do you think of that idea and what reforms would you make in the f.c.c. decision-making process that you have been able to witness over the last two years? >> i am always pleased with the positive engagement with

congress. i don't pretend as a regulator in the space that i have all of the answers and sometimes fresh eyes on this is a good thing. i trust it will be so here. in terms of review processing, when we can put things on the fast track, when we can implyify and streamline, i think we are and will do and we will continue to do that in a number of ways and that's i would continue to be a proponent of that. so things like that that i think would expedite in terms of intake and will put things on a fast track i think would benefit all. all of these large significant, very detailed transactions, to expect a very expedited, a very short-term decision from the f. c.c. i think would not be of

long-term benefit to the american public. serb things, significant transactions take time for review. that's just the nature of that. >> from your perspective, i want to ask you, there have been a lot of criticisms lobbed at the f.c.c. from capitol hill? do you think it's politics, republicans who aren't pleased with, taking shots at a democratic administration or do you think there is a real interest in reform? >> you know, i have been in this space for about 13 years and i have never in terms of -- i have never not heard criticism of the f.c.c. regardless of who was in power at the white house or in congress or the f.c.c., the white house and f.c.c. chair, they're the same party. so you're always going to have that friction. i don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. it helps in terms of checks and balances, so to speak. it helps us in terms of taking

the post of not only the consumers, but the politicians who are consumers also. so that is not necessarily a bad thing. you're always going to have that friction, so to speak, and for the most part, i welcome it. it's not always comfortable, but for the most part when all are in it for the right reason. when we all want the same results in terms of the public benefits, in terms of having a healthy business and economic ecosystem. when all of us have the same goal, then i can deal with some of the differences in terms of how we get there, that there might be differences on that, that's what makes the world goes around. that's a positive to me. there is no one right answer. commissioner clyburn, the house recently voted to suspend the f.c.c. neutrality order. what's your reaction to that? >> well, i cannot say that when

i heard that that i was jumping up and down with joy, but i'm comfortable with the decision i made. i felt that it was important for the american public, for the consumer, to have an open engagement in terms of their online experience, that if you have a device that's not harmful to the network, if you have got information that you want to have access to that's lawful, there is to be transparency in terms of your engagement, you should no exactly what you're signing up for, all of these things are important to me. so i felt comfortable with the vote i took. i felt comfortable with the reason why i took that vote. i see the power of an open internet. i see how it's enhanced communities. i see the millions and millions of persons who now do business online who the economic basis has been lifted because of this experience, because it doesn't matter if they have a big shop.

they don't have to spend money for rent in order to deal in commerce. it is the great equalizer. so i am very comfortable with the decision. again, it goes back to what howard mentions. sometimes we see things differently in terms of the particulars of a decision, but i think all in all, we want a robust engagement. we want consumer comfort, because if you have consumer comfort and you have a healthy economic exchange, then everybody wins. i think clear signals do that. i think this is what the open internet decision we made promotes. >> well, that open internet has led to a crisis or a looming crisis in spectrum. how do you think that should be dealt with? >> i think what we're doing now is we're looking at what we have, what is out there. some, as you said, have said that we are in a crisis. i am not sure if i am going to

say that we are in a crisis. i'm going to say that what you put forth is valid. you have smart phones, smart this smart that, and that uses a lot of that type of real estate. so we need to as a commissioner, we need to promote policies that promote efficiencies, that promote any type of voluntary message in order to possibly acquire spectrum for use in the drivers, which a lot of it is mobile, the drivers in items of that hunger for spectrum. so we're having some very interesting and difficult conversations as it relates to that, especially with the broadcasters as you know. >> are they treated fairly? >> i think they are. they might not agree with me necessarily. i go back to the keyword voluntary. if there are persons who are

station owners who might not have the economic wherewithal to sustain themselves, i think that they should be given the option to maybe vacate or partially vacate or fully vacate that spectrum in which they have possession and get fairly compensated for it. and so those are the types of conversations that i think we should have. again, i am a proponent of a voluntary means to any type of acquisition if we go down that road. >> howard buskirk, final line of questioning. >> what is the likelihood that the congress is going to approve incentive auction legislation and do you have a sense that broadcasters generally want to sell some of their spectrum? >> i am hopeful that as we gain more comfort that we are truly talking about a voluntary, an

exchange here that we will have more of a positive engagement and a more expedited engagement with congress. on the -- there is never going to be 100% comfort i don't think in this space, but i am a person of my word. i am committed to a involve process. i don't know what that will mean in terms of the amount of spectrum that we will acquire when we go that road, but there is a need, i mean -- you just looked at the mobile trends. every single person seemingly over 10 years old has a mobile device. that requires more spectrum. >> is this tough getting that through congress? >> it is hard for me to predict, i have some engagement with congress. for the life of me, i can't read them. i am hopeful that we will come to a series of decisions that

will think up the needs of the market and our ability to go forward in terms of did policy making. >> mignon clyburn thanks for being on the show. >> my plus you're. >> tomorrow on newsmakers, the head of the drug policy for the white house on preventing abuse of prescription drugs and anti-drug efforts at the u.s. mexico border. that's sunday at 10:00 a.m. and again at 6:00 p.m. eastern >> now the supreme court oral argument on global warming. the court will decide of a coalition of states and new york city can sue the five power companies to