through. >> add one other question. there was these suggestions last week that the coloradans have been brought in by middle east soldiers. cdc is now reporting that it is from south asia. and i wonder if you've been satisfied with where the u.n. have looked into this. >> i believe that is still a matter that's under investigation. thank you. >> in a few moments on "the communicators," a discussion of how telecommunications and technology policy could change if the republicans win back the house of representatives.

>> this week on "the communicators" come a discussion on what would happen to technology and telecom policy of republicans win back the house of representatives. argus or two from advisers to the house energy and commerce committee. >> host: well, with control of congress up for grabs in tuesday's election, "the communicators" is looking at potential leadership changes in congress when it comes to telecommunications policy as well as legislative proposals that the democrats and republicans may take up in the 112 congress when it comes to telecommunications. joining us are two former capitol hill staffers who have both worked on telecommunications policy. howard waltzman is the former

chief telecommunications council. gregg rothschild served in the same position for the democrats. he also worked on the senate side on telecommunications policy. gentlemen, thank you for being with us. both of our guests currently are lawyers who practice telecommunications law. when nfl so, tony romm of the political report. if i could ask you a general question. powered waltzman, we'll start with you. if republicans take over congress, the house and/or the senate, what do you think are some of the legislative policies that they may pursue and where will they concentrate their efforts when it comes to telecommunications? >> guest: well, i think will be a combination of legislative policies as well as oversight. i think they'll be doing an inventory of what the fcc and ntia have been doing, what proceedings are outstanding and evaluating the direction that the commission has been going as

well as ntia proceedings on spectrum. obviously, at the top of that list is the issue of broadband reclassification in their totality. so i would expect republicans to take a very hard look at where things stand with the commission. obviously, the commission recently asked for additional comments on managed community wireless. allstate stock over the commission is and where the commission tends to go. on the legislative side, you know, you could see a legislative reaction to what the commission may do on broadband reclassification. i also expect a lot of activity on the spectrum friend. obviously there's been a lot of talk about there being a spectrum crunch and about the need for additional spectrum for commercial mobile services. as well as, you know, a need for congress to act to provide the fcc with the authority to have incentive option. so i expect the republicans to

be, you know, initiating that discussion at the beginning. >> gregg rothschild, if the democrats control one of the chambers are both, there's been talk about revamping the telecommunications laws, where do you see them going? >> guest: well, it's an interesting question. i honestly hope they do control and rb henry waxman still as chairman if he remains chairman for research and expect him to keep his offers to find some compromise on broadband regulation. i think in a very honorable way he took on the issue during the past year against some tough odds and the consensus among a lot of the stakeholders. republicans for a reason that howard can talk about decided they didn't want to move forward at that time. i think he did a yeoman's work in reaching a compromise and i think he will be likely to push that forward. on the senate side, senator rockefeller has been very clear he considers spectrum to be a priority. he has a proposal to allocate to

transport, which is a spectrum band long been sought by the public safety community to build a network. and i think with support from the public safety community and support from certain carriers he will look to move that next in the early congress. >> host: tony romm. >> guest: i think the matter what happens next week there'll be consensus among stakeholders that there will be a lot of changes on the communications subcommittee in particular. there's a lot of members that are vulnerable, lott are retiring and another that has aspirations elsewhere. other subcommittees even outside of the energy and commerce umbrella. so i guess the question is, it has operated under a bipartisan regime. he told us he felt the subcommittee was the least likely to be impacted by a change in the control of the house. so with the new crop of republicans coming into the subcommittee, do you think that the subcommittee keeps its

current bipartisan player or do you think there's more antagonism between the two parties over some of the issues both of you just identified like net ecology of broadband reclassification. we'll start with you. >> guest: i think they have had a partisan shop going back to the decades when it was jack fields and ed markey, billy told them and add marquee and then fred upton and ed markey. and then, ed markey and upton, then stearns and then stern and boucher. it's always had a tradition of bipartisanship. when gregg and i were there together we worked a number of issues together. there's always been an impetus in the subcommittee to find common ground to try to move forward and bipartisan manner. >> host: do you think this election in particular has been rather partisan in the last couple weeks have been so as well. you see that changed at all with the new crop of gop candidates coming in? to think maybe the subcommittee could become particularly more polarized as some of these have been issues become the key things that the subcommittee is considering? >> guest: the communication issues historically are not

either sort of polarizing issues are hot button issues. i mean, it's not the sort of polarizing type of issue like health care is. so when you look at spectrum issues come when you look at broadband deployment, when elected even privacy, none of these issues break down in a partisan manner. i mean, there are different approaches. but there aren't sorted categorically different approaches like there are in other policy areas. >> guest: i absolutely agree with howard on that point. if you look at historically to the toes and dingell bill of the telecommunications act the ugly democratic and republican. after very partisan elections in 94 in 2,002,004, that committee so always worked -- the subcommittee worked in a bipartisan way. the one exception is broadband regulation. and on that one issue, which is not neutrality, which really came to the floor, i think back in 2006, it is larger broken down along partisan lines and that is one issue where a

boucher or a waxman of the committee on the subcommittee site and the weather is head of the republican side of the committee and the subcommittee i would expect them to take very different viewpoints. >> host: that gets us to the natural sacred by net neutrality which is making headlines everywhere. just before lawmakers went on the break to begin campaigning for november, we saw the beginnings of a net ecology compromise of sorts that was introduced by waxman at the full committee. it seems some republicans could have supported it, but ultimately did not, whether it was because of the time i can affect the bill is introduced so quickly was that the election is coming up. there's no shortage of regions on that alone. i guess the question is going forward, if the gop doesn't uptake in the house, does that compromise come back? to their work in a bipartisan manner where does the gop never broached the subject of a compromise? >> guest: one thing you need to recognize is a different approach and motivation for any type of broadband regulation legislation. you know, on the democratic

side, i think a lot of the democrats, including the leadership of the committee believes there is a threat to internet's openness in the absence of at least sec oversight, if not also congressional oversight. on the republican side, they don't believe there's a threat to internet openness. they see a lack of problems happening out there they don't see a need for regulation or legislation. so the motivation for legislation at all if it exists on the republican side is to stop the fcc from regulating broadband services under title ii as common carriage. so i mean, that approach is sort of colors the entitled debate because -- i mean, the motion for doing it will be based upon whether or not the fcc will move forward or if there is a real threat the fcc will go forward. >> host: word is that leave democrats? >> guest: to pick up on howard's point, i agree with

what he said. i think a lot will depend on what the fcc does between the election when congress comes back in. what i mean by that is at the fcc chairman goes ahead and house in order reclassifying title ii, then i would expect the congress, frankly republican or democrat to work together to make sure there's a legislative -- a legislative strategy in place to address broadband regulation as opposed to what the fcc did. certainly republicans take over, use the public investigations and more oversight of that in addition to legislation. >> host: do think that forces the fcc to speed up or slow down any movement on the reclassification or net neutrality front of the gop were to retake the house? and that's to both of you. >> guest: you can make an argument both ways on that i think. i think the chairman of the fcc has said he is referring to a congress that he wants congress to go had a night, which makes sense. the telecommunications act currently was written for a single network -- single-purpose network analog environment and

that doesn't persist today. so the chairman of the fcc is looking to address that after the recent court decision. if he does, then clearly will have -- we'll have reaction coming from the congress. at one point i wanted to add to what howard mentioned is the problem when elected a democrat republican side, many democrats don't support the fcc decision. roughly 25%, maybe more, write the fcc a letter saying don't go forward with this approach. and i would color what happens next or whether or not democrats or republicans are in charge. >> guest: the question in terms of both the fcc way for legislation, you know, legislation is not an easy thing. it's not a quick process. gregg and i could go on for a lifetime about how the communications act is outdated and needs to be updated, including especially with respect to the internet space. so you know, is the fcc going to wait until january or february for congress to act as the fcc

going to patient and wait for congress to really create an appropriate framework for internet services. you know, i don't think it is just a question about the fcc will wait if congress is going to enact legislation, or chief consensus in both houses, you know, by sort of january or february. there's obviously a lot of public interest groups are pushing the fcc to act as quickly as possible. i don't think republicans feel a need for the east of legislation because again i don't see a threat to the internet out there. >> host: immediately once republicans be able to take a subcommittee. we do what you might be leading at the things of sort. we look for ways to constrain the fcc or redefine its role the broadband space? >> guest: again, to redefine -- >> host: and a more limited role i suppose. >> guest: to redefine would be legislatively. i do see them immediately engaging in oversight and really evaluating where is the fcc?

what has the fcc done? where's the fcc planning on going and putting together an action plan from there. if there is immediate need for action, you know, i would expect the republicans to act. but you know, if there's not an immediate need for action, they're going to take more time and address the issue in a deliberate fashion. >> host: gentlemen, if the broadband issue is opposed by 25% of democrats, is this a philosophical issue? is this a geographical issue? how does this one breakdown? >> guest: i mean, you know, part of it is philosophical. part of it is what is the extent to which the fcc should be involved in sort of internet network management. should prioritization be possible? i mean, what are the sort of expectations with respect to internet applications? but a lot of it also comes down to the planet. and i think that's a regional issue because i think a lot of

members are more concerned with, you know, what is the extended deployment in my district or state? what are the seeds? what is the network sophistication? and they are more concerned about getting investment out there who to have the best services possible. i think what you saw with every house republican -- and as craig said, 25% of the house democrats and wait fcc, your third way is the wrong approach. it's because they're more concerned with getting the best broadband services to their customers and making sure the private sector deployment and investment supports that and they are about a potential threat in the future to internet's openness. >> guest: and to add to that, what howard is referring to is this notion that members want to see the fcc help them get broadband to their districts. debut, and particularly today when jobs are such an important issue, they want the fcc to help them get broadband, get

deployment, get jobs, get economic health in their districts. they believe that when julius genachowski was talking about the national broadband plan does a good step in that direction. you stack them up more spectrum for wireless. talking about reforming universal service to get broadband deeper into certain parts of america that don't have it today. a lot of democrats and republicans look at the fcc is preoccupation with the italian favorite affecting, that's not what we want you to do. what's you to focus on broadband. a lot of democrats in opposing the proposal was an enema message. we want you to get back to basis. >> host: gregg rothschild, what is the relationship between the telecommunications and the fcc? invariably at? >> guest: there's always been a lot of communication going on between the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the committee about the house in the senate and the fcc. the fcc is a creature of congress, created by congress and certainly the chairman of

the committee when i worked for john dingell, the ranking member, he good at similarly. but the focus on the fcc should be paying attention to the committee. i think the people to hold the gavel and people who sit next to them expect them to be respectful of the wishes of the congress. >> guest: i was following a subcommittee staff as well as i worked with senator brownback that there was a good dialogue with the fcc. the fcc was always open to the commissioners embryos in terms of coming up in doing briefing. both republican lead. sometimes we liked what they were doing, sometimes we didn't. i was phallic there is a good healthy dialogue in the fcc always made themselves accessible to hill staff. >> host: this is c-span "the communicators" program. were talking about the upcoming tuesday midterm election with gregg rothschild, former chief telecommunications council for the energy and commerce

committee when the republicans were in charge. and gregg rothschild, who was the chief telecommunications counsel when the democrats were in charge. tony romm, politico, next topic area. >> host: there's been this thers huge preoccupation w area. >> host: there's been this huge preoccupation with net neutrality in some cases to the dutch are viewed of members would like to see the fcc talking about things on the national broadband plan. let's are talking about those items. one of the things the fcc when it was a connect america fund, a fund that would help build out broadband to some of the heart to reach areas. but there was a poll that came out not long ago by the pew center this about americans didn't want the sec to pay that much of general and expanding broadband by itself. as some stakeholders had said that, you know, maybe there was a misunderstood the question or maybe which is when voters hear government and broadband expansion, they think government controlling the internet or something like that. i guess the question isn't a gop controlled congress, what role

does the yes cc play? does it take the lead, wait for congress? what relationship develops there. with share with you, howard. >> guest: one of the primary focus is in the next congress will be on spectrum, getting more spectrum out there and spectrum being a means to increase broadband will deployment and subscribership and the united states. the fcc can only go so far right now. there are certain bands they could make available for commercial use, but there's a lot of other preemptive like to make available for commercial use of any congressional action before they can do so. so i really see that as being a focal point. i mean, the fcc is sort of talking to congressman urbina dialogue back and forth, the congress acting to ensure that more spectrum can be made available. >> host: do you foresee the republicans been supportive of senator rockefeller's proposal? and what about julius genachowski's use of the whitespace's proposal? >> guest: well, i think

republicans have come down on the whitespace proposal and they've come down in different places on senator rockefeller's proposal. you know, certainly -- again, another example of the bipartisanship on communications issues as waxman and berger had a bipartisan proposal for how to deal with the d block. it was different than the rockefeller proposal. so you know, i don't know that it will necessarily be embraced in the house on either side. >> host: i guess just to follow up on that, on the d block in particular, which is what were essentially talking about, a small chunk of spectrum that can be given to public safety for them to build out or for commercial carriers which would release a spectrum of. how do you see that result in itself? d.c. republicans taking attack the rockefeller dead were kind of working on something similar

to what waxman house, given the support of the nardi given. >> guest: so far this is broken now my house not party. it would be interesting to see how that resolves itself. right now it appears that senator rockefeller is taken initiative in the senate and the ball seems to be in his core. i would expect him to move earlier on that issue and to set the agenda in the terms of the debate. shortly after the hearing, the ranking member, senator hutchison from texas said positive things about the rockefeller proposal which indicates you might see a bipartisan bill from the senate commerce committee, which gives the d block to public safety and supports building a public safety network through options. >> host: are in in front of options, what incentive of the rockefeller bill that would take spectrum that they give up an option for wireless use, that one item that seems to be universally supported? i really haven't heard anybody on either side same incentive options are a bad thing. is that one of things that wins the day no matter what happens?

>> guest: sorry. i think the concept is there a lot of details you have to work out in terms of how much money to the existing -- you know, to the existing licensees just get compensated to seize business? do they get compensated to be relocated to a different band? so there are lots of issues involved in nine to the mechanics. i think in general, using auction proceeds. i mean look, the spectrum below three gigahertz is ideal for commercial mobile services. the spectrum below one gigahertz is even better because it got better propagation characteristics. you could build fewer towers. so there's a lot of interest in making more spectrum below one gigahertz available for commercial mobile use. if you have to displace existing licensees, but some sort of wrenching decisions that have to be made about how you compensate them and whether they're going to be in business in a different band. so i don't do gets clear about where members will come down on any of those sorts of issues.

but i think there's a relic of the kids that issue. >> host: i was just going to see what disturbed the premise that nothing in this policy is ever universally supported. so the notion of incentive options that are very toplines has the support of the broad pass community in support of the wireless community. but there's a lot of question and howard raised some of the most important ones where you could quickly see fissures start to well up among the parties or industries very, very quickly. it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. >> host: mr. rothschild, the issue of online privacy is gotten a lot of press attention in the last six months or so. how do you see that plane out of the 112? >> guest: that's always a wildcard in this issue area. i would just observe that since 1999 and correct me if this is bob, and every congressman is begun, the chairman of one of the committees of jurisdiction so this is the year will pass privacy legislation. future we spent spent time on

it, bills are introduced. what typically folks recognized as they get deeper into the debate. it's a complicated ecosystem. as ad networks, publishers, content providers, internet service providers. and what is grown up is the ecosystem where consumers benefit from a lot of internet content is made available for free. and the reason that isn't supported by advertising and advertising is becoming more valuable to support richer content because of the targeted nature of that advertising. but it's also how that n. becomes targeted, which is where consumers sometime object. and that's where the rub is. when members of congress or to delvin in and write bold, they realize quickly they are in effect in that ecosystem and will affect the way that consumers may not like. that issue, how that issue gets resolved and if it is able to get resolved will determine whether we have legislation in the next congress. >> host: the noise,

mr. waltzman has really ramped up in the last six months. would you agree? >> guest: absolutely. and the problem is that people do more and more online, not just communicate, but participate in social networks. you know, purchase products. you know, as more and more of your information is sort of their online, is more valuable to advertisers. and that for better or worse is the engine that drives the internet ecosystem. most applications or most websites are free. and they're free because, as gregg said, their advertisement driven. and so the tug-of-war between people wanting to protect and keep confidential and a lot of that information about what they're doing online verses, it you know, sustaining the economic model, the internet is a very tough dilemma. i absolutely agree with you that it's everyday. everyday "the wall street journal" series is a good example. and there are other examples.

you know, there was a lot of noise about customer -- not even customer coverage of stephen people participating on social networks, having their information, including personally identifiable information in passed on to third parties and sold to advertisers. >> host: the next question is this it is a tough dilemma figured out the right balance. does that leave the subcommittee or full committee to take more of a wait-and-see approach as the 112 congress in what the ftc and department of commerce to be for a good of legislatively or? or does it take a more proactive role, you know, starting with the 112 takes off -- with 111th left off with voucher concerns in russia and the many members who have long been working on it. that's to both of you. just go the issue will have a high profile in the next congress. members will begin to debate and be educated for witnesses on,

you know, what the best approaches. i don't know that don't necessarily begin with where the current legislative drafts are, but i certainly think the issue is going to continue to be important and there's going to be a continued focus on if there's going to be a federal comprehensive framework in the online space, what should i framework be? >> guest: we saw the white house put together an interagency task force on this issue. we expect the chairman of the ftc to release his report very soon. beside the private sector come together with a self-regulatory set of guidelines and policies which are just implemented. i think congress will get together in january and look about that. the research may be hearings. i think we know for certain there'll be legislation introduced. the question will always be one that legislation starts to move, to the members feel comfortable voting on not? and do they really feel comfortable they understand the ramifications of it?

the most difficult thing -- the most difficult reason it's difficult as members like to vote on things they feel really comfortable with the substance. and on the issue of privacy, because of the intricacies of the ecosystem and will take members a well to get ready to do that legislation. >> host: gentlemen, verizon, at&t, comcast, facebook, microsoft, google, intel, cisco just to name a few. very large american companies. who do they want to be in charge? republicans or democrats? >> guest: i think you'd have to ask them. >> guest: i would agree with howard. i'd rather you ask them. next question. >> host: i guess i does get us into a laptop with was happy with a subcommittee of full committee leadership. do you see there been any drastic changes? we've heard candidates by shimkus, but didn't, leaving to veterans affairs. any other host of names

including walden who was once on the committee and gave up his spot. do you think those candidates -- i know you can't speak to the individual is he just said, but do you think those candidates represent different -- very strikingly different views on issues we talked about or do you see them all being in a similar camp so much so it's safe to say no matter which one of them does take up a subcommittee will see a slightly different role for the subcommittee, like as he said leasing the fcc, tiki barber vaccinate. >> host: just to further tony's question, does it matter if productiveness chair or joe barton or cliff stearns? >> guest: well, i think they all are going to be focused on broadband reclassification and spectrum. and you know, given the noise on privacy, it's tough not to see how they'd be focused on privacy. i think those are going to be the committee priorities. frankly, they're the committee priorities for the republicans

are in charge or democrats are in charge. so i think it also certainly is regardless of who's in charge of the committee, those are the sort of hot button issues. those are likely to be the priorities moving forward. >> host: just to follow up really quickly, what should we expect is the upton, was widely believed to be the firm running for the full committee, what should we expect to see on that front in terms of a telecom rewrite? what kind of things do you think upton led full committee might look to? >> guest: well, he's hardly been talked about. his op-ed in the "washington times" talking about is terms of regulation and engagement oversight. both a lot of oversight both to the fcc, of the btop program, everything sort of within jurisdiction. but you know, but didn't participate -- but didn't barton participated in the last attempt at a comprehensive rewrite, which was in 96 and dingell and markey participated as