i am waiting. thank you for being here. >> the space shuttle discovery is on display at the smithsonian museum outside washington, d.c. in arrived earlier this week. it can see the landing and the official transfer ceremony tonight at 8:00 eastern -- 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> this week, for federal communications commission member michael cops on the state of the media.

we could start with a bill that is working its way through the house. what do you think about that? is it necessary? >> there's always room for an agency to reform. i like to think i contributed to reform when i was there when i was acting chairman. we opened up the agency and made it more transparent, a lot more participatory. the biggest reform i would like to see would be to empower commissioners to talk to one another so we could sit around a table like this and talk about some of the momentous issues that are curbing the destiny of our future and currently we are prohibited from doing that. there is the sunshine law which is something passed in watergate days that really is -- hobbles

the fcc. nobody else operates, members of congress talked to one another, cardinals of the church talk to one another, members of the supreme court, we cannot talk to each other except one on one. we have five people who are selected because they have various endeavors capacities. there is a lot of collegiality there. people get along well. we would have avoided some of that tensions and problems that come up and we would have been able to talk together. it would be nice if we could given the status of where everything is, it would be nice to consolidate reports so that kind of process reform is good. and trying to keep it from serving the public interest.

it is not good for consumers. it is not good for an independent agency. this is an agency that the u.s. should be proud of. not every country has one -- has this. where the minister or the -- because you up and tells you what to do. we can serve consumers and get the best communications and media out to our people. we ought to be proud in building that up. you have to be careful you do not get captured by the folks that you're regulating and you have to be careful to keep that independents and let us do our job. that is a big change in the law but it is a big change in how the fcc operates. some of the stipulations would

end up not expediting the business but slowing business. we would be in court earlier. i think we have to hire more people just to keep up with all these requirements. a good article was written about this in "wired." i am expressing my own opinions. i think we need to tread very carefully before we go and slam bang and change the fcc. >> after you retired, december 31, 2011, there was an article "hat came out in "televocom a.m. i'm sure you've seen this article. what was your reputation and are you fearful that with you not there as the voice that there may be some deal making done?

>> there was a lot of filmmaking done when i was there. much of it was over my objections. i did not vote against all consolidation and mergers but i voted against my share of them. consolidation has been the bane of the industry. i think it has taken efficiency out of the industry where it is supposed to inculcate. it has put the industry in debt to such an extent as when you talk about media and the consolidation we had there, you finance these and howdy you pay for them? why don't we cut back to the newsroom or fire so reporters? in some what have you believe that consolidation is over with. that is not so. it is one merger after the other end as soon as the fcc approves one, we have to get bigger. and you have the air right count

-- kind of mergers. you have got scripps and cumulus buying up stations. as the economy gets better, you will see more rather than less. at some point we have got to learn to say no to some of these deals while we still have any hope of developing competition and any hope of restoring our media and any hope of making sure we get telecommunications out to every single american. >> let me ask a follow-up question. in order to say no more, do we need process reform or does the commission need a starter backbone? >> you have to have an appreciation of what is at stake in the public interest and

what part of the goals are of the communications act and how you interpret them. the act envisioned all sorts of competition. but never saw the light of day in telecom and media. so there are different mentalities and different arguments. maybe some people do not think it is as destructive as it has been. we need to have more commissioners there who are skeptical of this consolidation. who can look around and see the damage it has done and see it is not serving consumers. this is supposed to be a consumer protection agency. i want it to be a consumer protection agency and when it is, it is a darned good agency for the people of the country. >> there is the cable company bailout. you have concerns about it and why? >> i do.

call it what you will. someone will say it is conspiracy or restraint of trade and some will say cartel or collusion, i am bored about consumer. the other c is competition. i am not anti-commission. i have not looked at all of it. from this sense, it looks like -- my distance, it looks like verizon will get a good deal. -- good deal on the wireless market and they will be reigning supreme when it comes to a wireline and they will be working among themselves on agreements. it does not strike me as a way to foster competition and bring down prices. prices are growing up, that is the story a week or so ago. the cable bill has outstripped the place -- pace of inflation. we need to give competition and it spread if you're going to say no to competition, how can you

be thinking about getting the agency that designed the rules of the road for this industry to operate? you have to have oversight especially if you are not having competition. a specially with all this process reform and a misreading the fcc. that is done over the worst of both worlds were you do not have any competition or public interest oversight. it is not what was intended. at least i hope it is not what was intended. >> it did not think there is enough competition in the communications market, where should the government intervened to in sent -- incent? >> we have lots of opportunities. the big one is to say no to some of these deals. the other one is to conduct

public interest oversight. there is lots of proceedings that have been pending for a long time that need to be, special access is one of them. we need to address special access in the telecommunications market because i think that has deserved -- disserved competition. we have a broadband strategy now that is good for the country. i was lamenting the absence of that for 80 years -- eight years. the thought was just let the market get this out to the american people. it took us a long time to realize the market was not going to do that. we started off when i came, of as -- came, as no. 2. we are 24. i do not know exactly but i know -- it is not where my

country ought to be. there is room for positive government policy, the private sector drives development. the private sector feels it. always in our history we have had some vision of where we're going, some encouragement, some policy by the government. if ever we needed that, it is right now when we have this imposing and opportunity- creating infrastructure of the 21st century. broadband and the internet and all that that can open so many doors of opportunity to so many people. we have to step up and say, this is important. this will determine if our kids get jobs and our country will regain its international competitiveness. that is a tough one, too. no problem this country faces that does not have as its resolution something to do with broadband. there is public interest in that. we have to be bold in stepping up to the plate and recognizing

that the times of change and players change, and gatekeepers change over the course of years. you have got to be steady in your dedication to the principle of competition and go from there. >> let's look at the verizon- cable co. spectrum issue differently, as a spectrum issue. has the fcc been remiss in making sure that spectrum is available so that perhaps this type of marketing deal would not need to be done? >> we need to understand where we are with spectrum. we need to have better inventory of spectrum that we have. we also i think should have something closer to use it or lose a policy. we're getting into these big things where we're going to let them solve this. you sell licenses, not spectrum. the companies would say my spectrum, my spectrum. it is our spectrum.

yours and mine and people are watching this. there's a lot of spectrum out there. today at this hour i do not think anybody in the u.s. has very much of a clue exactly how much spectrum is lying fallow. ande's a whole bunch of it a whole lot of technology. we need to get a handle on that. we hope that the spectrum auctions can clear up -- options can clear. it has some potential. i think it has some problems attached. two of them we need to be careful and there is new technology. there is -- it is high on the agenda of. [inaudible] aware that this is a huge, huge challenge. we're moving -- using a more

spectrum. there is no silver bullet. we have do do this on all these friends. >> do you see these taking place in the future? if they took place today, how long before that spectrum? >> it can take a while. in the fear -- near future. we do not want to see that as some kind of silver bullet solution. i am not comfortable in saying let's go in and take a bunch of spectrum from the big consolidated media and turn it over to communications. that does not translate into automatic enhancement of the public interest. we have to be careful. we have to be careful of if there is going to be opportunity for competition. are there any rules for these options? we need to think about that. last time we had an auction, we waited until too late. the ws action -- auction.

that is important, there is some any unintended consequences when you do something. what is the impact of public television? i am concerned about that. public television is doing a good job of will to cast -- multi-cast. and all the sudden, they're going to be decreasing in number of their stations. there will be thrown together. does that mean we have less programs? i am worried about small diversity stations in big markets who might be fighting to hold on and now they can sell their license and turn in the spectrum. that is not necessarily good in those markets. there are lots of different ramifications that tell me to be

careful and we're not going to get 500 mhz through these auctions. i do not know what we're going to get. it will be far short of that. i hope the work and we need to expedite them and do them as quickly as possible. meanwhile, we can have these other avenues of encouraging technology. >> you're watching "the communicators," our guest is michael copps. also is eliza kreigman. >> you mentioned getting 500 mhz -- we're not going to get that through the auctions. another way is freeing up government spectrum but it has been hard to do that. broadband -- we should just quit

our efforts and focus on sharing spectrum. do you think that government needs pressure to free of their spectrum? how should we accomplish that? >> yes, i think we need to get a real good fix on what is being used -- is being used for and some of those uses are pretty heavy uses and you have to have some * of lying fallow to be available to be used in emergency situations. we all know how government works and how bureaucracy works. they are not shy in holding resources are asking reinforces -- or asking for resources. it takes some intestinal fortitude to make that happen and to make that happen, people in the highest positions of power are going to have to say

this is going to happen. >> do we need legislation mandating spectrum inventory? there is some out there. is this something the fcc can take a bonnett sound? >> we can do it. we have done it to some extent but not -- you do not have to have an inventory of every square foot in the united states of america, but you can do an inventory based on sophisticated modeling and tools like that. that can give you a pretty good feel of where we are and maybe legislation would help. i think the fcc could do something like that any time it decides and wants to do it. >> what is visitation? >> -- an the hesitation? >> i do not know. it will take some time and resources. probably monetary constraints. it is not a wonderful time for anybody's budget including the

federal communications commission. where pulled so many ways. when i got there, we had close to 2000 employees. now it is down in the 1700's and look how the world of telecom, media has changed and all the problems and challenges and technologies you have to understand and train your employees for and for the commissioners to understand. there's a lot going on and that would take some resources to do that. >> as someone who has followed telecommunications issues for a long time and continues to, what do you think about the cyber- security bills that are working their way through congress? >> i think we are a day late and a dollar short on cyber- security. it is a huge problem. i think the capacities of other countries to do less damage through cyber-security are

already obvious to most citizens and their very serious. i think we have to see this, this would be one of the major fronts of international competition. at any time from now for. we have to be prepared for that. it has to be a priority. that is not simply an fcc function. that goes to every agency. >> do we need to concerned about the foreign countries are investing in our national telecommunications efforts in terms of the cyber-security issue? >> you always do. that is we have sections in the law that talk about foreign ownership and if indeed this is as critically important and at the same time, as vulnerable and infrastructure as it is, i think you have to be careful who is owning that and who is operating it. -- ownership always

matters. we have allowed lots of foreign ownership and some of that is justified. in this age of heightened national security challenges, we need to have a good conversation about that. the stipulations were written long ago before the word cyber- security was probably acknowledged. that is one of those issues that its to be reissued and prioritize. i wonder if every agency has to have its guru. someone has to be driving that. i hope we're getting to that. >> on a separate topic, you are a big advocate of the [unintelligible] open do think the fcc is going to win in court? >> i certainly hope so.

i do not want to predict the outcome of any court cases, we have some of the indecency cases of there with the fcc. i would hope so. as you know, i expressed some questions at the time about whether this was the best legal terrain, title i to make our case on, title ii looking at this in retrospect, we started making these awful decisions about it is not telecommunications, it is something else, [inaudible] that was just the wrong way to go. i think title ii has more legal clarity. i am hopeful that we will get

some difference on this and the ability to move ahead. we can repair to a title ii defensive we get turned down. >> what do you think of the decision on light squared? >> it was typical. i was there for part of that. experts in the office of engineering and technology dug in and did so without prejudice and really tried to understand the facts of the matter. was there going to be interference and i would laud their work performance. a lot of -- both sides were there. i think ita disinterested

evaluation, it was the best decision. >> what do you think of the fact there has been three commissioner since you left in december? >> i think there should be 5 commissioners talking to one another and it operates best when there is a full complement of people and a diversity of input. moralizers, more commissioners and better discussion. it still has a quorum and it is still doing business in casting votes and making decisions, and there are three capable people who seem to get a well -- around very well. -- along very well. they're doing well but they would be augmented by having two additional commissioners, both of whom i know and both of who would be outstanding. >> if you could waive your want and have the fcc accomplish one

thing in six months, what would be? >> get serious about media. >> ok, more specific about that? >> without an is an information infrastructure, that informs people about the world they live in, i do not see any of the problems facing this country being promptly or rightly resolved. and we have to be brutally candid about it and dumbed down our democratic dialogue and our civic dialogue because of the consolidation that i mentioned earlier. we have sacrificed many journalists and news rooms and investigative journalism hangs by a life to read. because of an fcc that has refused to step up to the plate on its public interest oversight responsibilities. this goes back to the 1980's with one or two brief exceptions. we used to have guidelines for broadcast licensees. all that is gone now.

i would bring some of those again. that would encourage the development of the news and information. in this, we have all this wonderful possibility for an enhanced civic dialogue. not just traditional media but new media and the town square of democracy that can be paved with broad band breaks and we -- traditional media has tripped itself of its capacity to do its job and the new media has not demonstrated there is a model there to replace that. 90% to 95% of the news that we get everyday, reads every day, even on the internet, comes from where? the newspaper newsroom or broadcast television? newsroom but there is a much less of it. this is a serious challenge to our democracy. we have always found ways to keep the people informed trade to go back to the days of washington and jefferson and madison. the people who wrote the first amendment. they said we have a new, young

republican -- republic here. can it survive? we have to get the news out. right or left or whatever term you want to use. get it out there and keep the people informed and that is your premise and that is the premise of self-government, an informed electorate who makes proper decisions. it was the idea behind broadcast across the board and broadcasters made. public interest and convenience and necessity. we have got to get back to that kind of thinking and is -- we do not have time to sit around and say the internet will solve all the someday. i do not think we can stand another five years of the diminution of media and journalism. >> finally, what have you been doing for the past four months? >> i was as busy as i was at the fcc. i've been trying to make some

talks in various areas. keep my issues alive. the one thing i want to do is keep the issues that i was passionate about at the fcc alive and that is media, news, and information. also broadband minority ownership and female mind -- ownership. i have not made decisions if i'm going to find a home somewhere or do this for my home or what. i would be speaking out to, joined the common cause board of governors recently. probably joining some more boards and hopefully it will -- you'll be hearing from me and enough that you will say, let's have him back. he is still doing some interesting things. >> michael copps has been our guest along with eliza krigman. thank you both.

>> the space shuttle discovery is on display at the smithsonian museum outside washington, d.c. you can see the landing and the official transfer ceremony tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> now, international monetary fund managing director christine lagarde speaking at the closing news conference of the imf world bank annual spring meeting. she discussed the consensus within the group that struggling governments must be reformed or risk raising economic danger. this is 35 minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to this press conference. the governing committee of the imf, it is my pleasure to introduce