Joining us first is representative bob latta, republic of ohio. I want to start with what the house did just very recently, and that was reauthorizing the Satellite Television extension and localism act. What is that, first of all . Guest every five years that has to be reauthorized. What that is is, again, what it is, its for satellite. Folks out there who get their tv from satellite, we had to get this thing done by the end of year. If we didnt, we have about 1. 5 million americans who would not be receiving television anymore. It was very important, that was the overall part of what the act was for, we wanted to get it done, but there were certain titles in the legislation that dealt with integration band that the fcc had imposed several years back which said that they had to, if a Cable Company had a settop box, they had to have they couldnt have overing in there everything in there, they had to have a cable card in there which added to the cost. Probably about a billion dollars being passed on to consumers. We said, you know, we shouldnt have that anymore, and so that was included in there. Also when we had another of our hearings and one of our other secretaries, the secretary of energy was in talking about settop poxes and how much energy they boxes and how much energy they use that adds to your bill. Overall, we got this piece of legislation. A lot of times people think its going to be contentious. We started over a year and a half ago. Chairman wall said we had 24 months to get the reauthorization done, and it got to the point that we had it on the floor this week we were able to yet that bill passed out what we call on a voice vote. And so it went over to the senate now and, hopefully, the senate will act on it very soon. Host well, first of all, what was the reason to have cable cards in the first place . To have this all separate . Guest well, what they wanted to do, the fkc, again fcc, again, this is not congress, the fcc decided they wanted to have competition. If you were receiving cable, they said you ought to be able to go to your local store and buy one of these boxes. And then to make sure it was fair, youd get a card from that cable operator that you would insert in there or theyd insert in there for you, and you could receive the signal through the cable. What the problem was, people doesnt go out and buy these boxes. So probably about 650 or so thousand had been purchased, but theres over about 43 million out there right now. So if this turned out that what they thought was going to happen didnt happen, and so what we want to do is say that didnt work, lets go back the way, you know, congress did not intend that to happen, so we will have, again, it cost a Million Dollars out there, and youre using a lot more energy, so those, you know, hope through the senate will take that up as part of their legislation, and well have that out of the way then. Host well, it still is considered mustpass legislation, but what if congress didnt pass it . What would happen . Guest well, again, on december 31st at midnight id be getting a lot of phone calls. A few years ago when we went from analog to digital on Television Even though there was all this stuff going on across the country about what was going to happen, i warn ored my office warned my office, the staff back in ohio, be prepared. The next day people were going to say, hey, my tvs not working, or im getting a terrible signal. Again, people were turning that tv on in the morning and its not work, theyre calling to find out whats happened. In this case we would have 1. 5 million subscribers that would not be receiving a signal that next day. Host now, i read in one article that its now the Satellite Television access and retorization act reauthorization act. [laughter] guest it has to be done every five years, so, you know, weve got our work done here in the house. I think we now have about 325 pieces of legislation in the senate. They need to take it up quickly and act on it. Host one other provision in there thats retransmission. Did you support that . Guest well, there was several other titles that were included, this is really to even thicks up between things up between, with cable and for the regular television set, stations out there. It was really putting everybody on the same footing out there. And so, again, as the bill went through, we had quite a few discussion on some hearings and, again, i think the if you see a piece of legislation that could have been very, very controversial in the very beginning, that we were able to take it up on what they call suspension and to not only have that, but to have voice vote at the same time. Host will that have influence in the senate . Guest i think it should because, again, if the senate are looking at something they might think is controversial, the house again, through its due diligence, and i commend the chairmen they worked through the legislation, they wanted to make sure it got to where it was. This was a republican and democrat sitting down together to work this legislation out, and we got it. So, again, you know, its not very up where you have something this large that you can say it was on a suspension calendar, and that means when its up, youve got to get a certain amount of votes. You cant just pass it by a simple majority, youve got to pass it with a super majority. And in this case, it passed on a voice. Host congressman latta, Something Else youve introduced deals with title ii and Net Neutrality and broadband. What is that bill . Guest the situation, again, we seem to be talking about the fcc a lot. And the fcc, when were talking about Net Neutrality, first of all, i believe in an open internet, a Free Internet without government intervention. When you look where the internet has come and where its going in the future, this is all being done on the sector. Its noting with done because of not being done because of what the federal government has done. When you look at this, theyre trying to come in and say this is an Information Service, its been an Information Service from when you go back to the previous chairmen of the fcc, going back almost two decades, and all of a sudden theyre saying, no, they want title ii to make it more like a telecommunications using a law from about 1935. And what well see happen then is that the inundation out there thats spurred about a trillion dollars of private investment is all of a sudden going to be tied up like it would be with, you know, a telephone company. We dont want that because once you start that up, then all of a sudden innovations going to slow up, the dollars being put in it, you know, tens of thousands of jobs will be created. We want to make sure that it remains free, that it remains open and it stays away from government control. Host like you said, weve been talking a lot about the fcc. What do you think of chairman wheelers tenure so far . Is. Guest we have an Informal Working Group that im one of the cochairs, and we have a democrat that is also one of the cochairs. We had a meeting with a working group, so we sat down with the chairman, i think it was six or eight of us, just around the table. But, you know, i think we look at some of the things where the chairman wants to go, i think some of us on the republican side want to dont want to see the fcc going. We want to see less regulation. Everybody needs the regulation that you can live with, but at the same time we dont want this overgovernment control coming down on our telecommunications, our internet and those spheres out there. I think times going to tell. We just had a hearing this morning, and chairman walden also at that time voiced his concern as to where the fcc was going. Host fcc has been working on the erate. Do you support furthering funding to erate . Guest well, again, when you look at something there again, you know, where are they going with it . How much are you going to spend . Again, we want to make sure that anything thats being done especially like the legislation that i have out there that says, you know, when youre talking about, again, like on the Net Neutrality that i was talking about, we want less out there, not more. Host are Telecommunications Issues often a rural urban divide . Northwest ohio where you represent has a lot of rural areas. Guest thats a good question because, again, one of the bills that came up in subcommittee today is its how things are spread out. All of a sudden if you start taking a peg out over here, does that break the chain of helping more folks in Rural Communities . Sometimes you look at it its rural urban, but at the same time like one of the pieces of legislation today we also deal with communications that are out there in areas that you might, and certain minorities. And some of the communities that have more language channels to be affected by the spectrum. Of its one of those things we want to make sure theres as much spectrum out there we can possibly get, and thats another bill i have out there that deals with the five gigahertz areas. We want to make sure theres testing we can get because if we dont have that extra spectrum, right now its calculated were going to have about seven mobile devices or some type of device per individual in the United States by 2017 or 1. 4 across the globe. And that is absolutely ip cred el when incredible when you think about that and how much spectrum were going to have. Host and that deals with the unlicensed spectrum and spectrum sharing, correct . Guest especially that legislation looking at that upper part of the five gigahertz side. Host congressman bob latta, thanks for your time. Guest thank you very much. Host well, joining us now on the communicators is someone we dont normally talk to. This is congressman brian dickenson, democrat from new york. Congressman higgins from new york. Youve sponsored the sports blackout rule, first of all, what is that rule . Guest the rule allows the nfl to not broadcast in the local area Football Games that are not sold out. And the fcc late last year started to end Government Support for the blackout rule thats been in effect since 1975. The reason for that is the economics of the nfl. Keep in mind about 70 stadium construction for the nfl is financed by taxpayers, not by nfl owners. The whole gamewatching experience has changed with advances in audio and visual technology, and, you know, stadiums like buffalo which is the second smallest team, second smallest market in the league have [inaudible] in their stadium of 73,000. Things like luxury seating, things like advertising in accordance with the Bargaining Agreement in accordance with the collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and the teams are revenues retained exclusively by the team. So we just believe the blackout rule is obsolete, it doesnt serve the purpose anymore. You know, given the merchandising, why would a team not want their team exposed, their product, their brand exposed to tens of thousands of people . So we think the blackout rule is obsolete. The fcc will vote finally at the end of this year. So the nfl has final say on whether or not this happens . Guest they do. The fcc movement would remove Government Support for it. Senator blumenthal and i have introduced legislation in both the house and senate, the fans act, which would remove the nfls antitrust exemption for blackout toes. So we think we have some leverage. But i think the economics of this will drive the issue, and the nfl will come to realize its in their economic best interests to do away with the blackout rule a altogether. Since 2009 over a hundred games have been blacked out in the nfl and, again, these are teams communities that support their teams not only through their emotional commitment, their financial commitment, but also through their fax payer taxpayer dollars as well in stadium reconstruction to make these venn venues that much more profitable for the nfl teams. So at very least, they should do away with the blackout rule altogether. Host so how did this blackout rule come to be anywaying . Guest well, it made sense at a time where keep in mind, this was 1975, and the home game viewing experience was very, very different. Today, as i said, with audio and visual technology, surround sound, you know, the game, the home game watching experience has been increased tremendously. And also, you know, at a time, 1975, there was very little stadium advertising going on. Now you see, you know, stadiums are replete with advertising which diminishes the potential economic benefits to the team and the league in trying to market advertising. Merchandising, you know . When i was a kid, you got a banner which was maybe 75 cents. Today fans, by and large, are wearing authentic jerseys in the stadium. Thats a direct result of the reach and frequency that comes with more access to the brands. So we think that the nfl will catch up with this issue and do the right thing and remove the blackout rule altogether. Host now, do individual teams support the blackout rule such as the Buffalo Bills . Guest well, typically, the league acts as a league, you know . Its a rarefied group of people, and i dont think they want to be encouraged to do anything other than what they want to do. But i think my responsibility is to continue to advance compelling Economic Data which shows the blackout rule is obsolete and, you know, theyre protecting something that really is against their selfinterest economically. And i think all the data bears that out. So i think that its not a question of if, i think its a question of when, and i think the league will come along and support this, and i think thats why the fcc action has already voted and they will take action at the end of this year. Host take us back to buffalo. How does this affect buffalo . Guest well, you know, you have a team thats the second smallest market in the league. It has a very, very loyal fanarl s of the performance of the team. Ralph olson stadium, its an older stadium. They say it has good bones and, therefore, it can be retrofitted time and again. Its currently undergoing about 100 million renovation today, but the Stadium Capacity is 73,000. So they have to sell out 73,000 seats regardless of the performance of the team in order to be able to watch the game. So in because of low and other smaller in buffalo and other smaller market area, we disproportionately get blacked out. So ten of thousands of people are denied access visually from their team. And what we would argue is that actually hurts the team because this is all about reaching frequency. And if youre denied access to the brand, youre less likely to buy the jersey, to see the instadium advertising and the kinds of things that really drive the economics of the nfl. We think, again, not a question of if, its a question of when. Host and its, theres tv revenues there as well, arent there . Guest tv revenues are shared revenue, thats right. Every team gets approximately the same amount. General seat ising is also a shared revenue. So whether you have 73,000 or 67,000, every team gets the same. And thats why, you know, some people say in buffalo its hard to accept that they may be having financial challenges because they sell out virtually every game with exceptions despite the performance of the team. Well, genre seats general receipts are shared revenue. Its the advertising, the luxury suites that determines, ultimately, viabilityover nfl teams. So we just think this should be a recognition that the small American Teams that are storied franchises in the nfl should be given an opportunity to survive. And we believe that the blackout rule will accrue to the economic benefit of the nfl teams in addition to the loyal fan base that each of them has a. Host but now you said that the fcc has voted for it, to end it. The nfl is the one who has to implement it. Where does the Congress Come in . Where does your legislation come in . Guest the leverage is stripping the league of its antitrust exemption. So, you know, we do have leverage here. And we think that were act in the best interests of the acting in the best interests of the fan base which were mentioned at the outset; finances, a disproportion nately large percentage of stadium improvements throughout the league, 70. Not nfl owners. Theres other taxpayer sub subsidies as well, working capital for some of these teams that operate in smaller cities. When you really do a cost benefit analysis thats objective, you will find the economics all point to an elimination of the blackout rule. Host brian higgins, democrat of new york, thank you. Guest thank you very much. Host well, next up on the communicators, we want to introduce you to representative corey gardener, a republican of colorado and a member of the energy and Commerce Committee. Congressman gardner, weve not had you on the communicators before. If you could talk generally about your philosophy when it comes to Telecommunications Issues. Guest well, this is an amazing world that were in today. I can remember the first bag phone that one of my friends had in high school and how amazed we were at it. We used business bands to communicate, and the very first brick phones. And today talking about the technology we have whether its an iphone, an iphone 5, whether its snapchat, you name it. The changes we have seen, the delivery of video into places we never imagined we could have is truly remarkable and incredible. My philosophy is how can we continue to spur innovation, how can we continue to get out of the way of that innovation and make sure that the consumers in this country have access to the innovation that theyre, quite frankly, demanding. Host what are some of the ways to get out of the way . Guest i think some of the ways, weve introduced ive worked with Steve Scalise on legislation that would sort of deregulate some of the providers to make sure its not too heavyhanded in one party or the other when it comes to negotiations over what could be carried, what programming could be carried, making sure were protecting peoples ability to get paid for what they are doing, but also making sure we dont have regulations that are stifli