This week we want to introduce you to the newest member of the federal Communications Commission and that is brendan carr who has been a commissioner since augu august. This is not your first time at the fcc. Thank you for having me on. I started as a staffer 2012. Most recently servedlike its been a lot of fun. One of the great things as we have a full slate weve all had experience at the agency before. As a fastpaced and enjoyable. John hendel is joining us. I want to talk about net neutrality. Reverence been looking forward to that. From a high level i feel like you hear a lot of reactions to it. Theres been a lot of fears about this. Whether could being you offerings or if theres anything different on the internet. Excited about was before the agency right now. On tuesday they circulated a proposal and it was released publicly today more than three weeks in advance. I think its great for innovators and freedom on the internet as well. What it poses to do is return the internet to the Regulatory Framework that governed in 2015 up until 20 years prior. We saw massive investment we saw consumers protected and most fundamentally the question is what is the right framework to look at that. To think theyll be changes for the. Thats one thing people bring up. One of the charges critics says had is it could lead to love the internet with bundles of different websites and some that people find worrying. To think that will happen . Consumers will be better off. Today there is no legal prohibition. This regulatory experience where you can view some websites and not others. They said that if its up front i want to ask offer you this experience the d. C. Circuit recognize that. So this for that were allowing something to take place for the first times not correct. Providers could do that during the title to regime. Anothers concern out there. Under this proposal were not looking for a wild west regime where they can run rough over consumers. Theres four separate legal standards to make sure that consumers are protected. First theres a lawenforcement the federal trade commission. When the classified as a public utility they construct the federal trade commission of its authority over the internet. Reversing it re visits that theres antitrust laws, theres section one and section two of the sherman act. They can exercise market power near market power the third is that consumers care that arm mine privacy the sec would be back on the beat where it hasnt been. And finally the state Consumer Protection loans that will continue to go forward. You step back from this to do whatever they want thats not true. Theres Legal Authority to protect consumers. One thing people look as we look at a court challenge. Gifts a monday and pennies had anticipated looking at how it came together. I was the general counsel this culminating in the sorter. Ive looked careful added in its important that were unsound legal footing. The Supreme Court has already upheld it. Some people have said that since the 2015 decision theres has drastically changed since then and then ability to do so, if you look at the decision it says the fcc did not rely on changed circumstances. It didnt matter then not doesnt matter today ron solid legal foundation. Does this draft proposal return to the i think we have all understood a free and open internet and how important it is back then we had one over the title i framework this would return us to that title i world some of our look at packages of higher speed, set a legitimate concern . Under the approach right now theres nothing that prohibits them from engaging that product. Once we take that option we have those authorities we can protect all competitors in the state. Im confident theres adequate things in place to prevent it. There is circuits about other cases they might not have some authority over those that would be involved how do you see that there pretty shortstaffed im confident the fcc can handle this. There this was the internet of equal footing. The ninth Circuit Decision is a case where panel suggested legal technicalities. Even if they reverse the decision they may not be able to take jurisdiction over it. We were a letter urging the ninth circus and what they did was dismiss the panel decision. Once the fcc reverses title to. After this december 14 phone, when will we knew what the current rules will be . Youll know right then what it will be. Theres a transparency requirement that requires them to be up front if we see anti competitive content. In 2020 theres a new administration arose change how the prevent this from pingpong a backandforth. You there we will settle on a consensus space approach Going Forward or congress can step in. Back at the Court Decisions one of the Common Thread is the courts determining or not speaking directly to this issue. To predict an onslaught of comments coming in to the next three weeks . Im receiving them directly as well, some more colorful than others. Some of those colorful views, defined they have legitimacy . Weve had over 22 million filings we see that the agency. It shows us consumers are passionate they dont want to see their experience change. I will be casting a vote that i think would dramatically change that they have a negative way. The path whereon protects consumers uninsured the networks cost money. 1. 2 trillion in investment. We need to see investments Going Forward so they u. S. Can continue to move forward. One other thing that dominated headlines is the fight between at t and doj over the purchase of time warner. Im curious has high see that. Theres been a lot of debate whether that he talked about that during the campaign he raised it again saying it would not be good for the country if it went forward to have faith in the independent independence and how d. C. That overall its a big situation litigations are now Going Forward is doj as independent as it should be . This transaction did not come before the fcc is relatively limited where licenses are being transferred and this was not one of them. I have not seen the record are done at the deep dive myself. I dont have any personal insight. Were you surprised by the decision . I didnt follow it closely and generally have a position one way or the other. Was your general philosophy . We there when the comcast merger went through . The fcc has limited role to play when a transaction comes before us you look and say zero transaction specific harm. If that addresses the harm that we can move forward. One thing he sought do is review mergers is a christmas tree. Thats not my approach or the case that they should take. I dont think we should take the opportunity when companies are trying to get a deal done before us and achieve goals independent of itself. Your colleague have this to stay about the standards when it comes to mergers and media ownership. What is your reaction . For several decades the fcc has had a balancing test it is taken the merger harmed and looked at the benefit. You can go back a decade since he texts that reflect that approach quietly and without warning. The agency chances stander. An Administrative Law think we should of had a rulemaking. I think you should be subject to noticing comments. So i dissented on that transaction and how it was issued quietly and without warning. Most concerning is that it will increase it. Its a point different how we see the law. Weve adopted this balancing test which is to save we can identify small harm in this transaction were not concerned about addressing the exact harm if we could get enough goodies to outweigh the harm let the transaction get through. Its not that can we get it unrelated to harm its what can we do it. Something about getting other goodies. Your focus has been wireless in general. Since you been commissioner now youve had one order that was able to go through this past november meeting. And how are you approaching th that . Tel aviv big meeting. When i went to the com proces summer i focused on the opportunity we have to create jobs and grow the economy. My policy background has been the wireless side. Of the Commission Chairman pie gave me believe on the docket which is consistent with how to grow the economy. Most consumers are where 4g cellular service. We want to transition from 4g to 5g. We want faster for my perspective the network will look very different. We have 300,000 cell sites across the country. Were talking about going to these macro site towers to small cell deponents. The current framework we have for that is going to be the bottleneck that holds us back from getting 5g. In terms of approvals works relatively few. Small cells were not work. So whether its a local process, environmental federal law to push regulatory cost out im glad to lead that. We had one item last month, this month looking at twilight towers. Its between 2001 a 2005 weather being constructed. Unclear about what to do and because of that the towers have been a regulatory limbo. Without going through a lengthy historic review procedure. Working a vote on the concrete solution which would ultimately adopt and open the towers up from 4,007,000 towers. Its part of a broader effort or trying to attack it on different fronts. Is there general agreement on that approach . They tend to be some of the most the fee, ground to move forward. I hope to have Common Ground on the sun as well. Another is one official this past month that questions how things were and how the localities were. To think there has to be any preemption i agree theres a more legitimate role to play, theyre going to can continue to play that role. Congress has given that authority to make sure that there are not barriers to deployment. That includes taking a look at the state and local laws if we need to streamline those if we get the right Regulatory Framework for 5g were talking about 275 billion. That will be 3 million new jobs. Though we have to get that Regulatory Framework right. Theres been a proposal and if we adopt those proposals and streamline regularization it will shift for deployment into thousands of communities. 25. 6 million homes if we streamline regulations. Its not about how to get them to move faster, five highspeed fiber that will not have gotten it sustained local has an Important Role to play. Need to look across all areas so we can get the advanced appointment out. When do you expect that on the docket the chairman will bring that forward for vote. They filed oppositions to that. Were taken comment on that once the staff completes its review will take look at the record. When the children brings it up all caps votes. Whats your general philosophy . 39 is limited to a population of what a broadcaster can cover. German knows the proposed rulemaking finesse questions about whether thats the right number and if we can increase that number and all those issues that were considerations. Can the fcc modify the cap from that . Another said congress was the only real body that could change that and wonder how you saw that. Its been a big theme throughout the year virtually every week theres been a letter about this and if theres anything deeper there. Your first question about the 39 cap, in the last year the year before they did have the authority to adjust a must see what is in the comments the commission has been focused is a broad segment of what it is we regulate our rules and regulations on the broadcast industry have been outdated for a long time. Weve been broadly acting to streamline those rules. The last fcc meeting theres a large discussion about the lifeline hasnt been successful and doesnt need to change i think its part of the statutory regularization to make sure that is affordable. In my view we should continue to play that. It has been plagued with abuse several signed up for lifeline that cannot be verified. That hurts both consumers generally that are paying into the fund the support the lifeline dollars but it also means we cant move on. We need to make sure were eliminating the waste, fraud, and abuse. Theres many questions on how we target support and effective ways. We have time for one more question. There some of the strongest rhetoric on that item and others. Think the majority of the fcc said its going down a destructive path. I looked at several actions that concerned her. How different is it now from when you started . I would say its more partisan. The vast majority of what we do at the commissioners bipartisan consensus based. The doctors highprofile issues that are controversial and difficult to find Common Ground on. But on the that we need to agree where we can. And we can try tomorrow one other ones. There will be tough issues and youll hear about those in the press. But were working by consensus at the agency. Thank you gentlemen. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies. It spread to today by your cable or satellite provider. A headline from forbes magazine, the Senate Tax Bill is worse for lowincome people than previously thought says the congressional budget office. Im next, republican members of the finance Committee Talk about the finance package. Then well talk about government waste and fraud. Washington journal is live every day with news and issues that impact too. Week ahead on capitol hill and white house in the Nuclear Expert talks about the United States nuclear arsenal. Watch washington journal, live on tuesday morning. Jen the discussion
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.