Transcripts For CSPAN2 The Communicators Michael Powell NCTA

Guest this this is a truly harrowing unprecedented event that requires extraordinary collective action, though in the running of your own operations and adequately serve the consumers that youre committed to. First and foremost it has affected our company just like all companies. It has to protect its own employees, particularly for a set of companies that one large call centers with large collections of people, that since technicians into peoples homes to repair and provision service, all of those processes had to be rapidly transformed. Now we have 90 of call centers employees working at home. Most companies have accelerated self install plants so they can avoid sending technicians to the home. These are changes that are probably five to seven years worth of work accelerate into three months. Obviously the country did something unheard of. It locked down the nation, essentially ordered people to stay home to one of the reasons they could safely assume that was an Effective Response to the pandemic is there was confident it was an infrastructure at home that would allow people to continue to work, continue to get information at that network is largely hours. So anticipated pretty substantial surge in network capacity, which we did see. Happy to talk more about that. All in all i think we employed some micromonitoring and response actions against the network performing at a pretty high level throughout the last couple of months of the pandemic. Host and we will get it some of those issues. Mr. Powell, you have chaired the sec you have driven tanks and iraq. Have you ever seen anything like this . Guest i havent. I spent some time on healthcare the last few years. Im on the board of the mayo clinic, probably the countries leading hospital, and so i have watched this thing from the ground up. Its truly humbling, peter, i mean, its a reminder that nature is extraordinarily bigger than we are. Amoral, insensitive to the current state were in. What are the greatest concerns about all along is whether we as human beings were able to process properly the danger and seriousness of the virus threat it poses to mankind. No, i have seen anything like it because unfortunately it is a thing that does not respond as easily to typical Human Solutions or responses, and i dont think that it is temporary a thing that we have become used to. Host lets bring john hendel into our conversation. He covers technology or politico. Go ahead. Thank you, thank you, peter. And thank you, chairman powell. To keep with the coronavirus pandemic a little bit, i also wanted to turn to the fcc keep america connected pledge, something chairman pai first put forth back in march and essentially asked isps do not cut off consumers who might be suffering Financial Hardship due to the pandemic. There were a couple different pieces to that. He has extended that now a bit through the end of june. Thats coming up soon and im wondering how is your membership doing that . Is any concern about extending beyond june . Does Congress Need to step in with funding . What are you hearing when it comes to helping consumers and the cost to doing so . I know for most broadband providers they dont want to cut off anyone who might be having a rough time right now, but what about in the past, is it feasible to keep going and if so, how long . Guest first of all a real commendation to chairman pai. He jumped on this very quickly. As with all of the companies were rapidly going into acceleration for how to deal with these changes. He got us all together so at least there was a Common Collective response when moore was unknown than known. It was very smart to extend it through june 30 i argued in favor of that. As their industry because we believe it was critical to get schoolaged families through the school year, and then hopefully with some foresight we were hoping for some improvement in the situation in healthcare, around the communities which we see some marginal increase. So i dont know what chairman pais personal preferences are at the end of the month. I do want to be seen as speaking for him, what i will tell you i think that wont really fundamentally change what we are doing, which is however you cut it you have a program of being racist and compassion with consumers for dealing with the stress. We dont want to lose any customer for nonpayment, for any other reason. I think our companies have been steadily if quietly developing programs in responses and payment plan and methods for trying to do everything to keep consumers connected and keep their Broadband Services working. We will see with the chairman says by the end of the year, but its natural to assume as the country goes into new phases, subsequent phases of new normalcy and return to a more active economy. We would expect that we would return to that as well to some degree. With the sober recognition were dealing with a populace that is under economic and health care stress, and we do everything we can. One of the programs at least the cable industry is super proud of his we have always had very farreaching affordability programs. We have low income programs that allow people to get on the internet for less than ten bucks. And we had expanded those programs, both eligibility trial. For free and we have seen huge uptick in this programs so those programs will continue, pledge or no page, and i think we will recruit a very hard. To what degree does Congress Need to step in with additional money whether its to help companies extend the pledge or to help other programs that might be set up at the fcc or otherwise . That something lawmakers have an talking about and you have seen a little bit of money in the first cares act, maybe more than a little. If you want to dig into it 209 for telehealth and things like that at this and lots of on the table essentially for what could go into the next phase of coronavirus relief. How are you looking at that and what are the things you are hoping to see when congress drills down and produces a bill . Guest great question. I think the first part of the question implies something we should say at the outset. This has not been costly to providers. They really have had to take pretty substantial economic it in order to have a kind of no disconnect policy, no usagebased limitation and other extraordinary measures they have taken to try to facilitate keeping consumers on. So yes, i mean, like Many Industries different types are burdened with the economic stress of those efforts. That said, i have been a sort of proud of our industry was come together internally and said look, the country is going to spend a fortune on all kinds of critical need throughout society. We are not interested in stand in line for the handout and leslie becomes absolutely necessary. At least in our little segment of the world we are not been a proponent of going to seek substantial financial bailout from the industry. We have been very, very cautious about that. So we have done her best to try to seal we can manage that relationship with our consumers without congressional infusion. That said, you are really important questions that the Congress Continues to grapple with like what about all the people who have no infrastructure at all . We have always been big proponents of moral unserved areas getting governmental assistance, if the program is designed right and expected to be at scale correctly. We tend to prefer those programs be about putting money in the pocket of consumers and users as opposed to producers standard program. When a lot of other cautions were often argued out. Look, i think congress will rightly debate is. There will be others will be under more stress that will woud probably be no more forward leaning in requesting that relief, but we are really trying to be judicious about where that money is spent and are not anxious to be one of those looking for that kind of bailout, if we can figure out how to avoid it. Host chairman powell, theres talk of a new infrastructure plan in the congress, 1 trillion infrastructure plan. Would you personally Lobby Congress testimony included for broadband expansion . Guest yeah, i mean, im one of the citizens that is heard the talk about the need for infusion in National Infrastructure for years. I i have to say i support doing something. I tried these roads. I use these electric grids. I use these systems and a really think for a country of our economic capacity and significant in the global economy, our infrastructure is a poor substitute for what a nation like ours should have. There are too many bridges on the verge of collapse, et cetera. Look, i think thats long overdue. We have the current pass a bill that i think september 30. I know congress is looking at it. It. I know youre making lunch windows program. Thats news out today at the white house is attending a package like that. We have a new before. We must see what services, but should broadband be included . I think we think broadband is important infrastructure that certainly has one meaningful aspect to it that could use government supported infusion, and that is the unserved heart of the country that are an economic under most private market mac mechanisms to serve. Mechanism to serve. People think broadband has reached the status what should be part of the equation. I dont think the sisterly thats the most part of the equation. We will be engaged on those programs. We probably would lobby in support of well tailored, thoughtful money for broadband infrastructure. Peter, ive been around for 30 years and a seen a lot of these programs. I saw him in a 2008 economic crisis. I saw them just before that. Ive seen a a 4. 5 billion annuy the sec spins. We do make progress. People shouldnt believe rural doesnt slowly get better. But if you want a major acceleration, talking that appreciates program. Host do you have a fear that in our Current Crisis rod band may be treated as beautifully or become a utility broadband . Guest i think we should make the mistake of thinking something is important to utility. Im in, were a little too fast concerning those of the same things that i think broadband infrastructures extorted and born. I do think its a luxury. I think its an essential service most americans. I do think a lot of americans elect that to take im not interested in desperate im being paternalistic about telling people you dont know its good for you if you dont want it. Weve seen studies in the past from pew and others whether people at in the population toy this is not important. So putting that aside for a second i think as a saw in the pandemic, there is no avoiding its a very, very important infrastructure. Im sort of tired of that, people act like were so resisting the idea, like if you want to be a luxury service. Its not a luxury service. Its a pretty Core Infrastructure and we acknowledge and recognize that. But what i would say is those studies go study utility. Go study utility and tony what about that world you think is attractive for putting broadband into. That is infrastructure that is doing very, very poorly in the United States. The American Society of engineers ranked almost all of those infrastructures d or worse on a grading scale. You think the grid is in great shape . Do you think the interstate highways are in great shape . Do you love the Airport Infrastructure system . None of them seem to me to a performed as well as broadband under a more market centered regulatory approach. You think prices should be regulated . Prices in electric utilities have increased on average at higher rate than broadband prices have. I think the country should ask itself, its been an experiment in which one of the most critical structures and the United States was regulated typically have produced more spectacular results. Im waiting for someone to persuade the why the utility model really offers some nirvana or improvement over what we were able to accomplish with a model that we had. If you can persuade me, im happy to listen but ive never heard that argument. I think we have made it religious like, if youre a liberal and you believe in Big Government then some of broadband should be utility just as a kind of virtue signaling label and if youre conservative and you hate the government and its people. I dont think any of those should be the case. Go look at the date and time to why the couch will be better served by converting private infrastructure. I have worked in this field and i havent seen any infrastructure there better using that model. Host john hendel. To switch gears a little bit i wanted to ask about president trumps recent executive order about social media. The issued this at the end of last month following his concern after twitter tried to fact check some of his tweets. This order does a few Different Things but one of the things it does it envisions a role for the sec and look at section 230 of key medications decency act. This would be related to the Liability Protections that the Big Tech Companies enjoy for content that is posted on the platforms. Theres been a lot of debate about for small section 230 generally also about then which agency should really be looking at this. You clearly have seen some commissioners come out for support, others molding through the questions right now. Commission rosenworcel said she fears were turned fcc into the president s Speech Police but you also saw former commissioner mcdowell. His word was unconstitutional when he saw this. Commissioner carr enthusiastic. You are reforming chairman of the agency of course. How have you been looking at this and you think the fcc is the right agency about your general reaction to seeing an order like this . Guest going to journey with me and i will transport myself back 15 years and walk the halls of the condition and target what i would worry about and what i know that all must be worrying about. The first is we always forget, there is a massive ceiling here on anything you can do. That massive ceiling is constitutionally mandated. The First Amendment is a major and winning restriction on the range of action of government can take. Whether congress or the fcc. Sometimes the writer, no matter what political end of the spectrum you bring it from, is not tempered by that recognition of the barrier and the parameters that live around it. Quietly, or openly, and commissioner mcdowell is voicing, im going to take your word for it, i havent seen him, or rosenworcel or carrs enthusiastic endorsement. Sometimes that rhetoric is not intended to be cognizant of the practical the commission will struggle with this because it knows what the practical limitations are. If you have any doubts go watch the history of the struggle with indecency statute or smoking advertisements in the 70s. Minute you Start Talking about content center speech regulation, you are in a thicket that not many regulators relish trying to navigate. Number one. Thats going to be part of the difficulty and hesitation. The other is the agency is nominally independent. It doesnt like to be drawn into political food fights between electoral politicians who, for the own interest, will often try to use an issue or the agency to serve its lyrical and. Thats as old as time and by the way the commission has been pulled in that direction many, many times. You go back to president johnson who was beating up broadcast stations, or nixon who was obsessed with coverage. We have seen it for as long as the fcc has existed. But i think most commissioners are quite sensitize and worried when there be called in the middle of what is essentially a electoral and ideological struggle because really you will please nobody, right . Thats what the problem is and he will voice it all kinds of ways and that may have different motivations for their public statements in different ways, but the practical work of what they can do here is probably within a much more controlled band and anyone wants to acknowledge and thats just the truth. So look, the statute does exist in the communications act. I suppose the commission has the authority as long as the provision has existed to offer some interpretation, whether that interpretation would have any money force on a court i think is questionable. To be perfectly honest. But look, they can offer their opinion of what it means, but even if they can, i dont quite know how effective they can be in changing what we actually see facebook or twitter do. So thats one thing. The white house sort of scattered this work around a lot of places. Yet the fcc looking at it, ftc looking at it, the attorney general looking at it and, of course, Congress Looking at it, both conservatives were looking at it and liberals looking at it. This is a issue where theres a democrat version of why they dont like to 30, and theres a republican reason why they dont like to 30, and the reasons are in some ways diametrically opposed even if there similar. Putting all that aside, is it time as a silver policy person to look at 230 . I think so. But not for these reasons. Not because they do this to me or they dont do that today. Go back and look at the original purposes of that statute and the nature of what those platforms were and i think theyre a long way from being a Bulletin Board in the chat rooms that they were when these questions first arose. I do think the exercise a lot the power in the speech realm in the country. I think they often exercise what are acts of a publisher and editor. Its not saying they would have no protections to cbs news has protection. The New York Times has protection. But they dont have 230. They have a responsibility to the content but they also have massive First Amendment protection. I think it is less scary than what the tech platforms act like. They would continue to enjoy those protections wanted dont think they need the subsidy. I think this is a subsidy to turbocharge their growth. They are not the Biggest Companies in the world and have profound economic and moral responsibilities to what happens on the platform, whether its the russians or accusations of conservative bias or Effective Response<\/a> to the pandemic is there was confident it was an infrastructure at home that would allow people to continue to work, continue to get information at that network is largely hours. So anticipated pretty substantial surge in network capacity, which we did see. Happy to talk more about that. All in all i think we employed some micromonitoring and response actions against the network performing at a pretty high level throughout the last couple of months of the pandemic. Host and we will get it some of those issues. Mr. Powell, you have chaired the sec you have driven tanks and iraq. Have you ever seen anything like this . Guest i havent. I spent some time on healthcare the last few years. Im on the board of the mayo clinic, probably the countries leading hospital, and so i have watched this thing from the ground up. Its truly humbling, peter, i mean, its a reminder that nature is extraordinarily bigger than we are. Amoral, insensitive to the current state were in. What are the greatest concerns about all along is whether we as human beings were able to process properly the danger and seriousness of the virus threat it poses to mankind. No, i have seen anything like it because unfortunately it is a thing that does not respond as easily to typical Human Solutions<\/a> or responses, and i dont think that it is temporary a thing that we have become used to. Host lets bring john hendel into our conversation. He covers technology or politico. Go ahead. Thank you, thank you, peter. And thank you, chairman powell. To keep with the coronavirus pandemic a little bit, i also wanted to turn to the fcc keep america connected pledge, something chairman pai first put forth back in march and essentially asked isps do not cut off consumers who might be suffering Financial Hardship<\/a> due to the pandemic. There were a couple different pieces to that. He has extended that now a bit through the end of june. Thats coming up soon and im wondering how is your membership doing that . Is any concern about extending beyond june . Does Congress Need<\/a> to step in with funding . What are you hearing when it comes to helping consumers and the cost to doing so . I know for most broadband providers they dont want to cut off anyone who might be having a rough time right now, but what about in the past, is it feasible to keep going and if so, how long . Guest first of all a real commendation to chairman pai. He jumped on this very quickly. As with all of the companies were rapidly going into acceleration for how to deal with these changes. He got us all together so at least there was a Common Collective<\/a> response when moore was unknown than known. It was very smart to extend it through june 30 i argued in favor of that. As their industry because we believe it was critical to get schoolaged families through the school year, and then hopefully with some foresight we were hoping for some improvement in the situation in healthcare, around the communities which we see some marginal increase. So i dont know what chairman pais personal preferences are at the end of the month. I do want to be seen as speaking for him, what i will tell you i think that wont really fundamentally change what we are doing, which is however you cut it you have a program of being racist and compassion with consumers for dealing with the stress. We dont want to lose any customer for nonpayment, for any other reason. I think our companies have been steadily if quietly developing programs in responses and payment plan and methods for trying to do everything to keep consumers connected and keep their Broadband Services<\/a> working. We will see with the chairman says by the end of the year, but its natural to assume as the country goes into new phases, subsequent phases of new normalcy and return to a more active economy. We would expect that we would return to that as well to some degree. With the sober recognition were dealing with a populace that is under economic and health care stress, and we do everything we can. One of the programs at least the cable industry is super proud of his we have always had very farreaching affordability programs. We have low income programs that allow people to get on the internet for less than ten bucks. And we had expanded those programs, both eligibility trial. For free and we have seen huge uptick in this programs so those programs will continue, pledge or no page, and i think we will recruit a very hard. To what degree does Congress Need<\/a> to step in with additional money whether its to help companies extend the pledge or to help other programs that might be set up at the fcc or otherwise . That something lawmakers have an talking about and you have seen a little bit of money in the first cares act, maybe more than a little. If you want to dig into it 209 for telehealth and things like that at this and lots of on the table essentially for what could go into the next phase of coronavirus relief. How are you looking at that and what are the things you are hoping to see when congress drills down and produces a bill . Guest great question. I think the first part of the question implies something we should say at the outset. This has not been costly to providers. They really have had to take pretty substantial economic it in order to have a kind of no disconnect policy, no usagebased limitation and other extraordinary measures they have taken to try to facilitate keeping consumers on. So yes, i mean, like Many Industries<\/a> different types are burdened with the economic stress of those efforts. That said, i have been a sort of proud of our industry was come together internally and said look, the country is going to spend a fortune on all kinds of critical need throughout society. We are not interested in stand in line for the handout and leslie becomes absolutely necessary. At least in our little segment of the world we are not been a proponent of going to seek substantial financial bailout from the industry. We have been very, very cautious about that. So we have done her best to try to seal we can manage that relationship with our consumers without congressional infusion. That said, you are really important questions that the Congress Continues<\/a> to grapple with like what about all the people who have no infrastructure at all . We have always been big proponents of moral unserved areas getting governmental assistance, if the program is designed right and expected to be at scale correctly. We tend to prefer those programs be about putting money in the pocket of consumers and users as opposed to producers standard program. When a lot of other cautions were often argued out. Look, i think congress will rightly debate is. There will be others will be under more stress that will woud probably be no more forward leaning in requesting that relief, but we are really trying to be judicious about where that money is spent and are not anxious to be one of those looking for that kind of bailout, if we can figure out how to avoid it. Host chairman powell, theres talk of a new infrastructure plan in the congress, 1 trillion infrastructure plan. Would you personally Lobby Congress<\/a> testimony included for broadband expansion . Guest yeah, i mean, im one of the citizens that is heard the talk about the need for infusion in National Infrastructure<\/a> for years. I i have to say i support doing something. I tried these roads. I use these electric grids. I use these systems and a really think for a country of our economic capacity and significant in the global economy, our infrastructure is a poor substitute for what a nation like ours should have. There are too many bridges on the verge of collapse, et cetera. Look, i think thats long overdue. We have the current pass a bill that i think september 30. I know congress is looking at it. It. I know youre making lunch windows program. Thats news out today at the white house is attending a package like that. We have a new before. We must see what services, but should broadband be included . I think we think broadband is important infrastructure that certainly has one meaningful aspect to it that could use government supported infusion, and that is the unserved heart of the country that are an economic under most private market mac mechanisms to serve. Mechanism to serve. People think broadband has reached the status what should be part of the equation. I dont think the sisterly thats the most part of the equation. We will be engaged on those programs. We probably would lobby in support of well tailored, thoughtful money for broadband infrastructure. Peter, ive been around for 30 years and a seen a lot of these programs. I saw him in a 2008 economic crisis. I saw them just before that. Ive seen a a 4. 5 billion annuy the sec spins. We do make progress. People shouldnt believe rural doesnt slowly get better. But if you want a major acceleration, talking that appreciates program. Host do you have a fear that in our Current Crisis<\/a> rod band may be treated as beautifully or become a utility broadband . Guest i think we should make the mistake of thinking something is important to utility. Im in, were a little too fast concerning those of the same things that i think broadband infrastructures extorted and born. I do think its a luxury. I think its an essential service most americans. I do think a lot of americans elect that to take im not interested in desperate im being paternalistic about telling people you dont know its good for you if you dont want it. Weve seen studies in the past from pew and others whether people at in the population toy this is not important. So putting that aside for a second i think as a saw in the pandemic, there is no avoiding its a very, very important infrastructure. Im sort of tired of that, people act like were so resisting the idea, like if you want to be a luxury service. Its not a luxury service. Its a pretty Core Infrastructure<\/a> and we acknowledge and recognize that. But what i would say is those studies go study utility. Go study utility and tony what about that world you think is attractive for putting broadband into. That is infrastructure that is doing very, very poorly in the United States<\/a>. The American Society<\/a> of engineers ranked almost all of those infrastructures d or worse on a grading scale. You think the grid is in great shape . Do you think the interstate highways are in great shape . Do you love the Airport Infrastructure<\/a> system . None of them seem to me to a performed as well as broadband under a more market centered regulatory approach. You think prices should be regulated . Prices in electric utilities have increased on average at higher rate than broadband prices have. I think the country should ask itself, its been an experiment in which one of the most critical structures and the United States<\/a> was regulated typically have produced more spectacular results. Im waiting for someone to persuade the why the utility model really offers some nirvana or improvement over what we were able to accomplish with a model that we had. If you can persuade me, im happy to listen but ive never heard that argument. I think we have made it religious like, if youre a liberal and you believe in Big Government<\/a> then some of broadband should be utility just as a kind of virtue signaling label and if youre conservative and you hate the government and its people. I dont think any of those should be the case. Go look at the date and time to why the couch will be better served by converting private infrastructure. I have worked in this field and i havent seen any infrastructure there better using that model. Host john hendel. To switch gears a little bit i wanted to ask about president trumps recent executive order about social media. The issued this at the end of last month following his concern after twitter tried to fact check some of his tweets. This order does a few Different Things<\/a> but one of the things it does it envisions a role for the sec and look at section 230 of key medications decency act. This would be related to the Liability Protections<\/a> that the Big Tech Companies<\/a> enjoy for content that is posted on the platforms. Theres been a lot of debate about for small section 230 generally also about then which agency should really be looking at this. You clearly have seen some commissioners come out for support, others molding through the questions right now. Commission rosenworcel said she fears were turned fcc into the president s Speech Police<\/a> but you also saw former commissioner mcdowell. His word was unconstitutional when he saw this. Commissioner carr enthusiastic. You are reforming chairman of the agency of course. How have you been looking at this and you think the fcc is the right agency about your general reaction to seeing an order like this . Guest going to journey with me and i will transport myself back 15 years and walk the halls of the condition and target what i would worry about and what i know that all must be worrying about. The first is we always forget, there is a massive ceiling here on anything you can do. That massive ceiling is constitutionally mandated. The First Amendment<\/a> is a major and winning restriction on the range of action of government can take. Whether congress or the fcc. Sometimes the writer, no matter what political end of the spectrum you bring it from, is not tempered by that recognition of the barrier and the parameters that live around it. Quietly, or openly, and commissioner mcdowell is voicing, im going to take your word for it, i havent seen him, or rosenworcel or carrs enthusiastic endorsement. Sometimes that rhetoric is not intended to be cognizant of the practical the commission will struggle with this because it knows what the practical limitations are. If you have any doubts go watch the history of the struggle with indecency statute or smoking advertisements in the 70s. Minute you Start Talking<\/a> about content center speech regulation, you are in a thicket that not many regulators relish trying to navigate. Number one. Thats going to be part of the difficulty and hesitation. The other is the agency is nominally independent. It doesnt like to be drawn into political food fights between electoral politicians who, for the own interest, will often try to use an issue or the agency to serve its lyrical and. Thats as old as time and by the way the commission has been pulled in that direction many, many times. You go back to president johnson who was beating up broadcast stations, or nixon who was obsessed with coverage. We have seen it for as long as the fcc has existed. But i think most commissioners are quite sensitize and worried when there be called in the middle of what is essentially a electoral and ideological struggle because really you will please nobody, right . Thats what the problem is and he will voice it all kinds of ways and that may have different motivations for their public statements in different ways, but the practical work of what they can do here is probably within a much more controlled band and anyone wants to acknowledge and thats just the truth. So look, the statute does exist in the communications act. I suppose the commission has the authority as long as the provision has existed to offer some interpretation, whether that interpretation would have any money force on a court i think is questionable. To be perfectly honest. But look, they can offer their opinion of what it means, but even if they can, i dont quite know how effective they can be in changing what we actually see facebook or twitter do. So thats one thing. The white house sort of scattered this work around a lot of places. Yet the fcc looking at it, ftc looking at it, the attorney general looking at it and, of course, Congress Looking<\/a> at it, both conservatives were looking at it and liberals looking at it. This is a issue where theres a democrat version of why they dont like to 30, and theres a republican reason why they dont like to 30, and the reasons are in some ways diametrically opposed even if there similar. Putting all that aside, is it time as a silver policy person to look at 230 . I think so. But not for these reasons. Not because they do this to me or they dont do that today. Go back and look at the original purposes of that statute and the nature of what those platforms were and i think theyre a long way from being a Bulletin Board<\/a> in the chat rooms that they were when these questions first arose. I do think the exercise a lot the power in the speech realm in the country. I think they often exercise what are acts of a publisher and editor. Its not saying they would have no protections to cbs news has protection. The New York Times<\/a> has protection. But they dont have 230. They have a responsibility to the content but they also have massive First Amendment<\/a> protection. I think it is less scary than what the tech platforms act like. They would continue to enjoy those protections wanted dont think they need the subsidy. I think this is a subsidy to turbocharge their growth. They are not the Biggest Companies<\/a> in the world and have profound economic and moral responsibilities to what happens on the platform, whether its the russians or accusations of conservative bias or Bad Information<\/a> any healthcare pandemic, or politically corrosive speech. They will have to struggle with that for the rest of their existence, and i think whether you think that should be entitled to certain type of blanket protections is a legitimate policy question. Should congress be redoing some of that rather than fcc do you think what you mentioned limitations when it comes to who is doing this rethinking. Im curious to what you think that should be legislation and you mentioned and openness in terms of the fcc interprets this. Im curious what you think the fcc should do once whether they should proceed with rulemaking, what that would look like. If you were recommending to the fcc, what would that be . What would you suggest . Guest the first part of your question, and i think we often had to think about institutional confidence in what the nature of the questions are. 230 as a true exist is what it is. The fcc cant do anything to change the fundamental ledges is statute or that the candy ftc, neither can any executive branch agency. If youre talking about the heart of the way it works ticket with the kind of significant veil of protection they enjoy, thats a congressional question. Thats not going to be changed or meaning the little, that kurt meaningfully bent by an executive branch. They simply dont have that authority. Lets be honest, they could probably nibble on it and bias it a a little bit but they cant fundamentally change it. If youre talking about bigger changes, yes, it is a congressional question. Plus i always believe questions that involve making difficult judgments about a constitutional value like speech should be made by the peoples representatives, not a nonelected agency. I think the question should be subject to the accommodation of the public in a way that only elected representatives possess. So, yes, i think its largely a congressional issue and congressional question. Yes, the fcc has got to do something. On the court to try to tell them what to do. They know their options other options of that. They can do nothing. They sit on rulemaking sometimes for years and nothing happens. We have sometimes been frustrated by petitions for rulemaking that sit for years. Two, they could can put it out for comment and then the process could take months or years, depending on what their motivations are. I suspect they would put something out for comment, initiates an action so they could say they answered the mail in some formal way. But i think what happens after that is a really long, vague sort of question. But look at the political yourr is wrapping up. Theres an election. This commission may not even be the fcc a year from now. Im not sure how hungry they are going to be to raise to an answer here, but im just guessing and have told me anything. I i know if it were me i would e very, very hesitant to do whole lot between now and the november election because i wouldnt want, you know, i dont want anyone of those regulators who finds himself falling into that mess, but who knows . Chairman pai is his own person and at the commissioners have their own objectives. We will see what they do. I can tell you im not exactly sitting around expecting an expeditious or a bombshell decision out of the fcc on 230. Maybe i will be shown wrong. Host given all the tragedy that we have been through as a nation in the last couple of weeks, particularly with the George Floyd Murder<\/a> in minneapolis, how is this changing tv . One example is some of the Reality Police<\/a> shows are being canceled. In your view as president and ceo of the ncta, and maybe her personality as well, as television done a good job covering this issue . Guest well, let me first say, you know, as myself, a black american and a black male, i probably have never been so torn and anguished and sad and angry as i have been on this latest incident. Not because i havent seen these before, because they are so unprecedented. I am exhausted. At 57 years old i have seen rodney king, ive seen michael brown, ive seen eric garner, ive seen all of these things and im tired. Im hurt our country that i have love for cant quite exercise the demons and the ghosts of it relatively heinous slave past. I think it is deeper and more profound than most people cant seem to accept and to think this is another awakening. Media, shapes our views of the world. The impact of us with their stories. Stories are powerful. Just like john was talking about the world role of platforms. We can pretend that everybody is an independent tree will thinker with a lot of Digital Literacy<\/a> training but its just not true. Because if you really are a student of the human mind and the brain you know we are filled with errors, filled with biases, filled with errors in judgment. We are easily manipulated by story, easily manipulated by behavioral response. Thats just what it means to be a human being. I do think that storytellers should expect that reality and have a lot more moral obligation to be sensitive about what they produce. Both on the news side, peter, how the cover these stories, what we shall, you know, how many times do we show the choking for it is just being salacious and hurtful to make a buck, right . When does information become these are tough question for journalism. So theres the news side of this period are recovering it adequately . I think the news did a good job covering this incident. We have learned that absent cameras, absent coverage as antiseptic. This stuff gets swept aside, right, and so they are the eye of the societies moral conscious right now and hope they approach their work in that way. Scripted or reality television, to be honest i was a little surprised to see the cop stories taken down, but at the same time i looked up and i said, wow, that makes a lot of sense. Nobody thought to think about that before. We do glorify in this country too much the militarism of law enforcement. America looks a good war story. We are a warrior nation. We were born in a revolution. Our social identity formed in a civil war. Our superpower status was achieved in several great global context. We are warriors and we tend to gravitate to those stories of heroism, and i think we have in it unwittingly turned the police into a military story, a story of the good versus evil, bad, weaponry, warriors, danger and i think the media has done that, too. We dont, we dont approach policing at a different kind of storytelling narrative. A lot of that soulsearching is rightfully going on even in the tv world and a proud because of talked a lot of those ceos. Theyre struggling with this to do a better job. More than hey, when i turn on xfinity its got a collection of really important black movies for me to watch, right . Its in the editorial decisions they make every day about what to emphasize in american life. And i do hope it gets better and to do hope they accept that responsibility. Host Michael Powell<\/a> is president and ceo of the ncta, the internet and television association. John hendel covers technology for political. Gentlemen, thank you for being on the communicative cricket thank you, peter. Thank you, peter. Tonight on the communicators ncta president and ceo Michael Powell<\/a>. We shouldnt make the mistake thank you because something is important, is utility. We are a little too fast concerning those are the same things. I think private infrastructure is extraordinary extraordinari. I dont think its a luxury. I think its an essential service for most americans. Watch the communicators tonight at 8 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Widest press secretary Kayleigh Mcenany<\/a> has scheduled a briefing today. We expect questions about the president rally in tulsa as well as the firing over the weekend of the u. S. Attorney for the Southern District<\/a> of new york that is set for one p. M. Eastern. Well have it or your life when it starts here on cspan2. The Senate Returns<\/a> today at e debate on the judicial nomination of mississippi korey wilson to be a u. S. Court of appeals judge for the fifth circuit. A vote to advance the nomination takes place at 5 30 p. M. Eastern. Later in a in the week debate d vote expected on the Police Reform<\/a> legislation introduced by South Carolina<\/a> republican senator tim scott. Follow the senate live on cspan2. And the house return for legislative work thursday at 9 p. M. Eastern as they take up their Police Reform<\/a> bill with debate and votes happening as proxy voting is still in effect due to the coronavirus. Also on the agenda, washington d. C. Statehood and an attempt to override president trumps veto of a Resolution Data<\/a> with student loan forgiveness. Follow the house live on cspan. Host a very good monday morning to pick did you watch the interview . If you did want to hear what you thought about it. You can start calling in now. It aired on abc last night, abc news last night and during the interview john bolton talked about why he wrote his book and why he didnt take part in the impeachment inquiry against president trump. You couldve told these stories when you in the white house or when the impeachment how is goinghm on and you chose instead to do it and a book. Because i didnt think the democrats had the wit or the political understanding or","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia903203.us.archive.org\/11\/items\/CSPAN2_20200622_160500_The_Communicators_Michael_Powell_NCTA_President\/CSPAN2_20200622_160500_The_Communicators_Michael_Powell_NCTA_President.thumbs\/CSPAN2_20200622_160500_The_Communicators_Michael_Powell_NCTA_President_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240716T12:35:10+00:00"}