[indiscernible] thank you,rump: everybody. thank you very much. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service but america's public cable television companies and it is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. peter: and jonathan spalter is the president and c.e.o. of a trade association called u.s. telecom and he's our guest this week on "the communicators." mr. spalter, who do you represent? jonathan: i represent america's broadband providers, companies both large and small, coming from every part of the nation, almost every state, and we're

all bound by a simple set of principles, we want to be able to deliver the best quality, highest speed broadband to all americans regardless of where they live. we have work to do because there still are americans out there that don't yet have broadband and we're aligned to make sure that we can actually provide ubiquitous access to all americans. it's a great mission. peter: what are some of the companies you represent? john than: just this month, i was able to fly out to alaska too spend time with alaska communications, flew down from there to western new mexico with western new mexico communications. both focused on rural communities and extending next-generation broadband services to them. all the way up to companies that are national in scope and ision. from at&t and verizon, and centurylink and consolidated. frontier, windstream. it's a consortium of companies that are very different and different vision business models

but are bound together by a single vision to get more broadband out to more americans is to do so with smart policies. peter: before we start talking about some of those policies, give us a sense open your background. it's a little bit eclectic, isn't it? john than: and i'll take that as a compliment. thank you. i've been in the business of technology for a good part of my career, leading companies both in silicon and in europe internet dian products for consumers. i've also had the opportunity to serve in government. i was able to serve on the national security council at the pentagon as the associate director of the united states information agency. i also had the opportunity to lead and launch another olicy-focused organization called mobile future, which was based here in washington. we've recently moved from washington, d.c. from california where my family has been residents for the last 13 years and we're really excited to be

here. peter: to help us talk about some of those issues, we want to introduce you to kyle daly. he is a tech reporter with "bloomberg law." kyle: thanks, peter, and thanks, jonathan. so i wanted to start off -- you mentioned that the groups that you represent, the companies that you represent had a lot of torque do. can you talk a little bit about that? you hear a lot on 5-g networks. these ultrafast, ultra dense wireless brand band networks. can you talk about how we get to that stage? onathan: sure. the essential ingredient, the indispensable ingredient to moving forward, not only extending more broadband to more americans but also ensuring our global competitiveness is this wonderful technology called broadband. our companies are committed to make the investments, that 3r50eu6ed -- provide the fiber, the resources, the infrastructure, the net works to get more broadband connectivity to more americans. it takes a lot of work. it takes the right amount of investment, the right types of business models but it also

takes the right types of smart, 21st-century forward-looking policy frameworks that can actually accelerate and advance and in cent the innovation and investment that's required for us to move forward to realize the opportunities like 5-g. next-generation networks. kyle: can you talk a little bit about those policy frameworks? obviously there are a lot of levers here. what are maybe just a handful of things that you really would like to see out of congress, out of the administration, out of the f.c.c., let's say. jonathan: sure. let me start with the promise of new infrastructure investment. president trump on taking office set a moon shot goal that we actually should be investing up to a trillion dollars to revitalize ask reinvent america's national infrastructure. increasingly, we all understand, and it is a bipartisan understanding that broadband is an essential input, not only to the american economic future but our productivity and also deeply meaningful for so many reasons to our families and communities. so we're going to be working really hard on a bipartisan

basis with the congress, the white house, with the f.c.c. to ensure that when that plan is put in place, that it prioritizes broadband that we have a broadband-first approach when we're thinking about any policymaking and any investment. that has two sides. one is money, making sure that the right amount of money is apportioned to broadband investment as part of that trillion-dollar pie but also, that we can move forward in a parallel direction to streamline regulations, make sure that we can move more broadband more quickly to more americans by moving from the regulatory overhang of compliance and obstacles that unfortunately have made it more difficult for many of our american broadband providers to invest and to do the hard work of delivering the broadband to their customers. kyle: from what we're hearing a bit from the white house is that

they seem to be easing off a little bit from making broadband a funding priority in the infrastructure package. i just was recently a at an event here in d.c. where grace koh, who's a telecom dwrieser to the president says they're more focused as they think about infrastructure and getting something from congress there on stuff like sighting, making it easier for companies like those you represent to actually put equipment and facilities out there and maybe not so much on actually carving out money within that trillion-dollar pie for broadband. do you think that's something you might still be able to get out of congress and the white house? john than: first of all, i have to say that grows coe and her colleagues at the white house, colleaguings -- colleagues at the f.c.c. are just tremendous public servants who are doing great work, ligned together on the idea

that we really have to close in our nation, the digital divide. make sure particularly americans that live in the rural parts of our country can live in the opportunities that broadband can bring and that has two policy solutions when it comes to developling a thoughtsful infrastructure plan. one, it deals directly with those issues like grace koh mentioned. things like sighting. rights of way, making sure that we have sclocks to speed up permissions, permitting, licensesing -- licensing. there are all kinds of procedural steps that we can take as part of on a infrastructure plan. but the other side of that coin is we also have to be serious about the -- ensuring that the right kind of dollars can flow to american communities to provide more broadband. those dallas have been flowing effectively through f.c.c.'s universal service funds. we believe that direct grant and subsidies can provide broadband to those areas where it's economically challenging if not impossible to

deliver it the as -- is an on bli gays. we're standing up to that obligation and i'm really confident that we're going to be able to work with the white house and with congress to structure a holistic plan to make sure we can actually ultimately close the digital divide in our nation. peter: jonathan spalter, a report put out by your trade association shows private broadband investment has kind of lev leveled off over the last several years. why is that? jonathan: it's actually troubling, peter. i have to say. we've been experiencing over the last two decades a wonderful increase in the amount of investment our companies, broadband providers, have been making in our nation's networks. it's been a trillion and a half dollars of network investment by america's broadband provide,. by our members after the u.s. telecom. although two years ago when the last f.c.c. decided to impose 1934 utility-style regulation in creating framework for an internet we began to see in a very troubling way that that slope of investment had actually begun to go down and in

the last two years we've seen it decrease about 2.5 billion, from about 78.4 billion in 2014 to $76 billion today. that is an alarm bell that has woken many of us to the realization that we need to go back to smart policies that will allow us to bend the curve on that investment slope, to create more abundance and then austerity when it comes to our nation's broadband infrastructures and if we can put in the right types of policies, move forward with smart, lighter-touch approaches, our companies will be incented to go more to investigation in our nation's broad band infrastructure. we have work to do to get that done but the steps are being taken today by the administration, by ajid pie as the federal communications ommission, by an increasing community of folks that realize we need to move forward, not

backward towards the internet future is a positive sign and we're going to try to work hard to advance those efforts. peter: when you look at that $76 billion of investment, where does that money go? does it go to wires to the house? other places? jonathan: it goes to many different parts of the broadband network that we increasingly rely on. it goes to investing in upgrading and maintaining the bear line infrastructure that connects our nation to the wireless infrastructure. that relies on the fiber that composes our wire line world. it goes to managing these vast networks. it goes to ensuring that we actually have the deployment capacity, the work teams, the folks that are climbing the poles, that are drigging -- digging the trenches, that are doing the hard work every day of attaching -- connecting our nation to this indispensable infrastructure, which is called broadband. kyle: i did want to return a little bit to the 2015

regulations that you referred to would be the f.c.c.'s open internet order, classifying broadband as a telecom service and instituting a number of net neutrality rules. there have been some groups that favored those rules that have disputed some of the findings like you guys had about broadband investment. they say, you know, that it's not entirely clear that there's a direct correlation to the open internet order and that it's not looking at the whole picture, it's not looking at the other side of it, the investment from the googles and the amazons and sort of the companies on the other side of those networks. so how would you respond? jonathan: sure. first of all, u.s. telecom for 21 years has been producing what is i think broadly considered the god standard of analysis of how much actually our u.s.-based

broad band providers are investing in u.s.based brond band networks. other groups have come up with their own numbers that have things like $3 billion for smart phones that are bought by a wireless karrer and leased to their customers, $10 billion for investments by another american wireless carrier in plex, for video services, neither of which are actually covered by the title ii regulation. it's very clear if you did an apples-to-apples comparison and took out those inputs that their numbers would reflect what our numbers clearly stipulate, that the actual investment by american provide broad band providers in our networks have been going down. it's great that certain internet companies are making investments in things like data farms, cloud infrastructure, products and services and they should continue to do so. their total investment is a fraction globally of what

u.s. telecom members actual invest in our network and it's got nothing to do with the actual investment that goes into maintaining and uilding american network infrastructure or broadband investment, but all investment should be encouraged and we should have smart policies that incent more, not less investment. it's all a great thing and we're determined to make sure that our companies have the confidence and the line of sight to make those investments in an even more aggressive way going forward. kyle: thinking about net neutrality not just in terms of investments but about principles of an open internet, obviously -- investment but just in terms of principles of an open internet, obviously efforts that the current f.c.c. is undertaking to reverse that classification to ease back some of those rules. it's got a lot of people concerned. would your industry be willing to offer any sort of hard

commitment to upholding some of the principles that people are really worried could be roded? john atlanta: sure. well, the important point is we need to take a step back from that fear. we live in a very contentious environment and very contentious political moment. the fact is that america's broadband providers, u.s. telecom members, have made an ironclad commitment to maintain net neutrality protections for their customers. no blocking, no throttling, transparency. those commitments existed before the imposition of title ii and net neutrality protections and the commitments to them are going to exist after the reclassification back to title i so this debate isn't about net neutrality. it's about whether our companies are very clear about maintaining their commitments to protect the principles of net

neutrality and to advance those principles. is debate is -- really about whether we want as a nation to have our most important technology advanced potentially over our lifetimes, maybe in our history with the internet governored by regulators using 1934-era rules. an era of the outhouse. not of the smart house, to guide us forward. using the idea that the internet should be treated as a public utility. i've met many internet users around this country in this work. some have great things to say about their internet usage. some have bad things to say about their internet service but i haven't met a single internet user who wants their internet service to look more like their gas company or their water company. peter: jonathan spalter, what percentage of the u.s. population does not have access to broadband? jonathan: it's a very small but meaningful and important community. about 13 million americans. most of them live in rural communities. most of those communities can put broadband to tremendous use creating jobs, connecting to services that would be difficult

to get to in health care, public safety, education. we have to all collectively roll up our sleeves and find the right policy frameworks to make sure that those 13 million americans can have access to the benefits of broadband, but that's going to take smart and wise policy. it's also going to take policies that incent more investment on the part of broadband providers and commitments by our federal government to make sure that we can have the resources and the right types of regulatory policy infrastructure to get there. peter: what percentage of americans don't have a choice among broadband providers? john than: almost none. it's extraordinary to think that we all use networks right now far called 4 glte. virtually every single american has access to that network and it was extraordinary to see the ramp-up period. it was only 18 months to get there nationally. 96% of americans have a choice of least three wireless

carriers. almost 90% of americans have a choice of at least two wire line providers. the competition as we move forward with more investment as we move to 5-g networks. faster, more ubiquitous networks, denser networks is only going to increase and that competition will potentially not only catalyze more choice but also give consumers a range of new products and services and opportunities to do things online that we can't even imagine today. peter: when you get into a situation like we're currently having where google and amazon are something kind of a smart-device spat, does that affect the entire eco system of he internet? jonathan: well, it is an important point. we in the broadband provider community were singled out by the last f.t.c. to have special

rules apply only to us. the movement now in the f.c.c. is to establish a new set of net neutrality protections that will actually encompass all of the entire internet ecosystem, including companies like google and amazon. our broadband providers in our nation have been very clear their commitments to maintaining net neutrality protections regardless of whether there are rules or not set by government. they have and they will. i can't say the same for some of our biggest internet companies. it's a bit ironic. it's time for them to catch up and it's time for us to move forward with smart, holistic net neutrality protections that will integrate not only broadband providers but as importantly, the entire scope of companies that interact with consumers via the internet, including the biggest amongst the internet giants that are out there. kyle: how would you envision something like that being enacted? f.t.c. putshe t. -- out guidance saying we're going

to start considering this end competitive. are you looking for legislation? jonathan: right now the f.c.c. is in the process of establishing a reclassification of broadband as a title i information service, and in so doing, the new cop on the beat will be our nation's premier consumer protection agency, the federal trade commission, which has not only the resources but expertise to ensure consumer the protections across all parts of the internet ecosystem, not just broadband providers. in addition to the f.t.c., they're not alone. there's the body of antitrust law that we have, the court system. we have 50 attorneys general that have consumers' backs in providing broad general consumer protections to nem -- they will -- them as well. ultimately, however, the work of ensuring that neutrality protections, of developing a thoughtful and consistent ational policy framework for

this most important phenomenon that we call the internet is the responsibility, i would even safe it's the obligation of congress to undertake. we have work to do to push that log up the hill but i am confident, just as we believe able to do in 1996 in a bipartisan way where democrats and republicans came together with a common voice and in common cause to develop a national policy framework that now 21 years later, we can do the same thing. it's time. consumers expect and require and deserve nothing less. kyle: so is that the vision, a bill that would have bipartisan support, that would enshrine some of these protections that people are really concerned about, no blocking, no throttling kind of thing and apply it to the entire ecosystem? jonathan: that is the goal. right now it's a bit of a distant goal but we're keeping a focus on working with members of congress from all sides of the

political spectrum to come to an understanding that the time is now to move forward to creating a bright -- bright line protections for con assumers, protections that our companies already commit, to no blocking, no lots toling, transparency. it can be applied not just to one part of the internet ecosystem, broad band providers o all parts of the system that consumers everyday connects with. including our largest internet rivepleders. kyle: sort of a push against what the last f.c.c. did, coming from critics of the obama administration, i ose, was that is the overly regulatory, it was overreach. obviously is congress is updating the statute then that's not uber reach, it's them

telling the f.c.c. what they can and can't do. nevertheless, it sounds like that's a whole new class of regulatory powers that would apply to the internet companies on soorlt of either side of the network -- wouldn't that be overly burdensome in some ways? jonathan: the important issue is whether we have the vision as a nation, as a society but also as congress to fashion the right kind of regulatory and legal framework that would find the balance between catalyzing and creating incentives for innovation and investment while at the same time providing the right time of consumer protections so that all of us can have confidence. wherever we go online, we can have access to the content of choice, when we want it and whatever platform we want it on.

previous protection. a list of must haves that we as consumeers understand are important and that our con seemers from the broad band company have committed to. i believe that balance can be found. in the found in 19967 and in the rst years of the obama administration. it's the right way to go. will we be able to get there? i believe that we will. i'm optimistic we can. we have some work to do, though, to make sure we can turn back to a vision about why consumers respect and require those type of protections but they i be fully applied to all parts of internet. >> should the company in western

new mexico or verizon be able to offer is so-called fast lane to consumers? john than: the facts is that in our internet society today, there are many important reasons why broad band data and broad band traffic should be prioritized. the brave, first responders, the fire women and firemen that are rushing into danger inside california expect that the broad band data communications will be prioritized. the driverless cars of the future, we will have to expect to -- that those transportation networks will have prioritized access to broad band so they can remain safe. our doctors, nurses, even our surgeons of the future who are providing probiotic surgery will have prioritized traffic. so prioritization already is a

reality. i also hi -- think that the more choice that is consumers have opportunities to experience, the more tools, the more prizing plans, the more variety that is officered to -- offered to consumers is a good thing. that -- and it's also very clear, broad band companies understand this. if at any time they do not provide their consumers with the experience they want that those consumers are empowed to -- any of the competition with a vote of their wallet. it is the consumer that must be in charge of ultimately what kind of consumer experience they want. our companies are listening very careful my to them. that free market is working, driving. it's created this extraordinary internet that we are all enjoying too -- today and the net neutrality protections that

we also are enjoying today and will enjoy tomorrow. kyle: stuff like emergency services, the prioritization of that is pefbleable or was under the 2015 rules. why is it so important for i.s.p.'s to be able to prioritize other traffic if it's just streaming video, let's say. jonathan: what's important is that there should be opportunities for consumers to have access to different kinds of content and different types of service models so that if a provider, for example, wanted to provide lower cost or even free content, provide spannor data. those opportunities would not be blocked by a government regulator. imagine if steve jobs had to present his pricing plans to the f.c.c. as he was thinking about the future of the iphone, i

don't think we would have one. if jack dorsey has to submit to prior approval to the f.c.c. or another government body content service kids for approval, i don't think we would have this wonderful company actuallied twitter, which has been transformative in so many societies. i think we need to take a step back and realize that our companies and consumers online and trying to find ways of innovating and spend -- extending the range of choice and opportunities and we do have the full protections that are available through institutions like the federal government, the courts and our states to ensure that there's fair dealing and no anti-competitive behavior on the san bernardino. kyle: you mentioned the early days of companies like twitter, like apple. strike me that there could have also been other outcomes if they

couldn't affidavit to have traffic prioritized, for instance. how do we make sure that the start-ups, that the smaller companies and that the consumers themselves are not left behind? jonathan: i think the core principle of knelt neutrality is to ensure that any content can be delivered on any platform at y time of the consumer's choosing. cluding no blocking, transparency. o anti-didiscriminatory or content. if nip broad banledpiveeders or internet companies stray outside of those rules, consumers if mechanisms that they can turn to to make sure that those companies are held to task. in fact, i think the important point, net neutrality will continue to thrive and i think be strengthened because it will

e extended to the interior internet ecosystem. peter: jonathan smauter is the president and c.e.o. of u.s. elecom and kyle daly works for "block berg law." gentlemen, thank you. jonathan: thank you very much. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's capable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. >> monday night on c-span, leader figure of the soviet disdant movement of the 1970's, he talks about the nine years he spent in a fasthed labor camp in the

far the easiest years were years of [indiscernible] buthave physical hardships, in terms of moral life, it is it is somple, pure -- easy to keep your integrity, because all you have to do is keep saying no. have a very demanding religion. all the commandments, 613 commandments. if you are a jew, you have to fulfill [indiscernible] but in prison, everything comes to one thing. you say no to kgb.