Guest we created a digital freeforall in that bill where every company could do anything. That telescoped the time frame that it took in order to deploy fiber all across our country to create the capacity so that all of these new companies could get created so that words like google and hulu and youtube are are part of the culture today. But they were impossible to be created before the act. So we got a lot right. Nothing is perfect. But one thing we did do was we moved not only our own country, but the world from analog to digital. And if youre living in india or china, youre now using the words that were created, including twitter and facebook, that would not be possible without that bill. Host jack fields, same question. Guest you know, i think also what we got right is we worked together. I mean, we collaborated. Fortunately, we had a very strong friendship prior to that as we did with other members of the committee. I think we asked the right questions. I think it was our sincere desire to get this right, you know . The last major piece of telecommunication legislation had passed in 1934 when you had some radio, some telephone, telegraph and smoke signals. So i think we both viewed this as a historic opportunity to, you know, Work Together. And not only did we Work Together as members, but we talked with, you know, members of the industry trying to truly understand not only where the world was at that particular moment, but where the world was going to be, you know, 20 year withs from now. 20 years from now. And our goal was to take away the lines of demarcation that prevented competition. And by unleashing the competitive forces, it created the investment that was needed to bring us to this world today. So i think, you know, its like its hard for me to say senator markey, my friend eddie when we were looking at this, we tried not to pick winners and losers. We tried to do what was best for the average consumers. Host well, one of the goals was to set a framework of competition and open entry. How did you do that legislatively . Guest well, one of the things we did in regard to telephone and Long Distance which was a place where we spent a great deal of our time, you know, we had everyone saying to us we dont mind if we have a competitor if certain things are done. So, ultimately, we came up with what has been called the checklist, that if Telephone Companies did certain things, that they could get into the Long Distance business, the Long Distance guys could get into the telephone business, the cable guys could come in and compete. Again, im not going to speak for the senator, but i think we had a common view that the more competitors created more opportunity, created more investment, and all of that was to the benefit of the average consumer in america. Guest yeah. Our goal was to create a darwinian, paranoiainducing marketplace. And to do that, we had to basically take down all of the old barriers. Cable companies couldnt provide phone service. Telephone companies couldnt provide cable service. So what we had to do was break down all the monopolies in one bill and then say every company can do everything. And then go to it. We dont know who the winners and losers are going to be except for the american consumer. Except for this innovation culture which we would unleash. So from that moment on, 1. 4 trillion of private Sector Investment went into the sector. It was no longer the black rotary dial phone world. It was no longer this world where you had to go to multiple companies to get all the services. Now you could go to one company for each one of the services. So thats really what changed the marketplace. And our goal was really a digital revolution. We didnt know who the winners and losers were going to be. We didnt know if pents. Com was pets. Com was going to win or lose, google was going to win or lose. But we knew this were going to be far many more winners than losers. And if i could just add this jack and i in 1993 and 94 had already partnered when the democrats were in control. And we had already passed this law in 1994, the Telecommunications Act of 1994. And and it was killed in the senate. Couldnt pass over there. But we had already passed it nearly unanimously. And what jack and i had decided in 1993 was that although he was one of the most conservative congressmen from texas and i was amongst the most liberal democrats, montana, that we massachusetts, that we were going to put it all aside, we were going to be nonideological, that we were just going to solve it as a problem so that america could sprint out into the lead. So when we reached 1995 and now jack is the chairman and im the Ranking Member and weve flipped roles, what jack said to me was were just going to keep the same partnership. Were going to act in the same way. Were going to insure that this is completely nonideological, and thats our best likelihood that well be able to take on monopolies, be able to break down all the barriers and be able to get this huge revolution off and running. Guest and then, if i could, let me just, you know, brag a little bit about the process. You know, eddie and i were friends. You know, we played basketball every day, we would talk on the Basketball Court about telecommunication reform. We would go to each others offices, we would sit on the floor. But, you know, we also did that with john dingell, we did it with tom buyly, mike bliley, mike oxley. We really had a Bipartisan Team of people working on this reform. We all understood how big it was, and eddies absolutely correct. If we hadnt begun this process in 1993 and 1994, it would have been difficult to arrive at a product in 199 a 1995 and 1996. So when you look back at the recent history of major pieces of legislation, i really believe ours stands out. Im not saying this, you know, to boast, but i think ours stands out as a major piece of legislation that was highly technical, that was about the future. And you had people other than just eddie and i, a group of us working together for a common result. And we actually, you know, crossed the capitol. And worked with members of the senate. So its a very large effort that ended up yielding a tremendous piece of legislation. Host and, in fact, it passed in the house 41416 and in the senate 915. What do you wish you had done different . Guest well, eddie may disagree with me on this one. The only thing i might have done different is in regard to the checklist. I might have made it more prescriptive so there would have been less interpretation at the federal Communication Commission over a fairly short period of time. But we had a conscious discussion, and i think we ended up with the right result in saying that we wanted to leave discretion with the federal Communication Commission realizing that technology was evolving and realizing that there would be things that we could not anticipate. And so i think we made overall the right policy decision, but many that regard i probably in that regard i probably would have suggested a little bit more prescriptive approach. Guest before i go to that question, i just want to go through this litany of saints just a little bit more. Tom bliley was great. John dingell was great. Rick boucher, mike oxley, just so many members guest anna eshoo. Guest on the house side, just fantastic. Trent lott agreeing on everything, and they just were going to clear the pathway to make this possible legislatively in a relatively short period of time. Larry pressler. You can keep going down the line including Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe working on the erate with me over on the house side so that the bills for every computer in every school in america for poor children would be paid for out of this bill so that we could speed up the pace at which kids get the new be skill set as were speeding up the pace at which were going to see technological innovation occur in our country. So the bill includes what is now 40 billion which has been spent on those poor kids, the largest single Educational TechnologyProgram Still in the history of our country. If theres one thing i could do differently, i underestimated how much the phone companies would just try to gobble each other up first. All these names that used to be well known companies. Rather than trying to compete against each other, their first goal was to try to gobble each other up and spend their first couple years trying to do that. If i could do it all over again, i think i would put a limitation on how many lines that each company could have, and that would have forced them to turn more quickly to the innovation revolution rather than, you know, how do we put ma bell back together again. Even that notwithstanding, the paranoia induced by the cable industry moving, by the satellite industry moving and by dozens of other Competitive Companies who were now allowed into the marketplace to provide all these services forced them to move more quickly than they historically had ever done so before in the past. Host go ahead. Guest one other mistake too, and it may not have affected any, but we had a very difficult time meeting with people from Silicon Valley. The new guys. In fact, i took a trip to seattle to meet with bill gates. Took tommy downey with me. And when we walked in the room it was bill gates, Steve Ballmer and system some others, and its, like, why are you here . How do you know we exist . And i think that if we had had more input from some of the people who are more on the technological side, i think we would have been maybe even a little bit more visionary in what we did. Although not to detract what we did. I just think when i look back, i wish we would have pressed a little bit harder to have gotten more input from some people who were not traditionally part of the discussion. Guest meanwhile, back on the east coast, im representing harvard and mit. So at the Mit Media Lab is nick negroponte, one of the leading philosophers as part of a digital revolution. So im talking to him on a weekly basis so that we can be guided in terms of what can be unleashed. The vision. Guest yeah. Guest theyre explaining that a company like skype can be created if we move to all digital, that we can have a rev raoul pollution that all these revolution that all these kids can now reinvent the world if we give them the opportunities. So there were some questions, without question jack is correct that were a little bit slow in understanding we were moving to a whole new interactive model that would give much more control to the software industry, to a new, burgeoning internet industry. But the net result is the same anyway. Even though some Companies Might have been a little slow in understanding how quickly they were going to have to move, that gave even more room for sergei and larry to become household names, you know . Because they could move in and do what otherwise would have been done even by the incumbent Silicon Valley firms. So the net result, i dont think, is much different. Its just that the names of the billionaires are a little bircht because the incumbents could have moved into that space if they had understood the revolution. Guest but as you can tell, i was extremely blessed to have a partner like ed markey. I mean, again, we trusted each other. If we disagreed, we were never disagreeable, and we had a laser focus realizing that we had a moment of opportunity. And it could have been 1993, 1994. It was 19951996, but we move it. You know, we had a real responsibility to the country to get something done. And we were able to push it over the goal line. Host given the technological nature of this legislation, do you think most members of congress got it, or did they trust in your judgment on this issue . Guest i personally believed it was more trust in our judgment because this was for most members terror incognito. This was a whole new world. What are we talking about . They understand analog, they understand kind of the three tv station era. They understand, you know, the fax machine. They understand, you know, some of these things. But where were going is a revolution. You know . Its almost unimaginable to a kid today that there was a time before you walked around with a device in your pocket that was the equivalent of a super computer just 20 years ago. They have it today. But you knew it had to happen, that the laws would be changed. And i will say this, the administration was great on this. Al gore was great. Bill clinton was great. They had a focus on making this one of the signature issues of their time in office. And as you look back at the 1990s and youre trying to decide today what was the biggest thing that happened in the 1990s that transformed not just the United States, but the whole planet, its probably what happened because of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Were seeing Syrian Refugees with their iphones trying to find where theyre going to go next. You can see the communication thats going on across states, across continents exchanging information that was unimaginable. You cant fully understand the magnitude of it because were still at the dawn of this era, whats going to be possible in the future. But i, were proud of this. Jack and i are very proud of having begun those hearings in 1993, creating the environment that made it possible for it to happen on a bipartisan basis. We took all the actually knownmy acrimony, all of the bitterness of politics out of the system. And i think we created something that is still viable today. You know, if we could rename it, i wouldnt call it the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Today i would call it the internet of things act of 1996, because that revolution has now insinuated itself into manufacturing of every automobile, of every piece of manufacturing equipment, of health care. You name the industry, its now been transformed by this digital revolution. We had the hearings on that subject, what was possible. But to actually see it come to pass is quite, i think, gratifying for jack and i. Because the hearings sounded crazy, and it was beyond the capacity, i think, of many members to fully grasp what we were doing. But the proof is in the everyday lives of just about everyone on our planet which happened because of that law. Guest people talk about the substance. I mean, thats primarily where we spent our time, talking about the substance. But coming back to our process, and eddie mentioned a moment ago the clinton administration. I think they should be complimented. And Vice President gore was directly involved. I know he would call eddie up, he would call me up. He was one of our basketball buddies. We knew al very well. He had a guy named greg simon working for Vice President gore who would call me up and say, jack, are you really sure thats a direction you want to go . I just want to tell you the president is going to have a problem, the Vice President s going to have a problem. Sometimes we would agree, sometimes we wouldnt. But it was that line of communication. So when you look at the process that we had, eddie and i being able to Work Together and eddie and i also thought we kind of had to lead the senate. Theyre a little bit slower at times, but we felt like we had to lead, which we did. But we had the ability to talk with each other, we had the ability to talk across the capitol, we had the ability to talk to the president. And i think many times today thats whats missing in terms of governing and passing good legislation. So i think were not only, the 20th anniversary should not only be about the substance, and what we did is important because we did erase those lineses of demarcation to allow competitive forces, but i think we also set an example of how you Work Together for the common good for a major segment of our economy. At that time the telecommunication industry was a sixth of the american economy. And im sure its larger now and, of course, it affects everything that we do. And, you know, when i tried to explain to my children where we were prior to the 1996 act and how we got to where we are today, we cant claim credit for all of the technologies and the applications and how its improved everyones life. But what we can claim credit for, i think, is unleashing that competition. Host all you have to say to them is Long Distance, and they have no idea what that means. [laughter] congressmen, 20 years out now, is it time to update the 96 act . Guest well, again, you know, we got to that crossroads where among ourselves we wanted to leave things fairly open so that things could be interpreted. Honestly, i think there are probably some areas where, you know, congress could come back and look. I mean, you have a much different dynamic and paradigm than you did in 1996. But i think its possible that our act last for quite a bit will last for quite a bit longer. Guest in my view . The 1996 act was the future in 1996. The 1996 act is the future today. And the 1996 act is going to be the future in the future. It works. It is still a job withcreating engine jobcreating engine. Young people all across america as long as we keep Net Neutrality on the books so that they can access anything anywhere anytime. Last year in america 62 of all Venture Capital went to internet startups and software companies. Of all Venture Capital. So this is just an incredible jobcreating engine for our country. And meanwhile, we have some problems to solve which is to, again, continue to work on the digital divide, make sure everyone has access to it, privacy issues to get raised. But at the end of the day, the fundamental structure of this bill that every company can do everything and that we protect new entrants as well as the old incumbents is going to, i think, continue to make america number one. Looking over its shoulder at number two