tv FCC Commissioners Speak at Free State Foundation Lunch CSPAN October 15, 2021 10:25pm-11:29pm EDT
view of government, funded by these television companies and more, including a chi broadband -- buckeye broadband. ♪ buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. next, republican fcc commissioners brendan carr and nathan simington delivered remarks at the free state foundation's anniversary luncheon in washington, d.c. topics include wireless innovation and broadband access. this is an hour. >> ok, so we've got four speakers, and i am going to ask them to come up one at a time to
speak. we will do that, and also, in addition to those speakers, i want you to hear from senator cooper when they are through. first up is commissioner brendan carr. it is true that he needs no introduction. i have introduced him so many times, i have a tendency to shortcut it. let me just tell you a couple of important things. he looks so young, but he brings 20 years of private and public sector experience in communications and tech policy to his current position as commissioner. commissioner, that is hard for me to believe, but i know it is true because i know it is on your website. [laughter] he was confirmed to the senate,
to his seat on the commission in august 2017, after having been appointed general counsel at the commission in january 2017. august 2017, commissioner in january 2017, general counsel. that is a quick rise to the top. during law school, i discovered that commissioner carr served as intern for them commissioner kathleen abernathy, who we saw earlier on the video. i am going to shortcut all of these so i have to -- because i could go on and on. but just a couple more things about brendan. he was described by axios as the fcc's 5g crusader.
for those of us who follow the fcc's work, we are well aware and no how you heard -- know how you earned that accolade with the work you have done on spectrum, among other things. other things are infrastructure deployment, which has been so department and remains -- so important and remains so important, and also telehealth, which is much of the news now, and deservedly so. i am going to stop there. the full bio is on the website, and that is true of all the [applause] "cancel culture" -- >> thank you so much for that kind introduction. the youthful look is not something i get very much.
i am appreciative of the accolades. it is great to be in front of so many friends again. i do not know if it is getting out of the house that has drawn so make people together. we do not really need to parse it. the good news is that there are so me people that are here. it is great to see everyone in person again. the bad thing about it, and makes it very hard to figure out and people have fallen asleep on zoom. it is very easy to see the people that quickly not off during these remarks here. you mentioned the good work, and maybe i will talk at low but more about it at the fcc has done over the last four years. it was a team effort that was spearheaded by commissioner riley. in pursuing free-market ideas
that delivered for the american consumer good to be we can talk a low bit more about that. we are also celebrating free state kudos on 15 years a remarkable run. known for elevating the discussion and discourse in putting forth great ideas. my team did some research and they told me that free state was mentioned in over 70 fcc dockets. it was cited 260 times in fcc decisions. a influential voice and a fantastic run for 15 years. kudos to you and the organization. it has been an invaluable resource. while we are reflecting, i will start back a few years ago as we look back to 2016 when it came to 5g bills in this country. the outlook was not great backbend.
-- back then. they said that 5g was on the verge of being completely left behind by china. that they would release a 5g tsunami making it impossible for the u.s. to catch up. in a lot of ways they were right. it cost too much and too long. back then the u.s. was building about three new cell sites about every day. china was putting up 400 cell sites everyday. what was taking us for years, china was doing every nine days. there was no mid band spectrum available for 5g back then. we rolled up our sleeves and got to work. we tackled this within infrastructure plan for 5g.
we had a series of four or five decisions that eliminated redtape and allowed american infrastructure to build again. we freed up swaths of spectrum. we led the way on 3.5. we moved forward on four point nine gigahertz and six gigahertz. we had something like six gigahertz of license spectrum and thousands of gigahertz of unlicensed spectrum. that paid off and the private sector got to work and built. in 20 we had 700 -- in 2018 we had 700 cell sites go up.
we were bridging the digital divide. speeds were up threefold. prices, despite inflationary pressure, was down for internet services and it was a great thing. it was a really good result and i am proud to be on the team that enabled the private sector to do that. we cannot stop there, we have to keep going forward. i have laid out a spectrum calendar that will show how we will continue to build on the spectrum wins we had over the last couple years. at the end of the day, spectrum policy in this town right now is not limited to which organization is best or who has the best policy call. clearing spectrum force -- four use is for those who have political capital to spend.
i saw a c-span advertising -- advertisement and it showed fcc chairman ajit pai. in some ways it is funny and some ways meaningless. it showed someone who had acute lit a -- acute laded -- gun clinical capital. -- gotten political capital. whether we like it or not, that is the model going forward. we need fcc leadership that is willing to stand up, have a capital, and is willing to spend it to deliver for the private sector. one of the most important things we can do there is complete our broadband mapping process. back in march i called to
complete that map by sometime this fall. very briefly in july there was a rumor that popped up that maps would be done by the end of july. i put out a statement that i was pleased to see that, and then i was very displeased to see that did not take place. it is still a black box to know when the spectra maps will be completed. there is no reason for it to be a black box. first quarter next year or second-quarter net year. -- next year. it is a key to unleashing money. if you put the current discussion aside about the 1.5 billion that congress might get across the finish line there is $800 billion dollars that could
be spent on broadband infrastructure. some people have estimated that it is $80 billion to finish the work. we have 10 times that much money sitting now in the pipelines. the fcc, commerce, department of education, and add. -- and agg. last july i spent -- sent off a letter asking where they were in the spending of the $800 billion . my concern is that we are about to see a repeat of the 2009 waste fraud spending. we have, $800 billion. it the response back, and a couple have not responded yet.
did not give me much, -- comfort that the $800 billion would go into the ground and connect americans. it is not inevitable that we see a repeat of the beat-up failures. we have never been in the situation where we have been -- have had the funding to fully bridge the digital divide. we have enough dollars to get it done. shame on us if we do not have the policy and guard rails in place in the next two or three years to get it done. if you flashforward to meetings and events like this people will be asking about the $800 billion . what i have been talking about so far is the appropriated funds, that in the short fun --
short-term has been relieving pressure. it has been under a lot of strain right now. we collect $10 billion a year from consumers by adding a 30% charge on the keep it simple telephone portion of their bill. they say can go up to 75% in the next couple of years. we need to do something about it. i put out an idea to take that 30% charge and eliminate it altogether and look to technology companies to pay their fair share. you can get digital advertising companies -- given the way digital ad markets operate. big streamers, other entities that use so much bandwidth that is supported and funded.
the fcc should be getting on to do that. there is some legislation that has been introduced in a week or so all go -- in a week or so ago i testified in front of congress. they had favorable remarks on these ideas. if you missed it i tweeted out. hopefully he will look back and see that. with that, i think my filibuster is close to coming to an end. it was really great to get to join you again. i really enjoy these discussions and it elevates the discussions above the couple of characters that we are limited to on twitter and other forms. it is an opportunity to have more in-depth and more substantive issues. i look forward to hearing the
remarks from our other speakers. [applause] >> thank you very much, commissioner carr. regarding your proposal to have big tech contribute in some way to addressing the shortage in support for universal service programs, it is something that i thought was really creative and interesting proposal. i have actually written about it as well. i would like to see the commission proceed as well. by the way, i did not say this earlier, i want to mention that c-span is here with us today. recording this event. it is going to be shown on
c-span many many times over the next several days. we are grateful they are here. we always appreciate that. i am still a c-span junkie myself. i probably always will be. the other thing i want to do, quickly before i call the next commissioner up, there are a few people i want to recognize that are here today. i wish i could do more. former fcc chair dig while he is here -- richard wildy is here. he was in the video and we watch more than later. roger is here with us. [applause] i really still remember this, you gave when you're very early addresses to the free state
foundation and we appreciated that. finally, my good friend and longtime friend ambassador david gross. [applause] david always reminds me, properly so, that once you are in ambassador and have served in that capacity that you are always an abandoned -- abbasid or. that -- ambassador. that is not even true about commissioners. thank you all. i will introduce commissioner nathan simonton. early addresses given at the free state foundation nathan gave his inaugural maiden address at a free state foundation virtual event.
it is especially nice for him to be with us today. to give an address in person. the short version of commissioner simonton's biography is that he was nominated to serve as a commissioner last fall by president trump. he was confirmed later in the fall by the senate and took his seat in late 2020. he brings with him a wealth of both private and public sector experience before becoming an fcc commissioner he served at ntia as a senior advisor where he worked on many aspects of talev negations all seek.
-- telecommunications policy. he holds more degrees than i do and more than many of us in this room. a couple of those degrees are in use it. . -- music theory. they may not always be exciting at the fcc, but it is true that since you have been on the commission, it is not exactly the same experience that may be sometime in the future, however that goes. we are really pleased that you are with us and if you would come up and delivery remarks. [applause] nathan: thank you very much for that kind introduction. it is a pleasure to be here and speak
with everybody today. when music comes up, music is a spectrum as well. it is an honor, not just to be here, but to be in such a rare find air. speaking with the other distinguished -- distinguished speakers today. it is an honor to join them whether 15th anniversary. it is an important venue that lawmakers and professionals from both sides of the aisle have come to hatch out ideas related to the free market limited government. while this is usually been centered in telecom and technology the principles are durable and universal i look forward to speaking with those who share my opinion and more portly those that disagree at many free state foundation events to come. as some of you may know, i
selected the free state foundation for my maiden address and i remarked on the telecom act of 1996 and the fulfillment of the promise of the rep. torres: era. -- of the telecom era. with it in the rearview mirror, it is probably not possible to utter a sentence that is not true that they will reasonably and politely and a great length object there it if i supported trump with ice cream i would be hearing from the vanilla lobby. i think it is best to be sent about the process. learn what i need and forget the rest. it is a good thing because nowadays i am talking about -- it is a crystal anniversary. what could be more important than talking about radios? i hear from some corners, a
building better receivers does not make sense. that is true. interference due to inner modulations -- we do not have easy answers because we are not control of the transmitting party. to control this the transmitting party would have to voluntarily withdraw from using the full capacity they legally entitled to. while creating our wireless future on the backs of devices and a can increasingly dense mid-devices -- i am willing to bet it is smaller than the expense of the ample mentation. i hear from some other corners that there is acquiring -- requiring better receivers. i am not sure if they have made the same case to the ncaa --ncia
. here is one thing of which i am not skeptical. it is that it is easier to build a cheap wireless device with poor consumer performance in china than it is here. what happens when in -- industry elements better receivers standards? you pay more yes. it supports higher quality of service and may exclude low-quality players that are coming from former -- foreign men factors. it makes it feasible for domestic to compete with better components. perhaps some of these will be even be made to messick lee. it sounds to me like -- being made domestically. what more is a practical matter in an industry that sets its own floors.
no one would say that there are not standards out there. the commission would have a hard time finding the right standard. i agree with that premise to a degree. after all, i was looking at the membership rules of the big trade associations and it occurred to me that there are individual trade associations that could have more member companies than the fcc has staff. if we are going to engage in this process -- i hear from other corners, and i am not sure what polygon i'm talking about, it is on the commission to regulate receivers. that we regular -- regulates transmission only. we do not only regulate transmission. interference and experience by an end user or device is a single transmission process. usually we refocus on receivers.
i think the commission agreed to that in 2002 and there has been a general level of support when the issue has been raised. we have not acted yet. i do not think some of the reasons would include discomfort or ambiguity over the regulatory authority to do so it would be necessary. on a free state foundation note, we are the free state foundation and i did not come here to argue for an overbearing use case of the subject i hope that the commission does not ultimately regulate receivers. i suspect that the standards, bodies, trade association will reject -- project likely problems and -- most marginal actors as a layout the benefits. handing them the massive headaches of regulations of highly desperate services and devices, models, use cases.
our best bet, instead is to serve as a clear haste to encourage industry coordination. this is perhaps not a bad thing. in order to help industry act. eventually this ageist -- issue will be resolved. or the downside is, the commission will find his hands tied by public opinion and we will be forced to do something. it be best to avoid the necessity and speaking with one voice. i think that is the way to avoid strict control that are unlikely to see everyone properly and see nuanced trimming of the issue. our promise of our wire list future i am raising the question today. i appreciate everyone's patience and interest in this issue. thank you again for the kind invitation. it is been a pleasure.
and you very much. -- thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you commissioner as well. now it is my pleasure to introduce by good friend, all of these people are my good friends -- [laughter] i have to be careful there. my good friend michael o'rielly. my friend served as an fcc commissioner from november 2013 through december 2020. he served out of term and was nominated and confirmed to a another term.
i started saying commissioner riley, i will keep doing that, he is a visiting fellow with the hudson institute for it internet and has established a consultancy mp o'reilly. i have introduced him on many occasions. the first few times i would print out his bio and go down his long list of senate visions -- positions when he served on the staff in the senate. they were about 12 or 13 of them . increasingly more responsible senior positions. with your permission i will not do that today. instead of that, i would just say, to those here and to our c-span audience as well, the
work you did well at the commission -- really in so many different areas was so important -- infrastructure, spectrum, and there were others. one we have talked about a lot and one you have talked to the restate foundation events -- free state foundation events have to do with fcc reforms. institutional reforms and you are a leader in that regard. i have always been rate full for that work as well. with that, please welcome michael o'rielly -- mike o'reilly. [applause] >> my good work on -- that got me a lot of positive things. so good to see so many people. thank you so much randy for
having me here and being such an advocate for many of my past positions and endeavors in the fcc. it is a true pleasure to be included in such an important event at the free state foundation good i think i have attended upwards of 20 free state foundation events. our exceeding any other engagement or conference. think about it, 20 times ice jumped on a stage just like this and 20 times many of you echo or did everything i said. i see many of you nodding. people ask me what it is like to be a former commissioner, i am not wearing a tie and i am also taking this luggage tag and not asking anyone's permission. when i look around the room and see telecom elders, like me who have begun grain or balding, we know that you save the birthday parties for the important ones.
we recognize the difference between going older and maturing. for think tanks, still standing after 15 years to make major contributions in the overall conversation is an amazing, is meant. that is why we are all here today. recognizing a decade and a half of free state foundation thoughts and prodding and legal challenges and supporting the view of adherence to premarket principles helps the communication sector. this organization has both aged well and grown up to become such an effective thought leader. thanks to randy, the work is incredibly influential in the commission, congress, and the larger private-sector community. i extend my deepest congratulations for all their contributions over the years and i look forward to seeing the free states next 15 years.
i want to reach some sensitive -- substantive issues. they have been getting under my skin as a private citizen. these are my personal views and i do not advocate or engage in any fcc proceedings. do you got that? [applause] -- [laughter] what does made in the usa mean for telecom and factoring? -- manufacturing? simply attempting to protect national security and maintain supply-chain lines is also considered some as a way to facilitate open access networks. limiting funding and observation of u.s. manufacturers and providing select companies some type -- what does it mean to be n
american manufacturer? to date, some experts have stated that the location of a company's headquarters is definitive. it feeds nationalistic urges as well as furthering the model of american preeminence. u.s. hq means that company executives lives and our communities and take their kids to local schools and workers live locally to. products are made, packaged, and shipped from u.s. plans. services are managed locally. that isn't the reality. a company can have a u.s. hq and have little actual presence in the united states or farm out its manufacturing and software coding to be done overseas by itself or a third party. i u.s. headquartered telecom manufacturer in name only, relying on a presence in a should to productive -- conducted production. how does that support the larger
policy goals? each of the global telecom manufacturing companies headquartered overseas have expensive investment in the u.s. in terms of massive physical, manufacturing facilities and thousands of u.s. employees assigned to manufacturing installations and so on. if the bulk of equipment production or other essential services are being done by u.s. workers as part of a u.s. subsidiary, why exactly should these global telecom manufacturers be punished by law? the location of a company's headquarters has proven time and time again, through review of many sectors, to be a very poor indicator for determining national security exposer or threats to the supply chain. gm manufacturers and imports cars from numerous foreign countries. honda has extensive manufacturing in 12 u.s. states, locally producing 5 million cars and trucks annually.
is honda a greater national security risk than gm? are its supply chain issues that much more different because of the location of its headquarters? the answer is no. for some of us, the principles -- it has become passe recently. there are very valid reasons to have facilities in many locations. all of this to say that it should not be headquarter location but reliance on trusted manufacturers. the global national security agency's generally i a large telecom manufacturers operating worldwide as trustworthy and helpful partners in minimizing potential threats or supply chain difficulties. trusted manufacturers, not corporate structure or location, should be the deciding factor.
second issue is the lack of sufficient spectrum for 5g services. great work has been done in the last commission but it's not been enough. i read comments from a high ranking government official on the topic. they champions the work being done to implement and make operational this year the first tranche of cbm spectrum. those are imperative and congrats are due. there are some work being done to low the three gigahertz for both licensed and unlicensed commercial purposes. i love the fact that others are joining the chorus on these critical bands. i served as pied piper forgetting all these bands available for 5g services during my commission time. we as a nation are still hundreds of megahertz short compared to the 5g portfolios of the rest of the world.
simply put, the u.s. cannot successfully lead globally on 5g with sub stance or -- substandard allocations. yet the u.s. is middle of the pack. where are the next 5g mid bands coming from and when will they be available? i get it. changing spectrum policy is incredibly difficult. it ruffles feathers and shakes up norms. we have federal agencies with guided grips on allocations that they no longer need or cannot justify. but we winced at their shiny metals or flawed science. sure, it's easier to focus on giving away and spending free government money. sound spectrum policy that recognizes the quest of consumers for more wireless services and the benefits it brings to the rest of the economy and consumer welfare is essential core work that will help decide the future success of our nation. game plan, timeline, whatever.
all the terms are good for my purposes. it's an area that congress needs to lead. this is a moment for leadership in the public and private sector to address a national need. i ask again, where are the next 5g coming from and when will they be available? expect me to keep asking this until it's resolved. is it time for cake yet? i was promised cake. that's a joke because i was told there was going to be cake and there's no cake. i want to thank randy for all of his work over the years. we've been incredibly good friends. we worked on many projects together. i really appreciate all the contributions you have made and look forward to the future. thanks very much. [applause] >> you know what? i think maybe i didn't get --
can you come up? >> i will try. >> ok. come here. thank you. was it ronald reagan in the new hampshire debate in 1980? some of you are too young to remember this. they decided not to have him speak or something. he said, i paid for this and i will speak. i paid for this photographer here. i paid and we are going to get some photos. ok. we will do that later.
thank you. when mike was speaking, i was thinking that, you can take mike off of the commission but you can't take the commissioner off of him. that was good. you should get someone to post that on the fcc website. [laughter] ok. you mentioned david ricardo and the theory of comparative advantage. you have me right there, as you know. ok. next, it's my pleasure to introduce deborah lay said. deborah, to be frank with you, she has not spoken at as many foundation events as the commissioners. she has spoken previously and
she's been a longtime friend and someone that i've admired for a long time as well. i thought it was important to have her here today because she has a perspective going back quite far. with her permission, i will give you just brief highlights of her bio so we can get her up here. she established a consulting firm in 2001. that was after she left the fcc, serving as chief of the cable services bureau. where she started in 1990. in that position, she led a team of 100 plus lawyers, economists, and engineers. that was at a time when we were
beginning to talk about the digital convergence, how the landscape was changing. of course, important for the way in which we think about things, what that would mean for changes in the regulatory policy. deborah served on the boards of major fortune 500 corporations. for example, she's been a director at british telcom and held many other positions. without further ado, if you would come up deborah. [laughter] >> thank you so much. when i got your e-mail inviting me to speak, i was so thrilled
and honored. i know i'm the old person pulling up the rear guard. i said to myself, how did i get to be this old? there are lessons that we learn as we age. i will talk a little bit about some of those. first, i really want to say why i love your organization so much. you know, i would always say that i was a yellow dog democrat. i had to stop and think that at 18, my first vote was actually cast for a senator from illinois. when i feel when i come here is, we are not democrats or republicans. we are people who come here to discuss important telecom issues. they are discussed in a very academic and substantive way. there is and what we see too much of in our country today, people talking and lot -- not listening to each other. that's one reason why i cherish
being here and i cherish the many discussions that we've had. i want to really congratulate you on doing something absolutely spectacular and necessary for us to have civil discourse in democracy. let me tell you a quick story. i always wanted to do civil rights. i did corporate stuff most of my career. one day, i called up bill kinard and i was living happily in california, riding my bike across pha -- pch. i had a commitment that i wanted to do civil rights. i said, could you get my resume over to doj because i want to go to the civil rights position there. bill called me back and said, well, we would like for you to comment work for me at the cable services bureau. i said, i want to do civil
rights. bill said, look deborah, the next civil rights struggle will not be fought in the streets. it will be over who has access to the internet, who doesn't have access, who has access to information. it will be coming from the internet. this was 1998. bill was prescient when he said that in 1998. and that was really the impetus that got me to come to washington and fall in love with technology. let me give you a little retrospective on where we were in 1998 when i came and some of the issues and lessons that were learned. when i first got here, it was all psl. he waited for the slow dial-up. there was a big regulatory fight going on called all the -- open access. many of you in the room might
remember it. it was an argument about how the internet should be regulated. i think what the fcc did right at that time was, we will take a light touch approach to this new thing called the internet. it's not the internet that we know today. we were not streaming video. people weren't wedded to their phones. it was basically dsl. we've had great pushback on not taking the old legacy regulations and applying them to this new thing called the internet. but i think we did right with the light touch regulation. we got the ubiquitous deployment that we were hoping to get. clearly, there is still a very long way to go. my point here is, i think that government has to be flexible when it comes to regulating things.
flexibility and looking at things for what they are now as opposed to trying to put them in buckets that were left over from legacy regulations. one of my big issues right now that sort of strikes my heart and my passion is health equity. i think that's one thing that became so blatantly apparent in this covid crisis. what inequity looks like in the american health care system. i think we've read lots and lots. it became very clear that that's one of the pressing issues of our time in this country, to ensure that all americans have access to good health care. and that ties into telehealth. i think one of the good things
that came out of the pandemic was an understanding of the importance of telehealth. when regulations were waived to allow telehealth to be more widely used, we saw usages of telehealth during a time of great need where we had limited the spread of the disease but still had access to medical care. before those rules -- i live in northwest washington, d.c. my physician is five or six miles away in bethesda. prior to the waiver of some of the regulations, i would not have been able to do it telehealth call five miles away from my health -- house. so many of the regulations that pertain to telehealth is divided between state, medicare, medicaid, we need to have a serious study to understand what we learn from the pandemic with
respect to telehealth and we need to eliminate the barriers that keep us from using telehealth more persuasively. we need to look at licensure's for doctors across borders and states. we need to look at same pay. physicians should be paid the same if they are doing a telehealth call versus if you come into their office. there's a myriad of regulations that simply need to be re-examined to make certain that they are not barriers. because this is critical. it's critical for our rural areas. it's critical in urban areas to have this type -- just like we didn't know what kind of innovation was going to come from the internet, when you have ever imagined that you would be owned by your phone? or that your kids would just be using their thumbs for exercise?
i'm just joking. we couldn't have envisioned the things that we see. that's evident. i think we are at the beginning of a new frontier when it comes to telehealth. i think that we have to do everything within our power. that requires states and governments and medical people to come together to come up with the proper framework for telehealth. i'm just about running out of time. i think that in order to do that, what we learn from the internet is that you have to have regulatory flexibility. you have to think of new ways of doing new things when you are presenting the type of issues and the possibilities that we have from this. i think you also much. congratulations. [applause]
>> thank you so much. it was great having you again. deborah mentioned bill kinard. i'm glad he was able to pull off and switch. i didn't know about that story. i don't know whether you were here earlier. i had a video from chairman kinard earlier. really grateful to him. i've quoted it often, maybe you even wrote it for him. if you did, don't say so. one of the things that bill kinard said, i think it was a 1999 or 2000. he was speaking to a group of state utility consumer
advocates, i believe. he was talking about the please to impose open access which you referred to. impose a common carrier on the emerging broadband. at that time, remember i'm talking about 1999, broadband was truly emerging. bill kinard said in his speech, one thing i don't want to do is dump the whole morass of telephone regulation on the cable pipe. he didn't do it. not only did he say that but he didn't do it. i thought that was really an important moment in the development of telecom policy. ok. with that, the final speaker we will have today is my colleague
seth cooper. for those of you that were here earlier, i talked a lot about his contribution. i'm not going to repeat that now. i'll just say, i'm really grateful. seth has been such an important part of our foundation. immediately after he speaks, i'm going to ask that the video be restarted. there are really some fantastic videos that you haven't seen. i hope you stay for 15 or 20 minutes and watch those videos. i think you would enjoy seeing them. with that, seth. [applause] >> good afternoon. nice to see everyone here. thanks for coming. i hope you winced -- enjoy your
luggage tag. when you use it, write your name in the card. otherwise, we will get a lot of lost luggage sent to our office. please do that if your luggage -- we will try to get it back to you. about 12 years ago, i began my work with the freestate foundation. i had a few good reasons for wanting to work there. i will share a few of them with you very briefly. it was a wonderful opportunity to work with an organization that was focused on some fascinated issues. internet technology, broadband services, law and policy. 2009. the convergence of a traditional cable, telecommunications, and wireless services is well underway. streaming video is off and
running. people have smart phones. to see that interact with the policy framework that has just about none of those things in mind when it was developed. a law that is old and getting older. it was past when i was in high school. my oldest child will be high school age in four years. it was really fascinating that way. the second reason is institutionally, the freestate foundation had a lot of gravitas early on because it brought a lot of high-caliber scholars and former officials that had been enlisted in providing research and writing. people like dennis wiseman, people like karen robinson. people like michelle conley. deborah taylor tate, christopher u. later on, daniel lyons and others. affiliated with people like that.
it's a terrific opportunity. that leads me into the third reason which is more personal. that's simply to work with the man himself, our president and founder. he is indispensable man. before i got to work with the foundation, i had seen his work. i had the chance to see him in other venues. i could see the esteem and the respect which he commanded and really saw that. i was impressed by that. i've continued to see that as i've worked with him for 15 years. he led the freestate foundation with skill, hard work, vision. bringing a sharp lawyer's mind to his work with the depth of experience from being an accomplished attorney, fcc official, law professor, and a published scholar and expert in communications law,
administrative law. randy has the ability to bring thoughtful analysis to the complex and intricate issues in a way that's interesting, thoughtful, also clever. lots of times, a good sense of humor. to be able to get to the nub of things. at the same time, writing about these things to step back and look at some of the broader principles. the first principle, things like the declaration of independence and the united states constitution. the rule of law, separation of powers, litigated government. free markets, private property, intellectual property, freedom of speech. we've always known that those kind of principles are hard-fought. they are not automatic. you have to continuously explain them, defend them, vindicate them, try to influence those who have the task of implement in
them. and the freedom of speech, we've seen it come under attack. for communication services, it's important to us that freedom of speech remains. it's what it means to be a free person. these are technologies of freedom, not for coercion or control. it's important not just because of the constitution. it's important. even in the details, even in the modern technology. when you do that and host events which you court people with different views, you are sending to them the kind of respect that belongs to all people and all free people. it's very important as we continue our work. i look forward to continuing network. randy, i am grateful for you. you have been a terrific boss.
my family is thankful for you. the cooper family. we pray for your family. i enjoy working with you. thank you. [applause] ♪ >> weekends on c-span to bring you the best of american history and nonfiction books. saturday on american history tv at 2:00 eastern on the presidency, a at how the lexus -- legacy of woodrow wilson fares in an age of racial whack -- reckoning. the president wilson house and the woodrow wilson rent international center for scholars. 8:00 eastern, two programs on the reconstruction era in america. first, from the citadel military college. joseph riley and terry taylor
looking at why the new international african-american museum is being built in the city. joined by a harvard university professor who talks about his work with pbs on a documentary about reconstruction. at 8:50 p.m. eastern, abigail cooper teaches a class on african americans during the reconstruction era and how former slaves strove for economic rights and full citizenship including the right to vote and choose where they work. book tv features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. on sunday at 8:00 eastern, we feature current and former members of congress discussing their latest and favorite books including the former south carolina covered -- governor with his book. kansas democratic representative with her book.
in the senate mitch mcconnell sharing his reading. 10:00 eastern on afterwards, ben nelson talks about his book. his recommendations to restore it. the interview. watch american history tv and book tv and book tv every weekend on c-span two and find the full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org. ♪ >> sunday night on q&a. brookings institution senior fellow david wessel discusses his book. >> opportunity zones created 8764 tax havens across the country. they gave wealthy people an
incentive to put their money in those poor communities in exchange for a capital gains tax break. unfortunately, we don't know how much money has gone into them as a result of that arcane senate process known as reconciliation. that's now a household word in washington. a provision required reporting was stripped out. i would say based on the stuff i said, we are talking about tens of billions of dollars going into opportunity zones. unfortunately, i think the bulk of the money has gone into zones that didn't really need the money. they were already improving. or it went to projects that probably would have been built otherwise. >> david wessel with his book, sunday night at 8:00 eastern. you can watch our podcast on a new c-span now app. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government.
we are funded by these television companies and more. >> providing eligible families access to affordable internet through the connect to complete program. bridging the digital divide one connected and engaged student at a time. bringing us closer. >> a public service along with these other television providers , giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> the top two candidates in boston's nonpartisan mayoral election took part in a one-hour debate hosted by wbz tv in boston. the candidates discussed affordable housing, homelessness, public education, and police reform. the winner of the election will replace marty walsh who has been serving as labor secretary since march. ♪