Fcc commissioner Mignon Clyburn is our guest on the communicators this week. Welcome, commissioner. Thank you for coming back. This is the first time in your service on the federal medications that even in the minority and about five months. How is that different than the previous eight years . Very interesting. I often think of myself playing offense and defense. So, playing the entire field it has been a little exhausting but exhilarating at the same time. I havent changed. The things that i care about in terms of consumers have been first and foremost in our minds when it comes to policy and when it comes to my interests and when it comes to serving them. That hasnt changed. Things are different, youre right. Theres been a couple of more than a couple of two ones. The essence is the same. We will get into those issues in just a minute but june 30t june 30th, is coming up and is a significant date because thats when your commission and. Well, if i were to look at the calendar, one would say thats when my term of service and but just like politics and everything else, thats not necessarily the case. I have not heard and i have not made any plans, i have entered in paperwork and i havent even talked to ethics about my series of next steps. I am here to serve. I am pleased that i had the opportunity to do so and i will continue to be an advocate for those who dont have a voice. Joining us as our guest reporter this week is Linda Stanton of telex medications report. You mentioned playing defense and one issue that you play defense on his Net Neutrality. Youve been rallying the troops trying to get the support for not rolling back the rules that you and your fellow democratic commissioners adopted in 2015. Do you think that will have any effect on your majority republican colleagues having a lot of voice in the docket of people saying that they dont want to roll back or are you looking more to try to put pressure on congress to create a record that will hold up in court . What your game plan here too smart. Often i dont believe they when they asked me multi complications i say e, all of the above. I really mean that in this case. Number one i feel like title ii is the best, strongest authority that we have to ensure that we can bring broadband to the american people. Think of a life without title ii . Look, how do we provision and allow and enable in fund broadband enabled Services Providers who are in line to serve this nation. If broadband is not classified as a title ii service, tell me under the united untrained universal contract where we have the authority to give the first dollar when it comes to that . When you think about that, when you think about possible other barriers to deployment, pool attachments and the like who are we and under what title section of the act is to say who can do what what authority do we have to say in terms of what Backstop Authority do we have. When you think about the daytoday and not even talking about what it means for everyday people that i can use whatever device as long as it doesnt harm the market that theres no fast lanes or slow lanes that you cant preferential trip treatment or service were not even talking about that. Think about what the fcc does day today and tell me if we change classification. I want to know how we will enable and how we will find these providers to ensure that we have the services that america particularly, america expects from us. It goes beyond universal service. The republican, michael riley, raised this in respect to the multitenant building proceeding that you just were voting on recently saying that he wasnt sure whether. [inaudible] if there where the fcc authority to where does it come from . The word that comes to mind is certainty. Right now we have certainty that we will be the referee on the field and enabling and answering the calls of people who said they want choice. I want connectivity, i want to be able if my doctor is 100 miles away to be able to speak to them without getting in the car. All of these things are made possible with connectivity and if we do not have all of the tools in our regulatory bill to be able to say that we havent authority to enable all of these wonderful opportunities and who does and how does it get done . Someone can challenge as a who are you if this is an Information Service to use my universal service dollars to provision and to find these activities. Thats my fear. You mention certainty. On the hill republicans say they are offering certainty through legislative proposals that they say democrats dont seem to be wanting to discuss in terms of putting into law Net Neutrality rules but in some ways carving out how much authority the sec would have Going Forward two. Dot new rules. Should democrats take a more active part in those discussions about legislation and what that not offer the certainty you wa want. While its very certain that laws that laws are static. I believe you created this 83 yearold entity is that you know things change. You know that we can act and react quickly than a set of laws and possibles that would come from congress. My thing is this. I wont opine whether there should be in passivity when it comes to that. I will say this if there is a loss, that is past, it must give the sec the ability, the dexterity, the means to protect the consumers and to be able to react in real time if something goes wrong to be able to react in evil things to go right and if the law enables clear guidance as laws often do and provide the type of certainty in support for the fcc to do what it does best then it would be something that i would of course endorse. Until i see those details i would be hesitant about opining which must be my word of the day that we should go in this direction. Commissioner, doesnt the fcc offer certainty as well . They offer certainty with exceptions. If you were to look at their authority it would not include what we call Common Carrier Services and right now under title ii broadband is classified as a common carrier service. So, what if we were to go into the direction that the majority of the sec appears to be moving and said, okay, the ball is in the fcc court and what happens when it comes or if there is a company that has both voice and broadband, who provides protections . If there is a hybrid, voice and broadband, does that mean theres no regulatory cop on the beat . Theres the type of thing that we need to ask ourselves when we go into a direction that might be more philosophical than practical we need to ask ourselves will consumers be protected and under the current current paradigm that i see teed up, what i am hearing in terms of moving back to the days of old, i dont see where the consumer benefits will derive. We are moving into a hybrid world though . We are but people expect basic protections. They expect the types of protections that theyve had for a long time. They might look different, the platforms might be different and i dont think anybody says, okay, just because i am wireless now i dont expect the type of certainty in the referee on the field. They say whether their balls or strikes or fouls or im out of my sports analogies right now but people expect to be protected. That never grows old. One subset of the whole Net Neutrality issue which is privacy which the fcc adopted last fall when you have the democratic majority and in the spring when congress and the president passed a act which voided all the rules and let the fcc unable to pass substantially similar laws, rules rather. Now, Going Forward the procedures trying to adopt some other way of feeling broadband privacy. What does that mean . You mentioned two words that i wonder what it means in terms of what we can do. Substantially similar. If we cant adopt substantially similar laws, rules, i mean, then we adopt. What does it mean right now i cant with certainty tell anyone when it comes to broadband protections in terms of privacy that you are protected. Its a regulatory free zone from what i interpret and what does this mean with the cras manda mandate . How do we go forward how do we truly protect consumers when it comes to their privacy in terms of internet or broadband world. I am worried that consumers, many of whom believe that there vulnerable anyway, thats they have regulatory referee on the beach, on the field, looking out for them. No one with straightfaced tell you that there protected right now. The ftc, their regulatory arsenal and forgive me for saying this but were in quite a pickle right now. Its not a comfortable. Theres legislation that Marsha Blackburn has offered that would put the authority over broadband privacy with the fcc. One might say historically that the ftc has been in active cop on the beat with respect to privacy in general than the fcc. Is it possible that consumers will be better off with a more top focused agency dealing with these issues rather than enforcement protect very few cases. Ill go to my Company Answer sae. One thing that has been beneficial is that every single citizen in this country, particularly when it comes to medication taxes, is that you have at least two entities the ftc and fcc that are they are in your corner. Where there are gray areas or where it is very clear that the sec has authority and where its clear that the ftc has authori authority, we are all they are and we work complementary. We have memoranda and we know that in order to provide services and increasingly consolidated combined merged world, ecosystem, it will take more than one entity to do it right. We are the Expert Agency of the federal government when it comes to communication services. With all due respect, the ftc is more broad in terms of their portfolio and they are not. To me, to carveout the Expert Agency that has been around for 80 plus years and say that we dont have anything to do with the most enabling, Inclusive Communications platform of her time, to me, that is nonsensical. Commissioner, one of the programs that you championed is called from prison and theres been a recent court case on that that struck down your position. Whats next . I am hopeful that those include the sec that includes estate commissions that include county and state legislators and lawmakers that they will all way in because the issue and we knew it would be difficult is that it entrusts. Will be there to ensure that there is a portability when it comes to interesting calls . 85 of the calls made to and from, mostly collect calls, to home, to and from families from facilities are made inside of the state, the court felt is a very crippling hurtful blow. 2. 7 million children are on the wrong side of the medications divide right now. So, i am up old that those who say they care about children, that they care about families, that they care about what is very clear in the Communications Act in section one, medication fact that we are supposed to be the entity that will enable reasonable, dust, inclusive, and nondiscriminatory services and make them affordable. You cant look at that paradigm and say that it is so. I think we have a role to play and i am hopeful that everyone will weigh in to make sure that there is just, reasonable, fair rate. They are not there now. What the next step . Everyone who could do something, needs to. If there are questions and concerns, like i said, in terms of our authority from inside or then its up to the states to weigh in and open proceedings. I think it is up to county councils or state legislators in this instance where it the Public Service commission doesnt have authority that there needs to be laws and build in resolution instituted at those levels. We need to solve this problem because people are going home as strangers and they cant keep in touch. Only 38 of families keep in touch with an incarcerated inmate on regular basis. 700,000 of them go home each year in their release from a facility and they go home as strangers and if you look at the stats within five years they are back in. They dont have to medications. People change over the course of years. Family dynamics, they shift. If those inmates are not used to the shift that has occurred, they will be tensions and there will be a price to pay. There are multiple layers in multiple places where this could happen and i think everyone from the fcc, lawmakers, shares lead the way in. Everyone who has a point where theres a contract being delivered needs to make sure that the cost drivers are addressed. We need to provide us, reasonable and fair rates to keep in touch with their loved ones. The two republicans on the i will put it this way. I dont think theres any disagreement that we have structure when it comes to inmate calling that is unjust or unreasonable. I dont think anyone is saying that this is a functional marketplace. It is not. When you can charge whatever you want and theres no check and balance and when you have two companies that have 85 of the market, that is a robust market influence, when you only have one point by way of competition meaning when you answer you cant say this is a marketplace that will allow for innovation and growth as well as affordability. You mentioned the ftc should take a role and theres another issue this back to issues, Broadband Wireless and broadband wireline and there has been discussion of fcc prevention of the state to get rid of or to address rightofway access regulation and oversight in concerns that take a long time. Youve generally spoken, aside from the present scenario, you speak in favor of not preempting or at least trying to find a collaborative solution with your state partners. What you think of the approach that is being teed up in these proceedings in terms of is this a specific enough thing like the present payphones that the fcc should go in and tackle them back. There are three dozen counties if my research is correct in this nation. Over 3000 counties. There are multiple other jurisdictions within those counts. Not all of them are created equal. I am from the great state of charleston, we say. Historical preservation and prism is our number one economy. Thats our business. To erect a whatever foot tower in the middle of the battery is not going to fly. I know that the city fathers and mothers know that but the fcc doesnt necessarily know that. That is why i always say you need we all need to Work Together with the local communities addressing their needs and seeing where the bottlenecks are. If you are getting to300 request for small fields deployment and youve got half a person that is over this entire portfolio, youll have a problem getting something out, and in an expedited time. We need to look and work with i am for creating another type of loosely fitting model of consortium which would include municipalities and counties that would include people from Government Agencies and companies coming together and saying where are the bottlenecks and what we do to solve them. To come from a pastor that we will preempt without taking into consideration what the unique needs of the communities are and maybe, just maybe, the company that is applying doesnt have all of the eyes and darted into his cross and their incomplete after variables that people dont take into consideration when you talk about deployment in the application process. You need to sit down and take a deep breath and see the needs are being addressed particularly when it comes to intake and to ensure that the community our instinct with the needs. It becomes if we come from that posture will be expedited. Isnt that what the broadband Appointment Council that the republican ftc chairman has proposed to do . I am hopeful that he would. I am concerned that there is one mayor on that advisory committee. I dont know what will happen with some of the other compliments there might be other committees that are created outside of the body but if the local voices will react and create policy in silos. That would be detrimental terms of what we want and are connectivity and affordability. Commissioner, i know you wont climate comment on specific murders but when it comes to a merger like at t, time warner or Sinclair Broadcasting stations what is your general philosophy. On one of those, if you know, the current leadership has made clear that they dont think they have a role. I disagree. This is an 86 billion merger that will influence everything just about in the Communications Space for us to sit on the sidelines and not even use what i think is the authority that we do have to look at something that would dramatically change the communications ecosystem. I think its pretty sad. The other merger proposed, there is no paperwork in front of us but a transaction that has that type of influence that has that type of depth in terms of Communications Space, i think should be always be something that we review and the fact that were not thinking about it is troublesome to me. Would you agree on the att time warner with President Trump that too much power into the hands postmarked. What i will say is that i have always been concerned about consolidation for consolidation take. I have approved the mergers and other transactions but if they meet our checklist in terms of addressing and improving the Communications Space and ensuring that individuals will have more options and more competition and more say so then i will be for that but if its just consolidation making bigger and better for the only benefit shareholders thats problematic. That merger brings up a couple things weve been talking about living in a hybrid world in silos like you spoken of. This would be a provider who is providing videos but also supplying it. What is that mean for the smaller players what is that mean for those who are really content dependent and would that create some type of disparity or some type of issue in market share when it comes to content and access to content . The reason why its important to look at an application or proposed transaction of that nature is we need to figure out and we need to know how its going to impact everybody else in the ecosystem and if we do not if her hands off about that and youve got negative outcomes with everybody else then we have lost a youth opportunity to ensure that their protections for smaller players. We cant forge