seriously injured in an attack. we will talk with the congressman pete aguilar about the attack. his district includes the regional center. it's something that across this country means something, because this is a big city that was attacked. this could happen. >> we will speak with the city councilman about establishing a permanent memorial. >> it provides a sense of remembrance. it highlights their lives and what they contributed to our local community and certainly always will be near and dear place for us to provide a place for serenity. we are thinking a garden in and around this area.

>> we'll visit the history and railroad museum and talk about the importance of the railroad to san bernandino with the historical society vice 1918 ent located in the san bernandino. >> construction was completed in 1918 and it replaced a wooden structure that was 100 yards east of here that burnt in 1960. it was built larger, they decided to house the division headquarters at that time. >> watch the city's tour at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3. the c-span city's tour and visiting cities across the country. peter: this week on the communicators f.c.c. commissioner, michael o'rielly.

i want to start with one of the issues that was the charter-time warner merger. why were conditions put on that merger? michael: that item is still before the commission. i can tell you that i have personally voted on the matter, but it is still before us and i have to be careful on exactly what i say about such a proceeding. peter: when you say you have voted on the matter, how did you vote? michael: that is to be released in a certain time period. all of that information will come forward in the next couple of weeks. peter: when we talk about a merger or some type of activity like that, putting conditions on uch a richer philosophy. michael: my approach to mergers. we have certain charges in the

statute and for the review of whether to transfer licenses between parties, transferring wireless licenses. you have a number that different companies own and hold and transferring them to the new merged company and that review is something we are required to do that the new party is able to qualify to hold them and have sufficient -- meet our statute, a statutory requirement for having those licenses. from that, other people read the statute in a way that provides other opportunities for different reviews of the merger itself. some past commissions have looked at what is the impact of the merger on the market and where the companies compete amongst themselves and others stretch the conversation even further to what whatever they see fit at the given moment and that gets you a broad universe

of what could be conditions for the merger. depends on how how a particular commission approaches the issue. howard: do wire and wireless organizations, do they get treated the same at the f.c.c. or do they? michael: in some services, they are. for instance, we treat them the same in net neutrality rules. so it is a different approach because of the statute. we have a law that congress has enacted and that governance how we operate. a lot of it is our own doing. i would like to see an opportunity to bring greater parity between the two and respect the fact that wireless is different. it has different characteristics. you have to obtain spectrum or through the second market opportunities and you have to

build infrastructure that's different than a wired company. peter: we are going to bring howard buskirk into this conversation right away. first, i want to play some videotape. this is the chairman who was on this program a couple of weeks ago talking about management of the f.c.c. >> when i first got involved at the f.c.c., it was very directional and detailed. you will do this. we will look at your books for this. you will have these kind of directors. it was very, very specific in terms of what it did. and you open the internet border, we have a different kind of approach where instead of preemptively saying, we know best, we said, you want to have a couple of concepts. you want to have an internet where mr. is no blocking, throat willing and consumers know what they are getting, transparency.

and then you put a referee on the field. and the referee has the ability to look at circumstances and throw the flag if necessary. and that's an entirely different approach to what the f.c.c. used to be. and i think that's the kind of approach that encourages this kind of innovation that i was talking about a minute ago. peter: what do you think about what he had to say? michael: i disagree with what he had to say especially the last part. net neutrality. i did not support for numerous reasons. it decreased the innovation of what's available on the internet and what the internet is going to grow to be. right now, under the structure that has been adopted and being channeled in the court, there are three bright-line rules. he describes it as a referee on

the field. the problem is we have no idea what the rules of the game are. when is the referee going to drop the flag? we have no idea. when the chairman or going to decide and it is not permits innovation. we have seen this today at the commission in a number of different instances. and that's where you know where that issue has been reviewed and being currently reviewed by two different burros with no rules of the road, no guidelines on how the investigation will go and when it will end and we'll have to see how it plays out and too much authority into basically employees of the federal government trying to review what technology should be going forward. howard: from the beginning and very strong on it, more than a year ago in february of 2015, when it was approved. after the -- this much later,

what do you think has been the effect of the order? have you seen any bad effects on this so far? michael: one is, the practices of the car years, the providers that we are supposedly going to be the bad behavior was not happening beforehand is not happening now. i don't know if that changed behavior on that side of the equation. we have seen companies and i have talked to companies who have changed their decisions, investments and rollout of products on the rules themselves. some innovation isn't happening because of those rules. the rules are being challenged in court. we are expecting a decision any day now and will provide some guidance and will be challenged in the supreme court and provide some guidance whether the commission was inbounds or oubds and whether those rules will

stay. howard: suppose there is a negative decision from the court that that could be the dominant issue for the rest of the administration? do you think that will take over the rest of the aagenda ave? >> it depends what the ruling is and i hate to predict what a court may or may not do. if it is done on procedural ground, it may occupy the rest of the year. if it is done on the merits themselves, which is a great chance, then you may find it will have an impact on our decisions that are potentially pending because a lot of those decisions are tied into the authorities that we have captured by our net neutrality decision. howard: and there are a lot of ople who feel -- among the commissioners. ask you to comment on that. michael: i commented on this in

the past and made the point that i believe it's basically something that happens on an item by item and issue by issue approach. sadly, i don't think that's the case anymore. it's not a personality-driven approach. the chairman and i get along as people. but the direction from f.c.c. leadership, including the chairman, takes the most aggressive approach to policy making, there's little ground, when that becomes the first primary goal of the item, when the policy, the direction they want to go becomes the first goal, rather than any consideration of any college atlanta or any attempt to bring or develop consensus, you wind up what we have today. there is nil interest of bringing my opinions on board and i'm going to express my views. howard: there has been a gradual

deterioration of relationships at the commission? michael: i still maintain positive relationships with my colleagues, but overall, there is a fairly tense feeling at the commission. we are waiting for a number of court decisions that will settle some of the ground. we have only so many months left of this particular administration and people are trying to figure out what the next administration may look like and how it may be structured and what the commissioners may or may not say. peter: there is a little bit going on in the senate. do you think she should be confirmed for the full second appointment? michael: there is a press release out to that effect. but i leave the legislating and the nominating process to my friends and colleagues and senators in the body. they know best.

it's not my job. she has been a great colleague of mine and the senate will have to decide if she should stay. peter: being an election year, does that curtail some of your activity at the f.c.c., since it's an election year, we don't know who is going to be the president? michael: generally, yes. past instances of an election year, you saw the commission slow down as you get closer to an election day. i don't know if that's going to occur. the chairman has a fairly broad and strong agenda that he wants to move in the next many months and i think we are going to proceed through those items and therefore there won't be too much of a rest. he wants to run through the tape and i think -- i may not agree with the items that are moving forward, but i think we will be fairly busy. peter: and one more question,

hillary clinton was recently in west virginia and mentioned how her cell phone would drop and was unconnected. do we have a digital divide in this country and what can, if so, what can be done? michael: we have parts of america that are not connected, on the wireless or broadband side. i have spent a great deal of time to address those issues, where are those pockets and services not being provided, what is the problem. how do we best address it. and we have a mechanism that the federal communications commission runs and going to run $11 billion and trying to figure out how to spend those dollars and get those dollars from the ratepayers of america who contribute and pay for that purpose. i try to be solid stewards of that dollar and make sure it goes as far as possible.

we have a number of different programs that we run to try and expand the existing network to all people in the united states. peter: do you think it has been well -- do you think you have been good stewards? michael: parts of the program have done very well and other parts have not lived up to what has been expected. we expected programs fairly substantially. one, the program had substantial fraud, waste and abuse and we didn't address those issues, that being the lifeline program. there are still programs that need to be addressed. not getting the maximum dollar. howard: you have been in washington since the early 1990's, to what extent do you think the fighting at the f.c.c. reflective of the broader

definitions in washington? michael: i worked with congress for many years. and it depends on the cycle and the leadership and the tone. and i think -- left that body 2.5 years ago. the commission has run in a fairly straightforward manner. if people are working together, i tend to be as collegeal as possible. if people want to do that, you can sidestep any particular problem. if the leadership, the majority has a particular outcome that they want and pushing as hard notwithstanding my views or my colleagues' views, if those views are sidestepped, hard to find commonality. not the rest of washington breeding into the commission but how is it being run. howard: and various orders -- do

you agree that that's departure from past f.c.c.'s? michael: i have put forward ideas and not many of those have made it into the books as of yet. i do what's on the table. i read every item that is put before the commission that my name is going out on. there are a number of things that go out the door that i don't know about or don't have an opportunity to vote on. but i do read everything and i try to provide constructive ideas and edits that would garner my support. many times recently, they haven't been adopted or considered. that is disappointing. it's a decision by the leadership that my vote is not as important. howard: past chairmen have put things out -- and not a consensus as much. michael: that's what you can see from the items.

peter: a year into net neutrality, have there been any issues? michael: we have a major court decision that is about to break in a matter of weeks or so, could be a couple of days. there weren't problems before. there are problems with the rules themselves and the behavior from the rules. i think that's been problematic and i would like to see those things changed. peter: in a couple of weeks, you will be visiting with the cable industry at their annual show and one of the issues that will talked about is set top boxes, where are you on that? michael: you outlined my position. so i did vote against what the commission was proposing. in fairness, my view points are fairly well known. i would like to get rid of the box. i do not like a set top box.

they are old and do not provide the modern function atlanta that the xpect out of today's proposal that the chairman put forward, he had the opportunity to go one of two ways. how do we regulate and install what a set top box should be and what do you charge for it and what does it look like for the streams going in and out of it. the other approach is to adopt a modern view point. it is changing and moving to an application-based structure. everyone uses applications. in the video marketplace is no different. we could eliminate the box and let consumers save all of the money they pay for representing boxes and open up innovation in a very straightforward way. sadly, there are rules that were

put on the table, it's an old vision, it's an old model and should be disregarded. howard: first one in the world, you expressed concerns about that in the past. are you feeling more comfortable with that now -- what are your concerns at this point? michael: i'm rooting for and hopeful for a very successful incentive auction. i advised members of the senate on the component of the statute that designed the rules for the incentive auction. the commission has implemented. my difficulty with what the commission has did over time and how are things done at the commission whether there is a willingness to suggest compromise and social policy. try to specifically target a couple of companies and let them have licenses at less costs than

other companies. that is skewing an auction. and in doing so, that is harmful to those people who are selling licenses or disrupting the marketplace. i move for that. i must admit as not being the chairman, i don't have a great deal of information as of yet. i read the information that's put out and looking for the start of the reverse auction and see what the price will be at the plan and the initial target of spectrum that's made available and see how much it will cost to buy out the broadcasters at the collective broadcasters for a gain of 126 mega hertz. howard: there is going to be 100 mega hurts. does that make you feel better about the spectrum? there is going to be a lot of spectrum available? michael: i would like to release

as much spectrum as possible. 126. i would like it to be the case. the chairman has indicated we will go through multiple stages as necessary. if there's not enough bidding, those people purchasing on the wireless carrier side, then we'll drop down. we'll drop down to a different tier until they get equilibrium. e will wind up having less spectrum. i don't know as you indicated very succinctly. if we set it up in a thoughtful way it can be replicated in the united states, it is another option in a number of years. but it can be adopted elsewhere. hopefully without the social pollly. howard: this is tied into the move and wireless companies are

lking about 5g, the next generation of service, is the u.s. staying in a competitive? michael: i'm pushing. the incentive auction is one piece of it and aavailable spectrums available at the lower tier. we have more things to deal with at the hire tiers. some of the super high bands and that will be done successful. i have pushed the chairman and he agreed to add more bands of high frequencies to that pot and hopefully do it. troublecompanies having building the towers and that is one of yours concerns? michael: obtaining spectrum. and understandably for many

years, communities don't necessarily, they like the service but don't like the towers themselves, the big towers that cover a number of areas. we have moved to a technology, thank goodness that we may have smaller towers and smaller antennas and be as small as a street light. talk about a much smaller universe but to provide it in a small structure, most -- in fairness, wireless service is driven by wired service. we have to have wired connecting all of these facilities. and so that wired service has to get to those wireless places. and that is going to be difficult because communities don't like the ground or the deployment of certain facilities in certain places. so you have that going forward and i would like to see that we get to a more friendly place rather than the big blobs we

have had. peter: commissioner o'reilly is the market competitive in your view? michael: depends on which have you you look at. we have a number of different instances. i do believe that the wireless is fairly competitive depending on what market you are looking at. some places are less and some places are more. hard to say -- would you like more competition? absolutely. i would like more competition. there is a realization that the cost of deployment and entering the marketplace, it is not -- it is an not an inexpensive venture, whether it be in the wireless, satellite or in the cable or broadcast. those things do require a lot of capital and a lot of investment and i understand why people and companies make certain decisions. peter: what, in your view could

he f.c.c. do to make it more competitive to allow more? michael: first thing i would try and do is focus what are the barriers to entry and keep them from entering the market. some of those could be infrastructure-driven. and may require and i have been outspoken on this, may require preempting localities that are unnecessarily blocking car years . there are things i would spend my time on focusing on that. howard: what are the worst decisions that you think the f.c.c. has made since you have become a commissioner? michael: top of the list is net neutrality. second on that list is municipal

broadband and third on the list, there is a bunch that would fall into that category. howard: a, b, c and d. michael: i could highlight. just a handful of things that would fall in. howard: there are going to be new issues between now and the end of the administration that you are going to be concerned about or mostly fighting battles you fought on things like the boxes? michael: any new ideas have been keyed up and going to be concluded. there are some exceptions. but generally reach the point where all new ideas have been put on the table and reviewing the comments and executing the comment. i may disagree with what's going to happen, but that time line, here is a dozen to 15 items in

the big ticket scenario that will be disposed of and i know what's coming. peerttheert they were going to be offering a skinny bundle. is that something the f.c.c. will have jurisdiction over and take a look at? michael: i wouldn't say jurisdiction but interesting, innovative potential offering to be determined whether that happens. there are contractual relationships with content providers and still working through those issues. if it does, it does materialize as announced, the f.c.c. is an interesting development for our business. it is suggesting that programmers are going to deliver services. and some of that happens today, but not to this degree and not by these programmers. that has the potential to change the marketplace if it develops -- i try to be careful here and try to be and not -- so many things have calmed down over the

years and hasn't materialized as expected. if it does develop as announced, that could have an opportunity where you have the voice of the old cable providers now a broadband provider only and consumer is directly from the programmer and maybe they are selling and in this instance, they may sell on a channel basis or on a program basis. and you can buy the package on a monthly subscription. it is interesting development and hopeful. peter: a lot of the decisions that the f.c.c. makes or considers have to do with who owns that pipe going into somebody's house? michael: it has recently. we don't have authority over certain aspects or some of the programming issues. those are under our jurisdiction as established by congress. there are some issues we have

authority over and some we don't. a lot of issues have focused on the pipe itself, whether a broadband pipe or wireless pipe and the two could be the same and i don't suggest otherwise but it has focused on some of the physical components in recent days. howard: another service that is popular, t-mobile and doesn't cut across your data. do you think the f.c.c. could clamp down on that since it is a popular service? michael: i would be cautious in doing so and this was the example i was talking about earlier and that is being reviewed by the commission. no rules in place and no how the commission is examining this issue and what they are going to do about it. and what might problem a trigger area.

the 'm watching what consumers are gravitating towards, what they are looking for and what they are adopting and i have seen great potential for this and i don't want to foreclose until i know the full ram fix. and we saw this. it is very -- we know what's going to happen and we think this behavior is problematic from the start. well, we are going to take a double look-see at this scenario but a lot of these things should develop further. when you talk about some of the bands in that net neutrality, there are certain things that should be allowed to happen before we ban and before it occurred. peter: finally, is it cumbersome to come up with the rules and regulations that the f.c.c.