chapter in this never-ending saga of consolidation that has wreaked havoc. >> what is the issue with consolidation? >> the issue is you have huge companies who are not only in control of distribution, but of content increasingly. we as a democracy rely upon them to govern ourselves. .t has been a never-ending tale i went to the fcc in 2001 not knowing i was going to be listening5% of time to ceo after ceo come in and say you have to let us get bigger because we have these inefficiencies we going to pass on to consumers. think the average cable bill has gone up 4% a year. consumers are paying for it.

now we are into not just traditional cable and media, but broadband. this opportunity creating an dynamic technology should be opening a new era of media democracy. road going down the same radio and television and cable went down of consolidation. treat atragic way to dynamic technology. likes robert -- >> same question. >> thank you for having us back. i think your viewers often know that while we have differences, we remained friends and cap the devil -- dialogue civil. items we voted50 on, and we voted on them together. he is the only chair of which i have 100% voting record. era.ood

i'm notr your question, here to advocate for or against. i think the deal will be approved. if you look at it through the antitrust lens, you don't have them taking out a competitor. it brings up of whether or not the fcc should be in the merger review business. should you have government agencies reviewing this merger? other mergers don't. other industries don't have two agencies. it will happen. of fcc is going to put a lot conditions on the merger approval, like comcast and nbc universal. ,hat was vertical integration the supply of content and the distributor. the disagreed are buying and the supplier content. primed netflix and amazon

, and other over-the-top providers flourish cents that merger was approved. whether it was due to the conditions or the market, and smart and savvy marketing by netflix, that is another question. there will be another of conditions put on this. comcast is not taking out a rival. they are responding to the dynamic market. the first screen is becoming the mobile screen. as i watched a scientific focus increasingly this is the number one screen. real market studies are proving the same thing. we have four national wireless carriers. wireless broadband is actually the fastest of the market. i think with cable doing what it is with this transaction, at&t and directv, that is all about

content and mobile screen. among other things. it is a dynamic marketplace and it is the best time ever to be in american consumer services. .e are awash in choices they were unimaginable 15 years ago. >> wide you question they should be in the merger review business? >> we have the department of justice and the federal trade commission. they review every other aspect of the economy. doj will be looking at this one. not every industry has 2 agencies reviewing their transactions. reviews under the antitrust standards. is there a concentration of market power? oversimplified.

the fcc has the public interest standard. that is the majority of the , the public interest. the fcc can extract conditions out of merging parties that have nothing to do with the transaction. they are not merger specific arms to college other goals, which may be noble that have nothing to do with the transaction. is that good public policy or an unnecessary overlay of bureaucracy? i think it's a legitimate question. i have worked with chairman fred that oversees these issues. they've introduce legislation. >> you were taking notes. the so many of -- >> so many of these ramifications are noncommercial. they look at it for two different reasons.

the department of justice looking at it for economic indices, and all sorts of things that go to the market. the public interest standard of the fcc is very different. it goes to noncommercial things. what are the effects of the merger on things like public safety? privacy? ubiquity of service? these are every bit as important , more so than some of the things the department of justice is looking at. i think that public interest standard is essential. i think it is pretty clear from the statute, a lot people argue that it has lived its time. . think it is clear public interest over 110 times. something once, i would listen. they told me 110 times, i would take it seriously.

>> what about public safety? >> public interest is the basis is of why the sec was formed over 80 years ago. intent.congress' i will pick up on what mike said. it ought to be overhauled. it wasn't lamented in the days , and no tvum tube stations, and a few hundred radio stations. the world has changed tremendously since then. you have pieces of the statute which are premised on the technological legacy of companies. offering analog voice services. title vi is coaxial cable. mobile, wireless.

we have convergence things to technological innovation and investment. demandsumer driven changing this. act is in desperate need of a rewrite. we need to get the federal yield more to rea spectrum. the federal government occupies 80% of the best spectrum. behink of people would unhappy with knowing that. >> it's quite a take us years and years to get a new dell communications act. the 1996 act was an unusual correlation of forces. each got a piece of something out of it. they came together to support it. all of the companies took what remains.

havei don't think we another 3-4 years while we wait for congress to rewrite the telecommunications act to render this issue istion so tied up with what the commission is going to do now on open internet and net neutrality. this is a real point with the fcc. it is as important as anything that has ever been called upon to do. thise going to be taking media ecosystem of hours and really make it work for american citizens? it can sustain our democratic dialogue. we are not taking advantage of that opportunity. this is a time where the fcc can be the good guys. legacy of the wheeler

commission is going to be on the decision that it makes, and the future of the open internet. everything else is some text. -- subtext. i hope that he realizes that. it is vitally important to the our mediat just ecosystem, but our democratic infrastructure. >> there is another merger out there that is not getting the attention comcast is. the att and directv. what are your thoughts? through.k it goes i think it is mainly driven by at&tnt, content deals that will be able to deliver over mobile platforms. in most markets, at&t is not taking out a competitor.

u-verse is not known as a pay-tv provider. it is a broadband provider. wireless companies, they are not viewed as a television provider. it could be beneficial. especially for time warner. i think you will continue to see that merit of connectivity and platforms. mobile that's going to be dynamic and beneficial. >> is it different than time warner? >> it is different. both go through. it is different. i think it is beneficial to consumers. >> this is interesting, these mergers. kami make this proposal work for the public interest? it comes in and you take it as a fact that this is going to need to be changed.

how much better would it be if we could just learn to say no to these things? and put a stop to this ongoing consolidation? working at cost to our country. the commissioner brought up a point over these over-the-top broadband providers that are offering competition, different alternatives to what we have in our media market today. doesn't that count? >> it counts but you have to look at the whole picture. what has happened to our news and information, your profession of journalism. nobody disputes that we have lost maybe at least a third of lastewsroom jobs over the 10 years. you can say there are 5000 news jobs that have been added on the internet. how does that compare to the 20-30,000 more jobs that have been lost?

and investigative journalism, there are so many beats uncovered right now that we should be covering, not just with traditional media, the making sure media has models that can sustain reporting. we haven't seen that. hopefully we will get there. yes, the internet is doing wonderful things. replacedhink we have what we have lost in traditional media. somethingve to do about it. >> what is that? >> number one we have to learn to say no to some of these mergers. we have to get out of this mindset, everything is going to be all right if we continue down the road we are on. we have to get serious about competition. so many people say it's too late. but it is not too late. even if you have all of these

big companies, it is difficult to reverse the trend. we have spectrum auctions coming up. we have opportunities to open that a small business, entrepreneurs, minorities and women who have been the service our auctions in and businesses generally. we could have more targeted policies. spectrum caps. spectrum screens at work. if you're not using spectrum you should use it -- lose it. instead of just warehousing it. we do have to throw in mattel. are in this we the workingshrough of natural law or market inevitability, we're there

because of policy the fcc has made. policy that has enhanced consolidation, that have done away with public interest guidelines. we are paying the price for that now. policy got us into this mess. policy can get us out. i disagree with the premise that we are in a mess. it is the best time in human history to be a consumer of news. both the my parents were journalist. went to the university of journalism. i am pro-journalism and a defender of the first amendment. what we are seeing is an evolution in journalism that has ,volved since the colonial days the constant of objective journalism in the 20th century, there is still a market. i think we are seeing citizen journalists, a lot of bottom-up

new media driven journalism, and the definition of it is changing. the social networks, that is evolving. it is good. the marketplace is dynamic. and chaotic. i think consumers are benefiting as a result. it is democratizing the world, empowering individuals. we are seeing minorities and women and those who have been historically disadvantaged having an easier time getting into new-media realm of things. broadband, thes adoption of smartphones is faster in my nordic amenities benenson -- then in suburban suburbann

communities. thellows people to have benefit of new information, to change political expectations, economic expectations. there are some negatives that come along with that as well. pornography, gambling online, a legal activity. outweigh the negatives. justk at the glass not half or, but completely full. that glasses completely full. there is nothing but good that is not going to happen. there is plenty of competition. i have been an advocate for unlicensed use of spectrum, in addition to license. that provides a fantastic alternative and a disruptor in the marketplace. it keeps everyone honest and keeps innovation flowing. >> what is the idea about cap's?

caps, wek in lieu of need more spectrum into the marketplace. the federal government having 1500 megahertz, a tremendous amount of spectrum. 80% of a spectrum. i'm doubtful all of it is being used efficiently. some can be put in the private sector. let's talk about spectral efficiency. you had on your show marty cooper, the inventor of the cell phone. i'm an acolyte of his. i will give him deference. about spectral efficiency, tied to moore's law. doubles every 2.5 years. what policies can we adopt to foster that to keep that going? so we can squeeze more efficiency out of the airwaves, convey more data as a result?

there is a lot of policy here. all of these new media areas we're talking about, exploded in a beneficial way because they were deregulated. trying to retrofit 80-year-old communication law would be detrimental. >> let's go back to new-media. sites on theop 10 internet or responsible for 31% of page views. in 2010, those top 10 sites were responsible for 75% of page views. there is no question the potential is there, but there is no question that we haven't seen women and minorities flourish there. we have not seen ease of establishing new websites. it is getting more and more difficult as consumers expect instantaneous feed. tois becoming more expensive

get websites going. it is easy to say we are all being hurt because we can send something into the ether. but if you're going to have gatekeepers deciding what can go down there, what news you can see, what sites you can see, what advocacy you can see, and who might slow it down or speed up, who there went a favor, that is not an open internet. that is not making maximum use. it is not a glass half full. it is a glass that has the potential to empty out. we are where we are now because we have guidance from the fcc over the years. onething to put companies probationary behavior. we have seen as a fermentation with prioritization of data gaps. it is not the way we should be going with the internet. >> i want to bring up something that you growth -- you both

brought up. federal spectrum. could agree the feds give up the spectrum question mark >> i do. because theppen military-industrial folks in the national security council, and the white house say this needs to be done. the politics are very uphill. .hese are entrenched forces they come to a meeting and just say national security and that is supposed to make everybody cower down. i've been in a lot of those meetings. they are very intimidating. >> let me agree with everything he just said. they manage a different spectrum. mike worked there. he is right. it is what a take leadership from the oval office, and

congressional legislation. there is a win-win here for everybody involved. caret and sticks for federal users of spectrum. you can have the unlicensed use of spectrum set aside for silicon valley. license used for carriers. there is so much. more available for startups and minority owned businesses. i think there is so much abundance available that this could be a tremendous win-win. we need to get the federal government users on board. use carrots and sticks. that is another episode. >> the potential or failed merger on the table, sprint and t-mobile. it looks like it has fallen off completely. what are your thoughts? say no to aeed to

merger, that is when they said no to. you have the administration going out of its way, the assistant attorney general saying absolutely not several times. the chairman of the fcc saying absolutely not several times. it didn't happen. there is a religious conviction in this administration that 4 national wireless carriers is the right number. they just were going to allow it to happen. they may be waiting for another administration. you hear about other suitors for t-mobile. it is interesting. >> do you agree with that question mark >> you have to have for?

>> other countries, including japan and europe, it has gone to three for national carriers. there is a very strong argument to make that 3 would be the right number given that number one and number two have 80% of the market share. what is the fate long-term of number three? for a not going to know couple of years. stay tuned. this is not the end. thef we had been true to competitive of the keys seeing -- advocacy we would have four more. that would be good. let's not comfort ourselves by , last year in 2013 it

was the greatest year in consolidation and perhaps all of history. e a few seconds. 30,000 comments to the net neutrality issue. >> over one million now. that comment is about to close. >> i would like to see the fcc study the comments closely. number two, get out of washington dc and beyond the beltway. take the chairman around the country. show the people what the fcc is thinking, and hear what is on the people's minds have to live with the results of the

decisions. before they decide on net neutrality they should do that. i think they should then come back and realize the central the .hat this commission has it is in a position, i don't know any position with more power to influence the 21st century than in the next few months. take that seriously, take those comments to heart. i think they will come out if they did that to understand not just the importance of the decision, but the importance of having an open internet and the importance of really nourishing and infrastructure that serves the needs of our democracy. >> the commissioner should follow the facts and law. we have an open internet that enhances freedom. it has for a number of reasons. i think the facts will show that there is nothing broken that needs fixing.

that is one of the reasons they have not done a market study. they concluded that nothing was wrong. and warned against new rules trade the law is the commission really has a very narrow path to follow. it could be overturned in court for a third time. there are other laws on the books to protect consumers. the ftc laws, section five, antitrust laws, state law to protect consumers should something go wrong. and michaeldowell copps. thank you both. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] c-span, brought to you 35

years ago by your local cable provider. >> a preview of house and senate races with nathan gonzales and jessica taylor. also, a discussion on the influence of crisis in syria with karen leigh. we will take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. washington journal is live on c-span. >> next, a look at housing needs of senior citizens with former urban development secretary henry cisneros and representatives from the public and private sectors. they discuss affordability, long-term care, and safety. this is cohosted by harvard

university's joint center for housing studies in the aarp foundation. it is one hour. [applause] >> good afternoon. am i on, here? norton and as lisa said, i have the most amazing panel and i'm thrilled to be a part of it. right -- this is in your agenda. with ludwig, he is enterprise. kathy greenlee was the assistant secretary of aging and the administrator for thrifty living. did i get that right? [laughter] we have lindsay goldman from new york city, where we all want to go now, was going to talk to us about the age-from the community effort that is going on in new york and i understand some other

communities across the country. so, i am really struggling not to hear gloom and doom because i know that the report has outlined so many of the challenges that are facing us going forward. we're going to change all that with this panel. we are here to tell you that all is not gloom and doom. many of us, including the wonderful women with me today and organizations they are associated with, are aware of these challenges, are working very proactively within their organization and across the country to find tried and true ways to address these challenges, as well as coming up with more innovative solutions. our goal here today for the rest of the panel is to try to make you feel more optimistic