live coverage of key to hearings on c-span and c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen live with the free c-span radio app. >> this week on "the communicators," we want to introduce you to the newest member of the federal communications commission,, br endan carr who has been a commissioner since august. brendan carr: thank you for having me on. astarted at the fcc as stafford back in 2012. i most recently served with the general counsel for eight months for moving into this position as a commissioner. it has been fun to serve in various capacities. host: a full plate? we have a full slate of commissioners right now. all have had experience at the agency before. we have been able to move quickly over the last couple months. it has been fast-paced and enjoyable. host: we want to talk about that. >> i wanted to talk about net neutrality. that has been one of the biggest things that has happened in the last weekend. i am curious what you see this proposal doing, and how it might affect consumers. hear a lot ofu different reactions. a lot of people point to what it means for business and the economy, but there has also been a lot of loud fears about this. i am curious what you see about that, and if you see any real changes. whether that might be new offerings, or whether they will change the way people experience the internet. i am very excited about the proposal before the agency. on tuesday, the chairman circulated to us his proposal, and it was released publicly today for the public to see it. more than three weeks in advance of the fcc vote. i think it is a great document for consumers, it is great for innovators, it is great for freedom on the internet. in a nutshell, this proposes, and i will be voting on it december 14, is return the internet to the same regulatory framework governed the internet starting in 2015 all the way back 20 years at proceeded it. in that environment we saw massive investment in the internet aqua system. we saw consumers protected, and a free and open internet. believe in a free and open internet. the question is what is the right regulatory framework to ensure that. the document before us that we will vote on puts us on the right framework. >> do you think there will be changes for the bigger internet service providers and the absence of these rules? that is what people bring up when i talk about getting rid of the net neutrality regulations. the critics say this could lead to the cable a station of the internet. types off different websites, different types of services that some people find worrying. do you think that will happen, or what is the end result for consumers? brendan carr: consumers are going to be better off. today there is no legal prohibition on isp providers doing exactly what people are talking about, which is this curated internet experience you can view some websites and not others. it tells consumers, i want to offer you this curated internet experience, you are allowed to do it. are now allowing something to take place for the first time, it is simple enough correct. fighters had the legal authority to do that during the title ii regime, and prior to it. we have not seen it because of competitive pressures. i do understand there is a lot of concern, and there is a lot of misinformation. under this proposal, there are not proposing to go to a wild west regime where broadband providers are free to run roughshod over consumers. far from it. there are four separate legal standards that will continue to apply to ensure that consumers are protected, even if you don't think competition will protect them. consumer federal protection law and forced by the federal trade commission. when it passed the fcc in the obama era, they classify the internet as a public utility, it had the legal effect of stripping the federal trade commission of all of its authority, it's consumer protection authority over the internet, to reversing that to protect consumers. there is any trust law. this section one and two of the sherman act. those are protections that go to anticompetitive conduct by broadband providers. the exercise will be market power or near market power, exclusionary conduct. consumers are passionate and rightly so about on my privacy. under this proposal, the ftc and its privacy enforcement authority will be back. .t will be a cop on the beat there is that protection. there is a state consumer protection law. and state attorney general actions that will continue to go forward with this regime. if you step back from the misinformation that suggest this decision is going to allow isps free reign to do it they want, that is not true. there are four separate positive legal authorities that are there to protect consumers. i'm confident consumers will be protected going forward. raised onng people was the possibility of a legal challenge to this order. senator richard blumenthal, a few other figures said they foresee up for -- a court challenge later. you have a lot of experience with that legal underpinnings. how do you anticipate that playing out? if this order is challenged, i am guessing you know more about how this can together. i was the general counsel of the fcc when we launched this proceeding that is culminating in this order. i looked careful at our legal authority. it is clear we are on sound legal footing. the supreme court has already ruled in 2005 that the commission can classify broadband internet access with title i information service, which is what this order does. the supreme court has upheld it. you'll have expressed since the 2015 decision, the commission is under some obligation to drastically change, and the inability to do so is a legal weakness with the document. that is not true. if you look at the d.c. circuits position, it said the fcc and 2015 did not rely on change circumstances, and they did not matter to the court's decision. it did not matter then, it does not matter today. legal on very solid foundation for taking this step. i look forward to taking that action. proposalhis draft return the concept of net neutrality to the so-called powell doctrine? brendan carr: that is a really good way of looking at it. we have all understood a free and open internet, and how important it is. it is a question, what is the right legal framework. back then we had a title i framework as opposed to title ii. this would return us to that title i world. >> some of the edge providers are afraid of being shut out of potential packages of higher speeds. is that a legitimate concern? brendan carr: i do not think so. under the approach now, there is nothing that had its from engaging in that conduct. again, once we take this action and reinvest the trade wemission with authority, have the antitrust authorities again, it can adequately detect all competitors and consumers. i am confident there is adequate legal protections in place. >> at the federal trade commission, do you think that is equipped to do that? they only have two commissioners there. there are questions about the ninth circuit case. some have questions about whether it might not have the right authority over some of the common carrier activities that really would be involved in broadband providers. how do you see that given that the white house has nominated commissioners, but they are short staffed? brendan carr: i am confident the ftc can handle this. the ftc is in charge of a broad swath of the economy and protecting consumers. consumers are benefiting from that. this but the internet on an equal footing. the ninth circuit decision, this is a case with a panel of the court suggested legal technicalities. reversedwas if the ftc the title ii decision, the ftc might not be a to take jurisdiction over the internet, over isps, because of this decision. when i was general counsel, we the ninthtter urging circuit to rehear the case. they dismissed that panel decision. there no longer is any legal impediment from that stance. ii, the fcc reverses title the ftc will be revested with authority. >> after this vote, when will we know what the real rules of the road will be? brendan carr: in terms of what the fcc's approach will be, it includes a transparency requirement that requires all isps to be up front with their practices, and that ships the regime over to the ftc to take any enforcement activity. if suit -- if we see -- a newin 2020 there is wood ministration and the rules change again, how do you prevent this from ping ponting back and ng-ponging back and forth? brendan carr: congress can step in and resolve this once and for all. one of the common threads is that the courts determined that congress hasn't spoken directly to this issue. i would welcome congress aepping in and putting statutory solution in place so we do not go back and forth for years to come. >> you predict an onslaught of comments coming in the next three weeks to the sec? brendan carr: we are already receiving them. some are more colorful. we are getting a range of views from people. we will continue to take a look at that. >> with the colorful views, do they have some legitimacy? brendan carr: we have had over 22 million hirelings, i don't know if it is 22 million people, but there are 22 million filings we have seen. that tells us something. it tells us consumers are passionate about the internet. about a freeonate internet. they do not want their experience drastically changed. we hear it loud and clear. i will not be casting any vote that will dramatically change the internet experience consumers have in a negative way. the path we are on with this proposal does not do that. it protects consumers while at the same time ensuring there are incentives for providers. remember, the networks cost money. we sell 1.2 trillion and investment prior to title ii. we need massive investments going forward. consumers and the u.s. can continue to benefit from advanced networks. >> one of their big thing this week that has dominated headlines as the fight between at&t and doj over the purchase of time warner. that is something that sec does not have reviewing power over of,. i'm curious, there is a lot of talk and debate over president trump's views might have affected how the doj decided to review that. he had talked about that during the campaign. he said he was opposed. he said this week it would not be good for the country to go forward. about, youurious have an independence of the edgy and antitrust authorities, and givenu see that overall it is a big situation unfolding. the ceo of at&t was having a big press conference monday night. medications have been going forward. litigations have been going forward. this particular transaction is one that did not come before the fcc because of the way it was structured. the authority is limited to circumstances where fcc licenses or authorizations are being transferred, and this was not one of them. i have not seen the record or done a deep dive myself. each side has their view on the merits of the case, and why it is in the posture it is in. i do not have personal insights on that. >> were use a prized the doj's decision? brendan carr: it was not one i have been following closely or looked behind the scenes at the merits of it. i do not have a position one way or the other. >> what is your general philosophy when it comes to a merger such as that? when nbcat the fcc comcast merger went through? i was not.r: the fcc has a limited role to play and mergers, which is to say when a transaction comes before us, we take a look. we say, is there a transaction specific harm. if there is, we try to find a narrowly tailored remedy. the harm weses identified, we can move forward with the public interest determination. mergers over the last few years as a christmas tree where you could hang whatever regulatory agenda on it. that is not my approach. the is not an approach that fcc should take. there are broader issues we want to a dress, and we should open up rule makings to do that. we should not take the opportunity when companies are trying to get a deal done to insert ourselves and that and achieve goals that are unrelated to the deal itself. we have an important role to play, but it is a narrow one. >> your fellow commissioner, a democrat, had this to say about the standards when it comes to mergers and media ownership. i want to get your reaction. >> for several decades the fcc has had a balancing test that it used in its transactions. ,t has taken the merger harmed and looked at the merger benefit. you can go back decades and to see. quietly and without warning, in a big transaction, the agency just changed its standard. as a matter of administrative law, i think we should have had a rulemaking on that. when an agency changes the standards by which a review something, that should be subject to notice and comment. and so i dissented on that transaction to make note of that change, and how it was issued quietly and without warning. what is most concerning is that it is it effort to greece the skids for the next big transaction coming our way which involves a large broadcasting company. of differenceoint on how we see the law. to a world gone where it adopted this view as a balancing test, which is to say if we can identify a small arm in his transaction, we are not concerned about addressing that exact harm. we will work more generally. if we can get enough goodies in our perspective that are in the public interest to outweigh the harm that we will balance those things and let the transaction get through. if you look at the fcc's case get it is not can we goodies that are unrelated to harm, it is what can we do to fix that harm. if we cannot fix the harm, we should not let the transaction go through. that is the difference of opinion you are seeing there. >> commissioner, your focus for many years has been wireless. since you have been commissioner now, you have been tasked with following the wireless infrastructure issue. you had one order that was able to go through this past november. then twilight towers coming up in december. talk about how you are approaching that, and the different thoughts you will be taking as you go into 2018. and what twilight towers entails. when i went to the nomination and confirmation process this summer, one thing that i focused on was the opportunity we have in telecom to create jobs to spur investment and grow the economy for the benefit of all americans. my policy back on has been the wireless side. once i was going on the wasission, chairman pai consistent with my themes and how we grow the economy. are aware of 4g cellular service, that is what most people have right now. we are in the middle of transitioning from 4g to 5g. it will be lot faster. there will be new services consumers can use with that. what matters is the network itself is going to look different. right now we have roughly 300,000 cell sites across the country. for 5g we're talking about going from these relatively few macro site towers to millions of new small cell the point is. we will go from 300,000 to over a million in short order here. the current regulatory framework we have for that is going to be the bottleneck that holds us back from getting to 5g. the timelines associated for approvals, the reglan tori fees associated with them worked. regulatory fees associated with them worked. federal laws pushed the regulatory costs out of the system and found ways to stream when. we did one item last month. replacement item. this month we are looking at twilight towers. between 2001 and two dozen five were communication towers were being constructed, and fcc's rules were about what you need to do to comply. those towers have been in regulatory limbo. we are going to vote on this month, is a concrete solution to solve that. it would ultimately open those towers up. it is anywhere from 4000 to 7000 towers. this is all part of a broader barriers how to reduce to wireless infrastructure deployment, and we are trying to attack it on a lot of fronts. >> is there a general agreement on the commission? brendan carr: i think so. they had tended to be some of the most bipartisan. that is why i am glad to be leading in this area. where can we find common ground to move forward? i hope we have common ground on this as well. >> with state and local officials, and has been one source of concern. there was one san jose official this month who questioned how small cells really work, and employment, and a role for localities there. do you think there needs to be any preemption by congress? brendan carr: i agree there is an important role for state and local governments to play with respect to wireless deployment. they will continue to play that legitimate role. congress has already given the commission in section 253 of the medications act to make sure there are not barriers to deployment. that authority includes taking a look at the state and local laws, whether through preemption we need to streamline those. if we get the right regulatory framework right, for 5g we are talking about 275 billion in investment to make this transition from 4g to 5g. that means 3 million new jobs. that to get that investment, we have to get the regulatory framework right. there has been a study that proposal the sec has for streamlining. if we adopt this proposals and streamline regulations, it was shipped the business case for deployment into thousands of communities. be -- ifion homes will we streamline our regulations. it is not about how we get existing deployment's moving faster, thousands of communities are going to get high-speed fiber that they otherwise probably would not have gotten, simply through finding ways to streamline it. we have to look across all these areas and make sure we have streamlined it so we can get this advanced employment out to more consumers. expect sinclair tribute to come on the docket? brendan carr: the chairman will bring that forward for a vote. they filed for an application. there are parties who will file oppositions to that. the record is open at the commission. staff completes its review we will take a look at the record, and when the chairman brings it up for a vote we will cast our votes. >> what is your philosophy about the 39% rule? is aan carr: 39% right now limit in the fcc's rules on the percentage of the population that a single broadcaster can cover through their ownership of different stations. that is another issue we will take up in december. the chairman has circulated for our consideration that asks a series of questions whether 39% is the right number. do we have the authority to increase that number. how does it react with the uhf discount. all of those will be issues teed up for our consideration soon. >> are you inclined to think the sec can modify the cap for that? there had been some pressure leaders.ressional they said congress is the only body that can change that. they have been quick to point to sinclair when writing to the commission. i wondered how you saw that. is that something you viewed as egg to all your media items. is there anything deeper there? with your question about the 39% cap, the commission blaster or the year before reached the conclusion that it did have authority to adjust that cap. whatn views, i want to see is generated in the comments. i take a look at the statute, there is nothing that says expressly there is a limit that cannot be modified. there are arguments to the contrary. we will take a look at those. on your question on sinclair, the commission has been focused, the broadcasting industry is a broad segment of what it is. we regulate it more so than a lot of other areas. rules have been outdated for a long time. they have been in need of regulatory reform. we are broadly acting on a number of fronts that applying those rules. that will benefit consumers and broadcasters as well. it benefits all broadcasters, not any one participant. meeting, last fcc there is a large discussion about the lifeline program. in your view, hasn't been successful, and doesn't need to be changed? lifeline serves important purposes. it is part of our statutory obligation to make sure services available are affordable. it has an important role to play. at the same time, the program has been plagued by waste. a million consumers found up for lifeline that could not be verified as eligible. ,000 were listed as deceased who had been signed up after they passed away. that hurts consumers were paying in to support the lifeline dollars going out there. we are not able to target those funds to legitimate consumers and legitimate communities. we are ao make sure limiting waste, fraud, and abuse. i support that inquiry. >> one more quick question. strong rhetoric from democratic commissioners. commissioner clyburn said the majority of the fcc was going down a destructive path that does not put consumers first and listed actions that concerned her. how different is it now from when you started, and is it more bipartisan -- is it more partisan? brendan carr: i would not say it is significant we more partisan. the vast majority of what we do at the commission is bipartisan. there is no doubt there are high-profile issues that will be controversial. it will be difficult to find common ground. every day, all five commissioners approach the job, let's agree where we can agree, and if we don't agree, that is not the end of our relationship. going to be tough issues. you will hear about them in the press. by and large we are working in consensus. carr is one of three republican commissioners on the fcc. brendan carr: thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] c-span, where history unfolds daily. and 1970 nine, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. it is brought to you to dive by your cable or satellite provider. announcer: the second annual new hampshire democratic party kennedy-clinton dinner in hollis, new hampshire. the event featured remarks by 2020 presidential candidate congressman john delaney of maryland, congressman tim ryan of ohio, and dnc vice chair and congresswoman grace meng of new york. in 2017, new hampshire democrats won eight out of 10 special elections, including the mayors seat in manchester. this event is two hours and 15 minutes. >> new hampshire democrats, please welcome to the stage chairman ray buckley. [applause] ♪ ["game of thrones" theme]