tonight on this week on "the communicators," a look at potential telecommunications and technology policy in the 112th congress. our guests are former staffers patricia paoletta and catherine mccullough. >> well, with the new concourse in place and new leadership in power, we thought we would take this opportunity on "the communicators" to look at

telecommunications policy and the 112, chris. joining us are two former congressional staff members, patricia paoletta was a majority counsel in the house of representatives for the republicans in the 1990's and catherine mccullough was the former senate council on the democratic side. thank you for being with us. we appreciate it. joining also is juliana grenwald, technical daily dose of the national turtle. catherine, if i could start with you, you wrote in a recent blog comlawblog.com did you look for two things, high degree in the upcoming congress and a high degree of cooperation. why did you write that? >> i think there is going to be a high degree of cooperation on certain issues. for instance, tv spectrum allocation. when it comes to the idea of deciding on the authority for

incentive options and who's going to get what slice of the pie, i think there's a lot of incentive to work together on those issues because it's going to mean extra money for the treasury, which of course means that money can be used to either lower the deficit or put to other programs. >> do you, trisha paoletta come see cooperation in the upcoming conference on telecommunications policy, and to use the then acting on a lot of different issues? >> i think the minority party always [inaudible] certainly there is a lot of common ground on the spectrum policy and the need to rationalize the rules on spectrum auctions. i think there will be some of that. the priority coming out of the box in the house republican side is to do some very close scrutiny of the net neutrality decision that just came out from the fcc and both chairman upton and chairman walden tough called for the review for that and for hearings with the full commission, and also potential joint resolutions of disapproval, which will be a

little more challenging coming out of the senate. but to look at the very closely, and i think because the was a very party-line vote out of the sec, very recently there's a bit of a partisan feeling opening in this congress so to get to cooperation down the road but first a close review of the net neutrality decision. >> kathryn mccullough, your views on german walden as the incoming committee chair and dennett neutrality issue. >> well i think he stated his views very clearly. he issued the release with churn and upton and with terry and michael the here is right there is going to be a lot of review of federal leon and i think that a lot of the action once the initial goes on in congress the fight is pretty well defined so i think the next thing we are going to see of course is the next bit of action happening in the courts and i think it is very interesting that even

though everyone seems to be divided on this issue and very far apart on what should occur and what neutrality should look like, you know, everyone is in agreement that a delay in determining the playing field hurts everyone and yet i think that, you know, that is of course what the action is going to mean. >> both of your guests are telecommunications lawyers and stila involved in telling commission's policy is falling on capitol hill. juliana grenwald with tech daily dose? >> to see them playing a prominent role in the house gop agenda? >> absolutely because it's why we agree and this in the senate and house and of course republican and democrat that technology is the growth engine for our economy and our international competitiveness, so i do think it will play quite a big role. clearly the house gop has a set

of priorities, health care repeal come so that's going to give of energy and then of course after that is energy but tele-communications is important and because as catherine mentioned, there is a lot of broad agreement on what needs to be done, not quite how to do it but what needs to be done. once you clear through the other issues you are going to see some focus. certainly chairman upton has a track record in the policy and he chaired the subcommittee early on so he understands telecom. he's an early broadcaster and i recently he is one of the few licensed ham operators, amateur radio operators, said he understands spectrum and the importance of it so i think it will become -- it will be a big issue in this congress. >> now he hasn't really -- mr. walden hasn't really outlined his agenda in addition to network neutrality where else

do you see him acting or other priorities d.c. for him? >> certainly universal service reform. he comes from a rural state. that's a very important issue for the rural residents to get all services and to an extent there is a higher cost in the rural areas you do need some subsidization and the debate has been about reforming the program to cover a broadband subsidies. so i thing that's going to be an issue. he is bringing on as one of his staffers somebody who chaired the state regulatory grip on the universal service i think there will be an issue and certainly the vice chairman of the committee has had a longstanding interest in the universal service reform as has chairman rockefeller so i can't you're going to see that be a focus. >> speaking of sherman rockefeller, wilkie push the usf reform in this congress and do you see it happening? >> i don't know if i see it happening. chairman rockefeller is very

interested in that he is very consumer oriented and the news he pursues. on the one hand it could be made that usf is reformed the will go down as a consumer ingalls at rockefeller could pursue. on the other hand he comes from a rural state and is concerned about getting good service for west virginia. so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. i actually think that one of the key players in usf will be somebody like senator demint who is on the committee of course has a very sharp staff who know how to get there we are around the telecom issues but also he's a fiscal conservative and he is against in principal kind of, you know, based, and i think that you can look to him for some leadership on how this is going to play out. >> is usf, why is it such a money issue? >> well, depending on how you look at it, you have kind shall

we say entrenched interests in states that receive money for the services they perform, and so if you are a senator and obviously, you know, you're interested in your state interests and then you also have the national interest to consider about the program and how to broaden to take new technologies you are in kind of a choice. >> it is a money issue because in the competitive industry is quite a burden on those carrying into the fund. they said the contribution factor, interesting word but it's a mandatory payment percentage of the interstate revenues and a fleet it has gone to the historically high level. 15%, over 15% of the interstate revenue supposed to be paid into this fund working under the fcc government pays out to eligible

carriers to help them expand service. 15 per cent is quite a high number and not all carriers are subject to it because sec regulation and so you are also seeing less people participate in more of the traffic is moving onto the internet platforms and so it is becoming more of an issue so it is a lot of money involved and there's a lot of competitive distortions involved so this may be the year it gets done. >> you mentioned terrie. he drafted a bill in the converse with former congressman rick boucher to usf and he recently told me he was looking for a space partner to work with him in the 100th congress. do you see any likely democrats the would work with him on that? and if not, do you see the sec acting and do they have the authority to do what needs to be done on their own? >> i understand the democrats are still organizing their subcommittee leadership. i don't know who's going to sort

of take those roles but there are plenty of democratic members who might be interested because it is an important issue and particularly as the fund may move to cover a broadband so i think there is a number of members who might step up to do that, but so, it is an issue and what was the second? >> the sec, could they ask -- >> yes, they stated they have authority to reform the fund and the language in the act was fairly broad to give them power to amend for the services. >> what they see enacting -- >> i do think in fact they are going to act one piece of it in february it's already on their agenda. estimate a question for both of you and catherine mccullough, we will start with you, where does the congressional legislative power and at the fcc authority start? [laughter] >> i think everybody knows the answer to that question, and i think that the courts are going to be the ultimate arbiters of course they usually are, and i

find it interesting culturally that both the congress and the administration tend to ignore the courts a little bit until they are pretty far down the road and the courts come down with a hammer to, you know, for instance it is a very important question when it comes to net neutrality. and as i said we are going to be going to the courts over that issue. i think it will be interesting to see how it comes out. i am not so sure the courts are going to give the fcc with a lot. >> taking on that in my career before i went to the congress over to the fcc, so i took to heart the provision in the communications act that basically says the fcc can do whatever it wants in order to regulate interstate communications and then i went to congress and it is a different story. the conference committees are unusual committees in that they their role was spelled out in the constitution which isn't very typical. i don't know if there's other committees, maybe one or two, but the ability to regulate interstate commerce as spelled out and given to the commerce

committees and it's that authority that is delegated expressly in the conditions act so there is always that yen yang as to how much discretion the have to fill in the blanks of what is into the communications act and that is the debate in terms of net neutrality. and i wanted to pick up on one other point he made earlier in terms of mr. walden's priorities and to think he will be looking at the broadband stimulus funds that have been allocated. two years ago in the last congress there was about $7 billion allocated to the commerce and agriculture to help stimulate broadband, and a lot of that money has gone out the door and i think this congress and presumably on the senate side as well will be looking at how that money was spent. >> [inaudible] >> yeah, he will. >> darrell issa, his name is starting to pop up quite a bit when it comes to telecommunications policy. do you see him playing a role in

moving some of these issues are stopping some of these issues? >> i do. like greg comlawblog.com has a technical background and is one of the few members of congress, he has a number of them, so i think he's interested and of course he represents a district in california where silicon valley and typical entrepreneurs have a lot of political influence, so yes i did that he will be just from his district concerns and his own background he will be interested in that. >> i spoke to a member of the subcommittee staff this morning and it turns out that he is going to be going for seven hearings a week. yes, that is a lot of energy, and so i think that he is very serious in his determination to preview programs and to look at where the government's role should be. >> he has some letters to the industry associations including those in the communications

sector saying tell us what regulatory programs are undermining job growth, underlining innovation come so he already has stepped into that space. >> this is c-span's "the communicators" primm discussing 112 congress and telecommunications policy. our guests, patricia paoletta, former counsel on the house side from 2003 to 2006, and the catherine mccullough, former senate commerce council on the democratic side 20 with in the 1990's and juliana grenwald of tech debose. >> a former congressman said yesterday that his firm would like to see congress revisit the 1996 telecom act. and you see that happening? could these net neutrality issues be clarified with the rerouting of the telecom at? >> last year there was a lot of talk about free in fighting the act and i don't think that's going to happen early on in this congress because you have a lot of new members who don't have

the decades of experience that some of the departing members had, so i think you might towards the second half of the year start getting into hearings to help educate those members, but i don't see that happening early on because of the priorities and putting it net neutrality. >> i agree. i think because of the factors that were just mentioned and also because you have this situation where nobody is in the majority to read nobody feels the full control i think the first focus is going to be on the oversight hearings and investigating specific matters and when things calmed down that itt might be able to see a chance of having kind of contemplative discussions and gatherings of people who want to look at different sections of the act and there was talk about that happening last congress. and when these committees are going to get all this time to go

and kind of rationally take part but telecom act i don't know exactly when that is going to be but i don't think it would be in the early part of this next congress. >> when you see the senate and the house working together? you mentioned spectrum. are there other areas to see in the senate democrats and house republicans working together on? please go ahead. >> i think for instance there is going to be some kind of baseline privacy legislation worked out. i think the issue of privacy has been from when i worked on it several years ago the technologies have kind of come to fruition, and these definitions of what should be regulated, people were kind of coming to more of a consensus and then in the marketplace it seems as though there might be for instance we hear about facebook and possibly going

public that has tremendous implications for all of our private information, and it's difficult to see how a company like facebook can make promises to its investors when it doesn't quite know how all the information it has can be used and so it will probably be useful for that field to become clear so that investment can go forward. >> do you see congress blessing the idea of the do not attract mechanism the sec has called for? >> possibly after hearings. i think the committee has been quickly there was the do not call list at legislation butryn quickly and often the congress has reacted if there is privacy certainly would move very quickly on that. another is i think it's possible joint interest will be on the public safety specter and

various -- part of the will because representative king who is the incoming chair and the new chairman of the house homeland security and senator rockefeller share an interest in how to allocate spectrum for public safety for an interoperable network and i think their approach differs somewhat from the house energy commerce chair and so if they do introduce legislation on what is called the deep lot that might put some pressure on how the contras can react to that. >> on the opposite side of that, where do you see the senate and house may be butting heads? >> that's an interesting question. the senate and the house work together at least on the commerce committee's more than many other committees. the telecom world tends to be small and people tend to know each other. so, you know, a lot of the disagreement that you see, even

though you see opposing letters being sent and that kind of thing actually when it is going on there are talks going on behind the scenes as well certainly you are going to see it on the net neutrality the way that they are divided and i think that you will find it over issues such as usf reform and that kind of thing, too. but we will see. over these consumer issues, you know, like privacy commodores at to see a bit more coming together and also on issues like i said in the blog where there are many issues, where it looks like money can come into the treasury you're going to see a lot of cooperation from a lot of different places. >> coming from the b side of the law allows you do, were you relieved when fred upton became the chairman of the house energy committee? >> good question. [laughter] i did think he was a good

candidate. i wouldn't put it as relief. i'm glad that he's the chairman and that congressman walden will also be there. i think that he has a lot of good in sight and the important thing is for these committees and subcommittees to be held by people who have some kind of understanding of these highly technical areas. i think that helps everyone come to the consensus and create the laws that makes sense for everyone. >> patricia paoletta, coming from the republican side of the nile. >> nsa telecom earlier i am thrilled he's there because he does understand the issues and in terms of a sort of republican principles and governments, he has always articulate it a preference for reliance on market solutions and technology involved, don't come up with an answer to fix a problem that isn't really there. so i think that gives a lot of

comfort to folks across-the-board in the different sectors of communication. >> getting back to privacy who do you see being the players on that? in the house, joe barton has been outspoken on the need for privacy legislation. who do you see stepping up to the plate and who do you see stepping up to the plate in the senate? >> i think on the house the take a measured view and held some hearings. i think there is somewhat of a difference approach to privacy so i don't think you are going to see anyone initially jumping into that and leading the banner saying this was a priority but perhaps looking at it in a more measured approach. >> do you see bobby rush still being at all a starting point in the house? and he may very well be the ranking member on the telecom subcommittee. >> i think there will be discussions on that but i do not see the freedom of the bill being a vehicle that the republican members introduce. >> okay.

>> i think that, you know, the voucher bill that was the discussion draft was issued during the last congress i think that could serve as a basis and i think that bill combined with mr. rush's bill could serve as a basis. i think again one of the important things about the representative is he understood the issues three welcome his staff understood very well and he worked together with mr. stern's very well, so i think we've had come out this a pretty strong indication of what the baseline privacy bill will look like and i think when you see a bill come out and i think it will come out, it will be elements of the industry's self regulation which of course the industry has been doing for many years now. >> if you refer just a second reflect on the loss of

mr. belcher to the congress and telecommunications policy. >> i was obviously disappointed. i thought the staff was good and again i like his consensus approach. but i think again that if congressman rush comes he will probably take lessons from mr. bowsher's chairmanship and probably do the same thing in terms of seeking consensus. >> in the last congress or the last to so much of the attention has been on the energy and commerce committee and not on the senate side. is that reflective of senator rockefeller's leadership for what ever reason or is it just because that vibrancy? [laughter] vibrancy is a good word. i think part of it is a matter of jurisdiction. of course on the house side the iain sea has health care and its split off into a separate

committee so i think that is a great deal to do with it. the commerce committee on the senate side has always been kind of preserved in some ways. they like to have consensus for instance in the committee votes. they don't like to have a lot of history of liking to have a lot of, you know, a lot of stuff plea of in the press usually. you know, the two sides, the two staff get along very well. they certainly did when i was there and they were directed under no certain terms to work it out as am i chairman told me. and course senator inouye and stevens called each other brother and co-chair. so you know, on the senate side there is a definite cultural issue working that of course you don't have in the house often because the house is all about rules that allow the majority even with one vote to ram

something through and the senate is all about the minority with one vote stopping something so you are much more incentivized on the senate side. >> tricia paoletta, same question. >> why is the house more vibrant? because the house is. of course. [laughter] some of his personality driven and catherine delude to the relationship between some of the senators and so i think that well, i will leave it at that. no, i will add some of the more recent chairmen are big personalities, so i think we have seen that through the cultures. >> juliana grenwald. >> one area where senator kerry who is the chairman of the communications subcommittee on the commerce committee in the senate was very vocal last year on this issue of the mission dispute between broadcasters and cable companies. do you see the congress getting into that or defer to the fcc now that the fcc has indicated

they may do a rule making on that? >> the media initiatives always tend to get a lot of interest in the congress and for a variety of reasons. so i think yes, certainly it's not a priority right now but certainly that will get bandwidth on the road. >> i think that if the fcc doesn't take care of it in particular when you were getting closer to the election that is one of those kind of consumer issues that resonate with the voters that all of a sudden the dark horse issue comes up and all of a sudden they get resolved and gets a lot of attention. >> media ownership will that be addressed in the 112 congress, will the rules be changed? to the need to be changed? >> do they need to be changed? >> de deux for today's telecommunications world. >> i don't see it being a hot button issue. of course the review is going to be the review but i think that with everything else on the agenda in terms of congressional action there are more things i

had it on the agenda. >> there was some concern as expressed last congress by some of the republican members that some of the sec proposals that perhaps given cuts in journalism and budgets by the media companies that the government must fund the media and i think that causes a lot of concern and actually chairman walden, now chairman walden and representatives has a bill on addressing some of those issues, so certainly i think in congress but at least on the house republican side there will be close monitoring of the fcc proposals on that and if necessary there will be legislation in the areas they are concerned with in those proposals to be a disconnect you mentioned the legislation might get dealt with the fairness doctrine and that is one issue for mr. walden to read you see them pushing that legislation in the congress that is if he hasn't made any moves in that area. >> i.t. because now that he's chair he won't do anything that's less if necessary. chairmen tend to hold back and

see what's important before they put their top on the line. but as necessary. >> final question. with today's telecommunications world, are the rules governing it counted at this point? would you like to see an overhaul of the telecommunications act? >> i see that there does need to be at least an examination of several issues. if this meant neutrality issue can't get worked out in a consensus fashion reasonably quickly, then i think that that is perhaps a reason to open up larger issues. again it's kind of been talked about for a while. that is the difficulty with the telecom policy that you have these technologies that are continually changing and it's difficult to kind of hit the moving target when it comes to making sure the government is being responsible to its voters.

>> for the viewers the communications act is slash sectors and of course we are seeing more and more convergence in the real world. you've got tablets which is a convergence of a lot of different technologies. you have video and it almost looks like a cell phone, and currently those different content and services are regulated by different bureaus within the commission, so there is a challenge and who is going to drive that is the central question because as we have heard from some members it is congress that should be developing the strategy and the policy and not the fcc and the commission they say the convergence is happening. we have to react so there is a continuous pressure and challenge and we are going to see how that plays out. >> if y