2011, and served as acting chair for half a year. michael copps, you were there during a presidential transition. what is it like? michael: i think it will vary from incoming administration to incoming administration. rumors about who is in and who is out. i assume there is. i hope the business of the commission will continue. as we go between here and january. there are a lot of items teed up that democratic and republican commissions have worked on. i think it is time to put some of those issues behind us. there is a whole new generation of telecommunication issues out there. we will start to tackle those, the future of the internet going beyond network neutrality. what it means regarding

artificial intelligence, jobs, commercialization. this is a time of transition. i hope we will focus more on issues rather than just on who will be the next chairman and who held the most fundraisers for a specific candidate. such an important part of our economy as individuals. we need to look fresh during this transition about what it is we will be doing. peter: robert mcdowell, you went from the majority to the minority. did you try to push some things through? robert: shout out to my good friend. he was acting chairman for the first few months of 2009. our friend jonathan edelstein, undertaking the most difficult job, which is the digital television transition.

it is the era of the three amigos, led by the chief amigo here. mike copps, i will destroy all the credibility we have for our constituents, we agreed 100% of the time. items 50 votes on major and we voted together unanimously on all 50 of those items. the only divide we cannot bridge was the tar heels and i am a duke blue devil. the transitions are very important. the bush to obama transition, we worked with the obama transition team. we talked about ideas and things like fcc process reform. we worked on those issues as well. what can be more transparent, more public comments, etc. all of these things are very important in terms of policymaking and the nuts and bolts operations of government.

you can disagree on the outcome, which should have a fair process in the interim. michael: the city has gotten a lot more partisan over the last few years. but harkening back, i hope we can keep that in mind as we move ahead. obviously, there are always two, three votes, division on big issues. you have to have a level of camaraderie. it seems like sometimes that slips away, and that is the detriment and credibility of the fcc. i think everything in washington is hooked away with partisanship. unanimous are still but when you get to the big issues, whether it is media ownership or network utility neutrality, there will be partisanship. for years, i said let's get away

from this closed meeting that prohibits people from talking about the issues. you can have the lawyers to keep it above board and above suspicion, but i think so much of the personal conflicts we have seen -- this goes back before the commission -- if commissions would sit around the table like this, then you don't feel like throwing hand grenades. you solve the problem. peter: the current republican commissioner has endorsed letters from the chairman of the energy congressman of the house. congressmen saying to hold off on controversial items. do you agree? robert: i do. this is tradition no matter if you are republican or democrat. same thing happened in 2008 when george w. bush was leaving office and barack obama was coming in. the democratic leaders had a

very similar letter to kevin martin. we actually ended up having our meetings like teleconference. i remember the very last meeting for my other former colleague was by phone which was kind of sad. she didn't get the proper sendoff. nonetheless, no major conflict issues. we hoped we could have reform a universal service but had to wait a few more years. first, obama chairman after the commissioner. these are normal things. the elections happened. but your pencils down, the american people voted for a change so let's move on. we got to have a permanent chairman, while it was interim chairman, we did the transition. teed up an initiative on

broadband strategy. we did quite a few things. it seems to me that on something like special access or bds, i remember signing letters -- maybe rob was there -- we would deal with this issue by 2007. it is now 2017 almost, it is not there. at some point, you have to say, ok, let's go ahead and do what we got, but we cannot go back and start the research over and everybody fighting over every little data you want to get. as i said, the commission needs beyrtee up if it will doing justice by the internet and the digital age. >> thank you. commissioners, two issues of

particular that have been controversial. one being the bds and the other being set-top box. do you see that coming back in 2017? robert: i do not. these are the big pipes that connect office buildings and cell towers. the wheeler fcc wanted to regulate that more. so, i don't see that being a priority. let me caveat everything by saying when comes to the donald trump era, the prediction business has been hard hit. nobody has predicted what has happened this year. we can take our best guess. we don't know for sure, but i sense that what plans chairman wheeler teed up for data services and the set-top box item, whether there was no

unanimity, will also not get off the ground. michael: i hope that is not true. negotiated, ig think it can be discussed and dealt with before this commission ends. we are still in the early stages of analyzing what this election means, but to me, this was not a difficult liberal or conservative contest, or republican versus democrat. if the media is correct with the analysis we have not heard from the rest oust belt, keep in mind these are not employees of at&t or verizon or cox or contest. mcast. these are americans don't like paying $300 for a set-top box. that like the consolidation going on with the

telecommunications. president-elect trump will take a look at this wherend try to figure out you need to get involved in and what really reflects the base of people who came to vote for him. they may be voting differently from what we are thinking now from these early stages of electoral analysis. an independent agency as envisioned by franklin roosevelt. i think that is to be revitalized. these are independent expert agencies who should not be part of the executive branch which is what congress set up. you appoint good people who understand the subject matter and decide what is best. regardless of the outcome, i think you would agree with me on that. that will be a major point for

improvement. one question seems to be looking at who president-elect lead the had picked to transition. one big question is there is tension between establishment figures between folks who want to shake up the system, if you will. what is your expectation for that tension as it applies to the fcc? michael: the first thing we nomineesdo is confirm for the federal communications commission. jessica is not knowing if she will be a commissioner because it is strictly partisan politics. democrat and republicans realizes her expertise, respects her expertise. there was no more diverse

experience and knowledge in the telecommunications industry. she's sitting out there not knowing if she will be on the commission in january because of capitol hill politics. if congress was serious about an agency, why in the world with a not vote and confirm on her? oft is a harsh indictment government. it is inexcusable she is in the anuation and in its usabl inexe independent agency is held hostage. i understand all of it but it is not the way it should be. brian: do you see a fast-forward for the commissioner? robert: i expect the majority leader in the senate to figure it out. it is also up to chairman wheeler. his term does not run out for a couple of more years.

he can make that happen potentially. could beocrats who sitting on a republican commission in 2017, 2018 and not knowing the outcome is on the minds of many. back to your other point, we don't know who will be appointed to these agencies. a week after we understood the election result. will notition team turn its attention to sub capital level for quite a while. anyone who is saying it with great conviction that they know who will be the next chair is full of it. that is the big wildcard. maybe we can reconvene in 30 days and talk about it. this: we are taping before the big fcc meeting for november. some of the big-ticket or

controversial items on the agenda, could they be overturned in january? robert: absolutely. that is part of the tension. we talked about the congressional letters. 3-2 votes that have happened over the years. may be replaced. i think industry, public interest groups, think tanks, consumer groups especially want to make sure we understand what the rules of the road are for repealing things. every four years, he does not do any good because investment decisions, consumer behavior are influenced by whether government does. will congress steps up and legislate some of this? there is an opportunity over the next 18 months to do that. if you look at the title ii classification of broadband internet service, i think it is right for the fcc to repeal that, but will congress that in to have rules of the road? we were very close.

i think that spirit can be rekindled to protect an open internet and freedom and have a win-win situation where providers ican floor flourish. congress has a terrific opportunity to act, but most people saying repealing things appears unhealthy. the world needs to understand what the constructs will be going forward. michael: it is easier for them to put the pencils down. that is just a fact of life and you have to deal with it. an independent agency, if they

have been working on business, then working on set-top boxes by congress, get this done. five, 10, 15 years later and we have an independent commission dealt with this item, the independent commission can do away with they want to. it opens up neutrality which we are not talking about this second. it should its job with the evidence it has. for heaven's sake, let's put some of these battles behind us. we are not selecting commissioners to deal for another 10 years. we have a commission that is responsible for oversight of the economy. all these important questions of where we live and how we work, how many jobs can be displaced in this new and digital age -- we should have a white house conference or some kind of blue-ribbon conference on the

future of the internet. this gets meel, into what i feel so passionate about, the future of information of internet. the future of journalism, the future of jobs you guys do. this will be our town square of our democracy, paid with broadband bricks. how can we get that information out there? it is a travesty. it's not the self-government buts in order to thrive, to survive. this election we had been through with the ultimate show.cialized it has nothing to do with the problems of democracy, the real problems the country faces. there are serious problems that could drag the country down. we need to get serious. brian: the government should be

the arbiter of what is fake news or not? michael: we as a country have to bring back some model that need to bring back investigative journalism. we have lost maybe half of our news in the middle east. we have lost deep journalism. we have reporters now -- here is your job for the day, get these 10 things, get the headline for it. if it does not go out, go do something else. what happened to the days with the muckrakers? go out and take a year. find out what is happening in the imagery industry, telecom industry, meatpacking industry. and they do it. they come back and write a 50,000 word article and people would read that. we are not informing ourselves. brian: a lot of criticism. do you think there is a response

ibility? michael: of course. what are they putting back into journalism? investigative reporters are extensive, but it is a public good, necessity. you can go back to james madison, thomas jefferson and those folks who realized this was a need in society. that is why they subsidized the distribution of newspapers and all of that because they knew this experiment of theirs, which nobody knew would succeed or not of self-government, dependent on people having news and information. for the last few years, according to some videos, i our democratic dialogue has been dumbed down? is it dead? robert: both our parents were print journalists. the era before the broadcast

journalism and the tv radio ship band. we have seen a big decline in newspapers because of the natural market progression, but now you are required to fund tv or radio newsroom and newspaper newsroom. at this point i think the marketplace has bypassed that. 1975, you can see the decline, especially in the past 15 years of newspapers. it may be something the fcc may have to revisit but the market has passed it by. michael: it is not on the internet. it is not that we lost a half of the newsroom staff and traditional media of newspapers and media because they have not cleared maybe 100,000. on the internet, maybe 5000 jobs associated. thatt: there is a study

7:1 local viewers still trust their local broadcasters for serving the news up pretty straight versus cable tv where there is lots of opinion or whatever your favorite website is. that is something to be mindful of. it helps you understand the public benefit. michael: imight be better but that does not think it is good. peter: brian, you have expressed concerns about media bias and the potential for cable news channels or others to disadvantage conservative voices. do you worry he would use the the fccnatants to use as a tool to go after media sources? brian: i don't think so. michael: it was too much power

in the hands of too few people. i hope he follows through on that. because we have through a campaign, we don't know what the exact steps are he wishes to take in regards to that. we have certainly try to interview with licensing and other things at the fcc, but i don't know. book outlinest how the fcc and lbj administration -- you can go back to the truman administration were the fairness doctrine interviewed with speech over the airwaves. i have not been able to figure at&tow cnn being bought by changes the editorial content of cnn in any way leading into the current hands if you are unhappy with it or running a change. there are lots of hundreds of years of antitrust jurisprudence.

it should go through. i think the deal will go through. mike and i were talking ahead of time that we hope there will not be any interference through the fcc of editorial discretion that would probably unified most republicans and democrats. michael: the classic definition of monopoly, we go back to the and john dnert barons rockefellers. the content, product into the hands of the distributor and possibly freezing out a lot of independent voices that would otherwise be heard but cannot cope. whether at&t, comcast or whoever it is. peter: january 21 of next year, when that rolls around, who will be on the commission? who gets to have a voice and

what will be some of the items that the trump administration, fcc will have to tackle? know recently.t peter: will chairman wheeler begun? he does not have to be. robert: you have to ask him that question. the president designate who the chair is but cannot bar you from the commission altogether. it is only through impeachment. nobody has ever had through the fcc. in theory, chairman wheeler can stay on as a regular commissioner. we don't know that for sure. traditionally, chairs, when you change parties, chairs step down. that is the assumption of what will happen with tom wheeler. peter: any other particular issues and policy areas that

republicans have a looking to address because of the democratic control of the fcc that they have not been able to and now is the opportunity? michael: sure, crossownership. the ownership rules. i suppose somebody will try to undo net neutrality. i don't know how a lawyer can go before a judge without getting very red in the face and the judge saying why are you here? remember what we didn't like and you didn't like, we will bring that back. did donald trump get involved? why would anybody want to get involved in that fight? that should be history and we should get on to other issues. robert: the supreme court and the fox case can change their mind. we were both involved with indecency rules. certainly, the appellant

courts understand. michael: every other year. robert: they did not speak to that. it could be every other year. nonetheless, we don't know for sure what the agenda will be. i think there are things before the commission that can have bipartisan appeal. that is, first of all, they voted earlier this year on the spectrum proposal which is finding new frequencies, new bands of the airwaves to bring to market to put into the hands of consumers as we move to the internet of things which will require more spectrum. a spectrum tends to be a place where republicans and democrats can come together and it is also very necessary. also, they can do things to help incentivize the buildout of infrastructure to help our support our digital economy. also, they may look to support what is best for consumers

rather than choosing among constituencies and playing fields in favor of different industries. making sure it is a fair playing field, but there is so much the fcc can do on a bipartisan basis. robael: the infrastructure mentioned is so important. both candidates endorsed it. i hope it will be very much a part of the infrastructure buildout. i hope the fcc will do its part, and being serious about getting broadband out there. in pittsburgh, thousands of people do not have any access to broadband. that has to be an administration wide thing. agencies need to be integrated for the 21st century. let's get this country up to speed.

he'll disagree but i think in the international competition showing, is not very impressive and where it should be. your: in january of 2009, became a majority member of the commission. did your life change on the commission? michael: i became chairman so my life changed. [laughter] i became responsible for a lot of other things. because thehanged standpoint because you are responsible for setting the agenda . i felt a deep responsibility to improve the relationship between chairman and commissioners because i watched several blowssioners come in a bllnd the relationship with members of the other party, but also members of their own party.

that and better than we are doing that thanks to operation by jonathan -- cooperation by jonathan and others. that is why we had made some progress. we need to get back to that. ofneed to do something getting the commissioners together and looking at it like an independent agency. people complain about one thing the fcc should do. you have three to four letters of the last day or so telling us what to do in congress. peter: robert, how did your life change going from the minority to the majority? robert: i kept coming up one vote shy. actually, all the votes were 3-1. creditserves a lot of because as you can see, we disagree a lot.

the free market conservative versus a democrat. we have a personal relationship. we all three believe in the process of making it more transparent. we are very focused on the digital tv transition. that was the biggest thing the fcc has ever undertaken. it affected tens of millions of consumers across the country. it was absolutely necessary as we try to auction off pieces of those airwaves for mobile broadband use. so, but, that collaborative atmosphere was something mike and i, jonathan, made a point of emphasizing. also making sure the commissions that who were very instrumental in filling out across the country help get consumers informed of what they need to do to adjust. that was a great moment for them . we did have the advantage of

being focused by this very big project that was hugely bipartisan coming out of congress in 2006. that helped make it more bipartisan. peter: looking at the kinds of companies and industries that have been making overtures to the trump transitions that in recenstaff in recent days. a lot of organizations benefit from a trump organization, but depending on how that administration shapes up, certain groups could benefit over others. in your view, which groups or industries benefit the most? robert: i don't think there is any way to tell. you have a lot of constituencies that battle against each other. cable versus broadcasters, or wireless versus broadcasters or cable. there are loa lot industry