with nissan executives who were deciding where to put their first u.s. manufacturing plant. i carried with me a photograph taken from a satellite showing the country at night with all of its lights on. "where is tennessee?" the nissan executives ask. "right in the middle of the lights,' i answered, pointing out that locating a plant in the population center reduces the cost of transporting cars to customers. that population center had migrated from the midwest, where most u.s. auto plants were then, south to places like kentucky and tennessee. >> our road to the white house coverage continues. >>then the japanese examined a second consideration -- tennessee has a right to work law and kentucky does not. this meant that in kentucky workers would have to join the united auto workers union. workers in tennessee had a choice. well, in 1980 nissan chose

tennessee, a state with almost no auto jobs. today auto assembly plants and suppliers provide one-third of tennessee's manufacturing jobs. tennessee is the home for production of the leaf, nissan's all-electric vehicle, and the batteries that power it. and recently nissan announced that 85% of the cars and trucks it sells in the united states will be made in the united states, making it one of the largest american auto companies. so now the nlrb and unions want to make it illegal for a company that has experienced repeated strikes to move production to a state with a right to work law. what would this mean for the future of american auto jobs? well, jobs would flee overseas as manufacturers look for a competitive environment in which to make and sell their products around the world. it's happened before. david halberstam's 1986 book,

"the reckoning," tells a story about the decline of the domestic auto industry. halberstam quotes the president of american motors, who criticized the "shared monopoly" consisting of the big three detroit auto manufacturers in the uaw. "there is nothing more vulnerable than entrenched success," he warned. detroit ignored upstarts like nissan who in the 1960's began selling funny little cars to american consumers. we all know what happened to employment in the big three companies. even when detroit sought greener pastures in a right to work state, its partnership with united auto workers couldn't compete. in 1985, general motors located its $5 billion saturn plant in spring hill, tennessee; just 40 miles from nissan, hoping that side by side competition would help the americans beat the japanese.

after 25 years, non-union nissan operated the most efficient auto plant in north america. the saturn-uaw partnership never made a profit. gm closed saturn last year. reasons success is one why volkswagen last week opened its north american manufacturing plant in chattanooga, and why honda, and toyota, bmw, kia, mercedes-benz, hyundai and thousands of suppliers have chosen southeastern right to work states for their plants. according to the chief of the boeing company, "an unintended consequence of the boeing complaint is that forward thinking ceos also would be reluctant to place new plants in unionized states -- lest they be forever restricted from placing future plants across the country. boeing is america's largest exporter, but we want them to

export airplanes, not jobs. our goal should be to make it easier and cheaper to create private-sector jobs in this country. giving workers the right to join or not to join a union helps to create a competitive environment in which more manufacturers like nissan and boeing can make here what they sell here. i'm lamar alexander, thanks for listening. >> monday on c-span, are road to the white house coverage continues with rick santorum, as he makes his official presidential campaign announcement. that is live from somerset, pennsylvania, at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. [no audio]

host: regular followers of telecommunications policy were recognized our guests on "the communicators". blair levin, former broadband plan executive director, now with the aspen institute. thank you for coming back. also joining us this eliza krigman of politico. it has been about a year since the national broadband plan was introduced. give us your assessment of the past year and its progress . guest: i think you have to understand what the plan was. it was an agenda-setting and target clarifying device. it was supposed to said, here is the things we need to do over the next few years. and here are targets we need to shoot for or shoot at, some concrete proposals to move us

toward action. it has been a very successful year. every debate that is going on, with this -- the exception of debates about mergers, our debates that are about how we accomplish the goals of the broadband plan. in terms of agenda setting, it did prove to be a very unifying and consensus kind of document, that the stakeholders and generally agreed the kinds of things, spectrum reform, were very important things to be done. in terms of the targets we said, we are moving towards some of them. some of them are coming up with better ideas. i think it has been a pretty good year. i would say that this is not like a blueprint, where every element has to be exactly right or there is structural instability. it is more in the nature of a book to a movie. it is a different kind of source

material. there are as many ways to implement the plan is there would be to make a movie out of a book, "the christmas carol." so i think, you know, two steps forward, one step back. there are some things i think, great. there are the things i go, really? host: where we do like to see improvements? guest: there are certain very important issues were think we have gone off track. for example on the spectrum issue, which i think is extremely important not tomorrow, but over the next five-20 years, i think the important issue we need to resolve is how do we constantly we allocate spectrum to serve what the public needs? we have had a lot of different spectrum debates about issues such as the d block for public

safety, repackaging spectrum, but at the core, we need a plan so that as markets and technologies change, we reallocate spectrum in the public interest. i think we have gone off track of that debate. indeed, what is interesting is there is ane ways, argument being made that we do not ever need to relocate spectrum. the most important thing we do all the day is to figure out how to reallocate what are scarce resources, whether it be time or how do you allocate who will be the guest on this show? when i was on wall street, the most important thing everyone did is about to reallocate capital. the most important asset to in broadband that the government controls will be spectrum. we need a method to reallocate it. the debate is getting lost. host: aspect is the proposed incentive auctions.

do you support them? guest: absolutely. the first way is to assume we got a perfect and never need to change it . in any business, this would be considered insane. in washington, it is actually a very respectable argument, were people say you allocated this and the 1950's, stick with it. i disagree with that. the second way is let the market determine it entirely. have no restrictions at all. that is not a bad argument, but it is interesting there was a letter from 112 economists who pointed out the many problems with that. there is equipment harmonization, there is band configuration. there needs to be a rational market for spectrum and the government has to be the market maker. that is a better marketing. is the statusne

quo. you wait for a crisis. i am ok with that, but it is not the best crisis response. it is ineffective and knees to years and years of litigation -- leads to years and years of litigation. what incentive options would do was provide incentive that is market-based. that is what i would do. c-spahost: are broadcasters sitg on underutilized capital? guest: i think some are and some are not. they assume that all broadcasters are the same. if we allocate spectrum to any broadcaster, we need to allocate the same way to all broadcasters. we have 25 broadcasters in new york, 32 in los angeles. that was done at a time before there was cable, internet. do w2e really need that many? i think the right answer is to

let the market determine that. what spectrum -- what incentive options are about is when the market changes, and changes the value of spectrum to go up at the value of broadcasting goes broadcasterthe 25th in new york, maybe it is more valuable to sell the spectrum. any change in the system is problematic. and i disagree with that. guest: you said we have gotten off track, is that because of the action dthe fcc hasn't taken, or because of the debate in congress? guest: the debate over the relocation of the method was paired with public safety. i understand what people did that. i think it was a rational decision. i think it is unfortunate, because i think it is very important to establish the right

reallocation at the. a thing broadcasters have been very successful in taking people off of the ball, which is, what is the method you want for relocation? by the way, i would be happy to come back on the show if he wanted to invite gordon smith. i would love to hear his answer to the question, how should the country we allocate spectrum over a 10-20 year period? but he has never answered that question. i think the country deserves an answer from broadcasters. guest: the administration and congress would like to use the money from the impending auction to not only build the public safety network but to reduce the deficit. is there enough money for both, and how should this be parsed out? guest: congress is spending money they want to spend money. i do not have expertise in that, nor if i did, would they listen to me. i was involved in the first auctions as an analyst. you can make estimates about

auctions, but they are very tricky. there are some different variables that will affect the auction, the market conditions. if you have a spectrum auction as we did in 2007, if you had a year at later, after the financial crisis, you have a very different result. i think everyone needs to have a certain level of humility about what the projections are. they obviously are very important tool, the fundamental point is about using spectrum to create competitive, innovative, dynamic markets that drive economic growth and productivity. guest: so enough money for both or not? guest: the truth is i don't know. you have to make an estimate. there be great if there was, but i hope the decisionmakers folk is not so much -- the money will drive the process, but the fundamental thing, let's make

sure we have spectrum policy that drives competitive, innovative, dynamic markets. host: to you agree that there is a looming specter crisis, especially when it comes to new tablets and smart phones? guest: absolutely. we did our estimates prior to the ipad coming up. if you look at the numbers, we were way too conservative. there is no doubt there is a looming specter crisis. the only question is will it hurt us and two, three, seven yearse? ? whatever number is, we will need a number to reallocate spectrum. i think it is important to put it on the nation's agenda today, because if it were to pass and sent of authority tomorrow, it would still be a number of years before that spectrum could be reallocated. this is a long-term process. so you have to start now. if you think is but the crisis is going to hit, even in five years, you have to start today.

host: some commentators have said that the federal government essentially gave the spectrum to the broadcasters back in the 1950's and 1960's. why should we buy it from them? guest: the law would allow that to happen. if the government wants to do that, so be it. one could foresee a situation in which the economic consequences to our country could be so damaging -- not tomorrow, but long term -- that the government would actually be forced into a position where that would be an alternative. if we do not have the same spectrum allocated that other countries do, we are essentially -- it would be the equivalent of having a highway system with a lot of pot holes and a lot of tolls. and so, i think the process of simply taking it back is not the

most effective way to do it. but if we do not give incentive options, that is the only other alternative, i think. "the this is c-span's communicators". our guest, blair levin, former fcc broadband plan executive director. he is now with the aspen institute. guest: thank you. let's talk about another component of the broadband plan, universal service fund reform. the commissioners have set an aggressive deadline of putting out an order by the end of the summer. is that possible? guest: it is possible. i do not think it is likely. i think it should be forgiven if they miss the deadline. what is important as we move in the right direction. here is what is happening, is that the industry is currently

negotiating among themselves and hoping to give the commission a consensus document. it is roughly 50/50 whether they will succeed with that. i think there are a lot of things to be optimistic about. and there are some that caused me some concern. the things i think we can be optimistic about is there is general concerned about the fact we need to move to broadband, that the old paradigm does not work. we need to reform both universal service and intra-carrier comp, which is an arcane system by which a phone companies pay each other. but i do think we have lost a little bit, in that we need to do this as part of a public strategy . as we do with other things -- it causes a lot of people to pay so other people can have service. when we do that, there has to be a public purpose, not just a private purpose. we should not be doing it to

prop up certain phone companies. we should do because there is a public gain, where we all gain because of it. some of the proposals i have heard about and seen are much more about propping up private companies, who frankly, we have been paying a long time to act in non-economic ways. that is disturbing guest. guest: the administration has not teed up the distribution part yet. guest: there are two sides. how to raise money for the fund? and how you distributed? we said up a 10-year plan period first thing to do is deal with distribution. and to do with a contribution, which is how you actually raise the funds in the second phase. there are tremendous gains to the country to be made by rationalizing the distribution.

there is a lot of money that simply is not going to an efficient public service -- purpose anymore. some changes have already been done. if you try to do both simultaneously, i think you did gridlock and nothing happens. i think there is time to do the change in contribution, but make sure that the money we are spending we are spending towards public purpose. guest: commissioner baker surprised many by deciding to leave for post at the agency and take all lobbying gig at comcast. did it surprise you? guest: it did surprise me. guest: did you think there was anything ethically incorrect about it? guest: commissioner baker was a wonderful commission . very, very smart, made an enormous contribution. i think she has made a contribution in toeother ways.

i am quite certain she did not break any lsawaw, that this offr came to her after the merger was already approved. but i completely understand what the public feels the way they do about it. i think, but there is a very simple answer to this, that she should not be held accountable for it, but i hope we learned a lesson here. that is simply this -- no confirmed person at that agency should interview for any private sector job while they are there. they should make a commitment -- is one thing if the president tos i want to mov eyoe you something else. if the senate confirms due to be a decisionmaker, go there and be a decisionmaker. if you want to leave, leave. some time off, enjoy the family, and start looking for a job.

if we had that simple rule that nobody interviews for a private- sector job while sitting commissioner, it would be better off. guest: so you agree with free press which sent a letter asking that if the remaining commissioners to publicly pledged that it would not consider taking a job at at&t or t mobil. >> i would certainly say i agree with the sentiment -- i would go further and say they should not interfere with any private sector job. that has anything to do with telecom or any regulated entity while they are serving at the commission. they should wait until they leave to do that. my only concern about the letter is, i do not know that you want a lifelong ban for working for those entities. in some ways, i would go further than they would tu. host: what about the at&t-t

mobile merger? should go through? guest: i have been quiet on that. i will explain why. mergers are fact-specific. not sure really willing to dive into the details, which require a lot more reading and i am willing to do about the merger. i do not think that someone like me should opine on it. page document. i have not got all the way through it yet. because of my role with the broadband plan i am hesitant to say something that could be interpreted in various ways that i did not intend because it is not what i'm working on these days. i will say analytically, it has been interesting to me the extent to which at&t has promised some of the merger on the broadband plan, which i find interesting.

i do think you represent the people recognize the goals of the plan were called. at the end of the day, that is about -- they make an argument to the sec, but the merger, the question of whether or not the merger goes through as will be fundamentally decided at the department of justice. they are going to be looking less at those issues, what is the impact on universal service and on the issue of competition. the real question is competition. the doj has competent people. host: on the competition side, looking at its on its face, does it strike you as ok for competition? guest: are you asking me the same question? host: in a different way? guest: if i stated, i might have an answer. i have a lot of respect for antitrust lawyers. they are the neurosurgeons of that part of the practice. they're smart.

they know a lot of stuff, but i do not. i will decline to answer. guest: let's approach this from another angle. at&t said this a deal that was good for the public. critics are concerned there will not follow up here can you speak forhe fcc's track record enforcing merger conditions? guest: that is a great question. i have not studied that as an academic. it is an interesting question. when i look back at my own time on the fcc, i would absolutely say this, that we had certain merger conditions, the best stuff we did had to do with market structure and had to do with competition. we made a series of decisions in the 1994-1995 time frame, i recently made a speech about, there were five critical decisions that i think a few of them were great, and if you look

at and say, maybe there were great and maybe not so much. but fundamentally, laid the foundation for a very competitive, very dynamic, very innovative wireless market that we really enjoy the fruits of inthis. this country. making sure there is a competitive market is far more important than whatever conditions you can put on that you then have to enforce. at&t would make the argument that there is sufficient competition. i am not opining on that question. i am just saying that you few are depending on enforcement actions, it is a much tougher road. i think it is very interesting that verizon picked up on this. one of the conditions he would -- concerns you would have about a merger would be does that lead to the need for more regulation? that is one of the questions the department of justice will crumble with. when reid and i got to the fcc

the first time, we have a regulated duopoly. it really was not working. a lot of things went into changing that, but it worked much better when we had a deregulated, competitive market. i hope to keep that. guest: if he will not give us an answer, maybe you will tell us if you'd like to be the next commissioner at the fcc. guest: the next commissioner? i am working on some stuff now that would be more fun than being commissioner. i think commissioner baker's leaving does a funny thing to what happens to her seat, what happens to the cop seat. i think there are some great people who could go there. i would prefer to keep working on some of the stuff i am working on at aspen. host: blair levin, you said at the beginning that you thought that the national broadband plan was successful in some areas and not others. overall, was of far reaching enough? guest: i think the

implementation -- two steps forward, one step back. there is a variety of different factors. the best thing was the plan was in beta and always will be. i deeply believe that. we grew a lot very quickly. and i think it was certainly a new agenda for spectrum reform, a very good herd for universal reform, we have moved the ball forward for rights away reform. there are a couple of other things other people have note -- have not noticed in education. we were very much alive with the department of education. if you look at their technology plan, it is similar to ours. if you look at the new consumer finance agency, they are taking a number of lessons that we talked about in the civic engagement sessions on how an agency contract with the public. there's some other things -- some that did not get that much attention but is quite profound.

there is a proposal we have called a unified community anger network proposal, -- anchor network, which is how you get next generation, high-speed networks into every community through anchor institutions? that is something that is moving along very, very well. i think it was a visionary enough, but i have to say i react a little bit negatively to the desire to be visionary because there are a lot of people who are visionary without any relationship to mathematics, by which i mean money, or to effectiveness. people say, you should be more visionary? have a gigabyte in every home. it may be smart for korea, which is a different market structure and a different population density, but for the united states it would be costly and not much to gain. so i think it was a pragmatic,

thoughtful document. it sets out an agenda. i will let history decide whether it is visionary enough. host: it will always be in beta. guest: i give a speech on the one-year anniversary on what i thought was my personal big mistake. what we did on the adoption side was thoughtful and very good, but as i studied it over the year that i was at has been, i began to realize that was not visionary enough. we needed a new, fresh approach. i laid it out in the speech. host: guestback in beta. we talked about some technologies and policies that were said years ago your chief of staff at the sec during the 1996 telecom act. how do you we write that? -- rewrite that? to bring it up to 2011-2012? guest: the