see the fair with a variety of people and experiences in the 1954 new york world/-- world-class there. >> coming up next, "the communicators." then a supreme court oral argument. later, marco rubio. he is speaking at a gop dinner in new hampshire. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you public service by your local cable or biter. o'rielly is the new director.

commissioner michael o'rielly, thank you for coming. with a general sense, how do you approach your job? how do you approach the different issues? do you have a philosophy? >> each issue should be handled differently. i have a general philosophy. we start with the basic premise of how i approach everything. economic fairness is my guiding principle. does the commission have authority to act on an issue? what authority has congress given us? is there harm to consumers? is there a solution that will isedy the harm that is done? the solution tailored to the particular problem that we are dressing. , do theh all of those benefits of regulation outweigh the cost? that is how i am approaching each issue.

you take each issue as it comes forward. trackyou have an inside or a staffer in congress? >> i had the benefit of working on a number of provisions. the communications act is our guiding statute. i have worked on a number of those legislations. i have had my hands in. i know a number of those people intimately. >> we also want to bring to the table our other guest. commissioner, the fcc has been in the news a lot lately. or so then it is used to. it is mostly about net neutrality proposals. the old rules were struck down earlier this year.

proposal that would block websites that have backplanes. what do you think of that proposal? >> i do not want to get too specific, because i am for diluted from doing so, but i want to give some guidance to your answer. i worry when people use the fast lane, because that implies that there is a slow lane. did congress give the fcc authority to act? jeremy wheeler has highlighted a provision known as section seven. it has brought forward part of the court case. is ins that the authority this space. i worked on that provision. i have different views on whether it is allowable. i have to get past that hurdle.

a good experience and complying. they are seeing will meet the best needs of their consumers. i do not want to regulate what may happen to stop the concern is there. this and what it can be used for any future. you can take broad language and do a number of things. you can get back to the providers. google and a number of different players. we could use that to regulate those players.

i worry about that. i worry because there is an implication for when you impose new rules and regulations and there is an impact on what they are willing to invest. what they are willing to bring forward. that is an impact on consumers and the area is going to work. -- experience going forward. this is something that should be addressed by congress. there is a question of congressional intent. i think it is something where congress could provide a very clear rule. that is what our role should be in opposing net neutrality. i have worked on a number of those efforts. something that would be an indication. >> there is a concern about this broad interpretation having an effect and how they might start regulating companies like google

or facebook. is there a particular example? is there a reason to think that the fcc might get involved? >> we have used that authority in a few different in says that instances. we have cited it as part of an argument that we made about security. we have also used it as are planning to use in other firms. we have used it and it has been talked about in a number of aces going or were. >> the idea of net neutrality and involvement in that, do you see some areas where there is a possibility that your internet provider may be the only provider? comcast might block cbs website? are there areas where this is a thing that the fcc should be

involved in? >> i want to be careful because we have a pending merger before us. i do not want to talk about that. let me give you a general perspective. everyone should worry that any kind of internet experience could be like that. i want to keep my eyes and ears open and pay attention. there are legitimate experiences and legitimate harms. i want to know about them. we can look at whether we have a viable thing before us. we are regulating what might happen. -- ommissioner really, 'reilly, would you want to see the fcc do? grassley will actively be making sure that consumers have a

positive experience. i have had those conversations with broadband providers. they have expressed to me that they have no intention of changing their behavior. they do not discriminate. they are open in terms of their transparency. that is one piece that we did not strike down. we are moving forward on that. they want to provide an experience to the consumers. i do not expect rules changing that significantly. >> do you support what was said about agreements to have a faster track? >> it is something where -- i hate using the word fast track. that implies there is a slow lane. it is something we should keep our eyes on. the former chairman talked about it. in the business model we want to keep our eyes on. there are two mechanisms for revenue.

itwant to keep our eyes on and see how it goes. it is early on in the equation. >> you did a bit of a newspaper op-ed. you said that this could potentially lead to the fcc regulating security. how did you get from there to there? i talked about this briefly. i worry that it could be interpreted very broadly. it is language that i determined that i worked on. it has two components. one is that broadband is good. the other part is the examination of broadband and whether it is being deployed appropriately. we said, here are some regulatory measures we can do. i worry about the way that the court has interpreted the language. that was set by a judge.

you can have very broad authority to go in any direction. in terms of broadband, it leads to better experience which leads you back to more broadband. it is an interesting circle. i worry that the communications act does not provide a great deal on cyber security. congress has rightfully provided a number of agencies with jurisdiction. onave spent some of my time the issue of cyber security. there is an issue of fcc jurisdiction. it was something that we were looking at. are a number of other federal agencies that i will not mention. they work on the issue aggressively. the sec role is limited.

it has an analysis of communications networks. about is what they talked about. i want to see what he actually puts forward. he talked about getting aggressive on the issue of cyber security. the that lead to regulation? the only place i can see you getting regulation is from section seven. riley -- michael o'rielly has mentioned that he worked on the hell. -- on the hill. he worked for a long time with senator -- a republican senator from texas. what has it meant to go from that to commissioner? >> the good part of my job is that it does not have too many surprises. workingpent many times

for the members you highlight it. be specific not simple but i didn't he house, i worked in the senate. i got to know what the fcc does. i am very for mayor of that. being a person who writes things for members, versus going out and showing it. i hope i have handled my transition gracefully. >> i know you cannot talk about murders that are in front of you , but it looks like the fcc could be dealing with a few mergers. senseyou give a general of when a murder comes before you, are there certain red flags? >> let me give you my general philosophy. i have not had a merger yet. i do not want to comment.

my general philosophy will hopefully help. it provides an updated review. we are working closely with the department of justice. i want to make sure that we can have everything we need early in the process. the information is collected really late. we do not have time to analyze how it all fits together. merger withach a the idea that we should look in the four corners of the application and what potential harm it might cause. that is understandable. to look at what is outside of those corners. conditions that people have talked about in the past have

not led to a merger. think that the broadband market is competitive now? >> it depends on how you define the market ice. the broadband market is much more dynamic. to ipers are switching services. we are seeing everything to wireless devices and broadband being very effective. as a consumer, it is something that i adapted to very quickly. it depends on how you define the market. i have a broader definition than some. >> when the obama administration blocked at&t's attempts to buy t-mobile, there was a big issue made over the need to look for wireless carriers. do you think it is important to have 4 wireless terriers? >> i am not sure i have a magic

number. i will have to analyze the information that is resented. >> of all of the convergence going on in the telecommunications market, apple, google, comcast, broadcasters. at some point, do you see them coming out of the same rubric as far as regulation goes? >> i would like to see some removal of how different companies are treated different ways based on the technology they use. that is something that i know congress is looking at full how do you treat companies in the same way? that is something we have to move forward. whether they all come under a cc jurisdiction is a matter for congress to decide. >> net neutrality is another issue that will be coming up. the chairman is pushing rules that would cap the ability to buy spectrum.

what you think of those rules? are you worried about the success of the option? at&t has vehemently oppose the rules. they said that they might skip the auction. >> let me parse out your question. i have to repeat my common phrase that we will consider something next week. i do not want to get into his ethics. i do not support back from cap and limits. a particular reason. i spent a great deal of time on capitol hill. i watch them try to manipulate the market place. believe that auctions are a way to make sure that they get the most efficient use possible. there is a way to do so. i believe in the process. i do not want to manipulate the process going or were.

in terms of at&t and its particular presentation, you would have to ask them. >> do you think the rules jeopardize the auction? >> i would measure the option this way. , is it fair for everybody? do broadcasters and all the different folks who are part of the equation participate? do they decide not to participate? is it fair? does it make available more commercial spectrum for companies to offer services to consumers? are we able to close the auction under the statute?

are their obligations i have to work on? are we able to close the auction? outlining aactually number of the target at we would like to have. there is a healthy dose of deficit reduction. i want to see if we are able to meet those targets. that would be my definition of success. how much money we are able to raise on behalf of this. we are going to license out to wireless providers. that gets to the first part of your question, which is about whether you should restrict potential bidders. i have no problem doing so. said, we would like you to have a specific target. >> now you have been with the fcc for several months, do you have a different view of congress?

>> no. i miss my colleagues and my former employers. i wish them well. one thing i try to do is to avoid any unsolicited advice. information should come from congress to the fcc. we are a creature of congress. information should come this way. i should not tell them what to do. i am receptive to their ideas. i read all the information from members. some of the ideas from congress include the work or -- fcc reform. do you agree with those efforts? >> i do not endorse any particular i -- item. jeremy wheeler has work to do so. it is a very aggressive effort. that has been moving forward for fully. i know there are a number of pieces of legislation that congress will consider. we will take them as we get them.

>> would you like to sit down and talk issues with some of them? privately? >> i cannot speak with one, i cannot speak with to. -- two. worriedme, have i been over the years that that was a problem? perhaps not. i do not think it is a problem today. >> to go back to the spectrum, what about the government controlled as to mark what should be done with that? >> we will need more licenses going forward for all the demands. there is a need for more spectrum going forward. it is multiplying and everyone's home. every user has two or three ways to connect. we are talking about the internet of things, and that will and. we need more commercial spectrum. one of the places we will have

to look at it is that we will ask our federal users to be more efficient and reduce their allocation. they have a pretty healthy dose of spectrum today. some of that is on equipment that can be modernized. we will need the department of defense. they will need to reduce their allocation. >> is that something that the fcc has the authority to do? of ourill work colleagues at the national telecommunications administration. it is within the department of congress -- commerce. they will be handled by federal agencies. we will partner with them. >> have you think chairman -- he has vote on the commission. will there be a few more 3-2

votes on net neutrality? do you think he has been partisan? have you been included in what they are doing? >> we have a very good relationship. we spent a great deal of time getting to know each other as people. there will be times when we disagree. we have come to the understanding that when we disagree, it is respectfully and we move on to the next issue. some of those 3-2 votes, they happened. , 95% depending there'lly you measure, be instances where we do not agree. that it isre partisanship. it is how we approach the issue. we would like things to change. we were not able to make them. we disagree. that is ok. we will move forward and we will

see who is right in the end. >> where do we stand when it comes to media ownership? >> is one issue where we had this agreement. we ignore the statue. we were missing a deadline. we missed a statutory deadline. we will review this. we will have another item at some point in mid-2016. i am disappointed in that. i do not believe we have the right to ignore deadlines. it is very disappointing from my viewpoint. in addition, we also found a mechanism where congress asks us to review media ownership issues. we have taken an opportunity to review that. we just focus on one piece of the issue. we focus on tightening up those limitations. i have problems with that. i voted accordingly.

>> should that lead into retransmission fees? is there a look at retransmission cost? >> there's only so much authority that the fcc has. we did take a little bit of action. the question of how you define negotiation. it is limiting. congressething that will debate going forward, whether they should change these action or not. >> you are watching the communicators on c-span. michael o'rielly, one of the commissioners for the fcc. >> you brought up and tia. another issue they are involved ofis current u.s. oversight i can, the nonprofit that manages internet addresses. do you think that is a smart move? >> i have been really critical of his vision.

.t is not because of the people they are not doing this maliciously. i just want to know where it will go in the long run. i have talked about this extensively. the problem is that it is a component of the current relationship we have. can, and the of i domain name system. you can prevent people from accessing the internet. the way we use that process can be a bad way. then, whatn is mechanism should be used from the current system, which is working very well. i wonder why we would change from that. multi-stakeholder business. i think they are good relationships. what we have here is that you can have a multi-stakeholder community, and have government

organizations that have a way to control that. we have seen that already. unfounded.are not it has been actual practice. we have seen countries like russia, china, iran, turkey. we individually have to be more involved. those are countries that have tried to limit their internet experience for their citizens. problem with the direction that they are going in. even ifnd of the day, it is a successful transition to a structure we can live with in the short term, we do not know what the long-term ramifications are. you can always have a short-term community structure. that is very problematic. i am not sure why we would or should. route,re going down this i want guarantees that cannot be

influenced going forward. i am not sure how you would do that. i have my doubts that that is what would be necessary. >> you mentioned that you support the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. congress passed a resolution endorsing that model. why is this different? >> it is not the exception. you can have a multi-stakeholder community. it is a positive influence. congress has recognized that. influence isnment part of the equation? it has an impact. >> besides i can -- i can, so many issues are international. is this something we should be concerned about? are we moving toward a more global type of regulation?

>> i do not know if it is something we should be concerned about, but is something we should be aware of. a number ofeen existing intergovernmental organizations that deal. there's one that has existed for a number of years. that will continue to exist. i do not worry that we will lose economy. it is something that congress continues to oversee and fine-tune as necessary. i do not see us melting into one. >> michael o'rielly, the commissioner on federal communications. thank you. >> thank you. by america'sed

cable companies 35 years ago and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite rider. >> tomorrow you can watch segments from the cable show in los angeles. includes discussion of how consumers view tv and other video content. there will be a conversation with matt wiener. you can watch it on c-span. supreme court oral arguments in a case questioning whether police have the right itself on data without the use of a warrant. the case centers around a man who was arrested in 2007 on suspicion of selling cocaine. they looked at the contents of his cell phone, which led to a search of his home. drugs and a weapon were found. this oral argument is one hour >> we'll hear argument next in

case 13212, united states v. wurie. >> thank you, mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, the facts of this case, united states v. wurie, i think, illustrate why any categorical rule that would preclude searches of cell phones incident to arrest would be inconsistent with historical practice and detrimental to law enforcement. this a case where what the officers did was see a phone ringing. on the outside screen, the caller was identified as "my house." the officers opened up the phone, pressed one button to see that the call came in from "my house" and pressed another to see what the phone number was. that's all they did. that kind of a search serves valid, time-honored functions in the search situation of helping to ascertain the identity of the offender. this was a crucial fact because a few minutes later, wurie lied abwh