Probably muchs better than i am at getting everyones attention so we can do that again if need be. Thank all of you again for coming. It is a terrific turnout. You know, earlier i welcomed our cspan audience. I want to welcome them again. We are grateful cspan is here. Aim sure it has quite a bit to do with our next guest here. We are glad all of you are here. The chairman knows i do this because he has been here before. Illustriousn photography i could go on and on and on about it. We have it in the brochure. For those of you that are in the cspan audience, our brochure is on the website. Fcc chairmans bio in it. Just stayed what chairmanhere knows, pie served as a commissioner. How soon after the inauguration, was that two days later . A monday, january 23. Three days after. He was appointed by President Trump to be chair of the fcc. This, withouty is going to the offices you can read about. I think it is important. He has served in all three branches of government, spent a lot of time in senior positions on the hill. I think all of those experiences are, of course, expert important and provide insights that are useful. Keep failing at every god every job and keep getting promoted. The corneri get office. I think my explanation was the correct one. I appreciate that. As i said, we have done this before. Really, the only difference today is i have a bigger chair for you. Way, i was looking at its earlier, and you bring your weed whacker . It would not travel well so i left it at home. Because it wasat at the 10th Anniversary Gala in commissioner the offered the famous allusion to the weed wacker in his front yard, the regulatory underbrush at the fcc. I noticed just last week i think, john edgerton, the reporter at the broadcasting and cable. He said in reference to your that thatr, he said term has gained cultural currency within and beyond to medication circles. That is quite a bit. Do you have anything else about the weed wacker . I think it is best that we move on at this point. [laughter] we do like to create cultural currency. Thank you for that. I have had, as you know, a House Majority whip. We have had several commissioners, other notables do this conversation, but never the chairman of the sec. Im really honored to have you here. Record,t to say for the was year that tom weir chair of the commission, i did invite him to, and do the same thing, really do whatever he wanted to do. He always declined. I made a point of letting them know he would be welcome. Usuald, of course, be my polite self but it did not come. You are not making any promises about the next time. Know, you might get demoted to cspan eight. The ocho right now we are in cspan2. The dos for those of you who want to watch the reruns. Im just going to ask for questions. We are going to do a lightning round up front as opposed to the ends. These are pretty straightforward questions. Did you always know when you growing up that you wanted to be chairman of the fcc . [laughter] absolutely, without question. What american in the late 70s course,t have set of of the head of the fcc. Out of law school i did not knew not know what i was going to do. A testament not to my own expertiseof skill and but the power and dream that someone like me or any of us is can aspire to such heights. You mentioned the 1970s and i do think we have with us a the 70s. Rom im always pleased when he joins us. Im sure there are youngsters watching cspan right now who are thinking i want to be like the quietly. Dick wiley. Which one ofusly, your previous positions do you think best prepare you for the job of the chairman other than serving as commissioner . Jobs,ave had a number of preparing the on the hill, preparing the political calculus to help me understand capital courts, statutes, and apply them. The job the prepared me the most was being to the General Council in charge of the ministry of law position. The reason i say that is two fold. They give me a birds eye view on everything the agency was doing. It helped me understand the nuts and bolts of the commission from entering section 332 of the medications act to understanding how in our physical law apply to the agency. Perspectiveerial that was the first time i had to manage a lots of people and it gave me an experience i think was very helpful to me when you are the executive officer of the entire agency. I feel blessed to work with my coworkers at the time and little did i know the experience i would be getting would be extremely important. Which one person has been most influential in shaping your thinking regarding the way you approach your job . Besides you . You can include me. [laughter] protest for the people complement the host is move. Wise move area you get to establish connections with the people who came before you. Fcc chairclintons from 2000 and 1 until 2000 and one was wondering for a change. The Telecommunications Act was barely on the page when he ascended to the chairmanship. I really admired at the time and have come to appreciate more, the way he led the agency. He and others like him serve as model leadership leadership and only very fortunate after my time is done that i would be mentioned in the same breath as bill. Greatgree, i have fondness for bill and the job he did. The last in this series of one questions is what one personality trait of yours will be most important to seceding succeeding as chairman . Personality trait. What if i could divided between external and internal . External, what it like to bring to the job is what is called the sense of energy in the executive. The Founding Fathers called it when the key ingredients to good government. Sometimes i think the benefit they benefit from, having a chairman and commissioners who embrace the task with vigor. They move quickly and try to create a sense of transparency. That is something i really enjoyed. World,ing to the outside i think the world is not standing still and are rules cannot stand still. One of the traits i think i bring is my genuine love for the agency. I love my coworkers and it has been such a privilege to work with them and know them, even unsolicited will send me inhouse. I got an unsolicited email from a woman who said i do not want to expect thank you for bringing hope into the agency and taking on the tough challenges you are taking. I am glad to be working for you as the head of our agency. Know iy spirits to dont want to be a ceo that about whatw or care the talented members of the fcc do. I want them to enjoy what they do. I have been able to meet with him. I want you to have the same sense of enthusiasm when you get up in the morning, that you are laboring on behalf of the american people. Regardless of if people agree or disagree with a policy position, we are striving for the Public Interest. If i could just recognize anyone in the audience who has ever been a member of the fcc, can you raise your hands so i can salute you . I appreciate that sentiment. I serve the agency for three years myself a long time ago. To chairman in time wiley. I often tell people even my wife sometimes that those years were some of the best professional years of my life. Appreciates the way you express that sentiment. Fccs talk about making the great again. Thats a joke. Start in this place. There has been a lot of discussion including quite a bit about thewell supposedly also collegiality at the commission during tom wheelers years. If you believe there was such a collegiality, how did it manifest itself in what you think the causes were . I assume there were a lot of split votes. I get that. Im sure the fact that there were split votes in your mind in and of itself are not evidence of any lack of good faith by your fellow commissioners. Perceived what you the problems if there were any andollegiality back then what you would like to do to restore a greater sense of collegiality during your administration. Ajit pai i appreciate the question. A lot has been written about this. A lot has been said about this. I have a great deal of respect for my predecessor. Thats the nature of the process. Going forward, i want to create environment in which evony every stakeholder feels he can have a fair hearing and we can exchange views in a collegial manner. An engaging person. Even if my fellow commissioners issue, at least he heard a sound and explained why he was taking a different route. Thats the goal of got going forward. No matter what the political differences might week, we have an environment that is conducive to consensus. I have asked this question of every commissioner that has been in this chair. Its relevant to the collegiality issue. I have been involved in efforts to change the sunshine act in some way to even aside from appealing it, there might be moreto be conducive to collaboration. Youve been on the commission now for a long of time that you would have an opinion about that. Ajit pai i do think that some of the revisions youve talked about would be well considered. I think often the purpose of the sunshine act has actually worked to impede collaboration in a way that would in a fit the american people. I remember these telephone calls we would have. , no more thane two of us could be a mccall together. Two of us would be a mccall and a staffer would say its been 15 minutes, youve got to jump off so the other can jump on. I would have to get briefed on what happened during the call. Its this random game of telephone that happens. The more intense issues on a monthly basis are the agenda items. They would have to report back to us. Its a very inefficient assess. Especially in the digital age and some of the items getting published three weeks in advanced, some of the concerns of been mitigated. I Hope Congress would take a more modern view if they review the sunshine act or in it sounds like it runs up the telephone bill there over at the fcc. Sticking with process a bit i do want to say this. For a longnvolved time. Reform andprocess altering some process reforms in that in, i have to say my book you are to be commended for the way you have tackled some of this right from the getgo. Anothere common to have committee at the commission or somebody. At least for my part, i appreciate the way you gotten off to a good start on process reform. I guess the biggest, or haps the one that is most important or most noted so far is the change in the way draft items are handled in terms of releasing them to the public. They are now released when items are circled. The last week before the Commission Votes and thats what its called the sunshine. If there are no context during that time. The public has a draft. This, maybed about its part of being an old timer, i always had some concerns about how it would affect the commissions work. You did in a relatively short experiment. Effect, it has been in this was a radical reform. It was considered pretty radical before it was done. Specifically, when you are asking the question, talk about if its putting an additional burden on the Communications Staff for the commissioners themselves. In conjunction with that, has this changed the nature or the quality of the presentations to the commission or decisionmaking process as youve observed so far . Never understood why the agency would only let the public see what it was doing after it had actually done it. To me it was a simple analogy ,hen legislation is introduced it was voted on before was referred it to committee. You get to see it on the internet and everybody can understand what it is. The fcc should take the same step. For years, i talked about it. I was given reasons why it couldnt be done. In the second week, we did it. Things have worked out just fine. Heartening emails i get are from people who did not follow proceedings or dont work in this field. Thanks for publishing it. See what you were actually doing. The openness and transparency has been significant. For us think its much to let the public know in advance. Adont think its been burden. Instead of this hushed , this might the in a paragraph. Describe nonpublic information. I cant confirm or deny it. This is a really strange game. There is no innuendo, there is no spinning from the chairman. The burden has changed for the staff. Workously, the staff would really hard to get an item together. It would be circulated by the chairman three weeks in advance. Then the staff would wait for a week, two weeks, sometimes almost three weeks to get direction on how it was going to change. Sometimes it would change significantly. I was a staffer myself. , theyght before a meeting would decide to go in the opposite direction and youve got to rewrite it. Its a significant burden. That is when the decisionmaking can run into trouble. There can be some problematic issues pop up. From a policy perspective, it is hard on the staff to think through what it means for future issues. Stepsd think that these work is frontloaded. They work exceptionally hard. They get the item in shape. My philosophy is a fine working for my commissioners to vote on something in may or june or whatever, the item we post in advance of the meeting date ready for prime time, so to speak. They do a terrific job of doing it. They dont have these latenight marathons where they are not sure with the direction is going to be or how late they are going to stay. I think the end result is good for everybody. There is no more guesswork. You can agree or disagree, but you know what is in paragraph 78 or whatever. Youve got to write orders that dont get up to footnote 332. Say, i know commissioner oreilly has championed that change were just talking about of the process. I want to give a shout out to him. I know you share that sentiment. Lets shift from these process matters to substantive matters. As im doing that, i want to call your attention, weve got a few copies left in our inventory that are out at the desk. You may have heard me say that before. Copies, twofew books. In is new directions communication policy. Communications law and policy in the digital age, this is five years old now. They are on sale for 10. Thats not the reason i bring them up. You may want to grab a copy. A lot of the ideas that are in concern matters we are going to be talking about like Net Neutrality and broadband deployment and the substantive issues. They are discussed by the Free State Foundation scholars. Because of the administration that has been in place after these books were published. They are still timely. Not a lot of the things we recommended have been adopted. Im hopeful you can help make these books less timely. About some sums of substantive matters. Have you talk about your regulatory philosophy as a backdrop to that. Remarks at the mobile world conference in february for worthwhile reading for anyone that wants to understand how you think about regulatory policy. Then the United States is in the process of returning to the light touch approach to regulations that produce investment and innovation throughout our entire internet at system, from the core of our networks to the edge. Less regulation, more investment, more innovation. Explainou to just why in your view its almost always the case that light touch regulation rather than have the regulation leads to more investment and more innovation as a general proposition. Ajit pai the past is often prologue. I think back to chairman kennard. Ammunications policy was at crossroads. There was a debate over how these networks should be regulated. Theld we import some of heavyhanded economic regulations that were inspired in decades pass or should we take a more market waste approach. His philosophy which i share was the right one, to make sure that we have these networks across the country, to have Infrastructure Investment that wars into every corner of the country. We need to make sure that companies have the incentive and the ability to invest. They need regulatory certainty. They need to know the rules are not going to shift depending on the year. They need to have those regulations market taste so that prescriptive,ng its more light touch. Let the market developed organically. Targeted action against a company or bad actor. I think that is the philosophy i embrace. We sell 1. 5 trillion in technology investment. Started by just a few people with nothing but an idea. Thats an incredible amount of innovation in a short amount of time. Think the free market approach he embraced as one that would serve us well in the future as we embark on 5g networks and satellites and wireless. They are doing more and Better Things with networks. Speech in same february at the mobile world conference, you said this. This is like meet the press with tim russert. You said this. I read your speeches. In return for that, i asked that you read what i write. This was interesting to me. Rules designedx to regulate a monopoly will inevitably push the market toward being a monopoly. I think i understand what you meant i that. Some that may seem like a puzzling conundrum. What did you mean by that . Ajit pai for more detail, you can go to the kingsbury commitment. For those of you looking for evening reading to put you to this is something i think is lost on many people because they think the heavier the regulation, the better it is for the competitors. Heavyhanded regulation serves to benefit the Larger Companies at work in that space. Smaller companies dont have the Compliance Resources to fill out the paperwork or the capital to further build up their networks. Its more of a burden on them. Over time, they get squeezed out of the marketplace. Every single space you can think of. Its important to have light touch marketbased regulation as opposed to the review of conduct to ensure that the smaller companies, we want them to have competitive entry and get approval in the marketplace. If there is bad action, we want to take targeted enforcements against those happenings. You regulate everything with a sledgehammer, its not going to benefit consumers. You were going to get what you got in the 1930s, which was a regulated monopoly. Thats not something that serves consumers. My colleague seth cooper who is sitting right here in the audience, he and i suggested the commission allow a rebuttable presumption when the agency is considering forbearance petitions for the section 11 periodic review. Essentially, these would be rebuttable presumptions so they are not outcome dependent. You would still have the same statutory criteria in place protecting consumers. Behind that idea is the marketplace has changed so much generally. The marketplace has changed so much in the direction of competition that it would be useful for the commission to at least in those contexts in case your weed wacker is not otherwise working at that time, to have in place these deregulatory presumptions. I really have one question about that. Thats a really brilli