For having the on. Theres five of us that are commissioners of the fcc. We serve staggered terms of every year one member of the commission is up for renomination and confirmation by the senate and the process continues a respective of the outcome of the election. For instance, my term runs through 2023 and i can hold over for a longer time potentially and im going to continue to serve regardless of the outcome of the election. Host and with Michael Orielly not being we nominated by the president , if there were a change in administration, you and commissioner pai would be the republican, correct . Guest yes. Michael orielly has her longtime both on capitol hill and at the fcc and his term expired a year and half ago and we are allowed to stay on until the end of this congress when were in that situation whether it is any one of us commissioners. Commissioner of violence term come to an end and commissioner pai, chairman pai and myself can continue to serve. Host now to the policies. In an Election Year are you able to get things done . Guest the fcc has been incredibly busy. This interview writer goes to part of it. We are all in three different locations right now. Normally were sitting on the same table to discuss this but covid19 changed the lives of something americans in so major that ways virtually overnight, our lives shifted onto the internet whether those that work like were doing outlook for educating our kids are accessing telehealth. We saw a tremendous spike in internet traffic, 30 increase. The fcc immediately went into action to make sure our networks continue to perform. Importantly, americans got to stay connected. I am incredibly proud of the work fcc staff did. They also written remote locations have to shut the fcc building up but we took a series of steps to support Internet Connectivity when so Many Americans depend on the internet more than ever before so im really proud of the metaphoric our staff has been getting done this year. Host joining us to look at some of those policies is cat zakrzewski of the Washington Post. Thank you thank you, fred mee show. Commissioner carr, just following up on that about the pandemic, we are early in the school year and you mentioned the shift to School Online for so many communities for dealing with the pandemic. We have been reading stories all your about children having to log on for school in parking lots or getting left behind because they dont have reliable Internet Access in their homes. What steps are you taking at the fcc to address that Digital Divide . Guest closing the Digital Divide has been the top priority for us at the fcc, and i have to say im really proud of the amount of progress thats been made in the last three years alone. If you look back at the Digital Divide it is narrowed by over 30 in the last three years. With more miles of highspeed fiber buildout in this country last year, over 450,000 miles connecting and recordbreaking number of homes. We are really lucky and since the pandemic hit after we saw this explosion of Internet Connections being built. No one is raising the mission mn accomplished slack. Theres much more work to do. We partnered with a lot of internet providers over the last few months to launch new or open up existing ones to more eligibility, low income programs to make sure that families particularly those with School Age Children have access to the connections that they need. That effort included partner with the department of education which is a 16 billion funding for education stabilization fund. We worked with them on ways to open up that funding to provide connections to schools. They dont need to have kids going to local wifi hotspots unnecessarily to get their internet connection. And given the fact that this pandemic is dragging on longer and it is looking like some schools may be having students logging on from home for at least several more months, do you think Congress Needs to address these access issues and a potential stimulus package . Guest i am certainly open to congress providing additional funding particularly for the fcc to help further close the Digital Divide. Putting resources into it. Just this month were starting an auction of up to 16 billion to help bring Internet Connectivity to up to 10 million americans who have had highspeed services. Where voting this month on a 5g fund to open up mobile highspeed services in rural areas. We are putting resources to it but Additional Support from congress to fully get this job done would always be welcomed. And i wanted to ask because you mentioned 5g, just yesterday we saw apple event where apple unveiled the new 5g iphone. We solve the verizon ceo talking about how 5g is a reality. Where should americans expectations be on 5g . Should they buy into the hype were hearing right now from the private sector . Guest we have really come a long way when you think about 5g. If you flash back to 2015, 2016 the analysts including deloitte that wrote while the u. S. Led the world in 4g, there was about to be in their words a 5g synonymy from china and other countries making it nearly impossible in their assessment back then for the u. S. To catch up. What weve seen is not that u. S. Providers had been slowly building out, is that the u. S. Government was slowing them down in terms of their ability to buildout these networks. Weve engaged in a series of steps the last couple of years to clear the unnecessary regulatory red tape, and the u. S. Now is the strongest 5g platform in the world. The news of the new iphone coming out with 5g its a great indication of how far weve come in this country with a 5g network. Theres always a challenge of chicken and a come is a network first, is the enduser devices first . This announcement about the 5g iphone really secures in everyones mind 5g is here now we will have these devices in the hands of millions of americans potentially around the holidays. People are going to be able to see for themselves the impact that 5g can make in their lives. I will also add really that the handset which was the main functionality of a 4g network is probably going to be the least interesting thing of the 5g network. 5g will be much more interesting things, virtual reality, augmented reality but i think the 5g ipod is a significant measure as to where we are in the u. S. With 5g builds. Host commissioner carr, given that you issues that cat zakrzewski has introduced already, Digital Divide and 5g, do you consider broadband expansion and these issues to be an infrastructure issue much like rails and highways . Guest its an infrastructure challenge. The solution is not the same regulatory approach that happen when you had a Monopoly Railroad or utility because at the end that they americans want choice and the one competition. It is an infrastructure built and i spent a lot of time in this job outside of d. C. In Rural Communities meeting with tyler cruz and telecom tech that buildout this internet infrastructure thats why ive led the sec effort to modernize our Wireless Infrastructure rules so that these internet builds can accelerate. Weve seen the result of that. Internet builds are accelerating in communities across the country and effect where this great job story right now where they are up to 20,000 jobs we could add just with the tower climbers allowed to complete the countries 5g builds. Its right to do this as an Infrastructure Project and we need to make sure we can drive down the cost of those builds. Host and if the congress were able to introduce an infrastructure, omnibus infrastructure bill, would you want broadband to be included in the . Guest it makes a lot of sense. We have a lot of Funding Sources were pulling on, 16 billion fund for fixed Internet Access, a 5g fund for mobile but theres going to need some Additional Resources to fully get the job done. What kind of a number would you put on that . How much money does Congress Need to allocate towards these projects . Guest look at where we are with the fixed side. With allocated roughly 20 billion from 16 billion for the first phase, potential 3 billion for another face. This first auction will give us a lot of information. We set up with 16 billion, providers can bid down from there if they can provide connectivity for less than that. The information we get from this what we call phase one auction will be a significant indicator of the remaining amount of funding we would need. I just wanted to switch gears for a bit because we getting so close to the election, and a big issue in this election is social Media Companies and how they are operating monitoring content. Republicans have traditionally light touch approach but now we see President Trump calling for section 230 be outright revoked in passing executive orders targeting that law. Do you think this is a seachange in how conservatives think about regulating the Tech Industry . Guest i do think that the bait of a big tech is a microcosm for a broader debate taking place within the conservative movement. There are some who embraced what i would call abject corporatism which i think is different from what you let off with which a slight touch regulation. I think we should bring a light touch approach to regulating big tech but up to now theres been a no touch approach. We have never had a gap between the size, scale and power of an institution like big tech in the absence or near absence of regulation. Just look at the internet providers. At the fcc we dont have the complete hands off approach with respect to your isps were intet providers pick we have transparency rule that applies to them. I have called for bringing some of same type of light touch regulation to big tech including application of a transparency rule, including getting back to what i think is the original intent with section 230. I think or to have given that provision and expansive reading over the last couple of years, and just this week Justice Thomas we did with a similar view about courts going beyond the limited protections that 230 affords big tech. I think a light touch approach is right but the no touch approach weve had up to now is not in the best interest of americans. Host when you talk about the original intent of section 230, what are you referring to . Guest section 230 section a number of provisions, and one of them talks about not treating an internet platform, a website, like the speaker of the content that was provided. Justice thomas walked through statement recently about how that doesnt mean not to treat them or doesnt give them immunity from treatment as the distributor. For instance, if they know that illegal content on the website, that may necessitate then taking action. But weve seen courts read into 230 not just immunity from liability you would treat the speaker of content but also liability as a distributor of content. Theres a more limited view of 230 aced on the text than what weve seen from courts. Speaking about that dynamic where you have the courts interpreting it in one way, do you think it should be then the role of the fcc to redefine the scope of 230 or should that go to congress or perhaps even the Supreme Court now that we hear Justice Thomas wing it . Guest i do think the fcc has the authority to address section 230 and i think we should congress placed section 230 in the queue medications act and its clear if you look to the case law on this issue that we have authority with respect to the provisions put in the medications act. Whether its a rulemaking or a regulatory ruling i think we should move forward and look at the terms of section 230 and provide Additional Guidance about what those terms mean. Trumps executive order earlier this year opened a Comment Period and passed the sec looking at the scope of section 230. Where does does this effort stand and use the agency making any changes to the section 230 before the end of 2020 . Guest we are running the normal course process when we get a petition like that. The sec put up out for public Comment Period went around of reply comments. I was surprised how robust and for the record was in response to petition. Now the fcc is reviewing the comments that were filed and the sec chairman ultimate will decide when and if we move forward. At this point i would say we are running our normal course with respect to the petition at a dont know when we move forward in terms of timing. Host created the internet, no provider or user of an Interactive Computer Service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of information provided by another information content provider. How would you alter that, commissioner carr . Guest one idea that is laid out in the petition filed at the fcc pursuant to the executive order was this idea that you not just that provision, those 26 words, theres other sections of section 230 that talk about Good Samaritan protection. In other words, if youre going to engage in a takedown of content you have to do it on a goodfaith basis that fits within certain specified albeit broad criteria. One step we have been asked do is to clarify when that of the portion section 230 applies. One idea is a language you apply should apply when the provider takes no action in response to a post on the internet but if the platform is going to take on content, that should look more closely at that separate provision that imposes arguably a higher bar on when you can take on content. I can take on content with 230 protections. The petition was very clear that if the platform wants to take content down it cant. They can do so pursuant to its First Amendment rights that the question before us is whether it can take it out just what First Amendment rights that with the bonus protection of section 230. Protections that a lot of of the political actors dont get the benefit from. Commissioner carr, a lot of president s attacks on section 230 and executive order fast addressing this came right after the Tech Companies took action to moderate his own tweets or posts on their services, particularly twitter decision to label some of the president s of tweets as they say violates its policies. Some of the democrats and the president critics see these actions as the president trying to work an Election Year. What is your response to that . Guest we see this a lot in debates in d. C. Notches not juh policy and theres this idea if the president speaks about it, theres automatically a lot of opposition to it. But i think this issue right on its merits and there is bipartisan support for reforming section 230. Theres bills in congress by democrats, by republicans, bipartisan bills. The fact that President Trump has advocated for section 230 reform is meaningful to a lot of people out there in terms of how they perceive this issue, but all of us should move beyond any particular individual on this and look at the court merits of the issue. Usc from Justice Thomas, at t, think tanks like Free State Foundation that of come out in favor of section 230 reform. Again an addition to the bipartisan movement we see on capitol hill. The days of making the status quo with respect to big tech whether it is 230 or broader scrutiny of the fcc appeared to be coming to an end. Thats a good thing. And host whether section 230hertz Michael Orielly in getting reappointed to the fcc . Guest i dont know. I dont know, didnt have any communications with the white house about that and would defer to them to articulate their position there. Host cat zakrzewski. Sorry for interrupting. Sorry compensable difficult with the resume format, peter. Just to follow up on that, here trump has called for congress to confirm the nomination to the fcc. Do you support that nomination and he think congress should confirm him soon . Guest i defer to the president on the decision to nominate him and obviously the senate on their prerogative to confirm. For my part i think that nate would be a great addition to the fcc team. Hes got a lot of private and Public Sector experience in telecom ive enjoyed getting to know him since his nomination was announced by the president but otherwise defer to the president and the senate on that issue. Thank you for correcting me on the name. I just want to ask what were talking about the senate as well, we have been hearing coming up with the ceos of several major social Media Companies, google, facebook and twitter right before the election. If you were a lawmaker in congress what question would you have for the social media ceos . Guest whats interesting i think the debate about social media has shifted substantially in the last six or seven months. The would say look, theres no bias being exercised by these companies, theres no market power they are applying. I think the conversation has shifted particularly advice. Last about a defense of them not being biased to the statement of of course you are allowed to biased because they are private platforms. Thats good to see the shift in the debate and the debate then comes to mind. Can engage in this buys condit within the meaning of section 230 or has her content moderation and other practices far outstripped the type of conduct that congress had in mind when it passed that provision. I think the additional scrutiny is needed. Again weve never had an institution in history that has as much power as big tech. I think using pushback from the right and pushback from the left. A lot of the leftleaning Idea Solutions are not ones that i endorse. They want to break a big tech. And want to bet on mergers. Thats network i am that i put forward a plan that will bring accountability, transparency and user empowerment. I think 230 is a necessary part part of that effort but its not a sufficient part. We at the federal trade commission need to apply closer scrutiny to the Business Practices make sure antitrust authorities have the tools to regulate fastmoving sectors like tech. A lot of the tools we have havn antitrust were designed for slowmoving monopolies like railroads and oil industries. I get im not calling for a wholesale rethink of antitrust law or Consumer Wealth for standard that we need to make sure antitrust authorities have the tools to see a quickly things change in tech. Take facebook instagram. Did we have the tools back in 20112012 to see how quickly instagram couldve scaled to be a competitor to facebook . Maybe we still would have proved that, maybe not but im not sure we had the tools to see where that market was going. I think we need some robust tools there. Host perhaps this is a theoretical argument but when you look at social media sites and streaming services and cable and broadcast, all are treated different in the regulatory market but they are all essentially providing the same service, i did not . Is an argument to be made there should be more coordination and how they are all treated . Guest this goes to the point about section 230. When you talk about all of these different mediums, different potential political actors at the end of the day, we singled out the largest institutions in history for special protection in section 230 that i think go beyond the actual words of the law. All of that underscores the need for a rethink. There is a broader competition that we are seeing. If you step back from some of the entities you talked about, right now we are seeing increased competition from fixed providers, cable providers, competition from 5g mobile providers, competition from new lowearth orbit satellites and i think that competition is going to be a really good thing for extending Internet Access and driving down costs. Commissioner carr, the House Democrats recently released a report with findings from antitrust investigation into the Tech Companies. It sounds like you were talking about the need for greater enforcement of existing antitrust laws. Were there any recommendations from this report that you personally agree with . Guest i havent had the chance to read through that report but i do welcome the additional scrutiny that is going on right now. From my seat we recently reviewed a transaction, sprint and tmobile. I think this highlights the concern that i expressed earlier with respect to facebook and instagram. In some ways this was the other side of the same coin. People look at sprint as a number four wireless carrier in the u. S. And their predicted to the antitrust tools that he would continue to be the fourth competitor in adding pressure to the market. If you really understood where sprint was, show that it nymex in the market in terms of what needs to compete in the 5g space, you can see clearly that sprint was effectively dead man walking. Combining sprint and tmobile will bring much stronger competition to at t and verizon. In fact, we are seeing that right now with the accelerated bills that tmobile is engaging in and some of the competitive responses we are seeing in the market. I think against the broader dynamic is do we have the tools to see where this fastpaced sector is going, whether it is sprint tmobile or the other side of the coin facebook instagram. So i would welcome any sort of antitrust tools that would allow people to get a clearer picture of what the market is going. Host commissioner carr, one of the issues the fcc has been dealing with is the relation of new 5g towers. Whats the status of working with localities on that issue . Guest i can, this is been one of the unheralded Success Stories of the last three years. Beginning in 2017, 2016 we were at serious risk of falling behind, china and a global competitors. It cost too much to build an infrastructure in this country and it took too long. I led the fccs efforts to modernize our Wireless Infrastructure rules to support 5g. We updated some of the federal environmental and preservation historical rules that didnt make sense to 5g bill. We built on some common sense rules that state and local governments put in place input guardrails so we dont have exorbitant fees or long timelines that make it may be okay to build 5g in new york or San Francisco but it sucks up all the capital you would need to build in smaller communities. We engage in a five or six different reforms are pink off and today 5g is life in places like sioux falls, south dakota. A couple weeks ago i was in ohio where there is ig life. Those are better measure of we are as a country today and the first time we saw 5g in some of the big cities commissioner carr, the pentagon put out a request for proposal related to spectrum for 5g, and it is causing some backlash from the wireless industry. Do you have any comment on that . Guest the rfi the pentagon put out, theres been some discussion about rfp. There was a this week said it wasnt clear whether not dod was moving forward with an rfp and the official indicated that they were more contemplating 5g uses for their own internal uses and they were not looking to create a competitive our commercial 5g offering. That makes a lot of sense. There are some that have pushed for a different approach, what some have viewed as a nationalization of 5g. Ive written oped on that end but at why that is a mistake. Again i think if youre looking at old data from 2015, 2016 data maybe you could make an argument there about the need to take drastic steps to accelerate 5g build. If you look at where we are three years later, look at current data 5g and standby in this country nationwide. We have accomplished that not by mimicking the commandandcontrol approach of communist china by getting u. S. Government out of the way, but in the private sector built and invest. Thats a successful model we should continue to go down. Got it. Host commissioner carr, in our two or three minutes that are left and going to ask a question and then we will let cat zakrzewski close with the closing question. But i want to take you back a few years. One of the former commissioners Mignon Clyburn a democrat, highlighted the issue of prison phone rates and that was an important issue to her. Has anything been done about that since she left the commission . Guest theres good news and kudos to Commission Clyburn for her longtime advocacy on this issue. We actually recently within the last month or so took a vote to address some of these issues and chairman pai recently has been courting with state regulators to address rate issues that are outside the jurisdiction of the fcc and we started to see some additional action at the state level. Its great to see the progress. Commission clyburn you think she was met on was telehealth. That something weve also built on. I have that in your Telehealth Initiative and as covid hit we were able to use that docket, the procedural vehicle to stand up a 200 million covid19 telehealth program. I have now travel to ohio, michigan, florida to meet with some of the beneficiaries of the program, again with the builds on some of her leadership. They were able to see a 2030 fold increase in telehealth visits with covid and they were able to meet that demand due to the funding and support that the fcc provided. So really proud of our work on telehealth. Host final question. Commissioner, obviously the election is top of mind for Many Americans heading into the polls on november 3. I just wanted to ask you, you mentioned [inaudible] how do you think a trump second term would differ from a biden presidency when it comes to regulating the industry . Guest i can focus on what my priorities would be, whether im in the minority majority. I think hell stay the same. First and foremost we need to take action to rein in big tactic that means section 230 reform. We need to continue to build out here and infrastructure get the private sector incentives to do that. Weve seen internet speeds double in this country over the past three years so we need to continue to build on that momentum and make sure the private sector continues to bridge the Digital Divide. Host brendan carr is one of the three republican commissioners on the federal communications commission. Cat zakrzewski Compass Technology for the Washington Post. We appreciate you both think on the communicators. Guest thanks. Thank you. Heres a look at congress this week. Watch coverage of the house on cspan and the senate this week live on cspan2. Next, the Washington Post recounts the separate town Hall Meetings held by President Trump and joe biden and looks at the state of the president ial race less than three weeks from election day