cable or satellite provider. >> national association of broadcasters president and ceo warns smith is our guest this week on "the communicators." the aereo decision came down from the supreme court. what is your reaction? >> i am smiling, peter. i am gratified that the supreme court stood by a principle that is as old as the constitution, which is the copyright material who ownlue and those the copyrights should be free to negotiate for its value. down on the came right side of law and history. breyer's opinion, he compared aereo quite a bit to a cable company. is that a fair assessment in your view? >> of course it is.

you had broadcast tv and then cable came along and then satellite. what if satellite and said, you know, we are different from cable. we have a slightly different technology, so we're going to take that and not consider ourselves to be what is called .n in the pd -- mvpd that.ite did not do why should area, with a different technology and say we do not have to negotiate for copyrighted material? we have said from the beginning -- this is not about being opposed to technology. there is still a technology and aereo and maybe a business model for a. that does not mean you can invade the law to run a business. >> so what is the business model you could foresee? >> they could do what cable and satellite does. do with us on copyrighted material. there is a technology that may have a place in the market, but

they now have to obey the rules of the road that everyone else out there on the highway has to obey. nab orou could see the the broadcasters dealing with aereo as they do with cable companies, retransmission cost, etc.? >> absolutely. president is to them for laws that allow to stay in business. aereo was an exit central thread to that. if not a direct threat to that. i would imagine if this does not go away, there will be discussions between aereo and broadcasters, but i would leave that to the judgment of my members. >> journey the conversation is monti j. lo of "mutations daily -- "communications daily."

say that does this they should be doing something differently to capture those consumers? broadcasting, they were just doing what we were doing with antennas, but they were charging people for stuff going free over the airwaves, and that is what triggers the copyright law. are interestedwe in every viewer having access to we're my own sense is interested in every viewer having access to our content if done so lawfully. aereo could respond to this by going to congress, lobbying. i know the house judiciary chair said that the decision highlights how they should look at the copyright laws again. how would nab react to that? do you have a plan for a congressional battle over these rules? absolutely. i am not suggesting copyright laws should not be visited, but copyright law, from my

experience as a u.s. senator, is extremely illegal to do. it is essentially picking winners and losers. it is hard for congress to make those judgments. that said, i believe we will be very cooperative and highly velvet and update of the copyright law. and already are. >> senator smith, i want to read dissent.ice breyer's that onecalia writes " of the questions they must face is whether the record function in french is the network's public performance rights -- infringes the network's public performance rights. be decided. what was upheld today was the fundamental constitutional principle that you cannot take someone's property and resell it

without be in said of the owner consentopyright -- the of the honor of the copyright. that principle was decisively established i the supreme court -- by the supreme court today. >> is this going to be a success? raw casterse enough who will participate in that these? willoadcasters who participate in that piece? can only speculate. i think they would need more to have what could be regarded as a successful auction. i would say one of the real motives behind the spectrum funding of the first public safety network that chairman rockefeller wanted, and auction being held now, the fcc has said that will

probably provide the money sufficient to find that first system. which is good. the point is, the fcc should not be in a hurry to get this rushed through when the pressure is off financially to accomplishing public goals. what we hope is they will do it right and not just in a rush. our concerns are, from the software modeling, this government is having difficulty when it comes to software -- when we run their modeling, about half the viewership in tvs country -- half the stations rather -- their coverage areas are significantly and adversely impacted. that is a real problem. because that disenfranchises an awful lot of people who cannot month cable or satellite bill and two are dependent on being included in telecommunications through over are dependent who

on being included intel communications through over the air broadcasting. >> they have said the only ones who can handle the calculations -- the job is using outdated census data, very old by most standards of software. if this is all they can do, how can you actually use this -- >> we do not have a problem with them looking at census data. that is fine. but sometimes new software does hhsexactly use either, as found out. we want what works. and we do not want to lose -- in coverages half hour area. that is not holding the broadcasters harmless, as the statute requires. >> you have used language that makes it seem like you might go to court over that. would your members support a core challenge of that software?

could it derail the option process? >> i promise you we will defend our coverage areas and we will do that in court if and when necessary. >> do at&t and verizon have too much leeway in these auctions? >> they are important. they have big checkbooks. they have influence and there is a balance between wanting be dollars maximized to return to the federal treasury versus not re-creating ma bell, which some would argue we have been doing, a monopoly weing have a duopoly. but those are decisions the fcc has to make. >> what is your impression so far up tom wheeler's fcc? like tom. he is a smart guy.

i think he is trying to get done everything he can as fast as he can with the time remaining. he has a job to do. i like him. but i am disappointed that the narrative that came with him, that he finds offensive -- and i understand why -- as the former chairman of wireless and cable, a lot of the decisions that have ,ome up seem to be very biased to the injury of broadcasting. we are defending ourselves. he respects that, my job is to defend my members. confer an enormous value still on the american people. we don't care whether folks get their television from .ubscription tv or over the air gary schapiro has said six percent of the people. nielsen says it is 11%. is 20%. study says it

20% is 16 million people. who are those people? they tend to be overwhelmingly minority community members. lily, theto be the a young techies, and the economically disadvantaged -- they tend to be the elderly. i may sound more like a democrat than a republican. i think they count. those valuesf congress established so that every community has the access to broadcasting. if they can't hate for it, they can get it for free to tell them what the news is, what the sports scores were, and especially in emergency circumstances where there is a terrorist attack, a tornado, a hurricane, an earthquake. all of these other fallommunications devices first. but not broadcasting. governor after governor has said

in alabama and kansas and missouri, thank heavens broadcasting stayed on, because they save human life. when a sinclair or a salem owns several stations across the country? >> they have to do local news. owns stations in baltimore and seattle. in seattle they are not looking at baltimore news. they are looking at seattle news. and there is no one else on pay tv or the internet, other than newspapers -- radio and television are covering local issues and providing local information, which is actually really important to being a civic leader involved, cynically minded member of the country. civicallycally -- civically minded

member of the country. several companies like sinclair, we've seen a lot of turn with rules to counter the fcc rules thend you guys have taken fcc to court on that. if you guys get those successfully taken back, what do you want to get out of that? >> first of all they change the rules in the middle of the stream. the deals that were already blessed are somehow now in violation. link the ironyto -- with all of these huge major mergers, cable, satellite, telephone, that there seems to buto concern about that, they are concerned about sharing arrangements in bangalore or boise. the scale is incredible. why do they do it? to do it.the right i simply note the irony.

on us andseems to be not where all the big action is .ccurring for example, cable has what is called interconnect, and they do sharing and selling of ads and negotiating. but that is somehow wrong for us and ok for them. >> the core challenges also include the closing of the 2010 review. -- the court challenges also include the closing of the 2010 review. successfully get that part of it to come back, why is that going to go any differently than the previous one did? we believed that they had a statutory obligation. when they start making decision against us, they ought to do their part of the bargain, which is live up to the statute and say, what should change relative

to ownership or sharing arrangements before they start can't, butdcasters it is ok for everyone else to do so? nab show,went to the a lot of the talk was these designed to force people into the incentive option -- auction. prevailingled the notion? >> i believe there is the underappreciated about what benefit we confer to the american people. true, there are those who cannot afford to pay for it. that said, that is the view of my members. i would hope that that would change. we're doing everything we can to change it. believe -- do you agree with that, that that is the case, that it is designed to force you into the auction? becomingeve that i am

more suspicious of that view all the time. there is no one stepping up to deal with broadcasters, too, to provide all of this localism for .ree there is no replacement. think about what we do every day. sometimes at the risk of the life of a broadcaster. to go out into the eye of the news, to broadcast the people need to be safe or to get rescue or recovery. cnn you look at cable, doing that? i like cable, but you look up there in the corner, and they are taking a broadcast feed, because the local broadcaster is doing that and sharing that with the cable station. somehow sharing is wrong. i do not see that. i think what is essential is broadcasting survives because of the values it serves. economies of scale are necessary . book broadcasters of all of

these ownership restrictions that are not apply to others. which i believe ultimately is born out of a bias against us. nab'srdon smith, the opinion, your opinion on some of the mergers moving forward in the pay tv and a stray. comcast, time warner -- direct tv? >> i know that our members are concerned about that, with their scale.elated to our it is a fact that our members are very, very concerned. >> what is your current relationship with comcast? >> they are members. they all own nbc. i am pleased to tell you at their highest level, nbc comcast, or comcast nbc universal, and has been with us on broadcast issues. they have not had a problem in

relationship to retransmission consent or these issues. they have been standup guys. but that is not to save my other network members are really comfortable with this ever-growing network of cable. it has tremendous market power. whereas there seems to have shackles on it. >> going back to the fcc, do you think it is more politicized now than it has been? i know there are a lot of partyline decisions. i am wondering if you think there are more than there have been before? >> as to broadcasting? >> as to broadcasting. >> i will tell you the irony ice see in all of this. partisan.ere to be i know having been a former republican head of a senate task force, we were really anxious to get the support of silicon valley. the as to it and

were better at it, and they seem to be very drawn to the wishes of google and microsoft and these great companies. i am always amazed that -- when you look at the demographics of a broadcast your ship, it is the -- viewership, it is the democratic party. communities, the young techies, the disadvantaged. my plea to them is, do not forget who brought you to the party. broadcasting is important. look to silicon valley, look in the rearview mirror. broadcasting is their friend. >> playing off that, the commission had these critical need studies to look at diversity and broadcasting. it got canceled -- because of political pressure primarily. chairman wheeler said that they needed to be replaced. how should they do that without encountering the same political

-- >> which studies? studies.versity need >> that got into the regulator getting into the editorial rooms off broadcasters, and i think first amendment concerns about that approach. that said, i think the fcc from motives were not to infringe upon the first amendment, but -- butical information get the critical information they wanted to have. it is hard to do without the state trampling on the editorial decisions of newsrooms. they -- >> they have a court order that requires them to gather some of that data and congressional requirements, i believe. how could they do that in a way that would be ok with your membership? >> is very difficult. i know congressional support for that has substantially eroded, when the first amendment implications were considered.

suppose senator smith, i want to talk a little bit about the tech issue you were talking about earlier. what is the future of the nab s of the world, the silicon valley? some of the technologies we are seeing for getting video. and that includes area was well and their technology. >> i would simply say we welcome them. we would love to do business with them. that is not my call, but my members broke all. they would not like us infringing on their copyrights. we just want them to do business up front and in the open. >> put does aereo go away at this point? >> that is up to them. with the technology, if they could operate in compliance with constitutional law, then fine. let's do business.

but again, those business decisions are not mine. they belong to my members. >> what difficulties with aereo gettingee broadcasters into? >> that is only a projection. for example a broadcaster member might want to see if there is a business opportunity. if there is. i do know they have applied for them. if it can be made compliant with law, there is a business there. but we will see. >> wouldn't that be kind of in line with what chairman wheeler urged broadcasters to do at the nab show? cellular spectrum, beef up online? when he talked about sharing, i could not help that note in my mind, he is telling us we cannot share content.

but share your, you know, it share your six megahertz. i'm thinking to myself, that is only good until it is not, apparently. they can change it arbitrarily and capriciously. but i also wondered -- mr. chairman, and have you checked the internet? the biggest participants with internet sites. we were already doing that. what he was urging us to do is done. is there more to do? of course. my members are great business people and they're always looking for ways to increase viewership. 3.0 effort goc into this? >> it does. >> is that effort threatened by what sinclair said? i think sinclair is actually right.

this will be very technical for your viewers, but back in the early 1990's, there were two broadcast standards. atsc.nd what we know now that was not clearly known then is in the is aal mobile world, ofdm better receivers standard. it may well be we will need to go through a nuclear -- another transition to a new standard. it is very complicated. when we the committee changed standards from analog to digital. there are so many exciting technological things happening in broadcasting. maybe beyond multicasting. we will be able to do mobile. you can look at free tv on any device anywhere you are. you can't do that on our current standard. ultrahighk,

definition. and there is 8k, which i have seen in tokyo from a japan, which is like 3-d without glasses. it is so incredible. but you need a better standard than we are on. .3 gives us what the o fdm standard provided. obviously a real opportunity that people can stream it or in the future, they can just get it for free. fee.is better than the >> they are currently working on stella, and their is talk of add-ons and not making it a clean bill. >> yeah, and we don't like that. to be clear, stella has to be sooptimized every five years

satellite can get to stranded viewers. and we're fine with that. doesthe pay-tv community is to use the reauthorization to damage broadcasting. to try to get extraneous things in there like government coming in and arbitrating and putting their, the retransmission consent process. we don't like that and we resist that, and i am optimistic that in the end, stella will be clean or stella will not be reauthorized. so, we are engaged, and i know chairman rockefeller has different views that are hostile to broadcasting. my congressman put out what i would call a good stella -- not a clean stella. stella. chairman leahy, my friend in the

senate, has put out a clean stella with senator grassley. there is a long way to go in here. there are four communities of jurisdiction. one has acted, another is about to act. one might be really problematic. bethe end, this will likely decided, if at all, in the lame duck to come. is telecommunications policy ed inften legislati stovepipe fashion? >> this is how congress operates. it seems to be in slices. doing big comprehensive things, i know from first-hand experience, it is extremely difficult. these stovepipe is the practical outcome, but it also creates a real hodgepodge of policy that makes it kind of difficult. at the old flag as he and --

industry, and the new one as well. >> is there still a hope for keeping the sports blackout rule in fact? i think so. i hope that your viewers -- sports blackout sounds like a bad thing. but the fcc's rule actually just backstops what is contractual between local television and the network. nfl.or example the which is designed to make sure that they can put bodies in that the local television station is supported, so people who want to get it, need to get it for free, can still get it over the television. i think, twoly, blackouts this year. the nfl is working hard to redistribute the economic so there aren't any.

what theher hand, sports blackout rule would do in isolation is allow a distant signal to be brought in to a local area, which totally cuts out that local community's commerce. you know -- where do you sell your chevy. we're talking about chevys in los angeles and you live in buffalo, new york. that is the thing. we think the local station should be supported and we want people to do it. we're working with the nfl and they're working to preserve this. and a lot of the work that is in the market way, without congress taken approach which ultimately damages local television, local economies. we don't think that is good. i finally, senator smith, wanted to close again with justice breyer's opinion in the aereo case. this is his closing line.

"we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." are there other cases out there you go sam -- are there other cases out there? i believe before the ninth circuit court of appeals. they put a hold on that. it is called the aereo killer. what this decision does is nesnforce -- re-enthro copyright. >> there are new technologies coming every year. lawfullyey can operate and consistent with the constitution -- we're all for it. >> gordon smith. gentlemen, thank you. >> thank you.

>> c-span. created by america's cable companies 35 years ago. and brought to you as a public service. next, supreme court oral argument in the case abc versus aereo. decision, the court violatedt aereo copyright law. this oral argument is one hour. chief justice roberts: we'll hear argument next in case 13461, american broadcasting companies v. aereo. mr. clement. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court -- aereo's business model is to enable thousands of paying strangers to watch live tv online. aereo's legal argument is that it can make all of that happen without publicly performing. but congress passed a statute that squarely forecloses that rather counterintuitive submission.