Host cspan, or history unfos daily. In 1979 cspan was created as a Public Service by americas cabletelevision companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Host fcc commissioner Michael Orielly as we enter into fall and you have the full complement over at the fcc, what are some of the agenda items we will be seeing . Guest still working to those issues. We have two new colleagues late last week and starting fresh and running ready to work this week. Well see how the chairman sets up the agenda for the next couple of months. Of a number of issues that weve talked about, spectrum is high on the list. Dealing with infrastructure high on the priority list and some others people spoken about as well. Host what is your take on the recent New York Times article linking media ownership rules with sinclair and ajit pai . Guest i completely disagree with the article. I dont find that the argument presented were valid for my purposes. The items they site in terms of a verbal towards sinclair were generally available to all broadcasters. The items we looked at were complying with the statute as written. So when we talk about you we just discount as one of the things they highlighted that is an issue that i believe that it talked about the number of times i think is tied, our hands are tied by the statute. It is the Previous Commission who went rogue and off the rails and instant reinstating the chairman has done a wonderful job. The attacks made by the outside folks and even the article, i wouldnt quote an attack, the attempt to try to show some correlation between the two, i dont think are accurate. I think its inappropriate. We are trying to do the best work we can and we focus on the two issues ive always said, its the law and the record. Thats how i approach the job. Host will receive media ownership as an agenda item visible . Guest i hope so. Its something i think the past commission, the Previous Commission ignored the responsibility under the statute. We have a statutory obligation to modernize our media ownership rules to reflect the current marketplace. Nobody who rightfully looks at this university can say our media rules match whats happening in the marketplace today. I think its our obligation and responsibility under the statute as enacted by congress to do so and i am hope, hopefully we correct the mistakes of the last mission. Host joining us is lydia beyoud. She is with the Financial News start of. Commissioner orielly, i want to continue on that. There was a Coalition Announced earlier this week representing a lot of Different Industries and also very different political spectrum point of use. With the group comes together like that who oppose one another and other proceedings at the fcc, how do you factor in that sort of coalition, the unified voice, raising concerns with sinclair tribunes possibility to have major market power post transaction . What you think about that . Guest we have an application before us and i was talking generally about the process. But your point in the broader sense of the universe, when a Diverse Coalition comes forward i Pay Attention to it. What materials have been filed. Everyone has a particular reason why theyre coming forward. A lot of them are business driven reasons, and i want to be mindful of that and make the best decision when we get to the right time. When you talk about modernizing the fccs media rules, how then do you look at the media market . What do you think it includes and how is that reflected . Guest the media market if it talked to the average consumer, how are they envisioning media, how are they digesting content, its not just a small segment of the old three Major Network channels. Youve got a much wider swath of materials nets heading towards their palette, and they are digesting so much more from different sources. My definition of the market is probably broader than some. I think the past commission failed in this respect when they viewed things like radio only competing with radio. Whereas i think the market is, everyone is fighting over the same eyeballs, the same attention, the same advertising dollars taking a out how best to reflect our current roles while doing so in a powerful way. What are some of the policies or rules you think should be kept in the media space to protect the Public Interest . Guest im open to considering whatever rules are put before us. We have an obligation under our quadrennial review to look at all our media ownership rules. Natural i think this commission failed in doing its work. There are a number things well have a chance to look at again. A number that just dont make sense. Im not sure i can say i want to eliminate all of them, because some concern. You wouldnt want every component to be owned within a local market and certainly a big market per se. There are cases in instances where it makes sense, economics make sense especially when you have a very diverse definition. When you talk about competition and more dollars and investment coming from the new over the top players it be taken into account. Host so commissioner orielly, how do you view the fccs role when it comes to competition, when it comes to local control . Guest its an important issue. We have obligations the opinion what is put before us, whether its transfer of licenses the women obligation under Public Interest standard we take very seriously. We work through the issues in terms of the filings made by the applicants and the record that is built by those that may support or oppose such material. We take our job very seriously. Local competition is incredibly important. It depends on everyones definition of what is competition and local competition, and we try to follow precedent as best as possible when it makes sense. Depending on the topic were talking about i found the past commission didnt live up to obligations as required by the law and i think we have an opportunity to revisit those. So if you change the media rules, theres expect to be quite a bit of consolidation among broadcasters, radio groups, tv and radio broadcasters, content makers possibly. Do you think that that sort of consolidation will help the market and i do think thats in the Public Interest . Guest i cannot talk about deals in general. There have been deals that have been done notwithstanding rule changes and it would be deals done if our rules to change. They dont surprise me one bit. Market changes in Companies Fall into favor, and Good Management and Data Management and make decisions and bets on what you think they should go. Then they change up your queue cc a number of companies that bought radio and that radio and see about different fro Foreign Relations of what will go forward. I dont necessarily tie it to one particular district we make but if were able to modernize our rules i think you will see some properties, some assets being transferred to reflect that the marketplace is not as singular as it once was. You were talking about a very global marketplace with a lot of new players that havent been taken into account. Host whats the next potential acts when he comes to Net Neutrality and title to . Guest where in the process of continuing to get reply comments on our proceeding. At some point that timeframe will conclude. The chairman extended different initial two weeks a premuch the end of august we will conclude that process. Then we will digest the record, and lies a record and determine what arguments are made, what points are made, how they match up with the questions that are raised in the imperium. The notice of proposed rulemaking that was put out. The commission and i voted for it will see how that matches a fancy what direction we should go. I have prison outline my views on the topic but am waiting to see if theres something that record changes my mind. What do you think it would take to change your mind . Guest i testified on two parts and i think theres a third come i didnt get a chance to articulate for the butt theres two major categories pick one is real harm to consumers. Not hypothetical harm, economic analysis, talking substantive data points that we can look at verses again this hypothetical scenario. The third is our president and statutory obligation and reversal we made a couple years ago in the existing rules to revert, to do a complete 180 them what we privacy done for almost, for a couple decades. Those three are the big categories it all away to see if anyone makes a compelling case. You worked in congress for number of years. What do you think a legislative bill that would satisfy these different concerns about Net Neutrality, what might that look like . Guest i want to be careful. A good part about my experience on capitol hill is i know they dont appreciate too much advice, unsolicited advice per se, but i dont know if they were asking my opinion, i dont know that they are too far from where we are per se. I personally dont have a great need for some of our rules. I have articulated reasons why a couple of our rules should not be embodied into legislation, and hopefully they wouldnt make it in, things like paid prioritization and her general convict standard both a of the sing should not be new legislation going forward. There are a couple things i could make it, depends come to me its more important about precise drafting and having congress in their great wisdom decide what statute should look like the more precise the better. Ive always said any direction that the determine we should go, thats my calling card. Im completely comfortable whatever they decide but i would say the more precise the better. In the statute and worked on on behalf of members when i spent my time on capitol hill, i found that over the years the less precise it was in the previous, they always blew up in my face. Host so commissioner orielly, when you talk about precise regulations or precise drafting, does that indicate a need for an update to the 96 act or the 1934 act, whichever one is the chief regulator at this point . Guest we are still governed by the 34 act, and 96 act is is mostly a modification and the nimitz to it. There still some pieces of state outside but to your point that something for congress to decide. They have previously wanted to do that and made a couple of runs at target modernize the statute and update the 96 act versus the 34 act. I was part of one, in 2004 at 2005. There was one last congress that didnt make it out of committee. There is great interest in making changes to the statute or whether they concede is for the members to decide. Host from your perspective as a regulator can it be confusing at times . Guest very much so. I give example and i testified to this fact that the been on how the underlying technology, you can be governed as a broadband provider in a number of different ways. If youre in wireless your title iii. Satellite your government under our rules in different ways. You can be governed different ways because of our statute and because of our rules. I dont think thats appropria appropriate. Theres a big focus on trade policy and on Foreign Investment in the u. S. Last year you really spearheaded an effort to streamline the Telecom Process the reviews Foreign Investment in the Telecom Sector and you call for congress to codify that. Do you have any help with that happen in the congressional session . Guest im extremely displayed it didnt happen at the end of last congress. I think it was a mistake by some of the leadership in the commission and elsewhere didnt happen. We were within a week of being done on this entire issue and they pulled the plug, pulled the rug out from underneath my feet. Im disappointed on the side. I have said this to people, i think one issue that the administration, i dont give them any advice, but they just need some more people in charge and more people to get confirmed through congress and more people in leadership, Political Leadership so they can make some decisions that we can approach the issue. We are a bit away from the im hopeful both parts, we can modernize our rules at the Commission Anglican codify those provisions in the statute as Congress Sees fit. Host because of that is home is a some inertia in te rulemaking pipeline right now . Guest absolutely. I thought we were just ready to be done with the issue, and now theres a lot of confrontation, i would want to have with the new administration. There just are not the folks in the siege of want to talk to. There are very good people in the administration, but they may be at a lower level than need guidance from someone whos just not, is waiting to be confirmed for whatever reason. You mentioned inti seats. We saw david nominated to in cia. His final approval didnt go through right before the senate. How is he and in cia impacting relations and some policy issues you been working on . Guest david is a good friend but i, ive worked on nominations in the past life and my time so i leave whatever they decide to do to them and dont forget how best to approach the nomination in due time. But to your point i think there are a number of seats, both his at ntia and some guidance coming from a slot or two at the department of state that would be very helpful to have consulted when i work on International Issues on behalf of the commission and the chairman, those slots are currently unfilled and then make it difficult to have a formulation of policy and a unified front as we approach other nations of global community. Host as we mentioned at the beginning, the fcc is now a full contingent of five. What can you do with five that you possibly couldnt do with three . Guest im happy to have mind to new colleagues i dont want to assess otherwise. We got a good run with the three of us come into more will add new voices and new input and you thought so i think thats helpful. It does procedurally, to your question, it does allow one more procedural tool to be used and that something called our must vote counter and is basically that if three members of the Commission Vote for an item it starts a set timeclock for disposing of an item. Without that when theres only three members in the can withhold their approval and it just languishes. Theres that part of it but again i think the important thing from this new commission compared to the past in my opinion is the chairman is when an much Better Process. Its not just because im in the majority. I want to be clear i have the same concerns, there still some processing i like to see a six but the chairman is just running, chairman pai is running a Better Process than the last commission, more open, more friendly, the era, the tension in the air is reduced and so i think were Getting Along Better and hopefully with two new colleagues will get along even better. Host does it help both brendan carr and Jessica Rosenworcel have passed fcc experience . Guest it helps they will be up to speed right away. I dont doubt, not only are they hiring staff and already started the meetings, i know when i came to the commission it took me longer. I have not been at the commission before. I was smelly with given my past experience that i wasnt as experienced as they are in terms of knowing things. Commissioner rosenworcel did the job before i got there so she is very familiar and is been able to step into her old seat no problem. I think its an easy transition for them. Youve worked with commissioner rosenworcel analog spectrum issues. Now that shes back at the fcc, what do you expect some of those policy issues to be . Deployment working with her on that and has the dynamics change at all . Guest i dont know that issues of change that much. My willingness to work with her is absolutely still exist and think were looking forward to tackling old issues we worked on before and issues that we havent contemplated yet. I look forward to the opportunity. Theres things like Spectrum Five that night is an issue we spent a great of time on together 5. 9. It is something that is still out there and the decision needs to be there at some point and im hopeful the commission will do so. I think its a great opportunity to continue our advocacy and move forward on the issue. Do you have any sense of how the new administration might take a different approach from the Obama Administration on 5. 9 and if you could explain what you are talking about traffic the 5. 9 issue, the spectrum band that is been allocated for automobile safety systems, and what we are examining at the commission is whether we can also allow that spectrum to be used for unlicensed purposes. Consumers they see commonly referred to as, in one form as wifi. So can we have automobile Safety Services systems and wife operative within the same spectrum . I believe we can. We are running tests at the commission right now, bench test to determine if the systems can interoperate and not cause each other harmful interference. That hopefully will prove my case. The reason to do so is because the band that is 5. 9 is sitting right next to a number of bands that are already allocated for unlicensed use and, therefore, we can expand the reach of Wifi Networks and th demand spectrum that is available and make them stronger and more capable than they are today. Host when it comes to the spectrum auctions, how soon will that spectrum be online . Guest it depends on the particular item. We are still trying to figure out the timing and thats the chairman scull on a number of the auctions. We have a number of options scheduled as they relate to her universal service fund, reverse auctions in getting money allocated and is taking a good bit of time for some of the staff work to make this work. Weve got some broadcast licenses that also have to be auctioned off. It will require a lot of time and then went on to say it when do we get to 5g, the millimeter wave band auctions are more spectrum there, and other things will put in the pipeline going forward. There is a lag time between identification, clearing and then auctioning. We are trying to make that as short as possible and make those bands as available as soon as possible. We just came off the conclusion of the broadcast incentive option not too long ago earlier this year. Thats played into how much spectrum is available in the market place today, whats unavailable in the secondary market, the number of bands that are available, some folks has a big holdings and will see what the plan to do with them, whether they meet our obligations on buildout of whether they decide to sell them off. Host that feeds into one of the trump administrations priorities which is infrastructure improvement. How do you view the fccs role in that issue . Guest its an important obligation. I view it as i want to make broadband available to every american that would like it. There are some people that will not, that are not interested in the internet and im not interested in forcing him to have it but those people who would like ubiquitous broadband, i want to try to buy that we are working to this issue. I spent a great deal of my time working through our universal service fund issues, our high cost issues to provide subsidies and mechanisms where the market may not make a complete case for buildout for broadband services, whether it be fixed wireless, wireline. Were trying to figure those issues out and trying to provide the best mechanism to get service to those customers. So it is incredibly high priority. Its a uniform agreement among my colleagues, certainly it was when we just testified in front of the house commerce committee. So we agree on the need to focus on this issue addressed been a great deal of time on it from my perspective. As you get, some folks on the proceedings at the fcc on broadband infrastructure, how are you weighing the concerns between industry who want to deploy small cells are more cable or fiber, and the concerns of speed and cost with the concerns of localities, local governments who are concerned about aesthetic control placement and other public areas and their need to control for safety or for their own costs . Guest there are important balances. Theres a third group into the consumers, the consumers who are clamoring for the services. When i have gone a travel threat the United States and listened to consumers struggle with their lack of broadband that they had today and didnt explain to them that your local government doesnt want this to happen because they dont like the aesthetics of the tower to be placed on a small cell situation, they get pretty serious underrate, as i do as well. Its a balance between the issues. The truth of the matter is most localities are doing a fine job, and thats commendable. We havent number of states have taken this action on themselves and try to do it on a state basis, and thats more beneficial and helpful to ease the process but theyre going to be bad actors and there have been. My time working on this issue theres always somebody will take, find the process to their advantage and so they slow it down or they see the economic extraction they think they can take from the Companies Come from Wireless Company which really comes from consumers and they are pushing those to the biggest categories of problems were facing. Its timing and its money. If you think about it, on the money side, some localities are trying to impose a fee on a small so the same they do for a macro tower. The revenue is completely different. To expect the same financial return from a small cell is not logical. It just delays the entire process. The white house put out an executive order yesterday on infrastructure and streamlining environmental reviews. The fcc has a review for broadband infrastructure. Do you think thats the right approach . Guest i havent had a chance to digest the document. I saw your tweets on the issue. I havent been able to pull up the document by anything we can do on simplifying the process, whether it be federal lands, the environmental concerns, whether it be the historic preservation, are duly needed and im supportive of them. We can do them in a thoughtful way without overrunning legitimate concerns but its not been legitimate concerns ive been facing. Its been these other issues unrelated, things that localities shouldnt be involved in, things like rf that they are prohibited from considering. Things like aesthetics. We cant make broadband available to every consumer if were going to concern ourselves with the look of every single tower. What if its a tower that a 70 or 120 feet tall that is near a church or in a downtown area . When we talk about small cells, they can look rather different. It can be teeny tiny. They can be on top of really tall poles. Guest i recognize that. My obligation is to provide service to consumers that they need today. I live a stones throw from two towers that are 250 feet and they block the sun from my house on occasion. So i accept the fate that provides a Great Service in those areas that it wouldnt get otherwise and its a tradeoff that are willing to make because i recognize the benefits and i think thats what the community has made the calculation it brings benefits to the community of the communities are not willing to do so here. Host we talk about towers of 250 feet. What about cell phones at 30,00 . Is that an issue that will be an item . Guest we have previously contemplated this issue and it was, the chairman has proposed we close the item. I think there is universal agreement that the offering of cell phone calls would not be appropriate for airplanes. There are some things within our value at the fcc, summer at the department of transportation but i think the general as a consumer, frequent flyer myself i dont think thats appropriate were talking crazy about the quiet car in and checking out inappropriate is to have cell phone there. I dont leave the voice portion should be allowed as a consumer. Its a matter of how best to address at the congress is look at the issue as well. I do want to say though i do want to open up the opportunity for Additional Data and the transmission of speed and broadband on airplanes. We are seeing airplanes moved to new technologies. I was just out in california examining a company that is installing new Satellite Services on a Major Carrier and a speech are able to bring. As a consumer i want to see higher bandwidth per on what to see higher speeds. I want consumers have the opportunity. I think the voice part is what everyone agrees on. Host final question, lydia beyoud. All right. You have been a big proponent of First Amendment rights but also raise concerns with with private companies can control speech online. With the violence we saw in charlottesville over the weekend come in reaction to that a lot of companies, facebook, google, go daddy, removed nazi or racist speech from the platforms that do you think that making the right call in this particular circumstance as opposed to Something Like fake news . Guest its a very difficult issue. I dont, i completely condone, i completely reject the harmful and hatred material that was present in charlottesville. I was not available to comment previously. Im not sure many people needed my input on the subject matter, but i was just us down to want to cut back to town to see what it happened, to see the press conference yesterday. I see the transcript from some of that and troubled by the comet that there are fine people in both camps. Because the President Point i think was wrong. I dont think theres fine people in some of these hateful groups. I dont think you can be a five person and hateful group or i dont think things go together. A little different than i want the government to regulate that speech. I think harmful speech should recall that and i think that more speeches better as a solution to that rather than trying to filter out some of those things. I think thats a better approah to it, is how do you, education, more information, more discussion, more speech are the solution rather than trying to filter out some of those things. I recognize the importance of preventing the violence that occurs and why our Law Enforcement needs to get access to some of this information. But other than that come in a macro sense of the word i think its about more speech, not less. Host Michael Oreilly is one of three republican members of the federal communications commission, and lydia beyoud is with event driven which is a Financial News started. Thank you both for being on the communicators. Cspan where history unfolded daily. In 1979, cspan was greeted as a Public Service by americas cabletelevision companies and is brought today by your cable or satellite provider. Today a look at the influence of isis in south asia. That discussion hosted by the Atlantic Council south asia center starts live at one p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Online at cspan. Org and on the free cspan radio app. This week, tonight at eight eastern, nasa coverage of the first total Solar Eclipse visible across the United States in 100 years. The eclipse is important because these spots come into alignment in a cosmic moment that we are all being part of. Tuesday at 10 p. M. Live coverage of president trumps rally in phoenix. Wednesday at 8 p. M. Former president s george w. Bush and bill clinton on leadership. I was thought i would have a better life if i could have somebody else have a better life and i like it. And i got lucky. I dont care what anybody says. All these people tell you they were born in a log cabin people themselves are full of bull. Thursday with the budget something for congress to handle we look at pending proposals for the federal budget perkin friday a profile interview with agriculture secretary sonny perdue. My political history was i tell people when i was born in 1946 in georgia, they stamp democrat on your birth certificate. I made a political decision, i call truth in advertising in 1998 to change parties and became a republican at that point in time. File at 8 30 p. M. By conversation with black there were no jobs in Information Security for any of us. On the people who are doing secured or maybe people in military or maybe banks. This is a hobby. As the internet grew and there were jobs and people putting things online and theres money at risk, all of a sudden hackers targeting job doing security. Watch on cspan and cspan. Org and listen using the free cspan radio app. Now a panel of former law clerks and colleagues including