In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Host it is november 4, 2013. Tom wheeler [captions copy right National Cable satellite corp. 2017] the term comes to an end on january 20. Wheeler, during your tenure what did you get right . I hope that what we did was, we said that our job is to be the publics representative. In a rapidly changing technological environment, which is affecting the way in which everybody deals with the networks that connect us. And at the heart of that was consumers and competition should come first. How did that manifest . You can look at a list of things you know, we can of course had the open internet order. Which says that the internet should be fast fair and open for everyone. We established privacy rules for networks, for consumers in so far as their relationship with the networks. That says its the consumers information. Its not the networks information, the consumer ought to be in control. We establish cybersecurity as an important component because of the work of the agencies because were the Agency Responsible for networks. And its the networks that are the attack vectors. In cyberattacks. So what are you doing to make sure that those networks are secure. At the same point in time, we increase coverage for students in schools. Heres a statistic. Three years ago, when i came in 2 3s of the k through 12 schools in the United States did not have high Speed Internet connection. And of the third that did half of them did not have wifi connections to the students desks. Today, almost 90 of schools have that kind of high speed connection to every student because of how we overhauled and expanded the program that helps schools provide for that kind of cable, so students can get a 21st century education. We also did some significant things that im very proud of, for how you apply technology to the challenges of individuals with disabilities. Were sitting at a rare point in history where there is there are Technological Solutions that can be applied to challenges that have existed since the beginning of time for individuals with disabilities. And we did a lot of those. Chairman wheeler, what convinced you too that title 2 was the right Regulatory Framework for the internet . As you know, kind of had i had a very public damascus road kind of experience dealing with how do you get to a solution on the open internet. My moment came late in the summer, when i woke up to the fact that the legislation that i had championed as the head of the Wireless Association that made wireless carriers a common carrier but then said lets take away some of the burdensome monopolybased regulations that have developed over time. That kind of model which the industry sought, which congress and the fcc enacted and which produced this incredible Success Story in american wireless, that we could take and apply the same model to the internet, and say, how do you say that youre a common carrier with common carrier responsibilities, at the same time, take away some of the most onerous and old and not needed aspects of common carrier. There is a good chance that could be going away with the new administration and new congress . I hope not. I understand, you know, half a Dozen Companies would like to see it go away, but there are tens of thousands of other companies that rely on it. There are millions of consumers that rely on it, so i hope that the congress, f. C. C. , whoever wants to revisit this decision will weigh that in the balance and say, you know, open networks are as american as apple pie. Weve had open networks in our country since back to the railroad. The telegraph, the telephone. You know, peter, we wouldnt have the internet today if the Telephone Network hadnt been opened, so that the early efforts to get online didnt have to go through any gate keeper. You just got on. And you tried things, and thats how we game leaders in the internet. And we dont want to go backwards to a point where there are gatekeepers deciding what will happen. Peter joining our conversation today is Margaret Harding miguel of politico. She covers technology. Thank you. Following up on that you warned about empty promises or false labeling it comes to Net Neutrality legislation. What are some concerns you have about a law that would only enshrine those three bright line rules . So what the industry has been saying is that, look, just no blocking no throttling, no privatization, and thats enough. But thats not the scope and scale that you need to be sensitive to and aware of to have open network. And if we define Net Neutrality or open internet by only those three tests were ignoring Everything Else and were also ignoring what we know for certain is the absolute certainty thats happening which is Technology Keeps evolving and how people use Technology Keeps evolving and there needs to be a referee on the field, to throw the flag and say, no, not that. Zero rating is a highprofile issue in the Net Neutrality debate. Companies say, its free data, this is helping consumers. What are your concerns about those programs . You know, margaret weve had an ongoing inquiry into zero rating for any months now. There are many aspects of zero rating that make a lot of sense. There is nothing wrong with free. But the issue is, what happens when someone who controls a network and also controls a Competitive Service on that network, uses that network to shut down the competition for their other service and thats what was going on. For instance at t is saying well deliver directv which they own for free for you. But if you want to buy directvs competitor, dish or somebody else youll have to pay the data rates associated with that and those data rates will drive the price up almost double. They are providing themselves a competitive advantage to thwart competition, and as i said at the outset to peter, goal weve had throughout the last three years is how do you promote competition. Dont they own that product on the zero rating issue . Which product . The content they own the distribution. They can give it to us free if they want, cant they . The issue is by the way if you then subscribe to one of our competitors well make you pay us so they will have to be extra. One of the things fascinating to me about the open internet is that the companies that are most opposed to the internet such as at t, are at the same point in time using it to get on comcast, to get on charter, to say, the law says that i have to have a competitive product that i can put on your cable system. And yet turning around and saying we cant have that kind of open access over on ours. We cant have that kind of fairbairnfair fairness in our network. The simple question. The internet is the most important asset of the 21st, century. Everything we do all of our future, is tied up in machines talking to machines people talking to people. The Digital Future requires that the pathways that carry that Digital Traffic is fair fast, and open. Speaking to convergence, and william the former chair of the fcc this is a quote from him is regulated one way cable a second, terrestrial broadcast the third. Market boundaries distinguishing these industries blur, the statutory differences make less and less sense. Do you agree with that . Its hard for me to disagree with bill who was a great sec chairman and a good friend. The key point in that statement was in the last line where its the statutory regimen, lets say everything is different. One of the realities that we have to live with at the fcc is that the statutes were designed in a different era. Interestingly enough, they were designed with flexibility in them. But they never really envisioned some of the convergence thats happened. So thats an issue that congress has to deal with. Not necessarily one that we can deal with. Following up on that, i know you met with members of president elect trumps Transition Team and some of them have advocated scaling back the functions of the fcc. During those meetings, do you defend the fcc or what you think they should be doing . Margaret idea that you should scale back the fcc and give a lot of its responsibilities to the ftc is something that the networks have been pushing for years. Before i took this job, there was a headline and an article in the Washington Post that said, in essence heres how the networks intend to gut the fcc. And it would be tragic if that happened. For a whole bunch of reasons. One is that a recent Court Decision in a case brought by at t at t argued that the ftc did not have jurisdiction over common carriers and the court, the ninth circuit went even further and said, not having jurisdiction over common carriers, which is what the statute says but also it doesnt have any jurisdiction over common carriers, noncommon carrier activity. Now were getting down into some wonkey territory but what that means, there is a serious question as to what is the scope of the federal trade Commission Based on the decisions made by the federal court on arguments first presented by those who want to get the fcc to throw it to the ftc. But the heart of it is, the ftc, good people, but at the heart they are enforcers. They dont have whats called rule making authority. They cant go out and say, here is a behavior that you should follow by rule. They say, here is something that well punish you because we determined it is unfair or deceptive. And so it is a much more different approach than we take and were an agency. They have to deal with everything from computer chips to bleach, you know, and now were going to add telecom into that. I think since 19 many341934, there has been an Expert Agency in telecommunications that makes it important to stay that way. Given that stepping down would set up an immediate republican majority, and they talked about rolling back some of your accomplishments so i have to wonder, why not bump tradition and stay on . This was clear. They asked me, they, the congress, the senate in particular asked me during various hearings what i would do. And i told them that i would hear the adhere to tradition, which has always been, if the white house in control changes chairman resigns. If the party doesnt change, then chairman typically stays on and works with the Transition Team until the new president gets his or her chairman through the congress. I made a commitment that i would do that. There is also a practical effect to the whole thing. And that is a lot of times during my tenure, i was criticized by members of congress because i was advocating a position and they said youre not allowed to lobby. You cant tell us and i would just assume not be silent. How would you describe your relationship to congress over the last three and a half years . I think that its been a healthy relationship. I think, you know ive had 21 hearings where congress has had me up before them to discuss policy issues. We spend a lot of time, you know, not in hearings, having discussion. There are clearly some differences between the republicans in congress and what we have been doing. But, you know, i have respected my relationship with members of the house and senate on both sides of the aisle. Do they get the issues that youre talking about and that youre dealing with . I think they are incredibly inquisitive in trying to be performed. Criticism from lawmakers has been the number of 32 party line votes by the commission. What has caused telecom issues to become increasingly politicized . I wish i had the answer to that. The first issue is that, 85 to 90 of our decisions are unanimous. But those dont get the headlines. Even when we have a 32 decision, you know there is actually a 32 decision where im voting with the republicans against my fellow democrats. Effective competition . Effective competition. But, you know, this is the way. I think this is the way that democracy works. That you decide by a majority, and weve had many successful efforts. Commissioner oreilly and i were quite successful in working together on how do we change. He led, how do we change the rules for supporting greater return carriers in rural areas where its expensive to provide Broadband Service . I think there are areas we can all work together. But at some point in time, youve got to pull up and choose. Do you think this leads to a back and forth pingpong, rules between the administrations especially rolling back on your personal policy items . Margaret, the convey it works is based on a statute called the administrative procedure act. The administrative procedure act provides that after a notice to the public and an ability for the public to comment and then reply in comments, the commission has to make a decision based on the record. And so im comfortable with the record that we established, that was taken to court, and the court affirmed and im comfortable that the requirement that you have to have a record because remember, on the open internet, for instance twice the court said no, you dont have the record. Im comfortable that there is a record there that will stand. Could you advocate for any restructuring restructuring for fcc and its internal organization . The challenge that you have in this job is how do you make sure that youre being responsive to changes in technology and changes in the marketplace . Duke that berestrickchuring or you can do that by saying there are basic principles that govern the relationship between those who build and operate networks and those who use networks. And then collectively manage those principles. I chose the later. Let me give you an example. Youre looking quizzical. Ill give you an example. I said what i called the network compact. Access interconnection. Public safety, Consumer Protection and national security. The five key touchstones of a relationship between those who use networks and dont. Now, you can sit down and say, okay, im going to organize the fcc that way, or you can say, im going to make sure that i can pull expertise from this bureau and expertise from this bureau so we can put together a program that addresses these collectively and gets as much expertise as possible. I chose that route. Others may choose others. But i chose that i could pull and choose the right kind of expertise. Does there still need to be, for example, a separate Wireless Bureau and a wire line bureau and only two commissioners can meet at a time without having an open meeting et cetera, et cetera . Is that frustrating . So again, the structural issue is one that is solvable by the chairman simply by saying, okay im putting this task force together and thats where were going to work this out. The thing thats forgotten a lot is that, you know, the Wireless Bureau, for instance the Wireless Bureau handles 35,000 wireless licensed transfers a month. Now, thats something you just cant throw over into another bureau. There are specific issues that have to be dealt with there. So there are multiple ways of skinning the rabbit. I chose one way, which is how do you bring everybody together in specialized groups focused on a specific thing. And i think thats the way to do it, but, you know, others may have other ideas. Speaking of the Wireless Bureau, the incentive option looks like it could be possibly close to wrapping up. And ive noticed that the fcc has had to reduce the amount of spectrum its trying to buy back from tv station as few times and broadcasters have questioned, is there really this demand for beachfront spectrum. How do you square the call for more spectrum from Wireless Companies with the demand that weve seen in the auction . So, you know, margaret, Congress Told us to create an auction that gave the opportunity for broadcasters to sell their spectrum to us and us to reband it and to turn around and sell to it wireless carriers. Our job was to create that marketplace. Our job was not to say, this is how much spectrum has to clear. This is how much it has to generate. This is all about creating a marketplace and marketplaces are frequently unpredictable. And but i think what were seeing right now is that weve been having success. If the auction closes where it currently is it will be the second largest amount of spectrum thats ever been made available in the history of this agency. So i guess that, i guess i wonder what factors you think have affected the appetite for that spectrum, if any, or do you think the demand is there as its been expressed by Wireless Companies . So, you know, again, my job is not to forecast markets. My job is to create the market and thats what we did. You know, why some carriers bid and maybe some didnt why they went for this market and not that market, those are decisions that they make that our regulators shouldnt be making. Tom wheeler is the former chief lobbyist for the cable industry a member of the cable hall of fame and the wireless industry. Whats your reaction to some of the early commentary, when you came onboard that you would work to support the industries that youve already been in . Its interesting, peter. When i was the chief lobbyist for the cable industry, the cable industry was, the insurgents trying to take on the broadcasters. When as i chief lobbyist for the wireless industry, they were the insurgents trying to take on the established wire line telephone company. My heart has always been with the insurgence. Between those two gigs i went out and started companies that were new technologies trying to be insurgents. So you know, i think people just really didnt understand what my history really was. Who are the unseconddegreeents today . Those who are saying ive got new technologies. New approaches. And i need open networks to be able to deliver them. What did you learn about the fcc that you didnt know given all of your experience