q & a." [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captions performed by the national captioning institute]

>> yesterday and last night was really terrific. as you can see i am not henry rivera, i am deborah tate. i am putting in a plug for the minority media & telecommunications council summit. many of you are all mmtc members. i -- for those of you that are broadcasters, i would love for you all to take the p.s.a. and show it or play it as you all are able to. thanks so much for all your assistance with that. you all will be hearing more and more about the healthy media commission. this is the one i'm honored to co-chair with gena davis the

award-winning actress. she will be back in washington in the coming months and i want to thank both the commiggers for their support as well. let me reiterate a couple things that david honig started off with yesterday. this is his state of the state or state of the digital state address that we need to act with purpose and vision. that we need to achieve more inclusiveness, more participation, more education skills, and jobs and i want to add, more civil digital zip -- citizenship to that. as you know, i work on a lot of children's issues. i am privileged to work on this dialogue with our two f.c.c. commissioners who do act i believe, with purpose and vision every single day and we will hear about some of that. commissioner robert mcdowell and commissioner mignon clyburn.

commissioner clyburn served together for years first at the state level and then at the fcc she followed me there and she brings such a unique perspective of federalism. and some of the challenges that we have regarding states rights and federal policy. then also with a small business entrepreneur. zoo i'm especially thankful that she has been involved, as i said with the healthy media commission. commissioner mcdowell, a little jetlagged, but we are so thrilled he flew all the way across the pond to be with us. i hope you-all realize that. so with his long service getting to be the longest service at the fcc and having been nominated by two different presidents from two different parties also brings a strong

private sector and market-based principled approach to the job which is likewise greatly appreciated by many of us. while many people have taken credit for regulatory reform lately, i think it really all started with you when you talked with them about the dead letters that were on the books and what needed to be done to reform the f.c.c. so we are very fortunate to have them. i want to thank them for their work as commissioners where they have undertaken and championed social justice in the world in the digital world, whether it was low-income assistance or enhancing community access through e-rate programs at schools, broadcast nondiscrimination rules regarding advertising contracts the connect-secretary program. the diversity committee that's been reestablished and i hope

you-all will move it to be reenergized. we are waiting for that energy to get restarted and of course the possible use of life-line link-up for local americans to have access to broadband. there are opportunities from the -- opportunity for women and minorities that has never been possible before because of the intensive capital investment. we look forward to hearing both of your visions. i believe that sunshine may be out regarding the lifeline link-up order. but i think we should open up and have a little discussion about it. maybe you-all should ask me questions and i can respond to them. obviously, you-all know this is something i've worked on many years at the state level and then at the federal level. i want to apply to you-all both.

i think everyone in this room should applaud you-all for taking the steps to reform u.a.f. thank you very much. i think we-all should give them a round of applause. [applause] >> so obviously you are not finished yed yet. i know joblessness continues in tennessee. i know fraud and abuse continues. i guess we, too, everyone wants the phone to be more efficient and more effective. your philosophy in looking at lifeline link-up but you can't talk about the specifics.

whether it is about the provider coming up with solutions. how we, how all of us at m.m.p. envision this. >> first of all thank you. it is wonderful to see you again, and the gentlelady from south carolina as well, and it is also just wonderful being back at the mmtc which we do as often as possible. multiple times a year. you are all doing great work. and you are not henry rivera, and i noticed that right off the spot. i was attending the conference in geneva that the federal

communications has a. the 193 countries had a lifeline link-up. we are in what we call -- the name is reversed. it really is a black-out period where we are not supposed to be talking about the details of it with folks on the outside. so usually a week before every monthly meeting at the f.c.c. a curtain comes down where we are not supposed to have outside contact with whatever is on the meeting agenda for that upcoming meeting a week later. but i am happy to talk in principle. congress codified the 1996 telecommunications act. it dated back to the 1980's through the f f.c. c.

keep in mind, the 1996 telecommunications act passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan basis. very few members of congress voted against it. it was so long ago i forgot the vote count. i'm so old that i forget those things. so it is essential for basic people to have access to lifeline communication services. and the bill before us does seem to weed out waste fraud and abuse, and make the program more efficient. it is still a fluid situation. we are still in the time period where commissioners are suggesting edits and things like that it is very fluid and probably will be for the next day or so, and we want to make sure we remain true to the

principles of the fund. but also important to understand that this is not a taxpayer subsidy. it is one type of consumer subsidizing another type of consumer. it is all from consumers in this case, subsidizing low-income consumers. those who call identify for the program. if we spend more from one part of the funding if we are taking more from consumers elsewhere. it is not like we're taking from wealthy consumers to give to poor consumers. we are taking from all consumers to help poor consumers in this particular fund. and particularly the rural supports that we voted on in october. we want to make sure we are true to the principles of the fund and i will probably leave it at that.

>> the commissioner was quite comprehensive as always. commissioner, it is good to see you. we all really appreciate and continue to benefit from your expertise. a lot of your colleagues in the room may know that the commissioner has been quite engaged with our office and with the commission as it relates. i guess all of us, technically are from beautiful states that have challenges. we have not only a rural-urban divide but a significant economic divide within our borders that we have to address. so rightfully so, the american people and congress stated as a

goal as part of their goals and objectives to have universally affordable communication service . that's why this program came into being. so we have a program that seeks to level the playing field from a communications standpoint and this is where we find ourselves. where we also find ourselves is in continual transition. and the funds, the programs has to move with it. so the way we communicate. i don't have to tell anybody in this room, is ever changing. we are moving to i.p. platforms. plain old telephone service 30% of us have decided to cut the cord. so the way in which we communicate is different.

there were some instances of waste, fraud, and abuse that i don't like to say as much, because of the instances you mentioned a percentage, and we mentioned that. we also, and what i keep in front of mind is the consumers that could and should benefit from these programs, particularly the lifeline link-up part. in terms of lifeline, we still have a challenge. we see these economic indices but in terms of this program upwards of 40% now. it has gotten better with some of these products, especially on the mobile side. upwards of 40% of those eligible participate. that means clearly well more than half of those who are eligible and needy could qualify and do not participate for various reasons. when i look at this particular

item, which we can not talk of course about specifics. one of the things that i will keep in mind is i will not embrace anything that would make that number -- that would increase the barriers to sign up for service. so i better yield with that. and i wanted to point out that we have a potential to modernize. so there are a lot of things going on that would behoove all of us to keep up with. but the potential for pilots to say let's move forward. so there are a lot of things going on in this item that i know would probably keg seguay some of the trep neural --

entrepreneurial spirit we spoke of. >> you heard a couple more days of fluidity. another point of personal privilege. [applause] >> i believe you all saw that c-span is here. we are thrilled to have them with us today. it is live streaming. will you all please come up to the microphone so we start the q & a time so you can be heard on c-span, and write home and tell all your family that you are on.

>> i guess a lot of you-all would like to share some of your thoughts. the other side is, spectrum will give a lot more people a lot more opportunities to many more platforms. so how do you-all, what is your vision for perhaps the rules regarding spectrum auctions whether that may evolve over time, how do we develop policies so that those policies can be fluid and keep up with the technology as it changes. i would love for you-all to share some of what you-all think about the spectrum crunch and as i mentioned commissioner mcdowell is back from the war and i'm sure that will be a major topic globally. so with that, please, finish your thoughts. >> frankly it is a huge problem for those of us that own a smart

phone. we all know what it is like if connect activity is not what -- connectivity is not what you like. it is becoming a point of frustration for consumers. so consumers are demanding more working phones. i think we need to finalize this discussion, if you watch this on c-span we need to have an auction as soon as possible in those bands. i know they are working hard on thafment we need to keep moving on that. in the national broad band plan sets a goal having 500 megahertz to come to market as soon as possible.

it is ambitious. in reality, i think it will be hard to get there. in reality i support the concept of instead of auction legislation, that will help give tv broadcasters an incentive to relinquish all or part of their spectrums for use to be auctioned off for use of advanced communication services. but i think where the government makes a mistake it is the flexible use of the policy regarding how spectrum should be used. so time and time again in history, the government has adopted rules trying to guess where technology is going to be let's say, 10 years down the road and say this particular frequency is going to be used for "x" purpose only. then it ends up by the time you have the auction and the specs clear and facilities are built out and it is actually tush turned on for use for consumers that could be the better part of a decade.

so from the time you actually start working on having an auction to the time it is actually in consumers hands can be six to 10 years. and a lot happens in terms of technology changing during that period of time. so if you have flexible use policies and you don't dictate that band will be used for "x" and just to try to stick very diligently to the concept of making sure whatever uses there are it is not causing harmful interference to others, i think you will be in a better spot and the marketplace will be able to develop more quick quickly and consumers will be satisfied more quickly. we have seen this pop up in a number of contexts. in 2007, july of 2007, we voted on the rules for the 700 megahertz auction. we were setting up the auction plan for that. and small businesses were really harmed by a requirement to put

it on the c-block in that band. that band was about device and politics portability. but this was my first dissent as a commissioner was on the c-block, and if you think of spectrum being like land and you have different lots next to one another and they are all equally valuable that's a start when you puts a -- put a heavy zoning requirement on one of the lots, that will probably affect it significantly. it is going to devalue the value of that piece of property. and then also, we're -- all the bidders will start bidding on the other lots that don't have as many encome branses on them. so what we saw happen in that auction is that the zoning requirements, if you will, on what we call the c-block actually drove up prices for the

a and the b block. so the c block went for 770 megahertz and the a and b blocks went for about $2.67 per megahertz a pop. that actually drove out small businesses, small minority-owned businesses from being able to bid in the auction. i designed a plan which i did not get support for but would have given a home for large carriers and other carriers and another for small businesses. i think that would have been the better way to go but i lost that fight. in any case, with the best of intentions, part of the goal there also was to bring in a new market player. there is a lot of talk in 2007 about google perhaps becoming a new national wireless carrier and that was the design. so the government actually created this cog complex scheme to make that happen. guess what, it didn't work. google didn't bid more than $

2.77 per and they were willing to take the risk. they saw the bargain compared to the a and b blocks which were triple the price. so google didn't buy it, and you didn't end up with that new nationwide carrier. at the same time when we tried to over engineer the marketplace it stopped as well. when we talk about excluding some players from the marketplace in the hopes that another company will come into the rescue to be a new nationwide player, that sometimes doesn't work either. as we saw with the auction in 2006. spectrum code which is a coalition of cable companies bought some spectrum but could never really figure out how to build it out and use it and are now selling that to verizon. again, the government was hoping they could engineer and get outcome a and it was an outcome they didn't envision. with the best intentions. but long-winded way of sarkse

you need light encome branses you want to make sure that a spectrum is not warehoused, that it is being built out and lit up aggressively in a short time frame and it should be used. those are the core requirements that should be on every piece of spectrum. but don't try to over-engineer it because those are just two examples i gave you of how it doesn't work. >> thank you. it is positive. i don't know if i have anything left to say -- no, that's a positive. you know you travel internationally. i'm not an early morning person. i got up early drove less than a hundred miles and it feels like 500. you hear a lot of -- there are automobile -- audible

indications from the audience of how those things have evolved. all those smart devices you have at your fingertips. you are pretending to listen to us -- we won't take offense -- all of that is -- all of these devices are compared to your own flip phone technology in terms of the amount of spectrum it pales in comparison. those are the challenges we're dealing with. we have on the one hand the broadcast, that prime spectrum that we talk a lot about which both of us say voluntary voluntary, voluntary in terms of any type of -- if we have some type of enhanced market interaction and want to reaffirm that's the direction in which i will engage you know, when we talk about this and we're looking at the explosive growth, it is on the mobile side. let's face it.

so there are certain realities in this ecosystem that we have to come to grips with. what does that mean? that means that we need to further encourage as best we can any type of eefficiencies that we can gain in this. you mentioned ncia as well as -- ntia in terms of government uses of spectrum, looking at that and ensuring that that's being used most efficiently. and if it is not that there is wiggle room there that contributes that to the marketplace. so there are a lot of dynamics going on, but the key word you mentioned, commissioner, is efficiency. so the key word as it relates to incentive option, authority. yes while you already afirmed we can't tell congress what to do but we can encourage them to

give us the flexibility we need to address those market changes. it literaly seems -- we just got back from c.e.s. while in terms of the physical devices, a lot of the same devices were there they just happened to be a little thinner like this commissioner, they were thinner but in terms of their uses again it requires more uses. these are the things that we have to come to grips with. when we talk about that universe, what has been troubling, and i know what is in the minds of mmtc is how do we ensure that more and more players are able to take advantage of this marketplace which is quite quite quite, quite capital intensive. what do we do? there are models i will affirm all over the world that i think

we should look at. so we work optimally, there are two companies in canada that that may or may not -- that we want to embrace everything. but they have a sort of a carve-out for smaller players. let's talk about those things. should we place an amount on what others can bid on? one of our charges is to ensure that we have competition in this space, and it is strictly -- i'm not trying -- if it is strictly the persons with the largest wallets that gobble up everything, then i'm sorry we're not going to necessarily have competition. so we need to have these conversations as uncomfortable

as they may be in achieving some of their overall goals which is to include an all-inclusive competitive marketplace. >> i think i will just put a plug in for mmtc. it sounds like you opened the door to say come in and share your thoughts about minority and female entities and how they can have sk access and how those rules can be flexible but also encourage smaller entities participation. so, rob, speaking of other failed spectrum policies, and i will take some of the blame for this remember the old failed -- one of the goals is to provide first responders access to a nationwide interoperable network. i guess just quickly if you-all might want to talk about do you think the fcc will move in that direction in the next year, where is that issue?

>> you were around. >> well, i have to take some of the blame for the d-block too. i voted for the d-block provisions. it is another great illustration of over-engineering. there were a lot of requirements to try to get a private sector bidder to bid on what's called the d-block p that was a certain chunk of spectrum to see good there could be a public-private partnership to build out a nationwide public safety network. this is going to take a minute. so i'm going to -- it is going to take some explaining. especially since we're on c-span. my father-in-law is probably watching. hopefully no one will go to sleep. there is plenty of extra coffee in the back. >> the kids will get extra credit at school for listening to this. >> maybe a special place in heaven too.

i don't know. so public megahertz serves two million users. i see verizon sitting in the first row. verizon has 88 megahertz to serve six million users. not all spectrum is created equally. but back in 1997 congress set aside a 24 megahertz chunk of spectrum in the megahertz band. they didn't figure out how to clear all that. they didn't figure out how to clear it until the tv act came along in 2005 or late 2006. so as part of our auction that we voted on in july of 2007 chairman martin and i voted on this, said what we can do is because the chairman never voted on a way to fund the interoperable network, we can have the d-plock adjacent to the

huge -- d-block adjacent to the huge 24 megahertz. so we gave public safety a blank piece of paper and said please write out your specifications and wish list and they wrote it out and we voted on it. twaze 5-0 vote at the commission, a unanimous vote. and when it came to auction what happened? nobody bid on it because there were so many rules no one could make a business case for acquiring that spectrum for the billions of dollars it would have taken to have bought it and built it out. so a big lesson was leerned. a big lesson was learned for me and others. i started thinking more about this over the years, and really what's needed, if it is going to be a public policy goal of the us -- united states and the 9/11 commission said, it is important to have an interoperable network

that is broadband capable, what you really need is the money to build it out. i had been a proponent actually of auctioning off the d-block commercially cleanly. that will raise more revenue for the treasury which can then be ziff given out to build for the nationwide network. congress has a lot of responsibility here, too. there is certainly the bill in 1997. there was all the post 9/11 legislation. there was the post katrina legislation, all the spending there. there was the d.t.v. act itself. that's just five i can think of. five pieces of legislation through congress where congress did not address this problem. we have a piece of legislation pending before congress now a plan to give the d block to public safety and also give them some money. but i make a prediction it is going to be a little controversial. i predict that five years from now we will be having the same

conversation. we will not have built out a nationwide interoperable public safety network. there are some companies we have given wavers too to build their own interoperable public safety networks. and i think that is important. and we need to examine how many that is. but new york, washington, d.c. where we are right now the gulf region, the entire state of mississippi, for example san diego, los angeles and a bunch of smaller areas were smart and bright to apply for these waivers so they could build up their own. it builds up to one premise which is the need for a nationwide interoperable network. sometimes it is sold as the fireman in new york needs to be able to talk to the fireman in san francisco. that is not going to travel all

-- that is going to travel through the net at some point or through some fiber line network at some point. so it is really a patchwork quilt of networks that is needed. so let's keep that in mind. we need standardize zation. i think there are off-the-shelf private sector products that provide public safety, but it is very powerful tools and we need to encourage that as well. i think five years from now you can ask me the same question and i'm going to have to give you the same answer. i wish the congressional proponents of give public safety all the best, and we want public safety to have every tool they need, but i'm not sure that giving them 97 megahertz to serve two million users is the most efficient use of that spectrum. >> one of the things the commissioner just afirmed is how dependent our lives are on

congress. so we are definitely in limbo not just -- we are definitely in limbo as it relates to this particular item. i don't think that there is a disconnect in terms of the sense of urgency here. it is just working out the details that were -- that are, they don't have us where we would be at this time. but i don't want you to think that because there is that disconnect now that the fcc has passed us in this arena. we're not. a public safety and homeland security brewer owe is quite active, continually coming up with technical rules and notices that many of you have been engaged in to examine some of the things we could do now that we should be doing now to move forward as it relates to getting to that ainteron rabblet --

interoperability that we mentioned. you mentioned a multistate region where if something bad were to happen or if a criminal decided to steal my purse, which would be a total waste of time, let me tell you and worked across, go over to one of the other states -- i just want to put that out there -- that you know, the police, the capitol hill police if i were a -- on capitol hill and the d.c. police and the virginia and maryland if they decide that they wanted to circle through all they need to be able to speak to each other. we all know there have been hicups on the way. so the f.c.c. where it can is is actively engaged in, you know,

coming up with technical rules within the framework which we can to move forward. so we are poised to move forward when we get the signal so to speak. i don't want you to worry the f.c.c. is passive. we are not passive. we are very engaged in this process where we can. >> one of the goals of this conference obviously is to highlight the need for more inclusion of minorities across all platforms. of course mmtc has endorsed a stronger eligible definition. your support that you will try to move forward and address a definition. obviously the limitations of atteran -- that's just kind of a quick yes we would love to move forward on that.

>> i am on record with trying to come up with as many creative ideas as i can find. we put our ideas forward. i guess the short answer is, yes . i care not what it is called or how it is defined i care more for what will hold up in court. we know the challenges and we know there are creative ways to get where we want to go. whatever definition that will hold up in court that will get us where we need to be -- you know to ensure that there are more players that are reflective

of the american experience and the american make-up i am for. >> so that supports a new definition. we had a unanimous december vote on the media ownership diversity and the diversity owner and the media put forward its 13 proposals put forth by the commission ever including a david honig pointed out the first civil rights rule established in the first 40 years which is the ban on no urban, no hispanic dictates that by the way hopefully helps to spur ad revenue flow to minority and women-owned and small owner -- small business-owned radio and tv stations as well. but i think the one thing can do

to help us, i've been calling for this for quite sometime let's get to university studies. i remember talking to acting chairman cox about this three years ago. probably today. we really can't go forward until we get this done. we also know those decisions that have in some ways stifled our creativity. we know that strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny does not stop us. it just means we have to have sufficient data to support whatever methods we support going forward, and the commissioner is right that in

order to acquire that date data, these studies have to be done. >> and congress should pass a sensible tax initiative program. it is something i have been optimistic about. [applause] >> it worked before. it had some flaws and we need to figure out what those flaws were and get rid of them, but that could have strong bipartisan support. >> thank you. that was going to be my next question about how could we reduce barriers, but you answered it. so let me ask commissioner mcdowell, you just returned from warg. maybe you can give us an idea and commissioner clyburn there may be a few comments you would like to make and then maybe

have questions. >> so for those of you that don't know what she said, she said "warc" not "war." >> the war and media conference was set up for -- if you wanted to submit a telegraph here, there was a termination fee for terminating that telegraph in canada. it went to telecommunications but then into wireless. there are cross border issues regarding wireless so radio and tv frequencies along borders. it is an important organization. important work is done there. it does not make headlines here whatsoever but actually what is done in geneva actually affects

the daily lives of every world citizen, really. because it doesn't get a lot of attention, a lot goes on that we should all know more about. so we have a terrific team led by the wrc ambassador. he is slut absolutely fantastic. he is a roving state department ambassador. as well as larry strickland is head of commerce, and several others. we have a very good team over there. my number one concern is not what is going on at the radio conference. it is what is going to happen with another acronym later this year in dubai in december.

there is a growing organized effort by china and russia to have the i.t.t. be an international regulator of international internet governans. until now, it has been run by multistate model. which is engineers acting if their own capacity. representatives from governments, user groups. a lot of the diverse issues, as well as some governments getting together to try to figure out how should the internet work, setting technical standards for instance administering the domain names the dot-coms and dot-orgs. now there is a new level of naming. for enough money you can have dot-clyburn, for example. [laughter] but there is a big concern.

that would hurt the developing world. i think industrialized countries would opt out, but then you would end up with a bifurcated internet, and how is that going to work? so any representative from any country that i could find, this is what i talked to them about. and actually, the u.s. mission there with ambassador betty king who is one of our ambassadors in geneva set up a breakfast with me and ambassadors from egypt russia, india, rwandaia -- rwanda, dasoto, the philippines and this was a key advocacy group. i think it would be a huge mistake -- by the way, the obama administration and i are all on

the same page with this. at&t verizon google and facebook are all on the same page, as is the whole nongovernmental organization community such as the internet society the public interest registry, and all the rest. so it is of grave concern. i want to raise everyone's profile awareness of it, and read the profile of the issue and that is going to be any number one priority for this year. >> in terms of my priorities for 2012 -- >> that would be after the healthy ladies commission. >> right. [laughter] >> a number of things you will hear us speak more about when i came to the commission, i always say my blessing was the national broad band plan because that particular document was so comprehensive and it spoke to me

with the greatest gift i think i could have received as a federal commissioner. it talks about basically from my perspective our national purposes. and it is so inclusive as to the -- well, where we find ourselves in terms of governance in this communications and technology centric federal commission. how these technologies can literally, positively address every single challenge we have before us. how it could positively affect them is quickly sometimes as the evolution that we see within the screen rate. so a lot of what is surrounding that, what is still speaking to me about that, especially as it relates to adoption in communities that last 3% to 5%,

it is difficult to serve positively, you are going to hear -- you heard that southern "gonna" right? sorry. i'm in the capital now. you are going to hear -- it is difficult for me not to say the "gonna" you will hear our office speak more to that and some of the issues that you hold dear, too, especially as it relates to women and minorities being more prominent in this ecosystem. in our office we always say from the boardroom to the control room those entities as includes everyone everywhere needs to look more like america. and it is not doing someone a favor, it is plain old good business. so you are going to hear our office reaffirming what we know that inclusion equals profits. so we are going to be concentrating on that.

[applause] and speaking of core business i mentioned our public safety bureau. and i want to mention our consumer division -- i'm blanking out. no, i was right. the consumer public and affairs committee -- he's going to kill me. joe's bureau, who is actively overseeing the 21st century communications video accessible -- access bit act that particular commission means a lot to me. we are aggressively committing -- very aggressive timetables as it relates to ensuring those with varied abilities, not disabilities, those with varied abilities if their cogtive challenges or physical challenges or the like, that they are ensured as much

inclusion and enhancement in terms of these technologies that some of us take for granted. this office will continue to be front and center. i mention that two-fold. not only that it means a lot to me, not only that it affects me now, even though you probably notice me doing this a lot more. there are millions -- i believe upwards of 54 million americans who have challenges who would potentially benefit from what we are doing in this space. that means a lot to me. but it should mean a lot to you from a potential business perspective. what we're talking about here, when you hear people speaking about cyber-security, when you hear aus talking about the cdaa, when you hear us talking about these pilot projects as it relates to u.s.f. and other things we are doing in this space, those are potential business opportunities for those of you that are so inclined to

do so. you have literacy training potential as it relates to connect to compete. have you, you know hardware as it relates to these you know, software potential. so there is a lot of economic potential as it relates to this. so to me when we talk about where we go and where we go and how this dialogue should and could continue, there are a lot of unmet needs in this nation. and there is a lot of potential for not only economic enhancen't to those who are entrepreneurial but enhancement for those of us or those out there who might be challenged and in need of better way of people communicating and navigating in this space. so i want us to leave here knowing that it sometimes is

very expensive to navigate in this space, but there are so many opportunities that you could, you know, plant the seed now and grow that we should be positive and upbeat about the future. >> thank you all so much not only for being here but for coming in for this, which i really appreciate. for your purpose frl leadership, for your vision, and for your commitment to the things and ideals that mmtc holds dear. join me in thanking the commissioner. [applause] >> i think they will take one question david. >> suppose you can. >> i am going to summarize what i think are the views of many that are here. this question is really an appeal to conscience. >> speak into the microphone a little bit. >> you might want to identify yourself because you are on

c-span. >> i am david oleg, i am the president of mmtc. as you know, the question has been raised whether civil rights is being given sufficient attention and process. television ownership is down 1/3 in two years. jim winston came yesterday. only eight african american owned full-power radio stations left. the katrina litigation pending 6.5 years. e.e.o. enforcement down 98% from 10 years ago. radio news now down to virtually zero in minority participation. to be fair, the commission has taken positive steps. the advertising nondiscrimination rule in which

you were all instrumental is wonderful. it has had a lot to do with the broadband plan. it has had two big mergers. there has been a lot on its plate. now there is only one huge item, which is lifeline link up to be decided next week. so my question is this -- now there is time. now there is the ability to focus, and now the issue has been made clear. can we be sure that historians in the future can look back on 2012 and say 2012 was the year of civil rights at the fcc? the year when e.e.o. enforcement gets restored, when multieye -- multi-lingual voices get heard a? >> i will start this way. we are an ever-evolving somewhat imperfect institution. that is in need of continual

engagement for all of us to prosper. so i say that to say that my door will remain open to any new and innovative ideas we have in this space. one of the things brought forth thrat commissioner affirmed was the studies. to me, i look at that like the seed that we need, the foundation that we need to have the building block move forward in some of the things you're speaking of. if we don't have that validation, that data needed, then we are -- the court has already made mention of that and we will not be able to even entertain some of the things that you put forth. there are a number of other things going on, i think, that you should be positive about. now circulating -- the item.

i couldn't think of a word, i'm sorry. the low-powered f.m. item that would stimulate radio presence of voices, diversity of voices across america. that is a positive. it might not be full power but it is low power and low power could lead to full power. i guess from my perspective why i wanted to, you know, leave a positive impression is what i want to be a con dute of -- conduit of in this space is a pathway to whatever you call success. my success and your success may look different. so i may need to start here. i may need to start with a lower-power presence in order to move to a full-power. so these are the types of things i know you will see and hear more about. is it on the time frame that all of us would like? it never is.

these are the types of things that i think will be you know happening in this space. i also challenge all of us and you that while we may be with you on a number of things p. our scope may be limited. so where we may individually and collectively be proponents of the tax certificate the tax certificate that will not be passed inside of the f.c.c. building. that has to go to congress. in terms of the katrina petition, you and i have had this conversation. from my perspective that type of engagement would be best at the state level. so you know, it is up to all of us to shall partners in progress but to know what our strength and our limitations are and jurisdictionly what we can realistcally do. while we are proponents in a lot

of ways, we are not supposed to be lobbying the hill. i have a lot of verbal freedoms, but there is a lot of restrictions and we all need to be mindful of that. >> to answer your question, short form because i know we were for a time, i hope so david. but i do have concerns, however. my first month as a commissioner was june of 2006, and that's when we voted out the media ownership, that and diversity impairment as well. that didn't get voted on for a year and a half either until december of 2007. so we're supposed to vote these things out or start these proceedings every four years. we should have started at mtrm in 2010 with proposed rules. we did watch a n.l.i., a notice of inquiry, but we voted in

september. you identified 75 items that were up at the commission? >> 72. >> there is probably another three in there you could use too, i'm sure. but i think you're doing the right thing in continuing to beat the drum. i think we spoke on that, and it got reconstituted but it got reconstituted late, i think. so the way these things work in washington, a year from now we will either have a new president or we'll have president obama being sworn in for the second term. but what happens usually later in a presidential election year is things start to slow down in washington. and we have a lot we need to do at the commission. there are a lot of things like universal transmission form. i came from 16 years of private sector experience before i got to the f.c.c.