investment in our economy and 500 new jobs. in north dakota, that is a big deal. but these free trade agreements are even a bigger deal for north america. our exports to south america will create tens of thousands of american jobs. the reality is then nearly 80% of the world's purchasing power lies outside the united states. if we do not have those markets, others will. free and fair trade agreements can help us create the kind of pro-jobs, pro-growth economy that will lift our nation up. in good physical control, legal tax, and -- could fiscal control, legal tax could help

us build our economy and reduce our deficit. we can build on the legacy of president roosevelt's great white fleet by ratifying the free trade agreements so that instead of an inheritance of debt, we can leave our children a bright future. thank you and god bless. >> coming up this week, live coverage of the official presidential announcement a former utah governor and former ambassador to china, jon huntsman. his remarks from the adis state park in new jersey here on c- span, c-span radio and c- span.org. >> c-span has launched a new website for politics in the 2012 presidential race. visit us at c-span.org/campaign

in2012. this week on the communicators, a discussion with the head -- former head of the sec, michael powell. >> what is it like coming to the show in your new capacity verses you're old world as a regulator? >> it is very different. -- verses your old wolperrole aa regulator? >> it is very different. i told my wife the other day i feel like is like running for president or something. you are scheduled every three

minutes. but it is really our premier window on the world. it is very exciting. how many jobs come with their own show? it really is a chance to tell the story. i am having a ball, but it is very different. >> this is a trade show, not a consumer show. so many people in the audience will not have a sense of what goes on here. what are you seeing in this business right now as you walk around? >> the real story is, cable is beginning to open the book on the next chapter in its history. we have all watched for over a decade now technological revolution and the various things coming into the home, various new devices. it has been a while and we are getting ready to see the cable home experience take the next leap.

the shore of the biggest cable moving to software. what i mean by that is, you see the notion of the a.d.p. environment moving to cable. -- app and are moving to cable. people love their devices, ipads and things like that. you're beginning to see services get moved to things like the cloud and other local wifi networks. you are seeing actual products built now. it is funny that you say this is a trade show, not a consumer show, but that distinction is starting to blur. consumers have become so powerful and they are becoming increasingly sophisticated with their own digital action. it is a trade show, but more and more is about the consumer. >>

>> you have described this as a time of great opportunity, but with great anxiety. what do you mean by that? >> it is a transformational standpoint where we are. a few years ago and none of us had ever seen an iphone or a smart phone. a few years ago we had never envisioned in his sixth service broken down into its -- a music service broken down into its parts and kids being able to make their own music. there is a sense of infinite possibility, but also the uncertainty. if you have a traditional business and you have been very successful and you start to feel the heat of the need to internet -- to innovate and change, that is anxiety producing. and it is ambiguous because you

are not always sure where it is going or whether it will be profitable to go there, or that consumers will respond because you are creating new markets and new opportunities. but you also know that you cannot sit still. if you sit still in this market, you'll get killed. the path of companies is littered with companies that sad and missed -- sat and missed a disruptive change and and could never catch up. it is a time of anxiety, ambiguity. and the more we know the more we do not know. and with policy, you have eight lives of the problem and a lot of hypothetical and speculation -- you have ideas about the problem and a lot of hypotheticals and speculation and you do not really know what the next turn is.

>> in your role, so much of this is technology independent on new ideas in technology. do you see yourself as bridging the gap with your alliances in the past and it with your new members? >> i think so. we have big programmers and small programmers. we have major programming networks and independent programming networks. we have the affiliates and there are tensions in those relationships. what i like about the cable industry is that it once to be revolutionary. part of that objective is, how much of the problem can resolve

and how? if we have a computer, can we bring it to our table? and not go to the sec or use the regulatory process -- we want to solve the problems of the businesses. i think we need to be very sincere. >> one of the biggest changes in the regard is depicted right over your shoulder. it is now part of the comcast family. broadcasters and cable has gone head to head for years. how has that changed the policy discussion?

>> it is a great question because we do not know exactly yet. now they have all kinds of components in the company. they have divisions and focuses. we will see how they begin to cut -- to propagate their interests. but in many ways it changes the dynamic and the tide of association, but i think it is for the better. -- the type of association, but i think it is for the better. we are an association that is now really down to get there. we should have been any way, but i think comcast can make that real clue. you have them and they are going to be both and it puts all of the issues on the table no

matter what and we have to work through them. it is interesting. >> it sounds like some interesting board meetings. >> it is. >> in his article, the talks about the three gaps. one is availability. that has been of real interest to you personally in your career. what are the impediments of getting a broadband service to that last 7% of america? if you look at the history of the country -- >> if you look at the history of the country it has always been a problem.

the country density, diversity, portability -- it is kind of like an isotope. you get closer and closer, but the last gap is really hard. we are still a very vast country with rural parts of the population where you can find one on the next home is 20 miles pearl -- 20 miles away. that is a lot of infrastructure for two households. this problem is even more complex because it is not just access in the infrastructure or affordability, but also a brand new and not fully appreciated service. why do i need broadband? i think in time, people will see the value, but as a country that is trying to make the transition to a knowledge

economy and the information age, it becomes an economic imperative. if that is the engine that drives growth and productivity, it will not be very effective when two-thirds of your citizens are not plugged in. fundamentally, it is economical. there is cost to building the infrastructure. there are some efforts from the government to subsidize that. there is an effort to transform that set of subsidies toward broadband. but then you have the continuing problem of operating the service. you get the infrastructure out there and those same two homes are still only $100 per month in revenue. even though we have had phone service close to 100 years, it is also not 100% subscription

period is probably more like 95% subscription. but i think we are right at a country to say, can't we move that a lot closer and aren't we collectively committed to that? >> there are always trade offs. there are not airports to service every rural citizen, the service, etc. why should we spend the resources to make the extra effort for broadband? >> that is a great question. part of it is, we are a country committed to fairness. i think there is an inequality of opportunity without it. if there is also some recognition that it is more than a convenience, more than a luxury. it may be an indispensable element of our educational classis, an indispensable element of job opportunity, an

independent -- indispensable element of growth. i think there is, speaking collectively for all of us who say we care, a sense that the entire country's well-being needs to be able to use these tools. it when we start saying why do 25% of kids drop out of high school? we start saying, how do i make health care cheaper? it is great when you make an assumption and can try to solve that problem through and infrastructure and you have some reasonable basis to assume a citizens path. and communication is something uniquely different. >> the related gap is in the adoption area.

the numbers are about 67%. at 100 million households that are still not. and it is not that they cannot get it, but that they are not using it. i wonder about the individual freedom and right to say no. >> if i were being honest, which i always try to do, -- look, there's a limit on this. it is not governments role and it is not my role to tell a freethinking america that they have to have this service. if we should not be paternalistic about this -- we should not be paternalistic about this. but i do think that there are probably people in that percentage that made a rational choice for themselves, their family, and a look at themselves and their disposable income budget and for our family we've got you these things more. we prefer to spend -- wheat

valued these things more. we prefer to spend our money this way. and people have surveyed and it has led us to believe that there are some things that we think would drive that cautioned that are in the realm of better education, more affordability. we just want to make sure that someone is not on just because they are not digitally illiterate or because they do not have the infrastructure at all or they do not have the choice to make, or they cannot afford a computer. >> do you believe that it is essential in our society today? >> i think it is need based -- if it is need based, it is

essential. i do believe we have a collective responsibility to our citizens that we have always been committed to. i just think it is the right thing to do. just like we have a social state. we let you have health care. we do not let you completely go hungry. but i do think we should be more disciplined than we were. meaning, look, i do not need a subsidy. the program has been clumsy in the way it allocates its resources. should a major, while the ranch in the middle of montana be subsidized? i think it would be better to target people who genuinely have

affordability needs for have genuine issues of poverty. i would be more comfortable and committed to that than i would these blanket -- oh, it is 7%, so we will subsidize 7%. our country is broke. we better be creative about this because this is not the valley project. we should at least a scope of problem realistically against what we have available. >> all of this development of new services is turning us into a nation of broadband multitask cars. -- multitaskingers. we are watching things on tv and doing something on our ipad and

may be treating about it all. tweeting about it all. what is your company's position about how spectrum should be managed? >> i think that the cable industry perspective is pretty multitasking. we have a lot of diversity and experimentation going on in the cable industry. we have companies who offer a squad play in what they're offering. they are in direct competition to at&t or verizon. then you have companies that are not a major company, but they

want mobility and they are more focused on wifi or be able to use wireless as a network conduit in the home so you can walk around with the ipad. you do not want a long extension cord. you have to make it operate in a way that allows that experience. and you want it to operate outside of your home to some degree. we have every flavor of that going on in the cable industry. it is hard to say we have a single-minded dancer about these things. we do want to make sure that -- single-minded answer about these things. we do want to make sure that the government stays focused on different uses of spectrum, some of which will be just as important as wifi. we watch this. and that is not our core issue because a lot of people are fighting more fiercely about it, but it is pretty important.

i asked chairman genachowski today, do you think anyone should be without a wireless plan? and i think it is safe to say that nobody can do without mobility. i think the smart as communication policy came off of the other way of allocating, lotteries and giving them away. it has created a lot of trouble -- revenue. i do not have any doubt that congress will continue. >> how well are the broadcasters doing in completing the transition? has the pace inappropriate? it seems as though it has taken a long time for the spectrum to

be returned to the united states that the broadcasters have been using. we are not phillippe digital -- fully digital. >> there are two components to the question. part of it is that we had a long, arduous hdtv transmission. and by the way, we are not the only country. i met with some caribbean regulators this week and they are -- korean regulators this week and they are relentlessly moving toward the same goal. as you start these things, your question about future ambiguity, chairman dick wylie got into this and the country started focusing on hdtv. you could have never in your wildest dreams envisioned the way it is used today on a smart

phone. you would not have conceptualize wifi. it was totally television- centric. it was all about tv. there was no notion that there was some other thing in the equation. that has emerged more recently. and i think the government has looked at trying to get spectrum back because they have a higher and better use. that is a new conception. they want to be part of the visual age, too. it is complex and politically loaded, right? >> if your questions on policy with regard to spectrum. -- a few more questions on

policy with regard to spectrum. this was from an interview with broadcast community cable, you said, net neutrality will become substantially less threatening. there is speculation around that. what were you saying? >> i think it does involve an enormous amount of speculation. there was fear. everybody case -- pointed to maybe four cases of things. there is fear that if someone have the incentive to do things that we may find inappropriate, let's regulating advanced against the pop -- possibility. in advancegulate against the possibility. it is easy to believe the worst will happen. and in my experience and are rarely does it actually happened.

-- in my experience, rarely does it actually happene. most companies do not have a financial or real incentive, nor do they have customers during the types of things that the most avid advocates of net neutrality will say that they could do. i think we have reached a good place on this, but i think you iesl find that the company' have not been going in that direction. if you look at the kind of close to sisk bombs -- systems come on the road is littered with companies that have pride -- the kind of closed systems, the road is littered with companies that

have tried that. we could call on and on about closed, not excepting the internet. tell me the companies that have done that successfully. then let's talk about google and amazon and gru and facebook -- twitter.nd facebook and tortur as a whole business is in, most of them are inclined to do that have a thing. -- business decision, most of them are inclined to do that kind of thing. >> in an interview, mr. jian-li with the said he is surprised it has not taken off more. -- mr. john leibowitz said he is surprised it has not taken off more.

>> the sec said explicitly net neutrality, that kind of thing was ok. it may be the only fair way to manage the network. you know, a shared network in my neighborhood, the vast majority of my neighbors get e-mail and surf the web pages. now, if one of my neighbors happens to be running a music server because they love music and they have 9000 songs, that should not mean that i have a terribly degraded experience and i have to pay for it. what chairman liebowitz is saying is economics 101, which is to say it is efficient. if you're the 20% that wants to run a music server, that is okay. by you should pay more for that consumption.

-- but you should pay more for that consumption. and the family that is just checking web pages and e-mail, they should pay less. he has an antitrust thinker and i am, too. and that is a sufficient answer, one would say. there is a limited amount of capacity and you have to manage the scarcity. the market answer is always the same, differentiate the price. we do it every other single plot -- every single other place in the economy. when the road is congested in washington d.c., if you are willing to pay you get to go into a lane that goes a bit faster. this is a government program. and if the road gets more congested, they will charge you even more to go in the fast lane. it is the same theory. >> a ride public transportation. >> and the key is to make sure

that the low end still has a meaningful choice. >> our time is running out pretty quickly. your first year in this job will also be a lead up to the election. >> yes. >> and wondering when one happen in the congressional and regulatory of renown -- what will happen in the congressional and regulatory arena with regard to the regulatory issues. >> i actually think our issues are not going to be center stage. i think the economic issues are profoundly serious. this is not kind of serious. this is really generation only a series. in a couple of weeks we will -- a generationally