Skip to main content

tv   The Communicators Michael O Rielly FCC  CSPAN  June 22, 2018 10:29pm-11:02pm EDT

10:29 pm
traveled to juneau alaska. it continues the trip to the city of haynes, ahead of our stop in fairbanks. be sure to join us. watch alaska weekend on c-span. or listen on the c-span radio app. >> c-span, where history unfolds. c-span was created as a public service by cable television companies. unfilteredring you coverage of congress. the supreme court. policy events in washington dc. it is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> republican federal
10:30 pm
communications commission commissioner michael o'rielly. now that regulation has ended, what is next? >> consumers should know their experience they have had before the rules and during the rules, they are having now, is not going to change. as itgoing to maintain has been before. we are trying to figure out and have our conversations with the u.s. congress to see if they want to legislate. we are watching the market closely and see what moves and practices are being implemented. we should experience don't change in consumer behavior. hands?t out of the fcc's >> generally, yes. i have raised questions regarding authority. i think it is in congress's
10:31 pm
hands. they have's hands? >> consumer issues. they have restored the ability to move forward. you have antitrust law as well. >> what are your thoughts about some of the states adopting net neutrality? >> i am troubled. it interferes with something that is interstate in nature. we have a commerce clause. nobody can argue the internet is not interstate. it does not stop at political boundaries designed by your graffiti. they do not stop at a state line. it is something that has to be governed. we can't have individual states designing rules. 29 states have tried to engage.
10:32 pm
we cannot have that going forward. i was insistent the item we did adopt included strong language. i intend to the commission to be engaged preempting such activities if they violate the direction we have gone. >> let's bring paul kirby in. senior editor. >> you mentioned congress, you say you do not want to tell congress what to do. do you think they will finally do something? at some point do something to avoid what some call the regulatory ping-pong? , the rules change. >> i hope so. i have talked to a number of friends during my time. they are interested in legislating. they have had conversations on
10:33 pm
both sides of the aisle. maybe circumstances do not allow it. i don't know for sure. it does seem like things are aligning. >> do you feel the folks who , are you the order frustrated the pr folks on the other side paint you as against internet freedom? i have to do what i think is the best interest. i am comfortable with my decision. i understand the politics and the pr effort, something i have worked on for many years. notnot surprised i did succeeded in winning the pr battle.
10:34 pm
confident in the direction we have gone. >> another item of interest. children's programming. you have beenm asked to spearhead. can you give a sense of what the fcc should do? >> we issued a notice of proposal making thursday. can see the draft item. it will be adopted in a couple weeks. it is asking a bunch of questions. we are going to explore all the different issues and aspects of the rules on this. particularly, 1996 and 2004. we are going to find a way if possible, thread the needle, improve the experience for consumers and children and broadcasters greater
10:35 pm
flexibility they do not have today. you have seen the options for what programming has been done. shrinking, what is available. that is problematic. the second component, an explosion in children's programming available. a bunch of options. i'd knowledge, is not available to all families. we want to figure out how to address family without the resources. especially those cord cutting. also reflect market realities come off flexibility. a >> what are some of the rules that apply to children's television? require three hours a week
10:36 pm
in terms of educational programming. 30 minute blocks. air between the hours of 7:00 and 10:00. the amount of time a broadcaster has leads to the fact most of the programming happens saturday morning. 30 minute blocks. out all programming that may be shorter. rocks.ouse that was something people enjoyed, they can sing some of the melodies. and won a tone of awards. killed off because of our rules. i would like the opportunity for broadcasters to experiment and provide a better experience for children. do you believe children's programming should be required? >> it is required by the
10:37 pm
statute. whatdo the rules state and ordinance do we ask. it ties a license. say the issue is broadcasters use the public airwaves. someone say, they should bear that amount of programming because they have that obligation. it, is wanted to change relevant. the statute requires that. we are trying to figure out if there are nuances of our rules. the 30 minute block is not in our rule. change, we would like to see that happen. >> we talked about net neutrality.
10:38 pm
building infrastructure. have. as well you have been outspoken, you imposedalities have fees that are too high. should presentc -- preempt. there are people who say, there might be a few bad actors. theike colleague is leading charge. he is someone who can provide more details. i think it is fair, i am trying to get to the bad actors. the application process, how long it takes. there are a number of big cities
10:39 pm
trying to address the deployment of wireless. that is wonderful. there are bad actors we need to address. i was in new orleans, dealing with the fact the local community and the relationship was not allowing a provider to establish a connection. they were not able to get power. how do we solve those issues? deal with the fact communities are asking thousands of dollars for the right to install facilities consumers want? provide communications. make sure it is available. faster speeds, more capacity.
10:40 pm
we have localities saying, only if you do with the way we want. i want to respect the locality. a former fcc official wrote about the advisory committee. they are adapting a framework where industry gets the benefits but no obligations. toicipalities will be forced bear all the costs. >> i disagree with this analysis. it is irrelevant. band committee, they are not setting the structure for us to adopt. as commissioners, we have the right to modify,
10:41 pm
change, do what we want. not take the cut. it is premature in terms of analysis. the critique can go forward. a lot of localities have been upset. a feel there is not enough representation. it is dominated by industry. >> i don't have a difficulty. the more important thing is, what is the outcome? termination is to the commission. localities have had plenty of time to address these issues. had many years. i have been working on this since 1996. this is not new. it has been going on for quite a while. try to nice approach. working with localities.
10:42 pm
have been working on a theme in the d.c. metro. that.ll have not made we have tried this. quach another issue, 911. states devoting fees and surcharges. have not been going to 911. in some cases, not public safety. active lately, trying to write letters to folks who said they diverted or did not respond. give us a sense. you said there were mixed results. give us a sense, why they have the next and why you are going to continue to try. a report analyzes 2016.
10:43 pm
five states that were self admitted divers. states who did not bother to turn in the paperwork. we have been trying to go territory by territory, figure out what their issue was. in some cases, paperwork was done inappropriately. in other instances, i was dealing with rhode island, the situation, they decided they were not going to correct it. go territorytry to by territory. so consumers are not deceived on the money being paid into these funds. those who do not have sufficient funding to operate call centers. you have tremendous problems,
10:44 pm
longer call times. lower morale. at risk.fety put today withetter out mexico, trying to address their situation. they had a particular problem. are not a diverter. they do not look to be. we are trying to decipher what the reason is. we do to correct it? some states, new york, my old state. they are clear they do not have any intention of changing behavior. bad actors, like i talked to read we have them here. it is at the fcc level, friends in congress who have been picking up the issue. one way to do that is to say
10:45 pm
you cannot qualify for grants. >> there is existing program that has that. from being a number eligible for this program, modernizing their equipment. level.t multimedia, pictures for public safety individuals. see what everyone has. congress made a clear decision. you may divert as well. that is something that exists. you may see that in other opportunities. >> commissioner o'reilly, there fund.00 dollar rural you have been supportive increasing that. why? seen the i have been to parts of alaska they use is one part.
10:46 pm
i have seen the needs they have. remote villages. what they can do in terms of providing service and information to the hospital. make sure they do not have to put people on an airplane. something that could've been addressed locally. we are going to increase the budget. in terms of this spending, it has been less than demand. we are trying to figure out how to do that thoughtfully. from dollars come everybody who pays their telephone bill. they are taken from them. we are trying to be good stewards of those dollars. we want to make sure it is done thoughtfully. we need to figure out how it in a wrecks with the other programs we operate. 5g, we are doing fairly well. i feel comfortable with the actions taken.
10:47 pm
toare providing new spectrum offer 5g. spectrum opportunities. they are available. new frequencies made available. the second part, the part spoken about. infrastructure. how do you get the towers built? the fiber laid? can be able to serve consumers. metropolitan cities. how do you make that happen? -- will there be a grand rollouts somewhere? there are a number of providers that have tested cities. verizon has been doing this. ,ig providers are ready announcing where they are ready to go.
10:48 pm
>> at this point, 2018, where do you see it being widespread? >> fairly balanced. 5g, fifthart about generation, it does not replace 4g. we had a good track. increasing in terms of speed and capacity. that is going to be a big -- good race. 3-4 other nations that want to be first. they recognize the benefit of being first. we were the first to four g. we designed the equipment, the standards. framework for 20
10:49 pm
years. the same thing happening in other nations. there.intent to be .> the fcc, a plan to auction let's get it out faster. more spectrum. other band s. s. you have said taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. there is a question whether software will allow more of that. can you elaborate? , the big bandsted people looking at is 37. comments put forward, what we might be able to do. there are a number in the high millimeter waves. licenses? award the
10:50 pm
when can you do those? the question is, couldn't you do more? we don't have that capability in software.he we spend $100 million a year. we are not able to do such a function. we should have better capabilities. i think we should have the ability to run more than one auction at the same time. we don't have that capability. that means we are making policy decisions based on what we can do and we should expect more. >> the international telecommunications union is having a conference every three or four years. you have been critical of the way things have gone.
10:51 pm
you felt other nations were unwilling to be open exploring bands. some folks in the u.s.. are you hoping to avoid that? >> it is early. it is not because of the good work the u.s. government has done every we have done work to set up the stage for a good, 19.essful i worry, you can have the best intentions. nations bloc together and try to prevent this from being reallocated. to get ahead.u.s. that is problematic. same stars the aligned. i have been critical overall, not just in terms of spectrum. how it functions.
10:52 pm
those countries interested in moving forward, they are not going to wait for the rest of the world community. we have gotten frustrated, we are going to move forward with a number of countries, our own structure could we do not necessarily need them. we would like global harmonization. i want the u.s. to be part of that. it is not going to produce the outcomes that are beneficial. we have to consider alternatives. the structure they have operated problems,ountability the work product and the focus, they spend a lot of their time on unrelated matters. hasng to get them focused
10:53 pm
been hard. if they are not going to do those things, we have to contemplate other things. looking at cutting off funding for the u.s. government. >> what did you think of the decision in the att time warner? >> i was not part of the conversations? we had no authority. there were no licenses. in terms of the outcome, i think it is consistent with my viewpoint on what the marketplace and what is happening with consumers today. the market is broader. wider than the fcc or doj. sued. the doj being theireed to change viewpoint of what is in the marketplace. a lot of things competing. the judge hit on this. they are persistent and
10:54 pm
effective winning the hearts and minds of consumers. it has to be respected and acknowledged. i think he did a service. i think that will have influence on other things considered. it helped define a broader marketplace. >> speaking of that. you have media ownership rules. the 39% rule is arbitrary? >> i do. it is a strong word. something congress did. addressing awas particular transaction. does not reflect the current marketplace. they do not have
10:55 pm
authority. i believe it no longer bring -- makes sense. i don't agree with 39%. the ability to change that is something congress needs to do. i have said i will vote for it. we will see it litigated out. different opinions. >> a lot of critics say the july 12 meeting is solely to benefit the sinclair merger. >> i have written about it. it is not about sinclair. it is to be determined when little address this. everyone said every item you take, is about sinclair. i went item by item we have done. this is one they highlight. i spend no time trying to think
10:56 pm
about this. we have a particular transaction. that is a particular thing we can analyze separately. i try to determine the best interest for the american people. what should exist in the current rules reflecting the current law. not about one company. favoritism, disagreements with any company. my job is set up by law. do the bestth to job i can. >> and other merger, you and others do not like to talk about mergers. one of the issues is, should there be coordination? you answered recently after a meeting, can you give us a sense of your feel? whether it should be in concrete? the last administration,
10:57 pm
chairman wheeler felt it should not be changed. they did not try to merge. they are hoping this administration will approve that. can you give us a sense for whether it is necessary or not? >> i will talk about this globally. i do not have an artificial number in my head. different numbers kicked around. the previous commission, doj, they would not consider anything different. they tried to shoot down the opportunity. i do not have such a structure. i want to analyze that in terms of what the data presented, the circumstances in the marketplace. the qualifications and the capabilities. what are they providing?
10:58 pm
opportunities they can bring? what is the debt load they are taking on? at at the allocation as forthright. i don't have an artificial number in my head. there are benefits to having more and benefits to having stronger providers. i want to see with the circumstance may be. >> the applications were filed last night. them?ou looked at >> i have not. they were overrun, extensive. be more. people will have an opportunity to comment. them andnalyze all of make the best decision. the quadrennial review is coming up. there was a report the national association of broadcasters once to see some changes in radio station ownership.
10:59 pm
what is your philosophy? we will have a review by the end of this year. i don't have a time frame. on the radio side, i do believe there is an opportunity to modernize. i favor getting rid of our limitations. which set how many stations an individual can own. that exist within the market are problematic. they were designed in 1996. the world has changed. radio, it has changed. the relevance is still important. people do rely on them. compared to everything else, this has changed. greater opportunity
11:00 pm
for ownership. official has been nominated. what you think? >> i have heard great things about him. i >> a place i spent a great deal of time in. sure he will do wonderful. working withd to him assuming that the congress approves his nomination. >> michael o'reilly. senior editor of telecommunications. >> thank you so very much. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service i america's cable company.
11:01 pm
today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> this week the c-span bus traveled to june oh, alaskah the help of our cable partners. the bus continues the trip across alaska. andure to join us july 21 22nd when we will feature our visit to alaska. watch alaska weekend on c-span. watch or listen on the c-span radio app. court --eek the police
11:02 pm
rolled -- the decision changes the process for police investigating data collected by cell phone towers. chief justice john roberts doing in the majority decision. this was heard in november. this is about one hour and 25 minutes. >> we will hear argument this morning on case 16402, carpenter vs. u.s. before we commence i would like to advise council i will provide an additional 10 minutes for argument time. i don't think you will have trouble filling it. >> at issue in this case is the government's warrantless collection of 127 days of the petitioner's cell site location information, revealing his locations, movements, and associationsve


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on