i will tell my daughter. i will call my daughter. >> my gosh. this is going to be exciting, won't it? >> much luck. >> thank you. >> merry christmas. >> merry christmas to you. thank you. >> you can see more of michele bachman and other candidates on the road to the white house, starting tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> good to me you. >> hear what the candidates are saying from the campaign trail of the newly designed c-span website. >> i say if you cannot live with a nuclear iran, you have to say what to do. i think all options are on the table. >> if we took that oath of office seriously in washington, we would get rid of 80% of the government. >> if your question was who is

the proven constitutional conservative in this race, that would be me. >> read the comments of the candidates and links to media partners in caucus states, all at c-span.org. >> this week on "the communicators," the ceo of the national association of broadcasters, former senator gordon smith, on the sale of broadcast spectrum and the future of television and radio in a future where internet media are rapidly gaining ground. >> gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of broadcasters, this week in congress they are voting on payroll expansion and budget issues. included in there is potential spectrum sale in the house bill, and potentially the senate bill. what are your thoughts about what is contained in that legislation? >> i would simply say, and i

have told my member broadcasters, that in the fullness of the debate, we are a footnote, but we have to be a footnote that is paid for. those are valuable right now in capitol hill. i expect will be included in the bill. we are good with that, as long as the language that congressman walden included, which has more broadcaster protections -- senators rockefeller and hutcheson, my friends and colleagues. i really appreciated the last pieces we needed in order for consumers to enjoy future innovation, not have interference, and give broadcasters the ability to move without any more detriment than they incurred -- $15 billion in the analog to digital transmission. we are fine with it going forward. i want to also think congressman -- thank congressman

dingell, who offered a critical amendment that is not in the senate bill -- it is in the house language -- relative to the northern and southern borders. these are airways covered by treaty with canada and mexico. in order for viewers not to lose their channels, we need new understandings with our neighbors north and south, but particularly north. if you were to go repack broadcasters without their understanding, take a city like detroit. they literally would lose all 14 of their stations, all 14. that is not good public policy. we think the amendment in particular is enormously important for the american public. >> will broadcasters lose spectrum if these pieces of legislation get through?

>> i will lose some -- they will lose some. the predicate from the beginning of the national broadband plant will be voluntary. we are not opposed to voluntary. that is another word for freedom. what we have objected is anything going forward that is not harmless to non-volunteers, those who do not choose to go out of business. for the sake of their viewers, we think those protections are in the house bill, and partly in the senate bill. the house bill terms could be included in the final package. then congress has to pay for it so the fcc can do its work and the american people can count on free and local television and continue to enjoy it. >> paul kirby is our guest reporter. >> what are some of the provisions you see in the house bill that are not in the senate bill?

>> specifically, the international treaty. we were very thankful to john conyers, who represents michigan, and frankly every no. senator and congressman. they would be badly impacted by anything going forward that did not have this understanding, this reworking of the treaty with canada, and in part with mexico. that must be in place before the fcc can repack. otherwise, they literally do not have a channel to move. that is the physics of airways. >> when the house bill was marked up and are of a december, the democrats said this was too generous in terms of money reserved for broadcasters forced to relocate. in other words, they are not giving up the spectrum, but have to move to different channels. it is $3 billion in the house bill. it is less in the senate bill and less house democrats

proposed. mr. billion dollars to generous? >> i think to properly understand the house bill, you need to understand $3 billion is a cap. when we went from analog to digital, the cost of redoing the situation was $15 billion for broadcasting. i hope there is much less than $3 billion spent, because there will not be done and even have to move. but we do not know that until the come up with a plan that says which channels have to move. your viewers should understand that moving a broadcast tower is not an expensive proposition. we do not know what the cost was. we hope it is very small. anything that is not spent will be put back to the treasury or the public sector network they want to build up. >> to mention truly voluntary.

you say you're not opposed to options that are truly voluntary. opponents on the other side, including the consumer electronics association, say you fought the legislation and this set of options. have you thought the legislation on the hill? >> we have fought only in making sure we have fewer protections put in the language. my friend set -- friends at cpia say they are not putting us out of business. they should support the house bill. we support the house bill. we hope it is in the final conference bill. we are ready to go. we are ready for them to vote, as long as the language is there. the fcc, we would hope, has your interest at heart. we would like to think they have broadcaster interest as well. but whether or not there is a bias at the fcc for broadband against broadcast, i will let

others judge that. but we think members of congress have a very serious interest in making sure this is done properly for their fears. i have said to my colleagues out there about whether it is social security, medicare, veterans' benefits, or an immigration issue, i do not know very many things that made my phone in my senate office melt down more than one people's tvs were messed with. i am just saying for people's own sakes, for their constituents, have these protected policies in there, these guidelines for the fcc. their constituents have a stake in this. our friends on the other side of this issue -- we are saying proceed. but proceed with protection. >> a lot of the time, and the devil is in the details. the fcc will auction spectrum and broadcasters will agree to

share, but will be compensated. how much concern is there that if this legislation passes, the tell still have to be worked out in the next year or two? >> we will engage with the fcc to make sure viewers are protected, that non-volunteers are held harmless. we will give guidance to the fcc. the house language is sufficient. i would like more. i am not going to get more. legislation is not about perfect. it is getting as much good as you can. if they will follow what is in, we think, the final package, which will include these border protections, non-interference protections, the opportunity for innovation, and whatever dollars are necessary to move broadcasters, we are prepared to go forward.

>> mr. smith, there has been part of the last year that the national association of broadcasters is squatting on extra spectrum, and that we need it because there is a spectrum crunch. how do you respond? >> we pointed out a long time ago, from the financial statements of clearwire and time warner, and other companies and have listed they have all of this spectrum they have purchased with no plans of deployment, but truly for speculation -- we have been making this point, with the -- which the fcc has now said to the ceo of verizon. there is a lot of warehouse spectrum out there. horizon has just offered $3.6 billion to, i think, by some of this warehouse spectrum. -- buy some of this warehouse

spectrum. before you compromise the future of broadcasting, which is still really important to local communities, why don't you go get the spectrum and put it to use? deploy it. we do think it is not a spectrum crunch. it is a spectrum planning crisis. we are not responsible for that. they are responsible for that. >> finally, you're starting to see some moves by people who would use it to buy it and deployed it. >> you said at a recent news conference broadcasters are not sure why they should be hurt by spectrum reallocation. what did you mean, and how can you tell your story better? >> of when you look at the enormous power, financial power of our friends, and they are friends -- we see the world as

good for broadcast and broadband. consumer electronics, these great companies -- we are outgunned on capitol hill pretty dramatically. i have called one member -- i have told my member broadcasters that because we are an older, more mature industry, we take for granted that people know what we do and how it benefits their lives. if you as the consumer out there if you want a faster download of and at them, they will say yes. if you ask them what if that means you no longer have local news on your television, they will say that is not the trade- off i thought was a stake. if done, that is the trade-off. with the language we fought for, this should no longer be the trade-off. >> the fcc has said a number of

times what about the stations in london -- stations in new york that do not have local news. a lot of them have gone off of local news anyway. we say let them do that. but that is a different proposition if you want a regional plan instead of a national broadband plan. there are probably a number of broadcasters in l.a. and new york where the problem exists. but then you have a regional broadband plan, not a national one. you are going to have to start pushing broadcasters. they are not in the york and l.a. the might be in kansas, but they are impacted. let them do that. fine. but make sure the rest of the country, the flyover country, my part of the country -- there will never be a spectrum shortage in our area.

and the spectrum where we're going to need it is not in our area. >> is this an urban/world problem? the you think the national plan should be looked at? >> i do. i think when the fcc looks at the physics of the borders, and the so-called shortage, this may turn into more of a regional broadband plan. i think at&t tried to fight t- mobile for one reason. t-mobile had built out urban networks in a way at&t had not. they were simply saying deutsche telekom is in jeopardy, so let us buy that. i think there was the predicate of the purchase, which has now been turned down. >> do you have a prediction of how many tv stations might sell out? >> i do not know. i have inquired of broadcaster

after broadcaster. i have found only a few who plan to take advantage of this. that are not the stations providing local news, weather, and sports. they may be other startup channels that are not succeeding financially. they may take the money and run. >> a question is how much are you when to give me, which we don't know. more options are welcomed by tv stations having financial problems. >> if they do it, we support the decision to do so. >> verizon is now buying spectrum from changing companies. do the broadcasters have excess spectrum they could sell in the marketplace? >> i am not aware of it.

what i am aware of it is when you get a broadcast license at 6 mhz, you can do more with digital and you could with analog. i am aware of many, many broadcasters that are deploying mobile television. i do not have it with me, but i wish i could show you this little online ipad. i can get and app. i attach a little dongle you can plug in. you can watch local television, with a broadcasting and not a broad band signal. that will come on the market, i am told, in the spring. you need spectrum for multitasking. -- multicasting. that is the economic and to point into broadcasting for a great deal of news programming -- niche programming that is

important to many communities -- religious communities, ethnic communities, sports leagues, high schools. these are the kind of things broadcasting can provide with no net increase use of spectrum, which is different from broadband. when you do video by broadband, i am telling you that is spectrum hogging of the first order. there is not enough spectrum in the universe for all video to be done by broadband. >> they are not equivalent, because video got broadband from a wireless carrier as opposed to broadcast. but they will give you that at 8:00 a.m., and not at 8:30 again. >> i have often asked myself this question. do consumers, do viewers, do constituents want television when they want it, or do they want it live? the answer to that is they want both.

if the fcc and congress will get the spectrum division done properly, the consumer can have both. i do not think it is an either/or. i think we give the protections we need to preserve a great and essential live, local, free industry to consumers. i think the american people will be grateful for that. if they don't get that, that are going to be upset. >> our guest is senator gordon smith, president and ceo of the national association of broadcasting. and paul kirby, our guest reporter. last week, we had the head of the national telecommunications association on this program. he talked about the telecommunications act. we are going to show that, and i want to get your response. >> we are still in a balkanized

bucket. if you use copper wire, you are entitled to telecommunications. if you use another kind of cable, you are a studio provider. almost all regulatory questions now are gray. the act does not provide clarity. the crates jurisdictional disputes and heavy inefficiency in the statute. it is certainly growing. at one point, i think congress has to migrate a little bit. >> the telecommunications act of 1996. >> i think michael is largely right. i think an entire rewrite of that 96 act would take the work of many congresses to get done. that is my experience on the commerce committee.

my sense is to fix some of the problems michael is identifying , a rifle shot approach to what is no longer relevant, it is probably a more efficient way for congress to go. but i think he makes some good points. before the ink was dry, that bill had technology around it. >> in the past, i have pushed for legislation that would mandate fm chips. more recently, we have said we are not wishing for a mandate, but it would be good if manufacturers did it. why did you back off? >> i recognized that mandates are hard to get. they are very controversial. it is hard to get the government to mandate something unless there is an overwhelming public sector reason for it. seat belts, for example. congress has mandated many

things. my own sense of ready of chips and sell phones is that it is something that ought to be worthy of a mandate, recognizing it is hard to get. the reason i say it is a public safety feature -- all you have to do is go to tuscaloosa, alabama, or joplin, missouri, or washington, d.c. after an earthquake to recognize that the first thing to get jim -- there is never going to be enough spectrum to handle a crisis by broadband. the one constant is broadcasting. an fm check in a cell phone provide life-saving confirmation in a time of natural or human-caused emergency, like a terrorist attack. it is approaching because of all of these -- this constant emergency.

it ought to be considered. we hope that instead of streaming music, more and more of the manufacturers of cell phones and so phone carriers will permit the liking upper of the radio chips that are currently in most models of cell phones. they are there already. the want to stream music and not have the consumer have the ability to get music for free. >> in november, the fcc and stakeholders offered the first national test of the system. there were issues with some cable systems. what lessons were learned, and how you plan to work through difficulties?

>> there were difficulties it in my state of oregon. there were some areas that were not responding. we learned a lot in the test. we look forward to taking those lessons and fixing the system of broadcasting to make sure the national emergency alert system actually works. there is a lot we are still learning from that. it was successful and not completely. but that is why you did a test, to figure out what you need to learn or do better. >> what would you now say we need to do better? >> part of it is just education, making sure all the equipment is ready and functioning. a lot of the failure in some pockets of the country -- it is actually channel 5 and 6 were not turned on in some areas, as i understand it. that is why you take a quiz.

the real test will come when there is an emergency. >> senator smith, what damage or what dangers do radiobroadcast tears face from the internet, and from new technology? >> it is an interesting thing. the demise of terrestrial radio has been predicted since television came along, and now the internet. and yet radio still reaches over 250 million americans a week. i just have to say that people still like free. they like local. they like the variety. while other streaming services, pandora and others, and many radio stations have their own app to stream music, people use

those, but not to the exclusion of other radio. we see that constantly in the data. radio still continues to be a healthy industry with many other competitors. it is simply something that people count on, enjoy, and continue to utilize. >> is it the fact that so many registrations have their own at spam? tv stations will soon have their own broadcast ability. doesn't that go back to the comment that all regulation is a great area anymore, and just because you have one kind of wire or signal, you cannot be regulated in such a way? it goes back to your point about urban/or roll -- urban/rural. >> if you were going back to the beginning, you would not create it as it is now.

the business of congress is to rethink this gray area and make sense of it. broadcasting is one of the most highly regulated industries in america. and yet all of the competitor ways of communicating -- they are not regulated hardly at all. i am not proposing that baby. i am simply saying the standards of providing local news, weather, and emergency information, decency standards -- these things are asked of broadcasters and we live with them, because it is part of our public service commission, but it is not asked of the internet and these other services. >> indecency is quick to be heard by the court. >> it is. broadcasters, if they wanted to be in the indecency business, they do not have prohibitions after 10:00.

you would see them broadcasting the indecent if that was their business. 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., they could be as indecent as cable is. but if you want to see things in your home that many would say are in decent, you have to turn to a cable semel or a satellite channel. that are not regulated by those local community standards. we are. frankly, i am good with that. i think we as a society are overflowing with the indecent and the cultural consequences that are lamentable for families and our culture. you can get it. you just to pay for it. if you have a subscription service, you can get all the garbage you want in your house. we are not perfect. there is the occasional fleeting expletive or wardrobe malfunction, like the super bowl, genentech's and. but generally speaking, moms and

dads can know if they are watching a broadcast channel there is an attempt to be more in compliance with the sensitivities of local standards of decency. >> and of course a lot of problems with indecency have come up in our program. one of the concerns of the courts in the past -- it seems random what the fcc considers indecent or not indecent. >> on pornography, it was famously said, i think in miller versus california -- i know it when i see it. this is entirely subjective. it is one thing when you are watching your television. say you have cable or satellite and you flip the channel and are on a cable or satellite network , and you see nudity, obscenity , and profanity in ways that are

offensive to many people. >> finally, the new fcc nominees on the board -- one from the democrats and one from the republicans -- and the concerns about those nominees? >> i support both of them and we wish them well. we think they should be confirmed. we look forward to working with them. >> have you thought about the fact that perhaps the fcc itself should be reformed, given the world of technology we have today? >> that is certainly the view of congressman walden and his committee. i think no human institution is impervious to the need of reform. i think the fcc probably is no different. >> senator gordon smith, >> senator gordon smith, president and ceo