Relevant is to win a president ial election. And to do that, you have to find somebody who both embodies the message and can win. So its a lovely thing to write a book of political philosophy, but basically youve got to find a candidate who can embody enough of that to be a conservative and to win. I think a lot of people felt be, for example, this the last election that mitt romney wasnt really a philosophical conservative, that he was more of a pragmatic businessman and maybe wasnt at the core, you know, bought into all of these policies. And then as you say, we have the debate now between, say, christie and a cucinelli example. Obviously, one thing i think conservatives have to do is to quit killing each other and to give each other a little room to breathe. Right after the election, you know, Chris Christie has beaten his opponent by a modern landslide, and he says after that im a conservative. And in my view, he has, had the sort of conservative impulses to try and lead with some conservative policies. Hes, obviously, in a blue state. Hes not going to have the same success that you have with that in my home state of kansas, for example. And so, in my view, you cut him a little bit of slack for the kind of lace that he has to govern place that he has to govern. But then republicans come in and, you know, call him part of the surrender coalition or whatever. I mean, they have all the rhetoric to suggest hes not a real conservative. It just seems to me that they have to give each other a chance to sort of play that out rather than, you know, try to cut each other off at the knees. And, again, i think that when conservatives get or republicans get frustrated enough with losing, then they come to their senses and do that, you know . I doubt if its going to be a book or a speech thats going to make them do that. I think its going to be too much losing that makes them do that. And so and thats painful to watch, you know . You have to wait til the train wrecks before you can go this and fix things sometimes. One more or shall we get back to work . [laughter] well, i thank you very much for coming today. I know that going back to ancient conservative history might not be the most interesting thing to do, especially when washington is the here and the now. I always liked what former senator alan simpson used to say, he said washington is the only place where sound travels faster than light. So i know its a fastpaced kind of place. I appreciate your taking time to come and think about this stuff today. We have a copy of the book for you if youd like to have it. Chapter five is really kind of the current, most relevant part to today, so if you want to read one piece of it, take a look at that. Thank you for coming, and well stand adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] wed like to hear from you. Tweet us your feedback, twitter. Com booktv. Cspan, created by americas Cable Companies in 1979, brought to you as a Public Service by your television provider. Host and joining us for our conversation this week on the communicators is the senior republican on the federal communications commission, ajit pai. Commissioner pai, this is the week that the Net Neutrality decision came down, and part of your response to this i want to read it for our audience, get you to expand a little bit on it. For the second time in four years, the d. C. Circuit has ruled that the fcc exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate the internet. It is time for the commission, the fcc, to take no for an answer. Guest thats my statement. Well, first, peter, thanks for having me back on the communicators. My statement signified what i think is a clear signal from the courts that the fcc exceeded its authority to regulate the internet. And in my view, the better course would be to not appeal the decision and to let congress, if it sees fit, to clarify what the fccs authority in this space is. Otherwise, i think we should focus on what i think are the bigger priorities which are incentivizing the deployment of broadband infrastructure, and creating greater sniffs for innovators and entrepreneurs to do what they do best which is create cuttingedge applications which write over those networks. Host but didnt the decision leave the door open for regulation of the internet by the fcc . Guest im still parsing the opinion. Its 81 pages of dense legal prose, as im sure you know. But i think the better course even if the fcc has the option of moving forward with the internet regulation would be to stay its happened and let Congress Hand and let Congress Take the lead in terms of what, if anything, happens in the space. Host the new chair of the fcc, tom wheeler, heres a portion of his statement, his response to this decision we will consider all available options including those for appeal to insure that these networks on which the internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression. Guest well, i think the chairman has put it well in that statement, but this another context when he said the great thing about this space is that its very dynamic, very innovative, and so from a regulatory perspective, hes opined that we need to allow different Business Models to flourish. This is not an area where you have clearly established relationships that have always been one way and will always be the same way. So i think that i share that view of restraint, and i think the agency acts west when it best when it allows things to develop organically, and if theres any competitive problem that needs to be remedied, then we can address that particular problem. Host how significant is judge silbermanns dissent in this case . Guest well, i think the judge focused in part on section 706, the interpretation of it. But by and large, i think the core of his dissent was his agreement with the majority that the two primary Net Neutrality rules that were struck down should have been struck down. Host joining our conversation, commissioner, is monty falo who is an associate editor at communications daily. Thank you very much. You said youd like the chition to let things play out, but if the be commission did try to reclassify the internet as a title ii service, would they run into problems . Guest to be sure, i think there are some who argue there should be a back to the future solution to internet regulation, that this looking at this innovative, dynamic broadband industry we should apply the outdated, in my opinion, 19th Century Railroadstyle regulations. But i think the key for us if we really want to incentivize broadband deployment and greater investment in broadband infrastructure is to have a forwardthinking approach that leaves behind some of the heavyhanded common carrierstyle economic regulations of the past and recognizes the marketplace for what it is today, which is one of intermodal competition, of Telephone Companies, Cable Companies, satellite, wireless and other Companies Competing to provide the same service. And if we do that, im confident that the it will take care of the problem without the need for prophylactic regulationses from the fcc. Proponents of Net Neutrality rules often compare the internet to a utility like electricity. Why shouldnt it be treated that way . Guest this is precisely the sentiment that motivates what i was commenting on earlier, the 19th Century Railroad regulation. Because that was exactly what motivated the common carrier regulations that eventually became the core of the Title Ii Communications act. But if you look at what the broadband marketplace is like today, were seeing one of the most striking technological shifts in history in terms of the network revolution, and that is that there are no longer silos where Telephone Companies provide voice service, Cable Companies provide Video Service and Wireless Companies provide Wireless Services and never do they all meet. I mean, now you have Companies Competing directly against each other. My Telephone Company at home is my cable providers. Companies are significantly making inroads on market share when it comes to voice, and in terms of broadband competition too, the vast majority of people have a number of different choices. I think because of that whats called intermodal competition, theres no reason to see any particular broadband provider as a utility. Now, to be sure, if there was a particular example of one company that is engaged in anticompetitive conduct, then thats an antitrust problem and potentially an fcc problem as well. But by and large looking at the system globally, its hard to argue this is not an innovative area where we should just deem one company or group of companies, essentially, a regulated utility. Host could this decision lead to higher costs for consumers, however . Guest i dont believe it will, and i think the reason is we are going to allow companies to experiment with different Business Models that ultimately are going to serve the consumer well. Certainly before the Net Neutrality decision was rendered this 2010, what you saw in 2010, what you saw this development of the internet was a very vibrant, open system in which broadband providers and content providers were competing against each other to Deploy Network and applications respectively, and that all redounded to the benefit of consumers. And im pretty optimistic that begin how innovation always has a way in this field, that thats going to continue to be the case. Host commissioner p be ai, do pai, how do you see this playing out in the next year . Guest i certainly dont have a crystal ball, but my hope is, as i said, we at the fcc restrain the impulse to go further, to reclassify under title ii and instead to focus on some of the Building Blocks of a vibrant broadband industry which is infrastructure, spectrum and application development. Host back to monty talo of communications daily. Charter went public this week with several offers to buy time warner cable. Time warper so far turned them down pretty strongly, but if they did find a way to merge, would that make it through Regulatory Approval . Guest certainly, im not in a position to comment on a transaction that, number one, has not been proposed, number two, if its proposed, would require fcc approval, so im afraid i will to demur on that one. Host what about your general philosophy on that one . Guest the question is always will the consummation of a proposed transaction serve the public interest. And i evaluate whether or not there are certain anticompetitive effects that might result, and if there are, is there a narrowlytailored condition that the agency can develop that would ameliorate that anticompetitive harm, and thats the general standard i would apply to this one if it came before me. Youve been quoted as saying you didnt think a comcast deal would be approved by the fcc. Guest in that situation i was simply saying that recent precedent suggests the proposed transaction would face Greater Regulatory hurdles. Certainly wasnt commenting on how i thought a transaction would come out, but just looking at some of the recent precedents. That was the basis of the statement. If a comcast merger did come through, would you support extending the merger conditions that still apply to comcast from the nbcu merger . Is that a strategy you would be open to . Guest again, this is a situation where i would have to review the particular facts as presented by the parties to the transaction and other outside, interested parties, and i cant say at this point what my decision or the commissions decision would be. Host commissioner pai, recently the Supreme Court decided to take up the aereo case. Before the Supreme Court took that up, what have you said about aereo . Guest i have said very little because its such a novel area of the law, and the particular or case that you mentioned before the Supreme Court, the question is one of copyright law rath or than substantive Communications Law. So at this point i am in the position of being an interesting legal observer interested legal observer to see what the Supreme Court does with the very complicated arguments in front of it. Host do you see aereo becoming an fcc issue at some point . Guest it certainly could be at some point. The parties involved are before the fcc regularly, and depending on what the Supreme Court does, i can see the agency having involvement in the issue. Some have suggested that a way to settle the aereo question would be to change the question of an mvpd so that it encompasses aereo, would that ever become part of what you guys are doing . Is. Guest i knew there was an open proceeding as to what the classification should mean. As a general matter, my own view without commenting on the particular case is that we should refrain from applying the mvpd classification and the whole panoply that apply under it to companies that are using innovative Business Models. Now, if theres something unlawful about what the Business Model is, thats, of course, a separate question. As for the classification, i tend to be a little more hesitant. Host the Comment Period has started on cell phones on airplanes. Have you made a comment on it . [laughter] guest i have not, but identify heard there people around the country ive heard from people around the country. Host as a consumer, whats your opinion of that . Guest i certainly share the chairmans view that i dont want someone yak next yakking next to me when im several thousand feet in the air. Host what about texting . Guest thats a separate matter, of course, and thats part of the issue that the commissions going to have to figure out, whether any kind of communications transmission, voice or data, can be sustained at, you know, up in the sky. Id like to to talk about broadcast m a. The media bureau recently approved the tribune local merger, and theres been a couple other big issues that have been decided on Delegation Authority recently. How do you feel about those big transactions being handled at the bureau level . Guest i think as a general matter if a proposed transaction involves a novel question of fact or law, that its important for the full commission to weigh in on it. The neurotechnical reason is under our rules, the commission has to weigh in on it. But i think more generally, it is important for all the commissioners to be on the record as to the agencys evaluation of a transaction. I think it gives the decision more legitimacy if the public can know that all commissioners who have been, after all, nominated by the president , confirmed by the senate and who are accountable to congress have to make their policy views known. But in this particular case, if there isnt a novel question involved, then as a matter of principle, i think, its appropriate to be handled on the bureau level. We reported that the belo order was originally circulated as a commission report. The sinclair merger is still sitting out there. Should that be handled at the bureau level or by the full commission . Guest again, i dont want to prejudge the procedural disposition of a particular case thats pending, but as a general matter, to the extent that the sinclair transaction or any transaction involves a novel question or challenging policy questions that the commission is ultimately going to be accountable for, the better course is for it to be handled at the full commission level. Free press released a big report attacking the sharing arrangements that are involved in all three of those transactions. Basically, theyre a way to get around the fcc rules, a work around. Do you think the commission should change those rules, or are they going to change soon . Guest i personally do not believe that joint sales agreements and shared Services Agreements per se pose a threat to consumers or are otherwise anticompetitive. To the contrary, i think they have significant procompetitive value especially in smaller markets. If youre going outside of big markets like los angeles or new york but looking at cities like topeka or wichita, for example, back in my home state of kansas, a shared Service Agreement might be the best way for news operations to consolidate some of the upfront costs of maintaining operations and focusing on what they really want to coffer which is the local news. So weve seen evidence of it, and some of it is in the record this our media proceeding where shared Services Agreements allow companies to pour more money into doppler radar, for example, in joplin, missouri, with a company was able to save millions of dollars that then poured into a Public Safety communications feature. Weve seen that in other markets too. So my concern is that the fcc tries to attack a problem that really, frankly, doesnt exist, we might end up hurting the ability of consumers in smaller markets to obtain the local news and information that really is vital to them. Host youre watching the communicators on cspan. Our guest this week is the senior republican on the federal communications commission, ajit pai. Joining us in our conversation is monty today low, associate editor at communications daily. This is probably the longest weve gone on the communicators without using the word spectrum. [laughter] whats your current thinking, and how do you see the schedule is the fcc on time when it comes to the spectrum auctions . Guest well, i think that without question the intensity of consumer demand has only increased since ive become a commissioner, certainly ov