2. it wide range of topics, including the middle east, marijuana, and covering book fairs and festivals around the country. book tv, television for serious readers. >> c-span, greeted by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> this week we are talking to members of congress deal with communications issues. joining me first, a republican of ohio. i want to start with what the house did just recently. that was reauthorize the satellite television extension and localism act. what is that?

that has toe years, be reauthorize. it is for satellite, folks who get satellite, we had to get this done by the end of the year. if we didn't we would have one point 5 million americans not receiving television. it was important. we wanted to get it done. it was also certain titles in the legislation, one being mine immigration van that the fcc had imposed which said that if a cable company had a set top box they had to have everything in their. the had to have a cable card in their. -- in there. we said we shouldn't have that anymore. that was included. when we had another of our , the secretary of

energy was talking about set boxes and how much energy they use that adds to everyone said everyone's bill. we got the piece of legislation now. people think it is going to be contentious when we start. we started a year ago. thisd 24 months to get reauthorization done. a got to the point where we had it on the floor this week and we were able to move that passed on a voice vote. .t went over to the senate hopefully the senate will act on it soon. >> what was the reason to have cable cards in the first place? >> they wanted to, this was not congress' intent. they wanted competition. youou were receiving cable,

could go to your local store and buy one of these boxes. to make sure that it was fair, you would get a card from that cable operator that you would insert. then you could receive the signal. the problem was people didn't buy the boxes. 650 -- 600 and 2000 have been purchased. it has turned out that what i thought was going to happen didn't. we wanted to say that didn't work. let's go back. congress did not intend that to happen. used a lot more energy. we will have that out of the way. considered must pass legislation. what if congress didn't pass it? >> on december 31, at midnight,

i would be getting phone calls. ago, when they went from analog to digital, even though there was all the stuff going out across the country about was going to happen, i warn my office staff in ohio, be prepared. isple are going to say my tv not working. i'm getting a terrible signal. , as soon as you turn the tv on and it is not working, they are calling. in this case, we would have 1.5 million in subscribers out there not receiving a signal. article it isne now the satellite television access and reauthorization act. stara?going to call it >> it has to be done every five years. we have our work done. i think we now have three to 25 pieces of legislation over to the senate.

-- i think we have 325 pieces of legislation over to the senate. >> one was retransmission. did you support that? >> there were several titles included. this was to make things even the regularle and television stations. it was putting everybody on the same footing. the bill went through, there was quite a few discussions on hearings. i think that if you see a piece of legislation that could have been very controversial in the beginning, we were able to pick it up on suspension. >> will that have influence in the senate? >> it should. if the cynicism and that they didbe taking up, the house its due diligence.

i credit the subcommittee , they wanted to make sure it got to where it was. this is her brawl tends and democrats sitting down to work this out. havenot often when you something this large that you can say that it was on a suspension calendar. that means the stuff you have to get a certain amount of votes, you have to pass with a super majority. in this case it passed in a voice. else you have introduced a that deals with title ii and net neutrality. what is that? >> we seem to be talking at the fcc a lot. we are talking about net neutrality. internet, a an open free internet. without government intervention. look what the internet is going.

this is being redone on the private sector. it's not being done because of the federal government. it is not on the private sector. and you look at this and they are trying to say that this is an information service. it is been an information service, when you go back to the previous chairman of the fcc, almost two decades, and they say of awant to make it more tellme commit -- telecommunication, using a law from 1935. but we will see happen is the innovation out there that spurred a trillion dollars in private investment will be tied up like it would be with the telephone company. we don't want that. once you start that innovation will slow up. the dollars being put into it, the tens of thousands of jobs, we don't want that to happen.

we want to make sure it remains free and open. talking a lotn about the fcc. what do you think of chairman wheeler's tenure? >> we have an informal working group. that is onemocrat of the cochairs. we had a meeting. we said our the chairman, just are on the table. i think when you look at the things the chairman wants to go, that's not where some of us on the committee want to see the fcc going. more regulation, more government. we want to see less. at the same time we don't want this over government control coming down on our telecommunications, our internet. going to tell.

we just had a hearing this morning. a subcommittee in telecommunications. they voiced concern as to where the fcc was going. >> the fcc has been working on eu -rates. ere are they going with that? how much of the going to spend? legislation of i have out there, on net neutrality, we want less out there, not more. >> our telecommunications issues rural, role -- often a urban divide? >> one of the things that came up is how things are spread out. if you take a pay cut over here ofs that break the chain

people in rural communities? time, like the piece of legislation today, we deal with communications that are out affectn areas that might minorities. foreignies that have language channels could be directly affected by these spectrums. it's one of the things we want as we canre we have get. that's another bill i have out there deals with the five gigahertz area. we want to make sure there is testing out there we can get. we don't have that extra spectrum. right now it is calculated at seven mobile devices per individual and the united states by 2017. 1.4 across the globe. that is incredible when you

think about how much spectrum we're going to have. >> that deals with the unlicensed spectrum. >> especially the legislation looking at the upper part of the five gigahertz side. >> thank you. is someone we don't normally talk to. congressman brian higgins. bill andintroduced a bring to the fcc about the sports blackout rule. what is that role? >> the blackout rule allows the nfl to not broadcast in local .reas the ballgame is end the government support for the blackout rule that has been in effect since 1975. the economics of the nfl and professional sports have

changed. of stadiumd that 70% construction in the nfl is financed by taxpayers. not by nfl owners. home game watching experience has changed with advances in audio and digital technology. buffalo, the market,mallest team, the league averages 67,000. things like luxury seating, advertising, in accordance with the bargaining agreement, revenues that have retained exclusively by the team. we believe that the blackout rule is obsolete. it doesn't serve the purpose anymore. given the merchandising. why would a team not want their

to tens ofd thousands of people? we think the blackout rule is obsolete. the fcc took the first move. they will vote at the end of this year. we believe the nfl will follow. >> the nfl has final say on whether or not this happens. >> they do. the fcc would remove government support for it. senator blumenthal and i've introduced legislation, the fans act. we think we have some leverage. we think the economics will drive the issue in the nfl will realize it is in their best interest to do away with the blackout rule altogether. since 2009, over 100 games have been blacked out. , communitiesms

that support their teams. not only through emotional commitment, but also through taxpayer dollars and stadium reconstruction. the venues more profitable for nfl teams. the nfl should do away with a blackout rule altogether. >> how did this role come to be? >> it made sense at a time when this was 1975. experienceme viewing is very different. today, with audio and visual game watchinge experience has been increased tremendously. stadiumere was little advertising going on. now you see stadiums are replete with advertising which diminishes the economic benefit to the team and the league and trying to market advertising.

when i was a kid you got a maybe $.75. today fans are wearing authentic jerseys in the stadium. that is a result of the frequency that comes with access to the brand. we think the nfl will catch up with this issue and do the right thing. >> do individual teams support the blackout rules? astypically the lead acts the league. it is a rarefied group of people. i don't think they want to be encouraged to do anything other than what they want to do. it is my responsibility to advance a compelling economic data which shows the blackout rule is obsolete. they are protecting something that really is against their self interest. all the data bears that out.

it is not a question of if. it is a question of when. thisable, long and support -- the league will come along and support this. >> take us back to buffalo. how does this affect buffalo? , the seconda team smallest market in the league. bases very loyal fan regardless of performance. it's an older stadium. they say it has good bones. it could be retrofitted time and again, which is currently going under a hundred million dollar renovation today. the stadium capacity is 73,000. they have to sellout 73,000 seats regardless of the performance of the team to be able to watch the game. in buffalo and other smaller market areas, we get blacked

out. tens of thousands are denied access visually from their team. that hurts the team. this is about our region frequency. if you are denied access to the brand you are less likely to buy the jersey, to see in stadium advertising, things that drive the economics of the nfl. we think it is not a question of if, it is a question of when. >> there are tv revenues. >> they are a shared revenue that is right. every team gets the same amount. general seating is a shared revenue. have 73,000 or 67,000, every team gets the same. some people say and buffalo it is hard to accept that they may be having financial challenges because they sell out every game despite the performance of the team.

general receipts are shared revenue. it is the luxury suites that are influenced by the size of the market that determines viability of nfl teams. recognition, is a smaller market teams that are storied franchises in the nfl, should be given an opportunity to survive. the blackout rule will prove to the economic benefit of the nfl teams in addition to loyal fan base that each of them has to. >> you said the fcc has voted to end it. the nfl has to implement it. where does the congress come in? is stripping the league of exemptions. we do have leverage here. we think we are acting in the best interest of the fan base. which finances

disproportionately a personage of stadium improvements. not nfl owners. other sectors as well, working capital for these teams. aen you really do cost-benefit analysis, you will .2 ande economics illumination of the blackout rule. >> brian higgins. thank you. up, we want to introduce you to cory gardner, a republican of colorado. congressman, we have not had you on here before. if you could talk generally about your philosophy when it comes to telecommunications. world wes an amazing are in today. i can remember the first phone my friends had in high school. we used business bands to communicate, and brick phones.

talking about the technology we have, whether it is an iphone, snap chat, the changes we have a remarkable. my philosophy is how can we continue to spur innovation? how can we get out of the way of that innovation and make sure that consumers in this country have access to the innovation that they are demanding? what are the ways to get out? >> some of the ways we have introduced, i have worked on deregulating providers to get video to the consumer, to make sure it is not too heavy handed in one party or the other when it comes to negotiations over what can be carried. making sure we are protecting people's ability to get paid for what they are doing and making sure we don't have regulations that are stifling innovation in the delivery of that.

like steve introduced a bill called next-generation tv. it is a bill that addresses concerns over must carry carriage rolls over retransmission, giving people level footing when it comes to negotiating with broadcast and the providers, people who are media to deliver that the consumer. it puts people on a level playing field when it comes to those negotiations. like stew broadcasters have a lot of old broadcasters have a lot of oomph? >> certainly. watch netflix from your cell phone or iphone. all of them are falling under different rules. i don't the consumers realize the rules that govern their television when they are

watching kung fu are different when they watch kung fu on their iphone. they can watch the same program and have it separate under the law. >> what does the market -- >> it details how we will address retransmission consent. to level the playing field between the broadcasters and satellite companies. it still make sure that people are getting paid for the anddcasters, for their work their material, but it doesn't given the advantage they have now. >> what did you think of the recent aereo decision? >> it's fascinating. antennao keep the aereo with me. i think it is a sign of things

to come as technology and innovation moves forward. there will be more conflicts and decisions that have to be made because of the communications act that hasn't been updated for decades. technology taking over how we watch tv when it comes to cable, satellite? do you see those as old school? >> in many ways technology has already done that. look at the smart tv that you can watch hbo go on your television. or dish that is coming into your tv, now you're getting internet and watching watching itrt tv, on demand. it has fundamentally changed how we watch and react. you are turning to see that with shows on netflix and amazon, the series of programs they are making, which shows you can deliver the things that are available 30 years ago only on a

television, but now you get it online. technology is changing how we watch and what we watch. >> what is congress' role in updating that? >> to create a level playing field, but also out of the way. how do we make sure this can flourish? it is being driven by consumers. it is being driven by the consumer who wants to have access with whatever time of the day to watch their program, or pick which program they want to watch. that is the exciting part, to see that change over not just the past year but past several years. that is moving faster now. >> the fcc just posted commentary on net neutrality. what is your position? is in the think it best interest of the united states or the consumers to have the government regulating the internet. i don't think we need to move in direction of more

government interference. i have constituents concerned about that. ed is why think the fcc will have to side with the consumers who do not want government regulation. telecommunications issues play on the campaign trail? >> they do. in colorado, it is a huge geographic area. by congressional district is as big a south carolina. are five other congressional districts in between. when it comes to issues of internet broadband access that is a big issue we talk about. corners of colorado, this is something we have been working on. if you're living in durango, you colorado tv. you get new mexico tv. we have tried to work on that. they say they're not in the state of colorado. we have tried to address that through amendments.

we have worked together to find solutions, legislatively and technologically to address the issue of people and call rocco can't even recall ronald television. >> is it a marketplace issue? >> they carved out areas that would go with different parts of the country. this is some thing that happened years ago. that becomes a big issue when it comes to advertising, when it comes to a broadcasters ability to sell advertisements for local car dealerships, somebody might be coming in to buy a car and new mexico. they have a lot of arguments. optiont to give them the of getting colorado television -- television. that is why we are looking to the private market to find those solutions. is there a technological evolution that would fix this? it needs to be changed. >> there's been talk about

rewriting telecommunications. in a more comprehensive way. is that something you support? >> it needs to be done. the more we can get government out of the way and like tautology work -- let technology work, the better we will be. it was written decades before. if you look at the changes that peoplecurred since 1992, -- we sell farming equipment. our tractors are now satellite guided. the technology has changed. all because of technology. now you can watch netflix in the tractor while the tractor is driving itself. it is incredible. >> satellites need spectrum. are you satisfied with the

process? thee need to make sure options go as congress intended to do. making sure that it is not just certain players that are going to have access to this. that would make sure we have spectrum availability around the nation. small companies, big companies. gardner. >> thank you for having me. c-span, greeted by america's cable companies 35 years ago. >> silvia morris is our guest on "q&a." >> she was so beautiful and witty. she was irresistible to men. i never saw her in old age.

owan was at this party. she stroked his beard. metsays heavens, i've never an 80 year old i wanted to leap into bed with. she had this vampish quality. sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> the president of the discussedf congo his role as a mediator in the central african republic and conflict. the sectarian violence has left thousands dead. he talked about the african response to the ebola virus outbreak and next week's african summit. this is one hour.

afternoon and welcome. my name is byron mel kind. professor,unct former international bureau chief for the associated press in the 107th president of the national press club. [applause] no need to applause. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker and all the