Conversation. I started at the sec as a staffer in 2012 and most recently served as general counsel of the disagreements before moving into this commissioner as a commissioner. His son to serve in various at the agency. Host full play. Guest thats right. We have a full plate of commissioners right now, all of them have at it. Said the agency before so we been able to be quickly over the last couple months. Fastpaced and enjoyable. Host john handel of politico is joining us to delve into that. Host commissioner, i want to talk about Net Neutrality. Thats been one of the biggest things to happen in the last week and never once been looking forward to that. Im curious what you see this proposal doing and also how it might affect consumers from high level, you hear reactions to it and a lot of people point to what it means for business in the economy, but also a lot of really loud kind of fears about this and whether you see any real changes that might occur for Internet Service providers, or whether people will say anything different on the internet in general. Im really excited about the proposal before the agency right now. As you heard on tuesday this week, chairman pai circulate circulate internally has proposal that was released publicly today for the public to see it more than three weeks in advance of the fccs vote and integrate document for consumers, great for innovators and freedom on the internet as well. What the document proposes to do is return the internet to the Regulatory Framework that govern the internet from 2015 to the 20 years that preceded it in massive internet ecosystem and free and open internet. Most fundamentally we all believe in a free and open internet, but the question is what is the right Regulatory Framework in that document before s. Put this back on the right framework. Host do think theres any changes for the Internet Service providers in the absence of these roles . Some people bring up one of the big charges that could lead to bundles of differing websites, services that people find very worrying. Do you think thats something that happen by the end role after result for consumers. Guest consumers will be better off. Theres no broadband providers doing exactly what it people are talking about, which is internet experience with title ii decision 10 minute provider sent from to offer you this charade experience. Theres something simply not correct. And prior to it with competitive pressures. Theres a lot of misinformation as well. Under this proposal with the wild west regime where they are free to rush out of her consumers far from it. Theres at least four separate legal standards they continue to apply to ensure consumers are protected even if competition alone will protect them. This federal Consumer Protection line for his or the federal trade commission. When the past fcc entity upon the air classified the internet, a fall of its authority and reinvest the federal trade commission with the section five authority to protect consumers. There is antitrust law of the sherman act. Those are protections with anticompetitive conduct providers in the exercise of the market power or near market power with exclusionary conduct. The third is respect your privacy. Consumers care passionately and rightly so. Under this proposal the ftc and its Privacy Enforcement Authority will be back a cop on the beat once again where it hasnt been for two years. Finally, their state Consumer Protection laws in state attorney general action they discontinued to go go forward with this regime. You step back from the spent information that suggests this will allow them to do whatever you want. Theres four separate Legal Authority to consumer to be protected moving forward. One thing people raised early on with the possibility of a legal challenge. Parting shots mentioned this earlier, richard blumenthal, few other figures this year. You have a lot of experience with biblical and opinions. How do you anticipate that. When we launched this proceeding right now culminating in so i look very carefully at our Legal Authority. It is clear to me we are not totally sound legal footing. For instance, the Supreme Court has ruled in 2005 the commission can classify abroad and internet in title i service which is what disorder does. You heard some concern people have expressed the 2015 decision upheld by the d. C. Circuit is so drastically changed and the inability to do so is the weakness of the document. It expressly said that the fcc in 2015 didnt rely on changed circumstances and they did it matter to the courts decision. So it didnt matter then come it still doesnt matter today and so we are in very, very solid Legal Foundation for taking this step and i look forward to taking action. Host does this draft proposal return to the concept of Net Neutrality to the doctrine back in the early 00 . Guest thats a really good way and we understood a free and open internet and how important it is any question of the right legal framework. Back then we had one on what we call the title i framework as opposed to title ii. This document would return us to the world than the similarly situated. Host some of the providers are afraid of higher prices are being shut out of potential packages, is not a legitimate concern . Guest under the approach right now there is anything that prohibits the product if they say they are going to do it. Once we take this action and revise the federal trade commission may reassess and can adequately protect all competitors and consumers in this space. Host you think thats going to be adequately equipped to deal with that . Only two commissioners about the ninth circuit case. And whether they might have the right authority over the common carrier dvds that would be involved in providers there. How do you see that given the white house has nominated commissioners, but theyre pretty short talk at this point in terms of their bench. Guest im confident the fcc can handle this. They are in charge of the broad swath of the economy and protecting consumers. They are benefiting from that. This was the on equal footing with that. This was a case where a panel of the court had suggested the legal technicalities. Even if the fcc were first, and they might not be a lot of pictures action over the internet because of the Panel Decision. We wrote a letter that en banc and they dismissed the Panel Decision so right now there is no longer any legal impediment for that fence went the fcc released with authority in this case. Host after this vote, when will we know what the real rules of the road with the current rules of the road will be . Guest you will know in terms of the fcc rules in terms of the transparency requirement that requires all to be upfront with their disses and night shifts the regime to the ftc to take any Enforcement Actions we see anticompetitive our exclusionary conduct. Host if in 2020 theres a new administration in the rules change again, how do you prevent this from pingponging back and forth . Guest is a good question. At the end of the day well settle on a consensusbased approach Going Forward or congress can step in and resolve this once and for all. If you look back at all the Court Decisions in the space weather is the Supreme Court decision with the d. C. Circuit most recently, one of the Common Threads the Common Thread started out as the courts determining congress hasnt spoken directly to this issue. Of course i Welcome Congress stepping in and putting a statutory solution in place so we dont go back and forth for years to come. Postcode you predicted not fond of comments coming in the next three weeks to the fcc . Guest we are already receiving them. I received them directly as well. To get a range of views from people and we continue to take a look at that. Host some of those colorful reviews, do they have some legitimacy . Guest we have 22 million filings. Under no 22 million people, offensive scene at that the agency tells us something. That tells us consumers are passionate about the internet, passionate about about maintaining the free and open internet. They do want to see their experience drastically change. We hear that loud and clear. I wont be passing any vote that i think would dramatically change the admin experience consumers have in a negative way. The path were on right now at the proposal doesnt do that. But protects consumers insuring the incentive is there for providers to build out. Remember the networks cost money. We saw 1. 2 trillion investment prior to title ii. We need a massive mound of investment Going Forward so the consumers in the u. S. Continue to benefit from advanced networks. One of their big thing this week is obviously the fight between at t and doj right now over its purchase of time warner. That is something the fcc doesnt have reviewing power over, but i am curious how you see that given a lot of talk and debate over whether president turned views on the merger might have affected how doj decided to review that. He talked about that during the campaign. He raised it again this week saying he wouldnt be good for the country at this point forward. Im curious about do you have faith in the independence of doj and trust authorities and how d. C. That overall . A pretty big situation unfolding right now. Rendell said on Trent Randall stephenson and litigation Going Forward will try to move im not quickly. His doj is independent nasa should be . This transaction is one that did not come before because of the particular way it was structured. The review authority is relatively limited to circumstances for licenses or authorizations are transferred and this was one of them. All that to say i have to say havenots in the record youre done a deep drive myself. Each site has review about the merits of the case and why it is and what it didnt, but i dont have any personal insight to add on. Were you surprised by that decision . It wasnt one i follow closely the one where he looked behind the scenes to look at the merits of a common sight in a position a position one way or the other. Host what is your general philosophy and how do you think we are brown at the fcc when the comcast merger went through . I was not. My general view is they have a pretty limited role to play in mergers which is to say by transaction comes the forest. We first say is very transaction specific harm and if there is, we try to find in the early taylor arminius that is the Public Interest determination. One thing you saw over the last couple years as few mergers as a Christmas Tree where you can hang whatever regulatory agenda you want on it. Thats not my approach and the approach lawfully under they should take. If youre broader issues we want to address, industrywide will make you to do that. We shouldnt take the opportunity to insert ourselves in that. We have an Important Role to play but its a mere one. Train to your fellow democratic press Conference Following the meeting had this to say about the standards with murderers and mergers. It has a balancing test. It has taken the harm and looked at the benefits. You can go back decades and see text that reflect that approach quietly and without warning the agency of change that standard. I think we should have had a rulemaking on that. The standards by which should be subject to comment. They make note of that change and how was issued quietly and without warning. What is most concerning is the effort to increase for the next big transaction coming our way which is the larger broadcasting company. This raises a good point of how we see the law. We talk about a world in which it is. Did to say if we can identify this transaction, and we will look into it more in our view that we think are in the Public Interest to outweigh the harm that we will balance those things and get it through. If you look at the case law that is different. Its not can we get those unrelated to harm its what can we do to fix the harm that we have. If we can fix that we shouldnt let it go through. It shouldnt be about getting other goodies that offset the harm because im correct it. Thats the difference we see there. Your focus is wireless in general. One of your big folks is fair since youve been commissioner now, you have the task of following the Wireless Infrastructure issues for the commissioner. One order to go through this past november meeting and just hoping you can talk about how you approach that a little bit and what you are taking is to go to 28 t. Nine twilight towers, to. A lot of inaction from what ive did. When i went to the nomination process this summer, one thing that i focused on was the opportunity we had to create jobs, and to spur investment can grow the economy for all americans. By policy background and chairman pai gave me the lead on the infrastructure docket consisted without we can grow the economy. Most consumers that have right now with four gbytes 5g. They are very different. Obviously faster, lower latency, but they keep user data. From my gift, and the network itself is very different. Right now we have roughly 300 south sites and we are talking about going from these relatively few macro site powers to millions of small cell deployments from the 300,000 to over a million. The current Regulatory Framework that we have for that is going to be the bottleneck that holds us from the five gp the timeline associated the regulatory fees with the relatively few of them. We are engaged now in the state and local process, his doric or federal law should push them out of the system and find ways to streamline it. As you know we did one item last month called a replacement item this month looking at twilight towers and in a nutshell a period of time between 2001 and 2005 where communication is being instructed and the rules were clear about what you need to do to comply with Historic Preservation requirements. Because attack on the terrace up in regulatory limbo when you havent been able to code locator place of antenna on the towers without going through a lengthy historic review. We are going to vote on this month finally a concrete solution to solve back, which would ultimately adopted, which is anywhere from 4000 to 7002 called locations for the first time. All part of a broader effort to reduce the arrears to Wireless Infrastructure deployment and try to attack it on a lot of different fronts. Is a general agreement on this approach . As a general matter, the issues have tended to be the most bipartisan of the commission as those spectrum issues. Im glad to be leading in this area is where can we find Common Ground to move forward. I hope were able to get Common Ground on this one as well. State and local officials has been one concerned. I know there is one here in this past month. Several concerns about deployment and kind of localities they are. Do you think there needs to be in a preemption whether by congress or otherwise . To start i agree theres an important legitimate role for state and local governments to play with respect to wireless deployment. They will continue to play that legitimate role. Congress has heard it given the Commission ExpressAuthority Section 253 and 332 to make sure there are carriers to the claimant and that includes taking a look at the state and local laws whether we need it through preemption streamlines deployment. Its important as well if we get the right Regulatory Framework right, for 5g we are talking about 275 billion in investment to make this transaction from 4g to 5g, 3 million new jobs. But to get the investment weve got to get the Regulatory Framework right to incentivize all those deployment. A study recently looked at the proposal at the streamlining if we attack those proposals and streamline regulations, it is going to shift to Business Case for deployment into thousands of communities. 2,627,000,000 new homes will be economical for the third if we streamline regulations. Its not how we get them moving faster. They get highspeed fiber of thats an Important Role but at the same time and get it to work consumers. Carr when do you expect it to come on the docket . I dont have a set timeline for that. The chairman will bring that forward for a vote. They filed an application and a number filed oppositions to die. The record is still open at the commission. Once this step completes its review well take a look at the record in the chairman brings it up for vote will cast their votes. Host was your general philosophy . Guest 39 is a limit in the fcc rules on the percentage of the population that a single broadcaster can cover through ownership of different stations. Thats another issue we are taking up in december the chairman is circulated for consideration and notice of proposed rulemaking that asks a series of questions about whether its the right number three of the authority to increase the number, how does it interact the discount and all those are issues to be teed up for consideration soon. I look forward to hearing peoples views on those. Host are you inclined to think the fcc can modify the cap for that . Son from congressional leaders including nancy pelosi, congressman colon has said congress is the only real and when writing to the commission has been a big seeing a lot of the year. Wonder how you saw that, whether that was kind of an unfair to all of the media items this year and something consistent every week a letter about the relationship between chairman pai in sinclair. With your first question about the statuary authority, last year the year before, i am going to see what this generates in the comments. Ive taken a look at the statute and theres not been this has expressed a theres a limit that cannot be modified. Itll take a look at those. The commission has been very focused. The broadcasting industry is a broad segment of what it is we regulate. More so than a lot of other areas are rows of regulations on the broadcast industry have been out dated for a long time. Theyve been in need of Regulatory Reform so we are broadly acting on a number of funds to update rules and streamline rules then they will benefit consumers but odyssey broadcasters as well but not just sort of anyone in the sector. The last meeting theres a large discussion about the lifeline program. In your view has it been successful and does it need to be changed . Wifi and serves important purposes. Its part of our obligation to make sure Services Available affordable has an Important Role to play. To continue to play that. At the same time it has been plagued by waste, fraud and abuse and time and sign up for a lifeline that couldnt be verified as eligible. 6000 listed as deceased that had signed up for after they passed away. A lot of waste, fraud and abuse hurt consumers generally that support the lifeline dollars out there. It also means they target the funds churned legitimate consumer to legitimate communities. We need to make sure that we are eliminating the waste, fraud and abuse. They also asked questions about how we target support an ineffective waste i definitely support the inquiry. Host time for one more question. Host on that note, surrounding both that id amend the others, mr. Mignon clyburn said they were going on a destructive path that doesnt put consumers first and most actions throughout the year that concerned the agency for so many years, how different is it now for when he started and is it more partisan and what the agency has been able to do . I wouldnt say its more partisan. At the end of the day the vast majority of what we do is bipartisan, consensus based in 1 00 a. M. And what we are trying to get to. No doubt the highprofile issues are controversial, very difficult to find Common Ground on, but every day outside approach the job inlets agreed and if we dont agree thats not the end of our relationship and will try again tomorrow on another one. Theres going to be tough issues. You hear about those in the prize but by and large by consensus at the agency. Host commissioner carr is one of three at the federal Communications Commission handles tech and telecom for politico. Thank you, gentlemen. Tax reform is on the agenda for congress now that they are returning from the thanksgiving break. They meet tuesday to consider a bill that combines the republican tax reform plan with expanded drilling in the arctic. If the Committee Approves bill that would then go to the senate or for debate requiring only a simple majority. If pass house and Senate Negotiators would begin work on a tax reform bill with Republican Leaders in the house and senate hoping to have finished before christmas. The senate life here on cspan2. Its