>> from the university of denver, while tuesday, the 16th, the candidates will take audience questions in a town hall meeting. and the final debate, monday the 22nd, questions will shift to foreign policy from lynn university in florida. also watch the vice presidential candidates' debate thursday the 11th from center college in can vel, kentucky. and -- danville, kentucky. and we'll also cover key senate and house races. follow our coverage on c-span, c-span quaid owe and online at

c-span.org. >> host: well, summer is over as are the political conventions. congress is returning to washington. the fcc will be holding hearings again, and this week on "the communicators" we are joined by three technology reporters to look at the upcoming legislative and policy agenda which involves technology. elizabeth wasserman is the tech editor at politico. ms. wasserman, one of the issues that we've covered on "communicators" over the past year and that keeps coming up is cybersecurity. what's the status of it, and do you see further action this fall? >> guest: yes. when the senate last, when the senate left town this summer, they had just failed to pass a democratic-backed bill on cybersecurity that was calling for, um, more requirements on critical infrastructure industries such as, you know, power plants, pipelines and water systems. um, the parties, um, didn't want

to leave it as a full bust. they gave a lot of lip service to the fact that they could come back with a compromise. however, in the intervening time we had the political conventions, and each party fueled the topic with a little more rhetoric and finger pointing. and so, um, it's really going to be interesting to see whether they revisit cybersecurity when they come back in town. >> host: now, there has been some talk that president obama might look at cybersecurity through an executive order. >> guest: yes. um, and, um, during his, um -- in the party platform at the democratic convention, that was hinted at, that he could go that route. and the white house says that, um, through an executive order or some type of executive action, um, is still in the cards. um, so we'll all be watching that too. >> host: gautham nagesh of cg

anything to add to that? >> guest: sure. there's a draft executive order that they're not acknowledging, but it's out there, so there's definitely some discussion what that would look like. it's not dissimilar to the final version of the senate bill which was, essentially, voluntary public/private councils that would implement standards that would be considered best practices. what could be implemented is in question because this would be an executive program, and their authorities are, therefore, more limited. the real question is whether industry would play ball, and some would. particularly, i think, the telecom industry, some of these already fairly sophisticated technologically, these industries that have taken the measures, i think they would be open to this, especially if they were to receive some form of liability protections or information sharing from the government about threats. however, there are also some fields out there whether talking about banking or utilities, security software providers, believe it or not, the

implementation of these best practices would engender some sort of liability potentially for them, particularly with regards to their clients if they do then experience some failure. that has always been the rub when it comes to cybersecurity legislation. there are no rules now. once you implement rules, people are accountable for following them. even if they are voluntary rules. we're talking about civil suits, contracts, we're talking about threats of collusion if such laws are put into place. that's the issue and whether or not industry would be willing to, you know, especially some of these already-heavily-regulated but large industries like the utility providers and transportation companies, would they be willing to play ball with an administration voluntary regime? we don't know, and it doesn't look very good for the administration in that regard. >> host: brendan sasso, what's the mood on the hill especially if president obama would issue this executive order? >> >> guest: unsurprisingly, people's opinions break down on

whether they liked senator lieberman's bill in the first place. they'd like to see an executive order if nothing gets done on the hill, whereas the republicans leading the opposition, senator mccain and others, would say this is a power grabby the president. now he's just going to go around congress. senator leishman had been say -- lieberman had been saying if this didn't get done by july, then it wasn't going to get done at all. now he's saying well, you know, it might still happen. but it seems at least to me, you know, if you were going to bet for whether congress is going to overcome their partisan divide and come together on an issue, i would bet more on the executive order than congress getting something done. >> guest: you know, i think one of the real wildcards in all this is, um, the prospect of a possible cyber attack, and, um, such an event could, um, you

know, really light a fire under either lawmakers and/or the white house further. and i think that there also have been, they've also been posturing, um, to leave themselves some, um, some protections in case there is. um, there was just an attack in, um, saudi arabia on the oil companies there, a cyber attack. um, it's not unheard of, and, um, it could very well happen here. >> guest: sorry. i think that speaks directly to the issue, actually. there are people who say that it would take a massive or catastrophic cyber attack for us to pass some sort of regulates, at which point there would be a real danger of overreaching in what they pass. that's a valid concern. we've seen in the last year more information come out about what's possible through a cyber attack than ever before. some of it because u.s. companies have been targeted, some of it because we suddenly have information about what the u.s. government is capable of doing. i personally don't think that's

a complete coincidence. this knowledge came at a time when the pressure for cybersecurity legislation, we may hear more reports of the sorts of attacks that had been previously kept under wraps. now we're going to start maybe hearing, you know, this stock exchange was hit which was some of reports that were out there, or this company -- >> guest: well, under their laws, you know, companies have to report cyber attacks in their sec filings, so we definitely see more disclosures, and that may alarm, you know, members of the public and get something moving. >> guest: i think one of the most interesting sort of storylines in this is the divide between senators mccain and lieberman because they are, you know, the closest of friends, they're the three amigos along with graham especially on national security issues, and yet this is lieberman's baby here, this is his biggest goal before he retires, and mccain is torpedoing it. they had a meeting, these last negotiations to try to get this through the senate, and

lieberman, you know, reportedly aides were saying he exploded at mccain, and he's saying how could you do this, you know, how are you going to feel if a year from now there's an attack and people die, and you blocked this? and, of course, mccain comes back at him and says you have no right to question my credibility on national security issues. i think that speaks to how seriously people take this. >> host: well, gautham nagesh, you mentioned best practices. don't most corporations already have a cybersecurity system in place if be what would in this legislation add to it? >> guest: short answer to that question, i think, most of the difficult -- i would hesitate to say that. you would be very surprised at even sophisticated technology companies that don't necessarily implement what we would consider best practices right now. the government doesn't implement best practices right now. the pentagon has had to go through massive private security

upgrades in the last couple of years. the state of cybersecurity is very bad. you can't really overstate that we are very, very vulnerable. the question is whether regulations would change that. and that's open to debate. you can't really dictate something that technology can't work around, because one of the same questions came up in on line piracy debate. if you implement certain technical safeguards, there will be a way for criminals to work around them. so really behavior is all you can dictate, and that's what, i think, the legislation is trying to do. it's trying to get companies to take seriously the issue of the threat. i think that they do depending on the bottom line, and so if it's not -- if the threat is small enough that, you know, it's catastrophic, the company would go out of business. there are companies that, basically, that's the bet they're making. if they get hit with an attack, they're going to go out of business anyway, and that's frightening. especially if you're talking about a company that, you know, consumers depend on for part of

their livelihood, power or transportation. but that's the situation. >> guest: now, there are some corporate interests that actually want some type of legislation because they want information about cyber threats from the government. they want it almost like a one-way street, you know? they want to get the information, but maybe not necessarily have to give it in return. um, so that will be an interesting to see as well, because i think there is some momentum for something. but time will tell whether the parties and the divide can be breached. um, and whether some of the political rhetoric now that's been heating up can -- >> host: elizabeth wasserman, you mentioned that the parties threw a little fuel on the fire at the conventions. very quickly, how did they do that, and -- >> guest: well, the republicans, um, in their platform, um, pointed fingers at the obama administration, said that they haven't done enough. um, they also said that the

obama strategy for cybersecurity, um, was another example of overregulation and overreach. um, sitting with the, you know, the mitt romney's sort of theme about obama, the obama administration and business. um, and on the other hand, um, democrats, um, right after the lieberman bill, um, faulterred this summer -- faltered this summer, the white house was pointing fingers at republicans for thwarting the bill, a much-needed bill. and the democratic, um, platform, um, also conversely touted the white house's actions and, again, um, reiterated the need for, um, some type of, you know, requirement for certain, you know, to protect the critical infrastructure of the nation. >> host: brendan sasso, do you see this as an issue that john mccain would filibuster? >> guest: yes, right now. they did, they filibustered and

stopped it in the senate. i think one interesting question, though, is like elizabeth was mentioning, the information-sharing piece is a part that everybody wants, um, but the lieberman bill also had the standards. the executive order wouldn't have the information sharing most likely, it would only have the standards. so i think it's an interesting question if the white house does this executive order, will there then be any momentum on the hill to at least get that information-sharing piece done? even then, though, there are questions about privacy protections that civil liberties groups and the white house expressed concern about the republican bill, that it would allow companies to just hand over all this personal information to nsa or cia. so they want to make sure there are privacy protections in there. but, of course, businesses don't like the idea of stripping out personal information, they don't really want to do it, so i think that's an interesting question. >> host: okay, very quickly, we've got to move on to other

issues, but very quickly, yes or no congressional action or executive order action? >> guest: i think executive order's more likely. >> guest: i actually wouldn't give p hope on, up hope on information sharing in congress. i think privacy bill's have a shot. >> guest: i'm going to side with gautham there. i think there's a possibility that the side could coalesce around the information sharing. >> host: brendan sasso, another issue we may see on the technology front this fall. >> guest: well, another big issue is spectrum auctions which the fcc is going to be taking up. this was a bill that was passed earlier this year, it was a tax cut extension and sort of at the last moment to raise revenue they tacked on this provision that gave the fcc the authority to encourage television broadcasters to give up their licenses for frequencies and then to make room in the airwaves for cell phone providers because with all the growth in smartphones and tablet computers, there's this real

crunch for frequencies, and so they're trying to give these groups that have had it for a long time the broadcasters, get them to give up their licenses for cellular providers. and so the fcc is, they're just circulating an order that would have a really aggressive timeline and try to get this done. it's, obviously, a really complicated process, and they're trying to get it cone by 20 -- done by 2014 which might sound slow, but it's actually an aggressive timeline. >> host: so the auctions would not take place until 2014? >> guest: that's right. and that's actually the fastest timeline anyone's been talking about. the interesting thing is they're trying to do this simultaneously where they'll have some sort of process where they'll get the licenses from the broadcasters and then give them to the cellular providers simultaneously. but a big question is how many broadcasters are going to want to participate, because it essentially means going out of business. i think that's the question a lot of people are asking, how much money they'll take --

>> host: given that time line, are we going to see more verizon/cable company deals? >> guest: that well, i think, has run dry. we may see verizon, at&t, perhaps t-mobile, sprint going out and finding it wherever it still exists, and that's what a lot of people thought the cable deal was, them poking around for those dormant pockets of spectrum that exist. at the end of the day, most of the spectrum is held by the government, and in that case, the pentagon has a hand on most of it. so if we're looking for more airwaves, eventually, all roads lead back to the pentagon. they've acknowledged that. we've heard lawrence strickling and other members of the administration essentially acknowledge that government spectrum needs to be repurposed for commercial use. really what brendan was talking about was the shift in consuming video from over a cable connection to consuming it on a tablet computer or a smartphone.

that is what is driving the change in bandwidth, and as i've opined, i think it's reversible. people want to watch television or video on their ipads, and we have to find a way to make it work. broadcasters argue they can do that using their technology, so i think a lot of them will be reluctant, and particularly when local stations start closing, we may hear something from congress because that's what we're talking about here, local stations going out of business in exchange for money so their airwaves can be given to the wireless carriers. this is a sensitive topic. >> guest: although the issue of spectrum, it doesn't have the political divide that, say, a cybersecurity issue has. um, both parties supported, um, the idea of the incentive auctions and, um, recognized the need to get more spectrum out on the market for wireless companies to provide these services which, um, people want and are clamoring for. um, at the same time, you've got industries that are divided, and i wouldn't be surprised if

broadcasters did work, um, through lawmakers a bit to raise questions about, you know, or raise concerns about, um, what it's going to do to the local tv market. at the same time, there are some broadcasters who are probably willing to, um, either have their spectrum repacked or moved or want to call it quits or sell out. actually, there was a report recently in "the wall street journal" about a venture capitalist buying up small stations for the value of their spectrum, hoping that this double auction, this will be profitable because the broadcasters would get to share in the profits. they would sell their spectrum back to the government, and the government could, would auction it off to wireless companies. and so the whole idea, this deal that -- um, this deal was brokered as a way to incentivize, um, broadcasters to, um, turning over unused or

little-used resources. >> host: but could we see another private deal like the verizon cable company? could an abc and sprint, for example, could they make some kind of an arrangement privately without the government involvement, or is that out of the question? >> guest: well, i think at&t makes some smaller acquisitions after the t-mobile bid failed. they've made some smaller acquisitions, not on the scale of the verizon spectrum bid, i be i think you may see, um, those kinds of deals made, um, where they can because, um, these big companies need, need the resources. >> guest: and, of course, the government will always be involved because any transfer of licenses has to be approved by the fcc. but as i said, you know, the lightsquared spectrum, that was a private deal. there's talk of other companies being interested in that. so, yes, any spectrum that's not actively being deployed is probably ripe for someone, and most likely a major wireless

carrier is trying to acquire it. >> host: brendan sasso, do you see lightsquared coming back to the table, and do they have allies in congress? >> guest: they have a massive lobbying operation going on, and, i mean, right now things aren't looking good for them. the spectrum they have was interfering with gps, so they've kind of backed away, and they're a little bit under the radar. but they're still out there, and there's still a lot of money behind them, and they do have allies in congress, although they also have a lot of enemies on the hill too. anyone who's allied with the gps commitment, and senator grassley put a hold on the, fcc nominees for months. i don't think they're going to forget that the reason they didn't get confirmed for six months was because of this light squared issue. -- lightsquared issue. they're still trying to find a way to find some other spectrum, maybe there's some sort of swap out there. i'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but they're still trying to find something to build their network.

>> host: elizabeth wasserman, it looks like you wanted to add something. >> guest: oh, there's also a way to share spectrum, and lightsquared has indicated they're interested in doing that too, but i also wanted to bring back the topic of government spectrum since that is where, um, the government owns the most spectrum. and, um, the chairman of the fcc has actually been meeting with military leaders to try to, you know, explain how, um, how some of the spectrum that's either underutilized or used for in many only certain areas or at certain times could be, um, could return to the market. and, um, so i don't think that that, that anything's going to happen in time for the 2014 auction, but this industry needs, has already -- is already up on the hill lobbying for even another auction, another spectrum auction after this one.

so, um, they don't see their needs, um, being, um, alleviated by the incentive auctions. >> guest: i think that's absolutely correct. based on the projections and demand for mobile data, the curve goes straight up. so the administration's national broadband plan calls for, i think, 500 megahertz of spectrum to be freed up. they don't know if they're going to meet that target. i think they've freed up something like 200 megahertz since obama took office. even if they did, the projection is they would still need significantly more bandwidth. so lawrence strickling and some of the administration officials sharing the spectrum is what they think is going to achieve that and technological advancements along with it. but instead of that next band of spectrum they're looking to free up from the pentagon, they want to create some sort of spectrum superhighway where multiple companies would be able to run their services on it similar to how unlicensed spectrum is used. again, that's years away.

so in the short term, we don't really know how it's going to work out. >> host: well, gautham nagesh, you were at the consumer electronics show last year, and a lot of companies have technology where the networks can now offer wireless coverage of what their showing d -- what they're showing. is this going to restrict what the networks may be willing to give away or trade? >> guest: i think so. you're talking about the broadcast networks, i assume? >> host: right. >> guest: yes. the broadcasters are also working on technology which they say will enable them to beam content directly to your smartphone or tablet using broadcast platform which is not quite the same as mobile data. in other words, when they broadcast one to many, it doesn't take up as much bandwidth, and so it's more scaleable. if you want -- if everyone's going to watch nbc shows on their ipad, then comcast and nbc believe they have a more efficient way to do it without giving up all their spectrum.

again, these are technologies that are very forward-looking, and adoption by the consumer market, i think, will have a lot to do about whether those proposals get any legs. >> host: all right. gautham nagesh, one more issue. >> guest: personally, i i this a couple -- i think a couple court cases are going to have a huge impact going forward. one is the verizon cable deal we referred to, that's going to result in a few other spectrum deals like t-mobile is going to get some of verizon's spectrum, but the other is apple/samsung case. apple won a huge patent infringement case, a billion dollars in damages. the bottom line is samsung will have to rethink how it constructs its products, and this is really some of the pat tent issues that we've had coming to a head. and we don't know how that's going to effect the future of device creation and design because now android devices and other companies are going to have to think very seriously whether or not they're infringing on other technologies.

>> guest: this was after congress just overhauled the patent laws for the first time in, i think, 60 years. um, and that was just last year. so it remains to be seen whether there's going to be a move to, on the hill to look at, um, the patent issue again. certainly, um, i think that some lawmakers are concerned about the apple/samsung case in that, um, if the ruling stands and if apple is able to get injunctions against samsung devices, will they be pulled off of store shelves? i mean, we live in a country that we not only like our nifty new devices, but we want the cheap knockoffs too, so, i mean, that's one of the realities. um, and, um, and if it becomes a trade war, um, if the patent war becomes a trade war, then you may see more intervention by the hill. >> guest: i would just say i'd be surprised if devices actually got pulled from the shelves because things change so quickly, they're coming out with

new models all the time. you know, by the time -- samsung's going to appeal, and these devices are going to be three generations old, and they won't be on the shelves anymore anyway. i'm not sure, i mean, maybe that'll come up, but my guess is that won't happen anytime. >> guest: that's right. the iphone 5 is supposed to come out next week, so maybe we've already moved on. >> host: what haven't we talked about, elizabeth wasserman? >> guest: um, net neutrality was a hot topic if the a -- >> host: for the last ten years. >> guest: yeah. we thought it had been resolved by the fcc. although there's this lingering court case, verizon and metro pcs are challenging, um, the fcc's net neutrality rules in court, and, um, that case probably won't go to trial until the end of the year, maybe early next year. um, but, um, there was a lot of rhetoric, again, at the conventions about, um, net neutrality and whether it's a

good policy or not. the republicans very much adopted a platform plank that called for the repeal of net neutrality rules. um, and, um, while -- so, um, and i think that is a line that the house republicans have been, um, they've been calling attention to that and raising questions about net neutrality for a while. so it'll with interesting -- it'll be interesting to see depending how i the election goes, how the congressional election goes whether there's also a move to undo some of the, um, the rules like net neutrality. >> guest: well, yes. and i'm not a lawyer, but i'm told that the case for the net neutrality regulations is, i think, debatable at best. so the court challenges have a real attempt -- the last time comcast challenged the fcc's net neutrality regulations in 2010, i believe, they won, and they threw them out. reclassification of broadband

service was brought up as the option to get around that. they elected not to do that, so they reworked their rules in a way the fcc thought would stand up in court. that remains to be seen. aside from that, as elizabeth pointed out, the republican party has tried to conflate net neutrality and the internet freedom issue. democrats are interfering with content, and the net neutrality campaign promise of 2008 came at a very different time. now the nation's largest internet provider owns one of the four broadcast networks. we're starting -- verizon and cable have these deals going on, we're starting to see isps and content providers link up in meaningful ways. these are exactly the sorts of concerns that proponents of net neutrality raised in the first place, so if anything, the issue is more relevant than before. the fcc, of course, has other options if it doesn't stand up in court. >> guest: also the net neutrality provisions have been embedded in some of the telecom

deals like the comcast/nbcu merger. it's a condition of the merger that they have these reviews and that they have to, um, make net neutrality, um, incorporate it into their business plans. >> guest: and it seems the net neutrality might get stripped down to only the provisions they can impose on these deals because, i mean, i agree with gautham that, you know, i'm not a lawyer, but the d.c. circuit was the court that knocked down the fcc's rules before, and they were pretty clear about it. the fcc just got unlucky. i think there was a lottery, and they got the same court that didn't like it before. so it seems, you know, it seems unlikely that it'll survive in the court. again, i think it's interesting that in both party platforms internet freedom was mentioned. it's become this hot topic in the last few months especially since the sopa privacy contest. everyone loves to jump on this bandwagon of internet freedom,

but nobody has a clear definition of what that means. it's a great example where the two sides say the opposite, republicans say net neutrality is the horrible invasion of internet freedom, the government regulating the internet, and democrats say you need net neutrality to have a free and open internet, or you'll have these corporations dominate it. >> guest: i think the origin came during the arab spring when some of the governments in the middle east shut down the internet to try to, you know, disperse protesters or so protesters couldn't use social media to arrange, you know, to organize and communicate. but it's interesting how, um, in our own country the definitions have evolved and been politicized. >> host: gautham nagesh, last word. >> guest: i think that internet freedom may be perhaps the issue of next year, especially if we do see the things that are going on in syria and some other parts of the middle east. repression of communications, it's a fundta