Transcripts For CSPAN2 The Communicators 20160215 : vimarsan

That was dysfunctional. And so the commission took years to respond but it finally did and we acted initially to take care of interstate rates a few months ago. We acted again to look at the entire we passed an order looked at entire portfolio, meaning intrastate rates. Right now parties are poised to challenge that. So we have already published in the federal register which gives them a green light to move forward and they are moving forward and we are responding to some petitions for stay. Host so it is in the court system right now but, how much of a reduction in rates are you looking at . What we have seen, we heard rates as high as 14 a minute. That is unusual but we are on record that has happened. On average a dollar or so per minute. Families were paying hundreds of dollars a year to speak to their loved ones. What were going to see now is 10, 12, depending on the size of institution, cents per minute. It will make a tremendous difference in lives of families in terms of affordability. Call that might have caused 15 or 17 will be down to 3 or 4 that will make a tremendous difference. Host before we bring John Mckinnon from the wall street journal into the conversation. Ive been on the commission since 2009. Guest yes. Host how has the commission changed, what have the issues changed and how have you changed . Fastpaced. More partisan to be honest with you. I heard the power of one individual to make a difference. Inmate calling item you brought up nobody was paying attention to that until our office stepped up said enough is enough. These families deserve relief. One person, one of five can truly make a difference changing lives of millions. I have changed and ecosystem changed because of power of one person. Host do all the commissioners agree with you on this issue . Guest i think all the commissioners agree with me on in terms of principle in terms of application which the direction were headed. There are some differences. You might have noted there were two persons who did not agree. One actually did not vote for it proactively. So, again, i think Everyone Wants relief. They did not necessarily agree on the course that we took but i think it was most balanced, most fair and best for relief sake. Host lets bring John Mckinnon from the wall street journal. Thanks, commissioner. Talk more about the procedures underway and what will happen for families. Are they able now to make calls at lower rates or is that the is aing to happen . Guest that has not gone into effect. We are going to, in addition to responding to those challenges in the immediate term. Were going to allow for a sixmonth transitional window for the majority of the providers. Families are already seeing some relief. Those that make interstate calls between state to state may have already seen relief. Some states already acted. Because of this, and because of the public cry, some people have seen relief but for the bulk of the country i anticipate, if all goes well in terms of the challenges, that within the next six to eight months everything will be enforced and we will see some incredible differences when it comes to families and staying in touch. What is the difference between what they pay now and what a consumer who doesnt have a loved one incarcerated, whats the difference . Guest there is almost no comparison. Think about what our interaction is with our provider. Dont think about number of minutes stay on telephone. You usually have allyoucaneat especially when it comes to text or to voice. You dont think about how long you stay on the phone. You might forget to turn the phone off. There is not economic, Economic Impact on you but these families, they are charged by the minute and they are often charged by the minute whether the call quality is there or not. They are often charged, you know, sort of a minimum also whether the call drops or not. So these families, in addition to these rates being outrageous, often times they do not get the services they pay for. If they challenge, there is long exhaustive process dealing with the provider that would frustrate any person especially those families who are often the most economically challenged in our nation. I gather that there is an additional concern regarding video links now . Guest win of the things we did, that is not complete when it comes to this particular item is a program or regime, a product called video visitation. Which is what it sound like. You would have a video conversation conversation with someone behind prison walls. We did not have enough in the record to really say how much that should be in terms of charge, how to tackle that but what we are hearing from advocates and families is that these prices are also outrageous and that the entire visitation dynamic is changing because of it. Case in point, we know of some people who even go on to the facilities, close to facilities, still charged for using video visittation and they can not see their families other than from, from the neck up. So what does that mean . You might know know if something happened to them physically. You can not see the types of interaction is very limited. And so, we are asking questions about how this is used, how much it is costing families and whether or not we should do something about this. Whether we have the capacity to do something about this as weve done with traditional voice. Host commissioner clyburn do you need congressional buyin to proceed with this issue . Guest i would love state and local buyin to proceed with the issue. Things could be best handled on the state level or county level. This is in terms where decisions are made. Those county facilities or state facilities are ones engaging in contracts with these providers. I would love to see interaction with former colleagues at state level, public utility commissions, where they do not have authority where they do at the state level and legislature. I would like legislatures, i would like to see them act. That is where true reform happens. This to me is a ceiling. What we put for the should be a ceiling because the rates are still relatively high depending on the size of the facility. What could be really, that would make incredible difference for families is true reform in each and every state to insure that these individuals can affordably speak. Real prison, were talking about, talk about inmate reforms or prison reforms. Real reforms can not happen if people can not be in touch with their lawyers. If people do not stay in touch. We have recidivism rates as high as 75 for those who have been in facilities five years or more. They go home as strangers because they can not keep in touch. We need to really have a sane regime when it comes to the price of those individuals pay and only for it to truly happen is the state level. One of your concerns actual contact will be reduced because it is costing people so much to be in touch, is that fair . Guest highest figure in terms of people who keep regular contact with those loved ones in prison is 38 . That means the bilk of those individuals bulk of those individuals do not stay in touch. 700,000 are released each year, number of inmates go back earnings 60 of those go back home as strangers. Most of them are back within five years. We have to really look at the cases of that. And i think one of the primary cause again people go home in strangers because they havent been in touch for life of the sentence or length of the sentence. We can do something about this and this is what this item one more question about, are these companies that are involved, are they the phone Companies People normally attribute theyre not normal players. One or two might be. But the bulk of the industry is two entities now owned by hedge funds who enter into contracts with the facilities and one of the biggest drivers, i call perverse incentives is that lowest bid does not win. In actuality the highest bid that gives a commission to those facilities, theyre the ones who get the contracts. So what does that mean . That means those rates have been pushed up and up over the years. And it is not the market, functional market as we know it. It is a dysfunctional market. It is one that is broken and this is why we acted. Host commissioner clyburn, one of the other issues the fcc is facing is a new proposal settop boxes. What do you think of chairman wheelers proposal . What exactly is it and what do you think of it . Its a new proposal but it is a old conversation. As you might remember all the proceedings back in the day that really looking at what are the options or not that people have when it comes to content coming into their home. What the chairman has observed and what we note is that 99 of is who pay for television have a settop box we rent from the provider and a number of entities, outside entities are taking issue, not only with that construct that there is lack of competition, that what can be viewed or downloaded over that particular device. What this notice of proposed rule make, again i think the headlines have been misleading this is a notice of proposed rule making for to us have a conversation in a fcc way, to see what the universe looks like. To see whether or not its a competitive, if competition is warranted, what type of standards, if not we should use. So were going to have input from a number of bodies to see exactly what the state of play is in the, in this environment. What if anything we should do to change it. Host well, about a month ago on this program, we had Michael Powell, former chair of fcc and head of National Cable and television stations. Here is what he had to say about can cable boxes. Consumers dont want more boxes. Anything netflix, hulu, amazon prime, so Many Services are proving, streaming has been an invention i think has overtaken what a lot of people have relied on this box to do. Take for example just dvr functionality, it is important service, but as streaming becomes more dominant, need to record, skip commercials, much of that activity becomes less significant to a lot of consumers. Why . I can just stream it. I can stream it once. I can stream it 10 times. I can rewind it. I can move it forward. By the way a lot of content is provided advertising free in bing collected suites of consumption. That is the path the market is moving. That is the direction consumers have been responding to. For the advocates asking fcc, we want to build a box and create another Video Service around boxes and want to make cable guys design, build, manufacture, deploy another box so that would make that possible we think is sort of so retrograde. It is returning to the way competition was conceived in the 90s and not the way competition is not only conceived in 2015 but has actually unfolded. Host commissioner clyburn. Guest what i am hearing from parties we want userfriendly interface. That we want options. We want to be able to take advantage of all of the opportunities that that box or any other device or any other means has to, you know, offer. And so that is an open item. So i cant speak with too much specificity but what i will say in terms of those advocates out there is that they want that device, they want devices in the home, to be open to all types of platforms. That if i am an independent producer, if i dont have a relationship with that cable or satellite entity, how does my programing get seen . I would love to be able to take advantage of that device, to be able to download or view over that device. These are the types of issues that will be teed up. Rather that device should be strictly under the management, or the per view of the satellite and cable providers or whether or not it should be more neutral and open to all potential programmers and at, in the end of the discussions well have, series of questions and more will address that, whether or not there will be an independent pathway in terms of that or a whether or not the current regime which is in hands of multichannel video mpdps, those video providers, whether or not they will have strict, retained hold over that. You mentioned the independent programmer issue. Explain a little bit more about the problem that many of them face. Why is it that they have trouble getting, getting access . Guest i have heard from independent programmers who have literally called me and say will you get the caib company or Satellite Company to return my call, to even have a conversation. I have heard them saying that the term that they have entered into, if they ever get to that point, such that their business models, you know are not working. Were hearing because there are two items that are going to be teed up in that february item this particular one you speak about, about the settop boxes. Some people call it dstack and programing notice of inquiry that will look at the entire ecosystem of whether or not there are barriers to entry when it comes to competition and the amount of programing and content in the market. Rather, that is functional or dysfunctional marketplace, because there are programmers who are saying, that look, we have mostfavored nation clauses that i entered into a contract with you. Then you come behind me and you might negotiate a less favorable terms than i did. What is going to happen . You are now able to apply what you have entered relationship with john. Now that applies to me. What does that mean . My entire business construct that i negotiated with you oneonone, is disrupted. And so everything that i negotiated based on my unique set of circumstances, that no longer applies. So both of these items though different are complimentary in a way because it is really looking at whether or not consumers have choice, whether theres options, or whether or not we should have a standard body that looks at whether or not everyone should be able to download or everybody should be able to use this particular device or if it is going to maintain its current construct which is the hands of those who provide you, that you pay rental to every month. Do you feel this also relates to the problem or the issue of over the top video and just peoples access to over the top providers . Guest you can not ignore the rest of the ecosystem. When i mention that programing noi, people talk about over the top, but if you have got terms and conditions that prohibit me or make it so unattractive for me to use those other platforms then how do things flourish in that perspective. Looking at whether or not, these platforms, that i will have the ability, the option to purchase that even if i keep the current regime what do i have access to, that is for me at the heart of the debate. Talk also about the consumer side of this issue. How big of a concern is that for you . Guest consumers are paying on average, five or 6 a month depending on the relationship you have. Theyre paying hundreds of dollars a year and some of them want more options. They want that device to be more to them, than strictly a singular relationship with the current programing construct of the satellite or cable providers. So part of what were going to discuss is how, or if we should do that. What type of choices and competition is out there. And how can those who are just saying we want more Diverse Program offerings, what is the best way for us to facilitate that without disrupting what is already phenomenal in the existing space. Now Michael Powell was saying that basically the world is moving past these devices and yet this, he says this proposed rulemake something kind of focused on devices. He says it is kind of ignoring the whole new world of apps. Do you think that is a fair criticism . Guest i believe what the chair has proposed lets have a conversation about a more neutral standard. That the questions that will be teed up and what the notice is proposing is to look and establish a standard setting body that will of course include those from the industry as well as other advocates that will look how do we truly make this open and neutral, a platform so consumers can have more options. So the old, all the proceeding was very particular in terms of, you know, choosing one platform over another, choosing another technology. This proposes not to do that. To allow the ecosystem to weigh in and sets its own standards in order for and ideally people will have more options at end of the day. Host commissioner clyburn, when it comes to broadband deployment, new report out by fcc saying not done quickly enough. 34 million, 10 of Americans Still dont have access is what the report is say too broadband. What tools does the fcc have in your view to increase that . What we are doing is, really trying to focus on where those 34 Million People live. And to have target targeted streamlined, efficient means addressing that. We have the High Cost Fund, which is called the connect america fund which is in excess of 4 billion annually to address these needs and we have done a pretty good job of closing those communications divides. We have not done a perfect job. Again 34 Million People are still without. So we are having conversations about how we can more efficiently look at those communities, where we should expand and leverage our resources and were also looking at the Lifeline Program. This says yes, on a parallel course weve got to make sure the technology and the infrastructure is in the ground but if people can not afford to take advantage of it, then we run the risk of Building Technology bridges to nowhere. We need to look at it from a onetwo perspective. To make sure were spending money wisely. I continue to marvel that those and you probably have too, there are companies in aspen are getting high cost money, highcost support while there are people in the most economicallychallenged regions in this country are not getting enough, enough money is flowing. So were going to be looking at that, asking very hard questions and redirecting money where it should best flow. So the tex time i come on this show that number will be substantially lower than 34 Million People without, if we dont do it that way, we will have the same conversation next year. Host you have said already, you said another theory of thought people are not participating because it is a financial cost but they dont want to saf that out loud. Guest in terms of Lifeline Program . Host broadband deemployment, if theyre getting broadband. One of things with the Lifeline Program, with i is another Service Program that seeks to meet economic challenge people have, for 30 years it has been part of our dynamic and focused envoys only. We do not live in a voice only world. That is very evident in terms of teenagers and present company included. And so we really need to look how people communicate, how the world communicates and what our objectives are. What are our National Priorities. Our National Priorities include not only getting people connected but enabling them to do and have more access to goods and services and needs in their communities in terms of education, health care and public safety. How do we best do that . And so we are proposing to recalibrate, redesign, that program, that meets the economic challenges individuals have and to make it modern, make it one that is dignified. Take them out of the embarrassing and some of the other things you have seen on videos that have been, that have bothered me too and really design a program that meets the current needs of americans and the current needs includes advanced Communications Service and that in sum is broadband. What do you hope to reach some conclusion on lifeline . This has been under debate for some time now. Guest it really has. I am hopeful within the coming months. I have to be very careful because i am not the chair. I would want it tomorrow but this is something that he cares about. He recognizes that if we do this and we reform this program in the right way, we get the carriers out of the certification business, if we leverage resources with existing programs like the snap program and others that already have a database of eligible participants, if we do all of those things and more we could have a program that meets the needs of communities and do not penalize people who might be low income from just relegating them to be on the other side of the Digital Divide for years and years to come. We have substantial opportunity to address that with the High Cost Fund in terms of infrastructure and with the Lifeline Program when it comes to affordability for services, and im looking forward to doing all of those in concert because that is the only way were going to really close the digital and communications divide in this country. When do you think the Digital Divide gets closed . Guest that is a question that i know, as technology evolves, we will probably almost get there. I really, you know, often people, you know, want to put a period behind that sentence. Im not, i dont get hung up behind putting a comma hine sentences because i know often times the subject changes when it comes to technology over time and our needs and demands. Were living in a global society. So im going to a school tomorrow, speak at my parents alma mater. One of the things i hope to convey with them, youre not just competing with people in south carolina, youre not just competing with people in the united states. Your competition comes from the entire, you know, people like you, your age from the entire globe. You need to be ready. And so that question i am hopeful to be able to say, will never be answered, we will never put a period behind that, because we should always be evolving, always improving and always attempting to bridge gaps so people can help themselves. This is about enabling individuals to help themselves, providing them with the technological means to get in touch with that doctor so their health can improve. So have Educational Options where they might not have certain language, or certain course in their schools. To bridge those gaps. So these divides, not just the Digital Divide but opportunity divide, how do we use technology to close them . Again that question hopefully as Technology Grows will be ever evolving standard. Host John Mckinnon, we have one minute left. You mentioned technology helping to close that gap. Talk a little more, what is the technology we need to have to get it to zero . Guest what is the technology, im happy to say there is no the technology. There are a ray of technologies. This month we are celebrating at the 20th anniversary of the Tell Communications act and and just think about what the universe looked luke in 199. All the things were debate and talking about, were just visions in a lab. Now were applying them in real time. And so the technologies of today, to me are what, what the vehicles that you need to improve your lives, to stay connected with your communities, to stay in touch with individuals, thats what it is and i love the fact that that it is individualized. That, that it, depends on the individual. That it is not limiting. It is all empowering. And i am grateful that for the past six years that i have been been a part of this everevolving evolutionary standard. Host federal Communications Commissioner mignon clyburn, is it difficult to regulate an act that is 20 years old . Guest its a challenge but it is one that i welcome because it recognize at its core that if we put the framework in place, that if we allow innovation to thrive, that the sky is the limit. There are always pressures to update but there are always, always there is always a realization foundation of it, at the very core of this act is a desire to have more options, more competitions, advanced Communications Services that are affordable and accessible to all and that will never be outdated. Host thank you, maam. John mckinnon, wall street journal thank you as well. Thank you