my orking at ncta, and so relationship with the cable industry goes back a long, long time. and it was always a great privilege, i thought, to be associated with this industry at that particular point in history. and you know, michael powell was kind enough after i became chairman to ask me to come and meet with the ncta board. d i sat down and i said, you know, folks, everything that i relationship he etween government and industry were -- was a philosophy that was developed while i was at ncta. because that was a period in time when the cable industry s the voice of competition and innovation. and those who did not want things to change in those days, it was the broadcasters and hollywood, and the telephone company all working together to try and hold back the cable industry -- those who did not want things to change used government to maintain the status quo to the detriment of consumers. and so the philosophy that i developed coming out of that kind of experience is that the job of government is to promote to let on and consumers enjoy the benefits of that. with the full undering that -- understanding that those who, incumbents never like change. but the thing that's impressive cable re is that the industry has said wait a minute, we're not the cable industry. we're intx. we're the broadband business, we're the next generation of products. and it's that kind of nnovative thinking that drives consumer welfare, consumer benefit, that creates competition. we look at the policy issues that result from that and the consumer issues, as you appropriately say, looking at things from a consumer point of view, the evolution from yesterday's cable industry to industry broadband is requiring of everybody how to rethink the relationship with the consumer, how to rethink the relationship with government and i think it takes you back to those basic ncepts that i developed at ncta that it should be all about government promoting competition and stepping out of the way when there is competition. so let me give you an example. that there was effective competition in the video business was a 3-2 decision of the f.c.c. and as you know the effect of that was to deregulate rate regulation from local franchising authorities across the country. it was a 3-2 vote on the commission. now i know that you have reported and a lot of folks reported that hey, ever since then there have been nothing but 3-2 votes much the thing that's interesting is that is 3-2 with me voting with the republicans because i believe that, yes, there is competition in the delivery of video services that no longer warranted the kind of regulation that has historically been imposed on cable companies, and we're now defending that position in court because the cities took us to court and we're defending that position. that's the same kind of thought protest i want to bring to all the other issues we're dealing with, again, whether they're set-top boxes or open internet or special access or all the other issues. how do we make sure that we're ocusing on competition and the government's role to ensure, encourage competition so that government can then step out? peter: mr. chairman, as you now, your successor, michael poll in his speech monday used this phrase, "the f.c.c. is launching a relentless government assault on cable." now, you've got an audience out here that probably disagrees with your position on net neutrality, set-top boxes. what's your message to them? how, what do you tell them? tom: well, it's really interesting. michael and i having switched jobs as we did, with a few years in between, i might point out, you know, if anybody a rstands the reality of job like michael's, i do. think back i can to when i was lobbying chairman well, and i think that the way in which lobbying campaigns tend to work these days is first you set up a scenario of, well, you know, there's too much being done, we're being persecuted, and then you talk ha i call bout imaginary horribles, the awful conceptual things that could happen if they do this or do that. and i look at -- i'm now on the other side, receivering this, and you say ok, wheeler, turnabout's fair play, isn't it? but you also understand what's going on. but there is an important step hat has to follow that, peter. and that is that it's not ough just to stay -- say we're against this, this is awful. it is incumbent on both the to ator and the regulated deal with finding solutions, not just slogans. think, again, from my experience, i could think of one specific incident with michael when he was chairman when i washe -- wished i had been presenting more solutions. and i think the opportunity that exists now is whether you go down the list with set-top boxes or access, special access or any of the other issues of hich there are some tension, we're at a make-or-break point where there's a choice, are you going to say no and do everything possible, or are you going to say how do we make this work for consumers first in a way we can live with? and in the course of a rule-making, that's what rule-makings are designed to elicit. how do you get from the point where we put out an idea, eople react to the idea, neither one of those is going to be the finished product, but there is going to be a finished product. and how do we focus on the real needs, the real challenges and work together to get there for he benefit of consumers? peter: chairman wheeler, one of your mantras is competition, competition, competition. when you look ahead to 2017, to the rest of this year and beyond, how do you view what that competition is going to look like in light of a couple of big mergers that the f.c.c. has approved, etc., and some of the disrupters and some of the new technology that's out there? tom: this is the point about i didn't intx -- intx is a great theme, disruption aa great theme for this particular meeting because there are going new alternatives for consumers and in the, you know, i'm a amateur historian. i love history -- peter: you're the author of a couple books. tom: i've been trying to study recently the history of networks, the evolution of networks over time and i've eached one absolute truth, and that is that those who try stop the change always fail. i don't mean most of the time. i mean always failed. those who said here is a new opportunity, how do i seize it, how i -- do i see things less in terms of protecting myself and more in terms of expanding market, that's what was so exciting about this industry back in the 1970's and 1980's when i are -- had the privilege of being here at ncta, that we were saying here's a new opportunity, how do we change the way consumers get information? and by golly, we sure did. peter: so, given your history here at ncta, the fehse -- f.c.c., the wireless industry, where do you see the future of pay tv going? tom: so i think that there will always be a future for pay tv. i think that it's going to be -- and let me just back up a second, peter -- what i think is irrelevant because i'm just an observer in all of this. but it seems to me as though, as you look at things, you see the evolution of the nature of television, the explosion of video alternatives, you see increased talk about smaller bundles and how that changes the relationship with the consumer, you see alternative thways to the consumer, over n plus one kinds of devices, and that we have the potential to be entering the best era ever for consumers for programmers and for those who deliver. and again in that environment, the regulatory challenge make sure do you that those alternatives come to pass? and, you know, let's leave this industry out of it. you know, the telephone company didn't do a great job of delivering new alternatives until there were competitors to them. and so i think that there will be a, i think the future is exciting, both as a consumer and as a person looking at it from a historical point. peter: conversely, as these video delivery systems mature, do you see that they will fall under f.c.c. regulation and scrutiny? tom: i think that that is very much in the hands of the industry. remember i said that the job of government is to encourage competition because competition is a lot better than regulation, particularly in a fast-movion industry like this. but if you can't have competition, you know, i was really, decided -- excited to see, last year on this stage i talked about the potential for cable operators competing with each other. tom rutledge is now going to be doing some of that. the as a result of directv merger, is going to be doing some significant overbuilding. there is a lot of talk in set-top boxes about how it's not boxes any more, ats apps. totally agree. u combine apps and an open internet, and all of a sudden you don't have to exist just in your franchise area, you rework the contracts with your programmers and you can be delivering that kind of service in new and innovative bundles across the country. competition will create an environment that discourages and makes it unnecessary for government to get involved. but government has a role saying excuse me, first we have to get to competition. so i think the answer to your question is, is that -- are we going to evolve spo a competitive marketplace? and i think our job at the commission is to say how can we help that happen? peter: chairman wheeler, you you have references -- referenced the fact that you've been here the last include of years giving a speech to these folks. did you come here with a specific message you wanted to make sure they heard from you? tom: depoly, peter, i hope you heard it. yes. let me go back to what i said at the outset. you know, pat and i were talking backstage and i was congratulating him for being in the hall of fame, being slectded for the hall of fame. i know it was a privilege when i was inducted into the hall of fame and it was an emotional moment. and pat was talking about how it was an emotional moment for him. because there were so many powerful things that were happening when i was fortunate enough to be at ncta, and again the core of them was, the core of what was happening was how do we bring a competitive service that drives innovation at a time had those who didn't like the idea of competition were doing everything possible to shut it down? and so my only thing is i haven't changed. that i he same belief had when i cast votes at the f.c.c. today. peter: one of the things we talked to your colleagues about yesterday was the way the f.c.c. operates, the fact that all four were sitting up here on this stage -- tom: it was probably a violation of the sunset act! peter: and the fact that they could not do that in washington. should there be a change in that mandate and some of the sunshine laws? tom: interesting, peter, some of my thoughts on that have evolved and i've been -- become a traditionalist. there are a lot of good reasons why the procedures of the commission are as they are and have been this way for decades. and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction ised kind of thing that makes you think, well, wait a minute now, is this really something we ought to be challenging at this point in snime so i think hat it is always worthwhile to explore, to ask the questions, to have the dialogue, to talk among our colleagues on capitol hill who write the rules. the question is, is there a necessity to change that which for the last multiple decades has been operating very successfully? peter: chairman wheeler, how do you get your video? what's your experience at a consumer? tom: i get it every way possible. i get it on multiple devices. i am a happy comcast subscriber in washington, d.c., a happy atlantic brad banned subscriber in oxford, maryland, where we have another house, and i use to broadband and cable deliver the content to me. peter: experience good? satisfied with the service? tom: i said i'm a happy subscriber. ok? peter: one of the complaints that you hear often from people who have cable is the cost of sports. are you a sports fan? is there something you would like to see done with that? tom: am i a sports fan? you know, when i was running ncta i went to a small school in the midwest called the ohio state university and every fall we play a sport there with a funny-shaped ball. d the necessary, -- networks never were delivering the content i wanted to see. so gus hauser and the folks at cube in columbus who were cablecasting ohio state football games every saturday would send me overnight a on otape of the game, and monday i would have a party for all the congressional folks om the ohio delegation saying, and all cared about the ohio state football game -- saying here's the game, let's all watch it. and by the way if we had choices in television rather than just the three networks, you could see a lot more of it. i think we have reached that point. we have seen the plethora of sports that has resulted and i think that's a great thing and i never miss an ohio state game because i'm either in the stands or i'm on cable. peter: final question. is there too much focus on the hairman of the f.c.c.? it's michael powell's f.c.c., tom wheeler's f.c.c.? tom: first be call -- all, this is a collegial body of five votes. it takes three votes to get anything done. and i think that what happens is it becomes easy to, you got to hang a name on it so rather than the 2013 to 20 whatever it is chairman was, they hang a name with it. but the other thing is that it is a strong chairman structure. and so you, it creates an opportunity to put ideas before your colleagues for their reactions but i go back to the fact that you got to get three votes, and that's very much a cooperative protest that happens every single day. peter: ladies and gentlemen, tom wheeler, the chairman of the f.c.c.. tom: thank you, peter. nnouncer: next week the -- communicators talks with the four other members of the f.c.c. if you would like to see more, to c-span.org the >> madame secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the nited states -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corop. 2016] >> judge merrick garland continues to wait for a vote on capitol hill. oregon senator jeff america lir is the latest to sit down with judge garland, who has now met th haffer of those who would be on the committee if he comes up for a volt this is just over an hour. >> before we start, we have quite a few civics teachers in the stands. i was selling -- telling smell -- some of them i'm delighted to see schools teaching civics and history. it's a -- and when you get done , it might be good for you to come and do a little seminar for the senators. [laughter] i'm sorry. that was, is that my out-loud voice? [laughter] you know, this morning, seeing my fellow members here this morning, chairman grassley convened a senate judiciary committee confirmation hearing. of course the hearings i wish would confirm some of the people have -- that have been voted out but the glaring omission was judge merrick garland. it's been more than two months since he was selected to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. the blocking is totally unprecedented. what bothers me is, because he does not have a hearing they're not allowing him to have a hearing, his record is being smeared by outside groups, some of these pac's and others. the senate republicans have denied a distinguished jurist a public hearing and a fair opportunity. i can't convene a confirmation hearing. we're in the minority. but just because republicans refuse to do their job on judge garland's nomination doesn't mean that we democrats should stop doing ours. we take our constitutional duties seriously and if there is any doubt about the need to have a fully functioning supreme court, decisions handed down this week are the latest evidence of the harm stemming from it. the supreme court has repeatedly failed to have a decision. they've let the courts of appeals -- left the courts of appeals below them in limbo because they don't have a full court and can't make a decision. now, i know that the decision not to give him a hearing was done in a closed-door hearing. this is an open one. we have four people here who know him personally. burlington, , from vermont. she's a former prosecutor and worked with merrick garland at the justice department 1993 to 1997. she's part of the team that investigated and prosecuted the oklahoma city bombing, one of the most complex investigations and prosecutions we've had in this country. justin driver, professor driver is a professor of law at the university of chicago. e clerked for the chief judge, rland, before he clerked for justice sandra day o'connor. and the retired justice o'connor said we should be having a full hearing on merrick garland. and secretary rodney slater, former secretary of the department of transportation nder president bill clinton. and judge timothy k. lewis is a former judge on the court of appeals for the third circuit so he knows very well now the circuit courts work. he was appointed by president 82. ge h.w. bush in 19 i had the privilege to confirm him. what i would suggest we do, probably have each of the witnesses say -- we'll put their full statement in the record, but then we could then ask questions of the witnesses not just r -- and because of the vermont connection or the fact that we're both former prosecutors but let me -- >> you could say it's because she's a woman. >> because we also have italian ancestry. so -- >> well, and she's a woman and should go first. [laughter] oh, well. senator leahy: i'd be the last person to argue with senator feinstein, one of the most valuable members of this committee. please go ahead. >> thank you. it's my honor and privilege to be here today to talk to you about someone i know very, very well, who we worked very closely with at the department of justice, judge merrick garland. merrick and i have known one another. we were at the d.o.j. in 1993 to 1997. but i think probably the time we really bonded were the days of the oklahoma city bombing. he and i were out there, we were probably the first people out there br -- from the department of justice, excluding the team from the western district of oklahoma, the oklahoma city prosecutors. i got an opportunity at that time to see merrick firsthand utmost h ut mote -- chaos and tragedy, and the entire time just focusing on what needed

Related Keywords

Burlington , Vermont , United States , Washington , Ohio State University , Ohio , Boston , Massachusetts , Columbus , Oregon , Oklahoma City , Oklahoma , Johns Hopkins University , Maryland , Capitol Hill , Hollywood , California , Italy , Chicago , Illinois , Italian , Timothy K Lewis , Gus Hauser , Tom Rutledge , Rodney Slater , Tom Wheeler , Atlantic Brad , Jeff America , Michael Powell ,