commission, you have an agency, and a chairman who is forward-looking. i think this nation and the communications industry is better for it. >> just to take one regulation, just recently the federal communications commission unanimously opposed is the proposed shifting the goal of universal service fund to include broadband services sow is provided and subsidized all around the nation. is that the first step in getting broadband reclassified from title one to title to as a common carrier? >> i would not say it is the first of doing that. it is a recognition of how the market and the communications industry is evolving. they are about 26% of the nation that do not use a land line as their primary communications device. there is a recognition of that. there is recognition that with companies like skype, in terms of how they are communicating, it is not just on their mobile phones. we recognize there is a need for us to shift. there is a need for persons to be connected, especially if they are going to save money to provide them with more options. this is another example where there is a need, and we have an obligation to keep up, retrofit ourselves, retool, and as we say, we boots.

when al gore recommended reed hundt be made the chair of the federal communications commission, that was a great appointment. because he understood what the spirit of this law was, what was required to create a real revolution in our country. and he did it. and right up to today, the very last rulemaking in the bill was voted out last week by the federal communications commission, the last one from 20 years ago. and it's on opening up the set-top box that people use on top of their cable tv set, right? and right now everyone in america, 99% of americans are renting that from the company. renting it. like they used to have to rent the black rotary dial phone that we did away with, that rental. and so the fcc is now going to open it up, and that is going to save consumers $6-$15 billion a year because they can just go down to a best buy and buy a different set-top box that they will own. they won't have to rent these. but it's also going to open up young technologists all across the country, the ability to reinvent how that set-top box works even while preserving the the copyrights of

. >> this week on "the communicators," an update on efforts by the federal communications commission to develop a plan to expand broadband in the united states. our guest is blair levin who's leading up the initiative at the fcc. >> host: well, blair levin is back at the federal communications commission, this time as the omnibus broadband initiative executive directer, and he is our guest this week on "the communicators." amy schatz of "the wall street journal" is joining us, joining in the questioning of mr. levin. we're about 50-odd days away from the national broadband plan being presented to congress, could you give us a status update on that report? >> guest: sure. we have been giving status updates all along. in september we laid out for the fcc kind of what we thought the state of broadband was in the united states. in november we laid out what are the most significant problems we need to deal with, a couple weeks ago we laid out how to think about how to address those problems. and right now we're in the situation where over the holidays we are busy trying to kind of write up

and this is the federal trade commission as well as the federal communications commission. the federal trade commission actually took this to a vote. it was a 5-0 unanimous, bipartisan vote that strongly said there was no indication of systemic market failure that would necessitate net neutrality rules. net neutrality has been up until this proceeding at the fcc sort of what i call a rorschach term, it was undefined. but now we do have proposed rules that gives us a framework for debate, which i think is a good thing. the first thing we need to the address i would like for potential commenters is to, please, give us hard evidence of systemic market failure that, in other words, the concern is for the proponents of net neutrality regulation is that network owners and operators, phone companies, cable companies, wireless companies might somehow discriminate against content applications in an anticompetitive way to favor their own wiz interests -- business interests. thus far there has not been proof of systemic market failure. there have been three, four, five maybe examples o

a discussion with michael copps democratic member of the federal communications commission. >> host: we are pleased to welcome back to "the communicators," fcc commissioner michael copps. commissioner thank you for being with us. he also joining us is amy schatz of "the wall street journal." commissioner if i could start with the att, t-mobile usa acquisition. what do you see is the biggest impediment to that happening and how long do you see the process taking? >> guest: well, last part first i really don't know how long the process will take. there's some speculation it could be a better part of a year. i don't know that it should take that long but we will just have to wait and see with the expectations of the commission are. are. this is a huge chance action. it is a paradigm altering transaction insofar is the world of wireless goes. you will remember in the comcast merger that i said at the outset that it was a very -- and would have been a very steep climb for me. ended up voting against it. this is maybe even a steeper climb from the standpoint of a lot of power and a lot of

[applause] a look at the federal communications commission as the two commissioners prepared to join the agency that regulates communications by radio, television, phones, satellite and cable and overseas aspects of the internet. >> for the first time in nearly a year the federal communications commission will have a full complement of commissioners they were finally confirmed by the senate this week. the nomination hearing was held last november. the chairman of the senate commerce committee, senator jay rockefeller had this to say. >> these are huge nominations come and they have a fast effect on the future of the country for better or for worse. i think it's hard to overstate the importance of this federal communications commission and its reach. >> here to discuss the nominations and the confirmations of the two fcc commissioners are two very well-known technology reporters, cecilia come amy shots with the "wall street journal." amy schatz, senator rockefeller seemed to hit this part of this was important and these nominations were important. what was his goal with that? >> welco

i don't want to destroy the federal communications commission and create something else. that having been said, i think we need to think about, you know, what is the right role for the federal communications commission, and, you know, what authority should it be operating under? >> what about international regulation given the worldwideness of the net? >> well, i mean, we don't do a particularly great job of international regulation of anything, you know, from international slave, you know the trafficking of humans and all that sort of stuff. i don't think most people are comfortable, for example, like the u.n. regulating the internet. i think a lot of people sort of old internet hands are happy with the sort of nongovernmental organizations that have done this in the past, but i think there are real questions about whether or not they scale, and all of the current sort of, you know, if you said k okay, what's international agency would do this, the itu? all you have to do is say that in an industry forum among people who understand working what the tiu is like, and there'

"the communicators," a discussion of network management, network neutrality and the federal communications commission and what it's proposed to do with that issue. joining us are mark hamm ericson and scott cleland with net competition.org, ann veigle of communications daily is also joining in the questioning. gentlemen, if you would, just start -- give us a basic 101 on your organization, why it was formed and who are the members of it? mr. erickson? >> guest: sure. well, i'm a washington lawyer who has been asked to assemble a coalition of leading technology companies, internet companies like amazon, google, other stakeholders of consumer groups, civil rights organizations, people that use the internet, small businesses to help advocate before the federal communications commission and other policymakers policies that preserve an open internet. >> guest: yes. and net competition.org was formed about three and a half years ago. it is a pro-competition, more free market-oriented approach, and it is, it represents broadband interests, literally the entire broadband sector, so that would include all the

unanimously decided that the federal communications commission does not have the authority to regulate high-speed internet. on this edition of "the communicators," we'll talk with several parties involved in the net neutrality debate and potential implications of the court's decision. we'll start, first, with representative joe barton, a republican from texas, and the ranking member of the house energy and commerce committee which holds jurisdiction over telecommunications matters. first of all, representative barton, were you surprised by this decision? >> guest: no, i was not surprised. i'm very pleased by it, but i think the court did exactly what the law says in that the fcc does not have the authority under current law to regulate the internet. >> host: so does that move the issue of net neutrality back to congress? >> guest: well, if it needs to be moved. i would, i would hope that chairman waxman and subcommittee chairman boucher and former subcommittee chairman markey in the house would, you know, let a sleeping dog lie and not, not go forward. the court ruling was 3-0. experts

thought this could, if not derail, at least slow some of the other priorities of the federal communications commission. could you explain a little bit more about that? >> not as the commission, but perhaps on the hill too. i worked on the hill for 15 years. i am not going to predict what the is going to do, but if we are talking about incentive options and things like that, this is change, and does it change the name of the game? if you have one less competitor in the wireless market, does that make it more or less attractive? in regards to public safety and so much spectrum, these are all factors that might have the effect of encouraging some folks to say well, let's see what happens before we go ahead and act. >> gordon smith was recently on this program. here is what he had to say about potential spectrum auctions. >> would your viewers need to understand is the difference between broadcast spectrum, the way we utilize it, and the way wireless uses it, is that when we use it, our transmission is one to everyone in a desperate -- one to every one in a demographic area. if i send you a video on my te

federal interpretation commission over a short period of time. we had a conscious discussion and i think we ended up with the right results saying we wanted to leave discretion with the federal communication commission , realizing that technology was evolving and there would be things that we could not anticipate so i think we made overall the right policy decision but in that regard i probably would if comeback and suggested a more prescriptive approach. >> before i get back to that, i want to go through this litany of saints. mikedingell was great, tozan.billy toes in the senate, fritz hollings and trent lott agreeing on everything, amazing. they would clear the pathway to make this possible legislatively and a relatively short. of time. you can keep going down the line. including jay rockefeller and olympia snowe working on it with so that theuse side bills for every computer in every school in america for poor children would be paid for out of this bill so we could speed up the pace at which kids get the new skill set. behind the most vulnerable kids so the bill includes now what is $40 billion spent on those poor kids. the largest single education technology program still. if there's

. >> now last may, the federal communication commission concluded in an annual wireless report that the wireless sector is not effectively competitor. that was the first time in 14 years that they drew that conclusion. >> i think what they did, they didn't reach any conclusion where previously they had said the market was competitor. >> right. >> when they issued that report, i believe it was commissioner cause was very concerned about the overall increase in concentration that's taken place over the last five or ten years. you know, he sort of telegraphed that the commission needs to be careful about allowing additional concentration in the wireless markets. and, you know, i think that statement alone was one the reason that is you've seen a lot of people say that this could have a very difficult time at the federal communications commission. >> just to follow up, do you think the fccs determination about competition, the wireless market will impact the agencies review of this transaction? >> i think it will. i think again it will make the fcc at least start from a presumption that thi

this week on "the communicators" federal communications commission and dr. michael copps on legislation to reform the fcc consolidation appellate mitigation firms and the state's media. >> host: it's been about four months since michael copps is no longer a member of the federal communications commission, but he joins us here on "the communicators" to talk about some of the issues that the fcc is currently facing. michael copps welcome back to "the communicators." >> guest: delighted to be here. >> host: eliza krigman is technology reporter with politico. commissioner copps if we could start with a bill that is currently working its way through the house and that is the fcc reform. what do you think about that? is it necessary chris. >> guest: . >> guest: well there's always room for an agency to reform. i like to think that i contributed some to reform when i was acting as the chairman. we opened up the agency made it a lot more transparent, lot more participatory and the biggest reform i would like to see would be to empower commissioners to talk to one an

further thoughts on that and also get you to reflect on your first few months on the federal communications commission. >> guest: well, thank you for the question, and thanks again for having me. it's a privilege to be on the show. at carnegie mellon, one of the things i tried to identify was ways the sec could -- fcc could establish a communications technology to really be a leader in job creation and economic growth. it historically has been one of the most dynamic parts of the economy, but in recent years if you look at statistics from the labor department, job growth and economic growth has slowed. i identified three basic areas where i thought the fcc could do more with respect to the ict sector. number one, it was more internal. the fcc should act at the same pace as the industry that it regulates. one of the things i've heard from a number of companies is that the fcc has sometimes not acted with much alacrity with respect to issues that are pending before the commission or in delaying action on other issues. and so i wanted to think about different ways that the commission could speed up its p

. >> guest: the proposal arrived at the federal communications commission. it is highly inimical, i think, to the interest of consumers and to competition. it's just another chapter in this never ending sag baa that has wreaked such havoc on our infrastructure. >> host: what's the issue with consolidation in your view? >> guest: you have these huge companies who are not only in control of distribution, but of content too increasingly, and they're getting hammer locked with an information infrastructure that we as a democracy rely upon to govern ourselves. and it has been a never ending tale. i went to the federal communications commission in 2001 not knowing that i was going to be spending, like, 75% of my time just listening to ceo afcee owe come in and say, well, you've got to let us get bigger because we have all of these efficiencies and economies we're going to pass on to consumers. have consumers seen any benefits on their cable bills from that consolidation? i think the average cable bill has gone up 4% a year since the middle of the 1990s, so consume

i was very disappointed with what the federal communications commission did subsequent to the passage of the act. much of the intent was lost. beencouragement is going to that those that do the rewrite be as prescriptive as they can so there is a small chance that the federal communication commission will add their own intent. host: what is an example of the intense they lost? guest: we came up with a checklist of what the telephone companies had to do to be able to enter long distance and open the same day to long-distance companies to offer local telephone service. in my opinion, that interpretation what far too long. i think it went outside of what was originally intended. toagain, when it comes writing the bill this time, i think legislators need to be as prescriptive as possible homage to direct to the federal communications commission and anyone else who has to review the act, the justice department, so it is narrow so that we preserve what lawmakers intended when they passed the bill. host: because congress has not enacted another comprehensive telecommunications act in the las

and this was the federal trade commission as well as the federal communications commission. federal trade commission to us to a vote in there is a five bipartisan vote that is very strong. there was no indication of systemic rocket failure that would necessitate net neutrality rules. net neutrality has been, up until this proceeding at the fcc, sort of what i call a workshop term. but now we do have a debate, framework for debate which is unique. the first thing we need to address i would like for potential commenters who might be watching right now is to please give us hard evidence of systemic market failure that, in other words, the concern is for the proponents of net neutrality regulation is that network owners and others, phone companies, wireless companies on a might somehow discriminate against content or applications in an anticompetitive way to favor their own business interests. that's far, there has not been proof of systemic market failure. there've been three or four, five maybe examples of some sort of nefarious behavior, but they've all been isolated in one sp

this just kind of sucks the oxygen out of so many issues that are pending before the federal communications commission. you know, we can chew gum and walk at the same time, i guess, but this effects so much of what we're doing. i think whether this goes forward or not has an effect on the whole issue of sprem auctions. -- sprem auctions. i think it has an impact on public safety, and the list just goes on and on. so it's a lot to absorb, and, you know, i've been at the commission almost ten years now, and it seems sometimes we're just kind of the federal merger commission. that's because companies bring us so many mergers. it's always the last one, you know, we're not going to be back. but as soon as you approve one, then somebody else is through the door saying, hey, you let the other guy get real big, so you've got to let us, too, or else it's not fair. >> host: commissioner n2005 how did you vote on the at&t/bell south merger? >> guest: well, we had a lot of negotiation back and forth on the bell south merger and managed to avoid tap some network neutrality conditions and things hike that. it was n

session with meredith what will baker from a republican commissioner of the federal communications commission. >> meredith attwell baker is one of the two republicans who sits on the federal communications commission. she's our guest this week on "the communicators." thank you for being with us, commissioner pete >> thanks, it's a pleasure. >> eliza krigman is with us as well. she's with politico as our guest reporter. commissioner, if we could start with a vote that the fcc took this week which is the comcast-nbc merger. with your statement to attached strong reservations to the whole process and the vote itself. why? >> good question. his likely the sec has reviewed mergers and it's taken too long and the attached to many not pertinent conditions to the merger and this is my first time through a merger of the fcc, and unfortunately i would have to say we found the same pitfalls. for instance, comcast deal with this merger with us on janaria 28 of last year. we have an internal shop class of 180 days for review. this is a big merger and should be thoroughly vetted and we should carefully con

of justice -- department of justice and/or the federal communications commission has expressed concerns about the competitive implications over a particular transaction, and so i suppose that's something that, you know, could happen in the context of any transaction. but my hope is that six months should be more than enough to review any of these transactions. >> according to your twitter feed -- and you're a relatively prolific tweeter -- [laughter] you met with metropcs on september 19th. did they talk to you about their plans for this merger? >> guest: they did not. >> really? [laughter] >> guest: no, i promise you, they didn't. it was an interesting chance, though, to take -- to hear from them about how they got off the ground, and it's one of those success stories where an innovator had an idea and started it with two of his friends literally in a room about this size, and they've grown into one of the nation's biggest wireless companies. >> host: speaking of your twitter feed, you've also been out in silicon valley and been meeting with different companies out there. recent articl

we think it's fine for the federal communications commission to come in when there are identifiable harms leading injury, butconsumer it's another thing for the federal communications commission to be involved in the central planning of the economy and have to spin out hypotheticals or what-ifs over every new business application being offered only when it is offered by an internet service provider. that is really the concern. if the rules had been adopted or if the alternative is enacted congress, we would not be having the debate today. >> the bright line rules are good even though there was an indication previously the providers would be looking at things that could potentially run afoul of them. lewis: the bright line rules created in 2010 were overturned. i think we all wanted bright , but you have to get them in a way that's legally possible. >> lets turn away from net neutrality for a second to an issue that i think you agree on to a fair extent, and that's the issue of lifeline, which the fcc is looking at modernizing sometime in the first half of this year or 2016. of theooking a

communications has been important in this country. through the department of commerce and since the 1920's through the federal trade commission and the federal communications commission, you have a government entity that has been established to examine uses and some of the licensing structure that will allow certain businesses to use certain parts of the spectrum for certain things federal government use and military use is still controlled by the department of commerce in the independent radio advisory committee. the commercial side of the business, radio, television, and cellular telephone is regulated through the federal communications commission. this spectrum was discovered when the first person under the spoken word. it is the ability to transmit and send information over which can be heard by the human ear. -- over a frequency which can be heard by the human ear. as you move up higher, we may not be able to hear them. the develop devices that are capable of listening and transmitting it back in frequencies that we can hear. it has been there. it has been commercially looked at since around the turn of the century. >> michael ca

and they have made recommendations mainly to the federal communications commission on how to make that happen. then when nixon administration came along, the staff in the antitrust division, after watching for a couple of years, decided to pursue antitrust rather than sec regulation as the means to introduce the competition. my role that i was on both the telecommunications task force and i was one of the outside economists advising the department of justice when the case was being shaped. >> host: professor houseman? >> guest: i didn't come in until 1982 and thereafter when the antitrust division decided to review, about three years later, there was a report that was done. i was an advisor to the government on the reports. i was involved thereafter in the various changes and modifications. >> host: professor houseman, where he supportive of the decision? >> guest: well, at the time, i would say medium. i it was based on an incorrect theory, in my view. i have written academic papers. the cost consumers somewhere between 50 and $100 billion in payments that they should not have had to

up next on the communicators conversation with robert mcdowell of the federal communications commission this week, communicators, a look at spectrum and other issues before the federal communications commission with fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. >> commissioner mcdowell yesterday at the senate commerce committee hearing oversight of the fcc you had all five commissioners there. has the dynamic changed now that you have finally a full complement of commissioners? >> right. there were sworn in monday morning first thing the third day on the job on wednesday, yesterday. they testified with us before the senate commerce committee and certainly that changed the dynamic where right away we have a very qualified people both of whom have worked at the fcc and on capitol hill before they moved these issues. they're very smart and easy to work with and i very much looking forward to continuing to do work over the years. >> does that restrict now -- what are the restrictions on the five commissioners actually meeting, can you talk with ajik on the commission privately or go over to german gena

. >> the federal communications commission recently issued its congressional the mandated annual report on competition in the wireless industry. this is the 15th annual report. that is our topic this week on "the communicators." here is the conclusion of the federal communications commission. the 15th report makes no formal finding as to whether there is or is not effective competition in the industry, rather, given the complexity of the various interrelated segments and services within the mobile wireless ecosystem, the report focuses on presenting the best data available on competition throughout the sector of the economy. joining us to discuss this is matt wood out of the policy group free press. he is their policy director. and christopher mccabe of the wireless association. he is the vice president. gentlemen, thank you very much. matt wood, as soon as this report came out, the free press issued a statement saying that the wireless industry is not competitive. why? >> because we have got to dominant companies, verizon wireless and at&t serving more customers than anybody else. we t

going forward, i think we all have a role, that would be congress, federal trade commission, federal communications commissions, and others in terms of making sure we know exactly what we are talking about here, but we don't want to undermind the property rights and allow consumers to have the freedoms to contract with those carriers and be able to transfer their devices around once they own the device. they own the device, but not the copy right, but not all the intellectual property or the licenses to it. >> smart, the white house put out a statement a couple weeks ago saying they support unlocking of devices when you are not under contract. they don't say get your carrier contract and unlock the device the next day and walk from the contract. >> guest: exactly. a very important point. >> i think that's missed in the debate. unlock any time. well, no, if you have a considerate, that's a subsidy for the phone, and the idea is to prevent unlocking once the contract is finished once i understand that correctly. >> guest: you're right. i'm sure bloomberg reported that completely, but a lot of outlets

but again, as informed by the impact of technology. >> what's the interface with the federal communications commission and those issues? ms. ramirez: there is overlap with the federal communications commission. among them, one of the areas where we've overlapped for some time is to do with enforcement of the no-call rule in the mayor of telemarketing so there's been a great deal of cooperation in that area. more recently, in issues that relate to privacy and data security that's another overlap, particularly in light of the division by the commission to reclassify broad band. the so we work very well with them as we do with a number of other federal agencies, for instance we also interface and chair jurisdiction with the department of justice when it comes to competition. there's a lot of -- there are many areas, because of the very broad jurisdiction the federal trade commission has, where we intersect with sister federal agencies. >> we're going to talk about some of those issues. we're joined by hansa shaban of buzzfeed. >> i would like to start by asking, what is the commission's role in protectin

there will be a regulatory review at the department of justice and federal communications commission. if i'm just -- if i just may provide my personal view, the statutory for the commission to have a separate antitrust review and the good government position of having duplicative reviews in the exact same transaction is very troubling. and yet the fcc can insists it will -- the fcc insists it will do this. they have a public record. everything is supposed to be visible to the public. it is supposed to be a transparent organization. department of justice is different. they collect information knowing it is confidential. the public can't go to the department of justice and say i want to see everything there is about charter-time warner. i am very troubled about the coordination that goes on, specifically -- i think chairman wheeler is a great kind. i think he is a wonderful public servant. he is in a very difficult situation. he's in a very ethical situation with -- very difficult situation with at least the appearance of suggestions from other parts of the administration. whether he is

i think government agencies historically been the the problem with the federal communications commission is that is federal, meaning that government can always be a couple of steps behind the industry. the new leadership has brought an excellent team into the fcc where we are really trying to get out to see what is going on outside the walls of the government agencies. i am encouraged that we will have the relationships to actually deal with the realities as they exist, as opposed to what we read. we are actually allowed comments in the proceedings now. we are working to becoming a new media agency. that entails a lot of education, but what we are working toward that. >> the structure of the commissioners themselves, you are really not allowed to meet with each other. is that correct? >> we need one-on-one a lot, but because of the sunshine rules, we do not meet together. >> de thing that is helpful? >> i think it would be nice if we could actually do it ourselves. >> you have also been, judging from the number of meetings you have been having on the net neutrality issue, you and commiss

as the public of the federal communications commission goes, that way we know what plan is in place. ..

authority and i say, who is the one that is most up to speed, i think it has to be the federal communications commission. i certainly would not want to destroy the fcc and create something else. but what is the right role for the federal communications commission, and what authority should it be operating under? >> what about international regulation, the world wide net? >> we do not do a particularly great job of international regulation of anything, from trafficking in human -- all that sort of stuff. i do not think people are comfortable with, for example, the un regulating the internet. a lot of all internet hands are pretty happy with the non- governmental organizations that have done it in the past, but i think there are real questions about whether or not they fail. if you said, what international agency would do this, the i.t. you? i think you would -- the itu? i think you would hear a collective groan. i think the industry needs to be proactive, because i do not think it is a reasonable position for them to think they can push of international regulation forever. they need to help people who do

first, here's a portion of federal communications commission chairman julius genachowski from earlier this week. >> first, consumers and innovators have a right to know basic information about broadband service like how networks are being managed. the proposed framework, therefore, starts with a meaningful transparency obligation so that consumers and innovators have the information they need to make smart choices about subscribing to or using a broadband network or how to develop the next killer app. sunshine can help solve problems early, reducing the number of issues that even come to the fcc. second, consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful internet traffic. to go where they want and say what they want online and to use the devices of their choice. thus, the proposed framework would prohibit the blocking of lawful content apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network. third, consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. no central authority public or private should have the power to pick which ideas or companies w

. >> host: this week on "the communicators" a discussion of the federal government lifeline program which is administered by the federal communications commission. federal communications commission. joining us our two guests to discuss this, amina fazlullah is policy director and daniel -- daniel lyons is with american enterprise institute's center for internet indications and technology. he is a visiting scholar there from boston college. amina fazlullah what is this lifeline program and how to come about? >> guest: the lifeline program actually came about during the reagan administration in order to provide a subsidy to make sure that low income persons that have access to voice service, telephone service and this comes from the notion that having everyone on the network and having access to public safety, having access to each other in commerce is incredibly important and for low income persons making sure that they have additional support to do that is necessary so that's where the program began. >> host: and how many people participate in this program? >> guest: as of this past year about 13 million. >> host: and what's the cost? >> guest:

. >> host: and what is the interface with the federal communications commission? >> guest: there is some overlap. one of the areas we have overlapped on has to do with enforcement of the no-call rule in the area of telemarketing so there has been a great deal of collaboration in that area. in issues that relate to private data security that is another overlap particularly in light of the federal communication commission to reclassify broad broadband. we work well with them as we do with a number of other federal agencies. we share information with the department of justice and because of the broad jurisdiction that the federal trade commission has where we intersect with federal agencies. >> host: we will talk about some of those issues >> i would like to start by asking what is the commission's role in protecting american consumer's privacy? >> guest: we have a vital role. the way we go about protecting consum consumers is we insure companies don't engage in unfair or deceptive practices. we have developed important jurisprudence in that area. today, and over man

is theguest this week senior republican on the federal communications commission, ajit pai. we also have the associate editor of communications daily. this is the longest we have gone without using the word spectrum. what is your current thinking and how do you see the schedule? is the fcc on time when it comes to the spectrum option? question the intent of consumer demand has increased since i became a commissioner. more critical for the fcc to bring more spectrum. it is unfortunate we have not had a major spectrum option since the bush administration in 2008, i am happy to say we are taking the initial first step with the spectrum which will raise money. we are looking at the broadcast and set of options in the longer-term by which television broadcasters would voluntarily relinquish some spectrum. there is a host of other spectrum options when it comes to license by terms. -- spectrums. there is a tremendous opportunity and what is known as the five gigahertz band. this is an area where the commission has teed up the possibility of having up to 195 megahertz available for

. >> this week, for federal communications commission member michael cops on the state of the media. we could start with a bill that is working its way through the house. what do you think about that? is it necessary? >> there's always room for an agency to reform. i like to think i contributed to reform when i was there when i was acting chairman. we opened up the agency and made it more transparent, a lot more participatory. the biggest reform i would like to see would be to empower commissioners to talk to one another so we could sit around a table like this and talk about some of the momentous issues that are curbing the destiny of our future and currently we are prohibited from doing that. there is the sunshine law which is something passed in watergate days that really is -- hobbles the fcc. nobody else operates, members of congress talked to one another, cardinals of the church talk to one another, members of the supreme court, we cannot talk to each other except one on one. we have five people who are selected because they have various endeavors capacities. there is a lot of

. >> this week on "the communicators" federal communications commission robert mcdowell on cell phone security issues, service charges on consumers phone bills and issues before the fcc. >> host: we welcome back to "the communicators" robert mcdowell, the lone republican commission on the federal communications commission at this point. also joining us for this half-hour discussion is amy schatz who covers telecommunications issues for "the wall street journal." commissioner, let's start there, what's it like to be the lone republican on the fcc? >> guest: over 90% of what the fcc does is not only bipartisan but unanimous. so it's probably one of the least partisan pieces of washington, d.c., you can find. so the party label doesn't always mean a whole lot. i've been there i guess the second longest with commissioner copps having been almost 10 years. i've been there over five years. that you choose some institutional memory to work with, but i think commissioner baker left, i don't member when. >> host: is their movement for another republican commissioner? >> guest: i don't know. al

unified regular internationally. >> host: michael o'rielly republican commissioner on the federal communications commission the first time on "the communicators." thank you and brendan sasso. >> guest: thank you. today at the white house urged congress to pass the highway bill. this article from reuters gave administration estimates 700,000 jobs could be lost if congress misses the deadline to replenish the highway fund. and senate legislation could fall short of a long-term solution. the transportation secretary anthony foxx asked for passage of the 302 billion-dollar for your trance or tatian bill that would and some business tax breaks to boost the highway trust fund. it needs to be reauthorized by the end of september that it could run out of money in the late summer. that again from reuters. here are the secretaries are marked from the white house earlier. >> thank you jay and i think all of you. i would like to be here celebrating all the work that's happening around our country to reinvigorate our nations transportation networks. unfortunately however this may be the most dire moment in the american

. >> host: and this week on "the communicators," a discussion about the federal communications commission and the incoming trump administration. joining us are two former members of the federal communications commission, robert mcdowell, republican member, served from 2006-2013, and michael copps, former member on the democratic side, 2001-2011. and, in fact, served as acting chair for about half a year. michael copps, you were there during a presidential transition. what's the process like? what happens at this point? >> guest: well, i think the process is going to vary from incoming administration to incoming administration. you're in the middle of a transition now. we hear rumors about who's in and who's out, is there even a transition going on. i assume there is. i hope that the business of the commission will continue as we go between here and january. there are a lot of items teed up that republican commissions and democratic commissions both have worked on in recent years, and i think it's time to put some of those issues behind us. there'a whole negeraon ofelomnitis su o e,nd'rsm

so going forward i think we all have a role, so that would be congress, the federal trade commission, the federal communications commission and others in terms of making sure we know exactly what we're talking about here. but we don't want to undermine intellectual property rights, and we want to allow consumers of to have the freedom to contract with those carriers and be able to transfer their devices around once they own the device. they'll own the device, but they won't necessarily own the copyright material and the license to it. >> and, in fact, the white house made it clear they support unlocking of devices when you're not under c. they're not -- under contract. they're not saying go out and get the contract and unlock your device the next day -- >> guest: exactly. and that's an important point. >> yeah, and i think that's messed. the idea is to prevent unlocking once the contract is finished. if i understand -- >> guest: you're absolutely right. i'm sure bloomberg reported that completely. >> we did. [laughter] >> guest: a lot of outlets didn't, so we had images of consumers being hauled off in handcuff

this is the president's nominee to chair the federal communications commission. some people have expressed a little concern about his lobbying background. he was the head of the cable lobbying group and the cell phone lobbying group. i'm wonder what you think of the nomination and whether you think he'll be a fair chairman. >> guest: well, a, he's the president's choice. he's the nominee, and i believe that his nomination will not only be taken up, but i think that he will be confirmed. i don't think there are very many that would be free of the background that you just described unless we brought in a 22-year-old that simply has not had any time or experience here in washington. now, that's a commentary on our system, and it is a rub to many people. that's on one side. that's one book end. the other book end is -- and i think that this is a very important one -- is experience. you want someone that is experienced with a deep and broad understanding of the industries and the issues that are attached to these industries. now, the chairman of the fcc is not there t

. >> and this is the senior republican on the federal communication commission and he is our guest this week on the "the communicators." commissioner, welcome back. it is an election year. can we suggest an active docket in the election year? >> you would have to ask fcc leadership but i will say i will be pursuing a partisan initiative to deliver on what i consider to be the public interest. that clouincludes broadband deployment and making sure every american has access to digital opportunities. they are non-partisan issues and focus on the consumer's interest. >> is broadband deployment your number one issue? >> it is. and probably imformed from my travels around the country going from louisiana to north dakota and the consistent message i got from consumers and innovators is we need faster, better and cheaper internet and that is an area where the fcc has a role to play. >> where is it not deployed today? what percentage of the american population doesn't have access? >> whatever the number is i think it is clear there are people out there who don't have the broadband opportunities

. >> host: blair levin is the executive directer of the broadband initiative for the federal communications commission, and with the release of the 350-plus pages of the broadband plan, mr. levin, the opposition to the broadband plan has been rather muted. are you surprised by that? >> guest: actually we've been very, very happy with the response to the plan. it's a comprehensive document, and i think what you saw was a lot of people even though they disagree with, really, elements of it have, number one, great appreciation for the work that went into it, number two, a great appreciation for the professionalism. it's a serious document. it goes through the data, it's very data-driven, its analytic, it doesn't react to things that don't exist in the real world, it tries to lay out a visionary and practical approach. and third, i think there was an understanding and appreciation that it is being very transparent about what the goth agenda -- government agenda should be. obviously, there are lots of details that are not appropriate for the planning process, but rather, appropriate for the government as i

we think it's fine for the federal communications commission to come in where there are identifiable harms that are leading to anticompetitive abuses or consumer injury, but it's another thing for the federal communications commission to be involved in sort of a central planning of the economy and to have to spin out hypotheticals and what-ifs with regard to every new business application that is being offered only when it is offered by an internet service provider. so that's really the concern. if it had just been the bright line rules, if they had been adopted pursuant to 706 or as an alternative -- >> so the bright line rules are good even though there was an indication previously that maybe some providers would be looking at things that potentially could have run afoul of them? >> guest: we're comfortable with the bright line rules. >> okay. chris, any thoughts? >> guest: well, the bright line rules that were created in 2010 were overturned, and i think we all wanted bright line rules. >> sure. >> guest: so, you know, you have to get them in the way that's legally possible. so, yo

>> that is within the jurisdiction of the federal communications commission.another landmark of recent legislation was to give the fcc the authority to conduct incentive options, which they are now organizing to do. this will involve providing broadcasters an opportunity to make their spectrum available for auction, and then they will share in the proceeds of that. that will be handled at the sec's. >> so ntia does not have a role in the spectrum auctions? >> no, that is handled at the fcc. >> the spectrum that we are identified in four reallocation for federal use, the idea is that much of that spectrum can be considered for the fcc. in addition, there is an opportunity to look at some spectrum that might be made available for unlicensed use in the legislation that we have been talking about. congress directed us to take a look at a couple of bands in the five gigahertz range, which is typically higher than what the commercial cellular industry reviews today. but we are going to be studying that with the legislation with an idea that might be made available f

so we're really at the new chapter, the battle of the long, ongoing saga of the federal communications commission on a party line vote voted back in february that would take the somewhat bold step of reclassifying internet service to treat it as a title ii service, more of a utility-style regulation although that's a somewhat tricky term of art. while that happened way back in february, the rules were not formally published until just this week in the federal register which is the government's compendium of regulations, and that gets the process going for the next stage here which is, on the one hand, there will be enacted 60 days hence, so these rules will actually go into effect in june although right now whether this process has been going on for a while, there is nothing actually on the books. but what that publication also does is sets the stage of this new fight would be the court fight now that the rules have been published, companies and anyone else can file suit against the regulations and that is exactly what's happened. at least five so far, last time i checked, major lawsuits against

we have a funding mechanism that the federal communications commission runs by the universal service at $11 billion this year and we are trying to figure out how to spend those dollars in an efficient manner where you get those dollars from the ratepayers of america who contribute and pay as part of their telephone bill for that purpose so i try to be a solid steward of that dollar and make sure it goes as far as possible. we have a number of different programs that we run. but we try to expand that service to all people as best as possible. >> host: do you think it's been well, do you think you have been good stewards? >> guest: there are parts of the program that is done very well and there are other parts that have not lived up to what is expected. we have also expanded to the programs of the four fairly substantially. we didn't fully in my opinion address those issues before extending the program to broadband and that's the lifeline program. i think there are still some problems that do need to be addressed. we are not getting the maximum benefit of the dollar. >> guest: one of t

the communicators" and look at their legislative agenda and the policy agenda of the federal communications commission. joining us are three reporters who cover technology policy. gautham nagesh of congressional quarterly, what's an issue that you see forthcoming in the next congress? >> guest: well, i think cybersecurity remains the top priority because of its national security implications. we saw that congress failed to reach an agreement on cybersecurity legislation in 2012 as perhaps many would have predicted. they remain very far apart because industry is very opposed to any sort of cybersecurity standards. that being said, the administration has threatened to implement a lot of their legislation via executive order which sort of gives them the negotiating leverage, and we've also had reports the economists reported that president obama addressed a secret executive collaboration between b the administration and the private sector. we will see more action, i think, in the first half. legislation still seems a very difficult proposition. >> host: go back to that secret directive. will that become