Transcripts For CSPAN FCC And Communication Policy 20140426

Government will be with who controls internet traffic. Then the communicators, on Telecommunications Issues including marsha blackburn. Colorado democrat jared polis and Louisiana Republican steve police. A look at a new initiative to help veterans get Mental Health services. What we are seeing right now, embedding computational capabilities more and more into our environment. Some technologists disagree, but i personally consider the smartphones that we carry around with us are 70 of the American Population carries to be a trademark example of the internet of things. We are becoming human sensors because we are carrying around an extremely powerful computer in our pocket. It takes the form of different sensors that exist in the physical world. It takes the form of radio frequency leaders that we pass underneath when we access e zpass on the new jersey turnpike. It takes the form of sensors all around us. Certainly surveillance and cameras that collect data and send that somewhere else. This is part of the internet of things. The embedding of computers into our real world curve the Deputy Editor of the futurist magazine, patrick tucker, on the world and anticipate your every move. Tonight at 10 00 eastern and sunday night at 9 00. Online our Book Club Selection is the wrong war. Joined in the discussion. Live sunday, may 4, look for our next, indepth guest a former gang member turned author and poet. His work includes always runn ing and it calls you back. Booktv every weekend on cspan2. Is considering how to balance the needs of various internet businesses through Net Neutrality. A panel of former democratic and republican fcc chairman and commissioners discussed udo media regulation and in an event hosted by Michigan State university. They talked for an hour and a half. It is appropriate at this time that we begin, at this august gathering of people who have served at the fcc to talk about the challenges and possibly the strategies the commission might follow going forward. I am not going to introduce the panel. Instead, i will introduce the panels moderator. Dick whiley. Anyone in washington wh knows about dick wiley. He is the chairman of wileyr that has theirm, premier Communications Law practice and United States. Dick has made contributions to the elements of a policy in the private sector and the public. He servedly 1970s, for eight years with a fcc as general counsel, as commissioner, as a chairman. After that, he spent nine years chairing a committee that theses the fcc and selected standards that became the Digital Broadcasting standards we have now. For that he was given an emmy. Time butpent a lot of we do not have a lot going through the compliments and record. With that, im am going to turn it over to dick. [applause] thank you very much, professor. We are going to miss you tremendously at Michigan State and at quello center. Let me add my welcome to what i think will be an Interesting Panel Discussion featuring, as jim quello put it, some extinguished former fcc commissioners. Im the most extinguished fo all of all. In the time we have available this afternoon, we will try to get their views and some of the Key Communications issues of the day. I think it will be most interesting. I land, with the exception of the first i planned, with the exception of the first question, i will put individual questions to individual panelists. If somebody wants to Say Something about what somebody else intoned, we will take that on. A little later on, we will offer up our panelists were some friendly questions from the floor. So let me, without further ado, introduce our very, this time distinguished panel. Rochelle, on the far side of the podium, was a republican appointee during the clinton administration. Theshe later served on california state public utility commission. And also served with comsat. She is now a principal and strategic counseling, rochelle chong. I would like to get some of that counseling. Servedichael copps, who for over a decade at the fcc. One of the longer terms as a democratic member and also an acting chairman during a very important period. He served during the george w. Bush and Obama Administrations. Mike is now a special adviser to common cause and sits on the boards of free press and public knowledge. Next is susan, who is a democratic fcc appointment, appointee during the clinton administration. She now is a senior fellow at the sais center pronounced sice. Good. And a founder of susan ness strategies, a member of the board of directors of the inept company. The gannett company. Next is henry rivera. He was a democratic commissioner serving in a republican administration, that of ronald reagan. Henry hasing the fcc practice communication law. And currently, im produce a, with our firm, where he serves as a partner. For some 20 years, he has also been the chair and chair emeritus of the minority media and telecommunications council. Last but certainly not least, i appreciate never taylor tate who tate, who isylor filling in for Michael Powell who is ill. Heressioner tate is today and we very much appreciate it. She was a republican appointee to the fcc during the administration of president george w. Bush. She is now a special envoy to itu on child online privacy. Protection. And also serves on the board to the Aspen Institute and the fre e state foundation. Then i should add on a very extinguished note, i was happy fcc during the i was at the fcc during the administrations of nixon, ford, and carter. You remember those people, i hope. And was also there when jim quello first arrived. I was there when he went to his famous 8 1 2 day confirmation. His fourth confirmation on his fourth term only lasted eight minutes. Start up, folks, by asking one question of all of you. We will start with commissioner chong. If you were back at the fcc after all these years, what would be your primary policy objective . Well, actually i would have two. The first one is a medical issue of more wireless spectrum. I am in Silicon Valley. There there is innovation every day. The one thing i hear the most out of that community is how much they know things are being driven to wireless. And to small personal devices worn on your body or machine to machine technology. So that is very important. The second thing i would say because it is an area close to my heart is Broadband Access and adoption. California has spent a lot of time working on our own to bring broadband you are very rural and and to also engage in training with our low income, senior, and nonenglishspeaking communities. So we think this is an important issue because a lot of Government Services are now moving to the internet. As a result, you will become disenfranchised if you do not have an internet connection. Thank you. Chairman koptz. I would say the same damn things ive focused on when i was at the commission for those 10 years. I would focus on curing the ills of traditional media and making sure that new media serves the needs of the people in the Public Interest. Do in such things as making sure we have an open internet. It does not seem to be a path we are on right this minute. So it would be the same sorts of issues. Too, a little broader lens which would emphasize the changes that have taken place in communications. Looking at it as one Big Communications ecosystem where companies are more more alike, conservators are not doing content to content distribution. It is a different situation. Real Inflection Point as to where all of this is going. I think the decisions of the ar, theion this yer future of Internet Freedom and on the comcasttime warner cable deal will tell us a good deal about where the internet is going for the next generation. I think we have to look to a Broad Perspective like that. We can talk more about this, but i am worried about the direction in which we seem to be headed. Thank you. Commissioner ness . To quote another michi gonian, chairman dingell, who had a long relationship with mainissioner quello, my priority would be anything that congress via legislation says is my priority. So that having been said, certainly competition is a a critical element, making sure the consumer is well protected in a competitive environment, completing renovation of the begun duringwe had administration to ensure our schools and libraries have the Technical Capability to compete in the information age. Those were the two main focii for me. Commissioner rivera . Before i answer the question, i wanted, something you said in the introductory remarks caused me to say this. It was, you said you were there when commissioner quello had his 8 day confirmation hearing. He and i went through our confirmation, his next appointment we went through together. As we were waiting to go into the hearing room, he put his arm around me and he said, lets do this. Do not let them know youre scared to death. Well quiteet well. In terms of answering the question, i would like to see more minorities involved in the telecommunications space. The number of minorities involved currently is in full. Pitiful. This is the case when you consider the large percentage of the population that is minority. The fact that the United States will be a minoritymajority country in the nottoodistant future and not sure many people majority of the American Children will be minorities. So we have got to do something about this problem. That would be my policy priority. Thank you. And commissioner tate. Once again, thank you for being with us today. I called her an hour ago. I can always count on her. I also wanted to share one thought and that is that while i would do almost anything that chairman wiley calls and asks me to do, it was actually upstairs who has me sitting in this state. Because he used to say, will you promise me that you promise me that youll get my 100 my 100th birthday. Jim, i do not have on gold lamee. But i am here. I am so thrilled to be with you all and see all of my colleagues. I will be provocative and say, do we need an fcc . If i were there, when i was at i amtate level, i said, going to work myself out of a job. Things are changing so damascus drastically. Most of the state legislatures were beginning to step back and fullback authority for all of the wireless regulation in america. A lot of the economic regulation of most other companies. And so in the telecom arena. So again, with this explosion of both competition and technology in digital types of technology, what is the purpose of the fcc moving forward . I would be reflective. Then i would hope, even though i truly respect commissioner ness and mr. Dingle, i would say that behink the fcc should proactive in saying to congress, this is what we need going forward. Well, i am going to answer your question. Washington Communications Lawyer, i say, absolutely. Answer my ownto questions today, but i will dig in on this one and say that i primary preoccupation if i were back there today would be to modernize the media ownership rules which i think are badly o utmod outmoded today, particularly the metamorphosis weve seen in the marketplace last year and i think are now counterproductive. But lets move ahead to other questions. To askera, i am going you this. This one was submitted by a professor at msu. Said, from a big picture standpoint, what do we need to know that we perhaps do not know now about the evolving Communications Technologies and markets so that we could effectively serve from a policy standpoint . That thedick, i think professor touched on this in his introductory remarks i worry that regulators today do not have the appropriate strategic and regulatory tools to deal with the Rapid Developers that we are seeing in the communications space, the Rapid Technological Development we are seeing there. This is true in broadband and internet ecosystems. The scenario of a regulator chasing technology in order to craft a Regulatory Environment works in a new technological environment is not new. But i think what is new is the rapidity with which the here,logy is developing because i think it is making the conceptual framework and the regulatory tools that regulators have used in the past obsolete. They really do need to be rethought if they are going to make any sense. I think, this is true where regulators have not changed the values that they had previously embraced, prior to this rapid evolution. Takes diversity and overthetop service thers, if, does Commission Says diversity is important. Asthese concerns evaporate overthetop providers capture more market share, or is the ability of the commission to impose those concerns and requirements on overthetop providers the way to go . If they do that, and they are there are violations in that sphere, what are the commissions remedies . Also, i think the commission needs to worry about imposing no surrender the to requirements will slow innovation or investment in that sector. Im not optimistic that congress is going to be able to legislate this problem away. I think it is going to have to strokes, with broad and let the commission feel its way through. It is a real concern for me. Anybody like to comment on this question further . I think, obviously, the commission has to do a better job of keeping up with the technology, but i think if there is one thing we have learned from our experience with the internet its that no matter how dynamic a technology can be, its not necessarily a match for the momentum of the business marketplace and the ability of consolidators and gatekeepers to come through. We all thought back at the beginning of the century, my, this is something we have never seen before. It is exempt from the rolls. Rules. Remember when we had the tech bubble. Everybody thought there would be no more economic recession. Its nirvana. When we found out that was not so. Fast forward now to this internet. And i think we are beginning to see that maybe it is not so natural for us. The market needs Public Interest oversight. I think we need to be cognizant of that when we talk about the an fcc. The need for it isdid not have an fcc, supposed to be the protector of the Public Interest, a bridge to the congress to inform the congress. What would you have left . The Big Companies going around . If we take the federal fcc away, state fcc, my god, that is happy sailing for the Big Companies. God protect the poor consumer. A good example about Technology Changing rapidly, you chaired the commission during the changeover to Digital Television. They came about, the replacement standard was set in 1941 in the original standard. Already were considering another new standard, ultrahigh definition. That has only changed since 1996 when the Commission Set that standard. In a Digital World, the technology is moving rapidly. Lets move ahead and say, commissioner ness, as you look at the wheeler commission, john wheeler is the chairman of the fcc. Going to be an active time. We have seen that in the time hes served. What do you foresee coming from the wheeler commission, and what would you like to see or not see . Certainly has a full plate right now. Auction,the two sided which he has got to get right. Certainly when we served on the fcc we introduced the whole auction process. And foun how difficult it was and how carefully one had to proceed to get the auction right, to incentivize broadcasters in this instance to get back. To incentivize companies to anticipate in the auction. Spectrum. E leases on so it is a very complicated thing. He is going to do it carefully, i think. Secondly, he has got the ip transition in front of them, working to address the issue of how telcos can at some point give up the copper lines and and on to an ip system, what that means for the American Public. For companies that have proceeded to provide competition to the local telco by virtue of being able to lease capacity on their existing lines, that is an issue he has got to address. Hes doing that with some demonstration projects to see what the issues are before he goes full force. Maintaining an open internet, obviously. We are all aware of the discussions. Has exploded today with the announcement that main meeting of the commission is going to be addressing the open Internet Order that was remanded by the an approach the fcc rachelleon 706, which spent a lot of time on back when the telecom act came in 1996. In any event, looking at how he can continue to ensure competition and protect consumers and an open internet with threading through a very narrow needle. So i think he has got quite a bit on his plate. I would hope that he would complete the quadrennial review. A little bit more rapidly than it has been in the past. You really framed a lot of the things we will talk about today which is very helpful. Copps, do you foresee that the commission is going to be able to get enough spectrum repurpose from broadcasting to make the whole thing work . I think its going to be difficult judging to the reaction from broadcasters to it. I know what failure of the auction would look like. Failure would be if we took a huge swath of spectrum from big broadcasters and turned it over to big wireless. Be the that would disadvantage of consumers, innovators, competitors, Small Businesses. I would like to see them right now, and i hope theyre doing this as they design the auction rules, trying to find a way to make sure that Small Businesses and competitors, particularly minorities and diversities that we want to further the cause of, to make sure those are included in the rules and given an opportunity to get some of that spectrum. If they got some, i would deem that a big success. But this is a tough, tough, tough climb for the commission. We usually focus on broadcast spectrum. What about government spectrum . Is it possible we could repurpose or perhaps share some of the government spectrum . Allwireless needs, as we know, are out there. I know its extremely important to free up spectrum, absolutely critical as we go forward in the internet of things and the communications we expect with the new smart grid. They are being put in really across the nation and across the world. You are right, we have to be successful. I think the government has a lot of spectrum. Served under in california, the former cio of california, now cio of the pentagon, frankly i think they could do more. On the auction question, we absolutely have to have a decent incentives to have rod casters give back spectrum. Share, broadcasters can and there are ways we can still ensure them a voice in less space. Absolutely government should give some up. I just want to say if we dont get enough spectrum released, or ever, from government, broadcasters, we are releasing a problem. Ed atu have not look ciscos annual report, you need to. Everything is talking to each other. We have to have data. Will innovation help, yes. There are a bunch of smart people working in Silicon Valley to make sure that innovation may help the problem. But overall, we know we need to do something. This focus is extremely important. , susan nessner tate touched on the idea of the quadrennial review that congress were required of the fcc every four years to look at the ownership rules and see if they are Still Necessary in the Public Interest. The commission was unable to complete the 2010 quadrennial, and is basically moving that into a new 2014 quadrennial that chairman wheeler is going to start. What is your view of this process . Well, one, its too slow. But back to some of the points that have been made, and of and i commissioner copps were not always in agreement, but we were moving forward on many of these issues back in 2009 and 2010. That allply concerning this explosion of technology and how we are getting content, how content is moving around, our whole world, and whether or not these are rules that remain to be necessary, i mean here we are talking about the explosions, yet we have rules that date back dosh, to when you were there. That far back . [laughter] clearly old. Copps ask commissioner the number, but we had 87 newspapers close because we were unwilling to take some steps so there could be more partnerships between journalists who work for Media Companies and those who work for newspapers. I was really sad, in nashville there was a potential really Great Partnership of really great friends of mine that was not allowed to move forward. There are so many things the commission could have already done that would have enabled investment in these properties. So journalists could do really in depth reporting and we are not just getting 10 second bites can have moree investigative reporting because there could be more investment. Yes, they were able to also have the revenues to do that. The sense correct in that the newspaper broadcast crossover poll which prevents one entity from owning both a newspaper or television or Radio Station in the same market in most situations, we put that in 1975. I spent my career trying to get rid of it. It was a pretty good tradeoff. My view was the reason we put it , a changed remarkably in the marketplace, but that should be reviewed. Are think far more reporter walking the street looking for a job rather than walking the beat covering a story because of the excessive consolidation we have had in the media. When you talk about the stations and financing transactions, i think the record clearly shows the first place i look for all of these deficiencies and economies is the newsroom full stop there are figures of newsroom0,000 or more employees or working, and as late as 2010 war not working right now. This has an awful effect on civic dialogue in this country. When you look at the glitzy infotainment these companies produce, Investigative Journalism is hanging by a thread. I think we have to understand why it is hanging by a thread and why we dont have a situation like we had years ago when you had people assigned to a story for a year or two years, get the truth. Many ceos of big Media Companies are going to say, take two years and get to the bottom of this. What the reporter has to do now is come in, write the story, write a blog, it goes on the screen, maybe take the camera with them because they dont have a cameraman anymore to do the story. Thats not the kind of journalism this country needs fault up we have dumbed down the dialogue to such an extent, given the severity the United States faces, we are in deep trouble because of this. I dont know of a bigger problem the United States faces right now than the state of the media and the lack of really good news and information and journalism to sustain a viable small d dialogue. Youre onioner ness, the boards of one of the great newspapers of this country. What is your view on this . First of all, i am not speaking on behalf of gu anett, which i think is an absolutely outstanding company. We have been increasing the number of reporters and investigative reporters. We have been working to share among the local newspapers and usa today so that the local newspapers can spend more of their time doing local investigative reporting, to provide more centrality so that our television stations can provide information back and forth with the newspapers. Discussione indepth and Investigative Journalism. I know certainly there are companies out there who are and areery, very hard totally committed to both the First Amendment and providing their local communities with the kind of news and information they need. But there are other companies , andare not so consolidation has not been a good friend in many greater news to and information. Of course, we are in a Digital World now and we see broadcasters sometimes provide the same kind of services that cable and telephone are providing. Lotther words, you have a of equivalent Services Provided by Different Industries that are regulated in different ways. Silo approach to it. Henry, what is your take . Is there time for a change in the way we regulate these Diverse Industries . Well, probably. I would say probably. The silo approach is the most criticized aspect of the Communications Act. Divide services and technologies into different groups, and the regulations flow from these silos, if you will. Not contemplate the convergence of these networks and services in a digital context. This is most clear i think in the examples you just cited. Ande things that belong what we call the internet and broadband ecosystem. That said, i dont think we should examine, reexamine the ofo approach with the goal bringing these new technologies under legacy regulation. I think the better way to proceed is to look at this from the point of view of continuing the light regulatory touch the commission has initiated in the internet space. So im not sure what congress is going to do, but i think its clearly i think looking at this question because its not something thats covered in a nice, exact way. You look at all these industries, the one industry that has been perhaps considered a little different by regulators is broadcasting. Change, should broadcasting still be considered somewhat different, special, if you will, because its free to the public and reached by practically every home . What is your view on that . Was on the when i fcc, i wouldve been absolutely broadcasters are special because they are free and and in every house. 2014, i have to say my view has changed. Part of it is because i have seen the rise of the internet as a place where this kind of discourse occurs in a much less costly way. So we are now seeing new speakers arrive on the internet platforms, and they are able to speak and discourse as easily as the click of a mouse or an upload from a smartphone device. I would say at this time, i see so many different expressions and platforms for people to speak, whoever they are, including minorities, including groups that are not traditionally connected to media, that i think its less important than i think less important than i used to think. Commissioner tate . Ive vacillate back and forth. Yes, there are many more forms. Lived same time, i have in parts of the world come in tennessee, where people are still connected and where it is still expensive. We have Free Television that enables people to have access to , allmation, Public Safety that weame values thought made broadcasting special to begin with. So im not quite at the point to relinquish that they are not still special. One of the things that i did want to jump in and Say Something about the silos, and that is when i first got to the fcc i decided my staff was going to be the only staff that was not wireline, wireless, whatever. We were going to be everything to all people, right . My staff would say and say who is going to the Wireline Bureau meeting, who was going to the wireless meeting . It was so frustrating, because even when you could see how the world was changing, it was so impossible to do anything becauset inside the fcc thats how everything is set up. Every filing, every bureau, every bureau chief. So is very difficult to try to merge those even when i pointedly tried to do that. As a lot of you may know, perhaps someone the audience each person gets three legal assistance, usually. I would have to say looking at all your stats, they were terrific. People who were really knowledgeable, picked terrific people. I appreciated people who really knew what they were talking about. People whoof the few got rid of an attorney for an economist, thank you. Oh, great. I used to have an engineer. One thing thet is commission lacks is positions for engineering. It would be extraordinarily helpful since so many of these are technical issues. Back to thisgo question of news on the internet, because its pretty welldocumented fact that probably 85 of the news that we see when we go on the internet comes from traditional media. It comes from the newspaper newsroom, it comes from the tv newsroom. Now, its a shell of its former self, downsized, but thats where it comes from. Onare looking for a model the internet. We dont have one yet. That will really sustain journalism. The old advertising model is broken for traditional media, and its probably a different model on the internet right now, but we really have to start being innovative to figure out how it is that we can energize these small blocks. It is harder and harder and more expensive to start a blog as folkseople, young especially, they say we cant wait a half second for this. You have to have technology where you can download it in a 10th of a second. It is harder to do. Youre seeing this consolation not just from the Internet Service providers but the internet itself. We have to find ways, maybe through nonprofit models that the irs has been slow to approve, maybe through the ,upport of public broadcasting to have firewalls between public support and content. We seem to be too afraid to even think about it, but we have to be thinking about how the really make that internet the most wideopen tool everybody can go to. How do we make it serve the purpose of not just the average consumer but citizen of the United States of america. To ask before we move on, commissioner ness you were at the oral argument on the aereo case, and that relates to how we are going to be looking at new delivery systems, particularly over the top systems. How do you see all of this developing questio . It was a fascinating and very well presented oral argument. Were grappling with it. I think they were suggesting that under the copyright act, you really cannot play games to get around it. Ity recognize, or at least sounded like they were recognizing that aereo was cleverly trying to get around the copyright revisions. But at the same time, they were having a tremendously difficult time trying to parse through how to address that situation without engulfing yourself in the Cloud Technologies and all the new innovative activities going on in the cloud. So i think it was a wellargued session. It remains to be seen how it ultimately shakes out. Any comment about the netflix of the world . So many programs streamed, particularly among the younger population. How do should those services be regulated as opposed to cable . Justices were wondering if it was a cable service. That is true, there were questions along those lines. Ts hard to draw distinctions as services and asked systems mature, i remember when we were i think it was 1995 when we michelle,e session you may remember better, and we were discussing cable modem service. We concluded basically a very light touch and said its just beginning, we dont know how well its going to grow, lets give the opportunity to grow. Similarly, some of these Additional Services that are starting to come up, some may have a strong flame, some may flame out, but hopefully from the regulatory standpoint there will be an opportunity for consumers to benefit from them. Again, i think you have to look at it from the same part of the chain is the environment. There were something in the paper this morning about at t and turner group doing a 500 kellion other deal for hululi services. They are morphing the content and distribution and all that. You have to crack that into the calculation. Regulating them under some of the values of the 1996 teleCommunications Act, which does not always get good reviews, some of those values are timeless i think. Have brought a subject that others have touched on, of diversity. We have a Supreme Court which has said the commission really cannot, the government cannot deal with my know what he heferences my know what preferences, have specific things for minorities. How do you incentivize greater perspective but greater participation under that regiment . Its a good question and one the commission continues to wrestle with. I dont think that you should read it as saying the commission can do nothing in terms of fostering minority ownership policies. Vehicles thenty of commission could use that would have a disproportionately positive impact on the Minority Community that would not run afoul of that and would not therefore be subject to strict scrutiny. Among those would be an incubator program, for example. Explained. That would be where you would broadcaster, a regular broadcaster to be free from whatever regulations would be imposed on ormaybe have one next station off limits if they use it for minority purposes. Correct. And then you started to talk about at the time i was there tax certificates, which was very important, i thought. A method by which we were able to incentivize people to sell to minorities. Unfortunately got abused in the marketplace in congress did away with it. Would you favor a return of the tax procedures . Absolutely. And the good news is there is a bill pending introduced by senator mccain and be rushed and bobby rush that does that. There is some light at the end of the tunnel in that regard. Commissioner chong, you have any views on this . I thought they actually worked. They did. And we have the numbers to prove it. I think it was unfortunate. We need to try to curb and limit future abuse. Let me just insert, this is not about what government can do. There are a lot of things going on in terms of what the industry does. They are very supportive of these incubator programs. Henry, you know that both clear haveel and i think citadel handed over what am i trying mtc a number of small stations that are going to be minority owned and operated stations. Ofthere is a prime example having tax incentives that would encourage people, en courage corporations maybe there are some smaller stations they want to get rid of. What a great way to have people get in, get experience, learn with how i know learn the how to operate a station and become a broadcaster. And there are programs that encourage people to move up into management. The National Association of bltdcasters has the program, and it has been very successful. A lot of us have spoken there, trying to get mine ortiz learning about the business, getting into it. And ultimately, looking at ownership possibilities. I hope that one of these will find ways to improve the situation. Amen. One thing we should talk about is here we have six of us talking together, but at the fcc, three commissioners cannot get together a majority. When i was at the commission, we had seven commissioners and we would here in oral argument in my office and we would hash it around and make a decision. Halfway through my term, the open meeting law, well intended, came about. After that we cannot have those kinds of discussions. Is it time to change the open meeting law and make it possible for more participation or discourse between commissioners . Its long past time we do that. Every time i testify in front of congress the last five years i was there i brought this up. I think its ridiculous that more than two commissioners cant talk with one another. Congress doesnt work that way when they are passing laws. They are behind doors talking to people. The court does not work that way. They talk with other justices. Im a catholic. Certainly the college of cardinals doesnt work that way. Enough for the courts, congress, and the holy mother church, it should be enough for the fcc. To say youre going are against openness in government. It looks like youre trying to go behind doors or something. I think we made progress thanks to jerry and when sitting down here and others, trying to move congress towards a better understanding that this is really something we need to do. I think we would have avoided a lot of the adversarial stuff we experienced at commission in the past years if commissioners had gotten together once or twice it even. When an issue comes up so you know where they stand. There are five different people who are selected for five different skill sets. Perspectives, all that. Just taking advantage of that, you can have the general counsel there. You should make sure it is not three people of one party talking together. No question about that. Theres more support on this for the hill now. The problem is it has gotten mixed up with these reform efforts, and some of those have conditions that i think would really constrict the ability of , likec to do its business the legislating away their ability to put conditions on mergers and time clocks, all kinds of requirements. Standing alone, if we could have an up or down vote on the, i think we might come close to passing it. Possibility ofhe nondecision private meetings question mark as commissioner copps said, you discuss the issue, frame it, everybody understands where everybody else is coming from, but you dont make the decision. You bring the decision out into the open and make it there. What about that . I agree with michael, first of all, that it inhibits the ability to come to a rational whenion in a friendly way no more than two fcc commissioners can talk about a without any given time her being a public meeting. As a consequence, you have five advisors, one from each of the offices, getting together and debating the issues and saying essentially what theyre commissioner would do are not o, all of us having no clue, and if commissioners were talking about it themselves, the outcomes might be considerably different. I think the situation today where youve got the internet, where you have all this information being distributed to the public, where you can see summaries of meetings that have , therelace and the like is tremendously more transparency than there ever was , and therefore part of the reason behind the two member role, i think, has certainly passed. I would very much encourage in fact ive tried to encourage that we find a petition. They went to the administrative socalled to get the sunshine in Government Law removed, and unfortunately the very body that we appealed to to get it removed was eliminated in one of the cost cuttings of the next administration. I should add, one of the last things michael did when he was chairman, he and i wrote to the conference committees on both sides in favor of changing this rule. Kevin martin and i did the various same thing. Chairman Jan Schakowsky i dont think was quite as enthused, but im hoping that tom wheeler will take this up and push it through intel folks he could real and tell folks he could do his best with this. One of the things that make Say Commission valuable and why , the fcc, itsin primary role is to take the legislation that has been passed and make sense of it. Oftentimes, im sure there are a lot of people here in the audience who would agree with ,e, they have conflicting convoluted provisions to it. The role of the fcc is to make sense out of very difficult issues, to have the expertise to put it on the table. So, it really would be ere ofl if commissioners w the mindset to really Work Together to come up with solutions. Sometimes its compromise, sometimes its digging deeper, but really working together to form a solution and not be a junior congress. Sometimes it really develops, devolves into a republican and democrat situation, and i think that does not serve the American Public very well. Certainly when we were on the commission and together, it was a very collaborative process. Thet also adds to regulatory the decision drag when you have this absolutely, shattered diplomacy. Staff betweenve you and your colleagues, it just takes longer. The criticism the commission often comes under about the fact it takes them too long to do anything, some of this is caused by the sunshine act. 10 is that the commission, i was a real hawk on making the government making decisions quicker. Decisionidentify every that has been down there for over a year and then try to set a goal. Not always make the right decision, but we were trying to move paper. What do you think will help pragmatically to get the commission to move i am talking about the Current Commission make the commission generally move faster . Envisages that you brought that up because i didnt even know you had done that. One of the concepts i have talked about and written about have like you merely a docket procedure and you do it at a more local level and whether one of the commissioners or it is and ministry that law judges over it and you do that. We looked in there are over one million complaints against your friends, the broadcasters. My idea was lets go through the mall. Lets find out what has been going on for more than two years. We did this at the tennessee commission. He got rid of 2000 dockets that had been opened. The other thing is commissioner cox and commissioner riley utilized commissioners and listened to their commissioners. I think if each one of the commissioners is there because their expertise other background to be able to let the commissioners take more control over issues. As a chairman, you might know that maybe you give someone a really typical job to oversee and if they screw up, at least a dozen come back on you. You can blame the other commissioner. I think there are so many things if there is a timeline. Stick with a timeline. A you are going to have timeline for mergers, stick with that timeline. Why do you have the date if you actually are just going to end up ignoring them . I think there are a number of processes, things that could be done that would encourage the efficiency. How long it takes to go back and forth when one commissioner comes in with another idea, that has to be socialized around all the other commissioners. I think the other thing as a mediator, there are so many ways that mediation could be used. I know you and i had many discussions about xm and sirius. Over 17 months. I do think there could be many other processes that are put into place other than having the five commissioners have to oversee every single one of the issues. Commissioner sean wanted to comment. I had the pleasure of serving into commissions. In california, what we did do which i thought helped was number one, we met more often. We met twice a month. Two, the president actually a week gave the responsibility to other commissioners. You were assigned commissioner in an area. Others had energy, some had water, some had gas. That way the work of the commission was overseen by five active commissioners. We would get papers through a little faster. The bad thing is even the inviters cannot speak. Can you believe that . Wow. It was a disaster. If there was one thing to change, it certainly is that. We used to meet three times a week. God bless you. Commissioners monday and friday for themselves and tuesday, wednesday, thursday belonged to me. During the Hunt Commission and the implication infant implementation of the act, they were all unanimous and we got them done on time. It was partially because everyone agreed that we were going to do what ever it took to do them in a thoughtful, but rapid fashion to get the job done. We were very religious about it. There were times where you and i would have conversations. We did in fact get it done. Internallysetting time frames that everyone is in agreement on an adhering to those time frames. Keeping to the shot clock. Those are two things certainly that would help enormously move things along. From a business perspective, regulatory delay is extraordinarily costly. When he was chairman, i hent there but we said would circulate that immediately to all the commissioners rather than just keeping it there. That doesnt happen anymore. Changes, inbout Congress Passed a new Communications Act after 60 years. Do we need another Communications Act yet again . The House Republican leadership are talking about it. What would it accomplish . Lets take a quick poll. My answer is yes, we definitely need a new one. The 1996 act is not address any of the internet topics. Internet was mentioned a little bit and broadband not at all. That is exactly my point. We really need to scale back on regulation where we do have competition. There are important principles that need to be obtained and i think wheeler has done a good job on pointing out. He has got most of it right so it has to be reworked. My method of thai collating legislative action one human year equals seven. Year so it is going to be at least thats 14 years in my view. Henry, why dont you start us out here . I am not sure. I dont some in congress think that does to me the does need to be a rewrite but im not seeing any groundswell in favor of a rewrite. True broadband and internet are not really in the 1996 act, some are questioning whether it needs to be or whether the Commission Already has the tools necessary to regulate that industry. I think it congress does legislate it, it would create a statute that deals with the parts or the aspects of the industry that the 1996 act does not deal with. I think we better get used to living under the act that we have right now. Correlation of forces and combination of circumstances that put the coalition together in 1996. Was saying that doesnt exist right now. Tole it might be ideal updated, lets remember the 1996 act never got fairly well implemented. Are lots of competition in there tha t have been ignored. I think if we are talking about waiting for a new teleCommunications Act the old Johnny Mathis song, i think that is one. How do you see that . In an ideal world, it would be lovely to have really strong direction, but we are not in that world. Ifm guessing it would put, we were to go about getting another teleCommunications Act, it would put a lot of kids through college. A lot of very happy players. But, nonetheless, the unintended consequences that come from the legislative process can be very disruptive and not particularly helpful. , althoughl in all the teleCommunications Act of 1996 was a transitional act, i think it has served its purpose well. Ifould be a little bit upset we tried to redo the entire thing rather than address specific issues as they come along for congressional action. You have the final word on this one. What was exciting was the visionary deregulatory philosophy of the 1996 act. I guess that i wish the commission had done a lot more in terms of forbearance when they saw competition. Part sitting in michael hair, he terrell c was the one ive borrowed being a humble regular from. I often think about the fcc perhaps not being so proregulation. You can decide as an agency not to step into Something Like Net Neutrality which may which you may be getting to. There may be cases where the fcc could be a little more humble and wait and see what is going on and are there actual consumer harms before they do get involved. What about that Network Neutrality. We dont have a congressional act. The courts interpreted provisions which the commission should promote new technologies and turn it into authority over the internet. What do we want to see in Network Neutrality, commissioner cox . We want to see an open internet that empowers consumers, gives consumers maximum information. It puts the brakes on the consolidation we are seeing in the isp world and the internet world, too. If the reports i am reading in the press are right and nobody has seen what is circulating at the fcc today, it appears we might not be embarked on that kind of road where we have a clearcut rationale for regulation and getting the rules done. Third waysough of and for ways thank you little ways to rephrase words and what is reasonable and not reasonable. I want something that has some clarity and rests on the best possible legal argument. The best possible legal argument is difficult. The court has virtually invited the commission, if you want to do something about it, or reclassified Net Neutrality as think if you were going to put it on a casebycase basis, you never have clarity. Is this never understands the rules they have to operate under and the consumers dont understand what their rights are either. We can have good, Clear Network neutrality rules that are not burdensome to business. In the end, they will be happier to have a world where there is certainty. It just goes on and on. While it goes on and on, if we wait another year or two years, these other forces continue. The future of the internet is thatust up to making sure it is open from a Network Neutrality standpoint. Beholden toery much what happens to a consolidation, what happens to obligate interest oversight. Take all ouring to current communications, radio, television, things like that, an d move them to the internet, the internet becomes usually invested with the Public Interest. Go cannot just say gangbusters on consolidation, we are not going to have any relation any regulation. Forgotten that. Should Network Neutrality mean that somebody who uses a lot more of the spectrum, op a lot more of the bits, should pay more . Or someone who wants a statue wants us you want a Faster Service should not pay more . Whichever. I am not going to really answer that specifically. The commission should come out i would bessue cautious about is whatever the u. S. Does has ramifications internationally. We know right now going on in brazil there was a conference about the internet. Anwas largely based on as outgrowth of the nsa revelations, but there is certainly a concern around the world about keeping the internet free and open. We need to be thinking about that. I applaud what very strickland has done Larry Strickland has done by saying that provided the ntia gets an acceptable untied tofor it to be department, to become and enhance its multistate approach to governance, that is a really good way to go. There has been a tremendous amount of concern expressed u. S. Abandoning the internet in some fashion which is it is not doing, but providing a multistakeholder approach which hopefully will not result in it being a consortium of government. You dont see a risk and some authoritarian regimes could get ahold of the internet and create policies that nobody here in this panel would favor . Icam being a multistakeholder approach and certainly not under the circumstances that has been put stricklandsecretary on how what will be an acceptable governance regime. Morelipside of that is the the u. S. Government is perceived as controlling the internet, and does give voice energy to those that would that would be injured incorrect, right . To thoseoes give voice trying to great rules that would be constraining the internet in their country. Does anybody want to comment on network or trout he . Never neutrality . I want to talk about certainty because i think there should be certain key to certainty , too. I will reiterate again of where are the flood of concerns . What is the problem that we are trying to solve . So many in the, company have come forward and said here all the rules that we are willing to abide by. We are going to continue to abide by those and others have also adopted those as well. I think the industry itself is saying we want to compete with one another. We also want to make sure that the internet is open to everyone. I think there is a lot of pressure on the industry itself and that the reason there is the technological explosion and the dynamism we are all talking about right now is because there has been a light touch regulation and there hasnt been Net Neutrality. Want to ask about one other area and then i would like to open the floor for questions for our panel. We have been talking about transition in the Digital Television area. There is another important transition that is occurring and will occur and that is the transition to the whole ip world. I think it is going to happen. We are going to be moving away from plain old telephones. Are there core elements or values in the system, henry, that we have had . Securitythat you have that your phone will work in reaches everybody. Do we still want to maintain those values in the ip world . I think so. You touched on Public Safety. I think Public Safety communication is going to have to be available to everyone regardless of the technology. I think people are going to have to have affordable communities and services. I think everyone i think competition has to continue to be promoted and fostered because it brings lower prices, better service, and choice for consumers and businesses. Lastly, i think consumer welfare has to be protected. I think there are core elements of the existing that we want to Carry Forward no matter what the technology involves. In an ip world where we dont boundaries, what is the future of state regulation . Where do you see the future . We were trying to have a partnership with the fcc when i was we felt in the Consumer Protection area handling complaints that was something that the fcc is pretty bad at. Thate a personal pet peeve the Consumer Affairs branch of the fcc is terrible. I have put in some complaints and never heard back from anybody ever. A former commissioner. It didnt matter. I never heard back from anybody. What we were trying to do at the state level was to say look, we understand you have an overreaching policy that you are incrementing implementing. The one area that we can help you out is to deal with the complaints on a more local level. Lets Work Together to have a set of consistent objectives so that we are all on the same page generally. We brought it forward i helped bring it forward and they brought it to the fcc. Nobody paid any attention to us. It was very disappointed because we really were trying to work in good faith. I think states have important rules on consumer issues. I think they still have some rules on interconnection speeds because we know the local players are for that. Where i dont think it is very useful is where you have a service that has internet state interstate labor. You end up with varying rules across the nation and that is not very productive for anybody when you have a service like the internet. Those are areas that i would feel more reluctant to have state oversight. Commissioner, you were there at a very key moment in the Digital Television transition. We had the ip transition. What is your position . With regard to the state act, ifon and the 1996 you look at the much closer relationship and much better coordination between the states we certainly try to do that. When i was chairman of the realize a, we got to lot of these commissions are in danger. You have the American Legislative Exchange council and its been company members. States has in many virtually taking the Public Utilities commission in Public Service commissions out of business. They have taken away the regulatory authority. We need to do something about that. Big disappointed we see our communications companies, comcast, verizon, at t, still in that American Legislative Exchange council. A lot of these laws got past i will take a second because it all flew beneath the medias radar scope. It goes back to the poor media. We dont have much statehouse coverage anymore. I have been in washington 40 years. I never heard of alec until three or four years ago. Bill moyers was shone the spotlight on it. At that point, the Big Companies did not like the heat general motors, walmart, and they got out. The Big Telecommunications companies continued in there and continue to have to. They are prohibiting or making very difficult to municipal broadband. Even in areas with a Big Companies once served. Encouraged by the 1996 act, per closer coordination and would hope that the Current Commission will work closely with those commissions. There is so much granular expertise talking about consumer complaints that the fcc does not have. Therek when i went there were 1900 employees at the fcc. 1500 maybe. Not the resources to do it. At t is conducting trials in a couple of cities. Do you think that is an effective way to really look at it . Toover toge or die p ip. I dont think so. In the old days when we had geographical endpoints, maybe it made sense to have more of a local presence. The Congress Certainly thought so and it devised a statute that regulated to the state the authority to implement and come up with these policies that had to dow with where they were. As you transition to an all ip kind of a network where you dont have these geographical endpoints, i wonder how much sense these jurisdictional issues make at this point. I think there is going to have to be a fundamental reassessment of the role of the states. I think that congress is going to have to lead the way because it is part of the statute. Much. Nk you very you handled easily all of my questions. Lets see if the audience can come up with some questions. Is there a microphone out there . We have this gentleman right down here in the second row. Identify yourself, sir. Thank you. I work at the world bank. I have a question like many Young Americans who have only grown up with an open and free internet, we are very concerned about what we are seeing with recent decisions. My question is actually call for help. I need your help or something. A lot of my friends and the people i speak with and the blogs, they see what seems to be from the public eye an interest. I am talking specifically of former commissioner who oversaw over as part of the fcc during the comcastnbc merger and went on to work for comcast. Former chairman of the commission moving on to lead the industry in d. C. Saidnk commissioner chong you also work for comcast in california. A conflict inas interest and some biases about a revealed later in decisions that the fcc comes out with. I dont believe that is the case, but is really hard to based on those facts for me to say i know it looks that way, but. What i would really love is your help to defend against that criticism of this perceived conflict of interest when many of us look at you to protect us against these big corporations. Some such and ties. We have had a long publicsector career. How do you feel about that . The office of government and ethics have certain safeguards in place that prohibit former government officials from going back to the agency that they work that to laddie that they worked at to lobby. Fcc has those provisions in place. The Obama Administration took back took that a step further and prohibited folks from working in the industry is that they regulate for an even longer period of time. There are safeguards in place. I would respond to your correspondence that do look into this matter. I admit, itthat, looks bad. And one of us goes out into occupies one of those positions of responsibility. I dont think it is as bad as it might look. Personally i know have foregone those opportunities for that very reason. You would be surprised at how many of them have done that. Thend large, i think that group of people who occupies those seats have a very high sense of ethics and responsibility not only to the institution which we all care about very deeply, but also to the public in general. I would say to your correspondence, it aint all that bad. Lets take another question. I cant see you. These identify yourself. Thank you very much for participating. I am a professor at penn state university. Following up on what may be forthcoming from the fcc in terms of the next wave, i would like to ask the group about what a regulatory industry or what marketplace can do about what i call missioncritical bits. They could be Michigan State asked the boss trip basketbal l bits. At certain times, consumers really want better than best efforts in terms of routing the traffic. It is structures on a system. Sometimes, particularly with fullmotion motion video, Consumers Want better than best efforts. Is there a way for consumer doesnt em that where it thing doesnt have to be missioncritical and subject to a surcharge where isps could have the possibility have the flexibility to pride words to prioritize traffic . Thanks. Fact what ise in on the plate right now with the nprm that chairman wheeler is disturbing to his colleagues. The notion that you have to look at the quality that you provide to the public in general for the its best maintaining efforts or maybe a higher level with what the Consumers Want to get with the internet. Traffic that gets a speedier route. Potentially some of the medical systems might want to employ that. Forn, this might be better the consumer but i think these are all issues of that are on the table and have to be addressed in conjunction with the courts order. Lets have another question. Go ahead. I agree with what you said but the ultimate answer is more of a broad event in the stash infrastructure and having a government and having a government that has a mission in putting this in the 21stcentury bill. A lot of these companies are operating on the Business Plan of rationing scarcity. That is how we get into a lot of this caps and priorities. You cant correct that with a stroke of a wand. Had we taken it seriously common set of the first eight years when i was at the commission and the government was going to take out the broadband to everybody, you have to get beyond that. That is not how we build infrastructure in the world the country. We have a vision and some incentives to get it done. We are doing a little better job of that and the obama are astration we long way. My name is pat. Teach at the George Washington university and the school of media and public affairs. We have a lot of students here. My question has to do with Net Neutrality. I know that all of you are proconsumer. I think we took a vote and anybody would say yes. As a consumer, i dont see what comcast charging netflix for a faster delivery does for me. Is ially, what will happen pay comcast, i pay netflix, i am going to be paying more to netflix because they have to pay comcast. I would like to throw that out as an example of where i see men neutrality very important Net Neutrality very important. Would like to respond . One of the issues is really eclipsed. The important thing i would like to say about it is if there was speedyt demand for good, service for your particular bits, the market will need it. What i see it the most is the area of Public Safety where there is a need for those bits to get there. I have an interest in paying more to the underlying isp. I dont think there is anything wrong with that. If you see it blocking and discrimination for competitor purposes, that is a different story. I think there should be an area where government should act, it should be on a casebycase. That is where i see the harm. For you, you just wonder netflix movies to look good while youre watching them on whatever device. I dont want comcast they arent. They destructed deal with that flicks. With netflix. Is it a great deal . I dont know. [indiscernible] lets get some other folks. Mike nelson with microsoft. The meetings topics little bit. A let me change topics obit little bit. Thele dont acknowledge Important Role the fcc has the played enforcing international policy. 95 of the worlds population, 90 of the worlds Internet Users are somewhere else. People from the fcc have really influenced what happens around the world. It is very expensive to do that. Im wondering if theres any way the fcc could do more, perhaps by using new technology, to re ach out to other counterparts and push them in the right direction since we are building a global system here. I in my own experience think what the fcc does, what the United States does is becomes a precursor for all the things the world looks at. Inn we started a competition communications, a lot of the European Countries and the countries in all parts of the world or state owned. The unitedd because states took a leadership role in private sector. I think, mike, the United States is a standardbearer. I am so glad you brought it up. We do touch under to National Little bit but that is yet another reason that i feel so strongly about the i dont want to keep calling it the regulatory dergegulatory because our countries are competing globally. I think when you see that you set hash you get such a view from that from the fcc to one of the things that were i will give you an example of his during the transition, we would have live telecasts with our colleagues in germany. And our colleagues in australia. We would have all the engineers come in and we would sit down and have it was a multihour. One of the things i wanted to do so that when any other country goes through the transition, they would have the opportunity to go in and use our libraries. I dont know if that ever ended up happening. The other example i want to give is brazil. President bush was really close to the president of brazil so we went down, the education secretary went down to Work Together. They had been collecting money for their universal services for many years. We went down to talk about some of the good parts of her u. S. Not so goodthe parts that we would encourage them to do something i could not agree more. Here being so criticized to get out and happy all say you are the gold standard, it was unbelievable. It is so true. Right. N reilly is so the u. S. Policies have such an incredible impact. Spectrum auctions are now starting to occur. The wireless auctions and licenses that other countries that used to be, maybe went to your family member. Now it is being opened up and auctioned off. Pertcc has an incredibly Important Role. We have time for one final question. Never reception that will start at 345. You mentioned the national followup. In your perspective, many other countries have taken somewhat different paths in terms of regulatory approaches, particularly to the internet, australia, new zealand. Approachesicies and and other asked acts where u. S. Public policy could benefit from not just hoping that other countries will pick up whatever where we conversely can learn from experiences elsewhere or is the model where we are relying on limited competition . Lots to learn from other countries as well. Are 20 and thee second, i do not know where he are in terms of broad and penetration. We have a lot to learn and a long way to go. Onppreciate your question this. The commissioners all need to be but into it. The current ones they are are doing a good job. It is underfunded. Bring other much to countries along. The other what i want to make is on Network Neutrality. Just because we do not want the chinese to be censoring their internet does not mean that we cannot have a discussion about Network Neutrality. Comparing apples and oranges. They are two different problems. Not want the chinese or anybody else to be able to censor into play the role of et theres gatekeepers. We are trying to keep the gatekeepers. It is a different question. To act like if we just talk about this problem we are opening ourselves up to all of these terrible international ramifications. I do not think it is true. One more question. We will take one more. I am from George Washington university with the media law class. Ask, how do you think the reignited surveillance debate with the nsa will impact Net Neutrality . We were talking about international law. We know a lot of European Countries have broader privacy laws. How do you think that will affect debates going or word forward . We kind of touched on that. Reinforcing the multiple stakeholder approach. That is one way that we can address that. It has had an impact. On thely i am working transatlantic trade investment partnership. That is under negotiation. Certainly those issues have come up in terms of crossborder data flows. It do something that has to be addressed. I think the Business Community recognizes that you cannot the internet. It has a little sense around it. We have special rules for it. Location of data storage. And expect that it is going to work. There has got to be a lot more done globally to adjust this to ensure privacy. Much on the table internationally. Certainly in the context of the negotiations of the trade agreement. I want to thank you. I[applause] coming up, the discussings Telecommunications Issues. Republican steve scullys. Then a look at the new initiative to help military veterans get Mental Health Services Early on. Jay carney is talking to George Washington University Students about dealing with the media and public affairs. We are embedding capabilities more and more into our environment. Some disagree on this. I personally consider the smartphones that we all. To be a trademark example of the internet of things. We are becoming human sensors because theyre all carrying around an extremely powerful computer in our pocket. It takes the form of different senses that takes the form around us. It takes to medication leaders. It takes the form of weather sensors that are all around us. Surveillance and cameras that collect data and then send that somewhere else. This is all part of the internet of thing. Editor of the magazine, patrick tucker, on the world that anticipates your every move. Tonight at 10 00 a. M. Eastern and online our Book Club Selection is the wrong war. Read a book and join in the discussion at booktv. Org. A former gang member turned author and poet. His work includes the awardwinning book on gang life. His 2011 release it calls you back. In his weekly address, president obama urged congress to raise the min wage to 10. 10 an hour. John boehner gave the republican address. He outlined republicans efforts to create jobs and boost economic growth. Hi, everybody. In my state and the Union Address i talked about pizza. Specifically a pizza chain in minneapolis. May be business decision to give his employees a raise to 10 an hour. Couple weeks ago i got an hour from a Small Business owner that watched. Shes an immigrant who owns her own restaurant. To open another the summer. Heres what she wrote. Story. Moved by his it got me thinking about my fulltime employees and their ability to survive on a dollars an hour in new york city. A few weeks ago she put in place a plan to lift wages to her employees by at least 10 an hour by the end of this year. Theis not just raising wages because it is the right thing to do. Shes doing it for the same reason john did. It makes good is a sense. She wrote it will allow us to attract and retain that her talent, improving customer. Xperience, and training costs we believe doing so makes Good Business sense what the saints having a positive impact on the community. She is right. But is like two months ago i issued an executive order requiring workers on new federal contracts to be paid a fair wage of at least 10 and . 10 an hour 10. 10 an hour. In order to make a difference for every american, Congress Needs to do something. America knows that. There is a bill that will boost the memo wage to 10. 10 an hour. That would lift wages for nearly 28 million americans across the country. 28 million. We are not just talking about young people on their first job. The average minimum wage worker is 35 years old. They work hard. Often in physically demanding jobs. To eyeot all of the cia politically, one thing we overwhelmingly agree on is that no one that works fulltime should ever have to live in poverty. That is why nearly three in four americans support raising the minimum wage. Republicans in congress do not support raising the minimum wage. Some even want to get rid of it entirely. In oklahoma, the republican governor just signed a law prohibiting cities from establishing their own minimum wage. That is why this fight is so important. That is why people like john and yasmin are giving workers a raise. Is why they are going around congress to raise their workers workers. We believe please you better when everyone who works hard has a chance to get ahead. That is what opportunity is all about. If you agree with this, we could use your help. Republicans have voted more than 50 times to undermine or repeal of cure for millions of americans. They should vote at least once to raise the minimum wage for millions of working families. They republicans in congress represents you, tell him or her it is time to get the politics a rest for a while and do something to help working americans. It is time for 2. 10. It assigned to american a race. Thanks. Have a great we can. This is about 25 miles north of dayton ohio, the birthplace of aviation. This has come a long way from working with oracle right himself. They maintain 75 of the world propellers. Obama ha what i hear everywhere i go is that we need to get the federal government out of the way. Having run a Small Business myself, i see where these folks are coming from. I know what americans are still asking the question where are the