booktv, 48 hours of the book programming beginning saturday morning at eight eastern through monday morning at eight eastern. nonfiction books all weekend every weekend right here on c-span2.

and this week on "the communicatorsa look at some of the telecommunications and the tech issues that the congress and the fcc may face in 2014. joining us are three working reporters on telecommunications, matthew schwartz is with communications daily, kate tummarello is with the hill, and paul barbagallo is the managing editor of bloomberg bna, mr. barbagallo, let's start with you. what do you think on the fcc and the congressional agenda this year? >> guest: well, i think to start off spectrum. the fcc in 2014 and beyond will be intently focused on spectrum. congress as well. we will have this month the first spectrum auction at the fcc in nearly half a decade, and we'll have another spectrum auction later this year, and the biggest spectrum auction, which

everybody has been eagerly anticipating, the incentive auction of spectrum in 2015 as new fcc chairman tom wheeler has stated. so that is, as i see it, one of the bigger issues in congress and fcc on the tech front. the wireless carriers have been lobbying aggressively for many years to free up federal airwaves, commercial airwaves to satisfy their consumers' appetite for bandwidth. >> host: how major is this month's spectrum auction? >> guest: well, later this month the fcc will hold the h block spectrum. many people thought it was going to be a bigger deal. basically, there isn't going to be only one bidder, dish. for years sprint, nextel had

suggested that they were going to bid, but they have not filed an application to bid. they've, they have no interest at this point. so it's really going to be dish alone buying the spectrum. not really a spruk auction so much as a spectrum sale. but we will see the fcc in action and how they conduct this auction, and following h block will be aws3 which will be somewhat of a more widely-attended auction, if you will. >> host: matthew schwartz, what else do you see the fcc working on this year? >> guest: well, what the fcc does this year is going to be determined by a brand new, very dynamic chairman in tom wheeler who used to head the wireless association, ctia and the cable association, cta, and he's not afraid to come out swinging. you know, in his book he wrote about abraham lincoln and his

use of the telegraph, he wrote in the preface that when he was in his 20s, he learned that doing the same thing that's been done previously is just an excuse for not thinking. and by that measure, chairman wheeler has been thinking ever since he came into office. the very first thing he did was turn to his former colleagues at the wireless association and say to every carrier if you do not voluntarily come up with a plan to unlock cell phones and let consumers take them to different carriers, i will come up with a plan for you. and that's so far been a trend of what we've seen in the last month and what i expect to see over the next year, is a chairman who espouses competition, says he is more than happy to let the free market take over unless there's problems, in which case he is very eager to flex the fcc's regulatory muscle. and that, the first thing we're going to see with that is the ip transition and, specifically, the trials. at&t has been requesting this for the past year, so has the

whirl association. they want trials of deregulation in various wire centers around country as they transfer from the old copper lines into fiber, the old tdm protocols to the ip protocols, switching to internet packets. and this is going to be something where the fcc takes a look and see how well does deregulation work. a lot of people say the wire center trials are going to work just fine because the carriers have every incentive of in the world to have the fcc see that deregulation works. but they're going to be looking very closely for signs of harm to consumers, to older americans who rely on things like hearing aids that have traditionally worked with land lines, with copper lines very well but don't necessarily work as well with ip technologies. they're going to look to see if what happened on fire island a year ago after the hurricane,

the superstorm, where all the wire line technologies broke down and wireless was not a very good substitute, they're going to look to see whether wireless and ip is a good substitute after at&t pulls the copper out in the wire line trials. so he's not going to be afraid to take action if things fall apart during the trials. >> host: kate tummarello, what about the hill? is there an agenda, a tech agenda on the hill? >> guest: i would say one of the biggest issues for the tech world is going to be surveillance reform. 2013 was a big year for surveillance, all the snowden leaks, and that will keep coming. the leaks, in fact, will keep coming, we've been told. by end of january, president obama will address his review group's recommendations. they put forward 46 recommendations, some of which the white house is likely to accept, stop at that. but there are some that are getting more contentious and will lay out exactly where the white house stands on some of these issues. on the hill we have two kind of battling groups.

there's the reform surveillance, rein it in, end bulk collection. you see that with representative sensenbrenner and patrick leahy, but then you have the intelligence committees looking to protect the nsa and keep the surveillance programs as they are now. that should play out certainly over the next few months, and we'll see where president obama stands on things. >> host: as a larger issue, the issue of privacy, if you could all address that issue and potential legislative or regulatory reforms. >> guest: well, privacy definitely is moving on many fronts. there's the surveillance issue and the issue of access to consumer data by governments. that's something that, like i said, the hill will be looking at. but also even the fcc is jumping in. they're considering comments on a petition to have current fcc rules apply to government access to user data. but we're also looking at commercial privacy developments. you see multistakeholder events -- or efforts, sorry, just not moving as quickly as some would like, and the hill is taking up that issue. just last month senator

rockefeller said during a hearing that commercial privacy is an even bigger deal than nsa access to data. this is his last year in office, so if he wants to do something, now's the time. >> the fcc is one of the organizations that is not as focused on privacy, they're more focused on the technical aspects. but as ms. tummarello said, there are comments being sought. the public interest groups last month petitioned the fcc to include -- to expand the privacy measures that it does have with things like consumer, customer proprietary network information so that these sorts of rules apply to the collection of aggregate data. so the fcc is definitely going to be asked to help where it can. but mostly privacy tends to fall more in congress. >> guest: one agency to watch is the ftc. the ftc is the first and last line of defense with respect to

consumer privacy, and they have, they have been able to negotiate with some of the largest tech companies' biggest privacy settlements ever. they got twitter to implement its first information security privacy practice. so i would say that the ftc will continue to be aggressive on this front using their section five authority under the federal trade commission act. and while many people want the ftc to be a stronger regulator in this area, to actually have, you know, very clear authority to be a privacy and data security regular -- regulator, they might not get that authority from congress right now, but they will continue to use their section five authority the best they can. >> host: couple of court cases

that are related to this world. net neutrality and potentially the aereo case can. who wants to start? >> guest: i'll take it. for the last few years, net neutrality has been the perennial issue. no one knows what's going to happen. we've long been saying the court could make a decision at any time. it really is true, the court could make a decision today, this week, next week, sometime soon. the d.c. circuit is currently struggling with whether the fcc's open internet order which prohibits blocking and price discrimination is too close to what's known as common carriage. the fcc has broad authority to regulate telecom services, your standard phone lines, and insure that phone companies have to take all comers at the same price. and they're trying to apply similar rules to the internet. now, at the oral argument in september, judge david tattle

was listening to these rules and said that sounds like classic common carriage. and at least one of the other judges seemed to agree. so most observers agree that at least the discrimination section of the net neutrality law will be, um, will be found unlawful. now,if that happens, it's almost certainly going to be appealed to the supreme court, so we could find ourselves back again next year saying we're about to find out what happens. but chairman tom wheeler sparked some concern by public interest groups when he said at an ohio state speech be about a month -- speech about a month ago that he was interested to see a two-sided market develop on the internet where, for instance, netflix could pay for faster access, for better quality to the customers. now, some public interest groups say that that directly contradicted what he said about

net neutrality, which is that he's a full supporter. there's ways to realize what we would have said in a way that wouldn't violate net neutrality. for example, if he was, if he were thinking of netflix paying for content delivery networks or something on the back end that has been excluded from the net neutrality rules, but it's kind of a technical read to get tom wheeler out of trouble for what he said. it's going to be very interesting to see what happens there. >> guest: yeah. and one of the really big, interesting aspects of this case is how far the court will go, right? because verizon communications has, you know, they have appealed the fcc's net neutrality order, and they challenged the order on the basis of authority, statutory authority, but they also forwarded a first amendment

argument as well exclaiming that they are like a newspaper with the right to include or exclude any information that they see facility -- fit. so the court could overturn the fcc's open internet order just on the basis of authority, but they could go further. they could, they could rule on verizon's first amendment challenge in which case it would bring into question almost every regulation on the fcc's books. >> guest: and certainly whatever happens at the court will spark some kind of response on the hill. if the court strikes down the rule, then we can expect to see democrats jumping in and saying, no, we need these rules, we immediate to protect consumers. there are already democrats who think the rules don't go far enough, and they will definitely be back in action if something happens in court. if court upholds the rules, you'll probably see the republicans trying to rewrite

the law to take that away from them, so it'll definitely be a topic there as well. >> guest: the federal trade commission is more than happy to jump in if the fcc loses authority over that aspect of regulation of the internet. most of the ftc commissioners have come out over the past year stating that a lot of net neutrality disputes are actually consumer protection disputes or false advertising disputes. and they feel that there are more than enough tools in their tool box to deal with any net neutrality issues. but more broadly, i actually wonder how relevant the net neutral the city rules are going to be going -- neutrality rules are going to be going forward. fcc commissioner rosenworcel just betweened a couple days ago and said that 2014 could be the year that more americans access the internet via mobile devices than the traditional land lines. mobile devices are excluded from the net neutrality rules. they don't apply to wireless service.

and the wireless carriers got that provision through under the guise of the need for reasonable network management. maybe a few years ago that made sense. speeds on wireless internet when the rules were put into place, 2009, 2010, were very low. you couldn't really do anything. today people are streaming netflix, and we are going to continue to see this year wireless carriers come up with new plans to -- that would be possibly illegal under the net neutrality rules as a i plied to wire line. for instance, at&t just this week announced sponsored data in which a company like netflix could pay to have their data not count against a user's cap. so that's, that's, i think, the idea of the dynamic two-sided market that tom wheeler was talking about. we're already seeing that in respect to wireless, and i think we're going to keep seeing it there. >> host: kate tummarello, what's

the other case? potentially the supreme court taking up the aereo case? >> guest: yes, next week we will find out. it seems like both sides of the aisle want to see, they both want to be proven right by the supreme court. >> host: what's the case? >> guest: the case is over aereo which streams broadcast content and other content, and the broadcasters say that's a copyright, and it shouldn't be up to aereo without an an the ten that, they say they're just providing it over the internet, so they're not violating the law. >> host: kate, when you take the temperature on the hill of tech issues, what do you find? >> guest: there's definitely still some post-sopa wariness about jumping into issues that are going to spark this big backlash that maybe they're not anticipating, so people are definitely being cautious. but with the surveillance stuff, you're seeing, you know, constituents come out and

just -- in just huge droves in ways that really hasn't happened since sew -- sopa. that's definitely a momentum that lawmakers are ware of. >> guest: yeah. and just to add to that, the aereo case is, as i see it, one of the bigger court cases that could potentially transform the communications sector. michael powell, former chairman of the fcc and now president and ceo of ncta several years ago said the biggest thing that's going to change our space is the aereo case. and we will see potentially the supreme court take this up and find out one way or the other whether aereo's service is legal under copyright law. aereo uses dime-sized antennas, as kate noted, to capture broadcast signals and retransmit them over the internet, and this has really changed the dynamic

of the pay tv marketplace. fox has said, well, if aereo is not going to pay us a royalty payment, we'll just become a cable channel. we will cease distributing our content over the air. so -- >> guest: which is unlikely to happen. >> guest: right. >> guest: but it's nice bluster. it's nice talk. what this aereo case is, is just a continuation of the continuing clash between old laws and new technology. the copyright act doesn't allow you to take all the signals and copy them and multiply them, but with these dime-sized antennas, aereo argues that it's actually following the letter of the law. each user who signs up for their service has an antenna. they argue that the length of the antenna whether there's to your roof or through somebody else's roof doesn't matter. so it's going to be really interesting what the supreme court decides. and if the supreme court approves aereo's technologies, then i think we're going to see

a lot more continued competition, and it might actually spur other companies, broadcast companies to get even more involved in the internet space. >> guest: yeah. and aereo raises sharp questions about how we consume video content. they've, the concept of aereo, netflix, hulu raises really sharp questions about whether the cable model of packaging channels together will be viable in the future. >> guest: and this is something we could see, um, come up on the hill. the house judiciary committee is conducting review of copyright law. been so far or distracted by its pat innocent efforts, but it's -- patent efforts, but it's going to continue examining legislation that could affect the law, and i'm sure aereo will be part of that. >> host: could this old laws/new technology conundrum read to a rewrite of the telecom act at some point? is there ap -- appetite for

that? >> guest: there seems to be, even though it's a large undertaking and will take some time. the house commerce committee announced late last year that they would be rewriting the act. they have a hearing scheduled for january. they're getting started right off the bat. but it's going to take a while before or we see anything concrete on that. >> guest: i think the big challenge for lawmakers in rewriting the act is finding a problem. the last update to the communications act in '96, our phone bills were high. and so it was very easy for lawmakers to stand before podiums and give press conferences about the need for reforming the communications act. verizon, at&t and comcast have said we have an asymmetrical regulatory framework at the fcc, and so we need reform. and, but i really believe that to see an act rewrite we need congress to articulate the

problem. because right now, as matt noted, we have old rules with new technologies. but as far as consumers are concerned, their problems might be a little different. they might be concerned with data caps, they might be concerned with the cost of their monthly cable service, they might be concerned with other things. but in a way we really have to see armageddon. [laughter] before, before a communications act rewrite. >> guest: i'm curious what would constitute armageddon in your mind. >> guest: well, um, if all of a sudden, you know, grandma gets disconnected from her telephone service, if if brand ma can no long -- grandma can no longer afford to watch nightline. these issues are, of course, you know, front and center at congress, they're aware of them, but retransmission consent. i mean, that's one issue where when somebody gets cut off from their rose bowl game or their

super bowl or the oscars, the phones start ringing at congressional offices. and lawmakers get really, really upset. and then they start to threaten rewrites. these are the kinds of issues to watch for. when consumer, when the average consumer starts to raise issues to congressmen and women about their communications services. >> guest: rewriting the communications act is such a challenging endeavor. the current laws we have are kind of -- it's like duct taped. they're all duct taped onto everything that started with the communications act of 1934 which itself was kind of a rewrite from the original act in the 1920s which was the radio act. and they realized that they had to have something a little bit more broad, more extensive. but the current act we have is the telecom act of '96 which is actually the communications act as rewritten by the telecom act. i fear that if we have a

communications act of 1934 as rewritten by the telecom act of 2015 or 2014, you're still going to be dealing with siloed, a siloed act in which you have title ii regulation which is telecom services which is still open. there's a docket at the fcc that's still open. it's been open for years. none of the chairmen want to close it because it's kind of the nuclear option. if, you know, if the fcc is found not to have authority over net neutrality, over the internet, they say, well, we could reclassify the information services as telecom services, and then we would have great ability to regulate. a lot of people argue that could be a backwards step. ultimately, whatever rewrite happens, i think everyone would agree that it has to be technologically neutral because otherwise you're going to have disparate rules for different technologies, and you're just going to continue to have confusion and problems with whatever the next big technology

becomes. >> guest: well, and i think, too, one of the problems is what's going to be in it. i think that the narrative is somewhat muddled as what should be in the new communications act. in '96 remember the baby bells? and, actually, this new year's day was the 30th anniversary of the breakup of ma bell and the creation of the baby bells. in '96 congress cut a deal with the baby bells that said we will allow you to enter new markets. we will allow you to compete in the long distance telephone market. we will allow you to emerge as competitors in the pay tv space. in exchange, you have to, essentially, lease out your network elements to competitors, the clac was born. so i think that there's been somewhat of a disconnect on the hill about what should be in the act. aside from let's just blow up

the silos, no more title ii for telephone service, no more title iii for wireless service, no more title vi for cable service, let's just deregulate. well, what's in it? there's god to be a quid pro quo, and i don't really know what that is right now. >> host: on the flipside of the coin, kate tummarello, there's also an effort underway on capitol hill for fcc reform. >> guest: there is, and it kind of saw a rebirth late last year. we saw a bill that had been crank led by partisanship the previous year. there was a agreement between representative wald and representative eshoo on the fcc process reform act, and it kind of softened up some of the republican stances that they wanted more transparency and accountability at the fcc and incorporated some of the flexibility provisions that the democrats had wanted. it looks like it has a lot of momentum going to the house floor. it's definitely a bipartisan agreement on something that had

been troubled ground for the committee, so -- >> host: all right. we have got three minutes left, we want to get three more issues in. paul barbagallo, what's another issue that we haven't discussed? >> guest: well, mergers and acquisitions. i think any year in tech and telecom space we will see m&a activity. and we will likely see further consolidation of the wireless space. we're seeing charter try to sweeten its bid for time warner. and i think as technology changes and as competition increases, we will start to see more companies partner. >> host: matthew schwartz? >> guest: the fcc former interim acting chairwoman mignon clyburn was very proud of her accomplishments with reforming prison rates, interstate prison rates. this was her crowning achievement. this reduced prison rates from

several dollars a minute in some cases to just 10 or 20 cents a minute. that's been challenged by every inmate calling service provider, all of them. they say the fcc didn't have authority to do that, they say the fkc has essentially mandated rate regulation which wasn't contemplated in the notice of proposed rulemaking. one person told me this is what happens when you have a chairperson who's not a lawyer, they overreach. and the fcc is currently trying to go even further and work on intrastate rates using the pay phone provisions of the communications act. and this has the state rate-making bodies up in arms. they say intrastate rate making is a traditional local/state job, and the fcc can't do this. so everyone, fcc may very well find itself having to redeal with this issue of prison calling. >> host: and kate tummarello. >> guest: we will see a lot of activity on patents in early 2014.

2013 ended with the house innovation act passing, and now senator leahy's taking it up. and this is an issue that has support from google to cisco to hotel companies to retailer all kinds of join anything and saying they want to reform the patent litigation process, so that's something senator leahy is considering, and he will probably be marking it up very soon. >> host: well, this week, a quick preview of some of the issues faced by the fcc and congress in the tech and telecom world. kate tummarello is with the hill, matthew schwartz with communications daily, and paul barbagallo with bloomberg bna. thanks for being on "the communicators" this week. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider.

>> just ahead, former u.s. representative ann marie buerkle leading a discussion on women and conservativism. then we'll be live with a keynote speech by senator kirsten gillibrand on promoting upward social mobility. and later, more live coverage of two forums from the new america foundation; the first on government election funding followed later by an examination of the use of u.s. military force in response to terrorist threats. >> next, former new york republican congresswoman ann marie buerkle talks about some of the challenges facing women conservatives and what they can do to overcome them. she spoke recently at a forum held by the clare boothe luce institute. [applause] >> thank you all very much and thank you for that kind introduction. sometimes when i'm feeling tired and i listen to that i think, oh, maybe that's why i'm tired.

[laughter] i'm just so glad to be back here, and i want to just thank the clare boothe luce society and this opportunity to talk to all of you, because there's nothing more important than your generation and making sure that you're involved and that you can carry on the great leg is si of the united states of america -- legacy of the united states of america. before we get started and i've got prepared comments, i would like to ask all of you to keep in your thoughts and prayers the men and women of the military. we live in the greatest nation in the history of world, and it's because of their service and their sacrifice. as was mentioned, i served, i had the honor of serving on the veteran affairs committee, and when you tour walter reed and bethesda and brooke army medical, you understand the sacrifices that our military makes and their families right alongside of them. we must never take that for granted, we must always keep them this our prayers. just recently, this morning, three americans -- two of them military -- were killed in a plane accident in afghanistan of