Is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Host brendan carr is one of three republican commissioners on the federal communications commission. He is our guest this week on the communicators. David mccabe of the New York Times is our guest reporter. Commissioner carr, this week there was an announcement by the chairman of the fcc ajit pai about the cband and 5g. Could you walk us through in layman terms what the Commission Proposed and what may happen . Guest 5g and securing u. S. Leadership in 5g has been our top priority at the sec and my top focus. Why is that . 5g is going to usher in a new era of economic opportunity, jobs, of Educational Opportunity for our kids. All these cutting Edge Innovations we heard about today from connected cars to smart cities, internet of cities will not work or not work well without 5g. The a lot of things that you do right. One of the ghost to question which a spectrum. We have to put out a lot of new spectrum bands to enable all of these great new inventions to work. See band is one component of that which touches on what we call the band spectrum come secure 5g leadership we need low band, the band and i been so this announcement is really another good win for the u. S. I pushing more mid band spectrum out there into the marketplace and what isnt that spectrum being used right now by Satellite Companies . Guest it is. All the spectrum is being used by someone right now. The question is how do we make sure we put it to its highest and best use. An idea we are putting forth at the fcc is a way to protect and preserve those existing uses while also opening up that band to more 5g use cases for consumers so it will be a a rel win not just for the incumbent licensees that are in the band ultimately but for the American People that just want more connectivity. Host theres already been pretty substantial push back by congress, correct . Guest weve seen a bit of that but when you step back theres bipartisan support for securing u. S. Leadership in 5g and will have to jump through some hurdles along the way to get there. Back in 2014, 2015, 15, 2016 u. S. Leadership in 5g was far from secure. There were other countries, china in particular that was putting up new cell sites, another component of what you need to do for 5g. Theyre putting up cell sites 12 times the pace we were in the u. S. But we have turned things around. Starting 2017 we have modernize our infrastructure, putting her spectrum out and the results speak for themselves. The u. S. Is a first commercial buildout of 5g in the world. We secured the largest initial buildout of 5g, 14 cities in the u. S. Got 5g last you. We have about 30 30 cities tody and were going to over 40 cities by the end of this year and we will have twice the percentage of 5g connection as china so its a real good success story. Along the way weve had to be aggressive and take bold action to do that. Host at what point will the fcc start considering this proposal and when will the Public Comment period start . Guest theres assets of this weve been working for about a year and half already. I expect another vote in the coming weeks or months, and my goal is to what we call an auction of the spectrum in 2020. We are very solidly on track to do exactly that and thats going to mark a really another good win for american families. Host lets bring david mccabe into this conversation. Something you litter to is the pope case for 5g that will transfer all these. We hear a lot, whats going on that is been overhyped . Guest im excited about because the same dynamic or talk about, is it too much hype, is it not . Its something weve seen play out threat to generations of upgraded technology. Think back 15 years when we are shifting from 3g to 4g there were a lot of articles and analysts writing at the time sink 3g to 4g, is it worth the . Are consumers going to cut back thin copper home telephone lines and upgrade the fiber and upgrade to 4g . The challenge is standing here today its hard for most people to envision the transformations and disruptive inventions that will come with 5g. Think about your own life ten years ago. Think about how you got across town. Pick up the phone, call a taxi, wait in line, pay exorbitant rates. Now with 4g and smartphones you can have uber or lyft right in your phone. Think about banking ten years ago. He would go to brickandmortar bank, stand it one of rope lines, talk to a teller. Now we have those right on our phone. We are on the cuts of seeing that same type of transformational shift in 5g that we saw in 4g. So two people to question is a going to be worth it, are we overstating it . That shows a lack of vision, the same lack of fiction we saw ten years ago when people were not sure about 3g to 4g. We have to talk about 5g in a way that relieves pain points in peoples lives. Thats what we see with 5g. Its not just faster speeds, quicker downloads. Its going to open up, take Virtual Reality or augmented grandly. A lot of people like myself dont like going to the Grocery Store. Their there substitutes now, one ordering options. With 5g it will open up new opportunities. Imagine being held putting Virtual Reality goggles on and then being transported your own Grocery Store walking down the aisle that you recognize, reaching up and grabbing the cereal box off the shelf, picking up at peace of fruit, sticking it in your grocery cart. Have it delivered to your house. These are the things 5g will bring that people now are struggled with the vision to see. There have been cases where seems like carriers have gotten out over the skis, case with at t and had a 5g offering and it wasnt quite 5g. What is your role in making sure carriers are being honest about the service theyre getting at a time when its fully in the interest to say with delivering 5g as fast as possible . Guest part of this goes to the approach we have with mapping and making Public Disclosure about coverage areas, accurate coverage areas, realtime information for consumers about speeds. Theres commercial apps you can download on your phone to have check but also our role is to cut through the regulatory red tape and enable the private sector to get out there to invest and to build. Host just to tie this back to the cband and what david was quizzing you about, the wall street journal editorialized this week that because of the te germans proposal on the cband and spectrum that the unfortunate reality that mr. Pies government auction probably will not happen for years and u. S. 5g life because of it. Guest theres a couple of factual points that i disagree with. I think its a factual pieces are right i would share some of the concerns expressed. Heres the facts. We are committed to conducting this auction in 2020 so lots of the concern that striving this has to do with speed. Theres a concern they could take three, four or multiple years for this auction. Thats not going to happen so once you realize that, this makes a lot of sense the way we are pursuing. Whether it was a private auction sm advocated for or a public auction both would take place in 2020 and that is more than enough to help secure u. S. Leadership in 5g. Host is the transition to 5g going to be as consequential as the analog hd transition . Guest i think more so. A lot of regulators now are struggling with a lack of vision. Its on us in government as competition authorities to understand where the industry is going or as i say to pass the test program to be skating with the puck is going and not where it is today. A lot of people underestimate the pace and nature of technological change and were e seeing that lack of vision with 5g. Its the store, sort of intrinsic. Henry ford supposedly said that if people asked him what they wanted they wouldve said faster horses. In fact, the first cars were called horseless carriages. We see some of the same lack of vision with 5g and not seeing actually disruptive its going to be. That ties into a lot of work. Sprint tmobile is a transaction we been working at the fcc. Some people about against it saying today we are living in the golden age of wireless. I dont think so. If you show a little bit of vision, if you see where this industry is going, cable providers are adding more wireless subs per quarter than wireless. Some of their first play was 5g, is to add more choice and competition for inhome broadband. When you see where this market is going and have that vision, not only does the sprint tmobile transaction makes sense but it shows you understand where technology is moving. Which regulators are lacking vision . Guest if you take the sprint tmobile transaction there are some of the fcc who voted against it and said exactly what i just did come witches we should preserve the status quo because consumers have what one of my colleagues described as the golden era of wireless today. A lot of consumers are not happy with the status quo even though weve made good progress. They want to see disruptive new competition. Whether its those of us at the sec or even antitrust authorities that are looking to put the brakes on some of these transactions, when you see with the market is moving, a lot of these things make a lot of sense rather than the government operating as a restraint on the disruptive competition. State attorney general lawsuits now trying to block this merger of sprint and tmobile which based on the record would lead to a strong third competitor to the market leaders and verizon and at t. Consumers want to see that increased choice. What makes you think this will lead to a stronger third competitor not just also ran third competitor . Guest this transaction for the first time would enable sprint and tmobile, the combined company to the same scope and scale as verizon and at t. Up until now they that far deeper Spectrum Holdings, stronger balance sheets, larger infrastructure builds, more customers. By combining you can finally have some of the same scope as good. On top of that they have committed to build up 5g, 1099 of u. S. Population. That is a big win for u. S. Leadership. They have committed to bringing inhome broadband ice Speed Options to 28 million household households, and their Spectrum Holdings of 2. 5 which goes back to the smith and discussion which is part of 5g has been underutilized up till now and now theyre able to put that spectrum used for american consumers. The sec was early to say this merger would be a win. Doj took more time. How confident are you the sec was aggressive enough in getting conditions out of tmobile given the doj was able to come in and get more . Guest the review at the sec lasted well over a year, for beyond the 180 day shot clock would try to beat of the sites of transactions. Transactions. It was a lengthy review. We dug into the record. Ultimately i i didnt think its necessary to get the additional remedies and the vestiges the doj did. What you saw at the fcc was we defined the market for 5g using a market definition we first adopted in 2008 before 4g was build out. When you look at competition through that backwards looking pencil thin view, the sec was clear the transaction was still in the Public Interest. What i pushed for somewhat a successful is for the fcc to modernize our definition of the market. When you do that, when you see the market in which providers are competing in this new 5g era, the Public Interest benefits of the transaction its even bigger. Host in your view, has the att merger of last year played out as it should . Guest we are seeing robust competition. When i look at the finish line in terms of Consumer Choice and consumers options, for me is that the first time we see 5g built out in new york or san francisco. We can only measure success when every Community Gets a fair shot at nextgen connectivity. Some of the markers for me, i spent time outside of d. C. Come up in and about 33 states in my time on this job, sioux falls, south dakota, i think a couple of times. They will be firing up 5g in that city now. Thats 140 Third Largest city in the u. S. Ive been to small towns like fishers indiana and is also smao walking tour when they had 60 plus small cells in the town at a point in which larger cities like san jose still had zero. When we are looking at progress and looking at success we have to measure it by those types of stories, not just been focused on big coastal cities alone. Host theres been some pushback from localities with regard to the secs approach to putting up these small cells. Guest thats right. I fully understand that. The approach would adopt at the fcc, stepping back 5g as far as a massive buildup of new infrastructure but these are not the 20300foot tower most consumers are used to. Bishop backpacks size and tends to go on light poles and utility poles. What i learned from getting outside d. C. , spending time in sioux falls, fishers, indiana, is theirs, to policies put in place that were resulting in those accelerated infrastructure builds. We built on those policies and put them in place at the federal level. I get whenever someone asked in d. C. To put guardrails on local decisionmaking is going to be pushback from state and local entities and we are seeing that as expected but what surprised he was we have dozens of mayors, county officials and state leaders that spoke out in support of the fcc decision because they get the big picture about what 5g builds will bring to their community. Host is it important the u. S. Beat china when it comes to 5g . Why does a matter . Guest i think so. A couple of respects. The u. S. Has secured Global Leadership in 5g pic with the strongest 5g platform in the world. Its a platform to require significant investment of capital. When you set your country up in a leadership position thats going to attract the capital needed to build up this nextgen internet infrastructure. Moreover, the country that leads with the strongest 5g platform really has an edge in terms of Economic Dominance for the next decade. Its been a top priority. We put forth a plan early on and we been executing to maintain u. S. Leadership, and the results are in and the early positive for the u. S. I want to steer to huawei. Many believe it poses a National Security threat to our networks. We are taking this on a thursday. There were probably air at the seventh but the sec will vote on it item for subsisting spit on huawei and ctf of the Chinese Companies equipment. Weiss is important to protect American Security . Guest when you think that 5g 5g it is no longer just about phone calls or emails. It is connecting everything from our Banking System to smart cities to agriculture. We have to make sure the 5g networks are secure. We have significant concerns about the threats posed by huawei and other equipment when it is embedded in the u. S. Network. Were taking a first step this week as you noted we will be voting to stop sending taxpayer funds, u. S. Of funds to subsidize the inclusion of huawei dear Indias Telecom networks. Similarly with proposing to go further than that which is to look at rip and replace, taking insecure equipment essentially huawei equipment outofnetwork. Ive asked the sec to expand the proposal come to not just carriers receive support but to any communication provider that has an insecure equipment in the network. Those are important steps to have a safe, secure network in the u. S. What evidence specifically convinced convince you there was a threat . Guest we get a lot of briefings, some which are the confidential side but theres a lot of public indication as well. One is the unity of interest in control to in the communist party in china and some of these equipment providers, in particular loss in china that required them for surveillance and other perspective of potentially do their bidding and not disclose it to the u. S. Weve seen in other contexts from companies that are owned and controlled by the peoples republic of china. Theres an instance where a call from los angeles directed to washington, d. C. Was rerouted by a Company Owned by china, and this had to do with the china open proceeding were looking at. Its not the most direct route of moving that traffic so theres lots of concern about what happens when companies ultimately owned and controlled by the peoples republic of china have equipment in our networks. Thats why you dont see a lot of segue in the court of Major Telecom providers today, some of the same concerns are proceeding as some of the smaller rural providers that nonetheless have had this equipment. Its worth noting the Chinese Company flatly deny theres any sort of threat here. You mention the rural providers. With an replace wichita to considering is very expensive. What would you say to providers who say you are not only cutting off from a relatively affordable networking gear but also potentially putting me with bill for placing that equipment . Guest weve heard a lot from small rural providers and i went on the road to learn about it myself. I spent time in rural montana with somebody small telephone providers that have huawei equipment. Ive been out to sell sites in montana where huawei networking gear was operating on that site. Express the same concerns that you did, which is how would they going to find potentially a rip and replace if we determine this is insecure equipment . We are seeking comment on that in a proceeding or is or funding mechanism at the sec for that . Congress has bills introduced that would provide funding so we look at all of those options. Host how does your proposed fcc, or u. S. Of band on huawei and zte square with the administrations postponing sanctions against huawei . Guest they really lined up. The concern out of the Commerce Department was if they were to prohibit the use of huawei equipment, that could result in cutting off broadband and cell phone and Telephone Service in Rural America with these providers. Thats a similar concern we have which is why we are proposing on a Going Forward basis to look at ripping and replacing that equipment once theres funding available so those decisions light up which is both commerce and sec are cutting off service in Rural America immediately but we are very tactically moving to address this problem. But they also help out Large American Companies that do business with huawei, not all of them but Companies Like google seem to benefit from Android Software updates to huawei phones. Should commerce have been more targeted in the way its exempted companies . Guest they described an action that in their minds was still designed to make sure that National Security wasnt going to be undermined. They reached that conclusion after looking casebycase basis on each of the exemptions that they were given. But i defer to congress. You mention china mobile. This was a company that the sec denied a sense of the license operate the United States but there are similar chinese cell, such operate here. They dont serve a ton of american clients. Understand has outspent their large looser people like business in china or maybe chinese nationals who were here. Nonetheless should they keep their license to operate in the United States . Guest i had significant concerns about this and erase that one of our most recent open meetings. Section 214 authorizes a company to interconnect with different Telecom Networks here. The issue was china mobile was whether to allow them in the first instance to Start Connecting to our network. Based on National Security concerns we denied the request and are now prohibited from interconnecting. What i saw is theres other similarly situated companies that received that 214 permission from the sec some ten or 15 years ago. The Security Threat of potential Security Threat from companies openly owned and controlled by china have changed dramatically since the early 2000s i5 called for an investigation into whether those existing 214 should be pulled and i will continue my work on that issue. Host speculate on why you think our allies dont necessarily agree with the United States when it comes to these Chinese Mobile Companies trying to were seeing a lot of unanimity on this issue and rested to pub has been very active meeting with counterparts and say concerns where expressing here the flame leado u. S. Action your i think we are seeing parallels take place in other countries as well. Switching gears a bit. Theres been a call for a total relook how facebook and google are regulated. You dont have authority but am interested in one proposal, the idea that should be a new agency to regulate digital Companies Like facebook or google. Are you supportive of the creation potential of a new agency for those companies . Guest i would defer to congress his judgment and would be happy to see what to do. I dont think we need a new agency per se. A lot of the concerns were seeing now about tech go back to what of the first point i talked about, which is regulators in competition authorities fail fd to see what the market is going. Its one point that has two sides. When companies are looking to merge like tmobile and sprint, we need to see where the market is going to understand truly the competitive effect. The other side could be said on the tech sector. For instance, when you have tech Companies Like facebook buying up smaller Companies Like instagram back in the day, i think of it would be useful, at a trust authorities to have this mindset of maybe in the country and sticky i am is in a small boat assuring app but maybe to a potential competitor. Im not saying it should be unwound but what we need to have is the forwardlooking vision to swears the industry going and take or not take action after doing that. Im not sure we need a new regulatory body to do that perhaps but those are in agencies in the tech sector need to start moving in that direction. Host are we getting to a point where a New York Times potential merger with another newspaper and a Cable Company merger with another Cable Company and facebook and instagram are all becoming the same thing . Guest its a great question. Whats underlying that is the media marketplace has shifted dramatically in the last dozen years or so. The fcc is failed to keep pace. We have rules in place that assume the entire media marketplace is three broadcast television stations at night and the daily newspaper on your front doorstep in morning. It is a vastly different market. We have rules in place that preserve that current competition and its not working. Newspapers are closing by the dozen around the country and we are stopping at the fcc additional investment in local newsgathering because a lot of these local newspapers and tv stations are now competing with social media giants for advertising dollars. We should allow additional investments in the broadcasting media space. Some people would say if you open the door to consolidation of more it might benefit a newspaper. How to protect against a situation where you open the door for these transactions and theres homogeneity of who owns these outlets of the continuity between them . Essentially the content becomes the same in two outlets in the same media markets only those outlets are more sustainable but theyre not providing a diversity of content for readers, how do you balance those traffic the broadcast context in particular theres always going to be an fcc review of the particular facts, the particular circumstance when a license changes hands. We can protect the Public Interest in those cases. Right now our approach is to katie by the door and not let the potential transaction come to the fcc. Thats negative consequences for communities. A small town of power wyoming went to visit a Radio Station there and the Radio Station i went to visit had its doors still closed and it effectively is inside a dell laptop that is playing music pumped in from some big city somewhere else on a loop. A couple miles away theres a local broadcaster that is investing in the community, has local programming wants to purchase the station and bring some of that same local content to powell wyoming and arvel says because of what the diversity of voices we cant have that. That doesnt make much sense to me if you want to reserve at home laptop spinning tunes from some distant city over actually investing in local newsgathering. Our approach needs to at least open the door to consider those types of transactions. Host finally, commissioner carr, the federal trade commission is role has changed in the last couple of years. Visavis the fcc. How is that working at . Guest i think were working very, very well together. We have a series of memoranda of understanding. Weve been collaborating everything from Online Privacy to all sorts of tech issues and i think the relationship is going really well. Host brendan carr is one of three republican commissioners on the federal communications commission. David mccabe covers tech policy for the New York Times. Thank you for being on the communicators. This communicators and all others are available as podcasts. We will be hearing from former Massachusetts Governor default patrick who is editor 2020 race for president. He will be speaking at about politics and eggs bfa