In 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Cable Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Host and this week on the communicators we want to introduce you to bob quinn, Senior ExecutiveVice President for external and legislative affairs for the at t corporation. Mr. Quinn, thats a lot of title. What does it entail . [laughter] guest well, at at t that would entail i run the regulatory shop for both the state and federal operations. You know, we do business in 50 states, so we have interactionings with state interactions with state commissions across the country where we have wireline operations, those interactions are pretty significant i also run the Public Policy organization, and i run both the tate and the federal legislative the state and the federal legislative efforts that we have in the United States. We also have international interests, as you are probably aware when we acquired directv, we acquired an ongoing satellite video business in latin america. Based on recent investments, weve become a very larging wireless provider in mexico. We have ownership interest in the satellite business in mexico, and then we have our operations in europe where on an enterprise basis at t kind of serves, for the most part, its corporate customers, and they do business all across the world. So weve got fairly significant interests in europe, asia as well as latin america and mexico. Host so when it comes to capitol hill here in washington, would you be quaintly called a lobbyist . Guest i am not a registered lobbyist. I dont qualify under the standards that are in place in congress. Tim mccone on my team runs our shop is over on capitol hill, but i am tims boss and direct the lobbying efforts over on capitol hill. Host whats one of the biggest issues that at t is work on now when it comes to capitol hill . Or the fcc . Guest yeah. We have so many issues, but i think from a corporate perspective one of the most important issues for us is the tax reform agenda. And i think as a company we play, my boss, randall stephenson, the ceo of the company, plays a significant role at the business round table. And i think Corporate Tax reform is a critical business issue for the company. We have all of our regulatory issues that we deal with from daytoday, and theyre very, very important. But i think in terms of getting the economy growing, in terms of, you know, creating jobs in the United States theres nothing that would be more significant than finding a way to lower our very noncompetitive federal Corporate Tax rate which stands at 35 and get more into the competitive areas of where other countries are. I know the Trump Administration and the Republican Leadership on the hill wanted to lead the world, but just it would take a significant effort just to make us more competitive with europe and other countries in the world. Host well, pardon me. To help us break down some of the Telecommunications Issues that you are dealing with, want to introduce you to Dave Shepardson of reuters who covers tech and telecom. Theres no shortage of regulatory issues, as you know. Obviously, big one is chairman pais rolling back of title ii. What do you think the final proposal will look like . Will there be some other framework that retains some of the rules on, say, blocking or throttling, and where do you think the commission might come down on paid prioritization . Guest so at t is a company ive been in washington for over 20 years, and Net Neutrality, unfortunately, feels like its been around for the bulk of those 20 years. As a company, weve been very, very supportive of rules to insure an open internet. I know this gets mischaracterized in the press. It certainly gets mischaracterized by our opponents on the other side of this issue from us. But we have been very, very supportive of rules that preserve an open internet. I think you can basically throw them in the category of no blocking or no throttling, no censorship. Were not going to direct where people go on the internet, and weve never been opposed to rules that preserve that status quo. Back in 2010 when my predecessor was in this job, you know, people forget he actually was the democratic witness in congress after Julius Genachowski who was then fcc chairman passed an order imposing the first real open internet rules out of the commission. The thing that we have been opposed to the p application of the common carriage rules. As a technical nature, theyre part of the Communications Act of 1934. It was an act that basically regulated every single telephone rate in the United States not only for the at t company, but all the independent companies. Its an antiquated statute that really could use a significant update, modifications to that statute. And we were opposed to utilizing that statute because, ultimately, we pelt that the use of title ii was going to lead to significant rate regulation. And if we and the backup in a rate regulatory environment, i think its going to impact the investment that goes into these networks. Thats what we saw. Thats why we moved away from that type of regulation back in the 1990s. And i think it would have had a negative impact not only on our company, but in terms of the jobs we create, in terms of the investment thats going to be allowed to happen. So i think were hopeful that through this process well end up with some basic open internet principles or rules that can be enforced, thatll insure an open internet, but well walk away once and for all from title ii regulation under the Communications Act of 1934. But do you think absent Congress Getting involved, that there will be a finality to this or certainty after the commission acts . Guest i think thats the danger, right . So whatever this commission does, you know, were in washington and we know the pendulums politically swing back and forth repeatedly in this town. My fears always been that whatever this commission does we can, you know, theres no question that the fcc chairman and the commission can move forward, and they could eliminate the title ii regulation regulatory basis for the rules. They could put in place some open internet rules in their place. But if the political pendulum swings the other way, were subject to the next fcc come anything and just backtracking on it. I think the time for a permanent solution here, every i dont think theres any dispute on either side of this debate that everybodys in favor of an open internet. I think were in favor of some basic open internet rules that can be enforced. The only way to insure that is through legislation. The other big issue is privacy. As you know, the previous fcc had voted in october for stricter privacy rules for irk sps as opposed to what isps as to opposed to what web sites face, and then congress overturned that. Since then congressman blackburn has proposed legislation that would seek to harmonize the privacy rules that isps and web sites face. Where do you see the debate going on privacy, and how do we insure that consumers data is their own, is protected under what statutory or Regulatory Regime does that best make sense . Guest well, ill say this, i was im very much in favor of congresswoman blackburns privacy bill. Because it does the things that are most important to at t. It does three things that i think are critically important. One is everybodys got live under the same rules. In a world where you are seeing Business Models collide, you call them the web Site Companies. They may be how google and amazon and these others started, but theyre way more than web Site Companies today. I think theyre getting into video distribution. They look a lot like us. I mean, googles got a video product in the marketplace. Hulus got a video product, amazons got amazon prime, it wont be long before they have their own, you you know, aggregd bundle of content thats not historic look, if you will. Be so all of these companies should operate under the same rulings. I mean, thats been one of our main contentions all along. That was why we opposed the fcc going where they went with respect to privacy. Its because, you know, it doesnt matter. If location data is sensitive, it doesnt matter whos collecting it. At the end of the day, if were going to have rules around location, i should have the same rules in place that google has or that amazon has or that facebook has, and thats my principal concern. And blackburns bill says that. Second, they put all of the regulation over at the federal trade commission. So were going to be in the same regulatory environment. One of the difficulties when you have an area like privacy if one agency is regulating over here and another agencys regulating over there, you can end up with disparate be treatment even if the general framework is relatively the same. So its important to us, i think, that were regulated in the same place. And third, the other thing and the final thing i think that blackburns bill does is that it insures that we dont end up with 50 different state regimes around privacy. To theres a preemption, theres a federal rule, theres a rule that everybody has to live with. And its not going to be a patchwork of a bunch of different rules in a bunch of different states. In the internet environment, thats very difficult to operationalize. Believe me, we lived in this in the title ii world in terms of different regulations in different states. It gets more expensive to try and create a patchwork of regulation. Those are the things that are most important to us. Thats why we support the bill. And the orr issues in the bill like what the consents are, theyre not as important to me. In any bill you kind of pick out the things you like, and you go fight for them. Those are the three things that im going to be fighting for and why were very, very supportive of what congresswoman black burn is doing. Host well, bob quinn, why do you think the googles and the amazons of the world see these issues, the Net Neutrality and the private issues, differently than at t and verizon and comcast and some of the other isps . Guest you know, thats a good question. I think theyre probably in a better position to answer that. I think in general, i think theres a lot of people who dont believe that were for an open internet, yet we were the ones we were bigger proponents of the genachowski rules in 2010 than i think even google was. I think google and verizon did a proposal together in that docket, and i think google got a lot of blowback from the left groups that were arguing for different rules, and i think they pretty much disengaged in that fight. But we have been very, very supportive of rules. I think, you know, in with respect to congresswoman blackburns privacy bill, i think theyve articulated that they do not like the standard. To me, thats less important than the equal treatment and one regulator approach. Those are the things that are important to us. And, look, i think in any debate its always better to be arguing about how youre going to regulate some other person than you are fighting the regulation yourself. And i think that every hour that they spend arguing about regulating someone else is an hour that theyre not spending fighting off the regulation themself. I think thats starting to turn in terms of this town. And i think theyre going to be a little bit more defensive. When it comes to these issues, i think we have more in common than not in common. Host you mentioned earlier about the directv and at t merger from earlier, theres another merger potentially happening, at t and time warner cable. Whats the status . Guest you know, were going through the process. We initiated the review at the department of justice last fall shortly after the deal was announced. I think we kicked it off in november. Were going through a process with the department of justice. You know, i think weve told the street that we expect the deal to close by the end of the year. We still have some foreign approvals that hang out there. Were not completely done. Some of the big poles in the tent on the foreign approval side as weve got an operation in mexico, so to that deal has to go through that process there. Weve got operations in brazil. But theyre not the only ones. So were going through a process at the department of justice right now, and, you know, our expectation is, you know, we should be through that that process, we should be through, you know, the operational issues that we have to go through in order to be able to the close without any license transfers and the foreign approval process, and were hopeful pretty confident that were going to be able to get through that that by the end of the year. Based on the review by the staff so far, as you know, the senate hasnt confirmed the head of the antitrust division yet. Do you have any sense of what the conditions the doj may seek as part of this transaction . Guest you know, i think were i think that conversation is just beginning really. I think weve gotten through the point where were, weve produced all of the data, and weve answered all of the questions, and i think that process will kick off this summer. Its not clear to us, you know, how far many that process were going to be in that process were going to be able to do. He came out of the committee, as you know, i believe it was on a 191 vote are. But the timing of this is going to be tied up with a lot of other disputes that are partisan in nature going on. So well have to see how long it takes to get confirmed. I think our expectation is that he would get confirmed before the july 4th recess, but who knows in the environment thats up there to today. But, you know, and so i think its kind of early and premature to figure out exactly where theyre at. And until i think we have macon sitting in the seat, its kind of hard to predict whether even the list we see preliminarily will be the final list that they want to close on. Right. Obviously, theres a lot of vertical integration going on right now in the industry. Verizon just bought yahoo , they bought aol before that. You guys are buying time warner which was marrying content with your distribution. Why is that the right strategy, do you think . Vertical integration. Why is it smart to own the content as opposed to license it as you do now . Guest well, you know, when we announced the deal, i think shortly after we announced the deal, maybe about 48 hours after we announced the deal, we unveiled the directv now product that we introduced. And the directv product, i think, is it really kind of is an amalgam of all the reasons why we want to do this deal. We kind of view the future as being a bundle of mobile and video. We, you know, i think if you looked at the press release we did at the time, i think we made the statement that the future of video is mobile and the future of mobile is video. I think thats how we see it. You know, we did the directv merger. We made a commitment in that merger after an extensive review by the federal Communications Commission to build 12. 5 million fibertohome connections. And while thats a good start, its a fraction of our wire line footprint. Its a fraction of the total number of households in the United States. And were really only the verge of being able to roll out a 5g technology where i think its going to end the debate once and for all as to whether mobile broadband competes with wireline broadband. Id tell you theyre competitive today. If david cohn was sitting next to me, he would say they have been for five years. But i think were going to get to a mace where were going to be able to achieve fiberlike speeds on a broadband infrastructure, on a wireless mobile broadband infrastructure. And i think, you know, we had this debate last year about settop boxes. Nobodys talking about settop boxes because thats not the future of video. I think the future of video is going to be a combination of a mobile over the top application where theres satellite dishes or ettop boxes and a 5g broadband infrastructure that i think is going to give people the ability to be able to choose once and for all to completely cut the cord. I think the reason that you want to own content and if you listen to my boss talk in the week after the merger was announced, he took the view that he had the idea to do Something Like directv now. Our team had the idea to do that. But when we had five million subscribers on our uverse platform, you couldnt get the content companies the Pay Attention to you long enough to allow you to negotiate the right toss that. And when when we became directv and that number went up to that 25 million subscribers, it was still difficult to get the content companies to break out of the model that has existed for a long time in this country. And i think by having what we consider to be an anchor tenant to create new kinds of bundles, skinnier bundles, bundles we dont even like to think of them as skinnier, but more acclimated to what individual Consumers Want to see in a bundle rather than the 500 channels or 200 model that i think what the cable industry evolved to. We think the power of being able to have those more particularized bundles of content for consumers combined with a 5g broadband infrastructure is going to make it, is really going to enhance our ability to compete with the Cable Company everywhere. And, you know, thats going to take some big changes and big investment. You know, these mobile networks are mobile for the last mile, and when we get into 5g and small cell technology, theyre going to be mobile for the last couple hundred meters. And then were going to have to get this, all this traffic on to a fiber infrastructure. And its basically a wired network from there. Its going to take an enormous amount of investment, but that investment, i think, is going to create jobs in this country. And i think its really going to transform the market in ways that are exactly what policymakers left and right going to want, which is total competition for broadband and video subscribers like no ones ever seen before. So thats the vision that we had, and i think you talk to verizo