Transcripts For CSPAN Discussion On The Future Of Television

Colleagues here. Thank you for your leadership over many years. And for being a part of this next phase. I see the future of video and Television Broadcasting in particular is remaining bright as long as localism, lives journalism, consumer protections, emergency alerts, as long as those are important parts of Public Policy, i think broadcast television plays the indispensable role. Michael . Michael television will be dramatically different. Its going to be much more multidimensional as a Consumer Experience than it is today. I think consumers are clearly delighting in a range of Consumer Electronics devices that provide screens, that provide televisionlike experiences across a myriad of platforms that never existed before. I think that will continue to proliferate as a legacy of steve jobs begins to continue to create magical devices on which quality video can be distributed. I think the nature of content is going to continue to radically expand. The old adage that life is stranger than fiction is true. A massive amount of consumption will take lays merely in the video documentation of reallife. Many, many consumers are spending a portion of their video consumption day watching each other. For why, i am not sure. But they do. We have to acknowledge that. That creates a kind of Community Intensity and Television Watching that is relatively unique. Less about eyeballs, more about commonly shared passions around a piece of content. I think we will see that. I think we will see other expansions in form, longer form, bench watching, shorter form clips, and each of those will be optimized on different platform and devices. I think we will have a monetization model the will have to transform. Advertising will demand the kind of metadata specifics that internet functionality plays. The cable industry being the leading provider of highspeed internet in the country is going to play a Critical Role in the way the internet evolved, and as it serves as a platform for a lot of that expansion to take place, not to mention it will continue to be a home for content that is most highly optimized on that kind of proprietary platform, either because of its expense in being produced, because of its critical need for proprietary heavily quality managed experiences that the internet sometimes has trouble delivering. How about you, jerry . Jerry i should have negotiated that i do not follow michael powell. [laughter] what you have done for hdtv, an extreme example of leadership that is made a difference for our country and the world. Most americans, 85 of americans have an hdtv set and they like them. Im very proud of that segment in my life. My tombstone will be 16 by nine aspect ratio. [laughter] it has been terrific. I am shocked that i was invited back. I spoke here several years ago. I am not mitt romney. Im willing to apologize when i was wrong. I am wrong. [laughter] in terms of where we going, we are going, over the top is coming really fast and it is hitting. We are going to i. T. Video very quickly and different forms. We have the prior people, your predecessors 11 years ago. I went back and looked at what we said. The whole thing was a focus about how we get to the hdtv transition. You are getting an award and use its some really prissy and things as well. I listen to what you say prescient and things as well. I listen to what you say. What chairman powell spoke about, its not justly just about the tablets. The things you put in your wrist. Theres virtualreality coming. We are starting to feel the beginning of a lot of these transitions. There are new technologies in the video. Some of which you are aware, lcd and things like that. Other things have either not been invented or they are in research labs. Its not just about apple. There are a lot of great companies, like samsung and lg and panasonic, that are doing great things. Theres a lot of expansion in the video space and reason for growth. The next several years it is all about ultra hd 4k, which is had a phenomenally successful run. I hear about the sets going off the shelves. The numbers are truly astounding. I am happy to talk more about it. Because we are working in washington, d. C. I suppose the obligatory question will have to be, what can the government do to help or hinder your industry . Feel free if you want to lay out any concerns you have about the government regulatory issues in that regard. When you are in a period that is marked by explosive innovation, that period also involves explosive experimentation. Regulation is at its best when markets are mature and well understood. They are at their worst when there is a fomenting fire of change and experimenting. I would look for a category of having the commission be committed to incentives that align with that experimentation paradigm and the importance of not letting there be arbitrary or premature reflexive reactions to experimentation in flexibility of packaging, new business models, new rules for interactive or consumers, the rule data will play, because all of those things will always have an element of something you might be a little worried about. But if you act on it prematurely, you will distract the market by the consumer. The disincentives you mentioned are just the opposite. Doing things you hope they dont do. I hope at some point the combination of the fcc and Congress Just has to confront the reality they have a myriad of laws based on market and technological predicates that are utterly and completely false. Not even kind of false, but clearly demonstratively false. Richard such as . Michael Program Access is premised on the cable industry is the only source of distribution of video content and the idea that Cable Companies vertically own most programming that consumers watch. The reality is, when that law was passed, Cable Companies owned about 54 of the content carried out on the system. Today, that is down to 11 and if you took out comcast, it would collapse almost entirely. Yet the rules still exists. Yet there is directv and dish which are larger Distribution Companies and cable yet they are not subject to the same set of rules. Theres a lot of inequity in the Regulatory Environment because the market grew up on the rules and nobody has tried to go back and address the efficacy of the rules. Its not about whether you win or lose. The government owes you accuracy and a Regulatory Regime that is honestly reflective of the actuality of the market and not the way it was 20 plus years ago. Richard gordon, speaking for the industry with the heaviest Regulatory Burden, how do you see this question . Gary i was going to suggest to michael that i have some i would like to give him if he would like. Michael youve been trying. [laughter] gordon obviously the elephant in our room is our havey Regulatory Burden and the upcoming auction. Our hope that the fcc will have a successful forward and reverse auction that protects our contours and is mindful of interference. I think there are just so many things that could go wrong with the option with the auction unrelated to the lawsuit we currently have which we try to expedite because we like the function in the rearview mirror. I was on the Commerce Committee when we went from analog to digital and i remember how difficult that was and how by comparison, that transition was like kindergarten recess compared to the complexity of the upcoming auction and potential for disruption that poses. But i can name ownership rules and regulation and i could go down a long list. The fcc has not cap pace with the requirement to look at across ownership issues. We are capped as no one else small and that presents its own sets of challenges. I would hope the fcc would see the enduring value of localism and that it is a video future for all the American People and not just those who can afford pay video. The world we grew up in and the world we should bequeath to our children is one which irrespective of your income, you should be able to have local news, weather, sports, emergency alerts, which so often are the lifeline to rescue. Those but to always be kept in the forefront of the fcc keeping a dedicated band for broadcasting. Between the analog transition to looking forward to the auction coming up in 2016, broadcasting will have relinquished two thirds of its spectrum and there is just simply a limit. If we are going to keep broadcasting in the important place it occupies in telecommunication. Richard we are going to follow through on some of those issues a little later. Gary, how about you . Gary i will sit back and say the competitive strength of our nations innovation and innovation is what we are great at. You have to go to the government and ask permission before you do Something Different and thats slowing you down. Government plays a valuable role and the transmission system. That was the primary role and we agree that we would recommend something at the ftc and that worked out great. But there is a limited amount of space. So much of what we do is based there. Theres a debate about rich versus poor and some of it is the resentment that somehow people get government monopolies and special treatment and make a ton of money and we have a lot of these regulatory things were created so long ago. The way we view it is we want to see a healthy broadcast and healthy cable. We want competition with every type of broadband provider. If there is competition, a lot of the knees go away and eventually our policymakers will get this. What can we do to foster this tremendous competition and broadband . One thing the fcc has not done right in my view is that have they have claimed authority over you just swap of the internet in a way nobody ever anticipated in the 96 act this is your authority, we want open internet, and this is a good thing. Rather than the fcc saying we can do anything we want and could be requiring weight you come to us which is not a healthy thing for our country. Richard we are here at atsc and i think we should talk about what hopes and concerns you have for a possible new standard. Either way, congratulations on the private sector role you played on atf see atfc. Gary this is an elegant standard that does a lot of great things. They are willing to introduce and try things and if there is not support in the market lays, you will see that dry up. If the broadcast industry gets behind it, it will succeed and it can be the last opportunity to expand market share. Going back 11 years and reading about your predecessor, talking about how hdtv is the last chance for broadcasters to step up. We worked so hard on it and it we thought the broadcast entered was the endall, beall when we started the process most of the country relied on over the air antenna. Most of the country does not rely on over the air and on casters darted out fast but got slow compared to satellite fiber and others. It can come back with atsc 3. 0. They have created a standard for this. Netflix is already streaming but the trendline is there. Americans want goodlooking pictures. The number of americans with sets over 40 inches is really high. That was not true when we were doing the transition. The Research Also shows the content is very important. Even without content, its an experience of people buying it anyhow. Richard after two decades of development, we went through a transition just six years ago, a nationwide transition to digital television. Do you foresee this time around that theyre going to have another nationwide transition . Perhaps market i market and if so, how will that work out . Gordon let me surprise you and say i agree with what gary just that and probably to the image probably to the irritation of my members. I believe 3. 0 is necessary to have the flexibility and incentive to do new things with less spectrum. I believe it is actually critical, even if you are a broadband provider like michael or the telephone company. I dont think there is an of spectrum to do all video, why broadband . It will always be an expensive experience and i believe it is important for more than just a great new picture. It is important for mobility and that becomes critical. If you have a mobile device, you can actually get a broadcast signal. I think broadcasters need to be interoperable. It opens up the world of the future so broadcasters can continue to play its vital role, whether you get it through subscription tv or over the air. It is probably 60 million americans exclusively over the air. When you add up second or third tvs, its probably a lot more than that. Broadcasting is as a matter of Public Policy needs to be there. Richard we just paid all of that money for the big screen that now we have to go through it all again. Gordon it could be rolled out in stages, but a National Deadline worked well and will probably require that again. Thats not an easy opposition. I was part of the last transition and i know what it took. This will be just as big and just as important, but i hear chairman wheeler talk a lot about channel sharing. That becomes possible with 3. 0 in a way that it is not possible with 1. 0. I hope you all will finish this job. Its good for broadcasting, its good for telecommunication. It means more than just a pretty picture. It means all kinds of development leap of faith such as they made going to hd, but that needs to be done again. Richard what about cable this time around . And you personally played. How do you see it rolling out this time . Michael we are a proud partner and supporter of everyone in this room. People are to be commended but i do think there are circumstances that are meaningfully different and probably more challenging in terms of a rollout. Theres not a Second Channel to jump to which makes me believe that suggests market by market more clearly than it does nationwide. The government currently has a fascination with internet overthetop video and i dont know if it will be as easy to galvanize around an incremental change in the Traditional Television experience in the way that it was and we should remember it took a really long time. They political dynamics are even a little more challenging today. Last time one of the most virtuous assistance in the transition is we had a revolutionary transformation into what a television was. Many people need to buy at because of the thinner, lighter it became furniture and not so heavy and impressive. It always gets more difficult within a certain band of relativity. Its a little more challenging. Not that it isnt worth the, not that it is important, not that there are not consumer benefits, but i see it is likely more challenging than even the hdtv transition would have been. Richard as i recall, when we did the standard the last time we had to get government approval and that took quite a long time even after the Advisory Committee turned its recommendation after a year. The four c 3. 0 is going to require government approval in the whole or in part . Gordon theres a debate about that, but i would hope for their approval. I think it is in the interest of the fcc to be a part of this and help facilitate it. If we say competition, competition, competition, then broadcast needs to be a part of that and 3. 0 helps facilitate some of their goal to get gary moore spectrum in the phone companies more spectrum. My answer is yes. It requires the fcc to be a full partner in this and i think theres a Public Policy Reason Congress would agree with that says they should be our partner in approving it. Gary dont mistake my intense concentration look for a frown. It is something Plastic Surgery can fix. I was thinking about chairman powells comments of how this is different. Id think its a different transition in the sense that we have a totally different environment in so many ways. I think we should take the best lessons and there are very painful years you were the guy running it, you were the chairman of the fcc and you were a senator. The fear mongering and all of these things that happened, vote members of congress out of office because they did not have their tv signal. President obama, his first decision as president elect was to delay the transition. We probably did not have to delay the transition because of fears. When it came time to make the transition, i never even heard a complaint. We did not take a position we did not support or oppose the fact we had a coupon programs of people could buy these types of taxes. We dont ask the government for this type of money and hopefully we wont in the future. It does involve the transmission standard and involves spectrum. Our goal in the short term is to make sure we go for it in a way that makes sense and we can do things simultaneously. I think we should take the approach that it is a lot that are if it is an industryled transition rather than a government one, which is what we had last time. Everyone is talking about this fcc, but this will not the the fcc in a year and a half. The odds are overwhelming there will be a new chairman. But we are focused on getting the spectrum lunch down. May i ask one of the panelists a question . Richard no. [laughter] you are going to get one back. Gordon gary chairman wheeler said do any of you have any plans to recommend any further delays for modifications . Gordon what we have done because we so object to the modeling they have for the repack is clarification so we preserve our contours and serve the customers we currently have. We thought an expedited proceeding. Gary so no new studies will be done, no new arguments will be thrown in . No new delays will be sought . Gordon that depends on how this goes. The truth of the matter is its so much larger than the last transition at the repack will adjust hundreds of thousands of tv stations whether they participate in the auction or not. Whether they come forward with roles that will allow them to go as quickly as possible, we dont want to drag this thing out. We want to know what our spaces and with 3. 0, we hope to do everything we do now and more. Gary sitting outside eating lunch, i sat across from a low power guy in he said he would do Everything Possible to delay this until he gets some of congressspec